Skip to main content

Full text of "The lives of the popes in the early middle ages"

See other formats 


uj             n- 

8          o" 

UNIVERSITY    OF 

linn 

3    17bl 

p 

1 

a.       °' 


THE  LIVES  OF  THE  POPES 

VOL.  III. 


THE 

LIVES  OF  THE  POPES 

IN  THE   EARLY  MIDDLE   AGES 


BY    THE 

REV.   HORACE   K.   MANN 

*'De  gente  Anglorum,  qui  maxime   familiares  Apostolicae  Sedis  semper 
existunt."     (Gesta  Abb.  Fontanel.  A.D.  747-752,  ap.  M.G.  SS.  II.  289.) 

HEAD    MASTER    OF   ST.    CUTHBERT's   GRAMMAR   SCHOOL,    NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE 
CORRESPONDING   MEMBER    OF   THE   ROYAL    ACADEMY   OF    HISTORY  OF    SPAIN 


THE  POPES  DURING  THE  CAROLINGIAN   EMPIRE 

Leo  III.  to  Formosus 
795-891 


VOL.  III.— 858-891 

SECOND    EDITION 

LONDON 

KEGAN   PAUL,   TRENCH,   TRUBNER   &   CO.,   LTD. 

St.  Louis,  Mo.  :    B.  HERDER  BOOK  CO. 

1925 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Butler  &  Tanner  Ltd.,  Frome  and  London 


Co 
HIS   ALMA    MATER 

ST  cuthbert's  college,  ushaw 
THIS  VOLUME 

3s  respectfully  DeDfcatcD 

BY 

A  GRATEFUL  SON 


A  LIST  OF  THE  PRINCIPAL  ABBREVIATIONS 
USED  IN  THIS  VOLUME. 

Jaffe,  or  Regesta    .         .     =  Regesta  Pontificum  Romaiiornm,  ed. 

Jaffe,  2nd  ed.,  Lipsire,  1885. 
Labbe  =  Sacrosancta     Concilia,    ed.     Labbe 

and  Cossart,  Paris,  16  71. 
L.  P.,  Anastasius,  or  the  )   =  Liber  Pontificalis,  2    vols.,   ed.   L. 

Book  of  the  Popes        >  Duchesne,  Paris,  1886. 

M.  G.  H.,  or  Pertz  .      —  Monumenia     Germanioz     Historica, 

either    Scriptores   (M.  G.  SS.)    or 

Epistolce  (M.  G.  Epp.). 
P.  G.     .         .         .  =  Patrologie  Grecque,  ed.  Migne. 

P.  L.     .  .  .  =  Patrologie  Latine,  ed.  Migne. 

R.  I.  S.  .         .  =  Rerum    Italicarum    Scriptores,    ed. 

Muratori. 

The  sign  f  placed  before  a  date  indicates  that  the  date  in 
question  is  the  year  of  the  death  of  the  person  after  whose  name 
the  sign  and  the  date  are  placed. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


S.  Nicholas  I.,  The  Great  (858-867), 

PAGE 
1 

(The  False  Decretals), 

I35-M9 

Hadrian  II.  (867-872), 

149 

(The  Papal  Library), 

225-231 

John  VIII.  (872-882), 

231 

(Liber  Pontifical  is),    . 

231-232 

Marinus  I.  (882-884), 

353 

Hadrian  III.  (884-885),    , 

361 

Stephen  (V.)  VI.  (885-891),      . 

367 

Appendix,  Table  of  the  Dukes  of  Spoleto, 

403 

Index          

405 

ST.  NICHOLAS  I.,  THE  GREAT, 

A.D.  858-867. 


Sources. — The  contemporary  life  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  is  dis- 
tinguished from  those  immediately  preceding  it  by  the  fact  that 
it  devotes  much  less  space  to  the  enumeration  of  church  re- 
storations, and  that,  though  the  usual  excuse  for  turning  to  the 
Pope's  church  offerings  is  brought  forward,  viz.,  the  inability  of 
the  writer  to  record  all  that  Nicholas  accomplished  in  other  direc- 
tions, it  gives  much  more  space  to  his  political  and  other  actions. 
It  is  remarkable,  too,  by  its  frequent  reference  to  the  sources, 
viz.,  the  pontifical  archives,  whence  its  materials  were  drawn. 
These  distinguishing  features  were  in  all  likelihood  added  by  the 
famous  cardinal  librarian  Anastasius ;  so  that  this  is  perhaps  the 
only  life  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  which  may  be  attributed  to  the 
man  to  whom  for  a  very  long  period  the  whole  of  it  used  to 
be  assigned.1 

Of  the  first  importance  for  the  biography  of  Nicholas  are  such 
of  his  numerous  letters  as  the  ravages  of  time  have  spared.  Of 
these,  inclusive  of  fragments,  159  have  been  published  in  the 
P.  L.,  t.  119,  3  in  t.  129,  and  2  more  in  the  Biblioth.  Casinensis, 
lv-  P*  358  ff.  In  one  of  the  last-named  letters  to  the  spatharius 
Michael  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  Greek  habit  of  tampering 
with  documents  so  frequently  denounced  by  Nicholas.2     These 

1  Z.  P.,  ii.  p.  v. 

2  The  spatharius  is  exhorted  in  God's  name  to  give  the  letter  into 
the    emperor's    hands,    and    to    ask   him   "  ut  ad  talem    interpretem 

VOL.   III.  I 


2  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

letters,  for  the  most  part  rather  long,  but  in  the  main  lucid  and 
replete  with  close  argument,  are  of  the  greatest  utility  for  the 
study  not  only  of  history,  but  also  of  Canon  Law.  To  no 
inconsiderable  extent  has  the  latter  borrowed  its  forms  from  them, 
as  from  the  letters  of  S.  Gregory  I.  For  it  was  still  largely 
resting  "upon  precedents  rather  than  fixed  constitutions,  upon 
principles  rather  than  codes."1  It  was  not  till  the  second  half 
of  the  eleventh  century  that  the  great  codes  of  Canon  Law  began 
to  see  the  light.  In  connection  with  this  influence  of  the  letters 
of  Nicholas  upon  Canon  Law,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind 
that,  contrary  to  what  is  frequently  stated,  they  were  not  inspired 
by  the  False  Decretals.  This  has  been  absolutely  demonstrated 
by  Rocquain2  and  by  Roy.  These  authors  have,  in  the  most 
detailed  manner  possible,  tracked  to  their  sources  all  the  quotations 
of  Nicholas,  and  have  shown  them  to  be  derived  for  the  most 
part  from  the  genuine  collection  of  canons  made  by  Dionysius 
the  Little,  or  from  the  authentic  letters  of  his  predecessors.  In 
a  few  instances,  indeed,  he  has  cited  spurious  writings,  as,  for 
example,  The  Acts  of  Pope  Sylvester.  But  in  every  case  they 
were  documents  which  centuries  of  existence  had  made  venerable, 
and  had  caused  to  be  generally  accepted.  The  fact,  then,  that 
the  letters  of  Nicholas  did  not  owe  their  authority  to  any  support 
from  the  False  Decretals  is  one  proof  among  many  that  the 
influence  of  this  collection  on  the  development  of  papal  power 
is  by  no  means  as  great  as  is  popularly  supposed. 

Writers  on  the  diplomatics  of  the  papal  letters  have  shown  that 

illam  (epistolam)  interpretandam  tribuat  qui  non  sit  ausus  ex  ea 
quicquam  aut  minuere  aut  addere  aut  aliquid  commutare." 

1  Roy,  Satiit  Nicholas  (Eng.  ed.),  p.  196. 

2  "  II  convient  de  remarquer  que  tous  les  fragments  qu'il  en  (the  False 
Decretals)  cite  ont  un  parfait  caractere  d'authenticite.  II  suffit,  pour 
s'en  convaincre,  de  rapprocher  ces  citations  soit  du  Codex  Canonum, 
soit  des  lettres  authentiques  qui  nous  ont  ete  conservees.  .  .  .  Nous 
avons  fait,"  he  adds  in  a  note,  "  nous-meme  ce  rapprochement  pour 
toittesles  decretales  citees  dans  la  correspondance  de  Nicolas.  .  .  .  Non 
seulment  on  ne  peut  etablir  ....  que  Nicolas  Ier  ait  fait  usage  .... 
des  pieces  falsifies  de  la  collection  pseudoisidorienne,  mais  on  ne  peut 
pas  meme  affirmer  qu'il  ait  eu  cette  collection  entre  les  mains."  La 
P  apatite  au  inoyen  age,  p.  45  ff.  Cf.  Roy,  p.  178  ff.,  where  a  detailed 
list  of  the  sources  used  by  the  Pope  is  given  (Eng.  ed.). 


ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT  3 

those  of  Nicholas  exercised  no  little  influence  on  their  official 
form ;  e.g.,  the  custom  adhered  to  by  that  Pope,  of  placing  his 
name  first  in  the  superscriptions  of  his  letters,  has  been  followed 
ever  since.1 

Then  we  have  the  works  of  Photius,  ap.  P.  G.,  tt.  10 1-4,  par- 
ticularly his  letters  (ib.t  t.  102),  which  have  been  twice  edited  in 
London— in  1651,  in  both  Greek  and  Latin,  by  Bishop  Montague, 
and  in  1864,  in  Greek  only,  by  J.  N.  Baletta.  Many  of  the 
letters  of  this  famous  patriarch  are  both  very  interesting  and 
very  elegant. 

Of  the  various  annals,  the  most  important  are  the  third  part 
of  the  annals  of  Bertin,  written  by  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  and  cited 
as  his.  A  very  curious  work,  already  quoted,  is  the  Libellus  de 
imp.  potest,  in  Urbe  Roma,  generally  supposed  to  have  been 
written  in  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  but  which  Lapotre 
{Jean  VIII.,  c.  4),  who  has  submitted  it  to  a  very  critical 
examination,  has,  it  would  seem,  proved  to  be  the  produc- 
tion of  a  Lombard,  probably  of  Rieti,  who  wrote  it  in  897 
or  898  in  the  interests  of  the  imperial,  royal,  and  ducal  house 
of  Spoleto.  Ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  under  the  name  of  Eutropius, 
and  in  t.  139. 

The  manners  and  customs  of  the  Slavs,  who  first  came  into 
contact  with  the  Byzantine  empire  and  the  West  in  the  sixth 
century,  have  been  described  by  such  writers  of  that  age  as 
Procopius,2  Jornandes,2  Menander,3  etc.,  and  in  medieval  times, 
by  the  Russian  monk  known  as  Nestor*  Adam5  of  Bremen, 
canon  of  Bremen  in  1077,  Helmold5  of  Biitzaw  (Chran.  Slav.,  to 
1171),  and  his  continuator,  Arnold  of  Lubeck 5  (to  1209),  and 
Saxo  Grammaticus  (Hist.  Ban.),  f  after  1208.  The  best  edition 
of  the  last  work  is  by  Holder,  Strasburg,  1886. 

Works.— Fox  the  series  Les  Saints,  published  by  Lecoffre, 
which    is    being    translated    into     English,    Mons.    J.   Roy    has 

1  Rodolico,  Note  fialeog.  e  diplomat,  sid  privil.  fio?itif.,  p.  16.  Cf. 
Nonv.  traite  de  difilom.,  v. 

2  Ap.  R.  I.  S.,  i.,  pt.  i.  3  Ap   p  Gf  t  88 

4  Ed.  with  French  translation  by  Leger,  Paris,  1884  ;  written  about 
the  end  of  the  eleventh  century. 

5  All  these  works  have  been  separately  edited,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  in  usum 
schol. 


4  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

written  an  excellent  biography  of  this  Pope,  St.  Nicholas  I. 
Paris,  1899.  The  English  version  has  been  published  by 
Messrs.  Duckworth,  and  is  dated  1901.  The  first  portion  of 
Rocquain's  La  Pap  ante  au  moyen  dge,  Paris,  1881,  is  a  reprint  of 
three  good  articles  of  his  in  the  Journal  des  Savants  for  September 
ff.  1880.  I  have  made  considerable  use  of  many  of  the  Dissert. 
in  Hist.  Eccles.  of  Jungmann,  vol.  hi. ;  e.g.  the  one  on  the  divorce 
of  King  Lothaire.  On  the  last-named  topic,  the  fullest  account 
I  have  met  with  is  :  Le  P.  Nicholas  I.  et  le  jeune  roi  Lothaire, 
by  M.  Frantin  (Dijon,  1862).  He  seems  too  little  inclined  to 
believe  in  the  innocence  of  Theutberga.  The  work  of  Thiel, 
De  Nicolao  L,  comment,  duae,  Brunsbergae,  1859,  is  much 
praised,  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  procure  it. 

The  classical  work  on  Photius  is  his  life  by  Card.  Hergen- 
roether  (3  vols.,  Manz,  1867),  which  I  have  only  been  able  to 
consult  through  that  author's  Church  Hist.  (Fr.  ed.),  iii.  p.  385  ff. 
Jager's  Hist,  de  Photius,  Paris,  1844,  a  work  which  will  often  be 
here  quoted,  is  good,  and  as  a  whole,  I  believe,  reliable.  Finlay 
and  Milman  accuse  him  of  great  partiality,  the  former  of  in- 
accuracy also.  Following  him  with  the  original  authorities  in 
hand,  I  cannot  say  1  have  found  justification  for  the  general  charge 
of  inaccuracy.  If,  then,  his  facts  are  substantially  accurate,  the 
reader  may  judge  of  his  partiality  for  himself.  A  useful  volume 
too,  is  Storia  delV  origine  dello  schisma  Greco,  by  the  abbot 
Tosti,  Rome,  1888.  In  the  Histoire  de  la  civilisation  Hellenique, 
Paris,  1878,  an  abridgment,  without  the  citation  of  any  authorities, 
of  his  'IcrTopt'a  tov  iWrjviKov  Wvovs,  Athens,  1865-77,  6  vols. 
in  8vo,  Paparrigopuolo,  gives  an  orthodox  Greek's  view  of  the 
work  of  Photius.  From  a  like  want,  and  for  other  reasons  (see 
a  succeeding  vol.  of  this  work  under  S.  Leo  IX.),  no  great  help 
may  be  looked  for  from  Eighteen  Centuries  of  the  Orthodox  Greek 
Church,  by  Rev.  A.  H.  Hore,  London,  1899.  A  very  valuable 
little  work  is  Duchesne's  Eglises  separees,  Paris,  1896. 

The  classical  edition  of  the  Pseudo-Isidorian  decrees  is  that  of 
Paul  Hinschius,  Decretales  Pseudo-Lsidoria?ice  et  Capitula  Angil- 
ramni,  Lipsiae,  1863.  In  an  introductory  commentary  (pp. 
ccxxxvi)  their  nature  and  origin  are  discussed  in  the  very  ablest 
manner. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  5 

Emperors  of  the  East.  Emperors  of  the  West. 

Theodora  and  Michael  III.  (the  Lothaire  I.,  823-855. 

Drunkard),  842-856.  Louis  II.,  850-875. 

Michael  III.,  856-867. 

In  Nicholas  I.,  the  Saint  and  the  Great,  we  have  not  only  Nicholas  I. 
the  greatest  Pontiff  of  his  century,  but  one  of  the  greatest 
of  the  very  long  line  of  grand  characters  who  have  in  every 
age  adorned  the  Chair  of  Peter.  It  is  a  saying  no  less 
true  than  trite  that,  of  those  few  to  whom  men  have 
accorded  the  title  of  Great,  still  fewer,  if  their  claims  be 
weighed  in  the  balance  of  reason  and  not  of  sentiment, 
have  been  worthy  of  it.  But  to  very  few  indeed  have 
any  large  body  of  men  ever  given  the  combined  titles  of 
Great  and  Saint.  Nicholas  I.  is  one  of  that  rare  company 
who  have  been  so  honoured,  and  in  his  case  the  distinc- 
tion has  been  conferred  on  very  solid  grounds.  In  the 
troublous  and  stormy  times  in  which  his  days  were  cast, 
he  was  the  pharos  to  which  men,  buffeted  about  by  the 
angry  waves  of  life,  looked  with  eager  hope.  It  mattered 
not  what  was  the  grief  under  which  they  were  groaning ; 
it  was  all  one  whether  they  were  strong  men  or  helpless 
women,  whether  they  were  in  authority  or  in  subjection, 
whether  they  were  bishops1  or  simple  clerics,  peers  or 
peasants,  they  all  in  their  distress  turned  to  Nicholas ; 
they  all  flocked  to  him  as  to  their  common  father.  For 
he  did  not  raise  his  voice  merely  in  commanding  tones 
to  warn  men  from  the  ways  in  which  they  should  not 
tread,  or  to  point  out  to  them  the  narrow  road  which  led 

1  So  great  was  the  number  of  bishops  that  flocked  to  Rome  in  his 
time,  that  he  erected  a  large  and  splendid  hospice  for  them  and  their 
suites  in  connection  with  the  Church  of  S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin,  which 
he  put  into  repair.  It  is  not  improbable  that  it  was  for  the  benefit  of 
this  establishment  that  he  again  put  into  working  order  the  aqueduct, 
viz.,  Aqua  Jovia,  which  struck  the  Tiber  near  its  church.  L.  P.>  nn. 
xvi.  and  lii. 


6  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

to  life  eternal,   but   in  encouragement  also  to  help  them 
faint,  weary,  or  wilful,  along  it. 

So  many  people  crowded  to  Rome  in  his  time  that  it 
became  "  the  rendezvous  of  the  world."  1  They  came  to 
pray  2  and  to  obtain  pardon  of  their  sins 3 ;  they  came  for 
justice  4  and  they  came  for  privileges 5  or  for  protection.6 
Some  came,  too,  as  ambassadors  of  kings  or  emperors, 
others  from  barbarous  lands  to  seek  the  light  of  faith. 
But  if  all  the  world  was  thus  in  touch  with  Nicholas,  he 
was  in  touch  with  all  the  world.  If  he  was  the  centre  of 
the  gaze  of  all,  his  eyes  were  equally  fixed  on  all.  He 
knew  what  was  going  on  in  the  different  parts  of  the 
world  from  the  words7  of  those  who  came  to  him  from 
every  part  thereof,  from  his  legates  whom  he  despatched 
to  North  and  South,  to  East  and  West,  and  from  the 
letters  he  received  from  all  quarters. 

And  if  the  gaining  of  victories  and  the  framing  of  laws 
give  men  a  title  to  distinction,  then  was  Nicholas  great 
both  as  a  conqueror  and  a  lawgiver.  For  he  was  really 
a  conqueror,  though  not  as  the  kings  of  the  earth,  leaving 
in  his  track  blazing  cities  and  heaps  of  slain.     It  was  by 

1  "  De  universis  mundi  partibus  credentium  agmina  principis  App. 
liminibus  properant."  Ep.  133.  Cf.  Ep.  56:  "  Pene  totus  orbis 
undique  ....  ad  sedem  apost.  confluens." 

2  Ep.  105. 

3  Ep.  136.  "Undique  ....  plurimi  suorum  facinorum  proditores." 
Cf.  Epp.  116,  119,  etc. 

4  Epp.  117,  i2r,  14,  34,  etc.  Cf.  L.  P.,  n.  lxiv.,  for  the  case  of 
Seufred  of  Piacenza. 

5  Ep.  29. 

6  Epp.  22,  23.  Kings  even  pray  for  the  support  of  his  authority. 
Ep.  3  of  Louis  and  Lothaire  to  Nicholas,  ap.  M.  G.  Epp.,  vi.  213. 
"Oportet  prasterea  vestrse  auctoritatis  jubar  propter  generalem 
solicitudinem  nostros  invisere  fines,  ut  quos  nulla  pacis  fcedera,  nulla 
movent  fraternal  caritatis  viscera  ....  apostolica  invectis  ad  cen- 
suram  ecclesiasticam  venire  compellat." 

7  "  Fidelium  relatione,  qui  ad  SS.  App.  limina  orationis  causa 
veniunt,  agnovimus/'      Ep.  105.     Cf.  Epp.  41,  56,  etc. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  J 

peaceful  measures  that  he  won  over  the  Bulgarians  to  the 
obedience  of  Christ,  that  he  overcame  the  princes  of  the 
world,  and  opposed  himself  as  an  impassable  barrier  to 
their  career  of  violent  wickedness.  But  though  moral  only 
were  the  arms  by  which  he  hoped  to  secure  real  peace, 
they  were  wielded  with  a  certain  startling  effectiveness. 
The  whole  civilised  world  was  electrified  by  the  flashing 
mandates  he  directed  against  its  great  ones.  The  emperor 
Michael,  the  Caesar  Bardas,  the  king  Lothaire,  the  patriarch 
Photius,  the  metropolitan  Hincmar,  and  the  archbishop 
John  of  Ravenna  found  there  was  one  who  could  and 
would  oppose  their  excesses.  Emperors  and  kings  were 
taught  that,  even  in  this  world,  they  had  a  superior  who 
could  bring  to  bear  upon  them  weapons  even  more  power- 
ful than  sword  or  bow.  In  Nicholas,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  weak  and  the  down-trodden  found  strength  and 
support.  In  him  Theutberga,  dishonoured  and  disgraced, 
and  none  the  less,  but  rather  the  more,  dishonoured  and 
disgraced  that  she  was  a  queen  and  friendless,  found 
strength  not  to  break  down  under  her  cruel  wrongs,  and  a 
sure  haven  of  hope.  To  the  Bulgarians  he  was  a  civil  as 
well  as  an  ecclesiastical  legislator,  and  churchmen  were 
soon  taught  that  he  was  a  canon-lawyer. 

If  he  was  ambitious,  he  was  ambitious  of  showing  him- 
self what  he  believed  himself  to  be,  the  first  bishop,  the 
most  authoritative  teacher  of  faith  and  morals,  and  the 
supreme  ruler  of  man's  spiritual  destinies.1  He  was  no 
doubt  anxious  for  the  light  of  the  papacy  to  shine  to  the 
greatest  number  possible,  and  he  assuredly  strove  to  place 
it  on  a  higher  candlestick,  that  more  might  see  it.     But  in 

1  Cf.  Ep.  32.  "  Loci  sublimitate,  qua  nos  superna  providentia  totius 
domus  sure  generalitati  pneposuit,  provocamur  ut  apostolatus  nostri 
apex.  .  .  .  fidelibus  tutissimum  et  firmisbimum  refugium  .  .  .  exhibeat." 
Cf.  Epp.  79,  104. 


8  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

that  care  and  effort  he  did  nothing  which  his  predecessors 
had  not  done.  He  may  have  expanded  principles,  have 
pushed  precedent  along,  but  it  was  on  the  old  lines  that 
he  acted.  He  was  no  innovator.1  And  if  he  thought  that 
in  him  lay  the  highest  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive 
powers  in  spiritual  matters,  he  was  guided  in  his  conduct 
not  by  his  own  will  acting  arbitrarily,2  but  by  written  law 
and  custom,  by  scripture  and  tradition. 

Such  a  commanding  position  did  he  occupy,  with  such 
authority  did  he  speak,  that  his  contemporaries  thought  of 
him  as  the  emperor  of  the  world.  Now  it  was  an  arch- 
bishop (Gunther)  who,  condemned  by  Nicholas  for  support- 
ing, Cranmer-like,  a  licentious  monarch,  exclaimed  in 
impotent  rage:  "The  Lord  Nicholas  makes  himself 
emperor  of  the  whole  world  !  " 8  Now  it  was  a  monk  who, 
contemplating  with  feelings  of  triumphant  righteousness 
the  way  in  which  he  opposed  wickedness  in  high  places, 
acclaimed  him  for  presiding  "authoritatively  over  kings 
and  tyrants  as  though  he  were  the  lord  of  the  earth."  4 
The  early        Like  Leo  I.  and  Gregory  I., the  other  two  pontiffs  who  share 

years  of 

Nicholas,  with  him  the  titles  of  Saint  and  Great,  Nicholas  was  a  Roman. 
His  father,  Theodore,  is  described  as  a  regionary,  probably 
a  regionary  notary  and  the  same  man  as  the  Theodore  who 
with  the  titles  of  notarius  and  scriniarius  figures  in  the 
Roman  Council  of  853.  From  his  very  boyhood  the  future 
Pope  is  said  to  have  been  of  a  serious  and  studious  turn  of 
mind  ;  and  his  father,  himself  a  great  lover  of  learning,  had 
him  carefully  instructed  in  sacred  and  profane  literature. 
The   youth   made    most  gratifying  progress,  and  grew  in 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  128. 

2  "  Neque  enim  hie  divinorum  executor  operum  piisimus  papa  que 
sua  sunt,  sed  ea  quae  Dei  sunt  primo  loco  posuit  et  quacsivit."  L.  P., 
n.  lxxvii. 

3  Hincmar.,  Annal.,  an.  864. 

4  C/iron.,  an.  868,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  9 

learning  as  he  grew  in  stature.  Those  who  had  "  the 
discernment x  of  spirits,"  loudly  declared  that  the  boy  would 
mount  high  the  ladder  of  fame.  The  great  reputation 
which  he  soon  gained  induced  Pope  Sergius  II.  to  bring 
him  from  his  father's  house  into  the  Lateran  palace,  and 
make  him  a  sub-deacon.2  By  Leo  IV.,  to  whom  he  was 
most  dear,  he  was  made  a  deacon,  in  which  capacity  "  he 
was  loved  by  the  clergy  and  people,  and  honoured  by  the 
nobility."  To  Benedict  III.,  "a  most  amiable  man  and 
most  holy  Pontiff,"  who  was  never  happy  without  his 
company,  he  was  an  object  of  greater  affection  than  his 
own  relations,  and  was  employed  by  him  to  assist  him  in 
important  ecclesiastical  affairs,  in  which  the  excellent 
judgment  of  the  young  cleric  showed  itself  conspicuously. 
With  other  deacons,  Nicholas  carried  his  predecessor's  body 
to  St.  Peter's,  and  with  his  own  hands  placed  it  in  the  tomb. 
And  during  his  after  career  he  kept  his  example  ever  before 
his  eyes,  and  "  in  every  good  work  made  himself  his  most 
zealous  heir."3 

After  such  an  illustriously  well  spent  youth,  and  after  Election  of 
the  important  part  he  had  played  under  Benedict  III.,  it  858. 
certainly  causes  us  no  surprise  when  we  find  it  recorded 
in  the  Liber  Pontificalis  that  he  was  elected  to  succeed 
him  after  the  cardinal  of  S.  Mark's  had  again  refused  to  be 
Pope.4  On  the  death  of  the  last-mentioned  pontiff,  the 
emperor  Louis  II.,  who  had  been  in  Rome  just  before  that 
event  and  had  left  it,  at  once  returned  thither,5  while  the 
clergy 6  and  nobility  adjourned  to  the  basilica  of  S.  Dionysius, 

1  L.P. 

2  lb,    "Et   in   subdiaconatus   per  benedictionis    gratiam    constituit 
gradu." 

3  L.   P.y  i?i  vit.   Bened.,  "  Cujus   vestigia   sequens    successor    ejus 
....  earn  tamquam  heres  devotissimus  imitatus  est." 

4  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Had.  II.,  n.  iii.  5  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Nic. 
c  "  Clerus,  proceres,  <:t  optimatum  genus."     lb. 


IO  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

i.e.  to  the  church  now  known  as  S.  Silvester  in  Capite} 
to  earnestly  beg  of  God  a  worthy  successor.  "  By  divine 
inspiration,"  after  a  consultation  of  some  hours,  they  unani- 
mously (unanimes)  elected  Nicholas.  But  he,  saying  he 
was  unworthy  of  such  an  honour,  fled  to  St.  Peter's. 
Thence,  however,  he  was  taken  perforce  to  the  Lateran 
palace  and  "placed  on  the  apostolic  throne." 

This  account,  as  well  of  the  early  career  as  of  the  election 
of  Nicholas,  furnished  us  by  his  biographer,  is  decidedly 
calculated  to  make  us  slow  to  accept  the  assertion  of 
Prudentius 2  that  the  choice  of  him  as  Pope  was  due  more 
"  to  the  presence  and  support  of  Louis  and  his  nobles  than 
to  the  election  of  the  clergy."  Doubtless  he  was  a 
persona  grata  both  to  the  emperor  and  to  his  nobility  ; 
but  his  virtue,  his  conspicuous  ability,  and  the  position  of 
importance  and  trust  he  had  held  under  Benedict,  fully 
justify  the  assertion  of  the  Liber  Po7itijicalis  that  his 
election  was  the  unanimous  work  of  clergy  and  people. 
Louis's  influence  simply  swelled  the  tide  of  popular  favour 
which  was  flowing  steadily  towards  Nicholas. 

But  whether  Nicholas  owed  his  exalted  position  to 
Louis  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  he  was  very  much  opposed 
to  the  interference  in  papal  elections  of  any  individuals 
not  authorised  by  the  canons.  Accordingly,  in  the  council 
of  862,  he  renewed  the  decree  of  the  Lateran  Council  of 
769,  which  forbade  any  persons  not  of  the  recognised 
Roman  electoral  body  to  concern  themselves  in  the  elec- 
tion of  a  Pope.3  The  reference,  however,  to  the  decree  of 
Pope  Stephen,  which  was  directed  against  the  doings  of 
the  antipope  Constantine,  would  seem  to  show  that    this 

1  L.  P.,  ii.  p.  149,  n.  21.  2  Annal.,  ad  an.  858. 

3  "  Si  quis  Sacerdotibus  seu  Primatibus,  Nobilibus  seu  cuncto  clcro 
hujus  S.  R.  E.  electionem  R.  Pontificis  contradicere  pra^sumerit,  sicut 
in  concilio  bb.  Stephani  (III.)  IV.  P.  statutum  est,  anathema  sit." 
C    II,  ap.  A'.  /.  S.,  ii.,  pt.  ii.,  p.  128. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  II 

canon  was  aimed  not  so   much   against    the   emperor   as 

against  the  party  of  the  antipope  Anastasius. 

On  Sunday,  April  24,  in  the  presence  of   the  emperor, 

Nicholas  was  consecrated    in    St.  Peter's,  and    then,  after 

offering  up  the  Holy  Sacrifice  "  over  the  most  sacred  body 

of  the  apostle," x  he  was,  as  usual,  escorted  back  with  hymns 

and  canticles  to  the  Lateran  amidst  the  densest  throngs 

of  both  nobles  and  commoners,  through  a  city  bedecked 

with  garlands,  and  amid  the  greatest  rejoicings  of  clergy, 

senate,  and  people.2 

Through   a   false   punctuation,3  the  old  editions  of  the  The  coro- 
nation (?)  of 
Nicholas. 

1  Another  indication  that  contemporaries  had  no  thought  that  the 

relics  of  St.  Peter  had  been  destroyed  by  the  Saracens. 

2  "  Coronatur  denique  urbs,  exultat  clerus,  lostatur  senatus,  et 
populi  plenitudo  magnifice  gratulabatur."     L.  P.,  n.  vii. 

3  "  Coronatur  denique,  urbs  exultat,  clerus  Lxtatur,  senatus  et  populi, 
etc.  That  the  new  punctuation  is  the  correct  one  is  plain  as  well  from  a 
comparison  with  the  corresponding  sentence  in  the  life  of  Benedict  III. 
(n.  v.),  "  Lrctatur  pra)terea  urbs,  exultat  ecclesia,"  etc.,  as  from  a 
passage  (c.  3)  in  the  Ordo  Roma?ins,  ix.,  ap.  Mabillon,  Mus.  Jlal.,  ii., 
or  P.  Z.,  t.  78,  p.  1005.  Speaking  of  the  procession  of  the  Pope  and  of 
newly  ordained  priests,  etc.,  to  be  made  after  the  ordination  service  is 
over,  the  Ordo  continues  :  "  Plateae  autem  civitatis,  unde  transituri  sunt, 
coronantur  lauro  et  palliis,  et  cum  tanta  gloria  ad  statutos  titulos 
deducunt  proprios  sacerdotes,"  etc.  Cf  c.  6.  This  Ordo  is  said  to 
exist  in  a  MS.  of  the  ninth  century,  and  hence  cannot  be  of  later  date 
than  that  age.  Its  antiquity  is  confirmed  by  the  mention  in  it  of  the 
blessing  of  "  deaconesses  and  priestesses."  Dating  from  the  earliest 
days  of  the  Church,  these  orders  ceased  at  different  times  in  different 
countries.  But  it  is  hard  to  say  when  exactly  they  ceased  to  exist  in 
the  different  countries  of  the  West.  It  is  certain  their  abolition  was 
decreed  by  the  councils  of  Albon  (diocese  of  Vienne)  in  517,  and  of 
Orleans  (can.  18)  in  533.  But  while  Aizog,  Ch.  Hist.,  i.  456,  makes 
them  expire  in  the  seventh  century,  Wouters,  Dissert,  in  H.  E.,  i.  10, 
gives  them  till  the  eighth  century.  The  authors  of  Cath.  Vict.,  sub 
voce  'deaconess,'  says  they  were  extinct  in  the  tenth  century, and  Card. 
Bona  (Per.  Liturgy  L.  i.  c.  25)  thinks  they  had  certainly  vanished  in 
the  eleventh  century.  It  is  certainly  not  easy  to  find  any  mention  of 
them  even  in  the  ninth  century.  Besides,  the  Ordo  was  seemingly 
composed  under  a  Pope  Leo.  The  patroni  of  the  various  regions  had 
to  acclaim  "  Domnus  Leo  P.  quern  S.  Petrus  elegit  in  sua  sede  multis 


12  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

Liber  Pontificalis  were  made  to  state   that   Nicholas  was 

crowned  when  he  reached  the  Lateran.     In  later  ages  the 

popes  were  crowned  in  St.    Peter's,  and  if   Nicholas   was 

crowned    at    all,    it    was    no   doubt   in    the   same   place. 

Though  it  is  not  so  stated  in  the  Book  of  the  Popes,  there 

seems,  however,   good    reason    to    believe    that    a    papal 

coronation  ceremony  was  introduced  in  the  course  of  this 

century.     The  forged  document  known  as  the  Donation  of 

Constantine    pretended   that    Constantine    gave    to    Pope 

Sylvester  "  the  diadem,  i.e.  the  crown  of  our  head  and  a 

tiara  (frigium — candido  nitore,  as  another  passage  has  it) "  ; 

but  that,  as  the  Pope  would  not  wear  a  golden  crown  on 

the  clerical  crown  of  his  tonsure  {super  coronam  glericatus, 

sic),  "  we  have  with  our  own  hands  placed  upon  his  most 

sacred  head  a  mitre  of  exceeding  whiteness  typical  of  the 

glorious   resurrection    of  Our  Lord."1     Now  whether  the 

Donatio  first  saw  the  light  in  the  Vatican  in  774,  as  many 

authors  hold,  or  in  France  along  with  the  False  Decretals,1 

it  was  certainly  in  existence  before  the  days  of  Nicholas, 

and  affords  proof  positive  that  the  wearing  of  a  regal  crown 

by  the  Pope  had  been  mooted. 

If  the  ceremony  of  crowning  the  popes  was  discussed  in 

the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century  at  latest,  it  would  seem 

that  it  was   practised  before  the  close  of  its  second  half. 

We  have  seen  that  Mabillon's  Ordo  Romanus  IX.?  which 

includes  the  rite  of  consecrating  the  bishop  of  Rome,  was 

in   all   likelihood  a  production   of  this   same  century,  and 

annis  sedere  "  (c.  6).  The  Pope  Leo  could  not  well  be  Leo  V.  or  the 
other  Leos  of  the  tenth  century.  Roman  Ordos  were  not  composed  in 
that  age  so  terrible  for  papal  Rome.  The  Domnus  Leo  will  then,  no 
doubt,  be  Leo  III.  or  Leo  IV.  Cf.  also  Bingham,  Antiquities,  L.  ii. 
c.  22. 

1  The  quotations  are  taken  from  Deusdedit's  ed.  of  the  Donatio,  ed. 
Martin.,  pp.  344-5. 

2  See  the  copy  of  it  in  their  midst,  p.  249,  ed.  Hinschius. 

3  Ap.  P.  L,  t.  78,  or  Watterich,  Pont.  Rom.  Fit.,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 3 

contains  a  notice  of  the  imposition  of  a  crown  upon  the 
head  of  the  Pope.  Its  venerable  antiquity  is  our  excuse 
for  giving  it  in  full. 

The  Pope-elect,  who  must,  it  says,  be  a  cardinal  priest  or 
deacon,1  is  to  be  escorted  to  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter  by 
all  the  clergy  and  people.  After  the  pontifical  vestments 
have  been  put  upon  him  in  the  sacristy,  he  is  to  go  to  the 
confession  of  St.  Peter,  and  there  prostrate  himself  in  prayer, 
while  the  schola  cantorum  sings  the  Introit,  Elegit  te  Dominus. 
He  must  then  rise,  go  up  to  the  altar  and  again  prostrate 
himself  in  prayer,  and  all  the  clergy  with  him.  Raised 
by  the  bishops,  he  is  to  be  placed  between  the  faldstool  or 
throne  (sedes)  and  the  altar.  The  Book  of  the  Gospels  is 
to  be  held  over  his  head,  and  after  the  first  and  second  of 
the  consecrating  bishops  have  each  said  a  prayer  over  him, 
the  third  is  to  consecrate  him.  Then  the  archdeacon  must 
invest  him  with  the  pallium,  and,  assisted  by  the  deacon, 
place  him  on  the  throne.  From  the  steps  thereof  he  must 
intone  the  Gloria  in  excelsis  and  wish  Peace  to  all. 
Thereupon  the  schola  and  the  heads  {patroni)  of  the  different 
regions  are  to  acclaim  him  with  the  landes.  Then  the 
Pontiff  is  to  proceed  with  the  Mass,  at  which  all  are  to 
communicate.  After  Mass,  as  he  returns  in  full  procession 
to  the  sacristy,  his  blessing  is  to  be  asked  by  all  the  scholae 
of  the  foreigners,  by  the  English,  by  the  Franks,  etc.,  who 
are  to  respond  to  its  reception  by  a  resounding  Amen  I2 

Returned  to  the  sacristy,  the  Pope  must  then  take  his 
seat  in  the  sella  gestatoria  {sella  apostolicd).  When  he 
reaches  the  lower  steps  of  St.  Peter's,  he  will  there  find 
ready  for  him  his  predecessor's  horse  or  sedan  chair.  After 
the  patroni  of  the  regions  have  thrice  chanted  the  words: 

1  "  Nam  episcopus  esse  non  poterit."  lb.,  c.  5.  This  phrase  was,  I 
should  say,  certainly  composed  before  Bishop  Formosus  became  Pope. 

2  "  Respondent  ei  oranes  cum  strepitu  Amc?iP     lb. 


14  ST.   NICHOLAS   L,  THE   GREAT 

"  The  Lord  Pope  Leo,  whom  St.  Peter  has  chosen  to  sit  in 
his  chair  for  many  years,"  the  Master  of  the  Horse  {prior 
stabuli)  is  to  approach  and  place  on  the  Pope's  head  ua 
crown  (regnum)  made  of  some  white  material  and  like  a 
helmet"  x  The  word  regnum  would  seem  to  imply  some- 
thing more  than  the  frigium  of  the  Donatio.  It  was  no 
doubt  a  real  crown,  a  tiara  with  golden  circlet  at  its  base. 

With  the  regnum  upon  his  head,  mounted  upon  his  horse, 
and  surrounded  by  the  judges,  he  is  to  ride  through  the 
crowded  streets,  while  the  people  sing  the  customary  laudes. 

A  coronation  ceremony  of  some  sort,  then,  was  ap- 
parently in  vogue  during  the  ninth  century,  and  there  is 
evidence  that  it  affected  Nicholas.  But  again,  unfortunately, 
there  is  a  weak  link  in  the  chain  of  evidence.  In  the  narthex 
of  the  subterranean  Church  of  St.  Clement,2  discovered  by 
Father  Mullooly  in  1857,  there  is  a  fresco  executed  at  the 
expense  of  a  certain  Maria  Macellaria,  in  return  for  favours 
received.  The  painting  represents  the  translation  of  a  body, 
evidently  that  of  a  saint  and  bishop,  for  it  is  depicted  with 
a  pallium  and  a  round  nimbus.  The  body  is  followed  by  a 
Pope  between   two   ecclesiastics,  dressed    alike,  but   in    a 

1  "Regnum,  quod  ad  similitudinem  cassidis  ex  albo  fit  indumento." 
lb.  Cf.  the  Abbot  Suger  (tii52)  in  his  life  of  Louis,  the  Fat.  "  Capiti 
ejus  (Innocent  II.)  frigium,  ornamentum  iniperiale,  instar  galee  circulo 
aureo  circinatum  imponunt."  C.  31.  As  early,  at  least,  as  the  days  of 
Pope  Constantine  (708-15)  the  popes  were  in  the  habit  of  wearing  an 
ordinary  tiara,  the  frigium  of  the  Donatio.  For  he  appeared  in  the 
streets  of  Constantinople  "  cum  camelauco,  ut  solitus  est  Roma  (another 
reading  has  Rome)  procedere."  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Const.,  n.  v.  This 
camelaucutn,  Duchesne  (id.,  i.  394,  n.  18)  calls  the  Ka^XavKiov  at  present 
worn  by  the  Greek  clergy,  and  the  prototype  of  the  tiara  of  the  Middle 
Ages  ;  but  as  worn  by  Constantine  it  was,  seemingly,  an  imperial  orna- 
ment. For  Constantine  Porphyrogenitus,  in  his  De  administratione 
Imper.,  c.  13,  notes  that  one  of  the  three  requests  never  to  be  granted 
to  barbarian  chieftains  was  the  one  for  imperial  robes  and  crowns  of 
the  kind  called  Ka/j.e\ai>Kia. 

2  This  church  was  built  probably  in  the  fourth  century.  In  it  S. 
Gregory  preached  his  thirty-third  homily. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  1 5 

costume  which  is  not  that  of  Rome.  Of  these  persons  one 
has  a  round  nimbus  and  the  other  holds  a  large  cross.  The 
Pope,  whom  the  inscription  below  the  fresco  enables  us  to 
identify  as  Nicholas  I.,1  also  has  the  round  nimbus,  and  wears 
a  tiara  with  a  crown  attached.  The  same  Pope  is  represented 
on  the  right  of  the  picture  as  saying  Mass  in  a  little  chapel. 
The  question  now  arises,  Who  is  the  saint  whose  body  is 
being  translated,  and  when  was  the  fresco  painted  ?  As  the 
church  was  ruined  by  Robert  Guiscard  in  1084,  the  paint- 
ing must  have  been  executed  before  that  date,2  and  it 
would  appear  probable  that  it  was  really  painted  before 
the  death  of  S.  Methodius  (-5-885),  the  brother  of  the  other 
great  Slav  apostle,  St.  Cyril.  For  it  seems  to  us  that  the 
translation  is  that  of  St.  Clement,  whose  body  the  two 
brothers  brought  to  Rome,  that  the  ecclesiastic  with  the 
round  nimbus  on  the  right  of  Pope  Nicholas  is  St.  Cyril, 
whose  head  was  so  decorated  because  he  was  dead  when 
the  picture  was  painted,  and  that  the  other  similarly 
dressed  ecclesiastic  on  the  left  of  the  Pope  is  his  brother 
S.  Methodius,  still  alive  when  the  fresco  was  executed. 
Pope  Nicholas,  however,  was  dead  when  the  holy  brothers 
reached  Rome,  and  the  translation  of  the  relics  took  place 
under  his  successor,  Hadrian  II.  But  it  was  he  who 
ordered  them  to  come  to  Rome,  and  hence  on  that  account 
might  well  be  honoured  with  the  important  place  in  the 
fresco  and  in  its  inscription.  Moreover,  by  depicting  him 
with  the  round  nimbus,  the  artist  has  sufficiently  indicated 
that  he  was  actually  dead  at  the  time  of  the  transla- 
tion. If,  then,  the  reader  is  prepared  to  accept  the 
conclusion  that  this  fresco  was   painted   before  the  death 

1  "  Hue  a  Vaticano  fertur  PP.  Nicolao.  imnis  divinis  qd  aromatib. 
sepelivit"  ;  i.e.  "  Hither  from  the  Vatican  is  borne,  Nicholas  being  Pope, 
with  divine  hymns  (the  body)  which  he  buried  with  aromatics." 

2  Hence  Duchesne  and  others  are  obviously  mistaken  in  assigning 
this  fresco  to  the  twelfth  century. 


l6  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

of  S.  Methodius,  then  we  have  contemporary  evidence  that 
Nicholas  I.  wore  a  crown  ]  adorned  with  gems. 

In  the  sacristy  of  St.  Peter's  there  exists  yet  anothei 
relic  of  the  past  which  seems  to  prove  that  in  the  ninth 
century  the  popes  wore  a  crown.  It  is  a  picture  described 
in  an  inventory2  of  1455  as  '  of  Constantine/  and  showing, 
in  its  upper  portion,  the  half  figures  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  a  similar  figure  of  Our  Lord  between  them  giving  His 
benediction.  Over  the  two  apostles  are  their  names  in 
Slavonic  characters.  In  the  centre  of  the  lower  half  is  a 
male  figure  clad  in  a  chasuble,  wearing  the  pallium  on  his 
shoulders  and  "  a  tiara  or  papal  mitre  with  one  crown,"  and 
in  the  act  of  blessing  a  man,  also  clad  in  a  chasuble,  who  is 
kneeling  at  his  feet.  Two  other  figures,  represented  as 
Greek  monks,  stand  one  at  each  side.  There  is  little 
doubt  that  the  figure  wearing  the  crown  is  that  of  Pope 
Hadrian  II.,  that  he  is  blessing  S.  Methodius,  that  the 
'  monks '  are  the  two  brothers  Cyril  and  Methodius,  and 
that  the  picture  is  contemporary  with  the  latter.  It  would 
seem  likely  that  it  was  offered  to  the  confession  of  St. 
Peter,  where  it  used  to  be  placed,  by  S.  Methodius  in 
memory  of  his  brother  Cyril,  or  Constantine?     If,  however, 

1  Cf.  S.  Clement,  by  Mullooly,  p.  299  f.  ;  Marucchi,  Les  Basiliqiies, 
p.  291  ff . ;  Novses,  Dissert.  V.,  Delta  sol.  coron.  dJ  Po?itef.,  in  vol.  ii.  of 
his  Introdnz.  alle  vite  R.  P.,  Rome,  1822  ;  Miintz  (see  next  note  1),  etc. 
In  the  new  ed.  (1903)  of  their  Hist,  of  Painting  in  Italy,  i.  45,  Crowe 
and  Cavalcaselle  assign  the  frescos  of  the  subterranean  basilica  probably 
to  the  ninth,  or  perhaps  to  the  tenth,  century. 

2  Ap.  Cirillo  e  Metodio,  p.  249.  The  picture  is  3^  palms  high  by  2  palms 
2  inches  wide.     The  Roman  palm  measures  between  8  and  9  inches. 

3  Hence  its  description  'of  Constantine,'  and  hence  the  confusion  of 
Grimaldi,  who,  describing  this  'tabula  antiquissima'  in  1617,  connects  it 
with  Constantine  the  Great.  On  all  this  see  Bartolini's  appendix  to 
his  Cirillo.  With  a  number  of  Dalmatian  canons,  artists,  etc.,  he 
examined  this  most  interesting  picture  in  1881.  D'Avril,  St.  Cyrille, 
p.  173  n.,  holds  that  it  does  not  belong  to  an  earlier  period  than  the 
thirteenth  century. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  \J 

with  all  this  the  reader  is  not  prepared  to  be  bound 
by  a  chain  not  at  all  strong,  he  must  at  any  rate  admit 
that  the  popes  were  crowned  at  least  in  the  eleventh 
century.1 

The  Pontiff,  the  order  of  whose  consecration  and  Character 
coronation  we  have  been  able  to  view  through  the  old  Nicholas. 
ordo  brought  to  light  by  Mabillon,  is  said  by  his  biographer 
to  have  been  patient  and  temperate,  humble  and  pure, 
"  handsome  of  face  and  graceful  of  form,  both  learned  and 
modest  in  his  utterances,  illustrious  by  his  great  deeds, 
devoted  to  fasting  and  to  the  Divine  Services,  the  support 
of  the  widow  and  the  orphan,  and  the  defender  of  all  the 
people."  That  he  was  a  real  lover  of  the  poor  he  proved 
by  his  conduct.  Like  his  great  predecessor  S.  Gregory  I.,  he 
kept  by  him  a  list  of  the  blind  and  the  disabled  throughout 
the  city,  and  to  these  he  had  food  sent  daily.  But  to  such 
of  the  poor  as  were  strong  enough  to  come  for  food,  he 
distributed  provisions  in  turn  on  the  different  days  of  the 
week.  And  that  they  might  know  on  what  day  they  had 
to  present  themselves  for  the  Pope's  alms,  they  received 
tokens  marked  with  his  name  and  having  attached  to  them 
a  number  of  knots  formed  by  nuts.  The  number  of  nuts 
on  his  token  showed  the  poor  man  on  what  day  he  had  to 
come. 

Another  distinguishing  trait  in  the  character  of  Nicholas, 

1  It  is  actually  stated  of  S.  Gregory  VII.  that  he  was  crowned.  L.  P., 
in  vit.,  ii.  p.  282.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  second  crown  was 
added  to  the  tiara  by  Boniface  VIII.  towards  the  close  of  his  life.  Cf. 
Miintz,  La  tiare  pontificate,  pp.  14,  41.  The  third  was  added  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and,  if  not  worn  by  Clement  V., 
was  certainly  worn  by  Benedict  XII.  lb.,  pp.  45-7.  As  opposed  to 
the  mitre,  the  emblem  of  spiritual  power,  the  tiara,  according  to  Innocent 
III.,  is  the  symbol  of  temporal  power  (Miintz,  p.  23).  In  the  three 
crowns  of  the  tiara  itself  some  see  the  royalty  of  the  episcopate,  the 
pontifical  supremacy,  and  the  temporal  sovereignty ;  others  the  church, 
suffering,  militant  and  triumphant,  etc.,  etc. 

VOL.   III.  2 


1 8  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

recorded  by  his  biographer,  was  his  unceasing  energy  in 
working  for  good.  If  any  scandal  arose  in  the  Church  "  he 
gave  neither  rest  to  his  body  nor  sleep  to  its  members  "  till 
by  his  envoys,  letters,  or  prayers,  a  reformation  was  effected.1 
He  was  assuredly  one  of  those  who  worked  as  if  good  had 
to  be  wrought  by  himself  alone,  but  who  prayed  2  as  if  it  had 
to  be  done  by  God  alone. 

The  fame  of  his  learning  and  of  his  clear-headed  justice3 
caused  more  cases  to  be  brought  for  his  decision  from 
all  parts  of  the  world  than  were  ever  brought  before 
"  within  the  memory  of  anyone."  4  And  those  who  were  so 
fortunate  as  to  be  thus  able  to  lay  their  cases  before  him, 
returned  home  "  blessed  and  instructed."  And  yet  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  as  far  back  as  the  fourth  century, 
a  secretary  (St.  Jerome)  of  a  Pope  (St.  Damasus)  had 
already  declared  (Ep.  130)  that  he  had  "  to  reply  to  many 
consultations  which  were  addressed  to  the  Apostolic  See 
from  the  East  and  from  the  West"  All  this  work  for  the 
spiritual  and  temporal  good,  not  only  of  Rome  but  of  the 
world  at  large,  meant  a  terrible  strain  upon  the  physical 
powers  of  the  master  labourer  in  the  vineyard.5  And  if 
this  pressure  of  work  was  not  the  original  cause  of  the 
breakdown  of  his  health,  it  had  at  least  to  be  borne  by  a 
frame  often  racked  with  disease.  "  With  such  pain,"  he 
wrote,  "has  our  Heavenly  Father  seen  fit  to  afflict  me, 
that   not  only   am    I    unable   to   write  suitable  replies  to 

1  Cf.  L.  P.,  n.  lvi.  f.,  for  an  account  of  his  exertions  to  put  down 
incestuous  marriages  which  were  much  in  vogue  amongst  the 
Sardinians. 

2  "  Dei  tantum  respectu  corrigere  illud  malens  etc."      L.  P. 

3  Cf.  his  letter  to  Archbishop  Wenilo  of  Sens,  on  the  charges  brought 
by  him  against  Herimann,  bishop  of  Nevers  (Migne,  Ep.  1). 

4  "Tot,  tantaeque  diversarum  provinciarum  ....  ad  sedem  apost. 
consultationes  directs  sunt,  quantas  numquam  penitus  quis  reminiscitur 
a  priscis  temporibus  pervenisse."     L.  P. 

5  Cf.  Ep.  17. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  19 

your  question,  but  I  cannot,  through  the  intensity  of  my 
sufferings,  even  dictate  an  answer  to  them/'  x  Like  Gregory, 
the  Great,  he  found  strength  to  work  for  God  and  man 
where  ordinary  men  could  scarce  find  strength  to  live  for 
themselves. 

But  if  Nicholas  was  a  father  to  the  poor,  and  meek  and 
mild  to  those  who  kept  the  law  of  God,  he  always  spoke  as 
one  having  authority,  and  was  "  terrible  and  full  of  harshness 
to  those  who  wandered  away  from  the  right  path,"  and  "  he 
ruled  kings  and  tyrants,  and,  as  though  he  were  the  lord 
of  the  earth,  presided  authoritatively  over  them."  Such  is 
the  language  of  the  monk  Regino,2  who  rightly  regarded 
him  as  the  greatest  pope  after  S.  Gregory  I.  It  is  to  be  hoped 
that  the  course  of  this  narrative  will  make  it  plain  that 
even  the  eminently  flattering  character  ascribed  to  Nicholas, 
in  the  almost  stereotyped  language  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis, 
was  not  overdrawn,  and  that,  in  the  words  of  an  old  four- 
teenth century  English  monk,  "  scarce  any  occupant  of  the 
papal  chair  was  to  be  compared  with  him."  3 

Two  days  after  his  consecration  the  Pope  and  the  emperor  The  Pore 
met  at  a  solemn  banquet,  at  which  the  brilliant  conversa-  after  the' 
tional  powers  of  the  former  were  conspicuous,4  and  parted 
after  a  cordial  embrace. 

It  was  probably  at  a  Mass  celebrated  by  the  Pope  on 
one  or  other  of  these  days,  at  which  the  emperor  was 
present,  that  were  chanted  just  before  the  Epistle  the 
solemn  laudes,  in  honour  of  Nicholas  and  Louis,  which 
have  been  printed  by  Grisar.5  In  the  midst  of  in- 
vocations to  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  "  the  Saviour  of  the 
world,"  for  His  mercy  and  help,  "  life "  is  wished  "  to  our 

1  Ep.  86,  p.  947.  2  In  Chron.,  ad  an.  868. 

3  Eidogiwn  hist.,  1.  ii.  c.  16. 

4  "  Sophistico  famine  resplendebat,  claritateque  plenus  epulabatur  in 
Christo."     L.  P.,  n.  vii. 

5  Analecta  Rom.,  i.  229. 


consecra 
tion.' 


20  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

lord  Nicholas,  by  God's  decree  supreme  pontiff  and 
universal  Pope,"  and  "  life  and  victory  to  our  lord  Louis 
Augustus,  crowned  by  God,  the  great  and  pacific  emperor." 
Then  whilst  the  help  of  Our  Lady,  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  and 
SS.  Andrew  and  John  is  being  besought,  "life"  is  wished 
"to  the  emperor's  most  excellent  royal  sons,"  and  "  life  and 
victory  to  the  army  of  the  Romans  and  Franks."  The 
latides  terminated  with,  "  Christ  conquers.  He  is  our  king 
and  emperor." 

When  Louis  left  the  city,  he  rested  at  St.  Leucius,  close 
to  where  the  remains  of  the  Tor  di  Quinto1  now  stand — so 
called  from  its  being  about  five  miles  from  the  Porta 
Ratumena  of  the  Servian  walls.  Thither,  with  the  notables 
of  Church  and  State,  Nicholas  went  out  to  salute  him.  When 
Louis  saw  him  coming,  he  advanced  to  meet  him,  and  led  his 
horse  about  '  an  arrow's  flight.'  After  talking  and  feasting 
together,  the  Pope  set  out  for  Rome  loaded  with  presents. 
Louis,  who  accompanied  him  for  some  distance,  again  did 
himself  the  honour2  of  leading  the  Pope's  horse.  In  these 
acts  of  mutual  courtesy  we  see  summed  up  the  amicable 
relations  which,  for  the  most  part,  distinguish  the  inter- 
course between  Louis  and  Nicholas,  and  the  commanding 
position  to  be  taken  up  by  the  latter  in  the  face  of  the 
world. 
The  Greek  Now  that  we  have  seen  Nicholas  fairly  launched  on  his 
pontificate,  we  cannot  do  better  than  begin  our  account  of 
its  history  by  treating  of  Photius  and  the  Greek  schism, 
not  only  because  Nicholas  had  not  been  Pope  very 
long  before  he  came  into  contact  with  the  Greeks,  but 
because  the  story  of  Photius  is  of  the  first   importance, 

1  "  Sedem  in  loco,  qui  Quintus  dicitur,  collocavit."     L.  P. 

2  Gregorovius  calls  this  act  of  Louis  that  of  "an  emperor  who  so  far 
forgot  his  dignity"  (iii.  121).  But  Louis  believed  that  Nicholas  was 
the  Vicar  of  Christ,  and  chose  to  give  a  proof  that  his  conduct  and 
belief  were  in  accord. 


schism. 


21 

not   merely  in  the  life  of  Nicholas,  but  in  the  history  of 
mankind. 

To   bring   about   the   schism  of  the  Greeks,  which  was  its  causes 
virtually1  consummated  by  Photius,  and  which  resulted  in 
such   political,  intellectual,  and  spiritual  loss    both  to  the 
East  and  to  the  West,  there  had  long  been  many  causes 
at  work. 

For  if  it  is  obvious  that  it  has  brought  great  loss  to  the 
Greeks,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Latins  have  also 
suffered  through  it.  While,  for  instance,  the  arms  of  both 
peoples  ought  to  have  been  directed  against  the  Moslem, 
the  most  aggressive  foe  of  Christianity,  they  were,  after 
frequently  crossing  more  or  less  in  the  dark,  finally  destined 
to  be  openly  and  bitterly  turned  against  each  other.  From 
the  want  of  hearty  co-operation,  not  to  say  through  the 
presence  of  secret  hostility,  on  the  part  of  the  Greeks,  the 
heroic  struggle  of  the  Latins  to  recover  the  Holy  Land 
from  the  infidel,  failed  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  power 
of  the  Greeks  themselves  was  broken  for  ever  by  their 
expulsion  from  Constantinople  (1204)  by  the  Latins.  And 
by  thus  breaking  down  a  lock-gate  which  retarded  the 
wave  of  the  Mohammedan,  they  were  in  turn  to  be  fearfully 
afflicted  by  its  unchecked  flood. 

If,  moreover,  the  schism  had  the  effect  of  cutting  off  the 
Greeks  from  beneficial  contact  with  the  intellectual  life, 
vigorous  if  youthful,  which  sprang  up  among  the  Western 
nations  in  the  Middle  Ages,  the  latter,  in  consequence  of  it, 
received  a  diminished  infusion  of  the  superior  intellectual 
and  material  refinement  possessed  by  the  former  and  a 
smaller  share  of  their  inherited  wisdom. 

And  finally,  while,  by  their  separation  from  the  Latins, 
the  East  failed  to  be  influenced  by  the  vivifying  faith  of  the 

1  Actually  in  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century  (1054),  under  the 
patriarch  Michael  Caerularius. 


22  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

West,  which  in  the  Middle  Ages  was  as  bright  and  as 
energetic  as  its  intellectual  endeavour,  the  West  lost  the 
benefit  it  would  have  derived  from  close  union  with  the 
deep  religious  feelings  of  the  East.  By  its  divided  front, 
too,  all  Christendom  has  been  weakened  in  the  face  of  both 
heresy  and  unbelief. 

Of  the  causes  which  brought  about  this  disastrous  and 
deplorable  schism,  some  were  natural  and  others  .artificial  ; 
and  of  these  again  some  were  of  a  more  or  less  accidental 
growth,  and  others  directly  predisposing  to  schism.  Under 
natural  causes  may  be  grouped  the  great  diversity  of 
character  between  the  practical  Romans  and  the  theoretical 
Greeks,  and  the  dissimilarity  of  their  languages.  Difficulties 
from  this  latter  difference  became  quite  pronounced  even 
in  the  sixth  century,  and  the  lessened  intercourse  between 
the  East  and  West,  brought  about  by  this  linguistic  difficulty 
and  by  the  barbarian  invasions  of  the  fifth  and  sixth 
centuries,  was  increased  by  the  antipathy  with  which  the 
Romans  regarded  a  '  Roman  empire '  which  became  less 
and  less  Roman  every  day,  and  by  that  with  which  the 
Greeks  in  turn  looked  on  the  growth  of  the  'temporal 
power'  of  the  popes  and  the  renovation  of  the  Western 
empire.  And  if  the  Eastern  bishops  looked  down  upon 
the  Western  for  their  want  of  culture,  they  were  themselves 
despised  by  the  latter  for  their  base  subservience  to  the 
emperors.1  Furthermore,  the  Italians  could  not  forget  how 
they  had  been  oppressed  by  the  Greek  exarchs,  and  how 
even  the  popes  had  been  maltreated,  and  their  patrimonies 
in  Sicily,  etc.,  confiscated  by  the  emperors  of  Constanti- 

1  "  Sunt  Graeci  episcopi  habentes  divitis  (sic)  et  opolentas  eclesias 
et  non  paciuntur  duo  mensis  a  rerum  eclesiasticarum  dominacione 
suspendi  ;  pro  qua  re  ...  .  secundum  volumptatem  principum,  quid- 
quid  ab  eis  quaesitum  fuerit,  sine  altercatione  consenciunt."  Ep.  of 
Italian  clerics  concerning  the  treatment  of  Pope  Vigilius,  ap.  M.  G. 
Epp.,  iii.  p.  439- 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  23 

nople.  Nor  could  the  popes  themselves  be  unmindful  of 
the  many x  heretical  patriarchs  who  had  disgraced  the 
patriarchal  throne  of  Constantinople,  and  of  their  unjust 
usurpation  of  papal  rights  over  the  province  of  Illyricum 
during  the  iconoclast  controversy. 

Accidental  causes  were  such  political  events  as  the 
separation  of  the  empire  into  two  parts,  which  sooner  or 
later  practically  corresponded  with  the  two  divisions  of  its 
subject  races  into  those  which  spoke  Latin  and  those 
which  spoke  Greek.  Then  there  followed  the  extinction 
of  the  Western-Roman  empire  and  its  occupation  by 
barbarian  peoples,  objects  at  once  of  hatred  and  contempt 
to  the  more  cultured  inhabitants  of  the  Eastern-Roman 
empire.  Accidental  causes  also  were  differences  of  religious 
rites  and  discipline,  especially  in  the  matter  of  the  celibacy 
of  the  clergy,  and  the  different  state  of  theological  science 
in  the  East  and  West.  To  the  once  great  activity  in 
that  respect  among  the  Greeks  had  succeeded  a  languor 
scarcely  disturbed  by  the  iconoclast  difficulty,  whereas, 
among  the  Latins,  the  conversion  of  the  nations  and  the 
controversies  on  Adoptionism,  on  Grace  and  Predestination, 
had  given  a  considerable  impetus  to  the  study  of  theology. 
This  development  of  doctrinal  studies  in  the  West  was 
viewed  with  suspicion  by  the  Greeks,  and  they  turned  their 
genius  for  controversy  against  the  Latins. 

To  pass  over  the  effect  of  previous  schisms  2  in  preparing 

1  Of  the  fifty-eight  bishops  of  Constantinople  from  St.  Metrophanes 
(3 J 5-325)  to  s-  Ignatius,  twenty-one  were  either  heretics  or  upholders 
of  heresy  ;  and  as  evidence  of  their  dependence  on  the  State,  it  may  be 
noted  that  over  twenty  of  them  were  deposed  by  different  emperors. 
Cf.  Jungmann,  diss.  xvii.  §  3. 

2  From  the  time  when  Constantine  succeeded  to  the  empire  of  the 
East  (323)  to  the  accession  of  Nicholas  I.,  a  period  of  over  five  hundred 
years  had  elapsed,  and  during  that  period  there  had  been  five  great 
schisms  between  Rome  and  Constantinople,  lasting  over  two  hundred 
years. 


24  ST.    NICHOLAS   I., 'THE   GREAT 

the  way  for  the  schism  of  the  ninth  century,  its  most 
potent  cause  was  that  which  modern  authors  call 
Byzantinism,  which  they  compare  with  Gallicanism  and 
Josephism,  and  which  may  be  defined  as  a  suspicion  of,  and 
hostility  towards,  the  supreme  spiritual  authority  of  the 
Holy  See  engendered  by  a  false  idea  of  national  indepen- 
dence, and  carefully  cultivated  by  ambitious  men  for  their 
own  advancement.  Its  chief  propagators  in  the  Greek 
Church  were  the  body  of  bishops  whom  the  emperor  kept 
at  his  beck  and  call,  and  who  formed  the  assembly  which, 
in  time  known  as  the  Permanent  Synod  (cuvoSos  eY^/xoi/cra), 
has  survived  to  this  day,  and  which  soon  came  to  regard 
itself  as  the  imperial  agent  in  matters  spiritual. 

When  the  clergy  of  a  country,  hoping  to  be  freer  by 
getting  rid  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  See,  have 
embraced  these  views  of  national  independence,  they  have 
only  earned  for  themselves  a  base  dependence  on  the  civil 
power.  They  have  found  the  local  civil  authority  a  very 
different  controlling  power  to  that  of  a  spiritual  power  at  a 
distance.  And  if,  for  instance,  the  clergy  of  the  established 
Church  of  England  and  of  that  of  Russia  are  to-day 
dependent  on  the  State  even  in  matters  most  sacred  and 
most  spiritual,  the  clergy  of  Constantinople  were  in  the 
same  condition  long  before  the  century  of  which  we 
are  now  treating.  For  many  of  the  causes  already  enu- 
merated had  been  at  work  for  centuries.  The  schism 
of  the  Greeks  really  began  with  the  rise  of  Constan- 
tine's  new  city  by  the  Golden  Horn.  The  transference 
of  the  seat  of  empire  from  Rome  to  Constantinople 
had  for  one  of  its  results  the  popes'  gaining  temporal 
power  in  the  West  and  losing  spiritual  authority  in  the 
East.  What  their  primacy  gained,  during  the  interval 
between  the  foundation  of  Constantinople  and  the  final 
schism  of  the  Greeks  under  Michael  Cerularius,  in  intensity 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  25 

and  directness,  it  lost  in  geographical  extent.  If  Photius 
and  Cerularius  were  able  to  sever  the  last  bonds  which 
connected  the  East  and  the  West,  it  was  because  the  process 
of  sundering  had  been  begun  under  Constantine  by 
Eusebius,  bishop  of  Nicomedia,  and  his  supporters  in  the 
war  he  waged  through  court  influence  on  the  Council  of 
Nice,  on  St.  Athanasius,  and  on  the  popes  who  upheld  him. 

The  Eusebians  had  cleared  the  approaches  which  led  to 
the  stout  wall  of  Unity  which  had  surrounded  the  East  and 
West  up  till  the  days  of  Constantine.  The  bishops  of 
Byzantium,  now  become  patriarchs  of  Constantinople, 
were  to  make  breaches  in  it  and  finally  to  throw  it  to  the 
ground.  Anxious  to  be  the  first  ecclesiastics  in  the  empire, 
they  did  not  scruple,  in  order  to  purchase  the  support 
of  the  might  of  the  emperors,  to  prostitute  their  spiritual 
prerogatives  to  the  will  of  their  temporal  lords.  The  clergy 
of  Constantinople,  partly  through  jealousy  of  the  power  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  partly  to  curry  favour  with  their 
own  patriarch,  were  ever  prepared  to  lend  their  support 
to  his  ambitious  aims.  And  finally  the  emperor,  that  he 
might  rule  the  minds,  wills,  and  consciences,  as  well  as  the 
bodies  of  his  subjects,  was  also  ever  ready  to  push  forward 
the  spiritual  pretensions  of  a  man  of  whose  subservience  he 
was  sure. 

A  short  sketch  of  the  means  by  which  the  once  simple 
bishops  of  Byzantium,1  dependent  on  the  metropolitan  of 
Heraclea  in  Thrace,  became  patriarchs  of  Constantinople, 
with  precedence  over  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch,  Alexandria, 
and  Jerusalem,  and  then  rivals  of  the  popes  of  Rome,  will 

1  J.  M.  Neale  (A  Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  p.  26)  notes 
that  Byzantium  before  its  refoundation  by  Constantine  "  does  not 
appear  to  have  possessed  any  bishop  of  its  own  "  ;  that  the  names  of 
only  three  prelates,  'suffragans  of  Heraclea,'  who  governed  it  before 
that  epoch  are  known,  and  that  "under  the  exarchs  of  that  city  the 
bishops  of  Constantinople  were  content  to  remain  for  several  years." 


26  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

shed,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  no  little  light  on  the  attitude  and 
action  of  Photius. 
Ecciesi-  Before   Constantine   took    in    hand  the  old  Greek  half- 

JlStlCT.1 

authority  destroyed  commercial  city  of  Byzantium,  and  transformed 
Church?1" y  it  mto  the  glorious  capital  to  which  he  gave  his  name,  there 
was  no  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  slightest  consequence 
at  all  by  the  Golden  Horn.  But  it  was  a  different  thing 
with  some  of  the  cities  of  the  Roman  empire,  which  were 
already  famous  before  the  advent  of  the  first  Christian 
emperor.  Antioch  by  the  Orontes,  and  Alexandria  on  the 
Nile's  delta,  were  renowned  throughout  the  civilised  world. 
Its  illustrious  history  had  given  an  undying  fame  to 
Carthage.  The  residence  of  St.  John,  the  beloved  apostle, 
at  Ephesus,  and  of  St.  Polycarp,  his  disciple  at  Smyrna, 
had  endeared  those  cities  to  the  followers  of  Christ.  Its 
hoary  age,  the  fact  that  it  was  the  capital  of  Cappadocia, 
and  the  fame  of  one  of  its  early  bishops  (St.  Firmilian),  all 
contributed  to  make  Csesarea  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
of  the  churches  of  proconsular  Asia.  In  all  these  places 
there  was  from  the  earliest  times  of  the  Christian  faith 
more  or  less  of  episcopal  jurisdiction.  But  while  one  of 
these  churches,  or  even  for  a  time  Milan  in  the  West,  is 
seen  in  the  foreground  of  Christian  life  at  one  time,  and 
another  at  another,  there  is  one  Church,  that  of  the  Eternal 
City  by  the  Tiber,  which  is  regularly  in  the  forefront,  which 
seems  to  tower  above  the  others,  and  to  which  the  others 
bow  down  as  did  the  sheaves  of  his  brethren  to  that  of 
Joseph.1 
That  of  Of  the  different  churches  to  which  the  great  Apostle  of 

the  Gentiles  sent  his  epistles,  one  is  signalled  out  for 
especial  praise.  It  is  that  of  the  Romans.  It  was  their 
faith,  he  said,  which  was  already  "  spoken  of  in  the  whole 
world,"2  and  it  was  to  be  comforted  in  that3  which  made 
1  Gen.  ch.  xxxvii.  2  Ros.  i.  8.  3  lb.,  12. 


ST.   NICHOLAS    I.,  THE   GREAT  2J 

him  *  long  to  see  them."  Strong  in  that  faith,  we  see  the 
Church  of  Rome  through  its  bishop  "  confirming  the 
brethren,"1  even  before  the  last  of  the  apostles  has  gone  to 
give  an  account  of  his  glorious  stewardship.  There  were 
dissensions  in  the  Church  of  Corinth.  Rome  is  at  once 
troubled,  and  her  bishop,  Clement,  who  is  by  many  thought 
to  have  been  the  friend  of  St.  Paul,2  whose  name  is  linked 
with  that  of  the  apostles  by  numerous  documents,  apocry- 
phal and  otherwise,  of  the  early  Church,  and  who  was 
certainly  one  of  the  immediate  successors  of  St.  Peter  as 
bishop  of  Rome,  at  once  intervenes.  About  the  year  97,  he 
addressed  a  long  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  exhorting  them  to 
concord  and  to  submission  to  their  ecclesiastical  superiors. 
"For  ye  will  afford  joy  and  gladness  to  us  if,  being  obedient 
unto  the  things  written  by  us  through  the  Holy  Ghost,"  ye  cut 
off  the  unrighteous  passion  of  your  jealousy,  according  to 
the  exhortation  which  we  have  made  for  peace  and  oneness 
of  mind  in  this  our  letter.  And  we  have  also  sent  men, 
faithful  and  prudent  ....  who  shall  also  be  witnesses 
between  you  and  us.  And  this  have  we  done,  that  ye  may 
know  that  there  hath  been  and  is  in  us  every  longing  that 
ye  may  quickly  be  at  peace."  3 

Already  had  the  bishop  of  Rome  been  recognised  as  the 
intermediary  of  communication  between  the  churches. 
The  author  of  that  curiously  mystical  work,   The  Shepherd 

1  St.  Luke  xxii.  32.  2  Philip-  iv.  3. 

3  Ep.  1,  ad.  Cor.,  n.  63.  This  passage  will  not  be  found  in  any  ed. 
printed  before  1875  ;  for  it  was  in  that  year  that  Bryennios,  metro- 
politan of  Seme,  discovered  for  the  first  time  a  complete  copy  of  this 
important  letter  at  Constantinople.  "Xapai/  yap  ...  .  rjfitv  irape'£€T«,  ih» 
viriiKooi  yev6/xevoi  ro?s  ixp'  rifjiwv  yeypa/x/j.(POts  Sia.  rod  aylov  Uviv/xaros,  etc. 
We  quote  from  Vizzini's  ed.  of  1901.  It  is  found  in  the  first  vol.  of  the 
new  series,  Bibliotheca  SS.  Patnnn,  edited  by  him  in  Rome.  In  the 
text  we  have  used  the  translation  in  the  series,  Ancient  and  Modern 
Library  of  Thcol.  Literature,  London,  Griffith  &  Co.  ;  The  Apostolic 
Fathers,  Part  I. 


28  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

of 'Hennas,  tells  us  that  the  Church  of  God,  who  appeared 
to  him  as  an  old  woman,  asked  him  if  he  had  yet  delivered 
her  book  to  the  elders  (irpea-fivrepois)  of  the  Church,  and 
then  instructed  him  to  send  it  to  Clement.  "  For  Clement 
shall  send  it  to  the  foreign  cities,  because  it  is  entrusted  to 
him  to  do  so."1  The  result  of  Clement's  despatch  of  the 
work  of  Hennas  was  that  in  some  places  it  was  placed  on 
a  level  with  the  canonical  books  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
and  his  own  letter  was  received  with  such  respect  by  the 
Corinthians,  that  it  became  "  the  practice  to  read  it  in  the 
churches."2 

Another  disciple  of  St.  Peter,  and  not  only  of  St.  Peter 
but  also  seemingly  3  of  St.  Paul,  and  certainly  of  St.  John, 
viz.,  the  illustrious  martyr  St.  Ignatius,  bears  testimony  to 
the  exceptional  position  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Though 
letters  of  his  to  such  famous  early  churches  as  those  of 
Smyrna  and  Ephesus  are  extant,  there  is  nothing  in  them 
to  compare  with  the  language  he  addresses  to  that  of  Rome. 
Writing  to  it,  there  is  question  at  once  of  presidency.  Not 
merely  is  it  the  Church  "  which  presides  in  the  place  of  the 
region  of  the  Romans,"4  which  might  only  mean  "in 
Rome"  and  not  "in  the  whole  Roman  empire";  but,  less 
ambiguously,  it  is  the  Church  "  which  presides  over  the 
universal  assembly  of  love,"5  i.e.  over  "the  whole  Christian 
agape"  or  "the  whole  Church." 

1  "  iT€fx,ip€L  ovv  KA-fj/xris  ets  ras  e£a>  Tr<f\ets,  eKtivcp  yap  iirntTpanTai."  L. 
i.,  vis.  ii.  4. 

2  So  says  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth,  ap.  Eusebius,  iv.  23. 

3  Cf.  Butler,  Lives  of  the  Saints,  February,  in  his  life  of  St.  Ignatius. 

4  Ep.  ad  Ros.,  "  i]ris  Hal  irpoKoiOrjTai  4v  t6tt^>  xwPi0V  PopLaiwv- " 

6  lb.,  ko.1  irpoKa9rifievT]  ttjs  ayaiv-qs.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  wher- 
ever irpoKadriadai  is  used,  it  is  employed  with  reference  to  some  place  or 
gathering  of  people  (societas).  Hence  in  this  passage,  if  the  Roman 
Church  is  said  "  to  preside  over  charity,"  it  is  another  way  of  saying 
over  "the  congregation  of  charity."  Cf  the  notes  to  Vizzini's  ed., 
p.  132  ff.     I  do  not  with  Duchesne  quote  from  the  text  of  the  letter  (n.  3) 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  2Q 

What  was  said  of  the  Roman  Church  by  St.  Paul  and 
the  immediate  disciples  of  the  apostles,  in  words  which  were 
striking  indeed,  but  which,  from  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  wrote,  were  not  very  definite  or  explicit,  was 
said,  owing  to  circumstances  which  called  for  more  cogent 
language,  in  a  more  minute  and  detailed  way  by  those  who 
had  been  trained  by  the  disciples  of  the  apostles.  St. 
Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons,  whose  parents  had  placed  him 
under  St.  Polycarp,1  had  occasion  to  refute  certain  heretics. 
To  confound  them  he  appeals  to  the  tradition  of  the 
churches,  and  at  first,  not  unnaturally,  he  appeals  to  that  of 
his  master,  i.e.  to  that  of  Smyrna.  But  then  he  continues  : 
"  But  as  it  would  take  too  long  to  go  through  all  the 
churches,  it  will  be  enough  for  me  to  point  out  the  apostolic 
tradition,  the  teaching  which  has  come  down  to  us  by  the 
episcopal  succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  greatest 
and  most  ancient  of  all  (maxima  et  antiquissimce),  and 
known  to  all,  founded  at  Rome  by  the  two  glorious 
apostles,  Peter  and  Paul.  This  tradition  is  enough  to 
confound  all  who,  in  one  way  or  another,  by  self-conceit, 
love  of  applause,  blindness,  or  false  persuasions,  are  outside 
the  truth.  For  with  this  church,  by  reason  of  its  more 
powerful  principality  (or  chiefer  presidentship,  principalitas), 
every  church  must  agree — i.e.  the  faithful  everywhere — in 
which  (the  Roman  Church)  the  tradition  of  the  apostles 
has  ever  been  preserved  by  those  on  every  side."  2 

Now  that  we  have  seen  something  of  the  manner  in 
which,  during  apostolic  and  subapostolic  times,  the  Church 
of    Rome    stands    out    among    the    other    churches,   we 

the  words,  "  ovde-rroTe  ejSacr/cavaTe  ovSevi  aWous  e'5iSa£aTe,"  because,  though 
the  syntax  seems  to  favour  his  interpretation  of  them,  "  you  have  never 
deceived  any  one  but  have  taught  others/'  the  context  seems  to  require, 
"  you  have  never  envied  anyone  (viz.,  the  glory  of  martyrdom) "  etc. 
Cf.  I.  c>  p.  136. 

1  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  June  28.  2  Adv.  Hares.,  iii.  3. 


30  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

must  proceed  more  summarily  with  the  rest  of  the  pre- 
Constantinian  period,  as  this  is  not  the  place  for  elaborate 
details  on  such  a  wide  subject.  If  throughout  the  epoch  in 
question  the  Church  of  Rome  is  ever  receiving  marks  of 
veneration  from  members  of  the  Church  universal,  it  is 
especially  against  "the  peremptory  edicts"  of  its  "bishop 
of  bishops  "  1  that  her  enemies  point  the  finger  of  scorn. 
As  St.  Paul  went  up  to  Jerusalem  "  to  see  Peter," 2  the  most 
distinguished  men  in  the  Church  went,  like  Origen,  to  Rome 
simply  "  to  see  this  most  ancient  church."  3  Heretics,  too, 
fluttered  round  it  like  moths  round  a  candle,  only  to  share 
their  fate.4  When  other  great  churches  differed  from  it, 
we  find  its  pontiffs  ordering  their  bishops  to  meet  together 
in  council,  and  threatening  to  cut  them  off  "  from  the 
common  unity,  r^?  Koivijs  evwarea)?" 5  if  they  continued  to 
remain  at  variance  with  them.      They  called  upon  bishops 

1  Tertullian  (fl.  243),  as  a  rigorous  Montanist  writes  (De  Pudicitia,  c. 
1.  Cf.  c.  21):  "Audio  etiam  edictum  esse  propositum,  et  quidem 
peremptorium.  Pontifex  scilicet  Maximus,  quod  est  Episcopus  Episco- 
porum  dicit :  '  Ego  et  mcechiae  et  fornicationis  delicta  pcenitentia 
functis  dimitto.'"  This  is  generally  now  supposed  to  have  been  written 
against  Pope  Callistus  (218-22).  It  is  the  same  Tertullian  who,  as 
a  Catholic,  appealed  (Adv.  Marc,  iv.  5)  to  the  tradition  of  the  Roman 
Church  to  which  Peter  and  Paul  left  the  Gospel  "sealed  with  their 
blood"  ;  and  in  his  De  prescript.  Hceret.,  c.  36,  to  that  happy  Church 
of  Rome  into  which,  with  their  blood,  poured  the  whole  teaching  of 
Christ,  and  whence  those  in  Africa  could  draw  truth  as  from  an 
authoritative  source,  "  unde  (Rome)  nobis  quoque  auctoritas  prassto 
est."  Documents  of  blessed  popes  (for  this  is  the  style  in  which  he 
speaks  of  the  bishops  of  Rome,  whether  alive  or  dead)  anterior  to 
Zephyrinus  (202-18),  he  calls  'authoritative,'  auctoritates  prtzcessorum 
ejus.  Adv.  Praxeam,  i. 

2  Galatians  i.  18. 

3  Ap.  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  14.  See  instances  in  Duchesne,  Les  c'glises 
separees,  p.  136.  We  also  find  Origen  writing  to  Pope  Fabian  to  justify 
his  orthodoxy.     Cf.  Eusebius,  H.  E.,  vi.  36. 

4  Cf  for  examples,  Newman's  Development  of  Christian  Doctrine, 
p.  157  flf. ;  Duchesne,  p.  137. 

5  Eusebius,  //.  E.,  v.  24. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  3 1 

even  of  the  most  important  Sees  to  explain  any  doctrinal 
position  which  they  had  taken  up,  and  which  did  not  seem 
to  them  sound.1  Finally,  owing  to  their  care  for  all  the 
churches,  and  because  they  were  "  presidents  of  the  great 
Christian  congregation  of  love,"  they  sent  "contributions  to 
many  churches  in  every  city."2 

The  pre-eminent  position  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  seen 
and  acknowledged  also  by  the  civil  authorities.  The 
churches  of  the  East  were  very  much  scandalised  by  the 
loose  morals  and  equally  loose  doctrine  of  Paul  of 
Samosata,  then  bishop  of  Antioch.  He  was  at  length  con- 
demned and  deposed  by  numerous  councils.  Particulars 
of  its  proceedings  were  "by  common  consent  addressed  to 
Dionysius.  bishop  of  Rome,  and  to  Maximus  of  Alexandria," 
and  sent  to  all  the  provinces.  Paul,  however,  would  not 
submit,  but  kept  forcible  possession  of  the  temporalities 
of  his  See.  The  case  was  brought  before  the  emperor 
Aurelian,  who,  savs  Eusebius,  gave  a  most  fair  decision, 
ordering  the  church  buildings  to  be  given  to  those  "  to 
whom  the  Christian  bishops  of  Italy  and  of  Rome  should 
write,3  i.e.  should  send  their  commmiicatory  letters!' 

Before  a  word  is  said  on  the  position  of  the  popes 
between  the  reign  of  Constantine  and  the  days  of  St. 
Gregory  I.,  with  whose  pontificate  this  work  commences, 
it  must  be  noted  that  though  Rome  was  then  indeed  the 
capital  of  the  world,  the  principalitas  assigned  to  its  bishops 
is  never  based  during  the  earliest  period  of  the  Church's 

1  Cf.  the  case  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  ap.  S.  Athanasius,  De 
dec  ret  is  Niccu.  syjiod.,  c.  26. 

-  The  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  to  Pope  Soter  (168-177),  ap. 
Euseb.,  iv.  23  ;  cf.  vii.  5.  In  the  former  passage  Eusebius  notes  that  the 
Roman  practice  of  sending"  alms  to  the  whole  world  was  retained  "even 
to  the  persecution  of  our  day,"  viz.,  to  the  last  of  the  great  persecutions. 
Cf.  Ep.  70  of  St.  Basil  to  Pope  Damasus. 

3  Euseb.,  /.  c,  vii.  27  ff. 


32  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

life  on  anything  but  their  descent  from  St.  Peter.     If  the 

place  of  Pope   Fabian   was  vacant,  it  was  "the  place  of 

Peter " 1  that  was  empty. 

The  bishop      If  to  the  man  whose  clear  sight  enables  him  to  penetrate 

in  post-       the  mists  of  remote  antiquity  ever  so  little,  the  principality 

timesT       of  tne  bishops  of  Rome  from  the  earliest  ages  is  obvious, 

their   commanding   position    after   that   date  can  scarcely 

escape  the  notice  even  of  the  man  of  dullest  vision.2 

As  before,  true  doctrine  is  considered  to  be  that  which 
is  in  accord  with  the  Roman  tradition.3  Communion  with 
them  is  made  the  touchstone  of  orthodoxy,4  the  avenue 
of  approach  to  Our  Saviour.5  Their  power,  said  to  be 
"  derived  from  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,"  6  is  acknow- 
ledged as  well  by  councils,  ecumenical 7  and  particular,8  as 
by  individuals.  If  synods  recognised  9  that  appeals  could 
be  carried  to  them,  they  themselves  proclaimed,  five  hundred 
years  before  the  False  Decretals  were  heard  of,  that  from 
them  there  was  no  appeal,  and  that,  being  judged  by  none, 
they  were  to  judge  the  whole  Church.10  Did  they  restore 
Greek   bishops   to   the   Sees   from    which   they  had  been 

1  S.  Cyprian,  Ep.  55,  n.  7,  Antoniano. 

2  Hence  J.  M.  Neale  feels  himself  compelled  to  admit  that  the  other 
patriarchs  acknowledged  "  a  priority  of  order,  and  perhaps,  in  the  case 
of  Rome,  an  undefined  and  ^indefinable  something  more,  —  a  privilege 
of  interference  that  might  not  have  been  brooked  from  another 
Patriarchal  See."     A   Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church,  p.  15. 

3  S.  Augustine,  Ep.  53,  2,  where  he  gives  a  list  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome  to  his  contemporary  Anastasius  ;  Optatus  of  Mileve,  1.  ii.  c.  2,  3, 
where  there  is  a  similar  list  down  to  his  contemporary  Siricius. 

4  S.  Ambrose,  De  excidio  Satyri,  i.  47  ;  S.  Jerome,  Ep.  15,  etc. 

5  S.  Augustine,  ap.  Nova  Pat.  Bib.,  vi.  546.  "  Communicet  Petro  qui 
vult  partem  habere  cum  Christo." 

6  See  the  letter  of  the  Council  of  Mileve  (416)  to  Pope  Innocent  I. 

7  Cf.  the  acts  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  (431)  and  of  Chalcedon 

(450- 

8  See  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Aquileia  (381),  of  Carthage  (416),  etc. 

9  Cf.  can.  3  of  Sardica,  an.  347. 

10  Ep.  of  Gelasius  to  Faustus,  ap.  Jaffe,  622  (381). 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  33 

expelled,  Greek  historians  proclaimed  that  it  was  in  virtue 
"  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Roman  Church.'' 1  We  find 
that  ecumenical  councils  were  only  summoned  with  their 
concurrence,  that  they  presided  over  them  by  their  legates, 
and  were  called  upon  by  them  to  confirm  their  decrees.2 
Finally  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  set  forth 
most  unmistakably  in  both  the  civil3  and  in  the  canon4 
law,  or  in  that  combination  of  both  known  as  the  Nomo- 
canon,  of  the  Greeks.5 

Of  course  it  was  to  have  been  expected  that  when 
freedom  from  persecution  allowed  of  free  and  open  inter- 

1  Cf.  Socrates,  H.  E.,  ii.  15,  and  Sozomen,  H  E.,  iii.  8,  on  the  action 
of  Pope  Julius  (337-352). 

2  On  this  last  point  read  especially  the  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon. 

3  The  codices  of  emperor  after  emperor  from  Valentinian  I.  to 
Justinian  proclaimed  the  primacy  of  the  popes,  and  decreed  that  all 
their  subjects  must  remain  in  that  faith  which  St.  Peter  taught  to  the 
Romans.  Ranke  {Lives  of  the  Popes,  i.  p.  7,  Bohn's  ed.)  quotes  the 
decree  of  Theodosius  I.  to  this  effect.  It  ran  thus  :  "  Cunctos  populos 
quos  nostras  dementias  regit  imperium  in  tali  volumus  religione 
versari,  quam  d.  Petrum  ap.  tradidisse  Romanis,  religio  usque  ad  hue 
ab  ipso  insinuata  declarat."  Translated  into  Greek,  it  was  transferred 
direct  to  the  Nomocanon,  and  begins,  Uavras  robs  H/jlovs,  etc.  Ap. 
Fhra.,  Juris  eccles.  Grcecorum  Hist,  et  Monument.,  ii.  p.  458. 

4  Among  the  eighty-seven  capitula  of  John  III.  (t577),  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  for  his  skill  in  law  known  as  the  Scholastic  and 
as  the  Father  of  Greek  Canon  Law,  there  is  one  setting  forth  the 
superiority  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  all  other  bishops.  Following  the 
Novel.  131,  c.  1,  of  Justinian,  it  proclaims  that  adhering  to  the  councils 
from  Nice  to  Chalcedon  :  ®€(nri£ofx.ti/,  Kara  robs  avTwv  opovs,  rbv  ayiwraTov 
ttjs  irpeafZuTepas  Pu>/j.7]s  irp6Tepov  iluai  Trdt/Tuy  tS>u  iepewv.      Pitra,  id.,  p.  395- 

Elsewhere  (in  an  article  on  the  Canons  of  the  Greek  Church  at  the  end 
of  Ceillier,  Hist,  des  auteurs  eccles.,  t.  xii.,  p.  1000)  he  says  that  the 
best  Greek  canonists  have  denied,  or  at  least  thought  of  doubtful  legality, 
the  independent  primacy  which  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  have 
assumed  over  the  East. 

5  For  further  information  on  this  whole  subject,  see  Newman's 
Develoftme?it ;  Allies,  St.  Peter,  his  Name  and  Office  ;  Livius,  St.  Peter, 
Bishop  of  Rome  ;  Allnatt,  Cathedra  Petri ;  Murphy,  7  he  Chair  of  Peter ; 
A  Catholic  Dictionary,  art.  Pope,  etc. 

VOL.   III.  3 


34  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

course  between  the  churches,  and  when  the  headquarters 
of  the  bishops  of  Rome  were  transferred  from  the  catacomb 
of  S.  Priscilla  to  the  Lateran  palace,  we  should  have  had 
much  more  abundant  evidence  of  the  general  acknowledg- 
ment of  the  primacy  of  the  popes.  And  it  was  also  to  have 
been  anticipated  that  with  the  passing  of  time  the  inter- 
vention of  the  Head  of  the  Church  in  its  affairs  would  be 
more  frequent  and  more  striking,  as  in  the  human  body 
the  action  of  the  mind  becomes  more  pronounced  with  its 
growth.  But  if  the  headship  of  the  popes  is  seen  in  clearer 
light  in  the  days  that  followed  Constantine  than  in  those 
which  preceded  them,  his  authority  was  not  so  uncontested. 
In  the  earlier  period  he  had  not  to  contend  against  imperial 
patriarchs  at  once  heretical x  and  ambitious.  Still,  though 
either  in  matters  of  faith  or  judicial  jurisdiction,  their 
authority  had  been  braved  for  a  time  by  different  patriarchs 
of  Constantinople  up  to  the  period  of  which  we  are  now 
treating,  the  Greek  Church  had  always  in  the  end  come 
into  agreement  with  them.  And  when  S.  Ignatius  was 
dethroned  by  Photius  there  was  absolute  unity  between 
the  two  churches.2  We  will  now  proceed  to  examine  in 
detail  how  the  assaults  of  his  predecessors  against  it  enabled 
Photius  to  effect  an  irreparable  breach  in  it. 
Rise  of  the       At  first,  as  we  have  already  said,  the  bishops  of  Con- 

Bishopof  .  ,    .  ......  r       , 

Constants  stantinople  were  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  exarch 

Nectarius.   of  Heraclea.     For,  though  to  preserve  external  unity  the 

greater  ecclesiastics  had  to  be  recognised  by  the  bishops 

of  Rome,  they  had  jurisdiction  over  the  bishops  of  their 

1  In  the  five  hundred  years  from  Eusebius  to  John  VII.  (832- 
842)  there  were  no  less  than  nineteen  heretical  patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantinople. 

2  Hence  Amalarius  of  Metz  (t  c.  838)  tells  of  the  singing  of  lessons  at 
Rome  and  Constantinople  in  both  Greek  and  Latin,  "  propter  unanimi- 
tatem  utriusque  populi."  De  offic.  eccles.,  1.  ii.  init.  (P.  L.,  t.  105).  Cf. 
Ep.  86  Nich.,  and  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Bened.  III.,  n.  xxxii. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  35 

respective  provinces.  But  the  ambition  l  of  the  bishops  of 
New  Rome,  as  their  episcopal  city  was  called,  did  not  suffer 
this  subjection  long.  In  381,  Nectarius,  the  successor  of 
St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  induced  the  fathers  of  the  first 
general  council  of  Constantinople  to  decree  that  "the 
bishop2  of  Constantinople  holds  the  primacy  of  honour 
(to.  Trpeo-fieia  r^?  tiju^)  after  the  bishop  of  Rome,  because 
it  is  the  new  Rome!'  The  ground  on  which  this  new 
honour  was  bestowed  on  Nectarius  was  more  reprehensible 
than  the  granting  of  the  honour  itself,  as  far  as  the  real,  if 
not  the  nominal,  prejudice  of  the  rights  of  others  was 
concerned.  By  the  canon  preceding  the  one  just  cited,  the 
rights  of  jurisdiction  belonging  to  the  patriarchs  of  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch,  and  to  the  three  exarchs  of  Ephesus, 
Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  and  Heraclea  were  confirmed  in 
accordance  with  the  decrees  of  Nice.  But  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  however,  as  we  gather  from  Socrates,3  the  bishops  of 
Constantinople  from  this  time  forth  exercised  the  juris- 
diction that  previously  belonged  to  Heraclea ;  and,  by 
judiciously  stretching  the  third  canon  above  mentioned, 
began  to  interfere  in  matters  of  ecclesiastical  government 
throughout  the  entire  East.  The  third  canon  was,  however, 
not  confirmed  by  the  Holy  See.  Pope  Leo  I.  wrote4  to 
Anatolius  (449-458)  to  the  effect  that  this  canon  was  null 
from  the  very  beginning,  as  it  had  never  been  communicated 
to  the  Holy  See,  and  that  the  use  to  which  there  was  a 
wish  to  put  it  was  both  late  in  the  day  and  to  no  purpose. 

1  Even  the  Greek  Liber  Synodicus,  ap.  Mai,  Spicil.  Rom.,  vii.  p.  xxi#c, 
expressed  fear  as  to  where  their  ambition  to  have  all  the  privileges  of 
old  Rome  would  lead  them. 

2  Can-  3-  3  Hist.,  v.  8. 

4  Ep.  ad  AnatoL,  May  22,  452.  Cf.  St.  Gregory  I.  "Ecclesia 
Romana  eosdem  canones,  vel  gesta  illius  synodi  hactenus  non  habet 
nee  accipit.  In  hoc  autem  eamdem  synodum  accepit  quod  est  per 
earn  contra  Macedonium  definitum."  Ep.  vii.  31  (34),  ad  Eulogium, 
ep.  Alex,  et  Anast.,  ep.  Antioch. 


36 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   CxREAT 


Atticus. 


Anatolius. 


But  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  pushed  on  their 
usurpations.  Atticus  (406-425),  the  second  successor  of 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  turned  to  the  civil  power,  and  obtained 
two  decrees  in  his  favour  from  Theodosius,  the  younger. 
By  the  one,  no  bishop  was  for  the  future  to  be  elected 
throughout  the  three  exarchates  without  the  consent  of  the 
synod  of  Constantinople.1  By  the  other,2  no  affair  in 
Illyricum  was  to  be  concluded  without  first  informing  the 
bishop  of  the  city  of  Constantinople,  which  city  boasts  the 
privileges  of  old  Rome.  Still  there  is  the  same  secular 
motive.  But  this  time  the  usurpation  of  authority  is  in  a 
province  directly  subject  to  Rome,  through  the  vicariate 
of  Thessalonica.  The  latter  of  these  laws  was  indeed 
revoked,  but  not  so  the  ambition  of  the  bishops  of  the 
imperial  city. 

Anatolius  contrived  to  get  various  canons  passed  in 
favour  of  his  See  at  the  general  council  of  Chalcedon  (451). 
Canons  nine  and  seventeen  permitted  of  appeals  to  the  See 
of  Constantinople  from  the  exarchates  ;  and  canon  twenty- 
eight,  which  was  drawn  up  clandestinely  and  only  received 
the  signatures  of  under  a  third  of  the  bishops,  set  forth  that 
they  confirmed  the  third  canon  of  Constantinople  and  took 
the  same  view  "  of  the  privileges  of  the  most  holy  Church  of 
Constantinople,  the  new  Rome.  For  to  the  throne  of  old 
Rome,  on  accomit  of  its  being  the  reigning  city,  the  fathers3 


1  Cf.  Socrates,  Hist.,  vii.  28,  where  the  election  of  one  Dalmatius  to 
the  See  of  Cyzicum  is  narrated.  "This  they  (the  inhabitants  of 
Cyzicum)  did  in  contempt  of  a  law  which  forbade  their  consecration  of 
a  bishop  without  the  sanction  of  the  bishop  of  Constantinople.  But  they 
held  that  that  was  a  privilege  granted  to  Atticus  alone." 

2  Cod.  Theod.,  1.  xv.  tit.  2,  leg.  45,  quoted  by  Jager  (p.  xiv). 

3  As  Duchesne  laconically  remarks  (Les  eglises,  p.  195),  "  Cette 
decision  des  Peres  est  encore  a.  trouver."  Westall,  ap.  Dublin  Review, 
January  1903,  notes  (p.  109)  that  the  Fathers  here  "mean  the  apostles 
and  their  successors,  the  apostles  as  the  original  donors,  their 
successors  as  bearing  witness  to  what  was  handed  down." 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,    THE   GREAT  37 

naturally  gave  the  privileges  of  honour  (to.  irpeo-fieia);  and, 
acting  from  the  same  motive,  the  150  fathers  (of  the  council 
of  Constantinople)  have  assigned  equal  privileges  to  the 
most  holy  throne  of  new  Rome,  rightly  deciding  that  the 
city,  which  was  honoured  with  the  residence  of  the  emperor 
and  the  senate,  should  enjoy  equal  privileges  with  the  older 
imperial  Rome,  and  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  be  exalted  like 
her,  and  after  her  hold  the  second  place  (Sevrepav  /mer 
cKelvtjv  v7rapxovcrciv)"  Hence  the  metropolitans  of  the 
exarchates  and  bishops  among  the  barbarians  were  to  be 
consecrated  by  the  '  archbishop '  of  Constantinople,  as  he 
is  now  called.  These  three  canons,  combined  with  the 
third  canon  of  Constantinople,  or  with  the  interpretation 
put  upon  it  by  the  ambition  of  the  bishops  of  the  imperial 
city,  would  have  had  the  effect  of  giving  patriarchal  rights 
to  the  '  archbishop '  of  Constantinople,  and  of  placing  him 
above  the  patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  and  all 
because  of  the  civil  position  of  his  See.  In  their  synodical 
letter1  to  Pope  Leo  I.,  the  bishops  of  the  council  make 
known  to  him  what  they  have  done  with  regard  to  the 
bishop  of  Constantinople,  "not  so  much  for  the  sake  of 
granting  a  privilege  to  the  See  of  Constantinople  as  to 
provide  for  the  due  tranquillity  of  the  metropolitan  cities  "  ; 
and  beg  the  Pope  to  confirm  {irepLirrv^aa-QaL)  what  they 
have  decided.  But  by  letters2  to  the  bishops  of  the 
council,  to  Anatolius  himself,  and  to  the  emperor,  Leo 
made  it  perfectly  plain  that  such  a  confirmation  he  would 
not  give.  On  the  contrary,  he  annulled  what  the  bishops 
had  agreed  upon  "  contrary  to  the  rules  of  the  holy  canons 
drawn  up  at  Nicaea,"  and  "  by  the  authority  of  the  Blessed 

1  Printed  at  the  end  of  the  acts  of  the  council  ;  "  non  tarn  sedi  Con- 
stantinopolitanas  aliquid  prajstantes  quam  metropolitanis  urbibus 
quietem  congruam  providentes." 

2  Ubi  sup.  "  S.  Syndoum  ....  in  occasionem  ambitus  trahas." 
Ep.  ad  Anatol 


38  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

Apostle  Peter,  by  a  general  definition,  made  it  utterly  void." 1 
In  his  letter  to  Anatolius,  he  upbraids  him  for  using  to 
further  his  own  ambition  a  council  called  to  settle  matters 
of  faith;  and  declares  that  what  he  desires  will  never 
receive  his  consent.  And  writing  to  the  emperor  Marcian 
he  says  that  Anatolius  ought  to  be  content  with  the 
bishopric  of  Constantinople  which  he  has  obtained 2  by 
the  favour  of  the  emperor  and  the  assent  of  the  Pope. 
Although  Anatolius  in  his  reply  to  the  Pope  submitted  to  his 
decision,  threw  all  the  blame  of  the  matter  on  the  fathers 
of  the  council,  and  acknowledged  that  the  canon  had  no 
force  except  from  the  confirmation  of  the  Pope,3  his  suc- 
cessors did  not  cease  to  strive  for  the  prize  that  was  so 
nearly  in  their  grasp. 
Acadus.  Pope  Felix  III.  found  it  necessary  to  depose  Acacius 

(471-489)  for  his  ambitious  interference  with  the  patriarchal 
rights  of  Antioch.  Acacius  in  turn,  trusting  of  course  to 
the  secular  arm,  excommunicated  the  Pope,  and  thus 
effected  a  schism.  Although  several  of  the  successors  of 
Acacius  tried  to  induce  the  popes  to  confirm  their  election, 
as   they   would    not   efface   the   name    of    the    schismatic 

1  Ep.  ad  Pulcheriam.     "  Consensiones  epp in  in  itum  mittimus, 

et,  per  auctoritatem  B.  Petri  Ap.,  generali  prorsus  defmitione  cassimus." 

2  "  Satis  sit  prsedicto,  quod  vestrse  pietatis  auxilio  et  mei  favoris 
assensu  episcopatum  tantae  urbis  obtinuit.  .  .  .  Non  dedignetur 
regiam  civitatem,  quam  apostolicam  non  potest  facere  sedem."  Ep. 
ad  Marcian. 

3  Ep.  132,  among  the  letters  of  Pope  Leo;  "cum  et  sic  gestorum 
vis  omnis  et  confirmatio  auctoritati  vestrae  beatitudinis  fuerit  reservata." 
See  a  very  useful  article  on  "  The  Fathers  gave  Rome  the  Primacy," 
by  Westall,  in  the  Dnbli?i  Review^  January  1903.  Considering  that 
"  to  some  extent  even  the  wording  "  of  can.  28  is  drawn  from  language 
of  the  Pope  himself,  Westall  believes  that  "  whatever  arriere pe?isee  may 
have  been  in  the  minds"  of  its  framers,"it  was  most  certainly  intended 
to  bear  an  acceptable  interpretation  to  the  Pope,  St.  Leo,"  p.  101.  Even 
the  Greek  Liber  Synodicus  (ap.  Mai,  Spicil.  Rom.,  p.  xxv,  says  that 
through  Leo's  condemnation  of  the  absurd  novelty  (rb  tt?s  Kaivoroi-Clav 
&tottqv\  the  canon  at  once  became  a  dead  letter  (awpaKT-na-avTos  ev6vs). 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  39 

Acacius  from  the  sacred  diptychs,  they  did  not  obtain  their 
request,  and  as  many  as  five  of  the  successors  of  Acacius 
died  out  of  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome.  The  schism 
was  healed  in  519,  in  the  reign  of  Pope  Hormisdas,  and 
yet  the  emperor  Justinian  (527-565)  in  his  new  code  of  laws1 
reaffirmed  the  high  place  of  the  See  of  Constantinople. 

Then  John  the  Faster  (582-595)  essayed  at  least  in-  Tohn,  the 
directly  a  higher  flight.  He  arrogated  to  himself  the  title 
of  '  ecumenical  patriarch/  and,  despite  the  remonstrances 
of  Pelagius  II.  and  Gregory  I.,2  who  wrote  to  point  out 
to  him  that  to  take  such  a  title  was  tantamount  to  calling 
himself  the  only  bishop,  he  and  his  successors  held  to  the 
title.  Tending  in  the  same  direction,  viz.,  in  that  of 
making  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  no  longer  the  second 
but  the  first  in  the  Church,  was  the  thirty-sixth  canon  which 
was  decreed  by  the  Greek  bishops  in  the  Council  of  Trullo 
(692),  which,  while  professing  to  renew  the  third  canon  of 
Constantinople  and  the  twenty-eighth  of  Chalcedon,  declared 
that  the  See  of  Constantinople  should  enjoy  the  same  privi- 
leges as  that  of  old  Rome,  and  that  it  should  be  as  great 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  holding  the  second  rank  after  it. 

The  outline  just  sketched  of  the  respective  positions 
of  Rome  and  Constantinople  is  in  the  main  endorsed  by 
the  conclusions  of  the  latest  English  non-Catholic  writer 
on  the  affairs  of  the  Eastern  Roman  Empire,  viz.,  Mr. 
Bury.  Speaking  of  a  period  much  anterior  to  that  of 
Nicholas  I.,  he  writes3:  "The  bishop  of  Rome,  as  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  was  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  the 
weakness  of  the  empire  in  the  West  increased  his  power 
and  confirmed  his  independence.  .  .  .  But  the  geographical 
distance  from  Constantinople  had  also  another  effect; 
it  contributed  to  rendering  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 

1  Novell,  131,  c.  1.  2  Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  i.,  p.  137  ff.  of  this  work. 

3   The  Later  Roma?i  Empire,  i.  786. 


40  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

and  the  Eastern  churches  independent  of  Rome.  The 
oriental  and  occidental  churches  had  a  tendency  to 
separate  along  with  the  political  systems  to  which  they 
belonged,  and  consistent  with  this  tendency  was  the  desire 
of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  which  in  the  fifth 
century  became  the  most  important  city  in  the  world,  to 
free  himself  from  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome.  In  order  to 
to  do  so  he  naturally  leaned  upon  the  power  of  the 
emperor.  The  result  was  that  in  the  West  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy  was  independent  in  spiritual  matters,  and  after- 
wards attained  secular  power,  but  in  the  East  the  Church 
and  the  Imperium  were  closely  allied,  the  Church  being 
dependent  on  the  emperor." 

The  long  series  of  ambitious  efforts  for  pride  of  place  on 
the  part  of  his  predecessors  had  well  paved  the  way  for  the 
schism  of  Photius,  which  was  the  beginning  of  the  end  of 
the  union  between  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins,  between  the 
East  and  the  West.  But  it  was  reserved  for  his  craft  to 
give  point  to  the  growing  divergence  between  the  East 
and  West  by  inventing  a  doctrinal  basis  for  that  divergence. 
We  must  now,  therefore,  unfold  the  history  of  his 
relations  with  the  Holy  See,  which,  if  we  include  the  affair 
of  Gregory  Asbestas,  with  which  the  story  of  Photius  is 
intimately  bound  up,  embraced  a  period  of  thirty-four 
years,  and  involved  nine  popes,  beginning  with  Leo  IV. 
and  ending  with  Formosus,  and  five  councils. 
Photius.  On   the  death  of  the  emperor   Theophilus,  as   his  son 

Michael  was  a  minor,  the  government  of  the  empire  was 
placed  in  the  hands  of  a  council  of  regency,  of  which  the 
empress-mother  Theodora  was  the  head.  To  assist  her 
were  appointed  three  of  the  most  important  men  in  the 
State.  Of  these  the  first  in  intelligence,  in  enterprise,  and 
in  crime  was  the  patrician  Bardas,  the  emperor's  uncle  and 
the  brother  of  Theodora.     Their  secretary  was    Photius, 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  41 

himself  connected  with  the  imperial  family  by  the  marriage 
of  one  of  his  uncles  with  a  sister  of  Theodora.  The  lust  of 
Bardas  was  the  immediate  cause  not  only  of  the  downfall 
of  the  council  of  regency,  but  of  that  of  Ignatius,  and  of 
the  union  between  the  East  and  West.  To  the  great 
scandal  of  all,  he  repudiated  his  lawful  wife  to  live  with 
his  daugnter-in-law,  who  had  been  left  a  young  widow. 
Despite  the  life  of  sin  in  which  he  was  publicly  !  known 
to  be  living,  he  had  the  effrontery  to  present  himself  to 
receive  Holy  Communion  at  the  hands  of  the  patriarch 
on  the  feast  of  the  Epiphany  857.  Ignatius,  who  had  to 
no  purpose  oft  warned  him  to  give  up  his  evil  courses, 
openly  refused  to  give  him  the  Body  and  Blood2  of  Our 
Lord.  Bardas  resolved  on  revenge;  but  for  that  he  had 
to  make  himself  supreme.  He  had  already  acquired  a 
paramount  influence  over  the  young  Michael,  who  had 
very  early  manifested  a  strong  inclination  to  every  form 
of  ignoble  vice.  By  encouraging  him  in  his  vile  habits  of 
drink,  of  associating  with  stablemen,  and  of  buffoonery, 
Bardas  had  made  the  weak  and  wicked  youth  his  tool. 
He  accordingly  persuaded  the  young  libertine  of  nineteen 
that  he  was  now  old  enough  to  rule  by  himself,  and  advised 
him  to  order  the  patriarch 3  to  cut  off  the  hair  of  Theodora 
and  make  her  enter  a  convent.  Naturally  impatient  of 
any  control,  the  advice  was  eagerly  acted  upon  by  Michael. 
And  as  Ignatius  firmly  refused  to  be  a  party  to  this 
iniquity,  he  incurred,  to  the  profound  satisfaction  of 
Bardas,  the  hatred  of  the  emperor  also.  What  Ignatius 
had  refused  to  do  was  done  by  a  baser  soul,  and  Theodora 

1  "  Ut  ejus  rei  fama  totam  urbem  peragraret."     Nicetas,  i?i  vit.  Ig. 

2  "  Hie  ions  ecclesiastics  pcrturbationis."  lb.  Change  these  names 
into  those  of  Henry  VIII.,  Anne  Boleyn,  and  Cranmer,  and  you  have 
"the  origin  of  the  ecclesiastical  disturbance"  in  England  in  the 
sixteenth  century. 

3  Nicetas,  ib. 


42  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

was  shut  up  in  a  convent  (September  857).  Next  a 
charge  of  high  treason  was  trumped  up  by  Bardas  against 
Ignatius,  and  the  saint  was  banished  to  the  Isle  of 
Terebinth,  the  most  wretched  of  the  Princes'  Isles  (Nov- 
ember 23,  857).  Bardas,  who  was  now  the  real  ruler  of 
the  empire  (he  was  soon  to  take  the  title  of  Caesar 1), 
determined  to  replace  Ignatius  by  one  who  would  at  once 
do  his  will  and  be  a  support  to  him.  He  resolved  that 
Photius,  who  was  anything  but  loath,  should  be  patriarch. 
Every  effort  was  at  first  made  to  induce  Ignatius  to 
resign.2  This,  with  the  same  inflexibility  in  right  which 
he  had  shown  before,  he  firmly  refused  to  do.  That 
device  failing,  Bardas,  so  it  is  said,  by  craftily  offering  in 
private  the  patriarchal  See  to  each  of  the  professed  chief 
supporters  of  Ignatius,  should  they  abandon  him,  suborned 
their  fidelity  to  the  saint.  The  choice  of  Photius  was 
then  made  public,  and  in  six  days  he  was  made  from 
monk  to  patriarch  (Christmas  Day,  857),  by  Gregory 
Asbestas,  to  whose  party  both  Bardas  and  Photius 
had  attached  themselves.  All  this  Bardas  accomplished 
in  less  than  twelve  months.  Of  the  new  would-be 
patriarch,    Jager3    writes    as    follows:     "Photius    united 

1  According  to  some  authorities,  in  860.  But  Finlay,  following  others, 
thinks  it  was  in  862.     The  Bysanti?ie  Emfi.,  p.  219  n. 

2  Nicetas,  ib.  The  sufferings  which  Bardas  and  Photius  inflicted  on 
the  saint  are  well  told  by  Schlumberger  in  the  account  which  he 
gives  of  him  in  his  pretty  Les  lies  des  Prmces,  Paris,  1884,  p.  254  ff. 
Yet  Paparrigopoulo  can  callously  write,  p.  250  :  "  The  struggle  between 
these  two  men  was  not  personal."  Photius  was  the  embodiment  of 
the  spirit  of  reform.  Ignatius  "etait  le  porte-drapeau  de  la  foule, 
devouee  a  Tancien  ordre  des  choses,  a  ses  prejuges  et  a  ses  abus  !  " 

3  P.  20.  He  follows  Nicetas  very  closely.  Nicetas  begins  his 
description  of  Photius  by  calling  him:  "hominem  sane  minime 
obscurum  et  ignobilem,  sed  Claris  et  illustribus  oriundum  natalibus, 
rerumque  civilium  et  politicarum  usu,  prudentiaque  et  scientia 
clarissimum,"  etc.,  p.  1198.  The  quotations  from  Nicetas  are  in  the 
Latin  translation  which  accompanies  the  Greek  text. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT  43 

in  his  person  the  most  eminent  gifts  which  nature  has 
ever  bestowed  on  one  man,  a  high  intelligence,  great 
genius,  vivacity  of  spirit,  a  wonderful  energy,  an  incredible 
activity,  an  ardent  passion  for  glory,  a  will  at  once  as 
supple  as  gold  and  as  inflexible  as  iron.  He  had  a 
pronounced  taste  for  letters,  and  in  their  study  passed  his 
nights;  he  was  a  skilful  orator  and  an  accomplished  writer 
in  prose  and  verse,  sometimes  rising  to  the  level  of  the 
ancients.  He  was  master  of  all  the  learning  of  his  own 
and  preceding  ages,  and  was  in  it  more  than  a  match  for 
any  disputant.  Though  no  stranger  to  ecclesiastical 
learning,  he  did  not  excel  in  it.  To  so  many  qualities 
was  joined  an  illustrious  birth.  Although  (at  this  time) 
young,  he  was  not  without  experience,  as  he  had  for  some 
time  been  Secretary  of  State,  after  having  been  on  various 
embassies  to  foreign  states.  Add  to  these  distinctions 
an  agreeable  exterior,  a  grave  and  modest  deportment,  a 
bright  expression,  manners  easy  and  elegant,  perfect 
politeness,  in  a  word,  all  the  external  qualifications  which 

attract    and    seduce    by    an    inexpressible    charm 

What  was  wanting  to  so  many  eminent  qualities  ? 
Christian  humility.  .  .  .  He  was  the  slave  of  an  in- 
domitable pride  and  a  gnawing  ambition."1 

Such  was  Photius,  who  in  virtue  of  his  consecration  by  Endeav- 
ours to 
1  A  writer  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  vol.  xxi.,  p.  329,  says  :  "  He  force 

seems  to  have  been  very  learned  and  very  wicked — a  great  scholar  and  ISnatlus  to 
a  consummate  hypocrite— not  only  neglecting  the  occasions  of  doing 
good  which  presented  themselves,  but  perverting  the  finest  talents  to 
the  worst  purposes."  Writers  of  to-day  give  similar  estimates  of  the 
character  of  Photius.  Cf.  Schlumberger,  Les  lies  des  Princes,  p.  269  ; 
Marin,  Les  moines  de  Constant.,  L.  iii.  c.  3.  If  full  reliance  could  be 
placed  on  the  narrative  of  Symeon  Magister,  or  rather  on  that  of  the 
Pseudo-Symeon,  a  chronicler  of  the  tenth  century,  Photius,  even  as 
patriarch,  was  as  lax  in  his  morals  as  Michael  himself,  and  was  as 
hard  a  drinker  as  Martin  Luther.  Cf.  his  account  De  Michcrle  et 
Theodora,  c.  19.  On  the  confusion  as  to  the  works  of  Symeon,  see 
Bury's  Gibbon,  v.  503. 


44  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

Gregory,  and  of  the  power  of  a  tyrant,  called  himself 
patriarch  of  Constantinople.  He  at  once  renewed  his 
ill-treatment1  of  Ignatius  in  order  to  force  him  to  resign  ; 
and,  knowing  that  a  generous  soul  is  most  hurt  in  the 
sufferings  of  his  friends,  the  supporters  of  the  saint  were 
subjected  to  similar  outrages.  One  cannot  help  thinking 
of  a  like  device  practised  by  Henry  II.  to  break  the  spirit 
of  St.  Thomas  of  Canterbury.  But  not  to  no  purpose  had 
Ignatius  received  in  his  veins  the  blood  of  kings  from  both 
his  father  and  mother.  What  is  more,  he  had  been  brought 
up  in  that  school  wherein  especially  are  trained  men,  the 
school  of  adversity.  Ignatius  could  not  be  crushed  by 
aught  that  Fhotius  could  do.  And  although  the  pseudo- 
patriarch  made  every  effort  to  put  his  own  friends  in  power 
wherever  he  could,  there  was  so  much  opposition  to  him 
that,  if  any  trust  can  be  placed  in  his  letters  to  Bardas,  he 
was  really  distressed  at  the  position  he  was  in.  But  pride, 
and,  possibly,  the  fear  of  Bardas,  prevented  him  from 
taking  the  one  step — viz.,  that  of  giving  up  his  pretensions, 
which  could  alone  have  brought  him  peace  of  mind.  The 
support  which  he  could  not  win  by  violence  at  home,  he 
next  decided  to  try  and  gain  by  craft  from  abroad.  He 
endeavoured  to  procure  the  confirmation2  of  his  election 
from  Rome. 

1  Besides  the  narrative  of  Nicetas,  cf.  a  letter  of  Metrophanes 
(metropolitan  of  Smyrna,  and  one  of  the  few  who  from  the  beginning 
offered  some  opposition  to  Photius)  to  the  patrician  Manuel,  who  had 
asked  him  for  particulars  of  the  deposition  of  Photius.  It  is  printed 
as  one  of  the  appendices  to  the  eighth  General  Council,  ap.  Labbe, 
viii.  p.  1386.  The  letter  of  Stylian  of  Neocesarea  has  already  been 
quoted.  Printed  in  front  of  the  acts  of  the  same  council  (z£.,  p.  1259  f.) 
is  the  E?icomium  of  S.  Ignatius,  written  by  the  monk  Michael,  priest 
and  chaplain  (syncellns). 

2  "  Quatenus  ilia  (sede  apostolica),  sicut  ipse  sperabat,  approbante, 
mox  omnium  ora  resistentium  obstructa  silerent."  Anast.,  in  ftnvfat. 
Synod.  VIII.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  12  ;  Nicetas,  too  (invit.  Ig.,P-  1203), 
says  that  the  real  object  of  the  embassy  which  was  sent  to  Rome  was 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  45 

Accordingly  an   important    embassy,  consisting    of  the  Tries  to 

•  •  1    \       a         1  r  obtain  con- 

protospatharius  (captain  or  the  guards),  Arsaber  and  four  firmation 
bishops,1  was  sent  to  Rome  with  great  presents  and  with  Rome,  860. 
letters  for  the  Pope  from  the  emperor  and  Photius.  The 
letter  of  Photius,  besides  presenting  his  profession  of  faith, 
gave  an  account  of  his  elevation  to  the  See  of  Constanti- 
nople. He  did  not  blush  therein 2  to  declare  that  he  was 
overwhelmed  to  find  himself  burdened  with  an  office  which 
he  had  always  regarded  as  too  much  for  human  shoulders 
to  bear.  For  "  when  3  my  predecessor  left  his  charge,"  (so 
euphemistically  does  he  describe  the  expulsion  of  Ignatius), 
the  bishops,  and  especially  the  emperor,  whom  he  basely 
asserts  to  be  unsurpassed  in  leniency  by  any  who  have 
ruled  before  him,  forced  him  to  take  up  the  burden  of 
the  episcopacy.  With  the  Pope,  therefore,  he  is  resolved  to 
contract  a  firm  alliance  of  faith  and  love.  In  conclusion,  he 
makes  the  usual  profession  of  faith,  declares  his  acceptance 
of  the  seven  general  councils,  and  begs  the  Pope's  prayers 
that  he  may  show  himself  a  worthy  bishop.  The  emperor's 
letter,  the  contents  of  which  have  to  be  gleaned  from  the 
letters  of  Nicholas,  allows  that  certain  disorders  followed 
on  the  resignation  of  Ignatius,  and  begs  the  Pope  to  send 
legates  to  Constantinople  to  put  an  end  to  them  as  well  as 
to  the  remains  of  the  iconoclast  trouble. 

But  Nicholas  was  neither  to  be  bought   nor  befooled  ;  Action  of 
and  "  although 4  up  to  this  he  was  ignorant  of  the  crafty 
ways   of   Photius,   he   keenly    surmised  almost   the  whole 

that  the  deposition  of  Ignatius,  "Romance  ecclesias  auctoritate 
firmaret(ur)."     Cf.  the  Libellus  Synodicus,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  pp.  652-4. 

1  Cf.  L.  P.,  in  vit.  ;  the  preface  to  Anastasius'  translation  of  the  acts 
of  the  eighth  General  Council ;  Ep.  Nich.,  104. 

2  Jager  gives  this  letter  in  both  the  original  Greek  and  French. 

3  lb.,  ''  tov  irph  tiiaqcv  Upanvtiv  \a.x°vros,    tvs  Totavrrjs  u7re|eA#<4fTOS  ct£fas." 

•  4  Anast,  in  Prcsfat.,  and  L.  P.,  1.  c.  Metrophanes  (ap.  Labbe,  1387) 
expressly  states  that  not  one  of  the  friends  of  Ignatius  was  allowed  to 
go  to  Rome. 


46  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

truth."  He  assembled  a  council  to  discuss  the  matter,  and 
it  was  decided  that  two  legates,  Rodoald,  bishop  of  Porto, 
and  Zachary,  bishop  of  Anagni,  should  be  sent  to  Con- 
stantinople. Nicholas  gave  them  the  strictest  injunctions 
with  regard  to  the  affair  of  Ignatius.  They  had  merely  to 
inform  themselves  of  the  facts  of  the  case,  to  report  them 
to  the  Apostolic  See,  and  meanwhile  only  to  communicate1 
with  Photius  as  a  layman.  The  legates  were  the  bearers 
of  two  letters. 
Letters  of  In  a  short2  one  to  Photius,  Nicholas  rejoices  that 
Sept.  2s?'  his  profession  of  faith  shows  him  to  be  a  Catholic,  but 
cannot  but  regret  his  allowing  himself,  a  layman,  to 
be  consecrated  patriarch,  and  hence  "  cannot  consent  to 
his  consecration"  till  the  return  of  the  legates.  In  a 
longer  one3  to  Michael  (the  letters  of  Nicholas  are  not 
unfrequently  decidedly  long),  he  points  out  that  it  is  by 
the  will  of  Christ,  Our  Lord,  that  the  Church  is  founded  on 
Peter,  and  while  thanking  Michael  for  his  wish  for  peace, 
reminds  him  that  the  Fathers  have  taken  notice  "that  no 
decision  must  be  given  on  any  new  matter  that  arises 
without  the  consent  of  the  Roman  See  and  the  Roman 
Pontiff."  Hence  Ignatius  ought  not  to  have  been  deposed 
"  without  consultation  with  the  Roman  Pontiff,"  still  less 
ought   a  layman  to  have  been  elected  patriarch,  a   pro- 

1  Cf.  L.  P.,  nn.  xx.  and  xxxviii.,  and  the  letters  of  the  Pope  to  the 
clergy  of  Constantinople,  etc.  (ad  an.  866,  Epp.  104,  106).  As  though 
to  protest  against  the  lying  efforts  of  Photius  to  conceal  the  truth, 
Nicholas  repeats  in  every  letter  in  which  he  deals  with  his  conduct  the 
whole  history  of  his  dealings  with  the  unscrupulous  patriarch.  These 
letters  are  numbered  in  Migne,  4,  11,  13,  86,  98,  104,  105,  106,  which 
last  includes  Ep.  46  and  part  of  86.  There  is  wonderful  unanimity 
between  the  Eastern  and  Western  authorities  on  the  doings  of  Photius. 

2  Ep.  5. 

3  Ep.  4.  "  A  quibus  (patribus)  et  deliberatum  ac  observatum  existit, 
qualiter  absque  Romance  Sedis,  Roman  ique  pontificis  consensu,  nullius 
insurgentis  deliberationis  terminus  daretur." 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  47 

ceeding  condemned  as  well  by  the  Council  of  Sardica  as 
by  the  decrees  of  the  popes.  Until,  therefore,  his  envoys 
have  informed  him  of  all  that  has  been  done,  "  he  cannot 
give  the  consent  of  his  apostleship"  to  the  consecration  of 
Photius.  On  the  image  question,  he  continues,  there  is  no 
need  for  him  to  write  much,  as  it  has  been  settled,  and 
there  are  at  Constantinople  the  letters  of  Pope  Piadrian. ) 
He  concludes  by  exhorting  the  emperor,  who,  he  is  given 
to  understand,  is  anxious  for  the  proper  ordering  of  all 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  to  restore  to  the  Holy  See  its 
patriarchal  rights  over  the  provinces  of  Illyricum  and 
Sicily,  and  the  patrimonies  that  belonged  to  it  in  Calabria 
and  Sicily. 

When    the    Pope's  legates  reached  Constantinople,  and  ni-treat- 
the  authorities  there  found  that  the  deposition  of  Ignatius  Agates, 
was   not   approved    by    Rome,   they  determined  to  wring     u 
approval     at     least     from    Rome's    representatives.     The 
legates  were  ill-treated,  threatened,  and  imprisoned,   with 
the   view   of  forcing   them    to   betray    their   trust.     They 
resisted  for  months.1     At  length,  when  they  had  been  tried 
with  gold  as  well  as  iron,  they  consented  to  become  the 
tools  of  Photius.2     To  imitate  the  first  general  council  of 
Nice,  318  bishops  were  got  together  in  council  (May  861). 
They  assembled    in    the   Church   of  the    Holy    Apostles, 
situated  in  the  centre  of  the  city  by  the  imperial  cemetery, 
and  afterwards  destroyed  by  Mohammed  1 1.,  the  Conqueror, 
to  make  room  for  the  mosque  which  bears  his  name. 

1  Metrophanes.  Cf  Ep.  12,  and  the  other  letters  of  the  Pope  cited 
above. 

2  However,  in  his  preface  to  his  translation  of  the  Acts  of  the  eighth 
General  Council,  Anastasius  ascribes  the  fall  of  the  legates  only  to  fear 
"potius  prre  vi  ac  timore  deficientibus."  Zachary  was  of  noble  birth, 
a  relation  of  Pope  Stephen  (V.)  VI.,  and,  according  to  Lapotre  {Le 
souper  de  Jean  Diacre,  p.  335  fif.  On  this  work,  cf.  infra,  p.  149),  was 
good  and  true.  John,  the  Deacon  {Epil.  ad  ccenam\  likens  him  to  Job. 
"Quando  simplex  Job  Formosum  condempnabat  subdolum." 


48  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

Michael,  who  attended  the  synod  himself,  with  the  Roman 
legates  and  the  bishops  on  his  right,  and  many  of  the 
senate  on  his  left,  opened  it  by  saying  that  it  was  merely  out 
of  respect  for  the  Roman  Church  and  for  the  most  holy 
Pope  Nicholas  in  the  persons  of  his  legates  that  the  case  of 
the  deposed  Ignatius  could  be  gone  into  again.  After  the 
whole  assembly  had  declared  its  submission  to  the  ruling 
of  the  papal  legates,  a  sham  trial  of  the  defencless  patriarch 
was  instituted.  Because  he  would  not  abdicate,  despite  all 
the  pressure  that  could  be  brought  to  bear  upon  him,  he 
was  declared  deposed  on  the  futile  charge  of  having 
accepted  his  office  from  the  civil  power.  The  saint,  how- 
ever, persisted  in  appealing  to  the  Apostolic  See.  "  Such 
judges1  as  you  I  do  not  recognise.  Take  me  before  the 
Pope,  to  his  judgment  I  will  gladly  submit."  Those  who 
were  well  disposed  to  the  saint  made  the  same  appeal. 
No  notice  was,  of  course,  taken  of  it.  For  form's  sake  a 
discussion  was  held  on  the  image  question.  The  Pope's 
letters,  altered  by  Photius2  to  suit  his  requirements,  were 
next  read,  and  twenty-seven  canons  of  discipline  were 
passed.  Stripped  of  his  pallium,  Ignatius  returned  into 
the  hands  of  his  persecutors,  and  the  legates  to  Rome  to 
gloss  over  their  doings  to  Nicholas  as  best  they  could,  with 
the  aid  of  letters  from  the  emperor  and  Photius  which  were 
entrusted  to  the  care  of  Leo,  a  secretary  of  state. 
Position  of       Like  the  whole  of  the  affair  of  Photius,  the  acts  of  this 

the  See  of 

the  eyes  of       *  Cf-   ^e  memorial  drawn   up  by   Ignatius  himself,  which,  as  we 

the  Greeks,  shall  see  later,  he  managed  to  get  taken  to   Nicholas   by   the   monk 

Theognostus,  Labbe,  viii.   1266;  Anast.,  i?i  vit.  Nich.,  n.  xl.  ;  and  an 

abridged  account  in  Latin  of  this  synod,  ap.  Deusdedit,  Collect.  Can., 

ed.  Martinucci,  p.  505  f.     The  Greek  text  of  the  council  is  lost. 

2  This  Nicholas  frequently  asserts  in  his  letters,  sometimes  giving 
specimens  of  their  re-editing.  Cf.  Epp.  98,  13  ;  Anast.,  in  proefat., 
writes  :  "  Graeci  epistolas  suscipientes  quidquid  in  eis  erat  pro  Ignatio 
vel  contra  Photium  inverterunt,  subtraxerunt,  et  in  consilio  legi  minime 
pertulerunt." 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  49 

synod  illustrate  very  plainly  the  relation  of  the  whole 
Greek  Church  to  the  See  of  Rome.  The  supreme  authority 
of  the  papal  legates  is  recognised  both  by  Ignatius1  and 
his  supporters  and  by  the  adherents  of  Photius.  All 
acknowledged  the  right  of  appeal  to  Rome,2  and  the  con- 
sequent right  of  the  Pope  to  try  over  again  any  cases 
whatsoever  which  might  be  brought  before  him.3  And 
if,  at  last,  seeing  how  false  they  were  to  their  trust, 
the  holy  patriarch  would  not  recognise  the  papal 
legates,  it  was  because  they  had  not  been  sent  "  by 
the  great  judge,  the  Pope  of  Rome "  (a  magno  judice 
P.  Rom.),  i.e.,  because  they  were  not  acting  as  his  faithful 
missi. 

The  emperor's  letter  informs  the  Pope  of  the  council  held  Letters 
at  Constantinople,  and  of  the  deposition    of   Ignatius    by  emperor 
virtue  of  its  decree  and  the  consent  of  the  papal  legates.  photius  to 
The  Pope's  assent  to  the  council  is  asked,  and  the  elevation  ^jf01*5' 
of  Photius  defended  by  an  appeal  to  precedent  in  the  cases 
of  S.  Ambrose,  etc.     The  letter4   of   Photius,   necessarily 
long,  as  its  object  was  to  mislead  the  Pope,  is  a  master- 
piece of  sophistical  reasoning   and    special    pleading,    and 
well  worthy  of  the  study  of  a  barrister.     The  writer  begins 

1  "  Qui  hoc  (the  judgment  of  the  legates)  non  red  pit,"  say  the 
supporters  of  the  Saint,  "  nee  apostolos  recipit."  Synod.,  p.  507,  ed. 
Martinucci. 

2  "  Nostis,"  ask  the  papal  legates,  to  whose  question  Ignatius  assents, 
"  quod  omnes  dampnati  potestatem  habent  revocare  causam  suam  in 
conspectu  Papa?,"  etc.     lb.  ' 

3  "  Credite,"  ask  the  apocrisiarii,  "  fratres,  quoniam  S.  patres 
decreverunt  in  Sardicense  concilio,  uthabeat  potestatem  Rom.  Episcopus 
renovare  causam  cujuslibet  episcopi,  propterea  nos  per  auctoritatem 
quam  diximus  ejus  volumus  investigare  negotium.  Theodorus  ep. 
Laodiciae  dixit,  et  ascclesia  nostra  gaudet  in  hoc,  et  nullam  habet 
contradictionem  aut  tristitiam." 

4  Printed  in  Greek  and  French  in  Jager.  The  portion  of  the  Greek 
text  at  the  end  of  the  letter,  which  was  not  known  to  Jager,  has  been 
given  to  the  world  by  Cardinal  Mai,  Nov.  Pat.  Bib.,  iv.  50. 

VOL.   III.  4 


50  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

by  saying  that  he  quite  understands  that  the  first  letter 
which  the  Pope  wrote  to  him  was  the  outcome  of  his  zeal 
for  what  he  supposed  to  be  the  right.  But  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  writer  could  not  help  his  promotion,  and 
that  he  certainly  did  not  desire  it.  On  the  one  hand,  his 
happiness  in  his  former  life,  upon  which  he  enlarges  at 
some  length,  was  great ;  and  on  the  other,  he  was  thoroughly 
alive  to  the  difficult  character  of  the  motley  population  of 
the  imperial  city,  and  how  hard  it  would  be  to  teach  it  the 
lessons  of  virtue.  Still  he  hopes  for  the  Pope's  justice. 
He  had  not  violated  the  canons  1  by  his  promotion,  as  they 
had  not  then  been  received  by  the  Church  of  Constantinople. 
He  does  not,  however,  say  all  this  to  keep  the  See  he 
never  wanted.  But  he  cannot  approve  of  its  being  held  by 
one  (Ignatius)  who  had  taken  possession  of  it  improperly, 
nor  yet  endure  without  a  word  being  driven  from  a  post 
even  more  harshly  than  he  had  been  driven  into  it !  Then, 
to  defend  his  own  elevation  to  the  See,  he  very  cleverly 
undertakes  the  defence  of  other  laymen,  like  Nicephorus 
and  Tarasius,  who  had,  with  great  advantage  to  the  Church, 
been  made  patriarchs  of  Constantinople.  However,  "  to 
show  obedience2  in  all  things  to  your  paternal  charity" 
.  .  .  .  and  "  because  children  must  obey  their  parents  in 
what  is  right  and  holy,"  he  has  consented  to  the  passing 
of  a  canon  (can.  17)  forbidding  any  layman  or  monk  to  be 
consecrated  bishop  without  having  passed  through  all  the 
lower  grades  of  the  ecclesiastical  order.  He  would  have 
established  all  the  rules  laid  down  by  the  Pope  had  it  not 
been  for  the  resistance  of  the  emperor.  After  highly 
praising   the    Pope's    legates,   he    concludes    by    begging 

1  Nicholas  had  appealed  to  the  canons  of  Sardica  and  to  decretals 
of  the  popes. 

'  eV  ica&i  5e  rb  Tii9r)viov  ttj  iraTpiKy  v/ueov  iiriSeiKuvvTes  aydirr]   .  •  .  .      Ael 
yap  irarpdari  TtKva  Zlk<xi6u  tc  ku\  ocriov  irsiOapxtLv"      Kp.  Phot. 


THE   GREAT  5  I 

Nicholas,  "  who  l  holds  the  primacy,"  mindful  of  the  canons, 
not  to  receive  those  who  come  to  Rome  from  Constantinople 
without  letters  of  recommendation.  This  request  was,  of 
course,  made  by  Photius  in  the  hope  of  keeping  Nicholas 
from  finding  out  the  truth  in  his  regard. 

On  the  return  of  his  legates  to  Rome  (862),  Nicholas  The  return 
had  no  difficulty  in  finding  out,  as  well  from  their  words  legates  to 
as  from  the  acts  of  the  council  held  by  Photius,  and  the 
letters  of  the  emperor  and  the  pseudo-patriarch,  that  his 
envoys  had  gone  beyond  their  powers.  In  a  council  of 
the  Roman  clergy,  in  presence  of  the  imperial  ambassador, 
Nicholas  blamed  his  legates  for  their  conduct,  and  declared 
that  he  did  not  consent  either  to  the  deposition  of  Ignatius 
or  to  the  promotion  of  Photius.2 

In  the  spring  (862)  the   envoy    Leo   returned    to    Con-  Further 
stantinople  with   a   letter3   for   the   emperor  and  one  for  the  Pope 
Photius,  both  to  the  same  effect.     Nicholas  plainly  informs  etc. 
Michael    that,   "because,4    without    the    decision    of    our 
apostleship  you  have  retained  Photius  and  have  expelled 
that  most  prudent  man,  the  patriarch   Ignatius,   we   wish 
you  plainly  to  understand  that  we  do   not  at   all    accept 
Photius  nor  condemn  the  patriarch  Ignatius."      Nor  does 
he   fail   to   remind    the   emperor  that  what  he   now   says 
against  Ignatius  is  very  different  to  what  he  was  wont  to 
say  in  his  praise  during  the  course  of  well  nigh  twelve  years 
after  his  election.     The  emperor's  conduct  in  the  affair  "is 
more  than  we  can  bear  with  equanimity,  especially  as  we 
had  ordered  that  the  dispute  between  the  two  should  be 

1  "  Upu)T€V€iv  \axovTa."     lb. 

2  Cf.  Anast.,  in  vit.,  and  the  letters  (12  and  13,  etc.)  of  Nicholas. 

3  Epp.  12  and  13. 

4  Ep.  13,  dated  March  19,  862.  "At  quia  nunc  Photium  retinentes, 
prudentissimum  virum  Ignatium  patriarcham  absque  nostri  apostolatus 
judicio  ejecistis,  nosse  vos  omnimodis  volumus,  nullatenus  nos  Photium 
recipere,  vel  Ignatium  patriarcham  dan-mare." 


52  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

investigated  and  reported  to  us,  but  not  decided."  That 
decision  the  Pope  will  not  give  "  till  the  truth  is  made  clear 
in  our  presence." 

Nicholas  begins  his  letter1  to  Photius,  whom  he  simply 
addresses  as  "  a  most  prudent  man,"  by  establishing  the 
authority  of  his  See  over  the  whole  Church.  "  In  the 
Church,2  Blessed  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and 
janitor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  merited  to  have  the 
primacy,  as  is  known  to  all  the  faithful,  and  has  been 
briefly  shown  above  (by  the  words  of  Our  Lord  :  '  Thou  art 
Peter,'  etc.).  After  him,  his  vicars,  sincere  servers  of  God, 
free  from  the  mists  which  are  wont  to  cause  men  to 
wander  from  the  right  path,  have  received  the  same 
privilege,  and  have  steadily  persevered  in  the  government 
of  the  Lord's  sheep  which  has  been  entrusted  to  them." 
Over  this  Roman  Church,  from  which  "  all  the  faithful  seek 
the  integrity  of  the  faith,"  he  has  been  placed.  Hence 
what  he  decides  "with  full  authority"  must  be  observed, 
and  Photius  has  done  wrong  in  taking  the  patriarchal 
dignity,  inasmuch  as  he  is  a  layman,  and  Ignatius  still 
lives.  Nicholas  then  shows  that  there  were  special  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  uncanonical  elevation  of  S. 
Ambrose  and  the  others  to  whom  Photius  had  appealed. 
With  regard  to  the  assertion  of  Photius  that  the  Church  of 
Constantinople  had  not  recognised  the  Council  of  Sardica 
nor  received  the  decretals,  Nicholas  flatly  declares  that 
"  he  can  scarcely  believe  it."  The  Council  of  Sardica,  he 
says,  was  held  in  your  parts,  and  has  been  received  by  the 
whole  Church.  Why,  then,  should  the  Church  of  Constan- 
tinople reject  it?      Moreover,  how  is  it  that  you  have  not 


1  Ep.  12,  March  18,  862. 

2  "Cujus  (ecclesias)  primatum  (sicut  omnibus  orthodoxis  manifestum 
est  viris,  et  ut  in  superioribus  prasmodicum  declaratum  est)  b.  Petrus 
princeps  App.  et  janitor  regni  caelestis  merito  promeruit."     Ep.  12. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  53 

received  the  decretals  of  the  Roman  Church  "  by  the 
authority1  of  which  all  councils  receive  their  weight" — ■ 
except  that  they  contradict  your  ordination?  If  you  have 
them  not,  you  are  careless  ;  if  you  have  them,  and  do  not 
observe  them,  you  are  blameworthy.  Until  the  fault  of 
Ignatius  is  made  evident  to  us,  we  can  neither  regard  him 
as  deposed,  nor  you  as  even  in  the  sacerdotal  order. 

Not  content  with  these  plain  declarations  of  his  views  Nicholas 
on  the  subject  of  the  existing  phase  of  the  affair  ofaiithe 
Ignatius,  he  explained  2  them  to  those  "  who  govern  the 
Catholic  churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem, 
and  to  all  the  Eastern  metropolitans  and  bishops "  ;  and 
"  by  apostolic  authority "  he  ordered  them  to  take  up 
the  same  attitude  towards  the  respective  rights  of  Ignatius 
and  Photius  as  he  did,  and  to  make  known  his  letter 
throughout  all  their  dioceses.3 

Up  to  this  Nicholas  was  quite  ignorant  both  of  the 
extent  of  the  guilt  of  his  legates  and  of  the  vile  treatment 
which  had  from  the  first  been  meted  out  to  Ignatius.  He 
was  soon  to  learn  of  both. 

After   his    condemnation    by   the    Council    of    Photius,  The  appeal 
Ignatius  was  exposed  to  even  more  shameful4  treatment0    sna 
than  he  had  experienced  before  it,  in  order  to  make  him 
sign  his  abdication.     But  neither  chains,  blows,  nor  tortures 
of  any  kind  could  wring  the  desired  deed  of  renunciation  from 

1  lb.  "  Cujus  (Romanae  ecclesia?)  auctoritate,  atque  sanctione  omnes 
synodi,  et  sancta  concilia  roborentur  et  stabilitatem  sumunt." 

2  Ep.  11. 

3  lb.  "  Et  ut  vos  ....  nobiscum  super  ven.  Ignatii  sacerdotii 
recuperatione,  et  Photii  pervasoris  expulsione  eadem  sentiatis,  apostolica 
auctoritate  vobis  injungimus  atque  jubemus.  Et  ut  hujus  pracsulatus 
nostri  paginam  in  cunctis  parochiis  vestris  ad  omnium  faciatis  notitiam 
pervenire  ....  paterno  more  praecipimus."  It  is  surely  superfluous  to 
point  out  what  position  this  supposes  Nicholas  to  have  held  over  the  East. 

4  Nicetas,  p.  1207  f.,  and  the  assertions  of  Ignatius  at  the  end  of  his 
appeal.' 


54  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

him.  Having  obtained  a  little  respite,  he  at  once  drew  up 
an  appeal  to  the  Pope,  an  appeal  which  was  signed  by  ten 
metropolitans,  fifteen  bishops,  and  a  large  number  of  the 
clergy.  It  was  addressed  "to  our  most  holy  lord  and 
blessed  president  (7rpoeSp(p),  the  patriarch  of  all  the  Sees, 
the  successor  of  the  apostles,  the  oecumenical  Pope 
Nicholas,"  and  to  the  Roman  Church.  In  it  Ignatius  sets 
forth  his  case,  such  as  we  have  seen  it,  and  in  conclusion 
adds  :  "  Do  you,1  most  holy  lord,  show  pity  to  me,  and  with 
the  great  apostle  say,  '  Who  is  weak,  and  I  am  not  weak  ? ' 
(2  Cor.  xi.  29).  Think  of  thy  predecessors  Fabian,  Julius, 
Innocent,  Leo,  and  all  of  those  who  nobly  struggled  for  the 
faith  and  truth.  Emulate  them  and  avenge  me,  who  have 
suffered  such  unworthy  treatment."  This  document  the 
monk  Theognostus 2  managed  in  disguise  to  carry  to  the 
Pope.  He  reached  Rome  probably  towards  the  close  of 
the  year  S62. 
The  Now   in    possession    of    the    full   truth,    Nicholas    was 

council  of     .  -ii 

Nicholas,  indignant  indeed,  and  he  resolved  to  make  his  indignation 
felt.  A  numerous  council  was  promptly  convoked.3  It 
met  first  in  the  Church  of  St.  Peter,  and  then,  on  account4 

1  The  closing  words  of  the  appeal,  Labbe,  viii.  1270.  Those  who  fled 
to  Rome  to  escape  persecution  at  the  hands  of  the  party  of  Photius 
confirmed  the  'appeal'  of  Ignatius.     Ep.  106,  Nich. 

2  Stylian's  letter,  p.  1402. 

3  Anast,  in  vit.,  et  in  Prcefat.  ;  Metrophanes,  etc.  On  this  synod 
and  on  the  earlier  history  of  this  affair,  the  Liber  Synodicus  (ap.  Labbe, 
viii.  652  f.)  may  be  consulted.  On  the  Liber  S.  itself,  see  vol.  i.,  pt.  i.,  p. 
379  n.  of  this  work.  The  acts  of  the  council  are  given  at  most  length 
in  the  letters  of  Nicholas,  Ep.  104,  Ad  clerum  Constant.  ;  and  Ep.  106 
(which  includes  those  numbered  46  and  86,  in  part,  in  P.  L.),  Ad 
universos  Catholicos,  both  belonging  to  the  year  866. 

4  Ep.  106.  Jager,  from  the  words  "  propter  frigidiorem  locum,"  infers 
the  superior  warmth  of  the  Lateran  and  that  the  council  was  being  held 
in  the  winter  ;  I,  however,  think  that,  as  the  words  are  connected  with 
the  Lateran,  the  Lateran  was  the  cooler  place  and  that  summer  had  set 
in.  Cf.  Hare,  Walks  in  Pome,  i.  p.  9.,  ed.  1900,  on  the  coldness  of  the 
Lateran. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  55 

of  the  weather,  in  that  of  the  Lateran.  The  legate  Zachary 
was  at  once  tried  for  his  conduct  at  Constantinople.  When 
convicted  he  was  deprived  of  his  bishopric  and  excom- 
municated. Rodoald,  who  was  then  absent  on  duty  as 
legate  in  the  affair  of  the  divorce  of  King  Lothaire,  and 
who  proved  as  faithless  in  that  charge  as  in  his  former,  was 
recalled  at  the  close  of  this  year,  and  .then  shared  the  same 
well-deserved  fate  as  his  colleague.  Photius  was  declared 
deprived  of  all  sacerdotal  rights,  and  threatened  with 
perpetual  excommunication  if  he  attempted  to  exercise 
them  or  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  Ignatius.  The  same 
sentence  was  decreed  against  Gregory  of  Syracuse,  and 
those  ordained  by  Photius  were  interdicted  from  performing 
any  clerical  duties.  Ignatius,  on  the  other  hand,  and  his 
friends  who  had  suffered  with  him,  were  reinstated  in  the 
honours  of  which  they  had  been  unjustly  deprived.  Any 
cleric  or  layman,  of  whatever  rank  (quisquis  est),  who  may 
venture  to  interfere  with  the  carrying  out  of  the  Pope's 
decrees  is  threatened  with  deposition  or  excommunication. 

To   mitigate   the  effects  of  the  previous  council  of  the  its  effect  in 

the  East 

Pope,  Photius  had  had  recourse  to  forgery.  But  he  gained 
nothing  by  it.  The  favourable  letter  which  professed  to 
have  been  written  by  Nicholas  to  him  was  proved  to  be 
supposititious.1  This  discovery  did  not  naturally  improve 
the  light  in  which  he  was  regarded  by  those  who  had  any 
concern  for  virtue  and  honour.  And  when  word  reached 
Constantinople  of  his  formal  condemnation  by  the  Pope 
and  his  council  of  863,  and  it  was  seen  that  he  took  no 
heed  of  the  condemnation,  people  broke  off  communion 
with  him    "in    crowds,2  being  struck  with  horror  that  he 

1  Nicetas,  p.  12 15. 

2  "  Cujus  (sedis  apost.)  censurae  Photio  minime  parente,  sacratus 
fidelium  catalogus  magis  inflammatur,  et  ab  ejus  se  communione 
catervatim  sequestrat,  horrescens  quod  nee  a  tanta  sede  perculsus 
corrigi  consenberit."     Anast.,  in  Prcefat. 


56  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

would  not  take  correction  even  from  so  great  a  See." 
Photius,  however,  was  not  the  man  to  sit  quiet  while  his 
cause  was  being  attacked.  Resistance,  he  endeavoured  to 
overcome  by  force;  support,  to  purchase  by  any  means.  " No 
profession,1  age,  or  sex  was  left  unpunished  by  him,  if  it  was 
not  in  communion  with  him."  To  catch  the  good-will  of 
the  learned,  he  conducted  a  school  in  his  palace,  and  spared 
neither  his  money  nor  his  talents  to  gain  partisans.  With 
the  same  end,  he  scattered  broadcast  the  most  delicate 
attentions  which  his  naturally  most  charming  address 
enabled  him  to  pay  so  attractively.  No  man  ever  under- 
stood better  than  Photius  that  "  every  man  has  his  price." 
He  even  pandered  to  the  lower  orders,  and  induced  curriers, 
needle-makers,  and  the  like,  to  sign  various  documents 
suitable  for  his  purposes — documents  which  were  collected 
and  burnt  at  the  eighth  General  Council.2  But  especially 
did  he  strive  to  gain  over  the  monks,  who,  headed  by  the 
Studites,  had  been  the  great  allies  of  the  popes  in  the 
iconoclast  troubles,  and  now  almost  to  a  man  opposed  him 
resolutely.  He  had  already  affected  a  great  zeal  for  their 
reform,  and  had  passed  various  canons  affecting  them  in 
his  council  of  86 1.  But  they  were  so  framed  that  they 
could  be  made  to  serve  his  own  ends.  When  they  could 
not,  he  did  not  scruple  to  contravene  his  own  handiwork.3 
Though,  as  we  shall  see,  his  herculean  labours  finally 
availed  him  nothing,  they  bore  a  lasting  bad  fruit.  He 
had  sowed  so  many  seeds  of  distrust  of  Rome  that  a 
thousand  years  has  not  sufficed  to  uproot  them.4 
Concurrent      All  this   while  Nicholas  was  harassed  in  the  West   as 

nii'iirs  of" 

the  West,    well  as  in  the  East.     Hincmar  of  Rheims  was  showing  him- 
self anything  but  docile  with  regard  to  the  appeal  of  Rothad 

1  lb.  2  Cf.  eighth  session,  at  the  beginning. 

3  This  Paparrigopoulo  has  quite  failed  to  realise,  p.  243. 

4  Cf.  Marin,  Les  moines,  pp.  157-60,  and  L.  iii.  c.  3. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  57 

of  Soissons  against  him,  and  Lothaire  of  Lorraine  was 
struggling  to  divorce  his  lawful  wife,  and  was  being 
supported  in  his  struggle  by  the  powerful  archbishops  of 
Trier  and  Cologne.  The  two  latter,  viz.,  Gunther  and 
Theutgard,  in  their  violent  opposition  to  the  Pope, 
endeavourd  to  make  matters  unbearable  for  him  by  trying 
to  bring  about  an  understanding  with  Photius.1  He,  how- 
ever, when  he  received  this  invitation,  was  either  not  ready 
to  act,  or  had  not  made  up  his  mind  to  try  all  extremities. 
Probably  the  former  alternative  contains  the  true  explana- 
tion of  the  lull  in  the  course  of  his  violent  actions. 

Convinced  at  length  that  he  could  not  bend  to  his  will  Photius 
either  Nicholas  or  Ignatius,  and  that  the  time  had  come,  break  with 
Photius  decided  to  break  awray  definitely  from  both.  By 
making  the  fullest  use  of  his  personal  influence  and  his 
power  at  court,  he  had  rendered  the  number  of  his  creatures 
in  places  of  position  and  trust  very  considerable.  He 
made  a  "  beginning  of  the  end  "  by  writing,  through  the 
emperor  Michael,  a  letter  (865)  to  the  Pope  full  of  abuse. 

The  very  lengthy  reply  of  Nicholas  to  this  letter,  now  lost,  Corre- 
will   give  a  sufficiently  clear  idea  of  its  contents.     When  between°e 
the  letter  arrived,  the  Pope  was  very  ill,2  but  by  a  great  ana  t^e 
effort  he  contrived  to  pen  an  answer  for  the  imperial  envoy  S^JJJ 
to   take    back    to    his    master,    an    answer    "  which   has 865, 
remained   an    invaluable   source    of    Canon    Law,    which 
historians  of  all  countries  have  praised  for  its  dignity  and 
prudence,  and  which  some  regard  as  the  grandest  and  most 

1  Jager,  p.  III.  At  least  it  is  supposed  that  the  passage  in  the 
encyclical  of  Photius  against  the  Pope  and  the  West  (to  be  spoken  of 
presently,  and  which  is  the  second  letter  of  Photius  in  the  London  ed. 
of  165 1 ),  in  which  he  states  that  he  has  received  a  letter  from  Italy 
calling  on  him  for  succour  against  the  tyrannical  authority  of  the  Pope, 
refers  to  the  manifesto  of  the  two  archbishops  against  him.  See  on 
p.  65. 

2  "iEgritudine  nimia  pressi."     Ep.  86  (Migne,  pp.  926-962). 


58  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

elevated  document  which  has  been  written  up  to  this  clay 
on  the  privileges  of  the  Church."1 

As  the  letter  purported  to  come  from  the  emperor,  to  him 
Nicholas  addressed  his  reply,  though  he  declares  more  than 
once  that  he  does  not  believe  that  Michael  is  the  author 
of  it.  To  the  personal  abuse  of  himself,  with  which  the 
emperor's  letter  began,  Nicholas  commences  his  reply  by 
asserting  that  he  will  only  oppose  prayers  that  Our  Lord  will 
teach  him  what  is  in  accordance  with  truth  and  increase 
his  power.  He  reminds  the  emperor  that  as  Christ  Our 
Lord  commanded  the  Jews  to  harken  to  the  scribes  because 
they  sat  in  the  chair  of  Moses,  he  ought  still  more  to  give 
heed  to  him  as  he  was  sitting  in  the  chair  of  Peter,  and 
ought  not  to  consider  the  person  of  the  Pope,  but  his 
doctrine. 

"  But  as  to  what  you  have  written  which  tends  to 
the  injury  (not  of  me  but)  of  the  Roman  Church,  to  the 
diminution  of  its  privileges  and  to  the  lowering  of  its 
bishops,  that  we  shall  rebut  with  all  our  power,  and, 
undeterred  by  any  threats2  or  calumnies,  that  we  shall 
strive  to  our  very  utmost  to  refute  as  opposed  to  truth." 

In  answer  to  the  claim  that  the  emperor  made,  that  he 
had  done  great  honour  to  the  Pope  in  writing  to  him, — a 
thing  which  his  predecessors  had  not  condescended  to  do 
since  the  sixth  General  Council — Nicholas  pointed  out  that 
that  was  the  emperor's  loss.  They  had  been  in  the  midst 
of  heresy,  and  had  not  come  to  the  Apostolic  See  for  the 
remedy  against  it.  They  had  not  written  to  Rome, 
because  for  the  most  part  they  had  been  heretics.     How- 

1  Roy,  p.  1 8. 

2  Later  on  in  the  course  of  this  letter,  the  nobility  of  which  is  only 
equalled  by  its  length,  Nicholas  again  returns  to  the  emperor's  threats, 
and  derisively  asks  what  the  emperor  can  do  to  a  man  more  than  a 
"poisonous  fungus  can."  "O  imperator  in  hoccine  redacta  est  malitia 
hominis  in  iniquitate  potentis,  ut  fungo  malo  comparetur."    lb. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  59 

ever,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  those  who  were  not  heretics,  such 
as  Constantine  and  Irene,  had  sought  the  help  of  the  popes. 
Unlike  your  predecessors,  Honorius,  Valentinian,  Marcian, 
Justinian,  Constantine,  and  Irene,  who  were  content  to  ask 
and  petition  the  Roman  See,  you  must  give  it  your  orders, 
"as  though  you  were  the  heir  not  of  their  clemency  and 
respect,  but  merely  of  their  imperial  power." 

That  the  emperor  should  abuse  the  Latin  language  was 
certainly  extraordinary,  seeing  that  he  called  himself 
"emperor  of  the  Romans,"  whose  language  was  Latin. 

Nicholas  again  declares  at  length  that  Ignatius  has  been 
wrongly  condemned,  and  in  a  way  utterly  opposed  to  the 
canons,  and  even  to  the  civil  laws  of  Justinian,  and  warns  the 
emperor  not  to  attack  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  See  over 
all  the  other  churches,1  lest  they  should  fall  upon  him. 
11  These  privileges,  by  the  words  of  Christ,  founded  on 
Blessed  Peter,  ever  reverenced  in  the  Church,  cannot  be 
lessened  or  changed  ;  for  human  efforts  cannot  move  the 
foundation  which  God  has  laid.  .  .  .  The  privileges  of  this 
See  existed  before  your  empire,  they  will  remain  after  you,2 
and  they  will  remain  inviolate  as  long  as  Christianity  shall 
be  preached.  These  privileges  were  given  to  this  Holy  See 
by  Christ,  not  by  councils  ;  by  councils  they  have  only 
been  proclaimed  and  reverenced.  .  .  .  Neither  the  Council 
of  Nice  nor  any  other  council  conferred  any  privileges  on 
the  Roman  Church,  which  knew  that  in  Peter  it  had  merited 
to  the  full  the  rights  of  complete  power,  had  received  the 
government  of  all  the  sheep  of  Christ.3     This  is  what  the 

1  "  Si  ...  .  contra  privilegia  Ecc.  Rom.  nisus  vestros  erigitis,  cavete 
ne  super  vos  convertantur."    lb. 

2  To-day  they  have  remained  some  four  centuries  and  a  half  after 
the  final  destruction  of  the  whole  Eastern  empire. 

3  We  shall  surely  be  pardoned  for  giving  this  magnificent  extract 
(as  pointed  to-day,  a  thousand  years  after  it  was  penned,  as  it  was  then) 
at   some   length.     "Ecclesiie    R.   privilegia,    Christi   ore   in   b.    Petro 


60  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

blessed  bishop  Boniface  (I.)  attests1  when  writing  to  all  the 
bishops  of  Thessaly  :  '  The  universal  institution  of  the 
new-born  church  had  its  source  in  the  honour  accorded 
to  Blessed  Peter,  who  received  its  direction  and  the 
sovereign  power. ' " 

He  could  not  think  of  yielding  up  to  the  emperor  those 
who  had  fled  to  Rome  from  the  East.  Even  barbarians 
would  not  be  so  false  to  the  laws  of  hospitality.  Besides, 
he  has  the  right  to  summon  to  Rome  "  not  only  monks,2 
but  any  cleric  whatsover  from  any  diocese,"  whenever  there 
was  any  need  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  Moreover,  they 
have  not  told  him  anything  which  he  did  not  know  from 
1  countless  persons '  who  have  come  to  Rome  from  Alex- 
andria, Jerusalem,  Constantinople  and  its  neighbourhood, 
from  Mount  Olympus  and  other  parts,  and,  indeed,  from 
the  emperor's  own  envoys  and  letters. 

Instead  of  threatening  Christians  with  the  might  of  his 
arms,  he  should  rather  turn  them  against  the  Saracens  for 
the  recovery  of  Sicily  and  the  other  provinces  they  had 
seized. 

However,  to  prevent  things  going  from  bad  to  worse,  he 
will  consent — "  by  an  indulgence  and  not  as  furnishing  a 
precedent  for  the  future  " — that  the  '  cause '  of  Ignatius  and 

firmata,  in  Ecclesia  ipsa  disposita,  antiquitus  observata,  et  a  Sanctis 
univcrsalibus  synodis  celebrata,  atque  a  cuncta  ecclesia  jugiter  venerata, 
nullatenus  possint  minui,  ....  quoniam  fundamentum  quod  Deus 
posuit,  humanus  non  valet  amovere  conatus.  .  .  .  Privilegia  istius 
sedis  vel  ecclesiae  perpetua  sunt.  .  .  .  Quae  ante  imperium  vestrum 
fuerunt,  et  permanent,  Deo  gratias,  hactenus  illibata,  manebuntque 
post  vos,  et  quousque  Christianum  nomen  praedicatum  fuerit,  ilia 
subsistere  non  cessabunt  immutilata.  Ista  privilegia  huic  S.  Ecclesice 
a  Christo  donata,  a  synodis  non  donala,  sed  jam  solummodo  celebrata 
et  veneranda."     /&.,  Ep.  86. 

1  Cf.  Jarre,  364,  5  047,  8). 

2  "  Potest'atem  et  jus  habe(a)mus,  non  solum  monachos,  verum  etiam 
quoslibet  clericos  de  quacunque  dicecesi,  cum  necesse  fuerit  ad  nos 
convocare."    lb. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  6l 

Photius  should  be  re-opencd  at  Rome.  They  were  to  come 
to  Rome  in  person  or  by  their  deputies.  Those  who  were 
to  represent  Ignatius  were  specially  mentioned  by  the 
Pope,  that  he  might  be  sure  of  having  his  case  fully  and 
truthfully  stated.  He  wishes  the  authentic  acts  of  the  ■ 
proceedings  against  Ignatius  to  be  sent  to  him.  What  has 
moved  him  against  the  party  of  Gregory  of  Syracuse  is  no 
personal  enmity,  but  "  zeal  for  God's  house  and  for  the 
traditions  of  our  ancestors,  ecclesiastical  order,  ancient 
custom,  and  our  solicitude  for  all  the  churches  of  God,  as 
well  as  the  privileges  of  our  See,  which,  received  by  Blessed 
Peter  from  God,  and  handed  on  to  the  Roman  Church,  are 
acknowledged  and  venerated  by  the  Universal  Church." 
He  would  have  Michael  remember  how  execrated  is  the 
memory  of  Nero,  of  Diocletian,  and  the  other  persecutors 
of  the  Church,  and  how  glorious  the  honour  in  which  are 
held  Constantine  the  Great,  Theodosius  the  Great,  and  the 
others.  Remember,  he  continues,  how  the  latter  respected 
the  Apostolic  See,  the  privileges  they  bestowed  upon  it, 
and  the  gifts  with  which  they  enriched  it.  Remember  how 
they  issued  decrees  that  its  faith  had  to  be  followed.  But 
while  they  assembled  councils,  they  did  not  dictate  to 
them. 

In  conclusion  he  exhorts  the  emperor  not  to  interfere 
in  ecclesiastical  concerns.  For  "  every  earthly  ruler  must 
keep  himself  as  free  from  interfering  in  sacred  matters  as 
every  soldier  of  Christ  from  temporal  business.  .  .  .  For 
as  Theodosius  the  Younger  wrote  to  the  Fathers  of  the 
Council  of  Ephesus.  ...  It  is  not  right  for  one  who  is 
not  a  bishop  to  meddle  in  ecclesiastical  affairs."  It  was 
for  the  emperor  to  learn  from  the  Pope  the  way  of 
salvation  ;  for  the  Pope  to  receive  support  from  the 
emperor.  Whoever  tampers  in  any  way  with  the  Pope's 
letter  is  excommunicated. 


62  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

Murder  of       Though  this  weighty  appeal  produced  no  effect,  it  might 
866.  have  been  supposed  that  the  death  of  Bardas  (April  29,  866), 

who  was  slain  by  the  orders  of  Michael,  now  suspicious  of 
his  former  favourite,  would  have  made  the  course  of  the 
Pope's  policy  towards  Photius  easier.  It,  however,  had  no 
such  effect.  Michael  associated  with  himself  in  the  empire 
(May  26,  866)  Basil  the  Macedonian,  who  had  formerly 
been  his  groom.  The  new  Cesar  was  anointed  by  Photius 
(Pentecost,  866). 
Nine  fresh  Finding  that  the  letter,  the  contents  of  which  have  just 
the  East,  been  cited,  produced  no  effect,  Nicholas  made  another 
effort,  in  the  course  of  the  same  year,  to  put  an  end  to  the 
sorry  state  of  affairs  in  the  Church  of  Constantinople. 
Legates,  whom  he  had  received  from  the  Bulgarians  on  the 
subject  of  the  conversion  of  their  people  to  Christianity  (of 
which  we  shall  treat  later),  were  returning  to  their  own 
country.  To  them  Nicholas  joined  envoys1  of  his  own, 
whom  he  furnished  with  no  less  than  nine 2  letters  for 
different  personages  in  the  East,  and  all  dated  November 
13,  866.  In  the  letter  to  the  emperor,  Nicholas  repeats  the 
history  of  Photius's  affair,  showing  in  detail  how  his  first 
letter  to  Michael  had  been  falsified.  "  You  say,3  O 
Emperor,  that  even  without  our  consent  Photius  will  keep 
his  church,  and  will  remain  in  communion  with  the  Church, 
and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  Ignatius  will  not  be  in  the 
least  benefited  by  us.  .  .  .  But  we  believe  that  a 
member  which  cleaves  to  parts   that   adhere   not   to   the 

1  Donatus,  bishop  of  Ostia;  Leo,  a  priest;  and  Marinus,  a  deacon,  and 
afterwards  Pope.  Cf.  the  first  and  last  of  the  nine  letters  mentioned 
in  the  text,  viz.,  98  and  106,  ap.  Migne,  and  the  L.  P.,  n.  lxx. 

2  Epp.  98,  99,  100-106,  ap.  Migne,  addressed  respectively  to  Michael, 
Photius,  Bardas  (with  whose  death  months  before  Nicholas  was 
unacquainted),  Ignatius,  the  empress  mother  Theodora  ;  Eudoxia,  the 
wife  of  Michael,  the  clergy  of  Constantinople,  the  senators  of 
Constantinople,  and  to  the  patriarchs  and  bishops  of  the  Eastern  world. 

8  Ep.  98. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  63 

head,  will  not  long  remain  in  sound  condition."  And,  full 
of  faith,  he  goes  on  to  say  that  he  thinks  nothing  of  delay 
that  may  take  place  in  the  fulfilling  of  the  punishments 
decreed  by  the  Apostolic  See.  "  It  is  his  indeed  to  run 
(Rom.  ix.  16),  but  it  rests  with  God  when  it  shall  please 
Him  to  bring  matters  to  an  issue.  .  .  .  Those  who  have 
been  once  struck  by  the  prelates  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
are  to  this  very  day  so  bound  by  their  sentence  that 
while,  in  many  instances,  the  darts  of  judgment  launched 
against  them  have  not  immediately  wounded  such  of 
them  as  have  been  shielded  by  princes,  they  have  in 
others,  however,  penetrated  to  the  marrow  of  the  bone, 
and  have  rendered  some  hateful  to  all,  even  after  death." 
Instead  of  quoting  the  examples  which  Nicholas  brings 
forward  to  exemplify  the  truth  of  his  assertions,  we 
will  content  ourselves  with  noting — what  Nicholas  himself 
did  not  live  to  see — that  Ignatius  died  in  possession  of  his 
See,  and  that,  on  the  contrary,  Photius  died  in  exile,  and 
Michael  himself  was  murdered  by  Basil  the  Macedonian. 
He  begs  the  emperor  to  reinstate  Ignatius,  and  to  cause  the 
opprobrious  letter 1  he  wrote  to  him  the  year  before  to  be 
burnt.  Otherwise  it  and  the  other  similar  letters  will  have 
to  be  burnt  in  presence  of  a  synod  of  all  the  Western 
provinces,  an  extremity  to  which  Nicholas  trusts  the 
emperor  will  not  drive  him.  In  conclusion  he  is  exhorted 
by  all  that  is  sacred,  by  the  terrors  of  the  last  judgment,  to 
do  what  is  right  by  taking  the  proper  steps  for  restoring 
Ignatius  to  his  See. 

In  the  other  letters  Photius  is  threatened  with  ex- 
communication to  the  hour  of  his  death  ;  Ignatius  and 
Theodora  are  consoled  ;  Bardas  (of  whose  death  the  Pope 

1  lb.,  the  letter  written  "  per  indictionem  tertiam  deciman "  {i.e. 
towards  the  end  of  865),  and  written  with  a  pen  that  had  been  dipped 
'in  snake's  poison.' 


64  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

was  ignorant),  Eudoxia,  and  the  senators  of  Constantinople, 
exhorted  to  take  the  part  of  Ignatius,  and  the  clergy  of 
Constantinople  and  all  "  the  patriarchs,  metropolitans  and 
other  bishops,  along  with  all  the  faithful  throughout  Asia 
and  Libya,  who  with  us  defend  the  true  doctrine,"  are  fully 
informed  of  all  that  has  been  done  in  the  affair  of  Photius. 
The  envoys      But  when  the  papal  legates,  to  whom  these  letters  had 

of  the  Pope  . 

cannot  been  entrusted,  reached  the  frontiers  of  the  empire  on  the 
stantinopie.  side  of  Bulgaria,  they  were  met  by  an  imperial  official  who 
insisted  upon  their  signing  a  declaration  of  faith  in  which 
many  so-called  'errors'  of  the  Latins  were  set  forth.  On 
their  refusing  to  comply,  they  were  not  only  not  allowed 
to  proceed  towards  Constantinople,  but  were  driven  away 
with  taunts  and  insults,  the  emperor  himself  even  going  so 
far  as  to  declare  that,  if  they  had  not  come  through 
Bulgaria,  they  should  never,  as  long  as  they  lived,  have 
seen  either  him  or  Rome.1 
Encyclical  Furious  because  the  Bulgarians  had  turned  away  from 
him  and  the  Greeks,  and  had  sent  to  Pope  Nicholas  for 
further  instruction  in  the  truths  of  Christianity,  Photius 
sent  a  letter  to  the  Bulgarian  king  full  of  charges,  most  of 
them  trivial,  against  the  Latins.  This  letter  the  king  gave2 
to  the  papal  envoys,  and  with  it  they  returned  to  Rome. 
The  pseudo-patriarch  did  not  stop  there.  He  raised  the 
standard  of  rebellion  against  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope. 
He  would  confine  the  papal  authority  to  the  West,  and 
himself  be  Pope  in  the  East.  He  opened  the  campaign  by 
an  encyclical  letter3  which  he  sent  to  the  Oriental  bishops, 

1  The  account  of  this  in  Anast,  in  vit.  Nick.,  n.  lxxi.  f.,  is  cor- 
roborated by  the  notice  of  all  this  affair  which  we  shall  soon  see 
Nicholas  sending  to  Hincmar  (867) — Ep.  152,  ap.  Migne. 

2  /#.,  Ep.  152.  "  Quam  (epistolam  imperatorum)  ille  accipiens  nobis 
per  legatos  nostros  deferri  devota  mente  decrevit."  The  letter  pur- 
ported to  come  from  the  emperors  Michael  and  Basil. 

3  The  second  letter  of  the  first  London  ed.,  or  ap.  P.  G.,  t.  cii.  p.  722  f. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,  THE  GREAT  65 

and  in  which  he  denounced  the  'errors'  of  the  Latins  and 
their  usurpations  in  Bulgaria.     The  letter  begins  :  "  Photius, 
by  the  mercy  of  God,  archbishop  of  Constantinople,  the 
New  Rome,  and  oecumenical  patriarch."     After  telling  of 
the   conversion   of  the   Bulgarians,  he   says    that  his  joy 
thereat    is   turned  into   tears.     '  Wild   beasts '   have   come 
from    the    West    and    ravaged    the    Lord's    vineyard    in 
Bulgaria,  teaching  their  errors  therein.     They  have  taught 
the  Bulgarians  to  fast  on  Saturdays,  and  to  drink  milk  and 
eat  cheese,  etc.,  during  the  first  week  of  Lent,  which  holy 
season  they  thus  abridge.     They  profess  to  look  down  on 
married  priests;  and  have  even    'reconfirmed'   those   who 
have  been  anointed  with  the  chrism  by  our  priests,  on  the 
plea  that  to  confirm  belonged  to  bishops.     What  is  worse, 
they  have  perverted  the  Creed,  have  added  to  it  the  words 
'  Filioque,'  and  thus  introduced  '  two  principles'  or  causes 
into  the  Trinity.     Instead  of  saying  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
comes   "  from  the  Father  alone,"  they  make  out  that  the 
"  Father  is  the  cause  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit,  and  that  the 
cause  of  the  Spirit  is  the  Son."1     In  conclusion,  he  informs 
the  Oriental  bishops  that  a  letter  (that  of  Gunther),  full  of 
complaints  against  Nicholas,  has  reached  him  from  the  West. 
He  sends  them  a  copy  of  this  letter,  and  calls  on  them  to 
meet  in  synod  to  legislate  on  what  he  has  laid  before  them. 
In  August  867  Photius  held  a  synod  in  the  presence  of  Mock 

synod  of 
Constanti- 
In  his  letter  to  the  Bulgarians,  in  which  Photius  complains  of  their  nople,  867. 
having  turned  to  the  Latins,  he  trumped  up  further  accusations  against 
them,  viz.,  that  they  made  the  chrism  for  confirmation  out  of  river- 
water  ;  that  at  Easter,  like  the  Jews,  they  offered  up  in  sacrifice  a  lamb, 
in  addition  to  the  Lord's  Body  ;    that  their  clergy  shaved  ;   and  that 
deacons  were  sometimes  made  bishops  before  they  had  been  ordained 
priests.     Finally,  he  asserted  that  with  the  kingly  power  the  privileges 
of  the  Church  of  Old  Rome  were  transferred  to  New  Rome—"  cum 
dignitatibus  regiis  etiam  ecclesise  Romanic  privilegia  translata  fuisse." 
This  we  learn  from  the  letter  of  Nicholas,  on  the  doings  of  Photius,  to 
Hincmar.     Ep.  152,  P.  L.,  p.  n  52. 

VOL.   III.  5 


66  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

the  emperor  Michael,  and  excommunicated  Nicholas.     The 
acts  of  this  synod,  the  signatures  to  it  especially,  were  so 
falsified  by  Photius,  that  some  moderns,  e.g.  Jager,  think 
that  no  synod  was  held  at  all.     However,  a  synod  of  a  sort 
does   really  seem    to    have    been   held ;  but,  according  to 
Anastasius,1  out  of  the  thousand  signatures  affixed  to  its 
acts,   only    twenty-one    were    genuine,    as    most    of    the 
assembly  protested   that  it  was  not  right  for   any  one  to 
pass   sentence   on   the   supreme   pontiff    {in   summum    et 
primum   pontificem),   much    less    for    an    inferior.     Under 
Pope  Hadrian  II.,2  the  envoy  of  the  emperor  Basil  declared 
at  Rome  that  the  signature  of  Michael  had  been  obtained 
when  he  was  drunk,  and  that  the  great  mass  of  the  sub- 
scriptions were  forgeries. 
Forged  acts      To  effect  his  further  ends,  Photius  caused  Louis  II.  and 
emperor      his  wife    Ingelberga   to   be  acclaimed  with  the   imperial 3 
andhis  '     title — whereas  but  seldom  was  this  title  ever  conceded  in 
Wlfe*  the  East  to  the  Western  emperors.     The  acts  of  his  synod 

were  then  sent  to  them  ;  and  by  flattery  and  rich  presents 
he  endeavoured  to  induce  Ingelberga  to  move  her  husband 
to  drive  Nicholas  from  Rome.* 

1  Prtzfat.  in  synod.  VIII.  Anast.  {ib.)  expressly  says,  "  Conciliabulum, 
pnesidente  Michaele,  colligit.  .  .  .  Mendacem  codicem  compilat." 
Cf.  Nicetas  (Labbe,  p.  1223).  Metrophanes  {ib.,  p.  1387)  says,  "  cecu- 
menicam  synodum  confinxit  (  Aace)  ....  confictis  omnium  sub- 
scriptionibus." 

2  Cf.  his  life,  ap.  L.  P.  When  Photius  was  disgraced  by  the  emperor 
Basil,  and  his  papers  were  seized,  along  with  a  copy  of  the  above- 
mentioned  conciliabule  against  Nicholas,  a  copy  of  the  acts  of  a  pre- 
tended synod  against  Ignatius  was  also  discovered,  which  shows  that 
the  pseudo-patriarch  did  not  stop  at  any  forgery.  Cf.  Nicetas,  p.  1226  f. 
Among  the  documents  burnt  in  the  eighth  session  of  the  eighth  General 
Council  were  "  libri  qui  ficte  conscripti  sunt  contra  S.  Nicolaum,  et 
gestorum  relationes,  ac  synodos  quae  contra  S.  Ignatium  facta?  sunt  a 
Photio"  (Labbe,  p.  1101). 

3  Metroph.  :  "  Imperatorem  Ludovicum  et  Ingelbergam  in  conficta 
synodo  acclamavit  Augustam."    L.  c. 

4  Ib. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT  67 

But  the  envoys  of  Photius  never  reached  Italy.     For  the  Fall  of 

,  ,  r  -i  t^i  Photius, 

time  their  masters  power  for  evil  was  over.  The  emperor  867. 
Basil,  seeing  "  that  it  is  my  life  or  yours,"  caused  Michael 
to  be  murdered  (September  24,  867),  sent  Photius  into 
exile,1  and  recalled  his  envoys.  Ignatius  was  reinstated 
(November  26),  and  word  of  these  events  at  once  sent 
to  Rome.  And  though  Nicholas,  to  whom  much  of  this 
news  must  have  been  most  welcome,  had  died  (November 
13,  867)  before  the  emperor's  messenger  reached  him,  he 
seems  before  his  end  to  have  become  acquainted  with  some 
of  it  by  more  or  less  well-founded  reports.2 

He  had  not,  however,  been  inactive  after  the  receipt  of  Nicholas 
the  letter  which  Photius  had  sent  to  the  Bulgarians.  He  westUp 
resolved  that  the  voice  of  the  West  should  make  itself  photius. 
heard  in  proclaiming  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
especially  on  the  "  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Accord- 
ingly he  wrote  (October  23,  867)  a  long  letter,  setting  forth 
the  conduct  of  Photius,  to  Hincmar,  with  whom  he  had 
had  many  a  passage  of  arms,  but  whom  he  could  not  fail 
to  admire  for  his  energy,  courage,  and  learning.  He  points 
out  that  in  their  attack  against  the  'stainless'3  Roman 
Church,  the  Greeks  are  attacking  the  whole  West,  and, 
after  enumerating  the  charges  brought  by  Photius  against 
"that  part  where  the  Latin  tongue  is  used,"  he  exhorts 
Hincmar  and  the  other  metropolitans  to  call  together  their 
suffragans,  to  deliberate  over  the  best  answer  to  be  made 
against  the  detractions  of  the  Greeks,  and  to  let  him  know 
the  result  of  their  deliberations  at  once.  "  There  is  nothing 
so  much  feared  by  our  enemies,  whether  visible  or  invisible, 
as  concord.  .  .  .  Let  us  march  against  our  common  foes 
like  an  army  in  battle  array."     The  (  animus '  of  the  Greek 

1  L.  P.,  etc.  2  "  Sicut  fama  se  habuit."     L.  P.,  n.  Ixxvi. 

3  Ep.    152.     "  Romana  ecclesia  non  habente  maculam,  aut  rugam, 
aut  aliquid  htijusmodi." 


68  ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT 

rulers  and  their  satellites,  he  continues,  may  be  seen  in  this, 
that  what  they  allege  against  us  is  either  false,  or  has  been 
acknowledged  to  be  our  right,  not  only  by  the  West,  "  but 
even *  by  the  great  doctors  of  the  Church  who  once  flourished 
among  them  (the  Greeks)."  He  asks  them  to  consider 
whether  these  attacks  on  the  Roman  Church  are  to  be 
tolerated.  "  Never  has  there  been  any  Church,  let  alone 
that  of  Constantinople,  which  was  instituted  long  after  (the 
other  great  Sees),  the  teaching  or  authority  of  which  the 
Roman  Church  has  ever  followed.  On  the  contrary,  the 
Roman  Church  has  rather  instituted  the  other  churches. 
.  .  .  That  we  are2  sinners  indeed  we  deny  not,  but  that 
we  have  ever  been  stained  with  the  slighest  error,  we  can- 
not in  the  least  allow ;  whereas  they  (the  Greeks)  are 
never  free  from  schism  or  error." 
Works  This    dignified    letter,   which    we   could    wish   to    have 

Greeks.  &  cited  in  its  entirety,  was  written3  by  Nicholas  when 
he  was  "  sick  unto  death."  But  it  produced  its  effect. 
Hincmar  acted4  with  his  accustomed  promptness,  and 
works  against  the  errors  and  calumnies  of  the  Greeks  came 
from  the  pens  of  Odo  of  Beauvais,  JEnea.s  of  Paris,  and 
Ratram,  a  monk  of  Corbie. 

^Eneas  carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  country,  and  in 
the  Preface  5  to  his  work  made  a  vigorous  use  of  the  argu- 

1  lb.    "  Et  cum  floruerint  etiam  apud  ipsos  magni  doctores  Ecclesias." 

2  This  passage  is  deserving  of  the  careful  consideration  of  those  who 
profess  to  believe  that  Catholics  teach  that  the  popes  are  '  impeccable,' 
instead  of  being  under  certain  circumstances  '  infallible.'  "  Nam  licet 
nos  peccatores  quidem  esse  non  denegemus,  quorumlibet  tamen  errorum 
faece  pollutos,  Deo  gratias,  minime  recognoscimus."  lb.  Nicholas 
also  wrote  to  the  bishops  of  Germany  on  this  subject.  Cf.  Annal. 
Fuld.,  ad  an.  868. 

3  Antral.  Hinc,  ad  an.  867. 

4  Cf.  Flodoard,  Hist.  Rem.,  iii.  1  ;  Ep.  Hinc.  No.  14,  ap.  P.  Z.,t.  126. 
6  Ap.  M.  G.  Epp.y  vi.  171  fif.     Among  the  points  raised  by  the  Greeks 

to  condemn  the  Latins,  he  mentions  the  shaving  of  their  beards  by  the 
Western  clergy,  the  making  of  the  chrism  from  river  water  (!),  etc. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT  69 

mentum  ad  hominem.  After  quoting  numerous  examples 
to  prove  his  point,  he  urged  :  'A  It  is  a  most  lamentable 
truth  that  that  very  See  which  is  now  attempting  to  raise 
its  head  to  the  skies  has,  in  place  of  bishops  of  the  true 
faith,  had  heretical  rulers  stained  with  false  doctrine.  But 
by  the  guidance  of  God  such  a  disgrace  has  never  befallen 
the  Roman  See  that  an  heresiarch  should  sit  in  the  place 
which  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  has  adorned  by  his 
presence  and  consecrated  by  his  blood,  and  to  which  with 
special  care  the  Son  of  God  has  entrusted  His  sheep  to  be 
ruled.  For  to  it  was  it  said,  "  Thou  art  Peter  and  upon  this 
rock  will  I  build  my  church,  etc.  (S.  Matt.  xvi.  18).  Can 
He  not  strengthen  the  faith  of  the  one  to  whom  by  His 
own  authority  He  gave  His  kingdom  ? — the  one  whom,  in 
saluting  as  a  rock,  He  marked  out  as  the  foundation  of  His 
Church." 

In  the  body  of  his  work  1  he  replies  in  detail  to  the 
objections  raised  by  Photius  against  the  Latins,  which  he 
stigmatises  justly  for  the  most  part,  as  trifling  or  altogether 
inane. 

But  the  most  important  production  on  this  matter  was 
that  of  Ratram,2  who  opens  his  treatise  (i.  c.  2)  by  express- 
ing his  disapproval  of  secular  princes  mixing  themselves 
up  in  religious  matters,  asking  them  why  they  now  object 
to  what  their  predecessors  have  always  respected,  and 
reminding  them  that  there  are  no  new  doctrines  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  that  its  doctrine  and  discipline  are 
those  which  have  been  handed  down  to  it  by  the  ancients, 
who  had  in  turn  received  them  from  the  apostles. 

Here  we  may  conveniently,  for  the  present,  part  com- 
pany with  Photius,  and  turn  our  attention  to  that  im- 
portant affair  in  the  West — the  divorce  of  King  Lothaire 

1  Ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  121. 

2  He  wrote  in  four  books,  Contra  Cra-cos,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  121. 


JO  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

— out  of  which  Photius  endeavoured  to  make  capital  for 
himself. 
Lothaire         In  856  Lothaire,  king  of  Lorraine,  married  Theutberga, 

wishes  to 

repudiate  the  daughter  of  Boso,  count  of  Burgundy,  and  sister  of 
that  disorderly  cleric  Hubert,  of  whom  we  have  already 
written.  But  the  young  licentious  monarch  soon  wearied 
of  her,  and  wished  to  marry  Waldrada,  with  whom  he  had 
long  had  illicit  intercourse.  To  cover  his  design  with  some 
show  of  love  of  justice,  he  called  together,  in  858  or  859, 
the  bishops  and  nobles  of  his  kingdom,  and  accused  his 
wife  of  incest  with  her  brother  before  her  marriage.  The 
queen  indignantly  denied  the  crime.  Her  champion 
went  through  the  ordeal  of  '  boiling  water '  with  success, 
and  she  was  declared  innocent.1  Lothaire,  however,  now 
began  to  ill-treat  the  unfortunate  woman.2  When  her 
spirit  had  been  sufficiently  broken,  and  he  had  gained  over 
to  his  views  Gunther,  archbishop  of  Cologne,  Theutgard,  arch- 
bishop of  Trier,  and  others,3  two  synods  were  held  one  after 
the  other  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  the  early  months  of  860, 
in  which  Theutberga  was  made  to  declare  that  her  brother 
had  violated  her.  She  was  condemned  to  a  convent,  and 
Lothaire  told  no  longer  to  regard  her  as  his  wife.4  Theut- 
berga, however,  managed  to  escape  to  her  brother,  secured 
the  interest  of  Charles  the  Bald,  and  appealed  to  the  Pope.5 

1  Cf.  Hincmar,  Lib.  de  divortio  Loth.,  thought  (Jungmann,  iii.  237) 
to  have  been  written  in  the  year  860.  In  another  part  of  the  same 
treatise,  Hincmar  lays  down  the  principles  that  kings,  like  everybody 
else,  are  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  and  that  an  appeal  lies  to 
the  Holy  See  from  councils,  whether  provincial  or  general :  "  Apostolica 
sedes  et  comprovincialium  et  generalium  (synodorum),  retractet,  refricet 
vel  confirmet  judicia."     Resp.  ad  gucEst.,  ii.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  125. 

2  Annal.  Prudent.,  ad  an.  858. 

8  Regino,  in  C/iron.,  ad  an.  864. 

4  Hincmar,  ib. ;  Annal.  Prudent.,  ad  an.  860  ;  and  the  letter  of  those 
present  at  the  two  synods  to  Nicholas  (Labbe,  viii.  697). 

5  Aimal.  Prudent.,  ib.  ;  A?inal.  Xantenses,  ad  an.  861;  Epp.  Nic,  21. 
"  Multis  vicibus  sedem  apostolicam  lacrymosis  litteris  studuit  appellare." 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  7 1 

Of  the  two  archbishops  here  mentioned  for  the  first 
time,  Regino,  who  is  followed  by  the  so-called  Annalista 
Saxo  (ad.  an.  864),  asserts  that  Lothaire  gained  over  Gunther, 
whom  this  author  describes  as  wanting  in  stability  of 
character,  by  promising  to  marry  his  niece,  and  that 
Gunther  in  turn  won  over  Theutgard,  who  is  set  down  as 
a  simple  and  unlearned  man,  by  perverting  for  him 
Scripture  and  Canon  Law.  We  learn,  however,  still  on 
the  authority  of  Regino  and  the  Annalista,  that  Gunther 
was  deservedly  punished.  No  sooner  had  Lothaire  got 
his  divorce  sanctioned  by  him,  than,  as  report  went,  he 
sent  for  the  niece,  but  soon,  after  having  dishonoured  her, 
drove  her  home  with  insult.  But  our  Annalista  did  not 
write  till  the  twelfth  century,  and  Regino  was  not  strictly 
a  contemporary.  Hence,  considering  the  way  that  Gunther 
stood  to  the  cause  of  Lothaire,  he  can  scarcely  have  been 
so  wantonly  disgraced  by  his  sovereign. 

Meanwhile  both  Lothaire  himself  and  his  bishops  wrote 
(an.  860-1)  to  Nicholas,  saying  that  they  were  only  waiting 
for  a  favourable  opportunity  to  go  to  him,  as  they  knew 
that  when  any  important  affair  arose  in  the  Church,  recourse 
must  be  had  to  the  Pope,  and  begging  him  not  to  give 
heed  to  any  calumnious  reports  till  their  envoys  should 
arrive  in  Rome.1 

To  complete  his  schemes  Lothaire  assembled  a  third  Gets  leave 
council  at  Aix-la-Chapelle   in   April    862.       He   declared  wSdracfc, 
before  the  bishops  that  in  accordance  with   their  decrees 
he   had    given    up    all    intercourse   with    the    incestuous 
Theutberga,  but  plainly  told   them  that  from  long2  habit 
of  indulgence  he  could  not  keep  continent,  but  preferred 

1  Epp.  1  and  2  among  the  Epp.  ad  divortium  Loth.  II.  pertine?it., 
recently  published  in  M.  G.  Epp.,  vi. 

2  Cf.  the  acts  of  the  council,  e.g.  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  739s.  "Ab  infantia 
seu  pueritia  inter  fern  in  as  convcrsatus." 


72  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

legitimate  to  illegitimate  gratifications.  The  upshot  of 
the  deliberations  of  the  bishops  on  this  appeal,  as  hypo- 
critical in  some  parts  as  bluntly  frank  in  others,  was  that 
the  majority  of  them,  after  perverting  Scripture  and 
tradition,  decided  that  Lothaire  might  marry  again.  He 
accordingly  espoused  Waldrada,  December  25,  862. 

He  also  had  in  the  meantime  sent  to  Rome  to  ask  that 
legates  might  be  sent  to  examine  into  the  rights  of  his 
case,  and  to  assure  the  Pope  that  his  father,  the  emperor 
Lothaire,  had  originally  given  him  Waldrada  as  his  wife, 
but  that  he  had  afterwards  been  compelled  to  take  Theut- 
berga.1  For  some  little  time  Nicholas  was  unable  to  attend 
to  the  requests  of  Theutberga  and  Lothaire.  But  at  length, 
in  November  (862),  he  despatched  two  legates,  Rodoald 
of  Porto  (the  full  extent  of  whose  defection  at  Constanti- 
nople the  Pope  did  not  then  know),  and  John  of  Ficolo, 
now  Cervia,  near  Ravenna.  To  them  he  entrusted  various 
letters 2  to  Lothaire,  Charles  the  Bald,  and  others,  ordering 
a  synod  to  assemble  at  Metz,  and  that  bishops  from  the 
kingdoms  of  Charles  the  Bald,  Louis  the  German,  and 
Charles  of  Provence  should  assist  at  it.  In  his  letter  to 
the  bishops  who  were  to  take  part  in  the  council,  Nicholas 
ordered  them  to  send  its  acts  to  him,  that  he  might  approve 
or  order  them  to  be  reconsidered,  as  the  case  might  be. 

Charles  the  Bald  had  already  begun  to  exert  himself 
to  give  effect  to  such  letters  of  Nicholas  as  had  before  this 
been  despatched  to  Lothaire  on  the  subject  of  the  divorce. 
In  the  document  presented  (November  3,  862)  to  his 
brother  Louis  the  German,  at  the  assembly  at  Savonniere, 
Charles,  whilst  declaring  that  he  is  not  acting  from  any 

1  With  the  first  letter  of  Nicholas  to  Lothaire  (Ep.  17),  compare  his 
instructions  {commonitoriutri)  to  his  legates,  ap.  Labbe  viii.  481, 
and  Ep.  145,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  119,  p.  1165. 

2  Dated  November  23,  862  ;  Epp.  17-21  ;  L.  P.,  n.  xlvi. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  73 

motives  of  making  political  capital,  that  he  seeks  not 
Lothaire's  kingdom,  but  Lothaire  himself,  urges  that  the 
matter  is  of  importance  to  all  Christians,  that  kings  who 
ought  to  set  a  good  example  to  all  must  beware  of  giving 
a  bad  one,  and  that  Lothaire  must  put  an  end  to  the 
scandal  which  is  being  spread  through  all  Christendom. 
The  Pope's  injunctions,  "  in  no  way  opposed  to  the 
teaching  of  the  Gospel  or  the  authority  of  the  apostles  and 
the  canons,"  must  be  carried  out.  And  Louis  is  reminded 
that  "  that  holy  and  first  See  in  all  the  world  cries  out  to 
them  and  to  all  Christians,  '  with  such  a  one  not  so  much 
as  to  eat'"1  (1  Cor.  v.  n). 

These  efforts  of  Charles  the  Bald,  if  ever  so  well  meant, 
came  to  nothing.  Receiving  countenance  from  Louis,  the 
adulterous  monarch  felt  himself  in  a  position  to  despise 
the  admonitions  of  his  uncle  Charles.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  this  tedious  affair,  political  motives  entered  largely 
into  the  support  or  opposition  meted  out  to  the  king  of 
Lorraine. 

Partly  through  the  intrigues  of  Lothaire  and  partly  The 
through  an  incursion  of  the  Northmen,  the  holding  of  the  Met^s^. 
synod  ordered  by  the  Pope  was  deferred.  Then  there 
came  more  letters  from  Nicholas,2  and  the  synod  met  at 
the  place  appointed  (Metz)  in  June  863.  But  Lothaire 
had  bought  3  the  legates,  and  by  arrangement  no  bishops 
were  present  except  those  of  the  king's  own  country.  To 
such  an  assembly  Lothaire's  wishes  were  law  ;  his  divorce 
was   approved,  and   Gunther   and    Theutgard    were   com- 

1  Capita  243,  ap.  Boretius,  ii.  p.  159  f.  "  Ilia  etiam  sancta  et  prima 
in  toto  orbe  terrarum  sedes  per  divinum  Paulum,"  etc. 

2  Labbe,  viii.  481. 

3  Cf.  Anast.,  in  vit.  ;  Hincmar,  AnnaL,  ad  an.  863.  "  Missi  (pontificis) 
corrupti  muneribus,  epistolas  domni  apostolici  occultantes,  nihil  de  his 
quae  sibi  commendata  fuerunt,  secundum  sacram  auctoritatem  egerunt." 
Annul.  Fuld.,  ad  sm.  863  ;  Nich.,  Epp.  56,  154. 


74  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

missioned,  in  deference  to  the  orders  of  Nicholas,1  to 
convey  the  results  of  the  deliberations  of  the  synod  to  the 
Pope. 

The  iniquitous  decision  of  the  council  was  at  once  uni- 
versally denounced,  and  word  of  it  conveyed  to  Nicholas 
by  pilgrims  and  by  letters.2  Nicholas  was,  however,  un- 
willing to  credit  mere  report.  Rodoald  had  the  wit  not  to 
await  the  searching  examination  of  Nicholas.  He  fled. 
Gunther  and  Theutgard,  however,  either  trusting  to  their 
own  acumen3  to  deceive  Nicholas,  or  relying  on  might 
rather  than  right,  boldly  faced  the  Pope  and  a  Roman 
Council  (October  863)  in  the  Lateran  palace. 
Council  at  Their  acumen,  at  any  rate,  counted  for  nothing  when 
ome,  3.  ^jchoiag  was  jn  question.  He  laughed  at  it  as  at  "  a 
mousetrap  4  set  for  the  unwary."  As  was  his  wont,  he  called 
together  a  synod.  It  was  held  in  the  Lateran  palace.  A 
little  examination  of  the  memoir  of  the  council  which  they 
had  brought  with  them  was  enough  to  convict  them.  The 
decision  of  the  synod  of  Metz  was  annulled,  the  two  arch- 
bishops deposed,  and  a  like  fate  was  decreed  against  the 
other  bishops  of  the  council  unless  they  submitted  at  once 
to  the  decision  of  the  Holy  See.5  Of  his  decision  Nicholas 
at  once  informed  Lothaire,  and  asked  him  if  he  did  not 
deserve  to   be  punished    also,   inasmuch  as,  set  to  guide 

1  So  say  the  Annal.  Xanfen.,  a  very  likely  authority,  as  composed  at 
the  time  in  Gunthers  diocese. 

2  Nich.,  Ep.  56. 

3  They  procured  the  aid  of  Hagano,  bishop  of  Bergamo  ("  versutus 
et  cupidissimus" — Hincmar,  ib.),  and  of  the  rebellious  John,  archbishop 
of  Ravenna.     They  were  both  condemned  by  the  council  of  October  863. 

4  Ep.,  ib, 

5  Cf.  Annal.  Hi?icmar  and  Fuld.,  ad  an.  863 ;  Xanf.,  ad  an. 
864;  Anast.,  in  vit. ;  Nich.,  Ep.  154.  Regino  (ad  an.  865)  brands  as 
fools  these  archbishops  who  tried  to  deceive  the  See  that  cannot  be 
deceived !  "  Stultitae  eulogio  denotandi,  qui  illam  Petri  sedem  aliquo 
pravo  dogmate  fallere  posse  arbitrati  sunt,  quae  nee  fefellit,  nee  ab 
aliqua  hoeresi  unquam  falli  potuit." 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  75 

his    people,   he   was    leading    them    to    ruin   by   his   bad 

example.1 

But   Gunther  and   his  supporters    had    no   intention   of  The  arch- 
bishops 
submitting  to  the  spiritual  authority  of  the  Pope.     They  appeal  to 

went  to  seek  what  seemed  to  them  the  more  tangible  might  emperor, 
of  the  civil  power.  They  turned  to  their  king's  brother,  the  * 
emperor  Louis.  They  loudly  proclaimed  both  in  words  and 
in  writing  that  they  had  been  unjustly  deposed,  they  spread 
abroad  all  kinds  of  calumnies  against  the  Pope,  and  they 
drew  up  a  document,  under  seven  heads,  which  evinced,  at 
least  to  their  own  satisfaction,  the  justice  of  their  cause  on 
the  one  hand  and  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope  on  the  other. 
This  they  sent  to  the  bishops  of  their  own  country,  to 
Photius,  and  even  to  the  Pope  himself;  and,  finally,  by 
judiciously  exalting  the  emperor's  pretensions,  they  secured 
his  armed  support.  To  Louis  they  urged  that  it  was  out- 
rageous that  proceedings  should  be  taken  against  am- 
bassadors of  kings  and  emperors,  and  that  metropolitans 
could  not  be  condemned  without  the  cognisance  of  their 
prince.2  In  their  manifesto,  which  Hincmar  speaks3  of  as 
1  diabolical,'  they  spoke  of  "  Nicholas,  who  is  called  the  Pope 
....  and  makes  himself  the  emperor  of  the  whole  world."  * 
They  wanted  the  bishops  of  his  kingdom  to  give  every  en- 
couragement to  their  common  lord,  Lothaire.     They  pre- 

1  Cf.  fragments  of  letters  to  Lothaire  (Migne,  Epp.  57,  58)  and 
Anast,  in  vit. 

2  "  Nunquam  auditum  ....  quod  ullus  metropolitanus  sine  con- 
scientia  principis  ....  merit  degradatus"  (Regino,  i?i  Chron.,  ad  an. 
865).  Cf.  Hincmar,  Annal.,a.d  an.  864  ;  Nich.,  Ep.  65  ;  Annales  Xant.^ 
ad  an.  865.  The  contemporary  author  of  the  last-named  annals 
remarks  that,  when  the  archbishops  asserted  that  their  rank  was 
nowise  inferior  to  that  of  the  Pope,  they  forgot  they  had  received  the 
pallium  from  him. 

3  Hinc,  ib.     "  Diabolica  capitula  et  hactenus  inaudita.' 

4  Ib.  "  Domnus  Nicolaus  qui  dicitur  papa  ....  totiusque  mundi 
imperatorem  se  facit."  The  document,  without  the  preface,  also  appears 
in  the  Annals  of  Fulda,  ad  an.  863. 


J6  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

tended  that  they  had  come  humbly  to  ask  the  Pope's  decision 

on  what  they  had  done,  but  that   Nicholas,  after  keeping 

them    long   waiting,    had    '  arbitrarily    and    tyrannically ' 

condemned  them.     Nicholas  and    his  sentence  they  alike 

despised. 

The  With  the  two  archbishops  in  his  train,  Louis  advanced 

L™msr°r      on   Rome  "to   make  the   Pope  restore  them   or  pay  the 

Rome/0     penalty."1     Nicholas  prepared  for  his  coming  by  ordering 

Feb.  864.     j-asts   an(j   prayers   to   beg   the    Almighty   to    move    the 

emperor  "to  reverence  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  See." 

On  the  arrival  of  the  emperor  at  Rome,  violence  became 

the  '  order '  of  the  day. 

According  to  Wido,  a  cleric  of  Osnabruck,  who  at  the 
close  of  the  eleventh  century  wrote  a  pamphlet  against  S. 
Gregory  VII.,  Louis  kept  the  Pope  and  his  clergy  besieged 
in  St.  Peter's,  and  greatly  oppressed  by  want  of  food  and 
by  cold  for  fifty-two  days.  As  his  authority  for  all  this,  Wido 
quotes  a  work  "De  querimonia  Romanorum,"2  of  which, 
unfortunately,  nothing  else  is  known.  Confining  ourselves, 
however,  to  the  works  of  authors  of  whom  something  is 
known,  we  read  that  the  emperor's  troops  violently  dis- 
persed a  procession  that  was  making  its  way  to  St.  Peter's. 
In  the  tumult  the  magnificently  adorned  cross  which 
contained  the  wood  of  the  true  cross,  and  which  the 
empress  Helen  had  sent  to  Rome,  was  broken  and  tossed 
into  the  mud.  "  Whence,"  adds  the  archiepiscopal  annalist 
Hincmar,  "  it  was  picked  up  and  restored  to  its  custodians 
by  some  men,  who  are  said  to  have  been  English."  3 

1  lb. 

2  67".  a  letter  (dated  11 18)  of  a  cleric  of  Osnabruck,  ap.  Jane,  Mon. 
Bamberg.,  p.  340. 

3  With  the  narrative  of  Hincmar  compare  that  of  Erchempert  {Hist. 
Lang.,  c.  y]\  who  assigns,  as  a  cause  of  some  of  the  misfortunes  of  Louis, 
his  treatment  of  Nicholas  {vir  Deo  plenus)  on  this  occasion.  "Vicari- 
umque  15.  Petri,"  adds  the  monks  "quasi  vile  mancipium  ab  officio  sui 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  7J 

The  speedy  death  of  the  man  who  had  broken  tlrj  cross, 
however,  and  the  fact  of  the  emperor's  being  seized  with 
a  fever,1  changed  the  aspect  of  affairs.  Through  the 
mediation  of  the  empress,  Louis  and  the  Pope  were  recon- 
ciled. Louis  withdrew  his  troops,  who  had  inflicted 2  the 
gravest  injuries  on  men,  women,  and  things,  and  ordered 
the  degraded  archbishops  to  return  to  their  own  country. 
The  bishops  of  Lorraine,  moreover,  submitted  to  the 
sentence  of  the  Pope,3  as  did  also  Theutgard. 

Gunther,  however,  took    not  the  slightest  notice  of  the  Obstinacy 

.  i      i.  i  i        •.    .  -n/r  of  Gunther. 

Popes  sentence,  and  did  not  hesitate  to  say  Mass  on 
Maundy  Thursday.  But,  not  choosing  to  have  his  cause 
utterly  compromised  by  being  connected  with  a  deposed 
and  rebellious  archbishop,  Lothaire  himself  abandoned 
Gunther,4  who,  according  to  the  annals,  known  as  Xantenses? 
was  excommunicated  by  all  the  bishops  of  the  kingdom 
of  Lothaire.  Enraged  at  this  treatment,  Gunther,  after 
seizing,  to  gratify  his  avarice,6  all  that  was  left  of  the 
treasure  of  his  Church,  betook  himself  to  Rome  "to  lay 
bare  before  the  Pope  all  the  deceits  which  had  been  prac- 
tised by  Lothaire  and  himself  in  the  affair  of  Theutberga."7 

ministerii,  nisi  Dominus  restitisset,  privare  voluit."  Cf.  also  the 
account  of  this  transaction  in  the  Libellus  de  Imp.  -potest.  The 
anonymous  partisan  of  the  emperor  contrives  to  throw  most  of  the 
blame  on  the  Pope  and  his  side. 

1  Hincmar,  Annal.,  ib. 

2  Ib.  "  Sanctimonialium  ceterarumque  feminarum  constuprationibus 
atque  hominum  caedibus,  necnon  et  ecclesiarum  infractionibus." 

3  Ib.  Cf  also  the  letter  of  submission  of  Adventius  of  Metz  (Labbe, 
viii.  482),  and  the  replies  of  Nicholas  to  Franco  of  Tongres  (Maastricht) 
(Ep.  67)  and  to  Adventius  (Ep.  68). 

4  Ep.  Lothar.  ad  Nicol.,  Labbe,  viii.  499. 

6  Ad  an.  865.  6  "  Avaricise  facibus  semper  exarsit.*    Ib. 

7  Hincmar,  Annal.,  ad  an.  864  ;  cf.  A.  Xant.,  ib.  Gunther  could 
only  procure  for  himself  restoration  to  lay  communion.  Cf.  An.  Xant.y 
ad  an.  866  ;  An.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  864.  See  his  letter  begging  Hincmar  to 
intercede  in  his  behalf  for  restoration  to  his  See.  Ap.  M.  G.  Epp.y 
vi.  242. 


78  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

The  legate       In  the  earlv  part  of  the  following  year  (865)  Lothaire 

Arsenius  ,  .    .  .      .  .  . 

sent  to        received  a  joint  intimation  from   Louis   the  German  and 
865.  Charles   the   Bald,   to   the  effect  that  before  he  went  to 

Rome,  as  he  constantly  talked  of  doing,  he  was  to  put  an 
end  to  the  scandal  he  had  caused  in  the  Church.  Fearing 
that  the  division  of  his  kingdom  was  what  Louis  and 
Charles  had  chiefly  in  mind,  Lothaire  found  it  necessary  to 
turn  to  Nicholas  for  protection.1  Thinking  the  moment 
favourable  for  bringing  him  to  his  duty,  Nicholas  wrote2 
to  stir  up  to  action  the  bishops  of  his  kingdom,  and  sent 
to  him  Arsenius,  bishop  of  Horta.  He  commended3  his 
legate  to  the  above-mentioned  two  kings,  and  assured 
them  it  was  only  that  there  might  not  be  bloodshed 
that  he  had  hitherto  refrained  from  excommunicating 
Lothaire.  At  Gondreville,  near  Toul,  on  the  Moselle, 
Arsenius  met  Lothaire  and  his  bishops,  and,  in  the  Pope's 
name,  declared  that,  unless  he  took  back  Theutberga,  he 
would  be  excommunicated. 
Lothaire         Lothaire  was  now  thoroughly  alarmed.      He  and  twelve 

takes  back  **      J 

Theut-        of  his    nobles   swore   to   recognise   only   Theutberga 4   as 

berga, 

queen.  After  she  had  been  publicly  accepted  as  his 
consort  by  Lothaire,  Arsenius  set  out  for  Rome.  On 
his  return  he  passed  through  Bavaria  to  collect  the  money 
that  was  due  to  the  Holy  See  from  patrimonies  situated 
therein,  having  in  his  custody,  to  take  before  the  Pope, 
Lothaire's  mistress,  Waldrada. 
Excom-  She,  however,  before  they  reached  Rome,  contrived  to 

munication  _  11,  .    , 

of  waid-  escape  from  the  legate,  and  returned  to  where  there  might 
be  easy  communication  between  herself  and  her  paramour. 
Indignant  at   this   disgraceful   relapse,   Nicholas   publicly 

1  Hincmar,  ad  an.  866.  2  Ep.  80. 

3  Ep.  83.     "Vindictam  in  eum,  ne  sanguis  effunderetur,  et  ne  bella 
excitarentur,  propalare  distulimus." 

4  Hincmar,  ad  an.  865  ;  Fidd.,  ad  an.  865  ;  Xant.^  ad  an.  866. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  79 

excommunicated  (February  2,  866)  Waldrada,  "and  all  her 
aiders  and  abettors."  x 

Meanwhile  the   unfortunate  Theutberga  had  been  sub-  Theut- 

t)6r£Ti  tries 

jected  to  the  grossest  indignities  by  her  brutal  husband,  together 
and  at  length,  weary  of  the  struggle,  begged  the  Pope  annulled. 
to  annul  her  marriage,  and  let  Lothaire  have  Waldrada 
as  his  legitimate  wife.  But  Nicholas  at  once  came  to  the 
poor  woman's  support.  He  assured  her  by  letter2  (January 
24,  S67)  that,  from  what  he  had  heard  from  all  sources  of  her 
cruel  treatment,  he  knew  she  would  write  to  him  in  that 
strain.  She  must  understand  one  thing,  however,  that  even 
if  she  dies,  he  will  not,  by  the  mercy  of  God  who  will 
judge  adulterers,  leave  Lothaire  wholly  unpunished  if  he 
ever  takes  back  Waldrada.  He  exhorts  her  to  be  brave, 
and  not  to  fear,  especially  in  the  cause  of  truth,  to  meet 
death,  which  she  must  necessarily  one  day  encounter. 
Still  he  does  not  think  that  Lothaire  would  dare  to  plot 
against  her  life.     She  has  the  Apostolic  See  on  her  side. 

Nicholas  did  not  stop  with  this  letter.  He  wrote3 
(January  25)  to  the  bishops  of  Lothaire's  kingdom  to  urge 
them  to  do  their  duty  boldly  in  the  matter  of  the  excom- 
municated Waldrada;  and  to  Charles  the  Bald,4  that  he  could 
not  believe  that  by  the  gift  of  a  monastery  he  had  been  in- 
duced to  side  with  Lothaire  against  Theutberga,  and  that 
he  could  not  allow  Theutberga's  case  to  be  again  brought 
forward  and  submitted  to  the  trial "  by  single  combat."  And 
he  instructed  Lothaire5  himself  toavoid  the  excommunicated 
Waldrada  lest  he  himself  be  also  excommunicated.  A  little 
later  (March  7)  he  wrote6  to  Louis  the  German,  to  beg  him 
to  exhort  Lothaire  to  bestow  his  love  on  Theutberga. 

1  Ann.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  867,  and  Nich.,  Ep.  93,  "cum  universis  com- 
plicibus  et  communicatoribusque  suis." 

2  Ep.  146.  3  Ep.  147.  4  Ep.  148. 
6  Ep.  149.                                6  Ep.  150. 


SO  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

Lothaire  replied  (867)  in  his  usual  style.  He  professed 
the  most  unbounded  respect  for  the  authority  of  the  Pope, 
and  the  most  ardent  wish  to  present  himself  before  "  his 
most  beloved  paternity."  But  "  various  unfortunate 
circumstances  had  hitherto  put  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
his  devotion."  However,  in  the  month  of  July  he  is  to 
hold  a  diet,  and  by  envoys  from  it  will  prove  to  the  Pope 
that  he  will  be  as  obedient  to  him  as  his  ancestors  have 
ever  been.  "  But  if  anyone  has  told  you  that,  since  the 
departure  of  Arsenius,  I  have  anywhere  seen  or  held  any 
converse  with  Waldrada  after  her  return  from  Italy,  he  has 
said  what  is  wholly  untrue."  l  One  knows  not  whether 
more  to  grieve  at  the  sufferings  of  the  unfortunate  queen, 
loathe  the  hypocrisy  of  Lothaire,  or  wonder  at  the  patience 
of  Nicholas  in  dealing  with  him. 

To  within  a  fortnight  of  his  death  the  unwearied   Pope 

exerted  himself  for  Theutberga.     He  wrote 2  to  exhort  the 

bishops  of  the  kingdom  of  Louis  the  German   to  take  up 

her   cause;    and   to    Louis3   himself  to    explain    that    he 

would   not   allow   Lothaire  to  come  and  personally  plead 

his   case  at  Rome  until,    in   accordance   with   his   orders, 

Waldrada  was  first  sent  there. 

Hadrian         The   interminable   negotiations   concerning  this  divorce 

divorce       were  only  brought  to  an  end  in  the  reign  of  Hadrian  II. 

question.     ^  ^e  c|eath  of  Lothaire.     Hadrian,  who  was  consecrated 

(December  14,  867)  a  few  days  after  the  death  of  Nicholas, 

1  Ep.  17,  ap.  M.  G.  Eftft.,  vi.  p.  238. 

2  Ep.  155.  A  long  letter,  and  to  the  historian  a  useful  one,  as  it  goes 
over  the  whole  question  of  the  divorce.  To  counteract  the  various 
means  to  deceive  that  were  resorted  to  by  the  different  parties  with 
whom  Nicholas  came  in  contact,  and  to  prevent  the  truth  regarding  his 
conduct  in  a  particular  case  from  becoming  overlaid,  Nicholas  adopted 
the  plan  of  frequently  reviewing  at  length  all  its  circumstances.  By 
that  means  he  hoped  that  sooner  or  later  the  truth  would  be  made 
clear.     Ep.  155  is  dated  October  31,  867. 

3  Ep.  156,  November  1,  867. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  Si 

was  a  man  of  a  most  conciliatory  disposition.  As  far  as 
man  could  go  without  sacrifice  of  principle,  that  far, 
without  any  thought  of  what  his  own  status  in  the  eyes  of 
men  might  lose,  would  Hadrian  go.  And  yet  he  was  so 
strictly  wedded  to  the  ideas  of  Nicholas,  that  by  the 
opponents  of  that  great  Pope  he  was  called  a  Nicholai'te.1 
He  began  his  policy  of  concession  by  admitting  to  com- 
munion as  priests2 — but  not  as  bishops — Theutgard  of  Trier, 
Zachary  of  Anagni,  and  the  cardinal  priest  Anastasius, 
whom  he  soon  appointed  "librarian  of  the  Roman  Church." 

Encouraged    by  this,  Lothaire  wrote  to  him  lamenting  Lothaire 

gets  per- 

the  death  of  Nicholas  as  well  as  the  fact  that  he.  had  given  mission  to 
heed  rather  to  his  (Lothaire's)  enemies  than  to  himself,  Rome,  868 
and  expressing  his  great  desire  to  come  to  Rome.3 
Hadrian,  in  reply,  bade  him  come  to  receive  the  blessing 
he  asked,  if  he  felt  himself  free  from  the  charges  urged 
against  him,  or  suitable  penance  if  he  was  guilty.4  He 
would  not,  however,  listen  to  Theutberga,  who  came  to 
Rome  to  beg  for  the  dissolution  of  her  marriage,  but 
threatened  to  excommunicate  anyone  who  should  molest 
her  in  the  meanwhile,  were  it  Lothaire  himself.5 

As  a  further  step  in  his  policy  of  conciliation,  he  removed  The  ex- 

i  r  r  TT7-       i  communi- 

the  sentence  of  excommunication  from  Waldrada  on  the  cation  of 
ground  that  he  had  learnt  from  many,  and  especially  from  is  taken  off, 
the   emperor    Louis,  that  she  was  sorry  for   her  previous 
conduct.     She  was  not,  however,  to  hold  any  intercourse 
whatever  with  Lothaire,6  and  was  to  strive  so  to  live  that 

1  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Had. 

2  "  Sub  congrua  satisfactione."     lb. 

3  Ep.  1 8,  ap.  M.  G.  Epp.,  vi.  239.  He  even  pretends  the  greatest 
joy  that  "  the  Bulgarians  and  other  fierce  barbarians  have  come  to  the 
threshold  of  the  apostles." 

4  Ap.  Regino,  in  Chron.,  868. 

5  Ep.  Had.  ad  Loth.,  ap.  Mansi,  Cone,  xv.  p.  833. 

c  "  Data  licentia  prasfati  dumtaxat  Regis  (Lotharii)  societati  propter 
antiqui   hostis   versutias,   nullo   pacto   penitus   adhaerendi."      Ep.    ad 
VOL.  III.  6 


82  ST.   NICHOLAS  I.,  THE  GREAT 


the  absolution  he  had  given  her  might  be  ratified  before 
God,  who,  unlike  man,  can  see  the  heart. 
Lothaire  Hoping   to   win    Hadrian    entirely  over    to   his  desires, 

meets  the  \      °  J 

Pope,  869.  Lothaire  set  out  for  Rome  to  have  an  interview  with  him, 
June  869.  He  gained  the  avaricious  empress  Ingelberga1 
with  presents,  and  had  the  desired  meeting  with  Hadrian 
at  Monte  Cassino.  As  what  took  place  at  that  famous  old 
abbey  is  often  very  sensationally  stated  by  moderns, 
relying  on  their  imaginations  or  on  other  than  strictly 
contemporary  authors,  we  will  here  give  verbatim  the 
account  left  us  by  Hincmar,  our  best  authority,  in  his 
Annals.  "  Through  the  mediation  of  Ingelberga,  Lothaire 
succeeded  in  obtaining  that  the  Pope,  to  whom  he  had 
given  many  presents,  should  sing  Mass  in  his  presence,  and 
should  give  him  Holy  Communion  on  the  understand- 
ing that,  since  Waldrada's  excommunication  by  Pope 
Nicholas,  he  had  never  dwelt  with  her,  had  criminal 
relations  with  her,  or  even  a  conversation  with  her.  The 
unhappy  man,  like  Judas,  pretending  a  good  conscience, 
did  not  hesitate  boldly  to  receive  Holy  Communion.  His 
supporters  also  received  communion  from  the  Pope,  among 
whom  was  Gunther,  the  chief  instigator  of  this  public 
adultery.  He  received  communion  from  Hadrian  among 
the  laity,  after  he  had  presented  to  him  in  public  a 
declaration  (of  submission)." 

The   same   annalist   goes    on   to   relate    that    Lothaire 

followed  the  Pope  to  Rome  (July),  but  was  not  received 

nor  lodged  in  state. 

Death  of         However,  before  he  left  Rome  he  received  a  few  small 

869.  presents  from  the  Pope,  who  had    arranged  2  that  a  final 

Waldr.   Cf.  Ep.  ad  Epp.  Galliae,  etc.,  ap.  Mansi,  t&.9  834  seq.\  Hincmar, 
AnnaL,  ad  an.  868. 

1  Annal.y  Hinc,  ad  an.  869. 

2  In  a  synod  held  in  July,  according  to  Lapotre  {Revue  des  Quest. 
Hist.,  April  1880),  who  assigns  to  this  synod  and  to  Formosus  of  Porto 


ST.   NICHOLAS   L,   THE  GREAT  83 

decision  should  be  pronounced  on  his  case  in  a  synod 
to  be  held  in  Rome  the  following  year  (870).  But  Lothaire 
was  seized  with  a  fever  before  he  left  Italy,  and,  "  not 
willing  to  perceive  therein  the  judgment  of  God,"1  he 
died  (August  8,  869)  at  Piacenza  along  with  most  of  his 
suite.  Both  Theutberga  and  Waldrada  ended  their  days 
in  convents. 

In  bringing  the  long  history  of  this  divorce  question  to  a 
close,  we  may  observe  that  the  conduct  of  Nicholas  and 
Hadrian  throughout  it  has  won  the  admiration  of  all 
schools  of  historians  alike.  One  would  be  less  than  man 
not  to  admire  it. 

With  Lothaire  on  the  one  hand  and  Photius  on  the  other,  Nicholas 
Nicholas    might  seem  to  have   had   enough   to   keep  hisHincmar 
thoughts  occupied.     But  not  to  speak  of  smaller  matters,  Rheims' 
he  had  many  other  affairs  of  great  moment  on  his  mind 
at  the   same  time.     He  had  to    bring   to   submission  the 
imperious   archbishop  of  Rheims,   and  to  guide  the   first 
steps  of  the  Bulgarians  along  the  road  of  Christianity.     Of 
his  negotiations  with  Hincmar  on   the  matter  of  Wulfad 
and  his  companions  we  have  already  spoken.     It  remains 
for  us  to  treat   of  the   differences  between   them   on   the 
subject  of  the  deposition  of  Rothad. 

His  paramount  respect  for  the  Holy  See  was  the  only 
thing  which  prevented  Hincmar,  the  greatest  prelate  in  the 

the  anonymous  speech,  published  by  Muratori  (R.  I.  S.,  ii.,  pt.  ii.,  p. 
135),  and  more  completely  by  Maassen.  Lapotre  shows  conclusively 
that  the  speech  was  certainly  not  made  by  the  Pope,  and  points  out, 
on  the  contrary,  how  vigorously  its  author  opposes  any  reversion  of  the 
decisions  of  Nicholas. 

1  Hincmar,  Ann.,  I.  c.  Cf.  Ann.  Lobienses,  870,  and  Chron.,  Ado.,  both 
ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ii.  Such  is  the  history  of  the  close  of  Lothaire's  life — 
quite  sensational  enough — as  related  by  Hincmar.  Regino,  who  did 
not  write  his  Chronicle  till  about  910,  and  the  annals  of  Metz,  which 
copy  him,  furnish  other  details  which  can  scarcely  be  relied  on.  They 
are  the  ones  given  by  Milman. 


84  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT 

West  after  Nicholas  himself,  from  bringing  one  or  other  of 
his  disputes  with  the  Pope  to  the  extreme  to  which  Photius 
had  carried  his  difference  with  Rome;  for,  though  good 
and  learned,  Hincmar  could  not  brook  opposition.  Pie 
would  go  very  far  to  have  his  own  way. 
Rothad  of  With  one  of  his  suffragans,  Rothad  of  Soissons,  Hincmar 
had  for  many  years  not  been  on  very  good  terms.1  He 
accuses  Rothad  of  being  "an  unfruitful  fig  tree."  This 
very  vague  accusation  was  taken  up  by  Charles  the  Bald,2 
who  afterwards  favoured  Hincmar  in  this  matter.  He 
had  long,  he  says,  been  useless  in  the  sacred  ministry ;  and 
(here  was  the  unpardonable  offence)  to  his  archbishop's 
written  exhortations,  had  returned  for  sole  answer  that  his 
metropolitan  could  do  nothing  but  send  him  his  booklets 
all  day  long !  Descending  to  some  detail,  he  further 
accuses  Rothad  of  alienating  at  will  the  property  of  his 
Church.  But  it  must  be  confessed  that  in  his  explanation 
of  his  conduct  to  the  Pope  (Ep.  2),  Hincmar  does  not  attend 
in  a  straightforward  manner  to  the  facts  of  the  case  in 
question.  According  to  the  statement  in  Rothad's  apology, 
these  were  as  follows.  Rothad  had  "  regularly  deposed," 
or,  as  he  explains  in  another  part,  had  deposed  "  on  the 
decision  of  thirty-three  bishops,"  a  priest  taken  in  adultery.3 
After  the  lapse  of  three  years  Hincmar  espoused  the  cause 
of  this  man,  and,  "without  in  the  least  informing" 
Rothad,   he   caused    the   priest   (whom    Rothad    had    put 

1  This  is  clear  as  well  from  the  statement  of  his  case  which  Rothad 
presented  to  the  Pope,  and  which  is  printed  in  the  Coimcils  among  the 
letters  of  Pope  Nicholas,  as  from  the  account  of  the  affair  which,  from 
his  point  of  view,  Hincmar  sent  to  the  Pope  in  864.  (Ep.  2,  Hinc,  ap. 
Migne,  t.  126.)  Cf.  also  the  discourse  of  the  Pope  on  this  subject,  ap. 
P.L.,t.  119,  p.  890. 

2  Nic,  Ep.  83. 

3  "  Quia  in  stupro  fuerat  deprehensus  et  abscissus."  Libellus 
ftroclamationis  of  Rothad,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  785.  The  last  word  gives  us 
some  insight  into  the  violence  of  the  times. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  85 

in  the  place  of  the  one  he  had  deposed)  to  be  seized, 
excommunicated,  and  imprisoned  ;  and  reinstated  the 
adulterer.1  Such  unreasonable,  not  to  say  uncanonical, 
conduct  Rothad  naturally  resented.  Thereupon,  in  a 
synod  held  outside  Soissons  (861),  Hincmar  declared 
Rothad  deprived  of  episcopal  communion  till  he  should 
submit  to  his  decision.2 

But  when,  in  the  following  year,  Rothad  was  prohibited  Rothad 
by  Hincmar,  "  who  lorded  it  over3  the  whole"  gathering,  RomelVez 
from  attending  an  assembly  convoked  by  Charles  the  Bald, 
at  Pistres,  near  Pont  de  l'Arche  on  the  Seine,  he  appealed 
to  the  Holy  See.4  But  before  he  could  set  out  for  Rome, 
Hincmar  had  obtained  possession  of  one  of  his  letters,  in 
which,  according  to  him,  Rothad  stated  that  he  withdrew 
his  appeal,  and  asked  that  his  case  might  be  tried  again 
before  certain  selected  judges  {judices  electi).  It  was  really 
one  of  a  series  of  letters  which  he  had  written  preparatory 
to  his  departure.  In  it  he  had  exhorted  some  of  his 
colleagues  to  continue  to  sustain  his  cause  as  they  had  done 
at  Pistres.  The  archbishop  then  made  haste  to  call  a  second 
synod  together  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Soissons,  and 
summoned  Rothad  to  appear  before  it.  He,  however, 
persisted  in  his  appeal.  "  To  the  supreme  authority  of  the 
Holy  See  I  appeal  unceasingly— to  that  See,  the  authority 
of  which  no  one  can  gainsay,  to  that  See  which  through 
Blessed  Peter  has  merited  such  power  {principatum)  from 
Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  await  the  decision  of  that  See  to 
which  I  have  appealed,  nor  do  I  consent  to  be  judged  else- 
where than  at  Rome.     It  is  preposterous  that  the  inferior 

1  "Illumque    depositum    genitalibus    truncatum   in   mese   parcecire 
ecclesia  restituit."     {II?.,  p.  788.) 

2  Hincmar,  Annal,  86 r. 

"Quasi   omnium  dominus  prassidens  et  praevalens,"  says  Rothad 
{Libell.  proc).     Cf.  Hincmar,  Annul.,  862. 
*  Z.  P.,  n.  Iviii. 


86  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

should  be  preferred  before  the  superior."1  Rothad  was, 
nevertheless,  declared  by  the  synod  contumacious,  and 
deposed.  He  was  then  imprisoned,  and  another  bishop 
ordained  in  his  place.2  Concerning  this  decision  Nicholas 
afterwards  (Christmas  Eve,  864) 3  said  that  if  Rothad 
"  had  never  appealed,  he  ought  not  to  have  been  deposed 
without  his  knowledge,  inasmuch  as  the  sacred  canons  and 
the  venerable  decrees  of  bishops  have  decided  that  the 
causes  of  bishops — as  affairs  of  greater  importance  (majora 
negotid) — were  to  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  the  Apostolic 
See." 
Negotia-  As  soon  as  Nicholas  had  been  informed  of  what  had 
Rome,  863.  happened  with  regard  to  Rothad,  unofficially  at  first,  and 
soon  after  by  the  formal  account  of  the  synod  of  Soissons, 
he  took  up  the  affair  with  his  usual  vigour.  Six  letters4 
were  despatched  in  the  month  of  April  to  Charles  the  Bald, 
to  Hincmar,  to  the  bishops  of  the  synod  of  Soissons,  and 
to  Rothad.  To  Hincmar,  Nicholas  expresses  his  indigna- 
tion at  the  cruel  treatment  that  had  been  meted  out  to 
Rothad  in  his  old  age,  and  gives  the  archbishop  plainly  to 
understand  that,  within  thirty  days  after  the  receipt  of  his 
letter,  he  must  either  restore  Rothad  to  his  former  dignity, 
or  come  to  Rome  in  person  or  by  deputy,  in  order  that 
the  matter  may  be  there  thoroughly  investigated.  If  the 
Pope's  orders  are  not  complied  with,  Hincmar  has  no 
longer  permission  to  offer  the  Holy  Sacrifice — a  punish- 
ment which  he  must  inform  the  other  bishops,  who  acted 
with  him,  will  also  fall  on  them  if  they  show  themselves 

1  "Ad  illam  summam  auctoritatem  sine  intermissione  appello,  cui 
nullus  potest  contradicere,  quas  a  D.  J.  C.  per  b.  Petrum  tantum 
meruit  principatum.  Judicium  ergo  illius  ad  quam  proclamavi  expeto," 
etc.     Rothad,  Libell.  proc. 

2  Libellus. 

3  The  discourse  mentioned  in  a  preceding  note. 

4  Epp.  33-38. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,  THE   GREAT  87 

disobedient.1  The  bishops  themselves  are  blamed  for 
trying  to  show  from  the  civil  law  that  Rothad  had  no  right 
of  appeal,  when  by  the  canon  law  they  knew  that  he  had. 
They  are  commanded  "  by  apostolical  and  canonical 
authority "  to  send  Rothad  to  Rome  under  the  penalty 
above  rehearsed.  He  forcibly  points  out  to  them  that  it  is 
to  their  own  interest  to  strive  that  the  privileges  of  the 
Roman  See,  "as  the  remedies  of  the  whole  Church" — - 
privileges  he  is  resolved  to  defend  even  to  death — may  be 
safeguarded.  "The  privileges3  of  the  Apostolic  See 
are  the  protection  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  its  bulwark 
against  all  the  attacks  of  the  wicked.  What  has  happened 
to  Rothad  to-day,  how  know  you  that  it  will  not  happen 
to  you  to-morrow?"  Charles  the  Bald  is  informed4  of  the 
orders  Nicholas  has  sent  to  the  bishops,  and  is  earnestly  ex- 
horted to  restore  Rothad  to  his  rank,  and  to  grant  him  a  safe- 
conduct  to  the  Pope.  Finally,  Rothad  5  is  told  not  to  cease 
proclaiming  his  appeal  to  the  Apostolic  See,  though  in  another 
letter  to  him  Nicholas  does  not  fail  to  admonish  him  not  to 
give  useless  trouble  to  himself  (Rothad)  nor  to  others,  if 
his  conscience  does  not  fully  bear  him  out  in  the  matter.6 

At  first  only  a  part  of  the  orders  of  Nicholas  was  fulfilled. 
Rothad  was  released  from  confinement,  but  not  allowed 
to  go  to  Rome.     A  fresh  batch  7  of  letters  from  the  Pope — 

1  "  Decernimus  ut  missarum  solemnia  tamdiu  celebrandi  non  habeatis 
licentiam,  quamdiu  quae  definimus  perducta  ad  consummationem  non 
fuerint,"  etc.     Ep.  34. 

2  Ep.  35- 

3  "  Privilegia  sedis  apostolicae  tegmina  sunt  totius  Ecclesiae  catholicae 
.  .  .  .  munimina  sunt  circa  omnes  impetus  pravitatis,"  Ep.  35.  History 
has  abundantly  demonstrated  how  much  authority  has  been  preserved 
by  bishops  who  have  preferred  the  protection  of  the  State  to  that  of  the 
Pope.  The  shortcomings  of  popes  and  kings  have  been  very  different 
in  this  as  in  most  other  respects. 

4  Epp.  36,  37.  6  Ep.  38.  6  Ep.  47. 

7  Epp.  47-49  (ad  an.  863).  The  sharp  letter  (Ep.  60,  ad  an.  864, 
about  May)  to  Hincmar  was  written  by  Nicholas  in  ignorance  of  the 


88  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,  THE   GREAT 

among  them  one  now  lost  to  Hincmar — had  the  desired 
result.  Rothad  was  sent  to  Rome  (864).  At  the  same 
time  Hincmar  forwarded  a  long  apology1  for  his  conduct. 
Whilst  defending  himself,  he  over  and  over  again  professes 
his  submission  to  the  Pope,  "  because  all  of  us,  whether 
young  or  old,  know  that  our  churches  are  subject  to  the 
Roman  Church,  and  that  we  bishops  are  subject  to  the 
Roman  Pontiff  in  the  primacy  of  Blessed  Peter.  Wherefore, 
saving  our  faith,  which  has  always,  and,  with  the  help  of 
God,  will  always  flourish  in  the  Church,  we  must  obey  your 
apostolic  authority.  .  .  .  And  it  is  only  right  that  when 
the  Roman  Pontiff  summons  any  bishop  whatsoever  to 
Rome,  he  should  haste  to  go  to  him  unless  sickness  or 
some  serious  necessity  hinder  him."2 
Rothad  at  Till  the  close  of  the  year  Nicholas  waited  to  see  if  any 
'ne'  4'  accuser  of  Rothad  would  come  to  Rome.  None  appeared  ; 
so  that  on  Christmas  Eve  he  was  reclothed  with  his 
episcopal  robes,  and  on  the  Feast  of  St.  Agnes  (January 
21,  865)  was  formally  restored  to  his  See  and  sent  back  to 
France.  He  returned  along  with  Arsenius,  bishop  of 
Horta,  who,  as  we  have  seen,  was  sent  at  this  time  as 
legate  to  decide  the  case  of  Lothaire's  divorce.3  A  series 4 
of  letters  made  known  the  restitution  of  Rothad  to  all 
parties  concerned.     Hincmar,  not  indeed  with  the  best  of 

unavoidable  difficulties  which  prevented  Rothad  from  reaching  Rome 
by  the  time  prescribed  by  the  Pope.  Rothad  reached  Rome  about 
June  (864),  the  first,  as  some  imagifie,  to  bring  to  Rome  the  False 
Decretals. 

1  Hincmar,  Ep.  2. 

2  "  Omnes  scimus  nostras  Ecclesias  subditas  esse  Romanse  ecclesise, 
et  nos  episcopos  in  primatu  b.  Petri  subjectos  esse  Romano  pontifici, 
et  ob  id  salva  fide,  quag  in  Ecclesia  semper  viguit  ....  nobis  est 
vestrae  apostolicae  auctoritati  obediendum,"  etc.  Hinc,  Ep.  2.  This 
declaration  Hincmar  repeats  several  times  ;  and,  whilst  arguing  against 
the  restoration  of  Rothad,  assures  the  Pope  he  will  submit  if  he  sees 
fit  to  restore  him. 

*  Anast.,  in  vit.  Nic,  4  Epp.  72-77. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  89 

grace,1  submitted,  and  Rothad  ruled  his  See  in  peace  till 
his  death. 

Before  adducing  further  examples  of  ecclesiastical  appeal  Arscniusof 
cases,  lest  they  should  prove  too  monotonous  if  treated  of  someVapal 
all  together,  the  mention,  by  no  means  for  the  first  time,  °  lcia  * 
of  the  name  of  Arsenius  of  Horta  may  be  our  excuse  for 
a  word  or  two  concerning  him  and  others  like  him,  whom 
we  find  about  the  persons  of  the  popes  at  this  period. 
The  power  of  the  emperor  who  wished  to  have  among  the 
papal  officials  men  devoted  to  his  interests,  or  the  influence 
of  powerful  families,  managed  to  place  round  the  Pope 
many  men  who  would  not  have  been  respectable  members 
of  a  decent  lay,  much  less  clerical,  nobility.  The  sole 
thought  of  these  men  was  personal  aggrandisement.  The 
presence  of  these  noble  officials,  cleric  and  lay,  in  rapidly 
increasing  numbers  in  the  court  of  the  Pope,  had  no  little 
influence  in  bringing  about  the  disorders  which  darkened 
the  papal  throne  in  the  following  period.  Not  to  mention 
Sergius,  a  lay  official,  who  married  the  niece  of  Pope 
Nicholas,  afterwards  abandoned  her  for  a  mistress,  and 
plundered  the  papal  palace  while  his  uncle  lay  dying,  nor 
the  antipope  Anastasius,  possibly  the  secretary  of  Nicholas,2 
we  will  confine  our  attention  to  one  who  seems  to  have 
been  the  father  of  the  said  Anastasius,  viz.,  Arsenius, 
bishop  of  Horta.  Both  Hincmar  and  Nicholas  accuse  him 
of  pride,  ambition,  and  avarice.  And  John  the  Deacon 
(the  biographer  of  Gregory  the  Great),  who  was  alive  at 

1  As  his  language  {Anna!.,  ad  an.  865),  when  narrating  these  events, 
proves.  Still,  as  he  himself  declared  (Ep.  ad  Hinc.  Laud.,  ap.  Migne, 
t.  126,  p.  510),  he  submitted  completely  :  "  Nam  quod  ille  (Nicolaus)  de 
Rothado  sive  de  Vulfado  judicavit,  non  contradixi,  sed  sicut  ipse 
praecepit  obedire  curavi." 

2  That  is  on  the  supposition,  which  for  my  part  I  can  scarcely 
accept,  that  Anastasius,  the  librarian,  is  the  same  as  his  namesake  the 
antipope.     See  vol.  ii.,  p.  280  ff.  of  this  work. 


90  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

this  time,  tells  us  a  story  concerning  the  bishop  which  bears 
out  his  reputation  for  being  proud  and  a  lover  of  display. 
The  story,  not  much  in  itself,  is,  moreover,  interesting,  as 
it  gives  us  a  peep  into  various  legal  and  mercantile  matters 
of  the  time.  It  appears  that  despite  various  laws  against 
them,  and  despite  the  fact  that  they  were  not  permitted 
to  see  the  Pope,  Jews  contrived  to  do  most  of  the  trading  in 
the  more  valuable  kinds  of  merchandise.  From  the  days  of 
Jugurtha  to  those  of  John  of  Salisbury,  not  to  come  down 
any  further,  money  was  superior  to  the  laws  in  Rome.  By 
it  the  Jews  brushed  to  one  side  the  enactments  against  them- 
selves, and  contrived  to  bring  their  wares  before  the  people. 
However,  so  indignant  were  the  popes  that  the  sons  of 
Judah  were  able  thus  to  set  the  laws  at  defiance,  that  they 
kept  them  at  a  distance.1  And  for  fear  lest  any  suspicion 
should  arise  that  they  had  themselves  received  anything  in 
the  way  of  a  bribe  from  the  Jews,  they  would  not  allow 
them  to  come  anywhere  near  their  palace  gates,  and  made 
them  count  the  money  they  had  received  for  their  goods 
publicly  whilst  sitting  on  the  marble  pavement.2  Among 
others,  the  magnificent  wares  of  the  Jews  had  an  attraction 
for  Arsenius.  Not  only  did  he  purchase  and  wear  some 
of  them,  but  he  positively  wished  to  celebrate  a  station 
(palatina  processid)  clad,  not  in  his  priestly  robes,  but  in 
his  Jewish  finery.  It  need  hardly  be  said  that  Nicholas 
did  not  allow  the  fulfilment  of  such  a  wish.3 

Hincmar  assures  us  that  report  had  it  that  Arsenius  died 
(868)  "  talking  with  devils."     His  miserable  death  at  Acer- 

1  In  vit.  Greg.  /.,  iv.  50  :  "  Nunquam  pontificalibus  alloquiis  fruerentur, 
nunquam  obtutibus  apostolicis  potirentur." 

2  lb.,  c.  5 1  :  "  ne  viderentur  aliquid  de  manu  pontificis  accepisse.5'" 

3  lb.,  c.  50.  "  Nicolaus,  ....  Arsenium  ....  Judai'cas  pellicias 
introducere  molientem,  adeo  aversatus  est,  ut  ei  palatinam  processionem 
vellet  adimere,  nisi  ....  cum  sacerdotalibus  infulis  ....  procedere 
studuisset." 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  91 

enza  came  lo  be  quoted  in  later  times  as  a  warning  to 
the  avaricious.  After  his  sudden  demise  without  the  last 
sacraments,  his  attendants  set  out  with  his  body,  intending 
to  take  it  to  Rome  or  Horta.  But  unable  to  endure  the 
stench  that  came  from  it,  they  hastily  interred  it  in  a 
field.1 

To  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  number  and  variety  Hincmai 
of  matters  that  were  referred  to  Nicholas  for  his  decision,  Hilduin. 
we  will  here,  in  brief,  give  some  of  these  cases,  of  which  the 
letters  of  Nicholas  give  us  cognisance,  now  that  we  have 
discussed  at  some  length  the  most  important  of  the  appeals 
which  were  addressed  to  him. 

On  the  death  of  Thierry,  bishop  of  Cambray,  Lothaire, 
to  strengthen  his  hand,  appointed  to  the  vacant  bishopric 
Hilduin,  the  brother  of  his  supporter  Gunther,  and  a 
relative  of  the  more  famous  Hilduin,  abbot  of  the  great 
monastery  of  St.  Denis.  This  man,  as  a  quite  unworthy 
subject  for  such  a  position,  Hincmar,  the  metropolitan  of 
Cambray,  refused  to  consecrate.  Lothaire,  however,  put 
Hilduin  into  possession  of  the  temporalities  of  the  See, 
and  Hincmar  turned  to  Rome  for  the  support  of  his  rights. 
Prompt  to  support  any  just  claim,  Nicholas  at  once  (863) 
despatched  letters  to  the  bishops  of  Lothaire's  kingdom,  to 
Lothaire  himself,  and  to  the  intruder  Hilduin.  The  bishops 
were2  to  exhort  Lothaire  to  reject  Hilduin,  and  to  leave 
the  clergy  and  people  of  Cambray  free  to  choose  a  bishop 
for  themselves,  in  accordance  with  the  canons.  Lothaire 3 
is  told  that  to  the  other  "  countless  execrable  charges  that 
were  made  against  him,"  he  understands  there  is  added 
that  of  interfering  with  the  metropolitan  rights  of  Hincmar, 
and  of  forcing  an  intruder  into  the  Church  of  Cambray. 
If  he  does  not  confine  himself  to  his  proper  business — which 

1  Hinc,  Anna/.,  868  ;  Bib.  Casinensis,\\\.  139. 

2  Ep.  41.  3  Ep.  42. 


92  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

is  to  regulate,  as  it  were,  the  bodies  only  of  his  subjects — he 
will  have  to  excommunicate  him,  especially  in  view  of  his 
other  wicked  conduct.  Finally  Hilduin 1  is  reminded  that,  if 
the  State  sanctions  his  holding  the  See  of  Cambray,  the 
Church  never  will.  After  some  further  negotiations,  and 
after  bringing  pressure 2  to  bear  on  Lothaire,  through 
Charles  the  Bald  and  Louis  the  German,  the  rights  of 
Hincmar  were  vindicated,  and  one  John  (865)  was  properly 
elected  to  the  See. 
Lothaire  To  obtain  money  to  buy  off  the  Norsemen,  the  weak  yet 

sister  tyrannical    Lothaire    seized   the   possessions   of    his   sister 

c.  866™  '  Heletrude,  who  was  then  a  widow.  Unable  to  obtain  justice 
elsewhere,  the  injured  woman  appealed  to  the  Pope.  Again 
Nicholas  took  up  the  cause  of  the  oppressed.  To  Lothaire 
himself,  as  he  explains  in  his  letter  to  Charles  3  the  Bald 
on  this  subject,  he  will  not  write,  "as  for  his  wicked  deeds 
he  holds  Lothaire  excommunicated."  Though  Nicholas 
had  not  actually  excommunicated  him,  he  means  to  say 
that  he  is  like  one  excommunicated. 

But  Charles  and  Louis  the  German  are  urged  to  restrain 
his  culpable  cupidity,  by  notifying  to  him  the  authority  of 
the  Pope  and  of  the  laws,  and  to  see  to  it  that  the  property  of 
Heletrude  is  restored  to  her.  The  issue  of  this  intercession 
of  Nicholas  we  do  not  know.  In  all  probability  justice 
was  done  to  Heletrude.  Charles  and  Louis  were  ever  on 
the  lookout  for  a  casus  belli  with  Lothaire,  who  generally 
took  care  to  give  in  at  once  when  pressure  was  brought 
to  bear  upon  him  from  those  quarters. 
Baldwin  of  If  Nicholas  was  stern  to  determined  vice,  he  was  kind 
andnjdudith.  to   the    penitent.      Judith,   Charles   the    Bald's   daughter, 

1  Ep.  43  2  Ep.  83. 

3  Ep.  112.  The  corresponding  letter,  written  to  Louis  the  German, 
is  no  longer  extant.  "  Pro  nefariis  ab  illo  abolendis  ....  excommuni- 
catum  habemus."     lb. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  93 

whom  Ethel  vvulf  had  married  on  his  return  from  Rome  to  his 
kingdom  of  Wessex,  had  on  the  death  of  her  husband  (858) 
been  taken  to  wife  by  her  stepson  Ethelbald.  Such  an  in- 
cestuous union  shocked  the  people.1  After  about "  two  years 
and  a  half  of  licentiousness,"  Ethelbald  died  (860),  and  Judith 
had  to  return  to  France.  On  her  arrival  in  France,  Charles 
the  Bald,  her  father,  placed  her  under  episcopal  surveillance 
at  Senlis,  till  such  times  as  she  should  decide  either  to 
renounce  the  world  or  "  contract  a  proper  legal  marriage.'' 2 
She  managed,  however,  to  elope  with  Baldwin,  count  of 
Flanders.  In  great  indignation,  Charles  had  her  con- 
demned by  both  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authorities. 
The  pair  fled  to  the  kingdom  of  Lothaire,  whence  Baldwin 
betook  himself  to  Rome  to  beg  the  intercession  of  Nicholas 
(862).  Finding  that  the  marriage  had  taken  place  with  the 
fullest  freedom  of  consent  on  both  sides,  Nicholas  was 
moved  to  write  in  behalf  of  the  runaways.  One  reason 
which  he  made  use  of  to  induce  Charles  to  relent  was  lest 
his  indignation  should  drive  Baldwin  to  ally  himself  with 
the  pagan  Norsemen,3  who  were  then  inflicting  so  much 
injury  on  his  kingdom.  Nicholas  assured  the  king  he 
did  not  wish  to  order,  only  to  entreat.  At  length  (863) 
Charles  gave  his  consent4  to  a  legal  union  taking  place 
between  Judith  and  Baldwin.     From  them  sprang  not  only 

1  Gregorovius,  indeed  {Rome,  etc.,  iii.  130),  asserts  that  the  marriage 
was  contracted  "without  the  alliance  being  considered  immoral."  The 
contemporary  Englishman  Asser,  however,  writes  :  "  Ethelwulf s  son, 
Ethelbald,  contrary  to  God's  prohibition  and  the  dignity  of  a  Christian, 
....  ascended  his  father's  bed,  and  married  Judith  ....  and  drew 
down  much  infamy  upon  himself  from  all  who  heard  it."  (/;/  vit. 
Alfredi)  Such  is  the  language  also  of  the  later  chroniclers  of  England. 
Cf.  Pauli's  Life  of  Alfred,  p.  63  ;  Lingard,  Hist.  Eng.,  i.  p.  96. 

2  The  very  words  of  Hincmar's  Annals^  ad  an.  862. 

3  Ep.  22.     Cf  Epp.  23,  36. 

4  Hinc,  Ann.,  ad  an.  863.  Cf.  Nic,  Ep.  109,  and  Ep.  Hinc.  2. 
"  Baldwinus,  Nichola  P.  agente,  Judith  coram  patre  Karolo  desponsat." 
Ann.  Blandinienses,  863,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  v. 


94  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

the  line  of  the  counts  of  Flanders,  but  what  is  of  much 
more  interest  to  us,  Matilda,  the  wife  of  William  the 
Conqueror. 
Solomon,  The  efforts  which  we  have  seen  1  made  by  Nomenoius 
Brittany,  to  free  Brittany  from  all  dependence  on  Charles  the  Bald, 
and  its  bishops  from  all  subjection  to  any  archbishop  in 
Charles'  kingdom,  were  continued  by  Solomon.  He 
succeeded  to  the  dukedom  (857)  by  the  murder  of  his 
cousin  Herispoius.  He  endeavoured  to  induce  Nicholas 
to  recognise  the  bishops  whom  Nomenoius  had  forcibly 
intruded,  and  apparently  sent  the  Pope  a  very  specious 
account  of  the  preceding  negotiations  on  the  subject. 
Nicholas  wrote2  (862)  to  Solomon,  "king  of  the  Bretons," 
to  let  him  know  that  his  researches  into  the  archives 
of  the  Holy  See  showed  him  that  the  letters  of  popes 
Leo  IV.,  Benedict  TIL,  and  of  himself  were  to  a  different 
effect  than  that  represented  by  the  king.  Hence  the 
question  of  the  deposed  bishops  could  not  be  regarded  as 
settled,  but  must  be  referred  either  to  the  metropolitan, 
the  archbishop  of  Tours,  with  twelve  bishops,  or  to  the  Pope 
himself.  As  to  which  See  was  to  enjoy  metropolitan 
rights  over  Brittany,  Nicholas  wisely  temporised.  That 
question  could  be  considered  when  peace  had  been  made 
between  Solomon  and  Charles. 

Peace  was  made  between  the  two  in  the  following  year 
(863),  and  Solomon  renewed  his  request  that  Dol  might  be 
recognised  as  the  metropolitan  See  of  Brittany.  Nicholas, 
however,  refused  3  to  accede  to  the  petition,  on  the  ground 
that  no  proof  had  been  sent  to  him  that  the  pallium  had 
ever  before  been  sent  to  the  bishops  of  Dol.  He  ordered 
Festinianus  of  Dol  to  submit  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  See 
of  Tours  in  accordance  with  the  previous  decrees  of  the 

1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  295  ff.  of  this  work.  2  Ep.  25. 

3  Epp.  85  (ad  an.  865)  and  92  (ad  an.  866). 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT  95 

popes  and  with  ancient  custom.1  And  he  made  it  plain  2 
that  he  objected  to  civil  differences  interfering  with  the 
rights  of  churches.  He  had  evidently  no  sympathy  with 
men  who  wished  to  make  use  of  the  Church  in  their 
attempts  to  secure  independence  for  themselves  at  the 
expense  of  the  unity  of  established  kingdoms.  But  not 
even  a  decree  of  Nicholas  settled  this  debated  point.  As 
already  noticed,  it  took  more  than  three  hundred  years  to 
settle  the  question  of  the  rights  of  Dol  and  Tours. 

Another  dispute  referred  to  the  decision  of  Nicholas  had  The  con- 

r  ,  vent  of  St. 

already  lasted  as  long  as  the  'Dol'  question   was  yet  to  Calais  and 

.....  Robert  of 

endure.  It  was  a  disagreement  as  to  jurisdiction  over  a  Le  Mans. 
monastery,  which  was  at  first  known  as  Anisol  (or 
Anille),  from  the  river  on  which  it  was  built,  but  after- 
wards, with  the  small  town  that  grew  up  round  it,  as  St. 
Calais  (in  Latin,  Karilefus),  from  its  founder  (j-542). 
Originally  the  monastery  was  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  neighbouring  bishop  of  Le  Mans.  But,  according  to 
the  favour  or  disfavour  with  which  it  was  regarded  by  the 
sovereign  of  the  country  in  which  it  was  situated,  it  was 
withdrawn  from,  or  resubjected  to,  the  authority  of  the 
bishop  of  Le  Mans.  At  the  period  of  which  we  are 
now  treating  it  was  the  fashion  to  favour  the  monastery. 
Synods  (e.g.  that  of  Pistres,  862)  under  Hincmar  decided 
for  Anisol.  And,  in  863,  Nicholas  himself  confirmed  3  its 
privileges,  on  the  ground  of  its  long  immunity  from  the 
jurisdiction   of  Le   Mans.      The  laws  placed   a  limit,4  he 

1  Ep.  91.  "Restat.  .  .  .  ut .  .  .  .  ipsius  (Turonensis  Ecclesiae)  judicium 
exquirere  non  detrectent  (vestri  episcopi),  sicut  se  habent  monumenta  de- 
cessorum  nostrorum  pontificum  et  priorum  exempla  evidenterostendunt.3' 

2  Ep.  92.  3  Ep.  45. 

4  That  limit,  he  says,  was  thirty  years  for  civil  causes,  and  forty 
for  ecclesiastical  ones.  "  In  legibus  enim  habemus,  ut  omnes 
quaestiones  infra  30  annos  terminum  accipiant.  De  ecclesiasticis 
autem  causis,  post  quadragesimum  annum  nulla  querela  moveri  potest, 
si  non  intra  hoc  spatium  annorum  fuerit  mota."     lb. 


96 


ST.   NICHOLAS  I.,  THE  GREAT 


Other 
appeals. 


John  of 
Ravenna. 


urged,  to  the  period  in  which  rights  could  be  called  in 
question. 

Robert,  bishop  of  Le  Mans,  however,  appealed  to  the 
Pope  against  the  sentence  of  the  councils  which  had  non- 
suited his  claims.  Nicholas  accordingly  ordered 1  the  affair 
to  be  gone  into  again  by  a  fresh  council  (863).  One  which 
met  at  Verberie  (October  863)  found  in  favour  of  the 
monastery.  The  documents  with  which  Robert  attempted 
to  prove  his  claims  were  declared  forgeries  and  ordered  to 
be  burnt.     Anisol  became  definitely  independent.2 

Dealing  with  bishops  and  counts,  priests  and  deacons, 
we  see  Nicholas  informing3  Charles,  archbishop  of  Mayence, 
and  his  suffragans,  that  he  cannot  see  his  way  to  passing 
any  adverse  sentence  on  Solomon,  bishop  of  Constance ; 
ordering4  Stephen,  count  of  Auvergne,  to  restore  Sigon, 
bishop  of  Clermont,  to  his  See,  on  pain  of  being  interdicted 
from  wine  and  flesh ;  cautioning  5  Wenilo,  archbishop  of 
Sens,  not  to  interfere  with  a  certain  priest  if  he  sees  fit  to 
appeal  to  the  Apostolic  See ;  and  restoring6  the  deacon  Pepo, 
who  had  been  uncanonically  condemned  by  his  bishop. 

True  to  the  traditions  of  his  See,  and  in  harmony  with 
his  conduct  during  the  pontificate  of  Leo  IV.,  John,  arch- 
bishop of  Ravenna,  gave  Nicholas  a  great  deal  of  trouble 
by  his  insubordinate  and  tyrannical  conduct.  Deputations 
from  Ravenna  waited  upon  the  Pope,  praying  him  to 
relieve  them  from  the  oppressions  of  their  archbishop,  who 
was  depriving  them  both  of  their  property  and  of  their 
rights.  By  legates  and  letters  Nicholas  endeavoured  to 
reclaim  John.  The  only  notice  the  archbishop  took  of  the 
paternal  admonitions  of  the  Pope  was  to  go  from  bad  to 

1  Cf.  his  letters  (50-54)  to  bishop  Robert,  Charles  the  Bald,  etc. 

2  Hefele,  Cone,  v.  pp.  296,  406,  468,  499.  Butler's  Lives  of  the 
Saints,  July  1. 

3  Ep.  26,  ap.  P.  L.,  p.  809.  4  Ep.  24.     lb.,  p.  805. 
6  Ep.  70,  p.  890.                                                 6  L.  P.,  n.  xliii. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  97 

worse.  The  librarian  1  says  of  him  that  he  excommuni- 
cated people  without  just  ground,  prevented  others  from 
going  to  Rome,  arbitrarily  seized  property,  even  property 
belonging  to  the  See  of  Rome,  and  interfered  with  its 
ecclesiastical  rights.  For  he  passed  sentence  upon  clerics, 
not  only  on  those  subject  to  his  own  jurisdiction,  but  also 
on  many  in  Amelia  who  were  directly  subject  to  Rome. 
Anastasius  thinks  it  not  wonderful  that  John,  in  the  later 
years  of  his  pontificate,  acted  in  that  lawless  manner,  as  in 
the  very  beginning  of  his  rule,  like  his  predecessor  Felix, 
he  either  falsified  documents  preserved  in  the  episcopal 
archives  of  the  city  (no  doubt  those  which  showed  the  true 
relations  between  Ravenna  and  Rome),  or  added  forged 
ones  to  them. 

Thrice  summoned  to  Rome  to  give  an   account  of  hissynodat 
conduct  before  a  council,  he  boastfully  declared  that  he  was  Rome'  861, 
not  bound  to  attend  any  council  there  (861).     Finding  him 
contumacious,  and,  moreover,  accused  of  heresy,  the  Pope  ex- 
communicated him  in  a  synod  held,  perhaps,  about  Easter.2 

John,  however,  again  imitating  the  conduct  of  certain 
of  his  predecessors,  tried  to  secure  the  support  of  the 
secular  power.  He  betook  himself  to  Pavia,  and  gained 
the  ear  of  the  emperor.  Louis  sent  him  to  Rome  with 
ambassadors  of  his  own  to  support  his  claims.  By  point- 
ing out  to  the  ambassadors  how  wrongly  they  had  acted  in 
remaining  in  communion  with  one  who  had  been  excom- 
municated, Nicholas  had  no  difficulty  in  detaching  them 
from  the  archbishop's  cause.  But  John  himself  was  not  so 
amenable  to  admonitions  of  duty.  He  left  the  city,  refusing 
to  give  any  undertaking  that  he  would  present  himself  for 
judgment  at  a  synod  to  be  held  on  November  1,  861.3 

Weary  of  the  tyranny  of  John,  "  the  senators  of  the  city  Nicholas 

goes  to 

1  Tn  vit.  Nick.  Ravenna, 

2  L.  P.,  n.  xxiii.,  and  vol.  ii.,  p.  168,  n.  21.  3  L.  P.      86t' 
VOL.    III.                                                                                      7 


98  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

of  Ravenna,"  and  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  other  cities 
in  Emilia,  came  to  the  Pope  and  begged  him  to  go  to 
Ravenna  and  see  for  himself  what  was  being  done.  This 
the  Pope  did,  and  at  once  restored  to  the  injured  people 
the  property  of  which  they  had  been  plundered  by  the 
archbishop  and  his  brother.1 

John,  who  had  meanwhile  again  set  out  for  Pavia,  did 
not  win  the  same  reception  as  he  had  received  on  the 
occasion  of  his  previous  visit.  Headed  by  their  bishop, 
Luitard,  one  of  the  chief  counsellors  of  the  emperor  Louis, 
the  people  would  not  receive  the  excommunicated  arch- 
bishop into  their  houses,  nor  sell  anything  to  his  followers, 
so  anxious  were  they  not  to  share  in  his  excommunication. 
This  strong  manifestation  of  their  sentiments  on  the  part 
of  his  people  had  its  effect  upon  the  emperor.  When  John 
asked  him  to  support  him  a  second  time,  he  sent  word  to 
him  by  a  messenger  that  he  had  better  go  and  humble 
himself  before  the  Pope,  to  whom  2  both  he  himself  (Louis) 
and  the  whole  Church  were  subject.  However,  after  much 
difficulty,  he  secured  the  company  of  deputies  from  the 
emperor,  and  set  out  for  Rome.  To  their  intercession  on 
the  archbishop's  behalf  Nicholas  would  not  listen,  but 
remained  firm  in  his  determination  to  bring  him  to  justice. 
"  If  our  dear  son  the  emperor,"  he  said,  "  had  made  himself 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  his  doings,  so  far  from  inter- 
ceding in  his  behalf  he  would  have  compelled  him  to  come 
to  us,  however  unwilling  he  might  have  been." 
Roman  In   obedience  to  the   Pope's  orders,  the  bishops  of  the 

Nov.  861.  neighbouring  provinces  assembled  for  the  November  synod, 
the  first  session  of  which  v  as  held  "  in  the  Leonine  palace  " 
— part  of  the  work  of  Leo  IV.  on  the  Vatican  hill.3 

1  lb. 

2  lb.     "  Cui  (Papas)  et  nos  et  omnis  Ecclesiae  generalitas  inclinatur." 

3  Still  the  L.  P. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  99 

Finding  himself  abandoned  by  all,  John  begged  for 
mercy,  and  drew  up  in  clear  and  precise  language,  "  accord- 
ing to  the  custom  of  his  predecessors,"  the  terms  of  the 
oath  of  fidelity  and  obedience  he  owed  to  the  Pope.  We 
read  in  Nicholas's  biographer,  that  with  this  document  in 
his  hand,  John  appeared  before  the  Pope,  bishops,  and 
nobles  assembled  in  council,  that  he  placed  it  in  turn  on 
the  cross,  on  the  sandals x  of  Our  Lord,  and  on  a  copy  of 
the  Holy  Gospels,  and  that  in  fine,  holding  his  act  of 
submission  in  hand,  he  declared  aloud  that  he  would  for 
the  rest  of  his  life  faithfully  act  up  to  its  provisions. 

A  day  or  so  later,  at  another  session  held  in  the  Lateran 
basilica,  John  cleared  himself  of  the  charge  of  heresy,  and 
was  restored  to  communion. 

Next  day,  which  was  apparently  November  18,  John  again 
appeared  before  the  Pope  and  the  college  of  cardinals,2  to 
hear  the  charges  brought  against  him  by  the  bishops  of 
^Emilia  and  others.  From  the  papal  biographer,  and  from 
an  extant  fragment  (?)  of  this  council,  it  appears  that  the 
following  decrees  were  passed  in  reference  to  him  : — He 
was  to  come  to  Rome  every  year ;  was  not  to  consecrate 

1  lb.  Had  John  brought  them  with  him  from  Ravenna  ?  Cf.  vol.  ii., 
p.  1 19  of  this  work.  This  relic  must  have  been  left  at  Rome.  John  the 
Deacon,  Ecclesia  Lateranensis  (twelfth  century,  ap./\Z.,  1. 1 14)  mentions 
them  as  preserved  in  the  Sancta  Sanctorum  oratory,  near  the  Lateran. 

2  lb.  "  Et  juxta  morem  residente  sanctissimo  sacerdotum  et  coepisco- 
porum  collegio."  Comparing  what  is  here  said  by  the  L.  P.  with  the 
fragment  (?)  of  a  Roman  council,  published  by  Muratori  (R.  I.  S.,  ii., 
pt.  i.,  and  Migne,  t.  106,  p.  787),  it  seems  that  Hefele  is  correct  in 
identifying  the  fragment  (?)  with  the  third  session  of  this  council,  and 
consequently  that  Jane  is  not  right  in  supposing  this  document  to 
contain  the  acts  of  a  council  held  in  862.  Similarly  we  would  refer  to 
the  earlier  date  in  this  year  the  fragment  of  a  Roman  council  (ap. 
R.  I.  S.t  ii.,  pt.  ii.,  p.  127  ;  Migne,  t.  1 19,  p.  794),  in  which  we  find  John  of 
Ravenna  excommunicated  on  a  charge  of  heresy  brought  against  him  by 
Nandecisus,  bishop  of  Pola,  and  for  not  answering  a  summons  to  a 
council.  In  the  synod  of  November  861  John  cleared  himself  of  the 
charge  of  heresy. 


100  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

the  bishops  of  ^Emilia  (the  country  round  Milan,  according 
to  Hcfele)  except  after  a  canonical  election  by  the  duke, 
clergy,  and  people,  and  after  the  reception  of  a  written 
authorisation  from  the  Pope ;  was  not  to  interfere  with  the 
aforesaid  bishops  when  they  wished  to  come  to  Rome,  nor 
was  he  to  exact  any  payment  or  service  from  them  not 
sanctioned  by  the  canons  ;  nor,  in  fine,  was  he  to  possess 
himself  of  property,  whether  apparently  belonging  to  the 
Holy  See  or  to  others,  except  after  proof  of  legal  claim  in 
presence  of  the  proper  authorities,  i.e.  of  the  Pope  him- 
self at  Rome  or  of  his  representatives,  his  missus  or  his 
vestararius}  at  Ravenna.  On  the  conclusion  of  the 
publication  of  these  decrees,  the  members  of  the  council 
cried  out :  "  Just  is  the  judgment  of  the  Pastor  of  the  whole 
Church.     With  him  we  are  all  in  accord  !  " 2 

The  synodal  decree,3  which  was  signed  by  some  seventy 
bishops,  gives  in  detail  the  arbitrary  doings  of  the  archbishop. 
Every  two  years  he  '  visited '  his  suffragans,  and  stayed  so 
long  with  them  with  all  his  court  as  well  nigh  to  ruin  them. 
John  also  made  them  thrice  every  year  send  '  presents '  of 
food  and  drink  to  himself  and  his  chief  officials,  and  in 
various  other  ways  interfered  with  their  rights  or  their 
property.  It  was  as  a  ready  means  of  putting  a  curb  on 
the  tyranny  of  such  metropolitans  as  John  of  Ravenna 
that  made  the  False  Decretals  so  rapidly  popular.  The 
fact  that  John  was  deposed  in  863  for  siding  against  the 
Pope  with  Gunther  shows  that  his  submission  on  this 
occasion  was  only  verbal.4 

1  According  to  Du  Cange,  in  voce,  vestararius  is  the  same  as 
vestiarius.  In  a  fragment  of  a  letter  of  John  VIII.  there  is  mention  of 
a  "  vestararius  of  Ravenna,"  to  whom  the  keys  of  the  city  were  entrusted. 
lb.     Cf.  L.  />.,  ii.,  p.  169,  n.  32. 

2  L.  P.  3  Ap.  P.  L.,  t.  106,  p.  788  ;  L.  P.,  n.  xxxiii.  ff. 

4  Compare  this  account  of  the  affair  of  John  of  Ravenna,  which  is 
that  of  Anastasius,  and  is  supported  by  the  official  evidence  of  councils, 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  10 1 

Of  what  heresy  John  was  accused  we  have  no  means  of  Gottes- 

i  •  i  -ii  •  im      i  i  i  chalc  and 

knowing,  unless,  indeed,  as  is  most  likely,  the  decrees  •  Predes- 
(cc.  2,  3,  4)  of  the  council  of  861  against  those  who  held 
that  Our  Lord  suffered  not  merely  in  His  human  but  also 
in  His  divine  nature,  and  that  baptism  was  not  equally 
efficacious  for  all,  were  aimed  against  him.  Certainly  the 
latter  decree  strikes  at  the  absolute  predestination  doctrine  of 
Gotteschalc  who,  we  know,  in  846  had  made  a  pilgrimage 
to  Rome,  and  had,  on  his  return  journey  through  Italy, 
broached  his  theories  at  the  house  of  a  friend  in  the  North.1 
Or  he  may,  perchance,  have  been  charged  with  at  least 
countenancing  that  German  monk.  At  any  rate,  the  latter's 
heretical  views  were  the  ones  most  in  evidence  at  the 
period  of  which  we  are  writing.  Gotteschalc,  whose  name, 
as  might  be  anticipated,  is  spelt  in  many  different  ways, 
revived  the  heresy  which  had  been  promulgated  in  Gaul, 
four  centuries  before  his  time,  by  the  Gaulish  priest  Lucidus. 
He  taught  the  awful  doctrine  of 'absolute  predestination/ 
Of  a  disposition  naturally  rash,  headstrong,  and  intractable,2 
he  was  soured  by  being  compelled  to  remain  a  monk 
against  his  will.  He  was  understood  to  teach  "  that  the 
good    were   inevitably    predestined  by  God  to  eternal  life 

with  that  given  by  the  author  of  the  Libellns  de  Imp.  potest,  (ap. 
Watterich,  i.  p.  629).  That  anonymous  imperial  partisan  says  that 
Nicholas  acted  against  John  '  from  envy,'  because  the  latter  was  on 
very  good  terms  with  the  emperor  {qui  serviens  imperatori familiarior 
erat) ;  and,  it  would  seem,  attributes  to  Louis,  in  his  alleged  partisan- 
ship of  John,  the  deeds  of  violence  in  the  Pentapolis  which  had  been 
done  by  John  himself.  His  authority  is,  however,  not  comparable  to 
that  of  Anastasius  and  the  '  Councils.' 

1  Prudent.,  Ann.,  849. 

2  He  says  of  himself  (Ep.  ad  Ratram.,  ap.  Jager,  Hist,  de  riig/ise 
C.  en  France,  v.  p.  82)  that  he  was,  "  Stultorum  princeps  abrupta  per 
omnia  prajceps."  And  in  harmony  with  that,  Hincmar  informs  the 
Pope  (Ep.  2)  that  he  was  "  Habitu  monachus,  mente  ferinus,  quietis 
impatiens,  et  vocum  novitate  delectans,  ac  inter  suos  mobilitate  noxia 
singularis." 


102  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

and  the  bad  to  everlasting  death."1  But  in  his  confessions 
he  was  careful  not  to  say  whether  the  predestination  to 
eternal  death  imposed  any  necessity  on  man's  will.  Un- 
fortunately, in  the  replies  issued  against  his  teaching,  this 
point  was  not  pressed  home  ;  and  confusion  was  caused  by 
some  of  his  orthodox  opponents,  in  their  anxiety  to  unmask 
his  terrible  sophisms,  not  admitting,  in  the  proper  restricted 
sense,  double  predestination.  Beginning  to  propagate  his 
views  before  the  close  of  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century, 
he  soon  attracted  attention  to  them.  Many  works  were 
published  on  this  most  difficult  subject  of '  predestination,' 
and  not  unnaturally  there  was  no  little  confusion  of  ex- 
pression, if  not  of  thought,  in  some  of  the  productions. 
Some  of  their  authors  were  probably  sounder  in  belief 
than  in  their  mode  of  propounding  that  belief.  A  word  or 
two  on  the  subject  of  predestination  may  perhaps  (we 
may  hope  not  by  way  of  example)  make  it  clear  how 
confusion  of  expression  and  mutual  misunderstanding  could 
readily  arise  among  heated  writers  on  this  abstruse  topic. 

It  will  not  be  denied  that  it  is  impossible  for  anything 
to  happen  except  by  the  will  of  God,  i.e.  either  by  His 
direct  or,  at  least,  by  His  'permissive'  will.  Everything, 
therefore,  which  comes  about  may  be  said,  from  that  point 
of  view,  to  come  about  in  virtue  of  the  will  of  God.  Now 
it  is  the  teaching  of  the  Church  that  God  gives  to  every 
man  sufficient  grace  to  be  saved.  But  one  man,  using  the 
free  will  which  God  has  given  to  him,  will  avail  himself 
of  God's  proferred  grace  and  be  saved,  another  will  reject 
it  and  be  lost.  Hence,  in  the  sense  noted  above,  God 
may  be  said  to  will  the  damnation  of  the  latter  and  the 
salvation  of  the  former.     Further,  as  He  '  foreknows  '  who 

1  The  words  of  the  contemporary  Annals  of  Falda,  ad  an.  848. 
Ful da  was  the  monastery  in  which  he  was  compelled  to  become  and 
remain  a  monk. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  103 

will  embrace  His  grace  and  be  saved,  and  who  will  neglect 
it  and  be  damned,  He  may  be  said  to  'predestine'  the  one 
to  eternal  life  and  the  other  to  the  second  death.  It  will, 
however,  be  observed  that  the  reward  or  punishment  is 
'predestined'  in  view  of  foreseen  merit  or  demerit.  So 
that  God  may  be  said  rather  to  predestine  "  eternal  death 
to  some  men  rather  than  some  to  eternal  death." 

It  will  be  obvious  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
same  form  of  phrase,  on  the  subject  of  predestination,  may 
be  either  orthodox  or  heretical ;  and,  from  the  complexity 
of  the  question,  doubtless  still  clearer  that  a  writer  might 
easily  be  really  in  mind  or  in  intention  quite  orthodox,  and 
yet  unwittingly  use  heretical  phrases.  Thus,  if  it  be  said 
that  God  "  predestines  a  man  to  hell,"  the  expression  would 
be  heretical  if  the  words  are  to  be  understood  'as  they 
stand,'  in  their  strict  sense,  or  absolutely.  But  they  will 
be  orthodox  if  they  be  meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  God, 
foreseeing  that  a  man  will  freely  elect  to  walk  along  the 
road  that  leads  to  the  bottomless  pit,  permits  him  to  arrive 
there,  or  to  put  it  more  strongly,  decrees  eternal  punishment 
for  him  as  the  natural  consequence  of  his  evil  choice.  Once 
again,  the  similarly  ill-sounding  phrase  that  "  Christ  died 
only  for  the  elect "  would  be  orthodox,  if  it  be  explained  to 
mean  that  Christ  died  '  efficaciously '  for  the  elect  only,  as 
they  alone  availed  themselves  of  the  merits  of  His  death. 

When  the  views  of  Gotteschalc  became  public,  they 
were  immediately  controverted.  Some,  however,  either 
because  they  were  in  sympathy  with  his  doctrine  or  with 
himself,1  or  because  they  thought  he  had  been  misunder- 

1  He  had  not  only  been  forced  to  be  a  monk  against  his  will,  but, 
besides  being  condemned  in  various  councils  from  that  of  Mayence 
(848)  to  that  of  Tousy  (860),  had  even  been  whipped  for  his  unsound 
doctrine,  in  view  of  a  rule  of  St.  Benedict  for  the  treatment  of 
refractory  monks.  Gotteschalc  died  (868)  without  being  reconciled  to 
the  Church. 


104  ST«    NICHOLAS   L,  THE   GREAT 

stood,  took  up  their  pens  in  his  favour.  The  controversy 
lasted  some  ten  years.  Not  merely  learned  men,  but 
councils,  were  ranged  on  both  sides  ;  facts  which  have  their 
explanation  almost  more  in  this,  that  the  latter  were  held 
in  countries  often  hostile  to  each  other,  and  that  the  former 
were  not  unfrequently  occupants  of  rival  Sees,  rather  than 
in  real  opposition  to  doctrine.  Both  parties  brought  their 
arguments  under  the  notice  of  the  Pope.  Among  others, 
Hincmar  also  informed  Nicholas  of  the  doctrine  of 
Gotteschalc,  begged  him  to  check  his  account  of  it  by 
the  testimony  of  others,  and  said  that,  if  his  "authority 
wished  the  monk  to  be  released  and  sent  to  him  or  to 
some  other  bishop  he  might  appoint  in  order  that  the 
affair  might  be  further  investigated,  he  had  no  objection 
to  offer"1 

Prudentius,  bishop  of  Troyes,  who  was  the  author  of 
part  of  the  Annals  of  St.  Bertin,  even  goes  the  length  of 
asserting2  that  Pope  Nicholas  published  decrees  on  grace 
and  free  will,  "  on  the  truth  of  the  twofold  predestination  " 
(viz.,  to  life  and  death  eternal),  and  on  the  dogma  that  the 
blood  of  Christ  was  shed  for  all  believers.  But,  as  we 
learn3  from  the  continuation  of  the  same  annals,  written 
by  Hincmar,  Prudentius  was  a  partisan  of  Gotteschalc. 
And  in  another  place,4  citing  this  very  passage  of  the 
annals  of  Prudentius,  Hincmar  declares  that  such  a 
statement   is   not   to   be   found    anywhere   else ;    and    he 

1  Ep.  2  ad  fin.)  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  126. 

2  Ad  an.  859.  "  Nicolaus,  pontifex  Romanus,  de  gratia  Dei  et  libero 
arbitrio,  de  veritate  gemmae  praedestinationis  et  sanguine  Christi,  ut 
pro  credentibus  omnibus  fusus  sit,  fideliter  confirmat  et  catholice 
decernit." 

3  Ad  an.  861.  "Prudentius  ....  qui  ante  aliquot annos  Getescalco 
pmedestinatiano  restiterat,  post  felle  commotus  contra  quosdam  secum 
beretico  resistentes,  ipsius  hLeresis  defensor  acerrimus,  indeque  non 
modica  inter  se  diversa  et  fidei  adversa  scriptitans  moritur." 

4  Ep.  ix.,  ad  Egilonem,  P.  Z.,  t.  126,  p.  70. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  105 

conjures  Egilo,  archbishop  of  Sens,  to  whom  he  was 
writing,  to  let  the  Pope  know  what  Prudentius  had 
asserted,  so  that  no  scandal  might  arise  in  the  Church,  as 
it  certainly  would  were  men  to  think  that  the  Pope  had 
the  same  belief  as  Gotteschalc. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Hincmar  is  correct  in  this  matter. 
Nicholas  prudently  abstained  from  intervening  in  the 
controversy.  He  examined  witnesses  as  to  what  was 
going  on,  received  (863)  the  works  of  Hincmar  on 
'Predestination/1  and  especially  interested  himself  in  the 
treatment  that  was  being  meted  out  to  Gotteschalc.  Hence 
Hincmar  was  careful  to  instruct2  (866)  Egilo  of  Sens  to 
assure  the  Pope  that  the  unhappy  monk  was  abundantly 
supplied  with  food,  clothing,  and  all  necessaries. 

By  his  prudent  reserve  in  not  allowing  himself  to  be 
drawn  into  the  midst  of  the  confusion  of  the  '  predestination ' 
controversy,  Nicholas  effected  more  than  he  could  have 
done  by  any  active  interference.  His  policy  of  non- 
intervention resulted  in  the  close  of  the  dispute  with  the 
death  (868)  of  its  author.3  The  Pope  knew  that  men  who 
were  not  fanatical  would  hold  fast  to  the  truths  that  God 
has  given  free-will  to  man  ;  that  it  requires  the  grace 
of  God  to  win  heaven  ;  that  no  man  will  lose  his  soul 
except  through  his  own  fault,  and  that  it  was  not  their 
affair   to   reconcile    these    truths    one   with    the   other   or 


1  lb.,  Ep.  ii.,  ad  Papam,  /.  c,  p.  43.  2  Ep.  ix. 

3  It  was  said  at  the  time  that  Gotteschalc  himself  had  appealed  to  the 
Pope.  At  any  rate  it  was  reported  to  Hincmar  that  a  monk,  who  was 
friendly  to  the  heretic,  and  who  was  an  inmate  of  the  monastery  where 
Gotteschalc  was  confined,  'took  himself  off'  to  carry  his  friend's  appeal 
to  Rome.  "  Et  sicut  mini  dictum  est  (writes  Hincmar,  id.,  Ep.  ix.), 
quasi  ipsius  Gothescalci  reclamationem  vult  (viz.,  the  runaway  monk, 
Gunthbert),  perferre  ad  domnum  apostolicum."  On  the  whole 
'  predestination  controversy,'  see  Hefele's  Councils,  v.  (French  ed.). 
In  §  458,  however,  for  "they  added  to  canon  4,"  we  ought  to  read, 
"  they  struck  out  of  canon  4." 


106  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

with    the    supreme    dominion    of    God    over    everything. 
He  knew  that  words  would  be  powerless  against  practical 
belief. 
John  Scott       Before  leaving  Gotteschalc,  it  may  be  noted  with  some 

Ierueena,      .  .  r     .  ......  . 

later  interest  that  one  of  those  who  by  their  writings  on   the 

n§ena*  subject  of  predestination  only  added  to  existing  confusion, 
was  John  Scott  the  Erin-born x ;  and  that,  too,  though 
his  work  was  directed  against  him.  Much  less  a  steady 
theologian  than  a  ready-witted,  pantheistic  philosopher, 
his  refutation  of  Gotteschalc  contained  more  false  teachings, 
philosophical  and  otherwise,  than  the  work  he  took  in 
hand  to  answer,  and  brought  upon  himself  various  literary 
missiles,  such  as  canons  of  councils  which  condemned  all 
'  Scots'  porridge,' 2  and  the  keen  eyes  of  Nicholas.  Hence, 
when  at  the  request  of  Charles  the  Bald  the  clever  Irish- 
man published  some  time  later  a  translation  of  the  work 
De  divinis  nominibus,  then  attributed  to  St.  Dionysius  the 
Areopagite,  Nicholas  wrote3  to  Charles  to  let  him  know, 
that  'according  to  custom,'  the  book  ought  to  be  sent  to 
him  for  his  judgment,  "  the  more  so  that  the  said  John, 
though  reported  to  be  a  man  of  much  learning,  was  at 
one  time  by  common  report  declared  not  to  be  sound  on 
certain  points.  Accordingly  let  your  industry  make  good 
what  has  been  omitted,  and  at  once  send  us  the  afpresaid 
work,  that,  approved  by  us,  it  may,  in  virtue  of  our 
authority,   be    the    more   readily   received    by   everybody 

1  He  was  "the  first  of  the  schoolmen  to  attempt  an  independent 
system  of  philosophical  speculation,''  independent,  i.e.,  of  the  tradition 
of  the  Fathers  ;  and  with  him  the  first  period  of  scholastic  philosophy 
is  said  to  have  begun. 

2  Council  of  Valence,  855,  can.  6. 

3  Ep.  115,  ad  Carolum  Regem.  (P.  L.,  p.  11 19).  In  her  Studies  in 
JoJm  the  Scotia  p.  135,  Miss  Gardener  seems  to  have  followed  a  false 
reading  of  this  letter  in  thinking  that  Scotus  himself  had  to  be  sent 
to  Rome.  Cf.  her  note,  p.  139.  With  her  work  should  be  compared 
Turner's  Hist.  *f  Philosophy,  p.  246  ff. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  107 

without  hesitation."  This  fragment  is  very  interesting,  as 
it  shows  that  a  papal  censorship  of  at  least  famous 
theological  works  was  practised  in  the  ninth  century. 

In  the  history  of  Christianity,  the  ninth  century  is  marked  The  Slavs. 
out  by  the  conversion  of  the  Slavs,1  like  ourselves,  members 
of  the  great  Aryan  or  Indo-European  family.  The  Slavs, 
though  by  no  means  to  the  extent  commonly  supposed 
as  far  as  the  first  two  qualities  are  concerned,  were  a  quiet, 
peaceful,  democratic  people,  devoted  to  pastoral  pursuits, 
and  later  on,  after  their  westward  and  southern  migration, 
to  commerce.  They  came  originally  from  the  plain  of 
Central  Europe,  the  region  of  the  Don,  Dnieper,  and 
Vistula.2  Hence,  as  "  die  Weidenden  "  probably  means 
the  "  dwellers  on  the  great  prairie," 3  they  were  known  to 
the  Germans,  who  afterwards  subdued  some  branches  of 
them,  as  Wends.     They  called  themselves  Serbes. 

The  Slavs  began  to  move  southwards  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  but  at  first  rather  as  auxiliaries,  slaves  or 
vassals  of  other  tribes.  They  began  to  make  their  appear- 
ance within  the  Roman  provinces  as  conquerors  on  their 
own  account  at  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,4  and  continued 
their  ravages   for  two  centuries.     By   the   middle  of  the 

1  Some  derive  this  word  from  the  Slavonic  'slava,'  which  means 
'glory,'  others  from  'slovo,'  which  in  the  same  language  means  'word5 ; 
though,  indeed,  both  words  are  from  the  same  root,  and  in  Little- 
Russian  slava  means  discourse,  as  Morfill  {Slavonic  Literature,  pp. 
35  and  257)  notes.  To  the  Slavs  other  peoples  were  Niem  {mutes), 
they  alone  had  the  true  speech  or  word.  '  Sedlo,'  seat,  is  another 
derivation  ;  and  a  very  probable  derivation  is  found  in  'slowecz,'  a  man, 
or  warrior.     Hence  in  the  '  Slavs '  we  should  see  '  the  people.' 

2  "  Habitations  locum  subinde  mutant,  ....  sparsim  et  rare  positis 
tabernaculis  regionem  obtinent,  quo  fit  ut  magnum  occupent  spatium." 
Procopius,  De  Bello  GotJiico,  iii.  c.  14. 

3  Others  say  it  means  "  the  dwellers  by  the  water"  (the  Baltic),  from 
a  root  wenda.     Cf.  Russian  voda,  Latin  u?ida. 

4  Their  first  recorded  raid  across  the  Danube  was  in  493,  their 
second  in  517. 


108  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

seventh  century  almost  the  whole  of  the  Balkan  peninsula 
was  covered  with  their  colonies,  and  they  had  pushed  as 
far  west  as  Bavaria.  Traces  of  their  settlements  are  still 
to  be  discovered  in  various  parts,  e.g.  in  Greece,  where  for 
a  long  period  none  of  their  direct  descendants  have  been 
found. 

By  the  end  of  the  seventh  century  Slav  migration 
towards  the  West  ceased.  Since  that  time,  while  losing 
territory  in  that  direction,  they  have  made  up  for  it  by 
colonising  Eastern  and  Northern  Russia.  Of  the  various 
branches  of  the  Slavs,  there  was  originally  the  greatest 
divergence  between  the  Slavs  of  the  East  (Russians), 
and  of  the  South  (Sloveni  or  Serbes,  Croats,  Bulgarians, 
etc.),  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  of  the  West  (Lechs,  etc.) 
on  the  other.  This  difference  was,  of  course,  accentuated 
when  the  latter  came  into  contact  with  Rome  and  the 
Teutons,  and  the  former  began  to  be  influenced  by  the 
Byzantine  empire  and  the  East.  Of  the  action  of  these 
different  sources  of  influence  on  the  Slavs  we  shall  have  to 
treat  immediately. 

In  a  broad  way,  the  different  families  of  the  Slavs  occupy 
now  the  same  territory  as  at  the  close  of  the  seventh 
century,1  though  it  was  not  till  the  invasion  of  the  Magyars 
at  the  end  of  the  ninth  century  that  they  began  to  form 
separate  states.  Nowadays  the  different  Slav  races  may 
be  enumerated  as  follows.  Under  the  Slavs  of  the  South 
and  East  are  reckoned  the  Russians,  Bulgarians,2  and  lastly, 
the  Illyrians,  who  include  the  Serbes,  Croats,  and  Wends 
or  Slovens  of  Carinthia  ;  and  under  those  of  the  West,  the 
Lechs,  who  embrace  the  Poles,  Silesians,  and  Pomeranians, 

1  Then  they  settled  in  Carniola  (Carinthia),  Illyricum,  Macedonia, 
Moesia,  and  Pannonia. 

2  Strictly  speaking  the  Bulgarians  were  not  Slavs,  but  only  Slav- 
speaking.     Cf.  p.  in. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  IO9 

the  Czechs  or  Bohemians,  with  whom  are  counted  the 
Moravians  and  Slovaks  ;  and  the  Polabians,  who  represent 
the  disappearing  Slavonic  tribes  of  North  Germany.1 

These  various  Slavonic  tribes  seem  to  have  had  a  vague  Their 

1  •  j         religion. 

idea  of  a  Supreme  Being,  who  was,  later  on,  worshipped  as 
the  thunder  maker,2  and  perhaps  impersonated  by  an  idol 
known  as  Perun.3  Like  the  Hindoos,  they  were  very  fond 
of  '  many-headed  '  gods.  At  Arcona,  the  capital  of  the  isle 
of  Rugen,  the  Danish  missionaries  found  '  Svantovit  '(Holy 
Light),  an  idol  with  four  heads.4  At  Stettin  was  the  triple- 
headed  Triglav.  There  was  also,  among  many  of  the 
tribes,  a  Persian  Dualism.  They  recognised  good  (Bieli- 
Bog)5  and  bad  (Tcherni-Bog)  gods  ;  or,  more  exactly,  white 
and  black  gods.  Procopius  assures  us  that  they  were  given 
in  times  of  danger  to  the  making  of  vows,  which  they  most 
religiously  performed,  and  also  to  the  practice  of  divination. 
Their  mode  of  worship  was  not  unlike  that  of  the  Druids, 
and    like   them   the    northern    Slavs,   at  any  rate,  offered 

1  Cf.  Histoire  ge?i.,  vol.  i.  Les  Origines,  p.  688  seq.,  by  Lavisse. 
Instructive  is  Mr.  Freeman's  essay  on  The  Southern  Slaves  (Historical 
Essays,  Third  Series).  See  also  Bury,  Later  Roman  Empire,  ii., 
p.  11  f.,  p.  114  f.,  and  especially  chapters  i.  and  ii.  of  Leger's  Cyrille 
et  Methode. 

2  So  says  Procopius,  De  Bello  Gothi'co,  iii.  14  (ap.  P.  I.  S.,  i.  313). 
"  Unum  enim  Deum,  fulguris  effectorem  dominum  hujus  universitatis 
solum  agnoscunt,"  etc.  "  Prreterea  fluvios  colunt  et  Nymphas  et  alia 
quaedam  numina."     Cf.  Helmold.,  Chron.  Slav.,  i.  84. 

3  The  treaties,  cited  by  the  old  Russian  chronicle  assigned  to  Nestor 
(monk  at  Kievv,  tiu6),  between  the  Greeks  and  the  Russians,  were 
always  closed  with  the  formula  :  "  May  he  who  shall  violate  this  treaty 
be  accursed  of  God,  Peroun,  and  Volos  (od  Boha,  od  Perouna),"  Leger, 
p.  19. 

4  See  Saxo  Grammaticus  (L.  xiv.  p.  564  ff.)  for  a  graphic 
account  of  its  destruction  under  Waldemar  I.,  king  of  Denmark,  in 
Saxo's  own  time,  as  also  of  that  of  Rugie-Vitus  with  seven  faces  and 
of  Pore-Vitus  with  five. 

5  Bog  is  said  to  be  identical  with  the  Sanskrit,  bhaga,  and  is  the 
proper  name  of  a  Vedic  divinity.  Cf.  Stribog  (god  of  cold)  and  other 
similar  gods  of  the  Russian,  ap.  Chron.  Nest.,  c.  38. 


no 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 


even  human  sacrifices.  Originally,  at  least,  they  held  their 
religious  services  in  the  open  air,  in  the  woods  and  forests, 
which  they  peopled  with  inferior  gods,  fairies,  and  the  like. 
Character.  Of  a  well-formed  frame,  and  by  no  means  wanting  in 
courage,  the  Slav,  though  said  to  be  fond  of  liberty,  lacked 
and  still  lacks  independence  of  character.  Though 
hospitable,  musical,  and  cheerful,  they  were  not  (locally,  at 
any  rate)  without  cruel  customs.  Mothers  were  at  liberty 
to  destroy  their  infant  daughters,  and  sons  to  kill  their 
fathers  when  from  old  age  they  were  no  longer  useful  to 
the  State.  Wives  were  often  obliged  (another  connection 
with  the  religions  of  India)  to  cast  themselves  upon  the 
fire  which  consumed  the  dead  bodies  of  their  husbands. 
The  Slavs  held  their  women  in  very  little  account ;  they 
regarded  them  as  beneath  them.1 

Hence,  concludes  Leger,2  "  by  their  manners  and  customs, 
by  their  religion,  at  once  simple  and  poetical,  by  their 
patriarchal  constitutions,  the  Slavs  were  evidently  better 
predisposed  to  the  coming  of  Christianity  than  any  other 
race.  With  an  external  worship  calculated  to  satisfy 
their  imagination,  it  came  to  bring  them  the  solution  of 
those  great  problems  of  the  Unity  of  God,  the  origin  of 
evil,  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  with  which  they  were 
acquainted,  and  which  their  own  naive  myths  had  en- 
deavoured to  resolve." 

As  far  as  we  know,  the  truths  of  Christianity  were  first 
accepted  (apart  from  the  conversion  of  individual  Slavs) 
by  the  Croats  in  Dalmatia.  Their  king,  Porga,  and  many 
of  his  people  were  baptized  under  Pope  John  IV.3  (640- 
642),  himself  a  Dalmatian.     Contact  with  Bavaria  brought 

1  Cf.  Alzog,  §  180,  The  Slavonians  and  their  mythology;  Balan, 
Delle  Relaz.  fra  la  Chiesa  Cat.  e  gli  Slavi,  pp.  II,  12;  Morrill, 
Slavonic  Literature,  an  invaluable  little  book,  p.  43,  quoting  from  the 
Strategicum  of  the  emperor  Maurice,  the  friend  of  Gregory  the  Great. 

2  P.  36.  3  Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  i.,  p.  362  of  this  work. 


First  con 
verts  to 
Chris- 
tianity. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE  GREAT  III 

the  faith  to  the  Slavs  of  Carinthia  x  (the  country  between 
the  Drave  and  the  Danube)  at  the  end  of  the  eighth 
century. 

Events  in  Moravia,2  however,  were  most  instrumental  in 
bringing  about  the  conversion  of  the  Slavs.  Strife  among 
the  chiefs  of  the  Moravians  brought  German  interference 
into  their  affairs.  Though  satisfied  with  the  truths  of 
Christianity  which  the  Germans  introduced  into  his  country, 
the  great  duke  of  Moravia,  Radislav  (or  Rastices),  in  order 
to  be  quite  independent,  determined  to  obtain  teachers  of 
the  new  doctrines  rather  from  the  weak  Greeks  than  from 
his  political  enemies,  the  powerful  Germans.  In  reply  to 
his  request  for  missionaries,  Michael  III.  sent  him  (863) 
perhaps  the  two  most  famous  brothers  in  the  history  of 
Christianity,  S.  Constantine,  better  known  by  his  religious 
name  of  Cyril,  and  S.  Methodius,  the  glorious  apostles  of 
the  Slavs.  Of  these  devoted  men,  to  whom  the  Slavs  most 
properly  pay  such  honour,  whose  '  cult '  has  been  so  much 
advanced  by  the  late  Pope  (Leo  XIII.),  and  whom  Nicholas 
summoned  to  Rome,  but  was  not  destined  to  behold,  we 
shall  have  much  to  say  under  the  life  of  Hadrian  II. 

But  the  Slavs  with  whom  Pope  Nicholas  was  most  con-  The  Bui- 
cerned  were  the  Bulgarians.  The  Bulgarians  properly 
belonged  to  the  Ugro-Finnish  or  the  Ugro-Altaic  branch  of 
the  great  Turanian  family.  Akin  to  the  Huns  and  Avars, 
they  moved  south  from  their  homes  in  the  north  of  modern 
Russia  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  Of 
their  earlier  history  Oman 3  writes  :   "  This   Ugrian   tribe, 

1  "  The  Slavs  of  Carinthia  and  Styria  were  only  converted,  generally, 
after  they  had  been  conquered  by  the  Franks.  .  .  .  The  two  countries 
formed  part  of  the  diocese  of  Salzburg."  Leger,  p.  51.  The  tradition 
of  the  Slavs  is  that  they  were  first  converted  by  St.  Paul  and  his  disciple 
Andronicus  (Ros.  xvi.  7).     Cf.  Nestor,  c.  20. 

2  Cf.  vol.  ii.,  p.  175  fif.  of  this  work. 

3  Europe,  476-918  (p.  248).     Cf.  Bury,  Later  Roman  Empire. 


ganans. 


112  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

who  had  dwelt  for  the  last  two  centuries  (fifth  and  sixth) 
beyond  the  Danube,  crossed  the  river1  in  the  end  of 
Constantine's  (IV.,  Pogonatus)  reign  (668-685),  and  then 
threw  themselves  on  the  Slavonic  tribes  who  held  Mcesia." 
....  Constantine  at  length  "  allowed  the  Bulgarians  to 
settle  without  further  opposition  in  the  land  between  the 
Danube  and  the  Balkans,  where  the  Slavs  had  hitherto 
held  possession  (679).  A  new  Bulgarian  nation  was 
gradually  formed  by  the  intermixture  of  the  conquering 
tribe  and  their  subjects;  when  formed  it  displayed  a 
Slavonic  rather  than  a  Ugrian  type,  and  spoke  a  Slavonic 
not  a  Ugrian  tongue."  In  the  ninth  century  they  began  to 
extend  towards  the  south-west,  and  in  the  tenth  century  ruled 
from  Varna  and  the  mouths  of  the  Danube  to  the  moun- 
tains of  Thessaly  and  Phocis.  That  is,  at  the  time  of  the 
greatest  extent  of  Bulgaria's  rule,  under  the  sway  of  its 
Tsar  Simeon  (892-927),  it  embraced  nearly  the  whole  of 
the  Balkan  peninsula,  part  of  Hungary  and  Walachia,  and 
was  the  suzerain  of  the  Serbes. 
Conversion  Contact  with  the  Byzantine  empire  brought  the 
Bulgarians  into  constant  touch  with  Christianity.  But  at 
first  it  made  little  progress  among  them.  One  of  their 
kings,  Telerig,  on  embracing  Christianity,  had  to  abandon 
his  throne  {777).  The  wars  between  them  and  the 
Greeks  resulted,  in  the  early  years  of  the  following  century, 
in  a  great  many  of  the  latter  being  conveyed  as  prisoners 
into  Bulgaria.  Through  them,  though  such  Christians  as 
had  not  fled  from  the  country  during  the  different  barbarian 
invasions,  and  especially  through  Manuel,  archbishop  of 
Adrianople,  which  was  captured  by  the  Bulgarians  in  813, 
Christianity  made  some  headway.  It  was  not,  however, 
till  the  reign  of  King  Boris,  or  Bogoris  (852-888),  that  it 
was  at  all  firmly  established.  His  sister  had  been  baptized 
1  They  seem  to  have  made  their  first  raid  across  the  Danube  in  499. 


of  the  Bul- 
garians. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  II3 

whilst  a  captive  at  Constantinople.  In  fulfilment  of  a 
vow,  Boris  got  himself  baptized  (864),  according  to  the 
Sclavonic  and  Greek  legends,  by  a  Byzantine  bishop, 
Joseph  or  Clement,  and  had  for  godfather  the  emperor 
Michael  III.1  But  according  to  the  well-informed  con- 
temporary Anastasius,  in  his  oft-cited  Preface,  the  sacrament 
was  administered  by  a  Roman  priest  named  Paul. 

Next  year  (865)  Photius  sent  to  the  Bulgarian  prince  a 
long  letter2  explanatory  of  Christian  faith  and  duty. 
Borrowed  largely  from  Isocrates's  letter  of  exhortation  to 
Nicocles,  it  was  much  too  learned  for  the  convert  bar- 
barian. He  was,  moreover,  still  further  troubled  by  various 
doctrines  which  were  poured  into  his  ears  by  different 
Eastern  heretics. 

Accordingly,  whether    it  was  that  he  was  "  perplexed 3  Boris  tu™s 

&  J '  r     r  to  Rome, 

....  by  these  written  arguments "  of  Photius  or  by  the  866. 
contradictions  of  the  Easterns  ;  or  that  he  was  vexed  because 
Photius  would  not  at  once  establish4  a  complete  hierarchy 
in  Bulgaria  ;  or  that  he  feared  that  ecclesiastical  subjection  to 
Constantinople  might  be  followed  by  civil ;  or  whether  in 
consequence  of  a  childish  love  of  change,  or  of  a  cunning 
scheme  to  play  off  one  party  against  the  other,  certain  it  is 

1  It  is  stated  by  Maclear,  The  Slavs  (in  the  Conversion  of  the 
West  Series),  p.  55,  that  Bogoris  was  baptized  by  Photius,  and  that  S. 
Methodius,  the  brother  of  S.  Cyril,  came  to  paint  for  the  king.  One  of 
these  statements  is  erroneous  ;  the  other,  that  Methodius,  the  artist, 
was  the  same  person  as  the  apostle  of  the  Slavs,  is  of  very  doubtful 
truth.  The  work  of  Maclear  is  more  readable  than  exact,  and  should  be 
corrected  by  Bury,  Later  Roman  Empire,  and  Hergenrother,  Hist. 
de  VEglise,  iii.  Cf.  also  Lapotre,  Jean  VIII. ,  ch.  2.  Balan,  La  Chiesa 
Cattolica  e gli  Slavi,  p.  16,  also  needs  correction.  A  good  outline  of  the 
history  of  Bulgaria  is  given  in  pt.  ii.  of  The  Balkan  States,  one  of  the 
Stories  of  the  Nations  Series.  See  also  La  Bulgarie  Chretiemic,  by 
A.  d'Avril,  Paris,  1898,  and  Hist,  des  Litte'ratures  Slaves,  by  Pypine 
and  Spasovic,  French  ed.,  Paris,  1881. 

2  Ap.  Migne,  P.  G.,  t.  102.     Ep.  6,  ed.  Baletta. 

3  Maclear,  The  Slavs,  p.  57.  4  Lapotre,  p.  49  f. 
VOL.  III.  8 


114  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

that,  in  866,  Boris  "  determined x  to  go  straight  to  the 
fountain-head,"  and  sent  a  solemn2  embassy  to  Rome  to 
put  the  infant  Church  of  his  country  under  the  care  of  the 
Pope.  Among  the  presents  which  his  envoys  brought  "  for 
St.  Peter "  were  "  the  arms  with  which  he  was  equipped 
when,  in  Christ's  name,  he  overcame  his  (pagan)  adversaries." 
Very  valuable  or  very  curious,  the  gifts  of  the  Bulgarian 
monarch  appear  to  have  aroused  the  cupidity  of  the 
emperor  Louis,  who  was  then  at  Beneventum.  At  any 
rate  he  sent  an  order  to  the  Pope  that  they  should  be 
transmitted  to  him.  Through  his  partisan,  Arsenius  of 
Horta,  Nicholas  sent  him  some  of  them,  but  excused 
himself  from  sending  all.3 

Meanwhile,  however,  he  had  despatched  4  (866)  two  men 
"of  great  sanctity" — Paul,  bishop  of  Populonia,  and  the 
famous  Formosus,  bishop  of  Porto,  of  whom  we  shall  hear 
much  more — to  preach  the  faith  to  Boris  and  his  people. 
They  travelled  with  Donatus  and  the  other  legates  who 
were  going  to  Constantinople.  He  also  sent,  in  the  shape 
of  his  "Replies5  to  the  questions  addressed  to  him  by  the 
Bulgarians,"  a  document  which,  based  to  some  extent  on 
the  instructions  of  S.  Gregory  I.  to  S.  Augustine,  served, 
among  other  purposes,  as  a  "species  of  code6  of  civil 
constitutions  for  an  uncivilised  nation." 
The  '  Re-        At  the  outset  of  his  famous  Responsa,  Nicholas  explained 

sponsa    of  x  L 

Pope 

Nicholas.  !   guch  are  the  wQrds  of  Madear)  i  Ct 

2  L.  P.,  n.  lxviii.  "Tunc  ad  hunc  ....  prassulem  legatos  suos 
mense  Augusto  Indictione  XIV.,  destinavit,  donaque  ....  contulit, 
suggerens  ejus  Apostolatui  quid  se  facere  salubrius  oporteret."  Cf 
Ann.  Fuld.,  866. 

3  A?in.  Hincmar,  an.  866.  4  L.  P. 

5  "Responsa  Nicolai  ad  consulta  Bulgarorum,"  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  119, 
pp.  978-1017.     Cf.  L.  P.,  I.  c. 

6  Gregorovius,  Rome,  iii.  127.  With  extraordinary  inaccuracy  Hore 
(p.  370)  speaks  of  Nicholas's  letter  as  "dwelling  on  no  less  than  106 
points  condemnatory  of  the  Greek  teaching." 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 15 

that  Christianity  consisted  of  faith  and  good  works.  He 
then  proceeded  to  give  his  questioners  various  instructions 
on  the  sacrament  of  baptism  and  matrimony.  With  regard 
to  the  latter  sacrament  he  reminded  them  that  the  most 
important  part  of  it  was  the  mutual  consent.  Entering 
upon  some  explanation  of  the  marriage  ceremonies,  he 
speaks  of  the  blessing  and  the  reception  of  the  veil,  and  of 
the  happy  pair  leaving  the  church  with  crowns  upon  their 
heads — crowns  which  are  wont,  says  the  Pope,  to  be  kept 
in  the  church  for  the  purpose.1  Days  of  fasting  are  made 
less  numerous  for  the  new  converts,  but  they  are  taught 
not  to  work  on  holy  days  of  obligation.  Boris  is  blamed 
for  the  cruelty  he  displayed  towards  certain  of  his  rebellious 
pagan  subjects  ;  but  "  as  he  acted  from  zeal  for  the  Christian 
religion,  and  from  ignorance  rather  than  from  any  malice, 
he  will  obtain  forgiveness,  on  repentance,  through  the 
mercy  of  Christ."2  Various  superstitious  practices  are 
forbidden  by  the  Pope.  He  bids  them  cease  applying  a 
certain  stone  to  the  sick  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  about 
restoration  to  health.3  They  are  not  to  act  on  ideas  got 
from  opening  books4  at  random,  etc.  He  also  gave  a 
variety  of  answers  all  tending,  if  put  into  practice,  to 
mitigate  the  warlike  ferocity  of  the  Bulgarians.  They  are 
to  prepare  for  battle  by  prayer  ;  their  standard  must  in 
future  be  the  cross,  and  not  the  tail  of  a  horse.  He  always 
inculcated  mercy,  when  he  could  not  say  that  some  of  their 
strict  laws  relating  to  the  conduct  of  their  wars  were 
absolutely  unjust.  It  was  their  custom,5  for  instance,  to 
put  to  death  those  who  came  to  the  field  of  battle  with 
their  equipment  in  an  unsatisfactory  condition.     The  Pope 

1  The  office  of  the  matrimonial  coronation  is  given  in  Neale,  The 
Holy  Eastern  Church,  p.  1027  ff.  This  ceremony  is  at  least  as  old  as 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  speaks  of  it  in  his  third  homily  on  the  third 
chapter  of  S.  Paul's  first  epistle  to  Timothy. 

3  Resp.  17.  3  lb.,  62.  4  lb.,  77,  79,  etc.  6  lb.,  40. 


Il6  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

would  have  them  more  careful  of  their  spiritual  equipment. 
Torture  is  not  to  be  employed. 

The  pagans1  are  not  to  be  converted  by  force.  Poly- 
gamy is  prohibited,  the  wife  must  be  treated  more  as  an 
equal,  and  sound  rules  are  laid  down  with  regard  to 
continence2  in  married  life.  Bad  priests  cannot  soil  the 
Sacraments. 

With  regard  to  a  patriarch  for  Bulgaria,  as  Boris 
evidently  wanted  civil  and  religious  independence  for  his 
country,  the  return  of  the  papal  legates  who  would  report 
on  the  progress  made  by  Christianity  in  those  parts,  must 
be  awaited.  A  bishop,  however,  will  be  sent  to  them  at 
once ;  and,  when  the  faith  has  spread,  an  archbishop,  who 
must  get  his  pall  from  Rome.3  Those  are  the  only  true 
patriarchs  who  govern  churches  established  by  apostles, 
viz.,  those  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch.  The  Sees  of 
Jerusalem  and  Constantinople  are  not  of  the  same  rank 
(auctoritatis)  as  the  former  ones.  No  apostle  founded  the 
Church  of  Constantinople,  nor  is  it  mentioned  by  the 
Council  of  Nice.  But  because  it  was  called  the  New 
Rome,  its  bishop  has  been  called  a  patriarch  rather  by  the 
favour  of  princes  than  by  right.4 

In  conclusion,  writes  the  Pope,  you  ask  us  to  give  you, 
like  the  other  nations,  Christianity  without  spot  or  wrinkle, 
inasmuch  as  you  are  much  troubled  by  the  contradictory 
utterances  of  Greeks,  Armenians,  etc.  "  In  this  matter  we 
are  sufficient  of  ourselves,  our  sufficiency  is  from  God  ;  and 

1  R.  41.  "  De  iis  autem  qui  Christianitatis  bonum  suscipere  renuunt, 
nihil  aliud  scribere  possumus  vobis,  nisi  ut  eos  ad  fidem  rectam,  monitis 
et  ratione  illos  potius  quam  vi,  quod  vane  sapiunt,  convincatis.  .  .  . 
Porro  illis  violentia,  ut  credant,  nullatenus  inferenda  est."     Cf.  R.  102. 

2  R.  64,  etc.  3  R.  72,  73. 

4  Well  does  Nicholas  here  sum  up  the  grounds  of  the  claims  of  the 
patriarchs  of  Byzantium.  "  Quia  Constantinopolis  nova  Roma  dicta 
est,  favore  principum  potius  quam  ratione,  patriarcha  ejus  pontifex 
appellatus  est."     R.  92. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  I  \J 

Blessed  Peter,  who  lives  and  presides  in  his  See,  gives  the 
true  faith  to  those  who  seek  for  it." x  The  Roman  Church, 
which  is  ever  without  spot,  sends  you  men  and  books  to 
teach  you  the  truth.  Until  the  roots  of  truth  strike  deep 
within  you,  we  will  not  cease  to  water  you.  You  are  my 
joy  and  my  crown. 

The  Pope's  legates  took  along  with  them  (866)  a  written 
code  of  laws2  and  books  in  addition  to  the  Responsa. 
Such  success  attended  the  preaching  of  the  missionaries 
sent  by  the  Pope,  that  contemporary  historians 3  speak  as 
though  the  king  and  all  his  people  were  converted  by 
them.  So  greatly  did  Boris  become  attached  to  the 
Romans,  that  we  are  told4  that  on  one  occasion,  grasp- 
ing his  beard  (capillos  suos),  he  cried  out,  "  Let  all  the 
nobles  and  people  of  the  land  of  the  Bulgarians  know, 
that  from  henceforth,  after  God,  I  serve  St.  Peter  and  his 
Vicar." 

Boris  expelled  all  the  other  missionaries,  and  begged 
that  Formosus,  "  a  bishop  in  life  and  character,"  says  the 
papal  biographer,  might  be  raised  to  the  archiepiscopal 
dignity,  and  that  more  priests  might  be  sent  out  to  preach 
to  his  people.  With  great  joy  Nicholas  commissioned 
(October  867)  two  more  bishops  and  a  number  of  carefully 

1  R.  106.  "  B.  Petrus,  qui  in  sede  sua  vivit  et  prassidet,  dat  quser- 
entibus  fidei  veritatem." 

2  To  this  Nicholas  frequently  refers.  Cf.  RR.  13  and  19.  For  the 
books,  R.  37. 

3  A  final.  Xanl.,  ad  an.  868.  "  Directis  a  Nicolao,  ....  viris 
apostolicis,  receperunt  (Bulgari)  sermonem  D.  N.  J.  Christi,  et 
baptizati  sunt."  Anastasius,  in  his  preface  to  his  translation  of  the 
eighth  General  Council,  wrote  even  more  explicitly :  "  Cum  rex 
Vulgarorum  cum  propria  gente  Christi  fidem  suscepisset  per  hominem 
Romanum,  id  est,  quemdam  presbyterum  Paulum  nomine,  docu- 
mentum  atque  mysterium  habuit  a  sede  apostolica,  non  modo  fidei 
regulam,  sed  et  sanctas  legis  sumere  disciplinary"  ap.  Migne, 
t.  129,  p.  18.     Cf.  p.  19  ;  and  in  vit.  Nic. 

4  lb.,  p.  20. 


118  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

chosen  priests  to  proceed  to  Bulgaria.  Of  these  latter,  he 
told  Boris  by  letter  that  he  might  select  one  to  be  sent 
back  to  Rome  to  be  consecrated  archbishop,  for  he  did 
not  think  that  it  was  the  right  thing  that  the  people  who 
had  been  entrusted  to  the  pastoral  care  of  Formosus  should 
lose  their  bishop.1  Doubtless  the  fact  was  that  the  Pope 
objected  to  '  episcopal  translations.'  But,  to  all  appearances 
at  least,  it  would  have  been  well  for  Formosus  himself  if  he 
had  been  transferred  to  a  Bulgarian  See ;  and,  as  Boris  was 
very  much  attached  to  him,  Bulgaria  might  have  been  thus 
preserved  in  the  unity  of  the  Roman  Church.  Meanwhile 
he  was  destined  by  the  Pope  to  go  on  an  embassy  to 
Constantinople  in  connection  with  the  doings  of  Photius. 
Nicholas  died  (November  13,  867)  before  this  second 
company  of  missionaries  set  out  on  their  journey,2  and  he 
was  spared  the  pain  of  seeing  the  fickle  Bulgarian  monarch 
veer  round  again,  and  throw  himself  finally  into  the  arms 
of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
Early  As   we   shall   soon   have    to    chronicle    grave    disputes 

caijtuSd£-  between  the  popes  and  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople 
Bulgaria  on  t^ie  SUDJect  of  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria,  we  may  here 
examine  a  little  more  closely  the  sources  whence  the 
Bulgarians  first  drew  their  Christianity,  and  to  whom 
jurisdiction  over  the  countries  subdued  by  them  originally 
belonged.  Both  Pope3  and  patriarch  laid  claim  to  priority 
of  ecclesiastical  rights  over  Bulgaria,  and  it  would  seem 
that  each  party  had  grounds  for  its  pretensions,  and  that 
both  the  Latin  and  the  Greek  rite  had  exerted  an  influence 
in  making  Christians  of  the  Bulgarians. 

When,  in  the  course  of  the  seventh  century,  they  estab- 
lished themselves  in  the  triangle  of  territory  formed  by  the 

1  Anast,  i?i  vit.,  n.  lxxiv.  2  lb.,  in  vit.  Had.  II. 

3  The  claims  of  the  popes   are  admitted  by  d'Avril,  La  Bulgarie 
Chret.,  p.  2  ;  and  by  Hore. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  I  19 

Dncister,  the  Danube,  and  the  Theiss,1  they  found  there, 
besides  the  Avars  and  the  Slavs,  no  inconsiderable  number 
of  Daco-Romans,  the  descendants  of  the  numerous  colonists 
whom  Trajan  had  poured  into  Dacia,  and  whom  neither 
Goth,  Hun,  nor  Avar  had  been  able  to  exterminate.  This 
curious  Eastern-Latin  race  still  dwells  between  the  three 
rivers,  is  now  independent,  and  proclaims  its  origin  by 
the  name  (Roumania)  it  has  given  to  a  large  tract  of 
the  country  in  which  it  was  first  formed.  Though  Dacia 
was  separated  from  the  Roman  Empire  in  A.D.  270,  the 
irrefragable  testimony  of  the  Roumanian  language  shows 
that  it  was  through  Latin  agency  that  it  first  received  the 
faith  of  Christ.  "The  fundamental  ideas  of  Christianity 
are  invariably  expressed  in  the  Roumanian  language  by 
words  of  Latin  origin."2  Though  dominated  for  eight 
centuries  by  the  Slavs  and  their  ritual,  the  Roumanians 
have  been  but  slightly  influenced  in  their  sacred  terminology 
by  them,  and  such  ecclesiastical  words  as  they  borrowed 
from  the  Greeks  only  concern  matters  of  secondary  im- 
portance in  religion.  What  is  true  as  to  the  original 
source  of  Christianity  in  the  country  between  the  three 
rivers  is  true  of  the  country  between  the  Danube  and  the 
Balkans  (known  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  century  as  Moesia 
Inferior)  which  was  overrun  by  Slavs  in  the  seventh 
century,  and  was  conquered  and  made  their  permanent 
home  by  the  Bulgarians  in  the  eighth  century.  Even 
during  the  pontificate  of  S.  Leo  I.,  the  bishops  of  Moesia 
Inf.  did  not  know  Greek.3  The  Bulgarians  must,  therefore, 
have  encountered  the  Latin  rite  as  soon  as  they  broke  into 
Dacia,  and  the  Greek  rite  at  least  when  they  took  posses- 
sion   of   Moesia.     And  when   in   the   ninth   century  they 

1  That  is,  broadly  speaking,  the  Dacia  of  Trajan. 

2  Xenopol,  Hist,  des  Roumains,    i.    p.    135,  Paris,    1896.      Cf.  pp. 
137-140.  3  y^p    I4a 


120  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

stretched  away  towards  the  West  and  South,  and  touched 
the  empire  of  the  Franks,1  they  must  again  have  come  in 
contact  with  Latin  Christianity,  and  have  thus  a  second 
time  been  influenced  by  it. 

But  the  question  of  primitive  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction 
over  Bulgaria  is  not  so  easy  to  resolve.  In  a  division  of 
the  Roman  Empire  made  by  Constantine  the  Great  (306- 
337),  the  Balkan  Peninsula  was  divided  into  Western  and 
Eastern  Illyricum.  The  latter  then  included  Thrace,  in 
which  is  situated  the  modern  Bulgaria.  But,  in  the  year 
314,  Thrace  was  separated  from  Eastern  Illyricum,  and 
after  that  date  was  sometimes  united  to  it,  and  sometimes 
divided  from  it.  Now  while  it  is  certain  that  both 
Illyricums  were  under  the  patriarchal  jurisdiction  of  Rome, 
that  authority  does  not  seem  to  have  been  organised  there 
till  Pope  Damasus  (366-384)  established  a  vicar  at 
Thessalonica ;  and  it  seems  that  at  that  date  Thrace  was 
separated  from  Eastern  Illyricum.2  Hence  when  in  the 
days  of  Boris  I.  (852-888)  Photius  averred  that  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  over  the  Bulgarians  belonged  to  him,  his  con- 
tention was  so  far  just  that,  at  least  from  the  days  of  St. 
John  Chrysostom,  the  patriarchs  of  Constantinople  had 
held  sway  over  the  six  provinces  of  Thrace3  which 
embraced  the  modern  Bulgaria.     And  it  was   there   that 

1  lb.,  p.  133,  quoting  the  Bavarian  geographer  of  the  end  of  the  ninth 
century,  who  speaks  of  "the  immense  and  populous  country  of  the 
Bulgarians"  as  one  of  the  regions  which  bound  "our  territories." 

2  Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  i.,  p.  68  of  this  work,  and  the  letterpress  to  Map  I. 
of  Poole's  Historical  Atlas.  In  the  lists  of  the  Illyrian  provinces 
given  by  Innocent  I.  (402-7),  and  by  Nicholas  I.,  over  which  they 
claimed  jurisdiction,  neither  names  Moesia  Inferior  or  the  modern 
Bulgaria.  Yet  J.  M.  Neale  {A  Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Ch.,  p.  44) 
asserts  that  in  this  very  province  "the  Greek  and  Latin  languages 
were  used  indiscriminately ;  and  there  was  a  considerable  connection 
between  the  prelates  and  the  See  of  Rome." 

3  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccles.,  v.  28.  Cf.  Pargoire,  Veglise  byzant., 
p.  54. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  121 

the  Greeks  first  met  the  Bulgarians.  But,  by  the  time  of 
Photius,  the  Bulgarian  kingdom  had  spread  far  into 
Western  Illyricum,  and  King  Boris  resided  in  Achrida. 
When  Pope  Nicholas,  therefore,  made  the  same  assertion 
as  Photius,  his  claim  would  seem  to  have  had  a  broader 
foundation.  But  the  whole  question  is  obviously  compli- 
cated, and  the  present  writer  cannot  unravel  it  further. 

Nicholas  was  also  watching  with  interest  the  good  work  s.  Ansgar 
which  was  still  being  done  by  St.  Ansgar  among  the  successor. 
Scandinavians.  Mention  has  already  been  made1  of  his 
bull,  by  which,  owing  to  the  burning  of  Hamburg  by  the 
Danes  (845),  he  incorporated  that  See  with  the  diocese  of 
Bremen,  and  named  Ansgar  archbishop  of  the  combined 
See.  This  he  did  (864)  at  the  request  of  Louis  the 
the  German,2  after  he  had  learnt  how  matters  stood  from 
Solomon,  bishop  of  Constance,  sent  to  Rome  by  Louis, 
and  from  the  priests  who  had  been  sent  by  Ansgar  him- 
self. In  his  bull3  the  Pope  takes  care  to  ordain  that 
for  the  future  the  archbishop  of  Cologne,  in  whose  diocese 
Bremen  was  originally  comprised,  was  not  to  exercise  any 
jurisdiction  in  the  new  diocese.  The  bull  concludes  by 
granting  Ansgar  the  pallium  on  the  usual  conditions — "  to 
wit,4  that  his  successors,  both  in  writing  and  on  oath, 
proclaim,  in  person  or  by  their  envoys,  that  they  are 
united  with  us  in  faith,  that  they  receive  the  six  holy 
synods,  and  the  decrees  of  all  the  bishops  of  Rome ;  and 
that  they  will  accept  and  put  into  execution  the  (apostolic) 
injunctions  (epistolcz)  which  may  be  brought  to  them." 
Certain  it  is  that  Ansgar  took  the  greatest  care  of  the 
privileges  which  he  received  from  the  Apostolic  See,  and, 

1  Vol.  ii.,  p.  220,  n.  of  this  work. 

2  Vit.  S.  Anskarii,  c.  23.  3  Ep.  62,  p.  876  f. 

4  The  bull,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  119,  p.  879.     Cf.  his  letter  (Ep.  61)  to  Louis 
the  German. 


122  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

moreover,  had    them    copied    and    sent  to   nearly  all    the 
bishops  of  Louis  the  German.1 

The  same  year  (864)  Nicholas  wrote2  to  the  Danish 
king  Horic  (or  Eric),  the  Younger  (854-888?),  who,  though 
not  yet  baptized,  had  "  offered  his  vows  to  God  and  to 
Blessed  Peter,"  to  thank  him  for  the  presents  he  had  sent 
him  by  bishop  Solomon,  and  to  exhort  him  to  give  up  the 
worship  of  idols,  which  cannot  help  themselves,  much  less 
him.  From  some  later  authors  it  would  seem  that  Horic 
followed  the  Pope's  recommendations,  and  was  baptized 
along  with  many  of  his  people.  With  his  predecessor, 
Eric  T.  (-f-854),3  St.  Ansgar  had  had  a  good  understanding, 
for  it  was  "  upon  the  healthy  admonitions  of  Ansgar  that  he 
had  laid  aside  the  errors  of  his  impious  heart,  and  had 
atoned  for  whatsoever  he  had  done  amiss  in  the  insolence 
thereof."4  During  his  reign,  therefore,  Christianity  made 
substantial  progress  in  Denmark  ;  but  his  successor  Eric  II. 
was  persuaded  to  act  vigorously  against  it.  In  due  course, 
however,  through  the  instances  of  the  Saint,  Eric  withdrew 
his  opposition,  and  Christian  churches  were  once  again 
opened  in  his  country.5  But  whether  he  himself  became 
a  Christian  is  very  doubtful.  At  any  rate,  not  long 
before  his  death,  Ansgar  was  able  to  report  to  the  bishops 
in  Louis's  kingdom  that  "  the  Church  of  Christ  was 
established  both  among  the  Danes  and  the  Swedes,  and  that 
priests  perform  their  functions  in  those  countries  without 
let  or  hindrance."  6     On  the  death  of  the  Apostle  of  the 

1  «  Privilegia  apostolicse  sedis,  quae  erant  de  legatione  ipsius  facta, 
in  multis  libellis  jussit  describere,"  etc.      Vita,  c.  41. 

2  Ep.  63,  p.  879.     Cf.  Ep.  61,  n.  10. 

3  Cf  Prudentius,  Ann.,  854  (cf.  a.  850),  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  On  his 
relations  with  Ansgar  see  Vit.  Ansch.,  cc.  24-26,  31,  32. 

4  Saxo  Grammaticus,  1.  ix.,  Eng.  trans.,  p.  384. 
6  Vit.  Ansch.,  cc.  31,  32. 

6  Ep.  Ansgar.,  ap.  M.  G.  Epp.,  vi.  163. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 23 

North  (865),  his  biographer  and  companion,  Rembert,  was 
chosen  to  succeed  him.  He  received1  the  pallium  from 
Nicholas  in  December  865.  Great  must  have  been  the 
consolation  which  the  heroic  work  of  these  two  kindred 
spirits  brought  to  the  Pope.  He  watched  so  carefully  the 
beginnings  of  Christianity  among  the  Slavs  and  Scandi- 
navians, because  it  was  his  contention  that  his  authority 
was  requisite  for  the  due  founding  of  a  new  church.  "  If," 
he  said,2  "according  to  the  sacred  decrees  a  new  basilica 
cannot  be  built  without  the  sanction  of  the  Pope,  how  can 
a  church,  i.e.  a  collection  of  Catholics,  be  instituted  without 
the  consent  of  the  Apostolic  See?" 

So   far   it    may   be   said    that   we   have   not   seen    any  Labours  of 

t-»  -i  f    •       1        rr   •        Nicholas 

intervention  on  the  part  of  the  Pope  in  the  political  affairs  for  the 
of  the  empire.  The  fact  is  that,  speaking  generally,  he  Europe, 
did  not  mingle  in  them  at  all.  Affairs  more  strictly 
spiritual  occupied  his  attention,  and  it  has  been  well  said 
in  their  regard  that  under  Nicholas  I.  "  the  papacy  entered 
upon  the  full  possession  of  its  primacy  of  jurisdiction, 
drawing  and  reserving  to  itself  all  important  questions  of 
ecclesiastical  or  moral  interest,  and  thus  preparing  itself 
to  play  later  on,  at  the  full  tide  of  the  Middle  Ages,  a  most 
splendid  role,  that  of  the  most  powerful  mistress  of  souls 
which  the  world  has  ever  seen."3 

In  the  domain  of  politics,  the  efforts  of  Nicholas  were 
confined  to  endeavours  to  promote  the  cause  of  peace. 
There  was  ever  war  either  between  Charles  the  Bald  and 
Louis  the  German,  or  between  each  of  those  sovereigns  and 

1  The  bull,  ap.  P.  L.  Id.,  p.  962.  "Scriptunv.  ...  in  mense 
Decembre,  ind.  XIV." 

2  A  fragment  (Ep.  135,  p.  11 30):  "Ecclesia,  i.e.  catholicorum  col- 
lectio,  quomodo  sine  apostolical  sedis  instituetur  nutn,  quando  juxta 
sacra  decreta  nee  ipsa  debet  absque  pneceptione  papas  basilica  noviter 
construi." 

3  Jean  VIII..,  by  Lapotre,  p.  vii. 


124  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

their  respective  sons.  In  the  first  year  of  the  pontificate  of 
Nicholas,  Louis,  invoked  by  certain  malcontents,  invaded 
the  territory  of  his  brother.  At  first  he  carried  all  before 
him  ;  but  a  reaction  set  in  in  favour  of  Charles,  and  Louis 
had  to  retreat  to  his  own  country.  Anxious  to  clear 
himself  in  the  eyes  of  the  emperor  (Louis  II.)  and  of  the 
Pope,  he  sent  (859)  Thioton,  abbot  of  Fulda,  into  Italy,  to 
exculpate  him.  In  this  mission  Thioton  was  completely 
successful,1  and  returned  with  a  letter  from  the  Pope  in  his 
master's  favour.  Peace  was  concluded  between  the  two 
sovereigns  at  Coblentz  (860),  where  they  took  oaths  of 
mutual  fidelity  "in  accordance  with  the  will  of  God  and  for 
the  honour  and  defence  of  Holy  Church." 2 

Two  of  the  sons  of  Charles  the  Bald,  viz.,  Louis  and 
Charles,  had  given  serious  trouble  to  their  father.  In  a 
letter3  of  863,  the  Pope  informs  the  rebellious  sons  that 
he  was  preparing  to  punish  them  when  he  heard  from  his 
legate,  bishop  Odo,  that  they  had  become  reconciled  to  their 
father.  He  exhorts  them  not  again  to  fall  away  from 
their  duty  to  their  parents.  In  conclusion,  he  commands 
them  to  be  present  at  a  council  which  he  has  ordered  to 
assemble,  and  to  submit  to  what  shall  be  there  decided 
concerning  them.  It  may  be  noted,  in  passing,  that  if 
Nicholas  was  ready  to  admonish  the  sons  of  Charles  to 
obey  their  father,  he  was  equally  prepared  to  point  out  to 
Charles  himself  (unless,  indeed,  the  reference4  by  Hincmar 

1  Annal.  Fuld.,  ad  ann.  858-9.  2  lb.,  860.  3  Ep.  39. 

4  Ep.  Synod.  Carisiacensis,  ap.  Boretius,  ii.  427  f.  "Ab  apostolica 
sede  commonitus  ....  quae  perpere  egit,  correxerat."  Another  passage 
from  this  same  letter,  probably  Hincmar's,  is  interesting  as  showing  that 
the  Franks  regarded  their  kings  as  elected  by  the  people,  and  were 
very  proud  that  their  election  should  be  confirmed  by  the  Pope.  The 
letter  speaks  of  the  anointing  of  Charles  the  Bald,  "consensu  et 
voluntate  populi  regni  istius  "...."  quemque  (Charles)  sancta  sedes 
apostolica  mater  nostra  litteris  apostolicis  regem  honorare  studuit 
et  confirmare." 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  1 25 

and  the  bishops  of  the  Council  of  Kiersy,  858,  to  the 
Apostolic  See  relates  to  some  previous  Pope)  what  he  ought 
to  amend  in  the  maladministration  of  his  kingdom. 

In  865,  the  legate  Arsenius  was  sent  into  '  France/ 
not  only  in  connection  with  the  divorce  of  Lothaire,  but 
to  renew1  the  peaceful  understanding  between  Louis  the 
German,  and  his  nephews  Louis,  the  emperor,  and  Lothaire, 
king  of  Lorraine.  Two  years  later  Nicholas  has  2  to  try 
to  keep  the  sons  of  Louis  the  German  in  obedience  to 
their  father.  The  fruit  of  this  incessant  warfare  between 
brothers,  fathers,  and  sons  might  well  be  the  anarchy  of  the 
tenth  century. 

Many  of  Nicholas's  letters  and  decrees — signs  not  only  Nicholas's 

r  1  •         letters  the 

of  the  man  but  of  the  times — show  that  the  approaching  'signs of 
anarchy  was  already  casting  its  black  shadows  before. 
They  reveal  to  us  3  bishops  at  once  youthful  and  vicious ; 
priests  the  mere  servants  4  of  laymen  ;  priests  whose  sacred 
character  did  not  save  them  from  being  murdered  ;  bishops5 
deposed  from  their  Sees  by  lay  nobles ;  the  nobility,6  on  the 
one  hand,  plundering  priests  and  people  with  impunity,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,7  bishops  recklessly  scattering  abroad 
excommunications.  The  letters  of  Nicholas  show  also  that 
the  long  and  severe  canonical  penances,  so  characteristic  of 
the  earlier  centuries  of  the  Church,  were  still  in  vogue, 
though  they  were  somewhat  modified  in  their  severity  by 
him.  On  a  certain  monk  who  had  killed  another,  Nicholas 
imposed8  a  penance  of  twelve  years'  duration.  The  penitent 
was  to  pass  the  first  three  years  in  sorrow  at  the  door  of 
the  church,  the  next  two  among  the  '  auditors '   (auditores), 

1  An.  Field.,  ad  an.  865.  "  Ob  pacem  et  concordiam  renovandam 
missus  est  (Arsenius)  in  Franciam." 

2  lb.,  ad  an.  867.  3  Ep.  127. 
4  Ep.  81,  an  abuse  to  which  Nicholas  intended  to  put  an  end. 

6  Ep.  24.  °  Epp.  88  and  in.  7  Ep.  118. 

8  Ep.  119.     Cf.  Epp.  122,  136,  etc. 


126  ST.   NICHOLAS   L,   THE   GREAT 

but  was  not  to  be  allowed  to  receive  Holy  Communion. 
During  the  last  seven  he  was  to  be  allowed  to  communicate 
on  the  great  feasts,  but  was  not  to  be  permitted  to  make 
any  offerings  for  use  in  the  sacrifice.  Throughout  the  whole 
twelve  years,  except  on  Sundays  and  great  festivals,  he  was 
to  fast  till  evening,  as  in  Lent.  If  he  undertook  a  journey, 
it  was  to  be  on  foot.  Nicholas  declared  that  had  it  not  been 
for  the  faith  displayed  by  the  monk,  and  for  his  respect  for 
the  holy  apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  whose  protection  he  had 
come  to  Rome  to  implore,  he  would  have  had  to  impose  a 
lifelong  penance  upon  him. 
Public  Whether  there  was  less  to  be  done  after  the  labours  of 

his  predecessors  in  this  direction,  or  whether  Nicholas  had 
less  taste  or  leisure  for  work  of  the  sort,  it  is  certain  that 
he  did  not  spend  so  much  time  and  money  on  public 
buildings  as  the  popes  who  had  immediately  gone  before 
him.  Still,  his  biographer  has  to  record  not  a  few  of  the 
Pope's  gifts  to  different  churches  and  many  of  his  building 
operations.  Among  his  most  important  undertakings  in  the 
latter  department  was  the  repairing  of  the  Tocia,  i.e.  Jocia, 
and  the  Trajana  or  Sabatina  aqueducts.  The  former,  the 
locality  of  which  was  at  one  time  unknown,  had,  we  are 
told,  long  been  out  of  repair.1  The  old  reading  Tocia  had 
concealed  its  identity,  but  the  restoration  of  the  reading 
Jocia  has  enabled  Duchesne  to  identify  it  with  the  Jobia 
or  Jovia  aqueduct.  It  is  often  mentioned  in  the  eighth  and 
ninth  centuries,  and  is  the  one  which,  passing  over  the 
arch  of  Drusus,  near  the  Porta  Appia  (now  the  Porta  S. 
Sebastiano),  was  carried  towards  the  Circus  Maximus  and 
struck  the  Tiber  near  the  Greek  Quarter  {schola),  with  its 
Church  of  S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin.  The  learned  abbe 
suggests,  as  we  have  already  seen,2  that  the  restoration  of 

1  L.  P.,  n.  xvi. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  5,  n.     Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  ii.,  p.  483  of  this  work. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  12? 

this  aqueduct  may  well  have  been  in  connection  with  the 
great  hospice  which  Nicholas  attached  to  that  church. 

The  Trajana  aqueduct  had  already  been  repaired  by 
Gregory  IV.  Damaged,  perhaps,  by  the  Saracens,  it  was 
both  repaired  and  improved  under1  the  personal  super- 
vision of  Nicholas,  especially  for  the  benefit  of  the  poorer 
pilgrims  who  flocked  to  Rome.  Kept  in  order  by  suc- 
cessive popes,  it  enters  Rome  on  the  Janiculum,  and 
supplies  the  fountains  in  front  of  St.  Peter's  and  much  of 
the  Trastevere.2  Nicholas  also  refortified  Ostia,  and 
placed  in  it  a  strong  garrison. 

Like  his  immediate  predecessors,  he  also  endeavoured  to 
make  good  the  damage  done  to  St.  Peter's  by  "  the  devas- 
tation of  the  Saracens."3  He  adorned  with  frescos  the 
new  S.  Maria  Antiqua,4  and  added  still  another  building 
to  the  already  very  complex  structure  of  the  Lateran  palace.5 
It  is  most  interesting  to  find  that  the  fame  of  Nicholas  had 
attracted  some  of  our  countrymen  to  Rome,  and  that  too, 
despite  their  difficulties  at  home  from  the  Danes,  and  that 
they  helped  him  to  decorate  churches.  Mindful  of  the 
great  Pope  from  whom  they  had  received  the  light  of 
Christianity,  we  find  these  grateful  Englishmen  erecting  a 
silver  tablet  in  the  little  chapel  of  St.  Gregory,  which  they 
found,  not,  as  the  old  editions  of  the  Liber  Pontificate  say, 
in  the  church  dedicated  to  St.  Peter  at  '  Frascata,'  but  in 
the  basilica  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  at  Rome.6 

Promis   only    knows   of  two   silver   coins   of    Nicholas.  Coins. 
Both  bear  on  the  obverse  the  names  of  the  Pope  and  St. 
Peter,  and  on  the  reverse  '  Roma,'  with,  in  one  case,  the 

1  L.  P.,  n.  lxvi.     "  Minime  corpori  suo  parcens." 

2  Murray's  Hand-book  for  Rome,  p.  49  of  introduction,  and  vol  i., 
/.  c,  of  this  work. 

;;  L.  P.,  n.  lxxix. 

4  lb.,  n.  xxxvii.,  and  vol.  i.,  /.  c,  p.  121,  122  of  this  work. 

5  lb.,  n.  lxxxi.  °  L.  P..  n.  liv. 


128  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

addition  of c  Ludovvicus  Imp/  He  believes  there  is  some 
mistake  in  connection  with  a  supposed  half-denarius, 
mentioned  by  Cinagli. 

To  those  who  desire  to  know  more  of  Nicholas,  we  must, 
with    Anastasius,   commend   the   perusal   of   his    weighty- 
letters.1     For   if  we  desired  to  record  all  he  did,  "paper 
rather  than  material "  would  fail  us. 
Nicholas         With  the  great  deeds  and  words  of  Nicholas  before  them, 

not  an 

innovator,  the  party  cry  of  the  False  Decretals  ringing  in  their  ears, 
and  the  doings  of  earlier  pontiffs  not  clearly  in  their  minds, 
many  authors  write  as  though,  under  Nicholas,  the  See  of 
Rome  had  exercised  in  the  Church  powers  essentially 
higher  than  it  had  before.  It  is  said  that  Nicholas 
asserted  a  new  primacy  over  the  bishops  of  the  Christian 
world,  and  arrogated  to  himself  new  rights  as  teacher  and 
as  absolute  ruler  of  the  Universal  Church. 

It  may  be  at  once  conceded  that,  with  the  development 
of  the  Church  in  general,  and  of  the  churches  in  the  West 
in  particular,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  growing  anarchy 
there  on  the  other,  and  with  the  increasing  manifestation  of 
the  tendency  of  the  East  to  slip  away  from  the  grasp  of 
the  popes,  the  intervention  of  Nicholas  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs  generally  all  over  the  world  was  more  frequent  than 
that  o.f  his  predecessors.  But  that  interference  was  im- 
peratively called  for.  And  just  as  Gregory  I.  took  upon 
himself  more  temporal  responsibility  than  the  popes  who 
had  gone  before  him,  because  the  disordered  state  of  the 
times  in  Italy  required  a  firm  hand — and  apart  from  his 
there  was  none — so  Nicholas  I.  did  the  same  in  the  spiritual 
and  temporal  orders  in  the  larger  field  of  the  whole 
Catholic  world.  If  he  proclaimed  nothing  new,  advanced 
no  fresh   pretension,   his   remarkable   energy  in    applying 

*  /#.,  n.  lxxvii.  "  Quas  bene  libratas  per  mundi  partes  direxit,  luce 
clarius." 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  129 

received  principles  to  concrete  cases  resulted  in  a  much 
wider  recognition  of  the  Pope's  supreme  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion in  the  Church.  If  he  enunciated  nothing  new,  he  no 
doubt  gave  a  further  expansion  to  admitted  principles,  and 
pushed  further  home  conclusions  already  granted. 

On  him  kings,  like  other  Christians,  were  dependent  in 
the  spiritual  order.  For  they  are  but  men  after  all ;  and 
all  men  had  been  ordered  by  Our  Lord  to  hear  the  Church. 
And  this  truth  Nicholas  did  not  fail  to  express  in  his 
letters.  In  his  famous  letter  to  the  emperor  Michael  he 
writes  :  "  By  the  power  of  God  we  have  been  born  the  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  ;  for  the 
earth  here  means  the  Church."1  And  it  is  only  fair  to  add 
that  the  position  of  Nicholas  was  as  much  recognised  by 
the  kings  themselves  as  claimed  by  him.  In  a  letter  to 
Nicholas,  already  quoted,  the  emperors  Louis  II.  and 
Lothaire  proclaim  him  their  spiritual  father  and  profess 
themselves  his  sons.  "No  one,"  they  write,  "more  fully 
and  ardently  desires  the  prosperity  of  your  apostleship 
than  do  we  both  who  love  you  ;  who,  as  spiritual  and  most 
devoted  sons,  embrace  your  loving  paternity  with  all  the 
affection  of  our  hearts  ....  and  who  with  mind  and  heart 
humbly  commend  ourselves  to  your  holy  paternity  .... 
since  the  apostle  says— '  All  power  comes  from  God.'"2 

But  with  all  this,  it  must  not  be  thought  that  Nicholas  Gregory  1. 
either   claimed    or   exercised    any  powers  which   his    pre-  Nicholas  1. 

1  "Pro  quibus  patribus  (Peter  and  Paul)  nos  divinitus  ....  nati 
sumus  filii,  et  constituti,  licet  eis  longe  mentis  impares,  princepes  super 
omnem  terrain,  id  est,  super  universam  Ecclesiam.  Terra  enim 
Ecclesia  dicitur."  Ep.  86,  p.  949.  Cf.  Ep.  65,  p.  882.  In  Ep.  29,  p.  815, 
Nicholas  says  that  St.  Peter  "nobis  singulari  prerogative  ut  in  totius 
Christianas  religionis  universitate  principaliter  excelleremus,  contulit." 

2  Ap.  M.  G.  Epp.,  vi.  212.  Other  similar  letters  are  quoted  by  Roy, 
PP-  l33,  134,  French  ed. 

VOL.   III.  n 


130  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

decessors  had  not.  The  growth  of  the  papal  power  in 
the  Church  was  as  natural  as  the  increasing  exercise  of 
reason  with  the  gradual  development  of  the  human  frame. 
To  bring  out  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  we  may  con- 
veniently turn  for  purposes  of  comparison  to  Gregory  the 
Great.  And  that,  not  because  earlier  pontiffs  cannot  be 
cited  in  this  connection,  but  because  he  was  the  first  Pope 
treated  of  in  this  work. 

Like  his  great  predecessor,  Nicholas  always  grounds  his 
claims  on  the  three  memorable1  texts — Thou  art  Peter 
(Matt.  xvi.  1 8),  Confirm  thy  brethren  (Luke  xxii.  32), 
Feed  my  lambs,  Feed  my  sheep  (John  xxi.  15), — on 
precedent,  viz.,  on  what  had  been  said  and  done  by  his 
predecessors,  and,  lastly,  on  what  the  Fathers  and  the 
Councils  had  said  of  the  power  and  prerogatives  of  the 
popes. 

We  may  descend  to  a  few  particulars.  If  Nicholas  de- 
clared he  was  head  of  the  Church,  and  thus  above  all  bishops, 
Gregory  had  made  the  same  assertion  over  and  over  again. 
Speaking  of  the  See  which  put  forth  the  greatest  pretensions, 
as  well  as  in  his  days  as  in  those  of  Nicholas,  Gregory 
writes 2 :  "  As  to  what  they  say  concerning  the  Church  of 
Constantinople,  who  doubts  that  it  is  subject  to  the  Apostolic 
See  ?  This  is  constantly  acknowledged  {adsidue  profitentur) 
by  our  most  pious  lord  the  emperor  and  our  brother  the 
bishop  of  the  same  city.  Still,  if  that  or  any  other  Church 
has  anything  good,  I  am  ready  to  imitate  my  inferiors 
(minores)  in  good,  whilst  at  the  same  time  I  keep  them 
from  what  is  not  right.  For  a  fool  is  he  who  thinks  that 
he  shows  his  primacy  when   he  considers  it  beneath  him 

1  Cf.  Gregor.,  Epp.,  vii.  37  (40),  where  he  quotes  the  three  texts 
together,  and  says  that,  in  his  successors,  Peter  still  occupies  his  chair, 
and  that  the  Church  is  founded  "  on  the  solidity  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles." 

2  Ep.  (ed.  M.  G.  Epp.,  as  usual),  ix.  26  (12). 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 31 

to  copy  any  good  he  may  sec."  And,  speaking  not  merely 
of  one  See,  however  important,  but  of  the  whole  Church, 
Gregory  lays  down *  that  the  care  of  all  of  it  has  been 
entrusted  to  him,  that  he  is  the  shepherd  of  the  whole 
flock  of  Christ,  and  that  the  Apostolic  See  is  the  head  of 
all  the  churches. 

If  Nicholas  claimed2  a  right  of  censorship  over  books 
which  treated  of  the  faith,  and  declared  that  "  the  Roman  3 
Church  confirmed  councils  by  its  authority  ....  and  that 
certain  councils  were  without  authority  because  they  had 
never  received  the  assent  of  the  Roman  pontiffs  " — we  find 
Gregory  declaring  that  he  has  forbidden  the  reading  of  a 
book,  because  he  found  therein  "  manifest  poison  of  heretical 
infection,"  and  that  a  synod  "  would  have  no  force  without 
the  authority  and  consent  of  the  Apostolic  See."4  And  if 
we  find  Nicholas  resisting  emperors  and  patriarchs,  did 
not  Gregory  resist  Maurice,  and  John  the  Faster?  The 
altered  conditions  of  his  temporal  position  are  enough  to 

1  V.  37  (20).  Quoting  the  three  texts,  he  says  all  know  that  to  Peter 
"  totius  ecclesiae  cura  commissa  est,"  and  then  a  little  lower  down  he 
repeats,  "  Cura  ei  (Peter)  totius  ecclesiae  et  princiftatus  committitur." 

"  Unde  oportet  ita  nos  caulas  ovium,  quibus  nos  custodes  videmur 
esse  ftrcFpositi)  vigilanti  sollicitudine  praemunire,  quatenus,"  etc.,  iv.  35. 

Sedes  apostolica  "quae  omnium  ecclesiarum  caput  est,"  xiii.  50  (45). 
Gregory,  or  his  predecessor,  Pelagius  II.,  in  Ep.  "Virtutum  mater," 
c.  an.  586,  speaks  of  the  Roman  See  "  quae  a  cuncta  ecclesia  humiliter 
in  ejus  auctore  veneratur." 

2  He  told  (Ep.  115,  p.  1 1 19)  Charles  the  Bald,  that  the  translation  of 
Denis  the  Areopagite,  by  John  Scotus  Erigena,  ought  to  have  been 
sent  to  him.  "  Quod  juxta  morem  nobis  mitti  et  nostro  debuit  judicio 
approbari  ....  quatenus  ab  omnibus  incunctanter  nostra  auctoritate 
acceptius  habeatur." 

3  Ep.  86,  p.  947.  Cf.  Ep.  65,  p.  882.  "  Sine  cujus  (the  Apostolic 
See)  consensu  nulla  concilia  vel  accepta  esse  leguntur."  Hincmar, 
De  divortio  Lothar.,  resp.  ad  quaest.,  ii.,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  125,  says  exactly 
the  same. 

4  On  the  book,  Ep.  vi.  62  (66) ;  on  the  authority  of  councils,  "  Quamvis 
sine  apostoliccu  sedis  auctoritate  atque  consensu,  nullas,  quaeque  (in 
synodo)  acta  fuerint  vires  habeant,"  ix.  156  (68). 


132  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

explain  the  greater  force  and  freedom  of  the  tone  of 
Nicholas  to  the  kings  of  the  earth.  Lastly,  if  to  the 
assertions  of  Gregory  already  quoted,  we  add  that,  when 
he  nominated  vicars  in  any  part  of  the  Church,  he  took 
care *  to  let  them  know  that  he  reserved  the  more  important 
cases  (causce  majores)  to  himself,  Nicholas  will  not  be 
thought  to  have  claimed  for  the  Roman  Church  more  than 
Gregory,  when  he  said  :  "  It  is  for  the  Apostolic  See  to 
judge  metropolitans,  whose  causes  have  always  been 
reserved  to  it ;  moreover,  it  has  been  its  wont  to  condemn 
or  absolve  patriarchs,  as  the  case  may  be  ;  and  it  has  been 
its  acknowledged  (Jus)  and  inherent  (fas)  right  to  judge 
all  priests,  inasmuch  as  it  belongs  to  it  by  special  pre- 
rogative to  make  laws,  issue  decrees,  and  promulgate 
decisions  throughout  the  whole  Church."2 

In  referring  the  reader  for  the  further  development  of 
these  points  to  the  second  part  of  Roy's  biography,  it  may 
in  fine  be  noted  that,  if  Nicholas  seems  to  exercise  more 
legislative,  judicial,  and  executive  authority  in  the  Church 
than  did  Gregory  I.,  and  that  if  he  himself  seems  to  be 
eclipsed  in  this  by  Gregory  VII.,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  conclusions,  drawn  from  the  increased  study  of 
canon  law  from  this  century  onwards,  did  but  justify 
their  action.  The  more  the  position  of  the  Pope  in  the 
Church  was  studied,  whether  in  the  domain  of  theology  or 
canon  law,  the  more  fully  was  acknowledged  his  dogmatic 
supremacy  on  the  one  hand  and  his  legislative  and 
executive  authority  on  the  other.  It  must,  moreover,  be 
remembered    that    both   theologians    and    canon    lawyers 

1  In  appointing,  ii.  8  (7)  Maximianus  his  vicar  in  Sicily,  Gregory 
writes :  "  Ut  sublevati  de  minimis  in  causis  majoribus  efficacius 
occupemur."  Virgilius  of  Aries  is  also  instructed  to  refer  matters  of 
faith,  and  important  matters  generally,  to  him,  "quatenus  a  nobis  valeat 
congrua  sine  dubio  sententia  terminari."     Ep.  v.  59  (54). 

2  Ep.  65,  p.  882. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 33 

always  maintained  that  what  they  set  down  as  the  rights 
of  the  Pope  in  their  particular  age  were  legitimate 
conclusions  from  the  words  of  Our  Lord  to  St.  Peter, 
and  from  the  position  of  the  Pope  in  the  Church, 
and  had,  moreover,  at  least  in  some  primitive  way,  been 
exercised  by  the  popes  of  preceding  ages.  And  contrary 
to  the  direct  temporal  influence  of  the  Pope  in  the  affairs 
of  this  world,  which,  beginning  in  the  twelfth  century, 
reached  its  climax  from  the  days  of  Innocent  III.  to  Boni- 
face VIII.,  and  then  began  to  decline,  contrary,  we  say,  to 
this  temporal  influence,  the  spiritual  prerogatives  of  the 
Pope  in  the  Church  have  gone  on  steadily  developing  to  this 
present  hour.  The  great  temporal  influence  of  the  papacy 
was  seemingly  brought  about  by  divine  providence  for  the 
benefit  of  the  rising  nations  of  Europe,  which  were  brought 
up  under  the  parental  guidance  of  the  popes.  It  ceased 
when  the  nations  were  able  to  stand  by  themselves  and 
were  no  longer  in  need  of  it,  or,  may  be,  were  no  longer 
worthy  of  it.  But  the  spiritual  position  of  the  popes  was 
for  the  advantage  of  God's  Church,  and  as  that,  in  the 
belief  of  Catholics,  is  to  last  for  ever,  so  will  papal  pre- 
eminence, they  hold,  endure  powerfully  to  the  end  of  time. 
"  Even  the  spiritual  supremacy  arrogated  by  the  Pope," 
says  Macaulay,1  "  was  in  the  dark  ages  productive  of  far 
more  good  than  evil.  Its  effect  was  to  unite  the  nations 
of  Western  Europe  into  one  great  commonwealth.  What 
the  Olympian  chariot  course  and  the  Pythian  oracle  were 
to  all  the  Greek  cities  from  Trebizond  to  Marseilles, 
Rome  and  her  bishop  were  to  all  Christians  of  the  Latin 
communion  from  Calabria  to  the  Hebrides.  Thus  grew 
up  sentiments  of  enlarged  benevolence.  Nations  separated 
from  each  other  by  seas  and  mountains  acknowledged 
a  fraternal  tie  and  a  common  code  of  public  law.  Even 
1  Hist,  of  En%.,  I.,  c.  i.,  p.  7,  ed.  1866. 


134  ST-    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

in  war  the  cruelty  of  the  conqueror  was  not  seldom 
mitigated  by  the  recollection  that  he  and  his  vanquished 
enemies  were  all  members  of  one  great  federation." 

Nicholas  died  November  13,  867,  and  we  are  assured  by 
his  biographer  that  not  only  did  all  men  long  bewail  his 
loss,  but  the  heavens  themselves  long  shed  tears  thereat. 
He  was  buried  "before  the  gates  of  St.  Peter's."1 

Writing2  to  Ado,  archbishop  of  Vienne,  Anastasius 
earnestly  begs  him  to  pray  for  Nicholas.  "  Alas  ! "  he 
writes,  "how  late  was  the  Church  in  meriting  so  noble 
a  man  and  how  soon  in  losing  him."  In  the  Roman 
martyrology  mention  is  made  of  Nicholas  as  "  vigore  apos- 
tolico  prsestantis"  (November  13),  and  his  successor  Hadrian 
II.  speaks3  of  him  as  a  "new  star  appearing  amidst  the 
clouds  of  this  life,  and  as  one  who,  under  God,  by  the 
brightness  of  his  life  and  learning,  drove  away  the  darkness 
of  error,  and  who  by  word  and  example  showed  not  only 

1  According  to  the  Chronicle  of  Ado  (M.G.  SS.,  ii.)  Nicholas  was 
buried  in  the  porch  (atrium)  before  the  gates  of  St.  Peter,  near  his 
predecessor.  A  fragment  of  his  epitaph  is  still  to  be  seen  in  the  crypts 
of  St.  Peter's : 

"  Conditur  hoc  antro  sacri  substantia  carnis 
Prsesulis  egregii  Nicolai,  dogmate  sancto 
Qui  fulsit  cunctis  mundum  replevit  et  orbem 

Quas  docuit  verbis,  actuque  peregit  opimo." 
Etc.,  ap.  Duchesne,  L.  P.,  ii.  172,  or  Dufresne,  Les  Cryptes  Vaticanes, 
p.  49,  where  there  is  an  illustration  of  the  fragment.  Completed  from 
a  transcription  made  by  Peter  Mallius,  and  with  the  aid  of  certain 
conjectural  restorations,  the  epitaph  tells  the  enquirer  who,  from  the 
East  or  West,  the  South  or  the  frozen  North,  comes  to  know  why  men 
are  sad,  that  beneath  this  tomb  are  the  sacred  remains  of  that  most 
excellent  prelate  Nicholas,  who,  illustrious  for  his  holy  teaching,  filled 
all  the  earth  with  it.  Distinguished  for  his  purity,  he  was  the  best 
example  of  his  own  teaching.  Full  of  heavenly  wisdom,  may  he  shine 
for  ever  in  the  courts  of  heaven  with  those  glories  which  belong  to 
noble  teachers  ! 

2  Ep.  ap.  Migne,  t.  129,  p.  741. 

3  Ep.  12,  ap.  P.  L.,  or  Labbe,  viii.  p.  939. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  1 35 

what  ought  to  be  condemned,  but  what  ought  to  be 
imitated." 

It  will  not  be  expected  that  we  should  leave  Nicholas  I.  The  Fahe 

.     Decretals, 

without  saying  something  about  the  famous  False  Decretals, 
inasmuch  as  Nicholas  is  said  by  some  to  have  fortified 
his  pretensions  by  citations  from  these  documents.  From 
the  writings  of  a  certain  class  of  authors,  it  would  seem 
that  there  are  men  credulous  enough  to  believe  that  the 
power  and  position  of  the  popes  in  the  Church  from  the 
Middle  Ages  onwards  rests  solely  on  a  collection  of  forged 
letters.  Others,  who  do  not  go  quite  so  far  as  this,  still 
imagine  that  at  least  much  of  their  authority  came  from 
the  False  Decretals.  The  fact  is  that,  at  the  very  most, 
the  work  of  "  Isidore  Mercator"  only  quickened  the  de- 
velopment of  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  the  popes  in 
the  details  of  the  government  of  the  Church.  It  is  now 
indeed  acknowledged  by  many  non-Catholic  writers  that 
the  influence  of  the  Pseudo-Isidorian  decrees  on  the 
growth  of  the  authority  of  the  popes  in  the  Church  has 
been  much  exaggerated.  "  It  will  be  seen,"  says  Mr. 
Wells,1  "  that  the  influence  of  the  Forged  Decretals,  based 
on  a  misconception  of  their  contents  and  history,  has  been 
very  much  over-estimated."  They  introduced  nothing  at 
all  new,  and  consequently  caused  no  radical  change  in 
the  internal  life  of  the  Church.  They  may  have  caused  a 
comparatively  rapid  evolution  of  ecclesiastical  discipline 
in  some  directions,  but  the  development  was  a  real  growth 
of  what  already  pre-existed.     Just  as  divers  new  conditions 

1  The  Age  of  Charlcmag?ie,  p.  450.  This  work  is  perhaps  the  best 
of  the  rather  wordy  and  superficial  American  series  of  Eras  of  the 
Christian  Church.  Mr.  Wells  closely  follows  the  conclusions  of  Paul 
Hinschius,  equally  a  non-Catholic,  and  the  latest  and  best  editor  of 
the  Pseudo-Isidorian  Decretals.  Mr.  Wells  is  here  cited,  as  his  book 
is  no  doubt  more  accessible  to  the  general  reader  than  the  great  work 
of  Hinschius. 


I36  ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE    GREAT 

often  result  in  a  rapid  and  sometimes  uneven,  though 
quite  natural,  development  of  different  parts  of  the  human 
frame,  the  Forged  Decretals  perhaps  precipitated  a  further 
centralisation  in  the  government  of  the  Church ;  for 
instance,  by  bringing  under  the  causes  majores  all  that 
concerned  the  deposition  of  bishops.1  But  as  has  been 
said,  "they  were  only  an  expression  of  the  principles 
and  tendency  (and,  it  might  have  been  added,  of  the 
wants)  of  the  age;  and  things  would  have  gone  just 
the  same  (or  practically  the  same)  if  they  had  never 
existed." 

It  is  allowed  that  the  False  Decretals  were  not  known  to 
Nicholas  I.  till  864.  We  shall  show  that  whenever  they 
were  first  brought  to  his  notice,2  they  were  never  used  by 
him.3  If  the  acts  of  the  popes  from  Gregory  I.  till  that 
epoch  be  compared  with  the  doings  of  the  popes  after  that 
date,  it  will  be  at  once  seen  that  nothing  was  done  in  the 
latter  period  which  was  not  done  in  the  former.  The  same 
things  were  practised  as  before,  but  perhaps  more  frequently. 
It  was  precisely  because  no  new  principle  was  set  forth  in 
the  False  Decretals  that  they  were  so  readily  and  unques- 
tionably received.  Had  they  inculcated  a  brand  new  set  of 
doctrines  with  regard  to  Church  government,  they  could 
no  more  have  been  unquestionably  accepted  all  over 
the  Christian  world  for  hundreds  of  years,  than  could 
a  Civil  Code   containing   an  important  body  of  new  and 

1  Cf.  Hinschius,  p.  ccxiv. 

2  Lupus  of  Ferrieres  consulted  him  about  one  of  the  documents  (a 
decree  of  Pope  Melchiades)  of  the  collection  in  858.  Cf.  Ep.  Lupi  5, 
ap..^f.  G.  Epp.,  vi.  114.  It  is  believed  that  Rothad  brought  them  to 
Rome  in  864.     Cf.  Hinschius,  p.  ccvii. 

3  This  is  conceded  by  Hinschius  (/.  c).  De  Smedt  shows  (pp.  16,  17) 
that,  contrary  to  the  idea  of  Hinschius,  Nicholas  did  not  interpret  the 
genuine  decrees  he  quotes  in  the  sense  of  the  False  Decretals,  but 
perfectly  logically  Les  Fansses  Decretales,  Paris,  1870,  an  extract  from 
Les  Etudes  relig. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 37 

unauthorised    laws   be   foisted    without   indignant    protest 
upon  a  particular  country. 

Before  the  collection  of  '  Isidore  Mercator,'  several  other  Early  col- 
collections  of  canons  had  been  made  and  circulated  in  canons. 
different  parts  of  the  Church.  Of  the  earlier  collections,  the 
one  in  most  repute  was  that  made  by  the  monk  Dionysius 
the  Little,  at  Rome,  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century. 
It  consisted  of  the  canons  of  various  councils  and  a  number 
of  decretal  letters  of  the  Popes,  from  S.  Siricius  (385)  to 
Anastasius  II.  (498).  This  had  an  extensive  circulation 
and  was  well  known  to  the  Franks,  as  Pope  Hadrian  I.  had 
sent  it  to  Charlemagne.  Another  collection,  also  well 
known  to  them,  was  one  that  had  been  made  in  Spain,  and 
was  ascribed  to  S.  Isidore  of  Seville  (636). 

But  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century  there  appeared 
in  France  no  less  than  three  spurious  collections,  viz.,  the 
short  one  known  as  the  Capitula  Angilramni,  which 
professed  to  be  a  set  of  canons  given  by  Pope  Hadrian  I. 
to  Angelramn,  bishop  of  Metz.  In  some  copies,1  indeed,  of 
this  work  it  is  said  that  it  was  presented  by  the  bishop  to 
the  Pope.  This  collection  consists  of  some  seventy  short 
chapters,  mostly  dealing  with  questions  of  ecclesiastical 
judicial  procedure.  Then  we  have  the  Capitularies  of 
Benedict  Levita,2  who  professed  to  have  drawn  them  from 
the  archives  of  Mayence,  when  he  was  a  deacon  there  under 
archbishop  Otgar.  The  work  of  Benedict  is  divided  into 
three  books,  in  each  of  which  are  over  four  hundred 
articles  on  different  subjects.3 

Lastly,  there  is  the  collection  known  as  that  of  Isidore  The 
Mercator.4     In  the  preface  to  his  work  '  Isidore'  says  that  STsTdoJl 
he  has  been  forced  by  bishops  and  others  to  collect  together 

1  Ceillier,  Hist,  des  Auteurs,  xii.  p.  133. 

2  Ap.  M.  G.  LL.,  aim-,  or  P.  L.}  t.  97.    *  3  Ceillier,  &.,  395. 
4  One  or  two  MSS.  give  'Peccator'  or  the  Sinner. 


138  ST.   NICHOLAS   L,  THE   GREAT 

the  various  canons.1  Of  the  three  parts  of  which  the 
collection  is  made  up,  the  first  contains  the  preface,  a 
letter  to  and  one  from  Pope  Damasus  (366-384),  in  which 
latter  the  Pope  professes  to  comply  with  a  request  con- 
tained in  the  former  for  the  decrees  of  the  Popes  up  to 
his  own  time.  We  have  also  in  this  first  part  the  so-called 
Apostolic  Canons,  some  sixty  forged  Decretals  of  the  Popes 
from  S.  Clement  to  S.  Melchiades  (31 1-3 14)  and  the  false 
Donation  of  Constantine.  The  second  part  gives  the  Acts 
of  the  Councils,  from  that  of  Nice  to  that  of  the  Second 
Council  of  Seville  (619),  for  the  most  part  already  edited. 
The  third  part  consists  of  Decretals  of  Popes  from  St. 
Silvester  to  Gregory  II.,  of  which  some  forty  are 
forgeries. 

Besides  treating  of  the  primacy  and  other  prerogatives 
and  privileges  of  the  Roman  See  and  of  bishops,  in  their 
various  relations  to  the  secular  power,  to  their  metro- 
politans, etc.,  it  is  important  to  remember  that  the  docu- 
ments in  this  collection  treat  of  matters  theological, 
liturgical,  and  penitential.  Though  forgeries,  these  decretals 
"  are  2  nevertheless,  in  matter  of  fact,  the  real  utterances 
of  Popes,  though  not  of  those  to  whom  they  are 
ascribed  ;  and  hence  the  forgery  is,  on  the  whole,  one  of 
chronological  location,  and  does  not  affect  their  essential 
character." 

With  regard  to  these  three  collections,  the  truth  is  that 
there  is  but  little  definitely  known  about  them.  Of  the 
chronological  sequence  of  their  production,  of  their  author 
or  authors,  of  the  exact  year  of  their  issue,  there  is  no 
certainty.  It  is,  however,  highly  probable  that  they  were 
manufactured   in   France  about  the    middle  of  the   ninth 

1  "Compellor  a  multis  tarn  episcopis  quam  reliquis  servis  Dei 
canonum  sententias  colligere  et  uno  in  volumine  redigere  et  de  multis 
unum  facere."     Pg.  17,  ed.  Hinschius. 

2  Alzog,  Church  Hist.,  ii.  p.  195. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  1 39 

century.1  They  may  easily  have  been  the  work  of  one 
man  ;  of  a  man  whom  the  works  themselves  show  to  have 
been  working  for  a  good  end,  with  a  good  motive,  but,  of 
course,  with  reprehensible  ideas  of  his  own  concerning 
literary  honesty. 

By  degrees  the  work  of  Isidore  Mercator,  which  was 
popularly  supposed  to  be  the  production  of  St.  Isidore  of 
Seville,  and  which  from  its  first  appearance  was  at  once 
accepted  in  France,2  practically  ousted  the  other  collections 
altogether,  and  was  for  centuries  the  collection  of  canons 
which  was  cited,  both  by  councils  and  by  individuals. 
Centuries  also  elapsed  before  any  suspicion  3  was  entertained 
that  the  decretals  therein  contained  were  not  genuine  in  every 
respect.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  principal  reason 
of  this  their  ready  acceptance  was  the  fact  that  there  was 
nothing  in  them  out  of  harmony  with  the  religious  and 
ecclesiastical  ideas  of  the  age  in  which  they  made  their  first 
appearance.  There  was  nothing  in  them  to  provoke  sus- 
picion. Had  they  manifested  any  general  substantial  clash- 
ing with  the  views  of  the  period  on  the  hierarchy,  etc.,  they 

1  And,  as  far  as  the  Isidorian  decrees  are  concerned,  in  the  diocese 
of  Rheims.  Hinschius  (p.  clxxxii)  thinks  that  Benedict's  work  appeared 
first,  and  that  the  other  two  are  the  work  of  one  author. 

2  They  were  alluded  to  in  the  Council  of  Soissons  in  853,  and 
definitely  cited  in  the  Councils  of  Quiercy-sur-Oise  (857),  of  Fimes  (in 
the  diocese  of  Rheims,  881,  can.  5),  of  Metz,  889,  and  others  before  the 
end  of  the  ninth  century.  De  Smedt,  /.  c,  pp.  5  and  II.  They  were 
also  received  by  the  founders  of  Canon  Law  in  France,  Regino  of 
Prum,  and  Burchard  of  Worms. 

3  It  has  been  said  that  their  authenticity  was  called  in  question  by 
Hincmar.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  cited  by  him  in  his  treatise 
of  fifty -five  chapters  against  Hincmar  of  Leon,  and  in  that  on  the  divorce 
of  Lothaire,  etc.  De  Smedt,  pp.  5  and  6.  He  once  cast  doubts  on 
the  preface  of  the  collection,  and  on  the  introductory  letter  of  Pope 
Damasus  (ib.)  ;  and  when  they  were  used  against  him,  contended  that 
the  papal  decrees  therein  quoted,  or  rather  some  of  them,  only  dealt 
with  questions  of  the  hour,  and  were  not  authoritative  because  they  had 
not  been  accepted  by  councils,  but  not  because  they  were  unauthentic. 


140  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

would  never  have  been  received  without  a  searching  inves- 
tigation. New  laws  cannot  be  imposed  on  men,  especially 
on  ecclesiastics,  without  causing  a  considerable  amount  of 
sensation.  And  if  the  False  Decretals  of  Isidore  had  been, 
as  many  would  seem  to  believe  they  were,  a  collection  of 
canons  which  imposed  new  obligations  and  created  new 
privileges,  it  is  certain  that  their  claim  to  general  acceptance 
would  have  been  thoroughly  investigated.  But  as  they 
seemed  to  men  simply  to  focus  already  more  or  less  clearly 
received  notions,  they  were  readily  accepted  for  what  they 
professed  to  be.  About  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
however,  they  were  definitely  pronounced  spurious  by 
Cardinal  Nicholas  de  Cusa,1  who  was  as  great  a  critic  in 
the  domain  of  physical  science  as  in  that  of  literature.  His 
verdict  has  been  generally  accepted  since  by  writers  of  all 
creeds. 
The  object  It  has  been  most  reasonably  suggested  that  the  state  of 
decrees.  the  times  was  the  cause  of  the  publication  of  the  False 
Isidore11 ;  and  that,  consequently,  we  must  look  therein  for 
the  cue  as  to  the  aim  and  object  of  the  author  of  the 
Forged  Decretals.  The  wars  between  Louis  and  his  sons, 
and  afterwards  between  these  sons  themselves,  or  again 
between  them  and  their  sons,  which  permitted  of  incursions 
with  impunity  of  Norman,  Saracen,  and  Slav,  and  of  the 
multiplication  of  petty  tyrants,  were  resulting  in  the  decay 
of  all  order.  In  the  midst  of  the  growing  civil  anarchy, 
the  Church,  too,  in  the  Carolingian  empire  was  suffering 
in  a  corresponding  manner.  On  the  one  hand,  she  was  in 
trouble  from  without.  Her  property  was  being  seized  by 
powerful  nobles,  and  the  freedom  of  her  elections  interfered 
with.     From  within  also  was  the  Church  in  difficulties.     In 

1  De  Cojicordia  Catholica,  iii.  c.  2,  cited  by  Jungmann,  whose  excellent 
dissertation,  De  Decretalibus  Pseudo-Isidoria?iis^  we  have  used  freely. 

2  "Apparet  Pseudo-Isidorum  in  figmentis   suis  compilandis  condi- 
tionem  ecclesiasticam  suae  aetatis  respexisse."     Hinschius,  p.  ccxxviii. 


ST.    NICHOLAS    I.,   THE   GREAT  141 

imitation  of  the  higher  secular  nobility,  the  greater 
ecclesiastics  endeavoured  to  arrogate  power  to  themselves, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  rights  of  others  beneath  them. 
And  their  ambition  was  favoured  by  the  temporal  rulers 
who  with  good  reason  imagined  that  they  could  the  more 
easily  get  the  whole  of  the  episcopate  under  their  control, 
if  once  the  latter  were  brought  well  within  the  grasp  of  one 
or  two  metropolitans,  upon  whom  it  would  not  be  difficult 
for  them  to  keep  their  iron  hands.  The  natural  remedy  in 
the  case  of  the  civil  disorder  would  have  been  a  strong 
imperial  power;  and  in  the  ecclesiastical,  the  constant 
action  of  a  strong  central  authority.  In  the  ecclesiastical 
order,  as  in  the  civil,  there  was  a  recognised  central  authority 
— that  of  the  bishops  of  Rome.  One  of  the  aims  of  the 
False  Decretals  was  to  bring  that  power  into  more  constant 
action.  In  the  civil  order,  to  check  oppression  on  the  part 
of  local  authority,  there  was  needed  a  ready  means  of 
appeal  to  a  direct  and  less  local  representative  of  the 
central  government.  With  the  strength  of  a  Charlemagne 
behind  them,  this  want  had  been  well  supplied  by  his  missi 
dominici.  In  ecclesiastical  affairs  the  papal  vicars  were 
destined  to  serve  the  same  ends.     The  chief1  aim,  therefore, 

1  After  quoting  various  passages  from  the  Pseudo- Isidore,  Mr.  Wells 
(p.  439)  adds  :  "  It  will  be  readily  seen  that  the  author's  main  object 
was  to  free  the  clergy,  from  the  secular  power,  and  to  establish  the 
hierarchy,  maintaining  the  co-equal  authority  of  all  bishops,  though  they 
might  differ  in  importance ;  placing  the  Roman  See  at  the  head, 
possessing  all  power  and  authority,  derived,  not  as  the  others,  from  the 
apostles,  but  from  Christ  himself,  through  St.  Peter,  whom  He  had 
appointed,  and  whom  the  other  apostles  acknowledged  as  their  chief." 
Cf.  Hinschius,  /.  c.  ;  Fournier,  Etude  sur  les  Fausses  Decre'tales,  ap. 
Revue  cChist.  eccte's.,  Jan.  1906,  p.  33  ff.  On  p.  43  there  is  the  following 
very  accurate  remark  :  "  The  False  Decretals  would  never  have  been 
drawn  up  in  the  terms  in  which  they  have  come  down  to  us,  had  not 
the  Holy  See,  at  the  time  in  which  they  were  put  together,  been  in 
possession  of  a  power  the  aid  of  which  was  necessary  to  assure  the 
proper  independence  of  the  Church  in  the  Frankish  Empire." 


142 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 


The  exalta- 
tion of  the 
Roman  See 
not  the 
principal 
aim  of  the 
False 
Decretals. 


The 

Forged 
Decretals 
not  used 
by  the 
Popes  till 
Leo  IX. , 
1049 -1055. 


of  the  Pseudo- Isidore  was,  by  the  appeal  to  very  remote 
antiquity,  to  bring  about  the  more  ready  acceptance  of  such 
legislation  as  would  naturally  result  in  freeing  the  clergy 
from  metropolitan  or  lay  oppression. 

The  principal  end,  therefore,  of  the  author  of  the  Forged 
Decretals  was  not — contrary  to  what  apparently  many 
seem  anxious  to  believe — the  exaltation  of  the  See  of 
Rome.  On  this  point  we  will  use  no  words  of  our  own, 
but  leave  the  field  to  a  non-Catholic  writer.1 

11  It  has  been  said  sometimes,  and  it  is  supposed  quite 
generally,  that  the  main  object  of  the  Decretals  was  to 
enhance  the  supremacy  of  Rome,  but  this  view  is  now 
given  up  by  all  the  best  and  most  recent  scholars. 

"  In  the  first  place,  most  of  the  arguments  for  it  have 
been  directly  disproved.  The  Forged  Decretals  were  not 
composed  by  the  Popes,  nor  written  at  Rome.  They  were 
not  first  known  to  the  Popes,  nor  first  used  by  the  Popes ; 
indeed,  they  were  used  very  little  by  the  Popes  until  after  the 
tenth  century,  when  they  had  become  incorporated  into  the 

general  ecclesiastical  legislation The  position  given 

to  the  primates  and  the  mere  mention  of  papal  vicars  in 
only  four  places  are  regarded  by  Hinschius  and  others  as 
showing  that  Pseudo- Isidore  was  more  intent  on  freeing 
the  bishops2  from  the  metropolitans  than  on  extending 
the  power  of  the  Popes."3 

The   author   of    this    straightforward    passage   remarks 

1  Mr.  Wells,  The  Age  of  Charlemagne,  p.  447  f. 

2  Hence  the  authorship  of  the  False  Decretals  has  been  recently 
ascribed  to  Aldric,  bishop  of  Mans. 

3  Whatever  was  the  chief  end  the  Pseudo-Isidore  had  in  view,  it  is 
certain  that  he  did  not  attempt  to  treat  of  all  matters  ecclesiastical. 
"  Id  saltern  concedendum  est,"  says  their  careful  editor  Hinschius  (p. 
ccxxviii),  "Pseudo- 1 sidorum  imaginem  totius  status  ecclesiastici  omnibus 
in  rebus  reformandi  decretalibus  suis  non  expressise,"  etc.  With  this 
contrast  the  exaggerated  description  of  Milman,  Latin  Christianity,  iii. 
192. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT  I43 

therein  that  the  False  Decretals  "  were  used  very  little  by 
the  Popes  until  after  the  tenth  century."  It  is  more  than 
doubtful  if  they  were  used  by  any  Pope  before  Leo  IX., 
except  once  by  Hadrian  II.,  on  a  matter  of  no  importance. 
It  has  indeed  been  said  that  they  were  used  by  Nicholas  I. 
Of  their  existence  he  was  in  all  likelihood  aware,  but  he 
did  not  himself1  use  them.  Against  this  latter  assertion  it 
is  urged  particularly  that  Nicholas,  in  asserting  that  bishops 
could  not  be  condemned  without  reference  to  the  Holy 
See,  and  that  councils  must  receive  papal  sanction,  intro- 
duced a  new  discipline  into  the  Church,  and  was  in  fact 
relying  on  the  False  Decretals.  Taking  these  two  points 
in  detail,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  if,  as  is  generally  agreed, 
Nicholas  did  not  know  of  the  existence  of  the  False 
Decretals  till  864,  he  could  not  have  been  resting  on  them 
when  in  862  he  wrote 2  that  it  was  "  by  the  authority  and 
sanction  of  the  bishops  of  the  first  See  of  the  Roman 
Church  that  all  synods  and  councils  were  confirmed." 
And  even  if  Nicholas  had  known  of  the  existence  of  the 
False  Decretals  when  he  penned  that  letter  to  Photius,  it 
had  long  ago  been  laid  down,  in  a  genuine  epistle3  of  Pope 
S.  Gelasius  I.  (492-6),  that  it  is  "  by  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See  that  every  synod  is  confirmed/'  and  we  are 
told  by  the  Byzantine  historian  Socrates  (ii.  17) 4  that  Pope 

1  This,  according  to  Ceillier,  was  conceded  by  the  Protestant  writer 
Blondel  \Pseudo-Isid.,  Prol.,  c.  19),  who  in  the  early  part  of  the 
eighteenth  century  refuted  the  Jesuit  Turrianus,  who  made  a  last  stand 
to  defend  the  authenticity  of  the  Isidorian  Decretals.  It  is  conceded 
also  by  Hinschius. 

2  Ep.  12  ad  Photium  (Migne,  p.  788),  "  Decretalia  autem,  qure  a 
Sanctis  pontificibus  primae  sedis  Romanse  ecclesiae  sunt  instituta,  cujus 
auctoritate  atque  sanctione  omnes  synodi  et  sancta  concilia  roborentur 
et  stabilitatem  sumunt,  cur  vos  non  habere  vel  observare  dicitis?" 

3  Ep.  ad  epp.  Dardan.  "  Quae  (Sedes  Ap.)  et  unamquamque 
synodum  sua  auctoritate  confirmat  et  continua  moderatione  custodit." 

4  Cf.  Sozomen,  iii.  10,  and  Julius's  own  letter  to  the  Eusebians,  n.  22, 
ed.  Coustant,  p.  386. 


144  ST«    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT 

Julius  (341-352)  reminded  a  number  of  bishops  that,  "  by 
ecclesiastical  law,  no  decisions  of  the  churches  are  valid 
unless  sanctioned  by  the  bishop  of  Rome." 

Again,  if,  in  865,  in  a  letter1  famous  in  this  matter  of 
the  Decretals,  Nicholas  affirmed  that  "  more  important 
matters"  were  to  be  referred  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and 
that  among  such  causes  majores  the  condemnation  of 
bishops  must  of  a  certainty  be  reckoned,  not  only  had  he 
himself  already  (863)  asserted 2  this,  but  S.  Innocent  I. 
(402-417)  had  centuries  before  laid3  down  "that  the  more 
important  causes  were  to  be  referred  to  the  Apostolic  See, 
after  the  decision  of  the  bishops  had  been  given,  in 
accordance  with  the  synodal  decrees  and  custom."4  And 
if  it  be  remembered  that  it  is  the  belief  of  the  Catholic 
Church  that  bishops  have  received  a  divine  commission  to 
rule  the  churches  of  God,  and  that  they  are  regarded  by 
her  as  the  depositaries  and  organs  of  the  faith,  it  would 
certainly  seem  no  more  than  a  natural  development  that 
what  concerns  their  status  should  in  process  of  time  tend 
more  and  more  to  come  under  the  immediate  cognisance 
of  her  head. 

Besides,  if  we  look  to  ancient  custom,  we  find  fourth- 
century  Greek  historians  assuring  us  that,  when  Pope 
Julius  restored  Paul  of  Constantinople  and  other  Eastern 

1  Ep.  75  ad  epp.  Galliae,  P.L.,  p.  899  f. 

2  Ep.  35  ad  epp.  Suess.,  P.L.,  p.  826  f. 

3  Ep.  2,  n.  3,  to  Victricius,  bishop  of  Rouen,  "  Si  majores  causae  in 
medium  fuerint  devolutae,  ad  Sedem  Apost.  sicut  synodus  statuit,  et 
beata  consuetudo  exigit,  post  judicium  episcopale  referantur." 

4  How  clearly  is  all  this  stated  by  Hincmar  in  the  preface  to  his 
treatise  on  such  a  dogmatic  subject  as  divorce  :  "  De  omnibus  dubiis 
vel  obscuris  quae  ad  rectae  fidei  tenorem  vel  pietatis  dogmata  pertinent, 
sancta  Romana  ecclesia,  ut  omnium  Ecclesiarum  mater  et  magistri 
....  est  consulenda,  et  ejus  salubria  monita  sunt  tenenda,  maxime  ab 
his  (referring  to  the  Pope  as  Patriarch  of  the  West)  qui  in  illis  regionibus 
habitant,  in  quibus  divina  gratia  per  ejus  predicationem  omnes  in  fide 
genuit."    P  reef  at.  in  divort.  Loth.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  125. 


ST.    NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  145 

bishops  to  their  sees,  he  did  so  in  virtue  "of  the 
peculiar  privileges "  or  "  prerogative "  of  the  Church  of 
Rome1 — a  superior  authority  recognised  as  theirs  even 
by  the  contemporary  pagan  historian  Ammianus  Mar- 
cellinus.2 

It  is  in  the  letter3  to  "  all  the  bishops  of  Gaul "  (865)  that 
Nicholas  says  most  about  decretals.  In  it  he  shows  that  he 
evidently  has  in  his  mind  two  sets  of  papal  documents, 
one  a  '  codified '  collection,  and  the  other  consisting  of  the 
decrees  of  Popes  as  he  found  them  in  the  papal  archives.4 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  latter  collection  was  regarded  by 
him  as  of  equal  importance,  but  that  it  was  to  the  codified 
collection  that  an  effort  was  being  made  to  restrain  him  by 
those  concerning  whom  he  was  writing,  and  who  had  ob- 
jected to  receiving  certain  decretals  because  they  were  not 
in  their  code.  And  their  code  was  that  of  Dionysius  the 
Little.  At  least  it  was  supposed  to  be.5  If,  argued  Nicholas, 
papal  decrees  were  not  to  be  received  6  which  were  not  in 
the  collection  of  the  canons,  then  not  only  could  neither 
the  decrees  of  S.  Gregory  I.  nor  of  many  another  Pope  be 
accepted,  but  not  even  the  Scriptures  themselves,  since  they 
had  never  been  inserted  in  any  code  of  ecclesiastical  canons. 
But,  concludes  Nicholas,  the  papal  decrees  must  be  received 

1  Socrates,  H.  E.,  ii.  15.     Cf.  Sozomen,  iii.  7. 

2  L-  I5>  n.  7-  3  Ep.  75. 

4  lb.  "  Quae  (decretalia  constituta,  opuscula)  ....  penes  se 
vRomana  Ecclesia)  in  suis  archivis  et  vetustis  rite  monumentis 
recondita  venerator." 

5  lb.  "  Nam  nonnulla  eomm  scripta  penes  nos  habentur,  quae  non 
solum  quorumcumque  Romanorum  pontificum  verum  etiam  priorum 
decreta  in  suis  causis  praeferre  noscuntur."  This  is  an  allusion  to  a 
quotation  from  the  False  Decretals  which  Hincmar  had  himself  made  (a 
quotation  from  Pope  Alexander,  according  to  the  Pseudo- Isidore)  in  a 
letter  (Ep.  11,  p.  80)  to  Nicholas  concerning  Rothad. 

6  «  porro  si  jdeo  non  esse  decre tales  epistolas  priscorum  pontificum 
Rom.  admittendas  dicunt,  quia  in  codice  canonum  non  habentur 
ascriptae,  ergo  nee  Gregorii  sancti  ....  scriptum,"  etc.     lb. 

VOL.    III.  10 


I46  ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,  THE   GREAT 

even  if  they  have  not  been x  codified  ;  and  there  is  no 
difference  between  those  which  have  been  so  treated  and 
those  which  from  their  very  number  could  scarcely  be  so 
arranged.  It  is  perfectly  plain  from  this  letter  of  865  that, 
though  there  was  a  recognised  code  of  canons,  Nicholas 
did  not  pin  his  faith  to  any  codified  collection,  not  even  to 
that  of  Dionysius,  still  less  to  that  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore. 
The  whole  trend  of  his  letter  was  to  prove  that  papal 
decretals  had  to  be  submitted  to  as  such,  and  consequently 
were  as  binding  whether  found  in  a  code  or  not.2  And 
so,  though  in  this  letter  (ep.  75)  he  quotes,  not  indeed 
from  the  code  of  the  Pseudo-Isidore,  but  from  that  of 
Dionysius,  which  Hincmar  professed  to  receive,  he  also 
quotes,  as  of  equal  value,  decretals  of  the  Popes  which  had 
not  then  been  inserted  in  any  published  code.  If  Nicholas 
did  not  use  the  False  Decretals  in  this  letter,  it  certainly 
cannot  be  shown  that  he  used  them  in  any  other.  The  whole 
question  of  the  use  of  the  False  Decretals  by  Nicholas  has 
been  thoroughly  examined  by  Roy.3  We  will  cite  the 
conclusions  to  which  he  has  arrived.  Though  Nicholas 
was  acquainted  with,  and  sometimes,  as  we  have  seen, 
quotes  from  the  canonical  collection  of  Dionysius  the 
Little,  and  from  one  attributed  to  John  of  Antioch,  he 
often  cites  decrees  of  his  predecessors  which  are  not 
found  in  any  collection.  Of  these  latter  citations,  a  few 
are  not  authentic,  and  of  these  latter  again  most  are  not 
found  among  the  False  Decretals.     Of  the  remaining  very 

1  "Restat  nimirum  quod  decretales  epist.  Rom.  Pont,  sunt  recipiendae 
etiam  si  non  sunt  canonum  codici  compaginatae,"  etc.  lb.  Though  this 
is  only  a  clause  in  a  sentence,  it  expresses  the  conclusion  to  which 
Nicholas  finally  arrives. 

2  "  Itaque  nihil  interest  utrum  sint  omnia  decretalia  sedis  apostolicae 
constituta  inter  canones  conciliorum  immista,  cum  omnia  in  uno 
corpore  compaginari  non  possint,  et  ilia  eis  intersint,  quae  firmitatem 
his  quae  desunt  et  vigorem  suum  assignent."     lb. 

3  P.  149,  Fr.  ed.     See  also  supr.,  p.  2. 


ST.   NICHOLAS   I.,   THE   GREAT  1 47 

few  (two  or  three)  spurious  decrees  which  are  found 
both  in  the  writings  of  Nicholas  and  in  the  collection  of 
the  Pseudo-Isidore,  all  are  to  be  found  in  documents  which, 
though  not  genuine,  had  been  forged  centuries  before  the 
days  either  of  Nicholas  or  the  Pseudo- Isidore  had  passed 
into  general  use,  and  were  therefore  accessible  to  Nicholas 
without  the  intermedium  of  the  False  Decretals}  Further, 
not  only  did  Nicholas  not  use  the  great  mass  of  the  false 
texts  assigned  by  the  Pseudo-Isidore  to  the  very  earliest 
Popes,  though  they  would  have  been  very  convenient  for 
him,  especially  in  his  difficulties  with  Photius,  but  he 
invariably  assigned  to  their  real  authors  the  true  documents 
used  in  common  by  him  and  by  the  Pseudo-Isidore,  but 
attributed  by  the  latter  to  popes  much  earlier  than  those 
by  whom  they  were  actually  composed.  The  False 
Decretals  were  then  evidently  ignored  by  Nicholas,  and 
that,  no  doubt,  not  because  he  had  any  positive  grounds 
for  doubting  their  authenticity,  but  because  he  had  no 
ready  means  of  verifying  their  genuineness. 

Hadrian  II.,  however,  in  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of  the 
synod  of  Douzi-les-Pres,  certainly  did  quote2  one  of  the 
False  Decretals,  in  the  shape  of  a  letter  of  Pope  Anterus 
(238-240).  But  the  citation  was  only  introduced  by  him 
while  unfolding  his  approval  of  the  action  of  the  fathers 
of  that  synod  in  transferring,  for  grave  reasons,  a  bishop 
from  one  See  to  another,  and  may  easily  have  been  first 

1  Thus  he  quotes  (ep.  147,  p.  1 141)  the  spurious  letter  of  Pope  S. 
Clement  to  S.  James.  But  this  same  letter  had  been  quoted  as  long 
before  as  the  Council  of  Vaison  (can.  6,  not  16  as  in  Roy)  in  442.  And 
Nicholas  quotes  it  not  to  advance  his  ftretensions,  but  to  denounce 
adultery.  And  if  he  cites  the  Acta  and  Constitntum  of  Pope  Silvester, 
he  is  using  documents  which  were  in  existence  from  the  end  of  the 
fifth  century  {cf.  L.  P.,  i.  p.  cix.  f.),  and  this  he  does  either  in  the 
words  of  his  predecessor  Leo  IV.,  or  in  a  way  other  than  that  adopted 
by  the  Pseudo-Isidore. 

2  Ep.  32,  ap.  Labbe,  T.  viii.  932. 


148  ST.    NICHOLAS   L,  THE   GREAT 

used  by  the  council  itself.  In  any  case,  the  prerogatives 
of  the  Apostolic  See  were  not  advanced  by  Hadrian  by 
means  of  the  Forged  Decretals.  He  never  cited  them 
again,  nor,  practically  speaking,  did  any  of  his  successors, 
till  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century.1  When,  from  the 
time  of  St.  Leo  IX.,  the  said  Decretals  were  more  freely 
used  by  the  popes,  they  were  universally  accepted,  and  the 
'  encroachments '  on  the  rights  of  others  which  some  pretend 
were  made  by  the  popes,  through  the  instrumentality  of 
forgeries,  were  by  that  time  confessedly  complete.  And 
it  has  been  well  pointed  out 2  that  the  tradition  at  Rome 
of  practically  ignoring  the  False  Decretals  was  only  broken 
when  there  came  into  the  Chair  of  Peter  a  bishop  (Bruno 
of  Toul,  S.  Leo  IX.),  of  that  nation  among  whom  the 
collection  had  first  seen  the  light  and  among  whom  there 
was  not  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  its  authenticity.3 

1  See  De  Smedt's  examination  of  the  instance  or  two  in  which  they 
were  quoted  by  them  in  the  interval  named.     P.  22  ff. 

2  By  the  learned  Bollandist,  de  Smedt,  Les  fausses  decretales,  p.  26. 

3  In  addition  to  the  authorities  in  connection  with  the  False  Decretals 
already  cited  in  the  notes,  we  would  mention  Hergenrother,  Hist,  de 
VEglise,  iii.  202  ff.;  and  an  article  in  the  Mo?ithi  March  1881. 


HADRIAN    II. 

A.D.  867-872. 


Sources. — In  the  Liber  Pontificalis  we  have  an  incomplete  life  of 
this  Pope,  once  ascribed  to  a  supposed  librarian  '  William,'  who 
was  set  down  as  the  successor  of  the  famous  Anastasius.  To 
'  William '  was  also  assigned  the  life  of  Stephen  (V.)  VI.  But, 
as  usual,  Hadrian's  biography  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the 
work  of  an  unknown  writer,  who,  it  is  said,  was  under  the  influ- 
ence of  the  cardinal-librarian  Anastasius.  Hence  the  omission 
in  it  of  the  affair  of  Eleutherius,  the  brother  of  Anastasius.  Such, 
at  any  rate,  is  the  view  of  Duchesne.  For  my  own  part,  I  do  not 
think  that  any  importance  can,  as  a  rule,  be  attached  to  what  is  in- 
serted or  omitted  by  the  Z.  P.  But  if,  as  Lapotre  would  seem  to 
have  proved  (cf  his  article  Le  souper  de  Jean  Diacre,  p.  369  ff,  ap. 
Melanges  oVarcheol.,  1901),  this  biography  is  the  work  of  John  the 
Deacon,  the  biographer  of  S.  Gregory  I.,  and  the  great  friend 
of  Anastasius,  then  the  omission  may  be  safely  regarded  as 
intentional.  In  the  truncated  form  in  which  the  imaginary 
William's  life  has  come  down  to  us,  there  is  not  much  else  treated 
of  but  the  early  years  of  Hadrian  and  his  dealings  with  the  Greek 
Church  and  with  the  Bulgarians.  For  other  sources  of  informa- 
tion we  must  turn  to  his  letters,  of  which  there  are  41  ap.  P.  Z., 
t.  122;  and  3  ib.t  t.  129.  They  are,  as  usual,  to  be  also  read 
in  the  different  editions  of  the  Councils. 

In  addition  to  the  letters  of  Hincmar  and  Photius  (on  which 
see  the  sources  for  Nicholas  I.),  the  letters  of  Hincmar  of  Laon 
(P.  Z.,  t.  124),  and  the  already  mentioned  Annals  of  Hincmar, 
etc.,  there  are,  for  the  history  of  the  conversion  of  the  Slavs,  the 

149 


150  HADRIAN    II. 

Life  of  Constantine  and  the  Life  of  Methodius,  etc.  The  former 
seems  to  be  almost  wholly  taken  from  the  Acts  of  Cyril,  which 
had  been  composed  by  his  brother  Methodius.  "  In  any  case 
this  life  gives  us  the  testimony  of  a  man  thoroughly  aufait  with 
the  Byzantine  and  Roman  world  of  this  period.  If  this  man  is 
not  Methodius,  as  I1  believe  him  to  be,  he  must  at  least  be  one 
of  the  Byzantines  who  accompanied  the  two  apostles  to  Rome." 
The  life  of  Methodius  (known,  with  the  life  of  St.  Cyril,  as  the 
Pannonian  Legend),  though  not  the  work  of  a  contemporary,  has 
been  composed  from  the  best  materials,  and  is  the  best  authority 
after  the  life  of  St.  Cyril.  The  Translatio  S.  Clementis  Papa, 
known  as  the  Ltalia?i  Legend,  is,  at  least  as  we  now  have  it,  the  work 
of  Leo  Ostiensis  (f  before  1 1 18).  But  here  again  there  is  evidence 
of  an  earlier,  if  not  contemporary,  edition  of  this  life.  The  Ltalian 
Legend  is  to  be  found  ap.  Bolland.,  Acta  SS.,  ix.  Mart.,  T.  ii. 
Father  Martinov  (Anmts  Pedes.  Graco-Slavicus,  prefixed  to  Acta 
SS.,  October,  T.  xi.  p.  168)  will  not  allow  that  the  Pannonian 
Legends  are  to  be  preferred  as  authorities  to  the  Italian,  and  is 
astonished  at  the  praise  bestowed  upon  them  by  some  authors, 
especially  at  that  given  to  the  life  of  Methodius.  Martinov,  at 
the  place  cited,  gives  the  substance  of  the  Pannonian  Legends. 
His  views  as  to  the  superior  value  of  the  Ltalian  Legend,  which  he 
describes  as  for  the  most  part  the  work  of  an  eye-witness  of  the 
translation  of  St.  Clement's  relics,  viz.,  of  Gaudericus,  bishop  of 
Velletri,  are  shared  by  Cardinal  Bartolini.2  Finally  the 
Moravian  Legend  (ap.  Acta  SS.,  I.  c.)  narrates  the  conversion  of 
the  different  Slav  peoples  effected  by  the  saints,  and  seems  to 
have  been  written  some  considerable  time  after  their  death. 

Works. — To  those  mentioned  under  Nicholas  I.  add,  for  the 
conversion  of  the  Slavs,  the  excellent  work,  Cyrille  et  Methode, 
by  Leger,  Paris,  1868;  SS.  Cirillo  e  Meiodio,  by  Bartolini,  Roma, 
1 88 1 ;  and  Jean  VLLL.,  by  Lapotre,  on  which  see  under  John 
VIII.  Another  very  valuable  work  on  the  same  subject  is,  St. 
Cyrille  et  St.  Methode,  by  A.  d'Avril,  Paris,  1885.     And,  for  the 

1  Lapotre,  fean  VIII.,  104  f.     Cyril's  original  name  was  Constantine. 

2  Cirillo  e  Met.,  pp.  vi.,  vii.  Lapotre  notes  that  this  life,  in  the 
original  form  in  which  it  was  begun  by  John,  the  Deacon,  and  finished 
by  Guadericus,  has  come  down  to  us  in  an  incomplete  form.  Cf. 
Bibliotheca  Casinensis,  iv.  267  ff.,  and  Plorilegium,  p.  373  ff. 


HADRIAN    II.  151 

affair  of  the  two  Hincmars,  the  life  of  Hincmar  of  Laon,  by  Cellot, 
which  is  printed  in  Labbe,  Co?ic,  viii.  p.  1664  f. 


Emperor  of  the  East.  Emperor  of  the  West. 

Basil  I.  (the  Macedonian),  867-886.  Louis  II.,  850-875. 

THOUGH  the  reicm  of  Hadrian  did  not  last  for  more  than  Hadrian 

before  he 

five  years,  an  extraordinary  amount  of  work  seems  to  was  Pope, 
have  been  accomplished  by  that  septuagenarian  pontiff. 
Whether  it  is  that  chance  has  preserved  for  us  more 
records,  or  at  least  more  detailed  records  of  his  doings,  or 
whether  it  is  that  work,  which  had  been  attracted  to  Rome 
by  the  splendid  energy  of  his  predecessor,  was  waiting 
there  for  its  completion,  what  was  actually  done  by  a  man 
who  had  already  passed  1  the  allotted  span  of  human  life 
when  he  became  Pope  cannot  fail  to  strike  with  astonish- 
ment all  who  consider  it. 

Hadrian,  who  was  a  member  of  a  family  which  had 
already  given  two  popes  (Stephen  (IV.)  V.  and  Sergius  II.) 
to  the  Church,  was  the  son  of  Talarus,  afterwards  a  bishop, 
and  was  a  citizen  of  the  third  region  of  the  city.  His 
virtues  attracted  the  attention  of  Gregory  IV.,  who  made 
him  a  subdeacon  ;  and,  in  accordance  with  the  usual  custom 
in  such  cases,  brought  him  into  the  Lateran  palace,  to  be 
trained  in  piety  and  learning.  Ordained  cardinal-priest  of 
St.  Mark's  (842),  he  so  distinguished  himself  by  his  blame- 
less and  manly  administration  of  it,  that  "he  was  revered 

1  He  was  seventy-five  when  he  became  Pope.  "(Cum)  iste  im- 
prresentiarum  tertio  quintum  et  vigesimum  annum  transiret."  L.  P., 
in  vit.  In  Duchesne's  ed.  of  the  L.  P.,  n.  iv.,  however,  the  text  stands 
thus:  "(Cum)  iste  in  presbiterio  quintum,"  etc.,  which  would  only 
prove  that  he  had  been  cardinal-priest  of  St.  Mark's  for  twenty-five 
years  when  he  became  Pope.  Taking  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
into  consideration,  this  is  more  likely  to  be  the  true  reading. 


152  HADRIAN    II. 

by  the  people  not  only  as  one  who  had  been  made  a  priest, 
but  as  the  future  Pope."1 
His  Of  his  various  virtues,  the  one  most  marked  out  by  his 

charity. 

biographer  for  our  admiration  was  his  love  of  the  poor, 
and  what  others,  with  less  faith  than  himself,  would  call 
his  extravagant  charity  towards  them.  But  his  continual 
prayer  in  the  Church  of  Our  Lady  "ad  praesepe,"  had 
begotten  within  him  such  confidence  in  Our  Lord  and  His 
blessed  Mother,  that  he  felt  assured  that  his  charities 
would  never  leave  him  without  resource,  and  that  in  carry- 
ing out  his  works  of  mercy,  he  might  safely  encounter  any 
pecuniary  risks.  In  illustration  of  his  charity  and  trust  in 
God,  his  biographer,  from  whom  we  have  drawn  all  these 
details,  relates  the  following : — On  one  occasion,  after  he 
had  received  with  his  fellow  priests,  according  to  custom, 
forty  denarii 2  from  Pope  Sergius,  he  was  unable,  on  his 
return  home,  to  get  near  his  house  on  account  of  the 
number  of  pilgrims  who  flocked  there  "as  to  a  public 
granary."  At  the  sight,  the  good  priest  was  filled  with  a 
holy  joy,  and  turning  to  his  almoner  (equester),  he  cried  : 
"  What  is  it  to  have  money  in  comparison  with  having  so 
many  brothers?"     Thereupon,  though  he  saw  he  had  not 

1  lb.  The  whole  of  this  paragraph  is  from  the  same  source.  His 
signature  is  to  be  found  among  those  affixed  to  the  acts  of  the  council 
of  853,  "Adrianus  presbyter  tituli  S.  Marci."  At  the  same  council 
there  was  a  Talarus,  bishop  of  Minturno. 

2  Which  Platina  (in  vit.  Had.)  gives  as  'julios.'  As  far  back  as  the 
pontificate  of  St.  Gregory  I.  can  be  traced  this  custom,  on  the  part  of 
the  popes,  of  giving  largesses  (presbiteria)  to  the  clergy.  St.  Gregory 
used  to  give  them  on  Easter  Sunday  morning  (Joan.  Diac,  in  vit., 
ii.  25).  The  custom  grew  more  pronounced  as  the  Middle  Ages 
advanced.  Cf  the  Ordo  Romanus  of  Cencius  Camerarius  (end  of 
twelfth  century),  ap.  Mabillon,  Mus.  Ital.,  ii.  p.  188  f .  ;  and  that  of 
Benedict,  Canon  of  St.  Peter's,  in  the  first  half  of  the  twelfth  century — 
ap.  Migne,  P.L.,  t.  179.  Both  ordos  are  also  to  be  read  ap.  P.  L., 
t.  78.  On  the  latter,  cf  Litiner.  di  Einsied.  e  Vordine  di  Be7i.  cano?t., 
Lanciani,  Roma,  1891. 


HADRIAN    II.  I53 

enough  '  pence '  to  give  one  apiece  even  to  a  third  of  the 
pilgrims ;  "  in  the  power  of  Christ,"  said  he,  "  who,  with 
five  loaves  and  two  fishes  fed  five  thousand  men,  I  will 
give  not  one  but  three  pence  to  each  one  here."  This 
he  did,  and  still  the  almoner  declared  that  the  supply  of 
money  was  not  exhausted.  When  after  each  of  the 
cardinal's  household  had  also  received  his  three  pence, 
and  there  were  still  six  left  over,  "  How  bountiful  is 
the  Almighty,"  exclaimed  Hadrian  to  his  astonished 
almoner,  "  for  He  has  not  only  given  three  pence  each  to 
so  many  of  our  brethren,  but  has  kept  three  for  each  of  us 
also."  There  is  no  exaggeration  in  the  pretty  thought  of 
his  biographer,  that  "mercy  came  out  from  his  mother's 
womb  together  with  him,  and  grew  along  with  him."1 

It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  place  in  their  true  light  the 
events  which  centred  round  the  election  and  consecration 
of  the  successor  of  Nicholas.  For  this,  doubts  regarding 
questions  of  chronology  and  uncertainty  in  connection 
with  the  identity  of  certain  important  individuals  are 
responsible.  It  is  indeed  certain  that  Bishop  Arsenius, 
who  had  fallen  out  of  favour  with  Nicholas,  again  acquired 
influence  with  Hadrian,  while  remaining  well-disposed 
towards  the  emperor  2 ;  but  it  is  by  no  means  clear  whether 
he  was  acting  for  the  emperor  in  supporting  Hadrian,  or 

1  That  Hadrian  was  'most  liberal'  is  also  the  testimony  of  John,  the 
Deacon,  in  his  life  of  St.  Gregory  I.  (iv.  c.  23).  The  librarian 
Anastasius,  who  was  devoted  to  the  memory  of  Nicholas,  writing  to 
Ado  of  Vienne  (ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  742),  says:  "  Habemus  antem 
praesulem  Adrianum  nomine,  virum  per  omnia,  quantum  ad  bonos 
mores  pertinet,  valde  strenuum  et  industrium." 

2  "  Pendet  autem  anima  ejus  (Hadrian)  ex  anima  avunculi  mei,  vcstri 
vero  Arsenii  ;  quamvis  idem  eo  quod  inimicitias  multas  obeuntis  prae- 
sulis  pertulerit,  ac  per  hoc  imperatori  faveat,  a  studio  ecclesiastical 
correctionis  paululum  refriguisset."  The  important  letter  of  Anastasius 
to  Ado,  ap.  P.  /,.,  t.  129.  The  emperor  had  made  Arsenius  "apocrisi- 
arius  Sedis  Romanae,"  as  the  Libel,  de  imp.  potest,  (ap.  #.,  p.  965) 
expresses  it  ;  i.e.  no  doubt,  had  made  him  his  missus. 


154  HADRIAN    II, 

how  far  he  was  the  head  and  front  of  the  opposition,  which 
immediately  displayed  itself,  to  the  policy  of  Pope 
Nicholas.  Nor,  again,  as  it  seems  to  me,  can  the  identity  of 
Anastasius  the  librarian  and  Anastasius  the  antipope  be 
regarded  as  proved,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  Arsenius  was 
the  father  of  the  librarian.  Further,  in  the  strife  of  parties 
which  followed  the  death  of  Nicholas,  it  is  hard  to  say 
whether  Lambert  of  Spoleto  was  acting  for  himself  or  the 
emperor  when  he  made  his  violent  entry  into  Rome,1  and 
equally  hard  to  say  when  exactly  he  did  make  it.  It  was 
made  tempore  consecrationis?  Does  that  mean  before, 
during,  or  after  Hadrian's  consecration?  In  view  of  these 
uncertainties,  our  narrative  will  closely  follow  the  order  of 
events,  presumably  arranged  chronologically,  set  forth  in 
the  Liber  Pontiftcalis. 
Hadrian's  In  Hadrian,  at  any  rate,  the  'nolo  episcopare'  was  not 
a  mere  form.  Twice  before,  on  the  demise  of  Pope  Leo 
IV.,  and  then  again  on  that  of  Benedict  III.,  had  the  whole 
united  body  of  clergy,  nobility,  and  people  pressed  him  to 
take  on  his  shoulders  the  burden  of  the  supreme  pontificate. 
Twice  with  argument  and  '  exquisite  excuses '  had  he  with 
modesty  declined  the  proferred  honour.  On  the  death  of 
Nicholas,  however,  the  will  of  the  united  clergy,  nobility, 
and  people  was  not  to  be  baulked.  Hadrian  they,  one  and 
all,  rich  and  poor,  would  have.  The  two  sections  of  the 
nobility,3  viz.,  the  clerical  and  the  lay  aristocracy  pre- 
sumably, seemed  at  first  to  be  divided.  But  it  was  only, 
says  the  papal  biographer,  because  each  party  doubted 
whether  Hadrian  was  duly  loved  by  the  other,  and  feared 
that  the  other  would  vote  for  some  one  else.     When  these 

1  Cf.  infra,  p.  161.  2  L.  P. 

3  "  Proceres  vero,  licet  solito  in  duas  partes  corpore  viderentur  esse 
divisi,"  etc.  L.  P.,  n.  4.  The  biographer  goes  on  to  relate  that  many 
good  people,  both  clerical  and  lay,  had  learnt  from  visions  that  Hadrian 
was  to  be  Pope. 


HADRIAN    II.  155 

doubts  and  fears  had  been  cleared  up,  bishops  and  priests, 
nobles  and  people,  with  one  accord  hurried  Hadrian  from 
the  Liberian  basilica  (S.  Maria  ad  Praesepe)  to  the  Lateran 
palace,  where  they  installed  him  Pope.  On  hearing  of 
the  election,  the  imperial  missi,  who  happened  at  that  time 
to  be  in  the  city,  expressed  great  indignation  that  the 
'  Quirites '  had  not  invited  them  to  share  in  the  election. 
However,  when  they  were  told  that  they  had  not  been 
invited  to  take  part  in  the  election,  not  from  any  want  of 
respect  for  the  emperor,  but  for  fear  lest  a  precedent 
should  be  created  which  would  require  the  presence  of 
imperial  envoys  at  the  election  of  the  popes,1  they  were 
mollified. 

As   soon    as   they   went   '  to   salute '   the    newly-elected  The 

,-iii  1  •         emperor 

Pontiff,  they  were  literally  besieged  by  the  people  crying  approves 
out  for  the  consecration  of  Hadrian.  The  Roman  people  election. 
were  in  one  of  their  furores.  The  senators  had  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  preventing  them  from  having  Hadrian 
consecrated  forthwith,  without  waiting  for  any  imperial 
assent.  Louis,  however,  hastened  to  assure  the  Romans  of 
his  satisfaction  at  the  good  choice  they  had  made,  and 
that  their  unanimity  made  him  also  desirous  of  Hadrian's 
consecration. 

He  was  accordingly  consecrated  on  Sunday,  December  Hadrian  is 

consc- 

14,  867,  at  St.  Peter's,  by  Donatus,  bishop  of  Ostia,  Peter,  crated. 
bishop  of  Cava  (in  the  archdiocese  of  Salerno),  and  Leo, 
bishop   of    Silva-Candida2   (a    town    in    Tuscany   on   the 
Aurelian  Way).     The  two  latter  bishops  took  the  place  of 

1  This  paragraph  is  straight  from  the  L.  P.  Cf.  Hincmar,  Annal, 
ad  an.  867.  By  the  constitution  of  Lothaire,  it  only  belonged  to  the 
emperor  to  ratify  the  '  decree '  of  the  election,  when  sent  to  him,  if  it 
was  in  order.  These  efforts  made  by  the  emperors  to  extend  their 
influence  over  papal  elections  naturally  caused  the  Popes  to  be 
anxious  to  do  away  with  it  altogether. 

2  Still  the  L.  P. 


156  HADRIAN    II. 

the  bishop  of  Albano,  who  was  dead,  and  of  Formosus  of 
Porto,  who  was  in  Bulgaria. 

At  the  Mass  which  the  Pope  celebrated  on  this  occasion, 
all,  we  are  told,  were  anxious  to  receive  Holy  Communion 
at  his  hands.  And,  as  an  earnest  of  the  conciliatory  policy 
he  intended  to  pursue,  he  forthwith,  on  the  condition  of 
their  performing  satisfactory  penance,  restored  to  ecclesi- 
astical communion  Theutgard  of  Triers,  Zachary  of 
Anagni,  and  Anastasius,  the  former  antipope.1  On  his 
return  to  the  Lateran  palace,  he  further  signalised  his 
consecration  day  by  abolishing  the  custom  which  had 
gradually  come  into  vogue  of  selling  the  presents  given  to 
the  Pope  on  such  occasions.  After  retaining  what  would 
serve  his  table,2  Hadrian  caused  the  rest  to  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  poor,  saying  that  what  had  been  freely 
received  should  be  freely  given  ;  and  that  senseless  and 
inanimate  coin  ought  not  to  be  more  loved  than  reasonable 
creatures. 
Unrest  in  The  consecration  of  Hadrian  did  not  take  place  a  day 
elsewhere,  too  soon,  for  every  fraction  of  authority  was  needed  to 
stem  the  anarchy  which  was  rapidly  getting  the  Western 
continent  of  Europe  into  its  grip.  No  sooner  had  the  firm 
restraining  hand  of  Nicholas  been  relaxed  in  death  than  the 
clerical  and  lay  elements  of  disorder  had  begun  to  assert 
themselves  at  once.  Writing  to  his  friend  Ado,  archbishop 
of  Vienne,  the  librarian  Anastasius  calls  on  him  to  resist 
the  ravening  wolves  who  broke  into  the  fold  immediately 

1  "  Simulque  Anastasius,  qui  dudum  a  Leone  Benedictoque  presbiterio 
denudatus,  inter  laicos  communicare  solitus  erat."  L.  P.,  n.  x.  If 
Anastasius,  the  librarian,  was  the  same  person  as  Anastasius,  the 
antipope,  it  is  hard  to  believe,  considering  his  devotion  to  Nicholas, 
that  that  Pontiff  would  not  have  granted  him  this  favour. 

2  Pagi,  in  vit.  Had.,  §  3,  says  Hadrian  reserved  what  was  enough  for 
the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  But,  in  the  editions  of  the  Liber.  Pont. 
which  we  have  examined,  the  word  is  '  mensarum '  and  not  '  missarum' 
(retentis  solum  quae  usibus  mensarum  sufficerent  reliquiis). 


HADRIAN    II.  157 

after  the  death  of  Nicholas.  "  All  those  whom  he  reproved 
for  adultery  or  other  crimes  are  burning  to  have  his  acts 
reversed  and  his  writings  destroyed,"1  he  says.  By  no 
means  for  the  last  time  in  the  history  of  the  popes,  the 
most  extravagant  rumours  were  diligently  circulated, 
the  wildest  talk  indulged  in  immediately  after  the  death 
of  the  late  Pope.  It  was  confidently  asserted2  that  the 
emperor  was  in  favour  of  the  malcontents,  that  there  was 
to  be  a  council  held  in  Rome  in  which  the  metropolitans 
of  Gaul  were  to  get  back  their  '  status/  and  that  Nicholas 
had  been  guilty  of  heresy.3  Party  feeling  ran  higher,  or 
rather,  the  bitterness  of  faction  4  rights  waxed  more  furious 
than  ever.  "  Many  sons  of  the  holy  Church  of  God"  were 
exiled  or  imprisoned  on  one  pretext  or  another.  On  the 
strength  of  false  charges,  the  emperor  had,  during  the 
vacancy  of  the  Holy  See,  banished  the  bishops  of  Nepi  and 
Velletri,  and  John  Hymmonides,  the  author  of  the  life  of 
S.  Gregory  the  Great.  Moved  by  the  Pope's  letters, 
however,  Louis  not  only  sent  back  with  honour  the  two 
bishops  to  the  city,  but  ordered  the  release  of  those  whom 
private  revenge  had  been  powerful  enough  to  incarcerate  on 
the  plea  of  high  treason  against  the  emperor.5  Evidently 
the  imperial  party,  or  rather,  that  faction  which  strove  to 

1  "  Nunc  congregatio  omnis,  quos  ille  vel  pro  diverso  adulterii 
genere,  vel  pro  aliis  criminibus  redarguit,  ad  hoc  exarserunt  ut  universa 
ejus  opera  destruere  et  cuncta  scripta  delere  meditari  non  metuant." 
Ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  742. 

2  lb. 

3  lb.  Anastasius  does  not  look  for  much  good  from  the  Romans,  for 
he  says  that  there  were  but  few  of  them  who  had  not  bent  the  knee  to 
Baal ;  but  that  there  were  many  in  Gaul. 

4  "  Qui  (filii  Ecclesia?)  factiosorum  tyrannide  liberius  solito  SLCviente 
inter  unius  decessionem  et  alterius  substitutionem  Pontificis,  diversis 
agebantur  exiliis,  variisque  afficiebantur  incommodis."     L.  P. 

5  "  Quoscumque  privata  simultate  tanquam  reos  Imperatoria? 
majestatis  in  ergastulis  quilibet  truserat,  ut  reverterentur  praicepit 
(Augustus)  absolvi."     lb. 


I58  HADRIAN    II. 

cover  its  own  self-seeking  under  a  show  of  zeal  for  the 
imperial  authority,  had  not  been  idle  during  the  inter- 
regnum. And  we  may  well  doubt  whether  the  election  of 
Hadrian  had  the  sweetly  simple  character  assigned  to  it 
by  his  biographer,  or,  perchance,  suspect  that  the  language 
in  which  he  has  described  it  is  that  of  irony. 
Charges  Those  who  were  hoping  to  profit  by  the  weakness  of  the 

brought  _  r     &         r  J 

against       supreme  authority,  whether  in  Church  or  in  State,  did  not 

Hadrian. 

cease  to  spread  abroad  reports  especially  calculated  to 
discredit1  the  deeds  of  Pope  Nicholas.  When  they  saw 
Hadrian  continuing  the  public  works  of  his  predecessor,  and 
showing  in  every  way,  even  by  the  manner  in  which  in  his 
private  life  he  copied  the  conduct  of  Nicholas,  that  he  was 
desirous  of  walking  in  his  footsteps,  they  gave  out  that  he 
was  a  mere  Nicholaite.  On  the  other  hand,  when  it  was 
observed  that  Hadrian  kept  near  him  certain  of  these 
malcontents  of  whose  repentance  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  enter- 
tained hopes,  it  was  bruited  about  that  he  himself  had  in 
mind  to  rescind  the  acts  of  his  predecessor.  Nothing  so 
much  proves  the  esteem  in  which  Nicholas  was  held  by  the 
Catholic  world  as  the  sensation  which  this  report  caused. 
Letters  poured  in  to  Rome  from  the  bishops  of  the  West,2 
respectfully  yet  repeatedly  impressing  on  Hadrian  that  he 
must  be  true  to  the  memory  of  Nicholas.  Some  Greeks 
and  Orientals  who  were  in  Rome  at  this  time  (among  them 
men  from    Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Constanti- 

1  "  Quia  omnibus  ejus  acta  penitus  infringere  nitebantur."     lb. 

2  "  Unde  accidit,  ut  omnes  Occidentalium  regionum  episcopi, 
solemnes  ac  honorificas  litteras  emittentes  religiosam  ejus  (Nicolai) 
memoriam  ....  excolendam  summo  Pontifici  jugiter  inculcarent." 
Among  those  who  wrote  in  this  vein  was  Ado  of  Vienne,  as  is  shown  by  a 
fragment  of  a  letter  of  Hadrian  to  him,  which  he  has  preserved.  "Quae 
pro  privileges  ecclesiae  Romanae  vel  decretis  decessoris  mei  apostolical 
memoriae  P.  Nicolai  sine  mutilatione  servandis  hortaris  laudamus,  quae 
suadesadmittimus  .  .  .  .  Siquidem  acta  praefati  pontificis  ....  anullo 
patimurquolibet  pacto  convelli."    Ado,  C/iron.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ii. 


HADRIAN    II.  159 

nople,  some  of  whom  were  on  an  embassy  *  from  "  the  rulers 
of  the  world,"  and  others  partisans  of  Ignatius  and  opponents 
of  Photius),  more  easily  impressible  than  the  Westerns, 
went  even  to  the  length  of  privately  withdrawing  them- 
selves from  intercourse  with  the  Pope.  To  get  a  favourable 
opportunity  to  give  the  lie  to  all  these  idle  tales,  Hadrian 
invited  people  in  larger  numbers  than  usual  to  the  banquet 
that  was  wont  to  be  held  before  Lent.2  At  the  dinner  he 
not  only  waited  upon  his  guests,  but,  to  put  them  more  at 
their  ease,  sat  with  them,  a  thing  which,  we  are  assured, 
he  knew  that  no  other  Pope  had  ever  done  before 
him.  When  the  repast  was  over,  he  prostrated  himself 
before  all  his  guests,  and  begged  their  prayers  for  the 
"  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  for  the  emperor  Louis,  that 
he  might  subdue  the  Saracens,  and  for  himself,  who  had  to 
govern,  weak  as  he  was,  the  great  flock  that  Christ  had 
committed  to  St.  Peter.  On  their  crying  out  that  the 
Pope  ought  rather  to  pray  for  them,  he  went  on  to  beg 
them  to  continue  praying  for  his  predecessor,  the  most 
holy  and  orthodox  Pope  Nicholas ;  for  to  pray  for  the 
very  good  was  to  give  thanks  to  God. 

Great  was  the  joy  of  the  Easterns  when  they  heard  from 
Hadrian's  own  lips  that  he  was  only  anxious  to  accomplish 
the  work  begun  by  his  predecessor.  After  they  had  thrice 
given  long  life  to  "  Our  lord  Hadrian,  by  God's  decree 
supreme  Pontiff  and  universal  Pope,"  at  his  request,  "ever- 
lasting memory  "  was  thrice  acclaimed  to  the  most  holy  and 
orthodox  Pope  Nicholas,  the  new  Elias,  the  new  Phinees.3 

1  The  envoys  of  Basil,  of  whom  mention  will  be  made  later.  So 
many  Greek  monks  were  in  Rome  at  this  time  that  to  the  disgust  of 
John  the  Deacon,  Gregory  I.'s  biographer,  that  Pope's  monastery  on  the 
Ccelian  was  given  over  to  them.      Vit.  Greg.,  iv.  c.  82. 

2  "  Sexta  feria  Ixx."  (i.e.  Septuagesimse),  Friday,  February  20, 
868.     Id. 

3  All  this  direct  from  the  L.  P.,  nn.  xvi.-xix.  Chroniclers  and  councils 
also  give  Nicholas  the  title  of  the  new  Elias. 


l60  HADRIAN    II. 

Hadrian's        One  of  the  chief  factors  in  keeping  alive  the  unsettled 

concilia-  e  . 

tory  policy  state  of  men  s  minds  towards  Hadrian  was  the  suspicion 
Lothaire  with  which  many  regarded  his  attitude  towards  Lothaire 
the  unrest.  and  his  divorce.  Just  as  the  Orientals  were  afraid  that  he 
might  regard  the  party  of  Photius  in  a  different  light  to 
that  in  which  it  had  been  viewed  by  Nicholas,  a  strong 
section  in  Rome  was  evidently  afraid  that  his  conciliatory 
disposition  might  lead  him  to  undo  the  work  of  his  prede- 
cessor in  the  matter  of  the  divorce.  It  was  to  no  purpose 
that  he  was  at  pains  to  declare 1  that  his  mind  and  will  were 
in  harmony  with  those  of  Nicholas,  and  that  consequently 
his  acts  must  also  be,  and  that  he  would  never  tolerate 
any  attempt  to  render  nugatory  the  action  of  his  great 
predecessor. 

Men  saw  that  Hadrian  had  given  leave  (868)  to  Lothaire 
to  come  to  Rome  to  plead  his  cause  again,  a  request  which 
Nicholas  had  distinctly  refused.2  They  heard  that  the  ex- 
communication pronounced  against  Waldrada  had  been 
removed  (February  868).  It  was  pointed  out  that  both 
Lothaire  and  the  refractory  Gunther  had  been  given  Holy 
Communion  by  the  Pope  himself  at  Monte  Cassino  (June 
869).  And  at  length  (July  9,  869)  Lothaire  actually  arrived 
in  Rome.  The  upholders  of  the  policy  of  Nicholas  thought 
that  Hadrian  had  a  strange  way  of  continuing  that  policy. 
They  remembered  that  he  had  spoken  3  of  the  necessity  of 
his   conforming   to   the   altered    state   of  the   times,   and 

1  Ep.  3,  ap.  P.  L.,  or  Labbe,  viii.  899,  to  the  synod  of  Troyes.  "  Non 
quippe  est  diversitas  operis,  ubi  est  una  eademque  concordia  voluntatis." 
To  Ado  of  Vienne  he  wrote  (id.,  Ep.  12,  or  Labbe,  viii.  939)  :  "  Utrique 
non  diversum  sed  unum  studium  gerimus."  And,  on  the  other  hand  : 
"  Siquidem  acta  prsefati  pontificis  ....  a  nullo  patimur  quolibet  pacto 
convelli."     lb.     Cf.  Ep.  3. 

2  For  the  case  of  Lothaire,  see  under  Nicholas  I. 

8  "  Si  forte  sunt  quae  ....  magistra  oequitate  gessit  (Nicholas) 
.  ,  .  .  et  nos  ....  aliter  moderando  mitigamus,  non  ilia  cassare,  sed 
quae  ipse  ccepit  consummare  dignoscimur."     Ep.  ad  Adonem. 


HADRIAN    II.  l6l 

moderating  what  the  condition  of  things  in  his  day  had 
forced  Nicholas  to  do  zvith  masterful  justice.  There  was  a 
general  fear  that  he  was  going  to  carry  his  conciliatory 
policy  too  far,  and  that  the  greatest  injury  would  be  done 
to  the  whole  Church.1  He  must  be  strongly  dissuaded  from 
proceeding  further  in  favouring  the  designs  of  Lothaire : 
so  that  when  he  summoned  a  council  to  treat  of  Lothaire's 
case,  after  the  latter  had  arrived  in  Rome,  he  found  that 
his  policy  was  not  approved  by  his  advisers.  The  opposi- 
tion was  led  by  Formosus,2  who  had  returned  from  Bulgaria, 
apparently  in  January  868,  and  had  met  with  an  enthusiastic 
reception.  The  speech  he  delivered  on  this  occasion  has 
been  preserved,  and  has  been  already  alluded  to.  He  con- 
trived to  prevent  any  decision  from  being  come  to  at  that 
time,  and  to  bring  it  about  that  the  affairs  in  question, 
especially  the  affair  of  the  divorce,  should  be  referred  to  a 
larger  assembly  to  be  held  in  a  year's  time.  The  death  of 
Lothaire,  which  occurred  within  a  (ew  weeks  after  the 
holding  of  this  synod,  put  an  end  to  any  necessity  for 
calling  such  a  council  together,  and  in  no  little  degree  to 
the  unsettled  state  of  things  in  Rome. 

Meanwhile  events   were  happening  there  which  testify,  Outrageous 
far  more  clearly  than  words,  to  the  growing  feudalism  or  theDiuke* 
anarchy  of  the  times.     Of  the  black  deeds  to  be  done  jnofSPoleto- 
Rome  during  the  tenth  century,  there  are  now  lurid  shadows 
coming  before.     In  the  midst3  of  the  rejoicings  connected 
with  Hadrian's   consecration,   Lambert,  duke  of  Spoleto,4 

1  Ado,  in  his  chronicle  (ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ii.),  tells  us  that  the  bishops  of 
Gaul  "  Periculum  generale  in  ecclesia  Dei  oriri  timebant  ne  Pontifex 
Romanus  favoribus  inclinatus  ....  Romanse  ecclesise  vulnus  erroris 
infligeret." 

2  Lapotre,  with  his  profound  critical  skill,  has  most  acutely  proved  this 
point.     {Cf.  Hadrien  II.,  ap.  Revue  des  Quest.  Histor.,  1880,  p.  2,77  f) 

3  "Tempore  consecrationis."  L.  P.  Hence,  as  it  would  seem,  not 
"before  his  consecration,"  as  Gregorovius  thinks. 

4  Relying  on  the  authority  of  a  non-contemporary,  partisan,  political 
VOL.  III.  II 


162  HADRIAN   II. 

burst  into  the  city  with  an  armed  force,  and  conducted 
himself  as  though  he  were  a  conqueror  with  the  rights  of 
war.  Neither  ecclesiastical  nor  civil  property  was  spared, 
virginity  itself  was  not  respected  by  the  lawless  satellites 
of  the  duke — satellites  in  whom,  from  the  names  of  his 
chief  adherents,  Gregorovius  sees  the  "  ancestors  of  the 
later  Astalli,  Gualterii,  Ilperini,  Oddoni,  and  Tiberti."  At 
the  first  opportunity  the  conduct  of  Lambert  was  denounced 
by  the  Romans  to  the  emperor.  But  what  power  Louis 
possessed  at  this  time  he  was  employing  against  the 
Saracens  of  Southern  Italy.  And  though  the  outrage 
caused  great  indignation  to  be  manifested  against  Lambert, 
not  only  on  the  part  of  foreigners1  but  on  that  of  the 
emperor,  his  conduct  was  for  some  time  unpunished.  It 
was  not  till  some  years  later  (871),  when  he  thought  fit  to 
turn  his  arms  against  Louis  himself,  that  he  was,  for  a 
time  at  least,  driven  from  his  duchy  by  the  emperor. 
Meanwhile,  till  they  should  restore  their  ill-gotten  goods, 

pamphleteer  (once  thought  to  be  a  Lombard  priest  called  Eutropius, 
and  to  have  written,  about  900,  the  Tractat.  de  jur.  I?np.  in  Imp. 
Rom.),  Gregorovius  (iii.  157)  believes  that  the  dukes  of  Spoleto  had 
the  right  to  be  present  in  the  place  of  the  emperors  at  the  election  of  a 
new  Pope.  But  we  have  seen  in  the  text  that  even  the  emperor  himself 
had  no  right  to  be  present.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  'tract'  here 
described  by  Gregorovius,  as  written  by  a  Lombard  priest  named 
Eutropius,  about  a.d.  900,  is  the  same  production  as  the  one  quoted 
by  him  as  the  work  of  an  imperialist  partisan  written  about  the  year 
950,  and  cited  as  the  Libellus  de  imp.  potest,  in  urbe  Roma  (iii.  8  n.). 
The  pamphlet  is  printed  as  belonging  to  Eutropius  in  Migne  {P.  L.,  t. 
129),  and  under  no  name  in  Watterich,  Vit.  Pontiff  i.  But  cf.  supra 
under  the  sources  for  the  life  of  Nicholas  I.  Muratori  {Annal.,  ad 
an.  868)  properly  describes  it  as  "  di  poco  peso." 

1  "  I  ram  principum  (Louis  and  his  wife),  et  invidiam  pene  cunctorum 
Gallorum  ....  incurrit."  (Z.  P.)  Cf.  Erchempert,  Hist.  Lang.,  n. 
35  ;  Hist.  Ignot.  Cass.,  n.  22  (ap.  R.  I.  S.,  ii.  pt.  i.),  etc.  Cf.  also 
Muratori,  Ann.,  868-871.  If  the  reader  should  consult  the  original 
authorities,  he  will  find  that  it  is  impossible  to  unravel  the  career  of 
Lambert,  duke  or  count  of  Spoleto.  The  Hist.  Ignoti  is  reprinted  in 
the  M.  G.  SS.  Langob.  under  the  title  of  Chronica  S.  Benedicti  Casin. 


HADRIAN    II.  163 

and  make  full  satisfaction  to  him,  Hadrian  excommuni- 
cated the  other  plunderers.  Some  of  them  made  the 
necessary  atonement  and  were  pardoned,  but  the  others 
definitely  threw  in  their  lot  with  Lambert. 

Another  of  those  events  alluded  to  above,  which  fore-  Domestic 
shadow  the  lawlessness  of  the  tenth  century,  was  enacted  Hadrian, 
in  the  bosom  of  the  Pope's  own  family,  and  throws  around 
his  private  life  a  more  tragic  interest  than  attaches  to  that 
of  almost  any  other  Pontiff.  It  is  related  by  Hincmar  in 
his  annals  (ad  an.  868).  "  Like  father,  like  son,"  was 
illustrated  in  the  case  of  Talarus  and  his  son  Hadrian. 
Both  of  them  were  married  before  they  entered  the  ranks 
of  the  clergy,  and  both  became  bishops.  When  Hadrian 
became  Pope,  his  wife  Stephania  was  still  alive,  and  living 
with  her  daughter.  In  the  letter,  which  we  have  already 
quoted,  from  Anastasius  to  Ado  of  Vienne,  the  former 
assures  his  friend  that  the  new  Pope  placed  great  reliance 
on  the  writer's  father  (uncle?),  and  Ado's  friend— the  rich 
bishop  Arsenius  ;  and  that,  too,  though  for  some  time  past 
he  had  not  been  in  good  odour,  owing  to  his  having  been 
under  the  displeasure  of  Nicholas  and  to  having  conse- 
quently drifted  into  the  imperial  party.  Anastasius  con- 
cludes his  letter  by  begging  Ado  to  use  his  best  endeavours 
that  the  influence  possessed  by  Arsenius  with  the  emperor 
and  the  Pope  may  benefit  the  Church.  Now  it  was 
precisely  from  the  family  of  Arsenius  that  trouble  came  to 
the  Pope.  Eleutherius,  the  son  of  Arsenius,  relying  possibly 
on  his  father's  influence  at  the  imperial  court,  carried  off 
and  married  by  force  Hadrian's  daughter,  though  she  was 
already  betrothed  to  another  (March  10,  868).  To  obtain 
immunity  for  his  son,  Arsenius  set  off  to  Beneventum  to 
buy  with  his  treasures  the  protection  of  the  Empress 
Ingelberga,  who  was  as  avaricious  as  the  bishop  himself. 
He  was,  however,  overtaken  by  sudden  death,  and  his  son, 


1 64  HADRIAN    II. 

finding  that  he  could  not  escape  the  imperial  missi,  in  a  fit 
of  despairing  fury  slew  both  Stephania  and  her  daughter 
before  he  was  himself  put  to  death.  As  the  story  ran  that 
Anastasius,  whom  Hadrian  had  made  "librarian  of  the 
Roman  Church  "  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  pontificate, 
and  who  was  the  brother1  (or  cousin  ?)  of  Eleutherius,  had 
been  the  chief  instigator  of  his  violence,  the  outraged 
Pontiff  summoned  a  synod  to  try  him.  In  the  sentence 
which  he  promulgated  against  Anastasius  (October  4), 
Hadrian  recapitulated  the  sentences  passed  upon  him  by 
Leo  IV.  and  Benedict  III.,  and  his  pardon  by  Nicholas  I. 
On  the  strength  of  certain  charges,  and  no  doubt  prima 
facie  evidence,  Anastasius  was  again  declared  excommuni- 
cated until  he  should  in  synod  clear  himself  of  tJie  accusations 
brought  against  him.2  The  points  of  the  indictment  against 
the  cardinal-priest  were  that  he  had  stolen  from  the  Lateran 
palace  the  acts  of  the  synod  which  had  condemned  him  ; 
that  he  had  endeavoured  to  sow  discord  between  the 
Church  and  the  emperor ;  that  he  had  been  the  cause  of  a 
certain  Adalgrim,  who  had  fled  for  '  sanctuary'  to  a  church, 
losing  his  eyes  and  tongue ;  and  that,  as  one  of  his  relations, 
the  priest  Ado,  had  declared  before  them  all,  he  had  urged 
Eleutherius  to  the  murders  of  which  he  had  been  guilty. 

Of  these  serious  charges  it  would  seem  that  Anastasius 
must  have  cleared  himself.  For  the  very  next  year  (869) 
we  see  him  sent,  with  Hadrian's  approval,  to  Constantinople, 
as  the  ambassador  of  the  emperor  Louis,  and  there  executing 

1  Hincmar  distinctly  calls  Anastasius  the  brother  of  Eleutherius  ; 
and  an  Anastasius  calls  himself  the  nephew  of  Arsenius.  Hence  if  the 
librarian  is  to  be  identified  with  the  quondam  turbulent  cardinal,  we 
must  either  suppose  Hincmar  to  have  here  made  a  mistake  in  calling 
Anastasius  the  brother,  rather  than  the  cousin,  of  Eleutherius,  or,  what 
is  thought  to  be  more  probable,  that  the  letter  to  Ado  is  corrupt. 

2  "  Sancimus  .  .  .  .  ut  omni  communione  ecclesiastica  privatus 
existat,  donee  de  omnibus  quibus  impetitur  nobis  coram  synodo 
rationem  ponat."     Hincmar,  A?inaL,  an.  868. 


HADRIAN    II.  165 

business1  for  the  Pope,  and  also  exercising  the  office   of 
librarian  under  both  Hadrian  and  John  VIII. 

These  two  incidents  let  us  see  what  we  have  to  expect  on 
any  further  weakening  of  the  imperial  power,  or  on  the 
advent  to  the  papal  throne  of  men  whose  characters  were 
not  of  the  firmest.  The  weak  point,  and  it  is  an  amiable 
one,  of  the  papal  government  has  always  been  that  it  has 
been  conducted  on  lines  that  are  too  paternal. 

Among  the  affairs  entered  into,  but  not  brought  to  aActardof 
conclusion  by  the  great  Nicholas,  was  the  matter  of  the 
dukes  or  kings  of  Brittany,  and  the  bishops  in  the  country 
over  which  they  claimed  sway.2  Among  those  who,  from 
different  parts  of  the  world,  set  out  from  home  with  letters 
for  Nicholas,  and  reached  Rome  to  find  that  Hadrian  had 
succeeded  him  in  the  See  of  Peter,  was  Actard,  bishop 
of  Nantes. 

When  Nomenoius,  duke  of  Brittany,  was  aiming  at 
making  himself  king,  and  independent  of  Charles  the  Bald 
in  every  way,  Actard  of  Nantes  refused  to  be  present  on 
the  occasion  when  he  succeeded  in  getting  himself  anointed 
king  (c.  848).  The  new  monarch  promptly  drove  Actard 
from  his  See,  and  placed  another  in  his  stead.  Such, 
at  any  rate,  is  the  account  of  the  deposition  of  Actard 
in  the  Chronicle  of  Nantes  (c.  12).  But  as  its  recent  able 
editor,  Merlet,  points  out,  Nomenoius  was  not  master  of 
Nantes  when  he  was  crowned  king  (848  or  849),  so  that 
Actard  was  probably  only  driven  out  of  his  See  when 
Nantes  fell  (850)  into  the  hands  of  the  new  king.     Restored 

1  Anast.,  inprcefat.  Cone.  VIII.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  17.  Lapotre,  in 
his  work  De  A?iastasio  biblioihec.  Sedis  Ap.,  has  written  at  length  on 
these  matters.  I  have  not,  however,  succeeded  in  obtaining  a  copy  of 
this  treatise  ;  but,  in  trying  to  procure  it,  was  informed  that  it  had  been 
withdrawn  from  circulation,  as  its  learned  author  had  seen  reasons  to 
abandon  some  of  the  propositions  he  had  there  maintained. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  94  f. 


1 66  HADRIAN   II. 

by  a  victory  of  Charles,  Actard  was  again  driven  out  by 
King  Solomon.1  His  position  naturally  excited  sympathy, 
and  when  he  went  to  Rome  in  867,  as  the  bearer  of  the 
synodal  letter  of  the  Council  of  Troyes  (October  S67),  he 
also  took  with  him  a  letter  from  Charles  the  Bald  to 
Nicholas,  in  which  he  was  warmly  commended  by  that 
monarch.  The  Pope  was  told  that  contact  with  the 
Normans  and  Bretons  had  brought  exile  and  chains  upon 
Actard,  and  that  his  once  flourishing  episcopal  city  had 
been  destroyed,  and  had  for  ten  years  been  a  desert. 
Charles  proposed,  with  the  Pope's  consent,2  to  give  him  a 
vacant  bishopric,  as  there  was  no  hope  of  his  being  able 
to  return  to  his  own  See. 

This  letter,  along  with  the  other  documents  entrusted  to 
him,  Actard  delivered  to  Pope  Hadrian,3  who  showed  the 
strongest  interest  in  the  unfortunate  bishop.  Of  his 
concern  for  him  he  gave  prompt  proof  by  granting  him 
various  favours  himself,  and  by  endeavouring  to  procure 
others  for  him.4  He  told  Charles  the  Bald5  (February 
868)  that  he  granted  the  favours,  because  he  thought  it 
"  unbecoming  that  any  one  in  trouble  should  come  to  the 
Apostolic  See,  where  help  is  ever  to  be  found  by  Catholics, 
and  go  away  without  receiving  consolation."  Much  pleased 
with  the  modesty  which  he  found  in  the  bishop,  he  gave 
his  consent,  not  only  to  any  vacant  episcopal  see  being 
bestowed  upon  him,  but  even  any  metropolitan  see.     He 

1  Hinc,  Ep.  31,  n.  11,  ap  P.  L.,  t.  126,  p.  218.  Solomon  had 
assassinated  Erispoius,  November  857. 

2  "  Cui  (Actardo)  quia  nulla  manet  spes  in  propria,  si  annuit  et  favet 
vigilantissima  vestras  discretionis  solertia  ....  optamus  vacantis  sedis 
constituatur  in  cathedra."    (Ep.  Car.,  ap.  Labbe,  vii.  p.  880.) 

3  Hinc.,  Annal,  867-8. 

•  Cf.  Epp.  Had.,  7-12,  ap.  Labbe,  901-8. 

5  Ep.  8.  "  Indignum  ducimus,  quemquam  ad  apostolicam  sedem, 
ubi  semper  catholicis  subvenitur,  tribulatum  accedere,  et  non  consolatum 
[eceuere." 


HADRIAN    II.  167 

also  bestowed  upon  him  the  honour  of  the  pallium  for 
himself  only,  as  he  took  care  to  point  out  both  to 
Actard  himself  and  to  the  bishops  of  the  Synod  of 
Soissons  (866)  who  had  interested  themselves  in  his  be- 
half, and  not  for  the  new  see  to  which  he  might  be 
attached.1  Finally,  he  wrote  to  Herard  of  Tours  (March 
8,  868),  to  ask  him  to  grant  to  Actard  a  monastery 
which  he  formerly  held  in  the  archdiocese:  "so  that  he2 
who  has  nothing  of  his  own,  may  hence  at  least  be  able 
to  procure  the  necessaries  of  life  by  the  help  of  what 
others  have."  Hadrian  did  not  exert  himself  in  Actard's 
behalf  to  no  purpose ;  for,  on  the  death  of  Herard, 
archbishop  of  Tours,  he  was  translated  to  that  see  (871). 
With  such  deserved  ill-favour,  however,  was  translation  in 
general  then  regarded  in  the  Church,  that  there  were  not 
wanting  men  narrow-minded  enough  not  to  be  able  to  see 
that  there  are  times  at  least  when  certain  laws  are  "  more 
honoured  in  the  breach  than  the  observance."  Among 
these  men  was  even  Hincmar  of  Rheims.3 

This  same  Hincmar  was   to   be  a  cause  of  trouble   to  Hincmar  of 
Hadrian,  as  he  had  been  to  his  predecessors.     In  the  letter  and 
of  Anastasius  to  his  friend  Ado  of  Vienne,  already  several  Laon"* 
times  quoted,  the   librarian    expressed    a   doubt   whether 
the  new  Pope  would  himself  take  in  hand  all  the  work 

1  Ep.  7.  "  Ut  scilicet  habeat  pro  exilio  et  catena  pallii  ornamenta, 
non  ad  ecclesise,  cui  incardinandus  est,  perpetuum  institutum,  sed  ad 
suum  specialem  certique  temporis  usum." 

2  Ep.  10.  Cf.  on  Actard,  Jager,  Hist,  de  Veglise  de  France,  v.  pp.  59  f., 
227  f.,  252.  In  his  letter  (ep.  32,  ib.,  p.  932)  to  the  bishops  of  the 
Synod  of  Douzi  (871),  the  Pope  says  that,  in  accordance  with  their 
request,  "per  nostra?  ap.  auctoritatis  decrctum  constituimus  (Actardum) 
cardinalem  metropolitanum  et  archiepiscopum  Turonicae  ecclesise 
atque  provincial."  The  quotation  is  interesting  as  furnishing  an  instance 
of  the  fact  that  the  word  '  cardinal '  only  originally  stood  for  the  first 
ecclesiastic  in  a  parish  or  diocese. 

?  Cf.  the  letter  cited  above. 


1 68  HADRIAN    II. 

of  Nicholas,  or  leave  some  of  it  to  others.1  But  his  actions 
must  soon  have  made  it  plain  to  Anastasius  and  to  the 
world  at  large  that,  despite  his  age,  he  had  a  great 
capacity  for  business.  His  share  in  the  affair  of  Wulfad 
and  his  companions  has  been  already  set  down  under 
'Leo  IV.,'  and  in  that  of  the  divorce  question  of  King 
Lothaire,  under  the  life  of  Nicholas.  We  will  now  look 
into  the  bitter  dispute  between  the  two  Hincmars,  and  see 
what  part  Hadrian  took  in  it. 

Through  the  influence  of  Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Rheims, 
therewas  elected  to  succeed  Pardulus,bishopof  Laon  (fr.  856), 
one  of  Hincmar's  suffragans,  a  nephew  of  the  metropolitan's 
who  also  bore  the  name  of  Hincmar,  and  who  had  been 
brought  up  by  the  archbishop.2  Between  the  uncle  and  the 
nephew  there  was  that  similarity  of  character  which  is  more 
generally  found  between  father  and  son.  Both  were  self- 
willed,  and,  while  themselves  restive  under  the  hand  of 
authority,  were,  as  generally  happens  in  such  cases,  inclined  to 
bear  heavily  upon  others  who  were  their  inferiors.  Hincmar 
of  Laon,  however,  had  neither  the  learning  nor  authority 
of  his  uncle  on  the  one  hand,  nor  his  nobility  of  character 
and  prudence  on  the  other.  The  bishop  began  to  get  him- 
self into  difficulties  by  a  quarrel  with  his  sovereign,  Charles 
the  Bald  (868) — a  quarrel,  however,  which  the  tact  of  his 
uncle  managed  to  prevent 3  from  becoming  serious  for  his 
nephew.  Hincmar  of  Laon  must  have  been  one  of  those 
people  to  whom  experience  teaches  nothing.  The  very  same 
year  he  was  again  at  cross-purposes  with  the    king,  and, 

1  "  De  quo  adhuc  utrum  ecclesiastica  negotia  omnia,  an  partem 
curare  velit,  ignoramus."  Ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  742.  In  view  of  the 
context,  probably  the  better  translation  of  this  passage  makes 
Anastasius  doubt  whether  Hadrian  will  be  impartial,  or  attach  himself 
to. a  faction. 

2  Ep.  Hinc,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  126,  p.  498.  , 

3  At  the  Council  of  Pistres  (August  30,  868). 


HADRIAN    II.  169 

this  time,  too,  with  his  uncle.  He  had  violently  expelled 
Count  Norman  from  an  ecclesiastical  fief  belonging  to  his 
see,  which  he  had  promised  the  king  to  give  him.  Of 
this  transaction  he  sent  a  garbled  account  to  the  Pope, 
representing  both  the  king1  and  Norman  as  violaters  of 
ecclesiastical  property,  and  informing  him  that  he  had 
made  a  vow  to  go  to  Rome.  On  the  receipt  of  this  com- 
munication from  the  bishop  of  Laon,  Hadrian  addressed 
(perhaps  in  November  868)  two  letters,2  much  to  the  same 
effect,  to  Hincmar  and  to  Charles.  To  both  of  them  he 
says  that,  as  his  correspondent  has  engaged  to  come  to 
Rome,  the  Pope  has  on  his  side  forbidden  him  to  defer 
the  fulfilment  of  his  promise  beyond  the  1st  of  August 
(869) ;  Norman  is  to  be  excommunicated  by  apostolic 
authority  unless  he  restores  the  possessions  of  the  Church 
of  Laon,  and  Hincmar  is  to  be  punished  by  his  uncle  if  he 
puts  off  carrying  out  his  intention  of  coming  to  Rome. 
While  he  is  absent  on  his  visit  'ad  limina,'  Hadrian  com- 
mends the  charge  of  the  temporalities  of  his  See  to  the 
king  and  to  the  archbishop.  Whoever  tampers  with  them 
is  to  be  excommunicated.  In  the  letter  to  Charles  there 
is  one  more  sentence  than  in  that  to  the  archbishop.  It 
is  a  sentence  which  seems  to  show  that  '  Laon '  had  thrown 
blame  upon  the  king.  Hadrian  says  that  when  he  hears 
that,  like  his  predecessors,  Charles  is  good  to  the  Church, 
he  rejoices  ;  but  that  he  is  saddened  when  he  hears  of  the 
king,  contrary  to  his  wont,  oppressing  anyone.3 

Charles  was  naturally  not  a  little  angry  when  this  letter  Hincmar  of 
was   put  into  his   hands   at    Quercy4  (December  1,  868).  appeals  to 

the  Pope, 

1  At  least  such  was  Charles's  contention   in  his  indictment  {petitio  869* 
ftroclamationis)  of  '  Laon,'  which  he  presented  before  the  Council  of 
Douzi  (871).      The  passage  from    Hadrian's   letter   (of  868)   to   him, 
which  Charles  quoted,  seems  to  prove  his  assertion  (Labbe,  viii.   1549). 

2  Ap.  Labbe,  viii.  914-5.  3  Ep.  17,  ap.  Labbe,  ib.%  915. 

4  Hinc,  Anna/.,   868.     "  Commotus   (Carolus)   contra   Hincmarum 


170  HADRIAN    II. 

'Laon'  was  summoned  to  appear  before  a  synod  at 
Verberie-sur-Oise.  That  he  might  not  go  resourceless 
before  this  assembly,  the  bishop  held  a  diocesan  synod 
(April  19,  869),  where  it  was  arranged  that,  if  the  tide  turned 
against  him,  and  he  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  go  to  Rome, 
his  clergy  were  to  faithfully  observe  the  interdict  which  he 
would  then  lay  on  the  diocese.  At  the  Synod  of  Verberie 
(April  24), '  Laon  '  appealed  to  the  Pope.  And  as,  by  the 
order  of  the  king,  he  had  to  go  to  prison,  he  laid  his 
diocese  under  an  interdict. 

As  for  his  appeal  to  the  Pope,  the  archbishop  declared 
more  than  once  that  the  conduct  of  c  Laon '  showed  that 
the  appeal  was  a  mere  sham,  and  that  he  had  no  real 
intention  of  going  to  Rome.  When  he  got  into  trouble, 
then  out  came  the  appeal ;  but  as  soon  as  the  trouble 
had  blown  over,  he  said  no  more  about  Rome.1 

At  the  request  "  of  the  Church  of  Laon,"  which  naturally 
soon  grew  restive  under  the  preposterous  interdict  which 
its  bishop  had  laid  upon  it,  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  in  his 
capacity  of  metropolitan,  removed  it.  According  to  the 
latter,  it  was  stated,  in  the  appeal  presented  to  him  by 
the  Church  of  Laon,  that  his  nephew  had  ordered  his 
priests  to  refrain  not  only  from  offering  the  Holy  Sacri- 
fice  of  the    Mass,  or   burying   the   dead,  but   even    from 

Laudunensem  episcopum,  quia  Romam  sine  illius  conscientia  miserat, 
et  epistolas  pro  quibus  non  convenerat  obtinuerat,  eidem  episcopo  valde 
infensus  erat." 

1  Cf.  Ep.  Hinc.  Rh.  ad  Hinc.  L.  ("Nunc,  inquit"— ap  P.  Z.,  t.  126, 
p.  506).  Cf.  another  letter  of  the  same,  dated  May  24,  869  (/£.,  526  f. 
sub  Jin.).  "  Quod  mandasti  quoniam  in  synodo  nuper  in  Vermeria 
(Verberie)  habita,  sedem  apostolicam  appellasti,  manifestissime  omnes 
illi  episcopi  ....  qui  fuere  in  synodo,  regulariter  te  sedem  apostolicam 

non  appellasse  cognoscunt Ceterum  nee  tibi,  nee  cuiquam  alii 

Romam  ire,  quantum  ex  me  est,  contradico."  Cf.  the  'petitio'  of 
Charles  the  Bald  to  the  bishor-s  of  the  Synod  of  Douzi  (Labbe, 
viii.  1551). 


HADRIAN   II.  171 

giving  the  last  sacraments  to  the  dying,  or  baptising  the 
children.1 

This  proper  exercise  of  authority  on  the  part  of 
Hincmar  of  Rheims  was  the  cause  of  fresh  disturbances 
between  uncle  and  nephew,  when  the  latter  was  released 
from  prison,  as  he  was  after  a  short  time.2  A  violent  war 
of  words  at  once  began.  Long  letters  full  of  quotations 
from  the  Fathers,  decretals  of  the  Popes,  false  and  other- 
wise, passed  between  them. 

To  bring  matters  concerning  '  Laon  '  to  a  head,  Charles  Council  of 

111  1  a  1  •  a  •  /n/r         Attigny, 

assembled  a  synod  at  Attigny,  on  the  river  Aisne  (May  870. 
870).  Finding  that  the  feeling  of  the  council  was  against 
him,  '  Laon  '  declared  in  writing  that  he  would  for  the  future 
be  obedient  to  his  king  and  to  his  archbishop.  But  before 
all  the  accusations  against  him  had  been  disposed  of,  he  fled 
from  the  synod.  He  felt  he  had  no  case.  But  again  to 
gain  time,  he  made  known  to  his  uncle  that  he  renewed 
his  appeal  to  the  Pope,  "  who  has  the  right  of  judging  the 
whole  Church,"  3  and  begged  him  to  obtain  from  the  king 
leave  for  him  to  go  to  Rome.  But  again  events  proved  that 
the  younger  Hincmar  was  not  in  earnest  in  his  appeal.  For 
in  the  address 4  which  he  delivered  before  the  bishops  of 
the  Council  of  Douzi  (August  871),  Charles  showed  that 

1  "  Continetur  ....  in  petitione  ab  ecclesia  Laudunensi  exiguitati 
meae  oblata,  te  prohibuisse  nulli  communionem,  nee  etiam  obeunti 
ultimam  pcenitentiam,  vel  viaticum  munus  in  parochia  tua  trlbui,"  etc. 
(Ep.  Hinc.  Rh.,  zd.,  p.  513.  Cf.  Ep.  ad  Clerum  Laud.,  ap.  Labbe, 
viii.  1789). 

2  Before  September  7,  869,  the  day  of  Charles's  coronation  as  king 
of  Lorraine.  For  whatever  reason,  Hincmar  of  Laon  alone  would  not 
recognise  Charles  as  king  of  his  late  nephew's  kingdom. 

3  "  Obsecro  (Hincmarus  Laud.)  quo  ....  obtineatis  quatenus 
....  Hadriani  prasceptis,  ....  velut  ei  qui  de  omni  ecclesia  fas 
habet  judicandi  liceat  obedire."     Labbe,  viii.  1527. 

4  Already  quoted  (Labbe,  viii.  1552).  On  one  occasion  even  "  ubi 
et  domni  apostolici  missi,  et  archiepiscopus  ejus  fuit,  nihil  inde  loquutus 
est." 


172  HADRIAN   II. 

on  no  less  than  five  occasions  when  '  Laon '  was  with  him, 
in  the  interval  between  the  two  councils,  he  never  spoke  of 
his  wish  to  go  to  Rome. 
Council  of  But  if  Bishop  Hincmar  had  no  thought  of  turning  to 
'  Rome,  his  uncle  had.  He  wrote  about  the  affair  to  the 
Pope,  and  received  a  letter1  from  him,  addressed  to  Hincmar 
of  Laon,  in  which  that  bishop  was  blamed  for  not  fulfilling 
his  vow  of  making  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome,  and  ordered  to 
obey  his  metropolitan,  saving  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See. 
More  angry  than  ever  with  '  Laon '  for  his  taking  part  with 
his  rebellious  son  Carloman,  and  getting  him  into  trouble 
with  the  Pope  on  account  of  the  same  youth,2  Charles, 
in  August  871,  convoked  another  synod  to  meet  at  Douzi, 
near  Mouson,  a  place  famous  in  the  story  of  the  battle  of 
Sedan  (1870),  in  order  to  try  the  artful  bishop.  'Laon' 
was  summoned  to  the  synod  by  Hincmar,  "in  virtue  of  the 
authority  of  the  Pope,"3  by  a  notice  dated  July  5,  the 
fourth  indiction  (871). 

At  the   synod    '  Laon '   fell    back    on    his   old  plan ;  he 

appealed  to  the  Apostolic  See.     But  this  could  not  save 

him.     He  was  declared  deposed,  "  saving  in  all  things  the 

decision  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  as  was  proclaimed  as  well 

by  the  first  bishop4  (Hardvvick  of  Besancon)  who  recorded 

his   vote  against   'Laon,'   as  by  Hincmar5  of  Rheims   in 

passing  sentence  on  him. 

Hadrian's        The  acts  of  the  council  were  forthwith  sent  to  Hadrian 

tion  of  the   by  Actard  of  Nantes,  and  along  with  them  a  synodal  letter 

asked.         dated  September  6,  871.     The  letter  set  forth  in  brief  the 

1  Ep.  "  Solicitudine  pastorali"  (Labbe,  viii.  1635). 
.    2  Of  this  hereafter. 

3  Labbe,   viii.   p.    1553.     "Auctoritate  ipsius  domni  apostolici,    te 
....  ad  synodum  ....  venire  commoneo." 

4  Labbe,  viii.  1646. 

6  "  Reservato  per  omnia   juris   privilegio   domni    Hadriani."      /#., 
p.   1652. 


HADRIAN    II.  173 

charges  on  the  strength  of  which  the  bishops  had  con- 
demned 'Laon,'  "saving  in  all  things  the  decision  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  as  the  sacred  Canons  of  Sardica,  and,  from 
them,  the  decrees  of  Popes  Innocent,  Boniface  and  Leo 
have  laid  down."1  Hadrian  is  earnestly  begged  to  confirm 
the  sentence  of  the  synod.  Here  it  would  have  been  best 
for  the  obtaining  of  their  wishes  if  the  letter  had  ended. 
The  bishops,  however,  and  especially  Hincmar  of  Rheims, 
were  so  angry  at  the  tergiversations  of '  Laon,'  who  seemed 
so  obviously  guilty,  that  they  not  unnaturally  could  ill 
brook  the  thought  of  the  crafty  bishop's  being  able  to  get 
the  whole  affair  taken  out  of  their  hands,  and  of  his 
enjoying  still  further  immunity  meanwhile.  They,  there- 
fore, proceeded  to  tell  the  Pope  what  he  must  do  in  case 
he  did  not  agree  with  their  decision — a  thing  they  did  not 
expect.  In  conformity  with  the  Canons  of  Sardica,  he 
should  order  a  fresh  trial  by  the  bishops  on  the  spot,  or 
send  legates  a  latere  to  decide  the  case  along  with  the 
bishops.  In  any  case,  "  with  all  humility  of  devotion,"  they 
beg  the  Pope  not  to  restore  '  Laon  '  to  his  rank  in  the 
meanwhile,  till  the  case  has  been  again  gone  into  in  the 
province  in  which  it  had  been  already  decided.  Such  has 
hitherto,  their  letter  continued,  been  the  universally  received 
method  of  procedure  in  the  Gallic  and  Belgic  Churches. 
As  they  are  anxious  for  the  preservation  of  the  privileges 
of  the  See  of  Peter,  they  beg  the  Pope  to  have  a  care  of 
theirs.  But  if,  by  some  means  or  other,  '  Laon '  should  be 
restored  to  his  see  by  the  Pope,  then,  said  the  bishops, 
"  under  favour,"2  'Laon'  will  be  able  to  do,  what  he  has 


1  "Judicia  terminavimus,  reservato  per  omnia  juris  privilegio 
apostolicas  sedis  ac  vestro  judicio  sicut  sacri  canones  Sardicenses,  et 
decreta  sedis  apostolical  pontificum  ....  decernunt."  The  synodal 
letter  to  Pope  Hadrian.     /#.,  p.  1656. 

2  "Ut  cum  venia  vestra  dicamus."     //;.,  p.  1657. 


174  HADRIAN    II. 

all  along  wanted  to  do,  viz.  as  he  likes,  and  it  will  only 
remain  for  them  to  leave  him  alone.1 
He  win  not      Whether  Hadrian  was  annoyed  at  the  pettiness  displayed 

confirm  it,    . 

871.  in  the  conclusion  of  the  synodal  letter,  whether  he  was  in 

possession  of  facts  which  are  unknown  to  us,  whether 
he  was  afraid  of  establishing  a  precedent  if,  under  the 
circumstances,  he  confirmed  the  synod,  or  whether,  in  fine, 
he  was  simply  ill-advised,  certain  it  is  that  he  refused 
to  confirm  the  synod  (December  26,  871).  As  Hincmar  of 
Laon  had  appealed  to  Rome,  he,  with  one  of  his  accusers, 
must  come  to  Rome,  where  the  affair  would  be  considered 
in  a  synod.2  Till  then  no  bishop  must  be  consecrated  for 
the  See  of  Laon.  In  another  letter,  addressed  to  the  king, 
while  attempting  to  soothe  his  anger  at  the  letter  of 
expostulation  which  he  had  sent  him  (July  13,  871)  on  the 
subject  of  his  treatment  of  Carloman,  the  Pope  declares 
that  "  as  long  as  he  lives  "  3  he  will  not  confirm  the  synod  till 
1  Laon  '  comes  to  Rome.  Irritated  as  the  recipients  of  these 
letters  were  at  the  trouble  which  '  Laon '  had  given  them, 
the  papal  documents  were  viewed  with  no  little  disfavour. 
The  bishops  wrote  back  to  the  Pope  to  say  that  they  were 
astonished  at  the  letter  they  had  received;  but  that,  as 
Actard 4  had  informed  them  of  the  important  matters  on 
which  the  Pope  and  his  officials  were  fully  engaged,  they 
supposed  that  the  one  whom  he  had  directed  to  write 
to  them  had  not  read,  in  their  entirety,  the  acts  of  their 
synod,  or  he  never  could  have  written  as  he  had  done.  The 
conclusion   of  this  letter  is  wanting.     If  the   tone  of  the 

1  Actard  was  also  the  bearer  of  a  letter  of  Hincmar  of  Rheims  (ib., 
or  P.  L.,  t.  126,  p.  641)  and  one  from  the  king  on  the  same  matter. 
Cf.  Epp.  7,  8,  9  of  Charles,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  124,  p.  876  f. 

2  Labbe,  viii.  932.  3  Labbe,  viii.  934. 

4  Actardi  "  relatione  impedimenta  vestrae  sanctitatis,  et  occupationes 
ministrorum  sedis  ap.  pro  diversis  et  maximis  negotiis  audivimus." 
Labbe,  z'b.,  1539. 


HADRIAN    It.  175 

answer  of  the  bishops  was  somewhat  sharp,  those  of 
Charles  the  Bald,1  in  which  all  recognise  the  hand  of 
Hincmar,2  were  absolutely  violent.  He  professes  at  first 
to  believe  that  the  language  of  the  Pope's  letters  to  him 
is  due  to  the  one  to  whom  he  had  entrusted  the  drawing  of 
them  up;  but  in  a  following  letter  he  says  he  has  found  they 
have  come  from  the  Pope  himself.  He  then  launches 
forth.  He  complains3  of  being  set  down  as  perjured  and 
tyrannical,  though  he  has  neither  confessed  to  the  charges 
urged  against  him  nor  been  proved  to  have  been  guilty  of 
them.  And  though  he  does  not  deny,  in  general,  the  Pope's 
right  to  excommunicate  anyone  whomsoever,  still  he  strongly 
resents  the  threat  of  excommunication  which,  without  any 
grounds,  has  been  hurled  against  him.  If  the  Pope  wants 
the  king  to  pay  any  heed  to  his  recommendations,  he  must 

1  Epp.  7-9,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  124,  p.  88  r. 

2  Because,  when  crossed,  Hincmar  said,  or  caused  things  to  be  said,  to 
the  Pope,  which  were  not  altogether  seemly,  some  have  wished  to  infer 
that  he  was  desirous  to  create  a  national  church,  and  did  not  completely 
acknowledge  the  Pope's  supremacy.  Hence  the  following  passages  from 
his  works  or  letters  against  'Laon'  himself  may  be  worth  noting.  If 
the  metropolitans  have  rights  :  "  sollicitudo  et  primatus  totius  Ecclesias 
catholicas  sanctaa  sedis  Romanas  pontifici  divinitus  est  collata."  Ep.  ad 
Hinc.  Laud.,  ap  P.  L.,  t.  126,  p.  509.  In  another  letter  to  the  same  (ib., 
p.  510)  he  says  :  "  Nam  ego  decretales  epistolas  sedis  apostolicae.  .  .  .  et 
venerabiliter  suscipio,  et  venerabiliter  suscipiendas  dico  et  scribo."  To 
Hincmar  the   Pope  is  "patriarcha  patriarcharum  et  primas  primatum 

cunctarum  provinciarum B.  Petrus  ....  primatum  judiciarias 

potestatis  ....  accepit,  et  in  primatu  illius  successores  ipsins  in 
sede  ejus  acceperunt ;  ut  omnes  per  orbem  credentes  intelligant,  quia 
quicunque  ab  unitate  fidei,  vel  societatis  illius  quolibet  modo  sernetipsos 
segreganty  tales  nee  vinculis  fteccatorum  absolvi,  nee  januam  possunt 
regni  celestis  ingredi."  Those  not  of  the  Church,  but  who  profess  to 
reverence  the  opinions  of  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  may  well  reflect  on  this 
last  passage.     Ib.,  pp.  609,  610. 

3  "  Cum  non  ignoremus  ex  sacrarum  Scripturarum  tramite  et  doctrina 
apostolicoe  sedis  pontificum,  unde  et  qualiter  ac  quomodo  et  quo  ordine, 
quemquam,  pontifex  quilibet  debeat  regulariter  excommunicare."  Ep.  7. 
Ep.  8  makes  the  same  complaint  as  Ep.  7.  Three  letters,  Epp.  7-9,  were 
sent  in  all. 


176  HADRIAN    II. 

write  in  the  style  in  which  the  popes  have  been  wont  to 
address  the  kings  of  France.  The  Pope  is  then  roundly 
lectured  as  to  what  he  ought  to  have  done,  and  asked  to 
bear  with  the  king's  plain-speaking,  as  St.  Peter,  "  the  first 
Pope,"  endured  the  hard  words  of  St.  Paul.  "  What  hell,"  he 
continues,  forcibly  at  least,  "  has  vomited  forth  this  general 
law  ?  " x  viz.,  that  one  (Hincmar  of  Laon)  should  be  sent  to 
Rome  who  had  been  a  prevaricator  of  the  sacred  laws,  a 
reviler  of  the  holy  priesthood,  a  despiser  of  his  sovereign, 
a  disturber  of  the  kingdom,  etc.  Any  condemnation  that 
does  not  proceed  "from  a  just  judgment  of  Peter"  {ex 
cequitate  Petri)  is  not  to  be  held  as  of  any  account.  A  king 
cannot  be  ordered  to  send  to  Rome  a  man  who  has  been 
legally  condemned  as  guilty.  As  for  looking  after  the 
property  of  the  Church  of  Laon  during  the  absence  of  its 
bishop,  Charles  would  beg  to  remind  the  Pope  that  the 
kings  of  the  Franks  were  not  stewards  of  bishops,  but  rulers 
of  the  State.  But  in  any  case  '  Laon '  shall  not  have 
the  temporalities  (episcopium)  of  his  See,  even  if  it  has  been 
impossible  to  arrive  at  the  truth  with  regard  to  all  the 
accusations  which  have  been  brought  against  him.  Any  of 
his  clerics  may,  however,  go  to  Rome.  But  the  Pope  is  not 
to  allow  orders  and  excommunications,  against  the  canons, 
to  be  sent  in  his  name  to  the  king.  If  opportunity  presents 
itself,  he  will  come  to  Rome  himself  as  an  accuser  of 
'  Laon,'  but  he  will  bring  more  witnesses  with  him  than  the 
Pope  will  care  for.2  He  will  not,  however,  be  backward  in 
rendering  him,  as  the  vicar  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 

1  "  Quis  igitur  hanc  universam  legem  infernus  evomuit  ?"     Ep.  8. 

2  "  Ep.  8,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  124.  "  Et  tantos  testes  idoneos  diversi  ordinis 
ac  dignitatis  nobiscum  ducemus,  cum  quibus  eum  legaliter  ac  regulariter 
nos  accusasse  ac  comprobasse  sufficientissime  comprobabimus  I  "  In  a 
short  letter  which  Charles  sent  along  with  the  above,  he  declared  that 
he  had  not  written  contumaciler,  but  in  a  pacific  spirit !  In  the  text  we 
have  combined  two  letters — Epp.  7  and  8.  The  latter  is  of  true 
Hincmarian  length. 


Hadrian  ii.  177 

the  obedience  to  which  he  is  legally  entitled.  He  will  not 
send  derogatory  letters  if  he  does  not  receive  them. 

This  blustering  epistle  had  the  effect  of  making  Hadrian 
see  that  it  was  necessary  to  pour  oil  on  the  troubled  waters. 
A  letter1  despatched  at  once,  not  many  months  before  he 
died,  praised  the  king's  wisdom,  justice,  and  zeal  for  the 
Church  of  God,  assured  him  of  his  consequent  attachment 
to  him,  and  declared  that,  if  in  his  former  letters  the  king 
had  found  objectionable  phrases,  they  must  have  come  from 
him  when  tortured  by  sickness,  or  have  been  inserted  by 
others.  Then,  as  a  secret  only  to  be  made  known  to  those 
who  were  absolutely  trustworthy,  Hadrian  assured  the 
king  that  if  he  survived  the  emperor,  and  he  himself  were 
still  alive,  he  would  never,  not  even  for  gold  untold, 
acknowledge  any  other  as  emperor  except  Charles.2  With 
regard  to  Hincmar  of  Laon,  the  Pope  acknowledged  that, 
from  the  evidence  sent  him,  things  looked  black  indeed 
against  him.  But  it  would  be  against  the  canons  for  him 
to  decide  anything,  under  the  circumstances,  against  '  Laon ' 
until  he  had  been  to  Rome.  If  he  there  still  maintained 
his  innocence,  the  Pope  would  then  authorise  a  new  trial 
in  •  Laon's '  own  province. 

'  Laon,'  however,  was  not  allowed  to  £0  to  Rome,  but  was  Laon  and 

,  .  John  VIII, 

put  into  prison  instead.  After  about  two  years  imprison- 
ment, the  unfortunate  man  was  deprived  of  his  sight,3  for 
what  cause  we  have  not  been  able  to  discover.  Just  before 
leaving   Rome,    after   his   coronation  (January  5,  %j6)  as 

1  Labbe,  viii.  937. 

2  "  Confitemur  ....  quod  si  superstes  ei  (Ludovico)  fuerit  vestra 
nobilitas,  vita  nobis  comite,  ....  nunquam  acquiescemus,  exposcemus, 
aut  sponte  suscipiemus  alium  in  regnum  et  imperium  Romanum,  nisi 
teipsum."     7/;.,  p.  938. 

3  According  to  the  contemporary  author  of  the  Annals  of  S.  Vedast 
(a  monastery  in  the  diocese  of  Cambrai),  '  Laon'  was  blinded  by  Boso, 
Charles's  brother-in-law.  Cf.  '  Laon's  '  own  statement  made  before  the 
Council  of  Troyes  (third  session.    Labbe,  Cone,  ix.). 

VOL.    III.  12 


178  HADRIAN   II. 

emperor  by  John  VIII.,  Charles  obtained  from  him  the  con- 
firmation 1  of  the  Synod  of  Douzi,  and  his  consent  to  the 
election  of  a  new  bishop  for  the  See  of  Laon.  One  Hedenulf 
was  accordingly  duly  elected  (March  876).  But  when  John 
came  to  France  and  held  a  synod  at  Troyes  (August  878), 
the  poor  degraded  Hincmar,  blind  but  dauntless  still,  came 
before  him  and  appealed  for  justice.2  According  to  the 
contemporary  chronicler  of  St.  Vedast's  monastery  (ad 
an.  878),  he  completely  cleared  himself  of  all  the  charges 
brought  against  him.  And  we  know  from  Hincmar 
himself3  that,  on  the  motion  of  several  bishops,  John,  with 
the  consent  of  the  king  ('LaonV  enemy,  the  Emperor 
Charles  the  Bald,  was  now  dead,  and  Louis  the  Stammerer 
was  king),  decided  that  Hedenulf  was  to  keep  the  bishopric 
of  Laon,  but  that  the  unhappy  blind  bishop  might  say 
mass,  and  have  part  of  the  episcopal  revenues.  Thus  was 
this  tiresome  affair4  brought  to  an  end.  But  its  tragic 
development  in  the  blinding  of  the  unfortunate  bishop,  and 
the  consideration  that  he  may  very  easily  have  been — nay, 
indeed,  probably  was — less  guilty  than  he  was  made  to 
appear  by  king  and  archbishop,  might  well  justify  the 
Holy  See  in  being  slow  to  consent  to  the  deposition  of 
bishops,  especially  where  there  was  question  of  a  king  power- 
ful enough  to  force  his  own  will.  It  was  action  of  this 
kind  on  the  part  of  rulers,  ecclesiastical  and  civil,  which 
caused  the  eighth  ecumenical  council  to  decree  that 
the  causes  of  bishops  were  in  future  to  be  reserved  to 
their  patriarchs  only,  and  no  longer  left  to  the  judgment 

1  John  grants  this  because,  from  the  king's  account,  "agnovimus 
justum  fuisse  omnino  judicium."  Ep.  17,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  126,  p.  662. 
Cf.  Epp.  51,  52  Hinc.  Rhem.,  z&.,  p.  270  f. 

2  Cf.  '  LaonV  statement ;  and  A?i?ial  Ved.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  517. 

3  AnnaL,  ad  an.  878. 

4  On  it,  see  Hefele,  Cone,  v.  600  ;  vi.  63  f.  (Fr.  ed.) ;  Jager,  Hist,  de 
VEglise  de  France,  v. ;  Jungmann,  Diss.,  xvi. 


HADRIAN   II.  179 

of  their  metropolitan  or  of  the  bishops  of  their  province 
(can.  26). 

Well  was  it  for  Europe  in  the  Middle  Ages  that  there 
was  a  power  which  could  put  a  check  on  the  tyranny  of 
kings.  No  lover  of  liberty  should  murmur  at  the  authority 
boldly  exercised  by  the  Popes.  Even  if  they  did  occa- 
sionally overstep  their  powers,  their  actions  were  almost 
universally  on  the  side  of  right  and  freedom.  And  when 
they  were  not,  they  did  not  issue  in  the  cruel  deeds  of 
'blood  and  iron'  (such  as  the  treatment  of  'Laon')  per- 
petrated by  kings,  when  they  overstepped  the  rights  which 
were  their  due  from  the  laws  of  God  and  man. 

The  case  against  the  younger  Hincmar  was,  it  would  Political 
seem,  rendered  stronger  by  his  political  action.  Hence  The  death 
some  even  suppose  that  he  lost  his  eyes  for  siding  with  Partition"5" 
Louis  the  German,  who  attempted  to  cause  a  rising  in  kingdom. 
Charles's  kingdom  of  Neustria,  when  that  prince  had  gone  to 
Rome  to  receive  the  imperial  crown  (875).  Charles  and 
Louis  were  perpetually  either  making  war  on  each  other, 
or  coming  to  some  amicable,  but  very  temporary,  under- 
standing. On  the  death  of  the  dissolute  Lothaire  II.,  king 
of  Lorraine  (August  8,  869),  his  kingdom  ought  to  have 
fallen  to  his  brother,  the  Emperor  Louis  II.  When  their 
third  brother,  Charles,  had  died  (863),  his  kingdom,  which 
consisted  of  Provence  and  the  '  Duchy  of  Lyons,'  had 
been  satisfactorily  divided  between  the  Emperor  Louis  II. 
and  Lothaire-  II.  of  Lorraine.  But  on  the  demise  of  the 
latter,  his  uncles,  Charles  the  Bald  and  Louis  the  German, 
without  any  consideration  for  the  emperor,  divided  his 
kingdom  between  them.  By  a  treaty  concluded  between 
the  pair  at  Mersen,  near  Maestricht  (August  870),  the 
exact  share  of  each  was  finally  determined.  The  Moselle 
and  the  lower  reaches  of  the  Meuse  may  be  said  to 
have  formed  the  boundaries  between  the   two   kingdoms, 


sion, 


1 80  HADRIAN   II. 

which   were   still  further  divided  by  language.     Speaking 
generally,  the  realm  of  Louis  the  German  was  the  abode 
of  the  Teutonic  tongue,  that  of  Charles,  of  the  Romance 
or  French. 
Hadrian  Long    before    this    final    arrangement    was    concluded, 

sn.vcs  the 

kingdom  of  Hadrian  stood  out  for  the  rights  of  the  emperor.  He  was 
from  inva-  the  more  moved  to  this  from  the  fact  that  Louis  was  making 
determined  efforts  to  drive  the  Saracens  out  of  Southern 
Italy.  Indeed,  he  had  not  been  Pope  many  months  before 
he  began  to  work  for  the  maintenance  of  the  existing 
political  order.  Even  though  Lothaire  of  Lorraine  was  then 
naturally  in  bad  odour  in  Rome,  still  when  Hadrian  heard 
that  Louis  the  German  was  hoping  to  make  capital  out  of 
his  nephew's  ill-favour  by  invading  his  country,  he  wrote  to 
beg  him  not  to  do  so.  Such  action  would  be  fatal  to  the 
Church.  Louis  was  doing  his  utmost,  not  sparing  himself  in 
anything,  to  overcome  "  those  foes  of  the  name  of  Christ" 
the  Saracens.  But  if  his  brother  were  touched  he  would 
feel  himself  injured  also,  and  the  good  he  was  doing  would 
be  suspended.1  Similar  letters  were  sent  to  Charles  the 
Bald.2 

It  was  only  to  be  expected,  therefore,  that,  on  Lothaire's 
death,  Hadrian  would  exert  himself  in  the  interests  of  the 
emperor.  And  loyally  did  he  do  so.  The  emperor  and 
the  Pope  were  now  harmoniously  working  for  each  other's 
benefit.  Four  letters,  three  of  them  dated  September  5, 
869,  were  at  once  despatched  from  Rome.  The  dated 
ones  were  addressed  respectively  to  the  bishops,  and  to 
the  lay  lords  of  Charles  the  Bald,  and  to  Hincmar 
of  Rheims.  They  were  all  earnestly  exhorted  to  warn 
Charles  from  seizing  what  belonged,  by  hereditary  right, 
to  the  emperor,  the  defender  of  the   Church  against  the 

1  Ep.  12,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  908,  dated  February  12,  868. 

2  Hinc,  AnnaL,  ad  an.  868. 


HADRIAN    II.  l8l 

Saracens.1  Those  who  should  give  any  contrary  advice 
were  threatened  with  excommunication.  The  remaining 
letter,2  on  the  other  hand,  was  addressed  to  the  clerical 
and  lay  nobility  of  the  kingdom  of  Lorraine,  who  were 
solemnly  urged  to  remain  true  to  the  emperor. 

But  before  the  bishops,  Paul  and  Leo,  who  were  the  Charles 
bearers  of  these  letters,  and  the  imperial  envoy  could  reach  King  of 
Gaul,  Charles  had  had  himself  crowned  at  Metz3  as  king  869?"ame 
of  Lorraine  (September  9,  869),  and  the  embassy  was 
unable  to  effect  anything.  To  begin  with,  it  was  the 
intention  of  Charles  to  keep  the  whole  of  Lorraine  for 
himself.  But  Louis  the  German  had  to  be  reckoned  with; 
and  he  soon  found  that  the  only  way  to  avoid  war  was 
to  induce  Louis  to  share  the  plunder.  That  any  such 
agreement  had  been  come  to  was  quite  unknown  to 
Hadrian,  when  in  June  (870)  he  sent  off  a  more  numerous 
embassy  with  letters  (dated  June  27)  4  for  both  Louis  and 
Charles.  The  latter  is  severely  blamed  for  his  perjury  in 
occupying  the  kingdom  which  belonged  to  the  Emperor 
Louis,  and  this  against  his  oath,  of  which  the  Pope  has  the 
deed,5  and  also  for  sending  away  the  legates  without 
addressing  suitable  answers  to  them  or  to  the  Apostolic  See. 
We  are  very  willing,  continued  the  Pope,  to  do  as  you  suggest, 
and  to  act  as  a  mediator  between  you  and  the  emperor. 
Indeed,  we  have  begun  to  do  so.  But,  even  in  order  that 
peace  may  be  made,  you  refuse  to  give  way  to  him  who  is 

1  There  was  then  such  danger  from  the  Saracens,  that  an  irruption 
into  the  states  of  the  Church  was  to  be  feared  "ita  ut  etiam  fines 
nostros  infestatio  propemodum  Sarracenorum  invaderet."  Ep.  20 
Had.,  Labbe,  viii.  918. 

2  Ep.  19.  3  Annal.  Fuld.  et  If  inc.,  ad  an. 

4  The  letters,  six  in  number,  are  all  dated  in  Labbe,  viii.  922  f., 
"  Data  v.  Kalcndas  Julii,"  which  would  give  June  27. 

5  "  Numquid  a  mente  excidit,  quod  vestra  vestrorumque  juramenta 
sedi  apostolicce  destinata  ....  roboravimus  et  in  archivo  nostro  hodie 
ilia  recondita  retinemus."     Ep.  23  ad  Car. 


1 82  HADRIAN   II. 

fighting  the  battles  of  the  Lord  against  the  Saracens.  It  is 
only  because  he  is  so  engaged  that  you  dare  do  what  you 
have  done.  To  show  that  we  are  acting  not  with  any  hope 
of  favour  from  men,  we  will  not  leave  your  conduct  un- 
punished, even  if  the  emperor  should  be  disposed  so  to  do. 
The  aged  Pope  even  talked  of  himself  going  to  Charles,  if 
his  letters  failed  to  make  him  do  his  duty.  He  commended 
to  the  king  his  legates,  viz.  four  bishops  and  a  priest 
'  cardinis  nostri.' 

In  accordance  with  instructions  received  from  the  Pope,1 
his  envoys  went  first  to  Louis  the  German,  in  whose  good- 
will towards  the  emperor  both  the  Pope  and  Louis  II. 
himself  had  full  confidence,2  to  concert  measures  with  him 
for  dealing  with  Charles.  When,  however,  the  envoys 
reached  Louis  the  German,  they  found  that  he  had  also 
become  a  partner  in  the  unjust  spoliation  of  the  emperor. 
Without  giving  them  any  satisfaction,  he  sent  them  on  to 
Charles.  Charles  kept  them  for  some  time  with  him  ;  and 
though  he  did  not  accede  to  the  desire  of  the  Pope,  he  sent 
him  presents  and  letters  by  ambassadors  of  his  own,  and, 
at  the  request  of  the  legates,  set  free  from  custody  3  his  son 
Carloman.  The  papal  envoys,  then,  had  to  return  and 
report  to  the  Pope  that  they  had  failed  to  accomplish 
anything.  Something,  however,  they  had  done.  For  two 
years  afterwards,  Louis  the  German  gave  up  his  share  of 
the  plunder  to  the  emperor.4 
A  letter  Among  the  letters  brought  to  the  Pope  by  his  legates 

Hincmar.  was>  no  doubt,  the  one5  which  Hincmar  of  Rheims  had 
written  in  answer  to  one  (of  September  5,  869)  he  had 
received  from  the  Pope,  instructing  him  to  oppose 
Charles's    intended    usurpation.      As    its    object   was    to 

1  Ep.  27.  2  Ep.  27  ad  Lud.,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  928. 

8  Hinc,  Annal.,  ad  an.  870. 

4  Id.,  an.  872.  6  Ep.  27,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  126,  p.  174  f. 


HADRIAN   II.  183 

defend  a  very  weak  case,  it  took  a  very  high  tone.  While 
professing1  that,  to  avoid  the  Pope's  censures,  he  had  not 
shrunk  from  doing  as  he  had  been  instructed,  Hincmar 
launched  forth  some  very  hard  blows.  His  strong  words, 
however,  he  presented,  not  as  his  own,  but  as  the  remarks 
of  "  both  clergy  and  laity  who  had  assembled  at  Rheims  in 
great  numbers  from  the  different  kingdoms."  The  burden 
of  the  epistle  was  to  the  effect  that  Charles  had  acted  as 
he  had  from  necessity.  The  dreaded  Normans  were  near, 
and  the  Emperor  Louis  was  far  away.  A  sentence  or  two 
will  show  its  tone.  When,  wrote  Hincmar,  I  spoke  of  the 
power  which  had  been  given  by  Our  Lord  to  St.  Peter,  the 
first  of  His  apostles,  and  through  him  to  his  successors,  and 
to  the  apostles  and  their  successors,  the  bishops,  "  they 
replied  :  '  Do  you  then  by  the  sole  power  of  your  prayers 
defend  the  kingdom  against  the  Normans  and  its  other 
foes,  and  seek  not  our  help.  But  if  you  want  to  have  our 
armed  assistance,  as  we  desire  the  protection  of  your 
prayers,  seek  not  what  is  to  our  loss,  but  ask  the  Pope  (as 
he  cannot  be  king  and  bishop  at  once,  and  as  his  pre- 
decessors have  regulated  ecclesiastical  affairs,  which  are 
their  business,  and  not  state  matters,  which  are  the  business 
of  kings)  not  to  command  us  to  have  a  king,  who,  so  far 
away,  cannot  help  us  against  the  sudden  and  frequent 
attacks  of  the  heathens,  nor  to  order  us,  Franks,  to  be 
submissive ;  for  such  a  yoke  have  his  predecessors  never 
laid  upon  ours,  nor  can  we  suffer  it.'" 

One  of  the  causes  which  kept  Charles  irritated  against  Charles 
Hincmar  of  Laon  was  his  supporting  against  him  the  above-  cario-S  S°U 
mentioned  Carloman.     Wisely  determining  not  to  imitate,  man* 

1  "  Igitur  qui  me  a  solida  unitatis  catholicse  et  apostolicae  ecclesue 
petra  non  divido,  et,  sicut  nostis,  scriptis  et  etiam  prassentibus  vestris 
missis,  adeo  ex  vestra  jussione  verbis  restiti  regi,  ac  regnorum  primori 
bus,  ut  et  coram  eisdem  missis  comminaretur  mihi,"  etc     lb. 


1 84  HADRIAN    II. 

at  least  to  the  full,  the  fatal  example  of  his  predecessors, 
Charles  the  Bald  destined  only  two  of  his  sons  to  reign 
after  him.  The  other  two,  of  whom  one  was  Carloman, 
were  made  monks.  But,  as  Charles  thought  nothing  of 
sending  Carloman  on  military  expeditions,1  he  ought  not 
to  have  been  surprised  to  find  that  his  son  soon  got  tired  of 
a  monastic  life,  and  even  commenced  hatching  plots  against 
him.  For  this  he  was  at  once  incarcerated  in  Senlis,2  after 
the  Synod  of  Attigny  had  deprived  him  of  the  abbeys  which 
the  king  had  bestowed  upon  him.  Through  the  intercession 
of  the  legates  sent  by  Hadrian  to  induce  Charles  to  leave 
for  his  nephew  the  kingdom  of  Lorraine,  Carloman  was 
released  from  confinement.  But  he  only  made  use  of  his 
liberty  to  renew  his  plots.  Supported  by  Hincmar  of 
Laon,  Carloman  laid  his  own  version  of  the  case  before  the 
Pope.  "  Hadrian,"  writes  Pertz,3  "  stirred  up  by  the  appeal, 
and  deceived  by  the  envoys  sent  by  the  wicked  prince,  and, 
moreover,  angry  with  Charles  on  account  of  his  seizing  the 
kingdom  of  Lorraine,  took  up  the  cause  with  alacrity." 
He  wrote  to  Charles  (July,  13  871)  to  accuse  him  of  adding 
cruelty  to  robbery.  "  Surpassing  the  ferocity  of  the  beasts, 
you  do  not  blush  to  turn  against  your  own  flesh  and  blood, 
against  your  son  Carloman."  Hadrian  goes  on  to  ask  the 
king  to  restore  the  youth  to  favour,  at  least  until  his  envoys 

1  Hinc,  AnnaL,  868.  2  Hinc,  AnnaL,  870. 

3  Cf.  his  note  to  Hinc,  Anna!.,  871,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  491.  We  quote 
these  words  of  the  illustrious  Pertz,  along  with  the  important  parts  of 
this  short  letter,  to  show  with  what  considerable  modifications  this 
remark  of  Alzog  {Universal  Ch.  Hist.,  ii.  205)  must  be  accepted.  "It 
is  to  be  regretted  that  this  pontiff  lessened,  in  some  degree,  the  high 
consideration  in  which  the  apostolic  authority  was  then  held,  by  taking 
under  his  protection  Carloman,  the  rebellious  son  of  Charles  the  Bald, 
who,  besides  being  a  renegade  monk,  was  on  the  point  of  incurring  the 
sentence  of  excommunication  for  his  shameful  vices,  and  by  the  bitter 
and  fruitless  struggle  which  he  brought  upon  himself  by  espousing  the 
cause  of  Hincmar,  bishop  of  Laon,  against  his  uncle,  Hincmar,  arch- 
bishop of  Rheims." 


HADRIAN    II.  185 

come  to  the  king,  and,  "saving  the  honour  which  is  due  to 
both  of  you,"  until  the  affair  may  be  settled  on  the  observed 
merits  of  the  case.1 

To  the  nobles  of  Charles's  kingdom  he  wrote  to  urge 
them  to  do  all  that  lay  in  their  power  to  prevent  the 
scandal  of  father  and  son  from  fighting  against  each  other, 
and  to  threaten  with  excommunication  whoever  took  up 
arms  against  Carloman.  By  a  third  letter,  to  the  bishops 
of  France  (Neustria)  and  Lorraine,  again  supposing  things 
to  be  as  stated  to  him,  he  forbids  them  to  excommunicate 
Carloman  "  until  we,  who  wish  the  judgments  of  God's 
priests  to  be  carefully  considered,  find  out  the  truth  with 
regard  to  all  that  has  happened."  He  concludes  by  saying 
very  pointedly  that,  though  Carloman  has  assured 2 
him  of  his  innocence  over  and  over  again,  he  may  not  be 
guiltless.  But  it  would  look  like  a  just  judgment  of  God, 
that  the  one  who  had  done  such  wrong  to  his  own  nephew 
should  be  punished  by  having  a  rebellious  son. 

According  to  Hincmar,3  before  the  end  of  this  year  (871), 
Carloman,  with  "a  feigned  profession  of  submission,"  gave 
himself  up  into  the  hands  of  his  father,  who  again  caused 
him  to  be  imprisoned  in  Senlis.  By  this  time  Hadrian 
was  in  a  better  position  to  judge  of  his  aims,  and  hence- 
forth we  hear  no  more  of  papal  interference  in  behalf  of  the 
young  prince,  who  was,  by  a  council  at  Senlis  (873) 
degraded  from  the  clerical  state  to  which  he  had  never 
voluntarily  aspired.  When,  however,  it  was  found  that 
the  malcontents  then  more  than  ever  turned  to  Carloman, 
"in  order  that  he  might  have  an  opportunity  of  doing 
penance,"4  and  yet  at  the  same  time  might  be  prevented 

1  Ep.  29  (Labbe,  viii.  929).  Cf.  Epp.  30  and  31,  to  the  nobles  and 
bishops. 

2  "  Pracfatus  Carolomannus  insontem  quidem  se  circa  patrem  multi- 
pliciter  asserit."     Ep.  31. 

3  Annals  ad  an.  871.  4  Id.,  873. 


i86 


HADRIAN   II. 


The 

Emperor 
Louis  II. 
and  the 
Saracens. 


from  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  kingdom,  the  death- 
penalty,  which  was  decided  to  be  his  due,  was  commuted 
to  the  loss  of  sight.  The  Annals  of  Fulda  do  not  put  the 
affair  so  well  for  the  king  as  does  his  friend  Hincmar. 
They  state  laconically:  "Charles  the  tyrant  (tyrannus) 
of  Gaul,  laying  aside  all  parental  feeling,  commanded  his 
son  Carloman  to  be  blinded." x  The  unhappy  young  man 
died  soon  after. 

In  the  last  few  pages  mention  has  often  been  made  of 
the  wars  of  the  Emperor  Louis  II.  against  the  Saracens. 
To  events  in  connection  with  them  we  must  now  turn. 
The  story  of  the  Saracens'  effecting  a  firm  foothold  in  Italy 
has  already2  been  told.  Before  the  emperor,  who  has 
been  justly  called  the  '  Saviour  of  Italy,'  could  turn  his 
undivided  attention  to  the  work  of  driving  out  the  Saracens, 
he  had  to  bring  to  a  close  the  rivalry  between  Radelchis 
and  Siconulf.  It  may  be  remembered  that  these  were  the 
men  who,  in  their  struggle  for  the  duchy  of  Beneventum, 
had  both  called  in  Saracens  to  their  aid.  In  850  (or 
perhaps  rather  in  849)  Louis  forced  the  two  to  make  peace. 
Radelchis  was  to  keep  Beneventum  itself,  and  the  eastern 
half  of  the  duchy.  Siconulf  became  Prince  of  Salerno, 
and  ruled  over  the  Campanian  and  Lucanian  3  half.  Hence- 
forth, among  the  Lombards  of  the  south,  the  dukes  of 
Beneventum  will  only  be  second  to  the  princes  of  Salerno, 
which  had  for  some  time  been  rapidly  increasing  in  com- 
mercial importance,  and  to  the  counts  of  Capua,  lords  of 
the  valley  of  the  Liris,  who  had  come  into  power  by 
breaking  away  from  Siconulf,  just  as  he  had  rendered  him- 
self independent  of  Radelchis.  Later  on  (867),  the  emperor 
compelled  them  to  do  him  homage,  and  to  lend  him  their 

1  Ad  an.  873  {M.  G.  SS.,  i.  385).  2  Supra,  vol.  ii.  214. 

3  Chron.    Vultur.,   ap.   R.   I.    S.t    I.,   ii.  p.  390.     Cf.  Gay,  UltalU 
Mdridionale,  p.  62. 


HADRIAN    II.  187 

assistance  against  Mofareg-ibn-Salcm,  who  had  formed 
into  one  state  the  whole  coast  from  Bari,  which  the 
Saracens  had  seized  in  840,  to  Reggio.  For  eighteen  years 
(853-71)  this  robber-king  was  the  terror  of  Southern  Italy.1 
Louis  also  secured  a  half-hearted  co-operation  of  the  Greeks. 
Despite  certain  reverses,  after  one  of  which,  to  the  great 
grief2  of  the  emperor  himself  and  of  the  Pope,  the  infidels 
were  able  to  make  a  dash,  and  plunder  the  celebrated  abbey 
of  St.  Michael  on  Mt.  Gargano,  Louis  took  Bari,  the  head- 
quarters of  the  Saracen  occupation  (February  871). 
Leaving  his  army  to  continue  the  work  of  ousting  the 
Saracens,  he  withdrew  to  Beneventum.  Whether  it  was 
that  he  yearned  for  the  spoils  which  Louis  had  with  him, 
or  whether  rendered  furious  by  the  avaricious  haughtiness 
of  the  Empress  Ingelberga,3  the  new  Duke  Adelgisus 
(Adelchis)  attempted  to  seize  his  sovereign.  He  was 
successful ;  but,  terrified  by  a  fresh  invasion  of  Saracens 
(September  871),  he  released  him  and  his  friends,  on 
his  oath  that  he  would  never  attempt  to  avenge  the 
insult  that  had  been  put  upon  him.  This  outrage  on  the 
imperial  dignity,  taken  in  conjunction  with  those  put  upon 
the  papal  at  the  beginning  of  Hadrian's  reign,  serves  to 
bring  out  in  still  clearer  light  the  rapidly  growing  insolence 
of  the  greater  nobles,  and  to  prepare  us  to  find  both 
dignities  still  further  degraded  by  lawless  barons. 

The  feelings  of  indignation  with  which  Louis  left  Bene- 
ventum can  be  well  imagined.  The  duke  of  Spoleto  fled 
from  before  him  to  his  associate  Adelgisus.  Burning  to 
avenge  the  insult  put  upon  him,  he  sent  to  beg  the  Pope 

1  Oman,  Europe,  476-918.  2  Hinc,  Anna!.,  an.  869. 

3  According  to  Hincmar  (an.  871),  Adalgisus  discovered  that,  through 
the  action  of  the  empress's  party,  Louis  was  about  to  banish  him.  Accord- 
ing to  Erchempert,  whose  sympathies  would  be  with  the  Lombards, 
"Galli  graviter  Beneventanos  persequi  ac  crudeliter  vexare"  {Hist. 
Lang.,  c.  34) — a  course  of  action  not  altogether  foreign  to  the  '  Galli.' 


1 88  HADRIAN    II. 

to  come  and  meet  him,  and  absolve  him  from  the  oath  he 
had  taken.1 
Louis  It  would  seem,  however,  that  he  was  absolved  from  his 

Rome,  872.  oath  only  when  he  came  to  Rome  for  the  Whitsuntide2  of 
872.  At  least,  the  monk  Regino,  in  his  chronicle,  assigns 
that  act  of  supreme  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  Pope  to 
the  time  when  Louis  came  to  Rome,  though  he  wrongly 
attributes  its  performance  to  Pope  John  VIII.  He  says:  "In 
the  year  of  our  Lord's  incarnation  872,  the  Emperor  Louis 
came  to  Rome,  and  there  in  an  assembly  (conventum  cele- 
brans)  he  laid  his  complaints  against  Adelgisus  in  presence 
of  the  Pope.  Then,  by  the  senate  of  the  Romans,  Adelgisus 
was  declared  a  tyrant  and  an  enemy  of  the  republic,  and  war 
was  decreed  against  him.  By  the  authority  of  God  and  St. 
Peter,  Pope  John  (Hadrian)  absolved  the  emperor  from  the 
oath  he  had  taken,  saying  that  what  he  had  done  under 
compulsion,  to  avoid  the  danger  of  death,  was  not  binding, 
and  that  that  could  not  be  called  an  oath  which  was 
devised  against  the  safety  of  the  republic."3 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost  (May  18)  Louis  was  crowned 
by  the  Pope,  doubtless  as  king  of  that  portion  of  Lothaire's 
kingdom  which  Louis  the  German  had  restored  to  him, 
and  after  Mass  rode,  in  company  with  the  Pope,  in  great 
state  to  the  Lateran.4 
Louis  is  re-      Before  he  left  Rome,  the  entreaties  of  the  holy  bishop  of 

conciled  to 
Adelgisus, 
873.  1  *  Mandans  apostolico  Adriano,  ut  obviam  illi  in   transitu   itineris 

sui  veniret,  quatenus  de  ipso  sacramento   ilium  et  suos  absolveret." 

Hincmar,  ib.  2  lb. 

3  In  Chron.)  an.  872,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  584.  At  this  time  Regino 
(to  1 5)  was  probably  a  very  young  man,  and  he  certainly  wrote  his 
chronicle  at  a  distance  from  the  scene  of  these  events  (he  wrote  in  the 
monastery  of  St.  Gall  in  Switzerland)  ;  so  that  we  must  suppose  that 
he  described  these  doings  in  classical  terms  with  which  he  was  familiar, 
and  had  no  thought  of  using  'senate'  as  though,  at  this  period,  there 
was  anything  in  Rome  equivalent  to  the  '  senate '  of  the  old  republic. 

4  Hinc,  an.  872. 


HADRIAN    It.  189 

Naples,  Athanasius,  induced  Louis  to  at  least  suspend  his 

desire  of  vengeance  against  the  duke  of  Beneventum,  and 

to  turn  his  arms  on  those   Saracens1  whose  landing  had 

been  the   cause  of  his  release.     And  next  year,  because, 

according   to  some  authorities,  he  felt  himself  unable   to 

chastise  Adelgisus,  he  allowed  Pope  John  VIII.  to  reconcile 

him  with  the  duke.2     But  there  was  no  real  submission  in 

the  heart  of  the  Lombard. 

Athanasius,  the   saintly  prelate   of  whom   mention  has  St.  Athan- 
asius of 
just   been    made,  was,  at   the  time  of  which  we  are  now  Naples. 

writing  (872),  in  exile.  Uncle  of  the  Duke  Sergius  of 
Naples,  he  had  been  put  in  prison  for  reproving  the  young 
prince's  evil  courses.  The  clamours  of  the  people,  how- 
ever, forced  the  duke  to  release  him  from  confinement. 
But  he  ceased  not  to  oppress  him,  and  to  hinder  him  in  his 
work  in  every  way.  The  saint,  therefore,  left  Naples  (871), 
and  took  refuge  in  the  Isle  of  the  Saviour,  about  a  mile  and 
a  half  from  the  city.  Sergius  would  have  brought  him 
back  by  main  force,  had  not  the  emperor  sent  out  troops 
for  his  delivery.  Rendered  furious  by  being  thus  baulked, 
Sergius  plundered  the  episcopal  treasury,  and  treated  the 
ecclesiastics  in  Naples  with  the  greatest  barbarity.  In  two 
letters,  which  are  now  lost,  Hadrian  wrote  to  him  and  to 
the  clergy  and  people  of  Naples,  ordering  them,  under  pain 
of  excommunication,  to  receive  back  their  bishop.3  When 
no  notice  of  these  letters  was  taken  by  the  duke,  Hadrian, 

1  "  Multis  precibus  ab  eo  extorsit  (Athanasius)  ut  suae  immemor 
injuria?,  sufTragaret  Salernitanis,  Hishmahelitum  obsidione  ballads." 
Johan.  Diac,  in  vit.  Epp.  Neap.,  ap.  R.  I.  S.,  I.,  ii.,  p.  317. 

2  Hinc,  an.  873.  The  fullest  account  of  all  these  events  is  to  be 
found  in  Gay,  /.  c. 

3  Cf.  the  life  of  St.  Athanasius  by  Peter,  a  subdeacon  of  the  Church 
of  Naples,  ii.  §  24,  ap.  Acta  SS.,  Julii  iv.,  83.  According  to  Muratori 
(R.  /.  S.t  I.,  ii.  p.  289  f.),  John  the  deacon,  and  Peter  the  subdeacon, 
who  both  wrote  lives  of  this  saint,  were  both  his  contemporaries.  The 
life  by  Peter  is  also  to  be  read  in  R.  I.  S.,  ii.,  p.  ii. 


I9O  HADRIAN   II. 

through  the  librarian,  Cardinal  Anastasius,  laid  the  city 
under  an  interdict.  But  the  thought  that  his  episcopal 
city  was  in  this  sad  condition  was  more  than  Athanasius 
could  long  bear.  At  his  entreaty,  Hadrian  removed  the 
interdict.  The  saint's  death  (July  15,  872)  alone  prevented 
the  Emperor  Louis  from  restoring  him  to  his  See.  This 
sketch  of  the  history  of  St.  Athanasius  of  Naples  furnishes 
us  with  another  view  of  one  of  the  innumerable  petty 
tyrants  into  whose  hands,  strong  in  nothing  but  evil,  all 
power  in  Western  Europe  was  now  falling.  A  great  and 
powerful  tyrant  who  lords  it  over  an  extended  empire 
stifles  liberty,  but  a  number  of  petty  tyrannical  princes 
rend  it  to  pieces. 
Restoration      Some  little  space  must  now  be  devoted  to  the  narration 

of  S.  .  .       .  .  .  f 

Ignatius,  of  the  most  important  story,  not  only  in  the  reign  of 
Hadrian,  but  in  the  ninth  century,  viz.,  that  of  the  would- 
be  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Photius.  It  has  been  put 
off  to  the  end  of  this  biography,  that,  taken  up  again  in  the 
beginning  of  the  life  of  John  VIII.,  there  may  be  as  few 
great  gaps  as  possible  between  its  different  parts. 

It  has  been  already1  stated  that  Nicholas  I.  had  died 
before  official  news  reached  Rome  that  the  Emperor 
Michael  had  been  assassinated,  and  that  his  quondam 
groom,  Basil  the  Macedonian,  was  emperor  of  Constanti- 
nople in  his  stead.  Despite  the  means  by  which  he  raised 
himself  to  the  supreme  power,  Basil  proved  a  good 
emperor,  and  founded  the  longest  of  the  Byzantine 
dynasties — a  dynasty  which  gave  to  the  Greek  empire  at 
least  '  stationary  prosperity.' 2 

1  Supra,  p.  67. 

2  The  Basilian  dynasty  lasted  from  867  to  1056.  Cf.  Oman,  Em  -ope, 
476-918.  Finlay  also  avers  {The  Byzantine  Empire,  716-1057),  p.  233, 
that  the  family  of  Basil  "  reigned  at  Constantinople  for  two  centuries, 
with  greater  power  and  glory  than  the  Eastern  Empire  had  attained 
since  the  days  of  Justinian." 


HADRIAN    II.  191 

The  first  act  of  any  importance  which  Basil  performed 
was,  "in  accordance  with  the  sentence  of  the  Roman 
Church,"  to  banish  Photius,  the  intruded  patriarch l 
(September  25).  This  he  did  on  the  day  following  that 
on  which  he  had  himself  been  saluted  as  emperor.  By  his 
orders,  also,  the  envoy,  Zachary,  was  recalled,  who  had  been 
made  metropolitan  of  Chalcedon  by  Photius,  and  who  was 
on  his  way  to  Italy  to  convey  to  Louis  and  Ingelbcrga  the 
forged  acts  of  the  petty  council  which  Photius  had  held 
(867)  against  Pope  Nicholas,2  and  forged  acts  against  St. 
Ignatius.  Photius's  papers,  too,  which  he  tried  to  smuggle 
out  of  his  palace,  were  also  seized  ;  and  it  was  then  that 
copies  of  the  forged  acts  of  a  council3  against  Ignatius,  and 
of  one  against  Pope  Nicholas,  which  Photius  had  entrusted 
to  Zachary,  were  all  also  secured. 

The  day   following:   the   expulsion  of  Photius,  "  moved  Recall  of  s 

J  01  Ignatius, 

1  Basil  was  proclaimed   emperor,  September  24,  867   (cf.  Nicetas,  867. 
in  vit.  Ignat.,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1225).    Some  authors,  following  the  Latin 
translation,  which  is  here  inaccurate,  write  the    23rd  of  September. 

It  is  not  a  little  extraordinary  to  find  Finlay  (id.,  pp.  274-5),  wno  blames 
Jager  for  his  inaccuracies  in  his  Life  of  Photius,  making  Photius  remain 
in  office  for  two  years  after  the  accession  of  Basil,  and  stating  that  the 
accusation  of  forgery  against  Photius  rested  only  on  some  slight 
changes  which  had  been  made  in  the  translation  of  the  Pope's  letter  to 
the  emperor,  i.e.  of  Nicholas  to  Michael.     Cf.  L.  P.,  n.  xxii. 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  65.       Nicetas,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  pp.  1224-5-8. 

3  lb.  "Alterum  (one  of  the  forged  volumes)  continebat  actiones 
septem  synodicas  contra  Ignatium,  quas  nee  sunt,  nee  fuerunt  unquam 
eelebratee,  sed  gratis  astuta  mente  confictae."  The  other  was  the 
forgery  against  Pope  Nicholas.  All  the  four  volumes  were  exposed  to 
the  public  gaze  at  Constantinople,  the  Acts  against  Nicholas  were  sent 
to  Rome  to  show  Pope  Hadrian,  and  then  all  the  rest  were  burnt  in 
presence  of  Photius  in  the  eighth  session  of  the  Eighth  General  Council. 
Besides  Nicetas,  consult  the  acts  of  the  eighth  session  ;  Anastasius, 
in  his  preface  to  the  eighth  General  Council ;  the  life  of  Hadrian 
(c.  25  f.)  ;  Metrophanes  (ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1390),  who  adds  that,  when  the 
acts  were  exposed  to  view,  all  maintained  stoutly  that  they  knew 
nothing  about  them  ;  and  Stylian  (id.,  1402).  Than  the  fabrication  of 
these  impudent  forgeries  by  Photius,  there  is  no  better  authenticated 
fact  in  history.     Cf.  also  infra,  pp.  194,  196. 


192  HADRIAN   II. 

by  the  prayers  of  all  the  people," 1  Basil  "  confirmed  the 
decision  (irpa^iv)  come  to  in  Old  Rome  by  Pope  Nicholas 
concerning  the  expulsion  of  Photius  and  the  restoration 
of  Ignatius,  recalled  Ignatius  from  exile,  and  degraded 
Photius"2 — an  item  of  news,  to  use  the  expression  of  the 
monk  Michael,  "received  with  the  greatest  joy  by  the 
prelates  of  the  other  apostolic  thrones." 
Letters  of        Basil  lost  no  time  in  communicating  with   Rome,   and 

Basil  to 

Rome.  in  sending  word  of  what  had  been  done  to  Pope  Nicholas, 
of  whose  death,  on  December  n,  the  emperor  was  still 
unacquainted.  Of  the  two  letters  which  he  sent  to  Rome, 
the  first  is  lost,  but  the  second3  (dated  December  n)  has 
come  down  to  us.  He  tells  the  Pope,  whom  he  addresses 
as  the  "head,  sacred,  divine,  and  reverend,  like  Aaron," 
that  he  is  sending  him  a  second  letter,  for  fear  that,  owing 
to  the  great  distance  which  separates  them,  some  accident 
might  prevent  the  first  from  being  delivered  into  his  hands. 
He  goes  on  to  speak  of  the  wretched  state  in  which  he 
found  the  Church  of  Constantinople  when  he  took  the 
reins  of  government,  and  to  say  that  he  had  taken  certain 
remedial  measures  himself,  and  had  left  the  rest  to  be  done 
by  the  Pope.  He  had  removed  Photius  from  the  patriarchal 
See  because  he  had  acted  against  the  truth  and  against 
the  Pope.4  Ignatius,  on  the  other  hand,  he  had  recalled 
in  virtue  of  the  decision  contained  in  the  Pope's  letters — 
letters  which  his  predecessors  had  kept  secret.  It  is  for 
the  Pope  to  settle  the  other  questions  ;  nay,  to  approve  what 
he  had  himself  accomplished.5     He  wishes  him  to  decide 

1  Encomium  Ig.,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1262. 

2  Stylian,  io.,  1402.     Cf.  Nicetas.  3  Labbe,  viii.  1007. 

4  "  Quippe  qui  multa  contra  veritatem,  et  contra  sacrum  pontiflcium 
vestrum  commovit."     lb. 

5  Ignatius  ....  secundum  judicium  et  justificationem,  quae  in 
diversis  epistolis  vestris  inventa  est  (quamquam  per  easdem  literas  vix 
nunc  omnibus  manifestum  constituimus  ;  sic  enim  ipsae  literas  obrutas, 
et  nullatenus  quibusdam  ostensac  fuerint  ab  iis  qui  ante  nos  prineipatum 


HADRIAN    II.  I93 

what  has  to  be  done  with  those — the  great  majority — who 
through  violence,  fraud,  levity,  or  bribes  have  been  false  to 
Ignatius  and  have  gone  over  to  Photius.  "  That  the  Pope's 
divine  and  apostolic  sentence  may  be  made  known  even  to 
the  party  of  Photius,"  he  is  sending  to  Rome  John,  the 
metropolitan  of  Silaeum,  to  represent  Ignatius ;  Peter,  the 
metropolitan  of  Sardis,  for  Photius  and,  on  his  own  behalf, 
the  spathar  Basil.  In  conclusion,  he  begs  Nicholas  to  act 
promptly,  that  the  fold  of  Christ  (of  which  he  is  the  chief 
minister  and  immolator — immolator)  may  again  become 
one,  obeying  one  pastor. 

By  the  1st  of  August  868  (if  there  is  no  mistake  in 
the  dates  or  addresses  of  the  two  letters  which  we  are  about 
to  quote),  neither  the  last-mentioned  letter  of  Basil,  nor 
the  embassy  therein  spoken  of,  had  reached  Rome.  For 
the  Pope,  in  two  letters  of  that  date,  simply  praises1  Basil 
for  what  he  has  done  in  the  matter  of  Photius  and  Ignatius, 
rallies  the  latter  in  a  friendly  way  for  not  writing  to  him 
about  the  state  of  affairs,  and  commends  to  him  "the  most 
glorious  spathar  Euthymius,"  who,  as  the  emperor's  envoy, 
was  the  first  to  tell  the  Pope  what  he  had  so  long  wished 
to  hear  concerning  Ignatius. 

Owing  to  the  slow  means  of  communication  of  those  The  letter 
times,  these  two  letters  of  Hadrian,  and  the  embassy  of  patriarch 
Basil  with  his  letter  (just  quoted),  and  one  from  Ignatius  the  Pope!0 

tenuerunt)  ad  proprium  thronum  revocaretur."  lb.  The  Greeks  made 
no  difficulty  in  acknowledging  that  Ignatius  had  been  restored  and 
Photius  expelled  by  virtue  of  authority  obtained  from  Rome,  long  after 
the  schism  of  Photius,  even  right  up  to  the  final  rupture  of  unity  by 
Michael  Cerularius.  Thus,  Leo  Grammaticus,  who  finished  his 
Chronog.  Recent.  Imperat.  in  101 3,  writes  in  his  life  of  Basil  ;  "  Romam 
misit  (Basilius)  et  Romanis  episcopis  deferentibus,  scriptam  in  eum 
(Photium)  sententiam  obtinuit,  eumdemque  throno  deturbavit,  et 
Ignatium  sanct.  patriarcham  secundo  instituit."  Ap.  P.  G.,  Lat.  ed.,  t 
56,  p.  854. 

1  Ep.  Had.,  Labbe,  #.,  1084  f. 

VOL.   III.  13 


IQ4  HADRIAN    II. 

(also  addressed  to  Pope  Nicholas),  crossed.  This  letter 
of  St.  Ignatius  is  important,  as  it  is  as  explicit  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  position  of  the  Pope  in  the  Church 
on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  as  that  of 
Basil  was  on  the  State's  behalf.  The  saint  begins  by 
saying  that  there  are  many  physicians  of  the  ailments  of 
the  body;  but  for  the  cure  of  His  own  members,  Our 
Saviour  has  appointed  "only  one  excellent  and  most 
Catholic  physician  ....  your  holiness."  It  was  for  that 
that  He  addressed  St.  Peter  with  the  words :  "  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church," l  etc. 
(S.  Matt.  xvi.  1 8).  These  blessed  words  He  did  not  address 
to  St.  Peter  simply,  but  through  him  to  all  those  chief 
pastors  who  were  to  come  after  him  and  were  to  resemble 
him  (secundum  ipsuni) — "  the  most  divine  and  sacred 
bishops  of  Old  Rome."2  Ofttimes  have  your  predecessors 
shown  themselves  vigorous  in  rooting  out  heresies  and 
putting  an  end  to  other  evils.  "And  in  these  our  days 
your  blessedness  has  worthily  used  the  power  given  you  by 
Christ."  With  the  armour  of  truth,  which  prevails  over 
everything,  you  have  expelled  the  man  (Photius)  who 
forced  his  way  into  the  sheepfold  like  a  thief,  robbed 
another  of  his  rights,  and  even  went  so  far  as  to  forge 

1  "Eorum  (vulnerum)  vero  quae  in  membris  sunt  Christi  .... 
unum  et  singularem  praecellentem  atque  catholicissimum  medicum 
ipse  princeps  summus  ....  produxit,  videlicet  tuam  fraternam 
sanctitatem,  et  paternam  almitatem  :  propter  quae  dixit  Petro  magno 
et  summo  app.  'Tu  es  Petrus,'5'  etc.  Ep.  Ignat.,  ib.,  1009.  It  cannot 
be  noted  too  often  that  if  the  popes  themselves  make  any  claim  of 
power,  or  if  any  position  of  authority  is  assigned  to  them  by  others,  it  is 
not  on  the  ground  that  their  See  is  Rome,  nor  on  any  such  mundane 
reason,  but  always  on  account  of  the  words  of  Our  Lord  to  St. 
Peter. 

2  "  Tales  enim  beatas  voces  non  secundum  quamdam  utique  sortem 
apostolorum  principi  solum  circumscripsit  e^  definivit,  sed  per  eum  ad 
omnes  qui  post  ilium  secundum  ipsum  efficiendi  erant  summi  pastores, 
et  divinissimi  sacrique  pontifices  senioris  Romas,  transmisit."    Id. 


HADRIAN   II.  I95 

(fingcref)  the  acts  of  a  council  against  you.1  The  falsely- 
called  Photius  (Light)  you  have  cut  off  from  the  body  of 
the  Church,  me  you  have  restored,  and  to  the  Church  here 
you  have  brought  tranquillity.  Obeying  you  cheerfully, 
like  a  son,  the  emperor  has  meted  out  what  is  just  to 
Photius  and  to  myself.  After  assuring  the  Pope  of  his 
affection  for  him,  and  telling  him  how  much  he  thanks  him 
for  what  he  has  done  for  him,  Ignatius  goes  on  to  ask 
what  has  to  be  done  with  those  who  have  been  ordained 
by  the  intruder  Photius,  and  with  those  who,  ordained 
by  Ignatius  himself,  have  yet  gone  over  to  the  side  of 
Photius,  either  from  fear  or  choice.  In  conclusion,  he  begs 
the  Pope  to  send  legates,  with  whose  aid  he  may  settle 
the  affairs  of  Constantinople. 

With   these  letters  of  Basil  and   Ignatius  the  imperial  imperial 

envoys 

envoys  at  last  reached  Rome;  at  least  some  of  them  did.  reach 
For  Peter  of  Sardis,  the  representative  of  Photius,  though  868-V 
he  had  chosen  a  new  ship  for  his  voyage  was  shipwrecked  ; 
"and  he  who2  had  torn  the  bark  of  Christ,  i.e.  the  Church, 
perished  by  the  rending  of  his  own  ship."  Doubtless  the 
same  storm  which  shipwrecked  the  envoy  of  Photius 
delayed  the  other  ambassadors  of  Basil. 

When  they  reached  Rome  they  presented  (at  the  end  of  Synod  in 
868,  or  the  beginning  of  869)  their  letters  and  presents  to  the  868-9/ 
Pope,  who  received  them  with  his  bishops  and  nobles  in 
the  sacristy  of  St.  Mary  Major.     After  the  singing  of  the 
laudes,  and  after  the  envoys  had  returned  thanks  to   the 

1  "  In  tantum  jactanter  elatus  est,  ut  conventum  sine  subsistentia  et 
sine  persona  fingeret  contra  irreprehensible  ....  pontificium  tuum, 
quemadmodum  fabula  hippocentauros  ;  .  .  .  .  quod  etiam  latenter  ad 
principem  misit."     lb. 

2  Anast.,  in  prafat.  Cone.  VIII.,  and  vit.  Had.,  n.  xxiv.  The  latter 
source  states  that  the  only  survivor  of  the  '  crafty'  party  of  Photius  was 
an  insignificant  monk  (monachulus),  who  returned  home  anathematised 
because  he  would  not  in  any  way  fulfil  the  mission  on  which  he  had 
been  sent. 


I96  HADRIAN    II. 

Roman  Church,  "by  the  exertions  of  which  the  Church  of 
Constantinople  had  been  freed  from  schism,"  they  asked 
the  Pope  to  make  known  to  everyone  the  forgery  of 
Photius,  which  had  converted  the  'latrocinale'  (assembly  of 
robbers)  of  867  into  a  regular  synod.  Basil  and  Ignatius, 
"restored  by  your  good  offices,"  had  thrust  the  forged 
document  from  the  city,  like  the  plague,  and  had  sent  it  to 
the  supreme  head.  The  document  was  then  introduced 
by  John,  the  metropolitan  of  Silaeum  in  Pamphylia,  who 
dashed  it  to  the  ground,  exclaiming,  "  Condemned  at 
Constantinople,  may  it  be  condemned  again  at  Rome.  The 
devil's  agent,  the  new  Simon  (Magus),  the  inventor  of  lies, 
even  Photius  put  it  together  ;  the  minister  of  Christ,  the  new 
Peter,  the  lover  of  truth,  even  Nicholas  broke  it  to  pieces." 
Stamping  upon  it,  and  striking  it  with  his  sword,  the  other 
envoy,  an  imperial  spathar,  declared  that  the  signature  of 
Basil  which  appeared  in  it  was  a  forgery,  as  he  was  prepared 
to  maintain  on  oath,  and  that  the  signature  of  Michael  was 
obtained  when  he  was  drunk  (ebriosissimum).  Not  only, 
he  continued,  was  the  signature  of  Basil  a  forgery,  but, 
with  the  aid  of  his  few  accomplices,  Photius  forged  the 
signatures  of  numerous  bishops,1  "  that  by  the  fraud  of 
those  who  were  present  the  simplicity  of  the  absent  might 
be  played  upon."  Before  a  formal  decision  was  passed 
upon  the  production  in  synod,  Hadrian  gave  orders  to  have 
it  carefully  examined  by  such  "  as  were  skilled  in  both 
languages,"  who  were  to  present  a  report  theron  to  a 
council. 

1  The  whole  paragraph  slightly  abridged  from  the  L.  P.,  n.  xxv.  f. 
"  Qui  (Photius)  mutato  caractere  potuit  mnltorum  absentium  episcop- 
orum  nomina  cum  paucis  complicibus  suis  describere."  ■-■  The 
signatures,  he  said,  of  the  patriarchal  Sees,  etc.,  were  simply  those  of 
some  exiles  from  their  respective  cities,  whom  Photius  had  bribed 
(muneribus  exccBcatos).  Pens  of  different  kinds  and  other  similar 
expedients  had  given  the  requisite  appearance  of  dissimilarity  to  the 
list  of  signatures. 


HADRIAN    II.  I97 

In  due  course   Hadrian1   summoned   the  synod.      The  Synod  at 

•    1  1  111  r  -».t.    ,      ,  St.  Peter's 

imperial  envoys  were  heard,  the  letters  of  Nicholas  bearing  (June  869). 
on  the  subject  read,  Photius,  his  false  council  and  his 
accomplices  condemned  for  the  third  time,  and  the  forged 
document  committed  to  the  flames.  To  the  intense 
amazement  of  all,  concludes  the  papal  biographer,  before 
anyone  could  imagine  that  it  was  half  burnt,  exhaling  a  vile 
smell,  it  was  entirely  consumed, — a  shower  of  rain  which 
occurred  at  the  time  only  serving  to  augment  the  flames. 
Moreover,  all  the  faithful,  whether  of  Constantinople, 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem  or  elsewhere,  were  required, 
under  pain  of  anathema,  to  give  up  or  burn  any  copies  of 
the  forgery  which  they  might  possess.2 

On  the  termination  of  the  synod,  Hadrian  despatched  Papal 
legates  to  Constantinople.     To  Donatus,  bishop  of  Ostia,  togCon-Sen 
and  the  deacon  Marinus,  who  had  been  selected  by  Nicholas  st'     ln°pa 
to  go  to  the  imperial  city,  Hadrian  added  Stephen,  bishop 
of  Nepi.     They  were  furnished  not  only  with  the  letters 
which    Nicholas   had    prepared    for   them,   but   with   two 
from    Hadrian    himself,    and    with    certain    instructions. 
They  were  to   pacify  the  Church   of  Constantinople,  and 
restore   to    their   churches    the    bishops    who    had    been 
consecrated    by   Methodius    or    Ignatius,   and   who    had 
sided  with  Photius,  on  condition  of  their  signing  the  'deed 
of  reparation '  {libellus  satisfactionis)  which  Nicholas  had 
already  drawn  up  for  the  embassy  of  866,  and  which  had 
been  preserved   in    the   archives   of   the    Roman    Church. 

1  "Omni  senatorio  popularique  conventu  annitente."  lb.  In  the 
seventh  session  of  the  eighth  General  Council  various  allocutions  of 
Pope  Hadrian  to  this  synod,  etc.,  are  preserved.  In  his  second 
allocution  (Labbe,  Cone,  viii.  1090)  he  declared — "Codex  iste  .... 
Photio  Actus,  ....  hunc  ....  contemplantibus  cunctis,  et  prrecipue 
Grsecorum  legatis,  igni  traditum,  in  cineres  quoque  conjicio  l^gendum." 
Cf.  Anast.  in  Prcefat.  Co?ic.  VIII.)  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  15. 

2  Cf.  c.  5  of  Hadrian's  allocution  on  the  conciliabulum  of  Photius 
read  during  the  seventh  session. 


198 


HADRIAN    II. 


Letter  of 
Hadrian 
to  the 
emperor. 


With  regard  to  those  who  had  been  consecrated  by 
Photius  but  were  repentant,  pending  a  final  decision  of 
the  Holy  See,  the  decision  of  Pope  Nicholas  was  to  remain 
good,  and  they  were  not  to  be  recognised  as  bishops.1 

Of  the  letters  which  Hadrian  entrusted  to  his  envoys, 
one  was  addressed  to  "his  most  desirable  son,"  Basil. 
Hadrian  therein  informs  the  emperor  that  he  has  received 
the  ambassadors  sent  to  his  predecessor  Nicholas ;  thanks 
God  for  what  has  passed  at  Constantinople  ;  praises  Basil 
for  turning  to  the  Apostolic  See,  "  which  is  ever  wont  to  help 
Catholics,"  and  for  the  cure  of  the  troubles  of  the  Church 
of  Constantinople  ;  assures  him  that,  in  the  treatment  he 
has  meted  out  to  Ignatius  and  Photius,  he  has  only  done 
"  what  the  Apostolic  See,  with  the  whole  episcopate  of 
the  West,  had  long  ago  decreed  was  to  be  done  "  ;  expresses 
a  wish2  that  through  the  exertions  of  the  emperor  a 
numerous  council  might  be  called,  over  which  his  legates 
would  preside  and  would  decide  on  the  guilt  of  the  culprits, 
according  to  the  instructions  they  had  received ;  and 
commands  all  copies  of  the  false  council  of  Photius  against 
the  Holy  See  to  be  burnt.  Finally  he  exhorts  Basil  to 
see  to  it  that  the  decisions  of  the  synod  just  held  at  Rome 
be  confirmed  by  the  signatures  of  the  council,  and  carefully 
preserved  in  the  archives  of  all  the  churches. 


L.  P. 


n.    xxxiv.      Of  the   '  libellus   satisfactionis '  more  will  be 


heard  in  connection  with  the  Eighth  General  Council.  Hadrian's  letter 
to  Ignatius  of  June  10,  869,  shows  the  full  meaning  of  this  notice  of  the 
L.  P.  with  regard  to  the  '  Photiani.' 

2  "Volumus,  per  vestrse  pietatis  industriam,  illic  numerosum  celebrari 
concilium,  cui  nostri  quoque  missi  praesidentes,  et  culparum  person- 
arumque  liquido  differentias  cognoscentes,  juxta  quod  in  mandatis 
acceperunt,  singulorum  libere  discretiones  exerceant."  Ep.  Had.,  ap. 
Labbe,  viii.  p.  982.  This  letter  of  June  10,  689,  was  read  in  the  first 
session  of  the  Eighth  Council.  Cf.  Anast.  i?i  Prtzfat.^  "Jussisti 
(Hadrianus)  fieri  Constantinopoli  synodum "  ;  and  at  the  beginning 
of  this  preface  he  addresses  Hadrian  "  cujus  tempore  atque  anctoritate 
sancta  universalis  et  magna  synodus  octava  celebraretur." 


HADRIAN    II.  199 

In  his  letter1   to   St.    Ignatius  the  Pope  expressed   his  Letter  to 

...         Ignatius. 

delight  at  his  restoration,  and  assured  the  patriarch  that 
he  was  determined  to  stand  by  the  decisions  of  his  prede- 
cessor, and  hence  that  Photius  and  all,  without  exception, 
whom  he  had  ordained  were  to  be  deposed. 

After  a   "  tortuous  and   toilsome "  journey,2   the   papal  J*ec*Ption 
legates  at  length  reached  Thessalonica,  where  they  were  papal 

&  fe  .  legates. 

met  by  a  spatharius  candidatus  (an  imperial  life-guards- 
man), whom  the  emperor  had  sent  to  greet  them  and 
escort  them  on  their  journey.  At  the  old  town  of  Selymbria, 
on  the  Propontis,  they  found  awaiting  them  & protospatharius 
(a  captain  of  the  guards),  and  Theognistus,  the  great 
supporter  of  Ignatius  at  Rome,  whom  the  Liber  Pontificalis 
dignifies  with  the  title  of  patriarchate  egumenus,  or  abbot- 
general,  as  it  were.  Forty  horses  from  the  imperial  stables, 
silver  plate,  and  a  crowd  of  servants  were  also  there  ready 
for  their  convenience.  On  Saturday,  September  24,  they 
had  reached  Castrum  Rotundum,  near  San  Stefano,  where 
some  hundreds  of  years  before  legates  of  Pope  Hormisdas, 
who  had  come  on  a  similar  errand,  had  been  received. 
The  following  day  was  fixed  for  their  triumphal  entry 
into  Constantinople.  Mounted  on  horses  with  trappings 
of  gold,  they  were  met  by  all  the  gorgeous  groups  of 
officials  that  formed  the  magnificent  household  with 
which  the  emperors  of  Constantinople  strove  to  impress 
both  the  barbarians  and  their  own  peoples  with  a  sense 
of  their  exalted  power  and  dignity.  There  were  imperial 
chamberlains,  civil  functionaries,  grooms  of  the  imperial 
stables,  various  corps  of  the  guards  in  their  long  white 
tunics,  with  their  golden  shields  and  helmets,  and  with 
their  gold-inlaid  lances  and  swords,  and  lastly,  the  different 

1  Ap.  Labbe,  #.,  p.  ion.     The  letter  is  dated  June  10,  869. 

2  "  Multorum  anfractuum  laboriosos  circuitus  penetrantes."    L.  P.^ 
n.  xxxv. 


200  HADRIAN   II. 

grades  of  the  clergy.  At  the  Golden  Gate,  in  the  south- 
west corner  of  the  city  walls,  they  were  met  and  greeted 
by  deputies  of  the  patriarch,  his  librarian  and  others,  in 
their  ecclesiastical  vestments,  and  by  the  people,  all  bearing 
torches.  Thus,  for  some  three  miles,  were  they  solemnly 
escorted  to  the  palace  of  the  Magnaura,  which  communicated 
by  covered  arcades  with  Saint  Sophia. 
The  Eighth      Most  flattering  was  the  reception  1  given  to  them  by  the 

General 

Council,      emperor   (September   27).      He   received   them   with   the 
869. 

greatest   kindness,   kissed    the   letters   of    the   Pope,   and 

assured  the  envoys  that  "the  Roman  Church,  the  holy 
mother  of  all  the  Churches  of  God,"  had  looked  after  the 
interests  of  the  Church  of  Constaninople,  torn  in  pieces  by 
the  ambition  of  Photius,  and  that  by  the  authority 2  of  the 
letters  of  Pope  Nicholas,  Ignatius  had  been  restored  to  his 
See.  For  two  years,  he  continued,  have  we  and  all  the 
Oriental  patriarchs,  metropolitans,  and  bishops  been  await- 
ing the  decision  of  our  holy  mother  the  Roman  Church ; 
and  we  now  trust  that  at  length  by  the  authority  of  your 
holy  college  (i.e.  the  council)  the  scandals  caused  by 
Photius  may  be  terminated,  and  that  the  long-wished- 
for  unity  may  be  at  last  restored  in  accordance  with  the 
decrees  of  Pope  Nicholas.  The  papal  legates  made  answer 
that  it  was  for  those  purposes  that  they  had  come.  But, 
they  continued,  we  cannot  admit  any  Oriental  into  our 
synod  before  he  has  signed  the  '  libellus  satisfactions' 
which  we  have  brought  from  Ro.ne.  Upon  this  the  emperor 
and  the  patriarch  at  once  asked  what  was  the  purport  of 
the  document,  as  the  demand  was  a  new  one.  At  once 
translated  into  Greek,  the  'libellus'  was  forthwith  signed 
by  some,  and  at  first  rejected  by  others.     However,  these 

1  L.  P.,  §  35  f 

2  "  Quarum  (litterae  Nicolai)  auctoritate  presens  pater  noster  Ignatius 
f  ,  .  .  sedi  propriae  restitutio  est."    3.,  §  39. 


HADRIAN    II.  201 

latter  afterwards  changed  their  minds,  and  were  admitted 
equally  with  the  former  to  the  council.1 

The  Eighth  General  Council  was  solemnly  opened  October  Opening  of 
5,  869.  Apart  from  the  lay  representatives  of  the  emperor,  ocub&J. ' 
the  council  was  at  first  composed  of  the  following  only : 
the  three  legates  of  the  Pope,  the  patriarch  St.  Ignatius, 
Thomas,  archbishop  of  Tyre,  who  came  to  respond  for  the 
See  of  Antioch,  which  was  at  that  time  vacant,  the  priest 
Elias,  who  came  to  represent  Theodosius,  patriarch  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  twelve  bishops  who  had  throughout 
remained  faithful  to  Ignatius. 

Prefixed  to  the  acts2  of  the  Council  there  is  an  '  introduc- 
tion,' which  was  drawn  up  by  the  Greeks  at  the  close  of  the 
synod  ;  and  as  it  sums  up  its  work,  it  may  be  usefully 
cited  here.  It  notes  that  the  S.  Scriptures  had  prepared  us 
for  false  prophets,  for  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing,  for  trees 
which  bring  not  forth  good  fruit.  Such  was  Photius.  But 
Pope  Nicholas,  the  new  Elias,  had  slain  the  wolf  and  cut 
down  the  barren  tree.  With  his  good  work  had  the 
emperor  Basil  co-operated. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  session  of  the  council,  the  First 

session  of 

1  Direct  from  the  L.  P.,  n.  xl.     The  Greek  Liber  Synodicus  calls  this  ^  euncil 
council  "the  divine  sacred  ecumenical  eighth  synod:  &ttav  kuI  Upo,v 
olKovjxiviKT]v  6y56r}v  *Lw65oi>*      Cf.    Leo    Allatius,  De   octava  synodo, 
Rome,  1662. 

2  The  original  acts  of  this  council  were  lost  when  the  papal  legates 
on  their  return  from  Constantinople  fell  into  the  hands  of  Slavonic 
pirates.  Our  knowledge  of  its  doings  is  derived  from  a  careful  transla- 
tion of  a  copy  of  the  original  Greek  acts.  Both  the  copy  and  the  version 
were  made  by  Anastasius,  the  librarian,  who  reached  the  imperial  city 
before  the  close  of  the  council.  He  had  been  sent  by  the  Emperor  Louis 
II.  to  negotiate  the  betrothal  of  his  daughter  to  the  infant  son  (Constan- 
tine)  of  Basil,  and  by  the  Pope  for  the  express  purpose  of  making  a 
translation  of  the  Acts.  This  translation  of  Anastasius,  with  his  notes, 
is  still  extant,  and  is  to  be  found  among  his  works,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  or 
in  the  Councils,  Labbe,  viii.  961  f. ;  Mansi,  xvi.,  etc.  Anastasius,  in  his 
preface  to  his  translation,  tells  us  of  the  great  care  with  which  he  made 
the  translation.     There  is  also  extant  a  Greek  abridgment  of  the  '  Acts.' 


202  HADRIAN    II. 

papal  legates  were  rather  startled  by  being  asked  to  read  the 
papers  showing  their  powers  ;  but  complied  when  it  was 
pointed  out  to  them  that  the  request  was  made  not  out  of 
any  want  of  respect1  for  the  Holy  See,  but  because  the 
previous  legates,  Radoald  and  Zachary,  had  not  acted  in 
accordance  with  their  instructions.  After  the  credentials 
of  the  envoys  of  all  the  patriarchs  had  been  found 
satisfactory,  the  '  libellus  satisfactionis '  was  then  read  in 
both  Latin  and  Greek.  This  document,  substantially  the 
same  as  that  of  Pope  Hormisdas  (519),  opened  by  pro- 
claiming that  it  was  of  the  first  importance  to  guard  the 
rule  of  the  true  faith.  And  "  in  the  Apostolic  See 2  the 
Catholic  religion  has  ever  been  preserved  immaculate." 
Desiring,  continues  the  document,  never  to  be  separated 
from  this  faith,  and  following  in  everything  the  decisions 
(constitute?)  of  the  Fathers,  and  especially  of  the  prelates  of 
the  Apostolic  See,  we  anathematise  all  heresies,  the  icono- 
clasts, and  Photius,  as  long  as  he  shall  remain  disobedient 
to  the  decrees  of  the  Roman  pontiffs,  and  refuse  to  anathe- 
matise the  acts  of  the  so-called  council  (conciliabtilum), 
which  he  had  gathered  together,  outraging  the  Apostolic 
See.  We  follow  the  synod  held  by  Pope  Nicholas,  and 
subscribed  by  you,  O  supreme  Pontiff  Hadrian,  and 
the  one  which  you  yourself  have  lately  held.  And  we  will 
hold  to  all  that  has  been  therein  decreed,  and  condemn 
all  those  who  have  been  there  condemned — viz.,  Photius,  his 
partisans,  and  the  robber-synods  which  he  held  against 
Ignatius  and  against  "  the  principate  of  the  Apostolic  See." 

1  "  Nos  propter  inhonorantiam  apostolici  throni  non  dicimus  hoc,  sed 
quia  anteriores  vestri  accedentes  missi,  Radoaldus  scilicet  et  Zacharias, 
deceperunt  nos,  alia  in  mandatis  habentes,  et  alia  facientes."  P.  Z., 
id.,  31. 

2  "  In  sede  apostololica  immaculata  est  semper  catholica  reservata 
religio  et  sancta  celebrata  doctrina."  The  libellus  is  printed  in  full  in 
the  acts  of  the  first  session  of  the  council,  e.g.  ap.  P.  L.,  id.,  p.  36. 


HADRIAN    II.  203 

With  regard  to  Ignatius  and  those  of  his  party,  "we  follow 
devoutly  what  the  authority  of  your  Apostolic  See  has 
decided."  The  Libellus  was  at  once  accepted  by  the  whole 
synod.1  After  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Oriental  patriarchs,  that  all— as  they  did 
themselves— ought  to  obey  the  decrees  of  Pope  Nicholas, 
the  session  closed  with  the  customary  acclamations  in 
honour  of  the  emperor,  popes  Nicholas  and  Hadrian,  the 
patriarchs  of  the  East,  and  the  synod 


After   this  detailed    account   of  the  first  session  of  the  The  other 

.  ,  sessions  of 

council,  the  work  of  the  other  sessions  must  be  given  in  the 
brief,   as   to   narrate   at  large   the   history  of  the  council 


belongs  rather  to  the  historian  of  the  history  of  the  Church 
than  to  the  biographer  of  the  popes.  In  the  second  session 
the  bishops  who  had  been  consecrated  by  Ignatius  and  his 
predecessor  Methodius,  but  who  had  had  the  misfortune 
afterwards  to  take  sides  with  Photius,  were  allowed  by  the 
legates  to  take  their  seats  in  the  council,  on  the  conditions 
of  repentance  and  signing  the  'libellus.'  Hence  in  the 
third  session  there  were  present,  over  and  above  the 
Roman    legates,  Ignatius    and    the  vicars  of  the  Oriental 

1  "Tota  sancta  synodus  exclamavit  :  Juste  et  convenienter  lectus 
nobis  libellus  expositus  est  a  S.  Rom.  Ecclesia,  et  propterea  omnibus 
placet."  lb.,  p.  39.  In  one  of  his  notes  Anastasius  here  informs  us 
that,  after  the  libellus  had  been  signed,  and  the  various  copies,  with 
the  signatures  of  the  bishops  attached,  had  been  handed  over  to  the 
papal  legates,  some  of  those  who  had  signed  insinuated  to  the  emperor 
and  to  Ignatius  that  a  great  mistake  had  been  made  in  thus  submitting 
the  Church  of  Constantinople  to  that  of  Rome.  Influenced  by  this 
representation,  Basil  contrived  to  get  a  considerable  number  of  the 
signed  documents  stolen  from  the  legates.  When,  however,  on  dis- 
covering the  loss,  the  papal  envoys  boldly  urged  the  emperor  to  insist 
on  an  open  and  public  recantation  if  it  was  thought  that  the  libellus 
ought  not  to  have  been  signed,  Basil  had  the  documents  restored,  saying 
that  he  had  approached  the  Apostolic  See  "as  the  mistress  of  ecclesi- 
astical affairs  "  {ut  magistram  cedes,  negotiorum),  and  so  he  would  obey 
not  his  own  feelings  but  their  judgment.  P.  L.,  ib.,  p.  39.  Cf.  L.  P., 
n.  45  f- 


204  HADRIAN   II. 

patriarchs,  twenty-three  bishops  ;  and  the  number  gradually 
increased  as  time  went  on.  As  Photius  would  not  listen 
to  any  exhortations  to  confess  his  misdeeds,  but  affected 
the  silence  of  innocence,1  he  was  solemnly  anathematised 
(seventh  session,  October  29).  In  the  eighth  session 
(November  5)  there  were  burnt  before  his  eyes  the  false  acts 
of  the  synods  which  he  had  held  against  Ignatius  and  Pope 
Nicholas,2  and  other  documents  to  which  he  had  illegally 
obtained  signatures.  Iconoclasm  was  also  condemned  in 
this  session.  By  the  ninth  session  (February  12,  870) 
sixty-six  bishops  had  assembled,  and  the  representatives 
of  the  patriarchal  Sees  received  an  addition  to  their  number 
in  the  person  of  the  monk  Joseph,  archdeacon  of  Michael, 
or  Chail  I.,  patriarch  of  Alexandria.3  Joseph  expressed  in 
writing  his  adhesion  to  what  had  been  decided  by  the 
"  vicars  of  Old  Rome  and  of  the  Oriental  Sees."  The 
tenth  and  last  session  (February  28,  870)  saw  present  the 
ambassadors  of  the  Emperor  Louis  II.,  among  whom  was 
the  versatile  Anastasius,  some  twelve  envoys  from  the 
king  of  the  Bulgarians,  and  102  bishops.  The  compara- 
tively small  number  of  bishops  who  attended  this  synod 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  a  very  large  number  of  sees  had 
been  filled  up  by  Photius  with  his  creatures,  and  that,  as 
most  of  them   adhered   to  him  and  to   his  schism,  they 

1  "Ad  extremam  taciturnitatis  inertiam  devolutus."  L.  P.,  n.  xli. 
Cf.  the  acts  of  the  fifth  session.  To  the  customary  acclamations  at 
the  close  of  this  session,  a  set  of  verses  are  appended  in  the  Acts. 
They  denounce  : 

"  Photius,  who  erst  th'  unconquered  rock 
Would  feign  with  fraud  and  folly  break, 
Is  now,  like  savage  beast,  expelled 
His  See's  unspotted  couch  and  church. 

Nicholas,  Hadrian,  full  wise 
Were  judges  with  Ignatius  blest 
With  triple  chiefs  of  Eastern  faith." 
8  L.  P.-,  ib.         3  Cf.  Neale's  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  ii.  162  f. 


HADRIAN    II.  205 

were  not  allowed  to  take  part  in  the  deliberations  of  the 
council. 

The  twenty-seven  canons,  which  were  published  in  this 
session,  were  inserted  in  a  condensed  form  in  the  '  defini- 
tion ' l  (opos,  terminus)  put  forth  as  usual  by  the  council. 
Particular  mention  need  here  only  be  made  of  the  twenty- 
first,  as  it  directly  concerns  the  Popes.  It  forbids  any  dis- 
play of  want  of  respect  towards  any  of  the  five  patriarchs, 
"especially  (praecipue)  towards  the  most  holy  Pope  of 
Holy  Rome,"  against  whom  no  one  may  presume  to  speak 
or  write.  Should  any  difficulty  arise  regarding  the  Roman 
Church,  modest  enquiries  may  be  made  about  it,  but  not 
even  a  universal  synod  "may  audaciously  pass  decrees 
against  the  supreme  pontiffs  of  Old  Rome." 

After  reaffirming  the  decrees  of  the  previous  seven  general 
councils,  the  '  definition '  proclaimed  that  Photius,  "a2  man 
who  trusted  in  his  varied  cunning,"  had  come  to  such  a 
pitch  of  arrogance  as  to  vent  his  spleen  on  the  most 
blessed  Pope  Nicholas.  In  his  pretended  synod  "  he  dared 
to  anathematise  the  Pope  and  all  who  communicated  with 
him,"  i.e.  as  the  definition  adds,  all  the  bishops  and  priests 
throughout  the  world,  for  all  were  in  communion  with 
Pope  Nicholas.  And  so  "  this  holy  and  universal  synod  " 
now  condemns  Photius  as  popes  Nicholas  and  Hadrian 
have  already  done. 

As  soon  as  the  Acts  of  the  council  had  been  drawn  up 
and  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  legates,  "  to  guard  against 
Greek  fraud,"3  they  placed  them  for  careful  examination 

1  Ap.  P.  L.,  #.,  p.  162  f. 

2  "  Miser  Photius  ....  speravit  in  multitudine  versutiarum  suarum. 
....  In  supremam  quippe  arrogantiam  elatus  est  contra  b.  P. 
Nicolaum,  malitiae  suae  venenum  evomuit." 

3  "  Ne  quid  Greca  levitas  falsum  suatim  congesserit."  L.  P.,  n.  xlii. 
Cf.  what  Anastasius  says  of  himself  and  of  his  work  regarding  the  text 
of  this  synod,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  17,  in  his  oft-mentioned  preface. 


206  HADRIAN   II. 

in  the  custody  of  Anastasius,  the  librarian,  who  had  come 
to  Constantinople  on  behalf  of  Louis  II.,  to  negotiate  a 
marriage  between  his  daughter  and  the  son  of  Basil.  He 
was  present  at  the  last  session  of  the  council,  and  was 
officially  described  as  an  "apocrisiarius  of  Louis,  emperor 
of  the  Italians  and  Franks,"  not,  be  it  noticed,  "emperor 
of  the  Romans!'  Anastasius  soon  discovered  that  the 
additions  "  in  praise  of  our  most  serene  emperor,"  which 
Hadrian,  on  the  instigation  of  Arsenius,  had  added  to  the 
letter  of  Nicholas,  had  been  erased.  In  great  indignation 
the  papal  legates  declared  they  would  not  subscribe  the 
acts  unless  the  Pope's  letter  were  inserted  in  its  entirety. 
But  the  Greeks  simply  declared  that  they  had  not  met 
together  to  deliberate  about  imperial  titles,  but  about  the 
things  of  God.  The  legates,  therefore,  resolved  to  sign 
the  synodal  decrees  only  conditionally.1 
The  sign-  Five  copies  of  the  Acts  (one  for  each  of  the  patriarchs) 
•'Acts.'  e  were  prepared  for  signature.  The  papal  legates  signed 
first,  and  each  of  them  used  the  same  restrictive  formula  as 
Donatus,  whose  signature  headed  the  list,  and  ran  as 
follows :  "  I,  Donatus,  by  the  grace  of  God,  bishop  of  the 
Holy  Church  of  Ostia,  holding  the  place  of  my  lord 
Hadrian,  supreme  Pontiff  and  universal  Pope,  presiding 
over  this  holy  and  universal  synod,  have  promulgated  all 
that  is  read  above,  and  have  with  my  own  hand  put  my 
signature  to  it,  till  the  will  of  the  aforesaid  pre-eminent 
prelate  (be  made  known)."  The  signatures  of  the  Emperor 
Basil  and  his  two  sons  followed  those  of  the  patriarchs,  and 
then  came  the  signatures  of  the  102  bishops. 
The  sensa-       Nicetas,2  indeed,  asserts,  on  the  authority  of  having  heard 

tional  story 

of  Nicetas.       1  a  ^d  hoc  usque  perventum  est  ut  interposita  conditione  voluntatis 

apostolical  diffinitis   sententiis  minus  diffinite  subscriberent."    L.  P., 

n.  xliii. 

2  In  vit.  fg.,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1231. 

this  work. 


HADRIAN   II.  207 

it  '  from  those  who  knew/  what  he  might  well  call  '  a  most 
awful  thing,'  viz.,  that  the  bishops,  when  signing  this  decree, 
dipped  their  pens  not  into  ink  but  into  the  Sacred  Blood 
of  Our  Saviour,  contained  in  the  consecrated  chalice.  But 
of  this  there  is  not  a  word  in  the  Acts  of  the  Council ;  nor 
has  Anastasius,  who  has  left  us  notes  in  connection  with 
this  synod  on  much  less  striking  points,  a  word  to  say- 
about  so  extraordinary  a  proceeding.  And  as  the  Acts 
specially  mention  that  the  emperors'  signatures  were 
countersigned  by  Christopher,  the  first  of  the  secretaries 
and  "  keeper  of  the  purple  ink,"1  it  is  hard  to  believe  that, 
had  the  bishops  not  signed  with  ink,  such  a  circumstance 
would  not  have  been  mentioned.  Besides,  we  do  not  know 
who  those  were  '  that  knew  '  and  told  Nicetas — not  one  of 
the  bishops,  or  he  would  have  said  so.  There  seems,  there- 
fore, no  need  to  attach  any  credence  to  the  story. 

In   addition   to  an   encyclical   letter  to  all  the    faithful  Letters  of 

the 

recounting  what  it  had  done,  the  synod  addressed  a  letter  Council, 
to  Hadrian,2  asking  him  to  confirm  the  decisions  of  the 
council,  which  were  practically  his  own,  and  to  publish 
them.  Letters3  to  him  followed,  somewhat  later,  from  the 
emperor  and  Ignatius  also.  Both  of  them  write  to  ask  the 
Pope  to  allow  of  certain  exceptions  to  be  made  in  the 
matter  of  the  decision  not  to  allow  any  of  those  who  had 

1  The  ink  used  by  the  emperors  in  writing  charters. 

2  Ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  190.  The  letter  calls  Nicholas  and  Hadrian 
"  veri  pastores  rationabilium  ovium  Christi,  quinimo  summi  pastores 
et  principes  omnium  ecclesiarum.  .  .  .  Prasdica  earn  (synodum) 
magis,  ac  veluti  propriam,  et  sollicitius  confirma  coangelicis  prascep- 
tionibus  et  admonitionibus  vestris,  ut  per  sapientissimum  magisterium 
vestrum  etiam  aliis  universis  ecclesiis  personet." 

3  lb.,  p.  191  f.  The  letter  of  Ignatius  adds  one  more  testimony  to 
the  innumerable  others  furnished  by  the  Acts  of  this  Council,  to  the 
fact  that  the  Greeks  acknowledged  the  primacy  of  the  See  of  Peter. 
He  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  making  Rome,  through  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, 
"eximiam  principalem  app.  summitatem,"  and  as  making  it  even  more 
famous  'in  our  time  '  through  Nicholas  and  Hadrian. 


208  HADRIAN    II. 

been  ordained  by  Photius  to  exercise  their  functions.  And 
the  emperor  expresses  astonishment  that  he  has  not  heard 
of  the  safe  return  of  the  papal  legates. 

In  a  letter,1  dated  November  10,  871,  the  Pope,  in  reply 
to  the  emperor,  thanks  God  that  he  has  shown  such  care 
for  religion,  and  for  seeking,  in  accordance  with  ancient 
law,  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  See  on  disputed  questions. 
But  he  lets  Basil  see  how  indignant  he  is  that  his  legates 
were  so  far  neglected  after  the  council  that  (as  has  been 
narrated  above2)  they  fell  into  the  hands  of  pirates  and 
were  completely  robbed;  and  that  he  has  given  his 
countenance  to  Ignatius's  consecration  of  a  bishop  in 
Bulgaria — of  which  more  hereafter.  He  begs  Basil  to 
hinder  Ignatius  from  interfering  in  that  country,  or  else  the 
patriarch  and  others  who  may  there  exercise  any  ecclesi- 
astical functions  will  find  themselves  excommunicated.  In 
fine,  he  cannot  see  his  way  to  altering  the  decision  come 
to  against  those  who  have  been  ordained  by  Photius.3 

The  Before  the  papal  legates  started  on  their  disastrous  home- 

Bulgarian  .      .       r  r        ** 

Question,    ward  journey  they  were  inveigled  into  a  discussion  on  the 

patriarchal  rights  over  Bulgaria.  It  has  been  already4 
stated  that  Pope  Nicholas  refused  the  request  of  King 
Boris  that  he  might  be  allowed  to  have  Formosus  of  Porto 
as  his  archbishop,  and  even  terminated  the  latter's  mission 
to  the  Bulgarians  by  ordering  him  to  proceed  to  Con- 
stantinople.5 But  he  so  far  complied  with  the  king's  wishes 
that  he  had  commissioned  a  fresh  band  of  missionaries  to 
set  out  for  Bulgaria  when  his  death  interfered  with  their 
departure.     One  of  the  first  acts,  however,  of  Hadrian  was 

1  Ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1 173  f.  2  Cf.  L.  P.,  in  vit.,  §  59  f. 

3  On  the  whole  of  this  synod,  cf.  Hefele,  v.  494  f.  (French  ed.).  On 
the  theory  of  the  pentarchia  of  the  five  patriarchates  in  the  Church, 
which  was  more  than  insinuated  by  certain  of  the  Greeks  in  this 
Council,  cf.  Jungmann,  Diss.,  xvii.  §  90  f. 

4  Supra,  p.  1 18.  6  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Nic,  §§  74,  75. 


HADRIAN   II.  209 

to  despatch  the  missionaries  (867),  furnishing  them  with 
the  letters  which  had  been  drawn  up  by  Pope  Nicholas,  but 
which  he  now  sent  in  his  own  name,  to  show  that,  "as  far 
as  the  stormy  state  of  the  times  would  permit,"  he  intended 
to  walk  in  the  footsteps  of  his  predecessor.1 

Whether  he  went  to  Constantinople  or  not,  Formosus 
remained  some  time  longer  in  Bulgaria.  But  he  returned 
to  Rome  apparently  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  year  868, 
and  was  present  at  the  council  held  there  in  June  869. 
Finding  that  he  could  not  get  his  favourite  Formosus 
made  archbishop  of  Bulgaria,  Boris  sent  him  to  Rome  to 
ask  that  the  deacon  Marinus  might  be  given  that  post. 
Marinus  had  taken  the  wild  monarch's  fancy  when,  in  866, 
sent  by  Nicholas,  he  passed  through  Bulgaria  to  try  to 
reach  Constantinople  by  that  route.  The  legates  of  Boris 
were  further  instructed  to  the  effect  that,  if  they  could  not 
obtain  the  consecration  of  Marinus  as  their  new  archbishop, 
they  were  to  ask  that  one  of  the  cardinal-priests  of  the  Roman 
Church  might  be  sent  out  for  their  approval.2  A  request 
for  a  man  who  "  in  character,  learning,  and  appearance  was 
most  worthy  of  the  archiepiscopate,"  shows  at  once  the 
wisdom  of  Boris  himself,  and  his  estimate  of  Formosus,  who 
was  evidently  his  ideal  of  a  bishop.  As  Marinus  had 
already  been  selected  to  represent  the  Pope  at  the  General 
Council,  and  was,  moreover, unwilling  to  go,  Hadrian  "sent 
a  certain  subdeacon  Silvester"  for  the  approval  of  the 
Bulgarians.  He  was,  however,  promptly  sent  back  by 
Boris,  who  most  earnestly  requested  that  an  archbishop, 
or  Formosus  of  Porto,  might  be  granted  him.  This 
importunity   on    behalf  of  Formosus  has  been  attributed 

1  L.  P.,  invit.  Had.,  §12. 

2  "  Quern  (aliquem  ex  cardinalibus)  post  approbationem  eorundem 
(Bulgarum)  denuo  remeantem  archiepiscopali  ministerio  sublimaret 
(Hadrianus)."     L.  P.,  n.  61. 

VOL.    III.  14 


210  HADRIAN   II. 

both  by  his  contemporaries  and  by  moderns  to  his  own 
intrigues.  Hence,  when  he  was  condemned  by  John  VIII. 
in  876.  it  was  declared  that  he  had  so  played  upon  the  new 
convert  that,  under  oath,  he  had  engaged  Boris  not  to  accept 
any  other  archbishop  than  himself,  and  had  in  turn  agreed 
to  come  back  as  soon  as  he  could.1  Other  authors,  however, 
are  inclined  to  believe  that  Boris  acted  as  he  did  from 
genuine  admiration  for  the  character  of  Formosus,  that  he 
was  anxious  for  a  hierarchy  that  would  rival  that  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  that  he  thought  that  Formosus  would  be 
no  mean  match  even  for  the  learned  Photius.  At  any  rate, 
when  he  found  that  his  request  had  not  been  granted — for 
Hadrian,  who  evidently  did  not  care  to  have  another  man 
of  his  choice  rejected,  had  only  written  back  to  say  that  he 
would  consecrate  any  one  (other  than  Formosus)  whom 
Boris  might  choose  to  select — he  became  utterly  impatient, 
and  turned  to  Constantinople.2 
The  envoys      His   envoys    reached   the   imperial  city  (February  870) 

of  Boris  at     .  . 

the  Eighth  in  time,  as  we  have  seen,  to  take  part  in  the  last  session  of 
Council,  the  council.  Whether  Basil's  procuring  the  aid  of  the  Pope 
to  put  an  end  to  the  religious  strife  of  his  empire  was  a  mere 
political  move  or  not,  his  action  with  regard  to  Bulgaria  was 
certainly  dictated  by  motives  of  worldly  policy.  Bulgaria, 
spiritually  dependent  upon  his  patriarch,  would  be  a  step 
nearer  to  being  altogether  submissive  to  his  power.  He 
determined,  therefore,  to  bring  about  its  ecclesiastical 
subjection    to   Constantinople.       Accordingly,   three   days 

1  Ep.  Joan.  VIII.,  Ep.  24,  ap.  P.L.,  t.  126^.675.  "  Regis  animos  adeo 
suis  calliditatibus  vitiavit,  ut  terribilibus  sacramentis  eum  sibi  obstrinxisse 
testatus  sit,  ne  se  vivo  quemlibet  episcopum  a  sede  apostolica 
suscipisset,"  etc. 

2  L.  P.,  §§  62,  63.  A  modern  author  in  The  Balkans^  pt.  ii.,  Bulgaria, 
(Story  of  the  Nations  Series),  p.  134,  attributes  the  turning  of  Boris  to 
Constantinople  "to  the  accession  of  the  emperor  Basil  I.  who  had  been 
as  a  boy  a  Bulgarian  prisoner." 


HADRIAN    II.  211 

after  the  completion  of  the  council  and  the  signing  of  the 
acts,  with  artful  intent  (callide),  he  called  a  meeting  in  his 
palace  of  the  papal  legates,  St.  Ignatius,  the  representatives 
of  the  three  other  patriarchs,  the  envoys  of  Boris,  and  a  few 
others  to  receive  the  letters  of  the  Bulgarian  monarch.  The 
envoys  of  the  king  opened  the  proceedings  by  saying  that 
their  master,  hearing  that  "  by  the  apostolic  authority  "  an 
assembly  to  deliberate  on  the  needs  of  the  Church  had  been 
gathered  together  from  all  parts,  had  sent  them  to  enquire 
from  it  to  what  Church  the  Bulgarians  ought  to  be  subject. 
They  were  at  once  told  by  the  papal  legates  that  they 
belonged  to  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  and  that  their  king 
had  dedicated  himself  and  his  people  to  Blessed  Peter,  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  from  whose  successor,  Nicholas,  he 
had  received  not  only  instructions  as  to  how  his  people  were 
to  live,  but  also  bishops  and  priests.  That  they  were  still 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Church,  they  showed 
by  the  fact  that  they  had  yet  in  honour  among  them  the 
ecclesiastics  who  had  been  thus  sent.  The  Bulgarians, 
however,  while  acknowledging  all  this,  called  for  a  formal 
definition  of  their  ecclesiastical  position.  But  the  legates 
declared  that  all  the  matters  with  which  they  had  been  com- 
missioned to  deal  had  been  settled  in  the  council;  but  that, 
as  far  as  they  were  concerned,  they  would  not  agree  to 
Bulgaria's  being  subject  to  any  patriarchal  jurisdiction  other 
than  that  of  Rome,  seeing  that  the  whole  country  was  full 
of  Latin  priests.  Here  the  Orientals  interjected  that,  when 
the  Bulgarians  took  possession  of  their  present  country 
they  found  Greek  priests  there,  and  argued  that  hence 
its  present  occcupants  ought  to  be  under  the  ecclesi- 
astical jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
Against  this  the  papal  legates  keenly  urged  that  it  was 
undoubted  that  at  first  both  the  old  and  new  Epirus, 
Thessaly,  and    Dardania,  including  the  present  capital  of 


212  .HADRIAN    IT. 

the  Bulgarian  kingdom  l  (Achrida,  the  ancient  Lychnidos), 
were  included  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as 
patriarch  of  the  West.  They  further  contended  that  the 
Bulgarians  had  of  their  own  accord  voluntarily  submitted 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  Rome,  and  that  finally  the  mission- 
aries from  Rome  had,  in  fact,  converted  the  nation  and 
ruled  it  for  three  years.  Besides,  continued  the  legates, 
the  Holy  Apostolic  See  judges,  but  is  not  judged  ;  to  that 
See,  which  is  as  easily  able  to  annul  any  decision  you  may 
come  to,  as  you  are  inconsiderately  to  form  one,  to  it  we 
reserve  all  decision  on  this  matter.-  Thereupon  the  vicars 
of  the  Oriental  patriarchs  declared  that  it  was  anything  but 
right  that  the  Romans,  who  were  separated  from  the 
Greek  empire,  and  had  allied  themselves  with  the  Franks, 
should  be  able  to  hold  ordinations  within  the  Greek 
dominions,  and  that  they  decided  that  Bulgaria  must  pass 
under  the   jurisdiction  of  Constantinople.     But  the  papal 

1  At  least  it  is  most  likely  that  such  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase, 
"  Dardania  civitas,"  of  the  L.  P.  .  .  .  "atque  Dardaniam,  in  qua  et 
Dardania  civitas  hodie  demonstratur."  Achrida  was  situated  in  '  New 
Epirus.'  Though  part  of  the  then  kingdom  of  Bulgaria  (viz.,  its  eastern 
portion)  had  never  been  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  of  the 
West,  the  legates  argued  that  '  Bulgaria '  had  of  old  been  subject  to  the 
Pope,  as  patriarch  of  the  West,  because  its  western  portion,  and 
particularly  its  capital  city,  used  to  be,  before  the  violent  action  of  the 
iconoclast  Leo,  'the  Isaurian,'  had  deprived  him  of  it.  With  the  above 
passage  of  the  L.  P.  on  the  ancient  jurisdiction  of  the  patriarch  of  the 
West  in  those  parts,  compare  the  following  from  Anastasius  {Prcrfat 
in  Synod,  Oct.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  19) :  "  Nam  tota  Dardania,  Thcssalia, 
Dacia  et  utraque  Epirus,  atque  ceterae  regiones  juxta  Istrum  fluvium 
sitae  apostolicae  sedis  vestrae  moderamine  antiquitus  praecipue  rege- 
bantur  et  disponebantur.  .  .  .  Sed  imperatores  Romanorum,  qui  nunc 
Graecorum  appellantur  ....  privilegia  Sedis  Ap.  corrumpunt,  et  pene 
omnia  jura  disponendarum  diceceseon  auferunt,"  etc.  Perhaps 
Dardania  civitas  refers  to  the  ancient  capital  of  Dardania,  Scupi 
(Uskub),  afterwards  Justiniana  Prima.     Cf.  supra,  p.  118  ff. 

2  "  S.  sedes  apost.  vos,  quia  revera  inferiores  estis,  super  sua  causa 
judices  nee  elegit,  nee  per  nos  elegit,  utpote  quae  de  omni  ecclesia  sola 
specialiter  fas  habeat  judicandi,"  etc.     L.  P.,  n.  55. 


HADRIAN    II.  213 

legates  at  once  proclaimed  their  sentence  of  no  value,  and 
solemnly  adjured  Ignatius,  by  God,  His  angels,  and  all 
those  present,  not  to  presume  to  ordain  anyone  for 
Bulgaria,  or  to  send  any  of  his  subjects  thither.  This 
prohibition,  they  said,  they  made  in  accordance  with  a 
letter  of  Pope  Hadrian  which  they  handed  him.  Though 
much  pressed  to  do  so,  Ignatius  would  not  open  the  letter, 
but  vaguely  declared  that  he  would  never  be  so  pre- 
sumptuous as  to  act  against  the  honour  of  the  Holy  See.1 

To  this  account  of  the  conference  on  the  { Bulgarian 
question/  furnished  by  the  Book  of  the  Popes,  a  few 
important  additions  must  be  made  from  the  introduction  to 
his  translation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Eighth  General  Council 
by  Anastasius.  He  was  at  Constantinople  at  the  time 
when  the  conference  was  held.  The  librarian  assures  us, 
in  the  first  place,  that  it  is  by  no  means  2  certain  that  the 
vicars  of  the  Oriental  patriarchs  ever  really  did  decide  in 
favour  of  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria 
passing  to  Constantinople.  For,  to  begin  with,  the  con- 
ference was  a  ' packed ' 3  one,  from  which  Anastasius 
himself,  whose  thorough  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Latin 
would  have  been  of  great  assistance  to  the  papal  legates, 
was  carefully  excluded.  Only  one  interpreter  was  admitted 
to  the  meeting,  and  he  was  merely  allowed  to  exercise  his 
office  in  accordance  with  instructions  received  from  the 
emperor.  That  is,  the  words  of  the  papal  legates  and  the 
Orientals  were  so  arranged  as  to  deceive  the  Bulgarian 
envoys,  who  were  given  a  document  in  which  it  was  set 

1  "Absit  a  me  ut  ego  his  presumptionibus  contra  decorem  sedis 
apostolicas  implicer."     lb.,  n.  58. 

2  "  Hoc  ipsum  (viz.,  Bulgarorum  dicecesim  urbi  fore  subjiciendam) 
an  loci  servatores  Orientis  decreverint,  nullis  certis  firobetur  indiciis" 
Prcefat.,  1.  c,  p.  20. 

3  "  Nulli  deforis  venienti  patebat  aditus,  nisi  cui  vel  imperator  vel 
patriarcha  forsitan  permisisset."     lb.,  p.  21. 


214  HADRIAN    II. 

out  that   the  Oriental  vicars  had  decided  between  Rome 
and  Constantinople  in  favour  of  the  latter.1 
Greek  The   sequel  to   this   disreputable  affair  was  that  Greek 

tics  again  clergy  were  again  introduced  into  Bulgaria.  One,  Theo- 
'  phylactus,2  was  consecrated  its  archbishop  by  Ignatius, 
and  the  Latin  clergy,  according  to  the  report  of  Bishop 
Grimwald,  were  expelled.  The  papal  biographer,  however, 
assures  us,  on  the  authority  of  the  banished  clergy,  that  they 
were  not  so  much  driven  out  by  the  Greeks  or  Bulgarians 
as  betrayed  for  gold  by  their  bishop  himself  (Grimwald). 
It  was  to  no  purpose  that  Hadrian  wrote  (November  10, 
871)  both  to  the  emperor3  and  to  Ignatius  to  protest 
against  the  conduct  of  the  latter.  Although,  as  we  shall 
see,  successors  of  Hadrian  endeavoured  to  bring  back  the 
Bulgarians  to  their  allegiance  to  Rome,  it  was  all  in  vain. 
After  considerable  coquetting  with  both  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople, they,  most  unfortunately  for  themselves,  threw 
in  their  lot  with  the  decaying  East ;  and,  until  compara- 
tively quite  recently,  shared  in  the  ' decline  and  fall '  of 
Constantinople.  On  December  30,  i860,  a  section  of  the 
Bulgarians  united  themselves  with  the  See  of  Rome.4 
But   when,  a   few   years   ago   (1896),   a   little   display   of 

1  Still  the  preface.  Both  Anastasius  (p.  20)  and  the  Pope's  biographer 
(L.  P.,  n.  63)  speak  of  bribes  being  freely  used  by  the  Greeks  to  draw 
off  the  Bulgarians  from  their  allegiance  to  the  See  of  Rome. 

2  It  seems  to  have  been  to  this  bishop  that  Petrus  Siculus  dedicated 
his  Historia  Manic htzorurn  seu  Paulicianoriim  who  were  to  spread 
their  heresy  in  Bulgaria,  and  thence  into  the  rest  of  Europe. 

3  For  the  letter  to  the  emperor,  see  above,  p.  208.  Only  a  fragment  of 
the  letter  to  Ignatius  (ap.  Mansi,  xvi.)  is  extant. 

4  Hergenrother,  Hist.  Eccles.,  viii.  26  f.  The  influence  acquired 
by  Russia  in  the  Balkans,  after  the  Russo-Turkish  War  (1877-8),  was 
fatal  to  the  movement  in  favour  of  reunion  with  Rome.  In  1872 
the  dismemberment  of  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople  was  still 
further  advanced  by  the  Church  of  the  Bulgarians  declaring  itself 
independent  of  any  ecclesiastical  superior.  Cf.  d'Avril,  La  Bulgarie 
Chretienne,  p.  99  ff. 


HADRIAN   II.  .  215 

character  on  the  part  of  the  Catholic  sovereign  of  Bulgaria 
(Ferdinand  I.)  would  have  paved  the  way  to  the  reunion 
of  the  whole  country  with  Rome,  the  opportunity  was  lost; 
and,  for  fear  of  losing  his  crown,  estimated  at  more  than 
honour  and  conscience,  he  allowed  his  son — another  Boris 
— to  be  baptized  in  the  Greek  Church. 

Anything  but  pleased  with  the  spirited  conduct  of  the  The  papal 
papal  legates  at  his  secret  conference,  the  emperor,  while  SzedbyG 
loading  them  with  presents,  did  not  trouble  to  take  proper  pir' 
measures  for  their  safe  return  to  Rome.  His  officials  con- 
ducted them  to  Dyrrachium,  and  there  left  them  without 
furnishing  them  with  warships  for  their  sea  voyage.  At 
that  seaport  they  parted  company  with  Anastasius.  With 
his  own  copy  of  the  acts  of  the  council,  and  with  the  libelli 
satisfactionis  of  the  Greek  bishops  which  had  been  entrusted 
to  his  charge,  the  librarian  sailed  to  Siponto,  and  reached 
Rome  in  safety.  But  the  legates,  sailing  by  the  more 
northerly  route  to  Ancona,  were  attacked  by  a  fleet  of 
Slavonic  pirates  from  the  Dalmatian  coast  under  Domagoi', 
grand  Joupan  of  Croatia,  stripped  of  all  they  possessed, 
even  of  trn  original  acts  of  the  council,  made  prisoners, 
and  only  at  length  released  throujh  the  strong  representa- 
tions which  were  made  both  by  the  emperor  and  the  Pope.1 

If,  towards  the  end  of  his  pontificate,  Hadrian  was  ss.  Cyril 
saddened  by  the  defection  of  one  branch  of  the  great  Methodius. 
Slavonic  people,  he  was  gladdened  by  the  conversion  of 
others,  and  by  the  coming  to  Rome  in  the  beginning  of 
his  reign  of  the  apostles  of  the  Slavs,  SS.  Cyril  and 
Methodius.  With  their  glorious  names  Christianity  in  every 
Slavonic  country,  from  Russia  and  Poland  to  Dalmatia  and 
the  border  confines  of  Germany,  is  connected  either  by  the 

1  L.  P.,  n.  59  f.  ;  Anastasius,  in  his  note  to  the  first  session  of  the 
council ;  and  Pope  Hadrian  (Jaffe,  2943),  in  a  letter  to  the  emperor  in 
which  he  reproaches  him  for  his  want  of  care  of  the  legates. 


2l6  .  HADRIAN    II. 

authentic   records   of  certain   history   or   by   a   no   mean 
tradition. 

In  their  endeavours  to  get  control  over  the  Slavs  of 
Moravia,  the  Germans,  unhappily  for  themselves,  replaced 
the  rebel  king  Moimir  by  his  nephew  Rostislav,  or 
Rastiz  —  to  give  two  more  different  spellings  of  his 
name  in  use.1  They  had  replaced  a  weak  enemy  by  a 
powerful  one.  Rastiz  freed  his  people  from  the  arms  of 
the  German,  and  gave  them  Christianity.  Naturally,  how- 
ever, he  turned  elsewhere  than  to  Germany  for  teachers  of 
it.  SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius  were  sent  (c.  863),  at  his 
request,  by  Michael  III.  from  Constantinople.2  Two  men 
better  fitted  by  nature  and  by  grace  for  the  work  to  which 
they  were  called  could  not  well  have  been  found.  The 
two  brothers,  possibly  themselves  of  Slavonic  origin,  were 
born  of  a  good  family  at  Thessalonica  (Salonica),  a  city 
of  the  Eastern  Empire,  then  only  second  in  importance 
to  Constantinople  itself.  It  was  a  city  not  only  crowded 
with  Slavs,  but  in  contact  with  Slav  populations  who  had 
settled  all  round  it.  Before  they  left  their  native  city  the 
two  brothers  had  acquired  that  knowledge  of  the  manners 
and  language  of  the  Slavs  which  they  were  hereafter  to 
turn  to  such  good  account.  Constantine  (born  827),  better 
known  as  Cyril,  the  name  he  took  along  with  the  monastic 
habit  on  his  death-bed,  received  the  most  considerable  part 
of  his  education  at  Constantinople;  for  his  father,  who 
held  an  important  position  among  the  local  authorities  at 
Thessalonica,  could  afford  to  give  his  children  the  best 
education  that  money  could  purchase. 

1  See  above,  p.  ill. 

2  He  sent  in  the  first  instance  to  Pope  Nicholas.  {Cf.  the  letter  of 
Pope  Hadrian  to  Rastiz,  ap.  Leger,  pp.  1 13,  1 14).  Perchance  a  want  of 
suitable  priests  may  have  been  the  cause  why  Nicholas  did  not  comply 
with  the  request  of  Rastiz,  but,  as  Leger  (p.  81  n.)  thinks  possible, 
referred  him  to  Constantinople.     Cf.  Nestor,  c.  20. 


HADRIAN    II.  217 

Among  the  famous  men  under  whom  he  studied  was 
Photius,  with  whom,  as  did  every  other  man  who  came 
under  his  influence,  he  formed  a  close  friendship.  It  was 
on  the  strength  of  this  familiarity  that  the  saint  afterwards 
blamed  him  for  his  attitude  towards  Ignatius,  whilst  the 
latter  was  yet  patriarch.  It  is,  he  said,  because  "  you  are 
quite1  blinded  by  the  smoke  of  avarice  and  jealousy,  that 
the  eyes  of  your  wisdom,  though  naturally  keen,  cannot  see 
the  path  of  justice."  Cyril's  learning  became  so  great  that 
he  received  the  surname  of  the  '  Philosopher.'  Although 
the  highest  offices  of  the  State  were  within  his  reach,  he 
preferred,  after  having  been  ordained  priest,  to  retire  from 
the  world.  It  was  only  with  difficulty  that  he  could  be 
prevailed  upon  to  leave  his  monastery  and  return  to  Con- 
stantinople to  profess  philosophy. 

Methodius,2  who  was  some  years  older  than  his  brother, 
had  qualities  and  experiences  which  his  more  intellectual 
and  retiring  younger  brother  lacked.  He  was  a  man  of 
action.  For  many  years  he  was  governor  of  one  of  the 
Slav  colonies  which  were  then  so  numerous  both  in  the 
East,  in  the  Opsikion  theme  (or  province),  and  in  the  West, 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Andrinople  and  Thessalonica. 
After  a  time,  however,  he  also  withdrew  from  the  world, 
and  betook  himself  to  a  monastery. 

When  the  ambassadors  of  Rastiz  reached  Constantinople, 
in  their  quest  of  Christian  teachers  for  their  country,  Cyril 
had  already  gained  fame  as  a  missionary.  At  the  request 
of  the  emperor  he  had  laboured  among  the  Moslems 
during  the  caliphate  of  Mutawakkil  (847-861);  and  then, 

1  "  Oculi  sapientiae  tuas,  quantumlibet  sint  magni  et  patuli,  avaritiae 
tamen  et  invidiam  fumo  penitus  obcaecati,  tramitem  justitise  videre  non 
possunt."    Anast.,  in  Prcefat.  Synod.  VIII.,  p.  14. 

2  This  Methodius  is  not  the  monk  who  is  said  to  have  painted  a 
picture  of  the  Last  Judgment  for  King  Boris  of  Bulgaria,  which 
frightened  him  into  becoming  a  Christian.     Lapotre,  p.  106,  note. 


2l8  HADRIAN    II. 

along  with  his  brother,  with  complete  success  among  the 
powerful  Khazars  on  the  northern  shores  of  the  Black  Sea. 
It  was  during  this  mission  that  S.  Cyril  obtained  possession 
of  the  relics  of  Pope  St.  Clement  from  the  Crimea.  The 
martyr  had  been  drowned  near  Cherson. 
They  go  to  Although  from  his  previous  toils  Cyril  was,  to  use  the 
Moravians,  words  of  his  biographer,  "  exhausted,  and  worn  with 
disease,"  and  had  retired  to  the  monastery  of  Polychronius 
in  Constantinople,  he  consented,  when  asked  by  the 
emperor,  to  go  with  his  brother  to  labour  for  Christ  among 
the  Moravians.  Before  the  middle  of  864,  the  brothers  had 
begun  their  new  work.1  Their  amiability  and  gentleness, 
their  learning  and  experience,  their  knowledge  of  the 
Slavonic  tongue,  and  the  administrative  capacity  of 
Methodius,  told  with  wonderful  effect  for  the  spread  of 
Christianity  among  a  people  who  had  hitherto  only  known 
it  as  the  religion  of  the  men  who  were  trying  to  crush  their 
independence,  and  were  as  much  disposed  to  drive  them 
into  the  fold  of  Christ  at  the  points  of  their  lances  as  to 
call  them  into  it  with  His  sweet  words.  Still  further  to 
attract  the  people  to  the  truths  of  Christianity,  St.  Cyril, 
with  his  brother's  aid,  invented  a  practical  Slavonic 
alphabet.  There  had  already  been  in  existence  for  some 
centuries  an  exceedingly  clumsy  alphabet,  known  as  the 
Glagolitic  (from  glagol,  a  sound  or  word),  and  thought  by 
some  to  have  been  invented  by  St.  Jerome,  himself  a  native 
of  Dalmatia.  The  letters  of  the  new  alphabet,  called  from 
the  name  of  our  saint  the  Cyrilic,  were  made  to  follow  the 
order  of  the  Greek  alphabet,  and  new  characters  were  added 
to  the  existing  Glagolitic  to  express  the  sounds  peculiar 

1  According  to  the  Moravian  legend,  they  passed  through  Bulgaria, 
converting  its  inhabitants  as  they  went  along.  "  Egressus  vero  venit 
primo  ad  Bulgaros,  quos  ....  convertit  ad  fidem."  Ap.  Cirillo  e 
Metodio,  p.  31  n.     Cf.  the  Bohcmia?i  and  other  legends,  ib.,  pp.  37,  38. 


HADRIAN    II.  219 

to  the  Slavonic  tongue.1  By  means  of  this  alphabet  the 
brothers  translated  portions  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  Oriental, 
or,  more  probably,  Roman,  liturgical  books  into  Slavonic.2 

The   country   in    which  first  the  two  brothers  together,  Greater 

J  Moravia. 

and  then  Methodius  by  himself,  especially  laboured  was 
Moravia.  But  it  was  a  larger  country  than  that  of  to-day ; 
it  was  the  Moravian  empire  at  the  height  of  its  power 
under  Rastiz  (+870)  and  his  nephew  and  successor 
Swatopluk.  It  embraced  not  only  the  land  north  of  the 
Danube  which  now  bears  that  name,  but  also  Bohemia, 
Silesia,  and  most  of  the  other  provinces  which  make  up 
the  modern  kingdom  of  Austria  proper,  along  with 
Western  Hungary  as  far  as  the  Theiss.     Hence  it  included 

1  Cf  Lapotre,  p.  102  ;  Slavonic  Literature,  by  Morfill,  p.  18  f.  ;  and 
especially  chap.  iv.  of  Neale's  Notes  on  Dalmatia,  and  p.  822  ff.  of 
his  Hist,  of  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  ;  d'Avril,  St.  Cyrille,  c.  4  ff.  ; 
Gaster,  Ilchester  Lectures  on  Gree/co- Slavonic  Literature  (London, 
1 887),  p.  209  ff. ;  and  c.  xiii.  of  Leger.  It  should  be  observed  that  there 
are  very  many  other  theories  as  to  the  Cyrilic  and  Glagolitic  alphabets 
besides  the  one  given  in  the  text.  John  VIII.,  in  a  letter  (Ep.  293)  of 
June  880,  to  Swatopluk,  the  successor  of  Rastiz,  speaks  of  "litteras 
Sclavonicas,  a  Constantino  (Cyrillo)  quodam  philosopho  repertas."  A 
German  source  {Excerptwn  e  libel,  de  convers.  Carent.,  ap.  Migne,  t. 
129,  p.  1272)  speaks  of  the  arrival  in  Carinthia  of  "quidam  Sclavus  ab 
Hystrice  et  Dalmatian  partibus,  nomine  Methodius  qui  adinvenit  Sclavicas 
litteras  et  Scalvice  celebravit  divinum  officium  et  vilescere  fecit  Latinum  ; 
tandem  fugatus  a  Carentanis  partibus  intravit  Moraviam."  The  two 
brothers,  in  fact,  worked  together  at  the  formation  of  the  alphabet. 
Leger  thinks,  not  on  such  good  grounds  seemingly,  that  Cyril  added 
to  the  Greek  alphabet  from  Oriental  languages,  and  that  the  Glagolitic 
alphabet  was  invented  later-was  founded  on  the  Cyrilic  alphabet  and 
was  fashioned  by  the  Western  Slavs  to  differentiate  themselves  from 
the  Eastern  Slavs,  and  thus  save  their  native  liturgy  from  absolute  con- 
demnation by  Rome. 

2  Cf  c.  6  of  d'Avril's  St.  Cyrille,  where  convincing  arguments  are 
adduced  to  show  that  it  was  the  Roman  liturgy  which  the  saints  trans- 
lated. Hence  Innocent  X.  speaks  of  their  liturgy  as  being  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Roman  rite,  but  as  written  in  the  language  of  the  Slavs, 
and  in  characters  which  commonly  bear  the  name  of  St.  Jerome  (Ep. 
of  Feb.  22,  1648,  ap.  ib.%  p.  201). 


220  HADRIAN    II. 

as  well  the  old  imperial  South-Danubian  provinces  of 
Noricum  and  Pannonia  which  had  tasted  of  Roman  civilisa- 
tion and  Christianity,  as  heathen  lands  north  of  the  Danube 
into  which  the  arms  of  Rome  had  not  forced  an  entrance, 
and  into  which  the  Cross  of  Christ  had  been  but  fitfully 
hitherto  carried.  Greater  Moravia  had  neither  a  long  nor  a 
peaceful  existence.  Begun  under  Moimir  I.,  during  the  reign 
of  the  emperor  Louis  the  Pious,  and  after  the  destruction  of 
the  kingdom  of  the  Avars  by  Charlemagne,  this  Slav 
empire  endured  till  the  days  of  Moimir  II.,  when  it  was 
destroyed  by  the  flercesome  Hungarians  at  the  terrible 
battle  of  Presburg  (907).  During  the  whole  period  of  its 
existence  it  had  to  struggle  against  a  strong  tendency  to 
internal  dissolution,  as  its  chiefs  were  but  feebly  attached 
to  the  central  authority,  and  against  the  Germans,  who 
strove  to  subject  it  both  politically  and  ecclesiastically  to  the 
empire  of  the  Franks.  Hence,  while  its  temporal  rulers 
had  to  fight  for  national  independence  with  the  secular 
princes  of  the  Teutons,  its  saintly  Greek  missionaries  had  to 
struggle  against  the  pretensions  of  the  German  hierarchy 
which  claimed  spiritual  jurisdiction  especially  over  the 
Slavs  of  the  South-Danubian  provinces.  For  after  the 
Huns  and  Avars  had  blotted  out  their  primitive  (imperial) 
Christian  organisation,  the  blessings  of  the  faith  had  been 
reintroduced  among  them  by  the  Franks,  and  a  certain 
ecclesiastical  organisation,  subject  to  the  bishops  of  Salz- 
burg, Passau  and  Ratisbon,  established  by  Charlemagne. 
Such  then  was  the  land,  and  such  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  saintly  brothers  carried  on  their  heroic  labours.1 

1  The  area  influenced  by  SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius  may,  to  some 
extent,  be  gathered  from  the  addresses  of  some  of  the  letters  of 
John  VIII.  Cf.  Jane,  2964,  to  Domagoi,  Duke  of  the  Slavs  ;  2972,  to 
Kociel,  Count  or  Prince  of  Pannonia  ;  2973,  to  Muntimir,  Duke  of 
Sclavonia  ;  3259,  to  Branimir,  Duke  of  Croatia  ;  and  3319,  to  Swatopluk, 
Count  or  Prince  of  Pannonia. 


HADRIAN    II.  221 

As  Cyril  was  not  a  bishop,  and  Methodius  not  even  a  The 

.     ,  r '       ,  ,      .  .         brothers  gc 

priest,  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  turn  their  attention  to  Rome, 
to  obtaining  bishops  for  the  Moravians,  that  the  Church  in  J? 
their  country  might  be  put  on  a  proper  and  independent 
basis.  It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Pope  Nicholas  sent  for 
them  to  come  to  Rome.  That  they  should  be  summoned 
to  Rome  was  necessary,  not  only  because,  in  introducing  a 
liturgy  in  a  new  tongue  (the  Sclavonic),  they  were  doing 
something  out  of  the  ordinary,  but  because  of  the  opposition, 
jealous  indeed,  but  not  unnatural,  of  the  Germans,  which  we 
shall  see  coming  to  a  head  under  the  reign  of  John  VIII.; 
for  from  the  days  of  the  conquest  of  the  Avars  by  Charle- 
magne, part  of  the  country  (Pannonia)  held  at  this  period 
by  the  Moravians  and  other  Sclavonic  tribes,  had  been  put 
under  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  bishops  of  Salzburg 
and  Passau.  And  the  two  brothers  seem  to  have  acted  quite 
independently  of  these  German  authorities.  Further,  it  is 
possible,  as  Leger  suggests,  that,  in  endeavouring  to  secure 
the  co-operation  of  SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius,  Nicholas  may 
have  had  in  view  the  erecting  of  a  barrier  of  Christian  Slav 
states,  devoted  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  against  the  im- 
pending schism  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople. 

To  Rome,  then,  they  went,  taking  with  them  the  body 
of  Pope  St.  Clement.1  The  Italian  legend  of  Leo  of  Ostia 
tells  us  of  the  honourable  reception  accorded  to  the  saintly 
brothers  by  Hadrian  (for  Nicholas  had  died  before  they 
reached  the  Eternal  City)  and  the  Roman  people.  The 
subterranean     basilica    of    St.    Clement    shows    a   fresco 

1  Besides  the  lives  of  SS.  Cyril  and  Methodius,  see  the  letter  of  the 
librarian  Anastasius  to  Charles  the  Bald,  ap.  Migne,  t.  129,  p.  741. 
The  Italia?i  legetid  says,  Nicolaus  "mandavit  et  ad  se  venire  illos 
litteris  apost.  invitavit.  Quo  nuntio  1  Hi  percepto  valde  gavisi  sunt, 
gratias  agentes  Deo,  quod  tanti  erant  habiti  quod  mererentur  ab  Apost. 
sede  vocari."  Acta.  SS.  IX.,  Martii,  p.  21  ;  Jarfe  (2888).  The  same 
is  stated  in  the  Moravian,  Pannonian,  and  Bulgarian  legends,  ap.  Cir.  e 
Met. ,  p.  46  f. 


222 


HADRIAN    It. 


Approval 
of  the 
Slavonic 
Liturgy. 


depicting  '  a  funeral  procession/  and  an  inscription  to  the 
effect  that"  Hither  from  the  Vatican  is  borne  (Nicholas  being 
Pope)  with  divine  hymns  the  body  which  with  aromatics 
he  buried."  This  is  thought  to  represent  the  translation  of 
the  body  of  Pope  St.  Clement.  "  The  time  at  which  these 
pictures  were  painted  might  be  supposed  rather  soon  after 
Rome  was  moved  by  the  arrival  of  the  relics  than  a  couple 
of  hundred  years  after."1  However,  for  this  supposition 
Father  Mullooly,  who  makes  it,  has  to  maintain  that,  as 
Nicholas  was  dead  at  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  relics, 
"the  anachronism  of  the  painter,  in  representing  Nicholas 
with  his  nimbus  accompanying  the  funeral  procession, 
is  deliberate."  It  may,  indeed,  easily  have  been  so. 
Considering  that  it  was  Nicholas  who  called  the  saints  to 
Rome,  it  was  not  unnatural  to  depict  him  as  taking  part  in 
the  translation  of  the  relics  brought  by  them. 

There  were  in  the  West,  at  the  time  of  which  we  are 
now  writing,  a  body  of  men  known  as  '  Trilinguists,'  from 
the  opinion  which  they  held  that  it  was  not  proper  for  the 
services  of  the  Church  to  be  conducted  in  any  other 
languages  than  in  those  used  in  the  inscription  on  the  Cross, 
viz.,  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew.2  By  some  of  these  theorists 
opposition  was  made  to  the  Slavonic  liturgy  of  St.  Cyril. 
However,  so  well  did  the  brothers  plead  their  cause,  that 
the  Pope  not  only  approved  of  the  new  liturgy,  but  placed 
their  translation  of  the  Gospels  on  the  altar  of  St.  Peter,  and 
took  pleasure  in  assisting  at  Mass  said  in  Slavonic.  The 
ordination  of  Methodius  and  several  of  his  companions  was 


1  St  Clement,  by  Mullooly,  p.  302.  A  photograph  of  the  fresco  faces 
p.  299.  Many,  of  course,  regard  the  introduction  of  the  figure  of 
Nicholas  as  a  proof  that  the  frescos  were  not  contemporary  work.  Cf. 
supra,  p.  14  ff. 

2  This  senseless  idea  was  carried  so  far  that  the  Council  of  Frankfort 
(794,  can.  52)  had  to  pronounce  anathema  against  such  as  believed  that 
God  could  be  only  adored  in  three  languages. 


HADRIAN    II.  223 

so  far  at  once  proceeded  with  that  they  were  made  priests.1 
Untimely  death  (February  14,  869)  unfortunately  cut  short 
the  nobly  useful  career  of  Cyril,  apparently  after  he  had 
been  consecrated  bishop.2  Methodius,  at  any  rate,  was 
certainly  consecrated  and  proclaimed  archbishop  of  the 
Slavs,  who  inhabited  the  ancient  province  of  Pannonia  and 
the  parts  to  the  north  and  east  of  it  which  bordered  on  the 
territories  of  the  Germans.3  Of  what  had  been  thus  done 
at  Rome,  Hadrian  informed  Rastiz  in  a  letter  which  he 
wrote  to  him,  to  his  nephew,  Swatopluk,  and  to  Kozel  (or 
Kociel),  the  Slav  prince  of  Balaton,  who  had  begged  the  holy 
brothers  to  instruct  him  in  the  use  of  the  new  liturgy.  The 
Pope  speaks  of  the  examination  which  had  been  made  of 
the  doctrine  of  Cyril  and  Methodius,  and  declares  that 
"  they  had  recognised  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See,  and  had 
done  nothing  against  the  canons,"  and  that  he  had  resolved 
to  consecrate  Methodius  bishop,  and  "  knowing  him  to  be  a 
man  of  upright  mind  and  orthodox,"  to  send  him  back  to 
the  Slavs.  He  approved  the  Slavonic  liturgy,  but  wished 
that  in  the  Mass  the  epistle  and  gospel  should  be  read  first 
in  Latin  and  then  Slavonic.4 

1  Cf.  the  Moravian  (n.  7)  and  the  other  legends.  "  Apostolicus  .... 
sanxit  doctrinam  amborum,  evangelio  Slovenico  in  altari  S.  Petri 
deposito."    Leg.  Pan.,  n.  6. 

2  Leg.  Hal.,  n.  9.  Hadrian  decreed  him  the  honours  of  a  papal 
funeral. 

3  Vit.  Method.,  c.  8.  "  Factus  ergo  Moravorum  Antistes  et  lucerna 
patriae."     Cf.  Leg.  Pan.,  n.  6,  etc. 

4  The  Pope  says  he  sent  them  Methodius  "ut  vos  edoceret,  libros 
in  vestra  lingua  interpretans  secundum  omnia  Ecclesise  pnecepta  plene, 
cum  sancta  Missa,  i.e.  cum  liturgia  et  baptismo,  sicut  Constantinus 
philosophus  ccepit.  .  .  .  Hunc  unum  servate  morem  ut  in  Missa  primo 
legatur  Apostolus  et  Evangelicum  latine  dein  slavonice."  Ep.  ad  Rast. 
in  Legenda  Pannon.,  of  which  there  is  a  French  translation  ap.  Leger, 
p.  113.  Jane,  Reg.,  2924.  Cf.  the  old  Russian  chronicler,  known  as 
Nestor.  "  Some  began  to  abuse  the  Slavonic  books,  saying  :  '  No  other 
nations  must  have  a  writing  of  their  own  except  the  Hebrews,  Greeks,  and 
Latins,  as  is  proved  by  Pilate's  writing  on  the  Cross  of  the  Saviour.'     But 


224  HADRIAN    It. 

The  burial       The  document  known  as  the  Italian  legend  has  a  pretty 

of  St.  Cyril.  s  f        J 

story  relative  to  the  burial  of  St.  Cyril.  On  the  death  of 
his  brother,  Methodius  went  to  Hadrian  and  thus  addressed 
him  :  "  When  we  left  our  father's  house  for  the  country  in 
which,  with  God's  help,  we  have  toiled,  the  last  wish  ex- 
pressed by  our  mother  was  that,  if  either  of  us  should  die, 
the  survivor  would  bring  back  his  dead  brother,  and 
becomingly  bury  him  in  his  monastery.  Help  me,  your 
Holiness,  to  fulfil  a  mother's  prayers."  But  when  the 
people  of  Rome  heard  of  this  request,  they  flocked  to  the 
Pope  and  said:  "Venerable  father,  it  is  wholly  unfitting 
that  we  should  allow  to  be  taken  from  here  the  body  of  a 
man  who  has  done  such  great  deeds,  who  has  enriched  our 
Church  and  city  with  such  precious  relics,  who,  by  the 
power  of  God,  has  drawn  such  distant  nations  towards  us, 
and  who  was  called  to  his  reward  from  this  city.  So 
famous  a  man  must  have  a  famous  burial-place  in  so 
famous  a  city  as  ours."  Moved  by  their  words,  Hadrian 
decided  that  the  saint  should  be  buried  in  St.  Peter's,  in  the 
very  tomb  he  had  prepared  for  himself.  Seeing  that  there 
was  no  hope  of  his  first  request  being  granted,  Methodius 
begged  that  his  brother  might  be  interred  in  the  basilica 
of  St.  Clement,  whose  relics  he  had  with  such  care  and 
difficulty  brought  to  Rome.  This  petition  was  granted, 
and  amid  the  greatest  pomp  was  the  body  of  St.  Cyril  laid 
to  rest  at  the  right  of  the  high-altar. 

The  history — somewhat  tragic — of  Methodius  after 
his  return  to  Moravia  will  be  related  under  the  life  of 
John  VIII.1 

when  the  Pope  of  Rome  heard  this  he  blamed  those  who  found 
fault  with  the  Slavonic  books,  saying  :  *  Let  the  Scriptures  be  fulfilled, 
that  all  tongues  should  praise  the  Lord' ;  and  if  any  one  condemns  the 
Slavonic  writings,  let  him  be  cut  off  from  the  Church."  C.  21,  ed.  Leger. 
1  On  the  above  see  Leger ;  Lapotre,  ch.  iii. ;  Balan,  La  Chiesa 
Cattol.  e   gli    Slavl,    ch.    iii.,   etc.     The   account  of    SS.  Cyril  and 


HADRIAN   II.  225 

The   day  on  which    Hadrian    closed  his  short   but    full  Death  of 

Pope 

pontificate  is  not  known.     From  certain  catalogues,  Pagi  Hadrian, 

Dec.  872. 

gives  the  date  as  November  26,  Duchesne  as  December  14. 
Several  fragments  of  his  epitaph  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the 
crypts  of  the  Vatican.  When  Peter  Sabinus  made  his  copy 
of  the  greater  part  of  it,  it  was  in  the  vestibule  of  the  sacristy 
of  St.  Peter's,  where  Hadrian  had  been  buried.    It  ran  thus: 

"  Ei  mihi  composuit  mortalis  pondera  carnis 
Hadrianus  praesul.     Hie  sua  mater  humus 
In  cineres  mersit  quicquid  de  pulvere  sumpsit, 
Ast  anima  caslo,  reddidit  ossa  solo. 
Vir  pius  et  placidus  fuerat  super  asthera  clarus, 
Pauperibus  largus,  divitibusque  simul. 

Pro  quo  jure  Deum  lachrymis  venerabere  visor 
Ut  sit  cum  Domino  jam  super  astra  suo."  * 

On  Hadrian's  death,  it  says,  mother  earth  here  turned 
to  dust  what  he  had  taken  from  it.  But  while  his  flesh 
returned  to  earth,  his  soul  took  its  flight  to  heaven.  Kind 
and  tender  was  he,  generous  to  all,  and  renowned  throughout 
the  world.  Do  you,  reader,  tearfully  pray  to  God  that  he 
may  live  with  his  Lord  beyond  the  stars. 

The  repeated  mention  in  one  papal  biography  after  The  papal 
another  of  the  name  of  Anastasius  the  librarian,  will  no  doubt 
have  turned  the  reader's  thoughts  on  more  than  one  occasion 
to  that  institution  of  which  he  was  the  guardian.  The 
library  of  the  popes,  now,  at  any  rate  as  far  as  manuscripts 
are  concerned,  the  most  valuable  in  the  world,  "  the  corner- 
stone of  modern  scholarship,"  2  the  source  whence  the  learned 

Methodius  in  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints  (Dec.  22)  is  not  up  to  date 
in  its  presentment  of  the  story  of  these  great  Apostles. 

1  Duchesne,  L.  P.,  ii.  190  ;  Dufresne,  Les  Cryptes  Vaticanes,  p.  73. 
The  two  denarii  which  are  extant  of  this  Pope  bear  on  the  obverse  his 
name  and  that  of  S.  Peter,  and  on  the  reverse  "Ludovvicus  Imp. 
Roma."     Promis,  p.  65. 

2  This  is  the  title  said  to  have  been  given  to  it  by  Mommsen  a  few 
years  ago. 

VOL.  III.  15 


226  HADRIAN   II. 

of  every  civilised  land  are  drawing  the  materials  wherewith 
to  construct  the  history  of  their  respective  countries,  had 
a  very  early,  if,  naturally,  very  humble  origin.  To  the 
volumes  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  formed  its 
appropriate  base,  were  soon  added  documents  of  all  kinds, 
liturgical  books,  letters  of  the  popes,  writings  of  the  Fathers, 
lists  of  the  occupants  of  the  See  of  Rome,  and  of  its  poor, 
etc.1  In  thus  founding  a  library,  the  Church  of  Rome  was 
only  doing  what  was  being  done  by  the  other  great 
churches  even  before  the  days  of  persecution  were  over, 
and  settled  peace  was  granted  to  the  Church  by  Con- 
stantine.  Of  the  character  and  contents  of  these  early 
ecclesiastical  libraries  we  may  judge  by  the  remark  of 
Eusebius,  the  Father  of  Church  History  and  the  biographer 
of  Constantine,  that  he  found  materials  for  his  history  in 
the  library  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  which  its  bishop 
Alexander  had  founded  in  the  third  century. 

This  primitive  papal  collection  of  books  seems  to  have 
come  to  an  untimely  end  in  the  persecution  of  Diocletian 
(303),  so  that  of  the  acts  of  the  martyrs  collected  by  Pope 
Anterus,  Gregory  the  Great  could  scarcely  find  a  trace,2 
nor  could  he  lay  his  hands  on  the  works  of  so  distinguished 
a  Father  as  S.  Irenaeus.3  But  with  that  unconquerable 
patience  in  construction  and  reconstruction  which  has 
distinguished  the  line  of  Roman  pontiffs,  the  popes  at  once 
began  to  form  a  new  library  as  soon  as  peace  was  restored 
to  the  Church.  Pope  S.  Damasus  (305-384),  a  most 
distinctly  scholarly  Pope,  in  one  of  his  invaluable  marble 

1  Cf.  Tertullian,  Adv.  Praxeam,  c.  1.  Pope  Anterus  (235-6)  is 
related  to  have  made  a  collection  of  the  acts  of  the  martyrs.  "  Hie 
gestas  martyrum  diligenter  a  notariis  exquisivit  et  in  ecclesia  recondit." 
L.  P.,  in  vit,  i.  147. 

2  "  In  archivo  hujus  nostrae  ecclesiae,  vel  in  Romanae  urbis  bibliothecis." 
Ep.  viii.  28  (29). 

3  Ep.  xi.  40  (56). 


HADRIAN    II.  227 

inscriptions,  as  remarkable  for  their  literary  as  for  their 
artistic  finish,  tells  us  that,  near  the  theatre  of  Pompey,1 
probably  where  the  old  library  was  situated,  he  built  a  new 
home  for  the  papal  library,  with  which  it  was  his  wish  to 
have  his  name  perpetually  associated.2  This  building  was 
in  connection  with  the  Church  of  S.  Lawrence  in  Damaso, 
and  it  was  to  this  charter-house  (chartariuni)  that  S.  Jerome, 
once  the  secretary  of  Pope  Damasus,  referred  Rufinus  for 
a  letter  of  Anastasius  I.  (400- 1).3  Henceforth  there  is 
frequent  mention  of  the  library  or  archives  (scriniuni)  of 
the  Roman  Church  and  of  its  contents.  Pope  Boniface  I. 
(418-422)  refers  to  the  'documents  of  our  archives,'4  and  Pope 
Pelagius  II.  (578-590)  says  that  extracts  were  read  to  the 
bearers  of  the  letters  of  the  Istrian  bishops  "  from  the 
codices  and  ancient  polyptici  of  the  library  of  our  Holy 
Apostolic  See." 5  Less  important  libraries  were  also  founded 
by  them  in  different  parts  of  the  city.6  Among  these,  we 
may  specify  one  built  by  Pope  Agapetus  in  A.D.  535.  It 
had  been  his  intention,  in  conjunction  with  Cassiodorus, 
to  found  a  college  for  teachers  of  Christian  doctrine.  Before 
death  overtook  him,  he  had  so  far  accomplished  his  design 
that  he  had  erected  a  fine  library  for  them,  and  had 
adorned  it  with  a  series  of  portraits,  amongst  which  was 
one  of  himself.  Its  home  was  in  the  house  on  the 
Ccelian  hill  which   afterwards   came    into   the   possession 

1  This  item  is  from  the  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Dam. 

2  "  Archibis,  fateor,  volui  nova  condere  tecta, 

Addere  praeterea  dextra  levaque  columnas 

Quae  Damasi  teneant  proprium  per  saecula  nomen." 

Ap.L.P.,  i.  213. 

3  Apol.  adv.  Rufifi.,  ii.  20.     Cf.  L.  P.,  in  vit.  Julii  (337-352),  for  a  list 
of  different  documents  kept  in  the  scri?iium  of  the  Roman  Church. 

4  "Scrinii  nostri  monimenta"     Jane,  350  (142). 

5  lb.  1055  (687).     St.  Gregory  the  Great  constantly  speaks  of  'our 
archives,'  e.g.  Ep.  ix.  135  (49) ;  iii.  49  (50) ;  xii.  6  (24). 

G  Pope  Hilary  founded  two.      Cf.  L.  P.,  in  vit.,  and  the  notes  of 
Duchesne  10  and  11,  i.  p.  247. 


228  HADRIAN   II. 

of  S.  Gregory  I. ;  for  there  it  was,  namely,  u  in  the  library 
of  S.  Gregory,"  i.e.  in  that  attached  to  the  Church  of 
S.  Gregory,  that  the  Einsiedeln  pilgrim  read  the  following 
inscription : 

"  Here  sits  in  long  array  a  reverend  troop, 
Teaching  the  mystic  truths  of  law  divine. 
'Mid  these  by  right  takes  Agapetus  place, 
Who  built  to  guard  his  books  this  fair  abode 
(Codicibus  pulchrum  condidit  arte  locum). 
All  toil  alike,  all  equal  grace  enjoy, 
Their  words  are  different,  but  their  faith  the  same."  * 

As  in  process  of  time  the  work  connected  with  the 
government  of  the  Church  became  more  and  more  attached 
to  the  Lateran  Palace,  the  Library  of  the  Holy  See  was,  at 
some  date  unknown  to  us,  transferred  thither.  The  acts  of 
the  Roman  Council  of  649  prove  that  it  was  there  in  the 
seventh  century.  And  there,  just  as  Englishmen  to-day 
are  working  in  the  Vatican  library  at  the  registers  of  the 
popes  of  the  later  Middle  Ages,  worked,  more  than  a 
thousand  years  ago,  the  London  priest  Nothelm  at  the 
registers  of  the  popes  of  the  early  Middle  Ages  for  the 
benefit  of  our  first  historian,  Bede.2  Not  long  after 
Nothelm's  visit,  the  Lateran  library  (scrinium  Lateranense) 
was  adorned  by  Pope  Zachary  (741-752)  with  a  portico, 
towers,  bronze  gates,  triclinium,  and  paintings.3 

Moreover,  just  as  to-day  the  Vatican  palace  has  its  printing 
press,  its  Tipografia  Vaticana,  so  in  the  Middle  Ages  the 
Lateran  palace  had  its  body  of  copyists,  whose  productions 
enabled  the  popes  to  make  presents  of  bibles  and  of  liturgical 
and  learned  works  to  Saxon,  to  Frank,  and  to  Teuton.  And 
a  letter4  of  the  famous  Lupus  of  Ferrieres  to  Benedict  III. 
(855-8),  asking  for  the  loan  of  Cicero's  de  Gratore,  Quiu- 

1  The  version  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Clark  in  his  beautiful  volume,  The  Care 
of  Books,  Cambridge,  1901.     Cf.L.  P.,  i.  p.  288  n. 

2  B.  E.,  i.  1.  3  L.  P.,  in  vit.,  n.  xviii.    . 
4  Ep.  103,  ap.  M.  G.  Epp.y  vi. 


HADRIAN    II.  229 

tilian's  Institutes,  and  the  commentary  of  Donatus  on 
Terence,  is  enough  to  show  that  the  learned  works  of  the 
library  were  not  all  ecclesiastical. 

The  first  librarian  of  the  Apostolic  See  whose  name  has 
come  down  to  us  is  Gregory,  afterwards  the  great  Pope 
Gregory     II.1    (715-731).      For    some    time    during    the 
following  century  we  find  the  signature  "  of  the  librarian 
of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See  "  appearing  on  the  papal  bulls  ; 
and,  in  that  same  epoch,  principally  through  the  agency  of 
Anastasius,  the  Lateran  librarian  occupied  for  many  years 
no  small  place  in  the  eye  of  the  world.     But  it  was  with 
the  librarians  of  the  Apostolic  See  as  with  every  created 
thing.     The  highest  point  of  their  power  was  the  nearest 
to  their  decay.     After  the  reign  of  Hadrian's  (II.)  successor, 
the  importance  of  its  custodian  began  to  wane  along  with 
the  library  itself.     The  feudal  horrors  of  the  tenth  century 
and   the  first   part  of  the  eleventh  were   not  destined   to 
render  Rome  a  favourable  spot  for  books  or  their  cultivation. 
On  the  slopes  of  the  Palatine,   near  S.  Maria  Antiqua, 
Pope  John  VII.  built  a  palace   at   the  beginning   of  the 
eighth  century.     Perhaps  in  connection  with  it,  but  prob- 
ably somewhat  later,  though  at  an  unknown  date,  there  was 
built  close  to  and  partly  over  the  arch  of  Titus  a  strong 
tower,  a  portion  of  the  Palatine  fortifications  afterwards 
held  by  the  Frangipani.     It  was  in  vain  that  to  this  fort, 
known  from  its  contents  as  the  Cartulary  Tower2  (Turris 
Chartularia),  part  of  the  papal  archives  were  for  greater 
safety's  sake  transferred3;  it  was  to  no  purpose  that  its 

1  L.  P.,  in  vit. 

2  The  Mirabilia  Urbis  Romce  says  that  the  tower  was  "therefore 
called  Cartulary  because  there  was  a  common  library  there."  Eng. 
trans.,  p.  101.  Cf.  Graphia  U.  R.,  ap.  Urlichs,  Codex  U.  R.  topog., 
p.  121. 

3  Hence  Deusdedit,  Collect  can.,  p.  315,  quotes  not  only  from  the 
papyrus  volumes  of  the  Lateran,  but  also  from  those  he  found  in  the 


23O  HADRIAN   II. 

contents  were  recruited  from  time  to  time  by  presents  and, 
towards  the  end  of  the  tenth  century,  by  tributes  of  books 
from  monasteries  directly  subject  to  the  Roman  See 1 ;  the 
terrible  disorders  of  the  time  and  the  disastrous  fire  in  the 
Lateran  quarter  enkindled  by  the  Norman  Guiscard  (1084) 
seem  to  have  destroyed  at  least  the  greater  part  of  the 
second  library  of  the  popes.  On  a  future  occasion  we  may 
tell  how  a  third  papal  library  was  destroyed  during  the 
internal  troubles  in  Rome  in  the  course  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  and  by  the  defection  from  the  popes  of  the 
Frangipani,  who  handed  over  the  Cartulary  Tower  to 
Frederick  II.  (1244).  Even  then,  before  the  foundation  of 
the  present  Vatican  library  by  Nicholas  V.  (1447-145 5), 
there  would  still  remain  to  be  discussed  the  library  of 
the  popes  of  the  thirteenth  century,  with  its  new  series 
of  papal  registers  dating  from  that  of  Innocent  III.;  the 
library  of  Boniface  VIII.;  and  that  of  the  Avignon  popes 
and  its  wanderings  till  the  glorious  days  of  Nicholas  V.2 

Cartulary  Tower  {juxta  Palladium).  "  Hasc  itaque  quae  secuntur  sumpta 
sunt  ex  tomis  Lateranensis  Bybliothecae.  .  .  .  Itaque  in  alio  carticio 
tomo  in veni  juxta  Palladium."  Cf.  p.  317.  This  tower  seems  to  have 
been  the  same  as  the  Tesiamentum  of  the  Einsiedeln  Itinerary.  Cf. 
Lanciani's  ed.  of  it,  p.  68 ;  and  Montfaucon's  Travels,  Eng.  ed., 
p.  207. 

1  Deusdedit,  p.  321. 

2  The  chief  authorities  are,  for  the  earlier  libraries,  G.  B.  de  Rossi, 
De  origine,  historia,eic.  Bibliothecce  S.  Apost.  commentatio,  Rome,  1886, 
and  La  Biblioteca  della  Sede  Apost.,  Rome,  1884;  and  for  the  later, 
Father  F.  Ehrle,  Historia  Bib.  RR.  PP.  turn  B  o?iifatiance  turn 
Avem'onesis,  Rome,  1890.  Cf.  also  La  Biblioteca  Vaticana,  Rome, 
1893,  by  I.  Carini,  and  La  Bibliotheque  Vaticane,  by  Paul  Fabre, 
forming  a  section  of  La  Gouvernement  de  FEglise,  Paris. 


JOHN    VIII. 

A.D.  872-882. 


Sources. — Here  for  the  first  time  the  Liber  Pontificalis  fails  us. 
The  most  complete  MS.  of  it  closes  with  an  unfinished  notice  of 
Stephen  (V.)  VI.  Whether  contemporary  biographies  of  John 
VIII.,  Marinus  L,  and  Hadrian  III.  were  ever  written  is  not 
known,  but  it  is  certain  that  no  traces  of  them  have  come  down 
to  us.  What  served  as  a  continuation  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis 
from  John  VIII.  to  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  was  a  mere 
catalogue,  generally  very  short,  but  occasionally  furnished  with 
a  few  notes,  and  drawn  up  at  intervals  by  contemporaries. 
Duchesne  has  shown1  that  the  catalogue,  as  it  was  originally 
produced,  has  not  been  best  preserved  for  us  in  the  MS. 
"  Laurentianus  LXV.  35,"  as  Watterich  thought,  but  in  what  we 
may  call  the  second  part  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis,  viz.,  in  the  MS. 
of  Peter  Willia?n.  The  Liber  Pontificalis  of  this  monk,  who  was 
the  librarian  of  the  Priory  of  St.  Giles,  "de  Aceio,"  in  the  diocese 
of  Rheims,  and  who  in  1142  wrote  out  a  MS.  which  has  come 
down  to  us,  contains  (1)  the  lives  of  the  popes  from  St.  Peter  to 
Hadrian  II.,  according  to  the  old  Liber  Pontificalis,  but  inter- 
polated here  and  there,  and,  from  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century, 
considerably  abridged;  (2)  the  Catalogue  above  alluded  to; 
(3)  extended  biographies  from  Gregory  VII.  to  Honorius  II.  (1073- 
1130),  drawn  up  by  contemporaries. 

Of  the    Catalogue    from    John    VIII.     to    the    end    of    the 
eleventh    century,    which   was   in    circulation    before    the    com- 
pilation of  Peter  William,  there  are  various  copies,  all  abridged 
1  L.  P.,  ii.,  introduc. 

?3t 


232  JOHN   VIII. 

from  the  one  preserved  by  Peter,  but  sometimes  supplied  with 
small  additions  of  their  own,  which  are  occasionally  useful  enough. 
During  this  period  regular  lives  of  the  popes  were  probably  not 
written.  The  clergy  of  the  Roman  court  had,  most  unfortunately, 
something  else  to  think  about  during  the  stormy  period  of  the 
tenth  century  and  the  first  part  of  the  eleventh  than  writing 
biographies.  However,  that  the  tradition  of  the  old  Book  of  the 
Popes  might  not  fail  absolutely,  some  Roman  clerics  found 
opportunity  from  time  to  time  to  draw  up  the  Catalogue  as  a  sort 
of  continuation  of  the  Liber  Pontificalis.  However,  on  turning  to 
the  Catalogue  (ap.  Duchesne,  or  Watterich),  it  would  appear  at 
first  sight  that  we  had  a  regular  biography  of  John  VIII.  But 
the  fact  is,  that  Peter  William  himself  added  a  notice  of  John, 
drawn  from  two  of  his  letters,  in  connection  with  his  monastery 
of  St.  Giles. 

If  the  Book  of  the  Popes  fails  us,  we  have  an  exceptional  source 
for  the  biography  of  John,  viz.,  a  part  of  his  '  register.'  There  is 
actually  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library  a  very  ancient  MS. 
containing  the  letters  of  the  last  six  years  (or  indictions  rather) 
of  the  reign  of  John,  i.e.  from  September  i,  876.  Lapotre,  in  the 
fascinating  chapter  in  which  he  opens  his  life  of  this  Pope,  gives 
excellent  reasons  to  show  that  this  MS.  is  a  fragment  of  the 
original  register  itself  and  not  a  copy.  He  even  goes  a  step 
further.  From  the  facts  that  (i)  the  canonists  of  the  twelfth 
century  have  made  no  quotations  from  the  existing  MS.,  which 
begins  at  the  tenth  indiction  (September  1,  876),  and  which  we 
know  was  not  in  the  Lateran  when  they  made  their  compilations ; 
and  that  (ii)  on  the  contrary  they  have  made  extracts  from  all  the 
other  indictions  of  the  other  half  of  the  register  (since  lost)  except 
the  ninths  he  draws  the  startling  conclusion  that  the  original 
register  was  mutilated  by  the  party  of  Formosus,  who  destroyed 
the  documents  belonging  to  the  ninth  indiction.  This  they  did 
because  it  was  that  indiction  (September  875  to  September  876) 
which  saw  their  unsparing  condemnation  by  John  VIII. 

Three  hundred  and  eighty-two  of  his  letters  have  been  published 
by  Migne1  (P.  L.,  t.  126);  fifteen  more  by  Loewenfeld  [Epp. 
Pont.  R.  ined.,   1885),  and  a  few  others  elsewhere.     Of  especial 

1  Augustine  Mau  is  preparing  an  edition  of  the  letters  of  John  VIII. 
for  the  M.  G.  Epp. 


JOHN   VIII.  233 

importance  among  the  last-named  are  the  fragments  in  the  collec- 
tion of  canons  found  by  Mr.  E.  Bishop,  in  the  British  Museum, 
and  published  in  the  fifth  volume  of  the  JNeues  Archiv  and  in  the 
new  edition  of  JarTe.  Some  of  these  fragments  treat  of  the  work 
of  S.  Methodius  in  Moravia. 

This  is  not  the  first  time  that  allusion  has  been  made  by  me 
to  Mr.  Bishop's  discovery.  As  no  account  of  it  has,  I  believe, 
appeared  in  English ;  and  as  it  adds  to  previously  known  historical 
sources  parts  at  least  of  some  233  new  letters  of  divers  popes,  and 
is  therefore  one  of  the  most  important  discoveries  of  medieval 
documents  which  has  been  made  in  recent  years,  I  may  be 
allowed  to  say  a  few  words  about  it  here.  Kindly  showing  me, 
in  the  year  1901,  in  the  British  Museum,  a  bound  manuscript 
(Addit.  8873),  Mr.  Bishop  told  me  that  he  had  there  came  across 
it  some  twenty  years  before.  It  had  been  acquired  by  the 
Museum  in  183 1.  On  examination  it  proved  to  date  from  the 
end  of  the  eleventh  or  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century.  It 
consisted  of  210  leaves,  and  was  apparently  all  written  by  one 
hand,  though  after  f.  126,  where  the  rubrics  ended,  there  was  room 
for  a  doubt  on  that  point.  The  list  of  its  contents  with  which 
the  MS.  begins,  shows  that  it  was  one  of  those  collections  of  canons 
which  were  of  such  frequent  production  at  the  epoch  when  it  was 
written.  This  particular  collection  is  especially  useful,  as  it  contains 
extracts  not  only  from  the  Pandects  of  Justinian  but  from  registers 
of  the  popes  now  lost.  It  affords  perhaps  the  first  evidence  we 
have  of  the  use  of  the  Pandects  in  medieval  Europe.  But  here 
we  are  most  concerned  with  the  extracts  which  it  contains  from 
the  papal  archives.  The  earliest  pope  whose  epistles  it  has  used 
is  Pope  Gelasius  I.,  the  latest,  Urban  II.  Of  this  latter  Pope  it 
quotes  from  no  less  than  31  letters  previously  unknown.  More 
to  our  present  purpose  are  the  thirty  fragments  from  the  lost  first 
four  books  of  the  register  of  John  VIII. 

In  making  a  careful  study  and  transcription  of  this  valuable 
document,  Mr.  Bishop  spent  eighteen  months  of  hard  work. 
When  it  was  accomplished,  to  our  lasting  shame  be  it  spoken,  the 
copy  was  sent  to  Germany,  as  no  one  in  this  country  seemed  to 
be  interested  in  it.  It  was  joyfully  accepted  by  the  editors  of 
the  Monumenta  Germanics,  and  it  was  through  their  grateful 
acknowledgments   to   Mr.    Bishop   for   his   gift   in  their  various 


234  JOHN   VIII. 

prefaces,  that  the  present  writer  first  became  acquainted  with  the 
great  addition  to  the  sources  of  medieval  history  which  he  had 
made.  To  them1  or  to  some  other  foreigner  must  the  reader 
turn,  if  he  would  know  more  of  the  MS.  Addit.  8873. 

If  the  letters  of  John  are  not  remarkable  for  their  literary  style,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  letters  of  his  '  register,'  at  least,  are 
in  the  nature  of  drafts  and  not  copies  of  the  finished  productions. 

In  addition  to  the  annals  as  before,  a  new  authority  for  the 
biographies  of  the  popes  begins  now  to  make  its  appearance.  It 
is  the  metrical  notices  of  the  popes  by  Frodoard,  a  canon  of 
Rheims,  who  visited  Rome  in  the  days  of  Leo  VII.  (936-9). 
Born  in  894,  near  Rheims,  his  learning  and  piety  gained  for  him 
the  priesthood  and  the  care  of  the  archives  of  the  Cathedral  of 
Rheims.  Before  his  death  (966)  he  had  written  several  works ; 
among  them  a  poem,  De  Christi  triiimphis  ap.  Lta/.,  in  which 
he  gives  short  notices  of  the  popes  from  St.  Peter  to  Leo  VII., 
generally  drawn  from  the  Liber  Pontificalis.  But  what  he  has  to 
say  of  John  VIII.  and  his  successors  to  Leo  VII.,  he  has 
extracted  for  the  most  part  from  their  epitaphs  and  their  corre- 
spondence with  the  archbishops  of  Rheims.  In  his  rather 
longer  account  of  Leo,  who  gave  him  a  most  cordial  reception, 
and  who  is  the  last  pontiff  touched  on  by  him,  personal  remi- 
niscences enter  in.  The  poem  of  Frodoard  has  been  published, 
after  Mabillon  (Acta  SS.  Ord.  Ben.,  Ssec.  iii.  p.  ii.),  by  Muratori 
(P.  I.  S.,  iii.  p.  ii.);  Migne,  P.  Z.,  t.  135,  in  full,  and,  as  far 
as  important  parts  from  John  VIII.  onwards  are  concerned,  by 
Duchesne,  Z.  Z*.,  ii.  p.  x.  f. ;  and  Watterich  in  the  first  volume 
of  his  collection  of  original  lives  of  the  popes. 

Modern  Works. — V Europe  et  le  Saint-Siege  a  Vepoque  Carol- 
ingienne,  premiere  partie,  Le  Pape  Jean  VIIL,  par  A.  Lapotre, 
S.J.,  Paris,  1895.  This  work,  a  production  of  the  very  first  order, 
combines  the  results  of  the  most  painstaking  research  with  the 
keenest  historical  deduction.  If  its  author  takes  many  a  flight 
into  the  realm  of  conjecture,  it  must  be  confessed  that  he  does 
so  on  strong  wings.  In  a  work  such  as  the  present,  it  cannot 
be  expected  that  we  should  always  follow  him  in  his  aerial 
career.    To  show  how  the  court  (entourage)  of  John  VIIL  amused 

1  Neues  Archiv,  v.  1880.  Cf.  also  Revue  des  Quest.  Hist.,  October 
1 880. 


JOHN    VIII.  235 

itself,  the  same  author,  under  the  title  of  Le  Souper  de  Jean 
Diacre,  has  published  (ap.  Melanges  d'archcol.  et  d'/iist.,  1 901-2) 
a  most  informing  and  critical  article  on  an  edition  in  verse  by 
John  the  Deacon  of  the  curious  prose  piece  known  as  the  Coena 
Cypriani.  Lapotre's  commentaries  on  John's  prologue,  epilogue, 
and  dedicatory  letter  to  John  VIII.  prove  that  they  throw  light  on 
the  history  of  the  period.  A  shorter  biography  more  on  the  lines 
of  this  work  is  77 pontificate)  di  Giovanni  VIII.,  del  Pietro  Balan, 
Roma,  1880.  We  have  made  the  freest  use  of  both  works. 
Another  biography,  cited  by  Lapotre,  and  favourably  noticed  in 
the  English  Histor.  Rev.,  iii.  396,  but  which  we  have  not  been 
able  to  procure,  has  been  written  by  A.  Gasquet,  Jean  VIII.  et  la 
fin  de  VE}?ip.  Carol.,  Clermont-Ferrand,  1886.  It  seems  to  have 
been  only  privately  printed,  and  to  have  been  incorporated  with 
his  LJ empire  Byzantiti. 


Emperor  of  the  East.  Emperors  of  the  West. 

Basil  I.  (the  Macedonian),1  867-886.       Louis  II.,  850-875. 

Charles  II.  (the  Bald),  875-877. 
Charles  III.  (the  Fat),  881-888. 

John  VIII.,  like  all  great  men,  made  enemies  in  plenty.  Modem 

And  in  the  nineteenth  century,  well  nigh  as  many  looked  aud  John 

askance   at   him    as   did  in  the  ninth.     That  John  VIII. 

really  was  a  great  man  is  what,  in  unison  with  Gregorovius, 

we  imagine  will  be  conceded  by  all.     He  opens  his  account 

of  John  VIII.,  a  Pope  uyet  more  vigorous"  than  Hadrian 

II.,  thus:   "The   Church,  however,  was    fortunate   at    this 

time  in  having  a  succession  of  popes   no   less   able   than 

those   who   had   freed    Rome  from  the    Byzantine    yoke. 

While  the  throne  of  the  Carolingians  was  occupied  by  a 

series  of  ever  weaker  rulers,  the  chair  of  Peter  was  filled 

1  I  have  examined  an  old  biography  of  this  emperor  (Bast Ho  il 
Macedone,  Roma,  1809)  by  G.  Impaccianti.  But  as  the  author,  taking 
Xenophon's  Cyropccdia  for  his  model,  has  added  invented  material  to 
edify,  his  work  has  no  particular  historical  value.  See  pp.  vi  and  vii 
of  his  introduction. 


236  JOHN   VIII. 

by  a  set  of  men  immeasurably  their  superiors  in  diplo- 
matic skill,  firmness,  and  power." 1  .  .  .  John's  energy  against 
the  inroads  of  the  Saracens  causes  the  same  author  to  ex- 
claim (p.  181):  "The  activity  which  the  priest  displayed 
put  kings  to  shame,  and  covered  his  memory  with  military 
renown.  A  man  such  as  the  Pope  well  deserved  to  govern 
Rome  "  ;  and  (p.  200)  :  "  When  we  read  the  Pope's  letters, 
we  are  forced  to  admire  his  diplomatic  skill.  He  possessed 
a  capacity  for  political  finesse  such  as  but  few  popes  have 
shared."  Finally  (p.  205) :  "  He  was  distinguished  by  gifts 
of  intellect  and  energy  of  will  so  rare,  that  his  name  shines 
with  royal  splendour  in  the  temporal  history  of  the  papacy 
between  the  times  of  Nicholas  I.  and  Gregory  VII." 

That,  despite  this,  Gregorovius  should  regard  John 
(p.  199)  as  "revengeful  to  an  almost  unequalled  degree,"  as 
(p.  204)  "totally  absorbed  in  aims  of  temporal  dominion" 
and  "  ambiguous,  intriguing,  sophistic,  unscrupulous,"  need 
not  surprise  us,  when  we  find  a  Catholic  author  like  Cantu* 
asserting  that  John  VIII.  was  "intriguing  and  passionate, 
formed  very  false  judgments  on  the  morality  of  acts,  was 
prodigal  with  excommunications,  converted  penance  into 
pilgrimages,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  befooled  by  Photius." 
To  form  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  character  of  John  may 
well  be  difficult,  when  we  have  Baronius3  assigning  to 
John's  weakness  of  character  the  origin  of  the  fable  of  Pope 
Joan,  and  Photius  repeatedly4  praising  him  for  his  manli- 
ness.    Here  we  will  only  observe  that  whatever  moderns 

1  Rome,  iii.  170.  Fisher,  The  Medieval  Empire,  ii.  p.  137-9,  calls 
John  VIII.  "the  most  vigorous  diplomatist  and  warrior  of  his  time, 
the  Julius  II.  of  the  ninth  century/'  and  adds,  "the  political  force  of 
the  Papacy  died  with  John  VIII." 

2  Storia  degli  Italiani,  v.  350.     CJ.  Lapotre,  p.  x. 

3  Annul.,  ad  an.  879,  n.  5.  Gasquet  speaks  of  him  {JO empire  byzanl., 
p.  428)  as  "sans  fermete  et  sans  suite  dans  ses  volontes." 

4  De  S.  Spiritus  mystagogia,  c.  89,  ap.  P.  G.,  t.  102,  pp.  379-82. 


JOHN   VIII.  237 

may  think  of  John,  his  contemporaries  in  the  West1  speak 
of  him  as  highly  as  does  Photius  in  the  East.  The 
panegyrist2  of  Formosus  unites  with  the  schismatical 
patriarch  in  eulogising  the  untiring  struggle  of  John 
against  wrong.  Later  on  we  may  add  a  word  of  our  own 
on  the  character  of  John  VIII.  Meanwhile  it  must  be 
stated  who  he  was  and  what  he  did. 

In  the  Roman  Council  of  853  we  find  the  signature  of  a  Johnbefore 

r^  •  r  'le  kecame 

certain  'archdeacon  John.  6  Sixteen  years  later,  one  of  Pope, 
the  allocutions  of  Pope  Hadrian  against  Photius  in  the 
Roman  synod  of  869  was  read4  by  the  same  archdeacon  ; 
"and  on  December  14,5  872,"  as  we  are  informed  by  the 
annals  of  the  time,  "John,  archdeacon  of  the  Roman 
Church,  was  substituted  in  place  of  Pope  Hadrian."  That 
the  new  Pope  was  by  birth  a  Roman  and  the  son  of 
Gundus,6  and  that  Formosus,  bishop  of  Porto,  had  en- 
deavoured to  thwart  his  election  as  Pope 7  by  securing  his 
own,  is  all  the  further  information  we  have  to  give  of  John 
before  he  ascended  the  chair  of  Peter.  From  the  long 
time  that  he  held  the  important  office  of  archdeacon,  and 
from  frequent  allusions  in  his  letters  to  the  weak  state  of 
his  health,  we  may  fairly  conclude  that  he  was  not  only  at 
least  somewhat  advanced  in  years  when  he  became  Pope, 
but  that  he  was  also  of  feeble  health. 

1  Ann.  Xantemes  (M.  G.  SS.,  ii.),  ad  an.  872.  "  Vir  praeclarus 
nomine  Johannes."  Both  John's  epitaph  (see  end  of  this  biography) 
and  Frodoard  (ap.  Watterich,  i.  636)  allude  to  a  part  of  the  Pope's 
work  which  Gregorovius  has  not  noticed,  and  which  shows  the  ex- 
aggeration of  that  historian's  language  when  he  speaks  of  John's  mind 
being  completely  taken  up  with  temporal  affairs,  viz.,  his  efforts  for  the 
conversion  of  the  Moravians. 

"  De  Christi  segete  crebro  zizania  pellens 
Et  rationabiles  per  agros  pia  semina  spargens." 

2  Invectiva  i?i  Romam,  ap.  Migne,  t.  129,  p.  830. 

3  Labbe,  viii.  124.  4  lb.,  p.  1087. 

6  Hinc,  Anna/.,  ad  an.  872.  •  The  Catalogue. 

7  Joan.,  Ep.  24  ;  Lapotre,  p.  31,  n.  2. 


238  JOHN   VIII. 

The  con-         In  recounting  the  deeds  of  this  heroic  Pontiff,  we  will 

version  of 

the  begin  with  what  he  did  for  the   Moravians,    in    order   to 

Moravians.  .  ....  .  .  ,  ,  .  .,  , 

continue  their  history  with  as  short  a  break  as  possible. 
Before  the  death  of  Hadrian,  Methodius,  as  archbishop  of 
Pannonia,  i.e.  seemingly  of  Sirimium,  had  returned x  with 
a  light  heart  to  work  among  his  beloved  Slavs.  For  with 
the  episcopal  character  he  had  received  from  Hadrian,  he 
would  be  able  to  establish  a  native  hierarchy,  and  win  the 
confidence  of  the  people  still  further  by  being  able,  now 
that  he  had  secured  the  approval  of  the  Holy  See,  to 
propagate  freely  the  Liturgy  in  their  own  language.  But 
as  in  the  case  of  most  other  works  which  are  calculated  to 
do  great  good,  the  conversion  of  the  Moravians  was  not 
to  be  allowed  to  proceed  smoothly.  The  efforts  of 
Methodius  were  to  be  interfered  with  as  well  by  German 
princes  as  by  German  ecclesiastics.  The  former  had 
designs  on  the  country  held  by  the  Slavs,  and  the  latter 
regarded  Methodius  as  an  intruder,  seeing  that  it  was 
through  their  efforts  that  Christianity  had  long  before  been 
introduced  into  various  of  the  Slav  tribes  on  the  German 
boundaries,  and  that,  as  we  have  seen,  they  regarded 
Moravia  as  ecclesiastically  subject  to  the  bishops  of  Passau 
and  Salzburg. 
Methodius  Hardly  had  Methodius  reached  Moravia,  and  put  himself 
captive  into  in  touch  again  with  the  different  Slavonic  peoples,  when, 
^emiany,  tnroUgn  tne  secret  support  of  Swatopluk,  the  nephew  of 
Rastiz,  not  only  was  the  power  of  the  Moravian  monarch 
broken  by  the  Germans,  but  he  himself  and  Methodius 
along  with  him  were  carried  off  prisoners  into  Germany. 
By   the   comparatively    recent    discovery   in    the    British 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  223,  and  the  Pannonian  Legend,  c.  9.  Kociel,  prince  of 
Pannonia,  the  country  south  of  Moravia,  had  written  in  the  meanwhile 
asking  Pope  Hadrian  to  send  Methodius  to  him.  Hadrian  replied, 
that  he  was  sending  him  to  all  the  Slavonic  countries.    Leg.  Pan.,  n.  8. 


JOHN  VIII.  239 

Museum  of  extracts,  at  least,  of  certain  of  the  earlier  letters 
of  John,  we  now  know  something  of  our  saint's  treatment 
there.  Brought  before  a  council  where  he  was  unmerci- 
fully bullied,  and  treated  most  shamefully,1  he  was  after- 
wards, viz.,  at  the  end  of  the  year  871,  cast  into  a  cruel 
dungeon  in  an  old  tower,  where  he  languished,  exposed  to 
cold  and  rain,  for  two  and  a  half  years.  The  barbarian 
in  these  Teutons  was  as  yet  covered  with  but  a  very  thin 
skin  of  Christian  feeling  and  conduct,  and  that  skin  was 
very  easily  broken.  Every  effort  was  made  to  keep  the 
Pope,  to  whom  Methodius  at  once  appealed,  in  ignorance 
of  what  had  passed.  Anno  of  Freising,  one  of  the  very 
bishops  who  had  condemned  Methodius,  nay,  who  had 
been  the  very  soul  of  the  opposition  to  him,  even  declared 
to  the  Pope  (873)  that  he  knew  nothing  about  him.2  When, 
however,  at  length,  towards  the  end  of  the  first  half  of  this 
year  (873),  John  learnt,  at  least,  much  of  the  truth,  he  at 
once  despatched  a  legate  (Paul  of  Ancona)  to  Bavaria. 

The  instructions  given  to  Paul  by  the  Pope  3  will  serve  John's 
admirably  to  put  the  reader  in  possession  of  the  points  at  ^onsTo  his 
issue  between  the  Germans  and  Methodius,  and  of  ideas  on  ^^873. 
the  firmness  and  justice  of  John  VIII.     Paul  was  to  remind 
the  king  (Louis  the  German)  that    Pannonia   {Pannonica 
diocesis)  was  of  old  subject  to  the  Apostolic  See,  and  that 
from    the    earliest    times   (antiquitus)   the    disposition   of 
bishoprics  throughout  the  whole  of  Illyricum  (totius  Illyrici 
fines)  belonged  to  it.     Ecclesiastical4  rights   may,  indeed, 

1  "Colaphis  affligentes."  Instructions  of  John  VIII.  to  his  legate 
Paul  of  Ancona,  ap.  Nenes  Archiv,  v.  Cf.  Vit.  Method.,  c.  9  ;  John's 
letter  to  Ermenrich,  bishop  of  Passau  ;  and  Annal.  Fuld.,  ad  an. 
870.     Jaffe,  2976  (2248),  2977. 

2  Ep.  Joan,  ad  Ann.  Frising.,  ap.  Neues  Archiv,  v.  ;  Jaffe,  2797. 
"  Te  ilium  nosse  mentiendo  negasti." 

3  Jaffe,  2976  (2248),  or  ap.  Cyrillo  e  Metod.,  102.  Cf  John's  letters 
to  Anno  and  Hermenrich,  ib. 

4  The  Pope,  writing  (Ep.  5,  p.  654)  to  the  same  Louis  on  another 


240  JOHN   VIII. 

in  certain  cases  be  lost  by  a  contrary  prescription,  but  not 
where  an  existing  state  of  things  has  been  upset  by  an 
invasion  of  pagans.  The  German  bishops  must  be  given 
clearly  to  understand  that  Methodius  must  be  restored 
before  any  case  against  him  can  be  considered.  When  he 
has  been  in  possession  of  his  See  for  as  long  a  time  as  he 
has  through  them  been  deprived  of  it,  then,  if  they  have 
anything  against  him,  both  parties  must  come  to  Rome. 
Paul  himself  must  not  put  off  going  to  Swatopluk  with 
Methodius,  on  account  of  any  rumour  of  war.  "  Those 
who  are  in  the  service  of  St.  Peter  are  men  of  peace,  and 
wherever  they  go  are  not  to  be  hindered  by  wars  from 
working  for  the  public  weal." 

Although  Paul  was  instructed  to  prohibit  the  use  of  the 
Slav  liturgy,1  the  German  bishops  were,  as  we  have  seen,  per- 
emptorily ordered,  under  pain  of  suspension,  to  restore 
Methodius  to  liberty,  and  to  come  to  Rome  if  they  wished  to 
accuse  him.2  In  a  number  of  other  letters  King  Louis  the 
German  is  put  in  possession  of  the  Pope's  view  of  the  case. 
Anno  of  Freising  and  his  episcopal  partners  in  oppressing 
Methodius  are  severely  reprimanded  for  their  arrogance  in 
condemning  an  archbishop  sent  out  by  the  Apostolic 
See,  and  for  their  brutal  treatment  of  him;  and  Alwin, 
archbishop   of  Salzburg,  is  commanded  to  atone  for  his 

occasion,  but  about  the  same  time,  says  that  no  prescription  can  avail 
against  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  See,  and  that  the  civil  laws  them- 
selves require  a  prescription  of  a  hundred  years  where  there  is  question 
of  the  property  of  the  Roman  Church.  And  we  may  note  in  passing 
that  the  claim  of  Salzburg  to  Pannonia  did  not  date  further  back  than 
798. 

1  Ep.  239,  ad.  Method.  "Jam  litteris  nostris  per  Paulum  ep. 
Anconitanum  tibi  directis  prohibuimus  ne  in  ea  lingua  (Sclavina)  sacra 
missarum  solemnia  celebrares  ;  sed  vel  in  Latina,  vel  in  Graeca  lingua, 
sicut  Ecclesia  Dei  toto  orbe  terrarum  diffusa  et  in  omnibus  gentibus 
dilatata  cantat." 

2  Lapotre,  p.  12  r.  The  letters  of  John  on  this  subject  are  from  the 
Collectio  Britannica,  Jaffe,  2970-2980. 


JOHN   VIII.  24I 

conduct   by  being    the    first  to  see  to  the  restoration  of 
Methodius. 

At  once  released,1  the  apostle  of  the  Slavs  returned  to  Methodius 
Moravia  to  find  it  again  becoming  a  powerful  state  under  the  of  hetero- 
guidance  of  Swatopluk,  who,  after  using  the  Germans  to  °xy'  79' 
overthrow  his  uncle,  then  successfully  opposed  them  on  his 
own  account  But  blows  and  imprisonment  on  German  soil 
were  not  to  be  the  last  of  the  troubles  of  Methodius.  The 
good  work  he  was  once  more  accomplishing  in  Moravia 
received  yet  another  check.  There  were  unfortunately 
at  the  court  of  the  Slav  monarch  two  men  who  were  jealous 
of  the  influence  which  his  virtues  gave  to  the  Byzantine 
archbishop.  To  ruin  him,  these  men,  John  of  Venice,  a 
priest,  and  Wiching,  a  German,  accused  him  to  the  Pope 
of  not  adding  the  '  Filioque  '  to  the  Creed,  a  custom  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  though  supported  by  Charlemagne,  had 
not  even  yet  been  introduced  into  the  Roman  Church.2 
What  seemed  still  more  likely  to  work  his  downfall  with 
John  was  the  accusation  they  made  to  the  effect  that 
Methodius,  despite  the  Pope's  orders  to  the  contrary,  had 
continued  to  use  the  Slavonic  tongue  in  the  liturgy.  "  The 
archbishop  of  the  Church  of  Pannonia  "  was  promptly  (879) 
ordered  to  come  to  Rome,  that  "  we  may  hear  from  your 
own  mouth  whether  you  believe  and  preach  as  in  word 
and  writing  you  promised  the  Holy  Roman  Church  that 
you  would."3  This  summons  the  archbishop  obeyed 
immediately. 

1  Leg.  Pan.,  n.  10. 

2  Cf.  vol.  ii.,  p.  62  ff.,  of  this  work.  Comparing  what  is  there  said  and 
what  is  said  above,  it  will  be  seen  how  outre'  is  the  remark  of 
Gregorovius  (Rome,  iii.  200).  John  "  set  the  judgment  of  his  orthodox 
contemporaries  and  of  future  generations  at  defiance,  esteeming  political 
advantage  of  greater  importance  than  the  dogmatic  subtleties  of  the 
filioque." 

3  Ep.  239.  "  Unde  his  apostolatus  nostri  litteris  tibi  jubemus  ut, 
....  ad  nos  de  praesenti  venire  procures,  ut  ex  ore  tuo  audiamus 

VOL.  III.  16 


242  JOHN   VIII. 

Methodius       Soon  convinced  of  his  orthodoxy  and  good  sense,  John 

declared  J  °  •* 

orthodox,  wrote *  (880)  to  Swatopluk,  'glorious  count'  He  began 
by  praising  the  devotion  of  the  count  and  his  people  to 
the  Apostolic  See  and  himself.  "  For,  inspired  by  divine 
grace,  and  setting  at  naught  other  princes  of  this  world, 
with  all  your  faithful  nobility  and  people,  you  have  chosen 
to  have  as  your  patron  and  helper  and  defender  in  all 
things  Blessed  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  his  vicar." 
The  venerable  archbishop  Methodius  "we  have  examined 
in  presence  of  our  brother  bishops,"  as  to  whether  he  holds 
the  same  faith  as  the  Roman  Church.  John  then  goes  on 
to  state  that,  finding  him  thoroughly  orthodox,  he  confirmed 
his  mission  and  station.  Unfortunately,  however,  in 
accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Swatopluk,  as  he  expresses 
it,  he  consecrated  Wiching  to  be  bishop  of  Nitra  (on  the 
Nitra).  It  is  true  he  ordered  this  enemy  of  Methodius 
"  to  be  in  all  things  subject  to  his  archbishop."  Swatopluk 
is  next  asked  to  send  out  another  cleric,  with  the  approval 
of  Methodius,  so  that  John  may  also  consecrate  him  bishop. 
The  three  thus  consecrated  will  then  be  able  canonically 
to  consecrate  such  other  bishops  as  may  be  required. 
Finally,  he  approves  of  the  Slavonic  tongue  to  be  used 
in  the  Mass  and  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  generally 2 ; 
for  God, "  who  made  the  three  principal  languages,  Hebrew, 

utrum  sic  teneas  et  sic  prsedices  sicut  verbis  et  litteris  te  sanctae  R. 
ecclesiae  credere  promisisti."  Cf.  Ep.  238,  p.  849,  to  "  Tuventarus  de 
Marauna,"  i.e.,  to  Zuvatapu  de  Maravna,  Swatopluk  of  Moravia,  in 
which  the  Pope  explains  to  the  Slav  monarch  why  he  has  ordered 
Methodius  to  come  to  Rome. 

1  Ep.  293,  p.  904  f. 

2  Ep.  239.  "  Litteras  denique  Sclavonicas  ....  jure  laudamus  ; 
et  in  eadem  lingua  Christi  D.  N.  praeconia  et  opera  ut  enarrentur 
jubemus.  .  .  .  Nee  sane  fidei  vel  doctrinas  aliquid  obstat  sive  missas 
in  eadem  Slavonica  lingua  canere,  sive  sacrum  Evangelium,  vel  lectiones 
divinas  N.  et  V.  Testamenti,  bene  translatas  et  interpretatas  legere, 
aut  alia  horarum  officia  omnia  psallere."     Cf.  vit.  Method. 


joiin  viii.  243 

Greek,  and  Latin,  made  the  others  also  for  His  honour 
and  glory.  However,  in  all  the  churches  of  your  land  we 
order  that,  for  the  sake  of  honour,  the  Gospel  be  first  read 
in  Latin  and  then  in  Slavonic,  and,  if  you  and  your  judges 
wish  to  have  Mass  said  in  Latin,  that  it  be  so  done  for  you." 

Methodius  was  no  sooner  back  again  in  Moravia  than  Renewed 
the  German,  Wiching,  who  was  likely  enough  a  secret  agent  to  Meth- 
of  Arnulf,  duke  of  Carinthia,  began  again  to  obstruct  the 
good  work  of  the  saint  (880).  The  efforts  of  Methodius, 
if  allowed  to  develop  naturally,  would  have  not  only  made 
the  Moravians  Christians,  but  probably  a  powerful  united 
nation  also.  This  would  not  have  suited  the  Germans. 
Wiching  accordingly  gave  out  that  he  was  the  bearer  of 
other  letters  and  secret  instructions  from  the  Pope,  which 
were  quite  to  the  opposite  effect  to  those  which  Methodius 
professed  to  have.  Methodius  and  his  liturgy,  declared 
the  lying  German,  were  to  be  driven  forth  by  the  Pope's1 
authority.  In  despair,  Methodius  once  again  (881)  turned  to 
John,  and  informed  him  of  all  that  had  been  said  by  Wiching. 
On  March  23,  881,  came  back  a  letter2  from  the  Pope. 
He  praised  the  saint's  zeal  for  souls,  his  orthodoxy,  and 
denied  that  he  had  sent  any  other  letters  to  Swatopluk  than 
the  one  with  which  Methodius  was  acquainted,  or  that  he 
had  given  any  commission  whatsoever  to  Wiching.3     He 

1  Cf.  c.  12,  in  vit.  Method.  2  Ep.  319,  p.  928. 

3  lb.  "Neque  aliae  litters  nostras  ad  eum  [Sfentopulcum,  as  the 
Pope  calls  him]  directae  sunt,  neque  episcopo  illi  (no  doubt  Wiching) 
palam  vel  secreto  aliud  faciendum  injunximus,  etaliud  a  te  peragendum 
decrevimus,  quanto  minus  creciendum  est  ut  sacramentum  ab  eodem 
episcopo  exegerimus,  quern  saltern  levi  sermone  super  hoc  negotio 
allocuti  non  fuimus."  To  further  smooth  the  path  of  Methodius,  John 
wrote  to  Muntimir,  duke  of  Schiavonia  or  Serbia  (the  country  between 
the  Drave  and  the  Save),  who,  under  German  influence,  had  shown 
himself  indisposed  to  submit  to  the  newly  appointed  archbishop  of  the 
Slavs.  John  reproved  his  obstinacy,  and  exhorted  him  to  due  ecclesi- 
astical submission  to  the  archbishop.  Fejer,  Cod.  Diplom.  Hungar^ 
i.  196,  ap.  Jaffe,  2973  (2259). 


244 


JOHN   VIII. 


Triumph 
and  death 
of  Meth- 
odius, 885 


Condem- 
nation of 
the  Slav 
liturgy  by 
Stephen 
VI.,  88=;. 


entreated  him  not  to  be  cast  down  by  the  various  trials 
which  had  befallen  him,  but  rather,  with  the  apostle,  to 
consider  them  a  joy.  However,  he  will  not  fail  in  due 
course  to  chastise  the  offences  of  the  aforesaid  bishop. 

The  reception  of  this  letter  enabled  Methodius  to  prove 
before  the  Moravian  assembly,  which  had  come  together 
expecting  to  hear  of  the  expulsion  of  their  beloved  apostle, 
that  he  had  the  full  approval  of  Rome  in  all  that  he  was 
doing.1 

This  silenced  Wiching  for  a  time.  But  when,  worn  out 
with  the  labours  of  a  life  devoted  to  the  welfare  of  his 
fellowmen,  Methodius  had  died  (April  6,  885),  Wiching 
succeeded,  by  his  forgeries  and  duplicity,  in  leading 
Stephen  (V.)  VI.  to  believe  that  Pope  John  had  actually 
condemned  Methodius  and  his  Slavonic  liturgy.  Believing, 
then,  and  stating  in  as  many  words,  that  he  was  following  in 
the  footsteps  of  his  great  predecessor,  Stephen  definitely 
condemned  the  use  of  Slavonic  in  the  sacred  liturgy 
(885),  whilst  bestowing  praise  upon  the  traitor  Wiching.2 
This  and  the  Germanising  influence  of  Wiching  proved 
fatal  to  the  ideas  and  disciples  of  Methodius.  They  were 
expelled  the  country  and  betook  themselves  to  Boris  of 
Bulgaria.  The  liturgy  of  the  Moravians  was  transported  to 
the  Slavs  of  the  East  and    North,  and  their  liberty  was 

1  "Turn  congregati  omnes  Moravici  homines  jusserunt  coram 
se  recitari  epistolam  ut  audirent  expulsionem  ejus.  .  .  .  Hono- 
rantes  autem  apostolicos  libros  invenerunt  scripturam  :  Frater  noster 
Methodius  sanctus,  orthodoxus  est,  apostolicum  opus  perfecit,"  etc. 
C.  12,  in  vit.  Method. 

2  Jaffe,  3407  (2649).  The  date  (885)  is  the  one  adopted  by  Lapotre,  p. 
168.  When  war  broke  out  between  Swatopluk  and  King  Arnulf  (892), 
Wiching  at  once  went  over  to  the  German  and  became  Arnulf s 
chancellor.  (Hergenrother,  Hist.^  iii.  §  243,  p.  517.)  Balan,  indeed 
(Git  Slavi,  c.  4),  contends,  with  no  little  acumen,  that  neither  Hadrian 
nor  John  had  ever,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  given  permission  for  anything 
more  than  that  sermons  might  be  given,  and  the  gospel  in  the  Mass 
read,  in  Slavonic. 


JOHN    VIII.  245 

destroyed  by  the  Germans  and  Hungarians.  By  these 
powerful  forces  the  Slavs  were  divided  once  for  all  into 
two  great  parties,  as  well  in  religion  as  in  politics.  But  for 
the  incursions  of  the  Hungarians,  a  further  effort  to  shake 
off  German  domination,  which  was  made  by  Moimir  II.,  the 
son  of  Swatopluk  (+894),  might  have  succeeded.  At  his 
request  John  IX.  sent  him  an  archbishop  and  two  bishops 
to  reorganise  a  national  hierarchy — a  proceeding  which 
greatly  annoyed1  the  Bavarian  bishops.  But,  as  we  have 
said,  the  Moravian  kingdom  was  swept  away  at  the 
beginning  of  the  tenth  century  by  the  whirlwind  of  the 
Magyar  cavalry. 

In  this  sketch  of  Moravia  and  the  popes  of  the  ninth 
century,  the  conclusions  of  Lapotre  have  been  adopted. 
For  the  arguments  on  which  he  rests  these  conclusions  the 
reader  must  be  referred  to  that  author.  Like  an  able 
barrister  dealing  with  circumstantial  evidence,  he  has  in 
a  most  remarkable  manner  pieced  together  and  harmonised 
what  seemed  to  be  not  merely  the  isolated,  but  even  the 
contradictory  records  of  antiquity. 

It  is  not  the  place  here  to  speculate  as  to  what  might  Partial 
have  been  the  future  history  of  the  Slavs,  politically  and  granted 
religiously,  if  the   policy   of  John   in    allowing   the   Slav  1248.    ' 
liturgy  had  been  persevered  in.     Suffice  it  to  reaffirm  here 
that  it  was  not.     Stephen  (V.)  VI.,  deceived  by  Wiching, 
as  we  have  said,  as  to  what  John  had  really  done,  pro- 
scribed2  (c.  885)  the  Slav  liturgy.     Its  condemnation  was 
renewed  by  John  X.3  (914-928)  and  other  popes.    However, 
even  among  the  Slavs  who  remained  in  union  with  Rome 
it  must  have  survived  in  some  way  ;  and,  in  1248,  the  bishop 

1  See  their  letter  to  the  Pope  (ap.  Labbe,  ix.  498,  or  Mansi,  xviii.). 
Cf.  Hergenrother,  Hist.,  iii.  517  ;  Leger,  163  f. 

2  Jaffe,  3407  (2649) ;  Lapotre,  p.  127  f. 

3  Farlati,  Illy.  Sacr.}  iii.  93  f. ;  Jaffe,  3571  f.  (2736  f.). 


246  JOHN   VIII. 

of  Zengh  (Austrian  Croatia)  begged  Pope  Innocent  IV. 
to  allow  the  celebration  of  the  Roman  liturgy  in  the 
Sclavonic  tongue,  but  written  out  in  characters  invented 
by  St.  Jerome,  i.e.  as  we  suppose,  in  Glagolitic  characters. 
Innocent  gave  the  required  permission  for  the  employment 
of  the  Slavonic  liturgy  in  those  parts  where  the  '  special 
characters'  were  in  use.  It  is  the  words  which  must  be 
subordinated  to  the  matter,  and  not  the  matter  to  the 
words,  wrote  the  Pope.1  At  first  the  permission  seems  to 
have  been  very  largely  used.  The  '  Glagolita  rite '  was  at 
one  time  common  throughout  Dalmatia,  Bosnia,  Servia, 
and  Bulgaria,  and  various  Glagolita  missals,  etc.,  were 
printed  from  time  to  time  in  Rome.  Now  the  use  of  this 
extremely  curious  rite  has  shrunk  to  the  four  dioceses  of 
Veglia,  Zara,  Spalato,  and  Sbenico. 
Croatia.  In  addition  to  the  Slavs  of  Lake  Balaton,  Schiavonia, 

and  Moravia,  John's  interest  and  concern  for  that  people 
extended  also  to  the  Slavs  of  Croatia.  The  Christianity 
established  in  Croatia  under  the  direction  of  the  Dalmatian 
Pope  John  IV.  had  not  been  able  to  exist  long. 

However,  when  John  VIII.  became  Pope  there  were 
among  the  Croatians  a  number  of  priests,  Germans,  and 
Greeks  from  various  parts,  who  were  anything  but 
calculated  to  convert  them.  According  to  the  epistle 
which  the  Pope  wrote  to  Muntimir,  duke  of  Croatia,2 
they  were  doing  more  harm  than  good,  breaking  the  laws 
both  of  the  Church  and  of  God  himself;  and,  as  they 
were  not  subject  to  any  recognised  superior,  could  not 
be  checked.  Muntimir  is  exhorted  in  the  same  letter  to 
follow  the  examples  of  his  forefathers,  and  to  place  him- 
self under  the  spiritual  direction  of  Methodius,  archbishop 

1  The  letter  is  dated  at  Lyons,  March  29  (not  19,  as  in  Neale),  1248  ; 
Potthast,  Regest.)  ii.  12880.  Cf.  Neale's  Notes  on  Dalmatia^  ch.  iv., 
and  d'Avril,  Si.  Cyrille,  p.  250  f. 

2  An.  873,  Jnffe,  2973  (2259). 


joiin  viii.  247 

of  the  neighbouring  Pannonia.  Whatever  effect  this  letter 
had  upon  Muntimir,  it  is  certain  that  in  879  his  successor, 
King  Branimir,  made  his  submission  to  the  See  of  Rome. 
John  wrote1  to  thank  him, "  because,  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  like  a  beloved  son,  he  desired  to  be  faithful  in  all 
things  and  obedient  to  St.  Peter  and  to  himself.  .  .  .  With 
paternal  love  he  received  him  returning  to  the  bosom 
of  his  holy  mother,  the  Apostolic  See,  whence  your 
fathers  drank  of  the  honeyed  waters  of  saving  preaching. 
.  .  .  In  all  your  acts  ever  have  God  before  your  eyes. 
Fear  and  love  Him  with  your  whole  heart."  In  the 
following  year,  after  the  Pope  had  consecrated  a  bishop  for 
the  Croatians,  he  writes 2  once  more  to  the  "  glorious  count 
Branimir,  and  to  all  his  religious  priests,  honourable  judges, 
and  to  all  the  people."  After  again  thanking  God  for  the 
devotion  they  had  shown  to  the  See  of  Peter,  he  exhorts 
them  to  persevere  in  the  service  of  Blessed  Peter,  under 
whose  "guidance,  rule,and  protection  "  they  had  placed  them- 
selves.3 John  concludes  this  letter  by  instructing  Branimir, 
if  he  would  have  his  wishes  fulfilled,  '*  to  send  suitable 
envoys  to  us,  who,  on  your  part,  may  take  counsel  with 
us  and  the  Apostolic  See  on  the  matters  which  you  have 
written  to  us,  so  that  we  also  may  send  a  legate  to  you, 
to  whom  (viz.,  to  the  combined  envoys  of  the  Pope  and 

1  Ep.  229.  "  Et  quia,  Deo  favente,  quasi  dilectus  filius  S.  Petro  et 
nobis  ....  fidelis  in  omnibus  et  obediens  esse  cupias,  humiliter 
profiteris,  tuae  nobilitati  dignas  valde  gratias  ....  agimus."  This 
letter  and  the  next  one,  addressed  to  the  priests  and  people  of 
Branimir's  kingdom,  in  which  they  are  exhorted  to  perseverance,  are 
both  dated  June  7,  879.  The  one  sent  to  Theodosius,  the  deacon  and 
bishop  elect  of  Nona  (a  little  south  of  the  present  province  of  Croatia), 
is  dated  June  4.  In  it  Theodosius  is  told  to  come  to  Rome  for 
episcopal  consecration.     Ep.  225.     Cf.  Ep.  234. 

2  Ep.  307. 

3  lb.  "Qui  sub  ala,  et  regimine  atque  defensione  B.  Petri  ap.  et 
nostra  toto  conamine  vos  subdere,  atque  in  ejus  servitio  perseverare, 
quasi  dilecti  filii  procurastis,"  etc. 


248  JOHN   VIII. 

king),  according  to  the  manner  and  custom  of  our  Churchy 

your  ivhole  people  may  promise  fidelity ,."1 
Slav  This  letter  is  the   more  interesting  that  it  reveals  the 

place  them-  fact  that  Branimir  had  followed  the  example  of  the 
under  the  Moravian  chief,  Swatopluk,2  and  had  placed  himself 
of°heCHoiy an<^  n^s  people  under  the  protectorate  of  the  Holy  See. 
See.  «  ^nc:j    faus    ft   was    ^g    5iavs    wh0    began   that    great 

movement  which  led  so  many  kings  and  nations  in  the 
Middle  Ages  to  seek  in  the  suzerainty  of  the  popes 
a  support  for  their  weakness  or  a  title  for  contested 
power."3  Was  it  not  but  natural  that  tribes  should  look 
up  with  respectful  gratitude  to  the  common  father  of  all 
the  faithful,  through  whom  with  the  incomparable  blessings 
of  the  Christian  faith  they  received  the  substantial  benefits 
of  civilisation?  Was  it  not  to  be  expected  that  men 
surrounded  by  dangerous  enemies  should  seek  protection 
from  one  who  had  given  to  them  in  their  weakness  the 
same  blessings  he  had  before  bestowed  upon  their  more 
powerful  foes,  and  who,  they  knew,  must  have  great 
influence  with  their  opponents,  as  he  was  the  common 
spiritual  father  of  both  of  them  ?  The  influence  which 
the  popes  acquired  in  the  Middle  Ages  sprang  from  the 
respect  begotten  of  the  loving  gratitude  of  men  who  had 
been  christianised  and  civilised  by  them.  No  student  of 
history  can  call  in  question  the  assertion  that  the  greatest 
factor  in  the  civilisation  of  the  West  was  the  hier- 
archy established  and  sustained  by  the  bishops  of  Rome. 
That   our   fathers   in   this    country,   "who"   says   an    old 

1  lb.  "Quapropter  mandamus  ut  .  .  .  .  idoneos  legatos  vestros 
prsesentialiter  ad  nos  dirigere  non  praetermittatis,  qui  pro  parte 
omnium  vestrum  nos  et  sedem  apostolicam  consulant,  de  his  quae 
mandastis,  ut  et  nos  cum  illis  missum  nostrum  dirigamus  ad  vos, 
quibus  secundum  morem  et  consuetudinem  Ecclesiae  nostras  universus 
populus  vester  fidelitatem  promittat." 

2  Cf.  supra,  p.  242.  3  Lapotre,  p.  128. 


JOHN   VIII.  249 

chronicler,1  "are  ever  great  lovers  of  the  Apostolic  See," 
were  ever  giving  of  their  gold  to  the  popes,  ever  braving 
every  peril  of  land  and  sea  to  visit  them,  and  ever  dedicat- 
ing most  of  their  churches  to  St.  Peter,  was  due  to  the  fact 
that  they  remembered  St.  Gregory  the  Great.  But  as 
grown-up  children  sometimes  forget  and  even  despise  the 
parents  who  tended  and  protected  them  in  their  helpless- 
ness, so  the  popes  are  nowadays  at  times  despised  by  peoples 
who  have  only  grown  to  their  present  strength  by  the 
fostering  care  of  the  Roman  pontiffs.2 

With  his  eye  turned  towards  the  Slavs,  it  was  not  likely  Efforts  to 
that  John  would  forget  the  Bulgarians,  who,  with  a  dalliance  Bulgaria, 
between  Rome  and  Constantinople,  which  was  repeated  in   ' 
the  nineteenth  century,  had  connected   themselves,  as  we 
have3  seen,  in  the  matter  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  with 
the  latter.     John  tried  everything  to  bring  them  back  under 
the  direct  authority  of  the  See  of  Rome.      He  wrote  to 
Boris 4  himself  and  his  chief  men  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the 
emperor  Basil  and  St.  Ignatius,  and  afterwards  to  Photius, 
on  the  other.     It  was  not,  as  the  Pope  said  to  Boris,5  that 
the  faith  taught  by  Rome  and  Constantinople  was  not  in 
itself  one  and  the  same ;  but  that  the  patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantinople and  the  Greeks  were  very  prone  to  schism  and 
to  error,  as  he  knew  but  too  well.     It  was  the  wish  of  the 
Pope,  consequently,  to  save  the  Bulgarians  from  attaching 

1  Gesta  Abbatum  Fontanell.,  ab  an.  747-753,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.y 
v.  p.  289.  The  writer  is  speaking  "de  Brittania,  id  est  de  gente 
Anglorum,  qui  maxime  familiares  Apostolical  Sedis  semper  existunt." 

2  Other  extant  correspondence  of  John  with  Slav  princes  shows 
him  using  his  influence  with  them  for  the  general  good.  Writing  to 
a  certain  Domagoi  (Jaffe,  2998  or  2585,  1st  ed.),  a  duke  of  the  Slavs, 
doubtless  of  those  on  the  Adriatic,  he  exhorts  him  to  put  down  those 
who,  "feigning  to  act  in  his  name,  are  ever  harrying  Christians,"  and 
preying  upon  merchantmen. 

3  Supra,  p.  214. 

4  Jane,  2962,  2996.     Cf.  2999  to  Basil,  to  summon  Ignatius  to  Rome. 
6  Ep.  108. 


250  JOHN   VIII. 

themselves  to  the  Greeks,  and  thereby  sooner  or  later  losing 
their  faith.  It  was  with  the  view  of  detaching  them  from 
Constantinople  that  he  was  induced,  in  the  opinion  at  least 
of  some  authors,  to  recognise  Photius  as  patriarch  on  the 
death  of  Ignatius.  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  Photius  himself 
never  interfered  in  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  Bulgaria, 
which  was  henceforth  no  longer  inserted  in  the  episcopal 
lists  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.1  If  John  did  not 
attain  his  end,  it  was  because  of  the  ideas  of  unbounded 
independence  entertained  by  the  Bulgarians;  or,  perhaps 
it  should  rather  be  said,  because  of  the  ideas  of  absolutism 
conceived  by  the  Bulgarian  rulers.  They  would  be  the 
first  in  the  Church  as  in  the  State.  They  were  soon, 
however,  and  were  long  so  to  remain,  the  subjects  of 
Constantinople  in  both. 

A  full  analysis  of  John's  first  extant  complete  letter  to 
Boris  (April  16,  878)  will  show  how  earnestly  he  set  about 
his  hopeless  task.  At  your  conversion,  wrote  2  the  Pope, 
we  rejoiced,  but  now  that  you  have  been  deceived  into 
following  the  Greeks,  we  are  sad  ;  and  we  fear  that  "  since 
they  are  wont  to  fall  into  different  heresies  and  schisms,  you 
also  may  fall  with  them  into  the  depths  of  error."3  This 
reflection  it  is  which  makes  us  anxious ;  "  for  we  look  not 
for  glory,  honour,  or  revenue  from  you.     It  is  you  and  not 

1  Lapotre,  p.  71,  citing  the  Nova  Tactica,  which  was  drawn  up  under 
Leo  VI.  the  Wise  (886-911),  and  which  has  been  recently  edited  by 
Gelzer  (Georgii  Cyp.  Descrip.  orbis  Romani,  p.  57,  Lipsiae,  1890).  Cf. 
also  what  was  said  by  Photius,  etc.,  in  the  second  and  fourth  sessions 
of  his  council  at  Constantinople  (879),  as  to  readiness  to  arrange  with 
the  emperor  about  the  surrender  of  rights  over  Bulgaria ;  and  the 
actual  surrender  of  those  rights  by  Basil.  This  latter  fact  we  learn 
from  John's  letter  to  him  of  August  13,  880.  "Grates  multas  vobis 
referimus  quia  Bulgarorum  diascesim  pro  amore  nostro  gratanti  animo 
S.  Petro,  ut  justum  erat,  permiseritis  habere."     Ep.  246,  p.  909. 

2  Ep.  108,  p.  758. 

3  "  Nam  te,  fili,  rogo,"  he  continues  (#.),  "  si  aliquando  Graeci  sine 
hac  vel  ilia  hasresi  fuerint." 


JOHN    VIII.  251 

yours  which  we  seek.  We  do  not  desire  to  govern  your l 
state ;  but,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  we  wish  to 
resume  the  spiritual  care  of  those  parts,  in  order  that,  of 
the  solicitude  which  we  owe  to  all  the  Churches,  we  may 
be  able  to  bestow  a  special  share  on  you."  .  .  .  Return 
then  to  Blessed  Peter,  whom  you  loved,  whom  you  chose, 
whom  you  sought,  whose  help  you  have  received  in  your 
necessities,  and  of  the  flood  of  whose  teachings  you  have 
drunk.  .  .  .  We  do  not  say  that  ours  and  theirs  is  not  "  the 
one  faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism"  (Ephes.  iv.  5),  but  we 
speak  as  we  do,  because  amongst  them,2  through  the 
patriarch  (pratsul)  or  emperor  of  Constantinople,  or  both, 
heresies  often  arise,  and  many  of  those  who  are  their 
subjects,  through  flattery  or  fear,  become  like  to  them. 
Woe  then  to  those  who  keep  their  company.  .  .  .  We 
believe,  however,  that  it  is  well  known  to  you  that  the 
Apostolic  See  has  never  been  reproved  (reprehensam)  by 
other  Sees,  whereas  it  has  very  often  reproved,  freed  from 
error,  or,  in  cases  of  refusal  to  retract,  judicially  condemned 
all  other  Sees,  and  especially  that  of  Constantinople."  John 
warns  them  that,  if  they  follow  the  Greeks,  they  may  fare 
as  did  the  Goths,  who,  from  them,  for  Christianity  received 
Arianism.  Speaking  then  prophetically,  he  assures  the 
king  that  if  he  turns  to  the  Greeks  he  will  inevitably  share 
their  fate.  In  conclusion,  he  thanks  the  king  for  the  present 
he  has  sent  him. 


1  lb.  "  Nam  non  patriae  regimen  et  reipublicae  moderamen  adipisci 
cupimus" — doubtless  an  allusion  to  the  opposite  disposition  of  the 
Greeks. 

2  "Non  autem  dicimus  quod  non  una  sit  fides,  unum  baptisma 
unus  Deus  noster  pariter  et  illorum,  sed  quia  in  eis  saepe,  pracsule 
Constantinopolitano,  vel  imperatore,  aut  plerumque  utroque,  auctore 
facto  hasreseos,  plures  qui  sub  ipsis  sunt  adulatione  aut  certe  timore, 
illis  efficiuntur  consimiles."  lb.  Here  we  have  an  admirable  summary 
of  the  ecclesiastical  history  of  Constantinople. 


252  JOHN    VIII. 

John  at  the  same  time  despatched  other  letters,1  equally 
full  of  honourable  feeling,  to  certain  influential  men  of 
Bulgaria,  who  were  exhorted  to  urge  Boris  to  return  to 
the  bosom  of  the  Roman  Church.  Letters2  were  also 
sent  to  the  Greek  clergy  who  had  established  themselves 
in  Bulgaria,  declaring  them  excommunicated,  and,  more- 
over, deprived  of  their  dignities  if  they  did  not  leave  the 
country  within  thirty  days.  The  same  penalties  were 
decreed3  against  Ignatius,  who  had  been  already  twice 
warned  by  the  Pope  of  what  would  befall  him  if  he  did 
not  withdraw  his  clergy  from  the  aforesaid  country. 
Bishops  Paul  of  Ancona  and  Eugenius  of  Ostia,  the 
bearers  of  these  letters  and  of  others 4  to  the  emperor  to 
the  like  effect,  found  on  their  arrival  at  Constantinople 
that  Ignatius  was  long  since  dead  (October  23,  877),  and 
that  Photius,  reconciled  to  Basil,  was  patriarch  in  his  stead. 

John  now  continued  more  earnestly  than  ever  his  efforts 
to  recall  Boris  to  his  duty.  In  May5  879,  three  letters 
were  despatched  to  the  king  and  to  others,  in  which  he 
excuses  some  bungling  on  the  part  of  his  ambassadors. 
The  return  of  Branimir  to  the  Roman  obedience  furnished 
the  occasion  for  sending  further  letters6  in  June.  In  one7 
of  them  he  reminded  Boris  of  the  gratitude  he  owed  the 
Holy  See  on  account  of  the  civil  and  religious  code  (totius 
religionis  et  justitice  formam)  he  had  received  from  Pope 
Nicholas.  Up  to  the  end  of  his  reign  John  continued  8  his 
appeals  to  the  king.     Yet,  though  he  offered  to  do  all  he 

1  Epp.  109,  no.        2  Ep.  112.         3  Ep.  in.        4  Epp.  113,  114. 

6  '  May'  apparently.  These  three  letters,  217-9,  in  place  of  a  date 
conclude  with  the  formula  "  Data  ut  supra,"  a  magic  phrase  of  which 
no  one  has  yet  hit  upon  the  exact  meaning.  Are  they  not  the  words 
of  some  official  of  the  Roman  chancellary,  certifying  that  the  letter  was 
despatched  in  the  form  in  which  it  appears  above  them? 

6  With  Ep.  229  compare  Ep.  231  of  June  879,  and  Ep.  236. 

1  Ep.  236.  e  Cf.  Epp.  308,  333,  369. 


JOHN    VIII.  253 

conscientiously  could  for  him,  he  got  nothing  but  words 
and  presents.  Boris  had  discovered  that  the  patriarchs 
of  Constantinople  would  'go  further'  than  the  popes  of 
Rome. 

The  little  that  remains  to  be  said  about  Bulgaria  and 
the  popes  till  the  thirteenth  century  may  be  as  well 
mentioned  here.  Simeon  (893-927),  the  younger  son  of 
Boris,  who  did  so  much  for  the  spread  of  the  Bulgarian 
power,  but  who  could  not  hope  for  substantial  concessions 
from  the  Byzantine  empire  with  which  he  was  often  at  war, 
reopened  negotiations  at  Rome  for  an  imperial  crown  and 
an  independent  patriarch  of  his  own  to  crown  him.  He 
had  the  usual  Bulgarian  weakness ;  he  would  be  the  equal 
of  the  emperor  at  Constantinople.  At  any  rate,  while  it 
is  certain *  that  about  the  year  928  a  papal  embassy  went 
to  Bulgaria,  it  was  asserted*  in  later  times  by  a  Bulgarian 
king,  Calojan  Jonitza,  who  restored  the  Bulgarian  empire 
at  the  close  of  the  twelfth  century,  and  who  asked  similar 
favours  of  Innocent  III.,  that  the  Pope  had  about  that 
time  sent  a  crown  to  be  solemnly  bestowed  on  the  ruler 
of  the  Bulgarians. 

In  any  case,  however,  the  power  of  the  Bulgarian 
monarchs  and  the  privileges  thus  obtained  did  not  last 
long.  The  Bulgarians  in  the  East  (971),  whose  capital  was 
Presthlava,  and  afterwards  (1019)  those  in  the  West,  who 

1  Farlati,  Illyricum  Sac,  iii.  103,  cited  by  Lapotre,  p.  89. 

2  Cf.  the  letters  of  Innocent  III.  of  November  27,  1202  (1775  f,  ap. 
Potthast,  Rcgest.,  p.  155).  The  Pope  tells  "  Caloiohannis,  lord  of  the 
B(v)laci  and  Bulgarians,"  that  he  is  sending  an  envoy  who  "will 
inquire  into  the  truth  about  the  crown  granted  by  the  Roman  Church 
to  his  predecessors,  as  well  by  old  books  as  by  other  documents." 
Content  with  the  evidence  produced,  another  series  of  letters  (February 
25,  1204;  2135  f.,  ap.  Potthast)  shows  that  Innocent  sent  a  crown, 
etc.,  to  Calojan,  bestowed  the  primacy  on  Basil,  archbishop  of  Ternovo, 
and  granted  him  the  privilege  of  anointing  and  crowning  the  kings  of 
the  Bulgarians.     Cf.  Hurter,  Innocent  III.,  i.  284,  563. 


exile. 


254  JOHN   VIII. 

had  fallen  back  upon  Achrida,  soon  passed  under  the 
sway  of  Byzantium.  They  were  subdued  by  the  terrible 
Basil  II.,  "  the  slayer  of  the  Bulgarians"1  (Bulgaroctonus). 

It  was  during  the  century  and  a  half  of  its  subjection  to 
Constantinople  (1019-1 186)  that  the  final  rupture  between 
the  popes  and  its  patriarchs  took  place.  As  a  conquered 
province,  Bulgaria  had,  of  course,  to  throw  in  its  lot  with 
the  '  orthodox '  Greeks.  On  the  recovery  of  their  freedom 
they  renewed,  as  we  have  seen,  intercourse  with  Rome. 
But  they,  or  their  rulers,  have  had  but  little  thought  except 
for  their  own  personal  ends.  And  up  till  to-day  they  have 
gone  on  playing  off  the  Latins  on  the  Greeks,  and  vice 
versa,  for  that  object. 
Photiusin  Inseparably  connected  with  this  early  stage  of  the 
*  Bulgarian  question,'  as  this  narrative  has  already  shown, 
was  the  notorious  Photius,  whom  we  left  sent  into  exile  by 
Basil.2  Although  at  times  depressed  by  his  fall,  Photius 
did  not  give  way  to  despair.  He  turned  his  exceptional 
energy  to  letter  writing,  and  took  good  care  never  to  lose 
an  opportunity.  He  realised  the  force  of  the  proverb 
which  he  quoted  3  to  Anastasius  that  "opportunity  has  long 
hair  in  front,  by  which  it  may  be  seized.  But  it  is  bald 
behind,  and  when  once  it  has  passed  by,  we  cannot  grasp  it, 
do  what  we  will."  He  also  well  understood  how  to  improve 
an  occasion.  A  master  of  the  art  of  letter  writing,4  he 
wrote  to  everybody — to  his  friends,  to  his  foes,  and  to  those 
he  wished  to  make  his  friends.  And  he  wrote  in  every 
variety  of  style.  He  entreated,  he  bemoaned,  he  persuaded, 
he  exhorted,  he  encouraged,  and  he  cut  and  thrust  too 
when  he  wanted  to  make  an  enemy  respect  him.     "  It  has 

1  Cf.  The  Empire  and  the  Papacy,  Tout.,  p.   163  f.,  and  map  on 

P-  153. 

2  Supra,  p.  191.  3  Ep.  170,  ed.  Mont. 
4  Copious  extracts  from  many  of  the  letters  which  he  wrote  at  this 

time  are  given  by  Jager,  p.  237  f.     Cf.  Tosti,  273. 


JOHN   VIII.  255 

been  said,"  he  wrote1  to  one  such,  "that  many  have 
climbed  up  into  the  tree  of  tyranny ;  but  no  one  has  ever 
come  down  except  with  a  crash.  Why  are  you  then  so 
proud  and  haughty?  With  all  your  power  and  pride  you 
are  not  at  the  top  of  the  tree  ;  you  are  only  stupidly  seated 
among  the  leaves  and  branches." 

But  he  made  no  headway  with  Basil  himself  until  he  had  Photius 

1       •      1  j  recalled. 

the  wit,  so  it  is  said,  to  draw  up  a  genealogical  tree,  and  to 
prove  to  Basil  that  he  was,  after  all,  of  illustrious  descent, 
and  that  he  had  come  down  in  the  direct  line  from 
Tiridates,  king  of  Armenia  ! 2 

His  capability  of  forging  documents  stood  Photius  in 
good  stead.  He  was  recalled  to  court,  and  on  the  death  of 
S.  Ignatius  (October  23,  877),  was  forthwith  acknowledged3 
as  patriarch  by  the  emperor.  Once  again  patriarch  de  facto 
if  not  de  jure,  Photius  resumed  his  old  methods  to  get 
himself  acknowledged  both  at  home  and  abroad.  His 
faithful  friends  were  rewarded,  new  ones  were  made  by 
favours,  and  his  enemies  were  won  over  or  punished,  some 
even  unto  death.4  And  again  an  effort  was  to  be  made  to 
get  the  approval  of  Rome  for  his  appointment.5 

1  Ep.  73,  p.  122.  Cf.  another  caustic  letter  he  wrote  to  a  monk  who 
had  abandoned  his  party.  "That  the  most  perfect  have  faults,  the 
most  vicious  some  virtue,  is  acknowledged  by  all ;  and  proved  by 
experience.  Do  not  you  spoil  the  truth  of  the  axiom  by  showing 
yourself  the  only  one  without  a  virtue."     Ep.  65,  p.  118. 

2  Nicetas,  in  vit.  Ig.,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1251.  Some,  seemingly  without 
sufficient  reason,  have  called  in  question  this  part  of  the  narrative  of 
Nicetas.  Hefele  thinks  the  story  has  'grown'  out  of  Photius's  having 
been  asked  to  explain  an  obscure  text.     Cone,  vi.  11. 

3  Labbe,  p.  1234.  "  Rursus  patriarchal  thronum  per  vim  invasit." 
Cf.  p.  1254.  "Non  toto,  quam  Ignatius  obierat,  triduo  elapso,  tribunal 
patriarchale,  revocata  pristina  et  parricidali  tyrannicaque  mente,  occu- 
pavit,"  etc.     Cf.  Stylian,  id.,  p.  1402. 

4  "Multos  pro  veritate  ad  necem  usque  propugnantes  sustulit." 
Nicetas,  p.  1255. 

5  Because  many  declared  that  "  they  would  not  receive  Photius, 
unless  the  Apostolic  See  of  Rome  confirmed  him."     Stylian,  ib. 


256  JOHN   Vllt. 

Basil  writes  In  a  letter  now  lost,  Basil,  without  making  any  mention 
878.^  °pe'  of  the  death  of  Ignatius,  wrote  to  the  Pope  to  ask  him  to 
send  legates,  whom  he  took  good  care  to  name,  to  heal  the 
schism  which  was  still  unsubdued  between  Ignatius  and 
the  partisans  of  Photius — a  schism  which  the  emperor 
acknowledged  had  resulted  in  much  violent  usage  of  a 
great  many  clerics. 

On  receipt  of  this  letter,  John  at  once  despatched  two 
envoys  to  Constantinople,  Paul,  bishop  of  Ancona,  and 
Eugenius  of  Ostia,  with  seven  letters,  all  dated  April  878. 
Of  five  of  the  letters,  addressed  to  the  Bulgarians  and  to 
Ignatius,  whom  the  Pope  supposed  still  alive,  enough  has 
been  said  already.  In  the  letter1  addressed  to  Basil,  John 
praises  him  for  his  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church  of  Constantinople.  To  second  those  efforts,  he 
says,  he  is  sending  Paul  and  Eugenius,  as  those  whom  the 
emperor  had  asked  for  are  otherwise  engaged.  "  For  we 
bear  the  burdens  of  all  who  are  heavily  laden,  or  rather 
who  bears  them  in  us  is  Blessed  Peter,  who  protects  and 
guards  us  the  heirs  in  everything  of  his  charge." 
The  Pope's  It  would  seem  that  when  John's  legates  arrived  in 
Constantinople,  they  were  treated  by  Photius  as  he  had 
treated  those  of  Nicholas.  He  so  acted  upon  them  by 
presents,  threats,  and  deceptions,  that  he  prevailed  upon 
them  to  declare  in  a  public  gathering  of  clergy  and  laity 
that  they  had  been  sent  to  anathematise  Ignatius  and  to 
proclaim  Photius.2  This  sufficed  to  induce  many  to  com- 
municate with  him.3     But  he  felt  that  he  could  only  obtain 

1  Ep.  113. 

2  Legatos  "  partimque  donis  (Photius)  corrupit,  partimque  regiis 
minis  perculsos  impulit  ut  in  conventu  cleri  .  .  .  .  et  populi  testarentur, 
se  a  P.  Joanne  adversus  Ignatium  missos,  ut  Ignatium  anathemate 
ferirent,  et  Photium  patriarcham  renuntiarent."  Stylian,  ap.  Labbe, 
viii.  1403. 

3  lb. 


John  vnt.  257 

general  recognition  by  securing  the  approval  of  the  Pope. 
Pie  accordingly  despatched  to  Rome  one  Theodore  Santa- 
barenus,  a  magician  by  repute,  a  man  devoted  to  his  interests, 
and  as  unscrupulous  as  himself  in  using  any  means  what- 
soever to  accomplish  an  end.  In  a  letter  entrusted  to 
Theodore,  the  Pope  was  assured  that  Photius  had  again 
taken  possession  of  the  Patriarchal  See,  but  much  against 
his  will,  and  because  compelled  by  clergy  and  people  alike.1 
The  emperor  and  the  metropolitans,  all,  high  and  low,2 
were  said  to  have  expressed  their  opinion  in  writing  that 
such  was  the  best  way  to  secure  peace.  In  fine,  John  was 
asked  to  commission  legates  to  represent  him  in  a  council 
to  be  held  at  Constantinople,  and  was  assured  that  the 
emperor  would  send  him  that  assistance  of  which  he  stood 
in  so  much  need  against  the  Saracens  and  his  other  enemies. 

The  emperor's  envoys,  for  whose  safety3  John  took  what  John 
precautions   he   could,   reached    Rome    about    May   879.  thJTestitu- 
Amazed    at   the    unexpected    turn    that    events   in    Con-  PhothL. 
stantinople  had  taken,  John    took   time  to  consider  what  8?9' 
decision  he  ought  to  form.      He  held  a  synod,4  at  which 
seventeen  bishops  and  seven  cardinal  priests  and  deacons 
assisted,  and   at   which,   after   carefully  weighing   all    the 
information  that  was  to  hand,  five  letters  were  drawn  up, 
as  well  as  a  set  of  instructions   (commonitorium)   for  the 
Pope's  legates.     These  documents,  dated  August  16,  879, 
were,  for  the  most  part,  afterwards   shamefully  mutilated 
in  his  own  interests  by  Photius.     Of  this  there  is  no  doubt 
whatever;    for,  with  regard  to  the  letters,   the  authentic 
original  Latin  text  still  remains  to  be  confronted  with  the 

1  Nicetas,  #.,  p.  1258. 

2  According  to  Nicetas  and  Stylian  (ib.\  much  fraud  was  practised 
by  Photius  in  the  matter  of  the  letter  from  the  metropolitans. 

3  Epp.  207,  211. 

4  Cf.  the  signatures  of  the  bishops,   etc.,  at  the  end  of  the  com- 
monitorium. 

VOL.  III.  17 


258  JOHN  VIII. 

versions  of  such  of  them  as  Photius  read  before  his  council 
(November  879).  The  original  Latin  text  of  the  commoni- 
lorium  is  no  longer  extant ;  but  that  it  was  tampered  with 
is  evident  from  a  comparison  between  it  and  the  authentic 
copies  of  the  letters.  The  outcome  of  the  deliberations  of 
the  synod  was  that,  under  the  circumstances,  the  best  thing 
would  be  to  acknowledge  Photius ;  and  so,  if  possible,  to 
avoid  the  schism  which  the  Greeks  seemed  bent  on  causing. 
This  was  clearly  stated  in  the  following  letter  of  the  Pope 
to  the  emperor.  The  chief  'emendations'  of  this  letter 
made  by  Photius  will  be  given  in  the  notes,  so  as  not  to 
confuse  the  real  with  the  counterfeit. 
John's  John  begins  by  praising  the  emperor  for  following  in  the 

B^sli/0  footsteps  of  his  "most  pious  predecessors"  in  paying 
reverence  to  the  Holy  See,  and  in  submitting  everything 
to  its  authority  (ejus  cuncta  subjicitis  auctoritati).  That 
the  "  Roman  See  "  is  "  the  head  of  all  the  Churches  of  God 
is  attested  by  the  Fathers  and  by  the  laws  of  the  orthodox 
emperors  and  the  most  reverent  letters  of  Basil  himself." * 
What,  therefore,  the  emperor  petitions  for,  "considering 
the  needs  of  the  time  as  much  as  anything"  (ratione 
sen  temporis  necessitate  inspectd),  we  have  decided  shall 
be  done  "  by  virtue  of  our  apostolic  power  and  with  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  the  Apostolic  See  "  2  (the  council 
noticed  above).  You  have  asked  that  the  Apostolic  See 
should  show  its  mercy  (sede  Ap.  sucb  pandente  viscera 
pietatis)  and  should  acknowledge  Photius  as  patriarch,  lest 

1  This  introduction  would,  of  course,  not  suit  Photius.  He 
elaborates  in  his  version  the  praise  of  the  emperors  ;  and,  on  the  other, 
simply  represents  the  emperor  as  turning  to  Rome  "for  the  sake  of 
union."  The  genuine  letter  of  the  Pope  is  to  be  found  in  Migne, 
Ep.  243  (p.  853),  and  the  much  longer  interpolated  specimen  of  the  art 
or  craft  of  Photius  at  the  end  of  the  former.  The  latter  was  the  one 
read  in  the  second  session  of  the  council  of  Photius. 

2  There  is  nothing  like  this  in  the  *  edition '  of  Photius. 


JOHN   VIII.  259 

the  Church  of  God,  so  long  disturbed,  should  be  allowed 
by  us  to  remain  divided.  Consequently,  now  that  we  know 
that  the  patriarch  Ignatius,1  of  blessed  memory,  is  dead, 
we  have  decided,  under  the  circumstances,  to  overlook  (ad 
veniam  pertinere)  what  has  been  decreed  against  Photius ; 
and  that,  too,  though  without  the  consent  of  our  See,  he 
has  usurped  an  office  from  which  he  had  been  interdicted. 
Accordingly,  without  going  against  the  canons,  or  the 
Fathers  ;  nay,  rather  following  what  they  allow  to  be 
done  in  case  of  necessity,  and  having  regard  to  the  unani- 
mous wish  for  his  restoration  on  the  part  of  the  other 
patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  and  of 
all  the  bishops,  even  of  those  who  were  consecrated  by 
Methodius  and  Ignatius,  and  for  the  peace  and  advantage 
of  the  Church  of  God,  we  acknowledge  Photius  as  our 
fellow  bishop,  on  "  condition  of  his  asking  pardon  before 
a  synod " 2  (misericordiam  coram  synodo  secundum  con- 
suetudinem  postidantem — a  condition  on  which  John 
insists  twice).  Uniting,  therefore,  with  the  emperor  in  his 
desire  for  the  peace  of  the  Church,  "  we  on  whom  rests  the 
solicitude  of  all  the  churches,  absolve  3  Photius  and  all  the 
clerics  and  laity  who  were  condemned  with  him  from  all 
ecclesiastical  censures.  This  we  do  by  virtue  of  that  power 
(ilia  potestate  fulti)  which  the  Church  throughout  the 
whole  world  believes  was  given  to  us  by  Christ,  our  Lord, 
in  the  person  of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  when  He  said 

1  Photius  omits  all  about  Ignatius  and  the  "circumstances  of  the 
times,"  and  makes  out  that  the  Pope  had  been  longing  to  restore 
him,  and  that  he  had  been  restored,  quite  against  his  will,  by  the 
emperor. 

2  In  his  '  translation '  Photius  omits  all  mention  of  his  having  to  ask 
pardon. 

3  This  action  is  completely  obliterated  by  Photius.  But  he  makes 
up  for  it  by  inserting  praises  of  himself,  and  making  the  Pope  condemn 
the  councils — the  Eighth  General  Council  included — which  had 
condemned  him. 


26o  JOHN   VIII. 

to  him :  '  To  thee  will  I  give  the  keys  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  upon  earth  shall  be 
bound  also  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  upon 
earth  shall  be  loosed  also  in  heaven'"  (S.  Matt.  xvi.  19). 

All  this  the  Pope  does  on  the  understanding  (eo  tenore) 
that  after  the  death  of  Photius,  some  cardinal  priest  or 
deacon  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople  be  elected  patriarch 
— but  not  a  layman  or  a  member  of  the  court ;  that  inferior 
clerics  be  not  promoted  rapidly  ;  and  that  Photius  give  up 
all  pretensions  to  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria.1 

Bearing  in  mind  that  the  emperors  of  Constantinople 
often  treated  their  patriarchs  merely  by  whim,  the  Pope 
goes  on,  greatly  to  his  honour,  to  beg  Basil  to  treat  Photius 
with  that  respect  which  his  position  demands,  and  not  to 
listen  to  what  others  may  urge  against  him.  He  exhorts 
the  emperor  to  treat  with  every  consideration  those  who 
had  been  ordained  by  S.  Ignatius  in  order  that  unity  in  the 
Church  may  be  secured. 

In  conclusion,  those  who,  after   due  warning,  will  not 

recognise  Photius,  are  to  be  excommunicated ;   as  is  the 

patriarch2  himself  if  he  receives  any  bishops  condemned 

by  the  Pope. 

The  Popes      John's  letter3  to  Photius  himself  is  to  the  same  effect. 

letter  to  J 

Photius.  The  Pope  refers  the  excessive  praise  given  him  by  Photius 
to  God.  On  the  ground  that  all  with  one  accord  desire 
him  ;  that  he  will  ask  pardon  before  a  synod  ;  and  that  no 
act  of  mercy  towards  one  who  repents  is  to  be  condemned, 
he  acknowledges  Photius  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the 

1  These  conditions  are  toned  down  by  the  Greek  patriarch. 

2  This  threat  is  omitted  in  the  patriarch's  version,  which,  on  account 
of  its  insertions,  etc.,  is  half  as  long  again  as  the  real  letter  of  John.  A 
French  translation  of  the  whole  of  both  these  letters,  as  penned  by  the 
Pope  and  Photius  respectively,  as  well  as  the  original  and  the  'per- 
version '  of  John's  letter  to  Photius  himself,  are  given  by  Jager,  p.  294  f. 

3  Ep.  248.     Photius's  edition  follows  it. 


JOHN  VIII.  26l 

Church  of  Constantinople,  on  the  same  conditions  with 
regard  to  Bulgaria,  etc.,  that  he  laid  down  in  his  letter  to 
the  emperor.  This  letter,  which  concludes  with  a  threat  of 
excommunication  if  the  patriarch  does  not  do  all  in  his 
power  to  restore  the  authority  of  the  Pope  in  Bulgaria,  was 
altered  to  suit  his  purposes  by  Photius  in  the  same  way  in 
which  he  altered  the  letter  to  the  emperor.  Among  other 
points  may  be  noticed  that  praises  which  in  the  Pope's 
letter  are  given  to  God,  Photius  transfers  to  himself;  and 
he  makes  John  expressly  condemn  the  Eighth  General 
Council. 

Unfortunately  the  instructions  which  John  gave  to  his  The  in- 
legates  at  Constantinople  (to  whom  was  now   added  the  toThe°n 
cardinal  priest  Peter,  the  bearer  of  all  these  letters)  only  lesates- 
exist  in  the  form  in  which  Photius  presented  them  at  the 
third  session  of  his  synod.     That  they  also  were  tampered 
with  will  be  clear  to  the  reader,  from  the  manner  in  which 
they  contradict  the   Pope's   real  mind  as  set   forth  in  his 
letters  to  Basil  and  to  Photius.     However,  as  the  document 
is   an  interesting  one,  as  showing  the  form  in  which  the 
popes  of  the  ninth  century  conveyed  their  wishes  to  their 
representatives  abroad,  we  will  give  a  synopsis  of  it.     It 
was  drawn    up   on    the   lines   of  the   one   sent   by    Pope 
Hormisdas  to  his  legates  at  Constantinople  in  515. 

The  legates  are  to  live  at  Constantinople  in  the  place 
assigned  them  by  the  emperor,  and,  till  they  see  him, 
they  are  not  to  give  the  Pope's  letters  to  any  one. 
When  they  deliver  them  to  the  emperor  they  are  to  say  to 
him  that  the  Apostolic  Pope,  the  lord  John,  his  spiritual 
father,  salutes  him ;  and  that  in  his  daily  prayers  for  him, 
he  begs  that  God,  who  has  implanted  this  desire  for  the 
peace  of  the  Church  in  the  breast  of  the  emperor,  may  give 
him  every  good  gift.  If  asked  about  their  mission,  they 
must  refer  the  emperor  to  the  letters  ;  and  if  he  further  asks 


262  JOHN    VIII. 

about  the  letters  themselves,  they  must  tell  him  that  they 
contain  greetings  and  all  directions  as  to  what  has  to  be 
done.  Next  day  they  must  go  and  salute  Photius,  give 
him  the  Pope's  letter  to  him,  and  address  him  becomingly 
to  the  effect  that  the  Pope  receives  him  as  his  colleague 
Then,  according  to  the  version  of  the  commonitorium  that 
has  come  down  to  us,  but  quite  in  opposition  to  the  real 
directions  of  the  Pope,  they  are  simply  to  require  that 
Photius  should  appear  before  them  in  synod  to  be 
acknowledged  by  all.  Then  (doubtless  as  a  means  of 
softening  the  opposition,  and  at  the  same  time  of  not 
offending  his  friends)  the  Pope  is  made  to  recommend 
that,  of  the  bishops  of  the  party  of  Ignatius  who  may 
become  reconciled  to  Photius,  those  of  them  who  had  been 
consecrated  before  {i.e.  by  Ignatius  before  Photius  had 
been  intruded  into  his  See,  and  of  whom  there  would  not  be 
many)  should  keep  their  Sees ;  but  that  those  among  them 
who  had  been  consecrated  by  Ignatius  after  his  restoration 
(deinde)  should  simply  receive  support  from  the  bishops  in 
possession.  The  synod,  over  which  the  legates  are  to 
preside  along  with  Photius x  and  the  legates  of  the  Orientals, 
is  to  be  asked  whether  it  receives  the  Pope's  letters  to  the 
emperor.  On  its  signifying  its  acceptance  of  them,  it  is  to 
be  told  that  the  Pope,  who  has  the  care  of  all  the  Churches, 
has  sent  his  legates  to  do  all  that  is  necessary  for  peace. 

Finally  the  legates  are  to  insist  on  civil  functionaries 
not  being  in  future  elected  to  the  See  of  Constantinople, 
to  ask  Photius  not  to  tamper  with  Bulgaria,  and  to  declare 
null  and  void  the  synods  under  Hadrian,  in  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople against  Photius.     The  legates  are  not  to  allow 

1  Here  the  very  form  of  the  sentence  would  seem  enough  to  show 
that  "along  with  Photius,  etc.,"  is  inserted  :  "  Praesidentibus  vobis  in 
synodo  una  cum  praedicto  S.  patriarcha  et  legatis  Orientalibus,  una 
cum  reliquis  archiepiscopis  et  metropolis  et  omnibus  sacerdotibus 
Constant." 


JOHN   VIII.  263 

themselves  to  be  bribed  or  terrified,  but  must  stand  firm 
''as  holding  our  place  and  power."  Then  come  the 
signatures  of  the  bishops  who  were  present  at  the  Roman 
synod,  whence  issued  all  these  documents.  The  first  runs : 
"  I,  Zachary,  bishop  of  Anagni  and  librarian  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  have  with  my  own  hand  signed  this 
commonitorium  for  the  reception  of  Photius,  the  most  holy 
patriarch."  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  same  hand 
which  manipulated  the  preceding  letters  used  the  same 
methods  of  addition  and  subtraction  with  regard  to  these 
papal  instructions  also. 

In  the  three1  remaining  letters  put  into  the  hands  of 
Peter,  the  legates  are  told  to  perform  this  second  mission 
better  than  the  first;  and  Stylian  and  Metrophanes,  and 
other  opponents  of  Photius,  were  ordered  to  communicate 
with  him,  seeing  that  he  has  been  restored  for  the  sake  of 
peace. 

Here  the  narrative  may  be  interrupted  to  consider  the  what  is  to 
advisability  of  this  indulgence   of  John  towards  Photius.  of  this"8 
It  has  been  severely  criticised  by  many  Catholic  writers  ;  JJjohn?06 
and   the  illustrious  cardinal  Baronius 2  goes  so  far   as   to 
ascribe  the  origin  of  the  Pope  Joan  fable  to  what  he  calls 
this  feminine  weakness  of  John  VIII.     A  fuller  study  of 
all  the  circumstances  has,  however,  led  many  moderns  to 
the   conclusion   that  John's  action  was  neither  weak   nor 
foolish.      The   wholesale   abuse   which   was   made   of  his 
clemency  he  could  not  foresee.     And  the  state  of  affairs  at 
the    close   of   879   was   different  from  what  it  was  under 
Nicholas  and  Hadrian.     Now  Ignatius  was  dead,  so  that 

1  Epp.  244,  5,  6. 

2  Tosti,  though  he  will  not  praise  John  for  restoring  Photius,  agrees 
(p.  274)  that  Baronius  is  too  severe  on  the  Pope,  who  throughout  his 
ten  years'  reign  had  never  any  rest,  being  ever  harassed  by  barbarians, 
worried  by  the  Romans,  betrayed  by  the  emperor,  and  persecuted  by 
princes. 


264  JOHN   VIII. 

Photius  was  no  longer  in  the  position  of  one  who  would 
hold  what  belonged  to  another. 

No  doubt,  too,  both  the  emperor  and  the  Pope  were 
thoroughly  convinced  that  the  only  hope  of  bringing  about 
unity  in  the  Church  of  Constantinople  was  to  restore 
Photius.  When  he  had  been  expelled,  and  Ignatius 
restored  by  Basil,  it  was  hoped  that  by  degrees  the 
partisans  of  Photius  would  be  reconciled  to  Ignatius.  But 
for  some  reason,  these  most  reasonable  expectations — the 
more  reasonable  when  the  pliability  of  the  Greek  hierarchy 
is  considered — were  doomed  to  disappointment.  Photius 
was  even  able  to  boast x  that  not  one  of  his  partisans  had 
abandoned  his  cause.  Nicetas  ascribes  this  to  the  clemency 
exercised  by  the  Eighth  General  Council— a  clemency 
which,  he  asserts,  was  due  to  the  action  of  the  Holy  See — 
to  which,  "  in  compliance  with  ancient  custom,  the  right  of 
passing  judgment  was  accorded."2  Modern  authors,  how- 
ever, with  much  greater  reason,  attribute  this  obstinate 
adhesion  to  the  severity  of  that  council.  By  not  recognising 
the  orders  of  the  partisans  of  Photius,  the  council,  as  it 
were,  burnt  the  boats  by  which  the  condemned  might  have 
returned  to  the  Church.  Further,  there  was  much  in  the 
characters  of  Ignatius  and  Photius  to  account  for  the 
devotion  of  his  followers  to  the  latter.  Severe  to  himself, 
Ignatius  seems  to  have  been  somewhat  severe  towards  the 
faults  of  others  3  ;  whereas  Photius  was  not  merely  attractive 

1  Ep.  174,  p.  245  f.,  ed.  Mont. 

2  In  vit.  Ig.t  p.  1235.  "Romanis  enim  pro  ecclesiastica  antiqua 
traditione  judicandi  potestatem  permittebat  (Ignatius).5'  It  were  surely 
superfluous  to  point  out  that  a  stronger  testimony  from  a  Greek  of  the 
primacy  of  jnrisdictio?i  of  the  Holy  See  could  not  be  desired.  The 
most  devoted  admirer  of  Ignatius,  he  unequivocally  states  that  Ignatius 
had  no  authority  to  do  as  he  wished  :   on  ^   avQevriKws  e?xe  -mxv  6 

01/AeTO  Spav'  /iciWov    5e    ro7s    Pw/xaiois,    kcitcx.    t)]V    avwdeu   inK\7}<Tia(TTiKr)V 
irapdSocr'iv,  tV  rrjs  Kpicrtws  i^ovaiav  irapcxoepeb 

3  Nicetas,  ib. 


JOHN   VIII.  265 

by  his  genius,  but  was  prepared  to  go  all  lengths — and  his 
talents  enabled  him  to  go  far — in  accommodating  his 
conscience  as  well  to  the  desires  of  his  own  heart  as  to 
those  of  his  followers.  It  is  possible,  too,  that  John  was 
at  least  partly  deceived  as  to  the  real  state  of  things  in 
Constantinople,  particularly  in  the  matter  of  the  alleged 
unanimity  of  desire  on  the  part  of  clergy  and  laity  alike 
for  the  restoration  of  Photius. 

Finally,  though  there  is  no  valid  reason  to  doubt  that 
the  Pope's  first  motive  in  restoring  Photius  was  to  heal  the 
dissensions  in  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  and  to  stave 
off  as  long  as  possible  the  inevitable  schism  between  the 
East  and  the  West,  it  may  well  be  granted  that  the  hope 
of  saving  Bulgaria  from  schism  and  of  getting  help  from 
the  emperor  against  the  Saracens  also  influenced  him  in 
acceding  to  the  desires  of  Photius.  For  in  this  year,  879, 
dire  were  the  difficulties1  of  the  Pope.  Harassed  on  the 
one  side  by  the  Duke  of  Spoleto,  and  on  the  other  by  the 
Saracens,  with  no  ruler  in  the  West  able  or  willing  to  take 
the  imperial  crown,  John  found  that  while  the  new  empire 
of  the  West  was  rushing  to  ruin,  the  old  empire  of  the  East 
was,  under  Basil,  renewing  its  youth.  No  wonder  the  Pope 
was  inclined  to  be  as  accommodating  as  possible  in  culti- 
vating the  friendship  of  Basil.  And  when  once  he  had 
made  up  his  mind  on  a  certain  line  of  action  to  be 
pursued,  he  acted  with  vigour.  If  he  was  anything,  he  was 
thorough.     All  his   letters,   those   on   the   subject   of  the 


1  Cf.  his  letter  of  this  year  (Ep.  200)  to  Anspert  of  Milan.  "  Quanta? 
necessitatis  assidue  sustinuerimus  incommoda,  quanta2que  perturba- 
tionis  nunc  usque  passi  sumus,  et  quotidie  patiamur  adversa, 
fraternitatem  vestram  nosse  luce  clarius  non  ignoramus."  Two  years 
before  he  had  told  the  same  archbishop  (Ep.  61)  that  "the  dangers  of 
these  times "  compelled  him  to  a  wholesale  use  of  dispensation. 
"Moderatio  sedis  ap.,  universalis  Ecclesiae  dispositio,  in  hoc  periculoso 
tempore  pene  cuncta  dispensatorie  moderanda  compellit." 


266  JOHN    VIII. 

restoration  of  Photius  included,  show  anything  but  weak- 
ness. Hence  the  decided  tone  of  his  letter  to  Metrophanes 
and  Stylian  and  to  the  other  firm  and  faithful  adherents 
of  Ignatius.  No  sooner  had  he  determined  that  the 
acknowledging  of  Photius  was  the  best  thing  for  peace,  than 
he  resolved  that  friend  and  foe  alike  must  be  made  to  fall 
into  line.  And  certainly  that  was  the  only  consistent  policy. 
'Council'        On   the   arrival  (November   879)   of  the  cardinal-priest 

of  Photius, 

879.  Peter   at   Constantinople,    Photius   at   once   assembled    a 

council.  As  the  acts  of  this  synod  embody  not  only 
the  Pope's  letters,  tampered  with  as  just  shown,  but 
other  matters,  for  different  reasons  difficult  of  explana- 
tion, some  authors  have  expressed  their  belief  that  no 
council  was  held  by  Photius  at  all,  and  that  what  purports 
to  be  its  '  acts '  is  but  another  forgery  on  the  part  of  that 
false  Greek.  However,  the  general  opinion  now  is  that 
a  council  was  held,  but  that  its  acts  contain  much  that 
cannot  be  relied  on.  In  reading  them,  distrust  is  instinc- 
tively aroused.  If,  for  instance,  the  Pope's  legates  acted 
and  spoke  as  the  acts  would  have  us  believe,  they  must 
have  betrayed  their  cause  even  more  absolutely  than  any 
other  papal  envoys  in  Constantinople  had  ever  done 
before  them.  However,  as  it  is  certain  that  they  were 
largely  ignorant  of  Greek — the  proceedings  of  the  second 
session  show  that  Peter  needed  an  interpreter — it  is  more 
natural  to  suppose  either  that  their  discourses  have  been 
wrongly  interpreted,  or  that  the  words  of  others  were  falsely 
rendered  to  them,  or  both. 

The  council  was  opened  in  November  ;  and,  according  to 
the  acts,  was  presided  over  by  Photius,  and  was  attended 
by  no  less  than  383  bishops.  Of  these  bishops  who  were 
all  from  the  patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  some  had 
already  taken  part  in  the  Eighth  General  Council,  and  others 
represented  Sees  which  have  never  been  heard  of  in  any 


JOHN   VIII.  267 

other  connection  than  with  this  council.1  With  regard  to 
the  Oriental  Sees,  in  the  first  session  held2  in  the  great 
sacristy  in  the  Church  of  St.  Sophia,  only  the  See  of 
Jerusalem  was  supposed  to  be  represented.  But  by  the 
fourth,  the  other  two  Sees  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch 
were  equally  supposed  to  be  represented.  Supposed,  because 
it  is  extremely  doubtful  whether  Cos'mas  and  the  other 
professed  envoys  of  the  Oriental  Sees  were  really  their 
properly  accredited  legates.3 

Though  Photius  on  several  occasions  in  the  course  of 
the  synod  spoke  in  very  flattering  terms  of  John  himself, 
even  calling  him  his  '  spiritual  father,' 4  and  though  at  the 
end  of  the  first  of  the  three  canons  promulgated  in  the 
fifth  session  there  was  a  declaration  to  the  effect  that  there 
was  no  intention  of  introducing  any  innovations  with  regard 
to  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  See,5  the  Pope  was  throughout 
the  council — even  in  this  very  canon — spoken  of  as  though 
he  were  nothing  more  than  patriarch  of  the  West,  and  as 
though,  consequently,  he  had  no  rights  over  any  other 
part  of  the  Church  and  was  in  no  way  superior  to  Photius 
himself.  Indeed,  in  the  fifth  session,  Basil,  metropolitan  of 
Martyropolis,  who  was  set  down  as  the  representative  of 
the  See  of  Antioch,  openly  declared  that,  as  Photius  was 
the  highest  bishop  (apxtepevs  /neyia-roi),  he  held  the  primacy 
by  the  will  of  God.      And  this,  too,  if  the  acts  are  to  be 

1  Hefele,  vi.  35. 

2  Most  of  the  sessions  were  held  in  the  Church  itself.  The  acts  of 
this  council  will  be  found  in  Mansi  or  Harduin,  but  not  in  Labbe.  A 
full  abstract  of  them  in  Hefele,  vol.  vi.,  Fr.  ed.  ;  Jager,  p.  320  f. ;  Fleury, 
Hist.  Eccles.,  1.  53. 

3  Hergenrother,  iii.  421. 

4  Cf.  first  session — Mansi,  Cone,  xvii.  pp.  379,  382. 

"  MTjSfv  tcDi/  trpo(r6vTuv  TrpzcrfSeiwv  rep  ayiwraTW  ®p6vcp  rrjs  'Pw/xaiwv 
'EK/cA7]frias,  /xtjSc  t<£  tclvttjs  irpocSpcp,  rb  trvvoXov  KaivoTo/j.ov/u.fvuiV,  ^TjSe  i/vv, 
/urjSe  els  to  ^6T€7reiTa"  (Canon  I.).  The  tenth  canon  (p.  471)  rejected  the 
Eighth  General  Council  of  869. 


268  JOHN   VIII. 

trusted,  without  a  vrord  of  protest  not  merely  from  any 
other  bishop,  but  from  the  Pope's  legates.  These  latter 
may,  indeed,  have  been  wholly  ignorant  of  what  was  really 
being  said. 

The  c  acts,'  as  we  now  have  tfiem,  are  simply  one  hymn 
of  praise  in  honour  of  Photius.  Even  the  papal  legate 
Eugenius  is,  in  the  first  session,  made  almost  blasphemously 
to  assert :  "  The  soul  of  the  Pope  was  so  intimately  united 
to  that  of  Photius  as  to  form,  as  it  were,  but  one  soul  with 
it ;  and  just  as  he  desired  to  be  united  with  God,  so  he 
desired  to  become  one  with  Photius!'  Who  can  resist  the 
feeling,  on  reading  such  things  as  this  in  the  acts,  that  he 
is  not  dealing  with  facts  but  with  the  exuberances  of  fancy  ? 
Such  language  Photius  might  wish  to  have  been  used  by 
others,  but  surely  it  cannot  be  that  they  proceeded  from 
any  other  brain  than  his  own. 

In  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  sessions  the  Bulgarian 
question  came  up  for  consideration.  While  Photius  and 
the  synod  professed  to  be  ready  to  fall  in  with  the  Pope's 
wishes  in  this  matter,  they  asserted  that  the  marking  out 
of  boundaries  was  a  matter  for  the  emperor1  to  deal  with. 
However,  in  the  fourth  session,  they  promised  to  use  their 
influence  with  the  emperor  to  get  the  Pope's  requirements 
on  this  subject  complied  with.  In  the  fifth  session,  which 
began  on  January  26,  880,  the  council  was  largely  concerned 
with  vainly  endeavouring  to  bring  over  to  its  views  Metro- 
phanes  of  Smyrna,  the  faithful  friend  of  Ignatius.  With 
the  signing  of  the  acts,  at  the  close  of  this  session,  the 
synod  was,  properly  speaking,  over.  But  in  the  acts  two 
more  sessions  are  reported  as  having  taken  place.  They 
were  held  in  the  imperial  palace,  and  at  the  first  of  them 
the  emperor  presided.  Besides  the  papal  legates  and 
Photius,  only  the  Oriental  vicars  and  eighteen  metropolitans 
1  Mansi,  id.,  p.  455 


JOHN   VIII.  269 

were  present.  To  strengthen  the  foundation  for  the  defence 
of  his  doctrine  on  the  "  Descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
Photius  procured  the  signatures  of  all  to  a  formula  con- 
taining the  Nicene  Creed  without  the  addition  of  the 
'  Filioque,'  and  anathemas  against  such  as  should  add  to 
this  symbol  words  imagined  by  themselves. 

On  the  13th  of  March  (880)  was  held  the  seventh  and 
last  session  of  the  council.  The  formula  of  faith  propounded 
at  the  previous  private  sitting  was  proposed  to  this  public 
session,  and,  of  course,  accepted.  Nor  was  this  last  session 
brought  to  a  close  without  another  pronouncement  that 
Photius  "  had  the  spiritual  priority  over  the  whole  Church." 

Before  parting  company  with  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of 
Photius,  "si  Ton  peut  y  ajoiiter  foi,  scachant  combien  il 
etait  habile  et  hardi  faussaire,"1  a  letter2  purporting  to  be 
from  the  Pope  to  Photius,  and  which  is  appended  to  the 
acts,  must  be  noticed.  In  this  document  John  declares 
that  he  condemns  those  who  have  dared  to  add  the 
1  Filioque '  to  the  Creed,  "  as  transgressors  of  the  divine 
word,  and  overthrowers  of  the  theology  of  Christ"3  There 
is  no  need  to  give  here  the  arguments,  intrinsic  and 
extrinsic,  which  demonstrate  the  apocryphal  character  of 
this  letter,  as  even  Bower  concludes4  "the  letter  in 
question  to  be  forged." 

Loaded  with  presents  for  themselves,  and  with  presents  The  Papal 
and  letters  from  Photius  both  to  the  Pope  and  to  various  return  to 
bishops,5  and  with  a  letter  from  the  emperor  to  the  Pope,  Aug!e88o. 

1  Thus  speaks  even  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccles.,  t.  53,  n.  24. 

2  Ap.  Migne,  Ep.  350.     It  bears  no  date. 

3  "  Reverentice  tuce  iterum  significamus,  ut  de  hac  additione  in  Symbolo 
(ex  Filio  scilicet)  tibi  satisfaciamns,  quod  non  solum  hoc  non  dicimus, 
sed  etiam  quod  eos,  qui  principio  hoc  dicere  sua  insania  ausi  sunt, 
quasi  transgressores  divini  verbi  condemnamus,  etc."     lb. 

4  Lives  of  the  Popes,  v.  78. 

6  In  the  later  editions  of  the  letters  of  Photius,  letters  to  Zachary  of 
Anagni,  Marinus  of  Cervetri,  and  Gauderic  of  Velletri,  are  to  be  found. 


270  JOHN   VIII. 

the  papal  legates  returned  to  Rome,  which  they  reached 
about  August.  Unfortunately  the  letters  of  Photius  and 
the  emperor  to  John  are  lost ;  but  the  replies  of  the  Pope 
to  them,  sent  off  before  the  acts  of  the  council  could  be 
translated,  are  still  extant.  In  his  letter1  to  Basil  (August 
13,  880),  he  praises  and  thanks  him  for  his  efforts  in  behalf 
of  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  for  his  acting  in  concert 
"  with  the  merciful  authority  and  decisions  of  the  Apostolic 
See,  which,  through  the  will  of  Christ,  holds  the  primacy 
of  the  whole  Church."2  The  interest  the  emperor  takes 
in  "the  Church  of  St  Peter  and  our  paternity,"  he  has 
proved  by  deeds  as  well  as  words.  Hence  John  goes  on 
to  thank  him  first  for  the  men-of-war3  he  had  sent  to 
protect  the  territory  of  St  Peter  ;  then  for  restoring  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  See  the  monastery  of  St  Sergius 
in  Constantinople ;  and  lastly,  for  allowing  us  to  have  "  the 
diocese  of  the  Bulgarians."  The  Pope  concludes  with 
these  words :  "  What  has  been  mercifully  {misericorditer) 
decreed  in  synod  at  Constantinople  as  to  the  restitution 
of  Photius,  we  accept.  But  if,  perchance,  in  this  synod 
our  legates  have  acted  against  our  apostolic  instructions, 
then  we  do  not  accept  what  has  been  thus  done,  nor  do 
we  regard  it  as  having  any  force  at  all."4  The  Pope's 
letter5  to  Photius  is  more  uncompromising  still.  He 
commences  by  saying  that  his  one  aim  has  ever  been  to 

1  Ep.  296,  p.  909. 

2  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  notice  the  different  ring  about  the  genuine 
letters  of  John.  The  primacy  of  the  Roman  See  is  asserted  plainly, 
and  John  makes  it  evident  that  the  restoration  of  Photius  is  the  out- 
come of  his  merciful  indulgence. 

3  "  Primo  quidem  quod  dromones  vestros,  qui  pro  defensione  terras 
S.  Petri  in  nostro  manerent  servitio,  nobis  misistis.'5     lb. 

4  "Et  si  fortasse  legati  in  eadem  synodo  contra  apost.  proeceptionem 
egerint,  nos  nee  recipimus  nee  judicamus  alicujus  existere  firmitatis." 
lb. 

5  Ep.  297,  p.  910. 


JOHN    VIII.  271 

promote  the  peace  of  the  Church.  Hence,  wishing  to  have 
pity  on  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  he  had  willed  that 
the  elevation  of  one  man  should  not  prove  the  loss  of 
another,  but  rather  be  to  the  profit  of  all.  And  so,  while 
he  rejoices  at  the  unity  now  to  be  found  in  the  Church  of 
Constantinople,  he  feels  bound  to  say  that  he  is  astonished 
that  many  of  his  instructions  have  not  been  duly  carried  out 
— by  whose  fault  he  knows  not — and  this,  too,  when  he  had 
decided  x  that  through  mercy  special  treatment  was  to  be 
granted  to  him  (Photius).  He  will  not  listen  to  the  excuse 
that  forgiveness  is  only  to  be  asked  by  those  who  have 
done  wrong.  "  Let  not  your  prudence,  which  is  said  to 
be  acquainted  with  humility,  be  angry  that  it  has  been 
ordered  (Jussa  est)  to  ask  pardon  of  the  Church  of  God, 
but  rather  let  your  prudence  learn  to  humble  itself  that 
it  may  be  exalted."  The  Pope  concludes  this  letter  in 
the  very  same  words  as  the  preceding.  He  receives  Photius, 
but  not  what  his  legates  may  have  done  against  his 
injunctions. 

What  further  steps  were  taken  by  John  in  connection 
with  this  assembly,2  which  the  Greeks  to  this  day  speak  of 
as  the  Eighth  General  Council  instead  of  the  one  in  869, 
are  by  no  means  clear.  However,  from  the  letter3  of 
Stephen  (V.)  VI.  to  Basil,  it  is  regarded  as  certain  that  John 

1  "  Cum  nos  scriptis  et  verbis  misericorditer  tecum  sfiecialiter  agen- 
dum esse  decrevimus."     lb. 

2  As  the  name  of  Doellinger  has  great  weight  with  many,  his  estimate 
of  the  Council  of  Photius  may  be  usefully  cited  :  "This  synod  might  be 
viewed  in  all  its  parts  as  a  worthy  sister  of  the  Council  of  Robbers  of 
the  year  449,  with  this  difference,  that  in  the  earlier  synod  violence 
and  tyranny,  in  the  later,  artifice,  fraud,  and  falsehood,  were  employed  by 
wicked  men  to  work  out  their  wicked  designs.  Photius  had,  on  many 
preceding  occasions,  given  such  proofs  of  his  mastery  in  the  art  of 
falsification  that  it  is  more  than  probable  ....  that  many  things  in 
the  acts  of  this  synod  were  forged  or  interpolated  by  him."  Hist,  of 
the  Church,  iii.  100,  Eng.  trans. 

3  Labbe,  viii.  1391  f. 


272  JOHN   VIII. 

despatched  on  a  new  embassy  to  Constantinople  Marinus, 
who  had  distinguished  himself  as  a  deacon  at  the  Eighth 
General  Council  and  was  now  bishop  of  Cervetri,  the  ancient 
Caere  in  Etruria.  Finding  that  Marinus  was  made  of 
different  metal  from  the  other  legates  of  John,  and  that 
he  could  neither  be  hoodwinked  nor  bribed,  Basil  tried  to 
frighten  him.  Marinus  was  thrown  into  prison,  but  he 
could  not  be  won  over. 

On  the  return  of  his  legate  to  Rome  in  the  beginning  of 
88 1,  John  apparently  solemnly  condemned  Photius.  This 
would  seem  to  be  proved,  first  by  the  way  in  which  his 
legate  Marinus  had  been  treated  for  carrying  out  the  Pope's 
instructions,  and  then  by  the  testimony  of  the  Greek 
abridgment  of  the  acts  of  the  Eighth  General  Council  of 
869.  This  authority  positively  states  that  John  condemned 
Photius,  who  had  "deceived  and  corrupted"  the  legates 
Eugenius,  etc.  Gospel  in  hand,  he  is  said  to  have  mounted 
the  pulpit,  and  to  have  declared  that  whoever  should  not 
regard  Photius  as  condemned  by  the  just  judgment  of  God 
should  be  anathema.1 

It  is  further  certain  that  there  is  no  more  mention  of 
Photius  in  the  letters  of  John.2  If  it  be  argued  against 
what  has  been  said,  that  Photius  would  not  have  continued 
to  speak  of  John  in  terms  of  praise  as  he  did,3  if  that  Pope 
also  had  excommunicated  him,  it  may  be  replied  that  it 
doubtless  suited  Photius  to  have  it  believed  that  John's 
recognition  of  him  was  never  withdrawn. 

1  "Joannes  accepto  evangelio  ambonem  conscendit,  cunctisque 
audientibus  dixit :  Quicumque  Photium  non  justo  Dei  judicio  condem- 
nation judicat  ....  anathema  sit."  Ap.  Labbe,  ib.,  p.  1422.  Cf.  the 
epitome  of  the  Eighth  General  Council,  which  was  affixed  to  the  entrance 
of  the  Church  of  St.  Sophia,  and  which  mentions  'John'  as  one  of  the 
nine  popes  who  condemned  Photius,  and  his  public  condemnation  of 
his  legates.    Id.,  p.  1423. 

2  Lapotre,  p.  68. 

3  In  his  De  Sfiir.  S.  mystagogia,  written  perhaps  later  than  896. 


joiin  viit.  27$ 

The  condemnation  of  Photius,  pronounced  by  John,  was 
renewed  by  his  immediate  successors,  Marinus,  Hadrian  III., 
Stephen  (V.)  VI.,  and  Formosus,1  who  became  Pope  the 
same  year  in  which  it  is  believed  by  most  authors2  that 
Photius  died  (February  6,  891).  The  details  of  their 
proceedings  against  him  will  be  found  in  the  biography 
of  Stephen  VI. 

Whilst  John  was  occupied  "with  these  important  events  John  and 
in  the  East,  he  was  busy  with  others  of  no  less  importance, 
though  of  a  more  political  character,  in  the  West.  But  if 
his  skill  in  politics  has  evoked  the  praises  not  only  of  his 
contemporaries  but  of  modern  writers  of  every  shade  of 
opinion,  some  of  the  latter  would  make  out  that  he  devoted 
his  abilities  in  that  direction  to  raising  to  a  greater  height 
the  fabric  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  Roman  See  on  the 
ruins  of  the  empire — ruins  which  he  himself  helped  to 
cause.  A  careful  examination  of  the  Pope's  actions,  how- 
ever, reveals  the  fact  that  he  did  all  he  could  to  strengthen 
the  empire.  If  the  empire  of  Charlemagne  went  still  further 
to  pieces  during  his  pontificate,  it  was  not  owing  to  any 
imaginary  humiliation  inflicted  on  it  by  the  Pope.  It  was 
due  to  the  only  too  natural  want  of  a  series  of  rulers  like 
Charlemagne.  Only  by  a  succession  of  such  master-minds 
could  the  numerous  and  powerful  obstacles  to  the  imperial 
unity  of  the  West  have  been  overcome — obstacles,  not 
only  from  without,  caused  by  the  incessant  inroads  of 
barbarians,  but  also  from  within,  in  the  shape  of  physical 
barriers,  linguistic  differences,  and  racial  enmities.  The 
glorious  unity,  laboriously  erected  after  hundreds  of  years  of 
toil  by  the  genius  of  Rome,  had  been  so  shattered,  especially 

1  The  inscription  affixed  to  the  right-hand  portico  of  St.  Sophia,  cited 
above,  gives  the  names  of  the  nine  popes,  from  Leo  IV.  to  Formosus 
inclusive,  who  condemned  Photius.     Ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1423. 

2  Of  course  if,  as  Lapotre  believes  (p.  69  n.),  Photius  composed  his 
Mystagogia  after  the  year  896,  he  must  also  have  died  after  that  date. 

VOL.    III.  18 


274  JOHN  VIII. 

in  the  fifth  century  by  Hun  and  Goth,  that  apparently  its 
fragments  could  not  be  welded  together  again.  With  his 
keen  political  insight  John  realised  clearly  enough  that  it 
would  require  all  that  emperor  and  Pope  could  effect, 
working  in  the  fullest  harmony,  to  stem  the  tide  of  anarchy 
which  was  setting  in  strongly,  in  Italy  especially.  And 
nobly  did  he  strain  every  nerve  to  try  to  stop  it.  But 
"  neither  the  diplomatic  genius  of  John  the  Eighth,  nor  the 
abilities  of  any  other  Pope  were  capable  of  overcoming  the 
chaos  which  prevailed  in  Italy.  The  bishops  of  Lombardy, 
the  feudal  dukes,  who  had  all  risen  to  power  with  the  fall 
of  the  empire,  the  princes  of  southern  Italy,  the  Saracens, 
the  German  kings,  the  rebellious  Roman  nobles,  had  all 
to  be  overcome  at  one  and  the  same  time,  and  the  task  of 
the  subjugation  of  so  many  hostile  forces  proved  beyond 
the  powers  of  one  solitary  man."1  But  without  feeling, 
indeed,  must  he  be  who  can  see  the  heroic  old  Pope 
battling  with  every  form  of  evil  till  he  has  to  cry  out  that 
the  misery  of  the  people  entrusted  to  him  is  so  great  that 
the  tomb  is  the  only  comfort  left  for  him 1 — and  who  can 
then  withhold  from  him  his  admiration. 
John  John  began  his  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  well-being  of 

supports        T      i      i  •    •  i  •      i  i  t 

Louis.  Italy  by  giving  his  hearty  support  to  the  emperor  Louis. 
He  loved  Italy,  and  therefore  did  all  he  could  for  Louis, 
whom  he  properly  regarded  as  its  only  hope.2  In  the  first 
months  of  his  pontificate  he  wrote3  to  Charles  the  Bald. 
And,  as  he  avers  in  his  letter,  following  in  the  footsteps  of 
his  spiritual  father  Hadrian,  from  whom  he  had  inherited 
the  overlordship  of  the  Church  (frincipatum  ecclesice)  and 
the  power  of  punishing  the  disobedient,  he  exhorted  the 
king  to  give  up  to  the  emperor  the  kingdom  of  Lothaire. 

1  Gregorovius,  iii.  p.  204. 

2  "  Cum  pro  populi  nobis  commissi  vastatione  solum  nobis  supersit 
sepulcrum."     Ep.  57,  p.  710. 

3  Ep.  47,  ap.  Loewenfcld.     Cf.  supra,  p.  179  ft. 


JOHN    VIII.  275 

If  he  fails  to  do  this,  the  Pope  "'will  come  himself  with  a 
rod,'  as  his  'spirit  of  meekness'  has  been  set  at  naught" 
(1  Cor.  iv.  21).  We  have  already1  seen  how,  to  save  the 
honour  of  Louis,  John  lent  himself  to  his  policy  in  the 
matter  of  the  reconciliation  between  him  and  the  duke  of 
Beneventum.  In  every  way,2  too,  did  he  second  the  efforts 
of  the  emperor  in  his  endeavours  to  break  up  the  Saracen 
power  in  south  Italy.  And  when  the  tyrannical  Sergius, 
duke  of  Naples,  of  whose  treatment  of  his  uncle  mention 
has  been  made,  and  of  whom  we  shall  hear  again,  thought 
himself  powerful  enough  to  despise  emperor  and  Pope  alike, 
and,  following  the  example  of  Michael  the  Drunkard,  even 
went  to  the  length  of  treating  an  embassy  of  the  Pope  with 
contempt,  John  wrote3  to  Louis  that  he  would  strike 
Sergius,  if  not  with  a  sword  of  steel,  like  that  with  which 
Michael  had  been  slain,  at  least  with  a  spiritual  sword. 
He  will  excommunicate  him  at  once  in  council,  and  will 
inform  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  and  the  other 
patriarchs  of  his  impious  cruelty,  so  that  he  may  be 
condemned  by  the  whole  Church  as  he  has  been  by  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

Hence,  despite  some  minor  differences  between  them, 
John  could  write4  in  all  confidence  to  the  widowed  Engel- 
berga  that  he  had  ever  had  the  greatest  affection  for  Louis, 
and  that  he  would  never  cease  to  pray  for  him  daily. 

John  was  as  true  to  Engelberga  as  to  her  husband.  He 
always  watched  over  her  interests,  as  many  of  his  letters 

1  Supra,  p.  189.     Cf.  Muratori,  Anna!.,  ad  an.  873. 

2  Details  infra. 

3  Ep.  56,  Loewen.  That  the  person  condemned  in  this  letter  was 
Sergius  II.,  duke  of  Naples,  is  shown  by  Lapotre,  p.  229.  What  he 
says  there,  a  comparison  between  Ep.  28  (Migne)  and  this  one  would 
serve  to  strengthen.  Special  reference  is  made  to  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  because  Naples  was  supposed  to  be  subject  to  the 
Byzantine  empire. 

4  Ep.  105. 


276  JOHN   VIII. 

to  her  show.  We  will  cite  a  beautiful  extract  from  his 
letter  to  her  of  March  877.  He  begins  by  assuring  her 
that  his  sentiments  towards  her  have  not  undergone  any 
change,  for  love  knows  not  change.  He  writes  to  her  in 
order  that  she  may  not  give  way  under  her  troubles ;  for 
the  apostle  has  taught  us  "  that  tribulation  worketh 
patience;  and  patience  trial;  and  trial  hope.  And  hope 
confoundeth  not"  (Ros.  v.  3);  ''The  things  which  are 
seen  are  temporal ;  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are 
eternal"  (2  Cor.  iv.  18).  "Have  ever,  therefore,  before 
your  eyes  the  saints  who  through  patience  have  shone 
like  stars  in  the  world  ;  and  so  walk  with  sinless  feet  to 
your  heavenly  home,  in  which  they  shall  dwell  who,  guided 
by  the  words  of  our  Lord,  possess  their  souls  in  patience 
(St.  Luke  xxi.  19).  For  hostile  death  has  taken  nothing 
away,  which  the  life,  which  is  Christ,  has  not  changed  to 
what  is  better.  Death  has  deprived  you  of  a  mortal  husband, 
but  the  latter  (Christ)  has  given  you  in  Himself  an  undying 
spouse.  You  who  were  called  the  wife  of  an  earthly  spouse, 
may  now  with  greater  honour  be  said  to  be  the  bride  of 
a  heavenly  one.  A  corruptible  crown  has  been  taken  from 
you,  an  incorruptible  one  is  being  made  ready  for  you. 
Insignia  which  fade  have  been  removed  from  you,  but 
there  have  been  stored  up  for  you  ornaments  which  grow 
not  old.  What  further  ?  For  a  kingdom  full  of  cares  and 
phantoms,  you  will  receive  one  truly  real  and  happy.  Truly 
this  is  a  change  of  the  right  hand  of  the  Most  High.  But, 
as  a  word  or  two  is  enough  for  a  wise  man,  you  will  find 
these  few  words  enough  for  you,  who  know  well  how  to 
draw  many  thoughts  from  a  few  sentences."1 
Charles  the  On  the  death  of  Louis  II.  (August  12,  875),  the  last  of 
emperor,  the  Carolingians  who  bore  with  anything  like  credit  the 
75*  title  of  emperor,  both  of  his  uncles,  Charles  the  Bald  and 

1  Ep.  66.     Cf.  Balan,  p.  14. 


JOHN   VIII.  277 

Louis  the  German,  were  anxious  to  succeed  to  his  king- 
dom and  to  the  proud  name  of  emperor  ;  for  Louis  had 
only  left  behind  him  a  daughter,  Hermengard.  When  they 
assembled  at  Pavia,  the  Italian  nobles,  chief  among  whom 
at  this  time  were  Berenger  of  Friuli,  Lambert  of  Spoleto, 
and  Adalbert  I.  of  Tuscany,  played  a  double  game. 
Unknown  to  either  of  the  candidates,  they  invited  to  the 
throne  of  Italy  both  Charles  the  Bald  and  Louis  the 
German.1  Whilst  they  were  acting  in  this  diplomatic 
or  rather  cunning  manner,  John  sent  to  Charles  the  Bald 
an  embassy,2  in  which  figured  Formosus  of  Porto,  to  express 
to  him  the  goodwill  of  the  Romans  for  him,  and  his  own 
wish  "that  his  excellency  might  be  elected  for  the  honour 
and  exaltation  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  and  for  the 
security  of  Christian  people."3  Charles  waited  for  no 
more,  and  by  the  quickness  of  his  movements  disconcerted 
his  rival.  The  two  sons  of  Louis  the  German,  Carloman 
and  Charles  the  Fat,  who  had  entered  Italy  to  support 
their  father's  claims  by  force  of  arms,  found  themselves 
compelled  to  leave  the  country.  Whereas  Charles  the 
Bald,  the  chosen  candidate  of  the  Pope,  successfully  made 

1  Cf.  c.  19  (ap.  Script.  Rer.  Lang.)  of  the  Hist,  of  Andrew  of 
Bergamo,  an  author  as  accurate  in  his  facts  as  barbarous  in  his  style, 
who  began  to  write  in  877.  He  was  present  at  the  funeral  of  Louis  II. 
According  to  the  Libellus  de  imp.  pot.,  it  was  the  wish  of  the  late 
emperor  that  Carloman,  the  son  of  Louis  the  German,  should 
succeed  him. 

2  Cf.  the  Capit.  ab  Odonc  propos.,  among  the  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Pontion  (ap.  Mansi,  Concil.,  xvii.,  Append.  ;  Hefele,  vi.  p.  94),  a  synod 
assembled,  "  vocatione  D.  Johannis  .  .  .  .  et  jussione  D.  Karoli "  (ed. 
Boretius,  ii.  351),  and  Odoranni  Chron.%  an.  874,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.   142. 

"D.    Joannes  ....  per    Jadericum    Veliternensem,    etc D. 

Carolum  ....  ad  limina  SS.  App.  invitavit,  eumque  Ecclesiae  ipsius 
defensorem  auctoremque  elegit." 

3  "  Excellentiam  tuam  ad  honorem  et  exaltationem  S.  Rom.  ecclesia?, 
et  ad  securitatem  populi  Christiani  eligendam  esse  speravimus." 
Deusdedit,  Collect.  Can.,  iv.  104,  p.  419 ;  Jane,  3019. 


278 


joiin  viii. 


Duchesne 
on  John's 
choice. 


Why  pre- 
ferred by 
John. 


his  way  to  Rome,  and  received  the  imperial  crown  on 
Christmas  Day1  (875). 

On  the  action  of  Pope  John  in  his  choice  of  Charles 
the  Bald,  Mgr.  Duchesne,  who  ordinarily  seems  rather 
disposed  to  belittle  the  part  played  by  the  popes  before 
this  period  in  bestowing  the  imperial  crown,  makes  this 
comment  in  one  of  his  latest  works — Les  premiers  temps 
de  Petat  pontifical :  "  There  is  here  no  longer  question  (as 
in  816,  823,  and  in  850)  of  a  mere  ceremony  of  consecration, 
nor  even,  as  in  800,  of  an  outward  initiative,  more  or  less 
obvious,  but  of  a  real  determining  choice.  How  the  situa- 
tion is  changed  indeed  !  From  the  year  824,  the  popes,  in 
principle  and  generally  in  fact,  were  confirmed  by  the 
emperor.  Now  the  emperor  is  chosen  by  the  Pope.  And 
John  was  destined  to  have  the  opportunity  of  making 
such  a  choice  no  less  than  twice  in  the  ten  years  of  his 
pontificate."  2 

If  we  are  to  believe  the  German  annals  of  Fulda  and 
Regino,  equally  likely  with  the  author  of  the  annals  to 
favour  his  ruler,  Charles  the  Bald,  who  according  to  them 
was  a  worthless  coward,  bought  the  imperial  crown  from 
John  and  the  Romans.  But  against  this,  it  is  certain  that 
both  Nicholas  I.  and  Hadrian  II.  had  already  looked  for- 
ward to  Charles's  being  emperor.3     Moreover  John  himself 

1  Hincmar,  Annal.,  ad  an.  875.  "  Carolus,  pluribus  (de  primoribus 
ex  Italia)  receptis,  Romam,  invitante  P.  Johanne  perrexit."  ....  Then, 
ad  an.  876,  "  In  die  nativitatis  Domini,  B.  Petro  multa  et  pretiosa 
munera  offerens,  in  imperatorem  unctus  et  coronatus,  atque  Romanorum 
imperator  appellatus  est." 

2  Pg-  135- 

3  In  addition  to  the  letter  of  Hadrian  to  Charles,  already  cited,  we 
have  the  assurance  of  John  to  the  bishops  of  Louis's  kingdom  :  "  Hunc 
(Carolum)  a  decessoribus  nostris,  reverendae  scilicet  memoriae  Nicolao 
et  Adriano  pontificibus,  diu  quidem  desiderari  voluit  (Deus  omnipotens). 
Ep.  22,  a  letter  read  at  the  Synod  of  Pontion.  Cf.  John's  discourse 
to  the  Council  of  Ravenna  in  877,  and  the  author  of  the  Libellus  dt, 
imp.  potest.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  966- 


JOHN   VIII.  279 

had,  on  the  death  of  Louis,  at  once  declared  his  preference 
for  him,  both  because  he  was  the  most  fit  to  bear  the 
responsibilities  of  the  empire,  and  because  he  himself  wished 
to  carry  on  the  policy  of  his  predecessors.  No  doubt 
Charles  the  Bald  was  not  equal  to  the  emergencies  of  the 
times ;  but  he  was  the  best  of  those  from  whom  the  Pope 
had  to  select,  and  was  anything  but  the  coward  the  annals 
of  Fulda  would  make  out.1  Not  only  had  John  a  genuine 
admiration  for  Charles — an  admiration  which  he  expressed 
even  after  his  death,  when  he  could  not  hope  for  anything 
for  him — but  his  predecessors,  Nicholas  I.  and  Hadrian  II., 
had  also  expressed  their  regard  for  Charles  in  their  letters 
to  him.  Even  such  a  judge  of  character  as  the  librarian 
Anastasius2  was  free  with  his  praises  of  the  king  of  the 
West  Franks.  In  fine,  Charles's  love  for  and  patronage  of 
learning  would  weigh  with  Rome.  Indeed,  the  imperial 
pamphleteer,  who  wrote  about  897,  as  Lapotre  has  proved 
in  a  masterly  manner,  expressly  asserts  that  the  '  Roman 
pontiffs'  invited  Charles  to  come  for  the  imperial  crown 
"  because  he  was  a  sort  of  philosopher."  3  There  is  not,  then, 
the  slightest  reason  for  supposing  that  John  fixed  upon 
Charles  the  Bald  to  wear  the  imperial  crown  for  any  other 
fundamental  motive  than  that  he  was  the  most  suitable 
candidate  under  the  circumstances.  The  bribes  spoken  of 
by  the  German  annals  were  no  more  than  the  customary 
presents.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Charles  paid  for  the 
title  by  giving  up  any  of  the  rights  which  had  been  claimed 
by  his  predecessors  since  the  agreement  of   824.     It  was 

1  This  is  proved  irrefragably  by  Lapotre,  p.  266  f. 

2  Cf.  his  letters  to  Charles  the  Bald,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  737  f. 

3  "Et  quia  erat  in  litteris  quasi  philosophus,  rogabant  (Romani 
pontifices)  ilium  (Carolum)  supervenire  B.  Petro,  et  de  servitutis  jugo 
ad  propriam  libertatem  reducere  suam  ecclesiam."  Libel,  de  imp. 
potest.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  966 ;  or  ib.,  t.  139,  p.  55.  Hence  Lupus  of 
Ferrieres  (Ep.  119)  speaks  of  Charles  as  "doctrinae  studiosissimus." 


28o  JOHN   VIII. 

not,1  as  we  shall  see,  till  the  latter  half  of  876  that  any 
important  concessions  were  made  by  Charles  to  the  requests 
of  the  Pope.  Whilst  he  was  in  Rome,  John  made  no 
effort  to  induce  him  to  abolish  those  rights  with  regard  to 
administration  of  justice  within  the  pontifical  states  which 
were  claimed  by  the  emperors  in  virtue  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  824,  or  to  carry  out  in  full  the  donation  of 
Charlemagne. 
The  Dread  of  Louis  the  German  prevented  the  new  emperor 

atPavia,  from  remaining  long  in  Rome  after  his  coronation.  The 
7  '  month  of  February  found  him  at  Pavia,  receiving,  at  a  diet 
he  held  there,  oaths  of  obedience  from  the  Italian  prelates 
and  nobles  who  confirmed  the  choice  made  by  God 
through  the  Vicar  of  the  Apostles.2  A  capitulary  was 
published  by  Charles  with  the  consent  of  the  bishops  and 
nobles  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  "  for  the  peace  and  ad- 
vantage of  the  whole  empire."  It  opens  by  declaring  that, 
"  as  the  Roman  Church  is  the  head  of  all  Churches,  it  must 
be  honoured  and  revered  by  all.  Its  rights  must  not  be 
molested,  so  that  it  may  be  able  to  extend  its  pastoral  care 
to  the  universal  Church."  Mindful  of  what  had  been  done 
for  him  by  the  Pope,  Charles  next  (c.  2)  lays  down  that 
"  honour  must  be  paid  by  all  to  our  lord  and  spiritual 
father  John,  supreme  pontiff  and  universal  Pope;  and  that 
what  he  decrees  in  the  order  of  his  sacred  ministry  by 
apostolic  authority  must  be  observed  by  all  with  the 
greatest  reverence."  Especially  are  the  territory  and 
property  of  the  Apostles  to  be  respected.  The  bishops  and 
the  emperor  are  to  be  honoured  ;  and  the  former  are  to  do 

1  Cf.  Lapotre,  p.  249  f.  For  deeds  of  the  Pope  in  harmony  with  the 
concordat  of  824,  ib.,  p.  231  f. 

2  "  Divina  pietas  vos  ....  per  vicarium  .  .  .  .  D.  Johannem  sum- 
mum  pontificem  ....  ad  imperiale  culmen  provexit ;  nos  unanimiter 
vos  protectorem  nostrum  et  Italic!  regni  regem  eligimus."  Capit.  reg. 
Franc,  ii.  99,  ed.  Boretius.     But  see  infra,  p.  285  and  p.  292  ff. 


JOHN   VIII.  28l 

their  duty  without  being  hindered.  While  most  of  the 
items  of  this  capitulary  concern  the  conduct  of  bishops,  the 
last  one  forbids  anyone  to  harbour  any  of  the  enemies  of 
the  emperor.1 

On  the  departure  (January  5)  of  Charles  for  Pavia,  j0hn  goes 
whither,  as  we  have  seen,  he  went  to  receive  the  sub-  8°67aples 
mission  of  the  great  nobles  of  Italy  and  to  settle  the  details 
of  its  government,  John,  no  doubt  in  consequence  of  an 
understanding  with  him,  set  out  for  Naples.2  He  went 
in  company  with  Guy  and  his  brother  Lambert,  duke  of 
Spoleto,  who  had  been  commissioned  by  Charles  to  help 
the  Pope.3  The  object  of  his  journey  was  to  break  up 
the  disgraceful  league  which  in  874  the  southern  states 
and  cities  had  formed  with  the  infidel  Moslems.  Of  all 
the  troubles  which  John  had  to  encounter,  this  'Saracen 
alliance'  gave  him  the  greatest  pain.  No  thorn  pierced 
him  more  deeply.  Still,  though  it  was  clear  that  the  infidels 
were  about  to  renew  their  aggressions  in  force,  he  was 
able  to  effect  but  little.  So  self-seeking  were  the  small 
states  and  the  independent  cities  of  the  coast,  that  not  only 
Sergius,  duke  of  Naples,  and  Adelgisus  of  Benevento,  but 
even  Lambert  of  Spoleto,  refused  to  give  up  the  Saracen 
alliance.  Only  Guaifer4  of  Salerno,  Landulf,  bishop  and 
count  of  Capua,  and  the  city  of  Amalfi  hearkened  to  the 
Pope's  entreaties.  Besides  the  failure  of  his  efforts  to  bring 
the  southern  states  to  a  sense  of  their  duty  as  Christians — 
not  to  say  as  Italians — John  had  other  weighty  matters  to 
trouble  him  at  this  time.  The  attitude  of  Louis  the 
German  towards  Charles  had  caused  him  anxiety  for 
some   months   past ;    and,    when    he    returned    to    Rome 

1  lb.,  100  f. 

2  Lapotre,   p.  304  n.,  establishes  that  this  journey  was  made  after 
February  17  and  before  March  31,  876. 

3  Erchempert,  c.  39  ;  Epp.t  28,  31. 

4  Erchemp.,  ib.     Cf.  infra. 


282 


JOHN   VIII. 


Louis  the 
German 
opposes 
Charles. 


at  the  end  of  March,  he  had  to  face  great  difficulties 
brought  about  by  some  of  the  most  important  men  in 
the  city. 

As  the  feeling  of  jealous  hostility  to  Charles  on  the  part  of 
his  brother,  Louis  the  German,  had  been  sufficiently  evinced 
by  his  sending  his  sons  to  try  to  prevent  his  march  to 
Rome,  John  wrote1  to  him,  before  Charles  arrived  there,  to 
exhort  him  not  to  invade  the  latter's  territories.  But  of 
these  letters  Louis  took  no  heed.  He  crossed  the  frontier 
(875)  and  ravaged  the  country  in  all  directions.  Charles 
could  not,  under  those  circumstances,  stop  long  in  Italy. 
By  the  beginning  of  March  (876)  he  was  en  route  for  France, 
accompanied  by  two  papal  legates,  who  were  the  bearers 
of  several  letters 2  from  John,  and  had  been  sent  to  promote 
peace.  In  these  letters,  addressed  to  the  nobility  of  both 
kingdoms,  those  of  Charles's  kingdom  who  remained  true 
to  him  were  praised,  those  who  had  gone  over  to  Louis 
blamed  and  exhorted  to  penance.  The  bishops  and  counts 
of  the  kingdom  of  Louis  are  reprehended  for  not  pre- 
venting their  sovereign  from  invading  the  territories  of 
his  absent  brother,  and  told  to  make  satisfaction  to  the 
Pope's  legates.  And  strong  is  the  language  in  which 
John  denounces  that  king  himself,  "if  king  {rex)  he 
deserves  to  be  called,  who  has  not  controlled  (rexif)  his 
unruly  passions";3  that  prince  "who,  while  the  fields4 
of  Fontenay  are  still  soaking  with  the  blood  which  he  had 
shed  there  in  his  youth,  in  his  old  age  hastens  to  shed  the 
blood  of  innumerable  Christians  to  gratify  his  lust  for 
power."     But,  despite  of  enemies  of  all   kinds,  the  Pope 

1  Of  these  letters,  now  lost,  we  have  knowledge  from  the  second  of 
the  Capitula  ab  Odone  firopos.,  at  the  Council  of  Pontion.  John  sent 
the  letters  "monentes  eos  (Louis  and  his  nobles,  clerical  and  lay) 
apostolica  auctoritate  more  paterno  servare,  quae  pacis  sunt."  Capit., 
ed.  Bor.,  ii.  351. 

2  Epp.  20-23.  3  Ep.  21.  4  Ep.  22. 


-  ormosus 
and  others, 


JOHN    VIII.  283 

continued,  everything  has  worked  out  well  for  Charles. 
For  God  "has  permitted  him  to  march  through  Italy,  not 
only  without  shedding  of  blood,  but  with  great  honour 
and  to  the  general  joy  of  all  the  people;  and,  by  the 
favour  of  the  Apostolic  See,  and  with  the  approval  of  all, 
has  raised  him  to  the  imperial  throne." x 

But  there  were  at  this  time  also  troubles  nearer  home  Condem- 

nation  of 

in  store  for  John.  On  his  return  to  Rome  towards  the  F 
end  of  March,  he  had  to  take  action  regarding  Formosus  867. 
of  Porto  and  several  of  the  chief  officials  of  his  court. 
Whether  he  had  not  felt  himself  strong  enough  to  remove 
them  before,  especially  while  the  Emperor  Louis  II.  was 
alive,  or  because  the  cup  of  their  iniquities  was  not  full, 
he  had  left  in  the  positions  in  which  he  found  them, 
Gregory  the  nomenclator,  and  '  apocrisiarius 2  of  the  Holy 
See,'  George  of  the  Aventine  and  Sergius, '  masters  of  the 
soldiers.'  With  these  men,  whose  lives  are  samples  of 
the  increasing  lawlessness  and  licentiousness  of  the  Roman 
nobility  which  is  soon  to  cause  such  degradation  to  Rome 
and  the  Papacy,  Formosus  was  in  some  way3  connected. 
We  are  unfortunately  very  much  in  the  dark  in  connection 
with  the  condemnation  of  these  men  by  John  VIII. 
However,  from   the   account   of   the   sentence   passed    on 

1  lb.  "  Non  solum  sine  sanguine,  verum  etiam  cum  magnis  honori- 
bus,  hinc  inde  gaudentibus  populis,  Italiam  penetrare  permisit,  et 
per  apost.  sedis  privilegium,  cunctorum  favoribus  approbatum  sceptris 
imperialibus  sublimavit." 

2  That  functionary  was  a  sort  of  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  It  does 
not  appear  that  this  office  had  any  lengthy  existence,  at  least  under 
this  title.  It  was  probably  much  the  same  as  the  old  office  of 
'  primicerius.'  Indeed,  Gregory  is  called  primicerius  also  in  the  acts 
of  his  condemnation. 

3  According  to  his  panegyrist  Auxilius  {In  def.  S.  ordin.  Formosi\ 
Formosus  was  regarded  by  John  with  suspicion  because  he  was  a 
friend  of  George,  etc.  Terrified  at  the  rumours  as  to  what  was  going 
to  be  done  to  them,  all  had  fled  in  fear.  C.  3  ap.  Diimmler,  Aux, 
und  Vul%.,  p.  63. 


284  JOHN   VIII. 

them  by  him,  which  he  sent  to  "all  the  people  of 
Gaul  and  Germany,"1  it  appears  that  Gregory  had  done 
nothing  else,  for  the  eight  years  during  which  he  had  held 
office,  but  enrich  himself  by  plundering  everybody  and 
everything  within  his  reach  ;  and,  when  he  had  had  to  fly 
the  city,  had  taken  with  him  "  almost  all  the  treasure  of 
the  Roman  Church."  As  bad  as  Gregory  was  his  brother, 
the  secundicerius  Stephen  ;  and  worse  than  he  was  his 
son-in-law,  George  of  the  Aventine.  After  poisoning  his 
brother  for  the  sake  of  his  mistress,  whom  he  desired  for 
himself,  he  repaired  his  fortunes,  ruined  doubtless  by  his 
luxurious  life,  by  wedding  the  niece  of  Benedict  III. 
And  then,  to  become  the  son-in-law  of  the  apocrisiarius, 
he  murdered  almost  in  public  (pene  publice),  writes  the 
Pope,  his  lawful  -wife,  to  whom,  needless  to  add,  he  had 
been  unfaithful.  He  escaped  the  consequences  of  this 
crime  through  perjured  imperial  mzssz,  and,  of  course, 
through  the  connivance  of  his  new  father-in-law,  Gregory. 
Of  the  same  clique,  and  as  deep  in  crime,  was  Sergius. 
Like  George,  he  had  saved  himself  from  utter  destitution 
by  marrying  the  niece  of  a  Pope  (Nicholas  I.),  and  had 
then  shown  his  attachment,  first  to  Nicholas,  by  robbing 
him,  while  he  lay  in  his  last  agony,  of  money  he  had 
set  aside  for  the  poor,  and  then  to  his  wife,  by  desert- 
ing her  for  his  mistress  whom  he  swore  to  marry. 
Of  this  vile  company,  some,  at  least,  of  the  women 
were  just  as  bad  as  the  men.  In  the  same  company  as 
those  already  mentioned,  the  Pope  classes  a  certain  Con- 
stantiana,  another  daughter  of  the  nomenclator  Gregory. 
Lawfully  married  to  Cessarius,  the  son  of  Pippin,  "a 
most  powerful  vestararius,"  she  did  not  hesitate,  on  the 
ruin  of  her  father-in-law's  fortunes,  to  publicly  marry 
Gratian,  though  Cessarius  was  still  alive.  But,  as  true 
1  Ep.  24,  April  21,  876.     A  letter  read  at  the  Council  of  Pontion. 


JOHN   VIII.  285 

to  Gratian  as  she  had  been  to  Cessarius,  she  fled  with  a 
third  man. 

Such  were  some  of  the  Roman  nobles  of  the  ninth 
century.  It  could  not  even  then  have  required  a  prophet 
to  foretell  what  would  be  the  unspeakable  condition  of  Rome 
and  the  papacy,  if  the  city  were  to  fall,  as  it  was  soon  to 
do,  into  the  hands  of  men  and  women  whose  swinish  lust 
was  only  second  to  their  cruelty  and  avarice.  At  the 
moment,  however,  there  was  safety  for  Rome.  The  reins 
of  government  were  in  strong  hands. 

From  the  letter  from  which  the  sombre  particulars  just 
cited  have  been  extracted,  it  is  clear  that  accusations 
against  Gregory  and  his  family  connections  were  in  the 
first  instance  laid  before  Charles1  at  Pavia  (February  876), 
and  then  brought  before  the  Pope  (March  31).  Summoned 
to  appear  before  John,  they  continued  putffhg  off  doing  so, 
under  various  pleas;  hoping,  adds  the  Pope,  in  the  mean- 
time to  overthrow  him  either  by  themselves,  or  by  the 
aid  of  the  Saracens,  whom  they  had  summoned  to  their 
assistance.  Baffled,  however,  by  the  watchfulness  of  the 
Pope,  and  feeling  too  guilty  to  await  trial,  they  fled,  along 
with  Formosus,  with  the  treasures  of  the  Church,  which 
Gregory  had  under  his  charge.  Thereupon,  in  a  synod 
(April  19)  held  in  the  Pantheon,  John  decided  as  follows 
with  regard  to  the  accused.  On  the  charge  of  having 
made  an  unlawful  compact  with  Boris  of  Bulgaria,  and  of 
having  conspired  against  "  the  safety  of  the  republic  and 
of  the  Emperor  Charles,  by  us  elected  and  consecrated," 
Formosus  was  declared  excommunicated,  unless  he  pre- 
sented himself  for  trial  before  the   29th,  deprived  of  his 

1  And  that,  too,  on  his  initiative  "Zelo  christians  religionis,  Ecclesia 
Dei  quae  penes  nos  est,  instinctuque  dilecti  filii  nostri  serenissimi 
imperatoris  ....  per  Petrum  ep.,  penes  prasfatum  spiritalem  filium 
lacrymabilem  suggestionem  deposuit."     Ep.  24,  ib. 


mannia. 


286  JOHN   VIII. 

sacerdotal  rights  if  he  did  not  appear  before  May  4,  and 
irrevocably  anathematised x  if  he  had  not  given  an  account 
of  his  conduct  by  the  9th  of  May.  On  the  charge  of  the 
commission  of  the  crimes  above  laid  to  their  account,  cor- 
responding sentences  were  passed  on  Gregory,  Sergius,  and 
the  others.  Owing  to  the  non-appearance  of  the  accused, 
the  sentences  thus  threatened  were  finally  decreed 
(June  30).2 
Thefesti-        But  whether  men  are  joyful  or  sad,  the  year  rolls  on,  and 

val  of  the  .  ....  .  -..,  ,  ,  r 

Como-  brings  with  it  its  routine  of  festivals,  sacred  and  profane. 
And  so,  in  the  midst  of  all  the  troubles  which  the  year  876 
brought  to  John  VIII.,  Easter  came,  with  its  joys  of  body 
and  soul,  with  its  festivities  civil  and  ecclesiastical.  Among 
the  secular  amusements  of  the  season  was  the  ancient 
and  popular  festival  of  the  Cornomannia,  which,  until  the 
troubles  of  the  reign  of  Gregory  VII.,  used  to  be  held  in 
the  Pope's  presence  on  Easter  Saturday,3  which  in  876  fell 
on  April  21. 

A  copy  of  the  Polyptycus^  of  Canon  Benedict,  found  by 

1  Owing  to  the  different  uses  of  the  word  'anathema5  in  canon  law, 
it  is  not  easy  to  lay  down  exactly  what  was  the  precise  difference  in 
the  sentences  decreed  against  Formosus.  But  doubtless  here  by 
'anathema'  was  understood  the  'greater  excommunication,'  which 
was  often  proclaimed  with  various  solemn  ceremonies.  By  the 
'  greater  excommunication '  a  person  is  deprived  of  all  the  spiritual 
goods  which  the  Church  has  at  her  disposal.  It  involves — besides 
certain  more  remote  effects,  such  as  '  suspicion  of  heresy,'  if  for  a  whole 
year  a  person  contumaciously  remains  under  the  excommunication — a 
deprivation  of  the  sacraments,  of  the  right  to  be  present  at  the  services 
of  the  Church,  of  the  prayers  of  the  Church,  of  ecclesiastical  burial, 
of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  of  rights  before  the  law,  and  of  civil 
society.  Cf.  Tractatus  de  Excom.,  ap.  Gury,  Compend.  Theol.  Moral., 
Ratisbonae,  1874. 

2  Besides  the  letter  of  John  (Ep.  24),  cf.  the  Acts  of  these  synods 
published  by  Richter,  which  are  thought  to  be,  at  least,  based  on 
authentic  documents.     Revue  des  Quest.  Hist.,  xxviii.  418. 

3  "Sabbato  de  albis  quando  laudes  cornomannie  canende  sunt 
domino  pape."    Polyptycus  Benedicti,  ed.  Fabre. 

4  Compiled  in  1 142  from  earlier  materials. 


JOHN   VIII.  287 

the  late  Paul  Fabre,1  which  proved  to  be  more  complete 
than  the  one  published  by  Mabiilon,2  enables  us  to  give  a 
full  account  of  this  quaint  festivity,  which  was  closely 
connected  with  the  feast  of  fools,  the  feast  of  asses,3  and 
the  feast  of  children. 

After  mid-day  on  Easter  Saturday  the  archpriests  of 
the  eighteen  deaconries  (or  parishes)  were  to  assemble  the 
people  in  the  churches  by  the  sound  of  the  bell.  Then  the 
sacristan,  clad  in  a  white  garment,  with  his  head  crowned 
with  flowers  and  two  horns  as  though  he  were  Silenus,  and 
carrying  in  his  hand  a  brazen  wand  covered  with  little  bells 
and  followed  by  the  archpriest  in  a  cope,  led  a  procession 
of  the  people  to  the  Lateran  palace.  There,  in  front  of  its 
principal  entrance,  the  crowd  halted,  and  awaited  the  coming 
of  the  Pope.  On  his  appearance  the  people  formed  into  a 
huge  circle,  each  parish  grouped  about  its  archpriest,  and 
then  the  whole  body  intoned  the  laudes  in  honour  of  the 
Pope.  Whilst  in  both  Greek4  and  Latin  verses  every 
blessing  was  being  wished  to  the  Pope  "who   in    Peter's 

1  Edited  by  him,  ap.  Travaux  et  man.  des  facultes  de  Lille,  t.  i., 
mem.  3,  p.  18  ff.     Lille,  1889. 

2  Mus.  IlaL,  ii.,  Ordo  xi.,  and  thence  in  P.  Z.,  t.  78. 

8  On  the  feast  of  fools  and  of  asses,  see  Maitland,  The  Dark  Ages, 
no.  ix. 

4  The  Greek  appears  in  a  very  strange  form  in  Benedict's  work. 
"  Yco  despota  chere  mezopanto,  etc.,  standing  for 

2i>,  &  Sio-irora,  xa^P*> 

XaTpe  fieT  (a  t)u>v  Tra.vra>{y)"  etc. 

The  Latin  laudes  open  : 

"  Euge  benigne  qui  vice  Petri 

papa  Johannes,  cuncta  gubernas." 

Much  is  said  too  of  the  season  of  the  year  : 

Marcuis  instat  Quo  nemus  omne 

mensis  ubique,  fundit  odores 

quo  Deus  auctor  prebet  et  altis 

cuncta  creavit.  montibus  umbram. 

And,  characteristically,  the  Quirites  finish  by  asking  for  gifts : 
Munera  cunctis  qui  pius  extas 

grata  repende  semper  egenis  I 


288  JOHN   VIII. 

place  rules  all  things,"  the  sacristan  danced  about  before 
the  people,  shaking  his  bells.  When  the  laudes  were  over, 
one  of  the  archpriests  mounted  an  ass  with  his  face  towards 
its  tail,  and  bending  backwards  was  entitled  to  keep  for 
himself  as  many  denarii  as  he  could  in  three  attempts  take 
from  a  basin-full  which  a  papal  chamberlain  held  at  the 
ass's  head.  Crowns  were  then  laid  at  the  pope's  feet  by 
the  clergy ;  the  archpriest  of  S.  Maria  in  Via  Lata  offering 
him  also  a  little  vixen  which  was  allowed  to  run  away.  In 
return  he  received  from  the  Pope  a  byzant1  and  a  half. 
The  archpriests  of  S.  Maria  in  Aquiro  and  of  S.  Eustachius, 
after  respectively  presenting  a  cock  and  a  doe,2  received  a 
byzant  and  a  quarter;  whilst  the  other  archpriests  re- 
ceived a  byzant  apiece.  The  papal  benediction  brought 
the  proceedings  to  a  close  as  far  as  the  Pope  was  concerned. 

Still  clad  in  his  fancy  dress  and  accompanied  by  a  priest 
with  two  attendants  carrying  holy  water,  light  cakes,  and 
boughs  of  laurel,  the  sacristan  went  dancing  along  from 
house  to  house,  shaking  his  bells.  Whilst  the  priest  blessed 
the  houses  with  holy  water,  placed  the  boughs  on  the 
hearth,  and  gave  the  cakes  to  the  children,  the  sacristan 
and  the  two  attendants  sang  this  "  barbaric  chant "  "  Iaritan, 
Iaritan,  Iarariasti,  Raphayn,  Iercoyn,  Iarariasti."  The 
master  of  the  house  brought  the  festival  of  the  Cornomannia 
to  an  end  by  a  donation  of  a  penny  or  two.3 

On   the  particular  occasion  of  which  we  are  speaking, 

1  It  is  curious  that  the  name  for  the  gold  aureus  of  Constantinople 
is  thought  to  have  been  first  used  by  John  VIII.  Cf.  Ducange,  sub 
voce  byzantius. 

2  As  a  deer  is  connected  with  the  story  of  the  conversion  of  St. 
Eustachius,  it  is  easy  to  understand  why  the  doe  was  offered,  but  no 
reason  has  yet  been  discovered  why  the  vixen  and  the  cock  were  pre- 
sented by  the  archpriests  of  the  two  S.  Marias. 

3  The  ordo  closes  with  the  words  :  "  Hoc  fuit  usque  ad  tempus  p. 
Gregorii  VII.,sed  postquam  expendium  guerre  crevit,  renuntiavit  hoc," 
p.  23. 


joiin  viii.  289 

however,  the  ordinary  singing  of  the  schola  cantorum  was 
replaced  by  a  recitation  of  the  so-called  Ccena  Cypriani. 
This  supposed  production  of  the  great  saint  of  Carthage 
was  introduced  into  Rome  by  the  '  philosopher '  Charles 
the  Bald.  It  portrayed  an  imaginary  feast,  in  which  most 
of  the  important  characters  of  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  were  depicted  as  taking  part.  From  this  old 
piece  of  prose,  John  the  Deacon,  well  known  to  us  as  the 
biographer  of  Gregory  the  Great,  made  "  a  burlesque  poem 
of  doubtful  taste,"  to  which  he  added  a  prologue,  an 
epilogue,  and  a  dedicatory  letter  to  John  VIII.  It  is  from 
these  additions,  newly  edited  and  commented  on  by 
Lapotre,  with  all  his  wonted  learning  and  ingenuity,  that 
we  know  something  of  the  way  in  which  the  ancient  Ccena  x 
was  received  at  Rome  by  the  court  of  John  VIII.2  Before 
the  deacon's  poetic  version  of  it  was  finished,  it  had  been 
recited  before  the  Pope  twice  this  very  year  (876) — the  first 
time  when  it  was  introduced  to  his  notice  by  the  learned 
monarch  of  the  Franks,  and  the  second  time  on  Easter 
Saturday.  When  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  clad  in  the 
gorgeous  raiment3  of  which  he  was  so  fond,  first  caused 
it  to  be  recited  in  Rome  by  his  Frankish  poets, — cum 
francigenis  poetis, — the  ancestors  of  the  trouvere  and  the 
troubadour,  not  only  was  it  applauded  by  him  and  c  his 
drinking  Gauls,'  but  it  seems  also  to  have  enchanted  the 
papal  court.  In  a  few  words,  the  deacon  gives  a  striking 
picture  of  its  effect  on  the  chief  Roman  ecclesiastics. 
While  the  learned  librarian  Anastasius  explained  the  more 
obscure  allusions  of  the  piece — and  many  of  them  were 
curious  and  recondite  enough — the  simple-minded  Zachary 

1  The  original  Ccena  Cypriani  may  be  read  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  iv.,  p.  926  ff. 

2  Le  '  Sou  per'  de  Jean  Diacre,  by  M.  A.  Lapotre,  ap.  Melanges  (Parch, 
et  cPhist.,  1901. 

3  "  Prodigus  in  vestibus."     lb.,  Prolog.,  p.  319. 

VOL.    III.  19 


29O  JOHN   VIII. 

of  Anagni1  listened  in  wondering  amazement,  and  the 
hagiographer,  Gaudericus  of  Velletri,  fell  back  on  his  couch 
with  laughter.2 

When  for  the  second  time  the  Ccena  was  recited  in 
Easter  week  for  the  amusement  of  the  Pope,  it  was 
declaimed  by  the  prior  of  the  schola  cantorum,  the  sub- 
deacon  Crescentius,  who,  to  judge  even  from  the  humorous 
and  bantering  description  of  him  furnished  us  by  the  lively 
deacon,  must  have  been  somewhat  of  a  character.  If  the 
little,  old,  asthmatical,  and  stammering  prior  was  calculated 
to  provoke  laughter  under  ordinary  circumstances,  he  must 
have  been  perfectly  irresistible  when,  mounted  on  an  ass, 
he  appeared  before  the  papal  court,  like  a  Silenus,  crowned 
with  flowers  and  decorated  with  horns.  And  no  wonder 
even  the  singers  themselves  could  not  control  their 
laughter3  when  the  old  man,  overcome  by  his  own  risible 
faculties,  by  his  cough,  and  by  his  desperate  efforts  to 
enunciate  difficult  scriptural  names,  was  unable  to  keep  a 
sufficient  guard  "  over  all  nature's  outlets,"  4  but  "  pedens 
crepabit  tussiendo."  The  deacon  might  well  assure  the 
Pope  that,  if  he  caused  his  new  poetical  rendering  of  the 
Ccena  to  be  read  by  old  Crescentius,  the  man  would  have 

1  Whom  John  elsewhere  (p.  321)  calls  "simplex  Job." 

2  "  Ridens  cadit  Gaudericus  supinus  in  lectulum 

Zacharias  admiratur,  docet  Anastasius."     P.  321. 

3  "Hac  ludat  papa  romanus  in  albis  paschalibus, 

Quando  venit  coronatus  scolae  prior  cornibus, 

Ut  Silenus,  cum  asello,  derisus  cantantibus, 

Quo  sacerdotalis  lusus  designet  mysterium."     P.  319. 

4  "  Video  ridere  certet  quam  scurra  Crescentius 

Ut  cachinis  dissolvatur,  torqueatur  rictibus  ; 
Sed  prius  pedens  crepabit  tussiendo  vetulus 
Quam  regat  linguam  condensis  balbus  in  nominibus."    lb. 
If  we  take  into  account  the  circumstances  under  which  this  recitation 
was  given,  and  its  object,  viz.,  to  use  laughter  as  a  help  to  teach  the 
mysteries  of  the  faith — quo  sacerdotalis  lusus    designet  mysterium — 
we  may  regard  this  performance  as  one,  at  least,  of  the  steps  in  the 
production  of  the  Mystery  Plays  of  the  later  Middle  Ages. 


joiin  viir.  291 

to  be  made  of  marble  who  could  refrain  from  laughing. 
But  John  VIII.  had  something  else  to  do  besides  listening 
to  poems,  even  when  recited  by  Crescentius  Balbus. 

With  the  Saracens  at  his  gates,  with  traitors  within  the  John 
city,  and  with  many  of  the  neighbouring  Christian  princes,  aPrevoca°r 
even  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  afford  protection  to  the  constitu-hC 
Holy  See,  in  alliance  with  the  infidels,  what  wonder  if  John  tlonof  824- 
longed  for  a  freer  hand  to  deal  with  all  these  difficulties  ? 
What  wonder  if  he  wished  to  make  Rome  fully  subject  to 
the  Pope  alone,  as  it  was  under  the  pontificate  of  Paschal  I. 
(817-24),  which  he  had  known  in    his   youth,   and    if  he 
wished  to  revert  to  the  pact  of  817,  which  assured  to  the 
popes    protection    and   yet   independence  ?      Accordingly, 
with  this  end  in  view,  he  despatched  an  embassy  to  Charles. 

The  papal  legates,  viz.,  his  nephew,  Bishop  Leo,  now  The  synod 
apocrisiarius  of  the  Holy  See,  and  Peter,  bishop  of 876. 
Fossombrone,  found  Charles  engaged  in  celebrating  at 
Pontion  a  synod  which  he  had  summoned  "  by  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  and  the  advice  of  the  papal  legates 
(John  of  Toscanella,  John  of  Arezzo,  and  Ansegisus 
of  Sens),  and  with  his  own  sanction."1  At  the  first 
session  (June  21,  876)  was  discussed  the  appointment  by 
John  VIII.  of  Ansegisus  of  Sens  as  his  permanent  legate 
in  Gaul  and  Germany  (per  Gallias  et  Germanias)*  "  to 
lessen  the  stress  of  the  work  from  those  parts  with  which 

1  Hinc,  AnnaL,  ad  876.  A  summary  of  the  acts  of  this  council,  as 
far  as  Hincmar  thought  fit  to  give  them,  is  to  be  found  in  the  place  just 
cited. 

2  Cf.  the  letter  of  the  Pope  (Ep.  15)  on  this  subject,  read  before  the 
synod.  An  old  chronicler  of  Sens,  Odorannus,  who  in  1045  was  sixty 
years  of  age,  in  view  of  this  office  of  Ansegisus,  says  of  him  :  "  Secundus 
papa  appellari  meruit"  (Opusc.  ii.,  ap.  Mai,  Spicil.  Rom.,  t.  be.). 
From  the  fact  that  Odorannus  assures  us  that  the  primacy  of  Ansegisus 
was  unanimously  accepted,  whereas  Hincmar  tells  us  of  great  opposi- 
tion to  it,  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  truth  lies  between  the  two 
assertions.  The  Chronicle  (Opusc.  ii.)  of  Odorannus  is  very  brief.  It 
is  also  printed  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  142. 


292  JOHN    VIII. 

the  Pope  had  to  deal.  That  anyone  in  Gaul  should  be 
put  over  him,  was  not  in  the  least  to  the  taste  of  Hincmar. 
However,  when  Charles  could  get  nothing  further  from  the 
archbishops  than  that  they  would  obey  the  Pope,  saving 
their  rights,  he  caused  Ansegisus  to  be  placed  next  to  the 
legates,  despite  the  audible  murmur  of  Hincmar  that  such 
an  act  was  contrary  to  the  canons. 

In  the  next  session,  the  choice  which  the  Pope  had 
made  of  Charles  for  emperor,  and  which  had  been  ratified 
by  the  diet  (synod)  at  Pavia  (February  876),  was  confirmed 
by  the  assembled  prelates.1  At  the  assembly  of  Pavia  the 
'  acts '  of  the  coronation  at  Rome  had  been  read  and 
approved.  In  these  'acts'  the  Pope  is  reported  as 
declaring  that,  because  he  believes  it  to  be  the  will  of  God, 
as  did  also,  he  knows,  his  predecessor,  Pope  Nicholas,  "we 
have  with  good  reason  elected  and  approved  (of  Charles), 
with  the  consent  and  wish  of  all  our  fellow-bishops,  and 
of  the  other  ministers  of  the  holy  Roman  Church,  and  of 
the  senate,  and  of  all  the  Roman  people,  and  of  the  '  gens 
togata.'  And,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  we 
have  solemnly  advanced  him  to  the  sceptre  of  the  Roman 
empire,  and  have  adorned  him  with  the  title  of  Augustus, 
anointing  him  with  oil  without,  to  show  the  power  of  the 
inward  unction  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  The  Pope  goes  on  to 
assert  that  Charles  had  not  himself  assumed  the  title  of 
emperor ;  but,  as  one  invited  by  us,  had  come  humbly 
with  the  intention  of  working  for  the  peace  of  the  empire 
and  the  exaltation  of  the  Church.  "  And  unless  we  had 
known  that  such  was  his  intention,  never  would  we  have 

1  "  Lecta  est  electio  domni  imperatoris  ab  epp.  et  ceteris  Italici  regni 
firmata,  sed  et  capitula  quae  in  palatio  Ticinensi  constituit  et  ab  omnibus 
confirmari  praecepit,  quae  et  ab  episcopis  cisalpinis  praecepit  confirmari  " 
(Hincmar,  ib.)\  Odorannus  (ib.\  "Cujus  (papae)  sacris  institutionibus 
pro  debito  parentes,  quod  ipse  confirmavit,  pari  consensu  omnes  con- 
firmavimus." 


joiin  viii.  293 

been  so  ready  to  promote  him."1  After  these  acts  had 
been  read  before  the  assembly  at  Pavia,  the  bishops  and 
nobles  there  gathered  together  had  declared  that,  as  the 
Divine  goodness,  through  the  intervention  of  the  Vicar  of 
the  Apostles,  their  spiritual  father,  Pope  John,  had  raised 
"the  most  glorious  Emperor  Charles"  to  the  imperial 
dignity,  they  also  with  one  accord  "  chose  him  as  their 
protector,  lord  and  defender."2  The  act  of  submission 
to  the  new  emperor,  which  had  been  thus  made  by  the 
optimates  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy,  was  then  imitated  by 
the  nobility  of  the  West  Franks  at  Pontion,  who  declared 
that,  as  first  Pope  John  at  Rome  and  then  all  the  nobles  of 
Italy  at  Pavia  had  elected  Charles  as  emperor,  so  they  from 
France  did  the  same  with  the  like  unanimity  and  devotion. 

In  other  sessions  of  the  synod  the  letters  of  the  Pope  to 
the  bishops  of  Germany  were  delivered  to  the  ambassadors 
of  Louis  the  German,  who  had  come  to  put  forward  their 
master's  claims  to  part  of  the  kingdom  of  the  late  Emperor 
Louis  II.;  the  special  legates  of  the  Pope,  Leo  and  Peter, 
were  received  ;  and  the  condemnation  by  John  of  Formosus 
and  his  party  was  read. 

Though   not   mentioned   by    Hincmar   in   his    abridged  The  agree- 

r     1  r  -r»  ment  of 

account  of  the  acts  of  the  assembly  at  Pontion,  we  know,  Pontion. 
from  various  letters  3  of  the  Pope,  that  there  was  drawn  up 

1  (Carolum)  "elegimus  merito  et  approbavimus  una  cum  annisu  et 
voto  omnium  fratrum  et  coepiscorum  nostrorum  ...  amplique 
Senatus,  totiusque  Romani  populi,  gentisque  togatae  ;  et  secundum 
priscam  consuetudinem  solemniter  ad  imperii  Romani  sceptra  pro- 
veximus  et  Augustali  nomine  decoravimus,  unguentes  eum  oleo 
extrinsecus."  Cf.  the  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Pavia,  ap.  Mansi,  t.  xvii., 
p.  310 ;  or  M.  G.  LL.,  t.  i.  528.     But  vide  i?ifra,  p.  298. 

2  lb.  The  following  additional  words  to  be  read  in  Muratori's  copy 
of  the  acts  of  the  Synod  of  Pavia  {R.  I.  S.,  ii.,  pt.  ii.,  150):  "  et  Italici 
regni  regem  eligimus,"  are  justly  regarded  by  Pertz  and  Lapotrc  as  an 
interpolation.     Lapotre,  p.  260  n. 

3  Writing  (Ep.  31)  to  Landulf  of  Capua,  he  tells  him  of  the  return  of 
his  legates,  and  that,  in  an  assembly  of  Frankish  bishops  and  nobles, 


294  JOHN   VIII. 

at  this  synod  the  agreement  (a  summary  of  which  is  given 
by  the  anonymous  imperialist)  by  which  the  relations 
between  the  Pope  and  the  empire  were  to  become  more 
like  those  sanctioned  by  the  decree  '  Ego  Ludovicus.'  The 
freer  hand  that  John  required  was  given  to  him.  In 
renewing  the  concordat  (J)actuiri)  with  Rome,  the  emperor 
waived  "  the  rights  and  customs  of  the  empire."  He  handed 
over  to  the  Pope  the  taxes  which  from  various  monasteries 
used  to  flow  into  the  imperial  exchequer,  and  gave  him 
Samnium  and  Calabria,  all  the  cities  of  the  duchy  of 
Beneventum,  the  whole  duchy  of  Spoleto,  and  two  cities 
of  the  duchy  of  Tuscany,  viz.,  Arezzo  and  Chiusi.  He 
removed  from  Rome  the  imperial  missi  {regias  legationes), 
and  gave  up  the  right  of  being  present  by  his  missi  at 
papal  elections  (consecrations  ?)}  That  it  was  really  with 
a  diploma  to  this  effect  that  the  papal  and  imperial  envoys 
reached  Rome  in  September  876,  the  obvious  imperialist 

Charles  has  decreed  that  the  regal  rights  (jus  potestatis)  formerly 
granted  to  the  Roman  See  be  renewed  and  be  held  by  it  inviolably. 
Among  these  rights  the  Pope  mentions  jurisdiction  over  Capua  in 
express  terms.  Imperator  "  omne  sane  jus  potestatis  antiquitus 
(Romanae  ecclesias)  attributum,  capitulariter  renovatum  in  conventu 
epp.  ac  optimatum,  inviolabiliter  concessit  habendum.  Inter  quae  de 
terra  vestra  pacta,  prout  Christo  duce  voluissemus,  statuere  nostra  juri 
potestatique  commisit."  As  the  above  passage  as  given  in  Migne  is 
corrupt,  we  have  ventured  to  put  in  place  of  '  renovamus '  and  '  terras 
vestrae,'  '  renovatum '  and  '  terra  vestra.'  Cf.  the  Pope's  letter  of 
thanks  to  Charles  the  Bald.     Ep.  42. 

1  "  Renovavit  pactum  cum  Romanis,  perdonans  illius  jura  regni  et 
consuetudines  illius,  tribuens  illis  sumptus  ....  de  ...  .  quam- 
plurimis  monasteriis  fiscalia  patrimonia.  Patrias  autem  Samniae  et 
Calabriae,  simul  cum  omnibus  civitatibus  Beneventi  eis  contulit,  insuper 
ad  dedecorem  regni  totum  ducatum  Spoletinum,  cum  duabus  civitatibus 

Tusciae  ....  id  est  Aritium  et  Clusium Removit  ab  eis  regias 

legationes,  assiduitatem  vel  praesentiam  apostolicse  electionis."  (Libell. 
de  imp.  Potest.,  sub  fine  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  966).  "  Monumenta  pro- 
genitorum  (avi  Caroli,  patris  Ludovici)  aequiparavit,"  says  John  himself 
in  his  speech  at  the  Council  of  Ravenna.  Harduin,  Cone,  vi.,  ap. 
Watterich, 


joiin  viii.  295 

prejudices    of  the  author  of  these  details  are  a  sufficient 
guarantee. 

But  in  those  days  of  increasing  anarchy  through  the 
multiplication  of  petty  tyrants,  an  imperial  decree  was 
often  not  worth  the  parchment  on  which  it  was  written. 
The  envoys  of  Charles  could  not  or  would  not  carry  out 
their  instructions.  John  had  to  complain  1  of  the  insincerity 
of  one  of  the  envoys,  even  of  Ansegisus  of  Sens,  in  coming 
to  an  understanding  with  Lambert  of  Spoleto.  It  would 
have  required  a  Charlemagne  to  enforce  the  carrying  out 
of  his  will  in  Southern  Italy  at  this  time.  If,  later  on, 
John  was  recognised  as  suzerain  of  Capua,  that  would  seem 
to  be  all  the  tangible  result  that  accrued  to  him  from  the 
diploma  of  Charles  the  Bald  in  his  favour.  And  we  are 
expressly  informed  by  Erchempert2  that  Pandonulf,  the 
nephew  and  successor  of  Landulf,  made  his  submission  to 
John,  and  had  charters  drawn  up  and  money  coined  in  his 
name. 

Meanwhile   Louis   the  German,  who,  as  we  have    seen,  The  claims 
had  supported  in  arms  his  claims  to  the  throne  of  Italy  or  of  Louis*1 
the  imperial  crown,  endeavoured  also  to  make  them  good  German 
by  negotiating  with  the  Pope.     To  judge  from  a  letter  of 
John  to  Louis,  in  reply  to  others  (now  lost)  received  from 
the   king,  the    Pope   was   considerably   affected    by    their 
contents.3      But    when    it    was    written,   Louis    had    been 
called   to  a  higher  tribunal  than  that  before  which  John 
invited  him  to  state  his  case.      After  a  long  reign,  much 
disturbed    by   wars   against   barbarian    invaders    and    the 
rebellions  of  his  sons,  Louis  the  German  died  on  August 
28,  876.     Some  time  before  his  death,  he  had  divided  his 

1  Ep.  44  to  the  emperor. 

2  Hist.  Lang.,  c.  47.  "  Pandonulfus  prius  subdiderat  dicto  papae,  in 
cujus  vocamine  et  cartas  exaratae  et  nummi  figurati  sunt."  Cf.  Ep.  31, 
and  Muratori,  Annal.,  viii.  60;  Lapotre,  311. 

3  Ep.  26,  September  1,  876. 


2$6  JOHN   VIII. 

kingdom  between  his  three  sons.  The  eldest..  Carloman, 
received  Bavaria  and  Carinthia,  and  the  suzerainty  over  the 
Slavs  of  Pannonia  and  Moravia;  the  second,  Louis  III., 
known  as  'the  Young,'  had  Franconia,  Thuringia,  and 
Saxony  ;  and  Charles  the  Fat,  afterwards  emperor,  had  the 
more  central  portion,  Alemania  (S  wabia,  Alsatia,  Switzerland). 
Attempted  Instead  of  turning  his  attention  to  putting  in  order  the 
aggressK  n  cjomjnjons  wnicn  he  had  already  acquired,  and  to  stopping 
emperor.  ^e  destructive  inroads  of  Northman  and  Saracen,  Charles 
the  Bald  showed  himself  no  better  than  any  of  the  other 
grasping  princes  of  his  time.  Thinking  that  the  death  of 
his  brother  offered  him  a  fair  opportunity  of  seizing  at  least 
a  part  of  his  kingdom,  he  invaded  the  realm  of  Louis  the 
Young.  But  his  usual  hurry  exposed  him  to  the  crushing 
defeat,  which  he  sustained  at  Andernach  (October  8,  876). 
His  aggressive  action  stirred  up  his  nephews  against  him  ; 
and  their  hostility  not  only  prevented  him  from  doing  his 
duty  as  protector  of  the  Holy  See,  but  even  precipitated 
his  death  when  he  attempted  to  perform  it. 
John  From  the  close  of  the  year  876  John  had  been  sending 

j-lddps.^1"  for 

help  "  letters  in  all  directions  to  obtain  help  against  the  Saracens, 
Saracens,6  who  were  devastating  the  whole  south  of  Italy,  and,  on 
their  light  horses,  scouring  the  country  even  to  the  walls  of 
Rome.  The  Pope  first  tried  to  get  help  from  Duke  Boso, 
whom  Charles  had  left  in  North  Italy  as  his  representative  ; 
but  to  no  purpose.  Boso  was  more  intent  on  his  personal 
aggrandisement  than  on  the  public  good.  Then  he  turned 
to  the  natural  defender  of  the  Church,  the  emperor.  He 
did  everything  he  could  to  help  himself,  writing  for  cavalry 
horses  to  Alfonso  III.,  king  of  Galicia,  and  for  warships 
to  the  Greeks,  and  making  every  effort,  by  letters  and 
interviews,  to  break  up  the  Southern  league  with  the 
Saracens.1  But  he  felt  that  nothing  less  than  the  coming 
1  For  details,  see  below. 


JOHN   VIII.  297 

of  the  emperor  with  a  large  army  would  suffice  to  expel  the 
unbeliever,  and  curb  the  insolence  of  the  petty  tyrants, 
especially  of  Lambert  of  Spoleto,  by  whom  he  was 
surrounded.  Accordingly,  from  September  (876)  till  well 
on  into  May  877,  John  sent  off  letter  after  letter  to  Charles 
himself,  entreating  him  to  come  to  his  aid,  and  to  the 
empress  and  the  bishops  of  the  empire,  begging  them  to 
use  their  influence  with  him  in  the  same  direction.  But, 
harassed  by  the  Normans  and  by  ill-health,  and,  with  good 
reason,  fearing  the  resentment  of  his  nephews,  Charles 
for  some  time  paid  no  heed  to  the  entreaties  of  the  Pope. 
In  his  last  letter  to  Charles  on  this  subject,1  John  reminds 
him  that  the  imperial  crown  has  been  bestowed  upon  him 
by  the  will  of  God,  that  he  may  defend  the  Church  from  the 
cruel  ravages  of  the  infidels,  who  are  now  laying  waste 
everything  with  fire  and  sword.  They  have  so  devastated 
Campania,  he  continues,  that  there  is  nothing  left  for  "our 
support,  for  that  of  the  Roman  senate,  or  for  the  upkeeping 
of  the  venerable  monasteries  and  the  other  pious  places." 
There  is  no  inhabitant  in  the  Roman  suburbs.  "  So  filled 
with  grief  are  we  at  these  dire  woes,  that  we  can  neither 
take  food  nor  sleep.  But  in  place  of  sweet  repose  we 
have  to  endure  ceaseless  toil,  and  instead  of  the  delights 
of  the  feast  we  have  bitterness  of  soul."  He  implores  the 
emperor  to  delay  no  longer,  but  to  come  to  the  help  of  the 
Roman  Church,  "which  with  the  womb  of  religion  begot 
you  to  empire." 

The  letters  of  the  Pope  and  the  arguments  of  his  legates,  The 
whom  Charles  received  about  Easter  (April  7),  at  last  had  setTouTfor 
their  effect  on  him  ;  and,  against  the  wishes 2  of  his  nobles,  Ital>r>  8?7 
he  set  out  in  the  summer  for  Italy,  in  company  with  his 

1  Ep.  79,  May  25,  877. 

2  Such  is  the  express  declaration  of  the  Annals  of  Vaast.     Cf.  Anna!, 
Hinc.  et  Fuld.,  ad  an.  877. 


298  JOHN   VIII. 

wife,  Richildis.  He  took  with  him,  in  addition  to  a  large 
sum  of  money,  a  force  more  conspicuous  as  a  cavalcade 
than  formidable  as  an  army. 
Council  at  In  Italy,  meanwhile,  John  had  been  endeavouring  to 
877.  '  '  improve  the  prestige  of  the  emperor,  which  the  disaster 
at  Andernach  had  considerably  weakened.  In  a  synod 
held  in  February  877,  the  election  of  Charles  to  the  empire 
was  confirmed,  and  punishments  were  decreed  against 
whoever  should  attempt  to  contravene  it.1  When  he  was 
assured  that  the  emperor  was  really  coming  to  his  aid, 
he  went  north  to  meet  him,  and  with  his  characteristic 
energy  improved  the  occasion  by  holding  a  council  at 
Ravenna. 
Council  at  This  "  universal  council  of  the  kingdom  2  of  Italy,  i.e.  of 
Aug.  877.  the  whole  province,"  the  Pope  summoned3  "as  well  for 
certain  necessities  of  the  Church  as  for  the  needs  of  the 
state."  Of  the  acts  of  this  synod  nineteen  canons  have 
come  down  to  us.  Among  them,  some  forbid  bishops- 
elect  to  put  off  their  consecration  ;  and  others,  revealing 
thereby  the  state  of  the  times,  forbid  injury  to  be  done 
to  sacred  persons,  places  or  things  ;  rape,  murder,  mutila- 
tions, arson,  etc.  Finally,  John  made  an  effort  to  prevent 
the  territorial  property  of  the  Church  from  sharing  the  fate 
of  state  property  elsewhere  in  the  West.  He  forbade 
anyone  "to  seek  the  patrimonies"  of  the  Roman  Church, 
to  get  possession  of  its  property  under  the  pretext 
of  a  benefice  (beneficialiter)  or  in  any  other  way.  These 
enactments  were  aimed  against  those  customs  of  a  growing 

1  Hinc,  Annals  ad  an.  877.  Cf.  Epp.  49-52  of  John,  summoning 
divers  persons  to  this  synod.  Lapotre  {Additions  et  correct?)  refers  to 
this  council  the  acts  of  a  Roman  (?)  council  discovered  by  Fr.  Maassen  ; 
and,  with  their  discoverer,  referred  by  us  to  the  Roman  council  of  the 
close  of  875.     Vide  supra,  293. 

2  Ep.  80,  in  which  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna  is  summoned  to  the 
council. 

3  Jb.     C/.Epp.  81-4,  87-8. 


JOHN    VIII.  299 

feudalism  which  were  sooner  or  later  to  deprive  the  central 
authorities  in  Western  Europe  of  all  power  and  wealth. 
Powerful  tenants  soon  changed  into  full  ownership  the 
usufruct  of  landed  estates,  which  were  granted  them  as 
'benefices'  for  their  lifetime.  The  patrimonies  which  are 
thus  forbidden  to  be  alienated  are  enumerated  (can.  15)  as: 
the  Appian  patrimony,  the  Labican  or  Campanian,  the 
Tiburtine,  the  Theatine,  that  of  both  the  Sabine  territories, 
and  that  of  Tuscany,  the  portico  of  St.  Peter's  (the  Leonine 
city),  the  Roman  mint  (moneta  Romana),  the  public  taxes, 
riparian  dues  (rip a),  and  the  harbours,  Portus  and  Ostia. 
The  next  canon  (16)  forbids  the  alienation  of  any  portions 
of  the  above  patrimonies  (the  masses,  farms,  and  the  coloni, 
the  tillers  attached  to  the  soil);  and  canon  17  extends 
a  like  prohibition  to  the  parts  "  of  Ravenna,  Pentapolis, 
Emilia,  Roman  and  Lombard  Tuscany,  and  of  all  the 
territory  of  St.  Peter."1 

At  this  council  also  the  election  of  Charles  to  the 
empire  was  confirmed.  In  his  address  to  the  synod,  John 
declared  that  what  he  had  done  at  Rome  in  the  matter  of 
conferring  the  imperial  crown,  he  wished  to  confirm  here  in 
this  general  synod,  which  he  had  called  together  for  the 
countless  needs  of  the  Church.2 

After  the  holding  of  this  synod,  at  which  were  present,  Meeting  of 

1  Can.  17  (ap.    Labbe,   ix.  303).     "  Apostolica  auctoritate   praecipi-  ^ 
mus  ut  amodo  et  deinceps  nullus  cujuslibet   gentis  vel  ordinis  homo  Sep  8?7[ 
monasteria,  cortes,  massas  et  salas,  tarn  per  Ravennam,  et  Pentapolim, 

et  iEmiliam,  quam  et  per  Tusciam  Romanorum  atque  Longobardorum, 
et  omne  territorium  S.  Petri  Ap.  constitutas  praesumat  bcncjlciali  more, 
aut  scripto  aut  aliquolibet  modo  petere,  recipere  vel  conferre."  Cf. 
Hefele,  vi.  97  f.  ;  Gregorovius,  iii.  191. 

2  "Nosque,  quod  jam  in  Romana  ecclesia  gessimus  preces  benedic- 
tionis  fundentes  et  coronam  imponentes,  etiam  hie,  in  hac  generah 
synodo  ....  iterata  roboremus."  Cf.  Jafife,  p.  269.  There  is  no 
l.ttle  confusion  as  to  the  dates  of  these  confirmations  of  Charles's 
election.  The  account  given  in  the  text  would  seem  to  be  in  accord 
with  the  authorities. 


30o 


JOHN   VIII. 


besides  the  archbishops  of  Milan  and  Ravenna,  and  the 
patriarch  of  Grado,1  forty-eight  other  bishops  from  different 
parts  of  Italy,  the  Pope  moved  west  to  meet  the  emperor. 
They  met  at  Vercelli ;  and,  after  a  most  honourable  recep- 
tion had  been  accorded  to  the  Pope,  they  went  together  to 
Pavia.  Here  their  conference,  from  which  the  Pope  had 
hoped  so  much,  was  cut  short  by  the  alarming  intelligence 
that  Carloman,  with  a  very  large  force,2  was  marching 
upon  them.  While  John  endeavoured  to  pacify  the  king 
by  sending  him  the  presents  Charles  had  given  to  '  St. 
Peter/3  the  emperor,  naturally  enough,  retreated  towards 
France — first  to  Tortona,  where  the  Pope  anointed  Richildis 
as  empress,  and  then  to  Morienne,  to  await  the  arrival  of 
the  great  nobles  of  his  kingdom.  But  they  would  not 
come.  The  emperor  had  left  France  against  their  will, 
and  follow  him  they  would  not.  There  was  therefore 
nothing  left  but  that  the  Pope  and  Charles  should  return 
whence  they  had  come. 

Charles,  however,  weak  in  health,  was  not  able  to  bear  up 
against  these  troubles.  He  died  of  dysentery  at  Brios, 
thought  to  be  Briancon,  a  hamlet  on  the  banks  of  the  Isere 
a  little  below  Moutiers-en-Tarentaise,  October  6,  877.* 
After  mentioning  the  death  of  Charles  the  Bald,  two 
ancient  historians  have  appended  important  remarks. 
Their  importance  is  our  reason  for  citing  them.  Ademar 
of  Chabannes  (fic^),  in  his  Chronicle,  founded  chiefly 
on  the  earlier  Gesta  of  the  Frankish  kings,  observes  that 
after    Charles   the   Bald   "none   of  the    kings   of  France 


1  It  is  with  these  titles  and  in  this  order  that  we  have  the  signatures 
of  the  bishops  (Labbe,  ix.  305). 

2  "Cum  maxima    multitudine  bellatorum,"   Annal.   Hinc.^  ad   an. 
"Cum  manu  valida,"  Amial.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  877. 

3  "  Papa  munera,  quae  imperator  transmiserat  S.  Petro  ei  (Carloman) 
dedit."    Ann.  Vedast.,  877,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ii. 

4  "  Mortuus  est  2  Nonas  Octobris."     Annal.  Hinc.  ;  cf.  Annal.  Fuld, 


JOHN    VIII.  301 

received  the  imperial  dignity  (imperiumY  The  kings  who 
became  emperors  after  Charles  the  Bald  were  rulers  in 
either  Germany  or  Italy.  The  other  remark,  which  serves 
to  show  the  degradation  of  the  imperial  dignity  after  the 
demise  of  Charles  the  Bald,  is  the  one  with  which  the 
anonymous  pamphleteer  of  Spoleto(?)  closes  his  work. 
From  the  date  of  the  death  of  Charles  "  no  emperor  nor 
king  obtained  the  royal  rights.  Owing  to  the  strife  and 
the  endless  divisions  in  the  empire  either  power  or  wisdom 
failed  them.     Hence  plundering  and  war  became  the  order 

of  the  day." 

Master  of  the  situation  in  North  Italy,  Carloman  set 
about  establishing  his  authority  on  a  firm  basis.1  But,  as 
so  often  happened  to  the  German  armies  that  swooped 
down  upon  Italy  in  the  Middle  Ages,  disease  fastened 
upon  the  soldiers  of  Carloman.  Crowds  2  of  his  troops  only 
returned  to  Germany  to  die.  He  himself  was  conveyed 
home,   struck    down    with    a    mortal    disease,   apparently 

paralysis. 

The  first  authentic  news  of  Charles's  death  had  come  to  Carloman 
the  Pope  from  one  whose  letter  revealed  also  the  fact  that  the  empire, 
he  himself  wished  to  succeed  the  late  emperor.  This 
candidate  for  the  imperial  crown  was  Carloman,  then 
master  of  North  Italy.  His  letter  to  the  Pope  is  lost,  but 
we  have  John's  answer.3  Considering  that  the  first 
thought  of  a  Pope  at  this  time  would,  of  course,  be  to  turn 

1  That  he  stayed  some  time  at  least  in  the  country,  organising  his 
authority,  rests  not  only  on  the  authority  of  the  Annals  of  Fulda,  but  is 
definitely  stated  by  Andrew  of  Bergamo  :  "  Carlomannus  vero  ^regnum 
Italise  disponens,  post  non  multum  tempus  ....  re  versus  est."     Hist, 


c.  20. 


2  "  Pestilentia  quoque  ingens  secuta  est  exercitum  Carlmanni  de 
Italia  redeuntem,  ita  ut  plurimi  tussiendo  spiritum  exalarent."  Annul 
Fuld.     Cf.  Hinc. 

3  Ep.  93,  dated  simply  November  (877) ;  cf  Ep.  117.  to  the  same 

Carloman. 


302  JOHN   VIII. 

for  an  emperor  to  the  Western  Franks,1  and  that  John 
would  regard  Carloman  as  the  cause  of  the  death  of  his 
friend,  Charles  the  Bald,  he,  not  unnaturally,  did  not 
respond  to  the  advances  of  Carloman  with  enthusiasm. 
He  expressed  his  deep  sorrow  at  the  death  of  Charles,  and 
then  proceeded  to  speak  of  the  coming  of  Carloman  (to 
receive,  of  course,  the  imperial  crown),  of  his  most  sublime 
promises  to  exalt  the  Roman  Church  more  than  all  his 
predecessors,  and  of  the  reward  he  hoped  Carloman  would 
get  from  God  when  he  had  fulfilled  his  engagements. 
Then,  doubtless  as  well  to  gain  time  as  to  try  the  worth  of 
his  promises,  he  said  that  when  Carloman  had  returned 
from  the  conference,  which  he  told  the  Pope  he  was  going 
to  hold  with  his  brothers,  he  would  send  him  a  solemn 
embassy  "ex  latere  nostra,"  with  a  charter  which  would  set 
forth  point  by  point  what  he  would  have  to  grant  to  the 
Roman  Church.  That  matter  settled,  John  will  send 
another  embassy  to  conduct  the  king  to  Rome.  Mean- 
while Carloman  is  asked  not  to  aid  in  any  way  the  Pope's 
enemies  (Formosus  and  his  party) ;  and  while,  at  the  king's 
prayer,  he  grants  the  pallium  to  Archbishop  Theotmar,  he 
begs  him  in  turn  to  entrust  to  Theotmar  the  annual  sending 
to  Rome  of  the  revenues  belonging  to  the  Holy  See  in 
Bavaria, 
is  aided  by      If,  however,  Carloman  was  unable  through  the  failure  of 

Lambert  of  ...        ,  ,  ...  ...  ,  .  .  r    , 

Spoieto.      his  health  to  prosecute  his  aims  with   vigour   himself,  he 

1  In  a  letter  to  Charles  the  Fat  (Ep.  142,  ad  an.  878),  after  the  Council 
of  Troyes,  John  proclaims  his  devotion  to  the  kings  of  the  Franks 
(Western).  "  Servans  fidem  Francorum  regibus,  secundum  praedeces- 
sorum  meorum  pontificium,  multos  et  duros  labores  in  mari  et  in  terra 
pertuli."  Though  here,  no  doubt,  all  the  Franks,  and  not  merely  those 
of  France,  are  referred  to,  still  John  would  naturally  turn,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  the  issue  of  the  late  emperor — the  more  so  that  the  ruler 
of  France  was  certainly  the  principal  representative  of  the  Franks,  and 
that,  to  Italian  writers  of  the  ninth  century,  the  Franks  were  the  Gaitls, 
the  inhabitants  of  Francia'  (Lapotre,  p.  331) 


JOHN   VIII.  303 

found  a  useful  ally  in  Lambert  of  Spoleto.  Or  perhaps 
the  truth  is,  Lambert  found  it  convenient  to  cloak  his  own 
ambition  under  the  pretext  of  zeal  for  Carloman.  Such 
a  supposition  would  make  his  conduct  harmonise  with  that 
of  the  great  nobles  of  the  period.  Besides,  we  find  the 
Pope  himself  maintaining  that  he  was  merely  pretending  to 
act  in  the  name  of  Carloman,  and  that  he  was  really  aiming 
at  the  empire  himself.1  And,  in  fact,  we  shall  soon  see 
the  house  of  Spoleto  producing  an  emperor. 

Lambert's  family  came  originally  from  the  valley  of  the 
Moselle.  One  of  his  ancestors,  another  Lambert,  had 
governed  the  Breton  March,  but  his  partisanship  with 
Lothaire  had  forced  him  to  fly  to  Italy.  In  842,  his  son 
Guy  (known  as  the  elder)  appears  as  duke  of  Spoleto, 
and  "  with  him  begins  the  important  part  played  by  this 
house  in  the  affairs  of  Italy."2  Guy's  eldest  son,  Lambert, 
whom  the  emperor  Louis  II.  had  deprived  of  his  duchy, 
but  who  had  been  restored  by  Charles  the  Bald  at  the 
request  of  Pope  John,  and  had  been  appointed  by  him  to 
act  as  the  protector3  of  the  Holy  See,  soon  showed  that  he 
had  no  gratitude,  and  that  he  was  concerned  about  nobody's 
interests  but  his  own.  Before  December  876,  his  men  had 
been  preying  upon  the  Roman  territory  of  the  Pope.4  On 
the  retreat  of  Charles  the  Bald  from  Italy,  Lambert  instantly 
began  to  act,  nominally,  in  the  interests  of  Carloman.  He 
sent  to  the  Pope  to  demand  that  hostages  from  the  Roman 
nobility  should  be  sent  to  him— doubtless  as  a  guarantee  of 
their  adhesion  to  Carloman.  Needless  to  say,  he  did  not  get 
them.  With  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  Romans  still  burning 
in  his  aged  breast,  John  let  him  know  that  "  the  sons  of 

1  Cf.  Epp.  1 1 5-1 16  to  Louis  the  Stammerer,  king  of  France.  Cf.  Ep. 
106,  "  Ejus  (Carloman)  se  voluntate  jactat  talia  agere." 

2  Lapotre,  p.  182.  3  Erchempert,  Hist.  Lang.%  c.  39. 
4  Ep.  54,  ad  Lambertum. 


304 


JOHN   VIII. 


Lambert 
gets 

possession 
of  Rome, 
878. 


the  Romans  have  never  been  given  as  hostages."1  A  little 
later  the  Pope  threatens  Lambert  with  excommunication 
if,  during  his  absence,  he  shall  dare  in  any  way  to  injure 
"any  part  of  the  territory  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 
or  the  city  of  Rome,  which  is  a  city  at  once  sacerdotal  and 
royal."2  For  John  had  determined  to  go  to  France  by  sea, 
and  to  visit  Carloman  "  for  the  benefit  and  defence  of  the 
territory  of  St.  Peter  and  of  the  whole  of  Christendom."3 
The  inroads  of  the  Saracens,  he  writes,  he  has  been  enduring 
for  two  years ;  and  the  daily  oppression  he  suffers  at  the 
hands  of  others  will  not  allow  him  to  remain  in  Rome  in 
peace  and  safety,  nor  to  rule  his  territory  and  his  people 
with  success,  and  with  that  power  which  becomes  a  king 
{regia  virtute).  In  reply  to  this  letter,  Lambert  promptly 
offered  to  come  to  Rome  to  help  the  Pope,  and  to  bring 
with  him  Adalbert,  marquis  of  Tuscany.  John,  of  course, 
wrote  to  decline  the  offer;  the  more  so,  because  he  had 
heard  that  one  of  the  objects  of  his  coming  was  to  restore 
their  property  and  status  to  his  enemies  (Formosus,  etc.) 
against  his  will — a  thing  which  "  had  never  been  done  to 
the  Pope's  predecessors  by  any  emperor,  king,  or  count, 
within  the  memory  of  man."4 

Seeing  that  negotiation  was  not  likely  to  forward  his 
schemes,  Lambert  tried  first  a  hectoring  tone  in  dealing 
with  the  Pope,  addressing  him  like  a  layman,  as  your 
nobility,  and  laying  down  that  John's  legates  must  only 
come  to  him  when  they  were  sent  for.5  Then,  as  that  had 
no  effect,  he  had  recourse  to  violence.  Pretending  to  be 
coming  to  Rome  merely  on  a  visit  of  devotion,   he   was 


1  Ep.  91,  October  21,  877. 

2  Ep.  98.     "  Quae  est  civitas  sacerdotalis  et  regia." 


3  lb.  John  wanted  to  go  and  see  for  himself  who  was  the  best  fitted 
for  the  imperial  crown.  Hence  he  stated  his  wish  to  have  an  interview 
with  Carloman  :  "  Optatam  illius  contemplari  praesentiam  cupimus."    lb 

4  Ep.  103.  6  Ep   I04- 


JOHN   VIII.  305 

kindly  received  (in  the  early  part  of  878)  by  the  Pope.1 
The  next  day  he  threw  off  the  mask.  With  the  aid  of 
Adalbert  1. 2  of  Tuscany,  he  seized  the  city  and  behaved 
as  he  had  done  before,  when  he  raided  it  at  the  time  of  the 
election  of  Hadrian  II.  For  thirty  days  the  two  dukes  kept 
the  Pope  imprisoned  in  the  Leonine  city,  reintroduced  his 
enemies  into  the  city,  and,  giving  out  that  they  were  acting 
in  the  name  of  Carloman,  compelled  the  Roman  nobles 
to  swear  fealty  to  that  monarch.3 

When  they  left  the  city,  John  at  once  excommunicated  John  flies 
them,  and  lost  no  time  in  informing  the  chief  men  in  the  May  878.' 
empire  of  the  outrage  which  had  been  put  upon  him.  He 
wrote  to  the  ex -empress,  Engelberga;  to  Berenger,  duke 
or  marquis  of  Friuli,  '  of  royal  descent,'4  and  of  whom,  as 
one  of  the  future  lords,  or  devastators,  of  North  Italy,  we 
shall  have  more  to  say  ;  to  John,  archbishop  of  Ravenna ; 
to  Louis  the  Stammerer  in  France,  and  to  the  three  kings 
in  Germany.  Besides  informing  the  kings  of  the  doings  of 
Lambert,  he  tells  them  that,  ready  if  need  be  to  suffer 
death  for  the  liberation  of  Christ's  flock,5  he  intends  to  go 
to  France,  there  to  hold  a  council,  "  most  necessary  for  all 
Christian  peoples " ; 6  and  he  exhorts  them  to  come  to  it 
themselves  with  the  bishops  of  their  respective  kingdoms. 
With  a  fleet  of  three  dromons,  John  set  sail  for  France,  and 

1  Ep.  116.  "  Romam  siquidem  clandestina  fraude  devotum  venire  se 
simulans,  a  nobis  velut  filius  pacis  benigne  susceptus." 

2  The  son  of  Boniface  II.,  Adalbert  was  of  the  Frankish  family 
established  by  Charlemagne  as  dukes  of  Tuscany.  We  have  seen 
him  acting  as  governor  of  Corsica  under  Sergius  II. 

3  "  Opti mates  Romanorum  fidelitatem  Carlomanno  sacramento 
firmare  coegerunt.,;  Ann.  Fidd.,  ad  an.  878  ;  cf.  Hinc,  an.  878  ;  and 
Epp.  105,  6,  7  ;   115,  6,  7,  8  ;   125  of  the  Pope. 

4  His  father,  Eberhard,  had  married  Gisela,  the  daughter  of  Louis 
the  Pious. 

6  Ep.  115.  "Non  recuso  pro  Christi  ....  ovium  ....  libera- 
tione  mori." 

6  Ep.  116  to  Louis  the  Stammerer.     Cf.  Epp.  116,  7,  8,  125. 
VOL.    III.  20 


306  JOHN  VIII. 

landed  at  Aries  on  May  1 1.1  Here  he  was  much  impressed 
with  what  he  saw  of  Boso  and  his  wife  Hermengard,  the 
daughter  of  the  late  emperor  Louis  II.  Boso,  who  was  to 
make  himself  king  of  Provence  (October  879),  had  been 
appointed  his  vicar  in  Lombardy  by  the  emperor  Charles 
the  Bald.  With  the  stupid  Charles  the  Fat,  and  the 
unhealthy  Louis  the  Stammerer,  and  with  Louis  the  Young 
and  Carloman  as  the  representatives  of  the  house  of 
Charlemagne,  no  wonder  that  John,  who  was  a  man  of 
vigour  and  intelligence  himself,  if  ever  there  was  one,  looked 
with  favour  on  the  energetic  and  ambitious  young  couple  at 
Aries.  If  it  be  conceded  that  John  was  really  anxious  to 
have  the  best  and  strongest  man  he  could  find  as  emperor — 
and  there  is  no  historical  ground  for  refusing  the  concession 
— then  his  seeming  hesitancy  at  this  period  admits  of  a 
ready  explanation.  With  the  weak  characters  he  had 
in  the  ordinary  course  to  deal  with  in  the  first  instance, 
John  knew  not  what  to  do.  That  he  was  attracted  to 
Boso  is  clear  from  his  letter  to  that  prince's  mother-in- 
law,  the  dowTager  empress  Engelberga.  He  tells  her  that, 
by  the  mercy  of  Heaven,  he  has  in  good  health  reached  the 
territory  of  '  her  darlings ; '  that  there  he  has  found  every- 
thing prosperous,  and  that  "  for  the  affection  he  bears  her 
and  her  late  husband,  he  will  exert  himself  for  their  benefit, 
seek  at  their  hands  protection  for  the  Roman  Church, 
and,  if  he  can  do  so  with  honour,  strive  to  raise  them  to 
yet  higher  honour."2  As  an  immediate  proof  of  his  good- 
will towards  them,  he  restores3  to  the   See   of  Aries   its 

1  Hinc,  an.  878.  Furnished  with  two  banks  of  oars,  the  dromons 
carried  230  rowers  and  sailors  and  70  marines.  Finlay,  Hist,  of  the 
Byzant.  Empire,  pp.  299,  331. 

2  "  Eosdemque  ....  ad  majores  excelsioresque  gradus  modis 
omnibus,  salvo  nostro  honore,  promovere  desideramus."  Ep.  121,  ad 
Angelbergam. 

3  Epp.  123,  124. 


joiin  viii.  307 

old    position    as   representative   of  the    Apostolic    See   in 
Gaul. 

Meanwhile,  however,  he  remained  true  to  the  Carolingian  The  synod 
house.  Honourably  received  by  Louis  and  his  nobles,1  he  Aug^SyS.' 
exerted  himself  with  his  characteristic  energy2  to  bring 
about  a  meeting  of  the  bishops  of  the  whole  empire  and 
the  four  kings  "  for  the  exaltation  of  the  whole  of  Christen- 
dom." The  assembly  was  fixed  for  the  1st  August  ;3  but 
the  ill-health4  of  Louis  of  France  delayed  matters.  At 
length  the  synod,  at  which  only  the  bishops  of  "  the  Gallic 
and  Belgic  provinces"5  and  King  Louis  of  France  were 
present,  was  opened  on  August  1 1.  The  proceedings  com- 
menced with  a  relation  of  the  doings  and  of  the  excom- 
munication of  Lambert.  Following  Hincmar  of  Rheims, 
the  assembled  bishops  expressed  their  adhesion  to  what 
had  been  done  by  the  Pope  in  these  words:  "According 
to  the  sacred  canons,  which  have  been  instituted  by  the 
assistance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  consecrated  by  the 
reverence  of  the  whole  world,  those  whom  the  Pope  and 
the  Holy  Roman  Church,  the  mother  of  all  churches  by 
the  privilege  of^  S.  Peter,  condemn,  I  condemn ;  those 
whom  they  excommunicate,  I  regard  as  excommunicated  ; 
whom  they  receive,  I  receive  ;  and  whatever,  following  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  the  sacred  canons,  they  hold,  I  will 
ever  hold,  with  the  help  of  God,  to  the  best  of  my  know- 

1  Ann.  Vedast.,  878. 

2  Witness  his  letters,  126- 141,  to  the  kings  and  the  metropolitans. 

3  Ep.  137  to  Engelberga.  "  Vos  scire  cupimus  quia  apud  Trecas  in 
Kalendis  Augusti  una  cum  rege  Ludovico,  imperatoris  Caroli  filio,  et 
cum  universis  Gallic  episcopis  synodum  universalem  celebrabimus  ; 
dehinc  Carolomannum  regem  suosque  germanos  alloquemur,  ut  pari 
omnium  consilio  consolationem  nostra?  Eccles.  reperiamus." 

4  Hinc,  ad  an.  878.  "Propter  suam  infirmitatem."  In  Ep.  139  the 
Pope  has  to  sympathise  with  the  state  of  Carloman's  health  too  ! 

5  Hinc,  an.  878.  Acts  of  the  synod,  ap.  Labbe,  ix.  307  f.  ;  Hefele, 
vi.  101. 


3o8  John  Viii* 

ledge  and  ability."1  The  excommunication  of  Formosus, 
Gregory,  George,  and  the  rest  of  their  party  was  renewed  ; 
decrees  were  passed  against  episcopal  translations,  and 
against  such  as  plundered  Church  property ;  the  affair  of 
Hincmar  of  Laon  was  concluded,  and  various  disciplinary 
canons  enacted.  Further,  with  regard  to  Formosus,  who 
had  meanwhile  betaken  himself  to  France,  we  are  told  by 
Auxilius2  (who  assures  us  that  he  had  his  information 
from  an  eye-witness,  viz.,  Peter,  archdeacon  of  the  Church 
of  Naples)  that  John  caused  him  to  be  brought  before  him, 
and  forced  him  to  sign  a  written  undertaking  never  to 
resume  his  dignities  nor  to  return  to  Rome.3 
Coronation      Although  John  crowned  Louis  as  king  i  (September  5),  he 

of  Louis 

theStam-  was  not  named  emperor.  Whether  Louis  was  unwilling 
878.  '  "'to  take  on  his  feeble  shoulders  the  burden  of  empire, 
or  whether  his  nobles  or  his  infirmities  dissuaded  him  from 
trying  to  seize  the  dazzling  phantom,  we  know  not.  How- 
ever, as  the  other  three  Carolingian  kings  did  not  trouble 
themselves  to  come  to  the  synod,  John  seems  to  have 
made  up  his  mind  not  to  trouble  about  them  ;  but,  at  the 
first  convenient  opportunity,  to  raise  Boso  to  the  dignity  of 
emperor. 
Boso  At  any  rate,  he  came  to  some  arrangement  with  Louis 

adopted  by  . 

the  Pope,     of  France  by  which  Boso  5  was  to  be  the  special  protector 
of  the  Holy  See.     And  of  this  arrangement,  while  blaming 

1  Ap.  Labbe,  p.  307. 

2  Of  him  something  will  be  said  when  the  authorities  for  '  Formosus' 
are  treated  of. 

3  Aux.  In  defens.  s.  ordi?i.  Formosi  P.,  c.  iv. ;  ap.  Auxilius  und 
Vulgar ius,  p.  64,  by  Diimmler,  who  compares  tlie  pamphlet,  I?if.  et 
Def.,  c.  20  and  32. 

4  Hinc,  an.  878.  He  would  not,  however,  crown  his  queen  Adelaide. 
Regino  (an.  878)  supplies  the  reason.  In  his  youth,  and  unknown  to 
his  father,  Louis  had  espoused  Ansgarda.  He  had  afterwards  been 
compelled  by  Charles  to  put  her  away  and  take  Adelaide. 

5  And  with  Boso  himself  he  came  to  some  secret  understanding. 
Ep.  222,  ad  Bosonem.     See  below. 


joiin  vni.  309 

the  sovereigns  of  Germany  for  their  non-attendance  at  the 
synod,  he  took  care  to  inform  them  through  a  letter  to 
Charles  the  Fat.  After  setting  forth  the  trouble  to  which 
he  has  put  himself  in  order  to  keep  faith  with  the  kings  of 
the  Franks,  he  continues :  "  Through  my  legates  and 
letters  I  made  every  effort  to  bring  all  of  you  (reges  Fran- 
cor  urn)  together,  that  you  might  try  to  fulfil  the  agree- 
ment (pactuni)  which  your  father  and  your  fathers'  fathers 
promised  on  oath  to  keep  with  the  Holy  Roman  Church. 
But  alas  !  through  disobedience  you  all  neglected  to  come, 
except  King  Louis  (the  son  of  the  emperor  Charles),  by 
whose  advice  and  encouragement  I  have  made  the  glorious 
prince  Boso  my  adopted  son,  that  he  may  look  after  my 
worldly  affairs  and  leave  me  free  to  attend  to  the  things 
of  God.1  Wherefore  be  you  content  with  the  present 
boundaries  of  your  kingdom  and  keep  the  peace,  as  we  are 
resolved  to  excommunicate  whoever  shall  attempt  to  harass 
our  above-mentioned  son.' 

After  transacting  various  business — conferring  privileges  John 

1  ii-  ttt    1        i_  •  1  _  returns  to 

on    monasteries,  granting  the  pallium  to  Walo,  bishop  01  itaiy. 
Metz,  confirming  the  rights  of  the  archbishop  of  Tours  over 

1  "Cujus  (Ludovici)  consilio  atque  hortatu,  Bosonem  gloriosum 
principem  per  adoptionis  gratiam  filium  meum  effeci ;  ut  ille  in  mundanis 
discursibus,  nos  libere  in  his  quae  ad  Deum  pertinent,  vacare  valeamus." 
Ep.  142  to  Charles  the  Fat.  Cf.  Ep.  169,  where  John  informs  Count 
Suppo,  who  was  holding  an  influential  command  in  North  Italy,  that 
Boso  had  been  given  him  by  Louis  to  lead  him  back  to  the  city,  safe 
from  "the  accursed  Lambert."  The  German  Annals  of  Fulda,  indeed, 
relate  as  follows  :  "  Assumpto  Bosone  ....  cum  magna  ambitione 
in  Italiam  rediit  (Papa),  et  cum  eo  machinari  studuit,  quomodo  regnum 
I  tali  cum  de  potestate  Carlmanni  auferret ;  et  ei  tuendum  committere 
potuisset  (ad  an.  878).  But  what  a  person  cannot  hold,  or  has  never  held, 
cannot  be  said  to  be  taken  away  from  him.  And  the  "  regnum  Italicum  " 
was  never  '  in  the  power '  of  Carloman.  It  was  the  object  of  John  to  get 
it  into  the  'power'  of  some  real  master.  Cf.  Ep.  215  (an.  879)  of  the 
Pope  to  Charles  the  Fat — wherein  he  states  that  the  Italian  kingdom 
was  "  inordinatum  et  sine  defensione  " — "  taliter  occupatum  1 " 


3io 


JOHN   VIII. 


Summons 
a  synod, 
Nov.  878. 


Boso  will 
not  move 
for  the 
imperial 
crown,  879. 


the  bishops  of  Brittany,1  for  "  we  have  heard  that  you  were 
not  consecrated  as  you  ought  to  have  been  by  your  metro- 
politan in  accordance  with  ancient  custom  ;  but  .... 
simply,  on  the  authority  of  your  Duke,  you  are  consecrated 
by  one  another  " — after  the  transaction  of  these  and  other 
similar  affairs,  John  set  out  on  his  return  journey  to 
Italy,  accompanied  by  Boso.  In  writing  on  this  occasion 
to  Count  Suppo  to  come  and  meet  him  at  the  pass  of 
Mont  Cenis,  the  Pope  reveals  how  much  he  felt  that  the 
political  advantages  he  had  hoped  for  as  the  fruit  of  his 
journey  to  France  had  not  been  reaped.  "  We,  upon  whom 
by  the  will  of  God  the  last  things  have  come,  in  our  work  for 
the  Church  have  been  tossed  hither  and  thither.  But  we 
are  not  without  hope,  for  He  who  comforts  us  is  Christ 
Jesus.  Keeping  the  fidelity  of  our  predecessors  to  the  race 
of  the  Franks,  we  went  to  Gaul  to  bind  the  hearts  of  kings 
in  the  bonds  of  peace  and  unity.  But  we  found  what 
we  read  of  in  the  Gospel :  "  Because  iniquity  hath 
abounded,  the  charity  of  many  hath  grown  cold " 2 
(S.  Matt.  xxiv.   12). 

Arrived  at  Turin  (November  24),  he  wrote3  to  Anspert 
of  Milan  and  other  bishops  of  North  Italy  to  meet  him  in 
synod  at  Pavia,  on  December  2,  to  discuss  "  the  condition 
of  the  Church  and  the  peace  of  the  republic."  But  whether 
because  of  their  loyalty  to  Carloman,  or  whether,  as 
seems  to  us  more  likely,  they  dreaded  to  be  called  upon 
to  recognise  Boso,  in  whom  they  would  have  a  real 
master,  the  bishops  would  not  obey  the  Pope's  summons. 
John  had  to  return  to  Rome  no  nearer  the  end  of  his 
difficulties. 

However,  he  did  not  lose  hope  that  Boso  would  act,  and 
that  consequently  he  would  get  help  from  him.    Accordingly, 


1  Ep.  159. 

3  Epp.  166,  7,  8,9,  170, 


Ep.  165. 


2. 


JOHN   VIII.  311 

in  the  early  part  of  879  he  wrote1  to  him  that  the  time  had 
now  come  for  him  to  bring  to  effect  what  had  been  secretly 
arranged  between  them.  "  Waiting  for  the  fulfilment  of  your 
promise,  we  are  reduced  to  the  greatest  sadness  on  account 
of  the  ravages  of  the  pagans  with  which  we  are  incessantly 
harassed.  As  yet,  we  have  not  sought  elsewhere  for  help 
against  our  pressing  necessities.  If,  then,  you  are  going  to 
act,  act  at  once  ;  if  not,  let  me  know  forthwith."  But  though 
Boso  was  urged  on  by  a  wife  who  was  as  ambitious  as 
Lady  Macbeth,  and  who  declared  to  him  that  "  she,  who 
was  the  daughter  of  an  emperor  and  who  had  once  been 
affianced  to  the  emperor  of  Greece  (to  Constantine,  the  son 
of  Basil  the  Macedonian),  was  loth  to  live  if  she  did  not 
make  her  husband 2  a  king " — he  was  unwilling  to  risk 
anything  for  the  imperial  crown.  He  knew  that  Louis  of 
France  was  in  a  dying  state  (he  died  April  10,  879) ;  and, 
likely  enough,  thought  it  would  be  easier  for  him  to  extend 
his  duchy  and  turn  it  into  a  kingdom,  when  he  had  only 
the  youthful  sons  of  Louis  to  oppose  him,  than  to  cross 
the  Alps,  force  the  Italian  nobles  to  obey  him,  and  brave 
the  enmity  of  the  German  kings. 

And  so  it  turned  out ;  for  he  was  elected  king  of  But  be- 
Provence  by  twenty-five  bishops  at  Mantaille,  October  king. 
15,  879.  Though  this  election  was  certainly  not  in  accord- 
ance with  the  wishes  of  Pope  John,  his  influential  position 
among  the  Franks  is  clearly  brought  out  by  it ;  for  those 
who  framed  the  decree  of  Boso's  election  were  careful, 
when  setting  forth  his  claims  to  honour,  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  "  the  apostolic  lord  John  of  Rome  "  not  only 

1  Ep.  222.  This  letter,  like  so  many  others  of  this  Pope's  letters, 
bears  no  date.  But  it  was  evidently  written  in  the  early  part  of  the 
year,  say  February,  as  he  tells  Boso  that  his  return  to  Rome  was 
prosperous.  It  was  certainly  written  before  April  3,  the  date  of  the 
letter  (Ep.  204)  in  which  John  turns  to  Charles  the  Fat. 
Hincmar,  an.  879. 


312  JOHN    VIII. 

embraced  him  as  his  son  and  loudly  praised  his  nobility 
of  character,  but  on  his  return  to  Rome  entrusted  himself 
especially  to  his  care.1 

What  is  known  of  the  election  of  the  kings  of  the 
Franks  at  this  period,  shows  us  how  expressly  the 
Pope's  spiritual  jurisdiction  was  acknowledged,  especially 
on  occasions  of  the  transaction  of  concerns  which  were 
then  regarded  as  of  a  more  or  less  spiritual  character, 
such  as  the  election  of  kings,  and  amply  foreshadows  the 
central  position  to  be  taken  in  the  affairs  of  Europe  by 
the  popes  of  the  later  Middle  Ages.  And  so  we  find  Boso 
declaring  not  only  that  he  professes  the  Catholic  faith, 
but  that  he  will  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  Gospel,  of 
the  popes,  and  of  just  laws.2  However,  for  thus  proving  false 
to  his  engagements,  and  showing  himself  merely  a  self- 
seeker,  John  not  unnaturally  looked  upon  him  as  a 
disturber  and  a  tyrant.3 
John  But  help  against  the  Saracens  must  be  had  ;   and  the 

Charles  the  name  of  emperor  must  not  be  allowed  to  die  out.  For  if 
it  be  granted  that  at  this  period  there  was  little  more 
than  name  about  the  imperial  dignity,  there  was  still 
'much  virtue'  in  that  name.  The  name  of 'emperor' 
carried  with  it  prestige.     In  the  churches  he  was  publicly 

1  "  Ipse  etiam  tantum  non  solum  in  Galiis,  sed  et  in  Italia  cunctis 
enituit,  ut  domnus  apostolicus  Johannes  Romensis  instar  filii  complexus 
ejusdem  sinceritatem  multis  prseconiis  extulerit,  et  ad  suam  tutelam 
revertens  ad  sedem  propriam  delegerit."  Decree  ap.  Capitular.,  ed. 
Bor.,  ii.  368. 

2  lb.,  p.  367.  And  so  Louis  the  Stammerer  declared  (zb.,  364) 
"  regulas  a  patribus  conscriptas  et  apostolicis  adtestationibus  roboratas 
....  me  servaturum." 

3  Ep.  306  to  Ottram,  bishop  of  Vienne.  John  blames  the  bishop 
for  favouring,  "  His  qui  cum  Bosone  prsesumptore  et  regni  perturbatore 
tyrannidem  exercere  non  cessant."  Cf.  Ep.  295  to  Charles  the  Fat. 
He  assures  Charles,  "  Nam  nihil  nobis  de  parte  ipsius  (Bosonis)  per- 
tinere  videtur,  qui  talem  tyrannidem  prsesumpsit  committere."  This 
letter  belongs  to  the  )ear  880. 


JOHN   VIII.  313 

prayed  for.1  And  it  was  no  small  gain  in  those  days, 
when  little  else  was  respected  but  brute  force,  that  there 
was  one  whom  princes  and  people  alike  thought,  at  least,  that 
they  ought  to  look  up  to  and  respect.  As.  then,  the  begin- 
ning of  the  year  879  still  found  Western  Europe  without 
an  emperor,  and  Italy  practically  without  any  supreme 
ruler  at  all,  John  summoned  (March)  a  synod  to  meet  on 
May  1st,  that  he  might  arrange  with  the  bishops  of  Italy 
what  was  necessary  for  the  benefit  of  Church  and  State. 
"And  because,  as  we  have  heard,  Carloman's  health  will 
not  allow  him  to  hold  the  kingdom,  we  must  consult 
together  about  the  election  of  a  new  king.  Before  that 
date,  you  must  not  acknowledge  any  king  without  our 
consent.  For  he  who  is  to  be  raised  (ordinandus)  to  the 
empire  by  us,  must  be  called  and  elected  by  us  most 
especially."2  Meanwhile,  in  reply  to  a  communication 
received  from  Charles  the  Fat,  the  Pope  wrote3  (April  3) 
to  him  to  send  ambassadors  at  once,  that  with  them 
measures  might  be  taken  for  the  good  of  the  Church  and  of 
the  State,  and  for  the  honour  of  Charles  himself;  and  not  to 
hesitate  to  come  himself.  In  another  letter4  to  the  same 
king  he  adds  that,  thinking  the  cause  of  his  non-appearance 
might  be  the  opposition  of  Carloman,  he  has  written  to 
that  prince  and  admonished  him  that  to  keep  this  kingdom 
in  such  a  disordered  and  defenceless  state  any  longer  is 
to  risk  his  soul's  salvation ;  and  that,  consequently,  he 
must  not  dare  to  hinder  Charles  from  coming  to  defend 
the  Church. 

But  things  were  not  destined  to  turn  out  well  for  the  Then  to 

the  other 

anxious  pontiff.     His  synod   of   May    1st   was   unable   to  German 

1  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils,  i.  p   16.     Cf.  Agobard  (t84o),  Liber 
Apol.,  n.  3,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  104,  p.  312. 

2  Ep.  200.     Cf.  Ep.  197  of  March  5,  to  Romanus  of  Ravenna,  who 
had  but  recently  been  elected  to  that  See.     Cf.  Epp.  176  7. 

3  Ep.  204.  4  Ep.  215. 


314  JOHN   VIII. 

effect  much,  as  Anspert  of  Milan  again  failed  to  present 
himself.  Ai  d  though  the  disobedient  archbishop  was 
excommunicated,1  Charles  did  not  act.  In  his  despair, 
we  find  John  appealing  now  to  one  and  now  to  another 
of  the  three  brothers.  Unfortunately,  the  paucity  of  fully 
dated  letters  prevents  us  from  determining  whether  John 
observed  any  order  in  addressing  his  appeals  to  the  brothers, 
or  whether  he  sent  them  off  simply  to  the  one  whom  he 
thought  most  likely  to  come  to  his  help  at  the  moment. 
Thus  Wibod,  bishop  of  Parma,  the  Pope's  agent,  is  plainly 
told  by  him2  to  try  Carloman,  or,  if  his  infirmities  unfit 
him,  Charles.  For  he  (the  Pope)  is  so  harassed  by  the 
infidels  that  he  would  be  glad  of  the  help  of  any  of 
the  kings.  And  hence,  as  Charles  would  not  move,  and 
Carloman  could  not,  John  tried  to  induce  Louis  (the 
Young)  to  come  and  help  him.  "  If  with  the  help  of  heaven 
you  receive  the  Roman  empire,  all  kingdoms  are  subject3  to 
you ! "  But  Louis  was  busy  intriguing  for  the  reversion 
of  the  kingdom  of  the  paralysed  Carloman,  and  fighting 
for  as  much  of  that  of  the  late  Louis  of  France  as  he  could 
lay  his  hands  upon.  June  7th  saw  a  despatch  for  aid  sent 
off  even  to  Carloman.4  From  a  letter  of  the  Pope,  which 
Lapotre  assigns  to  September,  it  appears 5  that  Carloman, 
feeling  his  inability  to  look  after  Italy  himself,  transferred 
the  care  of  it  to  John. 
Charles  Whether   or   not  it  was   this   act  of  his  brother  which 

enters         had  an  effect  upon  Charles,  at  any  rate  John  was  not  long 

Italy. 

1  Epp.  223-4.  2  Epp.  216,  221. 

3  Ep.  242.  "  Si,  Deo  favente,  Romanum  sumpseritis  imperium, 
omnia  vobis  regna  subjecta  existent."  This  letter  was  written  after 
April  10,  as  it  supposes  the  death  of  Louis  the  Stammerer. 

4  Ep.  227. 

6  Ep.  281.  "  Filius  noster  Carolomannus  gloriosus  rex  suis  regalibus 
litteris,  et  missorum  nostrorum  verbo,  nostro  prsssulatui  pio  mentis 
affectu  commisit,  ut  nos  curam  hujus  regni  Italici  haberemus." 


JOHN    VIII.  315 

the  ruler  of  Italy.  Coming  to  an  understanding1  with  his 
brothers,  Charles  the  Fat  entered  Italy,  October  26,  879. 
Advancing  straight  to  Ravenna,  he  summoned  to  his  side 
the  Pope  and  the  bishops  and  nobility  of  Italy.  By  them  he 
was  proclaimed  king,  and  then,  "  with  the  exception  of  the 
bishop  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  he  constrained  them  to  swear 
fealty  to  him.2  Before  they  parted,  the  Pope  and  the 
new  king  of  Italy  had  a  conference  on  the  subject  of  the 
imperial  crown.  The  Pope  hoped  for  an  increase  of  the 
privileges  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  especially  for  help 
against  "  the  ferocious  severity  "  of  his  enemies.  He  wanted 
Charles  "to  renew  and  confirm  one  of  the  treaties  {pactum) 
and  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church,  after  the 
manner  of  his  predecessors."3  Unable,  however,  to  make 
any  headway  at  all  with  Charles  in  these  respects,  John 
returned  to  Rome  "to  find  that  matters  had  gone  from 
bad  to  worse."  Hearing  that  Charles  was  about  to  recross 
the  Alps,  he  sent  another  embassy  to  him  begging  him  to 
take  measures  to  protect  "the  territory  of  St.  Peter"  from 
the  Saracens  and  from  "  bad  Christians,"  and  assuring  him 
that  the  only  way  to  ensure  the  safety  of  the  Church  was 
for  him  to  come  to  Rome  in  person.  If  Charles  will  do 
this  and  fulfil  his  engagements,  the  Pope  on  his  side  will 
work  for  the  king's  "honour  and  glory."4 

But  Charles,  who  left  Italy  early  in  the  year  880  to  wage  Charles 

leaves 
Italy, 

1  Hinc,    an.    879.      Cf.    Ann.   Augienses   et    Weingartenses,    ap.  8S0. 
M.  G.  SS.,  i.,  and  various  catalogues  of  the  kings  of  Italy,  ap.  M.  G.  SS. 
Langobard.      "Carlomannus  fratri  suo   Carolo   Italiam  gubernandam 
concessit,"   says    the  continuator  of  the  history  of  Erchanbert   (853), 

ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ii.     Cf.  Ep.  275.     Carloman  died  March  22,  880. 

2  "  Ab  eis  (episcopis,  etc.)  rex  constituitur  et  omnes,  prrcter  Apostolicae 
sedis  episcopum,  jurejurando  ad  devotionem  servitii  sui  constrinxit.''* 
(Contin.  Erchanb.,  ib.).     Cf.  Ep.  260,  and  Ann.  Vedast.,  880. 

3  "  Unum  de  ftactis,  et  privilegia  S.  Rom.  Ecclesiae,  more  parentum 
vestrorum,  renovare  et  confirmare  studeatis."     (Ep.  260.) 

4  Ep.  261. 


crown. 


316  JOHN   VIII. 

war  upon  the  upstart  monarch  Boso,  contented  himself 
with  sending  word  to  "  his  marquises  on  the  borders  of 
the  Pope's  territories ''  to  afford  him  all  necessary  help. 
Needless  to  say,  this  they  did  not  do  ;  they  only  helped 
themselves  at  the  Pope's  expense.  Hence  a  fresh  batch  of 
letters1  was  dispatched  by  John  to  induce  Charles  to 
come  to  Rome  in  person. 
Returns  At  length  the  German  kin?  made  up  his  mind  to  set  out 

for  the  °  g  . 

imperial  for  Rome  to  receive  the  imperial  crown  ;  and,  apparently, 
to  obtain  it  on  his  own  terms.  He  made,  what  so  many 
other  German  monarchs  were  destined  to  do  after  him,  a 
violent  dash  for  Rome.2  But  it  did  not  at  all  suit  the  Pope's 
views  that  Charles  the  Fat  should  have  all  his  own  way. 
He  sent  legates  to  him,  with  a  clear  statement  in  writing 
(capitulariter)  of  what  he  considered  was  a  fair  agreement 
between  them.  Unfortunately,  this  important  document 
has  not  come  down  to  us.  Indeed,  we  know  very  little 
of  what  happened  just  at  this  juncture — not  even  the 
exact  date  of  the  imperial  coronation  of  King  Charles.  In 
the  letter  in  which  he  informed  Charles  that  he  was 
sending  him  this  memorandum  of  his  wishes,  the  Pope 
subjoins:  "If  you  do  not  completely  carry  out  all  the 
conditions  we  have  laid  down,  we  will  ourselves,  as  far  as 
in  us  lies,  see  to  what  pertains  to  the  honour  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Church.  From  which  course,  no  violence  nor  threats 
of  wicked  men  will  have  any  power  to  turn  us,  as  long  as 
life  remains  in  our  body.  In  setting  down,  with  great 
presumption,  our  memorandum  (Jussio)  as  absurd,  you  are 
only  striking  yourself,  and,  like  a  deaf  asp,  turning  your 
ear  away  from  what  is  for  your  advantage.     In  fine,  by  our 

1  Ep.  292,  dated  June  23,  880 ;  Ep.  295  and  Ep.  301,  dated  October 
30,  880. 

2  "Carolus  Italiam  subjugat"  say  the  Annals  of  St.  Gall,  ad  an. 
880  (ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  70).  The  Pope  speaks  of  his  coming — "festine, 
imo  potius  praecipiti  gressu."     Ep.  309  ;  dated  January  25,  881. 


JOHN   VIII.  317 

apostolic  authority,  we  definitely  forbid  you  to  enter  the 
territory  {terminuni)  of  St.  Peter  until  our  legates  have 
returned  to  us  with  full  intelligence,  and  until  you  have 
sent  us  new  ones."  l 

The  only  certain  issue  of  these  negotiations  with  which  Charles 

1  /-m       ,  1  the  Fat 

we  are  acquainted  is  that  Charles  was  crowned  as  emperor,  crowned  at 
probably  in  the  latter  part  of  the  month  of  February  88 1.2 
Had  the  adipose  German  been  in  the  least  degree  equal  to 
his  position,  he  might  have  inaugurated  another  '  age  of 
Charlemagne/  and  staved  off  the  disasters  of  the  tenth 
century.  Even  before  John  died,  most  of  the  kingdoms  of 
the  different  Frankish  sovereigns  had  fallen  to  him  by  the 
death  of  their  rulers.  His  brother  Carloman  had  died, 
March  880,  and  his  other  brother,  Louis  the  Young,  died 
January  20,  882.  The  somewhat  later  deaths  of  the  youth- 
ful rulers  of  France  (Louis  III.,  August  4,  882,  and  Carlo- 
man,  December  6,  884)  made  him  master,  in  name  at 
any  rate,  of  practically  all  the  empire  of  Charlemagne.3 
But  he  was  equally  unfit  to  rule  much  or  little ;  he  had 
to  be  deposed  (887).  Comparing  the  career  of  Boso  with 
that  of  the  Carolingian  rulers  of  his  time,  weak  in  body  or 
mind,  or  both,  it  is  clear  that  in  him  John  had  picked  out 
the  best  man  of  his  time.  Things  might  have  been  different 
if  the  gallant  Boso  and  his  intrepid  spouse  had  been  allowed 
to  receive  the  imperial  diadem. 

As  it  was,  John  could    get  no   aid    from  the   impotent  Vain 
emperor.     Owing   to  his  weakness,  and  to  the  continued  forheijfon 
dissensions   among   the  Christian  princes  of  South  Italy,  [he  Pope? 

1  Ep.  309. 

2  Jaffe,  Regest.,  p.  417  (287).  The  purity  of  John's  motives  in 
bestowing  the  imperial  crown  on  Charles  is  insisted  on  by  Stephen  (V.) 
VI.;  the  crown  was  given  to  him,  "ut  tutissimo  ejus  regimine  potita 
pace  secura  subsisteret."    Jaffe,  3413. 

3  Boso  maintained  his  independence  in  Provence.  A  posthumous 
son  of  Louis  the  Stammerer,  viz.,  the  child  Charles  the  Simple,  was  in 
884  the  only  living  representative  of  the  western  Carolingian  line. 


318  JOHN  VIII. 

the  Saracen  power  fixed  itself  there  more  firmly  than  ever. 
This  very  year  (88 1)  the  infidels  established  themselves  in 
a  strong  fortress  on  the  Garigliano  (the  ancient  Liris),  and 
from  it  they  plundered  the  surrounding  country  with 
impunity  for  forty  years.  But  while  John,  on  his  side,  was 
willing  to  take  charge  of  the  ex-empress1  Engelberga,  that 
she  might  not  plot  with  her  son-in-law,  Boso,  against 
Charles,  his  oft-repeated  letters2  for  help  against  the 
Saracens  brought  him  no  aid  from  the  emperor.  A  diet 
at  Ravenna3  (February  882),  in  which  were  present  both 
the  Pope  and  the  emperor  and  a  number  of  bishops  and 
nobles,  does  not  seem  to  have  led  to  much.  On  his  return 
to  Rome,  John  found  "that  all  our  coast  had  been 
plundered,  and  the  Saracens  as  much  at  home  in  Fundi 
and  Terracina"  as  in  Africa.4  "  Though  grievously  infirm," 
continues  the  Pope,  "we  went  forth  to  battle  with  our 
forces,  captured  eighteen  of  the  enemy's  ships  and  slew  a 
great  many  of  their  men."  But  it  was  to  no  purpose  that 
he  asked 5  for  aid  to  be  able  to  render  the  victory  of  lasting 
value,  and  to  resist  the  violence  of  Guy  of  Spoleto,  who 
was  continuing  the  tyrannical  opposition  of  his  brother 
Lambert  to  the  Holy  See.  The  very  last  letters6  of  John, 
however,  written  about  a  month  before  he  died,  show  that 
his  last  days  were  somewhat  cheered  by  the  news  that  the 
emperor  was  coming  '  for  the  defence  and  security'  of  the 
Roman  Church  and  to  expel  Guy 7  '  from  our  territories.' 

1  Epp.  315,316. 

2  Epp.  320,  in  which  he  gives  the  emperor  notice  that  he  is  sending 
him  a  blessed  palm,  the  emblem  of  victory.     Cf.  328,  330. 

3  Cf.  Jaffe,  p.  290. 

4  Ep.  334,  a  fragment  of  a  letter  to  the  emperor. 

5  Cf  also  Epp.  344-5.  e  Epp  365_  6 

7  Only  a  short  time  before  the  Pope  had  had  to  complain  of  the 
cruelty  of  a  wicked  Lombard,  "  a  man  of  the  marquis  Guy,"  who  in  a 
raid  had  seized  eighty-three  men  near  Narni ;  and,  in  cutting  off  one 
of  the  hands  of  each  of  them,  had  not  unnaturally  been  the  cause  of 


JOHN   VIII.  319 

But  death  had  given  rest  to  the  weary  pontiff  before  the 
emperor  had  crossed  the  Alps. 

Even  from  the  foregoing  narrative  the  reader  will  prob-  The  Pope 
ably  have  gathered  that  of  the  various  troubles  against  Saracens, 
which  the  heroic  pontiff  had  to  struggle  during  his  arduous 
reign,  one  was  ever  before  him — the  devastations  of  the 
Saracens.  The  letters  of  the  first  year  of  his  reign  are  as 
full  of  them  as  are  those  of  the  last.  What  the  Lombards' 
were  to  Gregory  the  Great,  the  Saracens  were  to  Pope 
John.  And  as  Gregory's  difficulties  with  the  Lombards 
were  increased  by  the  vexatious  conduct  of  the  Christian 
exarchs,  so  those  of  John  with  the  infidels  were  bitterly 
intensified  by  the  unpatriotic  conduct  of  the  petty  princes 
of  South  Italy.  The  importance  and  long  duration  of  the 
Saracen  question  require  that  it  should  be  treated  of 
separately,  and  not  simply  woven  into  a  part  of  the 
narrative. 

The  enormous  empire  won  by  the  successors  of  Mahomet,  The 
which  extended  "  at  its  widest  .  .  .  from  the  Indus  to  the  and  the 
Atlantic  and  the  Pyrenees,  and  from  the  Caspian    to  the  ranean.1 
Indian  Ocean,"  was  subject  till  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century  to  the  Caliphs   who  ruled  at  Damascus.     But  in 
750  the  Omayyad  dynasty,  which  had  succeeded  that  of  the 
four  '  rightly-minded  '  caliphs  who  had  known  '  the  Prophet/ 
was   overthrown,   and    the    Abbasid    dynasty    of    Bagdad 
(750-1258)  was  established.     Till  then  the  caliphate   had 
been    practically   undivided.      But   the    break-up    of    the 
immense   Saracenic   empire    began    under   the    Abbasids. 
Spain  never  acknowledged  their  authority,  and  it  was  not 
long  before   they  lost  Africa.      The    Idrisids    founded  an 

the  immediate  death  of  many  of  them.  Cf.  Ep.  360,  to  Anselm  of 
Milan,  dated  August  882.  Such  were  the  savages  with  whom  the  Pope 
had  to  deal.  Ep.  354,  to  the  emperor  Charles  the  Fat,  also  speaks  of 
Guy  and  his  satellites,  "  qui  nostra  violenter  tulerunt  ac  retinuerunt." 


320  JOHN   VIII. 

independent  caliphate  in  Morocco  (788) ;  and  when  the 
Aghlabids  established  a  new  dynasty  at  Cairowan  (south 
of  Tunis)  in  800,  Egypt  was  the  only  part  of  North  Africa 
which  obeyed  the  caliphs  of  Bagdad.  It  is  with  the 
Aghlabids,  or  Aglabites  as  they  are  more  commonly  called, 
that  we  are  at  present  concerned.  At  first,,  at  least,  we 
are  assured  that  they  "were  not  only  enlightened  and 
energetic  rulers  on  land,  but  employed  large  fleets  on  the 
Mediterranean."1 

In  the  very  first  terrific  outburst  of  Moslem  fanaticism, 
Arab  galleys  had  begun  to  harry  its  shores.  Not  fifty 
years  had  elapsed  since  Mahomet's  famous  flight  (622) 
before  Saracen  fleets  had  made  descents  upon  Cyprus  and 
Sicily,  and  had  anchored  under  the  walls  of  Constantinople 
itself.  In  the  next  century  they  had  burnt  towns  in  Italy. 
But  it  was  under  the  Aglabites  (800-909)  that  was  witnessed 
"the  greatest  ascendancy  of  the  Arabs  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean." Aided  by  Moors  from  Spain,  "their  corsairs  were 
the  terror  of  the  seas."  They  took  Sicily  (827-78),  Crete 
and  Malta,  Corsica  and  Sardinia,  and  we  have  already 
seen  much  of  their  ravages  in  Italy.  In  840  they  established 
themselves  in  South  Italy,  and  between  that  date  and  845 
the  attack  of  the  Saracens  on  Italy  was  general.2  They 
had  rifled  St.  Peter's  in  846,  and  by  about  860  their  power 
was  as  formidable  in  South  Italy  as  it  was  in  Sicily. 

Angered  by  the  loss  of  Bari  (February  87 1),3  and  on  the 
other  hand  favoured  by  the  treachery  of  Adelgisus  towards 
the  emperor  Louis  II.,  and  then  later  by  that  emperor's 
death  (August  875)  and  by  the  detestable  conduct  of  some 
of  the   princes    of   Southern    Italy,    who    were  constantly 

1  Stanley  Lane-Poole,  The  Mohammadan  Dynasties,  p.  36  (London, 
1894),  an  invaluable  book.  Cf.  Poole's  Historical  Atlas,  map  77,  with 
its  letterpress. 

2  Gay,  L  Italic  Meridionale  et  lempire  Byzanti?r,  p.  53,  Paris,  1904. 

3  Cf.  sufira,  p.  187. 


JOHN    VIII.  321 

seeking  their  alliance,  the  Saracens,  ever  reinforced 1  by 
fresh  bodies  of  marauders,  started  again  with  renewed 
vigour  to  prey  on  the  wretched  peninsula.  They  reduced 
Calabria,  as  the  toe  of  Italy  was  then  called,  to  the  state  in 
which  "  it  had  been  left  by  the  deluge  "  (873X2  and  expressed 
their  determination  above  all  things  to  destroy  the  city  of 
"  the  old  dotard  Peter."  3 

But  '  Petrulus  senex  '  has  for  many  a  long  century  shown 
himself  a  difficult  foe  to  deal  with  ;  and  his  aged  repre- 
sentative of  the  last  quarter  of  the  ninth  century  had  in 
him  a  great  deal  of  his  master's  martial  temperament.  John 
met  force  with  force,  and  in  person  patrolled  the  coast.4 
In  the  first  instance  he  directed  all  his  energies  to  the 
breaking  up  of  the  alliance  which  the  Southern  Italian 
states  had  formed  with  the  Saracens  ;  for,  by  the  year  875, 
the  whole  of  South  Italy,  except  the  parts  in  the  hands  of 
the  Greeks,  was  in  alliance  with  the  infidel,  and  was  actively 
siding  with  them  in  harrying5  the  papal  territory.  By 
letters  and  embassies  John  pointed  out  to  the  various 
princes  of  Naples,  Capua,  and  the  rest,  how  utterly  un- 
christian was  their  conduct  in  thus  allying  themselves 
with  the  greatest  enemies  of  the  Cross  of  Christ.6     All  that 

1  Erchempert,  c.  38  ;  Anon.  Salem.,  c.  131. 

2  Erchempert,  c.  35. 

3  See  the  stories  in  John,  the  Neapolitan  deacon's  history  of  the 
martyrdom  of  St.  Procopius,  ap.  R.  I.  S.,  i.,  pt.  ii.  p.  271  f. 

4  "  Joannes  ....  contra  Sarracenorum  incursus  littora  peragrabat," 
says  John  the  Deacon  (1.  iv.,  c.  97)  in  one  of  the  incidental  notices  of 
contemporary  history  which  find  their  way  into  his  Life  of  S.  Gregory  I. 

6  "  Tunc  Salernum,  Neapolim,  Gaietam  et  Amalfim  pacem  habentes 
cum  Saracenis,  navalibus  Romam  graviter  angustiabant  depopulatio  " 
(Erchemp.,  c.  39).  The  sense  of  this  passage  is  more  correctly  given 
by  Leo  Ostiensis  in  his  Chron.  S.  Monast.  Casin.,  i.,  c.  40.  "  Salernitani, 
Amalphitani  (etc.)  fcedus  cum  Saracenis  componentes  Romam  navalibus 
deprredationibus  angustabant."  In  July  875  a  body  of  the  Saracens 
themselves  burnt  Comacchio.  Cf.  And.  Berg.,  c.  1 8.  So  that  on  both  the 
eastern  and  the  western  coasts  were  the  territories  of  the  Pope  harassed 

6  Cf.  Ep.  9,  and  Ep.  59,  ap.  Loewenfeld,  written  before  June  875. 

VOL.   III.  21 


322  JOHN    VIII. 

Charles   the   Bald,   after   his   coronation    as  emperor,  felt 

himself  able  to  do  by  way  of  assisting  the   Pope   in   his 

difficulties  was  to  commission  Lambert  of  Spoleto  and  Guy 

his  brother  to  afford  what  help  they  could.1 

The  Pope        Accordingly,  as  he  had  effected  nothing  by  his  letters, 
goes  to  .  . 

Naples,       John  set  out  with  the  two  dukes  for  Naples,  etc.,  in  the 

etc.,  876. 

early  part  of  the  following  year  (February  17  2 — March  31), 
although  in  very  bad  health,  to  see  what  he  could  do  by 
his  personal  influence  towards  breaking  up  the  disgraceful 
league.  He  succeeded  in  detaching  from  it  Guaifer,  prince 
of  Salerno,  and  Landulf,  count  bishop  of  Capua.3  But  the 
complete  success  of  the  Pope's  mission  was  marred  by 
the  secret  treachery  of  the  men  who  ought  to  have  been 
working  for  him.  Lambert,  who  had  an  understanding  with 
Adelgisus  of  Beneventum,  persuaded  Sergius,4  magister 
militum  or  Duke  of  Naples,  not  to  break  off  his  alliance 
with  the  Saracens.  Of  the  character  of  this  Sergius  we 
have  already  seen  something  in  his  treatment  of  his  uncle 
St.  Athanasius,  the  archbishop  of  Naples.  With  such  a 
powerful  state  as  Naples  at  the  back  of  the  Saracens,  what 
could  John  hope  to  effect  against  them  ?  However,  in  dealing 
with  Sergius,  he  tried  mild  measures  to  begin  with.  He  ex- 
horted Athanasius,  whom  he  had  just  consecrated  bishop,  to 
do  all  that  in  him  lay  to  draw  his  brother  from  the  Saracen 
alliance.5  To  no  purpose ;  John  accordingly  excommuni- 
cated him,  and  war  broke  out  between  him  and  Guaifer.6 

1  Erchemp.,  c.  39. 

2  For  this  date,  see  Lapotre,  p.  304  n.  For  the  health  of  Pope,  see 
Ep.  71. 

3  Cf.  Epp.  31-2  ;  Erchemp.,  z'b.,  who  tells  us  that  Guaifer  at  once 
distinguished  himself  by  killing  a  number  of  the  Saracens. 

4  " Consilio  Adelgisi  et  Lamberti  deceptus"  (Erchemp.,  ib).  "Qui 
(Saraceni)  tunc  Neapoli  habitabant,  et  Romanam  provinciam  penitus 
dissipabant."     Gesta  epp.  Neap.,  c.  66,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.  La?igob.,  p.  436. 

6  Ep.  28,  September  9,  876. 

6  Erchempert,  c.  39.     On  the  octave  day  of  the  excommunication, 


JOHN   VIII.  323 

But  all  this  while  John  was    not   merely   seeking   help  The  Pope 

from  others.     He  was  doing  all  he  could  to  help  himself.  April  876.  ' 

The  real  founder  of  the  pontifical  navy,  he  was   actively 

engaged   in    building   war-ships,   especially   those    of    the 

pattern  then  known  as  dromons,  and  in  preparing  munitions 

of  war  of  all  kinds.     And,  what  was  perhaps  the  hardest 

task  of  all,  he  was  trying  to  infuse  into  his  new  marines 

his  own  fearless  courage ; 1   for  fear  of  the  Saracen  pirates 

would   seem    to   have   filled   their   hearts.     On  his  return 

from  Naples,  he  found  that  "  all  our  coast  about  Fundi  and 

Terracina  had  been  ravaged  by  the  Saracens,  and  that  they 

had    taken    up   their   abode   there   as   though   at   home." 

Although  very  unwell,  John  only  rested  five  days  in  Rome. 

He  then  put  to  sea,  and  overtook  the  pirate  fleet  off  the 

promontory   of  Circe,   at   the   extremity   of  the    Pontine 

marshes.     Eighteen  of  the  enemy's  vessels  were  captured 

by  the  Papal  squadron,  many  of  their  men  slain,  and  about 

six  hundred  captives  liberated.2     Surely  this  is  enough  to 

show   that   there   was  nothing  of  the  woman  about  John 

the  same  historian  tells  us  that  Guaifer  captured  twenty-five  Neapolitan 
soldiers  ;  and,  in  accordance  with  the  Pope's  instructions  (sic  enim 
monuerat  papa),  had  them  beheaded.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  it  is 
on  this  passage,  and  on  another  in  one  (Ep.  352)  of  his  letters,  where 
John  orders  some  Saracen  prisoners  to  be  put  to  death,  that  are 
founded  the  charges  of  cruelty  often  so  freely  brought  against  him. 
With  regard  to  the  Saracens,  John  only  did  what  any  modern  European 
government  would  have  done.  He  ordered  robbers  and  pirates  to  be 
hanged.  As  for  the  case  of  the  Neapolitan  soldiers,  we  know  ?iothing 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  affair.  These  soldiers  may  have  been 
Saracens  too. 

1  "  Dromones  cum  ceteris  navibus  construentes,  et  cetera  vasa  bellica 
et  apparatus,  quin  potius  et  ipsos  animos  hominum  prasparantes,  et 
adversus  hostiles  incursus  indesinenter  armantes."  Ep.  336,  a  fragment 
of  a  letter  to  Engelberga.  Cf.  Guglielmotti,  Storia  della  marina 
pontificia,  vol.  i.  1.  i.,  cc.  16,  17  ;  ed.  Firenze,  1871. 

2  This  engagement  is  referred  by  Balan  (p.  70)  to  the  year  880. 
But  the  facts  concerning  it  are  related  in  a  fragment  of  a  letter 
(Ep.  334)  "  to  the  emperor  and  empress,"  viz.,  to  Charles  the  Bald  and 
Richildis.     Cf.  Ep.344,  and  Ep.  19  (an.  876)  to  Alphonso. 


324  JOHN   VIII. 

even  in  the  midst  of  old  age  and  sickness.  Of  this  victory 
John  at  once  informed  Charles  the  Bald  and  his  wife, 
and  also  Alphonso  III.  "Like  you,"  he  writes  to  the  last- 
named,  "  are  we  constrained  by  the  pagans ;  and  day 
and  night  have  we  to  fight  with  them.  But  Almighty 
God  has  given  us 1  victory  over  them." 
The  Pope's      To  organise  further  opposition  to  the  infidel,  the  Pope 

appeals  for  _  .  r    t  . 

help,  had  recourse  to  other  means  also.     Hearing  of  the  victories 

gained  over  the  Moors  by  Alfonso  III.,  the  brave  and 
learned  king  of  the  Asturias  and  Leon,  or  of  the  Gallicias, 
as  John  calls  him,  he  begged  that  monarch  to  send  him, 
along  with  arms,  some  first-class  Arab  horses.2  Evidently 
John  had  in  mind  to  form  a  body  of  light  cavalry  suitable 
for  coping  with  an  enemy  whose  main  strength  was  in 
rapidity  of  movement.  At  the  same  time  he  sent  letter 
after  letter  to  Boso,  who  had  been  left  in  Italy  as  his 
representative  by  Charles  the  Bald,  imploring  him  so  to 
attack  the  Saracens  that  they  may  not  be  able  to  get  an 
opportunity  to  recover.3  Energetic  action,  he  writes,  is 
all  the  more  necessary,  as  he  has  received  reliable 
information  that  the  enemy  are  about  to  despatch  a  fleet 
of  a  hundred  sail,  including  fifteen  large  vessels  carry- 
ing horses,  to  assail  the  city.4  Boso  could  not  or  would 
not  furnish  the  desired  help ;  and  John  had  to  appeal 
(November)  to  the  emperor  and  empress  directly.5  "  Were 
all  the  leaves  of  the  forest  turned  to  tongues,"  he  writes  to 
the  emperor,  "  they  could  not  tell  of  all  the  troubles  we 


1  It  may  be  that { det '  and  not {  dat '  is  the  correct  reading  here. 

2  "  Aliquantos  utiles  et  optimos  Mauriscos  cum  armis,  quos  Hispani, 
cavallos  Alpharaces  vocant,  ad  nos  dirigere  non  omittatis."  Ep.  19. 
A  Spanish  chronicler  of  this  period  enumerates  among  the  famous 
products  of  Spain  'caballus  de  Mauris.'  Chron.  Albeldense,  written 
883;  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  1 126. 

3  Ep.  25,  September  1,  876.     Cf.  Ep.  29.  4  Ep.  30. 
6  Epp.  43-4  to  the  emperor,  and  Ep.  45  to  Richildis. 


JOHN   VIII.  325 

are  suffering  at  the  hands  of  the  Saracens.  .  .  .  Cities, 
walled  towns  and  villages,  bereft  of  their  inhabitants,  have 
sunk  into  ruin.  Their  bishops  have  been  driven  hither 
and  thither.  The  thresholds  of  the  Princes  of  the  Apostles 
are  the  only  places  they  have  to  turn  to  for  refuge,  as  their 
houses  have  become  the  dens  of  wild  beasts.  Homeless 
wanderers,  no  longer  have  they  to  preach  but  to  beg.  .  .  . 
In  distress,  rather  in  ruin,  is  the  mistress  of  nations,  the 
Queen  of  cities,  the  Mother  of  Churches.  ...  In  the 
year  that  has  passed  we  sowed  the  seed,  but  did  not 
gather  in  the  harvest.  This  year,  as  we  have  not  planted 
we  have  not  even  a  hope  of  reaping.  But  why  do  we 
speak  of  the  infidels  when  Christians  do  no  better?  We 
allude  especially  to  those  on  our  borders  whom  you  are 
wont  to  call  margraves  or  marquises  (marchiones).  .  .  . 
You  must  come  and  help  the  Church,  which,  setting  aside 
for  you  a  good  and  great  brother,  freely  chose  you  as 
another  David  for  the  imperial  sceptre.1  ...  If  this 
Church  is  brought  low,  not  only  will  the  glory  of  your 
empire  totter,  but  the  greatest  loss  will  accrue  to  the 
Christian  faith."  It  is  the  cry  of  Gregory  the  Great  over 
again.  If  the  Lombards  are  bad,  the  exarchs  are 
worse ! 

Still  no  help  came.  And  so  the  Pope  had  not  only  to 
keep  up  his  own  heart,  but  to  do  his  best  to  keep  up  the 
constancy  of  the  loyal  party.  Guaifer,  Landulf,  and  Aio, 
bishop  of  Beneventum  and  brother  of  Adelgisus,  who  was 
opposed  to  the  traitorous  conduct  of  his  brother,  had  to  be 
encouraged  to  struggle  on.  The  close  of  S76  and  the 
beginning  of  877  saw  several  letters2  despatched  to  them, 

1  Ep.  43.  "Jube  ....  porrigere  manum  ....  huic  Ecclesias  matri 
vestras  ....  quae  in  ultimo,  spreto  bono  et  magno  fratre,  vos  more 
Dei  gratuita  voluntate,  tanquam  alterum  regem  David  elegit  .... 
ad  imperialia  sceptra  provexit," 

2  Epp.  55,  56,  57. 


326 


joiin  viii. 


urging  them  "  to  put  their  trust  in  God  and  not  in  the 
Sultan,  or  in  Satan,  as  he  might  be  more  suitably  styled." 

Further  letters  (in  February  877)  to  the  emperor  and 
empress  let  us  see  that  matters  have  gone  on  getting 
worse.  So  bold  have  the  Saracens  grown  that,  in  the 
night  {clandestinis  horis1),  they  have  even  come  up  to 
the  walls  of  the  city,  sighs  the  Pope;  and,  after  having 
laid  waste  the  Campagna,  they  have  even  crossed  the 
Teverone,  formerly  known  as  the  Anio  (Albula),  and 
harried  the  Sabine  territories.  His  heart  has  grown  sick 
waiting  for  the  imperial  army  so  long  promised  but  so 
late  in  coming.  There  is  nothing  left  for  it  but  the 
destruction  of  the  city  itself.  By  all  that  he  (the  Pope) 
did  to  secure  him  the  empire,2  Charles  must  act  in  defence 
of  the  Roman  Church. 

At  the  same  time  John  did  not  slacken  in  his  efforts  to 
detach  the  Christian  states  from  the  Saracen  alliance,  and 
to  unite  them  in  a  common  effort  "to  eliminate  the 
impious  race  from  our  country."3  With  a  view  of  im- 
mfidei,877.  pressing  the  others,  John  once  more  took  in  hand  Sergius 
of  Naples.  He  promised  him,  if  he  would  abandon  "the 
profane  alliance,"  that  he  would  give  him  in  abundance  of 
that  wealth  which  he  coveted ;  but  assured  him  that  if  he 
would  not  give  it  up,  he  would  not  only  excommunicate 
him  afresh,  with  the  sword  of  the  spirit,  but  see  to  it  that 
those  who  carried  "not  without  cause  material  swords"4 
should  attack  him.  The  Pope's  remonstrances  at  length 
produced  an  effect,  if  not  on  Sergius  himself,  at  least  on 
his  people.      They  rose  up  against  him,  and  elected  his 


Further 
efforts  to 
break  up 
the 

Christian 
alliance 
with  the 


1  Ep.  60.  2  Ep.  58  ;  cf.  Epp.  59  and  62. 

3  Ep.  67.  Cf.  Epp.  63  (March  15),  68,  and  69  (April  9).  Without 
producing  a  scrap  of  evidence,  Gregorovius  pretends  that  the  selfish 
conduct  of  these  petty  states  is  to  be  explained  by  their  fearing  that 
the  Pope  aimed  at  annexing  them  to  his  own  dominions. 

4  Ep.  70. 


JOHN   VIII.  327 

brother  Athanasius,  the  bishop,  to  be  their  duke.  As  for 
Sergius,  "they  put  out  his  eyes  and  sent  him  to  Rome, 
where  he  perished  miserably."1  In  the  letter  in  which  the 
Pope  congratulates  "  all  the  eminent  judges  "  and  the  people 
of  Naples  for  electing  Athanasius  and  for  rejecting  Sergius, 
"  who  wrought  more  evil  in  Naples  and  in  our  territories 
than  all  his  predecessors,"  he  tells  them  that  at  present 
he  has  no  more  money  at  his  disposal,  but  that  at  the 
beginning  of  Lent  or  on  Easter  Sunday  he  will  send  them 
1400  mancuses.2  For  John  was  in  the  habit  of  generously 
subsidising  the  states  which  were  true  to  the  cause  of 
Christianity.  But  he  was  soon  to  find  to  his  cost  that 
Athanasius  was  little  better  than  his  brother. 

We  may  here  again  emphasise  the  fact  that,  while  John  johanni- 

11  .  1  1  Polis- 

was   writing   or   talking   to   envoys,  he   was    also   acting. 

Besides  building  ships,  fighting  at  sea,  and  rearing  cavalry 

horses,  he  added  to  the  fortifications  in  connection  with  the 

city.     The  isolated  position  of  St.  Paul's,  on  the  high-road 

from  Ostia  to  Rome,  naturally  exposed  it  to  the  danger  of 

being  again  plundered  by  the  Saracens.     It  had  in  course 

of  time   become  the   centre  "of  a  considerable  group  of 

1  Erchempert,  c.  39.  "  Quo  etiam  anathemate  multatus  idem 
Sergius,  non  multo  post  a  proprio  germano  captus  est,  et  Roman 
mittitur  suffosis  oculis  ;  .  .  .  .  ipse  autem  frater  ejus  in  loco  illius  se 
ipsum  principem  instituit."  The  part  here  assigned  in  this  rebellion 
to  Athanasius  is  by  the  Pope  assigned  to  the  people  themselves.  Cf. 
Epp.  96-97.  It  is  worth  noting  that  the  above  quotation  from 
Erchempert  is  cited  by  Gregorovius  (iii.  183,  n.  2)  as  though  from 
the  letter  of  the  Pope  to  Athanasius  !  He  remarks  :  "  The  murderer 
(Athanasius)  was  rewarded  with  a  stipulated  sum  of  money,  and  praised 
by  letter."  But  the  money,  which,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  text,  would 
have  been  sent  to  Sergius  had  he  thrown  over  the  Saracens,  was  sent 
to  the  Neapolitans  as  an  encouragement  to  induce  them  to  be  firm 
against  the  common  foe.  For  after  assuring  them  that  he  will  send 
them  the  money,  John  adds  :  "  Vos  ....  adversus  infideles  et  com- 
munes inimicos  totis  viribus  pro  defensione  Eccles.  Dei  desudare 
satagite."     Ep.  97. 

2  A  mancus  of  silver  was  worth  half-a-cro\vn, 


328  JOHN   VIII. 

buildings,  especially  of  monasteries  and  convents.  There 
were  also  chapels,  baths,  fountains,  hostelries,  porticoes, 
cemeteries,  orchards,  farmhouses,  stables,  and  mills."  In 
the  cloister  of  the  present  monastery  of  St.  Paul's  are  still 
preserved  a  few  fragments  of  an  inscription  which,  copied 
first  by  the  famous  tribune  Rienzi  and  then  by  Sabino,  tells 
us  all  we  know  of  the  works  executed  by  John  VIII.  for 
the  preservation  of  the  basilica  and  its  dependencies.  It 
was  apparently  after  his  naval  victory  off  Cape  Circe  (877) 
that  the  triumphant  Pope  (Johannes  ovans)  surrounded  the 
Burgh  of  St.  Paul,  as  it  came  to  be  afterwards  called,  by  a 
wall,  protected  it  by  a  fortress,  which  was  still  in  good 
condition  at  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  gave 
the  whole  enclosure  the  name  of  Johannipolis.  The  castle 
was  of  the  utmost  importance,  as  "it  commanded  the  roads 
from  Ostia,  Laurentum,  and  Ardea — those,  namely,  from 
which  the  (Saracen)  pirates  could  most  easily  approach  the 
city.  It  commanded  also  the  water-way  by  the  Tiber,  and 
the  tow-paths  on  each  of  its  banks."  Unfortunately,  it  had 
disappeared  before  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
Lanciani,  who  tells  us  that  he  has  often  examined  the  site 
of  Johannipolis,  has  not  found  any  certain  remains  of  it ; 
but  he  believes  "  that  the  wall  which  encloses  the  garden  of 
the  monastery  on  the  south  side  runs  on  the  same  lines  as 
John's  defences,  and  rests  on  their  foundations."  And  in 
1890  he  saw  on  the  river-side  "what  appeared  to  be  a 
landing-stage." 1 

1  Pagan  and  Christian  Rome,  p.  153  ff. ;  Ruins  and  Excavations  of 
Ancient  Rome,  p.  84  f.  The  inscription  spoken  of  in  the  text  was  in 
seven  distichs,  and  was  above  the  gate  facing  Rome.  Part  of  it  ran  as 
follows  : — 

"  In  porta  Burgi  basilicae  Sancti  Pauli 
Hie  murus  salvator  adest,  invictaque  Porta 

Quam  praesul  Domini  patravit  rite  Joannes, 


JOHN    VIII.  329 

From  about  the  year  875  a  new  power  had  been  making  The  Pope 
itself  felt  in  South  Italy  ;  or,  rather,  an  old  power  had  been  fheGreeks 
once  more  there  reviving  its  influence.  Greek  fleets  of  no  Apnl  8?7' 
little  strength  had  appeared  in  Italian  waters,  testifying 
thereby  to  the  fresh  vigour  which  Basil  the  Macedonian 
was  infusing  into  Byzantine  administration.  As  the 
Franks  had  failed,  the  Lombards  of  Apulia  appealed  for 
help  against  the  Saracens  to  the  Byzantine  governor  of 
Otranto.  Having  obtained  possession  of  Bari  (875),  the 
Greeks  gradually  conquered  (875-94)  most  of  South  Italy, 
Beneventum  included.  To  help  to  drive  out  the  Saracens 
furnished  them  with  an  excuse  to  interfere  in  its  affairs, 
and  the  dissensions  of  its  various  states  supplied  them  with 
an  easy  means  to  subdue  it.  Their  entry  into  Bari  may  be 
said  to  mark  the  beginning  of  the  rule  of  the  Greeks  in 
South  Italy,  as  its  fall  (1071)  marks  the  close  of  their  two 
centuries  of  possession  of  it. 

Feeling  that  the  death  of  Louis  made  it  incumbent  on 
him  "  to  work  more  than  anybody  else," 1  and  declaring 
that  he  would  "  decline  no  toil  nor  pain  of  body  that  he 
could  at  all  endure,"  John  endeavoured  to  procure  from  the 
Greeks  help  against  the  infidels  who  were  again  threaten- 
ing his  territories.  On  the  arrival  of  the  Greek  fleet  off 
the  coast  of  the  Duchy  of  Beneventum  {in  partibus 
Beneventanoruni),  he  wrote  to  its  commander  to  send  him 

Qui  nitidis  fulsit  moribus  ac  mentis. 

Praesulis  octavi  de  nomine  facta  Joannis 

Ecce  Joannipolis  Urbs  veneranda  cluit,  etc. 

Ap.  Muratori,  Dissert.  26. 
1  "  Plus  omnibus  necessario  laboramus,  nullum  laborem  nullamque 
tolerabilem  molestiam  corporis  recusabimus,  quo  minus  adjuvante 
Domino  pro  tantis  necessitatibus  pro  vobis  cum  prrcveniente  Christo 
laborem  nostrum  viriliter  insistamus,"  etc.  Ep.  72,  to  bishop  Aio  of 
Beneventum.  Cf.  Gay,  Ultalie  merid.,  who  notes  that  after  875  the 
force  of  circumstances  compelled  John  to  take  an  independent  stand, 
and  to  recommence  the  fight  against  the  Saracens, 


330  JOHN  VIII. 

*  at  least  ten  good  swift  war-ships  to  our  harbour  (Portns\ 

to  clear  our  coasts  from  those  thieving  and  piratical  Arabs." 1 

Congress         Without  delaying  to  see  whether  his  request  would  be 

June  877. '  granted  by  the  Greeks,  the   Pope   wrote2   (April    28)    to 

arrange  for   a   congress   to   be   held   at   Traetto   between 

Athanasius  of  Naples,  Landulf,  the  prince  bishop  of  Capua, 

Guaifer  of   Salerno,    Pulchar   of  Amalfi    and    himself,   to 

arrange  for   the  dissolving   of  the   Saracen   league.     The 

congress  met  in  June,3  and  an  agreement  was  come  to,  by 

which  in  return  for  a  payment  of  10,000  mancuses  from  the 

Pope,  the  people  of  Amalfi  were  to  guard  the  coast  from 

Traetto   to   Civita   Vecchia.      But   once    more   was   John 

betrayed.     When  the   money  had  been  paid,  Amalfi   did 

nothing.     It  was  12,000  not  10,000  mancuses  which  had 

been  promised,  was  their  excuse.4 

Charles  All  this  while  John   had   not   ceased    to   urge   on   the 

comes  to     emperor,  Charles  the  Bald,  the  necessity  of  his  coming  to 

help!  and    crush  the  Saracens.     In  the  last  letter5  which  he  addressed 

dies,  877.    to  tkat  monarc]1  (]y[ay  25,  877),  he  assures  him  that,  as  the 

whole  of  the  Campagna  had  been  devastated,  there  was  no 

means  by   which  sustenance  could  be  procured  "  for  the 

venerable  monasteries,  the  Roman  senate,  or  for  ourselves." 

The  arrival  in  Italy  of  Charles  the  Bald,  which,  as  we  have 

seen,  ended  in  his  death,  proved  more  disastrous  to  the 

Pope  than  his  absence. 

1  "  Ut  vel  decern  bona  et  expedita  chelandia  ad  portum  nostrum 
transmittas,  ad  littora  nostra  de  illis  furibus  et  piratis  Arabibus  expur- 
ganda."  Ep.  J2>  '■>  cf-  72  \  both  of  April  17,  877.  The  chelandia  had  two 
banks  of  oars,  with  from  100  to  250  oarsmen  ;  carried  the  terrible  Greek 
Fire,  and  were  equipped  with  a  wooden  tower,  xylokastron,  They 
served  as  frigates  to  the  dromons.     Cf.  Guglielmotti,  i.  p.  125. 

2  Epp.  77,  78  ;  85.  3  Ep.  87> 

4  Ep.  99-100.  Cf.  Ep.  250,  3.  In  the  second  letter  the  Pope  lets  the 
Amalfitans  know  that  if  they  do  not  restore  his  money,  "our  dromons" 
will  have  something  to  say  to  them.     Cf.  288. 

r°  Ep.  69, 


JOHN    VIII.  331 

When  fear  of  the  emperor  had  been  removed  by  death,  Joh"  g°es 

r  'to  r  ranee, 

Lambert  of  Spoleto  showed  himself  in  his  true  colours,  and  878. 
harassed   the   Pope  so  severely  that,  unable  to  cope  with 
the  Saracens  and  Spoleto  at  once,  nothing  was  left  for  him 
but  to  buy *  off  the  infidel  and  to  fly  from  the  perfidious 
Christian. 

On  his  return  to  Rome  (879),  after  failing  to  find  an  Returns  to 

...      greater 

emperor,  John  discovered  that  the  political  situation  in  troubles, 
South  Italy  was  anything  but  improved.  During  his 
absence,  the  hold  of  the  Saracens  in  Sicily  had  increased 
by  their  capture  of  Syracuse  (May  878) ;  so  that  they  were 
more  at  liberty  to  send  fresh  bands  of  freebooters  into  Italy. 
And,  unfortunately,  many  of  the  miserable  petty  princes 
there  were  as  anxious  for  the  infidels  to  come  as  they  were 
themselves  to  go.  The  death  of  Landulf,  prince-bishop 
of  Capua  (March  879),  resulted  in  his  principality  being 
divided  between  his  four  nephews.  Naturally  they  were 
soon  at  war  with  one  another,  and  got  help  from  Greeks, 
Saracens,  and  the  neighbouring  princes.  Two  other  relatives 
disputed  the  episcopal  succession.2  One  of  them,  Landulf, 
had  been  elected  on  the  demise  of  his  uncle ;  and  the  other, 
Landenulf,  had  been  consecrated  by  the  Pope  to  oblige  the 
count  of  Capua.  This,  Erchempert  tells  us,  John  did 
against  the  earnest  expostulations  of  certain  holy  men, 
who  assured  him  that  if  he  ordained  Landenulf  he  would 
light  a  fire  which  would  reach  even  to  himself.  "  And 
such  a  fire  was  lighted  that  all  the  duchy  of  Beneventum 
and  all  the  territory  of  Rome  were  utterly  laid  waste  by  the 
Saracens,"3  adds  the  monk.  He  had  the  best  of  all  reason 
to  know  what  he  was  talking  about;  for  in  the  course  of  these 
Capuan  struggles  he  experienced  in  his  own  person  some  of 

1  Ep.  117,  to  Carloman.     He  had  to  pay  25,000  mancuses  yearly. 

2  Cf.   Erchempert,   c.  40;    Chron.   S.  Bcned.,   c.    19;    and   Catal, 
Ccmitum  Gipucc,  p.  499,  all  ap.  M.  G.  SS.  Lang. 

3  Erch.,  c.  47. 


332  JOHN   VIII. 

the  troubles  of  which  they  were  the  cause.  "  I  was  taken 
prisoner,  robbed  of  all  the  property  I  had  gathered  together 
from  my  youth,  and  on  foot  driven  before  their  horses' 
heads  as  an  exile  to  Capua,  August  88 I."1 

Perhaps  the  chief  cause  of  all  this  misery  and  anarchy  in 
S.  Italy  was  Athanasius,  the  prince-bishop  of  Naples.  He 
not  only  entered  into  a  compact  with  the  infidels,  but 
actually  furnished  them  with  a  place  of  refuge  between  the 
so-called  "  Portus  Aequoreus "  and  the  walls  of  his  city. 
Thus  were  they  enabled  with  impunity  "  to  harry  and 
plunder  the  territories  of  Beneventum,  Rome,  and  Spoleto, 
their  monasteries  and  churches  their  cities,  towns,  and 
villages,  and  their  mountains,  hills,  and  islands.  Among 
countless  other  monasteries  which  they  destroyed,  they 
burnt  that  most  noble  one  of  St.  Benedict,  revered  through- 
out the  world  (883),  and  that  of  St.  Vincent  on  the 
Vulturno."2  Various  strong  centres  also  did  the  Saracens 
form  for  themselves  in  mountain  fastnesses  to  be  able  to 
lay  waste  the  wretched  country  with  impunity.  Such  were 
Sepino  (thirty-six  miles  north  of  Beneventum)  among  the 
Apennines,  and  the  encampment  they  formed  on  the  banks 
of  the  Garigliano,  near  Minturnae,  or  Traetto,  sprung  from 
its  ruins,  which  commanded  the  high-road  (via  Appia) 
from  Rome  to  Capua. 
John's  Into  this  seething  vortex,  in  the  forlorn  endeavour  to 

produce  even  the  semblance  of  order,  the  heroic  pontiff 
plunged  with  a  vigour  that  fast-approaching  death  could 
not  subdue.  If  for  a  little  time,  racked  with  pain  and 
wearied  out  with  his  journey  to  France?  he  contented 
himself  with  writing  letters  of  consolation  to  the  afflicted,4 

1  /#.,  c.  44.  2  Erchemp.,  c.  44. 

3  Ep.  207,  to  Pandenulf  of  Capua.  "  Quamvis  et  de  assidua  corporis 
incommoditate  et  de  peracto  jam  Franciae  itinere  adhuc  maneamus 
defessi." 

4  Epp.  194-6,  201-3,  2°7- 


efforts  to 

restore 

order. 


JOHN  VIII.  333 

and  making  promises  therein  to  come  and  bring  them  aid, 
it  was  only  that  after  a  brief  rest  he  might  work  the  harder. 
And  if  during  these  last  three  years  of  his  life,  as  in  former 
years,  he  continued  to  write  letters  for  help  to  the  different 
Frankish  kings,  to  the  emperor  Charles  the  Fat,  and  to  the 
Greek  emperor,  it  was  only  that  he  might  leave  nothing 
undone  in  his  efforts  to  stem  the  ever-advancing  anarchy 
in  Italy.  Despite  the  difficulties  he  had  to  face  at  his  own 
door  from  Saracens  and  from  the  dukes  of  Spoleto,  John 
did  not  hesitate  to  leave  Rome  and  travel  from  one  end 
of  Italy  to  the  other  to  promote  the  interests  of  peace. 
About  August  (879)  he  was  at  Ravenna ;  in  October,  at 
Gaeta;  a  few  months  after  at  Capua,  whither  he  went 
again  in  881  or  882  ;  and  in  February  (882)  again  at 
Ravenna.  And,  as  the  contemporary  historian  of  South 
Italy,  Erchcmpert,1  informs  us,  he  sometimes  had  the 
misfortune  of  having  to  witness  day  after  day  fierce  fights 
between  the  Lombard  rulers,  helped,  not  to  their  advantage 
but  to  their  destruction,  by  designing  Greeks  on  the  one 
hand  and  Saracens  on  the  other.  He  exhausted  in  the 
good  cause  every  means  at  his  disposal.  He  wrote  letters, 
despatched  legates,  organised  congresses  of  the  different 
hostile  rulers,  gave  away  large  sums  in  subsidies,  and 
freely  used  his  power  of  excommunication.  The  affairs 
of  Capua,2  and  especially  the  unpatriotic  conduct  of  the 
prince-bishop  Athanasius  of  Naples,  occupied  his  attention 
very  considerably.  In  treating  with  the  latter  he  displayed 
a  singular  moderation.  It  was  not  till  he  was  utterly 
weary3  of  the  bishop's  broken  promises  to  dissolve  his 
league  with  the  Saracens,  that  he  at  length  made  known  * 
(April  881)  to  the    bishops   of  South    Italy  that   he   had 

1  C.  47.  2  Epp.  249-252,  258-9. 

3  Cf.  his  letters  to  Athanasius,  Epp.  201-3,  273,  2%7->  3l%- 

4  Ep.  321,  April  881. 


334  JOHN  VIII. 

excommunicated  him.  In  his  letter  to  them  on  the 
matter,  he  reminded  them  of  the  way  in  which,  with 
the  aid  of  his  hateful  allies,  the  bishop  had  so  ravaged 
the  country  that  he  had  quite  cleared  it  of  inhabitants ; 
that,  not  sparing  himself,  he  (the  Pope)  had  gone  to  Naples 
to  exhort  him  to  give  up  his  infamous  conduct,  and  had 
given  him  large  sums  of  money  for  the  same  purpose. 
Athanasius  had  over  and  over  again  promised  to  abandon 
the  Saracen  alliance ;  but,  through  greed  of  the  share  of 
their  booty  which  he  received  from  them,  he  had  invariably 
broken  his  engagements.  Hence  had  he  excommunicated 
him,  "  as  the  enemy  of  all  Christendom,"  till  such  times  as 
he  should  completely  sever  all  connection  with  the  Saracens. 
Some  Occasionally,  indeed,  some  consolation  was  afforded  to 

successes  . 

gained  by  the  Pope  by  seeing  success  attend  his  efforts.  Thus  a 
victory  gained  by  the  Greek  commanders,  "  Gregory  the 
spatharius,  Theophylactus  the  turmarch,  and  count 
Diogenes,"1  over  the  Saracens  at  Naples  (879  or  880), 
was  followed  by  the  arrival  in  papal  waters  of  certain 
warships,  sent  by  the  emperor  Basil,  to  render  permanent 
help  to  the  Pope  "  for  the  defence  of2  the  territory  of 
S.  Peter."  And  before  he  died  he  had  the  satisfaction  of 
seeing  Athanasius  repentant  and  suing  for  absolution  from 
the  excommunication.  This  John  granted  on  condition3 
not  only  that  he  would  break  with  the  Saracens,  but  that 
he  would  deliver  up  their  chief  men  to  him  and  put  the 
others  to  the  edge  of  the  sword.  The  character4  of  the 
warfare  waged  by  these  robbers   more   than   justifies   the 

1  Ep.  286. 

2  Ep.  296,  to  the  Greek  emperors  (August  13,  880).  "Gratias 
agimus  ....  quod  dromones  vestros,  qui  pro  defensione  terra? 
S.  Petri  in  nostro  manerent  servitio,  nobis  misistis." 

3  Ep.  352. 

4  Cf.  the  eye-witness  Auxilius  on  their  doings  in  his  Libell.  in  def. 
Stephani  {Neap.)  Ep.,  c.  2,  ap.  Diimmler,  Auxilius  und  Vulgarius, 
pp.  97-8.     Auxilius,  though  a  Frank,  lived  at  Naples. 


John  viii.  335 

Pope's  requirements  in  their  regard.  To  cope  effectually 
with  the  savage  African  pirates  we  are  speaking  of,  needed 
a  man  of  the  strength  of  will  of  Pope  John  VIII.,  who,  as 
a  modern  historian  correctly  observes,  "  was  the  last  of 
those  able  pontiffs  of  the  ninth  century  who  did  their  best 
to  defend  Italy  from  the  infidel." 1 

Whilst  all  the  important   events   above  rehearsed  were  His  every- 

dn.v  work. 

in  progress,  John's  register  shows  what  was  otherwise 
certain  a  priori,  viz.,  that  many  another  matter,  of  greater 
or  less  importance,  occupied  his  mind  at  the  same  time. 
It  shows  him  issuing  decisions  on  matrimonial 2  cases  of 
various  kinds  ;  confirming  the  privileges  of  monasteries3  or 
churches4;  granting  palliums5  to  various  bishops;  trans- 
ferring6 bishops  from  one  See  to  another;  restraining 
them  from  unduly  interfering  with  monasteries,7  or  with 
the  election  8  rights  of  others  ;  defending  Church  property  9 
and  the  weak 10  generally;  imposing  canonical11  penances  on 
the  one  hand,  and,  on  the  other,  deciding  that  those  "who  fall 
in  battle,  bravely  fighting  against  pagans  and  infidels  for 
the  defence  of  the  Holy  Church  of  God,  and  for  the  good 
of  Christendom,  and  who  fall  in  the  piety  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  obtain  an  indulgence  of  their  sins  and  will  be 
received  into  the  rest  of  eternal  life."  12  It  is  interesting 
to  find,  from  another  of  John's  letters,  that  the  bishops  had 

1  Europe  (476-918),  p.  462,  by  Oman,  who,  as  has  been  noted  above, 
has  given  special  attention  to  this  little-known  chapter  in  history. 

2  E.g.  Epp.  4,  190,  226,  232,  345.      3  Epp.  12,  13,  16,  33,  86,  89,  etc. 
4  Epp.  90.     157  f.  5  Epp>  94?  I23>  I53>  e  Epp>  35_37j  64> 

7  Epp.  74-6,  238.  8  Ep.  101.  9  Ep.  102. 

10  Ep.  281.  n  Epp.  IO>  ,9Ie 

12  The  Pope  had  been  asked  by  the  bishops  of  the  kingdom  of 
Louis  whether  those  who  fell  in  battle  for  the  Church  and  Christendom 
"in dulgcnt iam  possint  consequi  delictorum."  John  concludes  the 
letter,  part  of  which  has  been  quoted  in  the  text,  thus :  "  Nostra 
praefatos  mediocritate,  intercessione  b.  Petri  Ap.,  cujus  potestas  ligandi 
atque  solvendi  est  in  ccelo  et  in  terra,  quantum  fas  est,  absolvimus." 
Ep.  186,  ad  an.  879. 


336  JOHN   VIII. 

then,  as  now,  to  see  to  the  sending  of  the  holy  chrism  *  to 
the  churches  of  their  dioceses  every  year ;  and  from  yet 
another2  that  there  could  be  no  such  thing  as  prescription 
where  there  was  question  of  the  spiritual  rights  of  the 
Roman  Church,  and  that,  by  imperial  Roman  law,  it  took 
a  hundred  years  before  prescription  could  prevail  against 
its  property.  However  out  of  the  multitude  of  affairs 
which  took  up  a  less  share  of  the  Pope's  time  than  those 
which  have  already  been  treated  of  at  more  or  less  length, 
there  are  some  which,  from  one  cause  or  another,  deserve  to 
be  particularly  noticed.  Of  these,  some  may  be  grouped 
together  as  relating  to  certain  of  the  great  bishops  of  the 
Christian  world. 
Peter  of  Enough    has    already    been    said    of    the    intercourse 

between  the  Pope  and  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
and,  through  him,  with  the  Oriental  patriarchs.  Apart 
from  that,  John's  register  only  shows  him  in  direct  contact 
with  Theodosius,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  To  him  the 
Pope  sends 3  presents,  regretting  that,  oppressed  by  the 
infidels,  he  cannot  send  more,  and  begs  his  prayers.  More 
is  known  of  John  and  the  patriarchal  See  of  Grado.  On  the 
death  of  Senator,  bishop  of  Torcello  (875),  there  was  elected 
to  succeed  him  one  Dominicus,  abbot  of  the  monastery  of 
St.  Stephen  of  Altino.  Torcello,  it  may  be  noted,  was  the 
island  to  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  mainland  of  Altino, 
etc.,  retreated  from  before  the  ravages  of  the  barbarians  of 
the  North.  Thither,  to  escape  from  the  Arian  Lombards, 
about  the  year  640  fled  Paul,  bishop  of  Altino,  with  the 
treasures  of  his  old  cathedral  and  with  his  people.4  There 
he  fixed  his  See,  and  there,  as  many  think,  are  we  to 
recognise  Venice  in  its  infancy.  Although  supported  by 
the  Duke  Ursus,  Dominicus  could  not  prevail  upon  Peter, 

1  Ep.  271.  2  Ep.  5.  3  Ep.  213,  May  2,  879. 

4  So  at  least  says  Dandolo  in  Chron.,  ii.  c.  7.,  n.  11. 


joiin  viii.  337 

"the  worthy  patriarch"1  of  Grado,  to  consecrate  him,  as  in 
making  a  eunuch  of  himself  he  had  incurred  a  canonical 
irregularity  which  was  a  bar  to  the  reception  of  orders. 
Unable,  however,  to  resist  the  Duke,  who  was  determined 
to  have  his  favourite  consecrated,  Peter  managed  to  make 
his  escape  to  Rome,  and  laid  his  case  before  the  Pope  (876). 
John  at  once  took  the  matter  in  hand,  and  summoned  to 
Rome,  to  have  the  matter  thoroughly  investigated  in  a 
synod,  not  only  Dominicus  himself,  but  the  bishops  of 
Equilio  (Peter)  and  Malamocco  (Felix),  partisans  of 
Dominicus,  and  various  others.  Trusting  to  the  support 
of  Ursus,  Dominicus  paid  no  heed  to  the  summons,  Felix 
declared  that  he  was  too  ill  to  come,  and  Peter  that  he  had 
been  commissioned  by  the  Duke  (or  Doge)  to  go  on  an 
embassy  to  Constantinople.  On  this  the  Pope  wrote2 
(November  24,  876)  to  the  Doge,  as  to  one  who  had  ever 
shown  himself  a  friend,  "  because  we  cannot  prefer  the  love 
of  any  man  to  justice,"  urging  him  to  see  that  if  Felix  could 
not  come  to  Rome  he  should  at  least  send  a  representative  ; 
and  that,  if  Peter  had  not  started  on  the  embassy,  he  should 
certainly  come,  as  it  was  so  much  for  the  common  good 
that  the  matter  should  be  promptly  settled.  By  letters 3  of 
a  few  days  later,  Felix  and  Peter  were  severely  blamed 
for  the  want  of  respect  they  had  displayed  to  their 
patriarch,  and  they  were  ordered,  as  was  also  Dominicus, 
under  pain  of  excommunication  to  come  to  Rome,  in 
person  or  by  deputy,  before  February  13.  The  Doge  was 
asked  4  to  defray  the  expenses  of  their  journey  ;  the  bishops 
of  Olivolo  and5  Caorle  were  requested  to  do  their  work 
for  them  in  their  absence,  and  bishop  Deltus  was  com- 
missioned 6  to  proceed  to  Venice  as  the  Pope's  legate,  and 

1  Cf.  on  this  affair  John  the  Deacon,  Chron.   Venet.,  ed.  Monticolo, 
pp.  1 2 1-7  ;  Dandolo,  ib.  viii.  5,  n.  20. 

2  Ep.  48.  3  Ep.  49-53,  all  of  December  1. 

4  Ep.  51.  6  Ep.  52.  c  Ep.  53. 

VOL.  III.  22 


33^  JOHN    VIII. 

arrange  for  the  carrying  out  of  these  directions.  Ursus, 
however,  refused  to  receive  John's  envoy,  and  that,  too,  as 
the  Pope  afterwards  observed  to  him,  "  though  the  words 
we  addressed  to  you  were  those  of  fatherly  admonition  and 
not  those  of  one  ill-disposed  towards  you."1  In  the  letter 
from  which  the  words  just  quoted  were  taken,  John  tells 
the  Doge  that,  passing  over  his  previous  conduct,  he  wishes 
to  let  him  know  that  he  is  going  to  hold  a  synod  of  all  the 
bishops  of  Italy  at  Ravenna  in  the  summer,  and  that  it  is 
his  will  that  the  bishops  of  '  Venice  by  the  sea '  should  be 
present  at  it,  as  well  as  the  Doge  himself,  if  possible. 
With  the  Pope,  Peter  went  to  the  council  at  Ravenna 
(August  877).  Not  even  at  this  council  was  the  affair  of 
Dominicus  settled.  The  bishops  of  Venice  arrived  only 
when  the  council  was  over.  The  Pope  in  anger  excom- 
municated them  ;  but  soon  after,  at  the  intercession  of 
Ursus,  removed  the  excommunication  from  them.  Whilst 
the  Pope  was  in  the  north  of  Italy,  the  patriarch  remained 
with  him.  But  when  the  death  of  the  emperor  Charles  the 
Bald,  for  whose  coming  the  council  of  Ravenna  had  been 
a  sort  of  preparation,  compelled  John  to  return  to  Rome, 
a  compromise  was  arrived  at  between  the  patriarch  and 
the  Duke.  Dominicus  was  to  receive  the  revenues  of 
the  Church  of  Torcello,  but  was  not  to  be  consecrated 
during  the  lifetime  of  the  patriarch.  Peter  survived  his 
reconciliation  with  the  Doge  but  a  very  short  time.2 
The  arch-  Seeing  the  trouble  that  John,  also  the  Eighth,  archbishop 
Ravenna!  °f  Ravenna,  gave  to  Nicholas  L,  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  present  Pope  also  had  differences  with  him,  and 
had  to  be  severe  with  him  for  attempting  to  appropriate3 
what  belonged  to  the  Roman  Church.     However,  the  two 

1  Ep.  82,  May  27,  877.     Cf.  Ep.  83,  to  the  bishops  themselves  ;  and 
Ep.  88. 

2  Chron,  Ven.,  pp.  124-5. 

3  Ep.  3,  January  29,  874  ;  Balan,  pp.  9,  10. 


joiin  viii.  339 

remained  very  friendly ;  and,  on  the  death  of  the  archbishop, 
John  was  deeply  grieved,  and  bade1  the  people  of  Ravenna 
and  their  new  archbishop  to  pray  for  him.  Romanus,  like 
so  many  of  his  predecessors,  soon 2  began  to  show  that  he 
wished  to  follow  the  example  of  the  other  clerical  and  lay 
lords  of  the  period,  and  to  do  as  he  pleased  ;  so  that, 
while  supporting  him  against  his  enemies,  the  Pope  had 
to  blame  him  for  "  non-residence  "  in  his  diocese.  As  time 
went  on,  John  had  more  complaints  to  make  against  him. 
He  was  oppressing  certain  of  the  nobility  of  Ravenna,3 
disobeying  the  Pope,  and  generally  acting  in  a  lawless 
and  unecclesiastical  manner.  He  must  come  and  clear 
himself  before  a  council  in  September  (88i).4  Romanus, 
however,  did  not  come,  and  was  duly  excommunicated. 
The  people  of  Ravenna  were  commanded 5  to  abstain  from 
holding  intercourse  with  him.  However,  from  letters6  of 
the  following  August  to  and  concerning  Romanus,  it  would 
appear  that,  though  the  archbishop  is  in  fresh  trouble,  he 
had,  at  least,  been  absolved  from  the  excommunication, 
as  he  is  addressed  as  "  most  holy."  From  three  of  these 
letters  it  may  be  gathered  that  at  this  period  Romanus  had 
fallen  completely  under  the  influence  of  a  wicked  cleric, 
one  Maimbert  of  Bologna.  The  clergy  of  Ravenna  had 
already  complained  bitterly  to  the  Pope  of  what  they  had 
to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  Maimbert ;  but  they  had  lacked 
the  courage  to  act  with  the  legate  whom  John  had  sent 
to  arrange  for  his  expulsion.  However,  once  again  "  moved 
by  their  entreaties,"  he  not  only  sent  another  legate,  but 
commissioned  his  representative  or  'missus'  at  Ravenna, 
and  four  other  dukes,7  to  seize  Maimbert  and  send  him  to 

1  Epp.  176-7,  ad  an.  878.  2  Ep.  199. 

3  Epp.  322,  3,  4,  5,  July  881.  *  Ep.  327. 

6  Ep.  329,  October  4,  881.  6  August  28,  882  ;  Epp.  361-4. 

7  Ep.  364.     "  Joanni  duci  delicioso  fideli  seu  et  misso  nostro."     Ep. 
363  is  addressed  to  the  four  "glorious  dukes." 


340  JOHN   VIII. 

Rome.  The  clergy  are  commanded  to  co-operate  with 
Duke  John  and  with  the  Pope's  legate.  If  the  four  dukes 
and  the  clergy  do  not  carry  out  John's  orders,  they  will 
be  required,  as  a  penance,  to  abstain  from  wine  and  cooked 
food  {a  vino  et  cocto),  and  the  four  dukes  will  have  to  pay 
a  fine  of  a  hundred  aurei  apiece,  and  the  clerics  will  be  sus- 
pended from  the  exercise  of  their  spiritual  functions.  What 
was  the  end  of  this  affair  is  not  known.  The  Pope  himself 
died  within  a  few  months  after  the  despatch  of  this  letter. 

Were  it  calculated  to  throw  any  further  light  either  on 
the  history  of  the  times,  or  on  the  character  of  the  Pope, 
many  another1  example  of  episcopal  insubordination  could 
be  adduced  from  John's  register.  But  from  what  has 
already  been  said,  it  is  abundantly  evident  that  that 
submission  which  is  necessary  for  order  was  rapidly 
becoming,  in  Italy  especially,  a  thing  of  the  past  as  well 
in  the  ecclesiastical  as  in  the  civil  regime.  This  further 
breaking  to  pieces  of  the  new  Roman  empire,  helped  indeed 
by  the  blows  of  the  barbarians  from  without,  was  a  general 
and  natural  reaction  of  the  Teutonic  idea  of  individual 
freedom  against  that  which  the  Germans  regarded  as  its 
opposite,  the  all-absorbing  rights  of  an  imperial  state. 
Such  a  movement — a  movement,  moreover,  necessary  before 
a  new  fabric  could  rise  from  the  ruins  of  the  old — could  not 
be  checked  by  the  efforts  of  one  man,  however  powerful. 
And  the  material  resources  of  John  VIII.  were  anything 
but  extensive, 
/ohnand  Although  the  materials  for  the  subject  are  not  abundant, 
iw  pam.  jn  addition  to  what  has  been  already  said  indirectly  on 
the  matter,  a  few  facts,  illustrating  John's  position  and 
action  with  regard  to  certain  parts  of  Europe,  which  will 
1  E.g.,  that  of  Anspert  of  Milan,  who  was  only  brought  to  submission 
after  John  had  ordered  the  election  of  another  archbishop  in  his  place. 
Cf.  Epp.  171,  212,  255,  310,  312,  etc.  Cf.  Invectiva  in  Romam,  ap. 
P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  835. 


JOHN    VIII.  341 

hereafter  develop  into  the  countries  of  our  time,  may, 
perhaps  not  without  advantage,  be  here  grouped  together. 
The  victories  over  the  Moors  of  the  brave  and  learned 
Alfonso  III.,  called  the  Great,  naturally  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  Pope,  himself  engaged  in  daily  struggles 
against  the  same  foes.  At  the  earnest  request  of  the  king, 
John  constituted  Oviedo  the  metropolitan  Church  of  his 
kingdom ;  confirmed  to  it  all  the  property  which  king  or 
subject  might  duly  make  over  to  it ;  and  exhorted  all  to 
be  properly  submissive  to  it.1  He  also  told  the  king  to 
have  the  magnificent  church,  which  he  had  erected  round 
"the  modest  chapel"  erected  by  Alfonso  the  Chaste  in 
honour  of  St  James  the  Great,2  patron  of  the  country, 
consecrated  by  the  Spanish  bishops,  and  bade  him  hold  a 
council  with  them,3  no  doubt  on  the  organisation  of  the 
Church  in  the  newly  conquered  districts.  Sampiro,  who 
was  bishop  of  Astorga  in  1035,  and  who  wrote  an  important 
chronicle,4  tells  us  that  Alfonso  was  rejoiced  at  the  sight  of 
the  papal  letters,  and  that,  with  his  bishops,  nobles,  and  a 
huge  crowd  {turba  itntnodica),  he  assisted  first  at  the 
consecration  of  the  basilica  of  St.  James,  and  then  some 
months  later  at  the  synod  of  Oviedo,  which  was  celebrated 

1  Ep.  18. 

2  It  was  during  the  reign  of  Alfonso  II.  the  Chaste  (791-842),  that 
were  discovered  at  Compostella  the  remains  of  St.  James  the  apostle, 
called  the  Greater.     See  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  July  25. 

3  Ep.  19.  We  have  it  on  the  authority  of  the  Chron.  Albeldense, 
which  was  written  in  the  year  (883),  that  "  ab  hoc  principe  omnia 
templa  Domini  restaurantur."    Ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  1 139. 

4  Ap.  Florez,  Esp.  Sagr.,  xiv.  It  extends  from  866-942,  and  is  a 
continuation  of  the  work  of  Sebastian  of  Salamanca.  It  was  inter- 
polated by  its  continuator  Pelayo,  el  Fabulero  (bishop  of  Oviedo, 
t  c.  1 155).  Florez  prints  his  insertions  in  italics.  Our  quotation  from 
Sampiro  is  taken  from  Fuente  (Append.  34  in  vol.  iii.  of  his  Hist.  Ec/es.), 
who  says  that  it  is  part  of  Pelayo's  interpolation.  Cf.  H.  E.,  iii.  137, 
n.  1.  Fuente  rejects  both  the  letters  of  John  VIII.  ;  but  certainly  many 
of  the  arguments  on  which  he  relies  are  of  no  weight,  and  have  not 
been  accepted  by  Jaffe,  3035-6  (2263-4). 


342  JOHN   VIII. 

"  by  the  authority  of  the  lord  Pope  John,  and  by  the 
advice  [consilio)  of  Charles,  'the  great  prince'" — i.e.,  of 
course,  the  emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  and  not  Charlemagne, 
as  some  who  would  discredit  this  passage  have  imagined. 

John  also  added,  in  a  spirit  of  wise  moderation,  to  the 
laws  of  the  Spaniards.  At  the  council  which  he  held  at 
Troyes  (August  878),  a  copy  of  the  code  of  the  laws  of 
the  Goths  was  laid  before  him,  in  which,  while  there  was 
no  law  to  be  found  in  it  against  the  sacrilegious,  it  was 
clearly  laid  down  that  no  judgment  could  be  passed  on 
matters  which  were  not  treated  of  in  the  code.  Hence  in 
Spain  and  Gothia  the  rights  of  the  Church  were  often 
set  at  naught.  The  archbishop  of  Narbonne  accordingly 
begged  the  Pope  to  put  an  end  to  this  objectionable  state 
of  things.  Accordingly,  in  an  encyclical  addressed  to  the 
"  bishops  and  counts  of  the  provinces  of  Spain  and  Gothia, 
and  to  all  the  Catholic  people  of  the  West,"  John  proclaimed 
that  by  the  law  of  Justinian  sacrilege  had  to  be  atoned  for 
by  a  payment  of"  five  pounds  of  the  finest  gold  "  ;  but  that 
he  decreed  that  the  milder  regulation  of  Charlemagne  was 
to  be  enforced.  By  that  law  sacrilege  had  to  be  com- 
pounded by  a  fine  of  "  30  pounds  of  assayed  {examinati) 
silver,  i.e.  by  the  sum  of  600  solidi  of  the  purest  silver  " 1 — 
an  important  passage  as  showing  the  relation  then  existing 
between  the  silver  solidus  and  a  pound  of  silver.  Whoever, 
guilty  of  sacrilege,  did  not  pay  this  fine,  was  to  be  excom- 
municated till  he  did.  The  decree  was  to  be  added  to  the 
code  of  Gothic  law. 
(ii.)Eng-  Despite  "his  ceaseless  efforts  in  Western  and  Eastern 
Europe,"  John  did  find  "the  leisure"2  to  "occupy  himself 

1  Ep.  150.  "  In  xxx.  libras  examinati  argenti — i.e.  sexcentorum 
solidorum  summam  argenti  purissimi."  The  coins  mentioned  in  John's 
correspondence  are  the  '  aureus,'  the  '  byzanteus,'  the  mancus  and  the 
silver  solidus. 

2  "The  perilous  effects  of  the  ambition  of  Rome,"  writes  Dr  Pauli 


JOHN   VIII.  343 

in  the  affairs  of  Britain."  He  found  leisure  to  bestow  on 
others,  suffering  like  himself,  that  sympathy  of  which  he 
stood  in  so  much  need  himself,  but  which  he  had  ever  to 
be  extending  to  others.  In  England  the  ravages  of  the 
Danes  were  causing  the  greatest  distress,  and  "  there  was 
warfare  and  sorrow  all  this  time  over  England/'  says  our 
old  chronicle  (ad  an.  870).  In  874  or  875  they  drove 
Burhred  (Burgraed),  king  of  Mercia,  over  sea.  In  his 
misery  he  naturally  betook  himself  to  Rome,  but  he  did 
not,  however,  survive  his  exile  long.  "  His  body  lies  in 
St.  Mary's  Church,  at  the  English  school." x  And  whither 
kings  turned  for  comfort,  so  also  did  priests.  John  received 
a  letter  from  Edred  (or  Ethelred),  archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
in  which  that  prelate  details  the  sufferings  he  had  to  endure 
at  the  hands  of  the  Danes  and  of  the  king  (Alfred), 
and  seeks  advice  in  his  difficulties.  This  we  know  from 
the  letter  of  John  to  the  archbishop,  a  letter  which  we 
shall  quote  at  length,  as  it  sheds  no  little  light  on 
certain  theories  prevalent  in  this  country  on  the  former 
authority  of  the  Pope  in  England.  John  begins  his 
reply  to  the  archbishop  by  observing  that  Edred's 
letters  show  his   devotion   to   the   Holy  See,  "since   after 

{Life  of  Alfred  the  Great,  Eng.  ed.,  p.  145),  "  had  frequently  been  felt 
in  many  continental  countries.  But  she  found  it  more  difficult  to 
extend  her  power  in  that  distant  island,  where  but  little  progress  had 
been  made  by  the  Romish  canons  in  opposition  to  the  national  elements, 
etc.  .  .  .  No  Pope  of  the  ninth  century  professed  that  absolute 
power  in  England  which  had  long  been  exercised  by  Rome  in  other 
countries.  Even  a  John  VIII.  appears  to  have  had  neither  the  leisure 
nor  the  wish,  owing  to  his  ceaseless  efforts  in  Western  and  Eastern 
Europe,  to  occupy  himself  in  the  affairs  of  Britain,"  etc.,  etc.  This 
style  of  historical  writing,  very  popular  with  a  certain  class  of  writers, 
no  doubt  does  away  with  the  necessity  for  laborious  research.  How 
far,  however,  in  this  case  it  represents  anything  but  the  imagination 
of  its  author,  the  text  will  show. 

Anglo-Sax.  C/iron.,  ad  an.  874  ;   Cf  Asser's  Life  of  Alfred,  ad 
an.  874. 


344  JOHN    VIII. 

the  manner  of  your  predecessors  you  are  anxious  to  refer 
all  the  important  affairs  of  your  Church  to  us  as  to  your 
teacher,  and  to  seek  the  advice  and  the  protection  of  the 
authority  of  the  Apostolic  See  (in  which  God  has  placed 
the  foundation  of  the  whole  Church)  concerning  the  troubles 
which  you  suffer." x  Truly  has  the  whole  world  gone  wrong. 
The  Pope  has  to  bewail  the  sorrows  of  the  archbishop  and 
his  own  as  well.  But  he  exhorts  Edred  to  oppose  himself 
like  a  wall  of  brass  against  all  evil-doers,  including  the  king 
himself ;  and  tells  him  that  he  has  written  to  the  king  to 
urge  him  to  show  his  archbishop  that  obedience  which  his 
ancestors  have  done.  In  connection  with  certain  matri- 
monial abuses  of  which  Edred  had  written  to  the  Pope, 
John  proceeds  to  affirm  that  divorce  cannot  be  allowed. 
He  concludes  his  letter  by  confirming  the  privileges  of  the 
See  of  Canterbury.2  The  king  here  alluded  to  is  no  other 
than  that  glory  of  the  Anglo-Saxon  kings,  Alfred  the  Great, 
who  was  not  always  the  model  he  afterwards  became. 
Even  Asser3  has  to  write  of  him:  "In  the  beginning  of 
his  reign,  when  he  was  a  youth  ....  he  would  not  listen 
to  the  petitions  which  his  subjects  made  to  him  for  help 
in  their  necessities,  or  for  relief  from  those  who  oppressed 

them  ;  but  he  repulsed  them  from  him This  particular 

gave  much  annoyance  to  the  holy  man  St.  Neot,  who  was 

1  Ep.  95,  p.  745,  ad  an.  877.  "  Cum  more  antecessorum  vestrorum 
et  causas  vestras  Ecclesias  necessarias  nostro  prsesulatui,  quasi  suo 
doctori  referre,  et  a  sede  apostolica  super  quibusdam  suis  quas  patitur 
adversitatibus  consultum,  et  auctoritatis  munimen  accipere  quaesistis, 
in  qua  Deus  omnipotens  totius  Ecclesiae  posuit  fundamentum." 

2  "  Nos  namque  sedis  tuae  privilegium  ....  illibatum  tibi  volumus 
procul  dubio  conservare,  et  ut  ab  omnibus  ordinibus  ....  custodiatur 
in  perpetuum  ....  sancimus  atque  praecipimus,"  ib.  This  letter,  it 
may  be  remarked,  is  quite  on  the  lines  of  those  preserved  by  William 
of  Malmesbury  {De  Gest.  Pont.,  1.  i.),  from  previous  popes  to  Edred's 
predecessors,  and  concerning  the  authenticity  of  which  doubts  have  been 
expressed  by  certain  writers.     Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  1,  p.  272,  etc.,  of  this  work. 

3  In  his  Life  of  Alfred,  sub  an.  878.     Bohn's  translation  is  here  used. 


JOHN   VIII.  345 

his  relation,  and  often  foretold  to  him,1  in  the  spirit  of 
prophecy,  that  he  would  suffer  great  adversity  on  this 
account  ;  but  Alfred  neither  attended  to  the  reproof  of  the 
man  of  God,  nor  listened  to  his  true  prediction.  Wherefore 
seeing  that  a  man's  sins  must  be  corrected  either  in  this 
world  or  the  next,  the  true  and  righteous  judge  was  willing 
that  his  sin  should  not  go  unpunished  in  this  world,  to  the 
end  that  he  might  be  spared  in  the  world  to  come.  From 
this  cause,  therefore,  the  aforesaid  Alfred  often  fell  into 
such  great  misery,  that  sometimes  none  of  his  subjects  knew 
where  he  was  or  what  had  become  of  him."  It  was,  doubt- 
less, one  or  more  of  these  youthful  acts  of  tyranny  which 
caused  Edred  to  appeal  to  Rome,  and  drew  from  John  an 
answer  which  shows  his  supreme  spiritual  authority  in 
this  country. 

Of  John's  relations  with  the  Church  on  the  other  side  of  Francia. 
the  Channel  much  has  already  been  said  in  the  course  of 
the  foregoing  narrative.  We  may  add  here  that  after 
naming  (876)  Ansegisus  of  Sens  his  vicar  "  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  Gauls,"  John  reverted  to  the  ancient  custom  and 
appointed  2  (878)  Rostaing  of  Aries  his  vicar.  And  through 
that  archbishop  he  endeavoured,  like  his  predecessor  S. 
Gregory  I.,  to  make  headway  against  the  vice  of  simony,3 
which  seems  to  have  been  as  rife  in  Gaul  in  the  ninth 
century,  as  in  the  seventh. 

Naturally   enough    we   have   more    evidence  of    John's  Italy, 
watchful  care  over  Italy.     Apart  from  his  unceasing  efforts 
to  save  it  from  the  Saracens,  his  register  shows  that  he  was 
ever  occupied  with  its  affairs.     To  note  an  instance  or  two. 
In  Emilia,  near  Modena,  stood  the  famous  monastery  of 

1  Cf.  Vita  S.  Noeti,  ap.  Mabillon,  Acta  S.S.  O.  S.  B.,  Ssec.  iv.  vol.  ij» 

2  Cf  Epp.  123-4. 

3  lb.  Cf.  Ep.  1  59  to  the  bishops  of  Brittany  that  they  should  obey  the 
archbishop  of  Tours  ;  Epp.  160,  47,  101,  etc. 


346  john  viii. 

Nonantula,  founded  in  752  on  land  which,  from  a  wilderness,1 
its  founder  St.  Anselm  had  converted  into  a  paradise. 
Acting  on  what  seemed  to  be  fast  becoming  the  only  recog- 
nised principle  of  action,  viz.  that  might  was  right,  Adelard, 
bishop  of  Verona,  appears  to  have  disdainfully  set  at  naught 
the  papal  privileges  bestowed  on  the  monastery,  and,  in 
seizing  its  revenues,  not  to  have  hesitated  to  reduce  the 
monks  to  the  greatest  destitution.  It  required  excom- 
munication 2  to  bring  Adelard  to  a  sense  of  his  misdeeds. 

Next  it  is  for  the  forcible  carrying  off  of  another  man's 
wife  that  John  charges3  the  bishop  of  Pavia  to  excommuni- 
cate certain  powerful  men.  Then  abbot  Anastasius  is 
bidden  to  restore  the  cellula  of  St.  Valentine,  situated  in 
the  Sabine  territory  (in  Sabinis),  which  he  has  taken  from 
bishop  Gaudericus.4  At  Carpi  John5  watches  over  the 
restoration  of  a  church  destroyed  by  fire.  The  bishops  of 
Chieti  and  others  are  6  instructed  to  see  to  it  that  a  certain 
widow  be  not  bound  to  keep  religious  vows  extorted  from 
her  by  force.  These  instances  will  serve  to  show  that  all 
matters,  great  or  small,  in  this  part  of  Italy  or  in  that, 
received  a  share  of  John's  watchful  attention,  And  in  order 
that,  while  he  was  engaged  in  attending  to  affairs  at  a 
distance,  those  at  home  might  not  be  neglected,  he  pub- 
lished a  series  of  regulations 7  which  the  cardinals  were  to 
follow  in  looking  after  ecclesiastical  discipline  in  Rome. 
They  were  to  meet  at  least  twice  a  month  in  some 
church  or  deaconry,  and  were  to  examine  into  their  own 
way  of  living — their  dress,  comportment,  and  the  like — and 
into  that  of  the  lower  ranks  of  the  clergy.  They  were  to 
look  into  the  manner  in  which  the  prelates  treated  their 

1  "  Venerabilis  Anselmus  suique  monachi  propriis  manibus  labor- 
antes,  de  sentibus  et  de  deserto  ad  perfectionis  culmen  perduxerunt." 
In  vit.  S.  Anselm.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.  Langob.,  p.  567.     Cf.  p.  570. 

2  Epp.  74-6.     April,  877.  3  Ep.  184.  4  Ep.  237. 
6  Epp.  271,  9.                                   6  Ep.  272.  7  Ep.  346. 


john  viii.  347 

inferiors  and  the  inferiors  obeyed  their  superiors.  They 
had  to  put  down  abuses,  and  settle  the  cases  of  both  laymen 
and  clerics  that  belonged x  to  the  papal  court.  They  had 
also  to  look  after  the  monasteries  during  the  time  that 
they  were  without  abbots.  For  the  settlement  of  other 
matters  concerning  the  clergy  or  the  laity  they  had  to  meet 
twice  a  week  in  the  Lateran,  according  to  the  decree  of 
Leo  IV.  This  decree  is  doubtless  the  one  made  by  Leo, 
when  he  was  leaving  Rome  for  Ravenna  (853),  in  which 
he  laid  it  down  that  in  his  absence  both  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  affairs  were  to  be  transacted  as  usual.  On  the  appointed 
days,  as  though  he  were  there  in  person,  all  the  nobles  had 
to  betake  themselves  to  the  Lateran  and  administer  justice 
to  those  who  sought  it.2  From  these  two  decrees,  it  is  clear 
that  the  Lateran  palace  was  the  centre  of  papal  adminis- 
tration in  the  ninth  century  ;  and  in  the  Lateran  palace 
itself  we  find  the  Hall  of  the  She-wolf- — the  hall  where  stood 
the  bronze  she-wolf  now  in  the  museum  of  the  Capitol — 
especially  noted  3  as  a  hall  of  justice.  For  a  satisfactory  ex- 
position of  the  last  clause  of  the  constitution,  which  relates 
seemingly  to  the  seven  hebdomadary  cardinal  bishops 
spoken  of  above,  we  must  refer  to  some  antiquary.4  The 
clause  runs  :  "  Concerning  our  dioceses  {de  parochiis),  we 
decree  that  you  possess  them  in  perpetuity ;  that  you  cele- 
brate the  divine  office  in  the  chief  churches  in  turn  according 
to  the  priority  of  your  consecration  ;  and  that  (saving  the 
ancient  rights  of  the  cardinal  deacons)  you  share  equally 

1  Querimoniae  definiendas  "  quae  ad  nostrum  judicium  pertinent."    lb. 

2  "Praecipimus  ut  in  nostra  absentia  nee  ecclesiasticus  nee  palatinus 
ordo  deficiat ;  sed  constitutes  diebus  tanquam  si  nos  hie  fuissemus 
omnes  nobiles  ad  Lateranense  palatium  recurrant,  et  quaerentibus  ac 
petentibus  legem  ac  justitiam  faciant."     Jaffe,  2633. 

3  Libell.  de  imp.  potest.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  964.  Duchesne, L.  P,, 
ii.  139. 

4  Cf.  vol.  i.,  pt.  ii.,  p.  391  of  this  work. 


348  john  viii. 

their  offerings  as  well  for  your  own  use  as  for  the  lights 
of  your  churches.1 
Death  of         Still    hard    at    work,   John    was    overtaken    by   death, 

the  Pope,  J  J 

882.  December  16,  882.     Regarding  the  details  of  his  death,  we 

have  a  dreadful  account  in  the  Ratisbon  continuation  of 

the    Annals   of  Fulda — "  if  the  solitary  statement   of  an 

historian  (distant,  he  might  have  added),  is  to  be  trusted," 

says  Gregorovius.2     In  conspiracy  with  a  number  of  others, 

who  desired  the  Pope's  treasure  and  his  position  (culmen 

episcopatus),  one  of  his  relations    administered    poison    to 

him  ;  but  finding  that  the  poison  worked  slowly,  put  an  end 

to  the  pontiff's  life  by  striking  him  with  a  hammer.      And 

then  terrified  at  the  hostile  demeanour  of  the  crowd,  the 

murderer   fell    dead   without  anybody  touching  him.       In 

refusing  to  accept  this  sensational  story  one  will  probably 

not  be   setting   aside   the    known    truth.     Peter    Mallius,3 

before  giving  part  of  John's  epitaph,  says   that  his  tomb 

was  situated  near  the  porta  Judicii  in  front  of  the  Church 

of  St.  Peter.     The  epitaph  runs  : — 

Prassulis  octavi  requiescunt  membra  Joannis 
Tegmine  sub  gelido  marmorei  tumuli. 
Moribus  ut  paret  fulsit,  qui  mente  beatus 
Altisonis  comptus  actibus  et  mentis 
Judicii  custos  mansit,  pietatis  amator, 
Dogmatis  et  varii  plurima  verba  docens. 
De  segete  Christi  pepulit  zizania  sepe 
Multaque  per  mundum  semina  fudit  ovans. 
Docti  (loquus),  prudens,  verbo  linguaque  peritus, 

1  Ep.  346. 

2  Rome,  iii.  204.  Lapotre  rejects  the  details  of  the  story,  which  are 
not  only  assigned  by  their  narrator  to  the  wrong  year  (883),  but  are 
overlaid  with  the  marvellous  as  the  narrative  quoted  in  the  text  shows. 
The  continuation  of  the  same  annals  by  Meginhard  and  the  other 
authorities  simply  record  the  death  of  John  without  any  details.  The  two 
continuations  are  to  be  read,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  pp.  397-8  ;  or  in  the  later 
ed.  of  the  Annals  of  Fulda,  by  Kurzen  (1891).  If  the  story  is  correct, 
John  VIII.  is  the  first  Pope  who  has  died  by  the  hands  of  an  assassin. 

3  Ap.  Duchesne,  L.  P.,  ii.  223. 


john  vin.  349 

Sollertem  sese  omnibus  exhibuit. 

Et  nunc  celicolas  cernat  super  astra  falanges.  .  .  . 

"Beneath  this  cold  marble  rest  the  mortal  remains  of  Pope  John 
VIII.,  a  man  who  was  adorned  with  the  highest  qualities  of  head  and 
heart.  He  guarded  justice,  loved  virtue,  and  taught  the  truth.  He 
uprooted  the  cockle  and  sowed  the  good  seed.  Eloquent,  prudent, 
and  learned,  he  excelled  in  everything.  His  home  is  now  with  the 
angels  beyond  the  stars." 

Promis  gives  us  copies  of  five  coins  of  John  VIII.  Coins. 
Besides  the  name  of  the  Pope,  Luddovicus  Imp.  appears 
on  two  of  them ;  one  struck  during  the  vacancy  of  the 
empire  is,  of  course,  without  an  imperial  name  ;  Karolus 
Imp.  (Charles  the  Fat)  figures  on  the  fourth  ;  and  the  fifth, 
bearing  the  letters  Cap.,  was  struck  at  Capua  by  Bishop 
Landenolf. 

Now  in  possession  of  the  facts  of  John's  life,  the  reader  Character 
will  be  able  to  decide  for  himself  whether  the  charges  of  vin. 
cruelty  and  the  rest,  so  freely  brought  against  John  by 
writers  who  it  would  seem  are  either  following  their  pre- 
judices, or  else  the  blind  guidance  of  ill-informed  authors, 
are  well  founded.  It  may  be  emphatically  affirmed  that 
they  are  not.  The  character  of  John  VIII.  stands  out 
well  under  the  full  glare  of  the  search-light  of  history.  It 
is  a  character  well  worthy  of  our  admiration.  If  historians 
of  all  shades  of  opinion  agree  in  praising  the  character  of 
S.  Gregory  the  Great,  no  valid  reason  can  be  given  for 
withholding  a  fair  meed  of  praise  for  the  character  of  John 
VIII.,  who  in  very  similar  circumstances  displayed  a  very 
similar  character.  In  the  midst  of  daily  ill-health  and 
sorrows,  which  between  them  did  not  allow l  him  a  moment's 
rest,  which  deprived  him  of  his  sleep,2  and  only  left  him 
the  grave  to  hope3  for,  he  never  lost  heart  and  never 
lessened  his  energetic  efforts  for  good.  His  whole  endeavour 
was  to  inspire4  others  with  the  courage  which  was  aflame 

1  Ep.  195.  a  Ep.  79. 

3  Ep.  57.     Cf.  Epp.  71,  104,  etc.  4  Ep.  29. 


350  JOHN   VIII. 

in  his  own  breast,  worn  out,  indeed,  with  years,  but  vigorous 
from  the  unconquerable  soul  that  dwelt  within  it.  Like 
Gregory,  he  was  essentially  a  Roman.  He  may,  indeed,  be 
regarded  as  the  last  of  the  Roman  Popes.  To  understand 
how  fully  he  was  animated  with  the  spirit  of  the  old  rulers 
of  the  world,  we  must  note  the  way  in  which  he  ever 
speaks  of  Rome — to  him  always  the  queen  and  capital  of 
the  civilised  world — and  the  pride  with  which  he  pronounces 
the  names  "  Roman,  Senate  of  Rome,  and  gens  togata." x 
John's  Roman  character  displayed  itself  not  only  in 
his  untiring  energy,  but  in  his  practical  adaptation  of 
means  to  the  end  he  had  in  view,  and  in  his  iron 
will.  If  John  was  convinced  that  something  had  to  be 
done,  which  was  in  itself  good,  he  strained  every  nerve 
to  accomplish  that  end.  And  if  at  times  he  may  have 
worked  a  little  roughly,  what  wonder  when  the  character  of 
the  times  in  which  he  lived  is  taken  into  consideration. 
But  he  was  not,  for  all  that,  devoid  of  feeling  for  others. 
We  find  him  begging  mercy  for  a  murderer,'2  exerting 
himself  to  suppress  the  slave  traffic  in  captives  snatched 
by  the  Greeks  from  the  infidel,3  and  reproving4  Bertar, 
abbot  of  Monte  Cassino,  for  rashly  judging  John's  illustrious 
predecessor  Hadrian  II. — telling  him  it  would  be  much 
better  for  him  to  give  up  abstaining  from  flesh  meat,  than 
to  go  on  eating  away  the  characters  of  men.  And  that 
John  was  not  devoid  of  artistic  feeling  we  may  perhaps 
presume  from  the  fact  of  his  ordering  an  organ5  from 
Germany.  In  his  command  of  money,  too,  John  resembled 
Gregory.  He  was  one  of  those  men  who,  combining 
a  diligent  attention  to  his  income  with  a  well-regulated 
expenditure  of  it,  always  seem  to  have  money  to  spare  for 

1  Lapotre,  p.  276,  who,  as   always,  supports  what  he  asserts  with 
copious  references. 

2  Epp.  39-40.  3  Ep.  50,  ap.  Lowen. 
4  Ep.  45,  ib.  6  Ep.  1. 


JOHN   VIII.  351 

useful  objects.  His  sound  business-like  methods  inspired 
confidence,  and  of  themselves  tended  to  bring  him  money. 

It  would,  of  course,  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  that,  even 
broadly  speaking,  the  character  of  John  VIII.  was  on  a  par 
with  that  of  Gregory  the  Great.  In  the  former  there  was 
more  of  the  rough  warrior,  the  astute  statesman,  and,  per- 
chance, of  the  partisan  leader  than  of  the  peaceful  priest, 
the  gentle  scholar  and  the  absolutely  impartial  judge.  And 
if  the  epithet  of  largus  (munificent)  applied  to  John  VIII. 
by  his  namesake  the  Deacon  is  certainly  equally  applicable 
to  Gregory,  the  title  of  Saint,  which  East  and  West  alike 
have  bestowed  on  the  latter,  has  never  yet  been  given  to 
John  VIII.  But,  in  estimating  the  character  of  John,  it 
must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  enemy  he  had  to  contend 
against  was  a  cruel,  barbaric,  and  infidel  pirate,  that  the 
Italian  nobles  of  the  ninth  century  were  much  more  lawless 
than  those  of  the  sixth — and,  in  this  respect,  were  on  the 
down  grade — and  that  he  had  a  kingdom  of  his  own  to 
defend  against  the  encroachments  of  the  ferocious  Saracen 
and  of  the  licentious  Christian  Duke. 

Much  less  would  be  said  against  the  political  actions  of 
the  earlier  medieval  Popes  by  certain  modern  writers,  if  they 
would  not  bring  their  modern  ideas  of  national  politics  to 
their  study  of  the  simple  politics  of  the  early  Middle  Ages. 
The  idea  of  a  united  nation  in  a  suitable  geographical  area 
was  never  contemplated  by  the  men  of  the  ninth  century. 
The  imperial  idea  was  indeed  entertained  by  churchmen, 
who  were  acquainted  with  the  history  of  Rome,  and  who 
had  ever  before  their  eyes  the  Universal  Church — and 
especially,  as  was  natural,  by  the  Popes  of  Rome.  But  if 
it  was  grasped  and  accepted  by  such  a  barbarian  (non- 
Roman)  layman  as  Charlemagne,  it  was  by  a  natural 
reaction  rejected  by  the  great  mass  of  the  barbarians  who 
settled     in    the    western    parts    of    the    Roman    empire. 


352  john  vin. 

Freedom  from  all  restraint  for  himself  was  the  only  idea 
tolerated  by  the  free  German ;  he  was  a  stranger  to 
either  imperial  or  even  national  ideas  for  many  a  long 
century.  The  politics,  then,  of  the  ninth  century  were  not 
of  an  elevated  or  complicated  order.  The  attempt  to 
make  the  Teutonic  barbarian  conquerors  move  along  the 
lines  of  the  Roman  empire  proved  a  failure ;  and,  at  the 
period  at  which  we  have  now  reached,  was  ending  in 
complete  chaos.  Out  of  the  chaos  will  emerge  the  feudal 
system,  "  where 1  the  bond  Of  man  to  man  replaces  the  civil 
bond,  where  the  citizen  is  absorbed  in  the  vassal,  and  the 
fief  takes  the  place  of  country." 

In  bringing  our  sketch  of  John  VIII.  to  a  conclusion,  it 
may  be  remarked  with  Doellinger 2  that,  if  John  "  more 
frequently  than  any  of  his  predecessors,  pronounced 
sentence  of  excommunication  against  bishops  and  power- 
ful laics,  (it)  must  be  ascribed  to  the  prevailing  depravity 
of  the  age,  and  to  that  state  of  hard  necessity  to  which  the 
See  of  Rome  was  then  reduced."  The  excommunications 
pronounced  by  John  were  just,  and  often  brought  order 
where  nothing  else  would.  The  age  in  which  he  lived  was 
unworthy  of  him,  but  could  appreciate3  him.  It  was 
reserved  for  moderns  to  discover  in  him  faults  which 
escaped  the  notice  of  those  who  knew  him. 

1  Lapotre,  p.  280. 

2  Church  Hist.,  iii.  p.  133,  Eng.  trans. 

3  In  addition  to  the  contemporary  evidence  as  to  the  character  of 
John,  cf.  Auxilius,  Libell.  in  Def.  Stefih.  Neap.  Efi.,  c.  2,  ap.  Diimmler, 
p.  98. 


MARINUS   I 

A.D.  882-884. 


Sources. — They  are  anything  but  abundant.  We  have  the 
Catalogue ;  the  Annals,  especially  the  continuations  of  the  Annals 
of  Fulda ;  Frodoard ;  a  few  incidental  notices  in  the  polemical 
writings  of  Auxilius  and  Vulgarius,  who  wrote  during  the  reign 
of  Sergius  III.,  and  of  whom  more  will  be  said  under  the  Life  of 
Formosus,  etc.  An  inconsiderable  number  of  his  letters,  etc. 
have  been  published  in  different  collections — three  of  them,  ap. 
P.  £.,  t.  126. 


Emperor  of  the  East.  Emperors  of  the  West. 

Basil  I.  (The  Macedonian),  867-886.  Louis  II.,  850-875. 

Charles  II.  (The  Bald),  875-877. 
Charles  III.  (The  Fat),  881-888. 

In  Marinus,  John  VIII.  had  a  worthy  successor.  A  native  Early 
of  Gallcse  (a  town  in  the  Roman  Duchy  which  commanded 
the  road  from  Rome  to  Ravenna  by  Todi  and  Perugia), 
and  the  son  of  the  priest  Palumbo,  he  entered  the  service 
of  the  Roman  Church  at  the  early  age  of  twelve,  as  we 
learn  from  his  own  words  recorded  in  the  fourth  session 
of  the  Eighth  General  Council.  Ordained  subdeacon  by 
Leo  IV.,  he  was  attached  to  the  Church  of  S.  Maria  ad 
Praesepe,  and  in  860  was  present  as  a  subdeacon  when 
Pope  Nicholas  received  the   envoys   of   Photius   and   the 

VOL.    III.  353  23 


354  MARINUS   I. 

emperor.  Ordained  deacon  (862-66),  he  was  sent  in  the 
last-named  year  on  that  embassy  to  Constantinople  which 
the  imperial  officials  stopped  on  the  Bulgarian  frontier  of 
the  empire.  Three  years  later  he  was  despatched  by 
Hadrian  II.  to  preside,  as  his  third  legate,  at  the  Eighth 
General  Council.  He  enjoyed  the  full  confidence  of 
John  VIII.,  as  he  had  of  his  two  predecessors,  and  was 
much  honoured  by  that  discerning  pontiff.  He  made 
him  bishop  of  Caere1  (Cervetri),  treasurer2  (arcarius)  of 
the  Holy  See,  and  archdeacon.  Among  the  many  com- 
missions entrusted  to  the  courageous  ability  of  Marinus 
by  John  VIII.  (880)  was  the  one  to  the  Emperor  Basil 
which  resulted  for  the  legate  in  an  honourable  imprison- 
ment. In  882  we  find  him  at  Naples  on  a  diplomatic 
mission  to  its  bishop,  Athanasius. 
Election  of  After  such  a  record  of  a  well-spent  life,  it  is  not  surprising 
that,  immediately  (December  163)  on  the  death  of  John, 
the  unanimous4  voice  of  the  Roman  people,  though  acting 
against  the  canons  which  forbade  translations  from  See  to 
See,  called  Bishop  Marinus  to  the  papal  throne.  He  seems 
to  have  been  consecrated  immediately  without  any  waiting 
for  the  consent  of  the  emperor.  But  it  was  not  to  a  bed 
of  roses  that  he  had  been  called.     Faction  troubles,  which 

1  It  has  been  sometimes  denied  that  the  Marinus  who  became 
Pope  had  been  a  bishop.  The  controversial  writings  of  Auxilius  and 
Vulgarius,  however,  place  the  matter  beyond  doubt.  Cf.  Vulgarius 
ap.  Diimmler,  pp.  128,  131,  etc. ;  the  author  (Vulgarius?)  of  the  Invect. 
in  Rom.,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  830  ;  the  Annals  of  Fulda,  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
i.  397- 

2  Cf.  Ep.  260,  Joan.  VIII.  In  that  letter  John  tells  Charles  the  Fat 
that  he  is  sending  him  as  an  envoy — "  Marinum  venerabilem  episcopum 
et  arcarium  sedis  nostrse." 

3  Following  the  chronology  of  Duchesne.  We  are  now  reaching  a 
period  when  the  greatest  uncertainty  prevails  as  to  the  exact  dates  of 
the  accession  and  demise  of  the  Popes. 

4  Ann.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  883,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  p.  398.  "  Marinus,  antea 
episcopus,  contra  statuta  canonum  subrogatus  est." 


MARINUS   I.  355 

the  strong  hand  of  John  had  kept  down,  began  at  once. 
And  the  Annals  of  Fulda  assign  even  to  this  very  year  the 
murder  of  the  rich  superista  Gregory,  "  by  his  colleague,  in 
the  precincts  (in  paradiso)  of  St.  Peter's."  The  murderers 
did  not  hesitate  to  drag  the  dead  body  through  the 
church,  staining  its  pavement  with  the  blood  of  their 
victim.  Lapotre  believes l  this  Gregory  to  have  been  that 
relation  of  John  VIII.  who  is  said  to  have  put  an  end 
to  his  life  by  the  blow  of  a  mallet ;  and  that  his  (Gregory's) 
marvellous  death  recorded  by  the  Ratisbon  continuation 
of  the  Annals  of  Fulda,  is  no  other  than  this  assassination 
described  by  Meginhard.  Further,  the  contents  of  a  note, 
which  is  added  to  the  name  of  Hadrian  III.2  in  a  catalogue, 
to  the  effect  that  he  caused  George  of  the  Aventine  to 
be  blinded,  and  the  widow  of  the  above-named  Gregory  to 
be  whipped,  are  also  by  some  authors  connected  with  this 
event.  But  in  all  this  finely-woven  connected  story  there 
is  too  great  a  preponderance  of  the  merest  conjecture. 

The    emperor,   Charles   the   Fat,   from   whom    Marinus  Marinus 
might   naturally  have  looked  for  support,  only  made  the  emperor, 
condition  of  the  empire  worse  than  he  found  it.     He  came    3* 
into  Italy  after  Easter,  and  spent  the  whole  summer  there. 
And  while,  unable  to  keep  his  own  counts  from  fighting 
with   their  armed  followers   under   his   very  eyes,  in   at- 
tempting to  do  what  it  would  have  required  a  powerful, 
strong-minded  ruler  to  accomplish, "  he  excited  against  him 
the  feelings  of  the  Italian  nobles."3     For  in  an  assembly  at 
Verona,  he  dispossessed,  as  far  as  words  went,   Guy,  or 
Guido,    'Count    of    Tuscany,'    and    others  of  their    fiefs 
(beneficia),  which  their  ancestors  had  held  before  them  for 

1  Lapotre,  Le  Pape  Jean,  p.  162.     Cf.  supra,  p.  348. 

2  The  papal  catalogue  in  the  Chron.  S.  Bened.,  ap.  M.  G.  S'S,  Lang., 

P-  483. 

3  Ann.  Fuld..,  ad  an.  883. 


356  MARINUS   I. 

generations,  and  gave  them  to  men  of  low  degree. 
Headed  by  Guy,  the  affronted  nobles  flew  to  arms,  and,  so 
far  from  losing  their  fiefs,  "  seized  much  more  than  they 
had  held  before,"  laconically  adds  Meginhard.1  Moving 
south  to  meet  the  Pope,  Charles  received  him  with  becoming 
honour  at  the  monastery  of  Nonantula,  where  they  re- 
mained together  on  June  20,  consulting  on  the  needs  of 
the  empire.2  Guy,  who  had  meanwhile  allied  himself 
with  a  powerful  body  of  Saracens,  and  was  terrorising  the 
whole  country,  was  here  declared  guilty  of  high  treason. 
Berenger  of  Friuli  was  deputed  to  strip  him  of  his  fief  by 
force.  A  campaign  successfully  begun  by  him  was  brought 
to  an  ignominious  termination  by  the  usual  fever.  Even 
the  emperor  was  stricken  with  it,  and  had  to  withdraw  from 
Italy,  leaving  that  country  in  greater  confusion  than  it  was 
before  he  set  foot  within  it.  To  no  purpose  was  it  decreed 
(next  year)  that  the  Bavarians  should  march  against  Guy. 
Before  the  year  (884)  had  run  its  course,  Charles  was  com- 
pelled to  make  peace  with  the  outraged  Italians.3  With 
such  an  emperor,  no  wonder  that  Marinus  could  effect 
nothing  in  the  way  of  bringing  order  into  the  country. 
Absolves  In  one  respect,  at  any  rate,  Marinus  reversed  the  policy 
of  his  predecessor,  rather  unfortunately  as  the  sequel 
proved.  He  absolved  Formosus  from  the  sworn  promises 
he  had  made  to  John,  and  restored  him  to  his  bishopric.4 
Formosus  was  certainly  very  different  in  character  from 
George  of  the  Aventine  and  the  other  leaders  of  the  party 

1  lb.  As  Umbria,  in  which  Spoleto  is  situated,  is  by  some  ancient 
writers  included  in  Tuscany,  Guido  is  here  called  '  Count  of  Tuscany,' 
instead  of  the  more  familiar  '  Count  of  Spoleto.' 

2  Cf.  a  diploma  of  Charles,  ap.  Jaffe,  2615. 

3  Ann.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  884. 

4  "  Notum  est,"  says  Vulgarius  ap.  Dummler,  p  135,  "a  Marino 
primum  episcopo,  dein  summo  pontifice  ....  fuisse  absolutum, 
receptum  et  in  pristino  honore  revocatum."  Cf.  Auxilius,  De  Causa 
For.  P.,  Inf.  et  Defy  c.  32,  p.  1 101  ;  and  the  author  of  the  Invect.,  p.  831. 


Formosus. 


MARINUS   I.  357 

with  which  he  had  become  involved.  He  was  rather  weak 
than  wicked.  And  it  is  not  unlikely  that  it  was  because 
John  VIII.  saw  that  Formosus  might  easily  become  the  tool 
of  designing  men — or  that,  at  least,  the  faction,  which  had 
secured  his  interest,  might  cloak  their  nefarious  plans 
under  the  good  name  of  the  Bishop  of  Porto — that  he 
forbade  him  to  come  to  Rome  again.  It  is  quite  possible, 
also,  that  John  was  wholly  mistaken  in  his  estimate  of  the 
character  or  guilt  of  Formosus.  But  it  is  plain,  at  any  rate, 
that  the  latter  must  have  become  closely  identified  with 
one  faction  which  was  at  a  bitter  feud  with  another,  if  we 
are  to  judge  only  from  the  brutal  manner  in  which  even 
his  dead  body  was  treated  under  Stephen  (VI.)  VII.  The 
simple  fact  that  he  had  left  his  See  of  Porto  for  that  of 
Rome  is  not  enough  to  account  for  the  animosity  with  which 
he  was  pursued  even  after  death.  But  of  all  this,  more  will 
be  said  when  the  reign  of  Stephen  VII.  is  treated  of.  It  is 
sufficient  to  observe  here  that  Marinus  would  have  been 
well  advised  if  he  had  left  Formosus  in  exile.  Great 
scandal  would  have  been  avoided  if  he  had  trusted  to  the 
wisdom  and  justice  of  his  predecessor. 

If,  however,  Marinus  deviated  from  the  policy  of  John  in  Condemns 
the  case  of  Formosus,  he  did  not  with  regard  to  Photius. 
He  had  stood  by  at  the  Eighth  General  Council  and  seen 
that  heresiarch  ape  the  conduct  of  Our  Lord  before  Pilate  ; 
he  had  suffered  thirty  days'  imprisonment  on  his  account, 
and  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  man  he  was  dealing 
with,  and,  following  the  example  of  his  predecessors,  he 
condemned  l  him.  Hence  the  attack  made  upon  him  by 
Photius.     Unfortunately  the  letter  which,  at  the  dictation  2 

1  See  the  inscription  taken  from  the  right  of  the  portico  of  S.  Sophia. 
Cf.  supr.y  p.  272  n. 

2  Pope  Stephen  VI.,  in  his  answer  to  this  letter  (ap.  Labbe  viii.  1391, 
or  ix.,  p.  366),  plainly  insinuates  the  hand  of  Photius.  "  Ille,  quidem, 
qui  adversus  sanctissimum  Marinum  sacras  aures  tuas  contumeliis 


358  MARINUS   T. 

of  the  latter,  the  emperor  Basil  sent  to  Hadrian  III.,  is  lost. 
Its  contents  are  only  known  through  the  answer  sent  to  it 
by  Hadrian's  successor,  Stephen  (V.)  VI.  Basil,  or  rather 
Photius,  urged  inter  alia  that  Marinus  had  been  a  bishop 
before  his  election  as  Pope,  and  hence  could  not  be  trans- 
ferred from  one  See  to  the  other.  Such  a  charge  came 
with  very  good  grace  from  Photius,  who  had  translated  so 
many  of  his  own  friends  from  one  See  to  another! 
Stephen,  however,  whose  letter  will  be  given  more  in  full 
under  his  Life,  had  no  difficulty  in  showing,  from  examples 
which  he  adduced,  that  translations  had  often  been  made 
for  a  good  and  sufficient  cause.  And  he  maintained  that 
the  character  of  Marinus,  Our  Lord's  "  immaculate  priest," 
was  reason  enough  for  his  translation.  The  breach  be- 
tween Rome  and  Constantinople,  which,  at  any  rate,  had 
not  increased  under  John  VIII.,  was  rapidly  widened 
under  his  immediate  successors. 
Fulk  of  Frodoard,1  who,  in  harmony  with  the  epitaph  of  Marinus, 

praises  his  wisdom  and  his  zeal  and  success  in  overcoming 
the  errors  of  the  Greeks  and  restoring  unity  to  the  Church, 
has  preserved  2  for  us  some  knowledge  of  his  relations  with 
France.  In  response  to  the  profession  of  faith  which  he 
received  from  the  deservedly  famous  Fulk,  archbishop  of 
Rheims,  Marinus  sent  him  the  pallium.  Further  corre- 
spondence passed  between  them.  Besides  asking  the  Pope 
to  confirm  the  privileges  of  the  Church  of  Rheims,  and  to 
interest  himself  in  the  young  king  Carloman,  who,  along 
with  Fulk  himself,  had  visited  Rome  with  his  father,  the 
emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  the  archbishop  begged  him  to 
take  cognisance  of  the  action  of  Erminfrid.     This  man  had 

maculavit,  adversus  D.  N.  J.  C blasphemias  effutire  procul  dubio 

non  dubitavit,  etc.  Decipitur  profecto  quicumque  putat,  quod  discipulus 
sit  supra  magistrum." 

1  Ap.  Watterich,  i.  650. 

54  In  his  history  of  the  Church  of  Rheims,     Hist.  Rem.,  iv.  1, 


Rheims. 


MARINUS    I.  359 

seized  on  a  monastery  belonging  to  Fulk,  but  which  was 
situated  in  the  diocese  of  Eurard,  archbishop  of  Sens. 
The  Pope  accordingly  wrote  to  Eurard  and  to  John,  arch- 
bishop of  Rouen,  in  whose  diocese  Erminfrid  was  then 
living.     But  of  the  issue  of  this  affair  we  know  nothing. 

The  same  may  almost  be  said  of  the  rest  of  the  work  of  Marinus 
Marinus.  However,  to  pass  over  his  confirmations  of  the  Alfred, 
privileges  of  a  few  monasteries,  another  little  scrap  of 
information  regarding  his  actions  should  not  remain  un- 
noticed by  an  Englishman.  Out  "of  regard  for  Alfred, 
king  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  and  at  his  request,  (Marinus) 
freed  the  school  (or  quarter)  of  the  Anglo-Saxons  resident 
at  Rome  from  all  tribute  and  tax.  He  also  sent  many 
gifts  on  that  occasion,  among  which  was  no  small  portion 
of  the  holy  and  venerable  cross,  on  which  Our  Lord  J. 
Christ  was  suspended  for  the  general  salvation  of  man- 
kind." *  And,  on  the  other  hand,  we  find  it  recorded  in  the 
Anglo-Saxon  Chronicle  that  "that  same  year  (883)  Sighelm 
and  Aethelstan  carried  to  Rome  the  alms  which  the  king 
(Alfred)  had  vowed  to  send  thither."  And  there  may  now 
be  seen  in  the  Museo  delle  Terme,  in  Rome,  a  part,  no 
doubt,  of  his  "  alms,"  viz.  three  silver  coins  of  Alfred, 
which,  together  with  many  other  somewhat  later  English 
coins,  were  found  (1883-4),  as  we  have  already  noticed,  in 
an  earthen  vase  on  the  site  of  the  House  of  the  Vestal 
Virgins. 

While  the  chroniclers  give  us  the  year  of  the  death  of  Death  of 
Marinus,   the   month    is   a   matter   of    conjecture.      With  %<£™ 
Duchesne 2  and  Pagi  it  may  be  assigned  to  May,  and  with 

1  Asser's  Life  of  Alfred,  ad  an.  884,  and  Chron.  Ethclwerd.,  an.  885. 
Cf.  Anglo-Sax.  C/iron.,  ad  an.  885,  about  "the  good  Pope  Marinus." 

2  L.  P.,  ii.  p.  lxxv. ;  Jarre,  3396  (2622).  In  some  of  the  old  chronicles, 
Marinus  I.  and  II.  were  sometimes  erroneously  given  as  Martinus  II. 
and  III.  Hence  Martinus  IV.  (1281-5).  In  the  one  denarius  of 
Marinus  known  to  Promis,  there  is  the  peculiarity  that  Roma  is  linked 


360  MARINUS   I. 

the  former  to  the  15th.  From  the  same  author  we  cite 
the  epitaph  from  Marinus's  tomb,  which  was  in  St.  Peter's 
"between  the  Silver  Gate  and  the  Roman  Gate  in  the 
portico." 

Quam  sollers  Domino  placuit,  qui  mente  modesta 

Prassul  apostolicus  orbis  et  omne  decus. 
Hie  statuit  tumulo  claudi  sua  membra  sub  isto 

Hsec  eadem  sperans  ut  sibi  reddat  humus. 
Ardua  qui  fulsit  cunctis  ut  sidera  caeli, 

Augustis  carus,  gentibus  et  tribubus. 
Doctrinis  comptus,  sacris  et  dogmate  claio 

Per  patrias  sancta  semina  fudit  ovans. 
Nam  Graios  superans  Eois  partibus  unam 

Schismata  pellendo  reddidit  ecclesiam. 
Principis  hie  Petri  sed  quisquis  tendis  ad  aulam 

Die  supplex  isdem  regnet  ut  arce  poli. 

Marinus,  who  with  his  humble  mind  pleased  God  and 
was  an  honour  to  the  world,  ordained  that  his  members 
should  be  buried  in  this  spot,  in  the  hope  that  one  day  the 
earth  would  give  them  back  to  him.  Shining  like  the  stars 
in  heaven,  he  was  beloved  by  kings  and  peoples.  Adorned 
with  learning,  he  scattered  abroad  the  good  seed.  Over- 
coming the  Greeks,  he  banished  schism  from  the  East. 
Whoever  you  are  who  visit  this  temple  of  St.  Peter,  pray 
that  he  may  reign  in  heaven. 

with  the  Pope's  name  on  the  obverse,  instead  of  "  Scs.  Petrus,"  which 
in  this  instance  is  associated  with  "  Carolus  Imp."  on  the  reverse.  This 
peculiarity  is  also  to  be  noted  on  one  of  the  coins  of  John  VIII. 


HADRIAN   III, 

A.D.  884-885. 


Sources. — They  are  the  same  as  for  Marinus  I.  The  place  of 
Hadrian's  death,  etc.,  we  learn  from  the  monk  of  Nonantula,  who 
to  Hadrian  III.  fitted  a  life  of  Hadrian  I.  (Cf.  under  the  sources 
for  Hadrian  I.)  A  few  facts  concerning  Hadrian  have  been 
preserved  in  the  life  of  his  successor,  Stephen  (V.)  VI.,  in  the  L.  P. 
Two  letters,  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  126. 


Emperor  of  the  East.  Emperors  of  the  West. 

Basil  I.  (The  Macedonian),  867-886.  Louis  II.,  850-875. 

Charles  II.  (The  Bald),  875-877. 
Charles  III.  (The  Fat),  881-888. 

According  to   the    chronology,  more    or    less    probable  Election, 
but  not  certain,  of  Duchesne,  Hadrian,  a  Roman 1  and  the 
son  of  Benedict,  became  Pope,  May  17,  884.     Of  what  he 
did,  however,  either   before   or  after  he  became  Pope  we 
know  but  little. 

He   seems   to   have   maintained   an    impartial  but  firm  The  party 
attitude   towards   the   party  of  Roman  nobles  which  had  m0sus." 

1  Gregorovius  {Ro?ne,  iii.  p.  206),  confounding  this  Pope  with 
Hadrian  the  father  of  Stephen  VI.,  says  that  Hadrian  III.  was  "of  the 
Via  Lata." 

36, 


362  HADRIAN    III. 

been  proscribed  by  John  VIII.  For  if  he  blinded1  the 
notorious  George  of  the  Aventine,  he  retained  in  the  service 
of  the  Holy  See  George's  father-in-law,  Gregory,  who 
figures  as  "  missus "  and  "  apocrisiarius  of  the  Holy 
Apostolic  2  See,"  dignities  he  had  enjoyed  under  John  VIII. 
He  is  also  said  to  have  caused  Mary,  the  superistana,  the 
widow  of  Gregory,  the  superista,  who  was  murdered  in  the 
paradise  or  atrium  of  St.  Peter's,  to  be  whipped  "  naked 
through  all  Rome."  1  We  may  conjecture  that  this  was  for 
some  disgraceful  intrigue  with  that  scoundrel  George  of 
the  Aventine.  Although  we  are  ignorant  of  the  causes  of 
these  terrible  events,  still  such  horrible  assassinations  and 
barbarous  punishments  cannot  fail  to  warn  us  that  we  are 
entering  on  the  darkest  period  of  the  history  of  the  papacy. 

Photius.  If  full  reliance  could  be  placed  upon  the  testimony3  of 

Photius,  it  might  be  concluded  that  Hadrian  resumed 
amicable  relations  with  that  patriarch.  "  Hadrian,"  he 
said,  "sent  us  a  synodical  letter  in  accordance  with  ancient 
custom."  Comparing  this  assertion  with  that  of  the  inscrip- 
tion, previously  cited,  which  states  that  Hadrian  condemned 
Photius  equally  with  Marinus  and  the  rest,  we  may  conclude 
that  the  truth  probably  is  that  Hadrian  addressed  a  friendly 
letter  to  Constantinople  to  or  about  Photius  with  a  view 
to  bringing  him  to  a  sense  of  his  duty.  This  failing, 
Hadrian  renewed  the  condemnation  passed  on  him  by  his 
predecessors. 

Decrees  (?)       Two  decrees  have  been  attributed  to  this    Pope   which 

relative 

to  the         have  given  rise  to  no   little   discussion.     They   are   often 

empire.  . 

quoted  on  the  authority  of  Sigomus,  a  sixteenth-century 
writer  who,  on  earlier  Italian  history,  used  to  be  a  good 
deal  more  frequently  cited  than  he  is  now.     He  was  cited  in 

1  Chron.  S.  Bened.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.  Lang.,  p.  483.     "  Mariam  .... 
nudam  per  totam  Romam  fusticavit." 

*  Jafife,  second  edition,  340  j.  3  Mystagog.,  c.  89  ;  Jaffe,  3399. 


HADRIAN    III.  363 

the  belief  that  he  had  access  to  much  earlier  writers,  whose 
works  have  been  since  lost.  But  there  is  little  doubt  that 
an  authority  often  consulted  by  Carolus  Sigonius  was  his 
own  imagination,  and  that  his  style  is  much  more  admir- 
able than  his  facts  are  reliable.  The  earliest  testimony  which 
can  be  adduced  in  support  of  these  decrees  is  the  uncritical l 
chronicle  of  the  Dominican  Martinus  Polonus,  who  died 
in  1278.  According,  then,  to  Sigonius,2  the  Italian  nobility, 
disgusted  with  the  weakness  and  discords  of  the  Carolingian 
sovereigns,  and  grieved  at  the  destruction  caused  by  the 
Saracens,  went  to  the  Pope  and  begged  him  to  consult  for 
the  safety  of  the  state.  In  consequence  of  this  appeal 
Hadrian  issued  two  decrees.  One  had  in  view  the  liberty 
of  the  Romans,  and  laid  down  that  "  the  pontiff  elect  could 
be  consecrated  without  waiting  for  the  presence  of  the 
emperor  or  his  ambassadors."  The  other,  consulting  for 
the  dignity  of  Italy,  decided  that  "  if  the  emperor  Charles 
died  without  male  issue,  the  kingdom  of  Italy  with  the  title 
of  emperor  should  both  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
princes  of  Italy,  who  should  confer  them  on  one  of  their 
own  number."  The  only  points  that  can  be  urged  in  be- 
half of  the  authenticity  of  either  of  these  decrees  is  that,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  Stephen  VI.  was  consecrated  without  any 
information  being  sent  to  the  emperor,  and  that  some  of 
the  princes  of  Italy  will  soon  be  seen  contending  for  the 
imperial  crown.  In  fact,  Lambert  of  Spoleto  had  already 
entertained  the  idea  of  making  himself  emperor.  But  the 
biography  of  John  VIII.  shows  how  little  the  princes  of 
Italy  cared  either  about  the  ravages  of  the  Saracens,  or 
about  unity  of  any  kind,  imperial  or  regal. 

It  only  remains  to  note  that  Fulk  of  Rheims  continued  Various 

deeds  of 
Hadrian. 
Cf.  on  Martinus,  Early  Chronicles  of  Europe— France,  p.  349,  by 
G.  Masson. 

2  De  regno  Italice,  ad  an.  884,  1.  v.  p.  223-4. 


364  HADRIAN   III. 

his  correspondence  with  Hadrian  on  the  subject  of  the 
intruder  Erminfrid,  that  the  Pope  ordered  Sigibod  of 
Narbonne  to  see  that  Girbert,  bishop  of  Nimes,  ceased  to 
annoy  the  monastery  of  St.  Giles,  and  that,  in  a  synod 
(April  17,  885),  he  took  under  his  protection  and  confirmed 
the  privileges  of  the  monastery  of  S.  Sixtus  at  Piacenza, 
built  by  the  empress  Engelberga.1 
The  death       The  Annals  of  Fulda2  tell  us  of  the  last  acts  of  Hadrian. 

ofHadrian. 

The  emperor,  Charles  the  Fat,  now  master  of  Gaul  also, 
sent  to  invite  the  Pope  to  France,  to  attend  a  diet  he  was 
about  to  hold  at  Worms.  Though  we  may  conjecture  that 
Charles  wanted  the  Pope  to  come  that  he  might  consult 
with  him  on  the  state  of  the  empire,  nothing  is  known  for 
certain  on  the  matter.  The  annalist  states  that  report  had 
it  that  the  emperor. wanted  to  depose  certain  bishops  with- 
out good  cause  {irrationabiliter)  and  to  name  his  natural 
son,  Bernhard,  his  heir.  And  because  he  suspected  that  he 
could  not  effect  these  measures  by  his  own  power,  he  hoped 
to  accomplish  them  "  by  apostolic  authority,  as  it  were, 
through  the  Pope.  But  these  schemes  were  dissipated  by 
the  finger  of  God."  For  the  Pope,  after  appointing  "  John 
the  venerable  bishop  of  Pavia  and  missus  of  the  most 
excellent  emperor  Charles/'3  to  rule  the  city  during  his 
absence,  fell  ill  on  his  journey  to  Worms,  and  died  at  a 
villa  on  the  Panaro — which  Stephen's  biographer  calls 
Viulzachara,  afterwards  S.  Cesario,  and  the  monk  of  Non- 
antula  '  Lambert's  thorn,'  at  any  rate  '  Spinum  Lamberti/ 
near  Nonantula.  The  monk  assigns  July  8  as  the  date 
of  the  Pope's  death ;  Duchesne,  the  middle  of  September. 
He  was  buried  in  the  monastic  Church  of  St.  Silvester  at 
Nonantula.  Under  the  biography  of  Hadrian  I.  it  has 
already  been  told  how  the  monks  afterwards  opened  the 

1  Jaffe,  3397,  34°i  (2623,  2624).  2  Ad  an.  885. 

3  Vit,  Step.  VI.,  in  L.  P, 


HADRIAN    III.  365 

Pope's  tomb  for  the  sake  of  his  rich  vestments,  and  how 
his  chasuble  was  still  to  be  seen  at  the  monastery,  when 
the  anonymous  monk  unwittingly  wrote  about  two 
Hadrians  instead  of  one. 

With  the  exception  of  St.  Martin  I.,  whose  remains  were  The  tombs 
finally  laid  to  rest  in  S.  Martino  ai  Monti,  Hadrian  III.  Popes, 
was  the  first  Pope  since  the  days  of  Gregory  I.  whose  body 
was  not  buried  in  St.  Peter's ;  and,  indeed,  he  was  one  of 
the  very  few  since  the  time  of  St.  Leo  I.  who  died  out  of 
Rome.  In  the  days  of  persecution  the  tombs  of  the  Popes 
were  in  the  Catacombs.  S.  Melchiades,  who  died  (+314) 
on  the  eve  of  the  Church's  freedom,  was  the  last  one  to 
be  interred  therein.1  At  first  they  were  buried  around  the 
body  of  St.  Peter  on  the  Vatican.  This  custom,  which 
ceased  with  S.  Zephyrinus  (-f-2 1 8),  was  resumed  after 
Constantine  had  given  peace  to  the  Church.  And  from  St. 
Leo  I.  (f46i)  to  the  destruction  of  the  old  basilica  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  sixteenth  century,  by  far  the  greater  number2 
of  the  Popes,  some  eighty-seven  in  all,  were  buried  in  its 
vestibule  between  the  Porta  Argentea  and  the  south-west 
corner,  occupied  by  the  secretarium  or  sacristy. 

During  this  period,  the  old  Petrine-basilica  period,  u  the 
pontifical  graves  were  mostly  ancient  sarcophagi  or  bathing 
basins  from  the  thermae  accompanied  by  an  inscription  in 
verse,  and,  as  the  Renaissance  was  approached,  by  canopies 
of  Gothic  or  Romanesque  style." 3  Whereas  in  the 
Catacomb  period  of  papal  interments,  the  simple  loculi 
of  the  Popes  were  closed  by  a  slab  of  marble  marked 
only  with  their  names,  in  what  we  may  call  the  third 
or   new-Petrine-basilica  period,  which  reaches  down  to  the 

1  "  Hie  sepultus  est  in  cymiterio  Calisti,  in  cripta/'     L.  P.,  in  vit 
Cf.  Duchesne,  ib.  i.  p.  169,  n.  5. 

2  After  John  X.  (1928),  the  Lateran  became  the  favourite  burial- 
place  of  the  Popes. 

3  Lanciani,  Pagan  and  Christian  Rome,  p.  214. 


nan 


366  HADRIAN    III. 

present  day,  the  place  in  which  they  are  now  buried 
(S.  Peter's)  has  been  "transformed  into  a  papal  mausoleum 
which  is  worthy  of  being  compared  in  refinement  of  art,  in 
splendour  of  decoration,  in  richness  of  material,  in  historical 
interest,  with  the  Pantheons  of  ancient  Rome." 1 
Fr°H°drd  Passing  over  what  Frodoard,  in  his  History  of  the  Church 
of  Rheims,  repeats  about  Fulk,  its  archbishop,  we  may 
quote  as  an  epitaph  of  Hadrian — as  no  real  epitaph  of  his 
is  forthcoming — what  that  author  sings  of  him  elsewhere. 
From  these  verses  we  learn  that  Hadrian  adopted,  or 
authorised  the  adoption  of,2  as  his  spiritual  son,  the  king 
of  France,  Carloman  (^December  12,  884),  and  was  a 
kind  father  to  his  fellow-bishops. 

Tertius  emissos  (  =  praedictos)  Adrianus  honore  secutus, 

Nostrumque  affectu  regem  genitoris  adoptat  (adoptet), 
Praesulibus  patrem  pandens  se  rite  benignum.3 

The  one  coin,  the  usual  silver  denarius,  that  has  come 
down  to  us  of  Hadrian,  has  his  name  and  that  of  St.  Peter 
on  the  obverse,  and  that  of  Carolus  Imp.  and  Roma  on  the 
reverse. 

1  lb.  On  this  subject  see  also  Barnes,  St.  Peter  in  Rome,  p.  126; 
Gregorovius,  The  Tombs  of  the  Popes,  Eng.  ed. ;  and  Balan's  review 
of  the  last-named  work  in  his  Le  Tombe  dei  Papi,  Modena,  1879  5 
Duchesne,  Melanges  oVarcheol.  et  cfht'st.,  1902,  p.  404  ff. 

2  Fulk  had  written  to  him  to  commend  Carloman  to  him — Hist. 
Eccles.  Rom.,  iv.  c.  I.  The  subjects  on  which  he  wrote  to  Hadrian 
were  the  same  as  those  on  which  he  had  previously  written  to  Marinus. 
Cf.  supr.,  p.  358. 

3  Frod.,  De  Christi  Triump.,  1.  xi'i.  c.  4,  ap.  P.  L.,  t.  135. 


STEPHEN    (V.)    VI 

A.D.  885-891. 


Sources. — There  has  been  preserved  a  considerable  fragment  of 
a  contemporary  life  of  this  Pope  in  the  Liber  Pontificalis.  It  is 
the  last  biography  in  what  may  be  called  the  first  part  of  the 
L.  P.  (V.  sup.,   p.  231). 

Of  Stephen's  letters,  etc.,  there  are  33  ap.  P.  Z.,  t.  129, 
p.  785  ff .  ;  1  #.,  p.  1021;  6  ap.  Lowenfeld,  Epp.  Pont.  P. 
ined. ;  and  a  few  elsewhere. 

The  Annals  as  before.  An  unknown  author,  perhaps  of  Verona, 
composed  (between  916-924)  an  historical  poem  on  the  struggle 
of  Berengarius  of  Friuli  for  sovereignty.  This  production, 
entitled  Panegyricus  Berengarii,  is  of  more  merit  as  a  tenth- 
century  poem  than  of  weight  as  an  historical  authority.  It  is  to 
be  found  M.  G.  SS.,  iv.,  or  Muratori,  R.  I.  S.,  ii. 


Emperors  of  the  East.  Emperors  of  the  West. 

Basil  the  Macedonian,  867-886.  Charles  III.  (the  Fat),  881-888. 

Leo  VI.,  the  Wise,  886-912.  After  the  deposition  of  Charles 

in  887,  various  nominal  or 
ephemeral  emperors  appear 
on  the  scene,  of  whom  the 
first,  Guy,  formerly  Duke  of 
Spoleto,  was  crowned,  Feb- 
ruary 21,  891. 
Guy,  or  Guido,  891-894. 

Stephen,  the  successor  of  Hadrian  III.,  who  was  a  Roman  Early  life 
of  the  aristocratic  quarter  of  the  Via  Lata,  proved  by  hisofStephen 

367 


368  STEPHEN   (V.)   VI. 

conduct,  as  did  his  father  Hadrian,1  that  his  character  was 
as  noble  as  his  birth.  His  education  was  superintended 
by  his  relative,  Zachary,  "the  most  holy  bishop  (of 
Anagni)  and  librarian2  of  the  Apostolic  See,"  and  the 
"simple-minded  Job"  of  John,  the  deacon — a  man  who 
has  often  been  to  the  fore,  though  not  always  in  honour, 
in  the  preceding  pages.3  Hadrian  II.,  perceiving  the 
youth's  piety  and  his  earnest  application  to  his  studies, 
ordained  him  sub-deacon,  and  installed  him  in  the  Lateran 
palace.  "  When  he  had  received  this  honour  he  led  a 
wonderful  life."  In  body  chaste,  in  character  kindly,  in 
face  cheerful,  prudent,  generous  and  talented,  he  showed 
himself  the  friend  of  the  poor  and  the  needy.  Honoured 
by  Hadrian,  he  was  even  more  honoured  by  Marinus,  who 
ordained  him  deacon  and  priest  "of  the  title  of  the 
Quatuor  Coronati"  near  the  Lateran,4  and  lived  in  the 
very  closest  intimacy  with  him. 
Ejection.  At  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  successor  of  Marinus, 
the  Romans  were  suffering  from  want  occasioned  by  a 
plague  of  locusts  and  by  the  excessive  dryness  of  the  season. 
Convinced  that  Stephen's  holiness  would  bring  them  relief 
from  their  troubles,  they  determined  to  make  him  Pope. 
Accordingly,   when    there    had    gathered    together   "the 

1  Duchesne  (L.  P.,  p.  196),  quoting  Federici,  Storia  dei  duchi  di 
Gaeta,  p.  150,  notes  that  Hadrian  was  still  alive  in  916.  His  name 
(Adrianus,  genitor  domni  Stephani  Papae)  appears  among  those  of  a 
number  of  Roman  nobles  who  signed  the  treaty  of  alliance  between 
John  X.  and  the  princes  of  Southern  Italy. 

2  It  is  not  unlikely  that  he  succeeded  Anastasius.  At  any  rate,  he 
held  the  office  on  March  29,  879.     Jane,  3230. 

3  But  see  Lapotre,  Le  '  sonper'  de  Jean  Diacre,  p.  335  fif.  A  letter  of 
Stephen  (ap.  Spicileg.  Cas.,  i.  381)  seems  to  prove  that  Zachary  was 
still  alive  when  his  relative  was  made  Pope ;  for  Stephen  gave  a 
commission  "nostro  fideli  episcopo  Zacchariae" — presumably  to 
Zachary  of  Anagni. 

4  Direct  from  the  L.  P.  Cf.  the  author  of  Invert.  i?i  Rom.^  ap. 
P.  Z.,  t.  129,  p.  832. 


STEPHEN  (Vj  vi.  369 

bishops  1  and  the  clergy,  the  senators  and  the  nobles,  the 
people,  and  a  crowd  of  both  sexes,  they  unanimously 
declared  that  they  wanted  Stephen  to  be  their  bishop." 
Proceeding  at  once,  along  with  John,  bishop  of  Pavia  and 
imperial  missus,  to  the  house  of  Stephen,  they  burst  open 
the  doors,  and  hurried  him  off  to  his  titular  Church.  It 
was  to  no  purpose  that  both  father  and  son  (for  they  were 
found  together)  protested  they  were  unworthy  of  the 
honour  which  the  people  wished  to  bestow  upon  them. 
From  the  Quatuor  Coronati  they  escorted  Stephen  to  the 
Lateran  palace  to  receive  the  homage  of  the  higher  clergy 
and  nobility.  The  heavy  rain  which  fell  whilst  the  Pope- 
elect  was  being  conducted  to  the  Lateran  seemed  to  the 
people  to  be  the  harbinger  of  happier  times.  Without 
waiting  for  the  imperial  consent,  Stephen  was  consecrated 
on  the  following  Sunday  by  Formosus.2  Powerful  where 
no  resistance  was  possible,  Charles  the  Fat  determined  to 
depose  the  new  Pope,  as  his  consecration  had  taken  place 
without  his  consent.  He  accordingly  despatched  his  arch- 
chancellor,  Liutward,  bishop  of  Vercelli,  and  certain  bishops 
of  the  Roman  See  to  carry  out  his  will.  Their  mission, 
however,  they  were  unable  to  accomplish.  Stephen  was 
too  firmly  seated  in  the  affections  of  the  people.  And  he 
pacified  the  emperor  by  showing  him,  from  the  election 
decree  which  he  forwarded  to  him,  with  what  unanimity 
he  had  been  elected  and  consecrated.  The  decree  had  been 
signed  by  more  than  thirty  bishops,  all  the  cardinal  priests 
and  deacons,  the  minor  clergy,  and  the  principal  laity.3 

1  L.  P.  "  Facto  conventu  epporum  :  et  totius  clericalis  ordinis, 
necnon  nobilium  senatuum  et  virorum  illustrium  cetu,  una  cum  omni 
populo  et  utriusque  sexus  vulgi  multitudine." 

2  Invect.  in  Rom.,  pp.  826,  832  —  i.e.  as  bishop  of  Porto  he  took  part 
in  the  consecration. 

3  A?i?i.  Fuld.,  ad  an.  885.  This  Pope,  who  is  called  Stephen  VI. 
in  this  work,  is  also  called  the  sixth  and  not  the  fifth  by  Pope  John  IX. 
Cj.  JarTe,  3522  (2706). 

VOL.    III.  24 


370  STEPHEN  (V.)  VI. 

The  Pope        With  wondrous  works,  says  his  biographer,  did  the  Pope 

finds  the 

treasury  of  at  once  begin  to  adorn  his  ministry.  But  it  was  no  easier 
Church  in  the  ninth  than  in  the  twentieth  century  to  perform 
wondrous  external  works,  at  any  rate,  without  money  ;  and 
the  Book  of  the  Popes  draws  a  melancholy  picture  of  the 
condition  of  the  pontifical  treasury  as  Stephen  found 
it  on  his  accession.  With  his  bishops,  the  imperial 
legate,  and  "the  honourable  senate,"  the  Pope  wandered 
through  the  palace  examining  all  the  places  where  the 
papal  valuables  ought  to  have  been.  But  the  treasures 
of  the  Pope,  both  sacred  and  profane,  were  conspicuous 
by  their  absence.  Not  only  was  most  of  the  pontifical 
plate  missing,  but  even  the  sacred  vessels  and  ornaments 
of  the  altar,  the  gifts  of  the  great,  such  as  the  fine 
golden  cross  presented  by  Belisarius,1  had  disappeared. 
The  papal  cellars  and  granaries  were  also  empty.  Stephen 
took  such  a  large  company  with  him  in  his  round  of 
inspection  that  all  might  know  in  what  state  he  had  found 
everything. 

It  is  usual  to  explain  this  disastrous  condition  of 
affairs  with  regard  to  the  loss  of  the  papal  property,  by 
pointing  out  that  it  was  becoming  quite  customary  to 
sack  pontifical  and  episcopal  residences  on  the  death  of 
their  owners.  Hence  was  issued  the  eleventh  canon  of 
the  council  held  at  Rome  by  John  IX.  in  898.  This  canon 
forbade  the  continuance  of  this  "  most  detestable  practice  " 
under  pain  of  civil  and  religious  penalties.2     It  must  not, 

1  Some  authors,  e.g.  Gregorovius,  deceived  by  a  false  reading  of  the 
L.  P.,  represent  this  cross  as  having  escaped  the  depradators.  (Cf. 
Duchesne,  L.  P.  ii. — text,  p.  192,  and  notes,  p.  197.) 

2  It  had  already  been  frequently  condemned  by  the  civil  authorities. 
Cf.  a  capitulary,  c.  1 1,  of  Lothaire  :  "  De  depraedationibus  quoque, 
quae  moderno  tetnpore  defunctis  episcopis  a  diversis  hominibus  factae 
sunt  in  rebus  ecclesiasticis,  ut,  qui  eas  fecerunt,  legaliter  emendent  cum 
emunitate  nostra,"  i.e.  600  solidis.  This  was  published  by  Lothaire  in 
Italy  in  832 — ap.  Bor.,  ii.  64. 


STEPHEN  (V.)  VI.  371 

however,  be  forgotten  that  the  nomenclator  Gregory  had 
carried  off  "  almost  all  the  treasures  of  the  Roman  Church," 
and  that  Pope  John  VIII.  wrote  x  to  complain  that  he  could 
not  recover  them.  No  doubt,  to  explain  the  complete 
want  of  everything  experienced  by  Stephen,  both  causes 
must  be  allowed  for.  Feeling  more  than  ever  in  need  of 
money  on  account  of  the  famine,  Stephen  turned 2  to  his 
father,  and  succoured  the  needy  with  the  wealth  of  his 
family.  Stephen  VI.  was  not  the  first  Pope  who  used  his 
ancestral  wealth  in  the  same  way. 

The  Liber  Pontificalis  goes  on  to  inform  us  of  the  care  Efforts  of 

the  Pope 

taken  by  the  Pope  to  have  round  his  person  men  dis-  to  increase 
tinguished  for  learning  and  piety  ;  of  his  personal  care  of 
orphans  ;  of  his  entertaining  the  nobility  with  good  cheer 
for  soul  and  body  at  the  same  time ;  of  his  daily  Mass  and 
perpetual  prayer,  which  he  never  interrupted  save  for  the 
needs  of  his  people  ;  and  of  his  having  spiritual  books  read 
to  him  during  his  meals.  To  check  the  irreverence  of  the 
people  in  church  by  their  unbridled  talking,  and  to  put  a 
stop  to  the  magical  practices  which  he  had  heard  were  rife 
among  them,  Stephen  often  himself  preached  to  the  people 
during  Mass.  His  biographer  has  preserved  one  of  these 
sermons  for  us.     It  runs  as  follows  : — 3 

"  We  have  to  admonish   you,  dearest  children,  that  in  a  ninth 

....  century 

assembling   in   the   most   sacred   temple   of  God,  you  be  papal 
mindful   to    diligently  attend    to   that   which    brings   you 
here.      For  if  with   lively   faith  you    believe  it  to  be  the 
temple  of  God,  that  belief  ought  to  be  manifest  by  your 
deportment  in  it.     Though  the  Lord  is  present  everywhere, 

1  Ep.  42.     Cf.  supra,  p.  284. 

2  L.  P.,  n.  7.  "Conversus  ad  patrem,  facilitates  quas  incliti  sui 
parentes  possiderant  abstulit,  et  larga  dextra  pro  posse  pauperibus 
erogavit,"  etc. 

3  L.  P.,  n.  8.  The  translation  here  used  is  taken  from  Miley's  Hist, 
of  the  Papal  States,  ii.  p.  218  ff.,  after  comparison  with  the  original. 


372  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

He  is  in  an  especial  manner  present  in  His  temple; 
there,  it  is  His  will  that  we  resort  to  Him  in  prayer,  and 
there  His  graces  and  mercies  are  poured  out,  not  on  the 
ungrateful,  but  on  all  who  approach  with  piety,  and  in 
proportion  to  the  fervour  of  each — as  He  has  said  :  '  Many 
sins  are  forgiven  her  because  she  has  loved  much.'  For 
the  temple  of  God  is  the  place  of  prayer,  as  He  says  in 
another  place :  '  My  house  is  a  house  of  prayer  to  all 
nations  ' ;  and  the  Psalmist :  '  Sanctity,  O  Lord,  becometh 
Thy  house.'  Now,  if  it  be  the  house  of  prayer,  it  ought  to 
be  used  as  such — to  pray,  to  chant  the  divine  praises,  to 
confess  our  sins,  to  cancel,  by  bitter  tears  and  groans  of 
contrition,  our  offences,  and  with  firm  hope  to  implore  the 
forgiveness  of  our  transgressions;  because  in  the  temple  is 
found,  in  a  special  manner,  the  mercy-seat ;  there  are, 
assisting  the  orders  of  angelic  spirits,  the  choirs  of  the 
saints  who  present  before  the  Lord  of  Hosts  the  vows  of 
the  people  and  the  suffrages  of  the  priest,  when,  at  the 
altar,  he  supplicates  for  the  faithful. 

"  With  what  face,  therefore,  can  he  dare  to  present  himself 
in  the  most  holy  temple  of  the  Almighty,  who  only  comes 
to  profane  it  by  his  garrulity  and  absurd  fables?  For  if 
on  the  judgment  day,  an  account  shall  be  rendered  for 
every  idle  word ;  how  much  more  rigorously  will  not  that 
judgment  be  exacted  for  such  discourses,  contumaciously 
carried  on  in  the  sight  of  so  many  saints,  and  in  a  place 
specially  consecrated  to  God  ?  With  what  hope  of  pardon 
for  past  transgressions  can  they  approach  the  Almighty 
who  come  before  Him  only  to  add  to  their  account  by 
perpetrating  new  ones?  Tremble  at  the  chastisement  of 
Him  who  with  a  scourge  drove  out  those  who  bought  and 
sold  from  the  temple  ;  for  less  guilty  was  their  conduct,  who 
there  carried  on  a  traffic  of  things  in  themselves  useful, 
than    is    that    of  Christians    who   gratuitously   insult    the 


Stephen  (v.)  vi.  373 

divine  presence  by  their  absurd  nonsensical  garrulity  and 
scandalous  bandying  of  stories! 

"  When  ye  assemble  in  the  place  of  prayer,  remain  in  a 
recollected  silence,  the  heart  intent  on  entreaty  to  God, 
that  the  suffrages  offered  up  for  you  by  the  priest,  may  be 
accepted  by  Him,  and  that  his  prayers  may  be  heard — 
having  ever  in  mind  the  admonition  of  our  Lord:  'When 
you  come  to  prayer,  forgive  those  who  may  have  offended 
you,  that  your  heavenly  Father  may  forgive  you  your 
offences.'  Meditating  such  things  as  these  through  the 
inspirations  of  Divine  grace,  and  being  imbued  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists,  having  first  of  all 
obtained  mercy  from  the  Almighty  with  the  fruit  of  good 
works,like  lamps  illuminating  the  sanctuary  round  about,you 
will  merit  to  be  hereafter  presented  to  Christ  in  the  realms  of 
joy,  and  to  be  there  crowned  in  the  company  of  the  saints. 

"  For  the  rest,  most  dearly  beloved,  we  wish  you  to  be 
aware  that  the  Lord  in  instituting  the  law  for  His  people, 
as  Moses  testifies,  enjoined  this  ordinance,  saying :  '  The 
sorcerer  you  shall  not  suffer  to  live'  (Exod.  xxii.). 
Now  it  grieves  me  to  say  that  in  this  city  there  are  some 
who  not  only  do  not  reprehend,  but  who  on  the  contrary 
encourage  and  patronize  the  abandoned  persons,  who 
dread  not  by  abominable  incantations  to  consult  devils, 
regardless  of  the  doctrine  thundered  in  their  ear  by  the 
apostle.  What  participation  of  light  with  darkness,  or 
what  agreement  of  Christ  with  Belial  ?  For  inasmuch  as 
contemning  Christ,  they  turn  after  the  custom  of  the 
Gentiles  to  take  counsel  of  demons,  they  by  all  means 
avow  themselves  not  to  be  Christians.  And  how  execrable, 
how  impious  it  is,  turning  one's  back  on  Christ  to  offer 
homage  to  demons,  we  leave  you,  beloved  children,  to 
ponder  in  your  own  breasts,  that  the  thought  of  it  may 
transfix  you  with  horror. 


374  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

"  Wherefore,  whosoever  from  henceforth  shall  be  found  to 

pollute  himself  with  this  pestilence,   by  judgment   of  the 

Holy  Ghost,  we  pronounce  an  outcast  from  the  vivifying 

Body  and  Blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and  if  any  one 

shall  be  found  to  set  these  salutary  admonitions  at  defiance 

— treating  them  with  contempt,  and  incorrigibly  persisting 

in  his  pestiferous  enormity — let  him  be  anathema  for  ever, 

from  God  the  Father,  and  from  His  Son  Jesus  Christ." 

Stephen's        Not  to  disconnect  our  knowledge  of  this  Pope  derived  from 

^?>rks  and  the  man  who  knew  him,  it  will  be  best  to  follow  to  the  end 

reputation.  w^at   ^e   Book   of  the  Popes  tells  us  of  him.     Whatever 

money   he   could    procure   he   expended  on  the  repair  or 

adornment  of  churches,  on  ransoming  such  as  had  fallen 

into  the   hands   of  the    Saracens,  and   on    whatever   was 

required  for  the  public   good.     The   fame   of  his   virtues 

spread   everywhere,   and    crowds   flocked   to   him    for  his 

blessing  from  east  and  west.1 

His  zeal  Of  all  that  Stephen  accomplished  for  the  external  glory 

beauty  of    of  the  House  of  God,  his  biography  only  mentions  a  portion. 

House.       And  here  only  a  selection  of  that  portion  will  be  made.     In 

the  case  of  the  basilica  of  St.  Peter,2  Stephen  not   only 

made   offerings   to   it   of  various   ornaments,   and    issued 

decisions  as  to  the  services  carried  on  within  its  walls,  but 

confirmed  a  most  important  regulation  regarding   its   use 

which  had  been  made  by  Pope  Marinus.     It  appears  that 

a  custom  had  grown  up  by  which  the  authorities  of  the 

basilica  exacted  an  annual  charge  from  those  "  who  there 

daily  offered  up  the  sacrifice  to  the  Lord."     This  custom, 

condemned  by  Marinus,  had  again  come  into  force  under 

his  successor.     It  was  put  a  stop  to  by  Stephen. 

1  L.  P.,  n.  9.  "  Cum  fama  sui  nominis  atque  actuum  tarn  per 
orien tales,  quam  occidentales  partes  diffamaretur,  pene  omnes  ad  eum 
occurrebant  ut  ejus  benedictionem  perciperent." 

2  L.  P.,  ib.  "  Ubi  sacro  ipse  corpore  requiescit,"  the  biographer  is 
careful  to  add. 


STEPHEN  (v.)  vi.  375 

Not  only  was  his  own  church  of  the  '  Quatuor  Coronati ' 
endowed  by  Stephen  with  gifts  of  ecclesiastical  ornaments 
of  various  kinds,  and  copies  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  but 
similar  presents,  especially  of  copies  of  parts  of  the  Bible 
and  of  other  good  books,  were  made  by  him  to  churches 
in  Ravenna,  Imola,  and  other  places — "for  his  one  aim 
was  to  do  what  might  please  God."1 

He  also  turned  his  attention  to  the   plague   of  locusts  The  locust 

plague. 

which  had  begun  to  devastate  the  papal  territory  in  the 
days  of  Hadrian  III.,  and  was  still  continuing  its  destructive 
ravages.  He  tried  both  natural  and  supernatural  remedies. 
He  offered  a  reward  of  five  or  six  denarii  for  every  pint  of 
locusts  which  was  brought  in  to  him.  Though  this  resulted 
in  considerable  locust-catching  activity,  it  did  not  affect 
the  plague.  When  human  means  had  been  tried  and 
found  wanting,  the  Pope  turned  to  God  by  prayer.  We 
are  told  that  he  betook  himself  to  the  oratory2  of  Blessed 
Gregory  (where  was  preserved  the  saint's  couch),  hard  by 
St.  Peter's,  and  that  after  he  had  spent  no  little  time  in 
tearful  prayer,  he  blessed  some  holy  water,  gave  it  to  the 
4  mansionarii,'  and  told  them  to  give  it  to  the  people  and  to 
bid  them  sprinkle  their  fields  with  it,  and  implore  the 
mercy  of  God.  The  united  faith  of  pastor  and  people  was 
rewarded.  The  locust  plague  ceased.  With  even  this 
story  left  a  little  incomplete,  the  first  part  of  the  Liber 
Pontificalis   comes   to   an   abrupt   close.      We    must  look 

1  lb.,  n.  1 8. 

2  This  oratory,  situated  at  the  right  of  the  portico  of  the  basilica, 
was  already  in  existence  in  the  eighth  century,  as  is  clear  from  the 
mention  of  it  in  what  is  known  as  the  work  of  the  Anonymous  of 
Einsiedcln.  This  was  the  briefest  of  guides  to  the  city  of  Rome,  drawn 
up  by  some  northern  pilgrim  (perhaps  from  the  monastery  of  Reichenau) 
at  the  end  of  the  eighth  or  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  and 
found  by  Mabillon  in  the  monastery  of  Einsiedeln.  Cf.  Gregorovius, 
Rome,  iii.  p.  517.  Most  of  it  will  be  found  in  Miley,  Papal  States, 
i.  p.  396  f- 


376  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

elsewhere  for  further  information  about  the  work  of 
Stephen  VI. 
Deposition  Stephen  VI.  had  the  misfortune  of  witnessing  political 
the  Fat,  events  in  the  West  which  at  least  heralded  that  unhappy 
period  for  Italy  and  the  Popes  which  we  purpose  to 
examine  in  another  volume.  In  the  forefront  of  these 
events  was  the  deposition  of  Charles  the  Fat.  Physical 
and  intellectual  decay  brought  it  about  that  the  Carolingian 
race  ended  as  the  Merovingian  had  already  done,  viz.  in 
the  deposition  of  its  last  representative  who  held  any 
imperial  sway.1  With  the  widening  of  the  territories  over 
which  Charles  ought  to  have  held  sway,  came  a  narrowing 
of  his  intellect.  He  grew  daily  stouter  and  more  incom- 
petent. Finding  him  in  every  way  useless,  he  was  deposed 
in  the  diet  of  Tribur  (November  887)  by  his  nobles,  acting 
under  the  leadership  of  Arnulf,  Duke  of  Carinthia,  a  natural 
son  of  Carloman,  the  late  king  of  Bavaria.  Charles  did 
not  survive  his  disgrace  long.  He  died  January  13,  888. 
Powerful  nobles  soon  seized  upon  the  chief  portions  of 
his  empire.  Arnulf,  who  had  distinguished  himself  in 
campaigns  against  the  advancing  Slavs,  was  chosen  king 
of  Germany ;  and  the  west  Franks,  setting  aside  the  child, 
Charles  the  Simple,  the  posthumous  or  illegitimate2  off- 
spring of  Louis  the  Stammerer,  elected  as  their  king  the 
valiant  Eudes,  or  Odo,  Count  of  Paris,  who  had  inflicted 
many  a  severe  blow  upon  the  Normans,  and  who  thus 
became  the  first  "  Capetian "  sovereign.  It  has  been 
already  noted  that  Boso  had  made  himself  king  of  Pro- 
vence or  Cisjurane  Burgundy.  Now  (887),  Rodolf,  "  chief 
of  the  rival  family  of  the  Welfs,  equally  allied  to  that  of 

1  For  yet  a  hundred  years  scions  of  the  race  retained  the  name  but 
very  little  of  the  power  of  king  in  Northern  France. 

2  It  is  not   quite   certain  whether  the  mother  of  Charles  was  the 
lawful  wife  of  Louis  or  not. 


STEPHEN    (V.)   VI.  2)77 

the  Carolingians,  caused  himself  to  be  recognised  as  king  of 
Transjurane  Burgundy — regnum  Jurense — (Franche-Comte 
and  Western  Switzerland),  with  St.  Maurice  for  his  capital."1 

In  Italy  strife  soon  became  vigorous  between  Berenger  Guido  bc- 
of  Friuli  and  Guy  or  Guido  I'll,  of  Spoleto  for  the  crown  of  Italy, 
of  that  country  and  for  the  imperial  sceptre.  From  the 
time  that  the  Frankish  ancestors  of  Guido  had,  in  the 
middle  of  the  ninth  century,  been  named  dukes  of  Spoleto, 
they  had  gone  on  steadily  strengthening  their  position. 
They  made  their  duchy  hereditary,  and  by  marriage  and 
diplomacy  so  extended  their  influence  that  Guido,  the 
third  of  that  name,  felt  that  the  time  had  now  come  to 
make  himself  king  of  Italy,  if  not  emperor.  If  Berenger 
had  the  advantage  of  being  allied  with  the  Carolingian 
family,  and  of  having  had  at  least  the  name  of  king  of 
Italy2  from  the  very  beginning  of  888,  Guido  was  near 
Rome,  and,  perhaps  through  the  exertions  of  his  relative 
Fulk,  Hincmar's  successor  in  the  archbishopric  of  Rheims, 
had  already  (886)  been  adopted  by  the  Pope  "  as  his  only 
son."3  The  north  of  Italy  which  so  far,  under  the 
Carolingian  rule,  had  enjoyed  comparative  peace,  became 
now,  like  the  south,  the  abode  of  war.  After  a  consider- 
able amount  of  fighting,4  Guido,  who  had  previously  failed 
to  seize  the  crown  of  the  western  Franks,  gained  the  upper 
hand,  and  had  himself  proclaimed  king  of  Italy  in  a  diet 
held  at  Pavia  at  the  end  of  the  year  888,  or  in  the 
beginning  of  889. 

1  Les  Origines,  395-1095,  by  Lavisse  and  Rambaud,  i.  p.  424. 

2  This  is  proved  from  his  extant  diplomas.  Cf.  Muratori,  AnnaL, 
ad  an.  888. 

3  Frod.,  Hist.  Rem.,  iv.  c.  I,  pp.  412-5,  ed.  Lejeune,  Reims,  1854  ;  or 
ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xiii.  Cf.  appendix  for  the  Dukes  of  Spoleto  of  this 
period. 

4  Ajui.  Fuld.,  888  ;  Paneg.  Bereng.  "  Post  bella  horribilia  cladesque 
nefandissimas,"  says  the  synod  of  Pavia,  ap.  Muratori,  R.  I.  S.,  ii. 
p.  141 6  ;  or  M.  G.  LL.,  ed.  Boretius,  ii.  104. 


378  STEPHEN    (V.)   VI. 

Diet  of  Of  the  thirteen  short  decrees  of  the  diet,  the  first  two 

Pavia,  889. 

treat  of  "our  mother  the  holy  Roman  Church."  They 
lay  down  that  her  honour  must  be  preserved.  "  For  it  is 
preposterous  that  the  head  of  the  whole  Church,  and  the 
refuge  of  the  weak  should  be  harassed,  especially  as  on  her 
healthy  condition  depends  the  well-being  of  all  of  us? x  After 
passing  other  decrees  regarding  the  freedom  of  the  Church, 
the  assembly  elected  Guido  (Wido  or  Guy)  to  be  "  their 
king,  lord  (senior),  and  defender"  as  he  had  under- 
taken to  exalt  the  holy  Roman  Church,  to  observe  the 
laws  of  the  Church,  to  frame  just  laws  for  his  subjects,  to 
extirpate  rapine,  and  to  promote  peace  (c.  12). 
Guido  Not  content   with   being   thus   proclaimed   king,  Guido 

emperor, 

891.  made  use  of  his  influence  with  the  Pope  to  procure  from 

him  the  coveted  title  of  emperor.  Crowned 2  by  Stephen 
(February  21,  891),  he  proclaimed  "the  renovation  of  the 
empire  of  the  Franks,"  though  he  was  anything  but  master 
even  of  Italy.  For  with  the  good-will  of  Arnulf  of 
Germany,  Berenger  still  maintained  himself  in  his  duchy ; 
and  in  south  Italy,  while  the  power  of  the  Saracens  was 
still  unextinguished,  that  of  the  Greeks  was  making  steady 
headway.  The  death  of  Pope  Stephen,  some  six  months 
after  his  coronatian  of  Guido,  meant  the  loss  of  another 
hope  for  the  peace  of  Italy.  The  understanding  which 
existed  between  Stephen  and  Guido  would  doubtless  have 
worked  well  in  the  interest  of  the  prosperity  of  Italy. 
Nor  can  what  is  stated  in  the  Ratisbon  3  continuation  of  the 

1  The  closing  words  of  this  decree,  truer  to-day  for  the  well-being 
of  Europe  in  the  twentieth  century  than  for  that  of  Italy  in  the  ninth, 
are  worthy  of  being  committed  to  memory :  "  Prcesertim  cum 
sanitas  ipsius  (S.  R.  E.)  nostrorimi  omnium  est  salubi'itas?  Murat., 
id.,  c.  1. 

2  Annal.  Vedast.,  ad  an.  888  ;  Muratori,  AnnaL,  viii.  p.  163  f. 

3  That  is  the  fifth  part  of  the  Awza/s,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  p.  407,  ad 
an.  890.     The  letter  of  Stephen  to  Swatopluk  (Ep.  13,  p.  801  f.)  re- 


STEPHEN  (v.)  vr.  379 

Annals  of  Fulda,  under  the  year  890,  be  urged  against  the 
fact  of  this  understanding.  We  there  read  that,  in  the 
Lent  of  890,  Arnulf  of  Germany  went  to  Pannonia,  and, 
at  a  place  called  Omuntesberch,  held  a  diet  with  the 
Moravian  duke,  Swatopluk  (or  Zwentibold).  There, 
influenced  by  the  Pope,  Swatopluk  begged  Arnulf  to  go  to 
Rome,  "  the  abode  of  St.  Peter,"  and  free  "  the  Italian 
kingdom  "  from  bad  Christians  and  pagans.  But  pressing 
business  in  his  own  kingdom  caused  the  king,  though 
unwillingly,  to  decline  the  invitation.  It  is  certain,  however, 
as  will  be  shown  immediately,  that  what  the  Annals  proceed 
to  relate  about  Hermengard  under  this  same  year  (890) 
really  belongs  to  the  preceding  year ;  and  as  the  Annals 
are  here  obviously  chronologically  inaccurate,  it  is  generally 
believed  that  the  invitation  to  Arnulf  here  spoken  of  refers 
to  that  sent  him  later  on  by  Pope  Formosus,  who  was  on 
as  good  terms  with  him  as  Stephen  had  been  with  Guido. 
Indeed,  in  the  manuscript  used  by  Marquard  Freher  in  the 
preparation  of  his  edition  of  these  Annals  (1600),  the  name 
of  the  Pope  was  actually  given  as  Formosus,  at  least  in  a 
gloss.1  There  seems,  then,  no  reason  to  doubt  of  the 
harmony  existing  between  Guido  and  Stephen. 

It  has  been  thought  that  this  Swatopluk,  of  whose  good-  Swatopluk 

receives  rL  * 

will  towards  Pope  Stephen  we  have  just  seen  an  instance,  crown  from 
received  a  crown  from  him.  In  Mansi's  edition  of  the  l  e  ope* 
Councils  there  is  a  record  of  a  council  held  "  in  the  plain 
of  Dalmatia"  under  a  King  Swatopluk.  At  the  request 
of  the  king's  envoys,  a  Pope  Stephen  sent  to  Dalmatia 
Honorius,  "  cardinal-vicar  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church/'  to 
whom   he  gave  full    powers   to   act    in    his    name.2      The 

garding  the  condemnation  of  the  Slavonic  liturgy  has  been  cited 
above,  p.  244. 

1  Cf.  Pcrlz,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  i.  p.  407,  note  e,  and  p.  341. 

2  "Sicut  moris  est,  quando  per  orbis  partes  legati  a  sede  Romana 
mittuntur,"  say  the  Acts  of  the  synod,  ap.  vol.  xii.  723-4. 


38O  STEPHEN    (V.)  VI. 

principal  business  of  the  synod,  the  proceedings  of  which 
were  conducted  both  in  Slavonic  and  Latin,  was  the  corona- 
tion of  the  king  by  the  cardinal  legate.  This  transaction 
has  been  referred  to  Stephen  VI.,  in  the  first  place,  because 
of  the  good-will  which  existed  between  him  and  "  King 
Zventopolco  (Swatopluk)."  And  attention  has  already 
been  called  to  the  fact  that  Slav  princes  set  the  example  of 
entrusting  the  patronage  of  their  kingdoms  to  the  sovereign 
pontiffs.  Swatopluk  was  one  of  those  princes.  In  the 
letter1  (already  quoted)  of  Stephen  VI.  to  that  prince 
condemning  the  use  of  the  Slavonic  tongue  in  the  sacred 
liturgy,  he  praises  the  king  because  he  chose  the  vicar  of 
Blessed  Peter  "  as  his  chief  patron  before  all  the  princes  of 
the  world,  and  commended  himself  to  the  saint's  guardian- 
ship (tuicioni)."  In  turn,  Stephen  promised  ever  to  be  his 
protector.  Finally,  in  confirmation  of  all  this,  there  is 
adduced  the  authority  of  Dandolo.  Though  a  late,  he  is 
not  an  unreliable  authority.  He  says 2:  "  By  the  preaching 
of  Blessed  Cyril,  Svethopolis,  king  of  Dalmatia,  with  all  his 
people,  embraced  the  Catholic  faith.  And  in  the  presence 
of  the  bishops  of  the  true  faith  and  of  the  apocrisiarii  of 
the  emperor  Michael,  on  whom  he  acknowledged  that  his 
kingdom  depended,  he  was  crowned  on  the  plain  of 
Dalmatia  by  Honorius,  cardinal-legate  of  the  Apostolic  See." 
There  can  be  little  doubt,  however,  that  this  papal 
coronation  of  a  king  of  Dalmatia  must  be  referred  to  a 
later  date.3     About  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  the 

1  Ap.  P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  801.     Cf  supra,  p.  244. 

2  Chron.,  1.  viii.  c.  5,  ap.  R.  I.  S.9  xii.  p.  182.  As  the  Emperor 
Michael  died  867,  it  is  needless  to  point  out  that  his  legates  could  not 
have  been  present  at  the  synod.  But  cf.  infra  under  the  life  of  Pope 
Stephen  X. 

3  For  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  for  believing  that  Swatopluk,  King 
or  Duke  of  the  Moravians,  had  any  authority  over  Dalmatia  ;  and  the 
name  of  Swatopluk  does  not  appear  among  those  of  the  princes  of 
Dalmatia. 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI.  381 

Serb,  Stephen  Bogislav  (Boistlav),1  threw  off  the  Byzantine 
yoke.  His  son,  Michael,2  became  king  of  the  Servians. 
This  successful  movement  not  unnaturally  influenced  the 
Slavs  of  the  Adriatic.  They  also  sought  independence; 
and,  to  strengthen  their  position,  turned  to  the  Pope.  It  is 
to  this  period  and  to  these  political  events  that  the  council 
"  in  the  plain  of  Dalmatia  "  must  be  referred.  Knowledge 
of  it  has  come  down  to  us  through  the  Chronicle  of  the 
Presbyter  of  Dioclea  (Dukla),  who  wrote  in  the  second  half 
of  the  twelfth  century,  and  is  believed  to  be  the  earliest  of 
the  Croato-Dalmatian  writers.  Unfortunately  his  work  is 
based  on  little  more  than  popular  tradition,  and  is  full  of 
anachronisms.3  Still  with  regard  to  the  incident  with 
which  we  are  dealing,  it  is  more  than  curious  that  a  Pope 
Stephen  and  an  emperor  Michael  were  contemporary. 
Stephen  (IX.)  X.  became  Pope  on  August  3,  1057  ;  and 
Michael  VI.,  Stratiotikos,  only  ceased  to  be  emperor  on 
August  31,  1057.  It  is  certain,  moreover,  that  Suinimirus 
(Zvonimir),  King  of  Dalmatia,  received  a  crown  from  Pope 
Gregory  VII.  not  twenty  years  after.4  If,  then,  in  the 
present  case,  the  Presbyter  of  Dioclea  has  been  guilty  of 
any  mistakes,  and  that,  it  would  seem,  remains  to  be 
proved,  he  has  assigned  to  Stephen  IX.,  to  Honorius  and 
to  Swatopluk,  actions  which  he  should  have   ascribed    to 

1  He  is  thought  to  be  the  same  man  as  Dobroslav.  Cf.  Ranke,  The 
History  of  Servia,  p.  5,  Eng.  ed.,  London,  1853. 

2  There  is  extant  a  letter  of  Gregory  VII.  to  this  king.  Ep.  v.  12. 
Cf.  Fabre,  Le  liber  Censiuun,  p.  140  ff. ;  Pypine  and  Spasovic,  Hist, 
des  litt.  Slaves,  197  ;  Finlay,  The  Byzantine  Empire,  512. 

3  The  chronicle  has  only  survived  in  the  Latin  translation  of  Marko 
Maruli  (t  c.  1524).  Cf.  Pypine,  I.e.,  246;  Morfill,  Slavonic  Literature, 
pp.  146,  22. 

4  Cf.  Ep.  Greg.,  vii.  4,  condemning  a  noble  for  opposing  "  eum,  quern 
in  Dalmatia  regem  auctoritas  apostolica  constituit."  See  his  oath  taken 
before  the  legates  of  the  Pope  "  in  sinodo  habita  in  Dalmatia,"  ap. 
Fabre,  /.  c,  356. 


3^2 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 


Efforts  of 
Hermen- 
gard  in 
behalf  of 
her  son, 
Louis  the 
Blind. 


Gregory  VII.,  to  Gebizo,  and  to  Zvonimir.  All  that  re- 
lates, however,  to  the  early  history  of  Slavonic  Dalmatia  is 
wrapped  in  obscurity  ;  and,  in  English  works,  at  any  rate, 
it  is  very  difficult  to  obtain  any  information  on  the  subject 
at  all.1 

Boso,  whose  usurpation  of  the  kingdom  of  Provence 
(or  Aries  or  Burgundy)2  was  so  strongly  condemned  by 
John  VIII.,  died  January  n,  887,  leaving  his  son  Louis  a 
minor.  But  the  reins  of  government  were  held  firmly  for 
him  by  his  mother,  Hermengard.  She  exerted  herself  to 
obtain  from  Pope  Stephen  what  Boso  had  failed  to  obtain 
from  John  VIII.,  viz.  that  the  new  kingdom  of  Provence 
should  be  recognised  by  the  Pope.  A  similar  request  was 
preferred  by  her  to  Arnulf  of  Germany,  who  seems  to  have 
claimed  the  imperial  rights  of  Charles  the  Fat.  At  any 
rate,  Eudes,  Berenger,  and  Hermengard  all  turned  to  him 
for  confirmation  of  their  claims.  It  was  to  make  good 
her  petition  that  Hermengard  paid  a  visit  to  Arnulf  at 
Forcheim  after  Easter,  in  the  May  of  890,  according  to  the 
above-mentioned  continuation  of  the  Annals  of  Fulda  ;  but 
really  in  889,  as  appears  from  a  diploma  of  Arnulf,  cited  by 
Muratori.3  The  energetic  widow  was  successful  in  both 
her  appeals  ;  and  at  the  council  or  diet  of  Valence  (August 
890)  Louis  was  proclaimed  king  by  the  bishops  and  nobles 
of  the  new  kingdom.  The  acts  of  the  council 4  relate  that, 
on  the  personal  representations  of  Bernoinus,  archbishop  of 
Vienne,  Pope  Stephen,  "  on  whom  rests  the  care  of  all  the 
churches,"  both  by  word  and  writing  urged  the  bishops  of 

1  Cj.  Duchesne,  Le  provincial  Romain  an  XII*  sikle,  p.  112  ff.,  ap. 
Melanges  tfarcheol.,  etc.,  1904. 

2  "  Including  Provence,  Dauphine,  the  S.  part  of  Savoy,  and  the 
country  between  the  Saone  and  the  Jura."  Bryce,  Holy  Roman 
Empire,  p.  429. 

3  AnnaL,  ad  an.  889-90. 

4  Ap.  Labbe,  ix.  424-5  ;  or  Capitular.,  ed   Bor.,  ii.  376. 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI.  383 

"  Cisalpine  Gaul "  to  elect  Louis  king.  This  he  did,  because 
he  had  been  moved  "  even  to  tears  "  by  the  story  which  the 
archbishop  had  to  tell  of  the  miseries  of  the  country  after 
the  death  of  Boso.  It  had  been  harassed  "  not  only  by  its 
own  people,  whom  no  power  could  restrain,  but  by  the 
pagans.  On  the  one  side  had  pressed  the  devastating 
Northmen,  and  on  the  other  the  Saracens  had  laid  waste 
Provence  and  reduced  the  country  to  a  desert."  Moved  by 
the  letters  of  the  Pope,  and  asserting  that  the  emperor 
Charles  (The  Fat)  had  already  granted  him  the  kingly 
dignity,  and  that  Arnulf,  "his  successor,"  had  done  the 
same,  the  archbishops  and  bishops  of  the  kingdom  pro- 
claimed Louis  their  sovereign.  We  shall  meet  with  Louis 
again,  full  of  his  mother's  ambition,  and  contending  for  the 
imperial  title. 

Frodoard  has  preserved  for  us  extracts  of  Pope  Stephen's  corre- 
correspondence  with  various  archbishops  of  France,  among  JjjJSJ 
others  with   Aurelian  of  Lyons,  who  was  present  at  the  bishops, 
council  of  Valence.     On    the   death   of   Isaac,    bishop   of  ^ ^ons^ 
Langres,1   Aurelian    consecrated   to   fill    the    vacant    See, 
Egilon,  abbot  of  Noirmoutier,  without  consulting  clergy  or 
people.     Not  to  be  treated  in  the  same  cavalier  fashion  a 
second  time,  the  clergy  and    people   unanimously  elected 
Teutbold,  a  deacon  of  the  church  of  Langres,  "  when  God 
called  Egilon  (or  Geilon)  to  Himself"2  (c.  887),  and  begged 
the  Pope  himself  to  consecrate  their  candidate.     But,  says 
the  historian,  "anxious3  to  preserve  intact  the  privileges  of 
each  church,"  Stephen  would  not  consecrate  him,  but  sent 
him  to  Aurelian,  and  bade  the  archbishop  consecrate  him 

1  Owing  to  the  ravages  of  the  Normans,  the  See  was  at  this  time 
fixed  at  Tournus. 

2  Frodoard,  Hist.  Rem.,  iv.  1,  p.  417  f. 

3  "  Sed  ille  uniuscujusque  Ecclesia?  privilegium  inconcussum  sen-are 
volens " — a  declaration  which  Fulk  assured  the  Pope  gave  general 
satisfaction,     lb.,  p.  421. 


384  STEPHEN    (V.)  VI. 

at  once,  if  it  were  the  fact  that  he  had  received  the  suffrages 
of  clergy  and  people,  and  if  there  were  no  canonical  im- 
pediment in  the  way.  If  there  proved  to  be  any  obstacle, 
the  Pope  was  to  be  informed  of  it,  and  Aurelian  was  not 
to  consecrate  another  without  consulting  the  Pope.  To 
see  to  the  carrying  out  of  these  orders  Stephen  despatched, 
as  his  legate  a  latere,  Oirann,  bishop  of  Sinigaglia.  Aurelian 
procrastinated,  and  again  was  Teutbold  sent  to  Rome  for 
consecration.  And  again,  too,  for  the  same  reason  did  the 
Pope  do  as  he  had  done  before.  Thereupon,  construing 
Stephen's  excessive  desire  for  fairness  into  a  confession 
of  weakness,  Aurelian  set  the  Pope's  orders  at  naught,  and 
furtively  consecrated  another  stranger1  for  the  Church  of 
Langres.  Determined  not  to  accept  the  candidate  thus 
foisted  upon  them,  the  people  of  Langres  again  betook 
themselves  to  the  Pope.  This  time  Stephen  did  consecrate 
Teutbold,  and  wrote  to  Fulk  of  Rheims  to  install  him  at 
once.  This  Fulk  could  not  do  before  King  Eudes  was 
assured  by  the  report  of  his  own  ambassadors  that  such 
was  the  Pope's  will.  This  '  Langres '  incident,  which  has 
been  related  almost  in  the  exact  words  of  Frodoard,  shows 
Pope  Stephen  as  the  champion  of  the  rights  of  bishops  and 
people  alike.  The  true  verdict  of  history  notes  this  role  as 
a  distinctive  feature  of  the  line  of  the  Sovereign  Pontiffs, 
even  if  it  be  true  that,  for  a  period  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
it  applied  itself  to  curtailing  the  power  of  the  former,  for  the 

1  But  the  'stranger'  (Argrim)  had  friends,  and,  for  some  "useful 
reason,"  Formosus  (c.  896)  not  only  recognised  him  as  bishop  of 
Langres,  but  gave  him  the  right  to  wear  the  pallium.  {Cf.  Hugh  of 
Flavigny,  Chron.,  1.  i.  p.  171  ;  and  a  bull  of  Bened.  IV.  (900),  Jaffe, 
3527,  or  1st  ed.  2708.  The  dispute  went  on  ;  but,  "in  accordance  with 
the  advice  of  a  synod  of  bishops  and  others,"  John  IX.  (899)  reaffirmed 
the  decision  of  Formosus  "  not  as  though  condemning  the  decree  of 
Pope  Stephen,  but  changing  it  for  useful  reasons."  Jaffe,  3520-1  ;  or, 
1st  ed.,  2704-5.  Benedict  IV.  had  also  to  confirm  the  previous 
decisions  in  favour  of  Anrrim. 


STEPHEN    (V.)   VI.  385 

all-necessary  purpose  of  drawing  closer  the  bonds  between 
the  ruling  authorities  in  the  Church  and  its  Head.  It 
was  tyrannical  conduct  on  the  part  of  such  metropolitans 
as  Aurelian  that  inspired  the  publication  of  the  False 
,  Decretals,  and  not  any  '  grasping  ambition '  of  the  Popes. 
To  Rome  the  oppressed  ever  turned,  always  sure  of 
sympathy  and  generally  of  effectual  aid. 

Aurelian,  however,  was  not  always  in  opposition.     About  (ii.)Frothar 

of  Bor- 

the  same  time  that  he  was  interfering  with  the  liberties  of  deaux. 
the  Church  of  Langres,  he  was  commissioned  by  the  Pope, 
along  with  various  other  bishops,  to  put  a  check  on  the 
doings  of  Frothar  of  Bordeaux.  Owing  to  the  ravages  of 
the  Normans,  the  latter  had  been  allowed,  with  the  consent 
of  John  VIII.,1  to  exchange  his  See  of  Bordeaux  for  that 
of  Bourges  till  such  times  as  he  might  be  able  to  return  to 
his  proper  See.  But  Frothar  not  only  usurped  also  the 
See  of  Poitiers,  but  seems  to  have  made  himself  disliked 
by  the  people  of  Bourges.  Their  complaints  were  carried 
to  the  Pope.  Stephen  decided  that,  as  the  cause  of 
Frothar's  translation  had  disappeared,  the  archbishop 
must  return  to  his  original  See  or  incur  excommunica- 
tion.2 Frothar  does  not  seem  to  have  obeyed  ;  for  Hugh 
of  Flavigny,  who  wrote  a  chronicle  in  the  early  years  of  the 
twelfth  century,  has  preserved  a  fragment 3  of  a  letter  of  the 
Pope  to  Aurelian  of  Lyons,  in  which  that  archbishop  is 
ordered  to  consecrate  a  new  bishop  for  Bordeaux  "  on 
account  of  the  effrontery  of  Frothar."  It  is  supposed  that 
Frothar's  death  put  an  end  to  any  further  difficulties.  The 
affair  is  not  without  its  interest,  as  it  adds  to  the  evidence 
that,  in  ecclesiastical  matters  at  this  period,  the  higher 
clergy  were  as  insubordinate,  and  acted  with  almost  as 
much  license,  as  the  greater  nobles  in  civil  affairs. 

1  Joan.  Epp.  35-7,  64.  2  Frod.,  ib. 

3  Ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  viii.  p.  356  ;  or  P.  L,  t.  154. 
VOL.   III.  25 


386 


STEPHEN   (V.)   VI. 


(Hi.) 

Romanus 

and 

Dominicus 

of 

Ravenna. 


Passing  over,  for  the  present,1  Stephen's  correspondence 2 
with  Herimann  of  Cologne  on  the  subject  of  the  restora- 
tion of  the  See  of  Bremen  to  the  jurisdiction  of  his  archi- 
episcopal  See,  it  may  be  noted  that  Stephen's  dealings  with 
the  archbishop  of  Ravenna  also  serve  to  show  his  great 
regard  for  the  rights  of  others.  For  if  he  severely  blames 
(887-8)  Romanus  of  Ravenna  for  venturing,  against  the 
canons,  to  elect  his  successor,  and  orders 3  him  to  undo 
what  he  has  attempted  ;  he  is  careful,  on  the  other  hand,  to 
explain  4  to  Dominicus,  the  successor  of  Romanus,  that  in 
consecrating  a  bishop  for  Piacenza  during  the  vacancy  of 
the  See  of  Ravenna,  he  had  no  wish  to  detract  from  its 
rights. 

But  of  all  the  ecclesiastics  concerning  whom  Stephen 
had  correspondence,  the  most  important  was  Photius. 
Hadrian  III.  had  received  from  the  emperor  Basil  a  sharp 
letter  in  which,  among  other  points,  the  election  of  Marinus, 
who  had  shown  himself  the  most  uncompromising  opponent 
of  Photius,  had  been  vigorously  attacked.  To  this  document, 
inspired,  as  the  Pope  plainly  insinuates,  by  Photius,  Stephen 
sent  a  temperate  yet  firm  reply.  It  well  deserves  to  be 
quoted  in  its  entirety.  "  We  have  received 5  the  letter  of 
your  serenity  addressed  to  our  predecessor  Hadrian,  and  we 
are  very  much  astonished  that  you  could  write  in  the  way 
you  have — you,  who  hold  the  scales  of  justice,  and  who 
know  well  that  our6  sacerdotal  and  apostolical  dignity  is 
not  subject  to  the  power  of  kings.  For  though  on  earth 
you  are  the  image  of  our  emperor  Christ,  you  ought  to 
confine  your  attention  to  what  belongs  to  this  earth — as 

1  Cf.  vol.  iv.  of  this  work  under  Formosus. 

2  Frodoard,  lb.  ;  and  Jaffe,  3458,  3470  (2648,  2666). 

3  Lowenfeld,  Ep.  62.  4  Jaffe,  3455-6  (2646-7). 
6  Ep.  1,  ap.  Labbe,  viii.  1 391,  or  ix.  366-8. 

6  "  Quod  manui  regias  non  subjiciatur  sacerdotalis  et  apostolica 
nostra  dignitas." 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI.  387 

we  pray  God  you  may  be  spared  for  many  years  to  do. 
As  you  have  been  by  God  set  over  worldly  affairs,  so 
through  Peter,  the  prince  (of  the  apostles),  have  we  been 
placed  by  God  over  spiritual  concerns.  Take,  we  beg  you, 
in  good  part  what  follows.  It  is  yours  to  break  the  might 
of  tyrants  with  the  sword  of  power,  to  dispense  justice  to 
your  subjects,  to  make  laws,  to  regulate  the  military  and 
naval  forces  (of  the  empire).  These  are  the  chief  duties  of 
your  imperial  power.  But  a  care  of  the  flock  has  been 
entrusted  to  us,  a  care  as  much  more  noble  as  heaven  is 
distant  from  earth.  Hearken  to  the  Lord's  words  to  Peter  : 
'Thou  art  Peter/  etc.  (S.  Mat.  xvi.  18).  But  what  says 
He  about  power  and  empire :  '  Fear  ye  not  them  that  kill 
the  body,  and  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul '  (S.  Mat.  x.  28). 
Hence  we  beg  you  to  abide  by  the  decrees  of  the  princes 
of  the  apostles,  to  honour  their  name  and  dignity.  The 
episcopate  of  the  world  is  dependent  upon  {ortum  accepit) 
St.  Peter,  through  whom  we  with  doctrine  most  pure  and 
undefiled  teach  all.1  But  let  not  your  majesty  (regnum), 
by  reason  of  your  power  over  lesser  matters,  boldly  assert 
itself  to  decide  on  higher  affairs;  rather  reflect  by  what 
authority  you  would  do  this.  He  who,  by  his  slanders, 
has  poisoned  your  ears  against  the  most  holy  Marinus, 
would  not  refrain  from  blaspheming  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Who,  on  the  one  hand,  is  he  who  has  dared  to  say  such 
things  against  His  stainless  spouse  and  priest,  and  against 
the  mother  of  all  Churches  ?  At  any  rate  he  is  deceived 
should  he  think  that  '  the  disciple  is  above  the  master,  or 
the  servant  above  his  lord '  (S.  Mat.  x.  24).  We  are  truly 
astonished  to  see  your  consummate  prudence  seduced  into 

1  The  first  part  of  this  passage  is  somewhat  obscurely  expressed  : 
"  Institutio  enim  et  sacerdotium  omnium  quae  in  orbe  sunt  ecclesiarum 
a  principe  Petro  ortum  accepit,  per  quern  etiam  nos  sincerissima  et 
purissima  doctrina  monemus  omnes  et  docemus." 


388  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

entertaining  such  thoughts  against  that  holy  man  (Marinus). 
For  were  we  not  to  say  who  he  was,  the  very  stones  would 
tell  of  him. 

"  If  you  are  of  the  number  of  the  sheep  of  God,1  as  we 
trust  you  are,  transgress  not  the  limits  of  the  princes  of 
the  apostles.  Who  has  induced  you,  we  would  ask,  to 
assail  with  ridicule  the  universal  Pope,  and  to  rail  against 
the  holy  Roman  Church,  to  which  with  all  reverence  you 
are  bound  to  submit  ?  Know  you  not  that  she  is  the  head 
(princeps)  of  all  Churches?  Who  has  made  you  a  judge 
of  bishops,  by  whose  holy  teaching  you  ought  to  be  guided 
and  by  whom  prayers  are  offered  to  God  for  you  ?  .  .  .  . 
You  have  written  that  he  (Marinus)  was  not  Pope.  How 
knew  you  that  ?  And  if  you  knew  it  not,  why  were  you 
so  quick  to  pass  sentence  on  him  ?  Those  who  hold  that 
Marinus  was  already  a  bishop  and  hence  could  not  be 
transferred  from  one  See  to  another,  must  prove  that 
assertion.  Know,  most  honoured  emperor,  that  though 
that  impediment  could  be  urged  against  him  (which  it 
could  not2),  there  are  examples  enough  to  justify  his  being 

raised  to  the  first  See What  has  the  Roman  Church 

done  that  that  seducer  has  led  you  to  raise  your  voice 
against  her?  Is  it  that,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom, 
no  letter  was  sent  to  you  concerning  the  assembling  of 
the  Constantinopolitan  synod  ?  .  .  .  .  But  to  whom  was 
the  Roman  Church  to  write?  To  the  layman  Photius? 
If  you  had  a  patriarch,  our  Church  would  often  communicate 

with  him  by  letter But  for  our  love  for  you,  we 

should  have  been  compelled  to  inflict  on  the  prevaricator 

1  In  this  category  the  emperor  had  proclaimed  himself  to  be  at  the 
close  of  the  Eighth  General  Council.     Labbe,  viii.  1 1 54. 

2  When  Marinus  was  elected  Pope  he  was  archdeacon  of  the  Roman 
Church.  Perhaps  Stephen  means  that  Marinus  had  resigned  his  See 
when  he  was  made  archdeacon,  and  so  could  not  be  said  to  have  been 
translated  from  one  See  to  another  when  he  was  elected  Pope. 


STEPHEN    (V.)   VI.  389 

Photius  more  severe  penalties  than  our  predecessors  have 

done We  warn  you,  son  of  ours  in  spirit,  rise  not 

up  against  the  Roman  Church.  We  were  glad  to  hear 
that  you  had  destined  one  of  your  sons  (Stephen,  his 
youngest  son)  for  the  priesthood.  We  beg  you  to  send 
us  some  well-equipped  war-ships  (to  guard  the  coast)  from 
April  to  September,  as  well  as  soldiers  to  defend  our  walls 
from  the  Saracens.  (Concerning  their  ravages),  we  will 
only  note  that  we  lack  even  oil  for  the  lamps  used  in  the 
service  of  God." 

When  this  dignified  letter  reached  Constantinople,  Basil  Final 
the  Macedonian  was  dead,  and  his  son  Leo  VI.,  surnamed  of  Photius, 
the  Wise,  reigned  in  his  stead  (886-912).  Towards  Photius, 
"  the  most  gracious  and  sweet " *  Leo  had  never  been  well 
disposed,  and  when  he  received  the  Pope's  letter  he  took 
advantage  of  it  to  depose  Photius.  He  assembled  "  all 
the  priests  of  the  truth"  (who,  condemned  by  Photius, 
had  suffered  grievous  persecutions),  exiled  him,  and  pro- 
claimed his  young  brother,  Stephen,  patriarch.  Then 
addressing  Stylian  and  the  other  adherents  of  Ignatius, 
he  told  them  what  had  been  done,  and  begged  them 
to  communicate  with  the  new  patriarch.  "  But  if,  seeing 
that  he  was  ordained  deacon  by  Photius,  you  would 
rather  not  communicate  with  him  until  you  have  consulted 
the  Romans  who  condemned  Photius,  let  us  write  and  ask 
the  Pope  to  grant  a  dispensation  from  censures  to  those 
ordained  by  Photius.  Accordingly  the  emperor  wrote  to 
the  Pope,  as  did  also  Stylian  of  Neocaesarea  and  his  friends."2 

1  So  is  he  called  even  by  Arethas,  archbishop  of  Caesarea,  and  an 
adherent  of  Photius.  See  his  Epitaphios,  p.  32,  ap.  Mon.  Grtzca  et  Latina 
pertinent,  ad  hist.  Photii,  ed.  Papadopulos-Kerameus,  St.  Petersburg, 
1899.  To  Arethas  Photius  is  a  hero,  and  he  has  no  hesitation  in  plac- 
ing him  "in  the  innermost  sanctuary  of  heaven."     Cf.  id.,  pp.  35,  40. 

2  So  runs  the  Greek  codex  which  contains  the  letters  of  Stephen  VI., 
Stylian,  etc.  (Labbe,  ix.  368). 


390  STEPHEN    (V.)  VI. 

If  Photius,  now  shut  up  in  a  monastery,  was  practically 
dead  to  the  world,  "  the  evil  which  he  had  done  lived  after 
him."  By  his  letter  to  Walbert,  patriarch  of  Aquileia,  and 
other  writings,  he  had  long  been  busy  in  trying  to  show  that 
the  Latin  Church 1  was  in  error  by  teaching,  contrary  to 
the  tradition  of  the  Fathers,  that  the  Third  Person  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity,  the  Holy  Ghost,  proceeded  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  Greek  Church,  in  harmony  with  the 
doctrines  of  the  Fathers,  as  he  maintained,  taught,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  Father 
only.  Ignoring  those  passages  of  the  Fathers,  both  Greek 
and  Latin,  where  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church  was 
clearly  and  distinctly  stated,  he  affected  to  have  proved 
his  point  when  he  had  shown  that  it  was  often  said  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  Father.  That  was 
enough.  The  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from  the  Father, 
therefore  not  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  but  from  the 
Father  only.  And  he  infers,  equally  falsely,  that  because 
the  Westerns  taught  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeded  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son,  He  did  so,  according  to  them, 
by  a  double  procession  (Sevrepa  irpooScp) ;  and  that  hence 
He  was  the  Grandson  (vttwos)  of  God  the  Father. 
Effects  of  It  is  not  the  place  here  to  show  that,  in  accordance 
Photius.  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  as  from  one  prin- 
ciple, by  one  procession.     It  is  enough  to  state  now  that, 

1  "  Certain  of  the  Westerns  maintain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  proceeds 
not  only  from  God  the  Father,  but  also  from  the  Son,"  Ep.  ad  Walb. 
In  Jager's  Photius,  the  original  Greek  text  is  given,  p.  452  f.  ;  and  a 
French  translation,  p.  360  f.  Photius  and  Walbert  entered  into  com- 
munication with  each  other  for  the  same  rebellious  causes  that  moved 
Gunther  to  make  advances  to  Photius.  There  is  a  fragment  of  a  letter 
of  Stephen  VI.  to  Walbert  (P.  L.,  t.  129,  p.  805,  Ep.  16)  which  shows 
that  Walbert  was  openly  disobeying  the  Pope's  orders.  The  letter  of 
Photius  was  written  after  the  death  of  John  VIII.,  who  is  spoken  of  as 
"  among  the  saints."      Cf.   Lapotre, /can  VIII.,  p.  68  n. 


STEPHEN   (V.)   VI.  3QI 

while  Photius  and  his  works  sank  into  oblivion  at  this 
period,  it  was  from  the  armoury  of  his  works  that  were 
afterwards  drawn  the  subtle  swords  which  were  most  used 
to  sever  the  union  of  East  and  West,  and  to  keep  it  severed. 
Of  all  the  enemies  of  that  united  kingdom  on  earth  which 
Our  Lord  came  from  heaven  to  establish,  Photius  was  the 
most  deadly.  And  if  he  did  harm  to  the  Church,  he  did 
as  much  to  the  State.  Under  the  guiding  hand  of  the  See 
of  Peter,  the  West,  despite  a  thousand  obstacles,  moved  on  to 
civilisation,  to  learning,  and  to  liberty.  The  East,  following 
first  one  and  then  another  heresiarch  condemned  by  Rome, 
hurried  back  to  barbarism,  ignorance,  and  despotism.  And, 
with  that  miserable  fatality  with  which  men  not  un- 
frequently  cling  to  what  is  ruining  and  degrading  them, 
the  East  is  to-day  proud  of  Photius  who  freed  them  from 
the  thraldom  of  Rome,  and  gave  them  military  despotism 
in  Church  and  State,  national  misery  and  poverty,  and 
superstitious  ignorance  and  fanaticism. 

The  letter  which  the  emperor  Leo  wrote  to  the  Pope  has  The  letter 
not  been  preserved.     The  letter  of  Stylian  to  him  is  the  °0  the  * 
one  which,  containing  a  succinct  account  of  the  doings  of   ope' 
Photius,  has  been  already  so  often  quoted.     It  is  addressed  : 
"  To  the  most  holy  and  most  blessed  Stephen,  Lord  and 
oecumenical   Pope,  Stylian   bishop  of  Neocaesarea  of  the 
province  of  Euphratesia  and  the  bishops  who  are  with  me, 
as  well  as  all  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  of  the  Church 
of  Constantinople,  all  the  superiors  (of  the  monks)  in  the 
eastern  and  western  portions  (of  the  empire),1  and  all  the 
priests,  who  as  monks  lead  a  retired  life."     After  recounting 
in  brief  the  history  of  the  usurpations  of  Photius,  Stylian 
proceeds  to  address  himself  to  the  Pope,  whom  he  styles 
"  sacred    and  venerated  head."      "  As   we    know   that   we 

1  Ep.  Styl.,  ap.  Labbe  viii.  or  ix.,  p.  367  f.     "Omnes  propositi  per 
occidentem  et  orientem  constituti." 


392  STEPHEN    (V.)  VI. 

must  be  corrected,  and,  according  to  the  canons,  punished 
by  your  Apostolic  See,  we  humbly  beg  your  holiness  to 
have  mercy  on  us — i.e.  on  those  who  not  without  some 
show  of  good  reason  accepted  the  ordination  of  Photius; 
so  that  he  who  received  the  legates  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
Radoald  and  Zachary  (who  in  the  beginning  confirmed 
Photius  in  the  See  of  Constantinople),  and  then  Eugenius 
and  Paul  (who  a  second  time  communicated  with  Photius), 
may  not  be  condemned  equally  with  Photius ;  and  so  that 
another  great  number  may  not  be  driven  from  the  Church." 
Examples  are  then  adduced  to  show  that  to  grant  pardon 
in  similar  cases  has  been  the  custom  of  the  Church.  "  Hence 
it  well  becomes  you  to  expel  Photius,  a  schismatic 
from  the  beginning,  ordained  by  schismatics  and  a  worker 
of  innumerable  evils;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  we  entreat 
you  to  deal  mercifully  with  those  who  have  been 
deceived  by  him."  .  .  .  Stylian  goes  on  to  tell  the  Pope 
that  some  wished  him  to  communicate  with  them  on  the 
ground  that  they  had  received  a  dispensation  from  the 
Pope  to  exercise  their  sacerdotal  functions ;  but  that, 
pending  instructions  from  the  Apostolic  See,  he  had 
refrained  from  doing  so.  "  Though 1  I  would  venture  to 
assert  this,  O  venerated  head,  that  none  of  those  who  com- 
municated with  Photius  did  so  of  their  own  will,  but 
rather  compelled  by  the  violence  of  princes." 

To  this  letter  Stephen  replied 2  that  he  was  not  astonished 
that  they  had  expelled  Photius,  already  condemned  by  the 
Church,  but  that  he  was  surprised  that  whereas  their  letter 
spoke  of  the  expulsion  of  Photius,  that  of  the  emperor 
stated  that  he  had  resigned.    Hence  before  he  can  pronounce 

1  "  Hoc  autem  ausim  affirmare,  O  venerandum  caput  ....  quod 
nullus  eorum,  qui  cum  Photio  communicarunt,  propria  id  fecerit 
voluntate,  sed  potius  principum  violentia.';     Labbe,  ix.  372, 

2  Ep.  2,  ap.  Labbe,  ix.  373. 


STEPHEN    (V.)   VI.  393 

sentence,  bishops  from  both  parties  must  be  sent  to  him 
that  he  may  find  out  the  whole  truth.  "  For,"  he  con- 
cluded, "  the  Roman  Church  x  has  been  set  as  a  model  and 
example  to  the  other  churches.  Whatever  it  defines  has 
to  remain  for  ever  inviolate,  and  so  it  is  only  right  for  her 
to  pass  sentence  after  careful  examination."  This  letter 
was  written  about  the  year  888.  Some  time  elapsed  before 
the  Pope's  requirements  were  complied  with  ;  and  when  at 
length  ambassadors  and  letters  did  arrive  in  Rome  from 
Constantinople,  Stephen  was  dead  or  dying.  Stylian's 
reply  has  come  down  2  to  us.  In  it  the  discrepancy  pointed 
out  by  Pope  Stephen  between  the  letter  of  the  emperor  and 
that  of  the  Greek  bishops  is  explained.  "  Those  who  have 
written  that  Photius  has  renounced  his  See  are  those  who 
have  recognised  him  as  a  bishop.  But  we,  who  following 
the  decisions  of  Popes  Nicholas  and  Hadrian,  do  not 
consider  that  he  possesses  the  least  vestige  of  the  priesthood, 
how  could  we  write  that  he  had  renounced  (the  patriarchal 
See)  ?"..."  But,"  continues  the  letter,  "  we  renew  our 
entreaties  for  those  who  have  recognised  Photius  by  force, 
and  we  beg  you  to  send  circular  letters  to  the  patriarchs 
of  the  East,  in  order  that  they  may  extend  the  like 
indulgence  towards  them." 

In  the  answer3  which  Stephen's  successor,  Formosus,  sent  Letter  of 
to  this  letter  (end  of  891  or  beginning  of  892),  he  pointed  Formosus 
out  that,  in  the  request  for  pardon,  it  had  not  been  stated 
whether  there  was  question  of  laymen  or  clerics.  The  laity 
deserve  pardon,  continued  the  Pope.  But  the  case  of  the 
clerics  is  different.  However,  as  Stylian  has  asked  him  "  to 
tolerate  some  things,  but  to  abolish  others,"  he  is  sending, 

1  "Romana  enim  ecclesia  instar  speculi  et  exemplaris  reliquis 
ecclesiis  constituitur.  Et  quodcumque  definierit,  in  sempiterum  manet 
incorruptum,  et  hac  de  causa  sententias  magna  cum  inquisitione  ferre 
decet."    lb. 

2  Labbe,  viii.  14 10.  3  Ep.  Form.  ;  ap.  Labbe,  ix.  428-9. 


394  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

as  legates,  bishops  Landenulf  of  Capua  and  Romanus,  to 
go  into  the  different  matters  with  Stylian  himself,  Theo- 
phylactus,  metropolitan  of  Ancyra,  and  a  certain  Peter,  a 
trusted  friend  of  his.  After  the  renewal  of  the  condem- 
nation of  Photius  himself,  those  who  had  been  ordained  by 
him  might  be  received  into  lay  communion  if  they  offered 
a  written  confession  that  they  had  done  wrong,  and  humbly 
asked  for  pardon.  What  is  contained  in  his  (the  Pope's) 
instructions  to  his  legates  must  be  closely  followed. 
Close  of  Of  the  doings  of  this  embassy,  unfortunately,  nothing  is 

the  Schism.  to  Ji  J)  & 

known.  But  the  biography  of  Antony  Cauleas,  who  is 
regarded  both  by  the  Greeks  and  Latins  as  a  saint,  and 
who  succeeded  the  youthful  Stephen  (May  17,  893)  in  the 
patriarchal  chair,  states  x  that  he  again  brought  peace  to  the 
Church,  and  reunited  the  East  and  West.  Still,  for  some 
time  after  this,  correspondence  went  on  with  Rome  on  the 
subject  of  those  who  had  been  ordained  by  Photius.  And 
though  Stylian  continued  to  ask  for  pardon  for  them,  the 
Popes  persevered  in  ratifying  the  policy  of  their  predecessors. 
Hence  John  IX.  (898-900),  while  praising  the  archbishop 
for  his  continued  and  unflinching  loyalty  to  "  his  mother 
the  Roman  Church,"  declares  that  he  accepts  Ignatius, 
Photius,  Stephen,  and  Antony  to  the  same  extent  as  Popes 
Nicholas,  John,  Stephen  VI.  (Sextus,  as  John  calls  him),  and 
the  whole  Roman  Church  have  done,  and  that  he  grants 
to  those  who  have  been  ordained  by  them  the  same  con- 
cessions as  those  granted  to  them  by  his  predecessors.  He 
exhorts  Stylian  to  do  likewise,  and  looks  forward  to  the 
schism,  which  has  lasted  nearly  forty  years,  being  healed 
by  the  archbishop's  prayers.2     After  this,  we  hear  no  more 

1  Cf.  Hergenroether,  Hist,  de  Pe'glise,  iii.  433.  Butler's  Lives  of 
the  Saints,  February  12.  All  his  successors  for  150  years  till  Michael 
Cerularius,  except  Sisinnius  (996-8),  were  in  communion  with  Rome. 

2  Ep.  Joan.  IX.,  ap.  Mansi,  xvi.  456  ;  Harduin,  v.  It  is  imperfectly 
given — ap.  Labbe,  ix.  494. 


STEPHEN   (V.)   VI.  395 

of  Photius  or  his  works  for  some  time.  "  It  seemed  in  the 
tenth  century  as  though  his  memory  was  to  be  consigned 
to  oblivion.  But  after  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  century, 
his  works  were  again  brought  to  the  light,  and  in  the 
twelfth  century  he  was  reckoned  by  the  Greek  schismatics 
among  the  doctors  of  the  Church  ;  though  it  was  not  till 
the  sixteenth  century  that  they  ranked  him  among  their 
saints."  1 

No  doubt  during  the  reign  of  Stephen  VI.  negotiations  Affairs  of 
with  Constantinople  were  much  hindered  by  the  condition 
of  affairs  in  South  Italy.  In  the  midst  of  the  disorders 
still  being  caused  by  Saracen  raids  and  internal  feuds 
among  the  principalities,  the  Greeks  continued  to  improve 
their  hold  upon  that  part  of  Italy.  Soon  after  the  death  of 
Stephen  they  even  captured  (October  18,  891)  Beneventum. 
It  is  significant  of  their  power  that  the  patrician  George, 
after  expelling  the  candidate  who  had  been  canonically 
elected  bishop  of  Tarentum  and  who  in  accordance  with 
ancient  custom  was  to  have  come  to  Rome  for  his  con- 
secration, wished  to  intrude  a  candidate  of  his  own,  and 
have  him  consecrated  at  Constantinople.2 

What  Erchempert  tells3  us  of  the  career  of  the  perjured  Atenoifus. 
Atenolfus  is  well  calculated  to  furnish  a  clear  idea  of  the 
men  and  the  actions  which  were  leaving  South  Italy  open  to 
be  preyed  upon  by  Greek  and  Saracen.  Among  his  other 
famous  or  rather  infamous  doings,  he  came  to  an  under- 
standing with  the  intriguing  Athanasius,  prince-bishop  of 
Naples,  and  seized  Capua  (January  7,  887),  of  which  his 
brother  Lando  was  count.  In  accordance  with  the  terms 
of  the  agreement  he  had  made  with  Athanasius,  he  declared 

1  Hergenroether,  Hist,  de  Feglise,  Hi.  433. 

2  Ep.  ap.  Loevvenfeld,  p.  36.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  "the  Church  of 
Constantinople,"  at  this  time  (887-8)  governed  by  the  young  Stephen, 
refused  to  consecrate  George's  candidate.     lb. 

3  Hist.,  c.  53  and  62  f. 


7g6  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

himself  the  vassal  of  the  bishop,  and  sent  him  his  son  as  a 
hostage.  Tiring,  however,  of  this  dependence,  Atenolfus 
procured  the  assistance  of  Guido  of  Spoleto  and  obtained 
the  restoration  of  his  son.  Then,  no  doubt  with  a  view  to 
getting  free  from  any  restraint  from  Guido,  he  turned  to 
Pope  Stephen,  and  offered  to  place  himself  in  subjection 
to  the  See  of  Rome,  to  restore  Gaeta  (which  he  had 
treacherously  seized),  and  to  help  the  Pope  against  the 
Saracens  on  the  Garigliano.  "These  promises,"  quietly 
adds  the  monk,  "Atenolfus1  forgot,  and  of  course  did  not 
fulfil  any  one  of  them ! "  Then,  having  taken  what 
belonged  to  his  brother,  viz.  the  lordship  of  Capua, 
Atenolfus  proceeded  to  annex  all  the  property  which 
belonged  to  the  monastery  of  Monte  Cassino  and  which 
was  situated  within  the  territory  of  Capua.  This  famous 
monastery,  destroyed  by  the  Saracens  in  883,  had  begun 
to  be  rebuilt  by  the  abbot  Angelarius  (886).  Justly 
indignant,  the  abbot  despatched  our  historian  to  Rome. 
Erchempert  returned  with  the  papal  blessing  for  the  monks, 
a  papal  privilege  for  the  monastery,  and  hortatory  letters 
addressed  to  the  spoiler.  Monte  Cassino  regained  its 
property ;  but  wreaking  his  vengeance  on  the  ambassador, 
Atenolfus  seized  everything  of  which  Erchempert  was 
possessed,  "  even  2  the  cell  which  had  been  given  me  by  the 
abbot." 

To  avenge  the  treatment  he  had  received  at  the  hands  of 
Atenolfus,  Athanasius  sent  against  Capua  (888)  an  army 
composed  of  Greeks,  Neapolitans,  and  Saracens.  With 
help,  both  Saracenic  and  otherwise,  obtained  from  Aio, 
Duke  of  Beneventum  (the  latest  of  those  to  whom 
Atenolfus    had    proffered    his   submission),   the    Count   of 

1  Erch.,  c.  65. 

2  lb.,  c.  69.  Cf.  Tosti,  Storia  della  Badia  di  Monte  Cassino  (Napoli, 
1842),  1.  ii.,  vol.  i.,  p.  135  fif. 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI.  397 

Capua  advanced  to  meet  his  enemies.  And  while  the 
Christians  were  slaughtering  one  another,  the  Saracens  of 
both  sides  quietly  joined  hands  and  looked  on.1  Atenolfus 
was  victorious,  and  showed  his  gratitude  to  his  benefactor 
by  denying  him  the  help  which  he  soon  afterwards  stood 
in  need  of  against  the  Greeks,  and  which  he  had  in  vain 
tried  to  purchase  from  Franks  or  Saracens.  With  the 
assistance  of  these  latter,  who  now  attached  themselves 
to  him  as  the  stronger  man,  Atenolfus  turned  against 
Athanasius  and  fearfully  harried  the  territory  of  Naples. 
So  that,  reflects  our  historian,2  those  who  by  the  aid  of  the 
Saracens  had  sent  innumerable  Christians  to  captivity  and 
death  were,  by  the  just  judgment  of  God,  in  turn  them- 
selves scourged  by  them.  "  Who,"  he  asks  with  the 
Preacher,3  "  will  pity  an  enchanter  struck  by  a  serpent,  or 
any  that  come  near  wild  beasts  ? " 

With  South  Italy  a  prey  to  men  with  the  passions  of  an  Death  of 
Atenolfus — to  Franks,  to  Saracens,  and  to  Greeks4  (worse 
than  the  Saracens) — with  North  Italy  the  battlefield  of  rival 
emperors,  and  with  Rome  itself  full  of  conspiring  factions,5 
the  days  of  the  amiable  yet  firm  Stephen  VI.  came  to  a 
close  (c.  September  891).  With  the  political  horizon  as 
black  as  we  have  described  it,  and  soon  with  the  advent  of 
wild  Hungarian  hordes  to  become  blacker,  we  are  prepared 
to  see  the  storm  of  unbridled  anarchy  that  swept  over  Italy 
in  the  course  of  the  next  hundred  and  fifty  years,  well  nigh 
swamping  in  its  fury  the  bark  of  Peter  itself. 

1  Erch.,  c.  73.  "  Saraceni  vero  ex  utraque  parte  juncti  steterunt, 
nulli  eorum  prebentes  auxilium." 

2  lb.,  c.  yy.  3  Ecclus.,  xii.  13. 

4  "Vocabulo  Christiani,  sed  moribus  tristiores  Agarenis,"  Erch., 
c.  81. 

6  Fulco  of  Rheims  wrote  to  the  Pope,  "  Audisse  se  de  insidiis  quo- 
rumdam  pestilentium,  quas  ipsi  papa?  moliebantur,"  Frod.,  Hist. 
Rem.>  iv.  1. 


398  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

Stephen's  tomb  was  in  the  portico  of  the  old  St.  Peter's. 
His  epitaph,1  preserved  by  Mallius,  is  conceived  in  a  happier 
vein  that  many  of  the  others  we  have  cited  : — 

"  Accedis  quisquis  magni  suffragia  Petri 

Celestis  regni  poscere  clavigeri, 
Intentis  oculis,  compuncto  corde,  locellum 

Conspice  perspicuum  quo  pia  membra  jaeent 
Hie  tumulus  quinti  sacratos  continet  artus 

Praesulis  eximii  pontiflcis  Stephani  ; 
Bis  ternis  populum  qui  rexit  et  urbem, 

Et  gessit  Domino  quae  fuerunt  placita. 
Suscepit  tellus  consumptum  pulvere  corpus, 

Ethera  sed  scandit  spiritus  almus  ovans. 
Unde,  peto,  cuncti  venientes  dicite  fratres  : 

Arbiter  omnipotens,  da  veniam  Stephano." 

"  Whoever  thou  art  who  comest,  with  contrite  heart,  to  beg  the  prayers 
of  Peter,  the  great  key-bearer  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  gaze  with  clear 
eye  on  the  spot  where  a  holy  body  lieth.  This  tomb  contains  the 
sacred  remains  of  the  great  pontiff  Stephen  V.,  who  for  twice  three 
years  ruled  the  people  and  the  City,  and  did  what  was  pleasing  in  the 
eyes  of  God.  The  earth  has  received  his  body  turned  to  dust,  but  his 
sweet  soul  has  in  triumph  ascended  into  heaven.  Do  ye,  brethren  who 
come  hither,  pray  the  Almighty  Judge,  I  beg  you,  to  grant  pardon  to 
Stephen." 

Condemns  Among  the  decrees  attributed  to  this  Pope  is  one  of 
ordeal.  peculiar  interest.  Consulted  by  Liutbert,  archbishop  of 
Mayence,  as  to  whether  in  a  certain  specified  case  it  was 
lawful  to  employ  the  ordeals  of  hot  iron  or  boiling  water, 
Stephen  replied  in  the  negative,  and  on  such  general 
grounds  as  amounted  to  a  condemnation  of  the  whole 
system  of  ordeals — so  dear  to  the  Northern  nations.  u  It  is 
ours,"  he  declared,  "  to  judge  of  crimes  that  are  known 
either  by  the  confession  of  the  culprit,  or  by  the  testimony 
of  witnesses.  What  (cannot  be  discovered  by  those  means, 
and)  remains  completely  hidden,  must  be  left  to  the 
judgment   of  Him    who   alone    knows   the   hearts   of   the 

1  L.  P.,  ii.  p.  226. 


STEPHEN   (V.)  VI.  399 

children  of  men."1  The  practice  of  'ordeals'  v/as  not 
abolished  by  the  Church  all  at  once.  Its  roots,  like  those 
of  the  system  of  slavery,  had  struck  too  deep  down  to  be 
violently  eradicated  at  one  pull.  But,  under  her  guidance, 
first  those  ordeals  which  involved  danger  to  life  were 
adolished,  and,  when  in  process  of  time  the  justice  of  the 
principles  stated  by  Stephen  VI.  had  been  driven  home, 
then  the  whole  custom  of  appealing  to  the  "judgments  of 
God  "  was  set  aside. 

We  cannot  leave  the  biography  of  Stephen  without  Anglo- 
calling  attention  to  the  fact  that,  despite  the  rapidly  cometo 
increasing  difficulties  of  the  journey  to  Rome,  love  of 
the  "  Eternal  City  "  and  its  ruler  still  attracted  our  country- 
men to  Rome.  In  fact,  as  an  entry  in  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Chronicle,  soon  to  be  quoted,  shows,  it  was  regarded  in 
England  as  noteworthy  if  a  year  passed  without  some 
distinguished  persons  leaving  this  island  for  Rome.  It 
will  suffice  here  to  quote  Stevenson's  translation  of  the 
entries  made  in  our  earliest  Chronicle  without  further 
comment  : — 

"A.D.  887. — Aethelhelm,  the  ealdorman,  carried  the  alms 
of  the  West  Saxons  and  King  Alfred  to  Rome. 

"  A.D.  888. — This  year  Beocca,  the  ealdorman,  carried  the 
alms  of  the  West  Saxons  and  King  /Elfred  to  Rome;  and 
Queen  Aethelswith,  who  was  King  Alfred's  sister,  died  on 
the  way  to  Rome,  and  her  body  lies  at  Pavia. 

"A.D.  889. — In  this  year  there  was  no  journey  to  Rome, 
except  that  King  Alfred  sent  two  couriers  with  letters. 

"A.D.  890. — This  year  abbot  Beornhelm  took  the  aforesaid 
alms  to  Rome  ; "  or,  as  the  notice  reads  in  the  Chronicle  of 

1  Ivo.  Dccret.,  x.  c.  27  ;  Jaffe,  3443  (2642).  On  the  subject  of 'ordeals,' 
cf.  vol.  ii.  p.  179  f.  of  this  work;  Lingard,  Anglo-Saxon  Church,  ii. 
p.  118  f.  (ed.  Baker);  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  x.  259  n.  Alzog, 
C/i.  Hist.,  ii.  113. 


Coins. 


4OO  STEPHEN   (V.)  VI. 

the  noble  Ethelwerd  (an.  889),  he  "carried  to  Rome  the 
alms  for  the  people,  and  principally  those  of  the  western 
English  and  King  Alfred." 

On  three  of  the  known  denarii  of  this  Pope,  we  find  on 
the  obverse  the  names  :  "  Steph."  and  "  Scs.  Petrus ;  "  and, 
on  the  reverse,  three  have  "Carolus  Imp."  There  are 
extant  also,  in  Promis,  two  others  evidently  struck  after  th,e 
deposition  of  Charles  the  Fat.  Of  these  one  has,  on  the 
obverse,  the  Pope's  name  and  that  of  St.  Paul,  and,  on  the 
reverse,  Scs.  Petrus  and  Rome ;  the  other  is  of  the  same 
type,  but  with  the  names  of  the  apostles  reversed.1 
Conclusion      With  Stephen  VI.  we  bring  to  a  conclusion  our  account 

to  volume. 

of  the  Popes  under  the  Carolingian  emperors.  It  may 
perhaps  be  thought  that,  as  Formosus  was  so  much  con- 
nected with  Stephen  VI.  and  his  immediate  predecessors, 
his  biography  should  have  been  included  in  this  volume. 
But  apart  from  the  fact  that,  wherever  a  division  was  made, 
some  things  that  ought  to  be  closely  joined  would  have  to 
be  separated,  the  last  of  the  Carolingian  emperors  died 
during  the  pontificate  of  Stephen  VI. ;  and  Formosus  is 
probably  more  connected  in  the  minds  of  men  with  the 
treatment  his  dead  body  received  at  the  hands  of  Stephen 
VII.,  than  with  the  deeds  during  life  which  he  accomplished 
in  connection  with  Boris  of  Bulgaria  or  with  any  of  his 
predecessors  in  the  chair  of  Peter. 

Full  of  the  deeds  of  lasting  fame  performed  by  SS.  Leo 
III.  and  IV.,  Nicholas2  the  Great,  and  Hadrian  II.,  gazing 
with  admiration  at  the  old  hero  John  VIII.,  priest,  soldier, 
and  sailor  in  one,  the  last  doughty  champion  of  law  and 
order  in  Italy  for  many  a  weary  year,  the  historian  leaves 

1  Promis,  Tav.  v. 

2  With  Michael  the  Drunkard  and  Lothaire  of  Lorraine,  what  would 
the  Christian  world  in  the  ninth  century  have  come  to  but  for  such 
Popes  as  Nicholas  I.  and  Hadrian  II.? 


STEPHEN  (V.)  VI.  4OI 

with  regret  the  line  of  the  great  Popes  of  the  ninth  century 
— a  line  that  has  earned  the  praise  of  Catholic  and  non- 
Catholic  writers  alike.  He  is  the  more  loath  to  leave  the 
bright  light  of  their  deeds  from  the  fact  that  the  outlook  is 
gloomy  to  the  last  degree.  He  has  to  pass  from  contemplat- 
ing Peter  in  honour  by  the  side  of  his  Divine  Master,  to  con- 
sider him  in  dishonour — to  behold  him  but  too  often  the  sport 
of  petty  princes  instead  of  the  respected  of  the  universe. 
He  has  to  write  of  the  "iron  age"  of  Cardinal  Baronius. 
But  as  the  Rock  of  Peter  was  not  broken  by  the  fierce 
blows  dealt  it  for  three  hundred  years  by  the  masters  of 
the  civilised  world  ;  as  it  was  not  dissolved  when  "  the  world 
awoke  and  found  itself  Arian,"  nor  shattered  when  the 
barbarians  broke  in  pieces  the  majestic  might  of  old 
Rome  ;  as  it  was  not  overturned  by  Byzantine  astuteness 
nor  Frankish  violence,  so  we  shall  find  that  it  did  not  even 
crumble  by  any  internal  decay ;  for  was  not  the  Rock  of 
Peter  embedded  in  the  eternal  Rock,  which  is  Christ?  Had 
not  the  strength  of  the  bed-Rock  passed  into  the  Rock  of 
the  foundation?  Indeed,  is  it  ever  destined  to  fail?  for 
was  it  not  of  it  that  was  said :  "  I  am  with  you  all 
days  even  to  the  consummation  of  the  world"  (S.  Mat. 
xxviii.  20)  ?  If  well  nigh  submerged  by  the  waves  of  the 
barbarism  of  the  tenth  century,  the  following  century  will 
not  have  half  run  its  course  before  the  Rock  of  Peter  will 
be  seen  towering  up  aloft  above  the  waters,  a  pillar  of 
strength  to  those  who  leaned  upon  it,  a  source  of  dread 
to  those  who  would  rear  themselves  up  against  it 


VOL.  III.  26 


APPENDIX, 


THE  DUKES  OF  SPOLETO. 

Guido  (or  Guy)  I.,  838-866. 
Lambert  I.  (son  of  Guido  I.),  866-871. 
Suppo  II.,  871-879  or  880. 
Guido  II.  (son  of  Lambert  I.),  879  (88o)-c.  883. 
Guido  III.  (brother  of  Lambert  I.),  c.  883-891.1      He  became 
King  of  Italy  in  889,  and  emperor  in  891. 
1  It  cannot  be  said  that  this  table  is  more  than  approximately  accurate. 


INDEX. 


Abbasid  dynasty,  319  ff. 
Achrida,  12T,  212,  254. 
Actard  of  Nantes,  165  ff. 
Acts     of    the    eighth    general 

council,  201  n. 
Adalbert  I.    of  Tuscany,    277, 

304  f. 
Adam  of  Bremen,  3. 
Adelgisus,  187,  281,  322,  325. 
Ademar  of  Chabannes,  300. 
Ado,  134,  156,  158  n.,  163. 
Amelia,  97. 
tineas  of  Paris,  68. 
Agapetus,  227  f. 
Aglabites,  320. 
Aldric,  142  n. 

Alfonso  III.,  296,  324,  340  f. 
Alfred,  343,  359,  399. 
Altino,  336. 
Amalfi,  330,  381. 
Anastasius     the    librarian,    81, 

89,   134,    149,    153   n.,  ff., 

156,   163   f.,   190,   203    ff, 

254,   289. 
Anathema,  meaning  of,  286  n. 
Andrew  of  Bergamo,  277  n. 
Angelramn,  137. 
Annalista  Saxo,  71. 
Anno,  bishop  of  Freising,  239  f. 
Ansegisus  of  Sens,  291  f.,  345. 
Ansgar,  St.,  121. 


Anspert,  265  n.,  310,  314 
Anterus,  226. 
Antony  Cauleas,  St.,  394. 
Apocrisiarius  of  the  Holy  See, 

283  n. 
Aqua  Jovia,  5  n.,  126. 
Aqueducts,  126  f. 
|   Arcona,  109. 
I   Aries,  see  of,  306,  345. 
I   Arnold  of  Lubeck,  3. 
1   Arnulf,  duke  of  Carinthia,  243, 
244  n.,  376,  378  f.,  382  f. 
Arsenius  of  Horta,  78,  88  ff., 

ii4,  125,  153,  163. 
Atenolfus,  395  ff. 
j    Athanasius,  brother  of  Sergius, 
322>    327>    33°>    332    ff-> 
395  ff- 
Athanasius,  St.,  189. 
Aurelian  of  Lyons,  383  f. 

Baldwin  of  Flanders,  92. 
Bardas,  40  f.,  62. 
Bari,  187,  320,  329. 
Basil  the  Macedonian,  62,  67, 
190  ff.,  198  ff.,  249  ff.,  258, 

27°,  334- 
Basil  II.,  254. 
Bavaria,    patrimonies   of    Holy 

See  in,  78. 
Benedict,  canon,  152  n.,  286. 
405 


406 


INDEX 


Benedict  Levita,  137. 
Berenger   of  Friuli,    277,    305, 

356,  377  ff. 
Bishops,  hebdomadary-cardinal, 

347  f- 
Bishop,  Mr.,  233. 
Bog,  109. 

Bogislav,  Stephen,  381. 
Boniface  I.,  60. 
Books,    papal     censorship     of, 

,  i°75  I31- 

Boris,  1 12  f.,  209,  244,  249, 
285. 

Boso,  duke  and  king,  296,  306, 
308  f.,  316  f.,  324,  382. 

Branimir,  247,  252. 

Bremen,  121. 

Brittany,  94. 

Bulgaria,  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction over,  118  ff.,  208, 
210  ff.,  260  ff. 

Bulgarians,  the,  62,  64,  81  n., 
108,  in  ff.,  218,  249  ff, 
268,  270. 

Burchard  of  Worms,  139  n. 

Burgundy,  Transjurane,  377. 

Burhred,  343. 

Byzantium,  bishops  of,  25. 

Cairowan,  320. 
Calabria,  47,  324. 
Calojan  Jonitza,  253. 
Cambray,  91. 
Camelaucum,  14,  n. 
Canterbury,  privileges  of,  344. 
Cardinals,  regulations  concern- 

.  ing>  346. 
Carinthia,  in. 
Carloman,  182  ff. 
Carloman,    Son   of    Louis   the 

German,  182  ff,  277,  295, 

300  ff.,  313  f.,  317. 
Cartulary  Tower,  229. 
Catalogue,  the  papal,  231. 
Causae  majores,  132,  144. 
Cervetri,  272,  354 
Cervia,  72. 


Charles  the  Bald,  70,  72,  123  f., 
165    f.,    168    ff,    17T    ff, 
175    ff,    274    ff,    289    f., 
296  ff,  330. 
Charles  the  Fat,  277,  295,  309, 
313-8,   332,    355  ff.,  364, 
369,  376,  382  f- 
Charles  the  Simple,  317,  376. 
Christianity   not  to   be  spread 

by  force,  116. 
Churches : 

Quatuor  Coronati,  368  f. 

S.  Clement,  14. 

S.  Dionysius,  basilica  of,  9. 

S.  Eustachius,  288. 

S.     Lawrence    in     Damaso, 

227. 
S.  Maria  ad  Praesepe,  155. 
S.  Maria  Antiqua,  127. 
S.   Maria  in  Aquiro,  288. 
S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin,  5  n. 
S.  Maria  in  Via  Lata,  288. 
S.  Mark,  151. 
S.     Paul,     outside- the- walls, 

327- 
S.  Peter,  127,  374. 
S.  Silvester  in  Capite,  10. 
Circe,  battle  of,  323. 
Clement,  St.  (Pope),  15,  27,  28, 

218,  221  f. 
Coena  Cypriani,  235,  389. 
Constantine    IV.    (Pogonatus), 

112. 
Constantinople,  church  of,  116, 

130. 
Constantinople,    patriarchs    of, 

23  n.,  34  n. 
Cornomannia,  festival,  286  ff. 
Coronation,  papal,  n  ff. 
Councils : 

Aix-la-Chapelle     (860)     70, 

(862)  71. 
Attigny,  171,  184. 
Constantinople,  (861)47,  56, 
(867)  65,  (869,  the  eighth 
general)     200,     (879,     of 
Photius),  266. 


Index 


407 


Douzi-les-Pres,      147,      167, 

171,  178. 
Kiersy,  (858)  125,  169. 
Metz,  73. 
Pistres,  (862)  85. 
Pontion,  277  n.,  291  f. 
Ravenna,  (877)  298  f. 
Rome,  (862)    10,  (863)    55, 

74,    (861)    97    f.,     (869) 

i95»  (879)  257. 
Savonniere,  72. 
Senlis,  184. 
Soissons,    (861)     85,     (862) 

85,  (866)  167. 
Troyes,  178,  (878)  307. 
Valence,  106,  (890)  382. 
Verberie,    (863)     96,     (869) 
170. 
Councils   and   the    Holy    See, 

70  n.,  131. 
Croatia,  246. 
Croats,  no,  215. 
Crowns,  use  of,  in  matrimony, 

Cyril,  St.,  15,  in,  215  ff. 
Cyrilic  alphabet,  2 1 8  f. 

Dalmatia,  no,  379  ff. 
Damasus,  St.,  226. 
Data  ut  supra,  252  n. 
Deaconesses,  11  n. 
Decretals,   false,   and    Nicholas 

I.,  12,  135  ff. 
Denmark,  Christianity  in,  122. 
Dioclea  (Dukla),  Presbyter  of, 

381. 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  106. 
Dionysius  the  Little,  137,  145  ft- 
Doellinger  quoted,  271  n. 
Dol,  94. 

Domagoi,  215,  220,  249  n. 
Dominicus,  336  f.,  386. 
Donation  of  Charles  the  Bald, 

293  f. 
Donatus,  114. 

Edred,  or  Ethelred,  343. 


Egilo,  105. 

Einsiedeln,  anonymous  of,  375 n. 

Elections,  papal,  10. 

Eleutherius,  163. 

Emperors    and    Popes :     their 

duties,  6t,  386  f. 
Empire,   the,   and  the  Papacy, 

363. 
Encomium  of  monk  Michael, 

44  n. 
Engelberga,  275  f.,  306. 
England  and  Rome,  343,  399. 
English  in  Rome,  127. 
Epitome     of     eighth     general 

council,  272  n. 
Erchampert,  331,  396. 
Eric  I.  and  II.,  122. 
Erminfrid,  359,  364. 
Ethelbald,  93. 
Eudes  (or  Odo),  376,  3S4. 
Eusebius,  226. 
Eutropius,  a  priest,  162. 
Excommunication    freely    used 

by  John,  352. 

Ferdinand    I.    (of   Bulgaria), 

215. 

Ficolo,  72. 

Filioque,  the,  241,  269. 

Fines    inflicted   by   the    Pope, 

340. 
Formosus,  82  n,  114,  117,  161, 

209,  237,  277,  283  f.,  308, 

358>  369,  379>384n-,  393, 

400. 
France,  332,  345. 
Frangipani,  the,  229  f. 
Frothar,  385. 

Frodoard  (Flodoard),  234. 
Fulk,  358,  377,  384. 
Fundi,  318,  323. 

Gaeta,  396. 

Gallese,  353. 

Garigliano,  the,  318,  332,  396. 

Gaudericus,  150,  290. 

George  of  the  Aventine,  283  f. 


40* 


INDE}£ 


Ghost,  Holy,  Procession  of,  67. 
Glagolitic  alphabet,  218  f.,  246. 
Gotteschalc,  10 1  ff. 
Grado,  336. 
Gratian,  284. 

Greek  in  Latin  Services,  34  n. 
Greeks  in  South  Italy,  329,  395. 
Gregory  the  nomenclator,  283  f., 

37i- 
Gregory    I.    the    Great,      127, 

130  ff.,  145. 
Gregory  IV.,  127,  286,  288  n. 
Gregory  VII.,  132,  381. 
Gregory  of  Syracuse,  55,  61. 
Gregory  the  superista,  355. 
Guaifer  of  Salerno,    281,   322, 

33°> 
Guido,  or  Guy,  of  Spoleto,  28r, 

318,  322,  325.355,  377  ff, 
396- 
Gunther,  57,  65,  70,  74,  77,  82, 
160. 

Hadrian  II.,  66,  80  ff.,    134, 

*43>  T47,  I49-231- 
Hadrian  IIL,  360-367. 
Hall  of  the  She-wolf,  347. 
Hamburg,  121. 
Hedenulf,  178. 
Helen,  76. 
Heletrude,  92. 
Helmold  of  Biitzaw,  3. 
Herard,  167. 

Hernias,  the  shepherd  of,   27  f. 
Hermengard,  277,  306,  382. 
Hilduin,  91. 

Hincmar  of  Laon,  167  ff. 
Hincmar  of  Rheims,  830".,  124, 

139  n.,  169  ff,  175,  307. 
Horic,  122. 

Hormisdas,  Pope,  199,  202. 
Hungarians,  the,  245. 

Ignatius,  St.,  28. 

Ignatius,  St.,  Patriarch,  41,  48, 

53,    203,    208,    249,    255, 

259- 


Illyricum,  47,  120,  239. 
Imperial    dignity,     decline    of, 

301. 
Indulgence,  335. 
Ingelberga,   66,    82,    163,    187, 

191. 
Innocent  III.,  253. 
Innocent  IV.,  246. 
Interdict,  170. 
Irenaeus,  St.,  29,  190  f. 
Isidore  Mercator,  135  ff 
Italy,  South,  395. 

Joan,  263. 

Johannipolis,  32  ff 

John,  Archbishop  of  Ravenna, 

74,  96  f- 
John    the    Deacon,    149,    157, 

159  "•;  235,  289. 
John  VIII.,  177,  210,  231-353; 

ruler  of  Italy,  314-5,  390  n. 
John  IX.,  245,  370,  384  n.,  394. 
John  X.,  245. 
Judith,  92. 

Kozel  (Kociel),  223,  238  n. 

Lambert,  duke  of  Spoleto,  161, 
277,  297,  302  ff,  322. 

Landenulf,  331. 

Lando,  395. 

Landulf  of  Capua,  bishop  and 
count,   281,    293    n.,    322, 

33°  f- 
Langres,  383. 

Latin  in  Greek  services,  34  n. 
Laudes,  the,  19. 
Law,  Canon,  2. 
Le  Mans,  95. 
Leo,  48,  51. 
Leo  VI.,  250,  389. 
Leo  IX.,  St.,  143,  148. 
Leo  Grammaticus,  193  n. 
Letters  of  Nicholas  I.,  125. 
Letters,    papal,    tampered  with 

by  the  Greeks,  1. 
Letters,  Papal :  their  form,  3. 


INDEX 


409 


Libellus  de  imp.  potest.,  3. 
Liber  Pontificalis,  231. 
Librarian,  papal,  229. 
Library,  papal,  225  ft. 
Liturgy,  Roman  and   Slavonic, 

219. 
Liturgy,     Slavonic,     222,     240, 

243  f.,  245  f. 
Locust  plague,  375. 
Lothaire,  Emperor,  129. 
Lothaire,     King    of     Lorraine, 

70  ff.,  160  f,  179. 
Louis  the  German,    121,    123, 

179    ft.,     240,     277,    282, 

295- 
Louis     the     Stammerer,     178, 

305  fr>  3ii,  376. 

Louis  II.,  9  f.,  19,  66,  75  ff, 
97,  114,  124,  128  f.,  155, 
157,  162,  179  ff.,  186,  206, 
274,  320. 

Louis  III.  the  Blind,  of  Pro- 
vence, 382. 

Louis  III.  the  Young,  296,  314, 

3i7. 
Luitard,  98. 

Magnaura,  palace  of  the,  200. 

Manuel,  112. 

Marinus,  62,    197,   209,   272   f., 

353-361,  386  f 
Martin  IV.,  359. 
Martinus  Polonus,  363. 
Matilda,  94. 
Mediterranean    and    Saracens, 

3J9,  320. 
Methodius,  St.,  15,  in  f.,  150, 

215  ff.,  238  ff. 
Metrophanes,  44  n.,   263,  266, 

268. 
Michael    III.,  41,   46,   51,    57, 

61,   66,    67,    in    f.,    129, 

216. 
Michael  VI.,  381. 
Moesia  Inferior,  112,  119. 
Moimir  I  ,  216,  220. 
Moimir  II.,  220,  245, 

VOL.  III. 


Monasteries  : 

Anisol  or  St.  Calais,  95. 
Monte  Cassino,  332,  396. 
Nonantula,  345  f,  356. 
St.     Sergius     in     Constanti- 
nople, 270. 
St.  Vincent  on  the  Vulturno, 
332. 
Moravia,    216,   218   f.,    239  ft.t 

MS.  (Addit.  8873),  233. 
Muntimir,  duke  of  Srhiavonia, 

243  n.,  246. 
Mystery  Plays,  290. 

Nandecisus,  99  n. 

Navy  pontifical,  323. 

Nestor,  3,  109  n. 

Nicetas,  206. 

Nicholas  I.,    1-149,    r58:    x92i 

252,  278. 
Nicholas  V.,  230. 
Nomenoius,  9,  165  ft. 
Nona,  247  n. 
Nova  Tactica,  250  n. 

Odorannus,  291. 
Ordeals,  398. 
Oviedo,  341. 

Palaces,  episcopal,  plundered, 

37o. 
Pandonulf  of  Capua,  295. 
Panegyricus  Berengarii,  367. 
Pannonia,  238  f. 
Papacy,   power    of,    recognised 

by  the  Greeks,  48  f.,  194, 

207. 
Passau,  220  f. 
Patriarchs    of    Constantinople, 

.23  ".,  25,  34  n. 
Patriarchs    of   Constantinople : 

growth  of  their  power,  35  ft. 
Patrimonies  of  the    Holy  See, 

78,  299,  302. 
Patroni  of  the  Regions    13. 
Paul,  a  Roman  Priest,  1 13. 

27 


4io 


INDEX 


Paul  of  Ancona,  239,  252,  256. 

Paul  of  Samosata,  31. 

Pavia,    diet   of,   in    A.D.    876, 

280,285,  292  f.,  (889)  378. 
Pelayo  el  Fabulero,  341  n. 
Penances,  canonical,  125. 
Peter,  cardinal  priest,  266. 
Peter  of  Grado,  336. 
Peter  William,  231. 
Petrus  Siculus,  214. 
Photius,  40,  49,  57,  67,  190  ff., 

217,  249,  254  ff.,  273,  357, 

363,  386  ff. 
Pola,  99  n. 

Pontion,  agreement  of,  293  f. 
Popes  and  their  burial  places, 

365  f. 

Popes  and  councils,  70  n.,  131, 

143- 

Popes     and    Emperors:     their 

duties,  61. 
Popes,    patrons    of    kingdoms, 

380. 
Popes,  peoples  claim  protection 

of,  248. 
Popes,      spiritual      power      of, 

132  ff.,  386  f. 
Popes,  temporal  power  of,  133. 
Popes :    their  rights,  60,   70  n., 

86,  88,  129  ff. 
Porga,  110. 
Predestination,  10 1  ff. 
Presbiteria,  152. 
Presburg,  battle  of,  220. 
Prescription    and    the    Roman 

Church,  240,  336. 
Presthlava,  253. 
Priestesses,  11  n. 
Primacy  of  the  Roman  Church, 

26  ff.,  59  f.,  258  f.,  264  n., 

270. 
Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 

67,  390. 
Provence,    kingdom    of,     311, 

376. 
Prudentius,  104. 


Radelchis,  186. 

Radislav  (or  Rastiz),  1 1 1 ,  216, 

219,  223. 
Ratram,  68. 
Ravenna,   power  of   Popes   in, 

.299,  339- 
Regino  of  Prum,  139  n. 
Register  of  John  VIII.,  232. 
Rembert,  123. 
Replies    of    Nicholas    to    the 

Bulgarians,  114  ff. 
Richildis,  298. 
Robert  of  Le  Mans,  96. 
Rodoald  of  Porto,  46,  55,   72, 

74. 
Rodolf,  King,  376. 
Romanus,        archbishop        of 

Ravenna,  339  f.,  386. 
Rome,  Church  of,  26  f. 
Rome  and  the  East,  20  ff. 
Rothad  of  Soissons,  83  ff. 

Salzburg,  hi  n.,  220  f. 
Sampiro,  341. 
Sandals  of  Our  Lord,  99. 
Saracens,  60,  186,  257,  265,  275, 

281,  285,  296  f.,  318  ff. 
Savonniere,  72. 
Saxo  Grammaticus,  3. 
Schisms    between    Rome    and 

Constantinople,  23  n. 
Schism,  Greek,  20  ff. 
Schola  Anglorum,  343,  359. 
Scholar,  13,  126. 
Scott,  John,  106. 
Scupi  (Uskub),  212  n. 
Senate,  the,  188. 
Sepino,  332. 

Sergius,  Duke,  189,  275,  281. 
Sergius,  master  of  the  soldiers, 

283  f.,  322,  326. 
Siconulf,  186. 
Sigonius,  363. 
Simeon,  Tsar,  112,  253. 
Sisinnius,  394  n. 
Slavs,  3,  107  ff. ;  their  religion, 

109  ff. 


INDEX 


4II 


Solidus,  the,  342. 

Solomon,  bishop,  121. 

Solomon,  King  of  Brittany,  94, 
166. 

Spain,  319,  340  ff. 

Spoleto,  duke  of,  265,  28 r. 

St  Leucius,  20. 

Stephania,  163. 

Stephen,  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, 389. 

Stephen  (V.)  VI.,  244  f.,  271, 
273*  367-402. 

Stephen  (IX.)  X.,  381. 

Stylian,  263,  266,  391  ff. 

Suinimirus,  381. 

Swatopluk,  219,  223,  238.  24T  f., 
244  n.,  248,  379  f. 

Sweden,  Christianity  in,  122. 

Synod,  permanent,  24. 

Talarus,  151,  163. 
Tarentum,  395. 
Telerig,  112. 
Ternovo,  253  n. 
Terracina,  318,  323. 
Tertullian,  30  n. 
Teverone,  the,  326. 
Theodora,  40  f. 
Theodore,  8. 

Theodore  Santabarenus,  257. 
Theodosius,  61. 
Theognostus,  48  n.,  54. 
Thessalonica,    papal    vicar    of, 
120. 


Thessaly,  60. 
Theutberga,  70  ff,  83. 
Theutgard,  57,  70,  74,   77,  81, 

156. 
Thrace,  120. 
Tiara,  17  n. 

Tombs  of  the  Popes,  365  f. 
Torcello,  336. 
Tor  di  Quinto,  20. 
Traetto    (conference   of,    330), 

332. 
Treasury,  papal,  370. 
Trilinguists,  222. 

Ursus,  336. 

Vestararius     or     Vestiarius, 

160  n. 
Viulzachara,  364. 

Walbert,  patriarch  of  Aquileia, 

39°- 
Waldrada,  70,  72,  83. 

Wiching,  241. 
Wido  of  Osnabruck,  76. 
William  the  Conqueror,  94. 
Wulfad,  168. 


Zachary  of  Anagni,  46,  47  n, 
55,81,  156,  263,  290,  368. 
Zachary,  Pope,  228. 
Zengh,  246. 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Butler  &  Tanner  Ltd.,  Frome  and  London 


MANN,  H.K.  BQX 

103 
The  Lives  of  the  Popes    .M2 

in  the  Middle  Ages 
Volume  III   858-S91