Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T20:21:32.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Genuine and the Forged Oath of Pope Leo III

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Luitpold Wallach
Luitpold Wallach*
Affiliation:
The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Okla
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An oath was sworn by Pope Leo III at St. Peter's on December 23 of the year 800 before a synodal assembly at which Charlemagne presided; it occupies a central place among the events that culminated, only two days later, in the coronation of the Frankish king as Imperator Romanorum. The document customarily known as the text of this ‘oath’ was in 1899 edited by Karl Hampe, and in 1906 by Albert Werminghoff, who followed his predecessor ad verbum usque, as he says. The apparatus of both editions establishes the insertion of a slightly reedited oath in the Decretum of Burchard of Worms. Ivo of Chartres and, in an apologetic treatise, Gerhoh of Reichersberg follow Burchard without major changes. The variants listed by Hampe and Werminghoff indicate that they both distinguished between the basic text of the oath in the oldest, ninth-century MS, Würzburg M. p. theol. fol. 46 (and its descendants, the Monacenses 6241 and 27246, saec. x-xi), and the oath's transmission by Burchard and the above-named authors who depend on Burchard. And Hampe assigns the twelfth-century Vaticanus 1348 to the Burchard tradition, when he says that its readings largely correspond with Burchard's (‘paene omnibus conveniunt Burchardi Wormat. decret. …’). Both scholars are fully conversant with the textual history of the document; they reprint in the notes the abbreviated version of the oath in Gratian's Decretum, and the text in a Roman Ordo which represents a version re-written in accordance with certain concepts of Roman law. The Burchard-tradition has been discussed in a recent study. Some of the changes made by Burchard in the original text of the oath are readily understandable. The variant in … conspectu, instead of in … basilica, probably resulted from a scribal dittography, because the same expression occurs in the oath of purgation in the lines preceding and following the correct reading. The variant adversum, instead of adversus, is an emendation of the original text. Burchard evidently recognized the resemblance between the original reading, ‘qualiter homines mali adversus me insurrexerunt and Psalm 53.5 ‘quoniam alieni insurrexerunt adversum me.’

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 11 , 1955 , pp. 37 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 MGH Epistolae 5 ( Karolini aevi 3; Berlin 1899) No. 6 p. 63f.Google Scholar

2 MGH Concilia 2.1 (aevi Karolini 1.1; Hannover-Leipzig 1906) No. 26 p. 226f.Google Scholar

3 MGH Epistolae 5.63.15-9.Google Scholar

4 See infamasse (p. 227.24); ‘Cuius rei cognoscendae gratia,’ (p. 227.25) for the Carolingian formula ‘propter quam causam audiendam.’ The concluding statement (p. 227.32) ‘sed ut certius iniquis vos suspicionibus liberem,’ parallels the concluding statement of the Burchard-tradition (p. 227.15) of the forged oath: ‘sed ut melius a vobis abscidatis rebelles cogitationes.’ The occurrence of infamia and the concluding statement in the Roman Ordo link this version with the source of the forged oath of purgation, quoted below, p. 46, section II: ‘sed me a praefata infamia et suspitione liberando.' Google Scholar

5 Adelson, H. and Baker, R., ‘The Oath of Purgation of Pope Leo III in 800,’ Traditio 8 (1952) 35–80, especially 39-46. The readings of Ivo's Panormia in the Basel edition of 1499 are added there to show the influence of the Burchard-tradition but do not supply new information as compared with Werminghoff's apparatus. Read p. 42 variant 30, and p. 43 Table 2 variant 30: ecclesi (not ecclesie) M 1, and Werminghoff, p. 227.8 ecclesia. There is no difference between Werminghoff's text and the one given by Adelson-Baker.Google Scholar

6 MGH Concilia 2.1.226.26 and 227.4. The interpretation of Burchard's variants by Adelson-Baker, , op. cit. 79, reads too much into Burchard's text, of which a critical edition is not available at the present.Google Scholar

7 See Ganshof, F. L., The Imperial Coronation of Charlemagne: Theories and Facts (Glasgow University Publications 79; 1949).Google Scholar

8 Cf. also Heldmann, Karl, Die Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen: Eine kritische Studie (Weimar 1928); Reck, Alfons, Das ‘Staatskirchentum’ Karls des Grossen in der deutschsprachigen Forschung seit 1870 (Dissertation Freiburg-Switzerland 1948).Google Scholar

9 Fichtenau, Heinrich, ‘Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung 61 (1953) 258.Google Scholar

10 On the sequence of events see Jaffé, Ph., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum I (2nd ed. Leipzig 1885) pp. 308–10; Boehmer-Mühlbacher, , Regesta Imperii 1 (2nd ed. Innsbruck 1908) Nos. 369a-370a; Haller, J., Das Papsttum II (Stuttgart 1951) 16-19; Amann, Émile, L'Époque carolingienne (Hist. de l’Église ed. Fliche-Martin 6; Paris 1937) 155-60.Google Scholar

11 So Caspar, Erich, ‘Das Papsttum unter fränkischer Herrschaft,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935) 225.Google Scholar

12 Plöchl, W. M., Geschichte des Kirchenrechts I (Wien-München 1953) 283.Google Scholar

13 Hartmann, Ludo Moritz, Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter II 2 (Gotha 1903) 341.Google Scholar

14 See MGH Diplomata Karolinorum, ed. Mühlbacher, E. (Hannover 1906), e.g., DK 63, 128, 110, 138, 148, 196.Google Scholar

15 MGH Formulae Merowingici et Karolini aevi , ed. Zeumer, K. (Hannover 1882) 251.20; 252.3.Google Scholar

16 See, for instance, Brunner, H., Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte II (2nd ed. München-Leipzig 1928) 690.Google Scholar

17 Gregorovius, Ferdinand, Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter II (2nd ed. Stuttgart 1869) 478. It seems that Gr. interchanges the meetings of December 799 and that of December 800, mentioned above.Google Scholar

18 Cf. Feine, H. E., Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte I (2nd ed. Weimar 1954) 297; Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages (London 1955) 117f.Google Scholar

19 See the handy collection of relevant passages from Alcuin's letters in Dannenbauer, H., Die Quellen zur Geschichte der Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen (Lietzmann's Kleine Texte no. 161; Berlin 1931).Google Scholar

20 Duchesne, L., Liber Pontificalis II (Paris 1892) 7.Google Scholar

21 MGH Concilia 2.1.82.10-1. — We are investigating here only the formula of Leo's oath, not the formalities surrounding the oath. Adelson-Baker, , op. cit. 66f. suggest as a precedent for these formalities those that accompanied the oath of Pope Pelagius I (556-61), the words of which are not preserved. The parallels between the descriptions in Liber Pontificalis I 303 (Pelagius I) and II 7 (Leo III) — arrival of the pontiff at St. Peter's, his holding of a copy of the Gospels, and his ascent to the ambo — are, however, devoid of actual historical significance; they are merely literary parallels, the author of the Vita Leonis having copied from the Vita of Pelagius.Google Scholar

22 On the various oaths in Roman Law see Artur Steinwenter in RE 10.1 (1919) 1257-60; Mommsen, Theodor, Römisches Strafrecht (Leipzig 1899) 436ff.Google Scholar

23 Cf. Richard Schröder and Eberhard Frh. von Künssberg, , Lehrbuch der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte (7th ed. Berlin-Leipzig 1932), 378, 394, 410, 414, and Löning note 54 below.Google Scholar

24 Kleinclausz, Arthur, Alcuin (Paris 1948) 259; Calmette, Joseph, Charlemagne (Paris 1945) 126.Google Scholar

25 Duchesne, L., Les premiers temps de l'État pontifical (2nd ed. Paris 1904) 175.Google Scholar

26 Halphen, Louis, Charlemagne et l'Empire Carolingien (Paris 1947) 127f.Google Scholar

27 Cf. Chroust, A., Monumenta Palaeographica (Munich 1901) Abt. I 1 Lief. 5, T. 5.Google Scholar

28 Op. cit. (above note 11) 229 and note 47.Google Scholar

29 Cf. Biscboff, B. and Hofmann, J., Libri Sancti Kyliani (Würzburg 1952) 109, and Adelson-Baker, , op. cit. 48f.Google Scholar

30 Cf. Levillain, Léon, ‘Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne,’ Revue d'histoire de l'Église de France 18 (1932) 15.Google Scholar

31 See the survey of the sources by Abel-Simson, , Jahrbücher des Fränkischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen 2 (Leipzig 1883) 583–587.Google Scholar

32 MGH Scriptores 1 (1826) 37, ad annum 799.Google Scholar

33 See the Indices of MGH Concilia (above note 2); MGH Dipl. Kar. (above note 14); MGH Formulae (above note 15); and MGH Capitularia Regum Francorum 2 (1897) 587, s.v. causa. Google Scholar

34 The following quotations see in MGH Formulae, above note 15.Google Scholar

35 MGH Concilia 2.1 (above, note 2) 167.15–27.Google Scholar

36 MGH Capitularia 1.1. (1881) no. 91, p. 192.4–193.1.Google Scholar

37 See Mansi 5 (1761) 1061–1068; ibid., Sixtus’ letter (JK 397) col. 1054-6. Adelson-Baker, , op. cit. 73, maintain that any influence of the Gesta on the ‘oath of purgation’ must be discounted.Google Scholar

38 Caspar, Erich, Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft 2 (Tübingen 1933) 107–10; Haller, Johannes, Das Papsttum I (Stuttgart 1950) 238-40, and 534f.Google Scholar

39 Mansi 5.1063B.Google Scholar

40 Hinschius, , op. cit. 562f. does not list this source of the forgery nor other sources of the forged letter of Sixtus; but cf. p. 563: ‘hi qui non sunt bone conversationis — admit-tantur,’ and Capitula Angilramni 13 (Hinschius p. 761); ‘hi qui in aliquibus criminibus — accusandi’ = Cap. Angilr. 14; ‘Si quis ergo iuratus — non ut reus criminis teneatur’ = Interpretatio of Cod. Theod. 9.1.5 (Breviarium Alaricianum 9.1.3). As far as we can learn from Fr. Maassen. ‘Pseudoisidor-Studien,’ Sb. Akad. Wien 108-9 (1884-85), especially 109 (1885) 811, the Sixtus-letter does not seem to be contained in the Hispana of Autun, a still unpublished collection which forms the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.Google Scholar

41 As is assumed by Hauck, Albert, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands II (3rd and 4th edd. Leipzig 1912) 105, note; Caspar, , Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 54 (1935) 223f. and note 33, pointed this out, and also Alcuin's probable acquaintance with the Gesta purgationis of Sixtus.Google Scholar

42 Ed. Perels, Ernst, MGH Epistolae 6 (Karolini aevi 4; Berlin 1925) 464f.; JE 2682.Google Scholar

43 Cf. Buchner, Rudolf, Die Rechtsquellen, Beiheft to Wattenbach-Levison, , Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Weimar 1953) 71-5.Google Scholar

44 PL 124.1015-18.Google Scholar

45 Ed. Hinschius, 76.Google Scholar

46 Cf. Hinschius 248, c. 11, and in the middle of page 256; for the occurrence in the acts of the Synod of Paris see MGH Capitularia 2 (1897) 35f.; on the entire theory here described see now Ullmann, Walter, The Growth of Papal Government (above, n. 18) 39, 131, 181, 187.Google Scholar

47 Cf. for instance Haller, Johannes, Nikolaus I. und Pseudoisidor (Stuttgart 1936) 156.Google Scholar

48 See JE I p. 320.Google Scholar

49 Traditio 8 (1952) 53ff.Google Scholar

50 When he made his collection, as argued by Pelster, F., in Miscellanea Giovanni Mercati 2 (Rome 1946) 157ff.Google Scholar

51 Steinwenter, Artur, ‘Der antike kirchliche Rechtsgang und seine Quellen,’ Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanon. Abt. 23 (1934) 58–61, calls attention to instances of the purgatio canonica in the Eastern Church during the fourth and fifth centuries.Google Scholar

52 MGH Epistolae 4 ( Karolini aevi 2; Berlin 1895) No. 178, p. 295.Google Scholar

53 MGH Poetae 1.523 no. 32 vv. 23-4: ‘… est tamen in dubio, hinc mirer an inde magis.’ Google Scholar

54 Cf. Löning, Richard, Der Reinigungseid bei Ungerichtsklagen im deutschen Mittelalter (Heidelberg 1880).Google Scholar

55 See Hinschius, Paul, Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten 4 (Berlin 1888) 773, 840; and in Hauck's, Albert Realenzyklopädie für protestantische Theologie (3rd ed.) 6.595; also Loening, Edgar, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts II (Strassburg 1878) 503.Google Scholar

56 MGH Concilia 2.1.167, 170.Google Scholar

57 Cf. Cosack, Conrad, Die Eidhelfer des Beklagten nach ältestem deutschem Recht (Stuttgart 1885).Google Scholar

58 Schwartz, Eduard, Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum II.iii.1 (Berlin-Leipzig 1935) 136 cap. 570; cf. Hinschius, , Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae 173. On the prohibition in late classical times see Seidl, Erwin, Der Eid im römisch-ägyptischen Provinzialrecht II (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 24; 1935) 36-43. Cf. further Codex Justinianus 1.3.25.1b (ed. Paul Krüger; Berlin 1900), a.456: ‘… quia ecclesiasticis regulis et canone a beatissimis episcopis antiquitus instituto clerici iurare prohibentur’; also the Edict of Emperor Henry III, 3 April 1047, De iuramentis clericorum, MGH Constitutiones et acta publica I, ed. Ludwig Weiland (Hannover 1893) no. 50 p. 96f., forbidding the oath to ecclesiastics: ‘… set suis idoneis advocatis hoc officium liceat delegare.' Google Scholar

59 MGH Leges 2.2 (Hannover-Leipzig 1837) 48.Google Scholar

60 Seckel, Ε., in Neues Archiv 29 (1904) 283 note 4 and 31 (1906) 70f. shows that the beginning of Ben. 1.35 is derived ‘aus echter Quelle’ and that the rest and 1.36 are ‘Fälschungen Benedicts.’ Adelson-Baker, , op. cit. 50 n. 57, mention Seckel's findings only for the second, not the first chapter.Google Scholar

61 See MGH Leges 2.2.48 variant f: ‘qui duodecim presbiteros in sua purgatione habuit.' Google Scholar

62 c.3; PL 125.1094C.Google Scholar

63 See Seckel, E., in Neues Archiv 50 (1916) 48–50; Seckel-Juncker, , in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanon. Abt. 23 (1934) 271ff.Google Scholar

64 MGH Epistolae 5.276.Google Scholar

65 PL 125.784D-785A.Google Scholar

66 MGH Capitularia 2 (1897) 188.Google Scholar

67 So the codd. Monacenses, also Benedict, Burchard of Worms, Gratian.Google Scholar

68 Mansi 8.338C-D, not mentioned MGH Capit. 2.188.Google Scholar

69 Published MGH loc. cit. note.Google Scholar

70 Mansi, 8.616C-E.Google Scholar

71 MGH Constitutiones et acta publica 1, ed. Weiland, L. (Hannover 1893) 622; cf. now Hellmann, M., ‘Die Synode von Hohenaltheim,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 73 (1954) 142.Google Scholar

72 von Schwerin, Claudius Frh., Rituale für Gottesurteile (Sb. Akad. Heidelberg 1932-33, 3. Abh.) 43–48.Google Scholar

73 Also Nottarp, H., Gottesurteile I (Bamberg 1949) 226f.; Leitmaier, Charlotte, Die Kirche und die Gottesurteile (Wien 1953) 17f.Google Scholar

74 Geschichte des Kirchenrechts I 382f.Google Scholar

75 Cf. Williams, S., ‘The Pseudo-Isidorian Problem Today,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 702–7.Google Scholar

76 MGH Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum (Hannover 1888) 202.Google Scholar

77 Bresslau, Harry, Die ältere Salzburger Annalistik (Abb. Akad. Berlin 1923 No. 2) 10–7, 36, 40.Google Scholar

78 I am indebted to Dr. Hofmann for sending me photographs of fol. 149r and 149v, for permission to reproduce both pages, and for his letters of April 29, and May 24, 1955 with their valuable information.Google Scholar

79 In a note to me dated May 3, 1955.Google Scholar

80 Compare the facsimile of the oath with that of the handwriting of Lotharius reproduced by Rand, E. K., The Earliest Book of Tours (Cambridge, Mass. 1934) 69 and pl. 35.1, fol. 2r of the MS Paris BN lat. 2109, saec. ix.Google Scholar

81 Jones, C. W., Bedae Opera de temporibus (Cambridge, Mass. 1943) 159 no. 103; 152 no. 42; 156 no. 74; 161.Google Scholar

82 Op. cit. 12, note 1.Google Scholar

83 ‘Zur Weltchronik vom J. 741,’ Neues Archiv 22 (1897) 548–553.Google Scholar

84 Cf. Jones, , op. cit. 159 no. 103.Google Scholar

85 Rose, Valentin, Verzeichnis der lateinischen Handschriften I (Berlin 1893) 280ff.Google Scholar

86 Hermann, H. J., Die frühmittelalterlichen Handschriften des Abendlandes (Leipzig 1923) 145ff.Google Scholar

87 So Josef Hofmann in Bischoff-Hofmann, , Libri Sancti Kyliani (Würzburg 1952) 109 note 180.Google Scholar

88 So Adelson-Baker op. cit. 39 note 15.Google Scholar

89 Cf. note 79.Google Scholar

90 In a letter to me written on April 12, 1955.Google Scholar

91 This paragraph renders the results of the investigations of Dr. Hofmann; see note 78, above.Google Scholar

92 In the first portion I include also the first word of line 9, voluntate, as previously pointed out in my analysis of the oath; the word is unmistakably written by the same hand that wrote the first 8 lines. (L.W.) Google Scholar

93 ‘Ein römischer Majestätsprozess und die Kaiserkrönung Karls des Grossen,’ Historische Zeitschrift 87 (1901) 385–406; cf. generally Le Bras, Gabriel, ‘Le droit romain au service de la domination pontificale,’ Revue historique de droit français et étranger 27 (1949) 377-98.Google Scholar

94 ‘Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum,’ Mitteilungen des Instituts für Oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung 61 (1953) 257–67.Google Scholar

95 Gregorovius, F., Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter II (2nd ed. Stuttgart 1869) 491, long ago asked with reference to Einhard's remark: ‘Soll man glauben, dass er (scil. Charlemagne) sich einst wie Augustus den Schein gab, die höchste Würde nicht annehmen zu wollen, bis er dazu durch die vollendete Tatsache gezwungen wurde?’ Cf. also Wickert, L., in RE 22 (1954) 2258-64, on the cunctatio of the princeps before taking possession of his office.Google Scholar