HINCMAR OF REIMS: Archbishop of Reims; b. about 806; d. at Epernay (115 m. e.n.e. of Paris)

289

Dec. 21, 882. At an early age he was sent to the monastery of St. Denis, where he was taught by Abbot Hilduin, whom he accompanied to Aachen, when he was called to the imperial

Life. court in 822. Hincmar's presence there became of the greatest impor tance for his future career, as he was here enabled to study practical politics at the fountain-head, and acquire diplomatic ability and political sagacity. Owing to political intrigues, Hilduin was exiled to Corbie, whither Hincmar followed him voluntarily. By his entreaties he induced the emperor to par don Hilduin and restore to him the abbey of St. Denis, where Hinemar acquired a mass of information for which he would have found no time in later life. In acknowledgment of the services rendered to his father, Charles the Bald made him his councilor and recommended him for the archi episcopal see of Reims, which had stood vacant since the deposition of Ebo in 835; and in 845 he was regularly elected and consecrated.

Thenceforth Hincmar's influence was decisive for almost four decades in Church and State. He was soon involved in the controversy on Controversy predestination, which had been started with by Gottschalk (see Got-rsCHArs, 1.),

GottschalL and threatened to shake the foundations of the GaMcan Church. Rabanus Maurus had summoned Gottschalk before a synod in Mainz in 848, and then delivered him over to Hincmar for punishment. At the Synod of Chiersey in 849 Hincmar condemned him a second time, but influential men from all sides defended the doctrine of Augustine. By scientific treatises and the summoning of various synods the archbishop attempted to subdue his opponent, but no agreement was reached, and both parties were finally worn out by the protracted dimensions. Hinemar was involved also in a controversy on the Trinity with Gottschalk, and again he conquered only with great difficulty the opposition of the adherents of Augustine.

In the mean time there had arisen a still more dangerous struggle. After his deposition in 835, Ebo, his predecessor, had been reinControversy stituted as archbishop in 840 on the with Ebo. death of King Louis, and had returned The to Reims. Though he had to flee Pseudo- again at the advance of Charles in 841, Isidorian he found time to consecrate several

Decretals. ecclesiastics and thus gained a number of adherents in the diocese of Reims. As Hinemar prohibited the performance of their functions, they started an agitation against him. Summoned before the Synod of Soissons in 853, they produced a writ of complaint, in which they tried to prove the legitimacy of Ebo's reinstitution on the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (q.v.), which here emerged for the first time as a source of canon law. The synod, however, declared the deposition of Rho valid and the ordination of Hinemar legal. The friends of Ebo appealed to Rome, and Hinemar did likewise for the confirmation of the synodal decree. Benedict III. finally conceded the desire of Hincmar; but the dispute was not yet settled. Bishop Rothad of V.-19

Soissons became the spokesman of the deposed clerics and defended their pseudo-Isidorian princi ples. Rothad was deposed and condemned to im prisonment in a monastery, but in his place there arose a more dangerous opponent in Nicholas I., the most powerful pope of that century. The struggle now assumed the most decisive and far reaching importance, since it revolved around the papal sanction of the pseudo-Isidorian forgery. Nicholas summoned Rothad to Rome, where he arrived in 884, and succeeded in gaining in the pope the most powerful defender of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. On the basis of these documents, the pope reinstituted Rothad in his office, and Hinemar was defeated in his struggle against the pseudo Isidorian party. The deposed ecclesiastics of Reims who knew about this extraordinary forgery and undoubtedly had lent their hand to its com pilation were encouraged by the success of Rothad, and under the leadership of Wulfad they brought their case before the pope. Nicholas induced Hinc mar to resume his negotiations regarding their res toration. At the instigation of Hinemar, a synod at Soissons in 886 advocated such action, but Nicholas categorically demanded that Hinemar either acknowledge the legitimacy of their mstoration or prove the legitimacy of their deposition. Hinemar was saved from this difficulty by the cir cumstance that the pope became less severe in his demands, as he needed the services of the arch bishop in his struggles with the Eastern Church. In his conflict with Adrian II. (q.v.) he was success ful. A new humiliation was heaped upon him when John VIII. conferred the dignity of the primacy of France upon Archbishop Ansegis of Sens, thus ig noring Hincmar, who had the first claim upon it. Hinemar played a prominent part also in the sphere of politics. He was the most faithful coun cilor of the West-Frankish kings for more than three generations, and more than once he saved the kingdom from threatening down Hincmar's fall. He was likewise theacknowledged Activity leader of the Gallican Church, whose in national independence he tried in vain Politics to uphold against the increasing power and of Rome. He firmly defended the Writings. principle that the spiritual p -)wer take precedence over royal authority. In his theological views he was a child of his time. In learning he excelled his contemporaries, but he was without originality of thought. Driven away from Reims by the Normans a short time before his death, he found a refuge in Epernay. Of his literary works may be mentioned two treatises on predestination, which reveal his Semi-Pelagian views. These were occasioned by his controversy with Gottschalk. A treatise, De una et non tria deitate, was the outcome of his controversy on the Trinity with the same monk. His best literary performance, however, is his Annales, 881-888, continued byFlodoard (MGH, Script., i_ 1826, 45?r 515, and Script. rer. Germ., 1883, 55-x54; MPL, exxv. 1203-1302). In his Opuaculum lv. capitu lorum he defines his attitude toward the pseudo Isidorian decretals. He considered the Dionysio Hadrianian codex as the exclusive source of canon

290

law and felt more or less the fictitious make-up of the pseudo-Isidorian laws, although he was unable to prove it.

(Albert Freystedt.)

Bibliography: The works of Hinemar were edited by Sir mond. Paris, 1645, and again in MPL, cxxv.-cxxvi. Consult W. F. Gess, Merkwfirdigkeiten aus dem Leben and den Schriften Hinkmare, Göttingen, 1806; J. C. Prieh ard, The Life and Times of Hincmar, Littlemore, 1849; Weisekeker, in Historische Zeitschrlft, i (1858), 327-430, iii (1860), 42-96; C. Dies, De vita et inpenio Rincmari, Sens, 1859; C. von Noorden, Hinkmar Erzbischof von Rheims, Bonn, 1863; Loupot, Hincmar, . . as vie, sea muvrea, son influence, Reims, 1869; T. FSrster, Drei Erzbfach6fe vor 1000 Jahren, Gütersloh, 1874; A. Vidieu, Hincmar de Reims, Paris, 1875; M. Sdralek, Hincmars van Rheims canoniatisches Gutachten caber die Ehesaheidung des %6nigs Lothar 11., Freiburg, 1881; H. Schr6rs, Hink mar, Embischo/ von Reims, Freiburg, 1884; Histoire littéraire de la Prance, v. 544 sqq.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, xii. 654-691; AID-, Latin Christianity, iii. 51, 64, 72, 77, 80, iv. 184; Neander, Christian Church, iii. 354-368, 478-482, 489-494; Schaff, Christian Church, iv. 276-277, 528, 534-535, 552, 750-761; Moeller, Christian Church, ii. 162, 165, 198, 204-205, 221.