HISTORY
of the
CHRISTIAN CHURCH Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak
Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been
carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the
1910 edition of Charles Scribner’s Sons) by The Electronic Bible
Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.
by
PHILIP SCHAFF
Christianus sum. Christiani nihil a me alienum puto
VOLUME IV.
MEDIAEVAL CHRISTIAINITY
From Gregory I to Gregory VII
A.D. 590–1073
HISTORY
of
MEDIEVAL CHRISTIANITY
FROM a. d. 590 TO 1517.
CHAPTER I.
General Introduction to Mediaeval Church History.
§ 1. Sources and Literature.
August Potthast: Bibliotheca Historica Medii Aoevi. Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des Europäischen Mittelalters von 375–1500. Berlin, 1862. Supplement, 1868.
The mediaeval literature embraces four distinct branches;
1. The Romano-Germanic or Western Christian;
2. The Graeco-Byzantine or Eastern Christian;
3. The Talmudic and Rabbinical;
4. The Arabic and Mohammedan.
We notice here only the first and second; the other two will be mentioned in subdivisions as far as they are connected with church history.
The Christian literature consists partly of documentary sources, partly of historical works. We confine ourselves here to the most important works of a more general character. Books referring to particular countries and sections of church history will be noticed in the progress of the narrative.
I. Documentary Sources.
They are mostly in Latin—the official language of the Western Church,—and in Greek,—the official language of the Eastern Church.
(1) For the history of missions: the letters and biographies of missionaries.
(2) For church polity and government: the official letters of popes, patriarchs, and bishops.
The documents of the papal court embrace (a) Regesta (registra), the transactions of the various branches of the papal government from a.d. 1198–1572, deposited in the Vatican library, and difficult of access. (b) Epistolae decretales, which constitute the basis of the Corpus juris canonici, brought to a close in 1313. (c) The bulls (bulla, a seal or stamp of globular form, though some derive it from boulhv, will, decree) and briefs (breve, a short, concise summary), i.e., the official letters since the conclusion of the Canon law. They are of equal authority, but the bulls differ from the briefs by their more solemn form. The bulls are written on parchment, and sealed with a seal of lead or gold, which is stamped on one side with the effigies of Peter and Paul, and on the other with the name of the reigning pope, and attached to the instrument by a string; while the briefs are written on paper, sealed with red wax, and impressed with the seal of the fisherman or Peter in a boat.
(3) For the history of Christian life: the biographies of saints, the disciplinary canons of synods, the ascetic literature.
(4) For worship and ceremonies: liturgies, hymns, homilies, works of architecture sculpture, painting, poetry, music. The Gothic cathedrals are as striking embodiments of mediaeval Christianity as the Egyptian pyramids are of the civilization of the Pharaohs.
(5) For theology and Christian learning: the works of the later fathers (beginning with Gregory I.), schoolmen, mystics, and the forerunners of the Reformation.
II. Documentary Collections. Works of Mediaeval Writers.
(1) For the Oriental Church.
Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, opera Niebuhrii, Bekkeri, et al. Bonnae, 1828–’78, 50 vols. 8vo. Contains a complete history of the East-Roman Empire from the sixth century to its fall. The chief writers are Zonaras, from the Creation to a.d. 1118; Nicetas, from 1118 to 1206; Gregoras, from 1204 to 1359; Laonicus, from 1298 to 1463; Ducas, from 1341 to 1462; Phrantzes, from 1401 to 1477.
J. A. Fabricius (d. 1736): Bibliotheca Graeca sive Notitia Scriptorum veterum Graecorum, 4th ed., by G. Chr. Harless, with additions. Hamburg, 1790–1811, 12 vols. A supplement by S. F. W. Hoffmann: Bibliographisches Lexicon der gesammten Literatur der Griechen. Leipzig, 1838–’45, 3 vols.
(2) For the Westem Church.
Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum. Lugduni, 1677, 27 vols. fol.
Martene (d. 1739) and Durand (d. 1773): Thesaurus Anecdotorum Novus, seu Collectio Monumentorum, etc. Paris, 1717, 5 vols. fol. By the same: Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum Collectio ampliss. Paris, 1724–’38, 9 vols. fol.
J. A. Fabricius: Bibliotheca Latina Mediae et Infimae AEtatis. Hamb. 1734, and with supplem. 1754, 6 vols. 4to.
Abbé Migne: Patralogiae Cursus Completus, sive Bibliotheca Universalis ... Patrum, etc. Paris, 1844–’66. The Latin series (1844–’55) has 221 vols. (4 vols. indices); the Greek series (1857–66) has 166 vols. The Latin series, from tom. 80–217, contains the writers from Gregory the Great to Innocent III. Reprints of older editions, and most valuable for completeness and convenience, though lacking in critical accuracy.
Abbé Horay: Medii AEvi Bibliotheca Patristica ab anno MCCXVI usque ad Concilii Tridentini Tempora. Paris, 1879 sqq. A continuation of Migne in the same style. The first 4 vols. contain the Opera Honori III.
Joan. Domin. Mansi (archbishop of Lucca, d. 1769): Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio. Florence and Venice 1759–1798, 31 vols. fol. The best collection down to 1509. A new ed. (facsimile) publ. by Victor Palmé, Paris and Berlin 1884 sqq. Earlier collections of Councils by Labbé and Cossart (1671–72, 18 vols), Colet (with the supplements of Mansi, 1728–52, 29 vols. fol.), and Hardouin (1715, 12 vols. fol.).
C. Cocquelines: Magnum Bullarium Romanum. Bullarum,
Privilegiorum ac Diplomatum Romanorum Pontificum usque ad Clementem
XII. amplissima Collectio.
A. A. Barberi: Magni Bullarii Rom. Continuatio a
Clemente XIII ad Pium VIII. (1758–1830).
G. H. Pertz (d. 1876): Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Hannov. 1826–1879. 24 vols. fol. Continued by G. Waitz.
III. Documentary Histories.
Acta Sanctorum Bollandistarum. Antw. Bruxellis et Tongerloae, 1643–1794; Brux. 1845 sqq., new ed. Paris, 1863–75, in 61 vols. fol. (with supplement). See a list of contents in the seventh volume for June or the first volume for October; also in the second part of Potthast, sub “Vita,” pp. 575 sqq.
This monumental work of John Bolland (a learned Jesuit, 1596–1665), Godefr. Henschen (†1681), Dan. Papebroch (†1714), and their associates and followers, called Bollandists, contains biographies of all the saints of the Catholic Church in the order of the calendar, and divided into months. They are not critical histories, but compilations of an immense material of facts and fiction, which illustrate the life and manners of the ancient and mediaeval church. Potthast justly calls it a “riesenhaftes Denkmal wissenschaftlichen Strebens.” It was carried on with the aid of the Belgic government, which contributed (since 1837) 6,000 francs annually.
Caes. Baronius (d. 1607): Annales ecclesiastici a
Christo nato ad annum 1198.
IV. Modern Histories of the Middle Ages.
J. M. F. Frantin: Annales du moyen age. Dijon, 1825, 8 vols. 8vo.
F. Rehm: Geschichte des Mittelalters. Marbg, 1821–’38, 4 vols. 8vo.
Heinrich Leo: Geschichte des Mittelalters. Halle, 1830, 2 vols.
Charpentier: Histoire literaire du moyen age. Par. 1833.
R. Hampson: Medii aevi Calendarium, or Dates, Charters, and Customs of the Middle Ages, with Kalenders from the Xth to the XVth century. London, 1841, 2 vols. 8vo.
Henry Hallam (d. 1859): View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages. London, 1818, 3d ed. 1848, Boston ed. 1864 in 3 vols. By the same: Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. Several ed., Engl. and Am. Boston ed. 1864 in 4 vols.; N. York, 1880, in 4 vols.
Charles Hardwick († l859): A History of the Christian Church. Middle Age. 3d ed. by Stubbs, London, 1872.
Henry Hart Milman († 1868): History of Latin Christianity; including that of the Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. London and N. York, 1854, 8 vols., new ed., N. York (A. C. Armstrong & Son), 1880.
Richard Chenevix Trench (Archbishop of Dublin): Lectures on Mediaeval Church History. London, 1877, republ. N. York, 1878.
V. The Mediaeval Sections of the General Church Histories.
(a) Roman Catholic: Baronius (see above), Fleury, Möhler, Alzog, Döllinger (before 1870), Hergenröther.
(b) Protestant: Mosheim, Schröckh, Gieseler, Neander, Baur, Hagenbach, Robertson. Also Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Rom. Empire (Wm. Smith’s ed.), from ch. 45 to the close.
VI. Auxiliary.
Domin. Du Cange (Charles du Fresne, d. 1688): Glossarium ad Scriptores mediae et infimae Latinitatis, Paris, 1678; new ed. by Henschel, Par. 1840–’50, in 7 vols. 4to; and again by Favre, 1883 sqq.—By the same: Glossarium ad Scriptores medicae et infimae Graecitatis, Par. 1682, and Lugd. Batav. 1688, 2 vols. fol. These two works are the philological keys to the knowledge of mediaeval church history.
An English ed. of the Latin glossary has been announced by John Murray, of London: Mediaeval Latin-English Dictionary, based upon the great work of Du Cange. With additions and corrections by E. A. Dayman.
§ 2. The Middle Age. Limits and General Character.
The Middle Age, as the term implies, is the period which intervenes between ancient and modern times, and connects them, by continuing the one, and preparing for the other. It forms the transition from the Graeco-Roman civilization to the Romano-Germanic, civilization, which gradually arose out of the intervening chaos of barbarism. The connecting link is Christianity, which saved the best elements of the old, and directed and moulded the new order of things.
Politically, the middle age dates from the great migration of nations and the downfall of the western Roman Empire in the fifth century; but for ecclesiastical history it begins with Gregory the Great, the last of the fathers and the first of the popes, at the close of the sixth century. Its termination, both for secular and ecclesiastical history, is the Reformation of the sixteenth century (1517), which introduces the modern age of the Christian era. Some date modern history from the invention of the art of printing, or from the discovery of America, which preceded the Reformation; but these events were only preparatory to a great reform movement and extension of the Christian world.
The theatre of mediaeval Christianity is mainly Europe. In Western Asia and North Africa, the Cross was supplanted by the Crescent; and America, which opened a new field for the ever-expanding energies of history, was not discovered until the close of the fifteenth century.
Europe was peopled by a warlike emigration of heathen barbarians from Asia as America is peopled by a peaceful emigration from civilized and Christian Europe.
The great migration of nations marks a turning point in the history of religion and civilization. It was destructive in its first effects, and appeared like the doom of the judgment-day; but it proved the harbinger of a new creation, the chaos preceding the cosmos. The change was brought about gradually. The forces of the old Greek and Roman world continued to work for centuries alongside of the new elements. The barbarian irruption came not like a single torrent which passes by, but as the tide which advances and retires, returns and at last becomes master of the flooded soil. The savages of the north swept down the valley of the Danube to the borders of the Greek Empire, and southward over the Rhine and the Vosges into Gaul, across the Alps into Italy, and across the Pyrenees into Spain. They were not a single people, but many independent tribes; not an organized army of a conqueror, but irregular hordes of wild warriors ruled by intrepid kings; not directed by the ambition of one controlling genius, like Alexander or Caesar, but prompted by the irresistible impulse of an historical instinct, and unconsciously bearing in their rear the future destinies of Europe and America. They brought with them fire and sword, destruction and desolation, but also life and vigor, respect for woman, sense of honor, love of liberty—noble instincts, which, being purified and developed by Christianity, became the governing principles of a higher civilization than that of Greece and Rome. The Christian monk Salvian, who lived in the midst of the barbarian flood, in the middle of the fifth century, draws a most gloomy and appalling picture of the vices of the orthodox Romans of his time, and does not hesitate to give preference to the heretical (Arian) and heathen barbarians, “whose chastity purifies the deep stained with the Roman debauches.” St. Augustin (d. 430), who took a more sober and comprehensive view, intimates, in his great work on the City of God, the possibility of the rise of a new and better civilization from the ruins of the old Roman empire; and his pupil, Orosius, clearly expresses this hopeful view. “Men assert,” he says, “that the barbarians are enemies of the State. I reply that all the East thought the same of the great Alexander; the Romans also seemed no better than the enemies of all society to the nations afar off, whose repose they troubled. But the Greeks, you say, established empires; the Germans overthrow them. Well, the Macedonians began by subduing the nations which afterwards they civilized. The Germans are now upsetting all this world; but if, which Heaven avert, they, finish by continuing to be its masters, peradventure some day posterity will salute with the title of great princes those in whom we at this day can see nothing but enemies.”
§ 3. The Nations of Mediaeval Christianity. The Kelt, the Teuton, and the Slav.
The new national forces which now enter upon the arena of church-history may be divided into four groups:
1. The Romanic or Latin nations of Southern Europe, including the Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese and French. They are the natural descendants and heirs of the old Roman nationality and Latin Christianity, yet mixed with the new Keltic and Germanic forces. Their languages are all derived from the Latin; they inherited Roman laws and customs, and adhered to the Roman See as the centre of their ecclesiastical organization; they carried Christianity to the advancing barbarians, and by their superior civilization gave laws to the conquerors. They still adhere, with their descendants in Central and South America, to the Roman Catholic Church.
2. The Keltic race, embracing the Gauls, old
Britons, the Picts and Scots, the Welsh and Irish with their numerous
emigrants in all the large cities of Great Britain and the United
States, appear in history several hundred years before Christ, as the
first light wave of the vast Aryan migration from the mysterious bowels
of Asia, which swept to the borders of the extreme West. κελτοίor Κέλται, Celtae, Γαλάται, Galatae or Galati, Galli, Gael.
Some derive it from celt, a cover, shelter; others from
celu (Lat. celo) to conceal. Herodotus first
mentions them, as dwelling in the extreme northwest of Europe. On these
terms see Diefenbach, Celtica, Brandes, Kelten und
Germanen,
Thierry, Histoire des Gaulois, the art. Galli in Pauly’s
Realencyclopädie, and the introductions to the
critical Commentaries on the Galatians by Wieseler and Lightfoot (and
Lightfoot’s Excursus I). The Galatians in Asia
Minor, to whom Paul addressed his epistle, were a branch of the Keltic
race, which either separated from the main current of the westward
migration, or, being obstructed by the ocean, retraced their steps, and
turned eastward. Wieseler (in his Com. and in several articles
in the ”Studien und Kritiken, ” and in the ”Zeitschrift für
Kirchengeschichte,”
1877 No. 1) tries to make them Germans, a view first hinted at by
Luther. But the fickleness of the Galatian Christians is
characterristic of the ancient Gauls and modern
French.
The mental characteristics of the Kelts remain
unchanged for two thousand years: quick wit, fluent speech, vivacity,
sprightliness, impressibility, personal bravery and daring, loyalty to
the chief or the clan, but also levity, fickleness, quarrelsomeness and
incapacity for self-government. “They shook all empires, but founded
none.” The elder Cato says of them: “To two things are the Kelts most
attent: to fighting (ars militaris), and to adroitness of speech
(argute loqui).” Caesar censures their love of levity and change. The
apostle Paul complains of the same weakness. Thierry, their historian,
well describes them thus: “Their prominent attributes are personal
valor, in which they excel all nations; a frank, impetuous spirit open
to every impression; great intelligence, but joined with extreme
mobility, deficient perseverance, restlessness under discipline and
order, boastfulness and eternal discord, resulting from boundless
vanity.” Mommsen quotes this passage, and adds that the Kelts make good
soldiers, but bad citizens; that the only order to which they submit is
the military, because the severe general discipline relieves them of
the heavy burden of individual self-control. Römische Geschichte, Vol. I., p. 329, 5th ed.,
Berlin, 1868.
Keltic Christianity was at first independent of Rome, and even antagonistic to it in certain subordinate rites; but after the Saxon and Norman conquests, it was brought into conformity, and since the Reformation, the Irish have been more attached to the Roman Church than even the Latin races. The French formerly inclined likewise to a liberal Catholicism (called Gallicanism); but they sacrificed the Gallican liberties to the Ultramontanism of the Vatican Council. The Welsh and Scotch, on the contrary, with the exception of a portion of the Highlanders in the North of Scotland, embraced the Protestant Reformation in its Calvinistic rigor, and are among its sternest and most vigorous advocates. The course of the Keltic nations had been anticipated by the Galatians, who first embraced with great readiness and heartiness the independent gospel of St. Paul, but were soon turned away to a Judaizing legalism by false teachers, and then brought back again by Paul to the right path.
3. The Germanic The word is of uncertain origin. Some derive it from a Keltic
root, garm or gairm, i.e. noise; some from the old
German gere(guerre), a
pointed weapon, spear or javelin (so that German would mean an armed
man, or war-man, Wehrmann); others, from the Persian irman, erman, i.e.
guest. From the Gothic thiudisco, gentiles, popularis; hence the
Latin teutonicus, and the German deutschor teutsch(which may also be connected
with diutan, deutsch deutlich). In the English usage, the term German is confined
to the Germans proper, and Dutch to the Hollanders; but Germanic
and Teutonic apply to all cognate races.
Tacitus, the great heathen historian, no doubt idealized the barbarous Germans in contrast with the degenerate Romans of his day (as Montaigne and Rousseau painted the savages “in a fit of ill humor against their country”); but he unconsciously prophesied their future greatness, and his prophecy has been more than fulfilled.
4. The Slavonic or Slavic or Slavs The term Slav or Slavonian is derived by some from
slovo, word, by others, from slava, glory. From it
are derived the words slave and slavery (Sclave,
esclave), because many Slavs were reduced to a state of slavery or
serfdom by their German masters. Webster spells slave instead of
slav, and Edward A. Freeman, in his Historical Essays
(third series, 1879), defends this spelling on three grounds: 1) No
English word ends in v. But many Russian words do,
as Kiev,
Yaroslav, and
some Hebrew grammars use Tav and Vav for Tau and
Vau. 2) Analogy. We write Dane, Swede, Pole, not
Dan, etc. But the a in Slav has the continental sound,
and the tendency is to get rid of mute vowels. 3) The form Slave
perpetuates the etymology. But the etymology (slave
= δοῦλος) is uncertain, and it is well to
distinguish the national name from the ordinary slaves, and thus avoid
offence. The Germans also distinguish between Slaven,
Sclaven.
The Slavs, who number in all nearly 80,000,000, occupy a very subordinate position in the history of the middle ages, and are isolated from the main current; but recently, they have begun to develop their resources, and seem to have a great future before them through the commanding political power of Russia in Europe and in Asia. Russia is the bearer of the destinies of Panslavism and of the, Eastern Church.
5. The Greek nationality, which figured so conspicuously in ancient Christianity, maintained its independence down to the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453; but it was mixed with Slavonic elements. The Greek Church was much weakened by the inroads of Mohammedanism) and lost the possession of the territories of primitive Christianity, but secured a new and vast missionary field in Russia.
§ 4. Genius of Mediaeval Christianity.
Mediaeval Christianity is, on the one hand, a legitimate continuation and further development of ancient Catholicism; on the other hand, a preparation for Protestantism,
Its leading form are the papacy, monasticism, and scholasticism, which were developed to their height, and then assailed by growing opposition from within.
Christianity, at its first introduction, had to do with highly civilized nations; but now it had to lay the foundation of a new civilization among barbarians. The apostles planted churches in the cities of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, and the word “pagan” i.e, villager, backwoodsman, gradually came to denote an idolater. They spoke and wrote in a language which had already a large and immortal literature; their progress was paved by the high roads of the Roman legions; they found everywhere an established order of society, and government; and their mission was to infuse into the ancient civilization a new spiritual life and to make it subservient to higher moral ends. But the missionaries of the dark ages had to visit wild woods and untilled fields, to teach rude nations the alphabet, and to lay the foundation for society, literature and art.
Hence Christianity assumed the character of a strong disciplinary institution, a training school for nations in their infancy, which had to be treated as children. Hence the legalistic, hierarchical, ritualistic and romantic character of mediaeval Catholicism. Yet in proportion as the nations were trained in the school of the church, they began to assert their independence of the hierarchy and to develop a national literature in their own language. Compared with our times, in which thought and reflection have become the highest arbiter of human life, the middle age was an age of passion. The written law, such as it was developed in Roman society, the barbarian could not understand and would not obey. But he was easily impressed by the spoken law, the living word, and found a kind of charm in bending his will absolutely before another will. Thus the teaching church became the law in the land, and formed the very foundation of all social and political organization.
The middle ages are often called “the dark ages:” truly, if we compare them with ancient Christianity, which preceded, and with modern Christianity, which followed; falsely and unjustly, if the church is made responsible for the darkness. Christianity was the light that shone in the darkness of surrounding barbarism and heathenism, and gradually dispelled it. Industrious priests and monks saved from the wreck of the Roman Empire the treasures of classical literature, together with the Holy Scriptures and patristic writings, and transmitted them to better times. The mediaeval light was indeed the borrowed star and moon-light of ecclesiastical tradition, rather than the clear sun-light from the inspired pages of the New Testament; but it was such light as the eyes of nations in their ignorance could bear, and it never ceased to shine till it disappeared in the day-light of the great Reformation. Christ had his witnesses in all ages and countries, and those shine all the brighter who were surrounded by midnight darkness.
On the other hand, the middle ages are often called, especially by Roman Catholic writers, “the ages of faith.” They abound in legends of saints, which had the charm of religious novels. All men believed in the supernatural and miraculous as readily as children do now. Heaven and hell were as real to the mind as the kingdom of France and the, republic of Venice. Skepticism and infidelity were almost unknown, or at least suppressed and concealed. But with faith was connected a vast deal of superstition and an entire absence of critical investigation and judgment. Faith was blind and unreasoning, like the faith of children. The most incredible and absurd legends were accepted without a question. And yet the morality was not a whit better, but in many respects ruder, coarser and more passionate, than in modern times.
The church as a visible organization never had greater power over the minds of men. She controlled all departments of life from the cradle to the grave. She monopolized all the learning and made sciences and arts tributary to her. She took the lead in every progressive movement. She founded universities, built lofty cathedrals, stirred up the crusades, made and unmade kings, dispensed blessings and curses to whole nations. The mediaeval hierarchy centering in Rome re-enacted the Jewish theocracy on a more comprehensive scale. It was a carnal anticipation of the millennial reign of Christ. It took centuries to rear up this imposing structure, and centuries to take it down again.
The opposition came partly from the anti-Catholic
sects, which, in spite of cruel persecution, never ceased to protest
against the corruptions and tyranny of the papacy; partly from the
spirit of nationality which arose in opposition to an all-absorbing
hierarchical centralization; partly from the revival of classical and
biblical learning, which undermined the reign of superstition and
tradition; and partly from the inner and deeper life of the Catholic
Church itself, which loudly called for a reformation, and struggled
through the severe discipline of the law to the light and freedom of
the gospel. The mediaeval Church was a schoolmaster to lead men to
Christ. The Reformation was an emancipation of Western Christendom from
the bondage of the law, and a re-conquest of that liberty “wherewith
Christ hath made us free” (
§ 5. Periods of the Middle Age.
The Middle Age may be divided into three periods:
1. The missionary period from Gregory I. to Hildebrand or Gregory VII., a.d. 590–1073. The conversion of the northern barbarians. The dawn of a new civilization. The origin and progress of Islam. The separation of the West from the East. Some subdivide this period by Charlemagne (800), the founder of the German-Roman Empire.
2. The palmy period of the papal theocracy from Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII., a.d. 1073–1294. The height of the papacy, monasticism and scholasticism. The Crusades. The conflict between the Pope and the Emperor. If we go back to the rise of Hildebrand, this period begins in 1049.
3. The decline of mediaeval Catholicism and preparation for modern Christianity, from Boniface VIII. to the Reformation, a.d. 1294–1517. The papal exile and schism; the reformatory councils; the decay of scholasticism; the growth of mysticism; the revival of letters, and the art of printing; the discovery of America; forerunners of Protestantism; the dawn of the Reformation.
These three periods are related to each other as the wild youth, the ripe manhood, and the declining old age. But the gradual dissolution of mediaevalism was only the preparation for a new life, a destruction looking to a reconstruction.
The three periods may be treated separately, or as a continuous whole. Both methods have their advantages: the first for a minute study; the second for a connected survey of the great movements.
According to our division laid down in the introduction to the first volume, the three periods of the middle ages are the fourth, fifth and sixth periods of the general history of Christianity.
FOURTH PERIOD
THE CHURCH AMONG THE BARBARIANS
FROM GREGORY I. TO GREGORY VII.
a.d. 590 to 1049.
––––––––––
CHAPTER II.
CONVERSION OF THE NORTHERN AND WESTERN BARBARIANS
§ 6. Character of Mediaeval Missions.
The conversion of the new and savage races which enter the theatre of history at the threshold of the middle ages, was the great work of the Christian church from the sixth to the tenth century. Already in the second or third century, Christianity was carried to the Gauls, the Britons and the Germans on the borders of the Rhine. But these were sporadic efforts with transient results. The work did not begin in earnest till the sixth century, and then it went vigorously forward to the tenth and twelfth, though with many checks and temporary relapses caused by civil wars and foreign invasions.
The Christianization of the Kelts, Teutons, and
Slavonians was at the same time a process of civilization, and differed
in this respect entirely from the conversion of the Jews, Greeks, and
Romans in the preceding age. Christian missionaries laid the foundation
for the alphabet, literature, agriculture, laws, and arts of the
nations of Northern and Western Europe, as they now do among the
heathen nations in Asia and Africa. “The science of language,” says a
competent judge, Max Müller, Science of Language, I.
121.
The mediaeval Christianization was a wholesale conversion, or a conversion of nations under the command of their leaders. It was carried on not only by missionaries and by spiritual means, but also by political influence, alliances of heathen princes with Christian wives, and in some cases (as the baptism of the Saxons under Charlemagne) by military force. It was a conversion not to the primary Christianity of inspired apostles, as laid down in the New Testament, but to the secondary Christianity of ecclesiastical tradition, as taught by the fathers, monks and popes. It was a baptism by water, rather than by fire and the Holy Spirit. The preceding instruction amounted to little or nothing; even the baptismal formula, mechanically recited in Latin, was scarcely understood. The rude barbarians, owing to the weakness of their heathen religion, readily submitted to the new religion; but some tribes yielded only to the sword of the conqueror.
This superficial, wholesale conversion to a nominal Christianity must be regarded in the light of a national infant-baptism. It furnished the basis for a long process of Christian education. The barbarians were children in knowledge, and had to be treated like children. Christianity, assumed the form of a new law leading them, as a schoolmaster, to the manhood of Christ.
The missionaries of the middle ages were nearly all monks. They were generally men of limited education and narrow views, but devoted zeal and heroic self-denial. Accustomed to primitive simplicity of life, detached from all earthly ties, trained to all sorts of privations, ready for any amount of labor, and commanding attention and veneration by their unusual habits, their celibacy, fastings and constant devotions, they were upon the whole the best pioneers of Christianity and civilization among the savage races of Northern and Western Europe. The lives of these missionaries are surrounded by their biographers with such a halo of legends and miracles, that it is almost impossible to sift fact from fiction. Many of these miracles no doubt were products of fancy or fraud; but it would be rash to deny them all.
The same reason which made miracles necessary in the first introduction of Christianity, may have demanded them among barbarians before they were capable of appreciating the higher moral evidences.
I. THE CONVERSION OF ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND.
§ 7. Literature.
I. Sources.
Gildas (Abbot of Bangor in Wales, the oldest British historian, in the sixth cent.): De excidio Britanniae conquestus, etc. A picture of the evils of Britain at the time. Best ed. by Joseph Stevenson, Lond., 1838. (English Historical Society’s publications.)
Nennius (Abbot of Bangor about 620): Eulogium Britanniae, sive Historia Britonum. Ed. Stevenson, 1838.
The Works of Gildas and Nennius transl. from the Latin by J. A. Giles, London, 1841.
*Beda Venerabilis (d. 734): Historia Ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum; in the sixth vol. of Migne’s ed. of Bedae Opera Omnia, also often separately published and translated into English. Best ed. by Stevenson, Lond., 1838; and by Giles, Lond., 1849. It is the only reliable church-history of the Anglo-Saxon period.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, from the time of Caesar to 1154. A work of several successive hands, ed. by Gibson with an Engl. translation, 1823, and by Giles, 1849 (in one vol. with Bede’s Eccles. History).
See the Six Old English Chronicles, in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library (1848); and Church Historians of England trans. by Jos. Stevenson, Lond. 1852–’56, 6 vols.
Sir. Henry Spelman (d. 1641): Concilia, decreta, leges, constitutiones in re ecclesiarum orbis Britannici, etc. Lond., 1639–’64, 2 vols. fol. (Vol. I. reaches to the Norman conquest; vol. ii. to Henry VIII).
David Wilkins (d. 1745): Concilia Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae (from 446 to 1717), Lond., 1737, 4 vols. fol. (Vol. I. from 446 to 1265).
*Arthur West Haddan and William Stubbs: Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland: edited after Spelman and Wilkins. Oxford (Clarendon Press), 1869 to ’78. So far 3 vols. To be continued down to the Reformation.
The Penitentials of the Irish and Anglo-Saxon Churches are collected and edited by F. Kunstmann (Die Lat. Poenitentialbücher der Angelsachsen, 1844); Wasserschleben (Die Bussordnungen der abendländ. Kirche, 1851); Schmitz (Die Bussbücher u. d. Bussdisciplin d. Kirche, 1883).
II. Historical Works.
(a) The Christianization of England.
*J. Ussher. (d. 1655): Britannicarum Eccles. Antiquitates. Dublin, 1639; London, 1687; Works ed. by Elrington, 1847, Vols. V. and VI.
E. Stillingfleet (d. 1699): Origenes Britannicae; or, the Antiqu. of the British Churches. London, 1710; Oxford, 1842; 2 vols.
J. Lingard (R.C., d. 1851): The History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church. London, 1806, new ed., 1845.
Karl Schrödl (R.C.): Das erste Jahrhundert der englischen Kirche. Passau & Wien, 1840.
Edward Churton (Rector of Crayke, Durham): The Early English Church. London, 1841 (new ed. unchanged, 1878).
James Yeowell: Chronicles of the Ancient British Church anterior to the Saxon era. London, 1846.
Francis Thackeray (Episcop.): Researches into the Eccles. and Political State of Ancient Britain under the Roman Emperors. London, 1843, 2 vols.
*Count De Montalembert (R.C., d. 1870): The Monks of the West. Edinburgh and London, 1861–’79, 7 vols. (Authorized transl. from the French). The third vol. treats of the British Isles.
Reinhold Pauli: Bilder aus Alt-England. Gotha, 1860.
W F. Hook: Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. London, 2nd ed., 1861 sqq.
G. F. Maclear. (D. D., Head-master of King’s College School): Conversion of the West. The English. London, 1878. By the same: The Kelts, 1878. (Popular.)
William Bright (Dr. and Prof, of Eccles. Hist., Oxford): Chapters on Early English Church History Oxford, 1878 (460 pages).
John Pryce: History of the Ancient British Church. Oxford, 1878.
Edward L. Cutts: Turning Points of English Church-History. London, 1878.
Dugald MacColl: Early British Church. The Arthurian Legends. In “The Catholic Presbyterian,” London and New York, for 1880, No. 3, pp. 176 sqq.
(b) The Christianization of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland.
Dr. Lanigan (R.C.): Ecclesiastical History of Ireland. Dublin, 1829.
William G. Todd (Episc., Trinity Coll., Dublin): The Church of St. Patrick: An Historical Inquiry into the Independence of the Ancient Church of Ireland. London, 1844. By the same: A History of the Ancient Church of Ireland. London, 1845. By the same: Book of Hymns of the Ancient Church of Ireland. Dublin, 1855.
Ferdinand Walter: Das alte Wales. Bonn, 1859.
John Cunningham (Presbyterian): The Church History of Scotland from the Commencement of the Christian Era to the Present Day. Edinburgh, 1859, 2 vols. (Vol. I., chs. 1–6).
C. Innes: Sketches of Early Scotch History, and Social Progress. Edinb., 1861. (Refers to the history of local churches, the university and home-life in the mediaeval period.)
Thomas McLauchan (Presbyt.): The Early Scottish Church: the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland from the First to the Twelfth Century. Edinburgh, 1865.
*DR. J. H. A. Ebrard: Die iroschottische Missionskirche des 6, 7 und 8 ten Jahrh., und ihre Verbreitung auf dem Festland. Gütersloh, 1873.
Comp. Ebrard’s articles Die culdeische Kirche des 6, 7 und 8ten Jahrh., in Niedner’s “Zeitschrift für Hist. Theologie” for 1862 and 1863.
Ebrard and McLauchan are the ablest advocates of the anti-Romish and alleged semi-Protestant character of the old Keltic church of Ireland and Scotland; but they present it in a more favorable light than the facts warrant.
*Dr. W. D. Killen (Presbyt.): The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland from the Earliest Period to the Present Times. London, 1875, 2 vols.
*Alex. Penrose Forbes (Bishop of Brechin, d. 1875): Kalendars of Scottish Saints. With Personal Notices of those of Alba, Laudonia and Stratchclyde. Edinburgh (Edmonston & Douglas), 1872. By the same: Lives of S. Ninian and S. Kentigern. Compiled in the twelfth century. Ed. from the best MSS. Edinburgh, 1874.
*William Reeves (Canon of Armagh): Life of St. Columba, Founder of Hy. Written by Adamnan, ninth Abbot of that monastery. Edinburgh, 1874.
*William F. Skene: Keltic Scotland. Edinburgh, 2 vols., 1876, 1877.
*F. E. Warren (Fellow of St. John’s Coll., Oxford): The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church. Oxford 1881 (291 pp.).
F. Loofs: Antiquae Britonum Scotorumque ecclesiae moves, ratio credendi, vivendi, etc. Lips., 1882.
Comp. also the relevant sections in the Histories Of England, Scotland, and Ireland, by Hume, (Ch. I-III.), Lingard (Ch. I. VIII.), Lappenberg (Vol. I.), Green (Vol. I.), Hill Burton (Hist. of Scotland, Vol. I.); Milman’s Latin Christianity (Book IV., Ch. 3–5); Maclear’s Apostles of Mediaeval Europe (Lond. 1869), Thomas Smith’s Mediaeval Missions (Edinb. 1880).
§ 8. The Britons.
Literature: The works of Bede, Gildas, Nennius, Ussher, Bright, Pryce, quoted in § 7.
Britain made its first appearance in secular history half a century before the Christian era, when Julius Caesar, the conqueror of Gaul, sailed with a Roman army from Calais across the channel, and added the British island to the dominion of the eternal city, though it was not fully subdued till the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41–54). It figures in ecclesiastical history from the conversion of the Britons in the second century. Its missionary history is divided into two periods, the Keltic and the Anglo-Saxon, both catholic in doctrine, as far as developed at that time, slightly differing in discipline, yet bitterly hostile under the influence of the antagonism of race, which was ultimately overcome in England and Scotland but is still burning in Ireland, the proper home of the Kelts. The Norman conquest made both races better Romanists than they were before.
The oldest inhabitants of Britain, like the Irish,
the Scots, and the Gauls, were of Keltic origin, half naked and painted
barbarians, quarrelsome, rapacious, revengeful, torn by intestine
factions, which facilitated their conquest. They had adopted, under
different appellations, the gods of the Greeks and Romans, and
worshipped a multitude of local deities, the genii of the woods,
rivers, and mountains; they paid special homage to the oak, the king of
the forest. They offered the fruits of the earth, the spoils of the
enemy, and, in the hour of danger, human lives. Their priests, called
druids, The word Druid or Druidh is not from the Greek
δρῦς, oak (as the elder Pliny thought), but
a Keltic term draiod, meaning sage, priest, and is
equivalent to the magi in the ancient East. In the Irish Scriptures
draiod is used for magi,
The first introduction of Christianity into
Britain is involved in obscurity. The legendary history ascribes it at
least to ten different agencies, namely, 1) Bran, a British prince, and
his son Caradog, who is said to have become acquainted with St. Paul in
Rome, a.d. 51 to 58, and to have introduced the gospel into his native
country on his return. 2) St. Paul. 3) St. Peter. 4) St. Simon Zelotes.
5) St. See Haddan & Stubbs, Counc. and Eccles. Doc. I.
22-26, and Pryce, 31 sqq. Haddan says, that “statements respecting (a)
British Christians at Rome, (b) British Christians in Britain, (c)
Apostles or apostolic men preaching in Britain, in the first
century—rest upon either guess, mistake or fable;”
and that “evidence alleged for the existence of a Christian church in
Britain during the second century is simply unhistorical.” Pryce
calls these early agencies “gratuitons assumptions, plausible guesses,
or legendary fables.” Eusebius, Dem. Ev. III. 5, speaks as if
some of the Twelve or of the Seventy had “crossed the ocean to the
isles called British;” but the passage is rhetorical and indefinite. In
his Church History he omits Britain from the apostolic
mission-field.
But these legends cannot be traced beyond the
sixth century, and are therefore destitute of all historic value. A
visit of St. Paul to Britain between a.d. 63 and 67 is indeed in itself
not impossible (on the assumption of a second Roman captivity), and has
been advocated even by such scholars as Ussher and Stillingfleet, but
is intrinsically improbable, and destitute of all evidence. It is merely an inference from the well-known passage of
Clement of Rome, Ep. ad Corinth. c. 5, that Paul carried the gospel “to
the end of the West” (ἐπὶτὸτέρματῆςδύσεως). But this is far more naturally
understood of a visit to Spain which Paul intended (
The conversion of King Lucius in the second
century through correspondence with the Roman bishop Eleutherus (176 to
190), is related by Bede, in connection with several errors, and is a
legend rather than an established fact. Book I., ch. 4: “Lucius, king of the Britons, sent a letter
to Eleutherus, entreating that by his command he might be made a
Christian. He soon obtained his pious request, and the Britons
preserved the faith, which they had received, uncorrupted and entire,
in peace and tranquillity, until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.”
Comp. the footnote of Giles in loc. Haddan says (I. 25):
“The story of Lucius rests solely upon the later form of the
Catalogus Pontificum Romanorum which was written
c. a.
d.530, and which adds
to the Vita Eleutherus (a. d.171-186) that ’Hic (Eleutherus)accepit
epistolam a Lucio Britanniae Rege, ut Chrristianus efficeretur par ejus
mandatum.’ But these words are not in the original
Catalogus, written shortly after a. d.353.” Beda copies the Roman account. Gildas knows nothing
of Lucius. According to other accounts, Lucius ((Lever Maur, or the
Great Light) sent Pagan and Dervan to Rome, who were ordained by
Evaristus or Eleutherus, and on their return established the British
church. See Lingard, History of England, I.
46. Adv. Judaeos 7: ”Britannorum inaccessa Romanis
loca, Christo vero subdita.” Bishop Kaye (Tertull., p. 94)
understands this passage as referring to the farthest extremities of
Britain. So Burton (II. 207): “Parts of the island which had not been
visited by the Romans.” See Bright, p. 5. Bede I. 7. The story of St. Alban is first narrated by
Gildas in the sixth century. Milman and Bright (p. 6) admit his
historic reality. Wiltsch, Handbuch der Kirchl. Geogr. und
StatistikI. 42
and 238, Mansi, Conc. II. 467, Haddan and Stubbs, l.c.,
I. 7. Haddan identifies Colonia Londinensium with Col. Legionensium,
i.e. Caerleon-on-Usk. See Haddan and Stubbs, I. 7-10. Bede I. 21 ascribes the triumph of the Catholic faith over
the Pelagian heresy to the miraculous healing of a lame youth by
Germanus (St. Germain), Bishop of Auxerre. Comp. also Haddan and
Stubbs, I. 15-17.
Monumental remains of the British church during
the Roman period are recorded or still exist at Canterbury (St.
Martin’s), Caerleon, Bangor, Glastonbury, Dover,
Richborough (Kent), Reculver, Lyminge, Brixworth, and other places. See Haddan and Stubbs, I. 36-40.
The Roman dominion in Britain ceased about a.d. 410; the troops were withdrawn, and the country left to govern itself. The result was a partial relapse into barbarism and a demoralization of the church. The intercourse with the Continent was cut off, and the barbarians of the North pressed heavily upon the Britons. For a century and a half we hear nothing of the British churches till the silence is broken by the querulous voice of Gildas, who informs us of the degeneracy of the clergy, the decay of religion, the introduction and suppression of the Pelagian heresy, and the mission of Palladius to the Scots in Ireland. This long isolation accounts in part for the trifling differences and the bitter antagonism between the remnant of the old British church and the new church imported from Rome among the hated Anglo-Saxons.
The difference was not doctrinal, but ritualistic
and disciplinary. The British as well as the Irish and Scotch
Christians of the sixth and seventh centuries kept Easter on the very
day of the full moon in March when it was Sunday, or on the next Sunday
following. They adhered to the older cycle of eighty-four years in
opposition to the later Dionysian cycle of ninety-five years, which
came into use on the Continent since the middle of the sixth century. The British and Irish Christians were stigmatized by their
Roman opponents as heretical Quartodecimans (Bede III. 4); but
the Eastern Quartodecimans invariably celebrated Easter on the
fourteenth day of the month (hence their designation), whether it fell
on a Sunday or not; while the Britons and Irish celebrated it always on
a Sunday between the 14th and the 20th of the month; the Romans
between the 15th and 21st. Comp. Skene, l.c. II. 9 sq.; the
elaborate discussion of Ebrard, Die, iro-schott. Missionskirche,
19-77, and Killen, Eccles. Hist. of Ireland, I. 57
sqq.
From these facts some historians have inferred the Eastern or Greek origin of the old British church. But there is no evidence whatever of any such connection, unless it be perhaps through the medium of the neighboring church of Gaul, which was partly planted or moulded by Irenaeus of Lyons, a pupil of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, and which always maintained a sort of independence of Rome.
But in the points of dispute just mentioned, the Gallican church at that time agreed with Rome. Consequently, the peculiarities of the British Christians must be traced to their insular isolation and long separation from Rome. The Western church on the Continent passed through some changes in the development of the authority of the papal see, and in the mode of calculating Easter, until the computation was finally fixed through Dionysius Exiguus in 525. The British, unacquainted with these changes, adhered to the older independence and to the older customs. They continued to keep Easter from the 14th of the moon to the 20th. This difference involved a difference in all the moveable festivals, and created great confusion in England after the conversion of the Saxons to the Roman rite.
§ 9. The Anglo-Saxons.
Literature.
I. The sources for the planting of Roman Christianity among the Anglo-Saxons are several Letters of Pope Gregory I. (Epp., Lib. VI. 7, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59; IX. 11, 108; XI. 28, 29, 64, 65, 66, 76; in Migne’s ed. of Gregory’s Opera, Vol. III.; also in Haddan and Stubbs, III. 5 sqq.); the first and second books of Bede’s Eccles. Hist.; Goscelin’s Life of St. Augustin, written in the 11th century, and contained in the Acta Sanctorum of May 26th; and Thorne’s Chronicles of St. Augustine’s Abbey. See also Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, etc., the 3d vol., which comes down to a.d. 840.
II. Of modern lives of St. Augustin, we mention Montalembert, Monks of the West, Vol. III.; Dean Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, Vol. I., and Dean Stanley, Memorials of Canterbury, 1st ed., 1855, 9th ed. 1880. Comp. Lit. in Sec. 7.
British Christianity was always a feeble plant, and
suffered greatly, from the Anglo-Saxon conquest and the devastating
wars which followed it. With the decline of the Roman power, the
Britons, weakened by the vices of Roman civilization, and unable to
resist the aggressions of the wild Picts and Scots from the North,
called Hengist and Horsa, two brother-princes and reputed descendants
of Wodan, the god of war, from Germany to their aid, a.d. 449. The chronology, is somewhat uncertain. See
Lappenberg’s Geschichte von England, Bd. I., p. 73 sqq.
From this time begins the emigration of Saxons,
Angles or Anglians, Jutes, and Frisians to Britain. They gave to it a
new nationality and a new language, the Anglo-Saxon, which forms the
base and trunk of the present people and language of England
(Angle-land). They belonged to the great Teutonic race, and came from
the Western and Northern parts of Germany, from the districts North of
the Elbe, the Weser, and the Eyder, especially from Holstein,
Schleswig, and Jutland. They could never be subdued by the Romans, and
the emperor Julian pronounced them the most formidable of all the
nations that dwelt beyond the Rhine on the shores of the Western ocean.
They were tall and handsome, with blue eyes and fair skin, strong and
enduring, given to pillage by land, and piracy by sea, leaving the
cultivation of the soil, with the care of their flocks, to women and
slaves. They were the fiercest among the Germans. They sacrificed a
tenth of their chief captives on the altars of their gods. They used
the spear, the sword, and the battle-axe with terrible effect. “We have
not,” says Sidonius, bishop of Clermont, Quoted by Lingard, I. 62. The picture here given
corresponds closely with that given in Beowulf’s
Drapa, from the 9th century.
These strangers from the Continent successfully repelled the Northern invaders; but being well pleased with the fertility and climate of the country, and reinforced by frequent accessions from their countrymen, they turned upon the confederate Britons, drove them to the mountains of Wales and the borders of Scotland, or reduced them to slavery, and within a century and a half they made themselves masters of England. From invaders they became settlers, and established an octarchy or eight independent kingdoms, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex, Northumbria, Mercia, Bernicia, and Deira. The last two were often united under the same head; hence we generally speak of but seven kingdoms or the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy.
From this period of the conflict between the two
races dates the Keltic form of the Arthurian legends, which afterwards
underwent a radical telescopic transformation in France. They have no
historical value except in connection with the romantic poetry of
mediaeval religion. King Arthur (or Artus), the hero of Wales, of the
Chronicles of Geoffrey of Monmouth, and the romances of the Round
Table, if not entirely mythical, was one of the last Keltic chiefs, who
struggled against the Saxon invaders in the sixth century. He resided
in great state at Caerleon in Wales, surrounded by valorous knights,
seated with him at a round table, gained twelve victories over the
Saxons, and died in the battle of Mount Badon or Badon Hill near Bath
(a.
d.520). The legend
was afterwards Christianized, transferred to French soil, and blended
with the Carlovingian Knights of the Round Table, which never existed.
Arthur’s name was also connected since the Crusades
with the quest of the Holy Grail or Graal (Keltic
gréal, old French san
gréalor greel),
i.e. the wonderful bowl-shaped vessel of the
Lord’s Supper (used for the Paschal Lamb, or,
according to another view, for the cup of blessing), in which Joseph of
Arimathaea caught the blood of the Saviour at the cross, and which
appears in the Arthurian romances as the token of the visible presence
of Christ, or the symbolic embodiment of the doctrine of
transubstantiation. Hence the derivation of Grail from sanguis
realis, real blood, or sang royal, the
Lord’s blood. Others derive it from the Romanic
greal, cup or dish; still others from the Latin graduale.
See Geoffrey of
Monmouth,
Chronicon sive Historia Britonum (1130 and 1147, translated into
English by Aaron Thomson, London, 1718); Sir T. Malory, History of Prince Arthur (1480-1485,
new ed. by, Southey, 1817); Wolfram von EschenbachParcival and Titurel (about 1205, transl. by K.
Simrock, Stuttg., 1842); Lachmann,
Wolfram von Eschenbach (Berlin, 1833, 2nd ed,
1854); Göschel Die Sage von Parcival und vom Gral nach
Wolfram von Eschenbach(Berlin, 1858); Paulin Paris, Les Romans de la Table Ronde(Paris, 1860); Tennyson, The Idylls, of the King (1859), and The Holy
Grail (1869); Skene, Four
Ancient Books of Wales (1868); Stuart-Glennie,
Arthurian Localities (1869); Birch-Herschfeld, Die Sage vom Gral, (Leipz., 1877); and an article
of Göschel, Gral in the first ed. of Herzog’s
Encykl. V. 312 (omitted in the second ed.).
§ 10. The Mission of Gregory and Augustin. Conversion of Kent, a.d. 595–604.
With the conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, who were
heathen barbarians, Christianity was nearly extirpated in Britain.
Priests were cruelly massacred, churches and monasteries were
destroyed, together with the vestiges of a weak Roman civilization. The
hatred and weakness of the Britons prevented them from offering the
gospel to the conquerors, who in turn would have rejected it from
contempt of the conquered. Bede (I. 22) counts it among the most wicked acts or
neglects rather, of the Britons mentioned even by their own historian
Gildas, that they, never preached the faith to the Saxons who dwelt
among them.
But fortunately Christianity was re-introduced
from a remote country, and by persons who had nothing to do with the
quarrels of the two races. To Rome, aided by the influence of France,
belongs the credit of reclaiming England to Christianity and
civilization. In England the first, and, we may say, the only purely
national church in the West was founded, but in close union with the
papacy. “The English church,” says Freeman, “reverencing Rome, but not
slavishly bowing down to her, grew up with a distinctly national
character, and gradually infused its influence into all the feelings
and habits of the English people. By the end of the seventh century,
the independent, insular, Teutonic church had become one of the
brightest lights of the Christian firmament. In short, the introduction
of Christianity completely changed the position of the English nation,
both within its own island and towards the rest of the world.” History of the Norman conquest of England, Vol. I.,
p. 22 (Oxford ed. of 1873).
The origin of the Anglo-Saxon mission reads like a
beautiful romance. Pope Gregory I., when abbot of a Benedictine
convent, saw in the slave-market of Rome three Anglo-Saxon boys offered
for sale. He was impressed with their fine appearance, fair complexion,
sweet faces and light flaxen hair; and learning, to his grief, that
they were idolaters, he asked the name of their nation, their country,
and their king. When he heard that they were Angles, he said: “Right,
for they have angelic faces, and are worthy to be fellow-heirs with
angels in heaven.” They were from the province Deira. “Truly,” he
replied, “are they De-ira-ns, that is, plucked from the ire of God, and
called to the mercy of Christ.” He asked the name of their king, which
was AElla or Ella (who reigned from 559 to 588). “Hallelujah,” he
exclaimed, “the praise of God the Creator must be sung in those parts.”
He proceeded at once from the slave market to the pope, and entreated
him to send missionaries to England, offering himself for this noble
work. He actually started for the spiritual conquest of the distant
island. But the Romans would not part with him, called him back, and
shortly afterwards elected him pope (590). What he could not do in
person, he carried out through others. Beda (B. II., ch.1 at the close) received this account
“from the ancients” (ab antiquis, or traditione majorum),
but gives it as an episode, not as a part of the English mission (which
is related I. 53). The elaborate play on words excites critical
suspicion of the truth of the story, which, though well told, is
probably invented or embellished, like so many legends about Gregory,
.”Se non vero, e ben trovato.”
In the year 596, Gregory, remembering his
interview with the sweet-faced and fair-haired Anglo-Saxon slave-boys,
and hearing of a favorable opportunity for a mission, sent the
Benedictine abbot Augustin (Austin), thirty other monks, and a priest,
Laurentius, with instructions, letters of recommendation to the Frank
kings and several bishops of Gaul, and a few books, to England. Among these books were a Bible in 2 vols., a Psalter, a
book of the Gospels, a Martyrology, Apocryphal Lives of the Apostles,
and some Commentaries. “These are the foundation or beginning of the
library of the whole English church.” The first journey of Augustin, in 595, was a failure. He
started finally for England July 23d, 596, wintered in Gaul, and landed
in England the following year with about forty persons, including
Gallic priests and interpreters. Haddan and Stubbs, III.
4. Bede I. 25. “Non enim omnes electi miracula faciunt, sed tamen eorum
omnium nomina in caelo sunt ascripta.“Greg., Ad Augustinum
Anglorum Episcopum, Epp. Lib. XI. 28, and Bede I.
31.
King Ethelbert was converted and baptized (probably June 2, 597), and drew gradually his whole nation after him, though he was taught by the missionaries not to use compulsion, since the service of Christ ought to be voluntary.
Augustin, by order of pope Gregory, was ordained
archbishop of the English nation by Vergilius, Not AEtherius, as Bede has it, I. 27, and in other places.
AEtherius was the contemporary archbishop of Lyons. Bede I. 27 sqq. gives extracts from
Gregory’s answers. It is curious how the pope handles
such delicate subjects as the monthly courses and the carnal
intercourse between married people. A husband, he says, should not
approach his wife after the birth of an infant, till the infant be
weaned. Mothers should not give their children to other women to
suckle. A man who has approached his wife is not to enter the church
unless washed with water and till after sunset. We see here the genius
of Romanism which aims to control by its legislation all the
ramifications of human life, and to shackle the conscience by a subtle
and minute casuistry. Barbarians, however, must be treated like
children.
It is remarkable that this pope, unlike his
successors, did not insist on absolute conformity to the Roman church,
but advises Augustin, who thought that the different customs of the
Gallican church were inconsistent with the unity of faith, “to choose
from every church those things that are pious, religious and upright;”
for “things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for
the sake of good things.” “Non enim pro locis res, sed pro bonis rebus loca amanda
sunt. Ex singulis ergo quibusdam ecclesiis, quae pia, quae religiosa,
quae recta sunt, elige, et haec quasi in fasciculum collecta apud
Anglorum mentes in consuetudinem depone.” Gr. Respons.
ad interrogat. Aug., Ep. XI. 64, and Bede
I. 27. “Is qui locum summum ascendere nititur, gradibus wel
passibus, saltibus elevatur.” Ep. lib. XI. 76 (and Bede I.
30). This epistle of the year 601 is addressed to Mellitus on his way
to England, but is intended for Augustin ad faciliorem Anglorum
conversionem. In Sardinia, where Christianity already prevailed,
Gregory advised Bishop Januarius to suppress the remaining heathenism
by imprisonment and corporal punishment.
Gregory sent to Augustin, June 22, 601, the
metropolitan pall (pallium), several priests (Mellitus, Justus,
Paulinus, and others), many books, sacred vessels and vestments, and
relics of apostles and martyrs. He directed him to ordain twelve
bishops in the archiepiscopal diocese of Canterbury, and to appoint an
archbishop for York, who was also to ordain twelve bishops, if the
country adjoining should receive the word of God. Mellitus was
consecrated the first bishop of London; Justus, bishop of Rochester,
both in 604 by Augustin (without assistants); Paulinus, the first
archbishop of York, 625, after the death of Gregory and Augustin. York and London had been the first metropolitan sees among
the Britons. London was even then, as Bede (II. 3) remarks, a mart of
many nations resorting to it by sea and land.
§ 11. Antagonism of the Saxon and British Clergy.
Bede, II. 2; Haddan and Stubbs, III. 38–41.
Augustin, with the aid of king Ethelbert, arranged
(in 602 or 603) a conference with the British bishops, at a place in
Sussex near the banks of the Severn under an oak, called
“Augustin’s Oak.” On the time and place of the two conferences see the notes
in Haddan and Stubbs, III. 40 and 41.
The Britons preferred their own traditions. After much useless contention, Augustin proposed, and the Britons reluctantly accepted, an appeal to the miraculous interposition of God. A blind man of the Saxon race was brought forward and restored to sight by his prayer. The Britons still refused to give up their ancient customs without the consent of their people, and demanded a second and larger synod.
At the second Conference, seven bishops of the
Britons, with a number of learned men from the Convent of Bangor,
appeared, and were advised by a venerated hermit to submit the Saxon
archbishop to the moral test of meekness and humility as required by
Christ from his followers. If Augustin, at the meeting, shall rise
before them, they should hear him submissively; but if he shall not
rise, they should despise him as a proud man. As they drew near, the
Roman dignitary remained seated in his chair. He demanded of them three
things, viz. compliance with the Roman observance of the time of
Easter, the Roman form of baptism, and aid in efforts to convert the
English nation; and then he would readily tolerate their other
peculiarities. They refused, reasoning among themselves, if he will not
rise up before us now, how much more will he despise us when we shall
be subject to his authority? Augustin indignantly rebuked them and
threatened the divine vengeance by the arms of the Saxons. “All which,”
adds Bede, “through the dispensation of the divine judgment, fell out
exactly as he had predicted.” For, a few years afterwards (613),
Ethelfrith the Wild, the pagan King of Northumbria, attacked the
Britons at Chester, and destroyed not only their army, but slaughtered
several hundred Bede mentions twelve hundred, but the Saxon chronicle
(a.
d.607) only two
hundred.
This is a sad picture of the fierce animosity of the two races and rival forms of Christianity. Unhappily, it continues to the present day, but with a remarkable difference: the Keltic Irish who, like the Britons, once represented a more independent type of Catholicism, have, since the Norman conquest, and still more since the Reformation, become intense Romanists; while the English, once the dutiful subjects of Rome, have broken with that foreign power altogether, and have vainly endeavored to force Protestantism upon the conquered race. The Irish problem will not be solved until the double curse of national and religious antagonism is removed.
§ 12. Conversion of the Other Kingdoms of the Heptarchy.
Augustin, the apostle of the Anglo-Saxons, died a.d.
604, and lies buried, with many of his successors, in the venerable
cathedral of Canterbury. On his tomb was written this epitaph: “Here
rests the Lord Augustin, first archbishop of Canterbury, who being
formerly sent hither by the blessed Gregory, bishop of the city of
Rome, and by God’s assistance supported with miracles,
reduced king Ethelbert and his nation from the worship of idols to the
faith of Christ, and having ended the days of his office in peace, died
on the 26th day of May, in the reign of the same king.” Bede II., c. 3; Haddan and Stubbs, III.
53.
He was not a great man; but he did a great work in laying the foundations of English Christianity and civilization.
Laurentius (604–619), and afterwards Mellitus (619–624) succeeded him in his office.
Other priests and monks were sent from Italy, and brought with them books and such culture as remained after the irruption of the barbarians. The first archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the bishops of most of the Southern sees were foreigners, if not consecrated, at least commissioned by the pope, and kept up a constant correspondence with Rome. Gradually a native clergy arose in England.
The work of Christianization went on among the
other kingdom of the heptarchy, and was aided by the marriage of kings
with Christian wives, but was more than once interrupted by relapse
into heathenism. Northumbria was converted chiefly through the labors
of the sainted Aidan (d. Aug. 31, 651), a monk from the island Iona or
Hii, and the first bishop of Lindisfarne, who is even lauded by Bede
for his zeal, piety and good works, although he differed from him on
the Easter question. Bede III., c. 14-17; V. 24. See the details of the missionary labors in the seven
kingdoms in Bede; also in Milman l.c.; and the documents in
Haddan and Stubbs, vol. III.
To this conversion England owes her national unity
and the best elements of her civilization. “The conversion of the heptarchic kingdom,” says Professor
Stubbs (Constitutional History of England, Vol. I., p.
217), “during the seventh century not only revealed to Europe and
Christendom the existence of a new nation, but may be said to have
rendered the new nation conscious of its unity in a way in which, under
the influence of heathenism, community of language and custom had
failed to do.”
The Anglo-Saxon Christianity was and continued to be till the Reformation, the Christianity of Rome, with its excellences and faults. It included the Latin mass, the worship of saints, images and relics, monastic virtues and vices, pilgrimages to the holy city, and much credulity and superstition. Even kings abdicated their crown to show their profound reverence for the supreme pontiff and to secure from him a passport to heaven. Chapels, churches and cathedrals were erected in the towns; convents founded in the country by the bank of the river or under the shelter of a hill, and became rich by pious donations of land. The lofty cathedrals and ivy-clad ruins of old abbeys and cloisters in England and Scotland still remain to testify in solemn silence to the power of mediaeval Catholicism.
§ 13. Conformity to Row Established. Wilfrid, Theodore, Bede.
The dispute between the Anglo-Saxon or Roman, and the British ritual was renewed in the middle of the seventh century, but ended with the triumph of the former in England proper. The spirit of independence had to take refuge in Ireland and Scotland till the time of the Norman conquest, which crushed it out also in Ireland.
Wilfrid, afterwards bishop of York, the first
distinguished native prelate who combined clerical habits with haughty
magnificence, acquired celebrity by expelling “the quartodeciman heresy
and schism,” as it was improperly called, from Northumbria, where the
Scots had introduced it through St. Aidan. The controversy was decided
in a Synod held at Whitby in 664 in the presence of King Oswy or Oswio
and his son Alfrid. Colman, the second success or of Aidan, defended
the Scottish observance of Easter by the authority of St. Columba and
the apostle John. Wilfrid rested the Roman observance on the authority
of Peter, who had introduced it in Rome, and on the universal custom of
Christendom. When he mentioned, that to Peter were intrusted the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, the king said: “I will not contradict the
door-keeper, lest when I come to the gates of the kingdom of heaven,
there should be none to open them.” By this irresistible argument the
opposition was broken, and conformity to the Roman observance
established. The Scottish semi-circular tonsure also, which was
ascribed to Simon Magus, gave way to the circular, which was derived
from St. Peter. Colman, being worsted, returned with his sympathizers
to Scotland, where he built two monasteries. Tuda was made bishop in
his place. See a full account of this controversy in Bede, III, c. 25,
26, and in Haddan and Stubbs, III. 100-106.
Soon afterwards, a dreadful pestilence raged through England and Ireland, while Caledonia was saved, as the pious inhabitants believed, by the intercession of St. Columba.
The fusion of English Christians was completed in the age of Theodorus, archbishop of Canterbury (669 to 690), and Beda Venerabilis ( b. 673, d. 735), presbyter and monk of Wearmouth. About the same time Anglo-Saxon literature was born, and laid the foundation for the development of the national genius which ultimately broke loose from Rome.
Theodore was a native of Tarsus, where Paul was
born, educated in Athens, and, of course, acquainted with Greek and
Latin learning. He received his appointment and consecration to the
primacy of England from Pope Vitalian. He arrived at Canterbury May 27,
669, visited the whole of England, established the Roman rule of
Easter, and settled bishops in all the sees except London. He unjustly
deposed bishop Wilfrid of York, who was equally devoted to Rome, but in
his later years became involved in sacerdotal jealousies and strifes.
He introduced order into the distracted church and some degree of
education among the clergy. He was a man of autocratic temper, great
executive ability, and, having been directly sent from Rome, he carried
with him double authority. “He was the first archbishop,” says Bede,
“to whom the whole church of England submitted.” During his
administration the first Anglo-Saxon mission to the mother-country of
the Saxons and Friesians was attempted by Egbert, Victberet, and
Willibrord (689 to 692). His chief work is a “Penitential” with minute
directions for a moral and religious life, and punishments for
drunkenness, licentiousness, and other prevalent vices. The works of Theodore (Poenitentiale, etc.) in
Migne’s Patrol., Tom. 99, p. 902. Comp. also
Bede, IV. 2, Bright, p. 223, and especially Haddan and Stubbs, III.
114-227, where his Penitential is given in full. It was probably no
direct work of Theodore, but drawn up under his eye and published by
his authority. It presupposes a very bad state of morals among the
clergy of that age.
The Venerable Bede was the first native English
scholar, the father of English theology and church history. He spent
his humble and peaceful life in the acquisition and cultivation of
ecclesiastical and secular learning, wrote Latin in prose and verse,
and translated portions of the Bible into Anglo-Saxon. His chief work
is his—the only reliable—Church
History of old England. He guides us with a gentle hand and in truly
Christian spirit, though colored by Roman views, from court to court,
from monastery to monastery, and bishopric to bishopric, through the
missionary labyrinth of the miniature kingdoms of his native island. He
takes the Roman side in the controversies with the British churches. See Karl Werner (R.C.), Beda und seine
Zeit, 1875.
Bright, l.c., pp. 326 sqq.
Before Bede cultivated Saxon prose, Caedmon (about
680), first a swine-herd, then a monk at Whitby, sung, as by
inspiration, the wonders of creation and redemption, and became the
father of Saxon (and Christian German) poetry. His poetry brought the
Bible history home to the imagination of the Saxon people, and was a
faint prophecy of the “Divina Comedia” and the “Paradise Lost.” Beda, Hist. Eccl. Angl., IV. 24. Caedmonis
monachi Paraphrasis poetica Genescos ac praecipuarum sacrae paginae
Historiarum, ed. F. Junius, Amst., 1655; modern editions by B.
Thorpe, Lond., 1832, and C. W. M. Grein, Götting., 1857.
Bouterwek, Caedmon’s des Angelsachen biblische
Dichtungen, Elberfeld, 1849-54, 2 Parts. F. Hammerich,
AElteste christliche Epik der Angelsachsen, Deutschen und
Nordländer. Transl. from the Danish by Michelsen, 1874. Comp. also the
literature on the German Heliand, § 27.
The conversion of England was nominal and ritual, rather than intellectual and moral. Education was confined to the clergy and monks, and consisted in the knowledge of the Decalogue, the Creed and the Pater Noster, a little Latin without any Greek or Hebrew. The Anglo-Saxon clergy were only less ignorant than the British. The ultimate triumph of the Roman church was due chiefly to her superior organization, her direct apostolic descent, and the prestige of the Roman empire. It made the Christianity of England independent of politics and court-intrigues, and kept it in close contact with the Christianity of the Continent. The advantages of this connection were greater than the dangers and evils of insular isolation. Among all the subjects of Teutonic tribes, the English became the most devoted to the Pope. They sent more pilgrims to Rome and more money into the papal treasury than any other nation. They invented the Peter’s Pence. At least thirty of their kings and queens, and an innumerable army of nobles ended their days in cloistral retreats. Nearly all of the public lands were deeded to churches and monasteries. But the exuberance of monasticism weakened the military and physical forces of the nation
Danish and the Norman conquests. The power and riches of the church secularized the clergy, and necessitated in due time a reformation. Wealth always tends to vice, and vice to decay. The Norman conquest did not change the ecclesiastical relations of England, but infused new blood and vigor into the Saxon race, which is all the better for its mixed character.
We add a list of the early archbishops and bishops
of the four principal English sees, in the order of their foundation: From Bright, p. 449, compared with the dates in Haddan and
Stubbs vol. III.
Canterbury
London
Rochester.
York
Augustin
597
Mellitus
604
Justus
604
Paulinus
625
Laurentius
604
[Cedd in Essex
654]
Romanus
624
Chad
665
Mellitus
619
Wini
666
Paulinus
633
Wilfrid, consecrated 665, in possession
669
Justus
624
Erconwald
675
Ithamar
644
Honorius
627
Waldhere
693
Damian
655
669
Deusdedit
655
Ingwald
704
Putta
669
Bosa
678
Theodore
668
Cwichelm
676
Wilfrid again
686
Brihtwald
693
Gebmund
678
Bosa again
691
Tatwin
731
Tobias
693
John
706
§ 14. The Conversion of Ireland. St. Patrick and St. Bridget.
Literature.
I. The writings of St. Patrick are printed in the Vitae Sanctorum of the Bollandists, sub March 17th; in Patricii Opuscula, ed. Warsaeus (Sir James Ware, Lond., 1656); in Migne’s Patrolog., Tom. LIII. 790–839, and with critical notes in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, etc., Vol. II, Part II, (1878), pp. 296–323.
II. The Life of St. Patrick in the Acta Sanctorum, Mart., Tom. II. 517 sqq.
Tillemont: Mémoires, Tom. XVI. 452, 781.
Ussher: Brit. Eccl. Antiqu.
J. H. Todd: St. Patrick, Apostle of Ireland. Dublin, 1864.
C. Joh. Greith (R.C.): Geschichte der altirischen Kirche und ihrer Verbindung mit Rom., Gallien und Alemannien, als Einleitung in die Geschichte des Stifts St. Gallen. Freiburg i. B. 1867.
Daniel de Vinné: History Of the Irish Primitive Church, together with the Life of St. Patrick. N. York, 1870
J. Francis Sherman (R.C.): Loca Patriciana: an Identification of Localities, chiefly in Leinster, visited by St. Patrick. Dublin, 1879.
F. E. Warren (Episc.): The Manuscript Irish Missal at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. London, 1879. Ritual of the Celtic Church. Oxf. 1881.
Comp. also the works of Todd, McLauchan, Ebrard, Killen, and Skene, quoted in § 7, and Forbes, Kalendars of Scottish Saints, p. 431.
The church-history of Ireland is peculiar. It began
with an independent catholicity (or a sort of semi-Protestantism), and
ended with Romanism, while other Western countries passed through the
reverse order. Lying outside of the bounds of the Roman empire, and
never invaded by Roman legions, Agricola thought of invading Ireland, and holding it by a
single legion, in order to remove from Britain the dangerous sight of
freedom. Tacitus, Agric., c. 24.
The early history of Ireland (Hibernia) is buried
in obscurity. The ancient Hibernians were a mixed race, but
prevailingly Keltic. They were ruled by petty tyrants, proud, rapacious
and warlike, who kept the country in perpetual strife. They were
devoted to their religion of Druidism. Their island, even before the
introduction of Christianity, was called the Sacred Island. It was also
called Scotia or Scotland down to the eleventh century. Isidore of Seville in 580 (Origines XIV. 6) was the
first to call Hibernia by the name of Scotia: ”Scotia eadem et
Ibernia, proxima Britanniae insula.”
The first traces of Irish Christianity are found at the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century.
As Pelagius, the father of the famous heresy,
which bears his name, was a Briton, so Coelestius, his chief ally and
champion, was a Hibernian; but we do not know whether he was a
Christian before be left Ireland. Mansuetus, first bishop of Toul, was
an Irish Scot (a.d. 350). Pope Caelestine, in 431, ordained and sent
Palladius, a Roman deacon, and probably a native Briton, “to the Scots
believing in Christ,” as their first bishop. Prosper Aquitan. (a. d.455-463), Chron. ad an. 431: ”Ad Scotos in Christum
credentes ordinatus a Papa Coelestino Palladius primus Episcopus
mittitur.” Comp. Vita S. Palladii in the Book of Armagh, and
the notes by Haddan and Stubbs, Vol. II., Part II., pp. 290,
291. He is said to have left in Ireland, when he withdrew, some
relics of St. Peter and Paul, and a copy of the Old and New Testaments,
which the Pope had given him, together with the tablets on which he
himself used to write. Haddan & Stubbs, p. 291. Hence Montalembert says (II. 393): “The Christian faith
dawned upon Ireland by means of two slaves.” The slave-trade between
Ireland and England flourished for many centuries.
St. Patrick or Patricius (died March 17, 465 or
493) was the son of a deacon, and grandson of a priest, as he confesses
himself without an intimation of the unlawfulness of clerical
marriages. This fact is usually, omitted by Roman Catholic writers.
Butler says simply: “His father was of a good family.” Even
Montalembert conceals it by calling “the Gallo-Roman (?) Patrick, son
of a relative of the great St. Martin of Tours” (II. 390). He also
repeats, without a shadow of proof, the legend that St. Patrick was
consecrated and commissioned by Pope St. Celestine (p. 391), though he
admits that “legend and history have vied in taking possession of the
life of St. Patrick.” The dates are merely conjectural. Haddan & Stubbs (p.
295) select a.
d.440 for St.
Patrick’s mission (as did Tillemont & Todd), and
493 as the year of his death. According to other accounts, his mission
began much earlier, and lasted sixty years. The alleged date of the
foundation of Armagh is a. d.445.
“I am,” he says, “greatly a debtor to God, who has
bestowed his grace so largely upon me, that multitudes were born again
to God through me. The Irish, who never had the knowledge of God and
worshipped only idols and unclean things, have lately become the people
of the Lord, and are called sons of God.” He speaks of having baptized
many thousands of men. Armagh seems to have been for some time the
centre of his missionary operations, and is to this day the seat of the
primacy of Ireland, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. He died in
peace, and was buried in Downpatrick (or Gabhul), where he began his
mission, gained his first converts and spent his declining years. Afterwards Armagh disputed the claims of Downpatrick See
Killen I. 71-73.
His Roman Catholic biographers have surrounded his
life with marvelous achievements, while some modern Protestant
hypercritics have questioned even his existence, as there is no certain
mention of his name before 634; unless it be “the Hymn of St. Sechnall
(Secundinus) in praise of St. Patrick, which is assigned to 448. But if
we accept his own writings, “there can be no reasonable doubt” (we say
with a Presbyterian historian of Ireland) “that he preached the gospel
in Hibernia in the fifth century; that he was a most zealous and
efficient evangelist, and that he is eminently entitled to the
honorable designation of the Apostle of Ireland.” Killen, Vol. I. 12. Patrick describes himself as
“Hiberione constitutus episcopus.” Afterwards he was called
“Episcopus Scotorum,” then “Archiapostolus Scotorum,” then
“Abbat of all Ireland,” and “Archbishop, First Primate, and Chief
Apostle of Ireland.’ See Haddan & Stubbs, p.
295.
The Christianity of Patrick was substantially that
of Gaul and old Britain, i.e. Catholic, orthodox, monastic, ascetic,
but independent of the Pope, and differing from Rome in the age of
Gregory I. in minor matters of polity and ritual. In his Confession he
never mentions Rome or the Pope; he never appeals to tradition, and
seems to recognize the Scriptures (including the Apocrypha) as the only
authority in matters of faith. He quotes from the canonical Scriptures
twenty-five times; three times from the Apocrypha. It has been
conjectured that the failure and withdrawal of Palladius was due to
Patrick, who had already monopolized this mission-field; but, according
to the more probable chronology, the mission of Patrick began about
nine years after that of Palladius. From the end of the seventh
century, the two persons were confounded, and a part of the history of
Palladius, especially his connection with Pope Caelestine, was
transferred to Patrick. Haddan & Stubbs, p. 294, note: “The language of the
Hymns of S. Sechnall and of S. Fiacc, and of S.
Patrick’s own Confessio, and the silence of
Prosper, besides chronological difficulties, disprove, upon purely
historical grounds, the supposed mission from Rome of S. Patrick
himself; which first appears in the Scholia on S.
Fiacc’s Hymn.”
With St. Patrick there is inseparably connected
the most renowned female saint of Ireland, St. Bridget (or Brigid,
Brigida, Bride), who prepared his winding sheet and survived him many
years. She died Feb. 1, 523 (or 525). She is “the Mary of Ireland,” and
gave her name to innumerable Irish daughters, churches, and convents.
She is not to be confounded with her name-sake, the widow-saint of
Sweden. Her life is surrounded even by a still thicker cloud of
legendary fiction than that of St. Patrick, so that it is impossible to
separate the facts from the accretions of a credulous posterity. She
was an illegitimate child of a chieftain or bard, and a slave-mother,
received holy orders, became deformed in answer to her own prayer,
founded the famous nunnery of Kildare (i.e. the Church of the Oak), The probable date of foundation is a. d.480. Haddan & Stubbs, p.
295.
Upon her tomb in Kildare arose the inextinguishable flame called “the Light of St. Bridget,” which her nuns (like the Vestal Virgins of Rome) kept
Six lives of her were published by Colgan in his Trias Thaumaturgus, and five by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum.
Critical Note on St. Patrick.
We have only one or two genuine documents from Patrick, both written in semi-barbarous (early Irish) Latin, but breathing an humble, devout and fervent missionary spirit without anything specifically Roman, viz. his autobiographical Confession (in 25 chapters), written shortly before his death (493?), and his Letter of remonstrance to Coroticus (or Ceredig), a British chieftain (nominally Christian), probably of Ceredigion or Cardigan, who had made a raid into Ireland, and sold several of Patrick’s converts into slavery (10 chapters). The Confession, as contained in the “Book of Armagh,” is alleged to have been transcribed before a.d. 807 from Patrick’s original autograph, which was then partly illegible. There are four other MSS. of the eleventh century, with sundry additions towards the close, which seem to be independent copies of the same original. See Haddan & Stubbs, note on p. 296. The Epistle to Coroticus is much shorter, and not so generally accepted. Both documents were first printed in 1656, then in 1668 in the Acta Sanctorum, also in Migne’s Patrologia (Vol. 53), in Miss Cusack’s Life of St. Patrick, in the work of Ebrard (l.c. 482 sqq.), and in Haddan & Stubbs, Councils (Vol. II., P. II., 296 sqq.).
There is a difference of opinion about Patrick’s nationality, whether he was of Scotch, or British, or French extraction. He begins his Confession: “I, Patrick, a sinner, the rudest and the least of all the faithful, and the most contemptible with the multitude (Ego Patricius, peccator, rusticissimus et minimus omnium fidelium et contemptibilissimus apud plurimos, or, according to another reading, contemptibilis sum apud plurimos), had for my father Calpornus (or Calphurnius), a deacon (diaconum, or diaconem), the son of Potitus (al. Photius), a presbyter (filium quondam Potiti presbyteri), who lived in the village of Bannavem (or Banaven) of Tabernia; for he had a cottage in the neighborhood where I was captured. I was then about sixteen years old; but I was ignorant of the true God, and was led away into captivity to Hibernia.” Bannavem of Tabernia is, perhaps Banavie in Lochaber in Scotland (McLauchlan); others fix the place of his birth in Kilpatrick (i.e. the cell or church of Patrick), near Dunbarton on the Clyde (Ussher, Butler, Maclear); others, somewhere in Britain, and thus explain his epithet “Brito” or “Briton” (Joceline and Skene); still others seek it in Armoric Gaul, in Boulogne (from Bononia), and derive Brito from Brittany (Lanigan, Moore, Killen, De Vinné).
He does not state the instrumentality of his conversion. Being the son of a clergyman, he must have received some Christian instruction; but he neglected it till he was made to feel the power of religion in communion with God while in slavery. “After I arrived in Ireland,” he says (ch. 6), “every day I fed cattle, and frequently during the day I prayed; more and more the love and fear of God burned, and my faith and my spirit were strengthened, so that in one day I said as many as a hundred prayers, and nearly as many in the night.” He represents his call and commission as coming directly from God through a vision, and alludes to no intervening ecclesiastical authority or episcopal consecration. In one of the oldest Irish MSS., the Book of Durrow, he is styled a presbyter. In the Epistle to Coroticus, he appears more churchly and invested with episcopal power and jurisdiction. It begins: “Patricius, peccator indoctus, Hiberione (or Hyberione) constitutus episcopus, certissime reor, a Deo accepi id quod sum: inter barbaras utique gentes proselytus et profuga, ob amorem Dei.” (So according to the text of Haddan & Stubbs, p. 314; somewhat different in Migne, Patrol. LIII. 814; and in Ebrard, p. 505.) But the letter does not state where or by whom he was consecrated.
The “Book of Armagh “contains also an Irish hymn
(the oldest monument of the Irish Keltic language), called S. Patricii
Canticum Scotticum, which Patrick is said to have written when he was
about to convert the chief monarch of the island (Laoghaire or
Loegaire). The Irish was first published by Dr. Petrie, and translated
by Dr. Todd. Haddan & Stubbs (320-323) give the Irish and English
in parallel columns. Some parts of this hymn are said to be still
remembered by the Irish peasantry, and repeated at bed-time as a
protection from evil, or “as a religious armor to protect body and soul
against demons and men and vices.”
The fourth and last document which has been claimed as authentic and contemporary, is a Latin “Hymn in praise of St. Patrick” (Hymnus Sancti Patricii, Episcopi Scotorum) by St. Sechnall (Secundinus) which begins thus:
The poem is given in full by Haddan & Stubbs, 324–327, and assigned to “before a.d. 448 (?),” in which year Sechnall died. But how could he anticipate the work of Patrick, when his mission, according to the same writers, began only eight years earlier (440), and lasted till 493? The hymn is first mentioned by Tyrechanus in the “Book of Armagh.”
The next oldest document is the Irish hymn of St. Fiacc on St. Patrick, which is assigned to the latter part of the sixth century, (l.c. 356–361). The Senchus Mor is attributed to the age of St. Patrick; but it is a code of Irish laws, derived from Pagan times, and gradually modified by Christian ecclesiastics in favor of the church. The Canons attributed to St. Patrick are of later date (Haddan & Stubbs, 328 sqq.).
It is strange that St. Patrick is not mentioned by
Bede in his Church History, although he often refers to Hibernia and
its church, and is barely named as a presbyter in his Martyrology. He
is also ignored by Columba and by the Roman Catholic writers, until his
mediaeval biographers from the eighth to the twelfth century Romanized
him, appealing not to his genuine Confession, but to spurious documents
and vague traditions. He is said to have converted all the Irish
chieftains and bards, even Ossian, the blind Homer of Scotland, who
sang to him his long epic of Keltic heroes and battles. He founded 365
or, according to others, 700 churches, and consecrated as many bishops,
and 3,000 priests (when the whole island had probably not more than two
or three hundred thousand inhabitants; for even in the reign of
Elizabeth it did not exceed 600,000). See Killen I. 76, note. Montalembert says, III. 118, note:
“Irish narratives know scarcely any numerals but those of three hundred
and three thousand. A witty Irishman, who rowed me (in 1875) over Lake
Killarney, told me that St. Patrick put the last snake into an iron
box, and sunk it to the bottom of the lake, although he had solemnly
promised to let the creature out. I asked him whether it was not a sin
to cheat a snake? “Not at all,” was his quick reply, “he only paid him
in the same coin; for the first snake cheated the whole world.” The
same guide told me that Cromwell killed all the good people in Ireland,
and let the bad ones live; and when I objected that he must have made
an exception with his ancestors, he politely replied: “No, my parents
came from America.”
§ 15. The Irish Church after St. Patrick.
The Missionary Period.
The labors of St. Patrick were carried on by his
pupils and by many British priests and monks who were driven from
England by the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the 5th and 6th centuries. Petrie (Round Towers, p. 137, quoted by Killen I.
26) speaks of crowds of foreign ecclesiastics—Roman,
Egyptian, French, British, Saxon—who flocked Ireland
as a place of refuge in the fifth and sixth
centuries.
During the sixth and seventh centuries Ireland
excelled all other countries in Christian piety, and acquired the name
of “the Island of Saints.” We must understand this in a comparative
sense, and remember that at that time England was just beginning to
emerge from Anglo-Saxon heathenism, Germany was nearly all heathen, and
the French kings—the eldest sons of the
Church—were “monsters of iniquity.” Ireland itself was
distracted by civil wars between the petty kings and chieftains; and
the monks and clergy, even the women, marched to the conflict. Adamnan
with difficulty secured a law exempting women from warfare, and it was
not till the ninth century that the clergy in Ireland were exempted
from “expeditions and hostings” (battles). The slave-trade was in full
vigor between Ireland and England in the tenth century, with the port
of Bristol for its centre. The Irish piety was largely based on
childish superstition. But the missionary zeal of that country is
nevertheless most praiseworthy. Ireland dreamed the dream of converting
heathen Europe. Its apostles went forth to Scotland, North Britain,
France, Germany, Switzerland, and North Italy. “They covered the land
and seas of the West. Unwearied navigators, they landed on the most
desert islands; they overflowed the Continent with their successive
immigrations. They saw in incessant visions a world known and unknown
to be conquered for Christ. The poem of the Pilgrimage of St. Brandan,
that monkish Odyssey so celebrated in the middle ages, that popular
prelude of the Divina Commedia, shows us the Irish monks in close
contact with all the dreams and wonders of the Keltic ideal.” Montalembert, II. 397.
The missionaries left Ireland usually in companies
of twelve, with a thirteenth as their leader. This duodecimal economy
was to represent Christ and the twelve apostles. The following are the
most prominent of these missionary bands: See Reeves, S. Columba, Introd, p.
lxxi.
St. Columba, with twelve brethren, to Hy in Scotland, a.d. 563.
St. Mohonna (or Macarius, Mauricius), sent by Columba, with twelve companions, to the Picts.
St. Columbanus, with twelve brethren, whose names are on record, to France and Germany, a.d. 612.
St. Kilian, with twelve, to Franconia and Würzburg, a.d. 680.
St. Eloquius, with twelve, to Belgium, a.d. 680.
St. Rudbert or Rupert, with twelve, to Bavaria, a.d. 700.
St. Willibrord (who studied twelve years in Ireland), with twelve, to Friesland, a.d. 692.
St. Forannan, with twelve, to the Belgian frontier, a.d. 970.
It is remarkable that this missionary activity of the Irish Church is confined to the period of her independence of the Church of Rome. We hear no more of it after the Norman conquest.
The Irish Church during this missionary period of
the sixth and seventh centuries had a peculiar character, which we
learn chiefly from two documents of the eighth century, namely, the
Catalogue of the Saints of Ireland, Catalogus Sanctorum Hiberniae published by Ussher
from two MSS, and in Haddan & Stubbs, 292-294. Contained in the Leabhar Breac, and in the Book of
Leinster.
The Catalogue distinguishes three periods and three orders of saints: secular, monastic, and eremitical.
The saints of the time of St. Patrick were all bishops full of the Holy Ghost, three hundred and fifty in number, founders of churches; they had one head, Christ, and one leader, Patrick, observed one mass and one tonsure from ear to ear, and kept Easter on the fourteenth moon after the vernal equinox; they excluded neither laymen nor women; because, founded on the Rock of Christ, they feared not the blast of temptation. They sprung from the Romans, Franks, Britons and Scots. This order of saints continued for four reigns, from about a.d. 440 till 543.
The second order, likewise of four reigns, till a.d. 599, was of Catholic Presbyters, three hundred in number, with few bishops; they had one head, Christ, one Easter, one tonsure, as before; but different and different rules, and they refused the services of women, separating them from the monasteries.
The third order of saints consisted of one hundred holy presbyters and a few bishops, living in desert places on herbs and water and the alms of the faithful; they had different tonsures and Easters, some celebrating the resurrection on the 14th, some on the 16th moon; they continued through four reigns till 665.
The first period may be called episcopal, though
in a rather non-episcopal or undiocesan sense. Angus, in his Litany,
invokes “seven times fifty [350] holy cleric bishops,” whom “the saint
[Patrick] ordained,” and “three hundred pure presbyters, upon whom he
conferred orders.” In Nennius the number of presbyters is increased to
three thousand, and in the tripartite Life of Patrick to five thousand.
These bishops, even if we greatly reduce the number as we must, had no
higher rank than the ancient chorepiscopi or country-bishops in the
Eastern Church, of whom there were once in Asia Minor alone upwards of
four hundred. Angus the Culdee gives us even one hundred and
fifty-three groups of seven bishops, each group serving in the same
church. Patrick, regarding himself as the chief bishop of the whole
Irish people, planted a church wherever he made a few converts and
could obtain a grant from the chief of a clan, and placed a bishop
ordained by himself over it. “It was a congregational and tribal
episcopacy, united by a federal rather than a territorial tie under
regular jurisdiction. During Patrick’s life, he no
doubt exercised a superintendence over the whole; but we do not see any
trace of the metropolitan jurisdiction of the church of Armagh over the
rest.” Skene II. 22
The second period was monastic and missionary. All
the presbyters and deacons were monks. Monastic life was congenial to
the soil, and had its antecedents in the brotherhoods and sisterhoods
of the Druids. Ammianus Marcellinus (XV. 9) describes the Druids as “bound
together in brotherhoods and corporations, according to the precepts of
Pythagoras!” See Killen, I. 29. See next section. St. Patrick also is said to have been one
of St. Martin’s disciples; but St. Martin lived nearly
one hundred years earlier. Angus the Culdee, in his Litany, invokes “forty thousand
monks, with the blessing of God, under the rule of Comgall of Bangor.”
But this is no doubt a slip of the pen for “four thousand.” Skene II.
56. Bangor on the northeastern coast of Ireland must not be confounded
with Bangor on the westem coast of Wales.
By a primitive Keltic monastery we must not
understand an elaborate stone structure, but a rude village of wooden
huts or bothies (botha) on a river, with a church (ecclais), a common
eating-hall, a mill, a hospice, the whole surrounded by a wall of earth
or stone. The senior monks gave themselves entirely to devotion and the
transcribing of the Scriptures. The younger were occupied in the field
and in mechanical labor, or the training of the rising generation.
These monastic communities formed a federal union, with Christ as their
invisible head. They were training schools of the clergy. They
attracted converts from the surrounding heathen population, and offered
them a refuge from danger and violence. They were resorted to by
English noblemen, who, according to Bede, were hospitably received,
furnished with books, and instructed. Some Irish clergymen could read
the Greek Testament at a time when Pope Gregory J. was ignorant of
Greek. There are traces of an original Latin version of the Scriptures
differing from the Itala and Vulgate, especially in
Patrick’s writings. Haddan & Stubbs, Vol. I., 170-198, give a collection of
Latin Scripture quotations of British or Irish writers from the fifth
to the ninth century (Fastidius, St. Patrick, Gildas, Columbanus,
Adamnanus, Nennius, Asser, etc.), and come to the conclusion
that the Vulgate, though known to Fastidius in Britain
about a.
d.420, was probably
unknown to St. Patrick, writing half a century later in Ireland, but
that from the seventh century on, the Vulgate gradually superseded the
Irish Latin version formerly in use. Haddan & Stubbs, I. 192; Comp. p. 10. Ebrard and other
writers state the contrary, but without proof.
The “Book of Armagh,” compiled by Ferdomnach, a
scribe or learned monk of Armagh, in 807, gives us some idea of the
literary state of the Irish Church at that time. First published in the Swords Parish Magazine,
1861.
In the ninth century John Scotus Erigena, who died in France, 874, startled the Church with his rare, but eccentric, genius and pantheistic speculations. He had that power of quick repartee for which Irishmen are distinguished to this day. When asked by Charles the Bald at the dinner-table, what was the difference between a Scot and a Sot (quid distat inter Scottum et Sottum?), John replied: “Nothing at all but the table, please your Majesty.”
§ 16. Subjection of Ireland to English and Roman Rule.
The success of the Roman mission of Augustin among the Anglo-Saxons encouraged attempts to bring the Irish Church under the papal jurisdiction and to force upon it the ritual observances of Rome. England owes a good deal of her Christianity to independent Irish and Scotch missionaries from Bangor and Iona; but Ireland (as well as Germany) owes her Romanism, in great measure, to England. Pope Honorius (who was afterwards condemned by the sixth oecumenical council for holding the Monothelite heresy) addressed to the Irish clergy in 629 an exhortation—not, however, in the tone of authoritative dictation, but of superior wisdom and experience—to conform to the Roman mode of keeping Easter. This is the first known papal encyclical addressed to that country. A Synod was held at Magh-Lene, and a deputation sent to the Pope (and the three Eastern patriarchs) to ascertain the foreign usages on Easter. The deputation was treated with distinguished consideration in Rome, and, after three years’ absence, reported in favor of the Roman cycle, which indeed rested on a better system of calculation. It was accordingly adopted in the South of Ireland, under the influence of the learned Irish ecclesiastic Cummian, who devoted a whole year to the study of the controversy. A few years afterwards Thomian, archbishop and abbot of Armagh (from 623 to 661), and the best Irish scholar of his age, introduced, after correspondence with the Pope, the Roman custom in the North, and thereby promoted his authority in opposition to the power of the abbot of Iona, which extended over a portion of Ireland, and strongly favored the old custom. But at last Abbot Adamnan likewise yielded to the Roman practice before his death (704).
The Norman conquest under William I., with the sanction of the Pope, united the Irish Church still more closely to Rome (1066). Gregory VII., in an encyclical letter to the king, clergy and laity of Ireland (1084)., boldly, challenged their obedience to the Vicar of the blessed Peter, and invited them to appeal to him in all matters requiring arbitration.
The archbishops of Canterbury, Lanfranc and
Anselm, claimed and exercised a sort of supervision over the three most
important sea-ports, Dublin, Waterford, and Limerick, on the ground
that the Norman settlers applied to them for bishops and priests. Their
influence was exerted in favor of conformity to Rome. Clerical celibacy
was more generally introduced, uniformity in ritual established, and
the large number of bishoprics reduced to twenty-three under two
archbishops, Armagh for the North and Cashel for the South; while the
bishop of Dublin was permitted to remain under the care of the
archbishop of Canterbury. This reorganization of the polity in the
interest of the aggrandizement of the hierarchy was effected about 1112
at the synod of Rathbreasail, which was attended by 58 bishops, 317
priests, a large number of monks, and King Murtogh
O’Brien with his nobles. See details in Lanigan and Killen (ch.
vii.).
At last Ireland was invaded and conquered by
England under Henry II., with the effectual aid of Pope Adrian
IV.—the only Englishman that sat on the papal throne.
In a curious bull of 1155, he justified and encouraged the intended
invasion in the interest of the papacy, and sent the king the ring of
investiture as Lord of Ireland calling upon that licentious monarch to
“extirpate the nurseries of vice” in Ireland, to “enlarge the borders
of the (Roman) Church,” and to secure to St. Peter from each house “the
annual pension of one penny” (equal in value in the twelfth century to
at least two or three shillings of our present currency). This papal-Irish bull is not found in the Bullarium
Romanum, the editors of which were ashamed of it, and is denounced
by some Irish Romanists as a monstrous and outrageous forgery, but it
is given by, Matthew Paris (1155), was confirmed by Pope Alexander III.
in a letter to Henry II. (a. d.1172),
published in Ireland in 1175, printed in Baronius, Annales,
ad a.
d.1159, who took his
copy from a Codex Vaticanus and is acknowledged as undoubtedly genuine
by Dr. Lanigan, the Roman Catholic historian of Ireland (IV. 64), and
other authorities; comp. Killen I. 211 sqq. It is as
follows: “Adrian, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God, to his
dearest son in Christ, the illustrious King of England, greeting and
apostolic benediction. “ Full laudably, and profitably has your magnificence
conceived the design of propagating your glorious renown on earth, and
of completing your reward of eternal happiness in heaven, whilst as a
Catholic prince you are intent on enlarging the borders of the Church,
teaching the truth of the Christian faith to the ignorant and rude,
extirpating the nurseries of iniquity from the field of the Lord, and
for the more convenient execution of this purpose, requiring the
counsel and favor of the Apostolic See. In which the maturer your
deliberation and the greater the discretion of your procedure, by, so
much the happier, we trust, will be your progress, with the assistance
of the Lord; because whatever has its origin in ardent faith and in
love of religion always has a prosperous end and issue. “There is indeed no doubt but that Ireland and all the
islands on which Christ the Sun of Righteousness has shone, and which
have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the
jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church, as your
Excellency also acknowledges. And therefore we are the more solicitous
to propagate a faithful plantation among them, and a seed pleasing to
the Lord, as we have the secret conviction of conscience that a very,
rigorous account must be rendered of them. “ You then, most dear son in Christ, have signified to
us your desire to enter into the island of Ireland that you may reduce
the people to obedience to laws, and extirpate the nurseries of vice,
and that you are willing to pay from each house a yearly pension of one
penny to St. Peter, and that you will preserve the rights of the
churches of this land whole and inviolate. We, therefore, with that
grace and acceptance suited to your pious and laudable design, and
favorably assenting to your petition, hold it good and acceptable that,
for extending the borders of the church, restraining the progress of
vice, for the correction of manners, the planting of virtue, and the
increase of the Christian religion, you enter that island, and execute
therein whatever shall pertain to the honor of God and welfare of the
land; and that the people of that land receive you honorably, and
reverence you as their lord—the rights of their
churches still remaining sacred and inviolate, and saving to St. Peter
the annual pension of one penny from every house. “If then you are resolved to carry the design you have
conceived into effectual execution, study to train that nation to
virtuous manners, and labor by yourself and others whom you shall judge
meet for this work, in faith, word, and life, that the church may be
there adorned; that the religion of the Christian faith may be planted
and grow up, and that all things pertaining to the honor of God and the
salvation of souls be so ordered that you may be entitled to the
fulness of eternal reward in God, and obtain a glorious renown on
throughout all ages.” Killen, I. 226 sq.
§ 17. The Conversion of Scotland. St. Ninian and St. Kentigern.
See the works of Skene (the second vol.), Reeves, McLauchan, Ebrard, Cunningham, mentioned in § 7.
Also Dr. Reeves: The Culdees of the British Islands as they appear in History, 1864.
Dr. Jos. Robertson: Statuta Ecclesiae Scoticanae, 1866, 2 vols.
Bishop Forbes: The Kalendars of Scottish Saints, Edinb., 1872; Lives of S. Ninian and S. Kentigern, compiled in the 12th century, Edinb., 1874.
Haddan & Stubbs: Councils and Ecclesiast. Docum., Vol. II, Part I. (Oxf., 1873), pp. 103 sqq.
Scotland (Scotia) before the tenth century was
comprised in the general appellation of Britain (Britannia), as
distinct from Ireland (Hibernia). It was known to the Romans as
Caledonia, In Gaelic, Calyddom, land of forests, or, according
to others, from Kaled, i.e hard and
wild.
The Keltic history of Scotland is full of fable, and a battlefield of Romanists and Protestants, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, who have claimed it for their respective systems of doctrine and church-polity. It must be disentangled from the sectarian issues of the Culdean controversy. The historian is neither a polemic nor an apologist, and should aim at nothing but the truth.
Tertullian says, that certain places in Britain which the Romans could not conquer were made subject to Christ. It is quite likely that the first knowledge of Christianity reached the Scots and Picts from England; but the constant wars between them and the Britons and the decline of the Roman power were unfavorable to any mission work.
The mission of Palladius to Scotland by Pope Caelestius is as vague and uncertain as his mission to Ireland by the same Pope, and is strongly mixed up with the mission of Patrick. An Irish colony from the North-Eastern part of Ulster, which had been Christianized by Patrick, settled in Scotland towards the close of the fifth century, and continued to spread along the coasts of Argyle and as far as the islands of Mull and Iona, until its progress was checked by the Northern Picts.
The first distinct fact in the church history of
Scotland is the apostolate of St. Ninian at the close of the fourth
century, during the reign of Theodosius in the East. We have little
reliable information of him. The son of a British king, he devoted
himself early to the ministry of Christ. He spent some time in Rome,
where the Pope commissioned him to the apostolate among the heathen in
Caledonia, and in Gaul with Bishop Martin of Tours, who deserves
special praise for his protest against the capital punishment of
heretics in the case of the Priscillianists. He began the
evangelization of the Southern Picts in the Eastern districts of modern
Scotland. He built a white stone church called “Candida Casa,” at
Whittern (Quhithern, Witerna) in Galloway, on the South-Westem border
of Scotland by the sea side, and dedicated it to the memory of St.
Martin, who had died in that year (397). On Whittern and the Candida Casa, see Nicholson, History
of Galloway, I. 115; Forbes, S. Ninian and S.
Kentigern, 268, and Skene, II. 46.
St. Kentigern (d. Nov. 13, 603), also called St.
Mungo (the gracious one), In Welsh, Cyndeyrn means chief, Munghu dear,
amiable. See Skene, II. 183. The meeting of the two saints, as recorded by Jocelyn,
reminds one of the meeting of St. Antony with the fabulous Paul of
Thebes. See Forbes, Kalendars, p. 372, and Skene, II.
197.
St. Cuthbert (d. March 20, 687), whose life has
been written by Bede, prior of the famous monastery of Mailros
(Melrose), afterwards bishop of Lindisfarne, and last a hermit, is
another legendary saint of Scotland, and a number of churches are
traced to him or bear his name. Forbes (p. 319) gives a list of 26.
§ 18. St. Columba and the Monastery of Iona.
John Jamieson (D. D.): An Historical Account of the Ancient Culdees of Iona, and of their Settlements in Scotland, England, and Ireland. Edinb., 1811 (p. 417).
Montalembert: La Moines d’ Occident, Vol. III., pp. 99–332 (Paris, 1868).
The Duke of Argyll: Iona. Second ed., London, 1871 (149 p
*Adamnan: Life of St. Columba, Founder of Hy, ed. by William Reeves (Canon of Armagh), Edinburgh, 1874. (Originally printed for the Irish Archaeolog. Society and for the Bannatyne Club, Dublin, 1856).
Skene: Celtic Scotland, II. 52 sqq. (Edinb., 1877). Comp. the Lit. in § 7.
Saint Columba or Columbcille, (died June 9, 597) is
the real apostle of Scotland. He is better known to us than Ninian and
Kentigern. The account of Adamnan (624–704), the ninth
abbot of Hy, was written a century after Columba’s
death from authentic records and oral traditions, although it is a
panegyric rather than a history. Later biographers have romanized him
like St. Patrick. He was descended from one of the reigning families of
Ireland and British Dalriada, and was born at, Gartan in the county of
Donegal about a.d. 521. He received in baptism the symbolical name
Colum, or in Latin Columba (Dove, as the symbol of the Holy Ghost), to
which was afterwards added cille (or kill, i.e. “of the church,” or
“the dove of the cells,” on account of his frequent attendance at
public worship, or, more probably, for his being the founder of many
churches. In the Irish calendar there are twenty saints of the name
Columba, or Columbanus, Columbus, Columb. The most distinguished next
to Columbcille is Columbanus, the Continental missionary, who has often
been confounded with Columba. In the Continental hagiology, the name is
used for female saints. See Reeves, p. 248.
Montalembert, III. 112. This poem strikes the key-note of father Prout’s more musical “Bells of Shandon which sound so grand on the river Lee.”
In 563, the forty-second year of his age, Columba
prompted by a passion for travelling and a zeal for the spread of
Christianity, “Pro Christo peregrinare volens,” says Adamnan (p.
108), who knows nothing of his excommunication and exile from Ireland
in consequence of a great battle. And yet it is difficult to account
for this tradition. In one of the Irish Keltic poems ascribed to
Columba, he laments to have been driven from Erin by his own fault and
in consequence of the blood shed in his battles. Montalembert, III.
145. This is not an adaptation to Columba’s
Hebrew name (Neander), but a corruption of Ii-shona, i.e. the
Holy Island (from Ii, the Keltic name for island, and
hona or shona, sacred). So Dr. Lindsay Alexander and
Cunningham. But Reeves (l.c. Introd., p. cxxx.) regards
Ioua as the genuine form, which is the feminine adjective of Iou
(to be pronounced like the English Yeo). The island has borne no
fewer than thirty names. “No two objects of interest,” says the Duke of Argyll
(Iona, p. 1) “could be more absolutely dissimilar in kind than
the two neighboring islands, Staffa and Iona:—Iona
dear to Christendom for more than a thousand
years;—Staffa known to the scientific and the curious
only since the close of the last century. Nothing but an accident of
geography could unite their names. The number of those who can
thoroughly understand and enjoy them both is probably very
small.”
By the labors of Columba and his successors, Iona
has become one of the most venerable and interesting spots in the
history of Christian missions. It was a light-house in the darkness of
heathenism. We can form no adequate conception of the self-denying zeal
of those heroic missionaries of the extreme North, who, in a forbidding
climate and exposed to robbers and wild beasts, devoted their lives to
the conversion of savages. Columba and his friends left no monuments of
stone and wood; nothing is shown but the spot on the South of the
island where he landed, and the empty stone coffin where his body was
laid together with that of his servant; his bones were removed
afterwards to Dunkeld. The old convent was destroyed and the monks were
killed by the wild Danes and Norsemen in the tenth century. The
remaining ruins of Iona—a cathedral, a chapel, a
nunnery, a graveyard with the tombstones of a number of Scottish and
Norwegian and Irish kings, and three remarkable carved crosses, which
were left of three hundred and sixty that (according to a vague
tradition) were thrown into the sea by the iconoclastic zeal of the
Reformation—are all of the Roman Catholic period which
succeeded the original Keltic Christianity, and which lived on its
fame. During the middle ages Iona was a sort of Jerusalem of the North,
where pilgrims loved to worship, and kings and noblemen desired to be
buried. When the celebrated Dr. Johnson, in his Tour to the Hebrides,
approached Iona, he felt his piety grow warmer. No friend of missions
can visit that lonely spot, shrouded in almost perpetual fog, without
catching new inspiration and hope for the ultimate triumph of the
gospel over all obstacles. “Hither came holy men from Erin to take counsel with the
Saint on the troubles of clans and monasteries which were still dear to
him. Hither came also bad men red-handed from blood and sacrilege to
make confession and do penance at Columba’s feet.
Hither, too, came chieftains to be blessed, and even kings to be
ordained—for it is curious that on this lonely spot,
so far distant from the ancient centres of Christendom, took place the
first recorded case of a temporal sovereign seeking from a minister of
the Church what appears to have been very like formal consecration.
Adamnan, as usual, connects his narrative of this event, which took
place in 547, with miraculous circumstances, and with Divine direction
to Columba, in his selection of Aidan, one of the early kings of the
Irish Dalriadic colony in Scotland. “ The fame of Columba’s supernatural
powers attracted many and strange visitors to the shores on which we
are now looking. Nor can we fail to remember, with the Reilig Odhrain
at our feet, how often the beautiful galleys of that olden time came up
the sound laden with the dead,—’their
dark freight a vanished life.’ A grassy mound not far
from the present landing place is known as the spot on which bodies
were laid when they were first carried to the shore. We know from the
account of Columba’s own burial that the custom is to
wake the body with the singing of psalms during three days and nights
before laying it to its final rest. It was then home in solemn
procession to the grave. How many of such processions must have wound
along the path that leads to the Reilig Odhrain! How many fleets of
galley must have ridden at anchor on that bay below us, with all those
expressive signs of mourning which belong to ships, when kings and
chiefs who had died in distant lands were carried hither to be buried
in this holy Isle! From Ireland, from Scotland, and from distant Norway
there came, during many centuries, many royal funerals to its shores.
And at this day by far the most interesting remains upon the Island are
the curious and beautiful tombstones and crosses which lie in the
Reilig Odhrain. They belong indeed, even the most ancient of them, to,
in age removed by many hundred years from Columba’s
time. But they represent the lasting reverence which his name has
inspired during so many generations and the desire of a long succession
of chiefs and warriors through the Middle Ages and down almost to our
own time, to be buried in the soil he trod.” The Duke of Argyll,
l.c., pp. 95-98.
The arrival of Columba at Iona was the beginning
of the Keltic church in Scotland. The island was at that time on the
confines of the Pictic and Scotic jurisdiction, and formed a convenient
base for missionary labors among the Scots, who were already Christian
in name, but needed confirmation, and among the Picts, who were still
pagan, and had their name from painting their bodies and fighting
naked. Columba directed his zeal first to the Picts; he visited King
Brude in his fortress, and won his esteem and co-operation in planting
Christianity among his people. “He converted them by example as well as
by word” (Bede). He founded a large number of churches and monasteries
in Ireland and Scotland directly or through his disciples. See a list of churches in Reeves, p. xlix. lxxi., and
Forbes, Kalendar, etc. p. 306, 307; comp. also Skene, II. 127
sqq. Montalembert’s delineation of
Columba’s character assumes, apparently, the truth of
these biographies, and is more eloquent than true. See Skene, II.
145.
Columba died beside the altar in the church while
engaged in his midnight devotions. Several poems are ascribed to
him—one in praise of the natural beauties of his
chosen island, and a monastic rule similar to that of St. Benedict; but
the “regula ac praecepta” of Columba, of which Wilfrid spoke at the
synod of Whitby, probably mean discipline or observance rather than a
written rule. On the regula Columbani, see Ebrard, 147
sqq.
The church establishment of Columba at Iona
belongs to the second or monastic period of the Irish church, of which
it formed an integral part. It consisted of one hundred and fifty
persons under the monastic rule. At the head of it stood a
presbyter-abbot, who ruled over the whole province, and even the
bishops, although the episcopal function of ordination was
recognized. Bede, H. E., III. 4; V. 9. For a very full account of the economy and constitution of
Iona, see Reeves, Introduction to Life of Saint Columba, pp.
c.-cxxxii.
The monastery of Iona, says Bede, held for a long
time the pre-eminence over the monasteries and churches of the Picts
and Northern Scots. Columba’s successors, he adds,
were distinguished for their continency, their love of God, and strict
attention to their rules of discipline, although they followed
“uncertain cycles in their computation of the great festival (Easter),
because they were so far away from the rest of the world, and had none
to supply them with the synodical decrees on the paschal observance;
wherefore they only practised such works of piety and chastity as they
could learn from the prophetical, evangelical, and apostolical
writings. This manner of keeping Easter continued among them for a
hundred and fifty years, till the year of our Lord’s
incarnation 715.” H. E. III. 4.
Adamnan (d. 704), the ninth successor of Columba, in consequence of a visit to the Saxons, conformed his observance of Easter to the Roman Church; but his brethren refused to follow him in this change. After his death, the community of Iona became divided on the Easter question, until the Columban monks, who adhered to the old custom, were by royal command expelled (715). With this expulsion terminates the primacy of Iona in the kingdom of the Picts.
The monastic church was broken up or subordinated to the hierarchy of the secular clergy.
§ 19. The Culdees.
After the expulsion of the Columban monks from the
kingdom of the Picts in the eighth century, the term Culdee or Ceile
De, or Kaledei, first appears in history, and has given rise to much
controversy and untenable theories. To Adamnan and to Bede, the name was entirely unknown.
Skene (II. 226) says: “In the whole range of ecclesiastical history
there is nothing more entirely destitute of authority than the
application of this name to the Columban monks of the sixth and seventh
centuries, or more utterly baseless than the fabric which has been
raised upon that assumption.” The most learned and ingenious
construction of an imaginary Protestant Culdee Church was furnished by
Ebrard and McLauchlan. The word Culdee is variously derived from the Gaelic
Gille De, servant of God; from the Keltic Cuil or
Ceal, retreat, recess, and Cuildich, men of the recess
(Jamieson, McLauchlan, Cunningham); from the Irish Ceile De, the
spouse of God (Ebrard), or the servant of God (Reeves); from the Irish
Culla, cowl, i.e. the black monk; from the Latin
Deicola, cultores Dei (Colidei), worshippers of God the
Father, in distinction from Christicolae (Calechrist in
Irish), or ordinary Christians (Skene); from the Greek
κελλεῶται, men of the cells (Goodall). The
earliest Latin form is Kaledei. in Irish Keile as a
substantive means socius maritus, also servus. On the
name, see Braun, De Culdeis, Bonn, 1840, McLauchlan pp. 175 sq.;
Ebrard pp. 2 sq., and Skene, II. 238.
The term Culdee has been improperly applied to the whole Keltic church, and a superior purity has been claimed for it.
There is no doubt that the Columban or the Keltic church of Scotland, as well as the early Irish and the early British churches, differed in many points from the mediaeval and modern church of Rome, and represent a simpler and yet a very active missionary type of Christianity.
The leading peculiarities of the ancient Keltic church, as distinct from the Roman, are:
1. Independence of the Pope. Iona was its Rome, and the Abbot of Iona, and afterwards of Dunkeld, though a mere Presbyter, ruled all Scotland.
2. Monasticism ruling supreme, but mixed with secular life, and not bound by vows of celibacy; while in the Roman church the monastic system was subordinated to the hierarchy of the secular clergy.
3. Bishops without dioceses and jurisdiction and succession.
4. Celebration of the time of Easter.
5. Form of the tonsure.
It has also been asserted, that the Kelts or Culdees were opposed to auricular confession, the worship of saints, and images, purgatory, transubstantiation, the seven sacraments, and that for this reason they were the forerunners of Protestantism.
But this inference is not warranted. Ignorance is
one thing, and rejection of an error from superior knowledge is quite
another thing. The difference is one of form rather than of spirit.
Owing to its distance and isolation from the Continent, the Keltic
church, while superior to the churches in Gaul and
Italy—at least during the sixth and seventh
centuries—in missionary zeal and success, was left
behind them in other things, and adhered to a previous stage of
development in truth and error. But the general character and tendency
of both during that period were essentially different from the genius
of Protestant Christianity. We find among the Kelts the same or even
greater love for monasticism and asceticism the same superstitious
belief in incredible miracles, the same veneration for relics (as the
bones of Columba and Aidan, which for centuries were carried from place
to place), the same scrupulous and narrow zeal for outward forms and
ceremonies (as the observance of the mere time of Easter, and the mode
of monastic tonsure), with the only difference that the Keltic church
adhered to an older and more defective calendar, and to the
semi-circular instead of the circular tonsure. There is not the least
evidence that the Keltic church had a higher conception of Christian
freedom, or of any positive distinctive principle of Protestantism,
such as the absolute supremacy of the Bible in opposition to tradition,
or justification by faith without works, or the universal priesthood of
all believers. The Duke of Argyll who is a Scotch Presbyterian, remarks
(l.c. p. 41): “It is vain to look, in the peculiarities of the
Scoto-Irish Church, for the model either of primitive practice, or of
any particular system. As regards the theology of
Columba’s time, although it was not what we now
understand as Roman, neither assuredly was it what we understand as
Protestant. Montalembert boasts, and I think with truth, that in
Columba’s life we have proof of the practice of the
auricular confession, of the invocation of saints, of confidence in
their protection, of belief in transubstantiation [?], of the practices
of fasting and of penance, of prayers for the dead, of the sign of the
crow in familiar—and it must be
added—in most superstitious use. On the other hand
there is no symptom of the worship or
’cultus’ of the Virgin, and not even
an allusion to such an idea as the universal bishopric of Rome, or to
any special authority as seated there.”
Considering, then, that the peculiarities of the Keltic church arose simply from its isolation of the main current of Christian history, the ultimate triumph of Rome, with all its incidental evils, was upon the whole a progress in the onward direction. Moreover, the Culdees degenerated into a state of indolence and stagnation during the darkness of the ninth and tenth centuries, and the Danish invasion, with its devastating and disorganizing influences. We still find them in the eleventh century, and frequently at war with the Roman clergy about landed property, tithes and other matters of self-interest, but not on matters of doctrine, or Christian life. The old Culdee convents of St. Andrews Dunkeld, Dunblane and Brechin were turned into the bishop’s chapter with the right of electing the bishop. Married Culdees were gradually supplanted by Canons-Regular. They lingered longest in Brechin, but disappeared in the thirteenth century. The decline of the Culdees was the opportunity of Rome. The Saxon priests and monks, connected with the more civilized countries, were very active and aggressive, building cathedrals, monasteries, hospitals, and getting possession of the land.
§ 20. Extinction of the Keltic Church, and Triumph of Rome under King David I.
The turning-point in the history of the Scotch church
is the reign of the devout Saxon queen St. Margaret, one of the best
queens of Scotland (1070–1093). She exerted unbounded
influence over her illiterate husband, Malcolm III., and her sons. She
was very benevolent, self-denying, well versed in the Scriptures,
zealous in reforming abuses, and given to excessive fasting, which
undermined her constitution and hastened her death. “ln St. Margaret we
have an embodiment of the spirit of her age. What ostentatious
humility, what almsgiving, what prayers! What piety, had it only been
freed from the taint of superstition! The Culdees were listless and
lazy, while she was unwearied in doing good. The Culdees met her in
disputation, but, being ignorant, they were foiled. Death could not
contend with life. The Indian disappears before the advance of the
white man. The Keltic Culdee disappeared before the footsteps of the
Saxon priest.” Cunningham, Church Hist. of Scotland, p.
100.
The change was effected by the same policy as that of the Norman kings towards Ireland. The church was placed upon a territorial in the place of a tribal basis, and a parochial system and a diocesan episcopacy was substituted for the old tribal churches with their monastic jurisdiction and functional episcopacy. Moreover the great religious orders of the Roman Church were introduced and founded great monasteries as centres of counter-influence. And lastly, the Culdees were converted from secular into regular Canons and thus absorbed into the Roman system. When Turgot was appointed bishop of St. Andrews, a.d. 1107 “the whole rights of the Keledei over the whole kingdom of Scotland passed to the bishopric of St. Andrews.”
From the time of Queen Margaret a stream of Saxons and Normans poured into Scotland, not as conquerors but as settlers, and acquired rapidly, sometimes by royal grant, sometimes by marriage, the most fertile districts from the Tweed to the Pentland Firth. From these settlers almost every noble family of Scotland traces its descent. They brought with them English civilization and religion.
The sons and successors of Margaret enriched the church by magnificent endowments. Alexander I. founded the bishoprics of Moray and Dunkeld. His younger brother, David I., the sixth son of Malcolm III., who married Maud, a grand-niece of William the Conqueror (1110) and ruled Scotland from 1124 to 1153, founded the bishoprics of Ross, Aberdeen, Caithness, and Brechin, and several monasteries and religious houses. The nobility followed his example of liberality to the church and the hierarchy so that in the course of a few centuries one half of the national wealth passed into the hands of the clergy, who were at the same time in possession of all the learning.
In the latter part of David’s reign an active crusade commenced against the Culdee establishments from St. Andrews to Iona, until the very name gradually disappeared; the last mention being of the year 1332, when the usual formula of their exclusion in the election of a bishop was repeated.
Thus the old Keltic Church came to an end, leaving
no vestiges behind it, save here and there the roofless walls of what
had been a church, and the numerous old burying-grounds to the use of
which the people still cling with tenacity, and where occasionally an
ancient Keltic cross tells of its former state. All else has
disappeared; and the only records we have of their history are the
names of the saints by whom they were founded preserved in old
calendars, the fountains near the old churches bearing their name, the
village fairs of immemorial antiquity held on their day, and here and
there a few lay families holding a small portion of land, as hereditary
custodiers of the pastoral staff, or other relic of the reputed founder
of the church, with some small remains of its jurisdiction.” Skene, II. 418.
II. THE CONVERSION OF FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ADJACENT COUNTRIES.
General Literature.
I. Germany Before Christianity.
Tacitus: Germania (cap. 2, 9, 11, 27, 39–45); Annal. (XIII. 57); Hist. IV. 64).
Jac. Grimm: Deutsche, Mythologie. Göttingen, 2nd ed. 1854, 2 vols.
A. F. Ozanam: Les Germains avant le christianisme. Par. 1847.
K. Simrock. Deutsche Mythologie. Bonn, 2nd ed. 1864.
A. Planck: Die Götter und der Gottesglaube der Deutschen. In “Jahrb. für Deutsche Theol.,” 1866, No. 1.
II. The Christianization Of Germany.
F. W. Rettberg: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. Göttingen, 1846–48. 2 vols.
C. J. Hefele (R.C.): Geschichte der Einführung des Christenthums im südwestl. Deutschland. Tübingen 1837.
H. Rückert: Culturgeschichte des deutschen Volkes in der Zeit des Uebergangs aus dem Heidenthum. Leipz. 1853, 2 Vols.
W. Krafft: Kirchengeschichte der German. Völker. Berlin 1854. (first vol.)
Hiemer (R.C.): Einführung des Christenthums in Deutschen Landen. Schaffhausen 1857 sqq. 4 vols.
Count de Montalembert (R.C.): The Monks of the West from St. Benedict to St. Bernard. Edinb. and Lond. 1861 sqq. 7 vols.
I. Friedrich (R.C., Since 1870 Old Cath.): Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. Regensb. 1866, 1869, 2 vols.
Charles Merivale: Conversion of the West. The Continental Teutons. London 1878. (Popular).
G. Körber: Die Ausbreitung des Christenthums im südlichen Baden. Heidelb. 1878.
R. Cruel: Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittelalter. Detmold 1879. (Chs. I. and II.)
§ 21. Arian Christianity among the Goths and other German Tribes.
I. Editions of the remains of the Gothic Bible Version of Wulfila: by H. C. von der Gabelenz and J. Loebe, Leipz. 1836–46; Massmann, 1855–57; E. Bernhardt, 1875 (with the Greek text and notes); and Stamm, 7th ed. 1878, and in fac-simile by Uppström, 1854–1868. See also Ulphilae Opera, and Schaff, Compan. to Gr. Test., p. 150.
Ulphilae Opera (Versio Bibliorum Gothica), in Migne’s Patrolog., Tom. XVIII. pp. 462–1559 (with a Gothic glossary).
II. G. Waitz: Ueber das Leben und die Lehre des Ulfila. Hanover 1840.
W. Bessel: Das Leben des Ulfilas und die Bekehrung der Gothen zum Christenthum. Götting. 1860.
W. Krafft: l.c. I. 213–326; and De Fontibus Ulfilae Arianismi. 1860.
A. Helfferich: Der west-gothische Arianismus und die spanische Ketzergeschichte. Berlin 1860.
We now proceed to the conversion of the Continental Teutons, especially those of France and Germany.
The first wholesale conversions of the Germanic or Teutonic race to the Christian religion took place among the Goths in the time when Arianism was at the height of power in the East Roman empire. The chief agents were clerical and other captives of war whom the Goths in their raids carried with them from the provinces of the Roman empire and whom they learned to admire and love for their virtue and supposed miraculous power. Constantine the Great entered into friendly relations with them, and is reported by Eusebius and Socrates to have subjected them to the cross of Christ. It is certain that some ecclesiastical organization was effected at that time. Theophilus, a bishop of the Goths, is mentioned among the fathers of the Council of Nicaea, 325.
The real apostle of the Goths is Ulifilas, The usual spelling. Better: Wulfila, i.e.
Wölflein, Little Wolf. In his testamentary creed, which he always held (semper
sic credidi), he confesses faith “in God the Father and in his only
begotten Son our Lord and God, and in the Holy Spirit as virtutem
illuminantem et sanctificantem nec Deum nec Dominum sed ministrum
Christi.” Comp. Krafft, l.c. 328 sqq.
Arianism spread with great rapidity among the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Burgundians, and Vandals. This heretical form of Christianity, however, was more a matter of accident than preference and conviction among the Germans, and soon gave way to orthodoxy when they became acquainted with it. When Alaric, the famous king of the Visigoths, captured Rome (410), he treated the city with marked leniency, which Augustin justly traced to the influence of the Christian faith even in heretical form. The Vandals, the rudest among the Teutonic tribes, made an exception; they fiercely persecuted the orthodox Christians in North Africa (since 430) and desolated this once flourishing field of the Catholic Church, the scene of the immortal labors of St. Augustin. Their kingdom was destroyed under Justinian (534), but the Catholic Church never rose from its ruins, and the weak remnant was conquered by the sword of Islâm (670).
Chrysostom made a noble effort to convert the Eastern Goths from Arianism to Catholicity, but his mission ceased after his death (407).
The conversion of the Franks to Catholic christianity and various political circumstances led to the abandonment of Arianism among the other Germanic tribes. The Burgundians who spread from the Rhine to the Rhone and Saone, embraced Catholic Christianity in 517, and were incorporated into the French kingdom in 534. The Suevi who spread from Eastern Germany into France and Spain, embraced the Catholic faith in 550. The Visigoths in Spain, through their king, Reccared the Catholic, subscribed an orthodox creed at the third Council of Toledo, a.d. 589, but the last of the Gothic kings, Roderic, was conquered by the Saracens, breaking into Spain from Africa, in the bloody battle of Xeres de la Frontera, a.d. 711.
The last stronghold of Arianism were the Longobards or Lombards, who conquered Northern Italy (still called Lombardy) and at first persecuted the Catholics. They were converted to the orthodox faith by the wise influence of Pope Gregory I. (590616), and the Catholic queen Theodelinde (d. 625) whose husband Agilulf (590–616) remained Arian, but allowed his son Adelwald to be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. An Arian reaction followed, but Catholicism triumphed under Grimoald (662–671), and Liutprand (773–774). Towards the close of the eighth century, Pepin and Charlemagne, in the interest of France and the papacy, destroyed the independence of the Lombards after a duration of about two hundred years, and transferred the greater part of Italy to the Eastern empire and to the Pope. In these struggles the Popes, being then (as they have been ever since) opposed from hierarchical interest to the political unity of Italy, aided the Franks and reaped the benefit.
§ 22. Conversion of Clovis and the Franks.
Gregorius Turonensis (d. 595): Historia Francorum Eccles. (till A..D. 591).
J. W. Löbell: Gregor von Tours und seine Zeit, Leipz. 1839.
A. Thierry: Recits des temps Merovingiens. Par. 1842, 2 vols.
F. W. Rettberg: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands. Gött. 1846, I. 258–278.
Kornhack: Geschichte der Franken unter den Merovingern. Greifsw. 1863.
Montalembert, l.c. II. 219 sqq.
Comp. also Henri Martin: Histoire de France; Sir James Stephen: Lectures on the History of France (Lond. 1859); Guizot: Histoire de la civilization en France (1830 sqq.), and his Histoire de France, 1870.
The Salian Franks were the first among the Teutonic
tribes which were converted to catholic or orthodox Christianity. Hence
the sovereign of France is styled by the Popes “the oldest son of the
church,” and Rheims, where Clovis was baptized, is the holy city where
most of the French kings down to Charles X. (1824) were consecrated. With the oil of the miraculous cruise of oil (Ampulla
Remensis) which, according to Hincmar, a dove brought from heaven
at the confirmation of Clovis, and which was destroyed in 1794, but
recovered in 1824.
The old Roman civilization of Gaul, though
nominally Christian, was in the last stage of consumption when the
German barbarians invaded the soil and introduced fresh blood. Several
savage tribes, even the Huns, passed through Gaul like a tempest,
leaving desolation behind them, but the Franks settled there and
changed Gaul into France, as the Anglo-Saxons changed Britain into
England. They conquered the Gallo-Romans, cruelly spoiled and almost
exterminated them in the North-Eastern districts. Before they accepted
the Christianity of the conquered race, they learned their vices. “The
greatest evil of barbarian government,” says Henri Martin, Vol. I. p. 394, quoted by Montalembert. Montalembert, Vol. II. p. 230.
The conversion of the Salian Franks took place
under the lead of their victorious king Chlodwig or Clovis (Ludovicus,
Louis), the son of Childeric and grandson of Merovig (hence the name of
Merovingians). He ruled from the year 481 to his death in 511. With him
begins the history not only of the French empire, its government and
laws, but also of the French nation, its religion and moral habits. He
married a Christian princess, Chlotilda, a daughter of the king of the
Burgundians (493), and allowed his child to be baptized. Before the
critical battle at Tolbiac Tolbiacum Zülpich. Ozanam, Etudes Germaniques, II.
54.
But the change of religion had little or no effect on the character of Clovis and his descendants, whose history is tarnished with atrocious crimes. The Merovingians, half tigers, half lambs, passed with astonishing rapidity from horrible massacres to passionate demonstrations of contrition, and from the confessional back again to the excesses of their native cruelty. The crimes of Clovis are honestly told by such saintly biographers as Gregory of Tours and Hincmar, who feel no need of any excuse for him in view of his services to religion. St. Remigius even advised the war of conquest against the Visigoths, because they were Arians.
“The Franks,” says a distinguished Catholic
Frenchman, Montalembert II. 235. Comp. also the graphic description of
the Merovingian house in Dean Milman’s Lat.
Christ., Bk. III, ch.2 (Vol. I., p. 395, Am.
ed.).
“It was against this barbarity of the soul, far more alarming than grossness and violence of manners, that the Church triumphantly struggled. From the midst of these frightful disorders, of this double current of corruption and ferocity, the pure and resplendent light of Christian sanctity was about to rise. But the secular clergy, itself tainted by the general demoralization of the two races, was not sufficient for this task. They needed the powerful and soon preponderating assistance of the monastic Army. It did not fail: the church and France owe to it the decisive victory of Christian civilization over a race much more difficult to subdue than the degenerate subjects of Rome or Byzantium. While the Franks, coming from the North, completed the subjugation of Gaul, the Benedictines were about to approach from the South, and super-impose a pacific and beneficent dominion upon the Germanic barbarian conquest. The junction and union of these forces, so unequal in their civilizing power, were destined to exercise a sovereign influence over the future of our country.”
Among these Benedictine monks, St. Maurus occupies
the most prominent place. He left Monte Casino before the death of St.
Benedict (about 540), with four companions, crossed the Alps, founded
Glanfeuil on the Loire, the first Benedictine monastery in France, and
gave his name to that noble band of scholars who, more than a thousand
years after, enriched the church with the best editions of the fathers
and other works of sacred learning. The brotherhood of St. Maur was founded in 1618, and
numbered such scholars as Mabillon, Montfaucon, and
Ruinart. The legendary history of monasticism under the Merovingians
is well told by Montalembert, II. 236-386.
§ 23. Columbanus and the Irish Missionaries on the Continent.
I. Sources.
The works of Columbanus in Patrick Fleming’s Collectanea sacra (Lovanii, 1667), and in Migne: Patrolog., Tom. 87, pp. 1013–1055. His life by Jonas in the Acta Sanct. Ord. Bened., Tom. II., Sec. II., 2–26. (Also in Fleming’s Coll.)
II. Works.
Lanigan (R. K.): Eccles. Hist. of Ireland (1829), II. 263 sqq.
Montalembert: Monks of the West, II. 397 sqq.
Ph. Heber: Die vorkarolingischen Glaubenshelden am Rhein, 1867.
Lütolf (R.C.): Die Glaubensboten der Schweiz vor St. Gallus. Luzern, 1871.
Ebrard: Die iroschottische Missionskirche (1873), pp. 25–31; 284–340.
Killen: Ecclesiast. Hist. of Ireland (1875), I. 41 sqq.
W. Smith and H. Wace: Dict. Christ. Biography (1877), I. 605–607.
G. Hertel: Ueber des heil. Columba Leben und Wirken, besonders seine Klosterregel. In the “Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.,” 1875, p. 396; and another article in Brieger’s “Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.,” 1879, p. 145.
While the Latin Benedictine monks worked their way up from the South towards the heart of France, Keltic missionaries carried their independent Christianity from the West to the North of France, the banks of the Rhine, Switzerland and Lombardy; but they were counteracted by Roman missionaries, who at last secured the control over France and Germany as well as over the British Isles.
St. Columbanus Also called Columba the younger, to distinguish him from
the Scotch Columba. There is a second St. Columbanus, an abbot of St.
Trudo (St. Troud) in France, and a poet, who died about the middle of
the ninth century. The date assigned by Hertel, l.c., and Meyer von
Knonau, in ”Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” IV. 424 (1876). The date according to the Bollandists and
Smith’s Dict. of Chr. Biogr. Ebrard puts the
emigration of Columbanus to Gaul in the year 594.
Columbanus drew up a monastic rule, which in all
essential points resembles the more famous rule of St. Benedict, but is
shorter and more severe. It divides the time of the monks between
ascetic exercises and useful agricultural labor, and enjoins absolute
obedience on severe penalties. It was afterwards superseded by the
Benedictine rule, which had the advantage of the papal sanction and
patronage. There is a considerable difference between his Regula
Monastica, in ten chapters, and his Regula Coenobialis Fratrum,
sive, Liber de quotidianis Poenitentiis Monachorum, in fifteen
chapters. The latter is unreasonably rigorous, and imposes corporal
punishments for the slightest offences, even speaking at table, or
coughing at chanting. Ebrard (l.c., p. 148 sqq.) contends that
the Regula Coenobialis, which is found only in two codices, is
of later origin. Comp. Hertel, l.c.
The life of Columbanus in France was embittered and his authority weakened by his controversy with the French clergy and the court of Burgundy. He adhered tenaciously to the Irish usage of computing Easter, the Irish tonsure and costume. Besides, his extreme severity of life was a standing rebuke of the worldly priesthood and dissolute court. He was summoned before a synod in 602 or 603, and defended himself in a letter with great freedom and eloquence, and with a singular mixture of humility and pride. He calls himself (like St. Patrick) “Columbanus, a sinner,” but speaks with an air of authority. He pleads that he is not the originator of those ritual differences, that he came to France, a poor stranger, for the cause of Christ, and asks nothing but to be permitted to live in silence in the depth of the forests near the bones of his seventeen brethren, whom he had already seen die. “Ah! let us live with you in this Gaul, where we now are, since we are destined to live with each other in heaven, if we are found worthy to enter there.” The letter is mixed with rebukes of the bishops, calculations of Easter and an array of Scripture quotations. At the same time he wrote several letters to Pope Gregory I., one of which only is preserved in the writings of Columbanus. There is no record of the action of the Synod on this controversy, nor of any answer of the Pope.
The conflict with the court of Burgundy is highly
honorable to Columbanus, and resulted in his banishment. He reproved by
word and writing the tyranny of queen Brunehild (or Brunehauld) and the
profligacy of her grandson Theodoric (or Thierry II.); he refused to
bless his illegitimate children and even threatened to excommunicate
the young king. He could not be silenced by flattery and gifts, and was
first sent as a prisoner to Besançon, and then expelled from
the kingdom in 610. For a full account of this quarrel see Montalembert, II.
411 sqq.
But this persecution extended his usefulness. We
find him next, with his Irish friends who accompanied him, on the lake
of Zurich, then in Bregenz (Bregentium) on the lake of Constance,
planting the seeds of Christianity in those charming regions of German
Switzerland. His preaching was accompanied by burning the heathen
idols. Leaving his disciple St. Gall at Bregenz, he crossed the Alps to
Lombardy, and founded a famous monastery at Bobbio. He manfully fought
there the Arian heresy, but in a letter to Boniface IV. he defended the
cause of Nestorius, as condemned by the Fifth General Council of 553,
and called upon the Pope to vindicate the church of Rome against the
charge of heresy. He speaks very boldly to the Pope, but acknowledges
Rome to be “the head of the churches of the whole world, excepting only
the singular prerogative of the place of the Lord’s
resurrection” (Jerusalem). “Roma orbis terrarum caput est ecclesiarum, salva loci
Dominicae resurrectiois singulari praerogativa.”
Columbanus was a man of considerable learning for
his age. He seems to have had even some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.
His chief works are his Regula Monastica, in ten short chapters;
seventeen Discourses; his Epistles to the Gallic Synod on the paschal
controversy, to Gregory I., and to Boniface IV.; and a few poems. The
following characteristic specimen of his ascetic view of life is from
one of the discourses: “O mortal life! how many hast thou deceived,
seduced, and blinded! Thou fliest and art nothing; thou appearest and
art but a shade; thou risest and art but a vapor; thou fliest every
day, and every day thou comest; thou fliest in coming, and comest in
flying, the same at the point of departure, different at the end; sweet
to the foolish, bitter to the wise. Those who love thee know thee not,
and those only know thee who despise thee. What art thou, then, O human
life? Thou art the way of mortals, and not their life. Thou beginnest
in sin and endest in death. Thou art then the way of life and not life
itself. Thou art only a road, and an unequal road, long for some, short
for others; wide for these, narrow for those; joyous for some, sad for
others, but for all equally rapid and without return. It is necessary,
then, O miserable human life! to fathom thee, to question thee, but not
to trust in thee. We must traverse thee without dwelling in
thee—no one dwells upon a great road; we but march
over it, to reach the country beyond.” Montalembert, II. 436.
Several of the disciples of Columbanus labored in eastern Helvetia and Rhaetia.
Sigisbert separated from him at the foot of the St. Gothard, crossed eastward over the Oberalp to the source of the Rhine, and laid the foundation of the monastery of Dissentis in the Grisons, which lasts to this day.
St. Gall (Gallus), the most celebrated of the
pupils of Columbanus, remained in Switzerland, and became the father of
the monastery and city called after him, on the banks of the river
Steinach. He declined the bishopric of Constanz. His double struggle
against the forces of nature and the gods of heathenism has been
embellished with marvelous traits by the legendary poetry of the middle
ages. See the anonymous Vita S. Galli in Pertz,
Monumenta II. 123, and in the Acta Sanct., Tom. VII.
Octobris. Also Greith, Geschichte der altirischen Kirche …
als Einleitung in die, Gesch. des Stifts St.
Gallen(1857), the
chapter on Gallus, pp. 333 sqq.
Fridold or Fridolin, who probably came from Scotland, preached the gospel to the Allemanni in South Germany. But his life is involved in great obscurity, and assigned by some to the time of Clovis I. (481–511), by others more probably to that of Clovis II. (638–656).
Kilian or Kyllina, of a noble Irish family, is said to have been the apostle of Franconia and the first bishop of Würzburg in the seventh century.
§ 24. German Missionaries before Boniface.
England derived its Anglo-Saxon population from Germany in the fifth century, and in return gave to Germany in the eighth century the Christian religion with a strong infusion of popery. Germany afterwards shook off the yoke of popery, and gave to England the Protestant Reformation. In the seventeenth century, England produced Deism, which was the first act of modern unbelief, and the forerunner of German Rationalism. The revival of evangelical theology and religion which followed in both countries, established new points of contact between these cognate races, which meet again on common ground in the Western hemisphere to commingle in the American nationality.
The conversion of Germany to Christianity and to
Romanism was, like that of England, the slow work of several centuries.
It was accomplished by missionaries of different nationalities, French,
Scotch-Irish, English, and Greek. It began at the close of the second
century, when Irenaeus spoke of Christian congregations in the two
Germanies, αἱἐνταῖς
Γερμανίαιςἱδρυμέναιἐκκλησίαι. Adv. haer. I. 10, 2
We must distinguish especially three stages: 1) the preparatory labors of Italian, French, and Scotch-Irish missionaries; 2) the consolidating romanizing work of Boniface of England and his successors; 3) the forcible military conversion of the Saxons under Charlemagne. The fourth and last missionary stage, the conversion of the Prussians and Slavonic races in North-Eastern Germany, belongs to the next period.
The light of Christianity came to Germany first from the Roman empire in the Roman colonies on the Rhine. At the council of Arles in 314, there was a bishop Maternus of Cologne with his deacon, Macrinus, and a bishop of Treves by the name of Agröcius.
In the fifth century the mysterious Severinus from the East appeared among the savages on the banks of the Danube in Bavaria as an angel of mercy, walking bare-footed in mid-winter, redeeming prisoners of war, bringing food and clothing with the comfort of the Gospel to the poor and unfortunate, and won by his self-denying labors universal esteem. French monks and hermits left traces of their work at St. Goar, St. Elig, Wulfach, and other places on the charming banks of the Rhine. The efficient labors of Columbanus and his Irish companions and pupils extended from the Vosges to South Germany and Eastern Switzerland. Willebrord, an Anglo-Saxon, brought up in an Irish convent, left with twelve brethren for Holland (690) became the Apostle of the Friesians, and was consecrated by the Pope the first bishop of Utrecht (Trajectum), under the name of Clemens. He developed an extensive activity of nearly fifty years till his death (739).
When Boniface arrived in Germany he found nearly in all parts which he visited, especially in Bavaria and Thuringia, missionaries and bishops independent of Rome, and his object was fully as much to romanize this earlier Christianity, as to convert the heathen. He transferred the conflict between the Anglo-Saxon mission of Rome and the older Keltic Christianity of Patrick and Columba and their successors from England to German soil, and repeated the role of Augustin of Canterbury. The old Easter controversy disappears after Columbanus, and the chief objects of dispute were freedom from popery and clerical marriage. In both respects, Boniface succeeded, after a hard struggle, in romanizing Germany.
The leaders of the opposition to Rome and to
Bonifacius among his predecessors and contemporaries were Adelbert and
Clemens. We know them only from the letters of Boniface, which
represent them in a very, unfavorable light. Adelbert, or Aldebert
(Eldebert), was a Gaul by nation, and perhaps bishop of Soissons; at
all events he labored on the French side of the Rhine, had received
episcopal ordination, and enjoyed great popularity from his preaching,
being regarded as an apostle, a patron, and a worker of miracles.
According to Boniface, he was a second Simon Magus, or immoral
impostor, who deceived the people by false miracles and relics, claimed
equal rank with the apostles, set up crosses and oratories in the
fields, consecrated buildings in his own name, led women astray, and
boasted to have relics better than those of Rome, and brought to him by
an angel from the ends of the earth. Clemens was a Scotchman
(Irishman), and labored in East Franconia. He opposed ecclesiastical
traditions and clerical celibacy, and had two sons. He held marriage
with a brother’s widow to be valid, and had peculiar
views of divine predestination and Christ’s descent
into Hades. Aldebert and Clemens were condemned without a hearing, and
excommunicated as heretics and seducers of the people, by a provincial
Synod of Soissons, a.d. 744, and again in a Synod of Rome, 745, by Pope
Zacharias, who confirmed the decision of Boniface. Aldebert was at last
imprisoned in the monastery of Fulda, and killed by shepherds after
escaping from prison. Clemens disappeared. Comp. besides the Letters of Boniface, the works of
Neander, Rettberg, Ebrard, Werner and Fischer, quoted
below.
§ 25. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany.
I. Bonifacius: Epistolae et Sermones, first ed. by Serrarius, Mogunt. 1605, then by Würdtwein, 1790, by Giles, 1842, and in Migne’s Patrol. Tom, 89, pp. 593–801 (together with Vitae, etc.). Jaffe: Monumenta Moguntina. Berol. 1866.
II. Biographies of Bonifacius. The oldest by Willibald, his pupil and companion (in Pertz, Monum. II. 33, and in Migne, l.c. p. 603); by Othlo, a German Benedictine monk of the eleventh cent. (in Migne, p. 634); Letzner (1602); Löffler (1812); Seiters (1845); Cox (1853); J. P. Müller (1870); Hope (1872); Aug. Werner Bonifacius und die Romanisirung Von Mitteleuropa. Leipz., 1875; Pfahler(Regensb. 1880); Otto Fischer (Leipz. 1881); Ebrard: Bonif. der Zerstörer des columbanischen Kirchenthums auf dem Festlande (Gütersloh, 1882; against Fischer and very unjust to B.; see against it Zöpffel in the “Theol. Lit. Zeitg,” 1882, No. 22). Cf. the respective sections in Neander, Gfrörer, Rettberg (II. 307 sqq.)
On the Councils of Bonif see Hefele: Conciliengeschichte, III. 458.
Boniface or Winfried One that wins peace. His Latin name Bonifacius, Benefactor,
was probably his monastic name, or given to him by the pope on his
second visit to Rome. 723.
He sacrificed his splendid prospects at home, crossed the channel, and began his missionary career with two or three companions among the Friesians in the neighborhood of Utrecht in Holland (715). His first attempt was a failure. Ratbod, the king of Friesland, was at war with Charles Martel, and devastated the churches and monasteries which had been founded by the Franks, and by Willibrord.
But far from being discouraged, he was only stimulated to greater exertion. After a brief sojourn in England, where he was offered the dignity of abbot of his convent, he left again his native land, and this time forever. He made a pilgrimage to Rome, was cordially welcomed by Pope Gregory II. and received a general commission to Christianize and romanize central Europe (718). Recrossing the Alps, he visited Bavaria and Thuringia, which had been evangelized in part by the disciples of Columban, but he was coldly received because he represented their Christianity as insufficient, and required submission to Rome. He turned his steps again to Friesland where order had been restored, and assisted Willibrord, archbishop of Utrecht, for three years. In 722 he returned to Thuringia in the wake of Charles Martel’s victorious army and preached to the heathen in Hesse who lived between the Franks and the Saxons, between the middle Rhine and the Elbe. He founded a convent at Amanaburg (Amöneburg) on the river Ohm.
In 723 he paid, on invitation, a second visit to
Rome, and was consecrated by Gregory II. as a missionary bishop without
a diocese (episcopus regionarius). He bound himself on the grave of St.
Peter with the most stringent oath of fealty to the Pope similar to
that which was imposed on the Italian or suburban bishops. The juramentum of Boniface, which he ever afterwards
remembered and observed with painful conscientiousness deserves to be
quoted in full, as it contains his whole missionary policy (see Migne,
l.c., p. 803): “In nomine Domini Dei Salvatoris
nostri Jesus Christi, imperante domino Leone Magno imperatore, anno 7
post consulatum ejus, sed et Constantini Magni imperatoris ejus filii
anno 4, indictione 6. Promitto ego Bonifacius, Dei gratia episcopus,
tibi, beate Petre, apostolorum princeps vicarioque tuo beato Gregorio
papae et successoribus ejus, per Patrem et Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum,
Trinitatem inseparabilem, et hoc sacratissimum corpus tuum, me omnem
fidem et puritatem sanctae fidei catholicae exhibere, et in unitate
ejusdem fidei, Deo operante, persistere in quo omnis Christianorum
salus esse sine dubio comprobatur, nullo modo me contra unitatem
communis et universalis Ecclesiae, quopiam consentire, sed, ut dixi,
fidem et puritatem meam atque concursum, tibi et utilitatibus tiae
Ecclesiae, cui a Domino Deo potestasligandi solvendique data est, et
praedicto vicario tuo atque successoribus ejus, per omnia exhibere. Sed
et si cognovero antistites contra instituta antiqua sanctorum patrum
conversari, cum eis nullam habere communionem aut conjunctionem; sed
magis, si valuero prohibere, prohibeam; si minus, hoc fideliter statim
Domino meo apostolico renuntiabo. Quod si, quod absit, contra hujus
professionis meae seriem aliquid facere quolibet modo, seu ingenio, vel
occasione, tentavero, reus inveniar in aeterno judicio, ultionem
Ananiae et Saphirae incurram, qui vorbis etiam de rebus propriis
fraudem facere praesumpsit: hoc autem indiculum sacramenti ego
Bonifacius exiguus episcopus manu propria, ita ut praescriptum, Deo
teste et judice, feci sacramentum, quod et conservare
promitto.” With all his devotion to the Roman See, Boniface was
manly and independent enough to complain in a letter to Pope Zacharias
of the scandalous heathen practices in Rome which were reported by
travellers and filled the German Christians with prejudice and
disobedience to Rome. See the letter in Migne, l.c. p. 746
sqq.
From this time his work assumed a more systematic character in the closest contact with Rome as the centre of Christendom. Fortified with letters of commendation, he attached himself for a short time to the court of Charles Martel, who pushed his schemes of conquest towards the Hessians. Aided by this secular help and the Pope’s spiritual authority, he made rapid progress. By a master stroke of missionary policy he laid the axe to the root of Teutonic heathenism; with his own hand, in the presence of a vast assembly, he cut down the sacred and inviolable oak of the Thunder-God at Geismar (not far from Fritzlar), and built with the planks an oratory or church of St. Peter. His biographer, Willibald, adds that a sudden storm from heaven came to his aid and split the oak in four pieces of equal length. This practical sermon was the death and burial of German mythology. He received from time to time supplies of books, monks and nuns from England. The whole church of England took a deep interest in his work, as we learn from his correspondence. He founded monastic colonies near Erfurt, Fritzlar, Ohrdruf, Bischofsheim, and Homburg. The victory of Charles Martel over the Saracens at Tours (732) checked the westward progress of Islâm and insured the triumph of Christianity in central Europe.
Boniface was raised to the dignity of archbishop (without a see) and papal legate by the new Pope Gregory III. (732), and thus enabled to coerce the refractory bishops.
In 738 he made his third and last pilgrimage to Rome with a great retinue of monks and converts, and received authority to call a synod of bishops in Bavaria and Allemannia. On his return he founded, in concert with Duke Odilo, four Bavarian bishoprics at Salzburg, Freising, Passau, and Ratisbon or Regensburg (739). To these he added in central Germany the sees of Würzburg, Buraburg (near Fritzlar), Erfurt, Eichstädt (742). He held several synods in Mainz and elsewhere for the organization of the churches and the exercise of discipline. The number of his baptized converts till 739 is said to have amounted to many thousands.
In 743 he was installed Archbishop of Mainz or Mayence (Moguntum) in the place of bishop Gervillius (Gewielieb) who was deposed for indulging in sporting propensities and for homicide in battle. His diocese extended from Cologne to Strasburg and even to Coire. He would have preferred Cologne, but the clergy there feared his disciplinary severity. He aided the sons of Charles Martel in reducing the Gallic clergy to obedience, exterminating the Keltic element, and consolidating the union with Rome.
In 744, in a council at Soissons, where twenty-three bishops were present, his most energetic opponents were condemned. In the same year, in the very heart of Germany, he laid the foundation of Fulda, the greatest of his monasteries, which became the Monte Casino of Germany.
In 753 he named Lull or Lullus his successor at Mainz. Laying aside his dignities, he became once more an humble missionary, and returned with about fifty devoted followers to the field of the baffled labors of his youth among the Friesians, where a reaction in favor of heathenism had taken place since the death of Willibrord. He planted his tents on the banks of the river Borne near Dockum (between Franecker and Groningen), waiting for a large number of converts to be confirmed. But, instead of that, he was assailed and slain, with his companions, by armed pagans. He met the martyr’s death with calmness and resignation, June 5, 754 or 755. His bones were deposited first at Utrecht, then at Mainz, and at last in Fulda. Soon after his death, an English Synod chose him, together with Pope Gregory and Augustin, patron of the English church. In 1875 Pope Pius IX. directed the Catholics of Germany and England to invoke especially the aid of St. Boniface in the distress of modern times.
The works of Boniface are epistles and sermons. The former refer to his missionary labors and policy, the latter exhibit his theological views and practical piety. Fifteen short sermons are preserved, addressed not to heathen, but to Christian converts; they reveal therefore not so much his missionary as his edifying activity. They are without Scripture text, and are either festal discourses explaining the history of salvation, especially the fall and redemption of man, or catechetical expositions of Christian doctrine and duty. We give as a characteristic specimen of the latter, the fifteenth sermon, on the renunciation of the devil in baptism:
Sermon XV.
“I. Listen, my brethren, and consider well what you have solemnly renounced in your baptism. You have renounced the devil and all his works, and all his pomp. But what are the works of the devil? They are pride, idolatry, envy, murder, calumny, lying, perjury, hatred, fornication, adultery, every kind of lewdness, theft, false witness, robbery, gluttony, drunkenness, Slander, fight, malice, philters, incantations, lots, belief in witches and were-wolves, abortion, disobedience to the Master, amulets. These and other such evil things are the works of the devil, all of which you have forsworn by your baptism, as the apostle says: Whosoever doeth such things deserves death, and shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven. But as we believe that, by the mercy of God, you will renounce all these things, with heart and hand, in order to become fit for grace, I admonish you, my dearest brethren, to remember what you have promised Almighty God.
II. For, first, you have promised to believe in Almighty God, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit, one almighty God in perfect trinity.
III. And these are the commandments which you shall keep and fulfil: to love God, whom you profess, with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourselves; for on these commandments hang the whole law and the prophets. Be patient, have mercy, be benevolent, chaste, pure. Teach your sons to fear God; teach your whole family to do so. Make peace where you go, and let him who sits in court; give a just verdict and take no presents, for presents make even a wise man blind.
IV. Keep the Sabbath and go to church-to pray, but not to prattle. Give alms according to your power, for alms extinguish sins as water does fire. Show hospitality to travelers, visit the sick, take care of widows and orphans, pay your tithes to the church, and do to nobody what you would not have done to yourself. Fear God above all. Let the servants be obedient to their masters, and the masters just to their servants. Cling to the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed, and communicate them to your own children and to those whose baptismal sponsors you are. Keep the fast, love what is right, stand up against the devil, and partake from time to time of the Lord’s Supper. Such are the works which God commands you to do and fulfil.
V. Believe in the advent of Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the judgment of all men. For then the impious shall be separated from the just, the one for the everlasting fire, the others for the eternal life. Then begins a life with God without death, a light without shadows, a health without sickness, a plenty without hunger, a happiness without fear, a joy with no misgivings. Then comes the eternal glory, in which the just shall shine like suns, for no eye has ever seen, no ear has ever heard, no heart has ever dreamed, of all that which God has prepared for those whom he loves.
VI. I also remind you, my beloved brethren, that
the birth-day of our Lord is approaching, in order that you may abstain
from all that is worldly or lewd or impure or bad. Spit out all malice
and hatred and envy; it is poison to your heart. Keep chaste even with
respect to your own wives. Clothe yourselves with good works. Give alms
to the poor who belong to Christ; invite them often to your feasts.
Keep peace with all, and make peace between those who are at discord.
If, with the aid of Christ, you will truly fulfil these commands, then
in this life you can with confidence approach the altar of God, and in
the next you shall partake of the everlasting bliss.” In Migne, l.c., p. 870. A German translation in
Cruel, Geschichte der deutschen Predigt im Mittelalter (1879),
p. 14.
Bonifacius combined the zeal and devotion of a
missionary with worldly prudence and a rare genius for organization and
administration. He was no profound scholar, but a practical statesman
and a strict disciplinarian. He was not a theologian, but an
ecclesiastic, and would have made a good Pope. He selected the best
situations for his bishoprics and monasteries, and his far-sighted
policy has been confirmed by history. He was a man of unblemished
character and untiring energy. He was incessantly active, preaching,
traveling, presiding over Synods, deciding perplexing questions about
heathen customs and trivial ceremonies. He wrought no miracles, such as
were usually expected from a missionary in those days. His disciple and
biographer apologizes for this defect, and appeals as an offset to the
invisible cures of souls which he performed. Othlo, Vita Bonif., c. 26 (Migne, l.c. fol.
664).
The weak spot in his character is the bigotry and
intolerance which he displayed in his controversy with the independent
missionaries of the French and Scotch-Irish schools who had done the
pioneer work before him. He reaped the fruits of their labors, and
destroyed their further usefulness, which he might have secured by a
liberal Christian policy. He hated every feature of individuality and
national independence in matters of the church. To him true
Christianity was identical with Romanism, and he made Germany as loyal
to the Pope as was his native England. He served under four Popes,
Gregory II., Gregory III., Zacharias, and Stephen, and they could not
have had a more devoted and faithful agent. Those who labored without
papal authority were to him dangerous hirelings, thieves and robbers
who climbed up some other way. He denounced them as false prophets,
seducers of the people, idolaters and adulterers (because they were
married and defended clerical marriage). The description he gives of their immorality, must be taken
with considerable deduction. In Ep. 49 to Pope Zacharias
(a.
d.742) in Migne,
l.c., p. 745, he speaks of deacons, priests and bishops hostile
to Rome, as being guilty of habitual drunkenness, concubinage, and even
polygamy. I will only quote what he says of the bishops: ”Et
inveniuntur quidem inter eos episcopi, qui, licet dicant se fornicarios
vel adulteros non esse, sed sunt ebriosi, et injuriosi, vel venatores,
et qui pugnant in exercitu armati, et effundunt propria manu sanguinem
hominum, sive paganorum, sive Christianorum.”
Boniface succeeded by indomitable perseverance, and his work survived him. This must be his vindication. In judging of him we should remember that the controversy between him and his French and Scotch-Irish opponents was not a controversy between Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism (which was not yet born), but between organized Catholicism or Romanism and independent Catholicism. Mediaeval Christianity was very weak, and required for its self-preservation a strong central power and legal discipline. It is doubtful whether in the barbarous condition of those times, and amid the commotions of almost constant civil wars, the independent and scattered labors of the anti-Roman missionaries could have survived as well and made as strong an impression upon the German nation as a consolidated Christianity with a common centre of unity, and authority.
Roman unity was better than undisciplined independency, but it was itself only a preparatory school for the self-governing freedom of manhood.
After Boniface had nearly completed his work, a political revolution took place in France which gave it outward support. Pepin, the major domus of the corrupt Merovingian dynasty, overthrew it with the aid of Pope Zacharias, who for his conquest of the troublesome Lombards rewarded him with the royal crown of France (753). Fifty years afterwards this political alliance of France and Germany with the Italian papacy was completed by Charlemagne and Leo III., and lasted for many centuries. Rome had the enchantment of distance, the prestige of power and culture, and promised to furnish the strongest support to new and weak churches. Rome was also the connecting link between mediaeval and ancient civilization, and transmitted to the barbarian races the treasures of classical literature which in due time led to the revival of letters and to the Protestant Reformation.
§ 26. The Pupils of Boniface. Willibald, Gregory of Utrecht, Sturm of Fulda.
Boniface left behind him a number of devoted disciples who carried on his work.
Among these we mention St. Willibald, the first bishop of Eichstädt. He was born about a.d. 700 from a noble Anglo-Saxon family and a near relative of Boniface. In his early manhood he made a pilgrimage to Rome and to the Holy Land as far as Damascus, spent several years among the Benedictines in Monte Casino, met Boniface in Rome, joined him in Germany (a.d. 740) and became bishop of Eichstädt in Bavaria in 742. He directed his attention chiefly to the founding of monasteries after the Benedictine rule. He called to his side his brother Wunnebald, his sister Walpurgis, and other helpers from England. He died July 7, 781 or 787. He is considered by some as the author of the biography of Boniface; but it was probably the work of another Willibald, a presbyter of Mainz.
Gregory, Abbot of Utrecht, was related to the royal house of the Merovingians, educated at the court, converted in his fifteenth year by a sermon of Boniface, and accompanied him on his journeys. After the death of Boniface he superintended the mission among the Friesians, but declined the episcopal dignity. In his old age he became lame, and was carried by his pupils to wherever his presence was desired. He died in 781, seventy-three years old.
Sturm, the first Abbot of Fulda (710 to Dec. 17,
779), was of a noble Bavarian family and educated by Boniface. With his
approval he passed with two companions through the dense beech forests
of Hesse in pursuit of a proper place for a monastery. Singing psalms,
he rode on an ass, cutting a way through the thicket inhabited by wild
beasts; at night after saying his prayers and making the sign of the
cross he slept on the bare ground under the canopy of heaven till
sunrise. He met no human being except a troupe of heathen slaves who
bathed in the river Fulda, and afterwards a man with a horse who was
well acquainted with the country. He found at last a suitable place,
and took solemn possession of it in 744, after it was presented to him
for a monastery by Karloman at the request of Boniface, who joined him
there with a large number of monks, and often resorted to this his
favorite monastery. “In a vast solitude,” he wrote to Pope Zacharias in
751, “among the tribes entrusted to my preaching, there is a place
where I erected a convent and peopled it with monks who live according
to the rule of St. Benedict in strict abstinence, without flesh and
wine, without intoxicating drink and slaves, earning their living with
their own hands. This spot I have rightfully secured from pious men,
especially from Karloman, the late prince of the Franks, and dedicated
to the Saviour. There I will occasionally rest my weary limbs, and
repose in death, continuing faithful to the Roman Church and to the
people to which I was sent?” Condensed translation from Epist. 75 in Migne, fol.
778.
Fulda received special privileges from Pope
Zacharias and his successors, See ”Fulda und seine Privilegien“ in Jul. Harttung, Diplomatisch-historische
Forschungen,
Gotha, 1879, pp. 193 sqq. The chief source is the Vita Sturmi by his pupil
Eigil abbot of Fulda, 818 to 822, in Mabillon, ”Acta Sanct. Ord.
Bened.” Saec. VIII. Tom. 242-259.
§ 27. The Conversion of the Saxons. Charlemagne and Alcuin. The Heliand, and the Gospel-Harmony.
Funk: Die Unterwerfung der Sachsen unter Karl dem Gr. 1833.
A. Schaumann: Geschichte des niedersächs. Volkes. Götting. 1839.
Böttger: Die Einfahrung des Christenthums in Sachsen. Hann. 1859.
W. Giesebrecht; Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, Vol. I. (1863), pp. 110 sqq.
Of all the German tribes the fierce and warlike Saxons were the last to accept the Christian religion. They differed in this respect very much from their kinsmen who had invaded and conquered England. But the means employed were also as different: rude force in one case, moral suasion in the other. The Saxons inhabited the districts of modern Hanover, Oldenburg, Brunswick, and Westphalia, which were covered with dense forests. They had driven the Franks beyond the Weser and the Rhine, and they were now driven back in turn by Charles Martel, Pepin, and Charlemagne. They hated the foreign yoke of the Franks, and far-off Rome; they hated the tithe which was imposed upon them for the support of the church. They looked upon Christianity as the enemy of their wild liberty and independence. The first efforts of Ewald, Suidbert, and other missionaries were fruitless. Their conversion was at last brought about by the sword from political as well as religious motives, and was at first merely nominal, but resulted finally in a real change under the silent influence of the moral forces of the Christian religion.
Charlemagne, who became master of the French kingdom in 768, had the noble ambition to unite the German tribes in one great empire and one religion in filial communion with Rome, but he mistook the means. He employed material force, believing that people become Christians by water-baptism, though baptized against their will. He thought that the Saxons, who were the most dangerous enemies of his kingdom, must be either subdued and Christianized, or killed. He pursued the same policy towards them as the squatter sovereigns would have the United States government pursue towards the wild Indians in the Western territories. Treaties were broken, and shocking cruelties were committed on both sides, by the Saxons from revenge and for independence, by Christians for punishment in the name of religion and civilization. Prominent among these atrocities is the massacre of four thousand five hundred captives at Verden in one day. As soon as the French army was gone, the Saxons destroyed the churches and murdered the priests, for which they were in turn put to death.
Their subjugation was a work of thirty-three
years, from 772 to 805. Widukind (Wittekind) and Albio (Abbio), the two
most powerful Saxon chiefs, seeing the fruitlessness of the resistance,
submitted to baptism in 785, with Charlemagne as sponsor. “Jetzt war Sachsen besiegt,” says Giesebrecht (l.c., p. 117),
“und mit
Blutgesetzen worden das Christenthum und das Königthum
zugliech den Sachsen aufgedrungen. Mit Todesstrafen wurde die Taufe
erzwungen, die heidnischen Gebräuche bedroht; jede
Verletzung eines chistlichen Priesters wurde, wie der Aufruhr gegen den
König und der Ungehorsam gegen seine Befehle, zu einem
todeswuerdigen Verbrechen gestempelt.”
But the Saxons were not entirely defeated till 804, when 10,000 families were driven from house and home and scattered in other provinces. Bloody laws prohibited the relapse into heathenism. The spirit of national independence was defeated, but not entirely crushed, and broke out seven centuries afterwards in another form against the Babylonian tyranny of Rome under the lead of the Saxon monk, Martin Luther.
The war of Charlemagne against the Saxons was the
first ominous example of a bloody crusade for the overthrow of
heathenism and the extension of the church. It was a radical departure
from the apostolic method, and diametrically opposed to the spirit of
the gospel. This was felt even in that age by the more enlightened
divines. Alcuin, who represents the English school of missionaries, and
who expresses in his letters great respect and admiration for
Charlemagne, modestly protested, though without effect, against this
wholesale conversion by force, and asked him rather to make peace with
the “abominable” people of the Saxons. He properly held that the
heathen should first be instructed before they are required to be
baptized and to pay tithes; that water-baptism without faith was of no
use; that baptism implies three visible things, namely, the priest, the
body, and the water, and three invisible things, namely, the Spirit,
the soul, and faith; that the Holy Spirit regenerates the soul by
faith; that faith is a free act which cannot be enforced; that
instruction, persuasion, love and self-denial are the only proper means
for converting the heathen. Neander III. 152 sqq. (Germ, ed.; Torrey’s
trnsl. III. 76). It seems to me, from looking over
Alcuin’s numerous epistles to the emperor, he might
have used his influence much more freely with his pupil. Merivale says
(p. 131): “Alcuin of York, exerted his influence upon those Northern
missions from the centre of France, in which he had planted himself.
The purity and simplicity of the English school of teachers contrasted
favoably with the worldly, character of the Frankish priesthood, and
Charlemagne himelf was impressed with the importance of intrusting the
establishment of the Church throughout his Northern conquests to these
foreigners rather than to his own subjects. He appointed the
Anglo-Saxon Willibrord to preside over the district of Estphalia, and
Liudger, a Friesian by birth, but an Englishman by his training at
York, to organize the church in Westphalia; while he left to the
earlier foundation of Fulda, which had also received its first
Christian traditions from the English Boniface and his pupil Sturm, the
charge of Engern or Angaria. From the teaching of these strangers there
sprang up a crop of Saxon priests and missionaries; from among the
youths of noble family whom the conqueror had carried off from their
homes as hostages, many were selected to be trained in the monasteries
for the life of monks and preachers. Eventually the Abbey of Corbie,
near Amiens, was founded by one of the Saxon converts, and became an
important centre of Christian teaching. From hence sprang the
daughter-foundation of the New Corbie, or Corby, on the banks of the
Weser, in the diocese of Paderborn. This abbey received its charter
from Louis le Debonnaire in 823, and became no less important an
institution for the propagation of the faith in the north of Germany,
than Fulda still continued to be in the centre, and St. Gall in the
South.”
Charlemagne relaxed somewhat the severity of his laws or capitularies after the year 797. He founded eight bishoprics among the Saxons: Osnabrück, Münster, Minden, Paderborn, Verden, Bremen, Hildesheim, and Halberstadt. From these bishoprics and the parochial churches grouped around them, and from monasteries such as Fulda, proceeded those higher and nobler influences which acted on the mind and heart.
The first monument of real Christianity among the
Saxons is the “Heliand” (Heiland, i.e., Healer, Saviour) or a harmony
of the Gospels. It is a religious epos strongly resembling the older
work of the Anglo-Saxon Caedmon on the Passion and Resurrection. From
this it no doubt derived its inspiration. For since Bonifacius there
was a lively intercourse between the church of England and the church
in Germany, and the language of the two countries was at that time
essentially the same. In both works Christ appears as the youthful hero
of the human race, the divine conqueror of the world and the devil, and
the Christians as his faithful knights and warriors. The Heliand was
composed in the ninth century by one or more poets whose language
points to Westphalia as their home. The doctrine is free from the
worship of saints, the glorification of Peter, and from ascetic
excesses, but mixed somewhat with mythological reminiscences. Vilmar
calls it the only real Christian epos, and a wonderful creation of the
German genius. See Ed. Sievers, Heliand, Halle,
1878.
A little later (about 870) Otfried, a Franconian, educated at Fulda and St. Gall, produced another poetic harmony of the Gospels, which is one of the chief monuments of old high German literature. It is a life of Christ from his birth to the ascension, and ends with a description of the judgment. It consists of fifteen thousand rhymed lines in strophes of four lines.
Thus the victory of Christianity in Germany as well as it, England, was the beginning of poetry and literature, and of true civilization,
The Christianization of North-Eastern Germany, among the Slavonic races, along the Baltic shores in Prussia, Livonia, and Courland, went on in the next period, chiefly through Bishop Otto of Bamberg, the apostle of Pomerania, and the Knights of the Teutonic order, and was completed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
III. THE CONVERSION 0F SCANDINAVIA.
General Literature.
I. Scandinavia before Christianity.
The Eddas, edit. Rask (Copenhagen, 1818); A. Munch (Christiania, 1847); Möbius (Leipzig, 1860).
N. M. Petersen: Danmarks Historie i Hedenold. Copenhagen, 1834–37, 3 vols.; Den Nordiske Mythologie, Copenhagen, 1839.
N. F. S. Grundtvig: Nordens Mythologie. Copenhagen, 1839.
Thorpe: Northern Mythology. London, 1852, 3 vols.
Rasmus B. Anderson: Norse Mythology; Myths of the Eddas systematized and interpreted. Chicago, 1875.
II. The Christianization of Scandinavia.
Claudius Oernhjalm: Historia Sueonum Gothorumque Ecclesiae. Stockholm, 1689, 4 vols.
E. Pontoppidan: Annales Ecclesiae Danicae. Copenhagen, 1741.
F. Münter: Kirchengeschichte von Dänmark und Norwegen. Copenhagen and Leipzig, 1823–33, 3 vols.
R. Reuterdahl: Svenska kyrkans historia. Lund, 1833, 3 vols., first volume translated into German by E. T. Mayerhof, under the title: Leben Ansgars.
Fred Helweg: Den Danske Kirkes Historie. Copenhagen, 1862.
A. Jorgensen: Den nordiske Kirkes Grundloeggelse. Copenhagen, 1874.
Neander: Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, Vol. IV., pp. 1–150
§ 28. Scandinavian Heathenism.
Wheaton: History of the Northmen. London 1831.
Depping: Histoire des expeditions maritimes des Normands. Paris, 1843. 2 vols.
F. Worsaae: Account of the Danes in England, Ireland, and Scotland. London, 1852; The Danish Conquest of England and Normandy. London, 1863. These works are translated from the Danish.
Scandinavia was inhabited by one of the wildest and fiercest, but also one of the strongest and most valiant branches of the Teutonic race, a people of robbers which grew into a people of conquerors. Speaking the same language—that which is still spoken in Iceland—and worshipping the same gods, they were split into a number of small kingdoms covering the present Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. Every spring, when the ice broke in the fjords, they launched their boats or skiffs, and swept, each swarm under the leadership of its own king, down upon the coasts of the neighboring countries. By the rivers they penetrated far into the countries, burning and destroying what they could not carry away with them. When autumn came, they returned home, loaded with spoil, and they spent the winter round the open hearth, devouring their prey. But in course of time, the swarms congregated and formed large armies, and the robber-campaigns became organized expeditions for conquest; kingdoms were founded in Russia, England, France, and Sicily. In their new homes, however, the Northern vikings soon forgot both their native language and their old gods, and became the strong bearers of new departures of civilization and the valiant knights of Christianity.
In the Scandinavian mythology, there were not a few ideas which the Christian missionary could use as connecting links. It was not absolutely necessary for him to begin with a mere negation; here, too, there was an “unknown God” and many traits indicate that, during the eighth and ninth centuries, people throughout Scandinavia became more and more anxious to hear something about him. When a man died, he went to Walhall, if he had been brave, and to Niflheim, if he had been a coward. In Walhall he lived together with the gods, in great brightness and joy, fighting all the day, feasting all the night. In Niflheim he sat alone, a shadow, surrounded with everything disgusting and degrading. But Walhall and Niflheim were not to last forever. A deep darkness, Ragnarokr, shall fall over the universe; Walhall and Niflheim shall be destroyed by fire; the gods, the heroes, the shadows, shall perish. Then a new heaven and a new earth shall be created by the All-Father, and he shall judge men not according as they have been brave or cowardly, but according as they have been good or bad. From the Eddas themseIves, it appears that, throughout Scandinavian heathendom, there now and then arose characters who, though they would not cease to be brave, longed to be good. The representative of this goodness, this dim fore-shadowing of the Christian idea of holiness, was Baldur, the young god standing on the rainbow and watching the worlds, and he was also the link which held together the whole chain of the Walhall gods; when he died, Ragnarokr came.
A transition from the myth of Baldur to the gospel of Christ cannot have been very difficult to the Scandinavian imagination; and, indeed, it is apparent that the first ideas which the Scandinavian heathens formed of the “White Christ” were influenced by their ideas of Baldur. It is a question, however, not yet settled, whether certain parts of the Scandinavian mythology, as, for instance, the above myths of Ragnarokr and Baldur, are not a reflex of Christian ideas; and it is quite probable that when the Scandinavians in the ninth century began to look at Christ under the image of Baldur, they had long before unconsciously remodeled their idea of Baldur after the image of Christ.
Another point, of considerable importance to the Christian missionary, was that, in Scandinavian heathendom, he had no priesthood to encounter. Scandinavian paganism never became an institution. There were temples, or at least altars, at Leire, near Roeskilde, in Denmark; at Sigtuna, near Upsall, in Sweden, and at Moere, near Drontheim, in Norway; and huge sacrifices of ninety-nine horses, ninety-nine cocks, and ninety-nine slaves were offered up there every Juul-time. But every man was his own priest. At the time when Christianity first appeared in Scandinavia, the old religion was evidently losing its hold on the individuals and for the very reason, that it had never succeeded in laying hold on the nation. People continued to swear by the gods, and drink in their honor; but they ceased to pray to them. They continued to sacrifice before taking the field or after the victory, and to make the sign of the cross, meaning Thor’s hammer, over a child when it was named; but there was really nothing in their life, national or individual, public or private, which demanded religious consecration. As, on the one side, characters developed which actually went beyond the established religion, longing for something higher and deeper, it was, on the other side, still more frequent to meet with characters which passed by the established religion with utter indifference, believing in nothing but their own strength.
The principal obstacle which Christianity had to encounter in Scandinavia was moral rather than religious. In his passions, the old Scandinavian was sometimes worse than a beast. Gluttony and drunkenness he considered as accomplishments. But he was chaste. A dishonored woman was very seldom heard of, adultery never. In his energy, he was sometimes fiercer than a demon. He destroyed for the sake of destruction, and there were no indignities or cruelties which he would not inflict upon a vanquished enemy. But for his friend, his king, his wife, his child, he would sacrifice everything, even life itself; and he would do it without a doubt, without a pang, in pure and noble enthusiasm. Such, however, as his morals were, they, had absolute sway over him. The gods he could forget, but not his duties. The evil one, among gods and men, was he who saw the duty, but stole away from it. The highest spiritual power among the old Scandinavians, their only enthusiasm, was their feeling of duty; but the direction which had been given to this feeling was so absolutely opposed to that pointed out by the Christian morality, that no reconciliation was possible. Revenge was the noblest sentiment and passion of man; forgiveness was a sin. The battle-field reeking with blood and fire was the highest beauty the earth could show; patient and peaceful labor was an abomination. It was quite natural, therefore, that the actual conflict between Christianity and Scandinavian paganism should take place in the field of morals. The pagans slew the missionaries, and burnt their schools and churches, not because they preached new gods, but because they “corrupted the morals of the people” (by averting them from their warlike pursuits), and when, after a contest of more than a century, it became apparent that Christianity would be victorious, the pagan heroes left the country in great swarms, as if they were flying from some awful plague. The first and hardest work which Christianity had to do in Scandinavia was generally humanitarian rather than specifically religious.
§ 29. The Christianization of Denmark. St. Ansgar.
Ansgarius: Pigmenta, ed. Lappenberg. Hamburg, 1844. Vita Wilehadi, in Pertz: Monumenta II.; and in Migne: Patrol. Tom. 118, pp. 1014–1051.
Rimbertus: Vita Ansgarii, in Pertz: Monumenta II., and in Migne, l.c. pp. 961–1011.
Adamus Bremensis (d. 1076): Gesta Hamenburgensis Eccl. pontificum (embracing the history of the archbishopric of Hamburg, of Scandinavia, Denmark, and Northwestern Germany, from 788–1072); reprinted in Pertz: Monumenta, VII.; separate edition by Lappenberg. Hanover, 1846.
Laurent: Leben der Erzb. Ansgar und Rimbert. 1856.
A. Tappehorn: Leben d. h. Ansgar. 1863.
G. Dehio: Geschichte d. Erzb. Hamburg-Bremen. 1877.
H. N. A. Jensen: Schleswig-Holsteinische Kirchengeschichte, edit. A. L. J. Michelsen (1879).
During the sixth and seventh centuries the Danes first came in contact with Christianity, partly through their commercial intercourse with Duerstede in Holland, partly through their perpetual raids on Ireland; and tales of the “White Christ” were frequently told among them, though probably with no other effect than that of wonder. The first Christian missionary who visited them and worked among them was Willebrord. Born in Northumbria and educated within the pale of the Keltic Kirk he went out, in 690, as a missionary to the Frises. Expelled by them he came, about 700, to Denmark, was well received by king Yngrin (Ogendus), formed a congregation and bought thirty Danish boys, whom he educated in the Christian religion, and of whom one, Sigwald, is still remembered as the patron saint of Nuremberg, St. Sebaldus. But his work seems to have been of merely temporary effect.
Soon, however, the tremendous activity which
Charlemagne developed as a political organizer, was felt even on the
Danish frontier. His realm touched the Eyder. Political relations
sprang up between the Roman empire and Denmark, and they opened a freer
and broader entrance to the Christian missionaries. In Essehoe, in
Holstein, Charlemagne built a chapel for the use of the garrison; in
Hamburg he settled Heridock as the head of a Christian congregation;
and from a passage in one of Alcuin’s letters Epist. 13, in Monumenta Alcuiniana, Ed.
Jaffé.
Ansgar was born about 800 (according to general
acceptation Sept. 9, 801) in the diocese of Amiens, of Frankish
parents, and educated in the abbey of Corbie, under the guidance of
Adalhard. Paschasius Radbertus was among his teachers. In 822 a
missionary colony was planted by Corbie in Westphalia, and the German
monastery of Corwey or New Corwey was founded. Hither Ansgar was
removed, as teacher in the new school, and he soon acquired great fame
both on account of his powers as a preacher and on account of his
ardent piety. When still a boy he had holy visions, and was deeply
impressed with the vanity of all earthly greatness. The crown of the
martyr seemed to him the highest grace which human life could attain,
and he ardently prayed that it might be given to him. The proposition
to follow king Harald as a missionary, among the heathen Danes he
immediately accepted, in spite of the remonstrances of his friends, and
accompanied by Autbert he repaired, in 827, to Denmark, where he
immediately established a missionary station at Hedeby, in the province
of Schleswig. The task was difficult, but the beginning was not without
success. Twelve young boys were bought to be educated as teachers, and
not a few people were converted and baptized. His kindness to the poor,
the sick, to all who were in distress, attracted attention; his fervor
as a preacher and teacher produced sympathy without, as yet, provoking
resistance. But in 829 king Harald was again expelled and retired to
Riustri, a possession on the mouth of the Weser, which the emperor had
given to him as a fief. Ansgar was compelled to follow him and the
prospects of the Danish mission became very dark, the more so as
Autbert had to give up any further participation in the work on account
of ill health, and return to New Corwey. At this time an invitation
from the Swedish king, Björn, gave Ansgar an opportunity to
visit Sweden, and he stayed there till 831, when the establishment of
an episcopal see at Hamburg, determined upon by the diet of
Aix-le-chapelle in 831, promised to give the Danish mission a new
impulse. All Scandinavia was laid under the new see, and Ansgar was
consecrated its first bishop by bishop Drago of Metz, a brother of the
emperor, with the solemn assistance of three archbishops, Ebo of
Rheims, Hetti of Treves and Obgar of Mentz. A bull of Gregory IV. Mabillon: Act. Sanct. Bened. Ord. IV. 2, p.
124.
In this great emergency his character shone forth in all its strength and splendor; he bore what God laid upon him in silence and made no complaint. Meanwhile Lewis the German came to his support. In 846 the see of Bremen became vacant. The see of Hamburg was then united to that of Bremen, and to this new see, which Ansgar was called to fill, a papal bull of May 31, 864, gave archiepiscopal rank. Installed in Bremen, Ansgar immediately took up again the Danish mission and again with success. He won even king Horich himself for the Christian cause, and obtained permission from him to build a church in Hedeby, the first Christian church in Denmark, dedicated to Our Lady. Under king Horich’s son this church was allowed to have bells, a particular horror to the heathens, and a new and larger church was commenced in Ribe. By Ansgar’s activity Christianity became an established and acknowledged institution in Denmark, and not only in Denmark but also in Sweden, which he visited once more, 848–850.
The principal feature of his spiritual character
was ascetic severity; he wore a coarse hair-shirt close to the skin,
fasted much and spent most of his time in prayer. But with this
asceticism he connected a great deal of practical energy; he rebuked
the idleness of the monks, demanded of his pupils that they should have
some actual work at hand, and was often occupied in knitting, while
praying. His enthusiasm and holy raptures were also singularly
well-tempered by good common sense. To those who wished to extol his
greatness and goodness by ascribing miracles to him, he said that the
greatest miracle in his life would be, if God ever made a thoroughly
pious man out of him. Si dignus essem apud Deum meum, rogarem quatenus unum
mihi concederet signum, videlicet ut de me sua gratia faceret bonum
hominem.” Vita by Rimbert, c. 67 (Migne 118, p.
1008).
Ansgar’s successor in the archiepiscopal see of Hamburg-Bremen was his friend and biographer, Rimbert, 865–888. In his time all the petty kingdoms into which Denmark was divided, were gathered together under one sceptre by King Gorm the Old; but this event, in one respect very favorable to the rapid spread of Christianity, was in other respects a real obstacle to the Christian cause as it placed Denmark, politically, in opposition to Germany, which was the basis and only support of the Christian mission to Denmark. King Gorm himself was a grim heathen; but his queen, Thyra Danabod, had embraced Christianity, and both under Rimbert and his successor, Adalgar, 888–909, the Christian missionaries were allowed to work undisturbed. A new church, the third in Denmark, was built at Aarhus. But under Adalgar’s successor, Unni, 909–936, King Gorm’s fury, half political and half religious, suddenly burst forth. The churches were burnt, the missionaries were killed or expelled, and nothing but the decisive victory of Henry the Fowler, king of Germany, over the Danish king saved the Christians in Denmark from complete extermination. By the peace it was agreed that King Gorm should allow the preaching of Christianity in his realm, and Unni took up the cause again with great energy. Between Unni’s successor, Adaldag, 936–988, and King Harald Blue Tooth, a son of Gorm the Old, there grew up a relation which almost might be called a co-operation. Around the three churches in Jutland: Schleswig, Ribe and Aarhus, and a fourth in Fünen: Odense, bishoprics were formed, and Adaldag consecrated four native bishops. The church obtained right to accept and hold donations, and instances of very large endowments occurred.
The war between King Harald and the German king, Otto II., arose from merely political causes, but led to the baptism of the former, and soon after the royal residence was moved from Leire, one of the chief centres of Scandinavian heathendom, to Roeskilde, where a Christian church was built. Among the Danes, however, there was a large party which was very ill-pleased at this turn of affairs. They were heathens because heathenism was the only religion which suited their passions. They clung to Thor, not from conviction, but from pride. They looked down with indignation and dismay upon the transformation which Christianity everywhere effected both of the character and the life of the people. Finally they left the country and settled under the leadership of Palnatoke, at the mouth of the Oder, where they founded a kind of republic, Jomsborg.
From this place they waged a continuous war upon Christianity in Denmark for more than a decade, and with dreadful effect. The names of the martyrs would fill a whole volume, says Adam of Bremen. The church in Roeskilde was burnt. The bishopric of Fünen was abolished. The king’s own son, Swen, was one of the leaders, and the king himself was finally shot by Palnatoke, 991. Swen, however, soon fell out with the Joms vikings, and his invasion of England gave the warlike passions of the nation another direction.
From the conquest of that country and its union with Denmark, the Danish mission received a vigorous impulse. King Swen himself was converted, and showed great zeal for Christianity. He rebuilt the church in Roeskilde, erected a new church at Lund, in Skaane, placed the sign of the cross on his coins, and exhorted, on his death-bed, his son Canute to work for the Christianization of Denmark. The ardor of the Hamburg-Bremen archbishops for the Danish mission seemed at this time to have cooled, or perhaps the growing difference between the language spoken to the north of the Eyder and that spoken to the south of that river made missionary work in Denmark very difficult for a German preacher. Ansgar had not felt this difference; but two centuries later it had probably become necessary for the German missionary to learn a foreign language before entering on his work in Denmark.
Between England and Denmark there existed no such difference of language. King Canute the Great, during whose reign (1019–1035) the conversion of Denmark was completed, could employ English priests and monks in Denmark without the least embarrassment. He re-established the bishopric of Fünen, and founded two new bishoprics in Sealand and Skaane; and these three sees were filled with Englishmen consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury. He invited a number of English monks to Denmark, and settled them partly as ecclesiastics at the churches, partly in small missionary stations, scattered all around in the country; and everywhere, in the style of the church-building and in the character of the service the English influence was predominating. This circumstance, however, did in no way affect the ecclesiastical relation between Denmark and the archiepiscopal see of Hamburg-Bremen. The authority of the archbishop, though not altogether unassailed, was nevertheless generally submitted to with good grace, and until in the twelfth century an independent Scandinavian archbishopric was established at Lund, with the exception of the above cases, he always appointed and consecrated the Danish bishops. Also the relation to the Pope was very cordial. Canute made a pilgrimage to Rome, and founded several Hospitia Danorum there. He refused, however, to permit the introduction of the Peter’s pence in Denmark, and the tribute which, up to the fourteenth century, was annually sent from that country to Rome, was considered a voluntary gift.
The last part of Denmark which was converted was the island of Bornholm. It was christianized in 1060 by Bishop Egius of Lund. It is noticeable, however, that in Denmark Christianity was not made a part of the law of the land, such as was the case in England and in Norway.
§ 30. The Christianization of Sweden.
Rimbertus: Vita Ansgarii, in Pertz: Monumenta II.
Adamus Bremensis: Gesta Ham. Eccl. Pont., in Pertz: Monumenta VII; separate edition by Lappenberg. Hanover, 1846.
Historia S. Sigfridi, in Scriptt. Rer. Suec. Medii-oevi, T. II.
Just when the expulsion of Harald Klak compelled Ansgar to give up the Danish mission, at least for the time being, an embassy was sent by the Swedish king, Björn, to the emperor, Lewis the Pious, asking him to send Christian missionaries to Sweden. Like the Danes, the Swedes had become acquainted with Christianity through their wars and commercial connections with foreign countries, and with many this acquaintance appears to have awakened an actual desire to become Christians. Accordingly Ansgar went to Sweden in 829, accompanied by Witmar. While crossing the Baltic, the vessel was overtaken and plundered by pirates, and he arrived empty handed, not to say destitute, at Björkö or Birka, the residence of King Björn, situated on an island in the Maelarn. Although poverty, and misery were very poor introduction to a heathen king in ancient Scandinavia, he was well received by the king; and in Hergeir, one of the most prominent men at the court of Birka, he found a warm and reliable friend. Hergeir built the first Christian chapel in Sweden, and during his whole life he proved an unfailing and powerful support of the Christian cause. After two years’ successful labor, Ansgar returned to Germany; but he did not forget the work begun. As soon as he was well established as bishop in Hamburg, he sent, in 834, Gautbert, a nephew of Ebo, to Sweden, accompanied by Nithard and a number of other Christian priests, and well provided with everything necessary for the work. Gautbert labored with great success. In Birka he built a church, and thus it became possible for the Christians, scattered all over Sweden, to celebrate service and partake of the Lord’s Supper in their own country without going to Duerstede or some other foreign place. But here, as in Denmark, the success of the Christian mission aroused the jealousy and hatred of the heathen, and, at last, even Hergeir was not able to keep them within bounds. An infuriated swarm broke into the house of Gautbert. The house was plundered; Nithard was murdered; the church was burnt, and Gautbert himself was sent in chains beyond the frontier. He never returned to Sweden, but died as bishop of Osnabrück, shortly before Ansgar. When Ansgar first heard of the outbreak in Sweden, he was himself flying before the fury of the Danish heathen, and for several years he was unable to do anything for the Swedish mission. Ardgar, a former hermit, now a priest, went to Sweden, and in Birka he found that Hergeir had succeeded in keeping together and defending the Christian congregation; but Hergeir died shortly after, and with him fell the last defence against the attacks of the heathen and barbarians.
Meanwhile Ansgar had been established in the archiepiscopal see of Hamburg-Bremen. In 848, he determined to go himself to Sweden. The costly presents he gave to king Olaf, the urgent letters he brought from the emperor, and the king of Denmark, the magnificence and solemnity of the appearance of the mission made a deep impression. The king promised that the question should be laid before the assembled people, whether or not they would allow Christianity to be preached again in the country. In the assembly it was the address of an old Swede, proving that the god of the Christians was stronger even than Thor, and that it was poor policy for a nation not to have the strongest god, which finally turned the scales, and once more the Christian missionaries were allowed to preach undisturbed in the country, . Before Ansgar left, in 850, the church was rebuilt in Birka, and, for a number of years, the missionary labor was continued with great zeal by Erimbert, a nephew of Gautbert, by Ansfrid, born a Dane, and by Rimbert, also a Dane.
Nevertheless, although the persecutions ceased, Christianity made little progress, and when, in 935, Archbishop Unni himself visited Birka, his principal labor consisted in bringing back to the Christian fold such members as had strayed away among the heathen, and forgotten their faith. Half a century later, however, during the reign of Olaf Skotkonge, the mission received a vigorous impulse. The king himself and his sons were won for the Christian cause, and from Denmark a number of English missionaries entered the country. The most prominent among these was Sigfrid, who has been mentioned beside Ansgar as the apostle of the North. By his exertions many were converted, and Christianity became a legally recognized religion in the country beside the old heathenism. In the Southern part of Sweden, heathen sacrifices ceased, and heathen altars disappeared. In the Northern part, however, the old faith still continued to live on, partly because it was difficult for the missionaries to penetrate into those wild and forbidding regions, partly because there existed a difference of tribe between the Northern and Southern Swedes, which again gave rise to political differences.
The Christianization of Sweden was not completed until the middle of the twelfth century.
§ 31. The Christianization of Norway and Iceland.
Snorre Sturleson (d. 1241): Heimskringla (i.e. Circle of Home, written first in Icelandic), seu Historia Regum Septentrionalium, etc. Stockholm, 1697, 2 vols. The same in Icelandic, Danish, and Latin. Havn., 1777–1826; in German by Mohnike, 1835; in English, transl. by Sam. Laing. London, 1844, 3 vols. This history of the Norwegian kings reaches from the mythological age to a.d. 1177.
N. P. Sibbern: Bibliotheca Historica Dano-Norvegica. Hamburg, 1716. Fornmanna-Sögur seu Scripta Hist. Islandorum. Hafniae, 1828.
K. Maurer: Bekehrung des Norwegischen Stammes zum Christenthum. München, 1855–56, 2 vols.
Thomas Carlyle: Early Kings of Norway. London and N. York, 1875.
G. F. Maclear: The Conversion of the Northmen. London, 1879.
Christianity was introduced in Norway almost exclusively by the exertions of the kings, and the means employed were chiefly violence and tricks. The people accepted Christianity not because they had become acquainted with it and felt a craving for it, but because they were compelled to accept it, and the result was that heathen customs and heathen ideas lived on in Christian Norway for centuries after they had disappeared from the rest of Scandinavia.
The first attempt to introduce Christianity in the country was made in the middle of the tenth century by Hakon the Good. Norway was gathered into one state in the latter part of the ninth century by Harald Haarfagr, but internal wars broke out again under Harald’s son and successor, Eric. These troubles induced Hakon, an illegitimate son of Harald Haarfagr and educated in England at the court of king Athelstan, to return to Norway and lay claim to the crown. He succeeded in gaining a party in his favor, expelled Eric and conquered all Norway, where he soon became exceedingly popular, partly on account of his valor and military ability, partly also on account of the refinement and suavity of his manners. Hakon was a Christian, and the Christianization of Norway seems to have been his highest goal from the very first days of his reign. But he was prudent. Without attracting any great attention to the matter, he won over to Christianity a number of those who stood nearest to him, called Christian priests from England, and built a church at Drontheim. Meanwhile he began to think that the time had come for a more public and more decisive step, and at the great Frostething, where all the most prominent men of the country were assembled, he addressed the people on the matter and exhorted them to become Christians. The answer he received was very characteristic. They had no objection to Christianity itself, for they did not know what it meant, but they suspected the king’s proposition, as if it were a political stratagem by means of which he intended to defraud them of their political rights and liberties. Thus they not only refused to become Christians themselves, but even compelled the king to partake in their heathen festivals and offer sacrifices to their heathen gods. The king was very indignant and determined to take revenge, but just as he had got an army together, the sons of the expelled Eric landed in Norway and in the battle against them, 961, he received a deadly wound.
The sons of Eric, who had lived in England during their exile, were likewise Christians, and they took up the cause of Christianity in a very high-handed manner, overthrowing the heathen altars and forbidding sacrifices. But the impression they made was merely odious, and their successor, Hakon Jarl, was a rank heathen. The first time Christianity really gained a footing in Norway, was under Olaf Trygveson. Descended from Harald Haarfagr, but sold, while a child, as a slave in Esthonia, he was ransomed by a relative who incidentally met him and recognized his own kin in the beauty of the boy, and was educated at Moscow. Afterwards he roved about much in Denmark, Wendland, England and Ireland, living as a sea-king. In England he became acquainted with Christianity and immediately embraced it, but he carried his viking-nature almost unchanged over into Christianity, and a fiercer knight of the cross was probably never seen. Invited to Norway by a party which had grown impatient of the tyranny of Hakon Jarl, he easily made himself master of the country, in 995, and immediately set about making Christianity its religion, “punishing severely,” as Snorre says, “all who opposed him, killing some, mutilating others, and driving the rest into banishment.” In the Southern part there still lingered a remembrance of Christianity from the days of Hakon the Good, and things went on here somewhat more smoothly, though Olaf more than once gave the people assembled in council with him the choice between fighting him or accepting baptism forthwith. But in the Northern part all the craft and all the energy of the king were needed in order to overcome the opposition. Once, at a great heathen festival at Moere, he told the assembled people that, if he should return to the heathen gods it would be necessary for him to make some great and awful sacrifice, and accordingly he seized twelve of the most prominent men present and prepared to sacrifice them to Thor. They were rescued, however, when the whole assembly accepted Christianity and were baptized. In the year 1000, he fell in a battle against the united Danish and Swedish kings, but though he reigned only five years, he nevertheless succeeded in establishing Christianity as the religion of Norway and, what is still more remarkable, no general relapse into heathenism seems to have taken place after his death.
During the reign of Olaf the Saint, who ruled from a.d. 1014–’30, the Christianization of the country was completed. His task it was to uproot heathenism wherever it was still found lurking, and to give the Christian religion an ecclesiastical organization. Like his predecessors, he used craft and violence to reach his goal. Heathen idols and altars disappeared, heathen customs and festivals were suppressed, the civil laws were brought into conformity with the rules of Christian morals. The country was divided into dioceses and parishes, churches were built, and regular revenues were raised for the sustenance of the clergy. For the most part he employed English monks and priests, but with the consent of the archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, under whose authority he placed the Norwegian church. After his death, in the battle of Stiklestad, July 29, 1030, he was canonized and became the patron saint of Norway.
To Norway belonged, at that time, Iceland. From Icelandic tradition as well as from the “De Mensura Orbis” by Dicuilus, an Irish monk in the beginning of the ninth century, it appears that Culdee anchorites used to retire to Iceland as early as the beginning of the eighth century, while the island was still uninhabited. These anchorites, however, seem to have had no influence whatever on the Norwegian settlers who, flying from the tyranny of Harald Haarfagr, came to Iceland in the latter part of the ninth century and began to people the country. The new-comers were heathen, and they looked with amazement at Auda the Rich, the widow of Olaf the White, king of Dublin, who in 892 took up her abode in Iceland and reared a lofty cross in front of her house. But the Icelanders were great travellers, and one of them, Thorvald Kodranson, who in Saxony had embraced Christianity, brought bishop Frederic home to Iceland. Frederic stayed there for four years, and his preaching found easy access among the people. The mission of Thangbrand in the latter part of the tenth century failed, but when Norway, or at least the Norwegian coast, became Christian, the intimate relation between Iceland and Norway soon brought the germs which Frederic had planted, into rapid growth, and in the year 1000 the Icelandic Althing declared Christianity to be the established religion of the country. The first church was built shortly after from timber sent by Olaf the Saint from Norway to the treeless island.
IV. THE CHRISTIANIZATION OF THE SLAVS.
§ 32. General Survey.
A. Regenvolscius: Systema Hist. chronol. Ecclesiarum Slavonic. Traj. ad Rhen., 1652.
A. Wengerscius: Hist. ecclesiast. Ecclesiarum Slavonic. Amst., 1689.
Kohlius: Introductio in Hist. Slavorum imprimis sacram. Altona, 1704.
J. Ch. Jordan: Origines Slavicae. Vindob., 1745.
S. de Bohusz: Recherches hist. sur l’origine des Sarmates, des Esclavons, et des Slaves, et sur les époques de la conversion de ces peuples. St. Petersburg and London, 1812.
P. J. Schafarik: Slavische Alterthümer. Leipzig, 1844, 2 vols.
Horvat: Urgeschichte der Slaven. Pest, 1844.
W. A. Maciejowsky: Essai Hist. sur l’église ehrét. primitive de deux rites chez les Slaves. Translated from Polish into French by L. F. Sauvet, Paris, 1846.
At what time the Slavs first made their appearance in Europe is not known. Latin and Greek writers of the second half of the sixth century, such as Procopius, Jornandes, Agathias, the emperor Mauritius and others, knew only those Slavs who lived along the frontiers of the Roman empire. In the era of Charlemagne the Slavs occupied the whole of Eastern Europe from the Baltic to the Balkan; the Obotrites and Wends between the Elbe and the Vistula; the Poles around the Vistula, and behind them the Russians; the Czechs in Bohemia. Further to the South the compact mass of Slavs was split by the invasion of various Finnish or Turanian tribes; the Huns in the fifth century, the Avars in the sixth, the Bulgarians in the seventh, the Magyars in the ninth. The Avars penetrated to the Adriatic, but were thrown back in 640 by the Bulgarians; they then settled in Panonia, were subdued and converted by Charlemagne, 791–796, and disappeared altogether from history in the ninth century. The Bulgarians adopted the Slavic language and became Slavs, not only in language, but also in customs and habits. Only the Magyars, who settled around the Theiss and the Danube, and are the ruling race in Hungary, vindicated themselves as a distinct nationality.
The great mass of Slavs had no common political organization, but formed a number of kingdoms, which flourished, some for a shorter, and others for a longer period, such as Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, and Russia. In a religious respect also great differences existed among them. They were agriculturists, and their gods were representatives of natural forces; but while Radigost and Sviatovit, worshipped by the Obotrites and Wends, were cruel gods, in whose temples, especially at Arcona in the island of Rügen, human beings were sacrificed, Svarog worshipped by the Poles, and Dazhbog, worshipped by the Bohemians, were mild gods, who demanded love and prayer. Common to all Slavs, however, was a very elaborate belief in fairies and trolls; and polygamy, sometimes connected with sutteeism, widely prevailed among them. Their conversion was attempted both by Constantinople and by Rome; but the chaotic and ever-shifting political conditions under which they lived, the rising difference and jealousy between the Eastern and Western churches, and the great difficulty which the missionaries experienced in learning their language, presented formidable obstacles, and at the close of the period the work was not yet completed.
§ 33. Christian Missions among the Wends.
ADAM Of BRENEN (d. 1067): Gesta Hammenb. (Hamburgensis) Eccl. Pont., in Pertz: Monumenta Germ., VII.
Helmoldus (d. 1147) and Arnoldus Lubecensis: Chronicon Slavorum sive Annales Slavorum, from Charlemagne to 1170, ed. H. Bangert. Lubecae, 1659. German translation by Laurent. Berlin, 1852.
Spieker: Kirchengeschichte der Mark Brandenburg. Berlin, 1839.
Wiggers: Kirchengeschichte Mecklenburgs. Parchim, 1840.
Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichten. Berlin, 1843.
Charlemagne was the first who attempted to introduce Christianity among the Slavic tribes which, under the collective name of Wends, occupied the Northern part of Germany, along the coast of the Baltic, from the mouth of the Elbe to the Vistula: Wagrians in Holstein, Obotrites in Mecklenburg, Sorbians on the Saxon boundary, Wilzians in Brandenburg, etc. But in the hands of Charlemagne, the Christian mission was a political weapon; and to the Slavs, acceptation of Christianity became synonymous with political and national subjugation. Hence their fury against Christianity which, time after time, broke forth, volcano-like, and completely destroyed the work of the missionaries. The decisive victories which Otto I. gained over the Wends, gave him an opportunity to attempt, on a large scale, the establishment of the Christian church among them. Episcopal sees were founded at Havelberg in 946, at Altenburg or Oldenburg in 948, at Meissen, Merseburg, and Zeitz in 968, and in the last year an archiepiscopal see was founded at Magdeburg. Boso, a monk from St. Emmeran, at Regensburg, who first had translated the formulas of the liturgy into the language of the natives, became bishop of Merseburg, and Adalbert, who first had preached Christianity in the island of Rügen, became archbishop.
But again the Christian church was used as a means for political purposes, and, in the reign of Otto II., a fearful rising took place among the Wends under the leadership of Prince Mistiwoi. He had become a Christian himself; but, indignant at the suppression which was practiced in the name of the Christian religion, he returned to heathenism, assembled the tribes at Rethre, one of the chief centres of Wendish heathendom, and began, in 983, a war which spread devastation all over Northern Germany. The churches and monasteries were burnt, and the Christian priests were expelled. Afterwards Mistiwoi was seized with remorse, and tried to cure the evil he had done in an outburst of passion. But then his subjects abandoned him; he left the country, and spent the last days of his life in a Christian monastery at Bardewick. His grandson, Gottschalk, whose Slavic name is unknown, was educated in the Christian faith in the monastery of St. Michael., near Lüneburg; but when he heard that his father, Uto, had been murdered, 1032, the old heathen instincts of revenge at once awakened within him. He left the monastery, abandoned Christianity, and raised a storm of persecution against the Christians, which swept over all Brandenburg, Mecklenburg, and Holstein. Defeated and taken prisoner by Bernard of Lower Saxony, he returned to Christianity; lived afterwards at the court of Canute the Great in Denmark and England; married a Danish princess, and was made ruler of the Obotrites. A great warrior, he conquered Holstein and Pommerania, and formed a powerful Wendish empire; and on this solid political foundation, he attempted, with considerable success, to build up the Christian church. The old bishoprics were re-established, and new ones were founded at Razzeburg and Mecklenburg; monasteries were built at Leuzen, Oldenburg, Razzeburg, Lübeck, and Mecklenburg; missionaries were provided by Adalbert, archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen; the liturgy was translated into the native tongue, and revenues were raised for the support of the clergy, the churches, and the service.
But, as might have been expected, the deeper Christianity penetrated into the mass of the people, the fiercer became the resistance of the heathen. Gottschalk was murdered at Lentz, June 7, 1066, together with his old teacher, Abbot Uppo, and a general rising now took place. The churches and schools were destroyed; the priests and monks were stoned or killed as sacrifices on the heathen altars; and Christianity, was literally swept out of the country. It took several decades before a new beginning could be made, and the final Christianization of the Wends was not achieved until the middle of the twelfth century.
§ 34. Cyrillus and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavs. Christianization of Moravia, Bohemia and Poland.
F. M. Pelzel et J. Dobrowsky: Rerrum Bohemic. Scriptores. Prague.
Friese: Kirchengeschichte d. Konigreichs Polen. Breslau, 1786.
Franz. Palacky: Geschichte von Böhmen. Prague, 3d ed., 1864 sqq., 5 vols. (down to 1520).
Wattenbach: Geschichte d. christl. Kirche in Böhmen und Mähren. Wien, 1849.
A. Friud: Die Kirchengesch. Böhmens. Prague, 1863 sqq.
Biographies of Cyrillus and Methodius, by J. Dobrowsky (Prague, 1823, and 1826); J. A. Ginzel (Geschichte der Slawenapostel und der Slawischen Liturgie. Leitmeritz, 1857); Philaret (in the Russian, German translation, Mitau, 1847); J. E. Biley (Prague, 1863); Dümmler and F. Milkosisch (Wien, 1870).
The Moravian Slavs were subjugated by Charlemagne, and the bishop of Passau was charged with the establishment of a Christian mission among them. Moymir, their chief, was converted and bishoprics were founded at Olmütz and Nitra. But Lewis the German suspected Moymir of striving after independence and supplanted him by Rastislaw or Radislaw. Rastislaw, however, accomplished what Moymir had only been suspected of. He formed an independent Moravian kingdom and defeated Lewis the German, and with the political he also broke the ecclesiastical connections with Germany, requesting the Byzantine emperor, Michael III., to send him some Greek missionaries.
Cyrillus and Methodius became the apostles of the Slavs. Cyrillus, whose original name was Constantinus, was born at Thessalonica, in the first half of the ninth century, and studied philosophy in Constantinople, whence his by-name: the philosopher. Afterwards he devoted himself to the study of theology, and went to live, together with his brother Methodius, in a monastery. A strong ascetic, he became a zealous missionary. In 860 he visited the Chazares, a Tartar tribe settled on the North-Eastern shore of the Black Sea, and planted a Christian church there. He afterward labored among the Bulgarians and finally went, in company with his brother, to Moravia, on the invitation of Rastislaw, in 863.
Cyrillus understood the Slavic language, and succeeded in making it available for literary purposes by inventing a suitable alphabet. He used Greek letters, with some Armenian and Hebrew, and some original letters. His Slavonic alphabet is still used with alterations in Russia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Bulgaria, and Servia. He translated the liturgy and the pericopes into Slavic, and his ability to preach and celebrate service in the native language soon brought hundreds of converts into his fold. A national Slavic church rapidly arose; the German priests with the Latin liturgy left the country. It corresponded well with the political plans of Rastislaw, to have a church establishment entirely independent of the German prelates, but in the difference which now developed between the Eastern and Western churches, it was quite natural for the young Slavic church to connect itself with Rome and not with Constantinople, partly because Cyrillus always had shown a kind of partiality to Rome, partly because the prudence and discrimination with which Pope Nicholas I. recently had interfered in the Bulgarian church, must have made a good impression.
In 868 Cyrillus and Methodius went to Rome, and a perfect agreement was arrived at between them and Pope Adrian II., both with respect to the use of the Slavic language in religious service and with respect to the independent position of the Slavic church, subject only to the authority of the Pope. Cyrillus died in Rome, Feb. 14, 869, but Methodius returned to Moravia, having been consecrated archbishop of the Pannonian diocese.
The organization of this new diocese of Pannonia was, to some extent, an encroachment on the dioceses of Passau and Salzburg, and such an encroachment must have been so much the more irritating to the German prelates, as they really had been the first to sow the seed of Christianity among the Slavs. The growing difference between the Eastern and Western churches also had its effect. The German clergy considered the use of the Slavic language in the mass an unwarranted innovation, and the Greek doctrine of the single procession of the Holy Spirit, still adhered to by Methodius and the Slavic church, they considered as a heresy. Their attacks, however, had at first no practical consequences, but when Rastislaw was succeeded in 870 by Swatopluk, and Adrian II. in 872 by John VIII., the position of Methodius became difficult. Once more, in 879, he was summoned to Rome, and although, this time too, a perfect agreement was arrived at, by which the independence of the Slavic church was confirmed, and all her natural peculiarities were acknowledged, neither the energy of Methodius, nor the support of the Pope was able to defend her against the attacks which now were made upon her both from without and from within. Swatopluk inclined towards the German-Roman views, and Wichin one of Methodius’s bishops, became their powerful champion.
After the death of Swatopluk, the Moravian kingdom fell to pieces and was divided between the Germans, the Czechs of Bohemia, and the Magyars of Hungary; and thereby the Slavic church lost, so to speak, its very foundation. Methodius died between 881 and 910. At the opening of the tenth century the Slavic church had entirely lost its national character. The Slavic priests were expelled and the Slavic liturgy abolished, German priests and the Latin liturgy taking their place. The expelled priests fled to Bulgaria, whither they brought the Slavic translations of the Bible and the liturgy.
Neither Charlemagne nor Lewis the Pious succeeded
in subjugating Bohemia, and although the country was added to the
diocese of Regensburg, the inhabitants remained pagans. But when
Bohemia became a dependency of the Moravian empire and Swatopluk
married a daughter of the Bohemian duke, Borziwai, a door was opened to
Christianity. Borziwai and his wife, Ludmilla, were baptized, and their
children were educated in the Christian faith. Nevertheless, when
Wratislav, Borziwai’s son and successor, died in 925,
a violent reaction took place. He left two sons, Wenzeslav and
Boleslav, who were placed under the tutelage of their grandmother,
Ludmilla. But their mother, Drahomira, was an inveterate heathen, and
she caused the murder first of Ludmilla, and then of Wenzeslav, 938.
Boleslav, surnamed the Cruel, had his mother’s nature
and also her faith, and he almost succeeded in sweeping Christianity
out of Bohemia. But in 950 he was utterly defeated by the emperor, Otto
I., and compelled not only to admit the Christian priests into the
country, but also to rebuild the churches which had been destroyed, and
this misfortune seems actually to have changed his mind. He now became,
if not friendly, at least forbearing to his Christian subjects, and,
during the reign of his son and successor, Boleslav the Mild, the
Christian Church progressed so far in Bohemia that an independent
archbishopric was founded in Prague. The mass of the people, however,
still remained barbarous, and heathenish customs and ideas lingered
among them for more than a century. Adalbert, archbishop of Prague,
from 983 to 997, Passio S. Adalberti, in Scriptores Rerum
Prussicarum I., and Vita S. Adalberti in Monumenta German.
IV.
Also among the Poles the Gospel was first preached
by Slavic missionaries, and Cyrillus and Methodius are celebrated in
the Polish liturgy Missale proprium regum Poloniae, Venet. 1629;
Officia propria patronorum regni Poloniae, Antwerp,
1627.
After the breaking up of the Moravian kingdom, Moravian nobles and priests sought refuge in Poland, and during the reign of duke Semovit Christianity had become so powerful among the Poles, that it began to excite the jealousy of the pagans, and a violent contest took place. By the marriage between Duke Mieczyslav and the Bohemian princess Dombrowka, a sister of Boleslav the Mild, the influence of Christianity became still stronger. Dombrowka brought a number of Bohemian priests with her to Poland, 965, and in the following year Mieczyslav himself was converted and baptized. With characteristic arrogance he simply demanded that all his subjects should follow his example, and the pagan idols were now burnt or thrown into the river, pagan sacrifices were forbidden and severely punished, and Christian churches were built. So far the introduction of Christianity among the Poles was entirely due to Slavic influences, but at this time the close political connection between Duke Mieczyslav and Otto I. opened the way for a powerful German influence. Mieczyslav borrowed the whole organization of the Polish church from Germany. It was on the advice of Otto I. that he founded the first Polish bishopric at Posen and placed it under the authority of the archbishop of Magdeburg. German priests, representing Roman doctrines and rites, and using the Latin language, began to work beside the Slavic priests who represented Greek doctrines and rites and used the native language, and when finally the Polish church was placed wholly under the authority of Rome, this was not due to any spontaneous movement within the church itself, such as Polish chroniclers like to represent it, but to the influence of the German emperor and the German church. Under Mieczyslav’s son, Boleslav Chrobry, the first king of Poland and one of the most brilliant heroes of Polish history, Poland, although christianized only on the surface, became itself the basis for missionary labor among other Slavic tribes.
It was Boleslav who sent Adalbert of Prague among
the Wends, and when Adalbert here was pitifully martyred, Boleslav
ransomed his remains, had them buried at Gnesen (whence they afterwards
were carried to Prague), and founded here an archiepiscopal see, around
which the Polish church was finally consolidated. The Christian
mission, however, was in the hands of Boleslav, just as it often had
been in the hands of the German emperors, and sometimes even in the
hands of the Pope himself, nothing but a political weapon. The mass of
the population of his own realm was still pagan in their very hearts.
Annually the Poles assembled on the day on which their idols had been
thrown into the rivers or burnt, and celebrated the memory of their
gods by dismal dirges, Grimm: Deutsche Mythologie, II. 733.
§ 35. The Conversion of the Bulgarians.
Constantinus Porphyrogenitus: Life of Basilius Macedo, in Hist. Byzant. Continuatores post Theophanem. Greek and Latin, Paris, 1685.
Photii Epistola, ed. Richard. Montacutius. London, 1647.
Nicholas I.: Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, in Mansi: Coll. Concil., Tom. XV., pp. 401–434; and in Harduin: Coll. Concil., V., pp. 353–386.
A. Pichler: Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident. München, 1864, I., pp. 192 sqq.
Comp. the biographies of Cyrillus and Methodius, mentioned in § 34.
The Bulgarians were of Turanian descent, but, having lived for centuries among Slavic nations, they had adopted Slavic language, religion, customs and habits. Occupying the plains between the Danube and the Balkan range, they made frequent inroads into the territory of the Byzantine empire. In 813 they conquered Adrianople and carried a number of Christians, among whom was the bishop himself, as prisoners to Bulgaria. Here these Christian prisoners formed a congregation and began to labor for the conversion of their captors, though not with any great success, as it would seem, since the bishop was martyred. But in 861 a sister of the Bulgarian prince, Bogoris, who had been carried as a prisoner to Constantinople, and educated there in the Christian faith, returned to her native country, and her exertions for the conversion of her brother at last succeeded.
Methodius was sent to her aid, and a picture he painted of the last judgment is said to have made an overwhelming impression on Bogoris, and determined him to embrace Christianity. He was baptized in 863, and entered immediately in correspondence with Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople. His baptism, however, occasioned a revolt among his subjects, and the horrible punishment, which he inflicted upon the rebels, shows how little as yet he had understood the teachings of Christianity.
Meanwhile Greek missionaries, mostly monks, had entered the country, but they were intriguing, arrogant, and produced nothing but confusion among the people. In 865 Bogoris addressed himself to Pope Nicolas I., asking for Roman missionaries, and laying before the Pope one hundred and six questions concerning Christian doctrines, morals and ritual, which he wished to have answered. The Pope sent two bishops to Bulgaria, and gave Bogoris very elaborate and sensible answers to his questions.
Nevertheless, the Roman mission did not succeed either. The Bulgarians disliked to submit to any foreign authority. They desired the establishment of an independent national church, but this was not to be gained either from Rome or from Constantinople. Finally the Byzantine emperor, Basilius Macedo, succeeded in establishing Greek bishops and a Greek archbishop in the country, and thus the Bulgarian church came under the authority of the patriarch of Constantinople, but its history up to this very day has been a continuous struggle against this authority. The church is now ruled by a Holy Synod, with an independent exarch.
Fearful atrocities of the Turks against the Christians gave rise to the Russo-Turkish war in 1877, and resulted in the independence of Bulgaria, which by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 was constituted into “an autonomous and tributary principality, under the suzerainty of the Sultan,” but with a Christian government and a national militia. Religious proselytism is prohibited, and religious school-books must be previously examined by the Holy Synod. But Protestant missionaries are at work among the people, and practically enjoy full liberty.
§ 36. The Conversion of the Magyars.
Joh. de Thwrocz: Chronica Hungarorum, in Schwandtner: Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum, I. Vienna, 1746–8.
Vita S. Stephani, in Act. Sanctor. September.
Vita S. Adalberti, in Monument. German. IV.
Horvath: History of Hungary. Pest, 1842–46.
Aug. Theiner: Monumenta vetera historica Hungariam sacram illustrantia. Rom., 1859, 1860, 2 Tom. fol.
The Magyars, belonging to the Turanian family of nations, and allied to the Finns and the Turks, penetrated into Europe in the ninth century, and settled, in 884, in the plains between the Bug and the Sereth, near the mouth of the Danube. On the instigation of the Byzantine emperor, Leo the Wise, they attacked the Bulgarians, and completely defeated them. The military renown they thus acquired gave them a new opportunity. The Frankish king Arnulf invoked their aid against Swatopluk, the ruler of the Moravian empire. Swatopluk, too, was defeated, and his realm was divided between the victors. The Magyars, retracing their steps across the Carpathian range, settled in the plains around the Theiss and the Danube, the country which their forefathers, the Huns, once had ruled over, the, present Hungary. They were a wild and fierce race, worshipping one supreme god under the guise of various natural phenomena: the sky, the river, etc. They had no temples and no priesthood, and their sacrifices consisted of animals only, mostly horses. But the oath was kept sacred among them, and their marriages were monogamous, and inaugurated with religious rites.
The first acquaintance with Christianity the
Magyars made through their connections with the Byzantine court,
without any further consequences. But after settling in Hungary, where
they were surrounded on all sides by Christian nations, they were
compelled, in 950, by the emperor, Otto I., to allow the bishop of
Passau to send missionaries into their country; and various
circumstances contributed to make this mission a rapid and complete
success. Their prince, Geyza, had married a daughter of the
Transylvanian prince, Gyula, and this princess, Savolta, had been
educated in the Christian faith. Thus Geyza felt friendly towards the
Christians; and as soon as this became known, Christianity broke forth
from the mass of the population like flowers from the earth when spring
has come. The people which the Magyars had subdued when settling in
Hungary, and the captives whom they had carried along with them from
Bulgaria and Moravia, were Christians. Hitherto these Christians had
concealed their religion from fear of their rulers, and their children
had been baptized clandestinely; but now they assembled in great
multitudes around the missionaries, and the entrance of Christianity
into Hungary looked like a triumphal march. See the letter from Bishop Pilgrin of Passau to Pope
Benedict VI. in Mansi, Concil. I.
Political disturbances afterwards interrupted this progress, but only for a short time. Adalbert of Prague visited the country, and made a great impression. He baptized Geyza’s son, Voik, born in 961, and gave him the name of Stephanus, 994. Adalbert’s pupil, Rodla, remained for a longer period in the country, and was held in so high esteem by the people, that they afterwards would not let him go. When Stephanus ascended the throne in 997, he determined at once to establish Christianity as the sole religion of his realm, and ordered that all Magyars should be baptized, and that all Christian slaves should be set free. This, however, caused a rising of the pagan party under the head of Kuppa, a relative of Stephanus; but Kuppa was defeated at Veszprim, and the order had to be obeyed.
Stephanus’ marriage with Gisela, a relative of the emperor, Otto III., brought him in still closer contact with the German empire, and he, like Mieczyslav of Poland, borrowed the whole ecclesiastical organization from the German church. Ten bishoprics were formed, and placed under the authority of the archbishop of Gran on the Danube (which is still the seat of the primate of Hungary); churches were built, schools and monasteries were founded, and rich revenues were procured for their support; the clergy was declared the first order in rank, and the Latin language was made the official language not only in ecclesiastical, but also in secular matters. As a reward for his zeal, Stephanus was presented by Pope Silvester II. with a golden crown, and, in the year 1000, he was solemnly crowned king by the archbishop of Gran, while a papal bull conferred on him the title of “His Apostolic Majesty.” And, indeed, Stephanus was the apostle of the Magyars. As most of the priests and monks, called from Germany, did not understand the language of the people, the king himself travelled about from town to town, preached, prayed, and exhorted all to keep the Lord’s Day, the fast, and other Christian duties. Nevertheless, it took a long time before Christianity really took hold of the Magyars, chiefly on account of the deep gulf created between the priests and their flocks, partly by the difference of language, partly by the exceptional position which Stephanus had given the clergy in the community, and which the clergy soon learned to utilize for selfish purposes. Twice during the eleventh century there occurred heavy relapses into paganism; in 1045, under King Andreas, and in 1060, under King Bela.
§ 37. The Christianization of Russia.
Nestor (monk of Kieff, the oldest Russian annalist, d. 1116): Annales, or Chronicon (from the building of the Babylonian tower to 1093). Continued by Niphontes (Nifon) from 1116–1157, and by others to 1676. Complete ed. in Russ by Pogodin, 1841, and with a Latin version and glossary by Fr. Miklosisch, Vindobon, 1860. German translation by Schlözer, Göttingen, 1802–’9, 5 vols. (incomplete).
J. G. Stritter: Memoriae Populorum olim ad Danubium, etc., incolentium ex Byzant. Script. Petropoli, 1771. 4 vols. A collection of the Byzantine sources.
N. M. Karamsin: History of Russia, 12 vols. St. Petersburg, 1816–29, translated into German and French.
Ph. Strahl: Beiträge zur russ. Kirchen-Geschichte (vol. I.). Halle, 1827; and Geschichte d. russ Kirche (vol. I.). Halle, 1830 (incomplete).
A. N. Mouravieff (late chamberlain to the Czar and Under-Procurator of the Most Holy Synod): A History of the Church of Russia (to the founding of the Holy Synod in 1721). St. Petersburg, 1840, translated into English by Rev. R. W. Blackmore. Oxford, 1862.
A. P. Stanley: Lectures on the Eastern Church. Lec. IX.-XII. London, 1862.
L. Boissard: L’église de Bussie. Paris, 1867, 2 vols.
The legend traces Christianity in Russia back to the Apostle St. Andrew, who is especially revered by the Russians. Mouravieff commences his history of the Russian church with these words: “The Russian church, like the other Orthodox churches of the East, had an apostle for its founder. St. Andrew, the first called of the Twelve, hailed with his blessing long beforehand the destined introduction of Christianity into our country. Ascending up and penetrating by the Dniepr into the deserts of Scythia, he planted the first cross on the hills of Kieff, and ’See you,’ said he to his disciples, ’those hills? On those hills shall shine the light of divine grace. There shall be here a great city, and God shall have in it many churches to His name.’ Such are the words of the holy Nestor that point from whence Christian Russia has sprung.”
This tradition is an expansion of the report that
Andrew labored and died a martyr in Scythia, Euseb. III. 1.
In the ninth century the Russian tribes,
inhabiting the Eastern part of Europe, were gathered together under the
rule of Ruric, a Varangian prince, The Varangians were a tribe of piratical Northmen who made
the Slavs and Finns tributary.
The progress of Christianity among the Russians was slow until the grand-duke Vladimir (980–1015), a grandson of Olga, and revered as Isapostolos (“Equal to an Apostle”) with one sweep established it as the religion of the country. The narrative of this event by Nestor is very dramatic. Envoys from the Greek and the Roman churches, from the Mohammedans and the Jews (settled among the Chazares) came to Vladimir to persuade him to leave his old gods. He hesitated and did not know which of the new religions he should choose. Finally he determined to send wise men from among his own people to the various places to investigate the matter. The envoys were so powerfully impressed by a picture of the last judgment and by the service in the church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, that the question at once was settled in favor of the religion of the Byzantine court.
Vladimir, however, would not introduce it without compensation. He was staying at Cherson in the Crimea, which he had just taken and sacked, and thence he sent word to the emperor Basil, that he had determined either to adopt Christianity and receive the emperor’s sister, Anne, in marriage, or to go to Constantinople and do to that city as he had done to Cherson. He married Anne, and was baptized on the day of his wedding, a.d. 988.
As soon as he was baptized preparations were made for the baptism of his people. The wooden image of Perun was dragged at a horse’s tail through the country, soundly flogged by all passers-by, and finally thrown into the Dniepr. Next, at a given hour, all the people of Kieff, men, women and children, descended into the river, while the grand Duke kneeled, and the Christian priests read the prayers from the top of the cliffs on the shore. Nestor, the Russian monk and annalist, thus describes the scene: “Some stood in the water up to their necks, others up to their breasts, holding their young children in their arms; the priests read the prayers from the shore, naming at once whole companies by the same name. It was a sight wonderfully curious and beautiful to behold; and when the people were baptized each returned to his own home.”
Thus the Russian nation was converted in wholesale style to Christianity by despotic power. It is characteristic of the supreme influence of the ruler and the slavish submission of the subjects in that country. Nevertheless, at its first entrance in Russia, Christianity penetrated deeper into the life of the people than it did in any other country, without, however, bringing about a corresponding thorough moral transformation. Only a comparatively short period elapsed, before a complete union of the forms of religion and the nationality took place. Every event in the history of the nation, yea, every event in the life of the individual was looked upon from a religious point of view, and referred to some distinctly religious idea. The explanation of this striking phenomenon is due in part to Cyrill’s translation of the Bible into the Slavic language, which had been driven out from Moravia and Bohemia by the Roman priests, and was now brought from Bulgaria into Russia, where it took root. While the Roman church always insisted upon the exclusive use of the Latin translation of the Bible and the Latin language in divine service, the Greek church always allowed the use of the vernacular. Under its auspices there were produced translations into the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Slavic languages, and the effects of this principle were, at least in Russia, most beneficial. During the reign of Vladimir’s successor, Jaroslaff, 1019–1054, not only were churches and monasteries and schools built all over the country, but Greek theological books were translated, and the Russian church had, at an early date, a religious literature in the native tongue of the people. Jaroslaff, by his celebrated code of laws, became the Justinian of Russia.
The Czars and people of Russia have ever since faithfully adhered to the Oriental church which grew with the growth of the empire all along the Northern line of two Continents. As in the West, so in Russia, monasticism was the chief institution for the spread of Christianity among heathen savages. Hilarion (afterwards Metropolitan), Anthony, Theodosius, Sergius, Lazarus, are prominent names in the early history of Russian monasticism.
The subsequent history of the Russian church is isolated from the main current of histoy, and almost barren of events till the age of Nikon and Peter the Great. At first she was dependent on the patriarch of Constantinople. In 1325 Moscow was founded, and became, in the place of Kieff, the Russian Rome, with a metropolitan, who after the fall of Constantinople became independent (1461), and a century later was raised to the dignity of one of the five patriarchs of the Eastern Church (1587). But Peter the Great made the Northern city of his own founding the ecclesiastical as well as the political metropolis, and transferred the authority of the patriarchate of Moscow to the “Holy Synod” (1721), which permanently resides in St. Petersburg and constitutes the highest ecclesiastical judicatory of Russia under the caesaropapal rule of the Czar, the most powerful rival of the Roman Pope.
CHAPTER III.
MOHAMMEDANISM IN ITS RELATION TO CHRISTIANITY.136
“There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his apostle.”—The Koran.
“There is one God and one Mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for
all.”—
§ 38. Literature.
See A. Sprenger’s Bibliotheca Orientalis Sprengeriana. Giessen, 1857.
W. Muir.: Life of Mahomet, Vol. I., ch. 1. Muir discusses especially the value of Mohammedan traditions.
Ch. Friedrici: Bibliotheca Orientalis. London (Trübner & Co.) 1875 sqq.
I. Sources.
1. The Koran or AL-Koran. The chief source. The Mohammedan Bible, claiming to be given by inspiration to Mohammed during the course of twenty years. About twice as large as the New Testament. The best Arabic MSS., often most beautifully written, are in the Mosques of Cairo, Damascus, Constantinople, and Paris; the largest, collection in the library of the Khedive in Cairo. Printed editions in Arabic by Hinkelmann (Hamburg, 1694); Molla Osman Ismael (St. Petersburg, 1787 and 1803); G. Flügel (Leipz., 1834); revised by Redslob (1837, 1842, 1858). Arabice et Latine, ed. L. Maraccius, Patav., 1698, 2 vols., fol. (Alcorani textus universus, with notes and refutation). A lithographed edition of the Arabic text appeared at Lucknow in India, 1878 (A. H. 1296).
The standard English translations: in prose by Geo. Sale (first publ., Lond., 1734, also 1801, 1825, Philad., 1833, etc.), with a learned and valuable preliminary discourse and notes; in the metre, but without the rhyme, of the original by J. M. Rodwell (Lond., 1861, 2d ed. 1876, the Suras arranged in chronological order). A new transl. in prose by E. H. Palmer. (Oxford, 1880, 2 vols.) in M. Müller’s “Sacred Books of the East.” Parts are admirably translated by Edward W. Lane.
French translation by Savary, Paris, 1783, 2 vols.; enlarged edition by Garcin de Tassy, 1829, in 3 vols.; another by M. Kasimirski, Paris, 1847, and 1873.
German translations by Wahl (Halle, 1828), L. Ullmann (Bielefeld, 1840, 4th ed. 1857), and parts by Hammer von Purgstall (in the Fundgruben des Orients), and Sprenger (in Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad).
2. Secondary sources on the Life of Moh. and the origin of Islâm are the numerous poems of contemporaries, especially in Ibn Ishâc, and the collections of the sayings of Moh., especially the Sahih (i.e. The True, the Genuine) of Albuchârî (d. 871). Also the early Commentaries on the Koran, which explain difficult passages, reconcile the contradictions, and insert traditional sayings and legends. See Sprenger, III. CIV. sqq.
II. Works On The Koran.
Th. Nöldeke: Geschichte des Quorâns, (History of the Koran), Göttingen, 1860; and his art. in the “Encycl. Brit., 9th ed. XVI. 597–606.
Garcin de Tassy: L’Islamisme d’après le Coran l’enseignement doctrinal et la pratique, 3d ed. Paris, 1874.
Gustav Weil: Hist. kritische Einleitung in den Koran. Bielefeld und Leipz., 1844, 2d ed., 1878.
Sir William Muir: The Corân. Its Composition and Teaching; and the Testimony it bears to the Holy Scriptures. (Allahabad, 1860), 3d ed., Lond., 1878.
Sprenger, l.c., III., pp. xviii.-cxx.
III. Biographies of Mohammed.
1. Mohammedan biographers.
Zohri (the oldest, died after the Hegira 124).
Ibn Ishâc (or Ibni Ishak, d. A. H. 151, or a.d. 773), ed. in Arabic from MSS. by Wüstenfeld, Gött., 1858–60, translated by Weil, Stuttg., 1864.
Ibn (Ibni) Hishâm (d. A. H. 213, a.d. 835), also ed. by Wüstenfeld, and translated by Weil, 1864.
Katib Al Waquidi (or Wackedee, Wackidi, d. at Bagdad A. H. 207, a.d. 829), a man of prodigious learning, who collected the traditions, and left six hundred chests of books (Sprenger, III., LXXI.), and his secretary, Muhammad Ibn Sâad (d. A. H. 230, a.d. 852), who arranged, abridged, and completed the biographical works of his master in twelve or fifteen for. vols.; the first vol. contains the biography of Moh., and is preferred by Muir and Sprenger to all others. German transl. by Wellhausen: Muhammed in Medina. From the Arabic of Vakidi. Berlin, 1882.
Tabari (or Tibree, d. A. H. 310, a.d. 932), called by Gibbon “the Livy of the Arabians.”
Muir says (I., CIII.): “To the three biographies by Ibn Hishâm, by Wackidi, and his secretary, and by Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive, with a similar respect, such traditions in the general collections of the earliest traditionists—Bokhâri, Muslim, Tirmidzi, etc.,—as may bear upon his subject. But he will reject as evidence all later authors.” Abulfeda (or Abulfida, d. 1331), once considered the chief authority, now set aside by much older sources.
*Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador (member of the Royal Asiatic Society): A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed. London (Trübner & Co.), 1870. He wrote also a “Mohammedan Commentary on the Holy Bible.” He begins with the sentence: “In nomine Dei Misericordis Miseratoris. Of all the innumerable wonders of the universe, the most marvellous is religion.”
Syed Ameer Ali, Moulvé (a Mohammedan lawyer, and brother of the former): A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed. London 1873. A defense of Moh. chiefly drawn from Ibn-Hishâm (and Ibn-al Athîr (1160–1223).
2. Christian Biographies.
Dean Prideaux (d. 1724): Life of Mahomet, 1697, 7th ed. Lond., 1718. Very unfavorable.
Count Boulinvilliers: The Life of Mahomet. Transl. from the French. Lond., 1731.
Jean Gagnier (d. 1740): La vie de Mahomet, 1732, 2 vols., etc. Amsterd. 1748, 3 vols. Chiefly from Abulfeda and the Sonna. He also translated Abulfeda.
*Gibbon: Decline and Fall, etc. (1788), chs. 50–52. Although not an Arabic scholar, Gibbon made the best use of the sources then accessible in Latin, French, and English, and gives a brilliant and, upon the whole, impartial picture.
*Gustav Weil: Mohammed der Prophet, sein Leben und seine Lehre. Stuttgart, 1843. Comp. also his translation of Ibn Ishâc, and Ibn Hishâm, Stuttgart, 1864, 2 vols.; and his Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner aus arabischen Quellen und mit jüd. Sagen verglichen. Frcf., 1845. The last is also transl. into English.
Th. Carlyle: The Hero as Prophet, in his Heroes Hero- Worship and the Heroic in History. London, 1840. A mere sketch, but full of genius and stimulating hints. He says: “We have chosen Mahomet not as the most eminent prophet, but as the one we are freest to speak of. He is by no means the truest of prophets, but I esteem him a true one. Farther, as there is no danger of our becoming, any of us, Mahometans, I mean to say all the good of him I justly can. It is the way to get at his secret.”
Washington Irving: Mahomet and His Followers. N. Y., 1850. 2 vols.
George Bush: The Life of Mohammed. New York (Harpers).
*SIR William MUIR (of the Bengal Civil Service): The Life of Mahomet. With introductory chapters on the original sources for the biography of Mahomet, and on the pre-Islamite history of Arabia. Lond., 1858–1861, 4 vols. Learned, able, and fair. Abridgement in 1 vol. Lond., 1877.
*A. Sprenger: First an English biography printed at Allahabad, 1851, and then a more complete one in German, Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad. Nach bisher grösstentheils unbenutzten Quellen. Berlin, 1861–’65, 2d ed. 1869, 3 vols. This work is based on original and Arabic sources, and long personal intercourse with Mohammedans in India, but is not a well digested philosophical biography.
*Theod. Nöldeke: Das Leben Muhammeds. Hanover, 1863. Comp. his elaborate art. in Vol. XVIII. of Herzog’s Real-Encycl., first ed.
E. Renan: Mahomet, et les origines de l’islamisme, in his “Etudes de l’histoire relig.,” 7th ed. Par., 1864.
Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire: Mahomet et le Oran. Paris, 1865. Based on Sprenger and Muir.
Ch. Scholl: L’Islam et son Fondateur. Paris, 1874.
R. Bosworth Smith (Assistant Master in Harrow School): Mohammed and Mohammedanism. Lond. 1874, reprinted New York, 1875.
J. W. H. Stobart: Islam and its Founder. London, 1876.
J. Wellhausen: Art. Moh. in the “Encycl. Brit.” 9th ed. vol. XVI. 545–565.
IV. History Of The Arabs And Turks.
Jos. von Hammer-Purgstall: Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. Pesth, 1827–34, 10 vols. A smaller ed. in 4 vols. This standard work is the result of thirty years’ labor, and brings the history down to 1774. By the same: Literaturgeschichte der Araber. Wien, 1850–’57, 7 vols.
*G. Weil: Gesch. der Chalifen. Mannheim, 1846–5l, 3 vols.
*Caussin de Perceval: Essai sur l’histoire des Arabes. Paris, 1848, 3 vols.
*Edward A. Freeman (D. C. L., LL. D.): History and Conquests of the Saracens. Lond., 1856, 3d ed. 1876.
Robert Durie Osborn (Major of the Bengal Staff Corps): Islam under the Arabs. London., 1876; Islam under the Khalifs of Baghdad. London, 1877.
Sir Edward S. Creasy: History of the Ottoman Turks from the Beginning of their Empire to the present Time. Lond., 2d ed. 1877. Chiefly founded on von Hammer’
Th. Nöldeke: Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari übersetzt. Leyden, 1879.
Sir Wm. Muir: Annals of the Early Caliphate. London 1883.
V. Manners And Customs Of The Mohammedans.
Joh. Ludwig Burckhardt: Travels in Nubia, 1819; Travels in Syria and Palestine, 1823; Notes on the Bedouins, 1830.
*Edw. W. Lane: Modern Egyptians. Lond., 1836, 5th ed. 1871, in 2 vols.
*Rich. F. Burton: Personal narrative of a Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Meccah, Lond. 1856, 3 vols.
C. B. Klunzinger: Upper Egypt: its People and its Products. A descriptive Account of the Manners, Customs, Superstitions, and Occupations of the People of the Nile Valley, the Desert, and the Red Sea Coast. New York, 1878. A valuable supplement to Lane.
Books of Eastern Travel, especially on Egypt and Turkey. Bahrdt’s Travels in Central Africa (1857), Palgrave’s Arabia (1867), etc.
VI. Relation Of Mohammedanism To Judaism.
*Abraham Geiger: Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthum aufgenommen? Bonn, 1833.
Hartwig Hirschfeld: Jüdische Elemente im Koran. Berlin, 1878.
VII. Mohammedanism as a Religion, and its Relation to Christianity.
L. Maracci: Prodromus ad refutationem Alcorani. Rom., 1691, 4 vols.
S. Lee: Controversial Tracts on Christianity and Mahometanism. 1824.
J. Döllingber (R.C.): Muhammed’s Religion nach ihrer innern Entwicklung u. ihrem Einfluss auf das Leben der Völker. Regensb. 1838.
A. Möhler (R.C.): Das Verhältniss des Islam zum Christenthum (in his “Gesammelte Schriften”). Regensb., 1839.
C. F. Gerock: Versuch einer Darstellung der Christologie des Koran. Hamburg and Gotha, 1839.
J. H. Newman (R.C.): The Turks in their relation to Europe (written in 1853), in his “Historical Sketches.” London, 1872, pp. 1–237.
Dean Arthur P. Stanley: Mahometanism and its relations to the Eastern Church (in Lectures on the “History of the Eastern Church.” London and New York, 1862, pp. 360–387). A picturesque sketch.
Dean Milman: History of Latin Christianity. Book IV., chs.1 and 2. (Vol. II. p. 109).
Theod. Nöldeke: Art. Muhammed und der Islam, in Herzog’s “Real-Encyclop.” Vol. XVIII. (1864), pp. 767–820.’
*Eman. Deutsch: Islam, in his “Liter. Remains.” Lond. and N. York, 1874, pp. 50–134. The article originally appeared in the London “Quarterly Review” for Oct. 1869, and is also printed at the end of the New York (Harper) ed. of R. Bosworth Smith’s Mohammed. Reports of the General Missionary Conference at Allahabad, 1873.
J. Mühleisen Arnold (formerly chaplain at Batavia): Islam: its History, Character, and Relation to Christianity. Lond., 1874, 3d ed.
Gustav. Rösch: Die Jesusmythen des Islam, in the “Studien und Kritiken.” Gotha, 1876. (No. III. pp. 409–454).
Marcus Dods: Mohammed, Buddha, and Christ. Lond. 2d ed. 1878.
Ch. A. Aiken: Mohammedanism as a Missionary Religion. In the “Bibliotheca Sacra,” of Andover for 1879, p. 157.
Archbishop Trench: Lectures on Mediaeval Church History (Lect. IV. 45–58). London, 1877.
Henry H. Jessup (Amer. Presbyt. missionary at Beirut): The Mohammedan Missionary Problem. Philadelphia, 1879.
Edouard Sayous: Jésus Christ d’après Mahomet. Paris 1880.
G. P. Badger: Muhámmed in Smith and Wace, III. 951–998.
§ 39. Statistics and Chronological Table.
Estimate of the Mohammedan Population (According to Keith Johnston).
In Asia, 112,739,000
In Africa, 50,416,000
In Europe, 5,974,000
Total, 169,129,000
Mohammedans Under Christian Governments.
England in India rules over 41,000,000
Russia in Central Asia rules over 6,000,000
France in Africa rules over 2,000,000
Holland in Java and Celebes rules over 1,000,000
Total, 50,000,000
a.d. Chronological Survey.
570. Birth of Mohammed, at Mecca.
610. Mohammed received the visions of Gabriel and began his career as a prophet. (Conversion of the Anglo-Saxons).
622. The Hegira, or the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina. Beginning of the Mohammedan era.
632. (June 8) Death of Mohammed at Medina.
632. Abû Bekr, first Caliph or successor of Mohammed
636. Capture of Jerusalem by the Caliph Omar.
640. Capture of Alexandria by Omar.
711. Tharyk crosses the Straits from Africa to Europe, and calls the mountain Jebel Tharyk (Gibraltar).
732. Battle of Poitiers and Tours; Abd-er-Rahman defeated by Charles Martel; Western Europe saved from Moslem conquest.
786–809. Haroun al Rashîd, Caliph of Bagdad. Golden era of Mohammedanism. Correspondence with Charlemagne).
1063. Allp Arslan, Seljukian Turkish prince.
1096. The First Crusade. Capture of Jerusalem by Godfrey of Bouillon.
1187. Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and scourge of the Crusaders, conquers at Tiberias and takes Jerusalem, (1187); is defeated by Richard Coeur de Lion at Askelon, and dies 1193. Decline of the Crusades.
1288–1326. Reign of Othman, founder of the Ottoman (Turkish) dynasty.
1453. Capture of Constantinople by Mohammed II., “the Conqueror,” and founder of the greatness of Turkey. (Exodus of Greek scholars to Southern Europe; the Greek Testament brought to the West; the revival of letters.)
1492. July 2. Boabdil (or Alien Abdallah) defeated by Ferdinand at Granada; end of Moslem rule in Spain. (Discovery of’ America by Columbus).
1517. Ottoman Sultan Selim I. conquers Egypt, wrests the caliphate from the Arab line of the Koreish through Motawekkel Billah, and transfers it to the Ottoman Sultans; Ottoman caliphate never acknowledged by Persian or Moorish Moslems. (The Reformation.)
1521–1566. Solyman II., “the Magnificent,” marks the zenith of the military power of the Turks; takes Belgrade (1521), defeats the Hungarians (1526), but is repulsed from Vienna (1529 and 1532).
1571. Defeat of Selim II. at the naval battle of Lepanto by the Christian powers under Don John of Austria. Beginning of the decline of the Turkish power.
1683. Final repulse of the Turks at the gates of Vienna by John Sobieski, king of Poland, 2Sept. 12; Eastern Europe saved from Moslem rule.
1792. Peace at Jassy in Moldavia, which made the Dniester the frontier between Russia and Turkey.
1827. Annihilation of the Turko-Egyptian fleet by, the combined squadrons of England, France, and Russia, in the battle of Navarino, October 20. Treaty of Adrianople, 1829. Independence of the kingdom of Greece, 1832.
1856. End of Crimean War; Turkey saved by England and France aiding the Sultan against the aggression of Russia; Treaty of Paris; European agreement not to interfere in the domestic affairs of Turkey.
1878. Defeat of the Turks by Russia; but checked by the interference of England under the lead of Lord Beaconsfield. Congress of the European powers, and Treaty of Berlin; independence of Bulgaria secured; Anglo-Turkish Treaty; England occupies Cyprus—agrees to defend the frontier of Asiatic Turkey against Russia, on condition that the Sultan execute fundamental reforms in Asiatic Turkey.
1880. Supplementary Conference at Berlin. Rectification and enlargement of the boundary of Montenegro and Greece.
§ 40. Position of Mohammedanism in Church History.
While new races and countries in Northern and Western Europe, unknown to the apostles, were added to the Christian Church, we behold in Asia and Africa the opposite spectacle of the rise and progress of a rival religion which is now acknowledged by more than one-tenth of the inhabitants of the globe. It is called “Mohammedanism” from its founder, or “Islâm,” from its chief virtue, which is absolute surrender to the one true God. Like Christianity, it had its birth in the Shemitic race, the parent of the three monotheistic religions, but in an obscure and even desert district, and had a more rapid, though less enduring success.
But what a difference in the means employed and the results reached! Christianity made its conquest by peaceful missionaries and the power of persuasion, and carried with it the blessings of home, freedom and civilization. Mohammedanism conquered the fairest portions of the earth by the sword and cursed them by polygamy, slavery, despotism and desolation. The moving power of Christian missions was love to God and man; the moving power of Islâm was fanaticism and brute force. Christianity has found a home among all nations and climes; Mohammedanism, although it made a most vigorous effort to conquer the world, is after all a religion of the desert, of the tent and the caravan, and confined to nomad and savage or half-civilized nations, chiefly Arabs, Persians, and Turks. It never made an impression on Europe except by brute force; it is only encamped, not really domesticated, in Constantinople, and when it must withdraw from Europe it will leave no trace behind.
Islâm in its conquering march took
forcible possession of the lands of the Bible, and the Greek church,
seized the throne of Constantine, overran Spain, crossed the Pyrenees,
and for a long time threatened even the church of Rome and the German
empire, until it was finally repulsed beneath the walls of Vienna. The
Crusades which figure so prominently in the history of mediaeval
Christianity, originated in the desire to wrest the holy land from the
followers of “the false prophet,” and brought the East in contact with
the West. The monarchy and the church of Spain, with their
architecture, chivalry, bigotry, and inquisition, emerged from a fierce
conflict with the Moors. Even the Reformation in the sixteenth century
was complicated with the Turkish question, which occupied the attention
of the diet of Augsburg as much as the Confession of the Evangelical
princes and divines. Luther, in one of his most popular hymns, prays
for deliverance from “the murdering Pope and Turk,” as the two chief
enemies of the gospel “Erhalt uns,Herr, bei deinem Wort, Und
steur’ des Papst’s und
Türken Mord.” The words “all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics,” were
inserted by the framers of the Prayer Book in the first edition (1547);
the rest of the collect is translated from the old Latin service. In
the middle ages the word “infidel” denoted a Mohammedan. The
Mohammedans in turn call Christians, Jews, and all other religionists,
“infidels” and “dogs.”
The danger for Western Christendom from that quarter has long since passed away; the “unspeakable” Turk has ceased to be unconquerable, but the Asiatic and a part of the East European portion of the Greek church are still subject to the despotic rule of the Sultan, whose throne in Constantinople has been for more than four hundred years a standing insult to Christendom.
Mohammedanism then figures as a hostile force, as a real Ishmaelite in church history; it is the only formidable rival which Christianity ever had, the only religion which for a while at least aspired to universal empire.
And yet it is not hostile only. It has not been without beneficial effect upon Western civilization. It aided in the development of chivalry; it influenced Christian architecture; it stimulated the study of mathematics, chemistry, medicine (as is indicated by the technical terms: algebra, chemistry, alchemy); and the Arabic translations and commentaries on Aristotle by the Spanish Moors laid the philosophical foundation of scholasticism. Even the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks brought an inestimable blessing to the West by driving Greek scholars with the Greek Testament to Italy to inaugurate there the revival of letters which prepared the way for the Protestant Reformation.
Viewed in its relation to the Eastern Church which
it robbed of the fairest dominions, Mohammedanism was a well-deserved
divine punishment for the unfruitful speculations, bitter contentions,
empty ceremonialism and virtual idolatry which degraded and disgraced
the Christianity of the East after the fifth century. The essence of
true religion, love to God and to man, was eaten out by rancor and
strife, and there was left no power of ultimate resistance to the
foreign conqueror. The hatred between the orthodox Eastern church and
the Eastern schismatics driven from her communion, and the jealousy
between the Greek and Latin churches prevented them from aiding each
other in efforts to arrest the progress of the common foe. The Greeks
detested the Latin Filioque as a heresy more deadly than
Islâm; while the Latins cared more for the supremacy of the
Pope than the triumph of Christianity, and set up during the Crusades a
rival hierarchy in the East. Even now Greek and Latin monks in
Bethlehem and Jerusalem are apt to fight at Christmas and Easter over
the cradle and the grave of their common Lord and Redeemer, unless
Turkish soldiers keep them in order! Archbishop Trench, l.c. p. 54: “We can regard
Mohammedanism in no other light than as a scourge of God upon a guilty
church. He will not give his glory to another. He will not suffer the
Creator and the creature to be confounded; and if those who should have
been witnesses for the truth, who had been appointed thereunto,
forsake, forget, or deny it, He will raise up witnesses from quarters
the most unlooked for, and will strengthen their hands and give victory
to their arms even against those who bear his name, but have forgotten
his truth.” Similarly Dr. Jessup, l.c. p. 14: “The Mohammedan
religion arose, in the providence of God, as a scourge to the
idolatrous Christianity, and the pagan systems of Asia and
Africa—a protest against polytheism, and a preparation
for the future conversion to a pure Christianity of the multitude who
have fallen under its extraordinary power.” Carlyle calls the creed of
Mohammed “a kind of Christianity better than that of those miserable
Syrian Sects with the head full of worthless noise, the heart empty and
dead. The truth of it is imbedded in portentous error and falsehood;
but the truth makes it to be believed, not the falsehood: it succeeded
by its truth. A bastard kind of Christianity, but a living kind; with a
heart-life in it; not dead, chopping, barren logic
merely.”
But viewed in relation to the heathenism from which it arose or which it converted, Mahommedanism is a vast progress, and may ultimately be a stepping-stone to Christianity, like the law of Moses which served as a schoolmaster to lead men to the gospel. It has destroyed the power of idolatry in Arabia and a large part of Asia and Africa, and raised Tartars and Negroes from the rudest forms of superstition to the belief and worship of the one true God, and to a certain degree of civilization.
It should be mentioned, however, that, according
to the testimony of missionaries and African travelers, Mohammedanism
has inflamed the simple minded African tribes with the impure fire of
fanaticism and given them greater power of resistance to Christianity.
Sir William Muir, a very competent judge, thinks that Mohammedanism by
the poisoning influence of polygamy and slavery, and by crushing all
freedom of judgment in religion has interposed the most effectual
barrier against the reception of Christianity. “No system,” he says,
“could have been devised with more consummate skill for shutting out
the nations over which it has sway, from the light of truth. Idolatrous
Arabs might have been aroused to spiritual life and to the adoption of
the faith of Jesus; Mahometan Arabia is, to the human eye, sealed
against the benign influences of the gospel .... The sword of Mahomet
and the Coran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and
truth.” Life of Mahomet, IV. 321, 322.
This is no doubt true of the past. But we have not yet seen the end of this historical problem. It is not impossible that Islâm may yet prove to be a necessary condition for the revival of a pure Scriptural religion in the East. Protestant missionaries from England and America enjoy greater liberty under the Mohammedan rule than they would under a Greek or Russian government. The Mohammedan abhorrence of idolatry and image worship, Mohammedan simplicity and temperance are points of contact with the evangelical type of Christianity, which from the extreme West has established flourishing missions in the most important parts of Turkey. The Greek Church can do little or nothing with the Mohammedans; if they are to be converted it must be done by a Christianity which is free from all appearance of idolatry, more simple in worship, and more vigorous in life than that which they have so easily conquered and learned to despise. It is an encouraging fact that Mohammedans have, great respect for the Anglo-Saxon race. They now swear by the word of an Englishman as much as by the beard of Mohammed.
Islâm is still a great religious power in the East. It rules supreme in Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Egypt, North Africa, and makes progress among the savage tribes in the interior of the Dark Continent. It is by no means simply, as Schlegel characterized the system, “a prophet without miracles, a faith without mysteries, and a morality without love.” It has tenacity, aggressive vitality and intense enthusiasm. Every traveller in the Orient must be struck with the power of its simple monotheism upon its followers. A visit to the Moslem University in the Mosque El Azhar at Cairo is very instructive. It dates from the tenth century (975), and numbers (or numbered in 1877, when I visited it) no less than ten thousand students who come from all parts of the Mohammedan world and present the appearance of a huge Sunday School, seated in small groups on the floor, studying the Koran as the beginning and end of all wisdom, and then at the stated hours for prayer rising to perform their devotions under the lead of their teachers. They live in primitive simplicity, studying, eating and sleeping on a blanket or straw mat in the same mosque, but the expression of their faces betrays the fanatical devotion to their creed. They support themselves, or are aided by the alms of the faithful. The teachers (over three hundred) receive no salary and live by private instruction or presents from rich scholars.
Nevertheless the power of Islâm, like its symbol, the moon, is disappearing before the sun of Christianity which is rising once more over the Eastern horizon. Nearly one-third of its followers are under Christian (mostly English) rule. It is essentially a politico-religious system, and Turkey is its stronghold. The Sultan has long been a “sick man,” and owes his life to the forbearance and jealousy of the Christian powers. Sooner or later he will be driven out of Europe, to Brusa or Mecca. The colossal empire of Russia is the hereditary enemy of Turkey, and would have destroyed her in the wars of 1854 and 1877, if Catholic France and Protestant England had not come to her aid. In the meantime the silent influences of European civilization and Christian missions are undermining the foundations of Turkey, and preparing the way for a religious, moral and social regeneration and transformation of the East. “God’s mills grind slowly, but surely and wonderfully fine.” A thousand years before Him are as one day, and one day may do the work of a thousand years.
§ 41. The Home, and the Antecedents of Islâm.
On the Aborigines of Arabia and its religious condition before Islam, compare the preliminary discourse of Sale, Sect.1 and 2; Muir, Vol. I. ch. 2d; Sprenger, I. 13–92, and Stobart, ch. 1.
The fatherland of Islâm is Arabia, a peninsula between the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf. It is covered with sandy deserts, barren hills, rock-bound coasts, fertile wadies, and rich pastures. It is inhabited by nomadic tribes and traders who claim descent from five patriarchal stocks, Cush, Shem, Ishmael, Keturah, and Esau. It was divided by the ancients into Arabia Deserta, Arabia Petraea (the Sinai district with Petra as the capital), and Arabia Felix (El-Yemen, i.e. the land on the right hand, or of the South). Most of its rivers are swelled by periodical rains and then lose themselves in the sandy plains; few reach the ocean; none of them is navigable. It is a land of grim deserts and strips of green verdure, of drought and barrenness, violent rains, clear skies, tropical heat, date palms, aromatic herbs, coffee, balsam, myrrh, frankincense, and dhurra (which takes the place of grain). Its chief animals are the camel, “the ship of the desert,” an excellent breed of horses, sheep, and goats. The desert, like the ocean, is not without its grandeur. It creates the impression of infinitude, it fosters silence and meditation on God and eternity. Man is there alone with God. The Arabian desert gave birth to some of the sublimest compositions, the ode of liberty by Miriam, the ninetieth Psalm by Moses, the book of Job, which Carlyle calls “the grandest poem written by the pen of man.”
The Arabs love a roaming life, are simple and temperate, courteous, respectful, hospitable, imaginative, fond of poetry and eloquence, careless of human life, revengeful, sensual, and fanatical. Arabia, protected by its deserts, was never properly conquered by a foreign nation.
The religious capital of Islâm, and the
birthplace of its founder—its Jerusalem and
Rome—is Mecca (or Mekka), one of the oldest cities of
Arabia. It is situated sixty-five miles East of Jiddah on the Red Sea,
two hundred and forty-five miles South of Medina, in a narrow and
sterile valley and shut in by bare hills. It numbered in its days of
prosperity over one hundred thousand inhabitants, now only about
forty-five thousand. It stands under the immediate control of the
Sultan. The streets are broad, but unpaved, dusty in summer, muddy in
winter. The houses are built of brick or stone, three or four stories
high; the rooms better furnished than is usual in the East. They are a
chief source of revenue by being let to the pilgrims. There is scarcely
a garden or cultivated field in and around Mecca, and only here and
there a thorny acacia and stunted brushwood relieves the eye. The city
derives all its fruit—watermelons, dates, cucumbers,
limes, grapes, apricots, figs, almonds—from
Tâif and Wady Fatima, which during the pilgrimage season
send more than one hundred camels daily to the capital. The inhabitants
are indolent, though avaricious, and make their living chiefly of the
pilgrims who annually flock thither by thousands and tens of thousands
from all parts of the Mohammedan world. None but Moslems are allowed to
enter Mecca, but a few Christian travellers—Ali Bey
(the assumed name of the Spaniard, Domingo Badia y Leblich, d. 1818),
Burckhardt in 1814, Burton in 1852, Maltzan in 1862, Keane in
1880—have visited it in Mussulman disguise, and at the
risk of their lives. To them we owe our knowledge of the place. See Ali Bey’s Travels in Asia and
Africa, 1803-1807 (1814, 3 vols.); the works of Burckhardt, and
Burton mentioned before; and Muir, I. 1-9.
The most holy place in Mecca is Al-Kaaba, a small
oblong temple, so called from its cubic form. The Cube-house or Square house, Maison
carrée. It is also called Beit Ullah,
(Beth-el), i.e. House of God. It is covered with cloth.
See a description in Burckhaxdt, Travels, Lond., 1829, p. 136,
Burton II. 154, Sprenger II. 340, and Khan Ballador’s
Essay on the History of the Holy Mecca (a part of the
work above quoted). Burckhardt gives the size: 18 paces long, 14 broad,
35 to 40 feet high. Burton: 22 paces (= 55 English feet) long, 18 paces
(45 feet) broad. Baliador says, l.c.: “The most ancient and authentic
of all the local traditions of Arabia ... represent the temple of the
Kaaba as having been constructed in the 42d century a. m., or 19th century b.c., by
Abraham, who was assisted in his work by his son Ishmael.” He quotes
It is called in Arabic Hhajera el-Assouád, the
Heavenly Stone. Muir II. 35. Bahador discredits this and other foolish traditions, and
thinks that the Black Stone was a Piece of rock from the neighboring
Abba Kobais mountain, and put in its present place by Ishmael at the
desire of Abraham. See pictures of the Kaaba and the Black Stone, in Bahador,
and also in Muir, II. 18, and description, II. 34
sqq.
Mohammed subsequently cleared the Kaaba of all
relics of idolatry, and made it the place of pilgrimage for his
followers. He invented or revived the legend that Abraham by divine
command sent his son Ishmael with Hagar to Mecca to establish there the
true worship and the pilgrim festival. He says in the Koran: “God hath
appointed the Kaaba, the sacred house, to be a station for mankind,”
and, “Remember when we appointed the sanctuary as
man’s resort and safe retreat, and said,
’Take ye the station of Abraham for a place of
prayer.’ And we commanded Abraham and Ishmael,
’Purify my house for those who shall go in procession
round it, and those who shall bow down and prostrate
themselves.’ ” Rodwell’s translation, pp. 446 and 648.
Sprenger, II. 279, regards the Moslem legend of the Abrahamic origin of
the Kaaba worship as a pure invention of Mohammed, of which there is no
previous trace.
Arabia had at the time when Mohammed appeared, all the elements for a wild, warlike, eclectic religion like the one which he established. It was inhabited by heathen star-worshippers, Jews, and Christians.
The heathen were the ruling race, descended from Ishmael, the bastard son of Abraham (Ibrahim), the real sons of the desert, full of animal life and energy. They had their sanctuary in the Kaaba at Mecca, which attracted annually large numbers of pilgrims long before Mohammed.
The Jews, after the destruction of Jerusalem, were scattered in Arabia, especially in the district of Medina, and exerted considerable influence by their higher culture and rabbinical traditions.
The Christians belonged mostly to the various heretical sects which were expelled from the Roman empire during the violent doctrinal controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries. We find there traces of Arians, Sabellians, Ebionites, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monophysites, Marianites, and Collyridians or worshippers of Mary. Anchorets and monks settled in large numbers in Wady Feiran around Mount Serbal, and Justinian laid the foundation of the Convent of St. Catharine at the foot of Mount Sinai, which till the year 1859 harbored the oldest and most complete uncial manuscript of the Greek Scriptures of both Testaments from the age of Constantine. But it was a very superficial and corrupt Christianity which had found a home in those desert regions, where even the apostle Paul spent three years after his conversion in silent preparation for his great mission.
These three races and religions, though deadly hostile to each other, alike revered Abraham, the father of the faithful, as their common ancestor. This fact might suggest to a great mind the idea to unite them by a national religion monotheistic in principle and eclectic in its character. This seems to have been the original project of the founder of Islâm.
It is made certain by recent research that there
were at the time and before the call of Mohammed a considerable number
of inquirers at Mecca and Medina, who had intercourse with Eastern
Christians in Syria and Abyssinia, were dissatisfied with the idolatry
around them, and inclined to monotheism, which they traced to Abraham.
They called themselves Hanyfs, i.e. Converts, Puritans. One of them,
Omayah of Tâif, we know to have been under Christian
influence; others seem to have derived their monotheistic ideas from
Judaism. Some of the early converts of Mohammed as, Zayd (his favorite
slave), Omayab, or Umaijah (a popular poet), and Waraka (a cousin of
Chadijah and a student of the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and
Christians) belonged to this sect, and even Mohammed acknowledged
himself at first a Hanyf. Sprenger I. 45: ”Die bisher unbekannt gebliebenen Hanyfen waren
die Vorläufer des Mohammad. Er nennt sich selbst einen
Hanyf, und während der ersten Periode seines Lehramtes hat
er wenig anderes gethan, als ihre Lehre
bestätigt.” According to Sprenger, I. 91 sqq., he died a Christian; but
Deutsch, l.c., p. 77, says: “Whatever Waraka was originally, he
certainly lived and died a Jew.” He infers this from the fact that when
asked by Chadijah for his opinion concerning
Mohammed’s revelations, he cried out: ”Koddus!
Koddus! (i.e., Kadosh, Holy). Verily this is the
Namus (i.e., νόμος, Law) which came to Moses. He will be the
prophet of his people.”
Mohammed consolidated and energized this reform-movement, and gave it a world-wide significance, under the new name of Islâm, i.e. resignation to God; whence Moslem (or Muslim), one who resigns himself to God.
§ 42. Life and Character of Mohammed.
Mohammed, an unschooled, self-taught, semi-barbarous son of nature, of noble birth, handsome person, imaginative, energetic, brave, the ideal of a Bedouin chief, was destined to become the political and religious reformer, the poet, prophet, priest, and king of Arabia.
He was born about a.d. 570 at Mecca, the only
child of a young widow named Amina. We know accurately the date of Mohammed’s
death (June 8, 632), but the year of his birth only by reckoning
backwards; and as his age is variously stated from sixty-one to
sixty-five, there is a corresponding difference in the statements of
the year of his birth. De Sacy fixes it April 20, 571, von Hammer 569,
Muir Aug. 20, 570, Sprenger between May 13, 567, and April 13, 571, but
afterwards (I. 138), April 20, 571, as most in accordance with early
tradition. According to Ihn Ishâk and Wâckidi.
Bahador adopts this tradition, in the last of his essays which treats
of “the Birth and Childhood of Mohammed.” But according to other
accounts, Abdallah died several months (seven or eighteen) after
Mohammed’s birth. Muir. I. 11; Sprenger, I.
138. On the pedigree of Mohammed, see an essay in the work of
Syed Ahmed Khan Bahador, and MuirI1. 242-271. The Koreish were not
exactly priests, but watched the temple, kept the keys, led the
processions, and provided for the pilgrims. Hâshim,
Mohammed’s great-grandfather (b. a. d.442), thus addressed the Koreish: “Ye are the
neighbors of God and the keepers of his house. The pilgrims who come
honoring the sanctity of his temple, are his guests; and it is meet
that ye should entertain them above all other guests. Ye are especially
chosen of God and exalted unto this high dignity; wherefore honor big
guests and refresh them.” He himself set an example of munificent
hospitality, and each of the Koreish contributed according to his
ability. Muir I. CCXLVII. Sprenger has a long chapter on this disease of Mohammed,
which he calls with Schönlein, hysteria muscularis I.
207-268.
He accompanied his uncle on a commercial journey to Syria, passing through the desert, ruined cities of old, and Jewish and Christian settlements, which must have made a deep impression on his youthful imagination.
Mohammed made a scanty living as an attendant on
caravans and by watching sheep and goats. The latter is rather a
disreputable occupation among the Arabs, and left to unmarried women
and slaves; but he afterwards gloried in it by appealing to the example
of Moses and David, and said that God never calls a prophet who has not
been a shepherd before. According to tradition—for,
owing to the strict prohibition of images, we have no likeness of the
prophet—he was of medium size, rather slender, but
broad-shouldered and of strong muscles, had black eyes and hair, an
oval-shaped face, white teeth, a long nose, a patriarchal beard, and a
commanding look. His step was quick and firm. He wore white cotton
stuff, but on festive occasions fine linen striped or dyed in red. He
did everything for himself; to the last he mended his own clothes, and
cobbled his sandals, and aided his wives in sewing and cooking. He
laughed and smiled often. He had a most fertile imagination and a
genius for poetry and religion, but no learning. He was an “illiterate
prophet,” in this respect resembling some of the prophets of Israel and
the fishermen of Galilee. It is a disputed question among Moslem and
Christian scholars whether he could even read and write. Sprenger discusses the question, and answers it in the
affirmative, Vol. II. 398 sqq. The Koran (29) says: “Formerly [before I
sent down the book, i.e. the Koran] thou didst not read any book
nor write one with thy right hand!” From this, some Moslems infer that
after the reception of the Koran, he was supernaturally taught
to read and write; but others hold that he was ignorant of both. Syed
Ahmed Khan Bahador says: “Not the least doubt now exists that the
Prophet was wholly unacquainted with the art of writing, being also, as
a matter of course (?), unable to read the hand-writing of others; for
which reason, and for this only, be was called Ummee“
(illiterate).
In his twenty-fifth year he married a rich widow,
Chadijah (or Chadîdsha), who was fifteen years older than
himself, and who had previously hired him to carry on the mercantile
business of her former husband. Her father was opposed to the match;
but she made and kept him drunk until the ceremony was completed. He
took charge of her caravans with great success, and made several
journeys. The marriage was happy and fruitful of six children, two sons
and four daughters; but all died except little Fâtima, who
became the mother of innumerable legitimate and illegitimate
descendants of the prophet. He also adopted Alî, whose close
connection with him became so important in the history of
Islâm. He was faithful to Chadijah, and held her in grateful
remembrance after her death. Sprenger attributes his faithfulness to Chadyga (as he
spells the name) not to his merit, but to his dependence. She kept her
fortune under her own control, and gave him only as much as he
needed.
On his commercial journeys to Syria, he became acquainted with Jews and Christians, and acquired an imperfect knowledge of their traditions. He spent much of his time in retirement, prayer, fasting, and meditation. He had violent convulsions and epileptic fits, which his enemies, and at first he himself, traced to demoniacal possessions, but afterwards to the overpowering presence of God. His soul was fired with the idea of the divine unity, which became his ruling passion; and then he awoke to the bold thought that he was a messenger of God, called to warn his countrymen to escape the judgment and the damnation of hell by forsaking idolatry and worshipping the only true God. His monotheistic enthusiasm was disturbed, though not weakened, by his ignorance and his imperfect sense of the difference between right and wrong.
In his fortieth year (a.d. 610), he received the call of Gabriel, the archangel at the right hand of God, who announced the birth of the Saviour to the Virgin Mary. The first revelation was made to him in a trance in the wild solitude of Mount Hirâ, an hour’s walk from Mecca. He was directed “to cry in the name of the Lord.” He trembled, as if something dreadful had happened to him, and hastened home to his wife, who told him to rejoice, for he would be the prophet of his people. He waited for other visions; but none came. He went up to Mount Hirâ again—this time to commit suicide. But as often as he approached the precipice, he beheld Gabriel at the end of the horizon saying to him: “I am Gabriel, and thou art Mohammed, the prophet of God. Fear not!” He then commenced his career of a prophet and founder of a new religion, which combined various elements of the three religious represented in Arabia, but was animated and controlled by the faith in Allah, as an almighty, ever-present and working will. From this time on, his life was enacted before the eyes of the world, and is embodied in his deeds and in the Koran.
The revelations continued from time to time for more than twenty years. When asked how they were delivered to him, he replied (as reported by Ayesha): “Sometimes like the sound of a bell—a kind of communication which was very severe for me; and when the sounds ceased, I found myself aware of the instructions. And sometimes the angel would come in the form of a man, and converse with me, and all his words I remembered.”
After his call, Mohammed labored first for three years among his family and friends, under great discouragements, making about forty converts, of whom his wife Chadijah was the first, his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, and the young, energetic Omar the most important. His daughter Fatima, his adopted son Alî, and his slave Zayd likewise believed in his divine mission. Then he publicly announced his determination to assume by command of God the office of prophet and lawgiver, preached to the pilgrims flocking to Mecca, attacked Meccan idolatry, reasoned with his opponents, answered their demand for miracles by producing the Koran “leaf by leaf,” as occasion demanded, and provoked persecution and civil commotion. He was forced in the year 622 to flee for his life with his followers from Mecca to Medina (El-Medina an-Nabî, the City of the Prophet), a distance of two hundred and fifty miles North, or ten days’ journey over the sands and rocks of the desert.
This flight or emigration, called
Hégira or Hidshra, marks the beginning of his wonderful
success, and of the Mohammedan era (July 15, 622). He was recognized in
Medina as prophet and lawgiver. At first he proclaimed toleration: “Let
there be no compulsion in religion;” but afterwards he revealed the
opposite principle that all unbelievers must be summoned to
Islâm, tribute, or the sword. With an increasing army of his
enthusiastic followers, he took the field against his enemies, gained
in 624 his first victory over the Koreish with an army of 305 (mostly
citizens of Medina) against a force twice as large, conquered several
Jewish and Christian tribes, ordered and watched in person the massacre
of six hundred Jews in one day, So Sprenger,III. 221. Others give seven hundred and ninety
as the number of Jews who were beheaded in a ditch.
In the tenth year of the Hegira, the prophet made his last pilgrimage to Mecca at the head of forty thousand Moslems, instructed them in all important ordinances, and exhorted them to protect the weak, the poor, and the women, and to abstain from usury. He planned a large campaign against the Greeks.
But soon after his return to Medina, he died of a
violent fever in the house and the arms of Ayesha, June 8, 632, in the
sixty-third year of his age, and was buried on the spot where he died,
which is now enclosed by a mosque. He suffered great pain, cried and
wailed, turned on his couch in despair, and said to his wives when they
expressed their surprise at his conduct: “Do ye not know that prophets
have to suffer more than all others? One was eaten up by vermin;
another died so poor that he had nothing but rags to cover his shame;
but their reward will be all the greater in the life beyond.” Among his
last utterances were: “The Lord destroy the Jews and Christians! Let
his anger be kindled against those that turn the tombs of their
prophets into places of worship! O Lord, let not my tomb be an object
of worship! Let there not remain any faith but that of Islâm
throughout the whole of Arabia .... Gabriel, come close to me! Lord,
grant me pardon and join me to thy companionship on high! Eternity in
paradise! Pardon! Yes, the blessed companionship on high!” See Sprenger, III. 552 sqq., Muir, IV. 270
sqq.
Omar would not believe that Mohammed was dead, and proclaimed in the mosque of Medina: “The prophet has only swooned away; he shall not die until he have rooted out every hypocrite and unbeliever.” But Abu Bakr silenced him and said: “Whosoever worships Mohammed, let him know that Mohammed is dead; but whosoever worships God, let him know that the Lord liveth, and will never die.” Abu Bakr, whom he had loved most, was chosen Calif, or Successor of Mohammed.
Later tradition, and even the earliest biography,
ascribe to the prophet of Mecca strange miracles, and surround his name
with a mythical halo of glory. He was saluted by walking trees and
stones; he often made by a simple touch the udders of dry goats distend
with milk; be caused floods of water to well up from the parched
ground, or gush forth from empty vessels, or issue from betwixt the
fingers; he raised the dead; he made a night journey on his steed Borak
through the air from Mecca to Jerusalem, from Jerusalem to paradise and
the mansions of the prophets and angels, and back again to Mecca. This absurd story, circumstantially described by Abulfeda,
is probably based on a dream which Mohammed himself relates in the
Koran, Sura 17, entitled The Night Journey: “Glory be to Him who
carried his servant by night from the sacred temple of Mecca to the
temple that is remote” [i.e. in Jerusalem]. In the Dome of the
Rock on Mount Moriah, the hand-prints of the angel Gabriel are shown in
the mysterious rock which attempted to follow Mohammed to its native
quarry in Paradise, but was kept back by the angel! See an interesting essay on the “Miracles of Mohammed” in
Tholuck’s Miscellaneous Essays (1839), Vol. I.,
pp. 1-27. Also Muir, I., pp. 65 sqq.; Sprenger, II. 413
sqq.
Character of Mohammed.
The Koran, if chronologically arranged, must be regarded as the best commentary on his character. While his followers regard him to this day as the greatest prophet of God, he was long abhorred in Christendom as a wicked impostor, as the antichrist, or the false prophet, predicted in the Bible, and inspired by the father of lies.
The calmer judgment of recent historians inclines to the belief that he combined the good and bad qualities of an Oriental chief, and that in the earlier part of his life he was a sincere reformer and enthusiast, but after the establishment of his kingdom a slave of ambition for conquest. He was a better man in the period of his adversity and persecution at Mecca, than during his prosperity and triumph at Medina. History records many examples of characters rising from poverty and obscurity to greatness, and then decaying under the sunshine of wealth and power. He degenerated, like Solomon, but did not repent, like the preacher of “vanity of vanities.” He had a melancholic and nervous temperament, liable to fantastic hallucinations and alternations of high excitement and deep depression, bordering at times on despair and suicide. The story of his early and frequent epileptic fits throws some light on his revelations, during which he sometimes growled like a camel, foamed at his mouth, and streamed with perspiration. He believed in evil spirits, omens, charms, and dreams. His mind was neither clear nor sharp, but strong and fervent, and under the influence of an exuberant imagination. He was a poet of high order, and the Koran is the first classic in Arabic literature. He believed himself to be a prophet, irresistibly impelled by supernatural influence to teach and warn his fellow-men. He started with the over-powering conviction of the unity of God and a horror of idolatry, and wished to rescue his countrymen from this sin of sins and from the terrors of the judgment to come; but gradually he rose above the office of a national reformer to that of the founder of a universal religion, which was to absorb the other religions, and to be propagated by violence. It is difficult to draw the line in such a character between honest zeal and selfish ambition, the fear of God and the love of power and glory.
He despised a throne and a diadem, lived with his wives in a row of low and homely cottages of unbaked bricks, and aided them in their household duties; he was strictly temperate in eating and drinking, his chief diet being dates and water; he was not ashamed to milk his goats, to mend his clothes and to cobble his shoes; his personal property at his death amounted to some confiscated lands, fourteen or fifteen slaves, a few camels and mules, a hundred sheep, and a rooster. This simplicity of a Bedouin Sheikh of the desert contrasts most favorably with the luxurious style and gorgeous display of Mohammed’s successors, the Califs and Sultans, who have dozens of palaces and harems filled with eunuchs and women that know nothing beyond the vanities of dress and etiquette and a little music. He was easy of access to visitors who approached him with faith and reverence; patient, generous, and (according to Ayesha) as modest and bashful “as a veiled virgin.” But towards his enemies he was cruel and revengeful. He did not shrink from perfidy. He believed in the use of the sword as the best missionary, and was utterly unscrupulous as to the means of success. He had great moral, but little physical courage; he braved for thirteen years the taunts and threats of the people, but never exposed himself to danger in battle, although he always accompanied his forces.
Mohammed was a slave of sensual passion. Ayesha,
who knew him best in his private character and habits, used to say:
“The prophet loved three things, women, perfumes and food; he had his
heart’s desire of the two first, but not of the last.”
The motives of his excess in polygamy were his sensuality which grew
with his years, and his desire for male offspring. His followers
excused or justified him by the examples of Abraham, David and Solomon,
and by the difficulties of his prophetic office, which were so great
that God gave him a compensation in sexual enjoyment, and endowed him
with greater capacity than thirty ordinary men. For twenty-four years
he had but one wife, his beloved Chadijah, who died in 619, aged
sixty-five, but only two months after her death he married a widow
named Sawda (April 619), and gradually increased his harem, especially
during the last two years of his life. When he heard of a pretty woman,
says Sprenger, he asked her hand, but was occasionally refused. He had
at least fourteen legal wives, and a number of slave concubines
besides. At his death he left nine widows. He claimed special
revelations which gave him greater liberty of sexual indulgence than
ordinary Moslems (who are restricted to four wives), and exempted him
from the prohibition of marrying near relatives. He speaks freely of this subject in the Koran, Sur. 4, and
33. In the latter (Rodman’s transl., p. 508) this
scandalous passage occurs: “O Prophet! we allow thee thy wives whom
thou hast dowered, and the slaves whom thy right hand possesseth out of
the booty which God hath granted thee, and the daughters of thy uncle,
and of thy paternal and maternal aunts who fled with thee to Medina,
and any believing woman who hath given herself up to the Prophet, if
the Prophet desired to wed her, a privilege for thee above the rest of
the faithful.” Afterwards in the same Sura (p. 569) he says: “Ye must
not trouble the Apostle of God, nor marry his wives after him forever.
This would be a grave offence with God.” Sprenger, III. 61-87, gives a full account of fourteen
wives of Mohammed, and especially of Ayesha, according to the list of
Zohry and Ibn Saad. Sprenger says, p. 37: ”Der Prophet hatte keine Wohnung
für sich selbst. Sein Hauptquartier war in der
Hütte der Ayischa und die öffentlichen
Geschäfte verrichtete er in der Moschee, aber er brachte
jede Nacht bei einer seiner Frauen zu und war, wie es scheint, auch ihr
Gast beim Essen. Er ging aber täglich, wenn er bei guter
Laune war, bei allen seinen Frauen umher, gab jeder einen Kuss, sprach
einige Worte und spielte mit ihr. Wir haben gesehen, dass seine Familie
neun Hütten besass, dies war auch die, Anzahl der Frauen,
welche er bei seinem Tode hinterliess. Doch gab es Zeiten, zu denen
sein Harem stärker war. Er brachte dann einige seiner
Schönen in den Häusern von Nachbarn unter. Es kam
auch vor, dass zwei Frauen eine Hütte bewohnten.
Stiefkinderwohnten, so lange sie jung waren, bei ihren
Müttern.“
In his ambition for a hereditary dynasty, Mohammed was sadly disappointed: he lost his two sons by Chadijah, and a third one by Mary the Egyptian, his favorite concubine.
To compare such a man with Jesus, is preposterous and even blasphemous. Jesus was the sinless Saviour of sinners; Mohammed was a sinner, and he knew and confessed it. He falls far below Moses, or Elijah, or any of the prophets and apostles in moral purity. But outside of the sphere of revelation, he ranks with Confucius, and Cakya Muni the Buddha, among the greatest founders of religions and lawgivers of nations.
§ 43. The Conquests of Islâm.
“The sword,” says Mohammed, “is the key of heaven and hell; a drop of blood shed in the cause of Allah, a night spent in arms, is of more avail than two months of fasting or prayer: whosoever falls in battle, his sins are forgiven, and at the day of judgment his limbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim.” This is the secret of his success. Idolaters had to choose between Islâm, slavery, and death; Jews and Christians were allowed to purchase a limited toleration by the payment of tribute, but were otherwise kept in degrading bondage. History records no soldiers of greater bravery inspired by religion than the Moslem conquerors, except Cromwell’s Ironsides, and the Scotch Covenanters, who fought with purer motives for a nobler cause.
The Califs, Mohammed’s successors, who like him united the priestly and kingly dignity, carried on his conquests with the battle-cry: “Before you is paradise, behind you are death and hell.” Inspired by an intense fanaticism, and aided by the weakness of the Byzantine empire and the internal distractions of the Greek Church, the wild sons of the desert, who were content with the plainest food, and disciplined in the school of war, hardship and recklessness of life, subdued Palestine, Syria, and Egypt, embracing the classical soil of primitive Christianity. Thousands of Christian churches in the patriarchal dioceses of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, were ruthlessly destroyed, or converted into mosques. Twenty-one years after the death of Mohammed the Crescent ruled over a realm as large as the Roman Empire. Even Constantinople was besieged twice (668 and 717), although in vain. The terrible efficacy of the newly invented “Greek fire,” and the unusual severity of a long winter defeated the enemy, and saved Eastern and Northern Europe from the blight of the Koran. A large number of nominal Christians who had so fiercely quarreled with each other about unfruitful subtleties of their creeds, surrendered their faith to the conqueror. In 707 the North African provinces, where once St. Augustin had directed the attention of the church to the highest problems of theology and religion, fell into the hands of the Arabs.
In 711 they crossed from Africa to Spain and established an independent Califate at Cordova. The moral degeneracy and dissensions of the Western Goths facilitated their subjugation. Encouraged by such success, the Arabs crossed the Pyrenees and boasted that they would soon stable their horses in St. Peter’s cathedral in Rome, but the defeat of Abd-er Rahman by Charles Martel between Poitiers and Tours in 732—one hundred and ten years after the Hegira—checked their progress in the West, and in 1492—the same year in which Columbus discovered a new Continent—Ferdinand defeated the last Moslem army in Spain at the gates of Granada and drove them back to Africa. The palace and citadel of the Alhambra, with its court of lions, its delicate arabesques and fretwork, and its aromatic gardens and groves, still remains, a gorgeous ruin of the power of the Moorish kings.
In the East the Moslems made new conquests. In the ninth century they subdued Persia, Afghanistan, and a large part of India. They reduced the followers of Zoroaster to a few scattered communities, and conquered a vast territory of Brahminism and Buddhism even beyond the Ganges. The Seliuk Turks in the eleventh century, and the Mongols in the thirteenth, adopted the religion of the Califs whom they conquered. Constantinople fell at last into the hands of the Turks in 1453, and the magnificent church of St. Sophia, the glory of Justinian’s reign, was turned into a mosque where the Koran is read instead of the Gospel, the reader holding the drawn scimetar in his hand. From Constantinople the Turks threatened the German empire, and it was not till 1683 that they were finally defeated by Sobieski at the gates of Vienna and driven back across the Danube.
With the senseless fury of fanaticism and pillage the Tartar Turks have reduced the fairest portions of Eastern Europe to desolation and ruin. With sovereign contempt for all other religions, they subjected the Christians to a condition of virtual servitude, treating them like “dogs,” as they call them. They did not intermeddle with their internal affairs, but made merchandise of ecclesiastical offices. The death penalty was suspended over every attempt to convert a Mussulman. Apostasy from the faith is also treason to the state, and merits the severest punishment in this world, as well as everlasting damnation in the world to come.
After the Crimean war in 1856, the death penalty
for apostasy was nominally abolished in the dominions of the Sultan,
and in the Berlin Treaty of 1878 liberty of religion (more than mere
toleration) was guaranteed to all existing sects in the Turkish empire,
but the old fanaticism will yield only to superior force, and the
guarantee of liberty is not understood to imply the liberty of
propaganda among Moslems. Christian sects have liberty to prey on each
other, but woe to them if they invade the sacred province of
Islâm. If Protestant missionaries enjoy more toleration and
liberty in Turkey than in Roman Catholic Austria and in Greek Catholic
Russia, it must be understood with the above limitation. Turkish
toleration springs from proud contempt of Christianity in all its
forms; Russian and Austrian intolerance, from despotism and bigoted
devotion to a particular form of Christianity.
A Mohammedan tradition contains a curious prophecy
that Christ, the son of Mary, will return as the last Calif to judge
the world. Among the traditional sayings of Mohammed is this (Gerock,
l.c., p. 132): “I am nearest to Jesus, both as to the beginning
and the end; for there is no prophet between me and Jesus; and at the
end of time he will be my representative and my successor. The prophets
are all brethren, as they have one father, though their mothers are
different. The origin of all their religions is the same, and between
me and Jesus there is no other
prophet!’
§ 44. The Koran, and the Bible.
“Mohammed’s truth lay in a sacred Book,
Christ’s in a holy Life.”—Milnes (Palm-Leaves).
The Koran Arabic qurân, i.e. the reading or
that which should be read, the book. It is read over and over again in
all the mosques and schools. Sura 53 (Rodwell, p. 64): “The Koran is no other than a revelation revealed to
him: One terrible in power [Gabriel, i.e. the Strong
one of God] taught it him. In the highest part of the horizon. He came nearer and approached, And was at the distance of two bows, or even
closer,— And he revealed to his servant what he revealed.” I add the view of a learned modern Mohammedan, Syed
Ahmed Khan Babador, who says (l.c., Essay on the Holy Koran):
“The Holy Koran was delivered to Mohammed neither in the form of graven
tablets of stone, nor in that of cloven tongues of fire; nor was it
necessary that the followers of Mohammed, like those of Moses, should
be furnished with a copy or counterpart, in case the original should be
lost. No mystery attended the delivery of it, for it was on
Mohammed’s heart that it was engraven, and it was with
his tongue that it was communicated to all Arabia. The heart of
Mohammed was the Sinai where he received the revelation, and his
tablets of stone were the hearts of true believers.” Sura means either revelation, or chapter, or part of a
chapter. The Mohammedan commentators refer it primarily to the
succession of subjects or parts, like the rows of bricks in a wall. The
titles of the Suras are generally taken from some leading topic or word
in each, as “The Sun,” “The Star,” “The Charges,” “The Scattering,”
“The Adoration,” “The Spider,” “Women,” “Hypocrites,” “Light,” “Jonas,”
“The Cave,” “The Night Journey,” “The Cow,” “The Battle,” “The
Victory.” 7 “Bismillahi ’rrahonani
’rrahim.” According to the Ulama (the professors
of religion and law), “God of mercy” means merciful in great things;
“the Merciful” means merciful in small things. But, according to E. W.
Lane, “the first expresses an occasional sensation, the second a
constant quality!” In other words, the one refers to acts, the other to
a permanent attribute.
Endued with wisdom, with even balance stood he
The Koran is composed in imperfect metre and rhyme
(which is as natural and easy in the Arabic as in the Italian
language). Its language is considered the purest Arabic. Its poetry
somewhat resembles Hebrew poetry in Oriental imagery and a sort of
parallelism or correspondence of clauses, but it loses its charm in a
translation; while the Psalms and Prophets can be reproduced in any
language without losing their original force and beauty. The Koran is
held in superstitious veneration, and was regarded till recently as too
sacred to be translated and to be sold like a common book. These scruples are gradually giving way, at least in India,
where “printed copies, with inter-lineal versions in Persian and
Urdoo—too literal to be
intelligible—are commonly used.” Muir, The
Corân, p. 48. The manuscript copies in the mosques, in
the library of the Khedive in Cairo, and in many European libraries,
are equal in caligraphic beauty to the finest mediaeval manuscripts of
the Bible.
Mohammed prepared and dictated the Koran from time to time as he received the revelations and progressed in his career, not for readers, but for hearers, leaving much to the suggestive action of the public recital, either from memory or from copies taken down by his friends. Hence its occasional, fragmentary character. About a year after his death, at the direction of Abu-Bakr, his father-in-law and immediate successor, Zayd, the chief ansar or amanuensis of the Prophet, collected the scattered fragments of the Koran “from palm-leaves, and tablets of white stone, and from the breasts of men,” but without any regard to chronological order or continuity of subjects. Abu-Bakr committed this copy to the custody of Haphsa, one of Mohammed’s widows. It remained the standard during the ten years of Omar’s califate. As the different readings of copies occasioned serious disputes, Zayd, with several Koreish, was commissioned to secure the purity of the text in the Meccan dialect, and all previous copies were called in and burned. The recension of Zayd has been handed down with scrupulous care unaltered to this day, and various readings are almost unknown; the differences being confined to the vowel-points, which were invented at a later period. The Koran contains many inconsistencies and contradictions; but the expositors hold that the later command supersedes the earlier.
The restoration of the chronological order of the
Suras is necessary for a proper understanding of the gradual
development of Islâm in the mind and character of its
author. The present order, Says Muir (Corân, p.
41), is almost a direct inversion of the natural chronological order;
the longest which mostly belong to the later period of Mohammed, being
placed first and the shortest last. Weil, Sprenger, and Muir have paid
much attention to the chronological arrangement. Nöldeke
also, in his Geschichte des Qôrans, has fixed the
order of the Suras, with a reasonable degree of certainty on the basis
of Mohammedan traditions and a searching analysis of the text; and he
has been mainly followed by Rodwell in his English
version. The ornament of metre and rhyme, however, is preserved
throughout. Rodwell, p. X. Comp. Deutsch, l.c., p.
121.
The materials of the Koran, as far as they are not productions of the author’s own imagination, were derived from the floating traditions of Arabia and Syria, from rabbinical Judaism, and a corrupt Christianity, and adjusted to his purposes.
Mohammed had, in his travels, come in contact with
professors of different religions, and on his first journey with
camel-drivers he fell in with a Nestorian monk of Bostra, who goes by
different names (Bohari, Bahyra, Sergius, George), and welcomed the
youthful prophet with a presage of his future greatness. Muir, Life of Moh., I. 35; Stanley, p.
366.
The Koran, especially in the earlier Suras, speaks
often and highly of the Scriptures; calls them “the Book of God,” “the
Word of God,” “the Tourât” (Thora, the Pentateuch), “the
Gospel” (Ynyil), and describes the Jews and Christians as “the people
of the Book,” or “of the Scripture,” or “of the Gospel.” It finds in
the Scriptures prophecies of Mohammed and his success, and contains
narratives of the fall of Adam and Eve, Noah and the Deluge, Abraham
and Lot, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Moses and Joseph, John
the Baptist, the Virgin Mary and Jesus, sometimes in the words of the
Bible, but mostly distorted and interspersed with rabbinical and
apocryphal fables. See a collection of these correspondences in the original
Arabic and in English in Sir William Muir’s
Coran, pp. 66 sqq. Muir concludes that Mohammed knew the Bible,
and believed in its divine origin and authority.
It is quite probable that portions of the Bible
were read to Mohammed; but it is very improbable that he read it
himself; for according to the prevailing Moslem tradition he could not
read at all, and there were no Arabic translations before the
Mohammedan conquests, which spread the Arabic language in the conquered
countries. Besides, if he had read the Bible with any degree of care,
he could not have made such egregious blunders. The few allusions to
Scripture phraseology—as “giving alms to be seen of
men,” “none forgiveth sins but God only”—may be
derived from personal intercourse and popular traditions. Jesus (Isa)
is spoken of as “the Son of Mary, strengthened by the Holy Spirit.”
Noah (Nûh), Abraham (Ibrahym), Moses (Mûsa),
Aaron (Harun), are often honorably mentioned, but apparently always
from imperfect traditional or apocryphal sources of information. Muir (Life, II. 313, 278) and Stanley (p. 366)
adduce, as traces of a faint knowledge of the Canonical Gospels, the
account of the birth of John the Baptist in the Koran, and the
assumption by Mohammed of the name of Paracletus under the
distorted form of Periclytus, the Illustrious. But the
former does not strike me as being taken from St. Luke, else he could
not have made such a glaring chronological mistake as to identify Mary
with Miriam, the sister of Moses. And as to the promise of the
Paraclete, which only occurs in St. John, it certainly must have passed
into popular tradition, for the word occurs also in the Talmud. If
Mohammed had read St. John, he must have seen that the Paraclete is the
Holy Spirit, and would have identified him with Gabriel, rather than
with himself. Palmer’s opinion is that Mohammed could
neither read nor write, but acquired his knowledge from the traditions
which were then current in Arabia among Jewish and Christian tribes.
The Qur’ân, I., p.
xlvii.
The Koran is unquestionably one of the great books
of the world. It is not only a book, but an institution, a code of
civil and religious laws, claiming divine origin and authority. It has
left its impress upon ages. It feeds to this day the devotions, and
regulates the private and public life, of more than a hundred millions
of human beings. It has many passages of poetic beauty, religious
fervor, and wise counsel, but mixed with absurdities, bombast,
unmeaning images, low sensuality. It abounds in repetitions and
contradictions, which are not removed by the convenient theory of
abrogation. It alternately attracts and repels, and is a most wearisome
book to read. Gibbon calls the Koran “a glorious testimony to the unity
of God,” but also, very properly, an “endless, incoherent rhapsody of
fable and precept and declamation, which seldom excites a sentiment or
idea, which sometimes crawls in the dust, and is sometimes lost in the
clouds.” Decline and Fall of the R. E., Ch.
50. As quoted in Tholuck. The Qur’ân, Introd. I.,
p. 1.
Of all books, not excluding the Vedas, the Koran is the most powerful rival of the Bible, but falls infinitely below it in contents and form.
Both contain the moral and religious code of the
nations which own it; the Koran, like the Old Testament, is also a
civil and political code. Both are oriental in style and imagery. Both
have the fresh character of occasional composition growing out of a
definite historical situation and specific wants. But the Bible is the
genuine revelation of the only true God in Christ, reconciling the
world to himself; the Koran is a mock-revelation without Christ and
without atonement. Whatever is true in the Koran is borrowed from the
Bible; what is original, is false or frivolous. The Bible is historical
and embodies the noblest aspirations of the human race in all ages to
the final consummation; the Koran begins and stops with Mohammed. The
Bible combines endless variety with unity, universal applicability with
local adaptation; the Koran is uniform and monotonous, confined to one
country, one state of society, and one class of minds. The Bible is the
book of the world, and is constantly travelling to the ends of the
earth, carrying spiritual food to all races and to all classes of
society; the Koran stays in the Orient, and is insipid to all who have
once tasted the true word of the living God. On this difference Ewald makes some good remarks in the
first volume of his Biblical Theology (1871), p.
418.
A few instances must suffice for illustration.
The first Sura, called “the Sura of Praise and Prayer,” which is recited by the Mussulmans several times in each of the five daily devotions, fills for them the place of the Lord’s Prayer, and contains the same number of petitions. We give it in a rhymed, and in a more literal translation:
Translated by Lieut. Burton.
Rodwell, The Korân (2nd ed., 1876), p. 10.
We add the most recent version in prose:
“In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.
Praise belongs to God, the Lord of the worlds,
the merciful, the compassionate, the ruler of the day of judgment! Thee
we serve and Thee we ask for aid. Guide us in the right path, the path
of those Thou art gracious to; not of those Thou art wroth with; nor of
those who err.” E. H. Palmer, The
Qur’ân, Oxford, 1880, Part I., p.
1.
As this Sura invites a comparison with the Lord’s Prayer infinitely to the advantage of the latter, so do the Koran’s descriptions of Paradise when contrasted with St. John’s vision of the heavenly Jerusalem:
· Sura 36 (in Rodwell, p. 128).
· The ostrich egg carefully protected from dust. Sura 37 (in Rodwell, p 69). Brides and wives always figure in the Mohammedan Paradise.
§ 45. The Mohammedan Religion.
lslâm is not a new religion, nor can we
expect a new one after the appearance of that religion which is perfect
and intended for all nations and ages. It is a compound or mosaic of
preëxisting elements, a rude attempt to combine heathenism,
Judaism and Christianity, which Mohammed found in Arabia, but in a very
imperfect form. Luther said of the religion of the Turks:
“Also
ist’s ein Glaub zusammengeflickt aus der
Jüden, Christen und Heiden Glaube.” Milman (II. 139) calls Mohammedanism
“the republication of a more comprehensive Judaism with some depraved
forms of Christianity.” Renan describes it as “the least original” of
the religious creations of humanity. Geiger and Deutsch (both Hebrews)
give prominence to the Jewish element. “It is not merely parallelisms,”
says Deutsch, “reminiscences, allusions, technical terms, and the like,
of Judaism, its lore and dogma and ceremony, its Halacha and Haggadah
(which may most briefly be rendered by
’Law’ and
’Legend’), which we find in the
Koran; but we think Islâm neither more nor less than Judaism
as adapted to Arabia—plus the apostleship of Jesus and
Mohammed. Nay, we verily believe that a great deal of such Christianity
as has found its way into the Koran, has found it through Jewish
channels” (l.c. p. 64).
The creed of Islâm is simple, and consists of six articles: God, predestination, the angels (good and bad), the books, the prophets, the resurrection and judgment with eternal reward and eternal punishment.
God.
Monotheism is the comer-stone of the system. It is
expressed in the ever-repeated sentence: “There is no god but God
(Allâh, i.e., the true, the only God), and Mohammed is his
prophet (or apostle).” Lâ ilâha ill’
Allâh, wa Muhammeda rrasúlà
’llâh. Allâh is composed of
the article al, “the,” and ilâh, “a god,” and
is equivalent to the Hebrew Eli and Elohim. He was known
to the Arabs before Mohammed, and regarded as the chief god in their
pantheon. A similar idea is presented in the pseudo-Clementine
Homilies.
Christ.
The Christology of the Koran is a curious mixture
of facts and apocryphal fictions, of reverence for the man Jesus and
denial of his divine character. He is called “the Messiah Jesus Son of
Mary,” or “the blessed Son of Mary.” Mesich Isa ben Mariam. In rude misconception or wilful perversion, Mohammed seems
to have understood the Christian doctrine of the trinity to be a
trinity of Father, Mary, and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is identified with
Gabriel. “God is only one God! Far be it from his glory that he should
have a son!” Sura 4, ver. 169; comp. 5, ver. 77. The designation and
worship of Mary as “the mother of God” may have occasioned this strange
mistake. There was in Arabia in the fourth century a sect of fanatical
women called Collyridians (Κολλυρίδες), who rendered divine worship to Mary.
Epiphanius, Haer. 79.·
Some of the Mohammedan divines exempt Jesus and
even his mother from sin, and first proclaimed the dogma of the
immaculate conception of Mary, for which the apocryphal Gospels
prepared the way. As the Protevangelium Jacobi, the Evang. de Nativitate
Mariae, the Evang. Infantis Servatoris, etc. Gibbon
(ch. 50) and Stanley (p. 367) trace the doctrine of the immaculate
conception directly to the Koran. It is said of Mary: “Remember when
the angel said: ’O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee,
and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the
worlds.’ ” But this does not necessarily mean more
than Gerok, l.c. pp. 22-28. This would be a modification
of the rabbinical fable that ordinary death and corruption had as
little power over Miriam as over Moses, and that both died by the
breath of Jehovah.
According to the Koran Jesus was conceived by the
Virgin Mary at the appearance of Gabriel and born under a palm tree
beneath which a fountain opened. This story is of Ebionite origin. Rösch (l.c., p. 439) Die Geburtsgeschichte Jesu
im Koran ist nichts anderes als ein mythologischer Mythus aus Ezech. 47
mit eingewobenen jüdischen Zügen, der seine
Heimath im Ebionismus hat.“
The crucifixion of Jesus is denied. He was
delivered by a miracle from the death intended for Him, and taken up by
God into Paradise with His mother. The Jews slew one like Him, by
mistake. This absurd docetic idea is supposed to be the common belief
of Christians. Sura 4. This view of the crucifixion is no doubt derived
from apocryphal sources. The Gnostic sect of Basilides supposed Simon
of Cyrene, the Evangel. Barrabae, Judas, to have been that other
person who was crucified instead of Jesus. Mani (Epist. Fund.)
says that the prince of darkness was nailed to the cross, and wore the
crown of thorns.
Jesus predicted the coming of Mohammed, when he
said: “O children of Israel! of a truth I am God’s
apostle to you to confirm the law which was given before me, and to
announce an apostle that shall come after me whose name shall be
Ahmed!” Sura 61. The Moslems refer also some other passages of Scripture to
Mohammed and his religion, e.g.
Owing to this partial recognition of Christianity
Mohammed was originally regarded not as the founder of a new religion,
but as one of the chief heretics. So by John of Damascus and the mediaeval writers against
Islâm. Peter of Clugny speaks of ”haereses Saracenorum
sive Ismaelitarum.“Comp. Gass, Gennadius und Pletho,
p. 109. Lectures on the Reunion of Churches, p. 7 (transl.
by Oxenham, 1872). Die Lehre der Bibel von
Gott, Vol. I.
(1871), p. 418.
The Ethics of IslÂm.
Resignation (Islâm) to the omnipotent will of Allah is the chief virtue. It is the most powerful motive both in action and suffering, and is carried to the excess of fatalism and apathy.
The use of pork and wine is strictly forbidden; prayer, fasting (especially during the whole month of Ramadhân), and almsgiving are enjoined. Prayer carries man half-way to God, fasting brings him to the door of God’s palace, alms secure admittance. The total abstinence from strong drink by the whole people, even in countries where the vine grows in abundance, reveals a remarkable power of self-control, which puts many Christian nations to shame. Mohammedanism is a great temperance society. Herein lies its greatest moral force.
Polygamy.
But on the other hand the heathen vice of polygamy and concubinage is perpetuated and encouraged by the example of the prophet. He restrained and regulated an existing practice, and gave it the sanction of religion. Ordinary believers are restricted to four wives (exclusive of slaves), and generally have only one or two. But Califs may fill their harems to the extent of their wealth and lust. Concubinage with female slaves is allowed to all without limitation. The violation of captive women of the enemy is the legitimate reward of the conqueror. The laws of divorce and prohibited degrees are mostly borrowed from the Jews, but divorce is facilitated and practiced to an extent that utterly demoralizes married life.
Polygamy and servile concubinage destroy the
dignity of woman, and the beauty and peace of home. In all Mohammedan
countries woman is ignorant and degraded; she is concealed from public
sight by a veil (a sign of degradation as well as protection); she is
not commanded to pray, and is rarely seen in the mosques; it is even an
open question whether she has a soul, but she is necessary even in
paradise for the gratification of man’s passion. A
Moslem would feel insulted by an inquiry after the health of his wife
or wives. Polygamy affords no protection against unnatural vices, which
are said to prevail to a fearful extent among Mohammedans, as they did
among the ancient heathen.
In nothing is the infinite superiority of Christianity over Islâm so manifest as in the condition of woman and family life. Woman owes everything to the religion of the gospel.
The sensual element pollutes even the Mohammedan picture of heaven from which chastity is excluded. The believers are promised the joys of a luxuriant paradise amid blooming gardens, fresh fountains, and beautiful virgins. Seventy-two Houris, or black-eyed girls of blooming youth will be created for the enjoyment of the meanest believer; a moment of pleasure will be prolonged to a thousand years; and his faculties will be increased a hundred fold. Saints and martyrs will be admitted to the spiritual joys of the divine vision. But infidels and those who refuse to fight for their faith will be cast into hell.
The Koran distinguishes seven heavens, and seven hells (for wicked or apostate Mohammedans, Christians, Jews, Sabians, Magians, idolaters, hypocrites). Hell (Jahennem=Gehenna) is beneath the lowest earth and seas of darkness; the bridge over it is finer than a hair and sharper than the edge of a sword; the pious pass over it in a moment, the wicked fall from it into the abyss.
Slavery.
Slavery is recognized and sanctioned as a normal condition of society, and no hint is given in the Koran, nor any effort made by Mohammedan rulers for its final extinction. It is the twin-sister of polygamy; every harem is a slave-pen or a slave-palace. “The Koran, as a universal revelation, would have been a perpetual edict of servitude.” Mohammed, by ameliorating the condition of slaves, and enjoining kind treatment upon the masters, did not pave the way for its abolition, but rather riveted its fetters. The barbarous slave-trade is still carried on in all its horrors by Moslems among the negroes in Central Africa.
War.
War against unbelievers is legalized by the Koran. The fighting men are to be slain, the women and children reduced to slavery. Jews and Christians are dealt with more leniently than idolaters; but they too must be thoroughly humbled and forced to pay tribute.
§ 46. Mohammedan Worship.
In worship the prominent feature of Islâm
is its extreme iconoclasm and puritanism. In this respect, it resembles
the service of the synagogue. The second commandment is literally
understood as a prohibition of all representations of living creatures,
whether in churches or elsewhere. The only ornament allowed is the
“Arabesque,” which is always taken from inanimate nature. The lions in the court of the Alhambra farm an
exception.
The ceremonial is very simple. The mosques, like
Catholic churches, are always open and frequented by worshippers, who
perform their devotions either alone or in groups with covered head and
bare feet. In entering, one must take off the shoes according to the
command: “Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon
thou standest is holy ground.” Slippers or sandals of straw are usually
provided for strangers, and must be paid for. There are always half a
dozen claimants for “backsheesh”—the first and the
last word which greets the traveller in Egypt and Syria. Much
importance is attached to preaching. For an interesting description of a sermon from the pulpit
of Mecca, see Burton’s Pilgrimage, II. 314;
III. 117, quoted by Stanley, p. 379. Burton says, he had never and
nowhere seen so solemn, so impressive a religious spectacle. Perhaps he
has not heard many Christian sermons.
Circumcision is retained from the Jews, although
it is not mentioned in the Koran. Friday is substituted for the Jewish
Sabbath as the sacred day (perhaps because it was previously a day for
religious assemblage). It is called the prince of days, the most
excellent day on which man was created, and on which the last judgment
will take place; but the observance is less strict than that of the
Jewish Sabbath. On solemn occasions sacrifice, mostly in the nature of
a thank-offering, is offered and combined with an act of benevolence to
the poor. But there is no room in Islâm for the idea of
atonement; God forgives sins directly and arbitrarily, without a
satisfaction of justice. Hence there is no priesthood in the sense of a
hereditary or perpetual caste, offering sacrifices and mediating
between God and the people. Gibbon’s statement that “the Mohammedan
religion has no priest and no sacrifice;” is substantially
correct.
Prayer with prostrations is reduced to a mechanical act which is performed with the regularity of clock work. Washing of hands is enjoined before prayer, but in the desert, sand is permitted as a substitute for water. There are five stated seasons for prayer: at day-break, near noon, in the afternoon, a little after sunset (to avoid the appearance of sun-worship), and at night-fall, besides two night prayers for extra devotion. The muëddin or muëzzin (crier) announces the time of devotion from the minaret of the mosque by chanting the “Adan” or call to prayer, in these words:
God is great!” (four times). “I bear witness that there is no god but God” (twice). “I bear witness that Mohammed is the Apostle of God” (twice). “Come hither to prayers!” (twice). “Come hither to salvation!” (twice). “God is great! There is no other God!” And in the early morning the crier adds: “Prayer is better than sleep!”
A devout Mussulman is never ashamed to perform his
devotion in public, whether in the mosque, or in the street, or on
board the ship. Regardless of the surroundings, feeling alone with God
in the midst of the crowd, his face turned to Mecca, his hands now
raised to heaven, then laid on the lap, his forehead touching the
ground, he goes through his genuflexions and prostrations, and repeats
the first Sura of the Koran and the ninety-nine beautiful names of
Allah, which form his rosary. They are given in Arabic and English by Palmer, l.c.
I., Intr, p. lxvii. sq. The following are the first
ten: 1. ar-Ra’hmân, the
Merciful. 2. ar-Ra’hîm, the
Compassionate. 3. al-Mâlik, the Ruler. 4 . al-Quaddûs, the Holy. 5. as-Salâm, Peace. 6. al-Mû’min, the
Faithful. 7. al-Muhâimun, the Protector. 8. al-Haziz the Mighty. 9. al-Gabbâr, the Repairer. 10. al-Mutakabbir, the Great.
With all its simplicity and gravity, the
Mohammedan worship has also its frantic excitement of the Dervishes. On
the celebration of the birthday of their prophet and other festivals,
they work themselves, by the constant repetition of “Allah, Allah,”
into a state of unconscious ecstacy, “in which they plant swords in
their breasts, tear live serpents with their teeth, eat bottles of
glass, and finally lie prostrate on the ground for the chief of their
order to ride on horseback over their bodies.” Description of Dean Stanley from his own observation in
Cairo, l.c., p. 385.
I will add a brief description of the ascetic exercises of the “Dancing” and “Howling” Dervishes which I witnessed in their convents at Constantinople and Cairo in 1877.
The Dancing or Turning Dervishes in Pera, thirteen in number, some looking ignorant and stupid, others devout and intensely fanatical, went first through prayers and prostrations, then threw off their outer garments, and in white flowing gowns, with high hats of stiff woolen stuff, they began to dance to the sound of strange music, whirling gracefully and skilfully on their toes, ring within ring, without touching each other or moving out of their circle, performing, in four different acts, from forty to fifty turnings in one minute, their arms stretched out or raised to heaven their eyes half shut, their mind apparently lost in a sort of Nirwana or pantheistic absorption in Allah. A few hours afterward I witnessed the rare spectacle of one of these very Dervishes reeling to and fro in a state of intoxication on the street and the lower bridge of the Golden Horn.
The Howling Dervishes in Scutari present a still more extraordinary sight, and a higher degree of ascetic exertion, but destitute of all grace and beauty. The performance took place in a small, plain, square room, and lasted nearly two hours. As the monks came in, they kissed the hand of their leader and repeated with him long prayers from the Koran. One recited with melodious voice an Arabic song in praise of Mohammed. Then, standing in a row, bowing, and raising their heads, they continued to howl the fundamental dogma of Mohammedanism, Lâ ilâha ill’ Allâh for nearly an hour. Some were utterly exhausted and wet with perspiration. The exercises I saw in Cairo were less protracted, but more dramatic, as the Dervishes had long hair and stood in a circle, swinging their bodies backward and forward in constant succession, and nearly touching the ground with their flowing hair. In astounding feats of asceticism the Moslems are fully equal to the ancient Christian anchorites and the fakirs of India.
§ 47. Christian Polemics against Mohammedanism. Note on Mormonism.
See the modern Lit. in § 38.
For a list of earlier works against Mohammedanism, see J. Alb. Fabricius: Delectus argumentorum et syllabus scriptorum, qui veritatem Christ. Adv. Atheos, ... Judaeos et Muhammedanos ... asseruerunt. Hamb., 1725, pp. 119 sqq., 735 sqq. J. G. Walch: Bibliotheca Theolog. Selecta (Jenae, 1757), Tom. I. 611 sqq. Appendix to Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet.
Theod. Bibliander, edited at Basle, in 1543, and again in 1550, with the Latin version of the Koran, a collection of the more important works against Mohammed under the title: Machumetis Saracenorum principis ejusque successorum vitae, doctrinae, ac ipse Alcoran., I vol. fol.
Richardus (about 1300): Confutatio Alcorani, first publ. in Paris, 1511.
Joh. de Turrecremata: Tractatus contra principales errores perfidi Mahometis et Turcorum. Rom., 1606.
Lud. Maraccius (Maracci): Prodromus ad refutationem Alcorani; in quo, per IV. praecipuas verae religionis notas, mahumetanae sectae falsitas ostenditur, christianae religionis veritas comprobatur. Rom. (typis Congreg. de Propaganda Fide), 1691. 4 vols., small oct.; also Pref. to his Alcorani textus universus, Petav., 1698, 2 vols. fol.
Hadr. Reland: De Religione Mohammedica. Utrecht, 1705; 2nd ed. 1717; French transl., Hague, 1721.
W. Gass: Gennadius und Pletho. Breslau, 1844, Part I., pp. 106–181. (Die Bestreitung des Islâm im Mittelalter.)
The argument of Mohammedanism against other religions was the sword. Christian Europe replied with the sword in the crusades, but failed. Greek and Latin divines refuted the false prophet with superior learning, but without rising to a higher providential view, and without any perceptible effect. Christian polemics against Mohammed and the Koran began in the eighth century, and continued with interruptions to the sixteenth and seventeenth.
John of Damascus, who lived among the Saracens (about a.d. 750), headed the line of champions of the cross against the crescent. He was followed, in the Greek Church, by Theodor of Abukara, who debated a good deal with Mohammedans in Mesopotamia, by Samonas, bishop of Gaza, Bartholomew of Edessa, John Kantakuzenus (or rather a monk Meletius, formerly a Mohammedan, who justified his conversion, with the aid of the emperor, in four apologies and four orations), Euthymius Zigabenus, Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople. Prominent in the Latin church were Peter, Abbot of Clugny (twelfth century), Thomas Aquinas, Alanus ab Insulis, Raimundus LulIus, Nicolaus of Cusa, Ricold or Richard (a Dominican monk who lived long in the East), Savonarola, Joh. de Turrecremata.
The mediaeval writers, both Greek and Latin, represent Mohammed as an impostor and arch-heretic, who wove his false religion chiefly from Jewish (Talmudic) fables and Christian heresies. They find him foretold in the Little Horn of Daniel, and the False Prophet of the Apocalypse. They bring him in connection with a Nestorian monk, Sergius, or according to others, with the Jacobite Bahira, who instructed Mohammed, and might have converted him to the Christian religion, if malignant Jews had not interposed with their slanders. Thus he became the shrewd and selfish prophet of a pseudo-gospel, which is a mixture of apostate Judaism and apostate Christianity with a considerable remnant of his native Arabian heathenism. Dante places him, disgustingly torn and mutilated, among the chief heretics and schismatics in the ninth gulf of Hell,
Inferno, Canto XXVIII. 22 sqq. (Longfellow’s translation):
“A cask by losing centre-piece or cant
Was never shattered so, as I saw one
Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind.
Between his legs were hanging down his entrails;
His heart was visible, and the dismal sack
That maketh excrement of what is eaten.
While I was all absorbed in seeing him,
He looked at me, and opened with his hands
His bosom, saying: ’See now how I rend me;
How mutilated, am, is Mahomet;
In front of me doth Ali weeping go,
Cleft in the face from forelock unto chin;
And all the others whom thou here beholdest
Sowers of scandal and of schism have been
While living, and therefore are thus cleft asunder.’ ”
This mediaeval view was based in part upon an entire ignorance or perversion of facts. It was then believed that Mohammedans were pagans and idolaters, and cursed the name of Christ, while it is now known, that they abhor idolatry, and esteem Christ as the highest prophet next to Mohammed.
The Reformers and older Protestant divines took
substantially the same view, and condemn the Koran and its author
without qualification. We must remember that down to the latter part of
the seventeenth century the Turks were the most dangerous enemies of
the peace of Europe. Luther published, at Wittenberg, 1540, a German
translation of Richard’s Confutatio Alcorani, with
racy notes, to show “what a shameful, lying, abominable book the
Alcoran is.” He calls Mohammed “a devil and the first-born child of
Satan.” He goes into the question, whether the Pope or Mohammed be
worse, and comes to the conclusion, that after all the pope is worse,
and the real Anti-Christ (Endechrist). “Wohlan,” he winds up his
epilogue, “God grant us his grace and punish both the Pope and
Mohammed, together with their devils. I have done my part as a true
prophet and teacher. Those who won’t listen may leave
it alone.” Even the mild and scholarly Melanchthon identifies Mohammed
with the Little Horn of Daniel, or rather with the Gog and Magog of the
Apocalypse, and charges his sect with being a compound of “blasphemy,
robbery, and sensuality.” It is not very strange. that in the heat of
that polemical age the Romanists charged the Lutherans, and the
Lutherans the Calvinists, and both in turn the Romanists, with holding
Mohammedan heresies. Maracci, Vivaldus, and other Roman writers point out
thirteen or more heresies in which Mohammedanism and Lutheranism agree,
such as iconoclasm, the rejection of the worship of saints, polygamy
(in the case of Philip of Hesse), etc. A fanatical Lutheran wrote a
book to prove that “the damned Calvinists hold six hundred and
sixty-six theses (the apocalyptic number) in common with the Turks!”
The Calvinist Reland, on the other hand, finds analogies to Romish
errors in the Mohammedan prayers for the dead, visiting the graves of
prophets, pilgrimages to Mecca, intercession of angels, fixed fasts,
meritorious almsgiving, etc.
In the eighteenth century this view was gradually corrected. The learned Dean Prideaux still represented Mohammed as a vulgar impostor, but at the same time as a scourge of God in just punishment of the sins of the Oriental churches who turned our holy religion “into a firebrand of hell for contention, strife and violence.” He undertook his “Life of Mahomet” as a part of a “History of the Eastern Church,” though he did not carry out his design.
Voltaire and other Deists likewise still viewed Mohammed as an impostor, but from a disposition to trace all religion to priestcraft and deception. Spanheim, Sale, and Gagnier began to take a broader and more favorable view. Gibbon gives a calm historical narrative; and in summing up his judgment, he hesitates whether “the title of enthusiast or impostor more properly belongs to that extraordinary man .... From enthusiasm to imposture the step is perilous and slippery; the daemon of Socrates affords a memorable instance how a wise man may deceive himself, how a good man may deceive others, how the conscience may slumber in a mixed and middle state between self-illusion and voluntary fraud.”
Dean Milman suspends his judgment, saying: “To the
question whether Mohammed was hero, sage, impostor, or fanatic, or
blended, and blended in what proportions, these conflicting elements in
his character? the best reply is the reverential phrase of
Islâm: God knows.’ ” Lat. Christianity, II. 120.
Goethe and Carlyle swung from the orthodox abuse
to the opposite extreme of a pantheistic hero-worshiping over-estimate
of Mohammed and the Koran by extending the sphere of revelation and
inspiration, and obliterating the line which separates Christianity
from all other religions. Stanley, R. Bosworth Smith, Emanuel Deutsch,
and others follow more or less in the track of this broad and
charitable liberalism. Many errors and prejudices have been dispelled,
and the favorable traits of Islâm and its followers, their
habits of devotion, temperance, and resignation, were held up to the
shame and admiration of the Christian world. Mohammed himself, it is
now generally conceded, began as an honest reformer, suffered much
persecution for his faith, effectually destroyed idolatry, was free
from sordid motives, lived in strict monogamy during twenty-four years
of his youth and manhood, and in great simplicity to his death. The
polygamy which disfigured the last twelve years of his life was more
moderate than that of many other Oriental despots, Califs and Sultans,
and prompted in part by motives of benevolence towards the widows of
his followers, who had suffered in the service of his religion. The Mohammedan apologist, Syed Ameer Ali (The Life and
Teachings of Mohammed, London, 1873, pp. 228 sqq.), makes much
account of this fact, and entirely justifies
Mohammed’s polygamy. But the motive of benevolence and
generosity can certainly not be shown in the marriage of Ayesha (the
virgin-daughter of Abu-Bakr), nor of Zeynab (the lawful wife of his
freedman Zeyd), nor of Safiya (the Jewess). Ali himself must admit that
“some of Mohammed’s marriages may possibly have arisen
from a desire for male offspring.” The motive of sensuality he entirely
ignores.
But the enthusiasm kindled by Carlyle for the
prophet of Mecca has been considerably checked by fuller information
from the original sources as brought out in the learned biographies of
Weil, Nöldeke, Sprenger and Muir. They furnish the authentic
material for a calm, discriminating and impartial judgment, which,
however, is modified more or less by the religious standpoint and
sympathies of the historian. Sprenger represents Mohammed as the child
of his age, and mixes praise and censure, without aiming at a
psychological analysis or philosophical view. Sir William Muir concedes
his original honesty and zeal as a reformer and warner, but assumes a
gradual deterioration to the judicial blindness of a self-deceived
heart, and even a kind of Satanic inspiration in his later revelations.
“We may readily admit,” he says, “that at the first Mahomet did
believe, or persuaded himself to believe, that his revelations were
dictated by a divine agency. In the Meccan period of his life, there
certainly can be traced no personal ends or unworthy motives to belie
this conclusion. The Prophet was there, what he professed to be,
’a simple Preacher and a Warner;’ he
was the despised and rejected teacher of a gainsaying people; and he
had apparently no ulterior object but their reformation .... But the
scene altogether changes at Medina. There the acquisition of temporal
power, aggrandizement, and self-glorification mingled with the grand
object of the Prophet’s previous life; and they were
sought after and attained by precisely the same instrumentality.
Messages from heaven were freely brought forward to justify his
political conduct, equally with his religious precepts. Battles were
fought, wholesale executions inflicted, and territories annexed, under
pretext of the Almighty’s sanction. Nay, even baser
actions were not only excused but encouraged, by the pretended divine
approval or command .... The student of history will trace for himself
how the pure and lofty aspirations of Mahomet were first tinged, and
then gradually debased by a half unconscious self-deception, and how in
this process truth merged into falsehood, sincerity into
guile,—these opposite principles often co-existing
even as active agencies in his conduct. The reader will observe that
simultaneously with the anxious desire to extinguish idolatry and to
promote religion and virtue in the world, there was nurtured by the
Prophet in his own heart a licentious self-indulgence; till in the end,
assuming to be the favorite of Heaven, he justified himself by
’revelations’ from God in the most
flagrant breaches of morality. He will remark that while Mahomet
cherished a kind and tender disposition, ’Weeping with
them that wept,’ and binding to his person the hearts
of his followers by the ready and self-denying offices of love and
friendship, he could yet take pleasure in cruel and perfidious
assassination, could gloat over the massacre of entire tribes, and
savagely consign the innocent babe to the fires of hell.
Inconsistencies such as these continually present themselves from the
period of Mahomet’s arrival at Medina; and it is by,
the study of these inconsistencies that his character must be rightly
comprehended. The key, to many difficulties of this description may be
found, I believe, in the chapter ’on the belief of
Mahomet in his own inspiration.’ When once he had
dared to forge the name of the Most High God as the seal and authority
of his own words and actions, the germ was laid from which the errors
of his after life freely and fatally developed themselves.” Life of Mah., IV. 317, 322.
Note on Mormonism.
Sources.
The Book of Mormon. First printed at Palmyra, N. Y., 1830. Written by the Prophet Mormon, three hundred years after Christ, upon plates of gold in the “Reformed Egyptian” (?) language, and translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun., with the aid of Urim and Thummim, into English. As large as the Old Testament. A tedious historical romance on the ancient inhabitants of the American Continent, whose ancestors emigrated from Jerusalem b.c. 600, and whose degenerate descendants are the red Indians. Said to have been written as a book of fiction by a Presbyterian minister, Samuel Spalding.
The Doctrines and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah Territory. Contains the special revelations given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young at different times. Written in similar style and equally insipid as the Book of Mormon.
A Catechism for Children by Elder John Jaques. Salt Lake City. 25th thousand, 1877.
We cannot close this chapter on Oriental Mohammedanism without some remarks on the abnormal American phenomenon of Mormonism, which arose in the nineteenth century, and presents an instructive analogy to the former. Joseph Smith (born at Sharon, Vt., 1805; shot dead at Nauvoo, in Illinois, 1844), the first founder, or rather Brigham Young (d. 1877), the organizer of the sect, may be called the American Mohammed, although far beneath the prophet of Arabia in genius and power.
The points of resemblance are numerous and
striking: the claim to a supernatural revelation mediated by an angel;
the abrogation of previous revelations by later and more convenient
ones; the embodiment of the revelations in an inspired book; the
eclectic character of the system, which is compounded of Jewish,
heathenish, and all sorts of sectarian Christian elements; the intense
fanaticism and heroic endurance of the early Mormons amidst violent
abuse and persecution from state to state, till they found a refuge in
the desert of Utah Territory, which they turned into a garden; the
missionary zeal in sending apostles to distant lands and importing
proselytes to their Eldorado of saints from the ignorant population of
England, Wales, Norway, Germany, and Switzerland; the union of religion
with civil government, in direct opposition to the American separation
of church and state; the institution of polygamy in defiance of the
social order of Christian civilization. In sensuality and avarice
Brigham Young surpassed Mohammed; for he left at his death in Salt Lake
City seventeen wives, sixteen sons, and twenty-eight daughters (having
had in all fifty-six or more children), and property estimated at two
millions of dollars. As stated in the New York Tribune for Sept. 3,
1877.
The government of the United States cannot touch the Mormon religion; but it can regulate the social institutions connected therewith, as long as Utah is a Territory under the immediate jurisdiction of Congress. Polygamy has been prohibited by law in the Territories under its control, and President Hayes has given warning to foreign governments (in 1879) that Mormon converts emigrating to the United States run the risk of punishment for violating the laws of the land. President Garfield (in his inaugural address, March 4, 1881) took the same decided ground on the Mormon question, saying: “The Mormon church not only offends the moral sense of mankind by sanctioning polygamy, but prevents the administration of justice through the ordinary instrumentalities of law. In my judgment it is the duty of Congress, while respecting to the uttermost the conscientious convictions and religious scruples of every citizen, to prohibit within its jurisdiction all criminal practices, especially of that class which destroy the family relations and endanger social order. Nor can any ecclesiastical organization be safely permitted to usurp in the smallest degree the functions and powers of the National Government.”
His successor, President Arthur, in his last message to Congress, Dec. 1884, again recommends that Congress “assume absolute political control of the Territory of Utah,” and says: “I still believe that if that abominable practice [polygamy] can be suppressed by law it can only be by the most radical legislation consistent with the restraints of the Constitution.” The secular and religious press of America, with few exceptions, supports these sentiments of the chief magistrate.
Since the annexation of Utah to the United States, after the Mexican war, “Gentiles” as the Christians are called, have entered the Mormon settlement, and half a dozen churches of different denominations have been organized in Salt Lake City. But the “Latter Day Saints” are vastly in the majority, and are spreading in the adjoining Territories. Time will show whether the Mormon problem can be solved without resort to arms, or a new emigration of the Mormons.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PAPAL HIERARCHY AND THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.
§ 48. General Literature on the Papacy.
*Bullarium Magnum Romanum a Leone M. usque ad Benedictum XIV. Luxemb., 1727–1758. 19 vols., fol. Another ed., of superior typography, under the title: Bullarum ... Romanorum Pontificum amplissima Collectio, opera et studio C. Cocquelines, Rom., 1738–1758, 14 Tomi in 28 Partes fol.; new ed., 1847–’72, 24 vols. Bullarii Romani continuatio, ed. A. A. Barberi, from Clement XIII. to Gregory XVI., Rom., 1835–1857, 18 vols.
*Monumenta Germaniae Historica inde ab anno Christi quingentesimo usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum; ed. by G. H. Pertz (royal librarian at Berlin, d. 1876), continued by G. Waitz. Hannoverae, 1826–1879, 24 vols. fol. A storehouse for the authentic history of the German empire.
*Anastasius (librarian and abbot in Rome about 870): Liber Pontificalis (or, De Vitis Roman. Pontificum). The oldest collection of biographies of popes down to Stephen VI., a.d. 885, but not all by Anastasius. This book, together with later collections, is inserted in the third volume of Muratori, Rerum Ital. Scriptores (Mediol., 1723–’51, in 25 vols. fol.); also in Migne, Patrol. L. Tom. cxxvii. (1853).
Archibald Bower (b. 1686 at Dundee, Scotland, d. 1766): The History of the Popes, from the foundation of the See of Rome to the present time. 3rd ed. Lond., 1750–’66. 7 vols., 4to. German transl. by Rambach, 1770. Bower changed twice from Protestantism to Romanism, and back again, and wrote in bitter hostility, to the papacy, but gives very ample material. Bp. Douglas of Salesbury wrote against him.
Chr. F. Walch: Entwurf einer vollständigen Historie der römischen Päpste. Göttingen, 2d ed., 1758.
G. J. Planck: Geschichte des Papstthums. Hanover, 1805. 3 vols.
L. T. Spittler: Geschichte des Papstthums; with Notes by J. Gurlitt, Hamb., 1802, new ed. by H. E. G. Paulus. Heidelberg, 1826.
J. E. Riddle: The History of the Papacy to the Period of the Reformation. London, 1856. 2 vols.
F. A. Gfrörer: Geschichte der Karolinger. (Freiburg, 1848. 2 vols.); Allgemeine Kirchengeschichte (Stuttgart, 1841–’46, 4 vols.); Gregor VII. und sein Zeitalter (Schaffhausen, 1859–64, 8 vols.). Gfrörer began as a rationalist, but joined the Roman church, 1853, and died in 1861.
*Phil. Jaffé: Regesta Pontificum Roman. ad annum 1198. Berol., 1851; revised ed. by Wattenbach, etc. Lips. 1881 sqq. Continued by Potthast from 1198–1304, and supplemented by Harttung (see below). Important for the chronology and acts of the popes.
J. A. Wylie: The Papacy. Lond., 1852.
*Leopold Ranke: Die römischen Päpste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat im 16 und 17ten Jahrhundert. 4 ed., Berlin, 1857. 3 vols. Two English translations, one by Sarah Austin (Lond., 1840), one by E. Foster (Lond., 1847). Comp. the famous review of Macaulay in the Edinb. Review.
Döllinger. (R.C.): Die Papstfabeln des Mittelalters. Munchen, 1863. English translation by A. Plummer, and ed. with notes by H. B. Smith. New York, 1872.
*W. Giesebrecht: Geschichte der Deutschen Kaiserzeit. Braunschweig, 1855. 3rd ed., 1863 sqq., 5 vols. A political history of the German empire, but with constant reference to the papacy in its close contact with it.
*Thomas Greenwood: Cathedra Petri. A Political History of the great Latin Patriarchate. London, 1856–’72, 6 vols.
C. de Cherrier: Histoire de la lutte des papes el des empereurs de la maison de swabe, de ces causes et des ses effets. Paris, 1858. 3 vols.
*Rud. Baxmann: Die Politik der Päpste von Gregor I. bis Gregor VII. Elberfeld, 1868, ’69. 2 vols.
*F. Gregorovius: Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter, vom 5. bis zum 16. Jahrh. 8 vols. Stuttgart, 1859–1873 .2 ed., 1869 ff.
A. v. Reumont: Geschichte der Stadt Rom. Berlin, 1867–’70, 3 vols.
C. Höfler (R.C.): Die Avignonischen Päpste, ihre Machtfulle und ihr Untergang. Wien, 1871.
R. Zöpffel: Die Papstwahlen und die mit ihnen im nächsten Zusammenhange stehenden Ceremonien in ihrer Entwicklung vom 11 bis 14. Jahrhundert. Göttingen, 1872.
*James Bryce (Prof. of Civil Law in Oxford): The Holy Roman Empire, London, 3rd ed., 1871, 8th ed. enlarged, 1880.
W. Wattenbach: Geschicte des römischen Papstthums. Berlin, 1876.
*Jul. von Pflugk-Harttung: Acta Pontificum Romanorum inedita. Bd. I. Urkunden der Päpste a.d. 748–1198. Gotha, 1880.
O. J. Reichel: The See of Rome in the Middle Ages. Lond. 1870.
Mandell Creighton: History of the Papacy during the Reformation. London 1882. 2 vols.
J. N. Murphy (R.C.): The Chair of Peter, or the Papacy and its Benefits. London 1883.
§ 49. Chronological Table of the Popes, Anti-Popes, and Roman Emperors from Gregory I. to Leo XIII.
We present here, for convenient reference, a complete
list of the Popes, Anti-Popes, and Roman Emperors, from Pope Gregory I.
to Leo XIII., and from Charlemagne to Francis II., the last of the
German-Roman emperors: This list is compiled from Jaffé
(Regesta), Potthast (Bibl. Hist. Medii AEvi, Supplement,
259-267), and other sources. The whole number of popes from the Apostle
Peter to Leo XIII. is 263. The emperors
marked with an asterisk were crowned by the pope, the others were
simply kings and emperors of Germany.
––––––––––
a.d.
POPES.
ANTI-POPES.
EMPERORS.
a.d.
(Greek Emperors)
590–604
St. Gregory I
Maurice
582
(the Great)
Phocas
602
604–606
Sabinianus
607
Boniface III
608–615
Boniface IV
Heraclius
610
615–618
Deusdedit
619–625
Boniface V
625–638
Honorius I
638(?)-640
Severinus
640–642
John IV
Constantine III
Constans II
641
642–649
Theodorus I
649–653 [655]
St. Martin I
Constantine IV
654–657
Eugenius I
(Pogonatus)
668
657–672
Vitalianus
672–676
Adeodatus
676–678
Donus or Domnus I
678–681
Agatho
682–683
Leo II
683–685
Benedict II
685–686
John V
Justinian II
685
686–687
Conon
687–692
Paschal
Leontius
694
687
Theodorus.
Tiberius III
697
687–701
Sergius I
Justinus II restored
705
701–705
John VI
Philippicus Bardanes
711
705–707
John VII
Anastasius II
713
708
Sisinnius
Theodosius III
716
708–715
Constantine I
Leo III. (the Isaurian)
718
715–731
Gregory II
731–741
Gregory III
(Charles Martel, d. 741, defeated the Saracens at Tours 732.)
741–752
Zacharias
(Pepin the Short,
752
Stephen II
Roman(Patricius).
741
752–757
Stephen III (II)
757–767
Paul I
767–768
Constantine II
Roman Emperors.
768
Philippus
768–772
Stephen IV
772–795
Adrian I
* Charlemagne
768–814
795–816
Leo III
Crowned emperor at Rome
800
816–817
Stephen V
817–824
Paschal I
* Louis the Pious (le Débonnaire)
814–840
824–827
Eugenius II
Crowned em. at Rheims
816
827
Valentinus
827–844
Gregory IV
* Lothaire I (crowned 823)
840–855
844
John (diaconus)
844–847
Sergius II
(Louis the German, King of Germany, 840–876)
847–855
Leo IV
The mythical papess Joan or John VIII
855–858
Benedict III
855
Anastasius.
* Louis II (in Italy)
855–875
858–867
Nicolas I
867–872
Adrian II
872–882
John VIII
* Charles the Bald
875–881
882–884
Marinus I
* Charles the Fat
881–887
884–885
Adrian III
885–891
Stephen VI
* Arnulf
887–899
891–896
Formosus
Crowned emperor
896
896
Boniface VI
896–897
Ste
897
Romanus
897
Theodorus II
898–900
John IX
(Louis the Child)
899
900–903
Benedict IV
903
Leo V
Louis III of Provence (in Italy)
901
903–904
Christophorus (deposed)
904–911
Sergius III
911–913
Anstasius III
Conrad I (of Franconia) King of Germany.
911–918
913–914
Lando
914–928
John X
Berengar (in Italy).
915
928–929
Leo VI
Henry I. (the Fowler) King of Germany. The House of Saxony.
918–926
929–931
Stephen VIII
931–936
John XI
936–939
Leo VII
939–942
Stephen IX
* Otto I (the Great)
936–973
942–946
Marinus II
Crowned emperor
962
946–955
Agapetus II
955–963
John XII (deposed)
963–965
Leo VIII
964
Benedict V (deposed)
965–972
John XIII
972–974
Benedict VI
* Otto II
973–983
974–983
Benedict VII
(Boniface VII?)
983–984
John XIV (murdered)
* Otto III
983–1002
984–985
Boniface VII
Crowned emperor
996
985–996
John XV
996–999
Gregory V
997–998
Calabritanus John XVI
*Henry II (the Saint, the last of the Saxon emperors).
1002–1024
998–1003
Silvester II
Crowned emperor
1014
1003
John XVII
1003–1009
John XVIII
1009–1012
Sergius IV
1012–1024
Benedict VIII
1024–1039
1012
Gregory
* Conrad II, The House of Franconia.
1024–1033
John XIX
Crowned emperor
1027
1033–1046
Benedict IX (deposed)
1044–1046
Silvester III
* Henry III
1039–1056
1045–1046
Gregory VI
Crowned emperor
1046
1046–1047
Clement II
1047–1048
Damasus II
1048–1054
Leo IX
1054–1057
Victor II
* Henry IV
1056–1106
1057–1058
Stephen X
Crowned by the Antipope Clement
1084
1058–1059
Benedict X (deposed)
1058–1061
Nicolas II
1061–1073
Alexander II
1061
Cadalous (Honorius II)
(Rudolf of Swabia rival)
1077
1073–1085
Gregory VII (Hildebrand)
1080–1100
Wibertus (Clement III)
(Hermann of Luxemburg rival)
1081
1086–1087
Victor III
1088–1099
Urban II
1099–1118
Paschal II
1100
Theodoricus
1102
Albertus
* Henry V
1106–1125
1105–1111
Maginulfus (Silvester IV)
1118–1119
Gelasius II
1118–1121
Burdinus (Gregory VIII)
* Lothaire II (the Saxon
1125–1137
1119–1124
Calixtus II
1124
Theobaldus Buccapecus (Celestine)
* Conrad III, The House of Hohenstaufen. (The Swabian emperors.)
1138–1152
1124–1130
Honorius II.
Crowned Em. at Aix
1130–1143
Innocent II
1130–1138
Anacletus II
1138
Gregory (Victor IV)
1143–1144
Celestine II
1144–1145
Lucius II
1145–1153
Eugenius III
*Frederick I (Barbarossa)
1152–1190
1153–1154
Anastasius IV
Crowned emperor
1155
1154–1159
Adrian IV
1159–1181
Alexander III
1159–1164
Octavianus (Victor IV)
Guido Cremensis (Paschal III)
1164–1168
Johannes de Struma (Calixtus III)
1168–1178
1178–1180
Landus Titinus (Innocent III)
1181–1185
Lucius III
1185–1187
Urban III
1187
Gregory VIII
1187–1191
Clement III
*Henry VI
1190–1197
1191–1198
Celestine III
1198–1216
Innocent III
Philip of Swabia and Otto IV (rivals)
1198
*Otto IV
1209–1215
1216–1227
Honorius III
*Frederick II.
1215–1250.
1227–1241
Gregory IX
Crowned emperor
1220
1241
Celestine IV
(Henry Raspe rival)
1241–1254
Innocent IV
(William of Holland rival)
Conrad IV
1250–1254
1254–1261
Alexander IV
Interregnum
1254–1273
Richard (Earl of Cornwall)
1261–1264
Urban IV
Alfonso (King of Castile) (rivals)
1257
1265–1268
Clement IV
1271–1276
Gregory X
1276
Innocent V
Rudolf I (of Hapsburg)
1276
Adrian V
House of Austria
1272–1291
1276–1277
John XXI
1277–1280
Nicolas III
1281–1285
Martin IV
1285–1287
Honorius IV
1288–1292
Nicolas IV
Adolf (of Nassau)
1292–1298
1294
St. Celestine V (abdicated)
1294–1303
Boniface VIII
Albert I (of Hapsburg)
1298–1308
1303–1304
Benedict XI
1305–1314
Clement V Clement V. moved the papal see to Avignon in 1309, and his
successors continued to reside there for seventy years, till Gregory
XI. After that date arose a forty years’ schism
between the Roman popes and the Avignon popes.
*Henry VII (of Luxemburg)
1308–1313
1316–1334
John XXII
*Lewis IV (of Bavaria)
1314–1347
1334–1342
Benedict XII
(Frederick the Fair of Austria, rival 1314–1330)
1342–1352
Clement VI
1352–1362
Innocent VI
1362–1370
Urban V
*Charles IV (of Luxemburg)
1347–1437
1370–1378
Gregory XI
(Gunther of Schwarzburg, rival)
1378–1389
Urban VI
1378–1394
Clement VII
1389–1404
Boniface IX
Wenzel (of Luxemburg)
1378–1400
1394–1423
Benedict XIII
(deposed 1409)
1404–1406
Innocent VII
Rupert (of the Palatinate)
1400–1410
1406–1409
Gregory XII (deposed)
1410–1415
Alexander V
1410–1415
John XXIII (deposed)
Sigismund (of Luxemburg)
1410–1437
(Jobst of Moravia rival)
1417–1431
Martin V
Clement VIII
1431–1447
Eugene IV
1439–1449
Felix V
Albert II (of Hapsburg)
1438–1439
1447–1455
Nicolas
*Frederick III. Frederick III. was the last emperor crowned in Rome. All
his successors, except Charles VII. and Francis I. were of the House of
Hapsburg.
1440–1493
1455–1458
Calixtus IV
Crowned emperor
1452
1458–1464
Pius II
1464–1471
Paul II
1471–1484
Sixtus IV
1484–1492
Innocent VIII
Maximilian I
1493–1519
1492–1503
Alexander VI.
1503
Pius III.
1503–1513
Julius II.
* Charles V
1519–1558
1513–1521
Leo X.
Crowned emperor at Bologna not in Rome
1530
1522–1523
Hadrian VI
1523–1534
Clement VII
1534–1549
Paul III
1550–1555
Julius III
1555
Marcellus II
Ferdinand I
1558–1564
1555–1559
Paul IV
1559–1565
Pius IV
1566–1572
Pius V
1572–1585
Gregory XIII
Maximilian II
1564–1576
1585–1590
Sixtus V
1590
Urban VII
1590–1591
Gregory XIV
1591
Innocent IX
1592–1605
Clement VIII
Rudolf II
1576–1612
1605
Leo XI
1605–1621
Paul V
Matthias
1612–1619
1621–1623
Gregory XV
Ferdinand II
1619–1637
1623–1644
Urban VIII
1644–1655
Innocent X
Ferdinand III
1637–1657
1655–1667
Alexander VIII
1667–1669
Clement IX
Leopold I
1657–1705
1669–1676
Clement X
1676–1689
Innocent XI
1689–1691
Alex’der VIII
1691–1700
Innocent XII
1700–1721
Clement XI
Joseph I
1705–1711
1721–1724
Innocent XIII
Charles VI.
1711–1740
1724–1730
Benedict XIII
Charles VII (of Ba
1730–1740
Clement XII
varia)
1742–1745
1740–1758
Benedict XIV
Francis I (of Lorraine)
1745–1765
1758–1769
Clement XIII
Joseph II
1765–1790
1769–1774
Clement XIV
1775–1799
Pius VI
Leopold II
1790–1792
Francis II
1792–1806
1800–1823
Pius VII
Abdication of Francis II
1806
1823–1829
Leo XII
1829–1830
Pius VIII
(Francis I, E
––––––––––
§ 50. Gregory the Great. a.d. 590–604.
Literature.
I. Gregorii M. Opera.: The best is the Benedictine ed. of Dom de Ste Marthe (Dionysius Samarthanus e congregatione St, Mauri), Par., 1705, 4 vols. fol. Reprinted in Venice, 1768–76, in 17 vols. 4to.; and, with additions, in Migne’s Patrologia, 1849, in 5 vols. (Tom. 75–79).
Especially valuable are Gregory’s Epistles, nearly 850 (in third vol. of Migne’s ed.). A new ed. is being prepared by Paul Ewald.
II. Biographies of Gregory I
(1) Older biographies: in the “Liber Pontificalis;” by Paulus Diaconus († 797), in Opera I. 42 (ed. Migne); by Johannes Diaconus (9th cent.), ibid., p. 59, and one selected from his writings, ibid., p. 242.
Detailed notices of Gregory in the writings of Gregory of Tours, Bede, Isidorus Hispal., Paul Warnefried (730).
(2) Modern biographies:
G. Lau: Gregor I. nach seinem Leben und nach seiner Lehre. Leipz., 1845.
Böhringer: Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen. Bd. I., Abth. IV. Zurich, 1846.
G. Pfahler: Gregor der Gr. und seine Zeit. Frkf a. M., 1852.
James Barmby: Gregory the Great. London, 1879. Also his art. “Gregorius I.” in Smith & Wace, “Dict. of Christ. Biogr.,” II. 779 (1880).
Comp. Jaffé, Neander, Milman (Book III., ch. 7, vol. II., 39 sqq.); Greenwood (Book III., chs. 6 and 7); Montalembert (Les moines d’Occident, bk. V., Engl. transl., vol. II., 69 sqq.); Baxmann (Politik der Päpste, I. 44 sqq.); Zöpffel (art. Gregor I. in the, new ed. of Herzog).
Whatever may be thought of the popes of earlier
times,” says Ranke, Die Römischen Paepste des 16und
17ten Jahrhunderts, Th. I., p. 44 (2nd ed.).
This commendation of the earlier popes, though by no means applicable to all, is eminently true of the one who stands at the beginning of our period.
Gregory the First, or the Great, the last of the Latin fathers and the first of the popes, connects the ancient with the mediaeval church, the Graeco-Roman with the Romano-Germanic type of Christianity. He is one of the best representatives of mediaeval Catholicism: monastic, ascetic, devout and superstitious; hierarchical, haughty, and ambitious, yet humble before God; indifferent, if not hostile, to classical and secular culture, but friendly to sacred and ecclesiastical learning; just, humane, and liberal to ostentation; full of missionary zeal in the interest of Christianity, and the Roman see, which to his mind were inseparably connected. He combined great executive ability with untiring industry, and amid all his official cares he never forgot the claims of personal piety. In genius he was surpassed by Leo I., Gregory VII., Innocent III.; but as a man and as a Christian, he ranks with the purest and most useful of the popes. Goodness is the highest kind of greatness, and the church has done right in according the title of the Great to him rather than to other popes of superior intellectual power.
The times of his pontificate (a.d. Sept. 3, 590 to March 12, 604) were full of trouble, and required just a man of his training and character. Italy, from a Gothic kingdom, had become a province of the Byzantine empire, but was exhausted by war and overrun by the savage Lombards, who were still heathen or Arian heretics, and burned churches, slew ecclesiastics, robbed monasteries, violated nuns, reduced cultivated fields into a wilderness. Rome was constantly exposed to plunder, and wasted by pestilence and famine. All Europe was in a chaotic state, and bordering on anarchy. Serious men, and Gregory himself, thought that the end of the world was near at hand. “What is it,” says he in one of his sermons, “that can at this time delight us in this world? Everywhere we see tribulation, everywhere we hear lamentation. The cities are destroyed, the castles torn down, the fields laid waste the land made desolate. Villages are empty, few inhabitants remain in the cities, and even these poor remnants of humanity are daily cut down. The scourge of celestial justice does not cease, because no repentance takes place under the scourge. We see how some are carried into captivity, others mutilated, others slain. What is it, brethren, that can make us contented with this life? If we love such a world, we love not our joys, but our wounds. We see what has become of her who was once the mistress of the world .... Let us then heartily despise the present world and imitate the works of the pious as well as we can.”
Gregory was born about a.d. 540, from an old and wealthy senatorial (the Anician) family of Rome, and educated for the service of the government. He became acquainted with Latin literature, and studied Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustin, but was ignorant of Greek. His mother Sylvia, after the death of Gordianus her husband, entered a convent and so excelled in sanctity that she was canonized. The Greek emperor Justin appointed him to the highest civil office in Rome, that of imperial prefect (574). But soon afterwards he broke with the world, changed the palace of his father near Rome into a convent in honor of St. Andrew, and became himself a monk in it, afterwards abbot. He founded besides six convents in Sicily, and bestowed his remaining wealth on the poor. He lived in the strictest abstinence, and undermined his health by ascetic excesses. Nevertheless he looked back upon this time as the happiest of his life.
Pope Pelagius II. made him one of the seven
deacons of the Roman Church, and sent him as ambassador or nuntius to
the court of Constantinople (579). Apocrisiarius (ἀποκρισιάριος, or ἄγγελος), responsalis. Du Cange defines it:
“Nuntius, Legatus … praesertim qui a pontifice
Romano, vel etiam ab archiepiscopis ad comitatum mittebantur, quo res
ecclesiarum suarum peragerent, et de iis ad principem referrent.”
The Roman delegates to Constantinople were usually taken from the
deacons. Gregory is the fifth Roman deacon who served in this capacity
at Constantinople, according to Du Cange s. v.
Apocrisiarius.
It was during his monastic period (either before
or, more probably, after his return from Constantinople) that his
missionary zeal was kindled, by an incident on the slave market, in
behalf of the Anglo-Saxons. The result (as recorded in a previous
chapter) was the conversion of England and the extension of the
jurisdiction of the Roman see, during his pontificate. This is the
greatest event of that age, and the brightest jewel in his crown. Like
a Christian Caesar, he re-conquered that fair island by an army of
thirty monks, marching under the sign of the cross. See above § 10.
In 590 Gregory was elected pope by the unanimous voice of the clergy, the senate, and the people, notwithstanding his strong remonstrance, and confirmed by his temporal sovereign, the Byzantine emperor Mauricius. Monasticism, for the first time, ascended the papal throne. Hereafter till his death he devoted all his energies to the interests of the holy see and the eternal city, in the firm consciousness of being the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ. He continued the austere simplicity of monastic life, surrounded himself with monks, made them bishops and legates, confirmed the rule of St. Benedict at a council of Rome, guaranteed the liberty and property of convents, and by his example and influence rendered signal services to the monastic order. He was unbounded in his charities to the poor. Three thousand virgins, impoverished nobles and matrons received without a blush alms from his hands. He sent food from his table to the hungry before he sat down for his frugal meal. He interposed continually in favor of injured widows and orphans. He redeemed slaves and captives, and sanctioned the sale of consecrated vessels for objects of charity.
Gregory began his administration with a public act of humiliation on account of the plague which had cost the life of his predecessor. Seven processions traversed the streets for three days with prayers and hymns; but the plague continued to ravage, and demanded eighty victims during the procession. The later legend made it the means of staying the calamity, in consequence of the appearance of the archangel Michael putting back the drawn sword into its sheath over the Mausoleum of Hadrian, since called the Castle of St. Angelo, and adorned by the statue of an angel.
His activity as pontiff was incessant, and is the more astonishing as he was in delicate health and often confined to bed. “For a long time,” he wrote to a friend in 601, “I have been unable to rise from my bed. I am tormented by the pains of gout; a kind of fire seems to pervade my whole body: to live is pain; and I look forward to death as the only remedy.” In another letter he says: “I am daily dying, but never die.”
Nothing seemed too great, nothing too little for his personal care. He organized and completed the ritual of the church, gave it greater magnificence, improved the canon of the mass and the music by a new mode of chanting called after him. He preached often and effectively, deriving lessons of humility and piety, from the calamities of the times, which appeared to him harbingers of the judgment-day. He protected the city of Rome against the savage and heretical Lombards. He administered the papal patrimony, which embraced large estates in the neighborhood of Rome, in Calabria, Sardinia, Corsica, Sicily, Dalmatia, and even in Gaul and Africa. He encouraged and advised missionaries. As patriarch of the West, he extended his paternal care over the churches in Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and sent the pallium to some metropolitans, yet without claiming any legal jurisdiction. He appointed, he also reproved and deposed bishops for neglect of duty, or crime. He resolutely opposed the prevalent practice of simony, and forbade the clergy to exact or accept fees for their services. He corresponded, in the interest of the church, with nobles, kings and queens in the West, with emperors and patriarchs in the East. He hailed the return of the Gothic kingdom of Spain under Reccared from the Arian heresy to the Catholic faith, which was publicly proclaimed by the Council of Toledo, May 8, 589. He wrote to the king a letter of congratulation, and exhorted him to humility, chastity, and mercy. The detested Lombards likewise cast off Arianism towards the close of his life, in consequence partly of his influence over Queen Theodelinda, a Bavarian princess, who had been reared in the trinitarian faith. He endeavored to suppress the remnants of the Donatist schism in Africa. Uncompromising against Christian heretics and schismatics be was a step in advance of his age in liberality towards the Jews. He censured the bishop of Terracina and the bishop of Cagliari for unjustly depriving them of their synagogues; he condemned the forcible baptism of Jews in Gaul, and declared conviction by preaching the only legitimate means of conversion; he did not scruple, however, to try the dishonest method of bribery, and he inconsistently denied the Jews the right of building new synagogues and possessing Christian slaves. He made efforts, though in vain, to check the slave-trade, which was chiefly in the hands of Jews.
After his death, the public distress, which he had labored to alleviate, culminated in a general famine, and the ungrateful populace of Rome was on the point of destroying his library, when the archdeacon Peter stayed their fury by asserting that he had seen the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove hovering above Gregory’s head as he wrote his books. Hence he is represented with a dove. He was buried in St. Peter’s under the altar of St. Andrew.
Note. Estimates of Gregory I.
Bishop Bossuet (as quoted by Montalembert, II. 173) thus tersely sums up the public life of Gregory: “This great pope ... subdued the Lombards; saved Rome and Italy, though the emperors could give him no assistance; repressed the new-born pride of the patriarchs of Constantinople; enlightened the whole church by his doctrine; governed the East and the West with as much vigor as humility; and gave to the world a perfect model of ecclesiastical government.”
To this Count Montalembert (likewise a Roman Catholic) adds: “It was the Benedictine order which gave to the church him whom no one would have hesitated to call the greatest of the popes, had not the same order, five centuries later, produced St. Gregory VII .... He is truly Gregory the Great, because he issued irreproachable from numberless and boundless difficulties; because he gave as a foundation to the increasing grandeur of the Holy See, the renown of his virtue, the candor of his innocence, the humble and inexhaustible tenderness of his heart.”
“The pontificate of Gregory the Great,” says Gibbon (ch. 45), “which lasted thirteen years, six months, and ten days, is one of the most edifying periods of the history of the church. His virtues, and even his faults, a singular mixture of simplicity and cunning, of pride and humility, of sense and superstition, were happily suited to his station and to the temper of the times.”
Lau says (in his excellent monograph, pp. 302, 306): “The spiritual qualities of Gregory’s character are strikingly apparent in his actions. With a clear, practical understanding, he combined a kind and mild heart; but he was never weak. Fearful to the obstinate transgressor of the laws, on account of his inflexible justice, he was lenient to the repentant and a warm friend to his friends, though, holding, as he did, righteousness and the weal of the church higher than friendship, he was severe upon any neglect of theirs. With a great prudence in managing the most different circumstances, and a great sagacity in treating the most different characters, he combined a moral firmness which never yielded an inch of what he had recognized as right; but he never became stubborn. The rights of the church and the privileges of the apostolical see he fought for with the greatest pertinacity; but for himself personally, he wanted no honors. As much as he thought of the church and the Roman chair, so modestly he esteemed himself. More than once his acts gave witness to the humility of his heart: humility was, indeed, to him the most important and the most sublime virtue. His activity was prodigious, encompassing great objects and small ones with equal zeal. Nothing ever became too great for his energy or too small for his attention. He was a warm patriot, and cared incessantly for the material as well as for the spiritual welfare of his countrymen. More than once he saved Rome from the Lombards, and relieved her from famine .... He was a great character with grand plans, in the realization of which he showed as much insight as firmness, as much prudent calculation of circumstances as sagacious judgment of men. The influence he has exercised is immense, and when this influence is not in every respect for the good, his time is to blame, not he. His goal was always that which he acknowledged as the best. Among all the popes of the sixth and following centuries, he shines as a star of the very first magnitude.”
Rud. Baxmann (l.c., I. 45 sq.): “Amidst the general commotion which the invasion of the Lombards caused in Italy, one man stood fast on his post in the eternal city, no matter how high the surges swept over it. As Luther, in his last will, calls himself an advocate of God, whose name was well known in heaven and on earth and in hell, the epitaph says of Gregory I. that he ruled as the consul Dei. He was the chief bishop of the republic of the church, the fourth doctor ecclesiae, beside the three other powerful theologians and columns of the Latin church: Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. He is justly called the pater ceremoniarum, the pater monachorum, and the Great. What the preceding centuries had produced in the Latin church for church government and dogmatics, for pastoral care and liturgy, he gathered together, and for the coming centuries he laid down the norms which were seldom deviated from.”
To this we add the judgment of James Barmby, the latest biographer of Gregory (Greg., p. 191): “Of the loftiness of his aims, the earnestness of his purpose, the fervor of his devotion, his unwearied activity, and his personal purity, there can be no doubt. These qualities are conspicuous through his whole career. If his religion was of the strongly ascetic type, and disfigured by superstitious credulity, it bore in these respects the complexion of his age, inseparable then from aspiration after the highest holiness. Nor did either superstition or asceticism supersede in him the principles of a true inward religion-justice, mercy, and truth. We find him, when occasion required, exalting mercy above sacrifice; he was singularly kindly and benevolent, as well as just, and even his zeal for the full rigor of monastic discipline was tempered with much gentleness and allowance for infirmity. If, again, with singleness of main purpose was combined at times the astuteness of the diplomatist, and a certain degree of politic insincerity in addressing potentates, his aims were never personal or selfish. And if he could stoop, for the attainment of his ends, to the then prevalent adulation of the great, he could also speak his mind fearlessly to the greatest, when he felt great principles to be at stake.”
§ 51. Gregory and the Universal Episcopate.
The activity, of Gregory tended powerfully to establish the authority of the papal chair. He combined a triple dignity, episcopal, metropolitan, and patriarchal. He was bishop of the city of Rome, metropolitan over the seven suffragan (afterwards called cardinal) bishops of the Roman territory, and patriarch of Italy, in fact of the whole West, or of all the Latin churches. This claim was scarcely disputed except as to the degree of his power in particular cases. A certain primacy of honor among all the patriarchs was also conceded, even by the East. But a universal episcopate, including an authority of jurisdiction over the Eastern or Greek church, was not acknowledged, and, what is more remarkable, was not even claimed by him, but emphatically declined and denounced. He stood between the patriarchal and the strictly papal system. He regarded the four patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, to whom he announced his election with a customary confession of his faith, as co-ordinate leaders of the church under Christ, the supreme head, corresponding as it were to the four oecumenical councils and the four gospels, as their common foundation, yet after all with a firm belief in a papal primacy. His correspondence with the East on this subject is exceedingly important. The controversy began in 595, and lasted several years, but was not settled.
John IV., the Faster, patriarch of Constantinople,
repeatedly used in his letters the title “oecumenical” or “universal
bishop.” This was an honorary, title, which had been given to
patriarchs by the emperors Leo and Justinian, and confirmed to John and
his successors by a Constantinopolitan synod in 588. It had also been
used in the Council of Chalcedon of pope Leo I. Gregory alludes to this fact in a letter to John (Lib. V.
18, in Migne’s ed. of Greg. Opera, vol. III.
740) and to the emperor Mauricius (Lib. V. 20, in Migne III. 747), but
says in both that the popes never claimed nor used ”hoc temerarium
nomen.” ... ”Certe pro beati Petri apostolorum principis honore,
per venerandam Chalcedonensem synodum Romano pontifici oblatum est
[nomen istud blasphemiae]. Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis
nomine uti consensit, dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito
sacerdotes privarentur universi. Quid est ergo quod nos huius vocabuli
gloriam et oblatam non quaerimus, et alter sibi hanc arripere at non
oblatam praesumit?” Strictly speaking, however, the fact assumed by
Gregory is not quite correct. Leo was styled οἰκουμενικὸςἀρχιεπίσκοποςonly in an accusation against Dioscurus,
in the third session of Chalcedon. The papal delegates subscribed:
Vicarii apostolici universalis ecclesiae
Papae, which was translated by the
Greeks: τῆςοἰκουμενικῆςἐκκλησίαςἐπισκόπου. The popes claimed to be popes (but not
bishops) of the universal church. See Hefele, Conciliengesch.
II. 526. Boniface III is said to have openly assumed the title
universalis episcopis in 606, when he obtained from the emperor
Phocas a decree styling the see of Peter ”caput omnium
ecclesiarum.” It appears as self-assumed in the Liber
Diurnus, a.d.682-’5, and is frequent after the seventh
century. The canonists, however, make a distinction between
“universalis ecclesiae episcopus.” and ”episcopus
universalis“ or ”oecumenicus,” meaning by the latter an
immediate jurisdiction in the diocese of other bishops, which
was formerly denied to the pope. But according to the Vatican system of
1870, he is the bishop of bishops, over every single bishop, and over
all bishops put together, and all bishops are simply his vicars, as he
himself is the vicar of Christ. See my Creeds of Christendom, I.
151. See the letters in Lib. V. 18-21 (Migne III. 738-751). His
predecessor, Pelagius II. (578-590), had already strongly denounced the
assumption of the title by John, and at the same time disclaimed it for
himself, while yet clearly asserting the universal primacy of the see
of Peter. See Migne, Tom. LXXII. 739, and Baronius, ad ann.
587.
Failing in his efforts to change the mind of his
rival in New Rome, he addressed himself to the patriarchs of Alexandria
and Antioch, and played upon their jealousy; but they regarded the
title simply as a form of honor, and one of them addressed him as
oecumenical pope, a compliment which Gregory could not consistently
accept. Ep. V. 43: ad Eulogium et Anastasium
episcopos; VI. 60; VII. 34, 40.
After the death of John the Faster in 596 Gregory
instructed his ambassador at Constantinople to demand from the new
patriarch, Cyriacus, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation
of the wicked title, and in a letter to Maurice he went so far as to
declare, that “whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to
be called so, was the forerunner of Antichrist.” Ep. VII. 13: ”Ego autem confidenter dico quia
quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in
elatione sua Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se caeteris
praeponit.”
In opposition to these high-sounding epithets,
Gregory called himself, in proud humility, “the servant of the servants
of God.” “Servus servorum Dei.” See Joa. Diaconus, Vit.
Greg. II. 1, and Lib. Diurnus, in Migne, Tom. CV. 23.
Augustin (Epist. 217, ad Vitalem) had before subscribed himself:
“Servus Christi, et per ipsum servus servorum ejus.” Comp.
But his remonstrance was of no avail. Neither the patriarch nor the emperor obeyed his wishes. Hence he hailed a change of government which occurred in 602 by a violent revolution.
When Phocas, an ignorant, red-haired, beardless,
vulgar, cruel and deformed upstart, after the most atrocious murder of
Maurice and his whole family (a wife, six sons and three daughters),
ascended the throne, Gregory hastened to congratulate him and his wife
Leontia (who was not much better) in most enthusiastic terms, calling
on heaven and earth to rejoice at their accession, and vilifying the
memory of the dead emperor as a tyrant, from whose yoke the church was
now fortunately freed. His letter ”ad Phocam imperatorem,” Ep. XIII.
31 (III. 1281 in Migne) begins with ”Gloria in excelsis Deo, qui
juxta quod scriptum est, immutat tempora et transfert regna.” Comp.
his letter ”ad Leontiam imperatricen“ (Ep. XIII.
39). Gibbon (ch. 46): “As a subject and a Christian, it was the
duty of Gregory to acquiesce in the established government; but the
joyful applause with which he salutes the fortune of the assassin, has
sullied, with indelible disgrace, the character of the saint.” Milman
(II. 83): “The darkest stain on the name of Gregory is his cruel and
unchristian triumph in the fall of the Emperor Maurice-his base and
adulatory praise of Phocas, the most odious and Sanguinary tyrant who
had ever seized the throne of Constantinople.” Montalembert says (II.
116): “This is the only stain in the life of Gregory. We do not attempt
either to conceal or excuse it .... Among the greatest and holiest of
mortals, virtue, like wisdom, always falls short in some respect.” It
is charitable to assume, with Baronius and other Roman Catholic
historians, that Gregory, although usually very well informed, at the
time he expressed his extravagant joy at the elevation of Phocas, knew
only the fact, and not the bloody means of the elevation. The same
ignorance must be assumed in the case of his flattering letters to
Brunhilde, the profligate and vicious fury of France. Otherwise we
would have here on a small scale an anticipation of the malignant joy
with which Gregory XIII. hailed the fearful slaughter of the
Huguenots.
The murderer and usurper repaid the favor by
taking side with the pope against his patriarch (Cyriacus), who had
shown sympathy with the unfortunate emperor. He acknowledged the Roman
church to be “the head of all churches.” The words run thus: ”Hic [Phocas] rogante papa Bonifacio
statuit Romanae et apostolicae ecclesia caput esse omniuim
ecclesiarum,quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium rum
scribebat.”
Paulus Diaconus, De Gest. Lomb. IV., cap. 7, in Muratori,
Rer. Ital., I. 465. But the authenticity of this report which
was afterwards frequently copied, is doubtful. It has been abused by
controversialists on both sides. It is not the first declaration
of the Roman primacy, nor is it a declaration of an exclusive
primacy, nor an abrogation of the title of “oecumenical patriarch” on
the part of the bishop of Constantinople. Comp. Greenwood, vol. II. 239
sqq.
In this whole controversy the pope’s jealousy of the patriarch is very manifest, and suggests the suspicion that it inspired the protest.
Gregory displays in his correspondence with his
rival a singular combination of pride and humility. He was too proud to
concede to him the title of a universal bishop, and yet too humble or
too inconsistent to claim it for himself. His arguments imply that he
would have the best right to the title, if it were not wrong in itself.
His real opinion is perhaps best expressed in a letter to Eulogius of
Alexandria. He accepts all the compliments which Eulogius paid to him
as the successor of Peter, whose very name signifies firmness and
solidity; but he ranks Antioch and Alexandria likewise as sees of
Peter, which are nearly, if not quite, on a par with that of Rome, so
that the three, as it were, constitute but one see. He ignores
Jerusalem. “The see of the Prince of the Apostles alone,” he says, “has
acquired a principality of authority, which is the see of one only,
though in three places (quae in tribus locis unius est). For he himself
has exalted the see in which he deigned to rest and to end his present
life [Rome]. He himself adorned the see [Alexandria] to which he sent
his disciple [Mark] as evangelist. He himself established the see in
which he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since, then, the see is one,
and of one, over which by divine authority three bishops now preside,
whatever good I hear of you I impute to myself. If you believe anything
good of me, impute this to your own merits; because we are one in Him
who said: ’That they all may be one, as Thou, Father,
art in Me, and I in Thee, that all may be one in us’
( Ep. VII. 40 (Migne III. 899). This parallel between
the three great sees of Peter—a hierarchical
tri-personality in unity of essence—seems to be
entirely original with Gregory, and was never used afterwards by a
Roman pontiff. It is fatal to the sole primacy of the Roman
chair of Peter, and this is the very essence of
popery.
When Eulogius, in return for this exaltation of
his own see, afterwards addressed Gregory as “universal pope,” he
strongly repudiated the title, saying: “I have said that neither to me
nor to any one else (nec mihi, nec cuiquam alteri) ought you to write
anything of the kind. And lo! in the preface of your letter you apply
to me, who prohibited it, the proud title of universal pope; which
thing I beg your most sweet Holiness to do no more, because what is
given to others beyond what reason requires is subtracted from you. I
do not esteem that an honor by which I know my brethren lose their
honor. My honor is that of the universal Church. My honor is the solid
strength of my brethren. I am then truly honored when all and each are
allowed the honor that is due to them. For, if your Holiness calls me
universal pope, you deny yourself to be that which you call me
universally [that is, you own yourself to be no pope]. But no more of
this: away with words which inflate pride and wound charity!” He even
objects to the expression, “as thou hast commanded,” which had occurred
in hid correspondent’s letter. “Which word,
’commanded,’ I pray you let me hear
no more; for I know what I am, and what you are: in position you are my
brethren, in manners you are my, fathers. I did not, therefore,
command, but desired only to indicate what seemed to me expedient.” Ep. VIII. 30 (III. 933).
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that
Gregory, while he protested in the strongest terms against the
assumption by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and
blasphemous title of universal bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as
he had the opportunity and power, the authority and oversight over the
whole church of Christ, even in the East. “With respect to the church
of Constantinople,” he asks in one of his letters, “who doubts that it
is subject to the apostolic see?” And in another letter: “I know not
what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is found in him.” “To all
who know the Gospels,” he writes to emperor Maurice, “it is plain that
to Peter, as the prince of all the apostles, was committed by our Lord
the care of the whole church (totius ecclesiae cura) .... But although
the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and to loose,
were intrusted to him, and the care and principality of the whole
church (totius ecclesiae cura et principatus), he is not called
universal bishop; while my most holy fellow-priest (vir sanctissimus
consacerdos meus) John dares to call himself universal bishop. I am
compelled to exclaim: O tempora, O mores!” Epist. V. 20 (III. 745). He quotes in proof the
pet-texts of popery,
We have no right to impeach Gregory’s sincerity. But he was clearly inconsistent in disclaiming the name, and yet claiming the thing itself. The real objection is to the pretension of a universal episcopate, not to the title. If we concede the former, the latter is perfectly legitimate. And such universal power had already been claimed by Roman pontiffs before Gregory, such as Leo I., Felix, Gelasius, Hormisdas, in language and acts more haughty and self-sufficient than his.
No wonder, therefore that the successors of
Gregory, less humble and more consistent than he, had no scruple to use
equivalent and even more arrogant titles than the one against which he
so solemnly protested with the warning: “God resisteth the proud, but
giveth grace to the humble.” Such titles as Universalis Episcopus (used by
Boniface III., a year after Gregory’s death),
Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, Virarius Christi, and even
“ipsius Dei in terris Virarius“ (Conc. Trid. VI. De reform.,
c. 1). First Vicar of Peter, then Vicar of Christ, at last Vicar of
God Almighty!
§ 52. The Writings of Gregory.
Comp. the second part of Lau’s biography, pp. 311 sqq., and Adolf Ebert: Geschichte der Christlich-Lateinischen Literatur, bis zum Zeitalter Karls der Grossen. Leipzig, 1874 sqq., vol. I. 516 sqq.
With all the multiplicity of his cares, Gregory found time for literary labor. His books are not of great literary merit, but were eminently popular and useful for the clergy of the middle ages.
His theology was based upon the four oecumenical councils and the four Gospels, which he regarded as the immovable pillars of orthodoxy; he also accepted the condemnation of the three chapters by the fifth oecumenical council. He was a moderate Augustinian, but with an entirely practical, unspeculative, uncritical, traditional and superstitious bent of mind. His destruction of the Palatine Library, if it ever existed, is now rejected as a fable; but it reflects his contempt for secular and classical studies as beneath the dignity of a Christian bishop. Yet in ecclesiastical learning and pulpit eloquence he had no superior in his age.
Gregory is one of the great doctors or authoritative fathers of the church. His views on sin and grace are almost semi-Pelagian. He makes predestination depend on fore-knowledge; represents the fallen nature as sick only, not as dead; lays great stress on the meritoriousness of good works, and is chiefly responsible for the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, and masses for the benefit of the souls in purgatory.
His Latin style is not classical, but ecclesiastical and monkish; it abounds in barbarisms; it is prolix and chatty, but occasionally sententious and rising to a rhetorical pathos, which he borrowed from the prophets of the Old Testament.
The following are his works:
1. Magna Moralia, in thirty-five books. This large
work was begun in Constantinople at the instigation of Leander, bishop
of Seville, and finished in Rome. It is a three-fold exposition of the
book of Job according to its historic or literal, its allegorical, and
its moral meaning. Ep. missoria, cap. 3 (ed. Migne I. 513): ”Primum
quidem fundamenta historice ponimus; deinde per significatinem typicam
in artem fidei fabricam mentis erigimus; ad extremum per moralitatus
gratiam, quasi superducto aedificium colore
vestimus.”
Being ignorant of the Hebrew and Greek languages, and of Oriental history and customs (although for some time a resident of Constantinople), Gregory lacked the first qualifications for a grammatical and historical interpretation.
The allegorical part is an exegetical curiosity he reads between or beneath the lines of that wonderful poem the history of Christ and a whole system of theology natural and revealed. The names of persons and things, the numbers, and even the syllables, are filled with mystic meaning. Job represents Christ; his wife the carnal nature; his seven sons (seven being the number of perfection) represent the apostles, and hence the clergy; his three daughters the three classes of the faithful laity who are to worship the Trinity; his friends the heretics; the seven thousand sheep the perfect Christians; the three thousand camels the heathen and Samaritans; the five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred she-asses again the heathen, because the prophet Isaiah says: “The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.”
The moral sense, which Gregory explains last, is an edifying homiletical expansion and application, and a sort of compend of Christian ethics.
2. Twenty-two Homilies on Ezekiel, delivered in Rome during the siege by Agilulph, and afterwards revised.
3. Forty Homilies on the Gospels for the day, preached by Gregory at various times, and afterwards edited.
4. Liber Regulae Pastoralis, in four parts. It is a pastoral theology, treating of the duties and responsibilities of the ministerial office, in justification of his reluctance to undertake the burden of the papal dignity. It is more practical than Chrysostom’s “Priesthood.” It was held in the highest esteem in the Middle Ages, translated into Greek by order of the emperor Maurice, and into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred, and given to the bishops in France at their ordination, together with the book of canons, as a guide in the discharge of their duties. Gregory, according to the spirit of his age, enjoins strict celibacy even upon sub-deacons. But otherwise he gives most excellent advice suitable to all times. He makes preaching one of the chief duties of pastors, in the discharge of which he himself set a good example. He warns them to guard against the besetting sin of pride at the very outset; for they will not easily learn humility in a high position. They should preach by their lives as well as their words. “He who, by the necessity of his position, is required to speak the highest things, is compelled by the same necessity to exemplify the highest. For that voice best penetrates the hearts of hearers which the life of the speaker commends, because what he commends in his speech he helps to practice by his example.” He advises to combine meditation and action. “Our Lord,” he says, “continued in prayer on the mountain, but wrought miracles in the cities; showing to pastors that while aspiring to the highest, they should mingle in sympathy with the necessities of the infirm. The more kindly charity descends to the lowest, the more vigorously it recurs to the highest.” The spiritual ruler should never be so absorbed in external cares as to forget the inner life of the soul, nor neglect external things in the care for his inner life. “The word of doctrine fails to penetrate the mind of the needy, unless commended by the hand of compassion.”
5. Four books of Dialogues on the lives and miracles of St. Benedict of Nursia and other Italian saints, and on the immortality of the soul (593). These dialogues between Gregory and the Roman archdeacon Peter abound in incredible marvels and visions of the state of departed souls. He acknowledges, however, that he knew these stories only from hearsay, and defends his recording them by the example of Mark and Luke, who reported the gospel from what they heard of the eye-witnesses. His veracity, therefore, is not at stake; but it is strange that a man of his intelligence and good sense should believe such grotesque and childish marvels. The Dialogues are the chief source of the mediaeval superstitions about purgatory. King Alfred ordered them to be translated into the Anglo-Saxon.
6. His Epistles (838 in all) to bishops, princes, missionaries, and other persons in all parts of Christendom, give us the best idea of his character and administration, and of the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons. They treat of topics of theology, morals, politics, diplomacy, monasticism, episcopal and papal administration, and give us the best insight into his manifold duties, cares, and sentiments.
7. The Gregorian Sacramentary is based upon the older Sacramentaries of Gelasius and Leo I., with some changes in the Canon of the Mass. His assertion that in the celebration of the eucharist, the apostles used the Lord’s Prayer only (solummodo), has caused considerable discussion. Probably he meant no other prayer, in addition to the words of institution, which he took for granted.
8. A collection of antiphons for mass (Liber
Antiphonarius). It contains probably later additions. Several other
works of doubtful authenticity, and nine Latin hymns are also
attributed to Gregory. They are in the metre of St. Ambrose, without
the rhyme, except the “Rex Christe, factor omnium” (which is very
highly spoken of by Luther). They are simple, devout, churchly,
elevated in thought and sentiment, yet without poetic fire and vigor.
Some of them as “Blest Creator of the Light” (Lucis Creator optime), “O
merciful Creator, hear” (Audi, beate Conditor), “Good it is to keep the
fast” (Clarum decus jejunii), have recently been made familiar to
English readers in free translations from the Anglo-Catholic school. See “Hymns Ancient and Modem.” · Comp. Barmby, Greg. the Gr., pp.
188-190; Lau, p. 262; Ebert I. 519.
Some other writings attributed to him, as an Exposition of the First Book of Kings, and an allegorical Exposition of the Canticles, are of doubtful genuineness.
§ 53. The Papacy from Gregory I to Gregory II a.d. 604–715.
The successors of Gregory I. to Gregory II. were, with few exceptions, obscure men, and ruled but a short time. They were mostly Italians, many of them Romans; a few were Syrians, chosen by the Eastern emperors in the interest of their policy and theology.
Sabinianus (604) was as hard and avaricious as Gregory was benevolent and liberal, and charged the famine of his reign upon the prodigality of his sainted predecessor. Boniface III. (606607) did not scruple to assume the title of It universal bishop, “against which Gregory, in proud humility, had so indignantly protested as a blasphemous antichristian assumption. Boniface IV. converted the Roman Pantheon into a Christian church dedicated to the Virgin Mary and all the Martyrs (608). Honorius l. (625–638) was condemned by an oecumenical council and by his own successors as a Monothelite heretic; while Martin I. (649–655) is honored for the persecution he endured in behalf of the orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ. Under Gregory II. and III., Germany was converted to Roman Christianity.
The popes followed the missionary policy of Gregory and the instinct of Roman ambition and power. Every progress of Christianity in the West and the North was a progress of the Roman Church. Augustin, Boniface, Ansgar were Roman missionaries and pioneers of the papacy. As England had been annexed to the triple crown under Gregory I., so France, the Netherlands, Germany and Scandinavia were annexed under his successors. The British and Scotch-Irish independence gave way gradually to the irresistible progress of Roman authority and uniformity. Priests, noblemen and kings from all parts of the West were visiting Rome as the capital of Christendom, and paid homage to the shrine of the apostles and to the living successor of the Galilaean fisherman.
But while the popes thus extended their spiritual dominion over the new barbarous races, they were the political subjects of the Eastern emperor as the master of Italy, and could not be consecrated without his consent. They were expected to obey the imperial edicts even in spiritual matters, and were subject to arrest and exile. To rid themselves of this inconvenient dependence was a necessary step in the development of the absolute papacy. It was effected in the eighth century by the aid of a rising Western power. The progress of Mohammedanism and its encroachment on the Greek empire likewise contributed to their independence.
§ 54. From Gregory II to Zacharias. a.d. 715–741.
Gregory II. (715–731) marks the
transition to this new state of things. He quarreled with the
iconoclastic emperor, Leo the Isaurian, about the worship of images.
Under his pontificate, Liutprand, Or Luitprand, born about 690, died 744. There is also a
Lombard historian of that name, a deacon of the cathedral of Pavia,
afterwards bishop of Cremona, died 972.
But the sovereignty of a barbarian and once Arian power was more odious and dangerous to the popes than that of distant Constantinople. Placed between the heretical emperor and the barbarian robber, they looked henceforth to a young and rising power beyond the Alps for deliverance and protection. The Franks were Catholics from the time of their conversion under Clovis, and achieved under Charles Martel (the Hammer) a mighty victory over the Saracens (732), which saved Christian Europe against the invasion and tyranny of Islâm. They had thus become the protectors of Latin Christianity. They also lent their aid to Boniface in the conversion of Germany.
Gregory, III. (731–741) renewed
the negotiations with the Franks, begun by his predecessor. When the
Lombards again invaded the territory, of Rome, and were ravaging by
fire and sword the last remains of the property of the church, he
appealed in piteous and threatening tone to Charles Martel, who had
inherited from his father, Pepin of Herstal, the mayoralty of France,
and was the virtual ruler of the realm. “Close not your ears,” he says,
“against our supplications, lest St. Peter close against you the gates
of heaven.” He sent him the keys of the tomb of St. Peter as a symbol
of allegiance, and offered him the titles of Patrician and Consul of
Rome. Gibbon actually attributes these titles to Charles Martel;
while Bryce (p. 40) thinks that they were first given to Pepin. Gregory
II. had already (724) addressed Charles Martel as ”Patricius“
(see Migne, Opera Caroli M. II. 69). Gregory III. sent him in
739 ipsas sacratissimas claves confessionis beati Petri quas vobus
ad regnum dimisimus (ib. p. 66), which implies the transfer
of civil authority over Rome. Milman (Book IV., ch. 9) says that Dante, the faithful
recorder of popular Catholic tradition, adopts the condemnatory legend
which puts Charles “in the lowest pit of hell.” But I can find no
mention of him in Dante. The Charles Martel of Parad. VIII. and
IX. is a very, different person, a king of Hungary, who died 1301. See
Witte’s Dante, p. 667, and
Carey’s note on Par. VIII. 53. On the relations
of Charles Martel to Boniface see Rettberg, Kirchengesch.
Deutschlands, I.
306 sqq.
The negotiations were interrupted by the death of Charles Martel Oct. 21, 741, followed by that of Gregory III., Nov. 27 of the same year.
§ 55. Alliance of the Papacy with the New Monarchy of the Franks. Pepin and the Patrimony of St. Peter. a.d. 741–755.
Pope Zacharias (741–752), a Greek, by the weight of his priestly authority, brought Liutprand to terms of temporary submission. The Lombard king suddenly paused in the career of conquest, and died after a reign of thirty years (743).
But his successor, Astolph, again threatened to
incorporate Rome with his kingdom. Zacharias sought the protection of
Pepin the Short, Or Pipin, Pippin, Pippinus. The last is the spelling in his
documents.
Hereditary succession was not yet invested with
that religious sanctity among the Teutonic races as in later ages. In
the Jewish theocracy unworthy kings were deposed, and new dynasties
elevated by the interposition of God’s messengers. The
pope claimed and exercised now for the first time the same power. The
Mayor, or high steward, of the royal household in France was the prime
minister of the sovereign and the chief of the official and territorial
nobility. This dignity became hereditary in the family of Pepin of
Laudon, who died in 639, and was transmitted from him through six
descents to Pepin the Short, a gallant warrior and an experienced
statesman. He was on good terms with Boniface, the apostle of Germany
and archbishop of Mayence, who, according to the traditional view,
acted as negotiator between him and the pope in this political coup
d’etat. Rettberg, however (I. 385 sqq.), disconnects Boniface from
all participation in the elevation and coronation of Pepin, and
represents him as being rather opposed to it. He argues from the
silence of some annalists, and from the improbability that the pope
should have repeated the consecration if it had been previously
performed by his legate.
Childeric III., the last of the hopelessly degenerate Merovingian line, was the mere shadow of a monarch, and forced to retire into a monastery. Pepin, the ruler in fact now assumed the name, was elected at Soissons (March, 752) by the acclamation and clash of arms of the people, and anointed, like the kings of Israel, with holy oil, by Boniface or some other bishop, and two years after by the pope himself, who had decided that the lawful possessor of the royal power may also lawfully assume the royal title. Since that time he called himself “by the grace of God king of the Franks.” The pope conferred on him the title of “Patrician of the Romans” (Patricius Romanorum), which implies a sort of protectorate over the Roman church, and civil sovereignty, over her territory. For the title “Patrician,” which was introduced by Constantine the Great signified the highest rank next to that of the emperor, and since the sixth century was attached to the Byzantine Viceroy, of Italy. On the other hand, this elevation and coronation was made the basis of papal superiority over the crowns of France and Germany.
The pope soon reaped the benefit of his favor. When hard pressed again by the Lombards, he called the new king to his aid.
Stephen III., who succeeded Zacharias in March, 752, and ruled till 757, visited Pepin in person, and implored him to enforce the restoration of the domain of St. Peter. He anointed him again at St. Denys, together with his two sons, and promised to secure the perpetuity of his dynasty by the fearful power of the interdict and excommunication. Pepin accompanied him back to Italy and defeated the Lombards (754). When the Lombards renewed the war, the pope wrote letter upon letter to Pepin, admonishing and commanding him in the name of Peter and the holy Mother of God to save the city of Rome from the detested enemies, and promising him long life and the most glorious mansions in heaven, if he speedily obeyed. To such a height of blasphemous assumption had the papacy risen already as to identify itself with the kingdom of Christ and to claim to be the dispenser of temporal prosperity and eternal salvation.
Pepin crossed the Alps again with his army,
defeated the Lombards, and bestowed the conquered territory upon the
pope (755). He declared to the ambassadors of the East who demanded the
restitution of Ravenna and its territory to the Byzantine empire, that
his sole object in the war was to show his veneration for St. Peter.
The new papal district embraced the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, East
of the Apennines, with the cities of Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, Fano,
Cesena, Sinigaglia, lesi, Forlimpopoli, Forli, Montefeltro, Acerra,
Monte di Lucano, Serra, San Marino, Bobbio, Urbino, Cagli, Luciolo,
Gubbio, Comachio, and Narni. This is the enumeration of Baronius ad ann. 755.
Others define the extent differently. Comp. Wiltsch,
Kirchl. Geographie und
Statistik, I. pp.
246 sqq.
This donation of Pepin is the foundation of “the
Patrimony of St. Peter.” The pope was already in possession of tracts
of land in Italy and elsewhere granted to the church. But by this gift
of a foreign conqueror he became a temporal sovereign over a large part
of Italy, while claiming to be the successor of Peter who had neither
silver nor gold, and the vicar of Christ who said: “My kingdom is not
of this world.” The temporal power made the papacy independent in the
exercise of its jurisdiction, but at the expense of its spiritual
character. It provoked a long conflict with the secular power; it
involved it in the political interests, intrigues and wars of Europe,
and secularized the church and the hierarchy. Dante, who shared the
mediaeval error of dating the donation of Pepin back to Constantine the
Great, Constantine bestowed upon the pope a portion of the Lateran
palace for his residence, and upon the church the right to hold real
estate and to receive bequests of landed property from individuals.
This is the slender foundation for the fable of the Donatio
Constantini.
Inferno xix. 115-118:
“Ahi Costantin, di quanto mal fu matre,
Non la tua conversion, ma quella dote,
Che da te presse il primo ricco patre!“
Yet Dante places Constantine, who “from good intent produced evil fruit,” in heaven; where
And he speaks favorably of Charlemagne’s intervention in behalf of the pope:
Paradiso XX. 57-60; VI. 94-97. Longfellow’s translation.
The policy of Pepin was followed by Charlemagne, the German, and Austrian emperors, and modern French rulers who interfered in Italian affairs, now as allies, now as enemies, until the temporal power of the papacy was lost under its last protector, Napoleon III., who withdrew his troops from Rome to fight against Germany, and by his defeat prepared the way for Victor Emanuel to take possession of Rome, as the capital of free and united Italy (1870). Since that time the pope who a few weeks before had proclaimed to the world his own infallibility in all matters of faith and morals, is confined to the Vatican, but with no diminution of his spiritual power as the bishop of bishops over two hundred millions of souls.
§ 56. Charles the Great. a.d. 768–814.
Sources.
Beati Caroli Magni Opera omnia. 2 vols. In Migne’s Patrol. Lat. Tom. 97 and 98. The first vol. contains the Codex Diplomaticus, Capitularia, and Privilegia; the second vol., the Codex Carolinus, the Libri Carolini (on the image controversy), the Epistolae, Carminâ, etc.
1. The Letters of Charles, of Einhard, and of Alcuin. Also the letters of the Popes to Charles and his two predecessors, which he had collected, and which are called the Codex Carolinus, ed. by Muratori, Cenni, ad Migne (Tom. 98, pp. 10 sqq.).
2. The Capitularies and Laws of Charlemagne, contained in the first vol. of the Leges in the Mon. Germ., ed. by Pertz, and in the Collections of Baluzius and Migne.
3. Annals. The Annales Laurissenses Majores (probably the official chronicle of the court) from 788 to 813; the Annales Einhardi, written after 829; the Annales Petaviani, Laureshamenses, Mosellani, and others, more of local than general value. All in the first and second vol. of Pertz, Monumenta Germanica Hist. Script.
4. Biographies: Einhard or Eginhard (b. 770, educated at Fulda, private secretary of Charlemagne, afterwards Benedictine monk): Vita Caroli Imperatoris (English translation by S. S. Turner, New York, 1880). A true sketch of what Charles was by an admiring and loving hand in almost classical Latin, and after the manner of Sueton’s Lives of the Roman emperors. It marks, as Ad. Ebert says (II. 95), the height of the classical studies of the age of Charlemagne. Milman (II. 508) calls it “the best historic work which had appeared in the Latin language for centuries.”—Poeta Saxo: Annales de Gestis Caroli, from the end of the ninth century. An anonymous monk of St. Gall: De Gestis Caroli, about the same time. In Pertz, l.c., and Jaffe’s Monumenta Carolina (Bibl. Rer. Germ., T. IV.), also in Migne, Tom. I., Op. Caroli.
Comp. on the sources Abel’s Jahrbucher des Fränk. Reichs (Berlin, 1866) and Wattenbach’s Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1858; 4th ed. 1877–78, 2 vols.)
Literature.
J. G. Walch: Historia Canonisationis Caroli M. Jen., 1750.
Putter: De Instauratione Imp. Rom. Gött., 1766.
Gaillard: Histoire de Charlemagne. Paris, 1784, 4 vols. secd ed. 1819.
Gibbon: Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Ch. 49.
J. Ellendorf: Die Karolinger und die Hierarchie ihrer Zeit. Essen., 1838, 2 vols.
Hegewisch: Geschichte der Regierung Kaiser Karls des Gr. Hamb., 1791.
Dippolt: Leben K. Karls des Gr. Tub., 1810.
G. P. R. James: The History of Charlemagne. London, 2nd ed. 1847.
Bähr: Gesch. der röm. Lit. im Karoling. Zeitalter. Carlsruhe, 1840.
Gfrörer: Geschichte der Karolinger. Freiburg i. B., 1848, 2 vols.
Capefigue: Charlemagne. Paris, 1842, 2 vols.
Warnkönig et Gerard: Hist. des Carolingians. Brux. and Paris, 1862, 2 vols.
Waitz: Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, vols. III. and IV.
W. Giesebrecht: Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit. Braunschweig, 1863 sqq. (3rd ed.). Bd. I., pp. 106 sqq.
Döllinger: Kaiserthum Karls des Grossen, in the Munchener Hist. Jahrbuch for 1865.
Gaston: Histoire poetique de Charlemagne. Paris, 1865.
P. Alberdinck Thijm: Karl der Gr. und seine Zeit. Munster, 1868.
Abel: Jahrbucher des Fränkischen Reichs unter Karl d. Grossen. Berlin, 1866.
Wyss: Karl der Grosse als Gesetzgeber. Zurich, 1869.
Rettberg: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, I. 419 sqq., II. 382 sqq.
Alphonse Vétault: Charlemagne. Tours, 1877 (556 pp.). With fine illustrations.
L. Stacke: Deutsche Geschichte. Leipzig, 1880. Bd. I. 169 sqq. With illustrations and maps.
Comp. also Milman: Latin Christianity, Book IV., ch. 12, and Book V., ch. 1; Ad. Ebert: Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (1880), vol. II. 3–108. Of French writers, Guizot, and Martin, in their Histories of France; also Parke Godwin, History of France, chs. xvi. and xvii. (vol. I. 410 sqq.).
With the death of Pepin the Short (Sept. 24, 768), the kingdom of France was divided between his two sons, Charles and Carloman, the former to rule in the Northern, the latter in the Southern provinces. After the death of his weaker brother (771) Charles, ignoring the claims of his infant nephews, seized the sole reign and more than doubled its extent by his conquests.
Character and Aim of
This extraordinary man represents the early history of both France and Germany which afterwards divided into separate streams, and commands the admiration of both countries and nations. His grand ambition was to unite all the Teutonic and Latin races on the Continent under his temporal sceptre in close union with the spiritual dominion of the pope; in other words, to establish a Christian theocracy, coëxtensive with the Latin church (exclusive of the British Isles and Scandinavia). He has been called the “Moses of the middle age,” who conducted the Germanic race through the desert of barbarism and gave it a now code of political, civil and ecclesiastical laws. He stands at the head of the new Western empire, as Constantine the Great had introduced the Eastern empire, and he is often called the new Constantine, but is as far superior to him as the Latin empire was to the Greek. He was emphatically a man of Providence.
Charlemagne, or Karl der Grosse, towers high above
the crowned princes of his age, and is the greatest as well as the
first of the long line of German emperors from the eighth to the
nineteenth century. He is the only prince whose greatness has been
inseparably blended with his French name. Joseph de Maistre: ”Cet homme est si grand que, la
grandeur a pénétré son
nom.” (ch.
4), “It would be folly,” says Eginhard “to write a word about
the birth and infancy or even the boyhood of Charles, for nothing has
ever been written on the subject, and there is no one alive who can
give information about it.” His birth is usually assigned to April 2,
742, at Aix-la-Chapelle; but the legend makes him the child of
illegitimate love, who grew up wild as a miller’s son
in Bavaria. His name is mentioned only twice before be assumed the
reins of government, once at a court reception given by his father to
pope Stephen II., and once as a witness in the Aquitanian
campaigns.
His Reign.
His life is filled with no less than fifty-three
military campaigns conducted by himself or his lieutenants, against the
Saxons (18 campaigns), Lombards (5), Aquitanians, Thuringians,
Bavarians) Avars or Huns, Danes, Slaves, Saracens, and Greeks. His
incessant activity astonished his subjects and enemies. He seemed to be
omnipresent in his dominions, which extended from the Baltic and the
Elbe in the North to the Ebro in the South, from the British Channel to
Rome and even to the Straits of Messina, embracing France, Germany,
Hungary, the greater part of Italy and Spain. His ecclesiastical domain
extended over twenty-two archbishoprics or metropolitan sees, Rome,
Ravenna, Milan, Friuli (Aquileia), Grado, Cologne, Mayence, Salzburg,
Treves, Sens, Besançon, Lyons, Rouen, Rheims, Arles, Vienna,
Moutiers-en-Tarantaise, Ivredun, Bordeaux, Tours, Bourges, Narbonne. According to the enumeration of Eginhard (ch. 33), who,
however, gives only 21, omitting Narbonne. Charles bequeathed one-third
of his treasure and moveable goods to the metropolitan
sees.
Appearance and Habits of Charlemagne.
Charles had a commanding, and yet winning
presence. His physique betrayed the greatness of his mind. He was tall,
strongly built and well proportioned. His height was seven times the
length of his foot. He had large and animated eyes, a long nose, a
cheerful countenance and an abundance of fine hair. “His appearance,”
says Eginhard, “was always stately and dignified, whether he was
standing or sitting; although his neck was thick and somewhat short,
and his belly rather prominent; but the symmetry of the rest of his
body concealed these defects. His gait was firm, his whole carriage
manly, and his voice clear, but not so strong as his size led one to
expect.” The magnificent portrait of Charles by Albrecht
Dürer is a fancy picture, and not sustained by the oldest
representations. Vétault gives several portraits, and
discusses them, p. 540.
He was naturally eloquent, and spoke with great clearness and force. He was simple in his attire, and temperate in eating and drinking; for, says Eginhard, “he abominated drunkenness in anybody, much more in himself and those of his household. He rarely gave entertainments, only on great feast days, and these to large numbers of people.” He was fond of muscular exercise, especially of hunting and swimming, and enjoyed robust health till the last four years of his life, when he was subject to frequent fevers. During his meals he had extracts from Augustine’s “City of God” (his favorite book), and stories of olden times, read to him. He frequently gave audience while dressing, without sacrifice of royal dignity. He was kind to the poor, and a liberal almsgiver.
His Zeal for Education.
His greatest merit is his zeal for education and
religion. He was familiar with Latin from conversation rather than
books, be understood a little Greek, and in his old age he began to
learn the art of writing which his hand accustomed to the sword had
neglected. He highly esteemed his native language, caused a German
grammar to be compiled, and gave German names to the winds and to the
months. Wintermonat for January, Hornung for
February, Lenz for March, Ostermonat for April, etc. See
Eginhard, ch. 29.
His Piety.
Charles was a firm believer in Christianity and a devout and regular worshipper in the church, “going morning and evening, even after nightfall, besides attending mass.” He was very liberal to the clergy. He gave them tithes throughout the empire appointed worthy bishops and abbots, endowed churches and built a splendid cathedral at Aix-la-Chapelle, in which he was buried.
His respect for the clergy culminated in his
veneration for the bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter. “He
cherished the church of St. Peter the apostle at Rome above all other
holy and sacred places, and filled its treasury with a vast wealth of
gold, silver, and precious stones. He sent great and countless gifts to
the popes; and throughout his whole reign the wish he had nearest at
heart was to re-establish the ancient authority of the city of Rome
under his care and by his influence, and to defend and protect the
church of St. Peter, and to beautify and enrich it out of his own store
above all other churches.” Eginhard, ch. 27.
His Vices.
Notwithstanding his many and great virtues,
Charles was by, no means so pure as the poetry and piety of the church
represented him, and far from deserving canonization. He sacrificed
thousands of human beings to his towering ambition and passion for
conquest. He converted the Saxons by force of arms; he waged for thirty
years a war of extermination against them; he wasted their territory
with fire and sword; he crushed out their independence; he beheaded in
cold blood four thousand five hundred prisoners in one day at Verden on
the Aller (782), and when these proud and faithless savages finally
surrendered, he removed 10000 of their families from their homes on the
banks of the Elbe to different parts of Germany and Gaul to prevent a
future revolt. It was indeed a war of religion for the annihilation of
heathenism, but conducted on the Mohammedan principle: submission to
the faith, or death. This is contrary to the spirit of Christianity
which recognizes only the moral means of persuasion and conviction. Bossuet justified all his conquests because they were an
extension of Christianity.”Les conquêtes
prodigieuses,” he
says, ”furent la dilatation du règne de Dieu, et il se moutra
très chrétien dans toutes ses
aeuvres.”
The most serious defect in his private character
was his incontinence and disregard of the sanctity of the marriage tie.
In this respect he was little better than an Oriental despot or a
Mohammedan Caliph. He married several wives and divorced them at his
pleasure. He dismissed his first wife (unknown by name) to marry a
Lombard princess, and he repudiated her within a year. After the death
of his fifth wife he contented himself with three or four concubines.
He is said even to have encouraged his own daughters in dissolute
habits rather than give them in marriage to princes who might become
competitors for a share in the kingdom, but he had them carefully
educated. It is not to the credit of the popes that they never rebuked
him for this vice, while with weaker and less devoted monarchs they
displayed such uncompromising zeal for the sanctity of marriage. Pope Stephen III. protested, indeed, in the most violent
language against the second marriage of Charles with Desiderata, a
daughter of the king of Lombardy, but not on the ground of divorce from
his first wife, which would have furnished a very good reason, but from
opposition to a union with the “perfidious, leprous, and fetid brood of
the Lombards, a brood hardly reckoned human.” Charles married the
princess, to the delight of his mother, but repudiated her the next
year and sent her back to her father. See Milman, Bk. IV., ch. 12 (II.
439).
His Death and Burial.
The emperor died after a short illness, and after
receiving the holy communion, Jan. 28, 814, in the 71st year of his
age, and the 47th of his reign, and was buried on the same day in the
cathedral of Aix-la-Chapelle “amid the greatest lamentations of the
people.” 48 “Maximo totius populi luctu, ” says
Eginhard.
The Charlemagne of Poetry.
The heroic and legendary poetry of the middle ages
represents Charles as a giant of superhuman strength and beauty, of
enormous appetite, with eyes shining like the morning star, terrible in
war, merciful in peace, as a victorious hero, a wise lawgiver, an
unerring judge, and a Christian saint. He suffered only one defeat, at
Roncesvalles in the narrow passes of the Pyrenees, when, on his return
from a successful invasion of Spain, his rearguard with the flower of
the French chivalry, under the command of Roland, one of his paladins
and nephews, was surprised and routed by the Basque Mountaineers
(778). The historic foundation of this defeat is given by
Eginhard, ch. 9. It was then marvellously embellished, and Roland
became the favorite theme of minstrels and poets, as
Théroulde’s Chanson de Roland,
Turpin’s Chroniqué,
Bojardo’s Orlando Innamorato,
Ariosto’s Orlando Furioso, etc. His enchanted
Horn sounded so loud that the birds fell dead at its blast, and the
whole Saracen army drew back terror-struck. When he was attacked in the
Pyrenees, he blew the horn for the last time so hard that the veins of
his neck started, and Charlemagne heard it several miles off at St.
Jean Pied de Port, but too late to save “The dead who, deathless all, Were slain at famous Roncevall.”
The name of “the Blessed Charles” is enrolled in the Roman Calendar for his services to the church and gifts to the pope. Heathen Rome deified Julius Caesar, Christian Rome canonized, or at least beatified Charlemagne. Suffrages for the repose of his soul were continued in the church of Aix-la-Chapelle until Paschal, a schismatical pope, at the desire of Frederic Barbarossa, enshrined his remains in that city and published a decree for his canonization (1166). The act was neither approved nor revoked by a regular pope, but acquiesced in, and such tacit canonization is considered equivalent to beatification.
Notes.
I. Judgments on the Personal Character of Charlemagne.
Eginhard (whose wife Emma figures in the legend as a daughter of Charlemagne) gives the following frank account of the private and domestic relations of his master and friend (chs. 18 and 19, in Migne, Tom. XCVII. 42 sqq.):
“Thus did Charles defend and increase as well as beautify his kingdom; and here let me express my admiration of his great qualities and his extraordinary constancy alike in good and evil fortune. I will now proceed to give the details of his private life. After his father’s death, while sharing the kingdom with his brother, he bore his unfriendliness and jealousy most patiently, and, to the wonder of all, could not be provoked to be angry with him. Later” [after repudiating his first wife, an obscure person] “he married a daughter of Desiderius, King of the Lombards, at the instance of his mother” [notwithstanding the protest of the pope]; “but he repudiated her at the end of a year for some reason unknown, and married Hildegard, a woman of high birth, of Swabian origin [d. 783]. He had three sons by her,—Charles, Pepin, and Lewis—and as many daughters,—Hruodrud, Bertha, and Gisela.” [Eginhard omits Adelaide and Hildegard.] “He had three other daughters besides these—Theoderada, Hiltrud, and Ruodhaid—two by his third wife, Fastrada, a woman of East Frankish (that is to say of German) origin, and the third by a concubine, whose name for the moment escapes me. At the death of Fastrada, he married Liutgard, an Alemannic woman, who bore him no children. After her death he had three [according to another reading four] concubines—Gerswinda, a Saxon, by whom he had Adaltrud; Regina, who was the mother of Drogo and Hugh; and Ethelind, by whom he had Theodoric. Charles’s mother, Berthrada, passed her old age with him in great honor; he entertained the greatest veneration for her; and there was never any disagreement between them except when he divorced the daughter of King Desiderius, whom he had married to please her. She died soon after Hildegard, after living to see three grandsons and as many grand-daughters in her son’s house, and he buried her with great pomp in the Basilica of St. Denis, where his father lay. He had an only [surviving] sister, Gisela, who had consecrated herself to a religious life from girlhood, and he cherished as much affection for her as for his mother. She also died a few years before him in the nunnery where she had passed her life. The plan which he adopted for his children’s education was, first of all, to have both boys and girls instructed in the liberal arts, to which he also turned his own attention. As soon as their years admitted, in accordance with the custom of the Franks, the boys had to learn horsemanship, and to practise war and the chase, and the girls to familiarize themselves with cloth-making, and to handle distaff and spindle, that they might not grow indolent through idleness, and he fostered in them every virtuous sentiment. He only lost three of all his children before his death, two sons and one daughter .... When his sons and his daughters died, he was not so calm as might have been expected from his remarkably strong mind, for his affections were no less strong, and moved him to tears. Again when he was told of the death of Hadrian, the Roman Pontiff, whom he had loved most of all his friends, he wept as much as if he had lost a brother, or a very dear son. He was by nature most ready to contract friendships, and not only made friends easily, but clung to them persistently, and cherished most fondly those with whom he had formed such ties. He was so careful of the training of his sons and daughters that he never took his meals without them when he was at home, and never made a journey without them; his sons would ride at his side, and his daughters follow him, while a number of his body-guard, detailed for their protection, brought up the rear. Strange to say, although they were very handsome women, and he loved them very dearly, he was never willing to marry either of them to a man, of their own nation or to a foreigner, but kept them all at home until his, death, saying that he could not dispense with their society. Hence though otherwise happy, he experienced the malignity of fortune as far as they were concerned; yet he concealed his knowledge of the rumors current in regard to them, and of the suspicions entertained of their honor.”
Gibbon is no admirer of Charlemagne, and gives an exaggerated view of his worst vice: “Of his moral virtues chastity is not the most conspicuous; but the public happiness could not be materially injured by his nine wives or concubines, the various indulgence of meaner or more transient amours, the multitude of his bastards whom he bestowed on the church, and the long celibacy and licentious manners of his daughters, whom the father was suspected of loving with too fond a passion.” But this charge of incest, as Hallam and Milman observe, seems to have originated in a misinterpreted passage of Eginhard quoted above, and is utterly unfounded.
Henry Hallam (Middle Ages I. 26) judges a little more favorably: The great qualities of Charlemagne were, indeed, alloyed by the vices of a barbarian and a conqueror. Nine wives, whom he divorced with very little ceremony, attest the license of his private life, which his temperance and frugality can hardly be said to redeem. Unsparing of blood, though not constitutionally cruel, and wholly indifferent to the means which his ambition prescribed, he beheaded in one day four thousand Saxons—an act of atrocious butchery, after which his persecuting edicts, pronouncing the pain of death against those who refused baptism, or even who ate flesh during Lent, seem scarcely worthy of notice. This union of barbarous ferocity with elevated views of national improvement might suggest the parallel of Peter the Great. But the degrading habits and brute violence of the Muscovite place him at an immense distance from the restorer of the empire.
“A strong sympathy for intellectual excellence was the leading characteristic of Charlemagne, and this undoubtedly biassed him in the chief political error of his conduct—that of encouraging the power and pretensions of the hierarchy. But, perhaps, his greatest eulogy is written in the disgraces of succeeding times and the miseries of Europe. He stands alone, like a beacon upon a waste, or a rock in the broad ocean. His sceptre was the bow of Ulysses, which could not be drawn by any weaker hand. In the dark ages of European history the reign of Charlemagne affords a solitary resting-place between two long periods of turbulence and ignominy, deriving the advantages of contrast both from that of the preceding dynasty and of a posterity for whom he had formed an empire which they were unworthy and unequal to maintain.”
G. P. R. James (History of Charlemagne, Lond., 1847, p. 499): “No man, perhaps, that ever lived, combined in so high a degree those qualities which rule men and direct events, with those which endear the possessor and attach his contemporaries. No man was ever more trusted and loved by his people, more respected and feared by other kings, more esteemed in his lifetime, or more regretted at his death.
Milman (Book V. ch. 1): “Karl, according to his German appellation, was the model of a Teutonic chieftain, in his gigantic stature, enormous strength, and indefatigable activity; temperate in diet, and superior to the barbarous vice of drunkenness. Hunting and war were his chief occupations; and his wars were carried on with all the ferocity of encountering savage tribes. But he was likewise a Roman Emperor, not only in his vast and organizing policy, he had that one vice of the old Roman civilization which the Merovingian kings had indulged, though not perhaps with more unbounded lawlessness. The religious emperor, in one respect, troubled not himself with the restraints of religion. The humble or grateful church beheld meekly, and almost without remonstrance, the irregularity of domestic life, which not merely indulged in free license, but treated the sacred rite of marriage as a covenant dissoluble at his pleasure. Once we have heard, and but once, the church raise its authoritative, its comminatory voice, and that not to forbid the King of the Franks from wedding a second wife while his first was alive, but from marrying a Lombard princess. One pious ecclesiastic alone in his dominion, he a relative, ventured to protest aloud.’)
Guizot (Histoire de la civilisation en France, leçon XX.): “Charlemagne marque la limite à laquelle est enfin consommée la dissolution de l’ancien monde romain et barbare, et où commence la formation du monde nouveau.”
Vétault (Charlemagne, 455, 458): “Charlemagne fut, en effet, le père du monde moderne et de la societé européenne .... Si Ch. ne peut être légitemement honoré comme un saint, il a droit du moins à la première place, parmis tous les héros, dans l’admiration des hommes; car on ne trouverait pas un autre souverain qui ait autant aimé l’humanité et lui ait fait plus de bien. Il est le plus glorieux, parce que ... il a mérite d’ être proclamé le plus honnête des grands hommes.”
Giesebrecht, the historian of the German emperors, gives a glowing description of Charlemagne (I. 140): “Many high-minded rulers arose in the ten centuries after Charles, but none had a higher aim. To be ranked with him, satisfied the boldest conquerors, the wisest princes of peace. French chivalry of later times glorified Charlemagne as the first cavalier; the German burgeoisie as the fatherly friend of the people and the most righteous judge; the Catholic Church raised him to the number of her saints; the poetry of all nations derived ever new inspiration and strength from his mighty person. Never perhaps has richer life proceeded from the activity of a mortal man (Nie vielleicht ist reicheres Leben von der Wirksamkeit eines sterblichen Menschen ausgegangen).”
We add the eloquent testimony of an American author, Parke Godwin (History of France, N. Y., 1860, vol. i. p. 410): “There is to me something indescribably grand in the figure of many of the barbaric chiefs—Alariks, Ataulfs, Theodoriks, and Euriks—who succeeded to the power of the Romans, and in their wild, heroic way, endeavored to raise a fabric of state on the ruins of the ancient empire. But none of those figures is so imposing and majestic as that of Karl, the son of Pippin, whose name, for the first and only time in history, the admiration of mankind has indissolubly blended with the title the Great. By the peculiarity of his position in respect to ancient and modern times—by the extraordinary length of his reign, by the number and importance of the transactions in which he was engaged, by the extent and splendor of his conquests, by his signal services to the Church, and by the grandeur of his personal qualities—he impressed himself so profoundly upon the character of his times, that he stands almost alone and apart in the annals of Europe. For nearly a thousand years before him, or since the days of Julius Caesar, no monarch had won so universal and brilliant a renown; and for nearly a thousand years after him, or until the days of Charles V. of Germany, no monarch attained any thing like an equal dominion. A link between the old and new, he revived the Empire of the West, with a degree of glory that it had only enjoyed in its prime; while, at the same time, the modern history of every Continental nation was made to begin with him. Germany claims him as one of her most illustrious sons; France, as her noblest king; Italy, as her chosen emperor; and the Church as her most prodigal benefactor and worthy saint. All the institutions of the Middle Ages—political, literary, scientific, and ecclesiastical—delighted to trace their traditionary origins to his hand: he was considered the source of the peerage, the inspirer of chivalry, the founder of universities, and the endower of the churches; and the genius of romance, kindling its fantastic torches at the flame of his deeds, lighted up a new and marvellous world about him, filled with wonderful adventures and heroic forms. Thus by a double immortality, the one the deliberate award of history, and the other the prodigal gift of fiction, he claims the study of mankind.”
II. The Canonization of Charlemagne is perpetuated in the Officium in festo Sancti Caroli Magni imperatoris et confessoris, as celebrated in churches of Germany, France, and Spain. Baronius (Annal. ad ann. 814) says that the canonization was, not accepted by the Roman church, because Paschalis was no legitimate pope, but neither was it forbidden. Alban Butler, in his Lives of Saints, gives a eulogistic biography of the “Blessed Charlemagne,” and covers his besetting sin with the following unhistorical assertion: “The incontinence, into which he fell in his youth, he expiated by sincere repentance, so that several churches in Germany and France honor him among the saints.”
R
SIGNUM K + S CAROLI GLORIOSISSIMI REGIS.
L
The monogram of Charles with the additions of a scribe in a document signed by Charles at Kufstein, Aug. 31, 790. Copied from Stacke, l.c.
§ 57. Founding of the Holy Roman Empire, a.d. 800. Charlemagne and Leo III
G. Sugenheim: Geschichte der Entstehung und Ausbildung des Kirchenstaates. Leipz. 1854.
F. Scharpff: Die Entstehung des kirchenstaats. Freib. i. B. 1860.
TH. D. Mock: De Donatione a Carolo Mag. sedi apostolicae anno 774 oblata. Munich 1861.
James Bryce: The Holy Roman Empire. Lond. & N. York (Macmillan & Co.) 6th ed. 1876, 8th ed. 1880. German translation by Arthur Winckler.
Heinrich von Sybel: Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an die Päpste. In Sybel’s “Hist. Zeitschrift,” Munchen & Leipz. 1880, pp. 46–85.
Comp. Baxmann: I. 307 sqq.; Vétault: Ch. III. pp. 113 sqq. (Charlemagne, patrice des Romains-Formation des états de l’église).
Charlemagne inherited the protectorate of the temporal dominions of the pope which had been wrested from the Lombards by Pepin, as the Lombards had wrested them from the Eastern emperor. When the Lombards again rebelled and the pope (Hadrian) again appealed to the transalpine monarch for help, Charles in the third year of his sole reign (774) came to the rescue, crossed the Alps with an army—a formidable undertaking in those days—subdued Italy with the exception of a small part of the South still belonging to the Greek empire, held a triumphal entry in Rome, and renewed and probably enlarged his father’s gift to the pope. The original documents have perished, and no contemporary authority vouches for the details; but the fact is undoubted. The gift rested only on the right of conquest. Henceforward he always styled himself “Rex Francorum et Longobardorum, et Patricius Romanorum.” His authority over the immediate territory of the Lombards in Northern Italy was as complete as that in France, but the precise nature of his authority over the pope’s dominion as Patrician of the Romans became after his death an apple of discord for centuries. Hadrian, to judge from his letters, considered himself as much an absolute sovereign in his dominion as Charles in his.
In 781 at Easter Charles revisited Rome with his son Pepin, who on that occasion was anointed by the pope “King for Italy” (“Rex in Italiam”). On a third visit., in 787, he spent a few days with his friend, Hadrian, in the interest of the patrimony of St. Peter. When Leo III. followed Hadrian (796) he immediately dispatched to Charles, as tokens of submission the keys and standards of the city, and the keys of the sepulchre of Peter.
A few years afterwards a terrible riot broke out in Rome in which the pope was assaulted and almost killed (799). He fled for help to Charles, then at Paderborn in Westphalia, and was promised assistance. The next year Charles again crossed the Alps and declared his intention to investigate the charges of certain unknown crimes against Leo, but no witness appeared to prove them. Leo publicly read a declaration of his own innocence, probably at the request of Charles, but with a protest that this declaration should not be taken for a precedent. Soon afterwards occurred the great event which marks an era in the ecclesiastical and political history of Europe.
The Coronation of Charles as Emperor.
While Charles was celebrating Christmas in St.
Peter’s, in the year of our Lord 800, and kneeling in
prayer before the altar, the pope, as under a sudden inspiration (but
no doubt in consequence of a premeditated scheme), placed a golden
crown upon his head, and the Roman people shouted three times: “To
Charles Augustus, crowned by God, the great and pacific emperor of the
Romans, life and victory!” Forthwith, after ancient custom, he was
adored by the pope, and was styled henceforth (instead of Patrician)
Emperor and Augustus. Annales Laurissenses ad ann. 801: ”Ipsa die
sacratissima natalis Domini cum Rex ad Missam ante confessionem b.
Petri Apostoli ab oratione surgeret, Leo P. coronam capriti ejus
imposuit, et a cuncto Romanorum populo acclamatum est:, Karolo Augusto,
a Deo coronato, magno et pacifico Imperatori Romanorum, vita et
victoria!’ Et post Laudes ab Apostolico more
antiquorum principum adoratus est, atque, ablato Patricii nomine,
Imperator et Augustus est appellatus.” Comp. Eginhard, Annal. ad
ann. 800, and Vita Car., c. 28.
The new emperor presented to the pope a round
table of silver with the picture of Constantinople, and many gifts of
gold, and remained in Rome till Easter. The moment or manner of the
coronation may have been unexpected by Charles (if we are to believe
his word), but it is hardly conceivable that it was not the result of a
previous arrangement between him and Leo. Alcuin seems to have aided
the scheme. In his view the pope occupied the first, the emperor the
second, the king the third degree in the scale of earthly dignities. He
sent to Charles from Tours before his coronation a splendid Bible with
the inscription: Ad splendorem imperialis potentiae. But the date of the letter and the meaning of
imperialis are not quite certain. See Rettberg, Kirchengesch.
Deutschlands, I. 430, and Baxmann, Politik der
Päpste, I. 313 sqq.
On his return to France Charles compelled all his subjects to take a new oath to him as “Caesar.” He assumed the full title “Serenssimus Augustus a Deo coronatus, magnus et pacificus imperator, Romanum gubernans imperium, qui et per misericordiam Dei rex Francorum et Longobardorum.”
Significance of the Act.
The act of coronation was on the part of the pope a final declaration of independence and self-emancipation against the Greek emperor, as the legal ruler of Rome. Charles seems to have felt this, and hence he proposed to unite the two empires by marrying Irene, who had put her son to death and usurped the Greek crown (797). But the same rebellion had been virtually committed before by the pope in sending the keys of the city to Pepin, and by the French king in accepting this token of temporal sovereignty. Public opinion justified the act on the principle that might makes right. The Greek emperor, being unable to maintain his power in Italy and to defend his own subjects, first against the Lombards and then against the Franks, had virtually forfeited his claim.
For the West the event was the re-establishment, on a Teutonic basis, of the old Roman empire, which henceforth, together with the papacy, controlled the history of the middle ages. The pope and the emperor represented the highest dignity and power in church and state. But the pope was the greater and more enduring power of the two. He continued, down to the Reformation, the spiritual ruler of all Europe, and is to this day the ruler of an empire much vaster than that of ancient Rome. He is, in the striking language of Hobbes, “the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof.”
The Relation of the Pope and the Emperor.
What was the legal and actual relation between these two sovereignties, and the limits of jurisdiction of each? This was the struggle of centuries. It involved many problems which could only be settled in the course of events. It was easy enough to distinguish the two in theory by, confining the pope to spiritual, and the emperor to temporal affairs. But on the theocratic theory of the union of church and state the two will and must come into frequent conflict.
The pope, by voluntarily conferring the imperial
crown upon Charles, might claim that the empire was his gift, and that
the right of crowning implied the right of discrowning. And this right
was exercised by popes at a later period, who wielded the secular as
well as the spiritual sword and absolved nations of their oath of
allegiance. A mosaic picture in the triclinium of Leo III. in the
Lateran (from the ninth century) represents St. Peter in glory,
bestowing upon Leo kneeling at his right hand the priestly stole, and
upon Charles kneeling at his left, the standard of Rome. The picture is reproduced in the works of
Vétault and Stacke above quoted.
On the other hand Charles, although devotedly
attached to the church and the pope, was too absolute a monarch to
recognize a sovereignty within his sovereignty. He derived his idea of
the theocracy from the Old Testament, and the relation between Moses
and Aaron. He understood and exercised his imperial dignity pretty much
in the same way as Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great had
done in the Byzantine empire, which was caesaro-papal in principle and
practice, and so is its successor, the Russian empire. Charles believed
that he was the divinely appointed protector of the church and the
regulator of all her external and to some extent also the internal
affairs. He called the synods of his empire without asking the pope. He
presided at the Council of Frankfort (794), which legislated on matters
of doctrine and discipline, condemned the Adoption heresy, agreeably to
the pope, and rejected the image worship against the decision of the
second oecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) and the declared views of
several popes. Milman (II. 497): “The Council of Frankfort displays most
fully the power assumed by Charlemagne over the hierarchy as well as
the nobility of the realm, the mingled character, the all-embracing
comprehensiveness of his legislation. The assembly at Frankfort was at
once a Diet or Parliament of the realm and an ecclesiastical Council.
It took cognizance alternately of matters purely ecclesiastical and of
matters as clearly, secular. Charlemagne was present and presided in
the Council of Frankfort. The canons as well as the other statutes were
issued chiefly in his name.” Sanctae Ecclesiae tam pium ac devotum in servitio Dei
rectorem. Also, in his own language, Devotus Ecclesiae defensor
atque adjutor in omnibus apostolicae sedis. Rettberg I. 425, 439
sqq.
Charles regarded the royal and imperial dignity as
the hereditary possession of his house and people, and crowned his son,
Louis the Pious, at Aix-la-Chapelle in 813, without consulting the pope
or the Romans. 55 Ann. Einhardi, ad. ann. 813 (in Migne’s
Patrol. Tom. 104, p. 478): Evocatum ad se apud Aquasgrani
filium suum Illudovicum Aquitaniae regem, coronam illi imposuit et
imperialis nominis sibi consortem fecit.’ When
Stephen IV. visited Louis in 816, he bestowed on him simply spiritual
consecration. In the same manner Louis appointed his son Lothair
emperor who was afterwards crowned by the pope in Rome
(823).
§ 58. Survey of the History of the Holy Roman Empire.
The readiness with which the Romans responded to the
crowning act of Leo proves that the re-establishment of the Western
empire was timely. The Holy Roman Empire seemed to be the necessary
counterpart of the Holy Roman Church. For many, centuries the nations
of Europe had been used to the concentration of all secular power in
one head. It is true, several Roman emperors from Nero to Diocletian
had persecuted Christianity by fire and sword, but Constantine and his
successors had raised the church to dignity and power, and bestowed
upon it all the privileges of a state religion. The transfer of the
seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople withdrew from the Western
church the protection of the secular arm, and exposed Europe to the
horrors of barbarian invasion and the chaos of civil wars. The popes
were among the chief sufferers, their territory, being again and again
overrun and laid waste by the savage Lombards. Hence the instinctive
desire for the protecting arm of a new empire, and this could only be
expected from the fresh and vigorous Teutonic power which had risen
beyond the Alps and Christianized by Roman missionaries. Into this
empire “all the life of the ancient world was gathered; out of it all
the life of the modern world arose.” Bryce, p. 396 (8th ed.)
The Empire and the Papacy, The Two Ruling Powers of the Middle Ages.
Henceforward the mediaeval history of Europe is chiefly a history of the papacy and the empire. They were regarded as the two arms of God in governing the church and the world. This twofold government was upon the whole the best training-school of the barbarian for Christian civilization and freedom. The papacy acted as a wholesome check upon military despotism, the empire as a check upon the abuses of priestcraft. Both secured order and unity against the disintegrating tendencies of society; both nourished the great idea of a commonwealth of nations, of a brotherhood of mankind, of a communion of saints. By its connection with Rome, the empire infused new blood into the old nationalities of the South, and transferred the remaining treasures of classical culture and the Roman law to the new nations of the North. The tendency of both was ultimately self-destructive; they fostered, while seeming to oppose, the spirit of ecclesiastical and national independence. The discipline of authority always produces freedom as its legitimate result. The law is a schoolmaster to lead men to the gospel.
Otho the Great.
In the opening chapter of the history of the empire we find it under the control of a master-mind and in friendly alliance with the papacy. Under the weak successors of Charlemagne it dwindled down to a merely nominal existence. But it revived again in Otho I. or the Great (936–973), of the Saxon dynasty. He was master of the pope and defender of the Roman church, and left everywhere the impress of an heroic character, inferior only to that of Charles. Under Henry III. (1039–1056), when the papacy sank lowest, the empire again proved a reforming power. He deposed three rival popes, and elected a worthy, successor. But as the papacy rose from its degradation, it overawed the empire.
Henry IV. and Gregory VII.
Under Henry IV. (1056–1106) and Gregory VII. (1073–1085) the two power; came into the sharpest conflict concerning the right of investiture, or the supreme control in the election of bishops and abbots. The papacy achieved a moral triumph over the empire at Canossa, when the mightiest prince kneeled as a penitent at the feet of the proud successor of Peter (1077); but Henry recovered his manhood and his power, set up an antipope, and Gregory died in exile at Salerno, yet without yielding an inch of his principles and pretensions. The conflict lasted fifty years, and ended with the Concordat of Worms (Sept. 23, 1122), which was a compromise, but with a limitation of the imperial prerogative: the pope secured the right to invest the bishops with the ring and crozier, but the new bishop before his consecration was to receive his temporal estates as a fief of the crown by the touch of the emperor’s sceptre.
The House of Hohenstaufen.
Under the Swabian emperors of the house of
Hohenstaufen (1138–1254) the Roman empire reached its
highest power in connection with the Crusades, in the palmy days of
mediaeval chivalry, poetry and song. They excelled in personal
greatness and renown the Saxon and the Salic emperors, but were too
much concerned with Italian affairs for the good of Germany. Frederick
Barbarossa (Redbeard), during his long reign
(1152–1190), was a worthy successor of Charlemagne and
Otho the Great. He subdued Northern Italy, quarrelled with pope
Alexander III., enthroned two rival popes (Paschal III., and after his
death Calixtus III.), but ultimately submitted to Alexander, fell at
his feet at Venice, and was embraced by the pope with tears of joy and
the kiss of peace (1177). He died at the head of an army of crusaders,
while attempting to cross the Cydnus in Cilicia (June 10, 1190), and
entered upon his long enchanted sleep in Kyffhäuser till his
spirit reappeared to establish a new German empire in 1871. Friedrich Rückert has reproduced this
significant German legend in a poem beginning: Der alte
Barbarossa, Der Kaiser
Friederich, Im
unterird’schen Schlosse Hält er verzaubert sich. Er ist
niemals gestorben, Er lebt
darin noch jetzt; Er hat im
Schloss verborgen Zum Schlaf
sich hingesetzt. Er hat
hinabgenommen Des
Reiches Herrlichkeit, Und wird
einst wiederkommen Mit ihr zu
seiner Zeit,“etc.
Under Innocent III. (1198–1216)
the papacy reached the acme of its power, and maintained it till the
time of Boniface VIII. (1294–1303). Emperor Frederick
II. (1215–1250), Barbarossa’s
grandson, was equal to the best of his predecessors in genius and
energy, superior to them in culture, but more an Italian than a German,
and a skeptic on the subject of religion. He reconquered Jerusalem in
the fifth crusade, but cared little for the church, and was put under
the ban by pope Gregory IX., who denounced him as a heretic and
blasphemer, and compared him to the Apocalyptic beast from the abyss. He alone, of all the emperors, is consigned to hell by
Dante (Inferno, x. 119): “Within here is the second Frederick.”
Italy was at once the paradise and the grave of German ambition.
The German Empire.
After “the great interregnum” when might was
right, Schiller calls it ”die kaiserlose, die schreckliche
Zeit.”
The empire continued to live for more than five
centuries with varying fortunes, in nominal connection with Rome and at
the head of the secular powers in Christendom, but without controlling
influence over the fortunes of the papacy and the course of Europe.
Occasionally it sent forth a gleam of its universal aim, as under Henry
VII., who was crowned in Rome and hailed by Dante as the saviour of
Italy, but died of fever (if not of poison administered by a Dominican
monk in the sacramental cup) in Tuscany (1313); under Sigismund, the
convener and protector of the oecumenical Council at Constance which
deposed popes and burned Hus (1414), a much better man than either the
emperor or the contemporary popes; under Charles V.
(1519–1558), who wore the crown of Spain and Austria
as well as of Germany, and on whose dominions the sun never set; and
under Joseph II. (1765–1790), who renounced the
intolerant policy of his ancestors, unmindful of the
pope’s protest, and narrowly escaped greatness. The pope Pius VI. even made a journey to Vienna, but when
he extended his hand to the minister Kaunitz to kiss, the minister took
it and shook it. Joseph in turn visited Rome, and was received by the
people with the shout: ”Evviva il nostro
imperatore!” Dante (Purgat. VII. 94) represents Rudolf of
Hapsburg as seated gloomily apart in purgatory, and mourning his sin of
neglecting “To heal the wounds that Italy have slain.” Weary of the
endless strife of domestic tyrants and factions in every city, Dante
longed for some controlling power that should restore unity and peace
to his beloved but unfortunate Italy. He expounded his political ideas
in his work De Monarchia.
The Decline and Fall of the Empire.
Many causes contributed to the gradual downfall of the German empire: the successful revolt of the Swiss mountaineers, the growth of the independent kingdoms of Spain, France, and England, the jealousies of the electors and the minor German princes, the discovery of a new Continent in the West, the invasion of the Turks from the East, the Reformation which divided the German people into two hostile religions, the fearful devastations of the thirty years’ war, the rise of the house of Hohenzollern and the kingdom of Prussia on German soil with the brilliant genius of Frederick II., and the wars growing out of the French Revolution. In its last stages it became a mere shadow, and justified the satirical description (traced to Voltaire), that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. The last of the emperors, Francis II., in August 6th, 1806, abdicated the elective crown of Germany and substituted for it the hereditary crown of Austria as Francis I. (d. 1835).
Thus the holy Roman empire died in peace at the venerable age of one thousand and six years.
The Empire of Napoleon.
Napoleon, hurled into sudden power by the
whirlwind of revolution on the wings of his military genius, aimed at
the double glory of a second Caesar and a second Charlemagne, and
constructed, by arbitrary force, a huge military empire on the basis of
France, with the pope as an obedient paid servant at Paris, but it
collapsed on the battle fields of Leipzig and Waterloo, without the
hope of a resurrection. “I have not succeeded Louis Quatorze,” he said,
“but Charlemagne.” He dismissed his wife and married a daughter of the
last German and first Austrian emperor; he assumed the Lombard crown at
Milan; he made his ill-fated son “King of Rome” in imitation of the
German “King of the Romans.” He revoked “the donations which my
predecessors, the French emperors have made,” and appropriated them to
France. “Your holiness,” he wrote to Pius VII., who had once addressed
him as his “very dear Son in Christ,” “is sovereign of Rome, but I am
the emperor thereof.” “You are right,” he wrote to Cardinal Fesch, his
uncle, “that I am Charlemagne, and I ought to be treated as the emperor
of the papal court. I shall inform the pope of my intentions in a few
words, and if he declines to acquiesce, I shall reduce him to the same
condition in which he was before Charlemagne.” 2 In
another letter to Fesch (Correspond. de l’ empereur Napol.
Ier, Tom.
xi. 528), he writes, ”Pour le pape je suis Charemagne. parce que comme
Charlemagne je réunis la couronne de Prance à
celle du Lombards et que mon empire confine avec l’
Orient.” Quoted
by Bryce.
The German Confederation.
The Congress of Vienna erected a temporary substitute for the old empire in the German “Bund” at Frankfort. It was no federal state, but a loose confederacy of 38 sovereign states, or princes rather, without any popular representation; it was a rope of sand, a sham unity, under the leadership of Austria; and Austria shrewdly and selfishly used the petty rivalries and jealousies of the smaller principalities as a means to check the progress of Prussia and to suppress all liberal movements.
The New German Empire.
In the meantime the popular desire for national union, awakened by the war of liberation and a great national literature, made steady progress, and found at last its embodiment in a new German empire with a liberal constitution and a national parliament. But this great result was brought about by great events and achievements under the leadership of Prussia against foreign aggression. The first step was the brilliant victory of Prussia over Austria at Königgrätz, which resulted in the formation of the North German Confederation (1866). The second step was the still more remarkable triumph of united Germany in a war of self-defence against the empire of Napoleon III., which ended in the proclamation of William I. as German emperor by the united wishes of the German princes and peoples in the palace of Louis XIV. at Versailles (1870).
Thus the long dream of the German nation was fulfilled through a series of the most brilliant military and diplomatic victories recorded in modern history, by the combined genius of Bismarck, Moltke, and William, and the valor, discipline, and intelligence of the German army.
Simultaneously with this German movement, Italy under the lead of Cavour and Victor Emmanuel, achieved her national unity, with Rome as the political capital.
But the new German empire is not a continuation or revival of the old. It differs from it in several essential particulars. It is the result of popular national aspiration and of a war of self-defence, not of conquest; it is based on the predominance of Prussia and North Germany, not of Austria and South Germany; it is hereditary, not elective; it is controlled by modern ideas of liberty and progress, not by mediaeval notions and institutions; it is essentially Protestant, and not Roman Catholic; it is a German, not a Roman empire. Its rise is indirectly connected with the simultaneous downfall of the temporal power of the pope, who is the hereditary and unchangeable enemy both of German and Italian unity and freedom. The new empire is independent of the church, and has officially no connection with religion, resembling in this respect the government of the United States; but its Protestant animus appears not only in the hereditary religion of the first emperor, but also in the expulsion of the Jesuits (1872), and the “Culturkampf” against the politico-hierarchical aspirations of the ultramontane papacy. When Pius IX., in a letter to William I. (1873), claimed a sort of jurisdiction over all baptized Christians, the emperor courteously informed the infallible pope that he, with all Protestants, recognized no other mediator between God and man but our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The new German empire will and ought to do full justice to the Catholic church, but “will never go to Canossa.”
We pause at the close of a long and weighty chapter in history; we wonder what the next chapter will be.
§ 59. The Papacy and the Empire from the Death of Charlemagne to Nicolas I a.d. 814–858). Note on the Myth of the Papess Joan.
The power of Charlemagne was personal. Under his weak successors the empire fell to pieces, and the creation of his genius was buried in chaotic confusion; but the idea survived. His son and successor, Louis the Pious, as the Germans and Italians called him, or Louis the Gentle (le débonnaire) in French history (814–840), inherited the piety, and some of the valor and legislative wisdom, but not the genius and energy, of his father. He was a devoted and superstitious servant of the clergy. He began with reforms, he dismissed his father’s concubines and daughters with their paramours from the court, turned the palace into a monastery, and promoted the Scandinavian mission of St. Ansgar. In the progress of his reign, especially after his second marriage to the ambitious Judith, he showed deplorable weakness and allowed his empire to decay, while he wasted his time between monkish exercises and field-sports in the forest of the Ardennes. He unwisely shared his rule with his three sons who soon rebelled against their father and engaged in fraternal wars.
After his death the treaty of Verdun was concluded in 843. By this treaty the empire was divided; Lothair received Italy with the title of emperor, France fell to Charles the Bald, Germany to Louis the German. Thus Charlemagne’s conception of a Western empire that should be commensurate with the Latin church was destroyed, or at least greatly contracted, and the three countries have henceforth a separate history. This was better for the development of nationality. The imperial dignity was afterwards united with the German crown, and continued under this modified form till 1806.
During this civil commotion the papacy had no distinguished representative, but upon the whole profited by it. Some of the popes evaded the imperial sanction of their election. The French clergy forced the gentle Louis to make at Soissons a most humiliating confession of guilt for all the slaughter, pillage, and sacrilege committed during the civil wars, and for bringing the empire to the brink of ruin. Thus the hierarchy assumed control even over the civil misconduct of the sovereign and imposed ecclesiastical penance for ft.
Note. The Myth of Johanna Papissa.
We must make a passing mention of the curious and mysterious myth of papess Johanna, who is said during this period between Leo IV. (847) and Benedict III. (855) to have worn the triple crown for two years and a half. She was a lady of Mayence (her name is variously called Agnes, Gilberta, Johanna, Jutta), studied in disguise philosophy in Athens (where philosophy had long before died out), taught theology in Rome, under the name of Johannes Anglicus, and was elevated to the papal dignity as John VIII., but died in consequence of the discovery of her sex by a sudden confinement in the open street during a solemn procession from the Vatican to the Lateran. According to another tradition she was tied to the hoof of a horse, dragged outside of the city and stoned to death by the people, and the inscription was put on her grave:
“Parce pater patrum papissae edere partum.”
The strange story originated in Rome, and was first circulated by the Dominicans and Minorites, and acquired general credit in the 13th and 14th centuries. Pope John XX. (1276) called himself John XXI. In the beginning of the 15th century the bust of this woman-pope was placed alongside with the busts of the other popes at Sienna, and nobody took offence at it. Even Chancellor Gerson used the story as an argument that the church could err in matters of fact. At the Council in Constance it was used against the popes. Torrecremata, the upholder of papal despotism, draws from it the lesson that if the church can stand a woman-pope, she might stand the still greater evil of a heretical pope.
Nevertheless the story is undoubtedly a mere
fiction, and is so regarded by nearly all modern historians, Protestant
as well as Roman Catholic. It is not mentioned till four hundred years
later by Stephen, a French Dominican (who died 1261). The oldest testimony in the almost contemporary “Liber
Pontificalis” of Anastasius is wanting in the best manuscripts, and
must be a later interpolation. Döllinger shows that the
myth, although it may have circulated earlier in the mouth of the
people, was not definitely put into writing before the middle of the
thirteenth century.
Other conjectures are these: The myth of the female pope was a satire on John VIII. for his softness in dealing with Photius (Baronius); the misunderstanding of a fact that some foreign bishop (pontifex) in Rome was really a woman in disguise (Leibnitz); the papess was a widow of Leo IV. (Kist); a misinterpretation of the stella stercoraria (Schmidt); a satirical allegory on the origin and circulation of the false decretals of Isidor (Henke and Gfrörer); an impersonation of the great whore of the Apocalypse, and the popular expression of the belief that the mystery of iniquity was working in the papal court (Baring-Gould).
David Blondel, first destroyed the credit of this mediaeval fiction, in his learned French dissertation on the subject (Amsterdam, 1649). spanheim defended it, and Mosheim credited it much to his discredit as an historian. See the elaborate discussion of Döllinger, Papst-Fabeln des Mittelalters, 2d ed. Munchen, 1863 (Engl. transl. N. Y., 1872, pp. 4–58 and pp. 430–437). Comp. also Bianchi-Giovini, Esame critico degli atti e documenti della papessa Giovanna, Mil. 1845, and the long note of Gieseler, II. 30–32 (N. Y. ed.), which sums up the chief data in the case.
§ 60. The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
I. Sources.
The only older ed. of Pseudo-Isidor is that of Jacob Merlin in the first part of his Collection of General Councils, Paris, 1523, Col., 1530, etc., reprinted in Migne’s Patrol. Tom. CXXX., Paris, 1853.
Far superior is the modem ed. of P. Hinschius: Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilramni. Lips. 1863. The only critical ed, taken from the oldest and best MSS. Comp. his Commentatio de, Collectione Isidori Mercatoris in this ed. pp. xi-ccxxxviii.
II. Literature.
Dav. Blondel: Pseudo-Isidorus et Turrianus vapulantes. Genev. 1628.
F. Knust: De Fontibus et Consilio Pseudo-Isidorianae collectionis. Gött. 1832.
A. Möhler (R.C.): Fragmente aus und uber Isidor, in his “Vermischte Schriften” (ed. by Döllinger, Regensb. 1839), I. 285 sqq.
H. Wasserschleben: Beiträge zur Gesch. der falschen Decret. Breslau, 1844. Comp. also his art. in Herzog.
C. Jos. Hefele (R.C.): Die pseudo-Isidor. Frage, in the “Tubinger Quartalschrift, “1847.
Gfrörer: Alter, Ursprung, Zweck der Decretalen des falschen Isodorus. Freib. 1848.
Jul. Weizsäcker: Hinkmar und Pseudo-Isidor, in Niedner’s “Zeitschrift fur histor. Theol.,” for 1858, and Die pseudo-isid. Frage, in Sybel’s “Hist. Zeitschrift, “1860.
C. von Noorden: Ebo, Hinkmar und Pseudo-Isidor, in Sybel’s “Hist. Zeitschrift,” 1862.
Döllinger in Janus, 1869. It appeared in several editions and languages.
Ferd. Walter (R.C.): Lehrbuch des Kirchenrechts aller christl. Confessionen. Bonn (1822), 13th ed. 1861. The same transl. into French, Italian, and Spanish.
J. W. Bickell: Geschichte des Kirchenrechts. Giessen, 1843, 1849.
G. Phillips (R.C.): Kirchenrecht. Regensburg (1845), 3rd ed. 1857 sqq. 6 vols. (till 1864). His Lehrbuch, 1859, P. II. 1862.
Jo. Fr. von Schulte (R.C., since 1870 Old Cath.): Das Katholische Kirchenrecht. Giessen, P. I. 1860. Lehrbuch, 1873. Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des Canonischen Rechts von Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart, 1875 sqq.3 vols.
Aem. L. Richter: Lehrbuch des kath. und evang. Kirchenrechts. Leipz., sixth ed. by Dove, 1867 (on Pseudo-Isidor, pp. 102–133).
Henry C. Lea: Studies in Church History. Philad. 1869 (p. 43–102 on the False Decretals).
Friedr. Maassen (R.C.): Geschichte der Quellen und d. Literatur des canonischen Rechts im Abendlande. 1st vol., Gratz, 1870.
Comp. also for the whole history the great work of F. C. von Savigny: Geschichte des Röm. Rechts im Mittelalter. Heidelb. 2nd ed. 1834–’51, 7 vols.
See also the Lit. in vol. II. § 67.
During the chaotic confusion under the Carolingians,
in the middle of the ninth century, a mysterious book made its
appearance, which gave legal expression to the popular opinion of the
papacy, raised and strengthened its power more than any other agency,
and forms to a large extent the basis of the canon law of the church of
Rome. This is a collection of ecclesiastical laws under the false name
of bishop Isidor of Seville (died 636), hence called the
“Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.” The preface begins: ”Isidorus Mercator servus Christi
lectori conservo suo et parenti suo in Domino fideli (al. fidei)
salutem.’ The byname ”Mercator,” which is
found in 30 of the oldest codices, is so far unexplained. Some refer it
to Marius Mercator, a learned Occidental layman residing in
Constantinople, who wrote against Pelagius and translated
ecclesiastical records which pseudo-Isidorus made use of. Others regard
it as a mistake for ” Peccator” (a title of humility frequently used by
priests and bishops, e.g. by St. Patrick in his ” Confession”),
which is found in 3 copies. ” Mercatus” also occurs it, several copies,
and this would be equivalent to redemptus, ” Isidorus, the
redeemed servant of Christ.” See Hinschius and Richter,
l.c. The original name was decretale constitutum or
decretalis epistola, afterwards decretalis. See Richter,
l.c. p. 80.
1. The contents of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The book is divided into three parts. The first part contains fifty Apostolical Canons from the collection of Dionysius, sixty spurious decretals of the Roman bishops from Clement (d. 101) to Melchiades (d. 314). The second part comprehends the forged document of the donation of Constantine, some tracts concerning the Council of Nicaea, and the canons of the Greek, African, Gallic, and Spanish Councils down to 683, from the Spanish collection. The third part, after a preface copied from the Hispana, gives in chronological order the decretals of the popes from Sylvester (d. 335) to Gregory II. (d. 731), among which thirty-five are forged, including all before Damasus; but the genuine letters also, which are taken from the Isidorian collection, contain interpolations. In many editions the Capitula Angilramni are appended.
All these documents make up a manual of orthodox doctrine and clerical discipline. They give dogmatic decisions against heresies, especially Arianism (which lingered long in Spain), and directions on worship, the sacraments, feasts and fasts, sacred rites and costumes, the consecration of churches, church property, and especially on church polity. The work breathes throughout the spirit of churchly and priestly piety and reverence.
2. The sacerdotal system. Pseudo-Isidor advocates the papal theocracy. The clergy is a divinely instituted, consecrated, and inviolable caste, mediating between God and the people, as in the Jewish dispensation. The priests are the “familiares Dei,” the “spirituales,” the laity the “carnales.” He who sins against them sins against God. They are subject to no earthly tribunal, and responsible to God alone, who appointed them judges of men. The privileges of the priesthood culminate in the episcopal dignity, and the episcopal dignity culminates in the papacy. The cathedra Petri is the fountain of all power. Without the consent of the pope no bishop can be deposed, no council be convened. He is the ultimate umpire of all controversy, and from him there is no appeal. He is often called “episcopus universalis” notwithstanding the protest of Gregory I.
3. The aim of Pseudo-Isidor is, by such a collection of authoritative decisions to protect the clergy against the secular power and against moral degeneracy. The power of the metropolitans is rather lowered in order to secure to the pope the definitive sentence in the trials of bishops. But it is manifestly wrong if older writers have put the chief aim of the work in the elevation of the papacy. The papacy appears rather as a means for the protection of episcopacy in its conflict with the civil government. It is the supreme guarantee of the rights of the bishops.
4. The genuineness of Pseudo-Isidor was not doubted during the middle ages (Hincmar only denied the legal application to the French church), but is now universally given up by Roman Catholic as well as Protestant historians.
The forgery is apparent. It is inconceivable that
Dionysius Exiguus, who lived in Rome, should have been ignorant of such
a large number of papal letters. The collection moreover is full of
anachronisms: Roman bishops of the second and third centuries write in
the Frankish Latin of the ninth century on doctrinal topics in the
spirit of the post-Nicene orthodoxy and on mediaeval relations in
church and state; they quote the Bible after the; version of Jerome as
amended under Charlemagne; Victor addresses Theophilus of Alexandria,
who lived two hundred years later, on the paschal controversies of the
second century. The forgery was first suggested by Nicolaus de Cusa, in the
fifteenth century, and Calvin (Inst. IV. 7, 11, 20), and then
proved by the Magdeburg Centuries, and more conclusively by the
Calvinistic divine David Blondel (1628) against the attempted
vindication of the Jesuit Torres (Turrianus, 1572). The brothers
Ballerini, Baronius, Bellarmin, Theiner, Walter, Möhler,
Hefele, and other Roman Catholic scholars admit the forgery, but
usually try to mitigate it and to underrate the originality and
influence of Pseudo-Isidor. Some Protestant divines have erred in the
opposite direction (as Richter justly observes, l.c. p.
117).
The Donation of Constantine which is incorporated
in this collection, is an older forgery, and exists also in several
Greek texts. It affirms that Constantine, when he was baptized by pope
Sylvester, a.d. 324 (he was not baptized till 337, by the Arian bishop
Eusebius of Nicomedia), presented him with the Lateran palace and all
imperial insignia, together with the Roman and Italian territory. “Dominis meis beatissimis Petro et Paulo, et per eos
etiam beato Sylvestro Patri nostro summo pontifici, et universalis
urbis Romae papae, et omnibus ejus successoribus pontificibus . .
concedimus palatium imperii nostri Lateranense ... deinde diadema,
videlicet coronam capitis nostri simulque pallium, vel mitram .... . et
omnia imperialia indumenta ... et imperialia sceptra . . et omnem
possessionem imperialis culminis et gloriam potestatis nostrae ... Unde
ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed magis amplius quam terreni
imperii dignitas et gloriae potentia decoretur, ecce tam palatium
nostrum, ut praedictum est, quamque Pomanae vobis et omnes Italiae seu
occidentalium regionum provincias, loca et civitates beatissimo
pontifici nostro, Sylvestro universali papae, concedimus atque
relinquimus.” In Migne, Tom. 130, p. 249 sq. That Constantine made donations to Sylvester on occasion of
his pretended baptism is related first in the Acta Sylvestri,
then by Hadrian I. in a letter to Charlemagne (780). In the ninth
century the spurious document appeared. The spuriousness was perceived
as early as 999 by the emperor Otho III. and proven by Laurentius Valla
about 1440 in De falso credita et ementita Constantini
donatione. The document is universally given up as a fiction,
though Baronius defended the donation itself.
5. The authorship must be assigned to some
ecclesiastic of the Frankish church, probably of the diocese of Rheims,
between 847 and 865 (or 857), but scholars differ as to the writer. The following persons have been suggested as authors:
Benedictus Levita (Deacon) of Mayence, whose Capitularium of
about 847 agrees in several passages literally with the Decretals
(Blondel, Knust, Walter); Rothad of Soissons (Phillips,
Gfrörer); Otgar, archbishop of Mayence, who took a prominent
part in the clerical rebellion against Louis the Pious (Ballerinii,
Wasserschleben); Ebo, archbishop of Rheims, the predecessor of Hincmar
and leader in that rebellion, or some unknown ecclesiastic in that
diocese (Weizsäcker, von Noorden, Hinschius, Richter,
Baxmann). The repetitions suggest a number of authors and a gradual
growth. Nicolai I. Epist. ad universos episcopos Galliae
ann. 865 (Mansi xv. p. 694 sq.): ”Decretales epistolae Rom.
Pontificum sunt recipiendae, etiamsi non sunt canonum codici
compaginatae: quoniam inter ipsos canones unum b. Leonis capitulum
constat esse permixtum, quo omnia decretalia constituta sedes
apostolicae custodiri mandantur.—Itaque nihil
interest, utrum sint omnia decretalia sedis Apost. constituta inter
canones conciliorum immixta, cum omnia in uno copore compaginare non
possint et illa eis intersint, quae firmitatem his quae desunt et
vigorem suum assignet.—Sanctus Gelasius (quoque) non
dixit suscipiendas decretales epistolas quae inter canones habentur,
nec tantum quas moderni pontifices ediderunt, sed quas beatissimi Papae
diversis temporibus ab urbe Roma dederunt.“
From the same period and of the same spirit are several collections of Capitula or Capitularia, i.e., of royal ecclesiastical ordinances which under the Carolingians took the place of synodical decisions. Among these we mention the collection of Ansegis, abbot of Fontenelles (827), of Benedictus Levita of Mayence (847), and the Capitula Angilramni, falsely ascribed to bishop Angilramnus of Metz (d. 701).
6. Significance of Pseudo-Isidor. It consists not so much in the novelty of the views and claims of the mediaeval priesthood, but in tracing them back from the ninth to the third and second centuries and stamping them with the authority of antiquity. Some of the leading principles had indeed been already asserted in the letters of Leo I. and other documents of the fifth century, yea the papal animus may be traced to Victor in the second century and to the Judaizing opponents of St. Paul. But in this collection the entire hierarchical and sacerdotal system, which was the growth of several centuries, appears as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning. We have a parallel phenomenon in the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons which gather into one whole the ecclesiastical decisions of the first three centuries, and trace them directly to the apostles or their disciple, Clement of Rome.
Pseudo-Isidorus was no doubt a sincere believer in the hierarchical system; nevertheless his Collection is to a large extent a conscious high church fraud, and must as such be traced to the father of lies. It belongs to the Satanic element in the history of the Christian hierarchy, which has as little escaped temptation and contamination as the Jewish hierarchy.
§ 61. Nicolas I., April, 858-Nov. 13, 867.
I. The Epistles of Nicolas I. in Mansi’s Conc. XV., and in Migne’s Patrol. Tom. CXIX. Comp. also Jaffé, Regesta, pp. 237–254.
Hincmari (Rhemensis Archiepiscopi) Oper. Omnia. In Migne’s Patrol. Tom. 125 and 126. An older ed. by J. Sirmond, Par. 1645, 2 vols. fol.
Hugo Laemmer: Nikolaus I. und die Byzantinische Staatskirche seiner Zeit. Berlin, 1857.
A. Thiel: De Nicolao Papa. Comment. duae Hist. canonicae. Brunzberg, 1859.
Van Noorden: Hincmar, Erzbischof von Rheims. Bonn, 1863.
Hergenröther (R.C. Prof at Wurzburg, now Cardinal): Photius. Regensburg, 1867–1869, 3 vols.
Comp. Baxmann II. 1–29; Milman, Book V. ch.4 (vol. III. 24–46); Hefele, Conciliengesch. vol. IV., (2nd ed.), 228 sqq; and other works quoted § 48.
By a remarkable coincidence the publication of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals synchronized with the appearance of a pope who had the ability and opportunity to carry the principles of the Decretals into practical effect, and the good fortune to do it in the service of justice and virtue. So long as the usurpation of divine power was used against oppression and vice, it commanded veneration and obedience, and did more good than harm. It was only the pope who in those days could claim a superior authority in dealing with haughty and oppressive metropolitans, synods, kings and emperors.
Nicolas I. is the greatest pope, we may say the only great pope between Gregory I. and Gregory VII. He stands between them as one of three peaks of a lofty mountain, separated from the lower peak by a plane, and from the higher peak by a deep valley. He appeared to his younger contemporaries as a “new Elijah,” who ruled the world like a sovereign of divine appointment, terrible to the evil-doer whether prince or priest, yet mild to the good and obedient. He was elected less by the influence of the clergy than of the emperor Louis II., and consecrated in his presence; he lived with him on terms of friendship, and was treated in turn with great deference to his papal dignity. He anticipated Hildebrand in the lofty conception of his office; and his energy and boldness of character corresponded with it. The pope was in his view the divinely appointed superintendent of the whole church for the maintenance of order, discipline and righteousness, and the punishment of wrong and vice, with the aid of the bishops as his executive organs. He assumed an imperious tone towards the Carolingians. He regarded the imperial crown a grant of the vicar of St. Peter for the protection of Christians against infidels. The empire descended to Louis by hereditary right, but was confirmed by the authority of the apostolic see.
The pontificate of Nicolas was marked by three important events: the controversy with Photius, the prohibition of the divorce of King Lothair, and the humiliation of archbishop Hincmar. In the first he failed, in the second and third he achieved a moral triumph.
Nicolas and Photius.
Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, of imperial descent and of austere ascetic virtue, was unjustly deposed and banished by the emperor Michael III. for rebuking the immorality of Caesar Bardas, but he refused to resign. Photius, the greatest scholar of his age, at home in almost every branch of knowledge and letters, was elected his successor, though merely a layman, and in six days passed through the inferior orders to the patriarchal dignity (858). The two parties engaged in an unrelenting warfare, and excommunicated each other. Photius was the first to appeal to the Roman pontiff. Nicolas, instead of acting as mediator, assumed the air of judge, and sent delegates to Constantinople to investigate the case on the spot. They were imprisoned and bribed to declare for Photius; but the pope annulled their action at a synod in Rome, and decided in favor of Ignatius (863). Photius in turn pronounced sentence of condemnation on the pope and, in his Encyclical Letter, gave classical expression to the objections of the Greek church against the Latin (867). The controversy resulted in the permanent alienation of the two churches. It was the last instance of an official interference of a pope in the affairs of the Eastern church.
Nicolas and Lothair.
Lothair II., king of Lorraine and the second son of the emperor Lothair, maltreated and at last divorced his wife, Teutberga of Burgundy, and married his mistress, Walrada, who appeared publicly in all the array and splendor of a queen. Nicolas, being appealed to by the injured lady, defended fearlessly the sacredness of matrimony; he annulled the decisions of synods, and deposed the archbishops of Cologne and Treves for conniving at the immorality of their sovereign. He threatened the king with immediate excommunication if he did not dismiss the concubine and receive the lawful wife. He even refused to yield when Teutberga, probably under compulsion, asked him to grant a divorce. Lothair, after many equivocations, yielded at last (865). It is unnecessary to enter into the complications and disgusting details of this controversy.
Nicolas and Hincmar.
In his controversy with Hincmar, Nicolas was a
protector of the bishops and lower clergy against the tyranny of
metropolitans. Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was the most powerful
prelate of France, and a representative of the principle of Gallican
independence. He was energetic, but ambitious and overbearing. He came
three times in conflict with the pope on the question of jurisdiction.
The principal case is that of Rothad, bishop of Soissons, one of his
oldest suffragans, whom he deposed without sufficient reason and put
into prison, with the aid of Charles the Bald (862). The pope sent his
legate “from the side,” Arsenius, to Charles, and demanded the
restoration of the bishop. He argued from the canons of the Council of
Sardica that the case must be decided by Rome even if Rothad had not
appealed to him. He enlisted the sympathies of the bishops by reminding
them that they might suffer similar injustice from their metropolitan,
and that their only refuge was in the common protection of the Roman
see. Charles desired to cancel the process, but Nicolas would not
listen to it. He called Rothad to Rome, reinstated him solemnly in the
church of St. Maria Maggiore, and sent him back in triumph to France
(864) Jaffé, 246 and 247, and Mansi, XV. 687
sqq. Rotha dum canonice ... dejectum et a Nicolao papa non
regulariter, sed potentialiter restitutum.“ See Baxmann, II.
26.
In this controversy Nicolas made use of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, a copy of which came into his hands probably through Rotbad. He thus gave them the papal sanction; yet he must have known that a large portion of this forged collection, though claiming to proceed from early popes, did not exist in the papal archives. Hincmar protested against the validity of the new decretals and their application to France, and the protest lingered for centuries in the Gallican liberties till they were finally buried in the papal absolutism of the Vatican Council of 1870.
§ 62. Hadrian II. and John VIII a.d. 867 to 882.
Mansi: Conc. Tom. XV.–XVII.
Migne: Patrol. Lat. Tom. CXXII. 1245 sqq. (Hadrian II.); Tom. CXXVI. 647 sqq. (John VIII.); also Tom. CXXIX., pp. 823 sqq., and 1054 sqq., which contain the writings of Auxilius and Vulgarius, concerning pope Formosus.
Baronius: Annal. ad ann. 867–882.
Jaffé: Regesta, pp. 254–292.
Milman: Lat. Christianity, Book V., chs.5 and 6.
Gfrörer: Allg. Kirchengesch., Bd. III. Abth. 2, pp. 962 sqq.
Baxmann: Politik der Päpste, II. 29–57.
For nearly two hundred years, from Nicolas to Hildebrand (867–1049), the papal chair was filled, with very few exceptions, by ordinary and even unworthy occupants.
Hadrian II. (867–872) and John VIII. (872–882) defended the papal power with the same zeal as Nicolas, but with less ability, dignity, and success, and not so much in the interests of morality as for self-aggrandizement. They interfered with the political quarrels of the Carolingians, and claimed the right of disposing royal and imperial crowns.
Hadrian was already seventy-five years of age, and well known for great benevolence, when he ascended the throne (he was born in 792). He inherited from Nicolas the controversies with Photius, Lothair, and Hincmar of Rheims, but was repeatedly rebuffed. He suffered also a personal humiliation on account of a curious domestic tragedy. He had been previously married, and his wife (Stephania) was still living at the time of his elevation. Eleutherius, a son of bishop Arsenius (the legate of Nicolas), carried away the pope’s daughter (an old maid of forty years, who was engaged to another man), fled to the emperor Louis, and, when threatened with punishment, murdered both the pope’s wife and daughter. He was condemned to death.
This affair might have warned the popes to have nothing to do with women; but it was succeeded by worse scenes.
John VIII. was an energetic, shrewd, passionate, and intriguing prelate, meddled with all the affairs of Christendom from Bulgaria to France and Spain, crowned two insignificant Carolingian emperors (Charles the Bald, 875, and Charles the Fat, 881), dealt very freely in anathemas, was much disturbed by the invasion of the Saracens, and is said to have been killed by a relative who coveted the papal crown and treasure. The best thing he did was the declaration, in the Bulgarian quarrel with the patriarch of Constantinople, that the Holy Spirit had created other languages for worship besides Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, although he qualified it afterwards by saying that Greek and Latin were the only proper organs for the celebration of the mass, while barbarian tongues such as the Slavonic, may be good enough for preaching.
His violent end was the beginning of a long
interregnum of violence. The close of the ninth century gave a
foretaste of the greater troubles of the tenth. After the downfall of
the Carolingian dynasty the popes were more and more involved in the
political quarrels and distractions of the Italian princes. The dukes
Berengar of Friuli (888–924), and Guido of Spoleto
(889–894), two remote descendants of Charlemagne
through a female branch, contended for the kingdom of Italy and the
imperial crown, and filled alternately the papal chair according to
their success in the conflict. The Italians liked to have two masters,
that they might play off one against the other. Guido was crowned
emperor by Stephen VI. (V.) in February, 891, and was followed by his
son, Lambert, in 894, who was also crowned. Formosus, bishop of Portus,
whom John VIII. had pursued with bitter animosity, was after varying
fortunes raised to the papal chair, and gave the imperial crown first
to Lambert, but afterwards to the victorious Arnulf of Carinthia, in
896. He roused the revenge of Lambert, and died of violence. His second
successor and bitter enemy, Stephen VII. (VI.), a creature of the party
of Lambert, caused his corpse to be exhumed, clad in pontifical robes,
arraigned in a mock trial, condemned and deposed, stripped of the
ornaments, fearfully mutilated, decapitated, and thrown into the Tiber.
But the party of Berengar again obtained the ascendency; Stephen VII.
was thrown into prison and strangled (897). This was regarded as a just
punishment for his conduct towards Formosus. John IX. restored the
character of Formosus. He died in 900, and was followed by Benedict
IV., of the Lambertine or Spoletan party, and reigned for the now
unusual term of three years and a half. According to Auxentius and Vulgarius, pope Stephen VII. was
the author of the outrage on the corpse of Formosus; Liutprand traces
it to Sergius III. in 898, when he was anti-pope of John IX. Baronius
conjectures that Liutprand wrote Sergius for Stephanus. Hefele assents,
Conciliengesch. IV. 561 sqq.
§ 63. The Degradation of the Papacy in the Tenth Century.
Sources.
Migne’s Patrol. Lat. Tom. 131–142. These vols. contain the documents and works from Pope John IX.–Gregory VI.
Liudprandus (Episcopus Cremonensis, d. 972): Antapodoseos, seu Rerum per Europam gestarum libri VI. From a.d. 887–950. Reprinted in Pertz: Monum. Germ. III. 269–272; and in Migne: Patrol. Tom. CXXXVI. 769 sqq. By the same: Historia Ottonis, sive de rebus gestis Ottonis Magni. From a.d. 960–964. In Pertz: Monum. III. 340–346; in Migne CXXXVI. 897 sqq. Comp. Koepke: De Liudprandi vita et scriptis, Berol., 1842; Wattenbach: Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, and Giesebrecht, l.c. I. p. 779. Liudprand or Liutprand (Liuzo or Liuso), one of the chief authorities on the history of the 10th century, was a Lombard by birth, well educated, travelled in the East and in Germany, accompanied Otho I. to Rome, 962, was appointed by him bishop of Cremona, served as his interpreter at the Roman Council of 964, and was again in Rome 965. He was also sent on an embassy to Constantinople. He describes the wretched condition of the papacy as an eye-witness. His Antapodosis or Retribution (written between 958 and 962) is specially directed against king Berengar and queen Willa, whom he hated. His work on Otho treats of the contemporary events in which he was one of the actors. He was fond of scandal, but is considered reliable in most of his facts.
Flodoardus (Canonicus Remensis, d. 966): Historia Remensis; Annales; Opuscula metrica, in Migne, Tom. CXXXV.
Atto (Episcopus Vercellensis, d. 960): De presauris ecclesiasticis; Epistolae, and other books, in Migne, Tom. CXXXV.
Jaffé: Regesta, pp. 307–325.
Other sources relating more to the political history of the tenth century are indicated by Giesebrecht, I. 817, 820, 836.
Literature.
Baronius: Annales ad ann. 900–963.
V. E. Löscher.: Historie des röm. Hurenregiments. Leipzig, 1707. (2nd ed. with another title, 1725.)
Constantin Höfler (R.C.): Die deutschen Päpste. Regensburg, 1839, 2 vols.
E. Dummler: Auxilius und Vulgarius. Quellen und Forschungenzur Geschichte des Papstthums im Anfang des zehnten Jahrhunderts. Leipz. 1866. The writings of Auxilius and Vulgarius are in Migne’s Patrol., Tom. CXXIX.
C. Jos. Von Hefele (Bishop of Rottenburg): Die Päpste und Kaiser in den trubsten Zeiten der Kirche, in his “Beiträge zur Kirchengesch,” etc., vol. I. 27–278. Also his Conciliengeschichte, IV. 571–660 (2d ed.).
Milman: Lat. Chr. bk. 5, chs. 11–14. Giesebrecht: Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit., I. 343 sqq. Gfrörer: III. 3, 1133–1275. Baxmann: II. 58–125. Gregorovius, Vol. III. Von Reumont, Vol. II.
The tenth century is the darkest of the dark ages, a century of ignorance and superstition, anarchy and crime in church and state. The first half of the eleventh century was little better. The dissolution of the world seemed to be nigh at hand. Serious men looked forward to the terrible day of judgment at the close of the first millennium of the Christian era, neglected their secular business, and inscribed donations of estates and other gifts to the church with the significant phrase “appropinquante mundi termino.”
The demoralization began in the state, reached the church, and culminated in the papacy. The reorganization of society took the same course. No church or sect in Christendom ever sank so low as the Latin church in the tenth century. The papacy, like the old Roman god Janus, has two faces, one Christian, one antichristian, one friendly and benevolent, one fiendish and malignant. In this period, it shows almost exclusively the antichristian face. It is an unpleasant task for the historian to expose these shocking corruptions; but it is necessary for the understanding of the reformation that followed. The truth must be told, with its wholesome lessons of humiliation and encouragement. No system of doctrine or government can save the church from decline and decay. Human nature is capable of satanic wickedness. Antichrist steals into the very temple of God, and often wears the priestly robes. But God is never absent from history, and His overruling wisdom always at last brings good out of evil. Even in this midnight darkness the stars were shining in the firmament; and even then, as in the days of Elijah the prophet, there were thousands who had not bowed their knees to Baal. Some convents resisted the tide of corruption, and were quiet retreats for nobles and kings disgusted with the vanities of the world, and anxious to prepare themselves for the day of account. Nilus, Romuald, and the monks of Cluny raised their mighty voice against wickedness in high places. Synods likewise deplored the immorality of the clergy and laity, and made efforts to restore discipline. The chaotic confusion of the tenth century, like the migration of nations in the fifth, proved to be only the throe and anguish of a new birth. It was followed first by the restoration of the empire under Otho the Great, and then by the reform of the papacy under Hildebrand.
The Political Disorder.
In the semi-barbarous state of society during the middle ages, a strong central power was needed in church and state to keep order. Charlemagne was in advance of his times, and his structure rested on no solid foundation. His successors had neither his talents nor his energy, and sank almost as low as the Merovingians in incapacity and debauchery. The popular contempt in which they were held was expressed in such epithets as “the Bald,” “the Fat,” “the Stammerer,” “the Simple,” “the Lazy,” “the Child.” Under their misrule the foundations of law and discipline gave way. Europe was threatened with a new flood of heathen barbarism. The Norman pirates from Denmark and Norway infested the coasts of Germany and France, burned cities and villages, carried off captives, followed in their light boats which they could carry on their shoulders, the course of the great rivers into the interior; they sacked Hamburg, Cologne, Treves, Rouen, and stabled their horses in Charlemagne’s cathedral at Aix; they invaded England, and were the terror of all Europe until they accepted Christianity, settled down in Normandy, and infused fresh blood into the French and English people. In the South, the Saracens, crossing from Africa, took possession of Sicily and Southern Italy; they are described by pope John VIII. as Hagarenes, as children of fornication and wrath, as an army of locusts, turning the land into a wilderness. From the East, the pagan Hungarians or Magyars invaded Germany and Italy like hordes of wild beasts, but they were defeated at last by Henry the Fowler and Otho the Great, and after their conversion to Christianity under their saintly monarch Stephen (997–1068), they became a wall of defence against the progress of the Turks.
Within the limits of nominal Christendom, the kings and nobles quarreled among themselves, oppressed the people, and distributed bishoprics and abbeys among their favorites, or pocketed the income. The metropolitans oppressed the bishops, the bishops the priests, and the priests the laity. Bands of robbers roamed over the country and defied punishment. Might was right. Charles the Fat was deposed by his vassals, and died in misery, begging his bread (888). His successor, Arnulf of Carinthia, the last of the Carolingian line of emperors (though of illegitimate birth), wielded a victorious sword over the Normans (891) and the new kingdom of Moravia (894), but fell into trouble, died of Italian poison, and left the crown of Germany to his only legitimate son, Louis the Child (899–911), who was ruled by Hatto, archbishop of Mayence. This prelate figures in the popular legend of the “Mouse-Tower” (on an island in the Rhine, opposite Bingen), where a swarm of mice picked his bones and “gnawed the flesh from every limb,” because he had shut up and starved to death a number of hungry beggars. But documentary history shows him in a more favorable light. Louis died before attaining to manhood, and with him the German line of the Carolingians (911). The last shadow of an emperor in Italy, Berengar, who had been crowned in St. Peter’s, died by the dagger of an assassin (924). The empire remained vacant for nearly forty years, until Otho, a descendant of the Saxon duke Widukind, whom Charlemagne had conquered, raised it to a new life.
In France, the Carolingian dynasty lingered nearly a century longer, till it found an inglorious end in a fifth Louis called the Lazy (“le Fainéant”), and Count Hugh Capet became the founder of the Capetian dynasty, based on the principle of hereditary succession (987). He and his son Robert received the crown of France not from the pope, but from the archbishop of Rheims.
Italy was invaded by Hungarians and Saracens, and
distracted by war between rival kings and petty princes struggling for
aggrandizement. The bishops and nobles were alike corrupt, and the
whole country was a moral wilderness. Höfler (I. 16) asserts that every princely
family of Italy in the tenth century was tainted with incestuous blood,
and that it was difficult to distinguish wives and sisters mothers and
daughters. See his genealogical tables appended to the first
volume.
The Demoralization of the Papacy.
The political disorder of Europe affected the
church and paralyzed its efforts for good. The papacy itself lost all
independence and dignity, and became the prey of avarice, violence, and
intrigue, a veritable synagogue of Satan. It was dragged through the
quagmire of the darkest crimes, and would have perished in utter
disgrace had not Providence saved it for better times. Pope followed
pope in rapid succession, and most of them ended their career in
deposition, prison, and murder. The rich and powerful marquises of
Tuscany and the Counts of Tusculum acquired control over the city of
Rome and the papacy for more than half a century. And what is worse
(incredibile, attamen verum), three bold and energetic women of the
highest rank and lowest character, Theodora the elder (the wife or
widow of a Roman senator), and her two daughters, Marozia and Theodora,
filled the chair of St. Peter with their paramours and bastards. These
Roman Amazons combined with the fatal charms of personal beauty and
wealth, a rare capacity for intrigue, and a burning lust for power and
pleasure. They had the diabolical ambition to surpass their sex as much
in boldness and badness as St. Paula and St. Eustachium in the days of
Jerome had excelled in virtue and saintliness. They turned the church
of St. Peter into a den of robbers, and the residence of his successors
into a harem. And they gloried in their shame. Hence this infamous
period is called the papal Pornocracy or Hetaerocracy. Liutprandi Antapodosis, II. 48 (Pertz, V. 297;
Migne, CXXXVI. 827): Theodora, scortum impudens ... (quod dictu
etiam foedissimum est), Romanae civitatis non inviriliter monarchiam
obtinebat. Quae duas habuit natas, Marotiam atque Theodoram, sibi non
solum coaequales, verum etiam Veneris exercitio promptiores. Harum
Marotia ex Papa Sergio-Joannem, qui post Joannis Ravennatis obitum
Romanae Ecclesiae obtinuit dignitatem, nefario genuit adulterio,
“etc. In the same ch. he calls the elder Theodora ”meretrix satis
impudentissima, Veneris calore succensa.” This Theodora was the wife of Theophylactus, Roman
Consul and Senator, probably of Byzantine origin, who appears in 901
among the Roman judges of Louis III. She called herself ” Senatrix.”
She was the mistress of Adalbert of Tuscany, called the Rich (d. 926),
and of pope John X. (d. 928). And yet she is addressed by Eugenius
Vulgarius as ”sanctissima et venerabilis matrona!” (See
Dümmler, l.c. p. 146, and Hefele, IV. 575.) Her
daughter Marozia (or Maruccia, the diminutive of Maria, Mariechen) was
the boldest and most successful of the three. She was the mistress of
pope Sergius III. and of Alberic I., Count of Tusculum (d. 926), and
married several times. Comp. Liutprand, III. 43 and 44. She perpetuated
her rule through her son, Alberic II., and her grandson, pope John XII.
With all their talents and influence, these strong-minded women were
very, ignorant; the daughters of the younger Theodora could neither
read nor write, and signed their name in 945 with a +. (Gregorovius,
III. 282 sq.) The Tusculan popes and the Crescentii, who controlled and
disgraced the papacy in the eleventh century, were descendants of the
same stock. The main facts of this shameful reign rest on good
contemporary Catholic authorities (as Liutprand, Flodoard, Ratherius of
Verona, Benedict of Soracte, Gerbert, the transactions of the Councils
in Rome, Rheims, etc.), and are frankly admitted with devout
indignation by Baronius and other Roman Catholic historians, but turned
by them into an argument for the divine origin of the papacy, whose
restoration to power appears all the more wonderful from the depth of
its degradation. Möhler (Kirchgesch. ed. by Gama, II.
183) calls Sergius III., John X., John XI., and John XII.” horrible
popes,” and says that ” crimes alone secured the papal dignity!” Others
acquit the papacy of guilt, since it was not independent. The best
lesson which Romanists might derive from this period of prostitution is
humility and charity. It is a terrible rebuke to pretensions of
superior sanctity.
Some popes of this period were almost as bad as the worst emperors of heathen Rome, and far less excusable.
Sergius III., the lover of Marozia
(904–911), opened the shameful succession. Under the
protection of a force of Tuscan soldiers he appeared in Rome, deposed
Christopher who had just deposed Leo V., took possession of the papal
throne, and soiled it with every vice; but he deserves credit for
restoring the venerable church of the Lateran, which had been destroyed
by an earthquake in 896 and robbed of invaluable treasures. Baronius, following Liutprand, calls Sergius ”homo
vitiorum omnium servus.” But Flodoard and the inscriptions give him
a somewhat better character. See Hefele IV. 576, Gregorovius III. 269,
and von Reumont II. 273.
After the short reign of two other popes, John X.,
archbishop of Ravenna, was elected, contrary to all canons, in
obedience to the will of Theodora, for the more convenient
gratification of her passion (914–928). Gfrörer makes him the paramour of the younger
Theodora, which on chronological grounds is more probable; but Hefele,
Gregorovius, von Peumont, and Greenwood link him with the elder
Theodora. This seems to be the meaning of Liutprand (II. 47 and 48),
who says that she fell in love with John for his great beauty, and
actually forced him to sin (secumque hunc scortari non solum voluit,
verum etiam atque etiam compulit). She could not stand the
separation from her lover, and called him to Rome. Baronius treats John
X. as a pseudopapa. Muratori, Duret, and Hefele dissent from
Liutprand and give John a somewhat better character, without, however,
denying his relation to Theodora. See Hefele, IV. 579
sq. Liutprand, Antapodosis, III. 43 (Migne, l.c.,
852): ”Papam [John X.]custodia maniciparunt, in qua non multo
post ea defunctus; aiunt enim quod cervical super os eius imponerent,
sicque cum pessime su ffocarent. Quo mortuo ipsius Marotiae filium
Johannem nomine [John XI.] quem ex Sergio papa meretrix
genuerat, papam constituunt.” The parentage of John XI. from pope
Sergius is adopted by Gregorovius, Dümmler, Greenwood, and
Baxmann, but disputed by Muratori, Hefele, and Gfrörer, who
maintain that John XI. was the son of Marozia’s
husband, Alberic I., if they ever were married. For, according to
Benedict of Soracte, Marozia accepted him ”non quasi uxor, sed in
consuetudinem malignam.“ Albericus Marchio was an adventurer before
he became Markgrave, about 897, and must not be confounded with
Albertus Marchio or Adalbert the Rich of Tuscany. See Gregorovius, III.
275; von Reumont, II. 228, 231, and the genealogical tables in
Höfler, Vol. I., Append. V. and VI.
After the murder of Alberic I. (about 926),
Marozia, who called herself Senatrix and Patricia, offered her hand and
as much of her love as she could spare from her numerous paramours, to
Guido, Markgrave of Tuscany, who eagerly accepted the prize; and after
his death she married king Hugo of Italy, the step-brother of her late
husband (932); he hoped to gain the imperial crown, but he was soon
expelled from Rome by a rebellion excited by her own son Alberic II.,
who took offence at his overbearing conduct for slapping him in the
face. See the account in Liutprand III. 44.
John XII.
On the death of Alberic in 954, his son Octavian, the grandson of Marozia, inherited the secular government of Rome, and was elected pope when only eighteen years of age. He thus united a double supremacy. He retained his name Octavian as civil ruler, but assumed, as pope, the name John XII., either by compulsion of the clergy and people, or because he wished to secure more license by keeping the two dignities distinct. This is the first example of such a change of name, and it was followed by his successors. He completely sunk his spiritual in his secular character, appeared in military dress, and neglected the duties of the papal office, though he surrendered none of its claims.
John XII. disgraced the tiara for eight years
(955–963). He was one of the most immoral and wicked
popes, ranking with Benedict IX., John XXIII., and Alexander VI. He was
charged by a Roman Synod, no one contradicting, with almost every crime
of which depraved human nature is capable, and deposed as a monster of
iniquity. Among the charges of the Synod against him were that he
appeared constantly armed with sword, lance, helmet, and breastplate,
that he neglected matins and vespers, that he never signed himself with
the sign of the cross, that he was fond of hunting, that he had made a
boy of ten years a bishop, and ordained a bishop or deacon in a stable,
that he had mutilated a priest, that he had set houses on fire, like
Nero, that he had committed homicide and adultery, had violated virgins
and widows high and low, lived with his father’s
mistress, converted the pontifical palace into a brothel, drank to the
health of the devil, and invoked at the gambling-table the help of
Jupiter and Venus and other heathen demons! The emperor Otho would not
believe these enormities until they, were proven, but the bishops
replied, that they were matters of public notoriety requiring no proof.
Before the Synod convened John XII. had made his escape from Rome,
carrying with him the portable part of the treasury of St. Peter. But
after the departure of the emperor he was readmitted to the city,
restored for a short time, and killed in an act of adultery (”dum se
cum viri cujusdam uxore oblectaret“) by the enraged husband of his
paramour. or by, the devil (”a diabolo est percussus“).
Liutprand, De rebus gestis Ottonis (in Migne, Tom. XXXVI.
898-910). Hefele (IV. 619) thinks that he died of
apoplexy.
§ 64. The Interference of Otho the Great.
Comp., besides the works quoted in § 63, Floss: Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen. Freiburg, 1858, and Köpke and Dummler: Otto der Grosse. Leipzig, 1876.
From this state of infamy the papacy was rescued for a brief time by the interference of Otho I., justly called the Great (936973). He had subdued the Danes, the Slavonians, and the Hungarians, converted the barbarians on the frontier, established order and restored the Carolingian empire. He was called by the pope himself and several Italian princes for protection against the oppression of king Berengar II. (or the Younger, who was crowned in 950, and died in exile, 966). He crossed the Alps, and was anointed Roman emperor by John XII. in 962. He promised to return to the holy see all the lost territories granted by Pepin and Charlemagne, and received in turn from the pope and the Romans the oath of allegiance on the sepulchre of St. Peter.
Hereafter the imperial crown of Rome was always held by the German nation, but the legal assumption of the titles of Emperor and Augustus depended on the act of coronation by the pope.
After the departure of Otho the perfidious pope,
unwilling to obey a superior master, rebelled and entered into
conspiracy with his enemies. The emperor returned to Rome, convened a
Synod of Italian and German bishops, which indignantly deposed John
XII. in his absence, on the ground of most notorious crimes, yet
without a regular trial (963). A full account of this Synod see in Liutprand, De rebus
gestis Ottonis, and in Baronius, Annal. ad ann 963. Comp.
also Greenwood, Bk VIII. ch. 12, Gfrörer, vol. III., p.
iii., 1249 sqq., Giesebrecht, I. 465 and 828, and Hefele, IV. 612 sqq.
Gfrörer, without defending John XII., charges Otho with
having first violated the engagement (p. 1253). The pope was three
times summoned before the Synod, but the answer came from Tivoli that
he had gone hunting. Baronius, Floss, and Hefele regard this synod as
uncanonical.
The emperor and the Synod elected a respectable
layman, the chief secretary of the Roman see, in his place. He was
hurriedly promoted through the orders of reader, subdeacon, deacon,
priest and bishop, and consecrated as Leo VIII., but not recognized by
the strictly hierarchical party, because he surrendered the freedom of
the papacy to the empire. The Romans swore that they would never elect
a pope again without the emperor’s consent. Leo
confirmed this in a formal document. Baronius, ad ann. 964, pronounced the document
spurious, chiefly because it is very inconvenient to his ultramontane
doctrine. It is printed in Mon. Germ. iv.2 (Leges, II. 167), and in a
more extensive form from a MS. at Treves in Leonis VIII. privilegium
de investituris, by H. J. Floss, Freib., 1858. This publication has
changed the state of the controversy in favor of a genuine element in
the document. See the discussion in Hefele, IV. 622
sqq.
The anti-imperial party readmitted John XII., who took cruel revenge of his enemies, but was suddenly struck down in his sins by a violent death. Then they elected an anti-pope, Benedict V., but he himself begged pardon for his usurpation when the emperor reappeared, was divested of the papal robes, degraded to the order of deacon, and banished to Germany. Leo VIII. died in April, 965, after a short pontificate of sixteen months.
The bishop of Narni was unanimously elected his successor as John XIII. (965–972) by the Roman clergy and people, after first consulting the will of the emperor. He crowned Otho II. emperor of the Romans (973–983). He was expelled by the Romans, but reinstated by Otho, who punished the rebellious city with terrible severity.
Thus the papacy was morally saved, but at the expense of its independence or rather it had exchanged its domestic bondage for a foreign bondage. Otho restored to it its former dominions which it had lost during the Italian disturbances, but he regarded the pope and the Romans as his subjects, who owed him the same temporal allegiance as the Germans and Lombards.
It would have been far better for Germany and
Italy if they had never meddled with each other. The Italians,
especially the Romans, feared the German army, but hated the Germans as
Northern semi-barbarians, and shook off their yoke as soon as they had
a chance. This antipathy found its last expression and termination in
the expulsion of the Austrians from Lombardy and Venice, and the
formation of a united kingdom of Italy. Ditmar of Merseburg, the historian of Henry II., expresses
the sentiment of that time when he says (Chron. IV. 22):
“Neither the climate nor the people suit our countrymen. Both in Rome
and Lombardy treason is always at work. Strangers who visit Italy
expect no hospitality: everything they require must be instantly paid
for; and even then they must submit to be over-reached and cheated, and
not unfrequently to be poisoned after all.”
Protest Against Papal Corruption.
The shocking immoralities of the popes called
forth strong protests, though they did not shake the faith in the
institution itself. A Gallican Synod deposed archbishop Arnulf of
Rheims as a traitor to king Hugo Capet, without waiting for an answer
from the pope, and without caring for the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals
(991). The leading spirit of the Synod, Arnulf, bishop of Orleans, made
the following bold declaration against the prostitution of the papal
office: “Looking at the actual state of the papacy, what do we behold?
John [XII.] called Octavian, wallowing in the sty of filthy
concupiscence, conspiring against the sovereign whom he had himself
recently crowned; then Leo [VIII.] the neophyte, chased from the city
by this Octavian; and that monster himself, after the commission of
many murders and cruelties, dying by the hand of an assassin. Next we
see the deacon Benedict, though freely elected by the Romans, carried
away captive into the wilds of Germany by the new Caesar [Otho I.] and
his pope Leo. Then a second Caesar [Otho II.], greater in arts and arms
than the first [?], succeeds; and in his absence Boniface, a very
monster of iniquity, reeking with the blood of his predecessor, mounts
the throne of Peter. True, he is expelled and condemned; but only to
return again, and redden his hands with the blood of the holy bishop
John [XIV.]. Are there, indeed, any bold enough to maintain that the
priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their law from
monsters of guilt like these-men branded with ignominy, illiterate men,
and ignorant alike of things human and divine? If, holy fathers, we be
bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, and the
attainments of the meanest candidate for the sacerdotal office, how
much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the
lord and master of all priests! Yet how would it fare with us, if it
should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, one
so abject as not to be worthy of the lowest place among the priesthood,
should be chosen to fill the highest place of all? What would you say
of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne glittering
in purple and gold? Must he not be the ’Antichrist,
sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as
God?’ Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and
charity; he standeth in the temple as an image, as an idol, from which
as from dead marble you would seek counsel. “Quid hunc, rev. Patres, in sublimi solio residentem
veste purpurea et aurea radiantem, quid hunc, inqam, esse censetis?
Nimirum si caritate destituitur, solaque inflatur et extollitur,
Antichristus est, in templo Dei sedens, et se ostendens tamquam sit D
Eus. Si autem nec caritate fundatur, nec scientia erigitur, in templo
Dei tamquam statua, tanquam idolum est, a quo responsa petere, marmora
consulere est.“
“But the Church of God is not subject to a wicked
pope; nor even absolutely, and on all occasions, to a good one. Let us
rather in our difficulties resort to our brethren of Belgium and
Germany than to that city, where all things are venal, where judgment
and justice are bartered for gold. Let us imitate the great church of
Africa, which, in reply to the pretensions of the Roman pontiff, deemed
it inconceivable that the Lord should have invested any one person with
his own plenary prerogative of judicature, and yet have denied it to
the great congregations of his priests assembled in council in
different parts of the world. If it be true, as we are informed by,
common report, that there is in Rome scarcely a man acquainted with
letters,—without which, as it is written, one may
scarcely be a doorkeeper in the house of God,—with
what face may he who hath himself learnt nothing set himself up for a
teacher of others? In the simple priest ignorance is bad enough; but in
the high priest of Rome,—in him to whom it is given to
pass in review the faith, the lives, the morals, the discipline, of the
whole body of the priesthood, yea, of the universal church, ignorance
is in nowise to be tolerated .... Why should he not be subject in
judgment to those who, though lowest in place, are his superiors in
virtue and in wisdom? Yea, not even he, the prince of the apostles,
declined the rebuke of Paul, though his inferior in place, and, saith
the great pope Gregory [I.], ’if a bishop be in fault,
I know not any one such who is not subject to the holy see; but if
faultless, let every one understand that he is the equal of the Roman
pontiff himself, and as well qualified as he to give judgment in any
matter.’ ” The acts of this Synod were first published in the
Magdeburg Centuries, then by Mansi, Conc. XIX. 107, and Pertz,
Mon. V. 658. Baronius pronounced them spurious, and interspersed
them with indignant notes; but Mansi (p. 107) says: ”Censent vulgo
omnes, Gerbertum reipsa et sincere recitasse acta concilii vere
habiti.” See Gieseler, Greenwood (Book VIII. ch. 6), and Hefele
(IV. 637 sqq.). Hefele pronounces the speech
schismatical.
The secretary of this council and the probable framer of this remarkable speech was Gerbert, who became archbishop of Rheims, afterwards of Ravenna, and at last pope under the name of Sylvester II. But pope John XV. (or his master Crescentius) declared the proceedings of this council null and void, and interdicted Gerbert. His successor, Gregory V., threatened the kingdom of France with a general interdict unless Arnulf was restored. Gerbert, forsaken by king Robert I., who needed the favor of the pope, was glad to escape from his uncomfortable seat and to accept an invitation of Otho III. to become his teacher (995). Arnulf was reinstated in Rheims.
§ 65. The Second Degradation of the Papacy from Otho I to Henry III. a.d. 973–1046.
I. The sources for the papacy in the second half of the tenth and in the eleventh century are collected in Muratori’s Annali d’ Italia (Milano 1744–49); in Migne’s Patrol., Tom. CXXXVII.-CL.; Leibnitz, Annales Imp. Occid. (down to a.d. 1005; Han., 1843, 3 vols.); Pertz, . Mon. Germ. (Auctores), Tom. V. (Leges), Tom. II.; Ranke, Jahrbucher des deutschen Reiches unter dem Sächs. Hause (Berlin 1837–40, 3 vols.; the second vol. by Giesebrecht and Wilmans contains the reigns of Otho II. and Otho III.). On the sources see Giesebrecht, Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit, II. 568 sqq.
II. Stenzel: Geschichte Deutschlands unter den Fränkischen Kaisern. Leipz., 1827, 1828, 2 vols.
C. F. Hock (R.C.): Gerbert oder Papst Sylvester und sein Jahrhundert. Wien, 1837.
C. Höfler (R.C.): Die deutschen Päpste. Regensb., 1839, 2 vols.
H. J. Floss (R.C.): Die Papstwahl unter den Ottonen. Freib., 1858.
C. Will: Die Anfänge der Restauration der Kirche im elften Jahrh. Marburg, 1859–’62, 2 vols.
R. Köpke und E. Dümmler: Otto der Grosse. Leipz. 1876.
Comp. Baronius (Annal.); Jaffe (Reg. 325–364); Hefele (Conciliengeschichte IV. 632 sqq., 2d ed.); Gfrörer (vol. III., P. III., 1358–1590, and vol. IV., 1846); Gregorovius (vols. III. and IV.); v. Reumont (II. 292 sqq.); Baxmann (II. 125–180); and Giesebrecht (I. 569–762, and II. 1–431).
The reform of the papacy was merely temporary. It was followed by a second period of disgrace, which lasted till the middle of the eleventh century, but was interrupted by a few respectable popes and signs of a coming reformation.
After the death of Otho, during the short and
unfortunate reign of his son, Otho II. (973–983), a
faction of the Roman nobility under the lead of Crescentius or Cencius
(probably a son of pope John X. and Theodora) gained the upper hand. He is called Crescentius de Theodora, and seems to have
died in a convent about 984. Some make him the son of Pope John X. and
the elder Theodora, others, of the younger Theodora. See Gregorovius,
III. 407 sqq; von Reumont, II. 292 sqq.; and the genealogy of the
Crescentii in Höfler, I. 300. Gerbert (afterwards pope Sylvester II.) called this
Bonifacius a “Malefactor,” (Malifacius) and ”horrendum
monstrum, cunctos mortales nequitia superans, etiam prioris pontificis
sanguine cruentus.“Gregorovius, III. 410.
During the minority of Otho III., the
imperialists, headed by Alberic, Count of Tusculum, and the popular
Roman party under the lead of the younger Crescentius (perhaps a
grandson of the infamous Theodora), contended from their fortified
places for the mastery of Rome and the papacy. Bloodshed was a daily
amusement. Issuing from their forts, the two parties gave battle to
each other whenever they met on the street. They set up rival popes,
and mutilated their corpses with insane fury. The contending parties
were related. Marozia’s son, Alberic, had probably
inherited Tusculum (which is about fifteen miles from Rome). The Tusculan family claimed descent from Julius Caesar and
Octavian. See Gregorovius, IV. 10, and Giesebrecht II. 174; also the
genealogical table of Höfler at the close of Vol.
I.
Gregory V.
Otho III., on his way to Rome, elected his worthy
chaplain and cousin Bruno, who was consecrated as Gregory V. (996) and
then anointed Otho III. emperor. He is the first pope of German
blood. Baronius, however, says that Stephen VIII. (939-942) was a
German, and for this reason opposed by the Romans. Bruno was only
twenty-four years old when elected. Höfler (I. 94 sqq.)
gives him a very high character.
Sylvester II.
After the sudden and probably violent death of
Gregory V. (999), the emperor elected, with the assent of the clergy
and the people, his friend and preceptor, Gerbert, archbishop of
Rheims, and then of Ravenna, to the papal throne. Gerbert was the first
French pope, a man of rare learning and ability, and moral integrity.
He abandoned the liberal views he had expressed at the Council at
Rheims, See preceding section, p. 290. According to several Italian writers he was poisoned by
Stephania, under the disguise of a loving mistress, in revenge of the
murder of Crescentius, her husband. Muratori and Milman accept the
story, but it is not mentioned by Ditmar (Chron. IV. 30), and
discredited by Leo, Gfrörer, and Greenwood. Otho had
restored to the son of Stephania all his father’s
property, and made him prefect of Rome. The same remorseless Stephania
is said to have admininistered subtle poison to pope Sylvester
II.
Sylvester II. followed his imperial pupil a year
after (1003). His learning, acquired in part from the Arabs in Spain,
appeared a marvel to his ignorant age, and suggested a connection with
magic. He sent to St. Stephen of Hungary the royal crown, and, in a
pastoral letter to Europe where Jerusalem is represented as crying for
help, he gave the first impulse to the crusades (1000), ninety years
before they actually began. See Gfrörer, III. P. III. 1550 sq. He regards
Sylvester II. one of the greatest of popes and statesmen who developed
all the germs of the system, and showed the way to his successors.
Comp. on him Milman, Bk. V. ch. 13; Giesebrecht, I. 613 sqq. and 690
sqq.
In the expectation of the approaching judgment, crowds of pilgrims flocked to Palestine to greet the advent of the Saviour. But the first millennium passed, and Christendom awoke with a sigh of relief on the first day of the year 1001.
Benedict VIII., and Emperor Henry II.
Upon the whole the Saxon emperors were of great service to the papacy: they emancipated it from the tyranny of domestic political factions, they restored it to wealth, and substituted worthy occupants for monstrous criminals.
During the next reign the confusion broke out once more. The anti-imperial party regained the ascendency, and John Crescentius, the son of the beheaded consul, ruled under the title of Senator and Patricius. But the Counts of Tusculum held the balance of power pretty evenly, and gradually superseded the house of Crescentius. They elected Benedict VIII. (1012–1024), a member of their family; while Crescentius and his friends appointed an anti-pope (Gregory).
Benedict proved a very energetic pope in the defence of Italy against the Saracens. He forms the connecting link between the Ottonian and the Hildebrandian popes. He crowned Henry II, (1014), as the faithful patron and protector simply, not as the liege-lord, of the pope.
This last emperor of the Saxon house was very
devout, ascetic, and liberal in endowing bishoprics. He favored
clerical celibacy. He aimed earnestly at a moral reformation of the
church. He declared at a diet, that he had made Christ his heir, and
would devote all he possessed to God and his church. He filled the
vacant bishoprics and abbeys with learned and worthy men; and hence his
right of appointment was not resisted. He died after a reign of
twenty-two years, and was buried at his favorite place, Bamberg in
Bavaria, where he had founded a bishopric (1007). He and his chaste
wife, Kunigunde, were canonized by the grateful church (1146). His historian, bishop Thitmar or Ditmar of Merseburg,
relates that Henry never held carnal intercourse with his wife, and
submitted to rigid penances and frequent flagellations for the
subjugation of animal passions. But Hase (§ 160, tenth ed.)
remarks: ”Die Mönche, die er zu Gunsten der Bisthümer
beraubt hat, dachten ihn nur eben von der Hölle gerettet;
auch den Heiligenschein der jungfraeulichen Kaiserinhat der Teufel zu
verdunkeln gewusst.“ Comp. C. Schurzfleisch, De innocentia Cunig., Wit.,
1700. A. Noel, Leben der heil. Kunigunde, Luxemb. 1856. For a high and just estimate of
Henry’s character see Giesebrecht II. 94-96. “The
legend,” he says, “describes Henry as a monk in purple, as a penitent
with a crown, who can scarcely drag along his lame body; it places
Kunigunde at his side not as wife but as a nun, who in prayer and
mortification of the flesh seeks with him the path to heaven. History
gives a very different picture of king Henry and his wife. It bears
witness that he was one of the most active and energetic rulers that
ever sat on the German throne, and possessed a sharp understanding and
a power of organization very rare in those times. It was a misfortune
for Germany that such a statesman had to spend most of his life in
internal and external wars. Honorable as he was in arms, he would have
acquired a higher fame in times of peace.”
The Tusculan Popes. Benedict IX.
With Benedict VIII. the papal dignity became hereditary in the Tusculan family. He had bought it by open bribery. He was followed by his brother John XIX., a layman, who bought it likewise, and passed in one day through all the clerical degrees.
After his death in 1033, his nephew Theophylact, a
boy of only ten or twelve years of age, Rodulfus Glaber, Histor. sui temporis, IV. 5 (in
Migne, Tom. 142, p. 979): ”puer ferme (fere) decennis;” but in
V. 5: ”fuerat sedi ordinatus quidam puer circiter annorum duodecim,
contra jus nefasque.” Hefele stated, in the first ed. (IV. 673),
that Benedict was eighteen when elected. In the second ed. (p. 706) he
corrects himself and makes him twelve years at his
election.
This boy-pope fully equaled and even surpassed
John XII. in precocious wickedness. He combined the childishness of
Caligala and the viciousness of Heliogabalus. Gregorovius, IV. 42, says: ”Mit Benedict IX. erreichte das
Papstthum aussersten Grad des sittlichen Verfalls, welcher nach den
Gesetzen der menschlichen Natur den Umschlag zum Bessern
erzeugt.” Bonitho, ed. Jaffé p. 50: ”Post multa turpia
adulteria et homicidia manibus Buis perpetrata, postremo cum vellet
consobrinam accipere coniugem, filiam scilicet Girardi de Saxo, et ille
diceret: nullo modo se daturum nisi renunciaret pontificatui ad quendam
sacerdotem Johannem se contulit.” A similar report is found in the
Annales Altahenses. But Steindorff and Hefele ([V. 707)
discredit the marriage project as a malignant invention or
fable. An old catalogue of popes (in Muratori, Script. III.
2, p. 345) states the sum as mille librae denariorum Papensium,
but Benno as librae mille quingentae. Others give two thousand
pounds as the sum. Otto of Freising adds that Benedict reserved besides
the Peter’s pence from England. See Giesebrecht, II.
643, and Hefele IV. 707.
Gregory VI.
John Gratian assumed the name Gregory, VI. He was revered as a saint for his chastity which, on account of its extreme rarity in Rome, was called an angelic virtue. He bought the papacy with the sincere desire to reform it, and made the monk Hildebrand, the future reformer, his chaplain. He acted on the principle that the end sanctifies the means.
Thus there were for a while three rival popes.
Benedict IX. (before his final expulsion) held the Lateran, Gregory VI.
Maria Maggiore, Sylvester III. St. Peter’s and the
Vatican. Migne, Tom. 141, p. 1343. Steindorff and Hefele (IV. 708)
dissent from this usual view of a three-fold schism, and consider
Gregory, as the only pope. But all three were summoned to the Synod of
Sutri and deposed; consequently they must all have claimed
possession.
Their feuds reflected the general condition of Italy. The streets of Rome swarmed with hired assassins, the whole country with robbers, the virtue of pilgrims was openly assailed, even churches and the tombs of the apostles were desecrated by bloodshed.
Again the German emperor had to interfere for the restoration of order.
§ 66. Henry III and the Synod of Sutri. Deposition of three rival Popes. a.d. 1046.
Bonizo (or Bonitho, bishop of Sutri, afterwards of Piacenza, and friend of Gregory VII., d. 1089): Liber ad amicum, s. de persecutione Ecclesiae (in Oefelii Scriptores rerum Boicarum II., 794, and better in Jaffe’s Monumenta Gregoriana, 1865). Contains in lib. V. a history, of the popes from Benedict IX. to Gregory VII., with many errors.
Rodulfus Glaber (or Glaber Radulfus, monk of Cluny, about 1046): Historia sui temporis (in Migne, Tom. 142).
Desiderius (Abbot of M. Cassino, afterwards pope Victor III., d. 1080): De Miraculis a S. Benedicto aliisque monachis Cassiniensibus gestis Dialog., in “Bibl. Patr.” Lugd. XVIII. 853.
Annales Romani in Pertz, Mon. Germ. VII.
Annales Corbeienses, in Pertz, Mon. Germ. V.; and in Jaffé, Monumenta Corbeiensia, Berlin, 1864.
Ernst Steindorff: Jahrbucher des deutschen Reichs unter Heinrich III. Leipzig, 1874.
Hefele: Conciliengesch. IV. 706 sqq. (2d ed.).
See Lit. in § 64, especially Höfler and Will.
Emperor Henry III., of the house of Franconia, was appealed to by the advocates of reform, and felt deeply the sad state of the church. He was only twenty-two years old, but ripe in intellect, full of energy and zeal, and aimed at a reformation of the church under the control of the empire, as Hildebrand afterwards labored for a reformation of the church under the control of the papacy.
On his way to Rome for the coronation he held
(Dec. 20, 1046) a synod at Sutri, a small town about twenty-five miles
north of Rome, and a few days afterwards another synod at Rome which
completed the work. The sources differ in the distribution of the work between
the two synods: some assign it to Sutri, others to Rome, others divide
it. Steindorff and Hefele (IV. 710) assume that Gregory and Sylvester
were deposed at Sutri; Benedict (who did not appear at Sutri) was
deposed in Rome. All agree that the new pope was elected in
Rome. See Jaffé, Steindorff, and Hefele (IV. 711
sq.).
But if simony vitiated an election, there were probably few legitimate popes in the tenth century when everything was venal and corrupt in Rome. Moreover bribery seems a small sin compared with the enormous crimes of several of these Judases. Hildebrand recognized Gregory VI. by adopting his pontifical name in honor of his memory, and yet he made relentless war the sin of simony. He followed the self-deposed pope as upon chaplain across the Alps into exile, and buried him in peace on the banks of the Rhine.
Henry III. adjourned the Synod of Sutri to St.
Peter’s in Rome for the election of a new pope (Dec.
23 and 24, 1046). The synod was to elect, but no Roman clergyman could
be found free of the pollution of “simony and fornication.” Then the
king, vested by the synod with the green mantle of the patriciate and
the plenary authority of the electors, descended from his throne, and
seated Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, a man of spotless character, on the
vacant chair of St. Peter amid the loud hosannas of the assembly. According to the Annal. Corb., Suidger was
elected ”canonice as synodice … unanimi cleri et
populi electione.“
The emperor, at the request of the Romans,
appointed at Worms in December, 1048, Bruno, bishop of Toul, to the
papal chair. He was a man of noble birth, fine appearance, considerable
learning, unblemished character, and sincere piety, in full sympathy
with the spirit of reform which emanated from Cluny. He accepted the
appointment in presence of the Roman deputies, subject to the consent
of the clergy and people of Rome. So says Wibert, his friend and biographer, but Bonitho
reports that Hildebrand induced him to submit first to a Roman
election, since a pope elected by the emperor was not an
apostolicus, but an apostaticus. See Baxmann, II.
215-217. Comp. also Hunkler: Leo IX. und seine Zeit. Mainz,
1851
Bruno reached Rome in the month of February, 1049, in the dress of a pilgrim, barefoot, weeping, regardless of the hymns of welcome. His election was unanimously confirmed by the Roman clergy and people, and he was solemnly consecrated Feb. 12, as Leo IX. He found the papal treasury empty, and his own means were soon exhausted. He chose Hildebrand as his subdeacon, financier, and confidential adviser, who hereafter was the soul of the papal reform, till he himself ascended the papal throne in 1073.
We stand here at the close of the deepest degradation and on the threshold of the highest elevation of the papacy. The synod of Sutri and the reign of Leo IX. mark the beginning of a disciplinary reform. Simony or the sale and purchase of ecclesiastical dignities, and Nicolaitism or the carnal sins of the clergy, including marriage, concubinage and unnatural vices, were the crying evils of the church in the eyes of the most serious men, especially the disciples of Cluny and of St. Romuald. A reformation therefore from the hierarchical standpoint of the middle ages was essentially a suppression of these two abuses. And as the corruption had reached its climax in the papal chair, the reformation had to begin at the head before it could reach the members. It was the work chiefly of Hildebrand or Gregory VII., with whom the next period opens.
CHAPTER V.
THE CONFLICT OF THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCHES AND THEIR SEPARATION.
§ 67. Sources and Literature.
The chief sources on the beginning of the controversy between Photius and Nicolas are in Mansi: Conc. Tom. XV. and XVI.; in Harduin: Conc. Tom. V. Hergenröther: Monumenta Graeca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia. Regensb. 1869.
I. On the Greek Side:
Photius: jEgkuvklio” ejpistolhv etc . and especially his Lovgo” peri; th’” tou’ aJgivou Pneuvmato” mustagwgiva”, etc. See Photii Opera omnia, ed. Migne. Paris, 1860–’61, 4 vols. (Patr. Gr. Tom. CI.-CIV.) The Encycl. Letter is in Tom. II. 722–742; and his treatise on the mustagwgiva tou’ aJgivou Pneuvmato” in Tom. II. 279–391.
Later champions:
Caerularius, Nicetas Pectoratus, Theophylact (12th century). Euthymius Zigabenus, Phurnus, Eustratius, and many others. In recent times Prokopovitch (1772), Zoernicav (1774, 2 vols.).
J. G. Pitzipios: L’Egl. orientale, sa séparation et sa réunion avec celle de Rome. Rome, 1855. L’Orient. Les réformes de lempire byzantin. Paris, 1858.
A. N. Mouravieff (Russ.): Question religieuse d’Orient et d’Occident. Moscow, 1856.
Guettère: La papauté schismatique. Par. 1863.
A. Picheler: Gesch. d. kirchlichen Trennung zwischen dem Orient und Occident von den ersten Anfängen his zur jüngsten Gegenwart. München, 1865, 2 Bde. The author was a Roman Catholic (Privatdocent der Theol. in München) when he wrote this work, but blamed the West fully as much as the East for the schism, and afterwards joined the Greek church in Russia.
Andronicos Dimitracopulos: ̓Istoría toȗ scímatoς. Lips. 1867. Also his Bíblioqh́kh ekklhs. Lips. 1866.
Theodorus Lascaris Junior: De Processione Spiritus S. Oratio Apologetica. London and Jena, 1875.
II. On the Latin (Roman Catholic) Side:
Ratramnus (Contra Graecorum Opposita); Anselm of Canterbury (De Processione Spiritus S. 1098); Petrus Chrysolanus (1112); Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), etc.
Leo Allatius (Allacci, a Greek of Chios, but
converted to the Roman Church and guardian of the Vatican library, d.
1669): De ecclesiae occident. atque orient. perpetua consensione.
Cologne, 1648, 4to.; new ed. 1665 and 1694. Also his Graecia orthodoxa,
1659, 2 vols., new ed. by Lämmer, Freib. i. B. 1864 sq.; and
his special tracts on Purgatory (
Maimburg: Hist. du schisme des Grecs. Paris, 1677, 4to.
Steph. de Altimura (Mich. le Quien): Panoplia contra schisma Graecorum. Par. 1718, 4to.
Michael le Quien (d. 1733): Oriens Christianus. Par. 1740, 3 vols. fol.
Abbé Jager: Histoire de Photius d’après les monuments originaux. 2nd ed. Par. 1845.
Luigi Tosti: Storia dell’ origine dello scisma greco. Firenze 1856. 2 vols.
H. Lämmer: Papst. Nikolaus I. und die byzantinische Staatskirche seiner Zeit. Berlin, 1857.
Ad. d’Avril: Documents relatifs aux églises de l’Orient, considerée dans leur rapports avec le saint-siége de Rome. Paris, 1862.
Karl Werner: Geschichte der Apol. und polemischen Literatur. Schaffhausen, 1864, vol. III. 3 ff.
J. Hergenröther: (Prof. of Church History in Würzburg, now Cardinal in Rome): Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma. Regensburg, 1867–1869, 3 vols.
C. Jos. von Hefele (Bishop of Rottenburg): Conciliengeschichte. Freiburg i. B., vols. IV., V., VI., VII. (revised ed. 1879 sqq.)
III. Protestant writers:
J. G. Walch (Luth.): Historia controversiae Graecorum Latinorumque de Processione Sp. S. Jena, 1751.
Gibbon: Decline and Fall, etc., Ch. LX. He views the schism as one of the causes which precipitated the decline and fall of the Roman empire in the East by alienating its most useful allies and strengthening its most dangerous enemies.
John Mason Neale (Anglican): A History of the Holy Eastern Church. Lond. 1850. Introd. vol. II. 1093–1169.
Edmund S. Foulkes (Anglic.): An Historical Account of the Addition of the word Filioque to the Creed of the West. Lond. 1867.
W. Gass: Symbolik der griechischen Kirche. Berlin, 1872.
H. B. Swete (Anglic.): Early History of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Cambr. 1873; and History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Apost. Age to the Death of Charlemagne. Cambr. 1876.
IV. Old Catholic Writers (irenical):
Joseph Langen: Die Trinitarische Lehrdifferenz zwischen der abendländischen und der morgenländischen Kirche. Bonn, 1876.
The Proceedings of the second Old Catholic Union-Conference in Bonn, 1875, ed. in German by Heinrich Reusch; English ed. with introduction by Canon Liddon (Lond. 1876); Amer. ed. transl. by Dr. Samuel Buel, with introduction by Dr. R. Nevin (N. Y. 1876). The union-theses of Bonn are given in Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, vol. II., 545–550.
§ 68. The Consensus and Dissensus between the Greek and Latin Churches.
No two churches in the world are at this day so much alike, and yet so averse to each other as the Oriental or Greek, and the Occidental or Roman. They hold, as an inheritance from the patristic age, essentially the same body of doctrine, the same canons of discipline, the same form of worship; and yet their antagonism seems irreconcilable. The very affinity breeds jealousy and friction. They are equally exclusive: the Oriental Church claims exclusive orthodoxy, and looks upon Western Christendom as heretical; the Roman Church claims exclusive catholicity, and considers all other churches as heretical or schismatical sects. The one is proud of her creed, the other of her dominion. In all the points of controversy between Romanism and Protestantism the Greek Church is much nearer the Roman, and yet there is no more prospect of a union between them than of a union between Rome and Geneva, or Moscow and Oxford. The Pope and the Czar are the two most powerful rival-despots in Christendom. Where the two churches meet in closest proximity, over the traditional spots of the birth and tomb of our Saviour, at Bethlehem and Jerusalem, they hate each other most bitterly, and their ignorant and bigoted monks have to be kept from violent collision by Mohammedan soldiers.
I. Let us first briefly glance at the consensus.
Both churches own the Nicene creed (with the exception of the Filioque), and all the doctrinal decrees of the seven oecumenical Synods from a.d. 325 to 787, including the worship of images.
They agree moreover in most of the post-oecumenical or mediaeval doctrines against which the evangelical Reformation protested, namely: the authority of ecclesiastical tradition as a joint rule of faith with the holy Scriptures; the worship of the Virgin Mary, of the saints, their pictures (not statues), and relics; justification by faith and good works, as joint conditions; the merit of good works, especially voluntary celibacy and poverty; the seven sacraments or mysteries (with minor differences as to confirmation, and extreme unction or chrisma); baptismal regeneration and the necessity of water-baptism for salvation; transubstantiation and the consequent adoration of the sacramental elements; the sacrifice of the mass for the living and the dead, with prayers for the dead; priestly absolution by divine authority; three orders of the ministry, and the necessity of an episcopal hierarchy up to the patriarchal dignity; and a vast number of religious rites and ceremonies.
In the doctrine of purgatory, the Greek Church is less explicit, yet agrees with the Roman in assuming a middle state of purification, and the efficacy of prayers and masses for the departed. The dogma of transubstantiation, too, is not so clearly formulated in the Greek creed as in the Roman, but the difference is very small. As to the Holy Scriptures, the Greek Church has never prohibited the popular use, and the Russian Church even favors the free circulation of her authorized vernacular version. But the traditions of the Greek Church are as strong a barrier against the exercise of private judgment and exegetical progress as those of Rome.
II. The dissensus of the two churches covers the following points:
1. The procession of the Holy Spirit: the East teaching the single procession from the Father only, the West (since Augustin), the double procession from the Father and the Son (Filioque).
2. The universal authority and infallibility of
the pope, which is asserted by the Roman, denied by the Greek Church.
The former is a papal monarchy, the latter a patriarchal oligarchy.
There are, according to the Greek theory, five patriarchs of equal
rights, the pope of Rome, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. They were sometimes compared to the five senses
in the body. To them was afterwards added the patriarch of Moscow for
the Russian church (which is now governed by the “Holy Synod”). To the
bishop of Rome was formerly conceded a primacy of honor, but this
primacy passed with the seat of empire to the patriarch of
Constantinople, who therefore signed himself “Archbishop of New Rome
and Oecumenical Patriarch. See the passages in Gieseler II. 227 sq.
3. The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, proclaimed as a dogma by the pope in 1854, disowned by the East, which, however, in the practice of Mariolatry fully equals the West.
4. The marriage of the lower clergy, allowed by the Eastern, forbidden by the Roman Church (yet conceded by the pope to the United Greeks).
5. The withdrawal of the cup from the laity. In the Greek Church the laymen receive the consecrated bread dipped in the wine and administered with a golden spoon.
6. A number of minor ceremonies peculiar to the Eastern Church, such as trine immersion in baptism, the use of leavened bread in the eucharist, infant-communion, the repetition of the holy unction (to; eujcevlion) in sickness.
Notwithstanding these differences the Roman Church has always been obliged to recognize the Greek Church as essentially orthodox, though schismatic. And, certainly, the differences are insignificant as compared with the agreement. The separation and antagonism must therefore be explained fully as much and more from an alienation of spirit and change of condition.
Note on the Eastern Orthodox Church.
For the sake of brevity the usual terminology is employed in this chapter, but the proper name of the Greek Church is the Holy Oriental Orthodox Apostolic Church. The terms mostly in use in that church are Orthodox and Oriental (Eastern). The term Greek is used in Turkey only of the Greeks proper (the Hellens); but the great majority of Oriental Christians in Turkey and Russia belong to the Slavonic race. The Greek is the original and classical language of the Oriental Church, in which the most important works are written; but it has been practically superseded in Asiatic Turkey by the Arabic, in Russia and European Turkey by the Slavonic.
The Oriental or Orthodox Church now embraces three distinct divisions:
1. The Orthodox Church in Turkey (European Turkey and the Greek islands, Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine) under the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
2. The state church of Russia, formerly under the patriarch of Constantinople, then under the patriarch of Moscow, since 1725 under the Holy Synod of St. Petersburg and the headship of the Czar. This is by far the largest and most important branch.
3. The church of the kingdom of Greece under the Holy Synod of Greece (since 1833).
There are also Greek Christians in Egypt, the Sinaitic Peninsula (the monks of the Convent of St. Catharine), the islands of the AEgean Sea, in Malta, Servia, Austria, etc.
Distinct from the Orthodox Church are the Oriental Schismatics, the Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, Copts, and Abyssinians, who separated from the former on the ground of the christological controversies. The Maronites of Mount Lebanon were originally also schismatics, but submitted to the pope during the Crusades.
The United Greeks acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, but retain certain peculiarities of the Oriental Church, as the marriage of the lower clergy, the native language in worship. They are found in lower Italy, Austria, Russia, and Poland.
The Bulgarians, who likewise call themselves orthodox, and who by the treaty of Berlin in 1878 have been formed into a distinct principality, occupy an independent position between the Greek and the Roman Churches.
§ 69. The Causes of Separation.
Church history, like the world’s history, moves with the sun from East to West. In the first six centuries the Eastern or Greek church represented the main current of life and progress. In the middle ages the Latin church chiefly assumed the task of christianizing and civilizing the new races which came upon the stage. The Greek church has had no Middle Ages in the usual sense, and therefore no Reformation. She planted Christianity among the Slavonic races, but they were isolated from the progress of European history, and have not materially affected either the doctrine or polity or cultus of the church. Their conversion was an external expansion, not an internal development.
The Greek and Latin churches were never organically united under one government, but differed considerably from the beginning in nationality, language, and various ceremonies. These differences, however, did not interfere with the general harmony of faith and Christian life, nor prevent cooperation against common foes. As long and as far as the genuine spirit of Christianity directed them, the diversity was an element of strength to the common cause.
The principal sees of the East were directly founded by the apostles—with the exception of Constantinople—and had even a clearer title to apostolic succession and inheritance than Rome. The Greek church took the lead in theology down to the sixth or seventh century, and the Latin gratefully learned from her. All the oecumenical Councils were held on the soil of the Byzantine empire in or near Constantinople, and carried on in the Greek language. The great doctrinal controversies on the holy Trinity and Christology were fought out in the East, yet not without the powerful aid of the more steady and practical West. Athanasius, when an exile from Alexandria, found refuge and support in the bishop of Rome. Jerome, the most learned of the Latin fathers and a friend of Pope Damasus, was a connecting link between the East and the West, and concluded his labors in Bethlehem. Pope Leo I. was the theological master-spirit who controlled the council of Chalcedon, and shaped the Orthodox formula concerning the two natures in the one person of Christ. Yet this very pope strongly protested against the action of the Council which, in conformity with a canon of the second oecumenical Council, put him on a par with the new bishop of Constantinople.
And here we approach the secret of the ultimate separation and incurable antagonism of the churches. It is due chiefly to three causes. The first cause is the politico- ecclesiastical rivalry of the patriarch of Constantinople backed by the Byzantine empire, and the bishop of Rome in connection with the new German empire. The second cause is the growing centralization and overbearing conduct of the Latin church in and through the papacy. The third cause is the stationary character of the Greek and the progressive character of the Latin church during the middle ages. The Greek church boasts of the imaginary perfection of her creed. She still produced considerable scholars and divines, as Maximus, John of Damascus, Photius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, but they mostly confined themselves to the work of epitomizing and systematizing the traditional theology of the Greek fathers, and produced no new ideas, as if all wisdom began and ended with the old oecumenical Councils. She took no interest in the important anthropological and soteriological controversies which agitated the Latin church in the age of St. Augustin, and she continued to occupy the indefinite position of the first centuries on the doctrines of sin and grace. On the other hand she was much distracted and weakened by barren metaphysical controversies on the abstrusest questions of theology and christology; and these quarrels facilitated the rapid progress of Islâm, which conquered the lands of the Bible and pressed hard on Constantinople. When the Greek church became stationary, the Latin church began to develop her greatest energy; she became the fruitful mother of new and vigorous nations of the North and West of Europe, produced scholastic and mystic theology and a new order of civilization, built magnificent cathedrals, discovered a new Continent, invented the art of printing, and with the revival of learning prepared the way for a new era in the history of the world. Thus the Latin daughter outgrew the Greek mother, and is numerically twice as strong, without counting the Protestant secession. At the same time the Eastern church still may look forward to a new future among the Slavonic races which she has christianized. What she needs is a revival of the spirit and power of primitive Christianity.
When once the two churches were alienated in
spirit and engaged in an unchristian race for supremacy, all the little
doctrinal and ritualistic differences which had existed long before,
assumed an undue weight, and were branded as heresies and crimes. The
bishop of Rome sees in the Patriarch of Constantinople an
ecclesiastical upstart who owed his power to political influence, not
to apostolic origin. The Eastern patriarchs look upon the Pope as an
anti-christian usurper and as the first Protestant. They stigmatize the
papal supremacy as “the chief heresy of the latter days, which
flourishes now as its predecessor, Arianism, flourished in former days,
and which like it, will in like manner be cast down and vanish away.” Encycl. Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1844,
§ 5.
§ 70. The Patriarch and the Pope. Photius and Nicolas.
Comp. § 61, the Lit. in § 67, especially the letters of Photius and Nicolas.
Hergenröther: Photius (Regensb. 1867–69, vol. I. 373 sqq.; 505 sqq.; and the second vol.), and his Monumenta Graeca ad Photium ejusque historiam pertinentia (Ratisb. 1869, 181 pages). Milman: Hist. of Latin Christianity, bk. V. Ch. IV. Hefele IV. 224 sqq.; 384 sqq.; 436sqq. The chief documents are also given by Gieseler II. 213 sqq. (Am. ed.)
The doctrinal difference on the procession of the Holy Spirit will be considered in the chapter on the Theological Controversies. Although it existed before the schism, it assumed a practical importance only in connection with the broader ecclesiastical and political conflict between the patriarch and the pope, between Constantinople and Rome.
The first serious outbreak of this conflict took place after the middle of the ninth century, when Photius and Nicolas, two of the ablest representatives of the rival churches, came into collision. Photius is one of the greatest of patriarchs, as Nicolas is one of the greatest of popes. The former was superior in learning, the latter in statesmanship; while in moral integrity, official pride and obstinacy both were fairly matched, except that the papal ambition towered above the patriarchal dignity. Photius would tolerate no superior, Nicolas no equal; the one stood on the Council of Chalcedon, the other on Pseudo-Isidor.
The contest between them was at first personal. The deposition of Ignatius as patriarch of Constantinople, for rebuking the immorality of Caesar Bardas, and the election of Photius, then a mere layman, in his place (858), were arbitrary and uncanonical acts which created a temporary schism in the East, and prepared the way for a permanent schism between the East and the West. Nicolas, being appealed to as mediator by both parties (first by Photius), assumed the haughty air of supreme judge on the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, but was at first deceived by his own legates. The controversy was complicated by the Bulgarian quarrel. King Bogoris had been converted to Christianity by missionaries from Constantinople (861), but soon after applied to Rome for teachers, and the pope eagerly seized this opportunity to extend his jurisdiction (866).
Nicolas, in a Roman Synod (863), decided in favor
of the innocent Ignatius, and pronounced sentence of deposition against
Photius with a threat of excommunication in case of disobedience. The Synod, claiming to be the infallible organ of the Holy
Spirit, compared Photius with a robber and adulterer for obtruding
himself into the see of Constantinople during the lifetime of Ignatius,
deprived him of all priestly honors and functions “by authority of
Almighty God, St. Peter and St. Paul, the princes of the apostles, of
all saints, of the six [why not seven?] ecumenical councils, as also by
the judgment of the Holy Ghost,” and threatened him and all his
adherents with the anathema and excommunication from the eucharist till
the moment of death, “that no one may dare hereafter from the state of
the laity to break into the camp of the Lord, as has often been the
case in the church of Constantinople.” See on this Synod
Hergenröther, Phot. I. 519 sqq., and Hefele IV. 269
sqq. See the Encyclica ad Patriarchas Orientales in the
original Greek in Photius, Opera II. 722-742 (ed. Migne), also
in Gieseler II. 216 sq. Baronius (ad ann. 863 no. 34 sq.) gives it in
Latin.
This letter clearly indicates all the doctrinal and ritual differences which caused and perpetuated the schism to this day. The subsequent history is only a renewal of the same charges aggravated by the misfortunes of the Greek church, and the arrogance and intolerance of old Rome.
Photius fell with the murder of his imperial patron, Michael III. (Sept. 23, 867). He was imprisoned in a convent, and deprived of society, even of books. He bore his misfortune with great dignity, and nearly all the Greek bishops remained faithful to him. Ignatius was restored after ten years of exile by the emperor Basil, the Macedonian (867–886), and entered into communication with Pope Hadrian II. (Dec. 867). He convened a general council in the church of St. Sophia (October, 869), which is numbered by the Latins as the Eighth Oecumenical Council. The pontifical legates presided and presented a formula of union which every bishop was required to sign before taking part in the proceedings, and which contained an anathema against all heresies, and against Photius and his adherents. But the council was poorly attended (the number of bishops being at first only eighteen). Photius was forced to appear in the fifth session (Oct. 20), but on being questioned he either kept silence, or answered in the words of Christ before Caiaphas and Pilate. In the tenth and last session, attended by the emperor and his sons, and one hundred and two bishops, the decrees of the pope against Photius and in favor of Ignatius were confirmed, and the anathemas against the Monothelites and Iconoclasts renewed. The papal delegates signed “with reservation of the revision of the pope.”
But the peace was artificial, and broken up again immediately, after the Synod by the Bulgarian question, which involved the political as well as the ecclesiastical power of Constantinople. Ignatius himself was unwilling to surrender that point, and refused to obey when the imperious Pope John VIII. commanded, on pain of suspension and excommunication, that he should recall all the Greek bishops and priests from Bulgaria. But death freed him from further controversy (Oct. 23, 877).
Photius was restored to the patriarchal see three
days after the death of Ignatius, with whom he had been reconciled. He
convened a council in November, 879, which lasted till March, 880, and
is acknowledged by the Orientals as the Eighth Oecumenical Council, Strictly speaking, however, the Orthodox Eastern Church
counts only seven Œcumenical Councils. The Roman Catholic historians regard this letter as a Greek
fraud. ”Ich kann nicht glauben,“ says Hefele (IV. 482), ”dass je ein Papst seine Stellung
so sehr vergessen habe, wie es Johann VIII. gethan haben
müsste, wenn dieser Brief ächt wäre.
Es ist in demselben auch keine Spur des Papalbewusstseins, vielmehr ist
die Superiorität des Photius fast ausdrücklich
anerkannt.“
But when the pope’s eyes were opened, he sent the bishop Marinus to Constantinople to declare invalid what the legates had done contrary to his instructions. For this Marinus was shut up in prison for thirty days. After his return Pope John VIII. solemnly pronounced the anathema on Photius, who had dared to deceive and degrade the holy see, and had added new frauds to the old. Marinus renewed the anathema after he was elected pope (882). Photius denied the validity of his election, and developed an extraordinary, literary activity.
But after the death of the Emperor Basilius (886), he was again deposed by Leo VI., miscalled the Wise or the Philosopher, to make room for his youngest brother Stephen, at that time only sixteen years of age. Photius spent the last five years of his life in a cloister, and died 891. For learning, energy, position, and influence, he is one of the most remarkable men in the history of Eastern Christianity. He formulated the doctrinal basis of the schism, checked the papal despotism, and secured the independence of the Greek church. He announced in an Encyclical of 866: “God be praised for all time to come! The Russians have received a bishop, and show a lively zeal for Christian worship.” Roman writers have declared this to be a lie, but history has proved it to be an anticipation of an important fact, the conversion of a new nation which was to become the chief support of the Eastern church, and the most formidable rival of the papacy.
Greek and Roman historians are apt to trace the guilt of the schism exclusively to one party, and to charge the other with unholy ambition and intrigue; but we must acknowledge on the one hand the righteous zeal of Nicolas for the cause of the injured Ignatius, and on the other the many virtues of Photius tried in misfortune, as well as his brilliant learning in theology, philology, philosophy, and history; while we deplore and denounce the schism as a sin and disgrace of both churches.
Notes.
The accounts of the Roman Catholic historians, even the best, are colored by sectarianism, and must be accepted with caution. Cardinal Hergenröther (Kirchengesch. I. 684) calls the Council of 879 a “Photianische Pseudo-Synode,” and its acts “ein aecht byzantinisches Machwerk ganz vom Geiste des verschmitzten Photius durchdrungen.” Bishop Hefele, in the revised edition of his Conciliengesch. (IV. 464 sqq.), treats this Aftersynode, as he calls it, no better. Both follow in the track of their old teacher, Dr. Döllinger who, in his History of the Church (translated by Dr. Edward Cox, London 1841, vol. III. p. 100), more than forty years ago, described this Synod “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.” But when in 1870 the Vatican Council sanctioned the historical falsehood of papal infallibility, Döllinger, once the ablest advocate of Romanism in Germany, protested against Rome and was excommunicated. Whatever the Latins may say against the Synod of Photius, the Latin Synod of 869 was not a whit better, and Rome understood the arts of intrigue fully as well as Constantinople. The whole controversy between the Greek and the Roman churches is one of the most humiliating chapters in the history of Christianity, and both must humbly confess their share of sin and guilt before a reconciliation can take place.
§ 71. Progress and Completion of the Schism. Cerularius.
Hergenröther: Photius, Vol. III. 653–887; Comp. his Kirchengesch. vol. I. 688 sq.; 690–694. Hefele: Conciliengesch. IV. 587; 765 sqq.; 771, 775 sqq. Gieseler: II. 221 sqq.
We shall briefly sketch the progress and consolidation of the schism.
The Difference About Tetragamy.
The fourth marriage of the emperor Leo the
Philosopher (886–912), which was forbidden by the laws
of the Greek church, caused a great schism in the East (905). Leo himself had forbidden not only tetragamy, but even
trigamy. His four wives were Theophano, Zoë (his former
mistress), Eudokia, and Zoë Karbonopsyne, who in 905 bore
him a son, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (or Porphyrogennetos, d. 959).
See Hergenröther, Phot. III. 656
sq.
Leo on his death-bed restored the deposed patriarch (912). A Synod of Constantinople in 920, at which Pope John X. was represented, declared a fourth marriage illegal, and made no concessions to Rome. The Emperor Constantine, Leo’s son, prohibited a fourth marriage by an edict; thereby casting a tacit imputation on his own birth. The Greek church regards marriage as a sacrament, and a necessary means for the propagation of the race, but a second marriage is prohibited to the clergy, a third marriage is tolerated in laymen as a sort of legal concubinage, and a fourth is condemned as a sin and a scandal. The pope acquiesced, and the schism slumbered during the dark tenth century. The venal Pope John XIX. (1024) was ready for an enormous sum to renounce all the claim of superiority over the Eastern patriarchs, but was forced to break off the negotiations when his treasonable plan was discovered.
Cerularius and Leo IX.
Michael Cerularius (or Caerularius), Κηρουλάριος, probably from the Latin cerula
(κηρίολος), ceriolarium, a candelabrum for
wax-tapers. Azyma is from ἄζυμος, unleavened (ζύμη, leaven); hence ἡ
ἑορτὴ τῶν
ἀζύμων(ἄρτων), the feast of unleavened bread
(the passover), during which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. The
Greeks insist that our Lord in instituting the eucharist after the
passover-meal used true, nourishing bread (ἄρτοςfromαἴρω),
as the sign of the new dispensation of joy and gladness; while the
lifeless, unleavened bread (ἄζυμον) belongs to the Jewish dispensation.
The Latins argued that ἄρτοςmeans unleavened as well as leavened
bread, and that Christ during the feast of the passover could not get
any other but unleavened bread. They called the Greeks in turn
Fermentarei in opposition to Azmitae. See Nicetas
Stethatus (a cotemporary of Cerularius): De Fermentato et
Azymis, publ. in Greek by Dimitracopulos, Lips. 1866
(Βιβλιοθ.
ἐκκλ.I. 18-36), and in Greek and Latin by
Hergenröther, in Monumenta Graeca, etc., p.
139-154. Comp. also the Dissertation concerning Azymes in
Neale’s Eastern Church, Introd. II. 1051
sqq.; J. G. Hermann, Hist. concertationis de pane azymo et
fermentato in caena Domini, Lips. 1737; and
Hergenröther, Photius III. 739 sqq. Baronius Annal. ad ann. 1053 no. 22; and Gieseler
II. 222 sq.
Pope Leo IX. sent three legates under the lead of
the imperious Humbert to Constantinople, with counter-charges to the
effect that Cerularius arrogated to himself the title of “oecumenical”
patriarch; that he wished to subject the patriarchs of Alexandria and
of Antioch; that the Greeks rebaptized the Latins; that, like the
Nicolaitans, they permitted their priests to live in wedlock; “Sicut Nicolaitae carnales nuptias concedunt et
defendunt sacri altaris ministris.” On the other hand, Photius and
the Greeks traced to the clerical celibacy the fact that the West had
“so many children who knew not their fathers.” See a full résumé of
Humbert’s arguments in Hergenröther, III.
741-756.
Cerularius, supported by his clergy and the
people, immediately answered by a synodical counter-anathema on the
papal legates, and accused them of fraud. In a letter to Peter, the
patriarch of Antioch (who at first acted the part of a mediator), he
charged Rome with other scandals, namely, that two brothers were
allowed to espouse two sisters; that bishops wore rings and engaged in
warfare; that baptism was administered by a single immersion; that salt
was put in the mouth of the baptized; that the images and relics of
saints were not honored; and that Gregory the Theologian, Basil, and
Chrysostom were not numbered among the saints. The Filioque was also
mentioned. See the documents in Gieseler II. 225
sqq.
The charge of the martial spirit of the bishops was well founded in that semi-barbarous age. Cerularius was all-powerful for several years; he dethroned one emperor and crowned another, but died in exile (1059).
The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem adhered to the see of Constantinople. Thus the schism between the Christian East and West was completed. The number of episcopal sees at that time was nearly equal on both sides, but in the course of years the Latin church far outgrew the East.
The Latin Empire in the East. 1204–1261.
During the Crusades the schism was deepened by the
brutal atrocities of the French and Venetian soldiers in the pillage of
Constantinople (1204), the establishment of a Latin empire, and the
appointment by the pope of Latin bishops in Greek sees. Cardinal Hergenröther (Kirchengesch. I. 903) admits that it was largely (he ought to say, chiefly)
through the guilt of the Latin conquerors (”grossentheils durch Schuld der
lateinischen Eroberer“) that “the hatred of the Greeks at the conquest of
Constantinople, 1204, assumed gigantic dimensions.” See Gibbon’s graphic description (in ch.
LX.) of the horrors of the sack of Constantinople, gathered from the
concurrent accounts of the French marshall Villehardouin (who does not
betray a symptom of pity or remorse) and the Byzantine senator Nicetas
(one of the sufferers). On the barbarities previously committed at
Thessalonica by the Normans in 1186, see Eustathius De capta
Thessalonica (ed. Bonnae 1842, quoted by Gieseler II. 609); on the
barbarities in the island of Cyprus after its delivery by Richard to
Guy, king of Jerusalem, in 1192, see the anonymous account in Allatius,
De eccles. occident. et orient. perpet. consens. 1. II.
c. XIII. 693 sq. Leo Allatius was a Greek convert to the Roman church,
and found no fault with these cruelties against the church of his
fathers; on the contrary he says: ”Opus erat, effraenes propriaeque
fidei rebelles et veritatis oppugnatores non exilio, sed ferro et igne
in saniorem mentem reducere. Haeretici proscribendi sunt, exterminandi
sunt, puniendi sunt et pertinaces occidendi, cremandi. Ita leges
sanciunt, ita observavit antiquitas, nec alius mos est recentioris
ecclesiae tum Graecae tum Latinae.”
§ 72. Fruitless Attempts at Reunion.
The Greek emperors, hard pressed by the terrible Turks, who threatened to overthrow their throne, sought from time to time by negotiations with the pope to secure the powerful aid of the West. But all the projects of reunion split on the rock of papal absolutism and Greek obstinacy.
The Council of Lyons. a.d. 1274. See a full account of it in the sixth volume of
Hefele’s Conciliengeschichte, p. 103-147.
Michael Palaeologus (1260–1282),
who expelled the Latins from Constantinople (July 25, 1261), restored
the Greek patriarchate, but entered into negotiations with Pope Urban
IV. to avert the danger of a new crusade for the reconquest of
Constantinople. A general council (the 14th of the Latins) was held at
Lyons in 1273 and 1274 with great solemnity and splendor for the
purpose of effecting a reunion. Five hundred Latin bishops, seventy
abbots, and about a thousand other ecclesiastics were present, together
with ambassadors from England, France, Germany, and other countries.
Palaeologus sent a large embassy, but only three were saved from
shipwreck, Germanus, ex-patriarch of Constantinople, Theophanes,
metropolitan of Nicaea, and the chancellor of the empire. The pope
opened the Synod (May 7, 1274) by the celebration of high mass, and
declared the threefold object of the Synod to be: help for Jerusalem,
union with the Greeks, and reform of the church. Bonaventura preached
the sermon. Thomas Aquinas, the prince of schoolmen, who had defended
the Latin doctrine of the double procession In his book Contra errores
Graecorum.
But the Eastern patriarchs were not represented, the people of Constantinople abhorred the union with Rome, and the death of the despotic Michael Palaeologus (1282) was also the death of the Latin party, and the formal revocation of the act of submission to the pope.
The Council at
Ferrara—Florence. a.d. 1438–1439. See Cecconi (R.C.), Studi storici sul Concilio di
Firenze (Florence 1869); Hefele (R.C.), Conciliengesch. vol. VII. Pt. II. (1874), p. 659-761; B. Popoff (Gr.),
History of the Council of Florence, translated from the
Russian, ed. by J. M. Neale (Lond. 1861); Frommann
(Prot.), Krit. Beiträge zur Gesch. florentin.
Kirchenvereinigung(Halle, 1872).
Another attempt at reunion was made by John VII.
Palaeologus in the Council of Ferrara, which was convened by Pope
Eugenius IV. in opposition to the reformatory Council of Basle. It was
afterwards transferred to Florence on account of the plague. It was
attended by the emperor, the patriarch of Constantinople, and
twenty-one Eastern prelates, among them the learned Bessarion of
Nicaea, Mark of Ephesus, Dionysius of Sardis, Isidor of Kieff. The
chief points of controversy were discussed: the procession of the
Spirit, purgatory, the use of unleavened bread, and the supremacy of
the pope. On the subject of purgatory the Greeks disagreed among
themselves. The doctrine of transubstantiation was conceded, and
therefore not brought under discussion. Hefele (l.c. p. 741-761) gives the Latin and Greek
texts with a critical discussion. Frommann and Döllinger
charge the decree with falsification.
But when the humiliating terms of the reunion were divulged, the East and Russia rose in rebellion against the Latinizers as traitors to the orthodox faith; the compliant patriarchs openly recanted, and the new patriarch of Constantinople, Metrophanes, now called in derision Metrophonus or Matricide, was forced to resign.
After the Fall of Constantinople.
The capture of Constantinople by the Mohammedan Turks (1453) and the overthrow of the Byzantine empire put an end to all political schemes of reunion, but opened the way for papal propagandism in the East. The division of the church facilitated that catastrophe which delivered the fairest lands to the blasting influence of Islâm, and keeps it in power to this day, although it is slowly waning. The Turk has no objection to fights among the despised Christians, provided they only injure themselves and do not touch the Koran. He is tolerant from intolerance. The Greeks hate the pope and the Filioque as much as they hate the false prophet of Mecca; while the pope loves his own power more than the common cause of Christianity, and would rather see the Sultan rule in the city of Constantine than a rival patriarch or the Czar of schismatic Russia.
During the nineteenth century the schism has been
intensified by the creation of two new dogmas,—the
immaculate conception of Mary (1854) and the infallibility of the pope
(1870). When Pius IX. invited the Eastern patriarchs to attend the
Vatican Council, they indignantly refused, and renewed their old
protest against the antichristian usurpation of the papacy and the
heretical Filioque. They could not submit to the Vatican decrees
without stultifying their whole history and committing moral suicide.
Papal absolutism Or, as the modern Greeks call it, the papolatria of
the Latins.
CHAPTER VI.
MORALS AND RELIGION.
§ 73. Literature.
I. The chief and almost only sources for this chapter are the acts of Synods, the lives of saints and missionaries, and the chronicles of monasteries. The Acta Sanctorum mix facts and legends in inextricable confusion. The most important are the biographies of the Irish, Scotch, and Anglo-Saxon missionaries, and the letters of Boniface. For the history, of France during the sixth and seventh centuries we have the Historia Francorum by Gregory of Tours, the Herodotus of France (d. 594), first printed in Paris, 1511, better by Ruinart, 1699; best by Giesebrecht (in German), Berlin 1851, 9th ed. 1873, 2 vols.; and Gregorii Historiae Epitomata by his continuator, Fredegar, a clergyman of Burgundy (d. about 660), ed. by Ruinart, Paris 1699, and by Abel (in German), Berlin 1849. For the age of Charlemagne we have the Capitularies of the emperor, and the historical works of Einhard or Eginard (d. 840). See Ouvres complètes d’ Eginard, réunies pour la première fois et traduites en français, par A. Teulet, Paris 1840–’43, 2 vols. For an estimate of these and other writers of our period comp. part of the first, and the second vol. of Ad. Ebert’s Allgem. Gesch. der Lit. des Mittelalters im Abendlande, Leipz. 1874 and 1880.
II. Hefele: Conciliengesch. vols. III. and IV. (from a.d. 560–1073), revised ed. 1877 and 1879.
Neander: Denkwördigkeiten aus der Geschichte des christl. Lebens. 3d ed. Hamburg, 1845, ’46, 2 vols.
Aug. Thierry: Recits des temps merovingiens. Paris 1855 (based on Gregory of Tours).
Loebell: Gregor von Tours und seine Zeit. Leipz. 1839, second ed. 1868.
Monod: Études critiques sur les sources de l’histoire mérovingienne. Paris 1872.
Lecky: History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne, fifth ed. Lond. 1882, 2 vols. (part of the second vol.).
Brace: Gesta Christi, N. York, third ed. 1883, p. 107 sqq.
Comp. Guizot (Protest., d. 1874): Histoire générale de la civilisation en Europe et en Prance depuis la chute de l’empire romain jusqu à la révolution française, Paris 1830; seventh ed. 1860, 5 vols. (one vol. on Europe in general).
Balmez, (a Spanish philosopher and apologist of the Roman church, d. 1848): El Protatantismo comparado con el Catolicismo en sus relaciones con la civilisacion europea. Barcelona, 1842–44, 4 vols. The same in French, German, and English translations. A Roman Catholic counterpart to Guizot.
§ 74. General Character of Mediaeval Morals.
The middle age of Western Christendom resembles the
period of the Judges in the history of Israel when “the highways were
unoccupied, and the travelers walked through by-ways,” and when “every
man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Comp,
Upon the whole the people were more religious than
moral. Piety was often made a substitute or atonement for virtue.
Belief in the supernatural and miraculous was universal; scepticism and
unbelief were almost unknown. Men feared purgatory and hell, and made
great sacrifices to gain heaven by founding churches, convents, and
charitable institutions. And yet there was a frightful amount of
immorality among the rulers and the people. In the East the church had
to contend with the vices of an effete civilization and a corrupt
court. In Italy, France and Spain the old Roman vices continued and
were even invigorated by the infusion of fresh and barbaric blood. The
history of the Merovingian rulers, as we learn from Bishop Gregory of
Tours, is a tragedy of murder, adultery, and incest, and ends in
destruction. “It would be difficult,” says Gibbon of this period, “to
find anywhere more vice or less virtue.” The judgments of Hallam,
Milman, and Lecky are to the same effect. Compare also the description
of Montalembert, quoted above, p. 82 sq.
The church was unfavorably affected by the state of surrounding society, and often drawn into the current of prevailing immorality. Yet, upon the whole, she was a powerful barrier against vice, and the chief, if not the only promoter of education, virtue and piety in the dark ages. From barbaric and semi-barbaric material she had to build up the temple of a Christian civilization. She taught the new converts the Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments the best popular summaries of faith, piety, and duty. She taught them also the occupations of peaceful life. She restrained vice and encouraged virtue. The synodical legislation was nearly always in the right direction. Great stress was laid on prayer and fasting, on acts of hospitality, charity, and benevolence, and on pilgrimages to sacred places. The rewards of heaven entered largely as an inducement for leading a virtuous and holy life; but it is far better that people should be good from fear of hell and love of heaven than ruin themselves by immorality and vice.
A vast amount of private virtue and piety is never recorded on the pages of histor y, and is spent in modest retirement. So the wild flowers in the woods and on the mountains bloom and fade away unseen by human eyes. Every now and then incidental allusion is made to unknown saints. Pope Gregory mentions a certain Servulus in Rome who was a poor cripple from childhood, but found rich comfort and peace in the Bible, although he could not read himself, and had to ask pious friends to read it to him while he was lying on his couch; he never complained, but was full of gratitude and praise; when death drew near he requested his friends to sing psalms with him; then stopped suddenly and expired with the words: “Peace, hear ye not the praises of God sounding from heaven?” This man’s life of patient suffering was not in vain, but a benediction to many who came in contact with it. “Those also serve who only stand and wait.”
The moral condition of the middle age varied considerably. The migration of nations was most unfavorable to the peaceful work of the church. Then came the bright reign of Charlemagne with his noble efforts for education and religion, but it was soon followed, under his weak successors, by another period of darkness which grew worse and worse till a moral reformation began in the convent of Cluny, and reached the papal chair under the lead of Hildebrand.
Yet if we judge by the number of saints in the Roman Calendar, the seventh century, which is among the, darkest, was more pious than any of the preceding and succeeding centuries, except the third and fourth (which are enriched by the martyrs).
Notes.
The following is the table of saints in the Roman Calendar (according to Alban Butler’s Lives of the Saints): Saints.
First Century
53
Second Century
43
Third Century
139
Fourth Century
213
Fifth Century
130
Sixth Century
123
Seventh Century
174
Eighth Century
78
Ninth Century
49
Tenth Century
28
Eleventh Century
45
Twelfth Century
54
Thirteenth Century
49
Fourteenth Century
27
Fifteenth Century
17
Sixteenth Century
24
Seventeenth Century
15
Eighteenth Century
20
In the first centuries the numerous but nameless martyrs of the Neronian and other persecutions are not separately counted. The Holy Innocents, the Seven Sleepers (in the third century), the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste (fourth century,) and other groups of martyrs are counted only one each. Lecky asserts too confidently that the seventh century was the most prolific in saints, and yet the most immoral. It is strange that the number of saints should have declined from the seventh century, while the church increased, and that the eighteenth century of infidelity should have produced five more saints than the seventeenth century. It would therefore be very unsafe to make this table the basis for
§ 75. Clerical Morals.
1. Social Position. The clergy stood, during the middle ages, at the head of society, and shared with kings and nobles the rule of the people. They had the guardianship of the souls and consciences of men, and handled the keys of the kingdom of heaven. They possessed nearly all the learning, but it was generally very limited, and confined to a little Latin without any Greek. Some priests descended from noble and even royal blood, others from slaves who belonged to monasteries. They enjoyed many immunities from public burdens, as military duty and taxation. Charlemagne and his successors granted to them all the privileges which the Eastern emperors from the time of Constantine had bestowed upon them. They could not be sued before a civil court, and had their own episcopal tribunals. No lay judge could apprehend or punish an ecclesiastic without the permission of his bishop.
They were supported by the income from landed estates, cathedral funds, and the annual tithes which were enacted after the precedent of the Mosaic law. Pepin, by a decree of 764, imposed the payment of tithes upon all the royal possessions. Charlemagne extended it to all lands, and made the obligation general by a capitulary in 779. The tithes were regarded as the minimum contribution for the maintenance of religion and the support of the poor. They were generally paid to the bishop, as the administrator of all ecclesiastical goods. Many nobles had their own domestic chaplains who depended on their lords, and were often employed in degrading offices, as waiting at table and attending to horses and hounds.
2. Morals. The priests were expected to excel in
virtue as well as in education, and to commend their profession by an
exemplary life. Upon the whole they were superior to their flock, but
not unfrequently they disgraced their profession by scandalous
immorality. According to ancient discipline every priest at his
ordination was connected with a particular church except missionaries
to heathen lands. But many priests defied the laws, and led an
irregular wandering life as clerical tramps. They were forbidden to
wear the sword, but many a bishop lost his life on the battle field and
even some popes engaged in warfare. Drunkenness and licentiousness were
common vices. Gregory of Tours mentions a bishop named Cautinus who,
when intoxicated, had to be carried by four men from the table.
Boniface gives a very unfavorable but partizan account of the French
and German clergymen who acted independently of Rome. The acts of
Synods are full of censures and punishments of clerical sins and vices.
They legislated against fornication, intemperance, avarice, the habits
of hunting, of visiting horse-races and theatres, and enjoined even
corporal punishments. It seems incredible that there should have been an occasion
for legislation against clergymen keeping houses of prostitution; and
yet the Quinisexta or Trullan Synod of 692 enacted the canon: “He who
keeps a brothel, if a clergyman, shall be deposed and excommunicated;
if a layman, excommunicated.” Hefele III. 341.
Clerical immorality reached the lowest depth in the tenth and eleventh centuries, when Rome was a sink of iniquity, and the popes themselves set the worst example. But a new reform began with the Hildebrandian popes.
3. Canonical Life. Chrodegang, bishop of Metz
(a.d. 760), reformed the clergy by introducing, or reviving, after the
example of St. Augustin, the “canonical” or semi-monastic life. The
bishop and lower clergymen lived in the same house, near the cathedral,
ate at the same table, prayed and studied together, like a family of
monks, only differing from them in dress and the right of holding
property or receiving fees for official services. Such an establishment
was called Chapter, Capitulum, from the chapter of the Bible or of the
monastic rules which were read in common every day. The name was
applied both to the clerical brotherhood and to their habitation
(chapter-house). The plural, Capitula or Capitularia
designates codes of law ecclesiastical or civil, digested under
chapters. See Martene, De Antiqu. Eccl. Ritibus, 1, IV. c. VI.
§ 4, and Haddan In Smith and Cheetham, I.
347. Canonici, either because they were bound by canons,
or enrolled on the lists of ecclesiastical officers. They occupied an
intermediate position between the secular clergy and the monks. See Du
Cange, and Smith and Cheetham, sub Canonici.
The example was imitated in other places. Charlemagne made the canonical life obligatory on all bishops as far as possible. Many chapters were liberally endowed. But during the civil commotions of the Carolingians the canonical life degenerated or was broken up.
4. Celibacy. In the East the lower clergy were
always allowed to marry, and only a second marriage is forbidden. In
the West celibacy was the prescribed rule, but most clergymen lived
either with lawful wives or with concubines. In Milan all the priests
and deacons were married in the middle of the eleventh century, but to
the disgust of the severe moralists of the time. Hefele IV. 794. Ibid. p. 373. Ibid. p. 707.
§ 76. Domestic Life.
The purity and happiness of home-life depend on the position of woman, who is the beating heart of the household. Female degradation was one of the weakest spots in the old Greek and Roman civilization. The church, in counteracting the prevailing evil, ran into the opposite extreme of ascetic excess as a radical cure. Instead of concentrating her strength on the purification and elevation of the family, she recommended lonely celibacy as a higher degree of holiness and a safer way to heaven.
Among the Western and Northern barbarians she found a more favorable soil for the cultivation of Christian family life. The contrast which the heathen historian Tacitus and the Christian monk Salvian draw between the chastity of the Teutonic barbarians and the licentiousness of the Latin races is overdrawn for effect, but not without foundation. The German and Scandinavian tribes had an instinctive reverence for the female sex, as being inspired by a divinity, possessed of the prophetic gift, and endowed with secret charms. Their women shared the labors and dangers of men, emboldened them in their fierce battles, and would rather commit suicide than submit to dishonor. Yet the wife was entirely in the power of her husband, and could be bought, sold, beaten, and killed.
The Christian religion preserved and strengthened
the noble traits, and developed them into the virtues of chivalry;
while it diminished or abolished evil customs and practices. The Synods
often deal with marriage and divorce. Polygamy, concubinage, secret
marriages, marriages with near relatives, mixed marriages with heathens
or Jews or heretics were forbidden; the marriage tie was declared
sacred and indissoluble (except by adultery); sexual intemperance
restrained and forbidden on Sundays and during Lent; the personal
independence of woman and her rights of property were advanced. The
Virgin Mary was constantly held up to the imagination as the
incarnation of female parity and devotion. Not unfrequently, however,
marriages were dissolved by mutual consent from mistaken ascetic piety.
When a married layman entered the priesthood or a convent, he usually
forsook his wife. In a Roman Synod of 827 such separation was made
subject to the approval of the bishop. A Synod of Rouen, 1072, forbade
husbands whose wives had taken the veil, to marry another. Wives whose
husbands had disappeared were forbidden by the same Synod to marry
until the fact of death was made certain. For all these details see the scattered notices in vols,
III. and IV. of Hefele.
Upon the whole, the synodical legislation on the
subject of marriage was wise, timely, restraining, purifying, and
ennobling in its effect. The purest and brightest chapter in the
history of Pope Nicolas I. is his protection of injured innocence in
the person of the divorced wife of King Lothair of Lorraine. See § 61, p. 275 sq.
§ 77. Slavery.
See the Lit. in vol. I. § 48 (p. 444), and in vol. II. § 97 (p. 347). Comp. also Balmes (R.C.): Protestantism and Catholicism compared in their effects on the Civilization of Europe. Transl. from the spanish. Baltimore 1851, Chs. xv.-xix. Brace: Gesta Christi, Ch. xxi.
History is a slow but steady progress of emancipation from the chains which sin has forged. The institution of slavery was universal in Europe during the middle ages among barbarians as well as among civilized nations. It was kept up by natural increase, by war, and by the slave-trade which was carried on in Europe more or less till the fifteenth century, and in America till the eighteenth. Not a few freemen sold themselves into slavery for debt, or from poverty. The slaves were completely under the power of their masters, and had no claim beyond the satisfaction of their physical wants. They could not bear witness in courts of justice. They could be bought and sold with their children like other property. The marriage tie was disregarded, and marriages between freemen and slaves were null and void. In the course of time slavery was moderated into serfdom, which was attached to the soil. Small farmers often preferred that condition to freedom, as it secured them the protection of a powerful nobleman against robbers and invaders. The condition of the serfs, however, during the middle ages was little better than that of slaves, and gave rise to occasional outbursts in the Peasant Wars, which occurred mostly in connection with the free preaching of the Gospel (as by Wiclif and the Lollards in England, and by Luther in Germany), but which were suppressed by force, and in their immediate effects increased the burdens of the dependent classes. The same struggle between capital and labor is still going on in different forms.
The mediaeval church inherited the patristic views
of slavery. She regarded it as a necessary evil, as a legal right based
on moral wrong, as a consequence of sin and a just punishment for it.
She put it in the same category with war, violence, pestilence, famine,
and other evils. St. Augustin, the greatest theological authority of
the Latin church, treats slavery as disturbance of the normal condition
and relation. God did not, he says, establish the dominion of man over
man, but only over the brute. He derives the word servus, as usual,
from servare (to save the life of captives of war doomed to death), but
cannot find it in the Bible till the time of the righteous Noah, who
gave it as a punishment to his guilty son Ham; whence it follows that
the word came “from sin, not from nature.” He also holds that the
institution will finally be abolished when all iniquity shall
disappear, and God shall be all in all. De Civit. Dei, 1. XIX. c. 15. ”Nomen [servus]
culpa meruit, non natura … Prima servitutis causa
peccatum est, ut homo homini conditionis vinculo subderetur quod non
fuit nisi Deo judicante, apud quem non est iniquitas.” He thinks it
will continue with the duties prescribed by the apostles, donec
transeat iniquitas, et evacuetur omnis principatus, et potestas humana,
et sit Deus omnia in omnibus..” Chrysostom taught substantially the
same views, and derived from the sin of Adam a threefold servitude and
a threefold tyranny, that of the husband over the wife, the master over
the slave, and the state over the subjects. Thomas Aquinas, the
greatest of the schoolmen, ” did not see in slavery either difference
of race or imaginary inferiority or means of government, but only a
scourge inflicted on humanity by the sins of the first man” (Balmes, p.
112). But none of these great men seems to have had an idea that
slavery would ever disappear from the earth except with sin itself.
Cessante causa, cessat effectus. See vol. III.
115-121.
The church exerted her great moral power not so
much towards the abolition of slavery as the amelioration and removal
of the evils connected with it. Many provincial Synods dealt with the
subject, at least incidentally. The legal right of holding slaves was
never called in question, and slaveholders were in good and regular
standing. Even convents held slaves, though in glaring inconsistency
with their professed principle of equality and brotherhood. Pope
Gregory the Great, one of the most humane of the popes, presented
bondservants from his own estates to convents, and exerted all his
influence to recover a fugitive slave of his brother. Epist. X. 66; IX. 102. See these and other passages in
Overbeck, Verhältniss der alten Kirche zur
Sklaverei, in his
“Studien zur Gesch. der alten Kirche” (1875) p. 211 sq. Overbeck,
however, dwells too much on the proslavery sentiments of the fathers,
and underrates the merits of the church for the final abolition of
slavery. Hefele IV. 670.
But, on the other hand, the Christian spirit
worked silently, steadily and irresistibly in the direction of
emancipation. The church, as the organ of that spirit, proclaimed ideas
and principles which, in their legitimate working, must root out
ultimately both slavery and tyranny, and bring in a reign of freedom,
love, and peace. She humbled the master and elevated the slave, and
reminded both of their common origin and destiny. She enjoined in all
her teaching the gentle and humane treatment of slaves, and enforced it
by the all-powerful motives derived from the love of Christ, the common
redemption and moral brotherhood of men. She opened her houses of
worship as asylums to fugitive slaves, and surrendered them to their
masters only on promise of pardon. Synod of Clermont, a.d.549.
Hefele III. 5; comp. II. 662. Fifth Synod of Orleans, 549; Synod of Aachen, 789; Synod of
Francfurt, 794. See Hefele III. 3, 666, 691. If ordination took place
without the master’s consent, he could reclaim the
slave from the ranks of the clergy. Hefele IV. 26. Hefele III. 574, 575, 611. The first example was set by
Pope Callistus (218-223), who was himself formerly a slave, and gave
the sanction of the Roman church to marriages between free Christian
ladies and slaves or lowborn men. Hippolytus, Philosoph. IX. 12
(p. 460 ed. Duncker and Schneidewin). This was contrary to Roman law,
and disapproved even by Hippolytus. The 16th Synod of Toledo, 693, passed the following canon:
“If a slave works on Sunday by command of his master, the slave becomes
free, and the master is punished to pay 30 solidi. If the slave works
on Sunday without command of his master, he is whipped or must pay fine
for his skin. If a freeman works on Sunday, he loses his liberty or
must pay 60 solidi; a priest has to pay double the amount.” Hefele II.
349; comp. p. 355. Hefele III. 103; comp. IV. 70. Balmes, p.
108.
Occasionally a feeble voice was raised against the
institution itself, especially from monks who were opposed to all
worldly possession, and felt the great inconsistency of convents
holding slave-property. Theodore of the Studium forbade his convent to
do this, but on the ground that secular possessions and marriage were
proper only for laymen. Overbeck, l.c., p. 219. Conc. Cabilonense, can. 9: ”Pietatis est maximae et
religionis intuitus, ut captivitatis vinculum omnino a Christianis
redimatur.” The date of the Council is uncertain, see Mansi,
Conc. X. 1198; Hefele, III. 92.
Under the combined influences of Christianity, civilization, and oeconomic and political considerations, the slave trade was forbidden, and slavery gradually changed into serfdom, and finally abolished all over Europe and North America. Where the spirit of Christ is there is liberty.
Notes.
In Europe serfdom continued till the eighteenth century, in Russia even till 1861, when it was abolished by the Czar Alexander II. In the United States, the freest country in the world, strange to say, negro slavery flourished and waxed fat under the powerful protection of the federal constitution, the fugitive slave-law, the Southern state-laws, and “King Cotton,” until it went out in blood (1861–65) at a cost far exceeding the most liberal compensation which Congress might and ought to have made for a peaceful emancipation. But passion ruled over reason, self-interest over justice, and politics over morals and religion. Slavery still lingers in nominally Christian countries of South America, and is kept up with the accursed slave-trade under Mohammedan rule in Africa, but is doomed to disappear from the bounds of civilization.
§ 78. Feuds and Private Wars. The Truce of God.
A. Kluckhohn: Geschichte des Gottesfriedens. Leipzig 1857.
Henry C. Lea: Superstition and Force. Essays on the Wager of Law—the Wager of Battle—the Ordeal—Torture. Phila. 1866 (407 pages).
Among all barbarians, individual injury is at once
revenged on the person of the enemy; and the family or tribe to which
the parties belong identify themselves with the quarrel till the thirst
for blood is satiated. Hence the feuds Saxon Faehth, or Faeght, Danish feide,
Dutch veede, German Fehde, low Latin faida or faidia. Compare the
German Feind, the
English fiend. Du Cange defines faida: ”Gravis et
aperta inimicitia ob caedem aliquam suscepta, and refers to his
dissertation De Privatis Bellis.
The influence of Christianity was to confine the
responsibility for a crime to its author, and to substitute orderly
legal process for summary private vengeance. The sixteenth Synod of
Toledo (693) forbade duels and private feuds. Hefele III. 349. IV. 655, 689.
These sporadic efforts prepared the way for one of
the most benevolent institutions of the middle ages, the so-called
“Peace” or “Truce of God.” Treuga Dei, Gottesfriede. See Du Cange sub.
“Treva, Treuga, seu Trevia Dei.” The word occurs in several
languages (treuga, tregoa, trauva, treva, trêve). It
comes from the same root as the German treu, Treue, and the English true troth,
truce, and signifies a pledge of faith, given for a time to an
enemy for keeping peace. Rodull Glaber, a monk of Cluny, gives a graphic account of
this famine and the origin of the Peace movement, in his Historia
sui Temporis, lib. IV. c.4 and 5 (in Migne’s
Patrol. Tom. 142, fol. 675-679). Hefele, IV. 698, traces the
movement to Provence and to the year 1040 with a “perhaps,” but Rodulf
Glaber makes it begin ”in Aquitaniae partibus anno incarnati Christi
millesimo tricesimo tertio,” from whence it spread rapidly ”per
Arelatensem provinciam, atque Lugdunensem, sicque per universam
Burgundiam, atque in ultimas Franciae partes ” (Migne, l. c.
fol. 678). Comp. lib. V. 1 (fol. 693): ”primitus inpartibus
Aquitanicis, deinde paulatim per universum Galliarum territorium,”
etc. He also reports that the introduction of the Peace was blessed by
innumerable cures and a bountiful harvest. ”Erat instar illius
antiqui Mosaici magni Jubilaei.” Balderich, in his Chronicle of the
Bishops of Cambray, reports that in one of the French synods a bishop
showed a letter which fell from heaven and exhorted to peace. The
bishop of Cambray, however, dissented because he thought the resolution
could not be carried out.
The peace-movement spread through all Burgundy and
France, and was sanctioned by the Synods of Narbonne (1054), Gerundum
in Spain (1068), Toulouse (1068), Troyes (1093), Rouen (1096), Rheims
(1136), the Lateran (1139 and 1179), etc. The Synod of Clermont (1095),
under the lead of Pope Urban II., made the Truce of God the general law
of the church. The time of the Truce was extended to the whole period
from the first of Advent to Epiphany, from Ashwednesday to the close of
the Easter week, and from Ascension to the close of the week of
Pentecost; also to the various festivals and their vigils. The Truce
was announced by the ringing of bells. See further details in Mansi XIX. 549 sq.; Kluckhohn;
Hefele (IV. 696-702, 780); and Mejer in Herzog2V. 319 sqq.
§ 79. The Ordeal.
Grimm: Deutsche Rechtsalterthömer, Göttingen 1828, p. 908 sqq. Hildenbrand: Die Purgatio canonica et vulgaris, Mönchen 1841. Unger: Der gerichtliche Zweikampf, Göttingen 1847. Philipps: Ueber die Ordalien, Mönchen 1847. Dahn: Studien zur Gesch. der Germ. Gottesurtheile, Mönchen 1867. Pfalz: Die german. Ordalien, Leipz. 1865. Henry C. Lea: Superstition and Force, Philad. 1866, p. 175–280. (I have especially used Lea, who gives ample authorities for his statements.) For synodical legislation on ordeals see Hefele, Vols. III. and IV.
Another heathen custom with which the church had to
deal, is the so-called Judgment of God or Ordeal, that is, a trial of
guilt or innocence by a direct appeal to God through nature. From the Anglo-Saxon ordael or ordela (from
or=ur, and dael=theil): German: Urtheilor Gottesurtheil; Dutch: oordeel; French: ordéal; L. Lat.; ordalium, ordale, ordela. See Du Cange
sub. ordela, aquae frigidae judicium, Duellum, Ferrum candens;
Skeat (Etymol. Dict. of the Engl. Lang.) sub.
Deal. See the proof in Lea, who finds in the wide prevalence of
this custom a confirmation of the common origin of the Aryan or
Indo-germanic races.
The ordeal reverses the correct principle that a man must be held to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, and throws the burden of proof upon the accused instead of the accuser. It is based on the superstitious and presumptuous belief that the divine Ruler of the universe will at any time work a miracle for the vindication of justice when man in his weakness cannot decide, and chooses to relieve himself of responsibility by calling heaven to his aid. In the Carlovingian Capitularies the following passage occurs: “Let doubtful cases be determined by the judgment of God. The judges may decide that which they clearly know, but that which they cannot know shall be reserved for the divine judgment. He whom God has reserved for his own judgment may not be condemned by human means.”
The customary ordeals in the middle ages were
water-ordeals and fire-ordeals; the former were deemed plebeian, the
latter (as well as the duel), patrician. The one called to mind the
punishment of the deluge and of Pharaoh in the Red Sea; the other, the
future punishment of hell. The water-ordeals were either by hot
water, Judicium aquae ferventis, aeneum, cacabus, caldaria.
This is probably the oldest form in Europe. See Lea, p. 196. It is
usually referred to in the most ancient texts of law, and especially
recommended by Hincmar of Rheims, as combining the elements of
water—the judgment of the deluge—and
of fire—the judgment of the last day. The accused was
obliged, with his naked arm, to find a small stone or ring in a boiling
caldron of water (this was called in German the Kesselfang), or simply to throw the hand to the wrist or to the elbow into
boiling water. See Lea, p. 196 sqq. Judicium aquae frigidae. It was not known in Europe
before Pope Eugenius II. (824-827), who seems to have introduced it.
The accused was bound with cords, and lowered with a rope into a
reservoir or pond, with the prayer (St., Dunstan’s
formula): “Let not the water receive the body of him who, released from
the weight of goodness, is upborne by the wind of iniquity.” It was
supposed that the pure element would not receive a criminal into its
bosom. It required therefore in this case a miracle to convict the
accused, as in the natural order of things he would escape. Lea (p.
221) relates this instance from a MS. in the British Museum In 1083,
during the deadly struggle between the Empire and the Papacy, as
personified in Henry IV. and Hildebrand, the imperialists related with
great delight that some of the leading prelates of the papal court
submitted the cause of their chief to this ordeal. After a three
days’ fast, and proper benediction of the water, they
placed in it a boy to represent the Emperor, when to their horror he
sank like a stone. On referring the result to Hildebrand, he ordered a
repetition of the experiment, which was attended with the same result.
Then, throwing him in, as a representative of the Pope, he obstinately
floated during two trials, in spite of all efforts to force him under
the surface, and an oath was exacted from them to maintain inviolable
secrecy as to the unexpected result.” James I. of England was a strict
believer in this ordeal, and thought that the pure element would never
receive those who had desecrated the privileges of holy baptism. Even
as late as 1836, an old woman, reputed to be a witch, was twice plunged
into the sea at Hela, near Danzig, and as she persisted in rising to
the surface, she was pronounced guilty and beaten to death. See Lea, p.
228 and 229. Judicium ferri or ferri candentis. A favorite mode,
administered in two different forms, the one by six or twelve red-hot
plough-shares (vomeres igniti), over which the person had to
walk bare-footed; the other by a piece of red-hot iron, which he had to
carry for a distance of nine feet or more. See Lea, p. 201
sq. The accused had to stretch his hand into a fire; hence the
French proverbial expression: ”J’en mettrais la main au
feu,” as an
affirmation of positive belief. Sometimes he had to walk bare-legged
and bare-footed through the flames of huge pyres. Petrus Igneus gained
his reputation and surname by an exploit of this kind. See examples in
Lea, p. 209 sqq. Savonarola proposed this ordeal in 1498 to his enemies
in proof of his assertion that the church needed a thorough
reformation, and that his excommunication by Pope Alexander VI. was
null and void, but he shrunk from the trial, lost his cause, and was
hanged and burned after undergoing frightful tortures. He had not the
courage of Hus at Constance, or Luther at Worms, and his attempted
reformation left nothing but a tragic memory.
To the ordeals belongs also the judicial duel or
battle ordeal. It was based on the old superstition that God always
gives victory to the innocent. Tacitus (German, cap. 7) reports of the heathen
Germans: ”[Deum] adesse, bellantibus credunt.“ See Lea, p. 75-174. The wager of battle, as a judicial
institution, must not be confounded with the private duel which has
been more or less customary among all races and in all ages, and still
survives as a relic of barbarism, though misnamed “the satisfaction of
a gentleman.” The judicial duel aims at the discovery of truth and the
impartial administration of justice, while the object of the private
duel is personal vengeance and reparation of honor.
The mediaeval church, with her strong belief in
the miraculous, could not and did not generally oppose the ordeal, but
she baptized it and made it a powerful means to enforce her authority
over the ignorant and superstitious people she had to deal with.
Several councils at Mainz in 880, at Tribur on the Rhine in 895, at
Tours in 925, at Mainz in 1065, at Auch in 1068, at Grau in 1099,
recognized and recommended it; the clergy, bishops, and archbishops, as
Hincmar of Rheims, and Burckhardt of Worms, and even popes like Gregory
VII. and Calixtus II. lent it their influence. St. Bernard approved of
the cold-water process for the conviction of heretics, and St. Ivo of
Chartres admitted that the incredulity of mankind sometimes required an
appeal to the verdict of Heaven, though such appeals were not commanded
by, the law of God. As late as 1215 the ferocious inquisitor Conrad of
Marburg freely used the hot iron against eighty persons in Strassburg
alone who were suspected of the Albigensian heresy. The clergy prepared
the combatants by fasting and prayer, and special liturgical formula;
they presided over the trial and pronounced the sentence. Sometimes
fraud was practiced, and bribes offered and taken to divert the course
of justice. Gregory of Tours mentions the case of a deacon who, in a
conflict with an Arian priest, anointed his arm before he stretched it
into the boiling caldron; the Arian discovered the trick, charged him
with using magic arts, and declared the trial null and void; but a
Catholic priest, Jacintus from Ravenna, stepped forward, and by
catching the ring from the bubbling caldron, triumphantly vindicated
the orthodox faith to the admiring multitude, declaring that the water
felt cold at the bottom and agreeably warm at the top. When the Arian
boldly repeated the experiment, his flesh was boiled off the bones up
to the elbow. De Gloria Martyrum I. 81. Lea, p.
198.
The Church even invented and substituted new ordeals, which were less painful and cruel than the old heathen forms, but shockingly profane according to our notions. Profanity and superstition are closely allied. These new methods are the ordeal of the cross, and the ordeal of the eucharist. They were especially used by ecclesiastics.
The ordeal of the cross Judicium crucis, orstare ad crucem,
Kreuzesprobe. A modification of it was the trial of standing with
the arms extended in the form of a cross. In this way St. Lioba, abbess
of Bischoffsheim, vindicated the honor of her convent against the
charge of impurity when a new-born child was drowned in the
neighborhood. Lea, p. 231.
A still worse profanation was the ordeal of
consecrated bread in the eucharist with the awful adjuration: “May this
body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be a judgment to thee this
day.” Judicium offae, panis conjuratio, corsnaed,
Abendmahlsprobe. Comp. Hefele IV. 370, 552, 735.
The purgatorial oath, when administered by wonder-working relics, was also a kind of ordeal of ecclesiastical origin. A false oath on the black cross in the convent of Abington, made from the nails of the crucifixion, and derived from the Emperor Constantine, was fatal to the malefactor. In many cases these relics were the means of eliciting confessions which could not have been obtained by legal devices.
The genuine spirit of Christianity, however, urged
towards an abolition rather than improvement of all these ordeals.
Occasionally such voices of protest were raised, though for a long time
without effect. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, in the beginning of the sixth
century, remonstrated with Gundobald for giving prominence to the
battle-ordeal in the Burgundian code. St. Agobard, archbishop of Lyons,
before the middle of the ninth century (he died about 840) attacked the
duel and the ordeal in two special treatises, which breathe the gospel
spirit of humanity, fraternity and peace in advance of his age. Liber adversus Legem Gundobadi (i.e. Leg. Burgundionum)
et impia certarmina quae per eam geruntur; and Liber Contra
Judicium Dei. See his Opera ed. Baluzius, Paris 1666, T. I.
107 sqq., 300 sqq., and in Migne’s Patrologia,
Tom. CIV. f 113-126, and f. 250-258 (with the notes of
Baluzius). “At length, when the Papal authority reached its
culminating point, a vigorous and sustained effort to abolish the whole
system was made by the Popes who occupied the pontifical throne from
1159-1227. Nothing can be more peremptory than the prohibition uttered
by Alexander III. In 1181, Lucius III. pronounced null and void the
acquittal of a priest charged with homicide, who had undergone the
water-ordeal, and ordered him to prove his innocence with compurgators,
and the blow was followed up by his successors. Under Innocent III.,
the Fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215, formally forbade the employment
of any ecclesiastical ceremonies in such trials; and as the moral
influence of the ordeal depended entirely upon its religious
associations, a strict observance of this canon must speedily have
swept the whole system into oblivion. Yet at this very time the
inquisitor Conrad of Marburg was employing in Germany the red-hot iron
as a means of condemning his unfortunate victims by wholesale, and the
chronicler relates that, whether innocent or guilty, few escaped the
test. The canon of Lateran, however, was actively followed up by the
Papal legates, and the effect was soon discernible.” Lea, p.
272.
§ 80. The Torture.
Henry C. Lea: Superstition and Force (Philad. 1866), p. 281–391. Paul Lacroix: Manners, Customs, and Dress of the Middle Ages and during the Renaissance Period (transl. from the French, N. York 1874), p. 407–434. Brace. Gesta Christi, ch. XV.
The torture rests on the same idea as the ordeal. Tortura from torqueo, to twist, to torment. Ital. and Spanish: tortura;
French: torture;
Germ.: Folter.
The torture was unknown among the Hindoos and the
Semitic nations, but recognized by the ancient Greeks and Romans, as a
regular legal proceeding. It was originally confined to slaves who were
deemed unfit to bear voluntary testimony, and to require force to tell
the truth. “Their evidence was inadmissible, except when given under
torture, and then by a singular confusion of logic, it was estimated as
the most convincing kind of testimony.” Lea, 283. “The modes of torture
sanctioned by the Greeks were the wheel (τρόχος), the ladder or rack
(κλίμαξ), the comb with sharp teeth
(κυάφος), the low vault (κύφων) in which the unfortunate witness was thrust
and bent double, the burning tiles (πλίνθοι) the heavy hog-skin whip
(ὑστριχίς), and the injection of vinegar into the
nostrils.” Lea, p. 284. The Romans used chiefly the scourge. The
instruments of torture employed during the middle ages were the rack,
the thumbscrew, the Spanish boot, iron gauntlets, heated iron stools,
fire, the wheel, the strappado, enforced sleeplessness, and various
mutilations. Brace says (p. 182) that ” nine hundred(?) different
instruments for inflicting pain were invented and used.” One tenth of
the number would be bad enough. Collections of these devilish
instruments may be seen in the London Tower, and in antiquarian museums
on the Continent.
Among the Northern barbarians the torture was at
first unknown except for slaves. The common law of England does not
recognize it. Crimes were regarded only as injuries to individuals, not
to society, and the chief resource for punishment was the private
vengeance of the injured party. But if a slave, who was a mere piece of
property, was suspected of a theft, his master would flog him till he
confessed. All doubtful questions among freemen were decided by
sacramental purgation and the various forms of ordeal. But in Southern
Europe, where the Roman population gave laws to the conquering
barbarians, the old practice continued, or revived with the study of
the Roman law. In Southern France and in Spain the torture was an
unbroken ancestral custom. Alfonso the Wise, in the thirteenth century,
in his revision of Spanish jurisprudence, known as Las Siete Partidas,
retained the torture, but declared the person of man to be the noblest
thing on earth, “La persona del home es la mas noble cosa del
mundo.“
The church, true to her humanizing instincts, was
at first hostile to the whole system of forcing evidence. A Synod of
Auxerre (585 or 578) prohibited the clergy to witness a torture. Can. 33: ”Non licet presbytero nec diacono ad
trepalium ubi rei torquentur, stare.“ See Hefele III.
46. Epist. VIII. 30. Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, c. 86. Hefele IV.
350. Lea, p. 305.
But at a later period, in dealing with heretics,
the Roman church unfortunately gave the sanction of her highest
authority to the use of the torture, and thus betrayed her noblest
instincts and holiest mission. The fourth Lateran Council (1215)
inspired the horrible crusades against the Albigenses and Waldenses,
and the establishment of the infamous ecclesiastico-political courts of
Inquisition. These courts found the torture the most effective means of
punishing and exterminating heresy, and invented new forms of refined
cruelty worse than those of the persecutors of heathen Rome. Pope
Innocent IV., in his instruction for the guidance of the Inquisition in
Tuscany and Lombardy, ordered the civil magistrates to extort from all
heretics by torture a confession of their own guilt and a betrayal of
all their accomplices (1252). In the bull Ad extirpanda: “Teneatur potestas seu
rector, omnes haereticos … cogere citra membri
diminutionem et mortis periculum, tamquam vere latrones et homicidas
animarum … errores suos expresse fateri et accusare
alios haereticos quos sciunt, et bona eorum.“ …
Innoc. IV. Leg. et Const. contra Haeret. § 26.
(Bullar. Magn. in Innoc. IV. No. 9). Comp. Gieseler II.
564-569.
Notes.
I. “The whole system of the Inquisition,” says Lea (p. 331), “was such as to render the resort to torture inevitable. Its proceedings were secret; the prisoner was carefully kept in ignorance of the exact charges against him, and of the evidence upon which they were based. He was presumed to be guilty, and his judges bent all their energies to force him to confess. To accomplish this, no means were too base or too cruel. Pretended sympathizers were to be let into his dungeon, whose affected friendship might entrap him into an unwary admission; officials armed with fictitious evidence were directed to frighten him with assertions of the testimony obtained against him from supposititious witnesses; and no resources of fraud or guile were to be spared in overcoming the caution and resolution of the poor wretch whose mind had been carefully weakened by solitude, suffering, hunger, and terror. From this to the rack and estrapade the step was easily taken, and was not long delayed.” For details see the works on the Inquisition. Llorente (Hist. crit. de l’Inquisition d’Espagne IV. 252, quoted by Gieseler III. 409 note 11) states that from 1478 to the end of the administration of Torquemada in 1498, when he resigned, “8800 persons were burned alive, 6500 in effigy, and 90,004 punished with different kinds of penance. Under the second general-inquisitor, the Dominican, Diego Deza, from 1499 to 1506, 1664 persons were burned alive, 832 in effigy, 32,456 punished. Under the third general-inquisitor, the Cardinal and Archbishop of Toledo, Francis Ximenes de Cisneros, from 1507 to 1517, 2536 were burned alive, 1368 in effigy, 47,263 reconciled.” Llorente was a Spanish priest and general secretary of the Inquisition at Madrid (from 1789–1791), and had access to all the archives, but his figures, as he himself admits, are based upon probable calculations, and have in some instances been disproved. He states, e.g. that in the first year of Torquemada’s administration 2000 persons were burned, and refers to the Jesuit Mariana (History of Spain), but Mariana means that during the whole administration of Torquemada “duo millia crematos igne.” See Hefele, Cardinal Ximenes, p. 346. The sum total of persons condemned to death by the Spanish Inquisition during the 330 years of its existence, is stated to be 30,000. Hefele (Kirchenlexikon, v. 656) thinks this sum exaggerated, yet not surprising when compared with the number of witches that were burnt in Germany alone. The Spanish Inquisition pronounced its last sentence of death in the year 1781, was abolished under the French rule of Joseph Napoleon, Dec. 4, 1808, restored by Ferdinand VII. 1814, again abolished 1820, and (after another attempt to restore it) in 1834. Catholic writers, like Balmez (I.c. chs. xxxvi. and xxxvii.) and Hefele (Cardinal Ximenes, p. 257–389, and in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchen-Lexicon, vol. V. 648–659), charge Llorente with inaccuracy in his figures, and defend the Catholic church against the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, as this was a political rather than ecclesiastical institution, and had at least the good effect of preventing religious wars. But the Inquisition was instituted with the express sanction of Pope Sixtus IV. (Nov. 1, 1478), was controlled by the Dominican order and by Cardinals, and as to the benefit, the peace of the grave-yard is worse than war. Hefele adds, however (V. 657): “Nach all’ diesen Bemerkungen sind wir öbrigens weit entfernt, der Spanichen Inquisition an sich das Wort reden zu wollen, vielmehr bestreiten wir der weltlichen Gewalt durchaus die Befugniss, das Gewissen zu knebeln, und sind von Herzensgrund aus jedem staatlichen Religionszwang abhold, mag er von einem Torquemada in der Dominikanerkutte, oder von einem Bureaucraten in der Staatsuniform ansgehen. Aber das wollten wir zeigen, dass die Inquisition das schaendliche Ungeheuer nicht war, wozu es Parteileidenschaft und Unwissenheit häufig stempeln wollten.”
II. The torture was abolished in England after 1640, in Prussia 1740, in Tuscany 1786, in France 1789, in Russia 1801, in various German states partly earlier, partly later (between 1740 and 1831), in Japan 1873. Thomasius, Hommel, Voltaire, Howard, used their influence against it. Exceptional cases of judicial torture occurred in the nineteenth century in Naples, Palermo, Roumania (1868), and Zug (1869). See Lea, p. 389 sqq., and the chapter on Witchcraft in Lecky’s History of Rationalism (vol. I. 27–154). The extreme difficulty of proof in trials of witchcraft seemed to make a resort to the torture inevitable. English witchcraft reached its climax during the seventeenth century, and was defended by King James I., and even such wise men as Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Thomas Browne, and Richard Baxter. When it was on the decline in England it broke out afresh in Puritan New England, created a perfect panic, and led to the execution of twenty-seven persons. In Scotland it lingered still longer, and as late as 1727 a woman was burnt there for witchcraft. In the Canton Glarus a witch was executed in 1782, and another near Danzig in Prussia in 1836. Lecky concludes his chapter with an eloquent tribute to those poor women, who died alone, hated, and unpitied, with the prospect of exchanging their torments on earth with eternal torments in hell.
I add a noble passage on torture from Brace’s Gesta Christi, p. 274 sq. “Had the ’Son of Man’ been in body upon the earth during the Middle Ages, hardly one wrong and injustice would have wounded his pure soul like the system of torture. To see human beings, with the consciousness of innocence, or professing and believing the purest truths, condemned without proof to the most harrowing agonies, every groan or admission under pain used against them, their confessions distorted, their nerves so racked that they pleaded their guilt in order to end their tortures, their last hours tormented by false ministers of justice or religion, who threaten eternal as well as temporal damnation, and all this going on for ages, until scarce any innocent felt themselves safe under this mockery of justice and religion—all this would have seemed to the Founder of Christianity as the worst travesty of his faith and the most cruel wound to humanity. It need not be repeated that his spirit in each century struggled with this tremendous evil, and inspired the great friends of humanity who labored against it. The main forces in mediaeval society, even those which tended towards its improvement, did not touch this abuse. Roman law supported it. Stoicism was indifferent to it; Greek literature did not affect it; feudalism and arbitrary power encouraged a practice which they could use for their own ends; and even the hierarchy and a State Church so far forgot the truths they professed as to employ torture to support the ’Religion of Love.’ But against all these powers were the words of Jesus, bidding men ’Love your enemies’ ’Do good to them that despitefully use you!’ and the like commands. working everywhere on individual souls, heard from pulpits and in monasteries, read over by humble believers, and slowly making their way against barbaric passion and hierarchic cruelty. Gradually, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the books containing the message of Jesus circulated among all classes, and produced that state of mind and heart in which torture could not be used on a fellow-being, and in which such an abuse and enormity as the Inquisition was hurled to the earth.”
§ 81. Christian Charity.
See the Lit. in vol. II. § 88, p. 311 sq. Chastel: Études historiques sur l’influence de la charité (Paris 1853, English transl., Philad. 1857—for the first three centuries). Häser: Geschichte der christl. Krankenpflege und Pflegerschaften (Berlin 1857). Ratzinger: Gesch. der christl. Armenpflege (Freib. 1869, a new ed. announced 1884). Morin: Histoire critique de la pauvreté (in the “Mémoirs de l’ Académie des inscript.” IV). Lecky: Hist. of Europ. Morals, ch. 4th (II. 62 sqq.). Uhlhorn: Christian Charity in the Ancient Church (Stuttgart, 1881; Engl. transl. Lond. and N. York 1883), Book III., and his Die Christliche Liebesthätigkeit im Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1884. (See also his art. in Brieger’s “Zeitschrift för K. G.” IV. 1). B. Riggenbach: Das Armenwesen der Reformation (Basel 1883). Also the articles Armenpflege in Herzog’s “Encycl.“2 vol. I. 648–663; in Wetzer and Welte’s “Kirchenlex.“2 vol. I. 1354–1375; Paupérisme in Lichtenberger X. 305–312; and Hospitals in Smith and Cheetham I. 785–789.
From the cruelties of superstition and bigotry we gladly turn to the queen of Christian graces, that “most excellent gift of charity,” which never ceased to be exercised wherever the story of Christ’s love for sinners was told and his golden rule repeated. It is a “bond of’ perfectness” that binds together all ages and sections of Christendom. It comforted the Roman empire in its hoary age and agonies of death; and it tamed the ferocity of the barbarian invaders. It is impossible to overestimate the moral effect of the teaching and example of Christ, and of St. Paul’s seraphic praise of charity upon the development of this cardinal virtue in all ages and countries. We bow with reverence before the truly apostolic succession of those missionaries, bishops, monks, nuns, kings, nobles, and plain men and women, rich or poor, known and unknown, who, from gratitude to Christ and pure love to their fellow-men, sacrificed home, health, wealth, life itself, to humanize and Christianize savages, to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to entertain the stranger, to clothe the naked, to visit the sick, to call on the prisoner, to comfort the dying. We admire and honor also those exceptional saints who, in literal fulfillment or misunderstanding of the Saviour’s advice to the rich youth, and in imitation of the first disciples at Jerusalem, sold all their possessions and gave them to the poor that they might become perfect. The admiration is indeed diminished, but not destroyed, if in many cases a large measure of refined selfishness was mixed with self-denial, and when the riches of heaven were the sole or chief inducement for choosing voluntary poverty on earth.
The supreme duty of Christian charity was
inculcated by all faithful pastors and teachers of the gospel from the
beginning. In the apostolic and ante-Nicene ages it was exercised by
regular contributions on the Lord’s day, and
especially at the communion and the agape connected with it. Every
congregation was a charitable society, and took care of its widows and
orphans, of strangers and prisoners, and sent help to distant
congregations in need. See vol. II. § 100.
After Constantine, when the masses of the people
flocked into the church, charity assumed an institutional form, and
built hospitals and houses of refuge for the strangers, the poor, the
sick, the aged, the orphans. They are called Xenodochium and Xenodochia
(ξενοδοχεῖον) for strangers; ptochium or
ptochotrophium (πτωχεῖον,
πτωχοτροφεῖον) for the poor; orphanotrophium
(ὀρφανοθροφεῖον) for orphans; brephotrophium
(βρεφοτροφεῖον) for foundlings house for the sick
(νοσοκομεῖα, valetudinaria); for the aged
(γεροντοκομεῖα); and for widows (χηροτροφεῖα); in Latin hospitium, hospitals,
hospitalium (corresponding to the Greek ξενοδοχεῖον). See Du Cange. Such institutions were
unknown among the heathen; for the houses near the temples of
Aeculapius were only intended for temporary shelter, not for care and
attendance. The Emperor Julian’s involuntary eulogy of
the charity of the “Galilaeans ” as he contemptuously called the
Christians, and his abortive attempt to force the heathen to imitate
it, are well known. See vol. III. 50.
Private charity continued to be exercised in proportion to the degree of vitality in the church. The great fathers and bishops of the fourth and fifth centuries set an illustrious example of plain living and high thinking, of self-denial and liberality, and were never weary in their sermons and writings in enjoining the duty of charity. St. Basil himself superintended his extensive hospital at Caesarea, and did not shrink from contact with lepers; St. Gregory Nazianzen exhorted the brethren to be “a god to the unfortunate by imitating the mercy of God,” for there is “nothing so divine as beneficence;” St. Chrysostom founded several hospitals in Constantinople, incessantly appealed to the rich in behalf of the poor, and directed the boundless charities of the noble widow Olympias. St. Ambrose, at once a proud Roman and an humble Christian, comforted the paupers in Milan, while he rebuked an emperor for his cruelty; Paulinus of Nola lived in a small house with his wife, Theresiâ and used his princely wealth for the building of a monastery, the relief of the needy, the ransoming of prisoners, and when his means were exhausted, he exchanged himself with the son of a widow to be carried away into Africa; the great Augustin declined to accept as a present a better coat than he might give in turn to a brother in need; St. Jerome founded a hospice in Bethlehem from the proceeds of his property, and induced Roman ladies of proud ancestry to sell their jewels, silk dresses, and palaces, for the poor, and to exchange a life of luxurious ease for a life of ascetic self-denial. Those examples shone like brilliant stars through the darkness of the middle ages.
But the same fathers, it must be added, handed to
the middle ages also the disturbing doctrine of the meritorious nature
and atoning efficacy of charity, as “covering a multitude of sins,” and
its influence even upon the dead in purgatory. These errors greatly
stimulated and largely vitiated that virtue, and do it to this day. See the numerous quotations from the fathers in Uhlhorn, p.
278 sqq. “Countless times is the thought expressed that almsgiving is a
safe investment of money at good interest with God in heaven.” He
thinks that “the doctrine of purgatory, and of the influence which
almsgiving exercises even upon souls in purgatory, determined more than
anything else the charity of the entire mediaeval period” (p. 287). The
notion that alms have an atoning efficacy is expressed again and again
in every variety of form as the motive of almsgiving which is
predominant above all others. Even Augustin, the most evangelical among
the fathers, teaches “that alms have power to extinguish and expiate
sin,” although he qualifies the maxim and confines the benefit to those
who amend their lives. No one had greater influence upon the Latin
church than the author of the City of God, in which, as Uhlhorn
says, “he unconsciously wrote the programme of the middle
ages.”
The Latin word caritas, which originally denotes dearness or costliness (from carus, dear), then esteem, affection, assumed in the church the more significant meaning of benevolence and beneficence, or love in active exercise, especially to the poor and suffering among our fellow-men. The sentiment and the deed must not be separated, and the gift of the hand derives its value from the love of the heart. Though the gifts are unequal, the benevolent love should be the same, and the widow’s mite is as much blessed by God as the princely donation of the rich. Ambrose compares benevolence in the intercourse of men with men to the sun in its relation to the earth. “Let the gifts of the wealthy,” says another father, “be more abundant, but let not the poor be behind him in love.” Very often, however, charity was contracted into mere almsgiving. Praying, fasting, and almsgiving were regarded (as also among the Jews and Mohammedans) as the chief works of piety; the last was put highest. For the sake of charity it is right to break the fast or to interrupt devotion.
Pope Gregory the Great best represents the
mediaeval charity with its ascetic self-denial, its pious superstitions
and utilitarian ingredients. He lived in that miserable transition
period when the old Roman civilization was crumbling to pieces and the
new civilization was not yet built up on its ruins. “We see nothing but
sorrow,” he says, “we hear nothing but complaints. Ah, Rome! once the
mistress of the world, where is the senate? where the people? The
buildings are in ruins, the walls are falling. Everywhere the sword!
Everywhere death! I am weary of life! “But charity remained as an angel
of comfort. It could not prevent the general collapse, but it dried the
tears and soothed the sorrows of individuals. Gregory was a father to
the poor. He distributed every month cart-loads of corn, oil, wine, and
meat among them. What the Roman emperors did from policy to keep down
insurrection, this pope did from love to Christ and the poor. He felt
personally guilty when a man died of starvation in Rome. He set careful
and conscientious men over the Roman hospitals, and required them to
submit regular accounts of the management of funds. He furnished the
means for the founding of a Xenodochium in Jerusalem. He was the chief
promoter of the custom of dividing the income of the church into four
equal parts, one for the bishop, one for the rest of the clergy, one
for the church buildings, one for the poor. At the same time he was a
strong believer in the meritorious efficacy of almsgiving for the
living and the dead. He popularized Augustin’s notion
of purgatory, supported it by monkish fables, and introduced masses for
the departed (without the so-called thirties, i.e. thirty days after
death). He held that God remits the guilt and eternal punishment, but
not the temporal punishment of sin, which must be atoned for in this
life, or in purgatory. Thus be explained the passage about the fire (
Among the barbarians in the West charitable institutions were introduced by missionaries in connection with convents, which were expected to exercise hospitality to strangers and give help to the poor. The Irish missionaries cared for the bodies as well as for the souls of the heathen to whom they preached the gospel, and founded “Hospitalia Scotorum.” The Council of Orleans, 549, shows acquaintance with Xenodochia in the towns. There was a large one at Lyons. Chrodegang of Metz and Alcuin exhort the bishops to found institutions of charity, or at least to keep a guest-room for the care of the sick and the stranger. A Synod at Aix in 815 ordered that an infirmary should be built near the church and in every convent. The Capitularies of Charlemagne extend to charitable institutions the same privileges as to churches and monasteries, and order that “strangers, pilgrims, and paupers” be duly entertained according to the canons.
The hospitals were under the immediate supervision of the bishop or a superintendent appointed by him. They were usually dedicated to the Holy Spirit, who was represented in the form of a dove in some conspicuous place of the building. They received donations and legacies, and were made the trustees of landed estates. The church of the middle ages was the largest property-holder, but her very wealth and prosperity became a source of temptation and corruption, which in the course of time loudly called for a reformation.
After we have made all reasonable deduction for a
large amount of selfish charity which looked to the donor rather than
the recipient, and for an injudicious profusion of alms which
encouraged pauperism instead of enabling the poor to help themselves by
honest work, we still have left one of the noblest chapters in the
history of morals to which no other religion can furnish a parallel.
For the regular gratuitous distribution of grain to the poor heathen of
Rome, who under Augustus rose to 200,000, and under the Antonines to
500,000, was made from the public treasury and dictated by selfish
motives of state policy; it called forth no gratitude; it failed of its
object, and proved, together with slavery and the gladiatorial shows
for the amusement of the people, one of the chief demoralizing
influences of the empire. “There can be,” says Lecky, (II. 78), “no question that
either in practice nor in theory, neither in the institution, that were
founded nor in the place that was assigned to it in the scale of
duties, did charity in antiquity occupy a position at all comparable to
that which it has obtained by Christianity. Nearly all the relief was a
State measure, dictated much more by policy than by benevolence; and
the habit of selling young children, the innumerable expositions, the
readiness of the poor to enroll themselves as gladiators, and the
frequent famines, show how large was the measure of unrelieved
distress. A very few pagan examples of charity have, indeed, descended
to us.”
Finally, we must not forget that the history of
true Christian charity remains to a large part unwritten. Its power is
indeed felt everywhere and every day; but it loves to do its work
silently without a thought of the merit of reward. It follows human
misery into all its lonely griefs with personal sympathy as well as
material aid, and finds its own happiness in promoting the happiness of
others. There is luxury in doing good for its own sake. “When thou
doest alms,” says the Lord, “let not thy left hand know what thy right
hand doeth, that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth
in secret shall reward thee.”
Notes.
Uhlhorn closes his first work with this judgment
of mediaeval charity (p. 396 sq. of the English translation): “No
period has done so much for the poor as the middle ages. What wholesale
distribution of alms, what an abundance of institutions of the most
various kinds, what numbers of hospitals for all manner of sufferers,
what a series of ministrant orders, male and female, knightly and
civil, what self-sacrifice and devotedness! In the mediaeval period all
that we have observed germinating in the ancient Church, first attains
its maturity. The middle ages, however, also appropriated whatever
tendencies existed toward a one-sided and unsound development. Church
care of the poor entirely perished, and all charity became
institutional; monks and nuns, or members of the ministrant orders,
took the place of the deacons—the diaconate died out.
Charity became one-sidedly institutional and one-sidedly
ecclesiastical. The church was the mediatrix of every exercise of
charity, she became in fact the sole recipient, the sole bestower; for
the main object of every work of mercy, of every distribution of alms,
of every endowment, of all self-sacrifice in the service of the needy,
was the giver’s own salvation. The transformation was
complete. Men gave and ministered no longer for the sake of helping and
serving the poor in Christ, but to obtain for themselves and theirs,
merit, release from purgatory, a high degree of eternal happiness. The
consequence was, that poverty was not contended with, but fostered, and
beggary brought to maturity; so that notwithstanding the abundant
donations, the various foundations, the well-endowed institutions,
distress was after all not mastered. Nor is it mastered yet. “The poor
ye have always with you” (
Lecky, who devotes a part of the fourth chapter of his impartial humanitarian History of European Morals to this subject, comes to the following conclusion (II. 79, 85): “Christianity for the first time made charity a rudimentary virtue, giving it a leading place in the moral type, and in the exhortations of its teachers. Besides its general influence in stimulating the affections, it effected a complete revolution in this sphere, by regarding the poor as the special representatives of the Christian Founder, and thus making the love of Christ, rather than the love of man, the principle of charity .... The greatest things are often those which are most imperfectly realized; and surely no achievements of the Christian Church are more truly great than those which it has effected in the sphere of charity. For the first time in the history of mankind, it has inspired many thousands of men and women, at the sacrifice of all worldly interests, and often under circumstances of extreme discomfort or danger, to devote their entire lives to the single object of assuaging the sufferings of humanity. It has covered the globe with countless institutions of mercy, absolutely unknown to the whole Pagan world. It has indissolubly united, in the minds of men, the idea of supreme goodness with that of active and constant benevolence. It has placed in every parish a religious minister who, whatever may be his other functions, has at least been officially charged with the superintendence of an organization of charity, and who finds in this office one of the most important as well as one of the most legitimate sources of his power.”
CHAPTER VII.
MONASTICISM.
See the Lit. on Monasticism in vol. II. 387, and III. 147 sq.
§ 82. Use of Convents in the Middle Ages.
The monks were the spiritual nobility of the church, and represented a higher type of virtue in entire separation from the world and consecration to the kingdom of God. The patristic, ideal of piety passed over into the middle ages; it is not the scriptural nor the modern ideal, but one formed in striking contrast with preceding and surrounding heathen corruption. The monkish sanctity is a flight from the world rather than a victory over the world, an abstinence from marriage instead of a sanctification of marriage, chastity, outside rather than inside the order of nature, a complete suppression of the sensual passion in the place of its purification and control. But it had a powerful influence over the barbaric races, and was one of the chief converting and civilizing agencies. The Eastern monks lost themselves in idle contemplation and ascetic extravagances, which the Western climate made impossible; the Western monks were, upon the whole, more sober, practical, and useful. The Irish and Scotch convents became famous for their missionary zeal, and furnished founders of churches and patron saints of the people.
Convents were planted by the missionaries among
all the barbarous nations of Europe, as fast as Christianity
progressed. They received special privileges and endowments from
princes, nobles, popes, and bishops. They offered a quiet retreat to
men and women who were weary of the turmoil of life, or had suffered
shipwreck of fortune or character, and cared for nothing but to save
their souls. They exercised hospitality to strangers and travelers, and
were a great blessing in times when traveling was difficult and
dangerous. As they are still in the East and on the Alps. Travelers
will not easily forget the convents of Mt. Sinai in the Desert, Mar
Saba near the Dead Sea, and the hospices on the Alpine passes of St.
Bernard, St. Gotthard, and the Simplon. Lecky (II. 84) says: “By the
monks the nobles were overawed, the poor protected, the sick tended,
travelers sheltered, prisoners ransomed, the remotest spheres of
suffering explored. During the darkest period of the middle ages, monks
founded a refuge for pilgrims amid the horrors of the Alpine snows. A
solitary hermit often planted himself, with his little boat, by a
bridgeless stream, and the charity of his life was to ferry over the
traveler.”
During the wild commotion and confusion of the ninth and tenth centuries, monastic discipline went into decay. Often the very richs of convents, which were the reward of industry and virtue, became a snare and a root of evil. Avaricious laymen (Abba-comites) seized the control and perpetuated it in their families. Even princesses received the titles and emoluments of abbesses.
§ 83. St. Benedict. St. Nilus. St. Romuald.
Yet even in this dark period there were a few shining lights.
St. Benedict of Aniane (750–821),
of a distinguished family in the south of France, after serving at the
court of Charlemagne, became disgusted with the world, entered a
convent, founded a new one at Aniane after the strict rule of St.
Benedict of Nursia, collected a library, exercised charity, especially
during a famine, labored for the reform of monasticism, was entrusted
by Louis the Pious with the superintendence of all the convents in
Western France, and formed them into a “congregation,” by bringing them
under one rule. He attended the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle in 817. Soon
after his death (Feb. 12, 821) the fruits of his labors were destroyed,
and the disorder became worse than before. The life of B. was written by Ardo. See theActa
Sanct. mens. Februar. sub Feb. 12; Mabillon,Acta Sanct. ord. S.
Bened.; Nicolai, Der heil. Benedict Gründer von Aniane und
Cornelimünster(Köln, 1865); Gfrörer,
Kirchengesch. III. 704 sqq.
St. Nilus the younger, To distinguish him from the older Nilus, who was a pupil
and friend of Chrysostom, a fertile ascetic writer and monk on Mt.
Sinai (d. about 440). There were more than twenty distinguished persons
of that name in the Greek church. See Allatius, Diatriba de Nilis et
Psellis; Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. X. 3. The place where two German scholars, O. von Gebhardt and
Harnack, discovered the Codex Rossanensis of the Greek Matthew and Mark
in the library of the archbishop (March, 1879). It dates from the sixth
or seventh century, is beautifully written in silver letters on very
fine purple-colored vellum, and was published by O. von Gebhardt in
1883. See Schaff’s Companion to the Gr. T., p.
131, and Gregory’s Prolegomena, I.
408. Acta Sanctorum vol. XXVI. Sept 26 (with the Greek
text of a biography of the saint by a disciple). Alban Butler,Lives
of the Saints, Sept. 26. Neander, III. 420 sqq. (Germ. ed. IV.
307-315). The convent of Crypts Ferrata possesses a valuable library,
which was used by distinguished antiquarians as Mabillon, Montfaucon,
Angelo Mai, and Dom Pitra. Among its treasures are several MSS. of
parts of the Greek Testament, to which Dean Burgon calls attention in
The Revision Revised (Lond. 1883), p. 447.
St. Romuald, the founder of the order of
Camaldoli, was born early in the tenth century at Ravenna, of a rich
and noble family, and entered the neighboring Benedictine convent of
Classis, in his twentieth year, in order to atone, by a severe penance
of forty days, for a murder which his father had committed against a
relative in a dispute about property. He prayed and wept almost without
ceasing. He spent three years in this convent, and afterwards led the
life of a roaming hermit. He imposed upon himself all manner of
self-mortification, to defeat the temptations of the devil. Among his
devotions was the daily repetition of the Psalter from memory; a plain
hermit, Marinus, near Venice, had taught him this mechanical
performance and other ascetic exercises with the aid of blows. Wherever
he went, he was followed by admiring disciples. He was believed to be
endowed with the gift of prophecy and miracles, yet did not escape
calumny. Emperor Otho III. paid him a visit in the year 1000 on an
island near Ravenna. Romuald sent missionaries to heathen lands, and
went himself to the border of Hungary with a number of pupils, but
returned when he was admonished by a severe sickness that he was not
destined for missionary life. He died in the convent Valle de Castro in
1027. His death occurred June 19, but his principal feast was
appointed by Clement VIII. on the seventh of February. “His body,” says
Alban Butler, “was found entire and uncorrupt five years after his
death, and again in 1466. But his tomb being sacrilegiously opened and
his body stolen in 1480, it fell to dust, in which state it was
translated to Fabriano, and there deposited in the great church, all
but the remains of one arm, sent to Camaldoli. God has honored his
relics with many miracles.”
According to Damiani, who wrote his life fifteen
years after his death, Romuald lived one hundred and twenty years,
twenty in the world, three in a convent, ninety-seven as a hermit. Vita & Romualdi, c. 69, in Damiani’s
Opera II. f. 1006, in Migne’s edition
(Patrol. Tom. 145, f. 953-1008). He adds; ”Nunc inter vivos
coelestis Hierusalem lapides ineffabiliter rutilat, cum ignitis
beatorum spirituum turmis exultat, candidissimi stola immortalitatis
induitur, et ab ipso rege regum vibrante in perpetuum diademate
coronatur.“
The most famous of Romuald’s monastic retreats is Campo Maldoli, or Camaldoli in the Appennines, near Arezzo in Tuscany, which he founded about 1009. It became, through the influence of Damiani, his eulogist and Hildebrand’s friend, the nucleus of a monastic order, which combined the cenobitic and eremitic life, and was distinguished by great severity. Pope Gregory XVI. belonged to this order.
§ 84. The Convent of Cluny.
Marrier and Duchesne: Bibliotheca Cluniacensis. Paris 1614 fol. Holsten.: Cod. Regul. Mon. II. 176. Lorain: Essay historique sur l’ abbaye de Cluny. Dijon 1839. Neander III. 417 sqq. 444 sq. Friedr. Hurter (Prot, minister in Schaffhausen, afterwards R. Cath.): Gesch. Papst Innocenz des Dritten (second ed. Hamb. 1844), vol. IV. pp. 22–55.
After the decay of monastic discipline during the
ninth and tenth centuries, a reformation proceeded from the convent of
Cluny in Burgundy, and affected the whole church. Cluny or Clugny (Cluniacum) is twelve miles northwest of
Macon. The present town has about four thousand inhabitants. Its chief
interest consists in the remains of mediaeeval
architecture.
It was founded by the pious Duke William of Aquitania in 910, to the honor of St. Peter and St. Paul, on the basis of the rule of St. Benedict.
Count Bruno (d. 927) was the first abbot, and introduced severe discipline. His successor Odo (927–941), first a soldier, then a clergyman of learning, wisdom, and saintly character, became a reformer of several Benedictine convents. Neander praises his enlightened views on Christian life, and his superior estimate of the moral, as compared with the miraculous, power of Christianity. Aymardus (Aymard, 941–948), who resigned when he became blind, Majolus (Maieul to 994), who declined the papal crown, Odilo, surnamed “the Good” (to 1048), and Hugo (to 1109), continued in the same spirit. The last two exerted great influence upon emperors and popes, and inspired the reformation of the papacy and the church. It was at Cluny that Hildebrand advised Bishop Bruno of Toul (Leo IX.), who had been elected pope by Henry III., to seek first a regular election by the clergy in Rome; and thus foreshadowed his own future conflict with the imperial power. Odilo introduced the Treuga Dei and the festival of All Souls. Hugo, Hildebrand’s friend, ruled sixty years, and raised the convent to the summit of its fame.
Cluny was the centre (archimonasterium) of the
reformed Benedictine convents, and its head was the chief abbot
(archiabbas). It gave to the church many eminent bishops and three
popes (Gregory VII., Urban II., and Pascal II.). In the time of its
highest prosperity it ruled over two thousand monastic establishments.
The daily life was regulated in all its details; silence was imposed
for the greater part of the day, during which the monks communicated
only by signs; strict obedience ruled within; hospitality and
benevolence were freely exercised to the poor and to strangers, who
usually exceeded the number of the monks. During a severe famine Odilo
exhausted the magazines of the convent, and even melted the sacred
vessels, and sold the ornaments of the church and a crown which Henry
II. had sent him from Germany. The convent stood directly under the
pope’s jurisdiction, and was highly favored with
donations and privileges. The wealth of the abbey was proverbial. Hurter quotes from
Lorain the saying in Burgundy: “En tout pays ou le, rent
vente, L’ Abbaye de
Cluny a rente.”
The example of Cluny gave rise to other monastic orders, as the Congregation of the Vallombrosa (Vallis umbrosa), eighteen miles from Florence, founded by St. John Gualbert in 1038, and the Congregation of Hirsau in Württemberg, in 1069.
But the very fame and prosperity of Cluny proved a
temptation and cause of decline. An unworthy abbot, Pontius, wasted the
funds, and was at last deposed and excommunicated by the pope as a
robber of the church. Peter the Venerable, the friend of St. Bernard
and kind patron of the unfortunate Abelard, raised Cluny by his wise
and long administration (1122–1156) to new life and
the height of prosperity. He increased the number of monks from 200 to
460, and connected 314 convents with the parent institution. In 1245
Pope Innocent IV., with twelve cardinals and all their clergy, two
patriarchs, three archbishops, eleven bishops, the king of France, the
emperor of Constantinople, and many dukes, counts and knights with
their dependents were entertained in the buildings of Cluny. Hurter, l.c. p. 45. The material of the church was sold during the Revolution
for not much more than 100,000 francs. When Napoleon Bonaparte passed
through Macon, be was invited to visit Cluny, but declined with the
answer: “You have allowed your great and beautiful church to be sold
and ruined, you are a set of Vandals; I shall not visit Cluny.” Lorain,
as quoted by Hurter, p. 47. The last abbot of Cluny was Cardinal
Dominicus de la Rochefaucauld, who died in exile a.d.1800.
A similar reformation of monasticism and of the
clergy was attempted and partially carried out in England by St.
Dunstan (925-May 19, 988), first as abbot of Glastonbury, then as
bishop of Winchester and London, and last as archbishop of Canterbury
(961) and virtual ruler of the kingdom. A monk of the severest type and
a churchman of iron will, he enforced the Benedictine rule, filled the
leading sees and richer livings with Benedictines, made a crusade
against clerical marriage (then the rule rather than the exception),
hoping to correct the immorality of the priests by abstracting them
from the world, and asserted the theocratic rule of the church over the
civil power under Kings Edwy and Edgar; but his excesses called forth
violent contentions between the monks and the seculars in England. He
was a forerunner of Hildebrand and Thomas à Becket. See Dunstan’s life in the Acta
Sanct. for May 19; and in Butler’s Lives of the
Saints, under the same date. Comp. Wharton, Anglia Sacra,
II.; Lingard Hist. of the Anglo-Saxon Church;
Soames,Anglo-Saxon Church; Lappenberg, Gesch. von
England; Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury; Milman, Latin
Christianity, Bk. VII., ch. 1; Hardwick; Robertson; also Lea,
History of Sacerdotal Celibacy.
CHAPTER VIII.
CHURCH DISCIPLINE.
Comp. vol. II. § 57, and vol. III. § 68.
§ 85. The Penitential Books.
I. The Acts of Councils, the Capitularies of Charlemagne and his successors, and the Penitential Books, especially that of Theodore of Canterbury, and that of Rome. See Migne’s Patrol. Tom. 99, fol. 901–983.
II. Friedr. Kunstmann (R.C.): Die latein. Pönitentialbücher der Angelsachsen. Mainz 1844. F. W. H. Wasserschleben: Bussordnungen der abendländ. Kirche. Halle 1851. Steitz: Das röm. Buss-Sacrament. Frankf. 1854. Frank (R.C.): Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. Mainz 1867. Probst (R.C.): Sacramente und Sacramentalien. Tübingen 1872. Haddan and Stubbs: Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. III. Oxf. 1871. H. Jos. Schmitz (R.C.): Die Bussbücher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche. Nach handschriftl. Quellen. Mainz 1883 (XVI. and 864 p.). Comp. the review of this book by Wasserschleben in the “Theol. Literaturzeitung,” 1883, fol. 614 sqq.
Bingham, Bk XIV. Smith and Cheetham, II. 608 sqq. (Penitential Books). Herzog,2 III. 20 sqq. (Bussbücher). Wetzer and Welte2 II. 209–222 (Beichtbücher); II. 1561–1590 (Bussdisciplin).
Comp. Lit. in § 87.
The discipline of the Catholic church is based on the power of the keys intrusted to the apostles and their successors, and includes the excommunication and restoration of delinquent members. It was originally a purely spiritual jurisdiction, but after the establishment of Christianity as the national religion, it began to affect also the civil and temporal condition of the subjects of punishment. It obtained a powerful hold upon the public mind from the universal belief of the middle ages that the visible church, centering in the Roman papacy, was by divine appointment the dispenser of eternal salvation, and that expulsion from her communion, unless followed by repentance and restoration, meant eternal damnation. No heresy or sect ever claimed this power.
Discipline was very obnoxious to the wild and
independent spirit of the barbaric races. It was exercised by the
bishop through synodical courts, which were held annually in the
dominions of Charlemagne for the promotion of good morals. Charlemagne
ordered the bishops to visit their parishes once a year, and to inquire
into cases of incest, patricide, fratricide, adultery, and other vices
contrary to the laws of God. See the passages in Gieseler IL 55
(Harpers’ ed.) The Synodical courts were
called Sendgerichte(a corruption from Synod).
The discipline of the Latin church in the middle
ages is laid down in the so-called “Penitential Books.” Liber Poenitentialis, Poenitential, Confessionale, Leges
Poenitentium, Judicia Peccantium.
There were many such books, British, Irish,
Frankish, Spanish, and Roman. The best known are the Anglo-Saxon
penitentials of the seventh and eighth centuries, especially that of
Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury (669–690). He was a
Greek by birth, of Tarsus in Cilicia, and reduced the disciplinary
rules of the East and West to a system. He was not the direct author of
the book which bears his name, but it was drawn up under his direction,
published during his life-time and by his authority, and contains his
decisions in answer to various questions of a priest named Eoda and
other persons on the subject of penance and the whole range of
ecclesiastical discipline. The genuine text has recently been brought
to light from early MSS. by the combined labors of German and English
scholarship. By Prof. Wasserschleben of Halle, 1851 (from several
Continental MSS.), and Canon Haddan and Prof. Stubbs, Oxford, 1871,
(III. 173-203) from a Cambridge MS. of the 8th century. The texts of
the earlier editions of Theodori Poenitentiale by Spelman (1639),
D’Achery (1669), Jaques Petit (1677, reprinted in
Migne’s Patrol. 1851, Tom. 99), Thorpe (1840),
and Kunstmann (1844) are imperfect or spurious. The question of
authorship and of the MS. sources is learnedly discussed in a note by
Haddan and Stubbs, III. 173 sq. See extracts in the
Notes. Both are given in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, etc.
III. 326 sqq. and 413 sqq.
The earliest Frankish penitential is the work of
Columban, the Irish missionary (d. 615). He was a severe monastic
disciplinarian and gave prominence to corporal punishment among the
penalties for offences. The Cummean Penitential (Poenit. Cummeani) is
of Scotch-Irish origin, and variously assigned to Columba of Iona
(about 597), to Cumin, one of his disciples, or to Cummean, who died in
Columban’s monastery at Bobbio (after 711). Haltigar,
bishop of Cambray, in the ninth century (about 829) published a “Roman
Penitential,” professedly derived from Roman archives, but in great
part from Columban, and Frankish sources. An earlier work which bears
the name “Poenitentiale Romanum,” from the first part of the eighth
century, has a more general character, but its precise origin is
uncertain. The term “Roman” was used to designate the quality of a
class of Penitentials which enjoyed a more than local authority. This is the view of Wasserschleben, while Schmitz thinks
that the Poenitentiale Romanum was originally intended for the
Roman church, and that the Westem Penitentials are derived from
it.
Notes.
As specimens of these Penitential Books, we give the first two chapters from the first book of the Poenitentiale Theodori (Archbishop of Canterbury), as printed in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils and Eccles. Doc. relating to Great Britain and Ireland, vol. IIIrd. p. 177 sqq. We insert a few better readings from other MSS. used by Wasserschleben.
I. De Crapula et Ebrietate.
1. Si quis Episco pus aut aliquis ordinatus in consuetudine vitium habuerit ebrietatis, aut desinat aut deponatur.
2. Si monachus pro ebrietate vomitum facit, XXX. dies peniteat.
3. Si presbiter aut diaconus pro ebrietate, XL. dies peniteat.
4. Si vero pro infirmitate aut quia longo tempore se abstinuerit, et in consuetudine non erit ei multum bibere vel manducare, aut pro gaudio in Natale Domini aut in Pascha aut pro alicujus Sanctorum commemoratione faciebat, et tunc plus non accipit quam decretum est a senioribus, nihil nocet. Si Episcopus juberit, non nocet illi, nisi ipse similiterfaciat.
5. Si laicus fidelis pro ebrietate vomitum facit, XV. dies peniteat.
6. Qui vero inebriatur contra Domini interdictum, si votum sanctitatis habuerit VII. dies in pane et aqua, LXX. sine pinguedine peniteat; laici sine cervisa [cervisia].
7. Qui per nequitiam inebriat alium, XL. dies peniteat.
8. Qui pro satietate vomitum facit, III. diebus [dies] peniteat.
9. Si cum sacrificio communionis, VII. dies peniteat; si infirmitatis causa, sine culpa.
II. De Fornicatione.
1. Si quis fornicaverit cum virgine, I. anno peniteat. Si cum marita, IIII. annos, II. integros, II alios in XL. mis. III. bus., et III dies in ebdomada peniteat.
2. Qui sepe cum masculo aut cum pecude fornicat, X. annos ut peniteret judicavit.
3. Rem aliud. Qui cum pecoribus coierit, XV. annos peniteat.
4. Qui coierit cum masculo post XX. annum, XV. annos peniteat.
5. Si masculus cum masculo fornicaverit, X. annos peniteat.
6. Sodomitae VII. annos peniteat [peniteant]; molles [et mollis] sicut adultera.
7. Item hoc; virile scelus semel faciens IIII annos peniteat; si in consuetudine fuerit, ut Basilius dicit, XV. Si sine, sustinens unum annum ut mulier. Si puer sit, primo II. bus annis; si iterat IIII.
8. Si in femoribus, annum I. vel. III. XL. mas.
9. Si se ipsum coinguinat, XL. dies [peniteat.]
10. Qui concupiscit fornicari [fornicare] sed non potest, XL. dies vel XX. peniteat. Si frequentaverit, si puer sit, XX. dies, vel vapuletur.
11. Pueri qui fornicantur inter se ipsos judicavit ut vapulentur.
12. Mulier cum muliere fornicando [si ... fornicaverit], III. annos peniteat.
13. Si sola cum se ipsa coitum habet, sic peniteat.
14. Una penitentia est viduae et puellae. Majorem meruit quae virum habet, si fornicaverit.
15. Qui semen in os miserit, VII annos peniteat: hoc pessimum malum. Alias ab eo judicatum est ut ambo usque in finem vitae peniteant; vel XXII. annos, vel ut superius VII.
16. Si cum matre quis fornicaverit, XV. annos peniteat, et nunquam, mutat [mutet] nisi Dominicis diebus: et hoc tam profanum incertum [incestum] ab eo similiter alio modo dicitur ut cum peregrinatione perenni VII. annos peniteat.
17. Qui cum sorore fornicatur, XV. annos peniteat, eo modo quo superius de matre dicitur, sed et istud XV. alias in canone confirmavit; unde non absorde XV. anni ad matrem transeunt qui scribuntur.
18. Qui sepe fornicaverit, primus canon judicavit X. annos penitere; secundus canon VII.; sed pro infirmitate hominis, per consilium dixerunt III. annos penitere.
19. Si frater cum fratre naturali fornicaverit per commixtionem carnis, XV. annos ab omni carne abstineat.
20. Si mater cum filio suo parvulo fornicationem imitatur, III. annos se abstineat a carne, et diem unum jejunet in ebdomada, id est, usque ad vesperum.
21. Qui inludetur fornicaria cogitatione, peniteat usque dum cogitatio superetur.
22. Qui diligit feminam mente, veniam petat ab eo [a Deo] id est, de amore et amicitia si dixerit si non est susceptus ab ea, VII. dies peniteat.”
The remaining chapters of the first book treat De Avaritia Furtiva; De Occisione Hominum [De Homicidio]; De his qui per Heresim decipiuntur; De Perjurio; De multis et diversis Malis; De diverso Lapso servorum Dei; De his qui degraduntur vel ordinari non possunt; De Baptizatis his, qualiter peniteant; De his qui damnant Dominicam et indicta jejunia ecclesiae Dei; De communione Eucharistiae, vel Sacrificio; De Reconciliatione; De Penitentia Nubentium specialiter; De Cultura Idolorum. The last chapter shows how many heathen superstitions prevailed in connection with gross immorality, which the church endeavored to counteract by a mechanical legalism. The second book treats De Ecclesiae Ministerio; De tribus gratlibus; De Ordinatione; De Baptismo et Confirmatione; De Missa Defunctorum, etc.
§ 86. Ecclesiastical Punishments. Excommunication, Anathema, Interdict.
Friedrich Kober (R.C.): Der Kirchenbann nach den Grundsätzen des canonischen Rechts dargestellt. Tübingen 1857 (560 pages). By the same author: Die Suspension der Kirchendiener. Tüb. 1862.
Henry C. Lea: Excommunication, in his Studies in Church History (Philadelphia 1869), p. 223–475.
The severest penalties of the church were excommunication, anathema, and interdict. They were fearful weapons in the hands of the hierarchy during the middle ages, when the church was believed to control salvation, and when the civil power enforced her decrees by the strong arm of the law. The punishment ceases with repentance, which is followed by absolution. The sentence of absolution must proceed from the bishop who pronounced the sentence of excommunication; but in articulo mortis every priest can absolve on condition of obedience in case of recovery.
1. Excommunication was the exclusion from the
sacraments, especially the communion. In the dominions of Charlemagne
it was accompanied with civil disabilities, as exclusion from secular
tribunals, and even with imprisonment and seizure of property. A bishop
could excommunicate any one who refused canonical obedience. But a
bishop could only be excommunicated by the pope, and the pope by no
power on earth. But during the papal schism, the rival popes excommunicated
each other, and the Council of Constance deposed
them. Aegidius (Αἰγίδιος); Italian: Sant Egidio; French: S. Gilles. He
was an abbot and confessor in France during the reign of Charles Martel
or earlier, and much more celebrated than reliably known. He is the
special patron of cripples, and his tomb was much visited by pilgrims
from all parts of France, England and Scotland. Almost every county in
England has churches named in his honor, amounting in all to 146. See
Smith and Wace I. 47 sqq. Bened. Papae VIII. Epist. 32 (ad Guillelmum
Comitem). In Migne’s Patrol. T. 139, fol.
1630-32. Lea translates it in part, l.c. p. 337. “Benedict
Bishop, Servant of the servants of God, to Count William and his
mother, the Countess Adelaide, perpetual grace and apostolic
benediction .... Let them [who a tempted to rob the monastery] be
accursed in their bodies, and let their souls be delivered to
destruction and perdition and torture. Let them be damned with the
damned: let them be scourged with the ungrateful; let them perish with
the proud. Let them be accursed with the Jews who, seeing the incarnate
Christ, did not believe but sought to crucify Him. Let them be accursed
with the heretics who labored to destroy the church. Let them be
accursed with those who blaspheme the name of God. Let them be accursed
with those who despair of the mercy of God. Let them be accursed with
those who he damned in Hell. Let them be accursed with the impious and
sinners unless they amend their ways, and confess themselves in fault
towards St. Giles. Let them be accursed in the four quarters of the
earth. In the East be they accursed, and in the West disinherited; in
the North interdicted, and in the South excommunicate. Be they accursed
in the day-time and excommunicate in the night-time. Accursed be they
at home and excommunicate abroad; accursed in standing and
excommunicate in sitting; accursed in eating, accursed in drinking,
accursed in sleeping, and excommunicate in waking; accursed when they
work and excommunicate when they rest. Let them be accursed in the
spring time and excommunicate in the summer; accursed in the autumn and
excommunicate in the winter. Let them be accursed in this world and
excommunicate in the next. Let their lands pass into the hands of the
stranger, their wives be given over to perdition, and their children
fall before the edge of the sword. Let what they eat be accursed, and
accursed be what they leave, so that he who eats it shall be accursed.
Accursed and excommunicate be the priest who shall give them the body
and blood of the Lord, or who shall visit them in sickness. Accursed
and excommunicate be he who shall carry them to the grave and shall
dare to bury them. Let them be excommunicate, and accursed with all
curses if they do not make amends and render due satisfaction. And know
this for truth, that after our death no bishop nor count, nor any
secular power shall usurp the seigniory of the blessed St. Giles. And
if any presume to attempt it, borne down by, all the foregoing curses,
they never shall enter the kingdom of Heaven, for the blessed St. Giles
committed his monastery to the lordship of the blessed
Peter.”
“Hardened sinners” (says Lea) “might despise such imprecations, but their effect on believers was necessarily unutterable, when, amid the gorgeous and impressive ceremonial of worship, the bishop, surrounded by twelve priests bearing flaming candles, solemnly recited the awful words which consigned the evil-doer and all his generation to eternal torment with such fearful amplitude and reduplication of malediction, and as the sentence of perdition came to its climax, the attending priests simultaneously cast their candles to the ground and trod them out, as a symbol of the quenching of a human soul in the eternal night of hell. To this was added the expectation, amounting almost to a certainty, that Heaven would not wait for the natural course of events to confirm the judgment thus pronounced, but that the maledictions would be as effective in this world as in the next. Those whom spiritual terrors could not subdue thus were daunted by the fearful stories of the judgment overtaking the hardened sinner who dared to despise the dread anathema.”
2. The Anathema is generally used in the same
sense as excommunication or separation from church communion and church
privileges. But in a narrower sense, it means the “greater”
excommunication, Corresponding to the Cherem, as distinct from
Niddui (i.e. separation), in the Jewish Synagogue. See J.
Lightfoot, De Anathemate Maranatha, and the commentators on
3. The Interdict Interdictum orprohibitio officiorum
divinorum, prohibition of public worship. A distinction is made
between interd. personale for particular persons; locale
for place or district; and generale for whole countries and
kingdoms. 9 Aug.
Ep. 250, § 1; Leo, Ep. X. cap,
8—quoted by Gieseler, and Lea, p. 301. St. Basil of
Caesarea is sometimes quoted as the inventor of the interdict, but not
justly. See Lea, p. 302 note.
The first conspicuous examples of inflicting the
Interdict occurred in France. Bishop Leudovald of Bayeux, after
consulting with his brother bishops, closed in 586 all the churches of
Rouen and deprived the people of the consolations of religion until the
murderer of Pretextatus, Bishop of Rouen, who was slain at the altar by
a hireling of the savage queen Fredegunda, should be discovered. Gregory of Tours, Hist. Franc. VIII.
31. Conc. Lemovicense II. See Mansi XIX. 541; Harduin VI. p. 1,
885; Hefele IV. 693-695; Gieseler II. 199 note 12.
The popes employed this fearful weapon against
disobedient kings, and sacrificed the spiritual comforts of whole
nations to their hierarchical ambition. Gregory VII. laid the province
of Gnesen under the interdict, because King Bolislaw II. had murdered
bishop Stanislaus of Cracow with his own hand. Alexander II. applied it
to Scotland (1180), because the king refused a papal bishop and
expelled him from the country. Innocent III. suspended it over France
(1200), because king Philip Augustus had cast off his lawful wife and
lived with a concubine. See the graphic description of the effects of this
interdict upon the state of society, in Hurter’s
Innocenz III., vol. I. 372-386.
Interdicts were only possible in the middle ages when the church had unlimited power. Their frequency and the impossibility of full execution diminished their power until they fell into contempt and were swept out of existence as the nations of Europe outgrew the discipline of priestcraft and awoke to a sense of manhood.
§ 87. Penance and Indulgence.
Nath. Marshall (Canon of Windsor and translator of Cyprian, d. 1729): The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church for the first 400 years after Christ, together with its declension from the fifth century downward to its present state. London 1714. A new ed. in the “Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol.” Oxford 1844.
Eus. Amort: De Origine, Progressu, Valore ac Fructu Indulgentiarum. Aug. Vindel. 1735 fol.
Muratori: De Redemtione Peccatorum et de Indulgentiarum Origine, in Tom. V. of his Antiquitates Italicae Medii Aevi. Mediol. 1741.
Joh. B. Hirscher (R.C.): Die Lehre vom Ablass. Tübingen, 5th ed. 1844.
G. E. Steitz: Das römische Buss-Sacrament, nach seinem bibl. Grunde und seiner gesch. Entwicklung. Frankf a. M. 1854 (210 pages).
Val. Gröne (R.C.): Der Ablass, seine Geschichte und Bedeutung in der Heilsökonomie. Regensb. 1863.
Domin. Palmieri (R.C.): Tractat. de Poenit. Romae 1879.
George Mead: Art. Penitence, in Smith and Cheetham II. 1586–1608. Wildt, (R.C.): Ablass, in Wetzer and Welte2 I. 94–111; Beichte and Beichtsiegel, II. 221–261. Mejer in Herzog2 I. 90–92. For extracts from sources comp. Gieseler II. 105 sqq.; 193 sqq.; 515 sqq. (Am. ed.)
For the authoritative teaching of the Roman church on the Sacramentum Poenitentiae see Conc. Trident. Sess. XIV. held 1551.
The word repentance or penitence is an insufficient
rendering for the corresponding Greek metanoia, which means a radical
change of mind or conversion from a sinful to a godly life, and
includes, negatively, a turning away from sin in godly sorrow
(repentance in the narrower sense) and, positively, a turning to Christ
by faith with a determination to follow him. Penitence is from the Latin poenitentia, and
this is derived from poena, ποίνη(compensation, satisfaction,
punishment). Jerome introduced the word, or rather retained it, in
the Latin Bible, for μετάνοια, and poenitentiam agere
for μετανοεῖνHence the Douay version: to do penance.
Augustin, Isidor, Rabanus Maurus, Peter Lombard, and the R. Catholic
theologians connect the term with the penal idea (poena,
punitio) and make it cover the whole penitential discipline. The
English repentance, to repent, and the German Busse, Bussethun follow
the Vulgate, but have changed the meaning in evangelical theology in
conformity to the Greek μετάνοια.
In the Latin church the idea of repentance was
externalized and identified with certain outward acts of self-abasement
or self-punishment for the expiation of sin. The public penance before
the church went out of use during the seventh or eighth century, except
for very gross offences, and was replaced by private penance and
confession. Pope Leo the Great (440-461) was the first prelate in the
West who sanctioned the substitution of the system of secret
humiliation by auricular confession for the public exomologesis.
Ep. 136. Opera I. 355. Can. 21: ”Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad
annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur
fideliter, saltem semel in anno, proprio sacerdoti.“Violation of
this law of auricular confession was threatened with excommunication
and refusal of Christian burial. See Hefele V. 793.
Penance, including auricular confession and
priestly absolution, was raised to the dignity of a sacrament for sins
committed after baptism. The theory on which it rests was prepared by
the fathers (Tertullian and Cyprian), completed by the schoolmen, and
sanctioned by the Roman church. It is supposed that baptism secures
perfect remission of past sins, but not of subsequent sins, and frees
from eternal damnation, but not from temporal punishment, which
culminates in death or in purgatory. Penance is described as a
“laborious kind of baptism,” and is declared by the Council of Trent to
be necessary to salvation for those who have fallen after baptism, as
baptism is necessary for those who have not yet been regenerated. Conc. Trid. Sess. XIV. cap.2
(Schaff’s Creeds I. 143). The Council went so far in
Canon VI. (II. 165) as to anathematize any one “who denies that
sacramental confession was instituted or is necessary to salvation, of
divine right; or who says that the manner of confessing secretly to a
priest alone, which the church has ever observed from the beginning
(?), and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of
Christ, and is a human invention.”
The sacrament of penance and priestly, absolution
includes three elements: contrition of the heart, confession by the
mouth, satisfaction by good works. Contritio cordis, confessio oris, satisfactio
operis. See Conc. Trid. Sess. XIV. cap. 3-6 (Creeds, II.
143-153). The usual Roman Catholic definition of this sacrament is:
“Sacramentum poenitentiae est sacramentum a Christo institutum, quo
homini contrito, confesso et satisfacturo (satisfacere volenti) per
juridicam sacerdotis absolutionem peccata post baptismum commissa
remittuntur.” Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sacramenten der
katholischen Kirche,II. 17 (3rd ed. Münster 1870).
Another mediaeval institution must here be
mentioned which is closely connected with penance. The church in the
West, in her zeal to prevent violence and bloodshed, rightly favored
the custom of the barbarians to substitute pecuniary compensation for
punishment of an offence, but wrongly applied this custom to the sphere
of religion. Thus money, might be substituted for fasting and other
satisfactions, and was clothed with an atoning efficacy. This custom
seems to have proceeded from the church of England, and soon spread
over the continent. Archbishop Theodore of Canterbury is the reputed author of
this commutation of penance for a money-payment. See his Penitential I.
3 and 4, and the seventh penitential canon ascribed to him, in Haddan
and Stubbs III. 179, 180, 211. ”Si quis“says Theodore, ”pro
ultione propinqui hominem occiderit, peniteat sicut homicida, VII. vel
X. annos. Si tamen reddere vult propinquis petuniam aestimationis,
levior erit penitentia, id est, dimidio spatii.“The Synod of
Clove-ho (probably Abingdon), held under his successor, Cuthbert, for
the reformation of abuses, in September 747, decreed in the 26th canon
that alms were no longer to be given for diminishing or commuting the
fastings and other works of satisfaction. See Haddan and Stubbs, III.
371 sq.
Here is the origin of the indulgences so called,
that is the remission of venial sins by the payment of money and on
condition of contrition and prayer. The practice was justified by the
scholastic theory that the works of supererogation of the saints
constitute a treasury of extra-merit and extra-reward which is under
the control of the pope. Hence indulgence assumed the special meaning
of papal dispensation or remission of sin from the treasury of the
overflowing merits of saints, and this power was extended even to the
benefit of the dead in purgatory. This theory was fully developed by Thomas Aquinas and other
schoolmen (see Gieseler II. 521 sq.), and sanctioned by the Council of
Trent in the 25th Session, held Dec. 4, 1563 (Creeds II. 205
sq.), although the Council forbids “all evil gains” and other abuses
which have caused “the honorable name of indulgences to be blasphemed
by heretics.” The popes still exercise from time to time the right of
granting plenary indulgences, though with greater caution than their
mediaeval predecessors.
Indulgences may be granted by bishops and archbishops in their dioceses, and by the pope to all Catholics. The former dealt with it in retail, the latter in wholesale. The first instances of papal indulgence occur in the ninth century under Paschalis I. and John VIII. who granted it to those who had fallen in war for the defence of the church. Gregory VI. in 1046 promised it to all who sent contributions for the repair of the churches in Rome. Urban II., at the council of Clermont (1095), offered to the crusaders “by the authority of the princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul,” plenary indulgence as a reward for a journey to the Holy Land. The same offer was repeated in every crusade against the Mohammedans and heretics. The popes found it a convenient means for promoting their power and filling their treasury. Thus the granting of indulgences became a periodical institution. Its abuses culminated in the profane and shameful traffic of Tetzel under Leo X. for the benefit of St. Peter’s church, but were overruled in the Providence of God for the Reformation and a return to the biblical idea of repentance.
Note.
The charge is frequently made against the papal court in the middle ages that it had a regulated scale of prices for indulgences, and this is based on the Tax Tables of the Roman Chancery published from time to time. Roman Catholic writers (as Lingard, Wiseman) say that the taxes are merely fees for the expedition of business and the payment of officials, but cannot deny the shameful avarice of some popes. The subject is fully discussed by Dr. T. L. Green (R.C.), Indulgences, Sacramental Absolutions, and the Tax-Tables of the Roman Chancery and Penitentiary, considered, in reply to the Charge of Venality, London (Longmans) 1872, and, on the Protestant side, by Dr. Richard Gibbings (Prof. of Ch. Hist. in the University of Dublin), The Taxes of the Apostolic Penitentiary; or, the Prices of Sins in the Church of Rome, Dublin 1872. Gibbings reprints the Taxae Sacrae Poenitentiariae Romanae from the Roman ed. of 1510 and the Parisian ed. of 1520, which cover 21 pages in Latin, but the greater part of the book (164 pages) is an historical introduction and polemical discussion.
CHAPTER IX.
CHURCH AND STATE.
Comp. vol. III. ch. III. and the Lit. there quoted
§ 88. Legislation.
Mediaeval Christianity is not a direct continuation of the ante-Nicene Christianity in hostile conflict with the heathen state, but of the post-Nicene Christianity in friendly union with a nominally Christian state. The missionaries aimed first at the conversion of the rulers of the barbarian races of Western and Northern Europe. Augustin, with his thirty monks, was provided by Pope Gregory with letters to princes, and approached first King Ethelbert and Queen Bertha in Kent. Boniface leaned on the pope and Charles Martel. The conversion of Clovis decided the religion of the Franks. The Christian rulers became at once the patrons of the church planted among their subjects, and took Constantine and Theodosius for their models. They submitted to the spiritual authority of the Catholic church, but aspired to its temporal government by the appointment of bishops, abbots, and the control over church-property. Hence the frequent collisions of the two powers, which culminated in the long conflict between the pope and the emperor.
The civil and ecclesiastical relations of the middle ages are so closely intertwined that it is impossible to study or understand the one without the other. In Spain, for instance, the synods of Toledo were both ecclesiastical councils and royal parliaments; after the affairs of the church were disposed of, the bishops and nobles met together for the enactment of civil laws, which were sanctioned by the king. The synods and diets held under Charlemagne had likewise a double character. In England the bishops were, and are still, members of the House of Lords, and often occupied seats in the cabinet down to the time of Cardinal Wolsey, who was Archbishop of York and Chancellor of England. The religious persecutions of the middle ages were the joint work of church and state.
This union has a bright and a dark side. It was a
wholesome training-school for barbarous races, it humanized and
ennobled the state; but it secularized the church and the clergy, and
hindered the development of freedom by repressing all efforts to
emancipate the mind from the yoke of despotic power. The church gained
a victory over the world, but the world gained also a victory over the
church. St. Jerome, who witnessed the first effects of the marriage of
the church with the Roman empire, anticipated the experience of later
ages, when he said: “The church by its connection with Christian
princes gained in power and riches, but lost in virtues.” “Ecclesia postquam ad Christianos principes venit,
potentia quidem et divitiis, major, sed virtutibus minor
facta.”
The connection of the ecclesiastical and civil powers is embodied in the legislation which regulates the conduct of man in his relations to his fellow-men, and secures social order and national welfare. It is an index of public morals as far as it presupposes and fixes existing customs; and where it is in advance of popular sentiment, it expresses a moral ideal in the mind of the lawgivers to be realized by the educational power of legal enactments.
During the middle ages there were three systems of jurisprudence: the Roman law, the Barbaric law, and the Canon law. The first two proceeded from civil, the third from ecclesiastical authority. The civil law embodies the records and edicts of emperors and kings, the enactments of diets and parliaments, the decisions of courts and judges. The ecclesiastical law embodies the canons of councils and decretals of popes. The former is heathen in origin, but improved and modified by Christianity; the latter is the direct production of the church, yet as influenced by the state of mediaeval society. Both rest on the union of church and state, and mutually support each other, but it was difficult to draw the precise line of difference, and to prevent occasional collisions of jurisdiction.
§ 89. The Roman Law.
See vol. III. §§ 13 and 18, pp. 90 sqq. And 107 sqq.
Fr. K. von Savigny (Prof. of jurisprudence in Berlin, d. 1861) Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter. Berlin 1815–’31 6 vols. Chapter 44 of Gibbon on Roman law. Ozanam: Hist. of the Civilization in the Fifth Century, ch. V. (vol. I. 136–158 in Glyn’s transl. Lond. 1868). Milman: Lat. Christ. Bk III. ch.5 (vol. 1. 479 sqq. N. York ed.)
The Justinian code (527–534) transmitted to the middle ages the legislative wisdom and experience of republican and imperial Rome with the humanizing improvements of Stoic philosophy and the Christian religion, but at the same time with penal laws against every departure from the orthodox Catholic creed, which was recognized and protected as the only religion of the state. It maintained its authority in the Eastern empire. It was partly preserved, after the destruction of the Western empire among the Latin inhabitants of Italy, France, and Spain, in a compilation from the older Theodosian code (429438), which contained the post-Constantinian laws, with fragments from earlier collections.
In the twelfth century the Roman law (after the discovery of a copy of the Pandects at Amalfi in 1135, which was afterwards transferred to Florence) began to be studied again with great enthusiasm. A famous school of civil law was established at Bologna. Similar schools arose in connection with the Universities at Paris, Naples, Padua, and other cities. The Roman civil law (Corpus juris civilis), in connection with the ecclesiastical or canon law (Corpus juris canonici), was gradually adopted all over the Continent of Europe, and the Universities granted degrees in both laws conjointly.
Thus Rome, substituting the law for the sword, ruled the world once more for centuries, and subdued the descendants of the very barbarians who had destroyed her empire. The conquered gave laws to the conquerors, mindful of the prophetic line of Virgil:
“Tu, regere imperio populos, Romane, memento.”
Notes.
The anti-heretical part of the Roman law, on which persecution was based, is thus summed up by Dean Milman (Bk III. ch. 5): “A new class of crimes, if not introduced by Christianity, became multiplied, rigorously defined, mercilessly condemned. The ancient Roman theory, that the religion of the State must be the religion of the people, which Christianity had broken to pieces by its inflexible resistance, was restored in more than its former rigor. The code of Justinian confirmed the laws of Theodosius and his successors, which declared certain heresies, Manicheism and Donatism, crimes against the State, as affecting the common welfare. The crime was punishable by confiscation of all property, and incompetency to inherit or to bequeath. Death did not secure the hidden heretic from prosecution; as in high treason, he might be convicted in his grave. Not only was his testament invalid, but inheritance could not descend through him. All who harbored such heretics were liable to punishment; their slaves might desert them, and transfer themselves to an orthodox master. The list of proscribed heretics gradually grew wider. The Manicheans were driven still farther away from the sympathies of mankind; by one Greek constitution they were condemned to capital punishment. Near thirty names of less detested heretics are recited in a law of Theodosius the younger, to which were added, in the time of Justinian, Nestorians, Eutychians, Apollinarians. The books of all these sects were to be burned; yet the formidable number of these heretics made no doubt the general execution of the laws impossible. But the Justinian code, having defined as heretics all who do not believe the Catholic faith, declares such heretics, as well as Pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, incapable of holding civil or military offices, except in the lowest ranks of the latter; they could attain to no civic dignity which was held in honor, as that of the defensors, though such offices as were burdensome might be imposed even on Jews. The assemblies of all heretics were forbidden, their books were to be collected and burned, their rites, baptisms, and ordinations prohibited. Children of heretical parents might embrace orthodoxy; the males the parent could not disinherit, to the females he was bound to give an adequate dowry. The testimony of Manicheans, of Samaritans, and Pagans could not be received; apostates to any of these sects and religions lost all their former privileges, and were liable to all penalties.”
§ 90. The Capitularies of Charlemagne.
Steph. Baluzius (Baluze, Prof. of Canon law in Paris, d. 1718): Regum Francorum Capitularia, 1677; new ed. Paris, 1780, 2 vols. Pertz: Monumenta Germaniae historica, Tom. III (improved ed. of the Capitularia). K. Fr. Eichhorn: Deutsche Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, Göttingen, 1808, 4 Parts; 5th ed. 1844. J. Grimm: Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, Göttingen 1828. Giesebrecht (I. 800) calls this an “unusually rich collection with profound glances into the legal life of the German people.” W. Dönniges: Das deutsche Staatsrecht und die deutsche Reichsverfassung, Berlin 1842. F. Walther: Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, second ed. Bonn 1857. J. Hillebrand: Lehrbuch der deutschen Staats-und Rechtsgeschichte, Leipzig 1856. O. Stobbe: Geschichte der deutschen Rechtsquellen, Braunschweig, 1860 (first Part). W. Giesebrecht: Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, third ed. Braunschweig 1863 sqq. Bd I. 106–144.
The first and greatest legislator of the Germanic
nations is Charlemagne, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire
(800–814). What Constantine the Great, Theodosius the
Great, and Justinian did for the old Roman empire on the basis of
heathen Rome and the ancient Graeco-Latin church, Charlemagne did for
the new Roman Empire in the West on the basis of Germanic customs and
the Latin church centred in the Roman papacy. He was greater, more
beneficial and enduring in his influence as a legislator than as a
soldier and conqueror. The same may be said of Napoleon I., whose code has
outlived his military conquests. Giesebrecht (I. 128): ”Ein Riesenschritt in der
Entwicklung des deutschen Geistes geschah durch Karls Gesetzgebung
… Mit Ehrfurcht und heiliger Scheu schlägt
man die, Capitularien des grossen Kaisers auf, das erste grosse
Gesetzbuch der Germanen, ein Werk, dem mehrere Jahrhunderte vorher und
nachher kein Volk ein gleiches an die Seite gesetzt hat. Das Bild des
Karolingischen Staates tritt uns in voller Gegenwärtigkeit
hier vor die Seele; wir sehen, wie Grosses erreicht, wie das
Höchste erstrebt wurde.“ Also called Archicapellnus,
Archicancellarius Pfalzgraf. Hence many Capitularies are issued ”apostolicae sedis
hortatu, monente Pontom, ex praecepto Pontificis.“ At the Synod of
Francfort in 794 two delegates of Pope Hadrian were present, but
Charlemagne presided. See Mansi XVIII. 884; Pertz, Monum. I.
181.
The legislation of the Carolingian Capitularies is favorable to the clergy, to monasteries, to the cause of good morals and religion. The marriage tie is protected, even among slaves; the license of divorce restrained; divorced persons are forbidden to marry again during the life-time of the other party. The observance of Sunday is enjoined for the special benefit of the laboring classes. Ecclesiastical discipline is enforced by penal laws in cases of gross sins such as incest. Superstitious customs, as consulting soothsayers and the Scriptures for oracles, are discouraged, but the ordeal is enjoined. Wholesome moral lessons are introduced, sometimes in the language of the Scriptures: the people are warned against perjury, against feud, against shedding Christian blood, against the oppression of the poor (whose cause should be heard by the judges before the cause of the rich). They are exhorted to learn the Apostles’ Creed and to pray, to love one another and to live in peace, “because they have one Father in heaven.” Cupidity is called “a root of all evil.” Respect for the dead is encouraged. Hospitality is recommended for the reason that he who receives a little child in the name of Christ, receives him.
This legislation was much neglected under the weak successors of Charlemagne, but remains a noble monument of his intentions.
§ 91. English Legislation.
Wilkin: Leges Anglo-Saxonicae (1721). Thorpe: Ancient Laws and Institutes of England (London 1840). Matthew Hale: History of the Common Law (6th ed. by Runnington, 1820). Reeve: History of the English Law (new ed. by Finalson l869, 3 vols.). Blackstone: Commentaries on the Laws of England (London 1765, many ed. Engl. and Amer.). Burn: Ecclesiastical Law (9th ed. by Phillimore, 1842, 4 vols.). Phillimore: Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England (Lond. 1873, 2 vols.). Wm. Strong (Justice of the Supreme Court of the U. S.): Two Lectures upon the Relations of Civil Law to Church Property (N. York 1875).
England never accepted the Roman civil law, and the
canon law only in part. The island in its isolation was protected by
the sea against foreign influence, and jealous of it. It built up its
own system of jurisprudence on the basis of Anglo-Saxon habits and
customs. The English civil law is divided into Common Law or lex non
scripta (i.e. not written at first), and Statute Law or lex scripta.
They are related to each other as oral tradition and the Bible are in
theology. The Common Law embodies the ancient general and local customs
of the English people, handed down by word of mouth from time
immemorial, and afterwards recorded in the decisions of judges who are
regarded as the living oracles of interpretation and application, and
whose decisions must be adhered to in similar cases of litigation. It
is Anglo-Saxon in its roots, and moulded by Norman lawyers, under the
influence of Christian principles of justice and equity. Blackstone,
the standard expounder of English law, says, “Christianity is a part of
the Common Law of England.” Comment. Bk IV. ch. 4. The same may be said of the
United States as far as they have adopted the Common Law of the mother
country. It is so declared by the highest courts of New York,
Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, and by many eminent judges, but with
this essential modification that those parts of the Common Law of
England which imply the union of church and state are inapplicable to
the United States where they are separated. Justice Strong (l.c.
p. 32) says: “The laws and institutions of all the States are built on
the foundation of reverence for Christianity.” The court of
Pennsylvania states the law in this manner: “Christianity is and always
has been a part of the Common Law of this State. Christianity without
the spiritual artillery of European countries—not
Christianity founded on any particular religious
tenets—not Christianity with an established church and
titles and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of
conscience to all men.” The statute de haeretico comburendo, passed in 1401
(Henry IV. c. 15), was still in force under Elizabeth when two
Anabaptists were burned alive, and under James I. when two Arians were
burned.
The Christian character of English legislation is due in large measure to the piety of the Anglo-Saxon kings, especially Alfred the Great (849–901), and Edward III., the Confessor 1004–1066, canonized by Alexander III., 1166), who prepared digests of the laws of the realm. Their piety was, of course, ascetic and monastic, but enlightened for their age and animated by the spirit of justice and charity. The former is styled Legum Anglicanarum Conditor, the latter Legum Anglicanarum Restitutor.
Alfred’s Dome-Book or Liber justicialis was lost during the irruption of the Danes, but survived in the improved code of Edward the Confessor. Alfred was for England what Charlemagne was for France and Germany, a Christian ruler, legislator, and educator of his people. He is esteemed “the wisest, best, and greatest king that ever reigned in England.” Although he was a great sufferer from epilepsy or some similar bodily infirmity which seized him suddenly from time to time and made him despair of life, he performed, like St. Paul in spite of his thorn in the flesh, an incredible amount of work. The grateful memory of his people ascribed to him institutions and laws, rights and privileges which existed before his time, but in many respects he was far ahead of his age. When he ascended the throne, “hardly any one south of the Thames could understand the ritual of the church or translate a Latin letter.” He conceived the grand scheme of popular national education. For this end he rebuilt the churches and monasteries which had been ruined by the Danes, built new ones, imported books from Rome, invited scholars from the Continent to his court, translated with their aid Latin works (as Gregory’s Pastoral Care, Bede’s Ecclesiastical History, and Boethius’s Consolations of Philosophy) into the Anglo-Saxon, collected the laws of the country, and remodelled the civil and ecclesiastical organization of his kingdom.
His code is introduced with the Ten Commandments
and other laws taken from the Bible. It protects the stranger in memory
of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt; it gives the Christian
slave freedom in the seventh year, as the Mosaic law gave to the Jewish
bondman; it protects the laboring man in his Sunday rest; it restrains
blood thirsty passions of revenge by establishing bots or fines for
offences; it enjoins the golden rule (in the negative form), not to do
to any man what we would not have done to us. I For further information on Alfred see the biographies of
Pauli (1851, Engl. transl. by Thorpe, 1853), Weiss (1852), Hughes
(Lond. and Bost. 1869), Freeman’s Old English
History, and Green’s Conquest of England
(1884), ch. IV. 124-180.
“In all these words of human brotherhood, of
piety, and the spirit of justice, of pity and humanity, uttered by the
barbaric lawgivers of a wild race, there speaks a great
Personality—the embodiment of the highest sympathy and
most disinterested virtue of mankind. It cannot be said indeed that
these religious influences, so apparently genuine, produced any
powerful effect on society in Anglo-Saxon England, though they modified
the laws. Still they began the history of the religious forces in
England which, though obscured by much formalism and hypocrisy and
weakened by selfishness, have yet worked out slowly the great moral and
humane reforms in the history of that country, and have tended with
other influences to make it one of the great leaders of modern
progress.” Brace, Gesta Christi, p. 216.
Notes.
John Richard Green, in his posthumous work, The Conquest of England (N. York ed. 1884, p. 179 sq.), pays the following eloquent and just tribute to the character of King Aelfred (as he spells the name): “Aelfred stands in the forefront of his race, for he is the noblest as he is the most complete embodiment of all that is great, all that is lovable in the English temper, of its practical energy, its patient and enduring force, of the reserve and self-control that give steadiness and sobriety to a wide outlook and a restless daring, of its temperance and fairness, its frankness and openness, its sensitiveness to affection, its poetic tenderness, its deep and reverent religion. Religion, indeed, was the groundwork of Aelfred’s character. His temper was instinct with piety. Everywhere, throughout his writings that remain to us, the name of God, the thought of God, stir him to outbursts of ecstatic adoration. But of the narrowness, the want of proportion, the predominance of one quality over another, which commonly goes with an intensity of religious feeling or of moral purpose, he showed no trace. He felt none of that scorn of the world about him which drove the nobler souls of his day to monastery or hermitage. Vexed as he was by sickness and constant pain, not only did his temper take no touch of asceticism, but a rare geniality, a peculiar elasticity and mobility of nature, gave color and charm to his life .... Little by little men came to recognize in Aelfred a ruler of higher and nobler stamp than the world had seen. Never had it seen a king who lived only for the good of his people .... ’I desire,’ said the king, ’to leave to the men that come after me a remembrance of me in good works. His aim has been more than fulfilled .... While every other name of those earlier times has all but faded from the recollection of Englishmen, that of Aelfred remains familiar to every English child.’
CHAPTER X.
WORSHIP AND CEREMONIES.
Comp. vol. III. ch. VII., and Neander III. 123–140; 425–455 (Boston ed.).
§ 92. The Mass.
Comp. vol. III. § 96–101 and the liturgical Lit. there quoted; also the works on Christian and Ecclesiastical Antiquities, e.g. Siegel III. 361–411.
The public worship centered in the celebration of the mass as an actual, though unbloody, repetition of the sacrifice of Christ for the sins of the world. In this respect the Eastern and Western churches are fully agreed to this day. They surround this ordinance with all the solemnity of a mysterious symbolism. They differ only in minor details.
Pope Gregory I. improved the Latin liturgy, and
gave it that shape which it substantially retains in the Roman
church. See the Ordo Missae Romanae Gregorianus, compared
with the Ordo Gelasianus, Ambrosianus, Gallicanus, Mozarabicus,
etc., in Daniel’s Codex Liturg. vol. I.
3-168. Dialog. 1. IV. c. 58 (in Migne’s
ed. III. 425 sq.): ”Quis fidelium habere dubium possit, in ipsa
immolationis hora ad sacerdotis vocem coelis aperiri, in illo jesu
Christi mysteria angelorum choros adesse, summis ima sociari, terrena
coelestibus jungi, unumque ex visibilibus atque invisibilibus
fieri?“
Gregory introduced masses for the dead, Misae pro Defunctis, Todtenmessen, Seelenmessen.
Different from them are the Missae de Sanctis, celebrated on the
anniversaries of the saints, and to their honor, though the sacrifice
is always offered to God. Even popes, though addressed by the title “Holiness,” while
living, have to pass through purgatory, and need the prayers of the
faithful. On the marble sarcophagus of Pius IX., who reigned longer
than any of his predecessors, and proclaimed his own infallibility in
the Vatican Council (1870), are the words: ”Orate pro eo.”
Prayers and masses are said only for the dead in purgatory, not for the
saints in heaven who do not need them, nor for the damned in hell who
would not profit by them. Quoted from the Longer Catechism of the Eastern Church
(Schaff, Creeds II. 504). The Greeks have in their ritual
special strophes or antiphones for the departed, called
νεκρώσιμα. Mone, Lat. Hymnen des Mittel
alters, II. 400, gives some specimens from John of Damascus and
others. He says, that the Greeks have more hymns for the departed than
the Latins, but that the Latins have older hymni pro defunctis,
beginning with Prudentius.
The high estimate of the efficacy of the sacrament
led also to the abuse of solitary masses, where the priest celebrates
without attendants. Missae solitariae or
privatae. Can. 48. Mansi XIV. 529 sqq. Hefele IV.
64.
The mysterious character of the eucharist was
changed into the miraculous and even the magical with the spread of the
belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation. But the doctrine was
contested in two controversies before it triumphed in the eleventh
century. See the next chapter, on Theological
Controversies.
The language of the mass was Greek in the Eastern,
Latin in the Western church. The Latin was an unknown tongue to the
barbarian races of Europe. It gradually went out of use among the
descendants of the Romans, and gave place to the Romanic languages. But
the papal church, sacrificing the interests of the people to the
priesthood, and rational or spiritual worship Comp. λογικὴ
λατρεία, Sess. IV. (April 8, 1546):”Sacrosancta Synodus
… statuit et declarat, ut haec ipsa vetus et vulgata
editio, quiae longo tot saeculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, praedicationibus et
expositionibus pro authentica habeatur;. et ut nemo illam rejicere
quovis praetextu audeat vel praesumat!“ The Council made provision
for an authoritative revision of the Vulgate (April 8, 1546); but when
the edition of Pope Sixtus V. appeared in 1589 and was enjoined upon
the church “by the fullness of apostolic power,” it was found to be so
full of errors and blunders that it had to be cancelled, and a new
edition prepared under Clement VIII. in 1592, which remains the Roman
standard edition to this day.
§ 93. The Sermon.
As the chief part of divine service was
unintelligible to the people, it was all the more important to
supplement it by preaching and catechetical instruction in the
vernacular tongues. But this is the weak spot in the church of the
middle ages. As it is to-day in strictly Roman Catholic countries; with
this difference, that what was excusable in a period of heathen and
semi-heathen ignorance and superstition, is inexcusable in an age of
advanced civilization furnished with all kinds of educational
institutions and facilities.
Pope Gregory I. preached occasionally with great
earnestness, but few popes followed his example. It was the duty of
bishops to preach, but they often neglected it. The Council of
Clovesho, near London, which met in 747 under Cuthbert, archbishop of
Canterbury, for the reformation of abuses, decreed that the bishops
should annually visit their parishes, instruct and exhort the abbots
and monks, and that all presbyters should be able to explain the
Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer,
the mass, and the office of baptism to the people in the vernacular. See the acts of this council in Haddan and Stubbs,
Councils and Eccles. Doc. 360-376, and the letter of Boniface to
Cuthbert, giving an account of a similar council in Germany, and
recommending measures of reform in the English church, p.
376-382. A similar canon was passed by other councils. See Hefele
III. 758, 764, and IV. 89, 111, 126, 197, 513, 582; Mansi XIV. 82
sqq.
The great majority of priests were too ignorant to
prepare a sermon, and barely understood the Latin liturgical forms. A
Synod of Aix, 802, prescribed that they should learn the Athanasian and
Apostles’ Creed, the Lord’s Prayer
with exposition, the Sacramentarium or canon of the mass, the formula
of exorcism, the commendatio animae, the Penitential, the Calendar and
the Roman cantus; they should learn to understand the homilies for
Sundays and holy days as models of preaching, and read the pastoral
theology of Pope Gregory. This was the sum and substance of clerical
learning. Hefele, III. 745.
The best, therefore, that the priests and deacons,
and even most of the bishops could do was to read the sermons of the
fathers. Augustin had given this advice to those who were not skilled
in composition. It became a recognized practice in France and England.
Hence the collection of homilies, called Homiliaria, for the Gospels
and Epistles of Sundays and holy days. They are mostly patristic
compilations. Bede’s collection, called Homilice de
Tempore, contains thirty-three homilies for the summer, fifteen for the
winter, twenty-two for Lent, besides sermons on
saints’ days. Charlemagne commissioned Paulus Diaconus
or Paul Warnefrid (a monk of Monte Cassino and one of his chaplains,
the historian of the Lombards, and writer of poems on saints) to
prepare a Homiliarium (or Omiliarius) about a.d. 780, and recommended
it for adoption in the churches of France. It follows the order of
Sundays and festivals, is based on the text of the Vulgate, and
continued in use more or less for several centuries. F. Dahn, Des Paulus Diaconus Leben und
Schriften, 1876;
and Mon. Germ. Scriptores rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum
saec. VI.-IX. 1878, p. 45-187, ed. by L. Bethmann and G. Waitz;
Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, 4th ed. 1877, I. 134-140.
In this connection we must allude again to the
poetic reproductions of the Bible history, namely, the divine epos of
Caedmon, the Northumbrian monk (680), the Saxon Heliand” (Heiland, i.e.
Saviour, about 880), and the “Christ” or Gospel Harmony of Otfrid (a
pupil of Rabanus Maurus, about 870). These works were effective popular
sermons on the history of redemption, and are at the same time the most
valuable remains of the Anglo-Saxon and old high German dialects of the
Teutonic language. See above, p. 41, 105, 106. The paraphrase of Caedmon, the
first Christian poet of England, is edited or discussed by Thorpe,
Bouterweck, Grein, Wright, Ettmüller, Sandrar, Morley, Ten
Brink, etc. (see Lit. in Schaff-Herzog sub Caedmon); the Saxon
Heliand and Otfrid’s Krist by Sievers,
Rettberg, Vilmar, Lechler, Graff, Kelle, Michelsen, etc. (see
Herzog2IV.
428-435).
It was, however, not till the Reformation of the sixteenth century that the sermon and the didactic element were restored and fully recognized in their dignity and importance as regular and essential parts of public worship. I say, worship, for to expound the oracles of God, and devoutly to listen to such exposition is or ought to be worship both on the part of the preacher and on the part of the hearer, as well as praying and singing.
§ 94. Church Poetry. Greek Hymns and Hymnists.
See the Lit. in vol. III. § 113 (p. 575 sq.) and § 114 (p. 578), and add the following:
Cardinal Pitra: Hymnographie de l’église grecque. Rome 1867. By the same: Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi parata, T. I. Par. 1876.
Wilhelm Christ et M. Paranikas: Anthologia Graeca carminum Christianorum. Lips. 1871. CXLIV and 268 pages. The Greek text with learned Prolegomena in Latin. Christ was aided by Paranikas, a member of the Greek church. Comp. Christ: Beiträge zur kirchlichen Literatur der Byzantiner. München 1870.
[?]. L. Jacobi (Prof. of Church Hist. in Halle): Zur Geschichte der griechischen Kirchenliedes (a review of Pitra’s Analecta), in Brieger’s “Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch., “vol. V. Heft 2, p. 177–250 (Gotha 1881).
For a small selection of Greek hymns in the original see the third volume of Daniel’s Thesaurus Hymnologicus (1855), and Bässler’s Auswahl altchristlicher Lieder (1858), p. 153–166.
For English versions see especially J. M. Neale: Hymns of the Eastern Church (Lond. 1862, third ed. 1866, 159 pages; new ed. 1876, in larger print 250 pages); also Schaff: Christ in Song (1869), which gives versions of 14 Greek (and 73 Latin) hymns. German translations in Bässler, l.c. p. 3–25.
[Syrian Hymnology. To the lit. mentioned vol. III. 580 add: Gust. Bickell: S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena, additis prolegomenis et supplemento lexicorum syriacorum edidit, vertit, explicavit. Lips.] 1866. Carl Macke: Hymnen aus dem Zweiströmeland. Dichtungen des heil. Ephrem des Syrers aus dem syr. Urtext in’s Deutsche übertragen, etc. Mainz 1882. 270 pages. Macke is a pupil of Bickell and a successor of Zingerle as translator of Syrian church poetry.]
The general church histories mostly neglect or ignore hymnology, which is the best reflection of Christian life and worship.
The classical period of Greek church poetry
extends from about 650 to 820, and nearly coincides with the
iconoclastic controversy. The enthusiasm for the worship of saints and
images kindled a poetic inspiration, and the chief advocates of that
worship were also the chief hymnists. Neale and Pitra point out this connection, and Jacobi
(l.c. p. 210 sq.) remarks: ”Im Kampfe für die
Bilder steigerte sich die Glut der sinnlichen Frömmigkeit,
und mit dem Siege der Bilderverehrung im neunten Jahrhundert ist eine
innerliche und aeusserliche Zunahme des Heiligenkultus und namentlich
ein Wachsthum der Marienvehrung unverkennbar.“ The Μηναῖα(sc. βιβλία, Monatsbücher) are
published at Venice in the Tipografia Greca (ἡ
Ἑλληνικὴ
τυπογραφία
τοῦ
φοίνικος). Each month has its separate
title: Μηναῖον
τοῦ Ἰανουαρίου
or Μὴν Ἰανουάριος
,etc. January begins
with the commemoration of the circumcision of our Lord and the
commemoration of St. Basil the Great, and December ends with
the μνήμη τῆς
ὁσίας
Μητρὸς
ἡμῶν
Μελάνης
τῆσ
Ῥωμαίας
.The copy before me
(from the Harvard University Library) is dated 1852, and printed in
beautiful Greek type, with the directions in red ink. On older editions
see Mone, Lat. Hymnen, II. p. x. sqq. The other books of the
Greek Ritual are the Paracletice (Παρακλητική,
sc. βίβλος) or great Octoechus
(Ὀκτώηχος, sc. βίβλος), which contains the Sunday services the
Triodion (Τριῴδιον, the Lent-volume), and the
Pentecostarion (Πεντηκοστάριον, the office for Easter-tide). ” On a
moderate computation,” says Neale, ” these volumes comprise 5,000
closely printed quarto pages, in double columns, of which at least
4,000 are poetry.” See the large works of Leo Allatius, De libris
eccles. Graecorum; Goar, Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum,
and especially the Second volume of Neale’s History
of the Holy Eastern Church (1850), p. 819 sqq.
The Greek church poetry is not metrical and
rhymed, but written in rhythmical prose for chanting, like the Psalms,
the hymns of the New Testament, the Gloria in Excelsis and the Te Deum.
The older hymnists were also melodists and composed the music. Hence they were called μελωδοίas well as ποιηταίin distinction from the
mere ὑμνόγραφοι.
The Greek service books are also
music books. Christ discusses Byzantine music, and gives some specimens
in Prol. p. CXI-CXLII. Τροπάριον, the diminutive of τρόπος, as modulus is of modus, was originally
a musical term. Εἰρμός, tractus, a train,
series, was likewise originally a musical term like
ἀκολουθίαand the Latin jubilatio,
sequentia. See § 96. Θεοτοκίον, sc. τροπάριον(more rarely, but more correctly, with
the accent on the ante-penultima, θεοτόκιον), from θεοτόκος, Deipara. The
stauro-theotokion celebrates Mary at the cross, and corresponds
to the Stabat Mater dolorosa of the Latins. Ἱδιόμελον. There are several other designations
of various kinds of poems, as ἀκολουθία(the Latin
sequentia), ἀναβαθμοί(tria antiphona), ἀντίφωνον,
ἀπολυτίκιον
(breve troparium sub finem
officii vespertini), ἀπόστιχα,
αύτομελον,
ἐξαποστειλάριον,
ἐωθινά,
κάθισμα,
καταβασία,
κοντάρια,
μακαρισμοί,
μεγαλυνάρια,
οἶκοι,
προσόμοια,
στιχηρά,
τριῴδια,
τετραῴδα,
διῴδια,
ψαλτήριον,
τροπολόγιον.
These terms and technical forms are
fully discussed by Christ in the Prolegomena. Comp. also the
Introduction of Neale
This poetry fills, according to Neale, more than
nine tenths or four fifths of the Greek service books. It has been
heretofore very little known and appreciated in the West, but is now
made accessible. By Vormbaum (in the third volume of
Daniel’s Thesaurus which needs reconstruction),
Pitra, and Christ. The Continental writers seem to be ignorant of Dr.
Neale, the best English connoisseur of the liturgical and poetic
literature of the Greek church. His translations are, indeed, very free
reproductions and transfusions, but for this very reason better adapted
to Western taste than the originals. The hymn of Clement of Alexandria
in praise of the Logos has undergone a similar transformation by Dr.
Henry M. Dexter, and has been made useful for public worship. See vol.
II. 231. Even Neale, with all his admiration for the Greek Church,
admits that the Menaea contain a “deluge of worthless compositions:
tautology repeated till it becomes almost sickening; the merest
commonplace, again and again decked in the tawdry shreds of tragic
language, ind twenty or thirty times presenting the same thought in
slightly varying terms.” (Hymns E.Ch. p. 88 sq., 3d
ed.)
The Greek church poetry begins properly with the
anonymous but universally accepted and truly immortal Gloria in
Excelsis of the third century. See vol. II. 227, and add to the Lit. there quoted: Christ,
p. 38-40, who gives from the Codex Alexandrinus and other MSS. the
Greek text of the morning hymn (the expanded Angelic
anthem Δόξα ἐν
ὑψίστοις
θεῷ) and two evening hymns Αἰνεῖτε,
παῖδες .
κύριον, and Φῶς
ἱλαρὸν
ἁγίας
δόξης) of the Greek church. See vol. III. 581 and 921. Christ begins his collection
with the hymns of Synesius, p. 3-23, and of Gregory Nazianzen,
23-32.
The first hymnist of the Byzantine period, is
Anatolius patriarch of Constantinople (d. about 458). He struck out the
new path of harmonious prose, and may be compared to Venantius
Fortunatus in the West. See the specimens in vol. III. 583-585. Neale begins his
translations with Anatolius. Christ treats of him p. XLI, and gives
his στιχηρὰ
ἀναστάσιμαfind three ἰδιόμελα(hymns with their own melody), 113-117.
More than a hundred poems in the Menaea and the Octoechus
bear the name of Anatolius, but Christ conjectures
that στιχηρὰ
ἀνατολικά
is a generic name,
like κατανυκτικάand νεκρώσιμα.
We now proceed to the classical period of Greek church poetry.
In the front rank of Greek hymnists stands St.
John Of Damascus, surnamed Mansur (d. in extreme old age about 780). He
is the greatest systematic theologian of the Eastern church and chief
champion of image-worship against iconoclasm under the reigns of Leo
the Isaurian (717–741), and Constantinus Copronymus
(741–775). He spent a part of his life in the convent
of Mar Sâba (or St. Sabas) in the desolate valley of the
Kedron, between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. See a description of this most curious structure in all
Palestine, in my book Through Bible Lands (N. Y. 1879), p. 278
sqq. The poetry of John of D. in his Opera ed. Le
Quien (Par. 1712), Tom. I. 673-693; Poëtae Graeci
veteres (Colon. 1614), Tom. II. 737 sqq.; Christ, Anthol.
gr. Prol. XLIV. sqq., p. 117-121, and p. 205-236. Vormbaum, in
Daniel, III. 80-97, gives six of his odes in Greek; Bässler,
162-164, two (and two in German, 21, 22); Neale nine English versions.
The best of his hymns and canons are Εἰς τὴν
χριστοῦ
γέννησιν(or εἰς τὴν
θεογονίαν), Εἰς τὰ
θεοφάνεια,
Εἰς τὴν
κυριακὴν
τοῦ Πάσχα,
Εἰς τὴν
πεντεκοστήν,
Εἰς τὴν
ἀνάληψιν
τοῦ
Χριστοῦ,Εὐχή,
Ἰδιόμελα
ἐν
ἀκολουθία
τοῦ
ἐξοδιαστικοῦ,
Εἰς τὴν
κοίμησιν
τῆς
θεοτόκου.. The last begins with this stanza
(Christ, p. 229): Ἀνοίξω
τὸ στόμα
μου, καὶ
πληρωθήσεται
πνεύματος· καὶ λόγου
ἐπεύξομαι
τῇ
βασιλίδι
μητρί· καὶ
ὀφθήσομαι
φαιδρῶςπανηγυρίζων· καὶ ᾄσω
γηθόμενος
ταύτης τὰ
θαύματα.
Next to him, and as melodist even above him in the estimation of the Byzantine writers, is St. Cosmas Of Jerusalem, called the Melodist. He is, as Neale says, “the most learned of the Greek poets, and the Oriental Adam of St. Victor.” Cosmas and John of Damascus were foster-brothers, friends and fellow-monks at Mar Sâba, and corrected each other’s compositions. Cosmas was against his will consecrated bishop of Maiuma near Gaza in Southern Palestine, by John, patriarch of Jerusalem. He died about 760 and is commemorated on the 14th of October. The stichos prefixed to his life says:
Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, XIII. 234 sqq.; Christ, XLIX sq., 161-164. Christ calls him ”princeps melodorum graecorum,” and gives ten of his canons and several triodia; Daniel (III. 55-79) twelve odes. Among the best are Εἰς τὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ γέννησιν, Εἰς τὰ θεοφάνεια, Εἰς τὴν πεντηκοστήν, Πρὸς Χριστόν, Εις τὴν ὕψωσιν τοῦ σταυροῦ, Εἰς τὸ μέγα σάββατον. Neale has reproduced eight odes of Cosmas and a cento on the Transfiguration. The Nativity hymn begins (Christ p. 165):
Χριστὸς γεννᾶται· δόξασατε·
Χριστὸς ἐξ οὐρανῶν· ἀπαντήσατε·
Χριστὸς ἐπὶ γῆς · ὑψώθητε·
ᾄσατε τῷ κυρίῳ πᾶσα ἡ γῆ,
καὶ ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ
ἀνυμνήσατε, λαοί,
ὅτι δεδοξασται.
The third rank is occupied by St. Theophanes,
surnamed the Branded, ̔οΓραπτός,
with reference to his
sufferings. According to Christ (Prol. XLIV), he was
after the restoration of the images in the churches of Constantinople,
842, elected metropolitan of Nicaea and died in peace. But according to
the Bollandists and other authorities, he died much earlier in exile at
Samothrace about 818 or 820, in consequence of his sufferings for the
Icons. Neale reports that Theophanes was betrothed in childhood to a
lady named Megalis, but persuaded her, on their wedding day, to retire
to a convent. Christ gives several of his idiomela and stichera
necrosima, p. 121-130. See also Daniel, III. 110-112, and
Neale’s translations of the idiomela on Friday of
Cheese-Sunday (i.e. Quinquagesima), and the stichera at the
first vespers of Cheese-Sunday (90-95). The last is entitled by Neale:
“Adam’s Complaint,” and he thinks that Milton, “as an
universal scholar,” must, in Eve’s lamentation, have
had in his eye the last stanza which we give in the text. But this is
very doubtful. The Chronographia of Theophanes is published in
the Bonn. ed. of the Byzantine historians, 1839, and in
Migne’s “Patrol. Graeca,” Tom. 108 (1861). His
biography see in the Acta Sanct. ed. Bolland. in XII.
Martii.
The following specimen from Adam’s lament of his fall is interesting:
The other Byzantine hymnists who preceded or succeeded those three masters, are the following. Their chronology is mostly uncertain or disputed.
Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople in the reign
of Heracleus (610–641), figures in the beginning of
the Monotheletic controversy, and probably suggested the union formula
to that emperor. He is supposed by Christ to be the author of a famous
and favorite hymn Akathistos, in praise of Mary as the deliverer of
Constantinople from the siege of the Persians (630), but it is usually
ascribed to Georgius Pisida. Christ (p. LII sq., p. 140-147) reasons chiefly
from chronological considerations. The poem is called
ἀκάθιστος(sc.
ὕμνος) τῆςθεοτόκου, because it was chanted while
priest and people were standing. During the singing of other
hymns they were seated; hence the latter are called καθίσματα, (from καθίζεσθαι). See Christ, Prol. p. LXII
and p. 54 sqq. Jacobi says of the Akathistos (l.c. p. 230): ”
Was Enthusiasmus für die heilige Jungfrau, was Kenntniss
biblischer Typen, überhaupt religiöser
Gegenstände und Gedanken zu leisten vermochten, was Schmuck
der Sprache. Gewandtheit des Ausdrucks, Kunst der Rhythmen und der
Reime hinzufügen komnten, das ist hier in
unübertroffenem Masse bewirkt.”
Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem (629),
celebrated in Anacreontic metres the praises of Christ, the apostles,
and martyrs, and wrote idiomela with music for the church service Christ, XXVII, XXXV, LIII, 43-47
(ἀνακρεόντικα), and 96 (ἰδιόμελατῶνΘεοφανείων). Daniel, III. 20-46, gives
thirteen pieces of Sophronius from Pet. Metranga, Spicilegium
Romanum, 1840, Tom. IV.
Maximus The Confessor (580–662),
the leader and martyr of the orthodox dyotheletic doctrine in the
Monotheletic controversy, one of the profoundest divines and mystics of
the Eastern Church, wrote a few hymns. Poetae Gr. vet. Tom. II. 192 sqq. Daniel,
III. 97-103, gives three hymns, among them a beautiful
ὕμνοςἱκετήριοςειςΧριστόνChrist omits
Maximus.
Germanus (634–734), bishop of
Cyzicus, then patriarch of Constantinople (715), was deposed, 730, for
refusing to comply with the iconoclastic edicts of the Emperor Leo the
Isaurian (717–741), and died in private life, aged
about one hundred years. He is “regarded by the Greeks as one of their
most glorious Confessors” (Neale). Among his few poetical compositions
are stanzas on Symeon the Stylite, on the prophet Elijah, on the
Decollation of John the Baptist, and a canon on the wonder-working
Image in Edessa. See his Opera in Migne’s
“Patrol. Graeca” Tom. 98 (1865); and his poems in Christ, XLIII. 98
(ἰδιόμελονon the Nativity); Daniel, III.
79, a hymn in praise of Mary, beginning Σαλπίσωμεν
ἐν
σάλπιγγι
ἀσμάτων, and ending with ascribing to
her almighty power of intercession: Οὐδεν γὰρ
ἀδύνατον
τῇ
μεσιτείᾳ
σου.
Andrew Of Crete (660–732) was
born at Damascus, became monk at Jerusalem, deacon at Constantinople,
archbishop of Crete, took part in the Monotheletic Synod of 712, but
afterwards returned to orthodoxy. In view of this change and his
advocacy of the images, he was numbered among the saints. He is
regarded as the inventor of the Canons. His “Great Canon” is sung right
through on the Thursday of Mid-Lent week, which is called from that
hymn. It is a confession of sin and an invocation of divine mercy. It
contains no less than two hundred and fifty (Neale says, three hundred)
stanzas. Fr. Combefisius first edited the works of Andreas
Cretensis, Par. 1644. Christ, 147-161, gives the first part of “the
great canon” (about one-fourth), and a new canon in praise of Peter.
The last is not in the Menaea but has been brought to light from
Paris and Vatican MSS. by Card. Pitra. Daniel, III. 47-54, has seven
hymns of Andreas, of which the first is on the nativity,
beginning: Εὐφραίνεσθε
δίκαιοι· Οὐρανοὶ
ἀγαλλιᾶσθε· Σκιρτήσατε
τὰ ὅρη, Τοῦ
Χριστοῦ
γεννηθέντος.ͅ Neale translated four: Stichera for Great Thursday; Troparia for
Palm Sunday; a portion of the Great Canon; Stichera for the Second Week
of the Great Fast. His Opera in Migne’s ”
Patrol. Gr.” T. 97(1860), p. 1306sqq.
John of Damascus reduced the unreasonable length of the canons.
Another Andrew, called jAndreva” Puró” or
Purrov”, is credited with eight idiomela in the Menaea, from which
Christ has selected the praise of Peter and Paul as the best. Christ, p. xlii. sq. and 83, αὐτόμελονειςτοὺςἀποστ. ΠέτρονκαὶΠαῦλον.See Men., June
29.
Stephen The Sabaite (725–794) was
a nephew of John of Damascus, and spent fifty-nine years in the convent
of Mar Sâba, which is pitched, like an
eagle’s nest, on the wild rocks of the Kedron valley.
He is commemorated on the 13th of July. He struck the key-note of
Neale’s exquisite hymn of comfort, “Art thou weary,”
which is found in some editions of the Octoechus. He is the inspirer
rather than the author of that hymn, which is worthy of a place in
every book of devotional poetry. Christ and Daniel ignore Stephen. Neale calls the
one and only hymn which he translated, “Idiomela in the Week of the
First Oblique Tone,” and adds: “These stanzas, which strike me as very
sweet, are not in all the editions of the Octoechus.” He ascribes to
him also a poetical composition on the Martyrs of the monastery of Mar
Sâba (March 20), and one on the Circumcision. “His style,”
he says, “seems formed on that of S. Cosmas, rather than on that of his
own uncle. He is not deficient in elegance and richness of typology,
but exhibits something of sameness, and is occasionally guilty of very
hard metaphors.”
Romanus, deacon in Berytus, afterwards priest in
Constantinople, is one of the most original and fruitful among the
older poets. Petra ascribes to him twenty-five hymns. He assigned him
to the reign of Anastasius I. (491–518), but Christ to
the reign of Anastasius II. (713–719), and Jacobi with
greater probability to the time of Constantinus Pogonatus
(681–685). Christ, 131-140, gives his “Psalm of the Holy
Apostles,” and a Nativity hymn. Comp. p. li. sq. Jacobi (p. 203 sq.)
discusses the data and traces in Romanus allusions to the Monotheletic
controversy, which began about a.d.630. He gives a German version in part of the
beautiful description of the benefits of redemption, p. 221
sq.
Theodore Of The Studium (a celebrated convent near
Constantinople) is distinguished for his sufferings in the iconoclastic
controversy, and died in exile, 826, on the eleventh of November. He
wrote canons for Lent and odes for the festivals of saints. The
spirited canon on Sunday of Orthodoxy in celebration of the final
triumph of image-worship in 842, is ascribed to him, but must be of
later date as he died before that victory. Christ, p. 101 sq.; Daniel, III. 101-109. Neale
has translated four odes of Theodorus Studita, one on the judgment-day
(ὁκύριοςἔρχεται). Pitra has brought to light from
MSS. eighteen of his poems on saints. See his Opera in Migne ”
Patr. Gr.” 99.
Joseph Of The Studium, a brother of Theodore, and
monk of that convent, afterwards Archbishop of Thessalonica (hence also
called Thessalonicensis), died in prison in consequence of tortures
inflicted on him by order of the Emperor Theophilus
(829–842). He is sometimes confounded (even by Neale)
with Joseph Hymnographus; but they are distinguished by Nicephorus and
commemorated on different days. Christ, p. xlvii.: ”Nicephorus duos Iosephos hymnorum scriptores
recenset, quorum alterum Studiorum monasterii socium, alterum
peregrinum dicit. Priorem intelligo Iosephum fratrem minorem Theodori,
Studiorum antistitis, cuius memoriae dies XIV. mensis Iulii consecratus
est. Is ob morum integritatem et doctrina laudem Thessalonicensis
ecclesiae archiepiscopus electus a Theophilo rege (829-842), qui
in cultores imaginum saeviebat, in vincula coniectus et omni
tormentorum genere adeo vexatus est, ut in carcere mortem occumberet.
Alterius losephi, qui proprie ὑμνόγραφοςaudit, memoriam die III.
mensis Aprilis ecclesia graeca concelebrat. Is peregrinus
(ξένος) ab Nicephoro dictus esse
dicitur, quod ex Sicilia insula oriundus erat et patria ab Arabibus
capta et vastata cum matre et fratribus primum in Peloponnesum, deinde
Thessalonicem confugit, qua in urbe monarchorum disciplnae severissimae
sese addixit.”
Theoctistus Of The Studium (about 890) is the
author of a “Suppliant Canon to Jesus,” the only thing known of him,
but the sweetest Jesus-hymn of the Greek Church. English translation by Neale. See below, p.
473.
Joseph, called Hymnographus (880), is the most
prolific, most bombastic, and most tedious of Greek hymn-writers. He
was a Sicilian by birth, at last superintendent of sacred vessels in a
church at Constantinople. He was a friend of Photius, and followed him
into exile. He is credited with a very large number of canons in the
Mencaea and the Octoechus. Christ, 242-253; Daniel, III. 112-114; Neale, p.
120-151; Bässler, p. 23, 165; Schaff, p. 240 sq. Joseph is
also the author of hymns formerly ascribed to Sophronius, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, during the Monotheletic controversy, as Paranikas has shown
(Christ, Prol., p. liii.).
Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople (784), was
the chief mover in the restoration of Icons and the second Council of
Nicaea (787). He died Feb. 25, 806. His hymns are Unimportant. Neale notices him, but thinks it not worth while
to translate his poetry.
EUTHYMIUS, usually known as Syngelus or Syncellus
(died about 910), is the author of a penitential canon to the Virgin
Mary, which is much esteemed in the East. Κανὼνεἰςτὴνὑπεραγίανθεοτόκον. See Daniel, III.
17-20.
Elias, bishop of Jerusalem about 761, and Orestes, bishop of the same city, 996–1012, have been brought to light as poets by the researches of Pitra from the libraries of Grotta Ferrata, and other convents.
In addition to these may be mentioned Methodius
(846) Not to be confounded with Methodius
Eubulius, of Patara, the martyr (d. 311), who is also counted among
the poets for his psalm of the Virgins in praise of chastity
(παρθένιον); see vol. II. 811, and
Christ, p. 33-37. Bässler (p.4 sq.) gives a German version
of it by Fortlage. Pitra concludes his collection with eighty-three
anonymous hymns, thirty-two of which he assigns to the poets of the
Studium. See also Daniel, III. 110-138, and the last hymns in
Neale’s translations.
We give in conclusion the best specimens of Greek hymnody as reproduced and adapted to modern use by Dr. Neale.
’Tis the Day of
Resurrection.
(Ἀναγστάσεως ἡμέρα.)
Jesu, name all names above.
(̓Ihsou’ glukuvtate.)
Witnessing, through agony,
§ 95. Latin Hymnody. Literature.
See vol. III. 585 sqq. The following list covers the whole mediaeval period of Latin hymnody.
I. Latin Collections.
The Breviaries and Missals. The hymnological
collections of Clichtovaeus (Paris 1515, Bas. 1517 and 1519.),
Cassander (
Cardinal Jos. Maria Thomasius (Tomasi,
1649–1713, one of the chief expounders of the liturgy
and ceremonies of the Roman church): Opera Omnia.
Aug. Jak. Rambach (Luth. Pastor in Hamburg, b. 1777, d. 1851): Anthologie christlicher Gesänge aus alien Jahrh. der christl. Kirche. Altona and Leipzig 1817–1833, 6 vols. The first vol. contains Latin hymns with German translations and notes. The other volumes contain only German hymns, especially since the Reformation. Rambach was a pioneer in hymnology.
Job. Kehrein (R.C.): Lat. Anthologie aus den christl. Dichtern des Mittelalters. Frankfurt a. m. 1840. See his larger work below.
[John Henry Newman, Anglican, joined the Rom. Ch. 1845]: Hymni Ecclesiae. Lond. (Macmillan) 1838; new ed. 1865 (401 pages). Contains only hymns from the Paris, Roman, and Anglican Breviaries. The preface to the first part is signed “J. H. N.” and dated Febr. 21, 1838, but no name appears on the title page. About the same time Card. N. made his translations of Breviary hymns, which are noticed below, sub. III.
H. A. Daniel (Lutheran, d. 1871): Thesaurus Hymnologicus. Lips. 1841–1856, 5 Tomi. The first, second, fourth and fifth vols. contain Lat. hymns, the fourth Greek and Syrian h. A rich standard collection, but in need of revision
P. J. Mone (R. Cath. d. 1871): Lateinische Hymnen des Mittelalters. Freiburg i. B. 1853–’55, 3 vols. From MSS with notes. Contains in all 1215 hymns divided into three divisions of almost equal size; (1) Hymns to God and the angels (461 pages); (2) Hymns to the Virgin Mary, (457 pages); (3) Hymns to saints (579 pages).
D. Ozanam: Documents inédits pour servir a l’histoire littéraire de l’Italie. Paris 1850. Contains a collection of old Latin hymns, reprinted in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.” vol. 151, fol. 813–824.
Joseph Stevenson: Latin Hymns of the Anglo-Saxon Church; with an Interlinear Anglo-Saxon Gloss, from a MS. of the eleventh century in Durham Library. 1851 (Surtees Soc.).
J. M. Neale (Warden of Sackville College, high Anglican, d. 1866): Sequentiae ex Missalibus Germanicis, Anglicis, Gallicis, aliisque medii aevi collectae. Lond. 1852. 284 pages. Contains 125 sequences.
Felix Clément: Carmina e Poetis Christianis excerpta. Parisiis (Gaume Fratres) 1854. 564 pages. The Latin texts of hymns from the 4th to the 14th century, with French notes.
R. Ch. Trench (Archbishop of Dublin): Sacred Latin Poetry, chiefly Lyrical. Lond. and Cambridge, 1849; 2d ed. 1864; 3rd ed. revised and improved, 1874. (342 pages). With an instructive Introduction and notes.
Ans. Schubiger: Die Sängerschule St. Gallens vom 8ten bis 12ten Jahrh. Einsiedeln 1858. Gives sixty texts with the old music and facsimiles.
P. Gall Morel (R.C.): Lat. Hymnen des Mittelalters, grösstentheils aus Handschriften schweizerischer Klöster. Einsiedeln (Benziger) 1868 (341 pages). Mostly Marienlieder and Heiligenlieder (p. 30–325). Supplementary to Daniel and Mone.
Phil. Wackernagel (Luth., d. 1877): Das deutsche Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit bis zum Anfang des XVII. Jahrh. Leipz. 1864–1877, 5 vols. (the last vol. ed. by his two sons). This is the largest monumental collection of older German hymns; but the first vol. contains Latin hymns and sequences from the fourth to the sixteenth century.
Karl Bartsch (Prof of Germ. and Romanic philology in Rostock): Die lateinischen Sequenzen des Mittelalters in musikalischer und rhythmischer Beziehung dargestellt. Rostock 1868.
Chs. Buchanan Pierson: Sequences from the Sarum Missal. London 1871.
Joseph Kehrein (R.C.): Lateinische Sequenzen des Mittelalters aus Handschriften und Drucken. Mainz 1873 (620 pages). The most complete collection of Sequences (over 800). He divides the sequences, like Mone the hymns, according to the subject (Lieder an Gott, Engellieder, Marienlieder, Heiligenlieder). Comp. also his earlier work noticed above.
Francis A. March: Latin Hymns, with English Notes. N. York, 1874.
W. McIlvaine: Lyra Sacra Hibernica. Belfast, 1879. (Contains hymns of St. Patrick, Columba, and Sedulius).
E. Dümmler: Poëtae Latini Aevi Carolini. Berol. 1880–’84, 2 vols. Contains also hymns, II. p. 244–258.
Special editions of Adam of St. Victor: L. Gautier: La aeuvres poétiques d’ Adam de S. Victor. Par. 1858 and 1859, 2 vols. Digby S. Wrangham (of St. John’s College, Oxford): The Liturgical Poetry of Adam of St. Victor. Lond. 1881, 3 vols. (The Latin text of Gautier with E. Version in the original metres and with short notes). On the Dies Irae see the monograph of Lisco (Berlin 1840). It has often been separately published, e.g. by Franklin Johnson, Cambridge, Mass. 1883. So also the Stabat Mater, and the hymn of Bernard of Cluny De Contemptu Mundi (which furnished the thoughts for Neale’s New Jerusalem hymns). The hymns of St. Bernard, Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, are in the complete editions of their works. For St. Bernard see Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.” vol. 184, fol. 1307–1330; for Abelard, vol. 178, fol. 1759–1824.
II. Historical and Critical.
Polyc. Leyser: Historia Poëtarum et Poëmatum Medii Aevi. Halae 1721.
Friedr. Münter: Ueber die älteste christl. Poesie. Kopenhagen 1806.
Edélstand Du Méril: Poésies populaires Latines anterieures au douzième siècle. Paris 1843. Poésies populaire’s Latines du moyen âge. Paris 1847.
Trench: Introd. to his S. Lat. Poetry. See above.
Baehr: Die christl. Dichter und Geschichtschreiber Roms. Karlsruhe 1836 , 2nd ed., revised, 1872 (with bibliography).
Edward Emil Koch: Geschichte des Kirchenlieds und Kirchengesangs in der christlichen, insbesondere der deutschen evangel. Kirche. Stuttgart, third ed. rev. and enlarged 1866–1876, 7 vols. This very instructive and valuable work treats of Latin hymnology, but rather superficially, in vol. I. 40–153.
Ad. Ebert: Allgem. Gesch. der Lit. des Mittelalters im Abendlande, vol. I. (Leipz. 1874), the third book (p. 516 sqq.), and vol. II. (1880) which embraces the age of Charlemagne and his successors.
Joh. Kayser (R.C.): Beiträge zur Geschichte und Erklärung der ältesten Kirchenhymnen. Paderborn, 2d ed. 1881. 477 pages, comes down only to the sixth century and closes with Fortunatus. See also his article Der Text des Hymnus Stabat Mater dolorosa, in the Tübingen “Theol. Quartalschrift” for 1884, No. I. p. 85–103.
III. English translations.
John Chandler (Anglican, d. July 1, 1876): The Hymns of the Primitive Church, now first collected, translated and arranged. London 1837. Contains 108 Latin hymns with Chandler’s translations.
Richard Mant (Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, d. Nov. 2, 1848): Ancient Hymns from the Roman Breviary. 1837. New ed. Lond. and Oxf. 1871. (272 pages)
John Henry Newman:] Verses on Various Occasions. London 1868 (reprinted in Boston, by Patrick Donahue). The Preface is dated Dec. 21, 1867, and signed J. H. N. The book contains the original poems of the Cardinal, and his translations of the Roman Breviary Hymns and two from the Parisian Breviary, which, as stated in a note on p. 186, were all made in 1836–38, i.e. eight years before he left the Church of England.
Isaac Williams (formerly of Trinity College, Oxford, d. 1865): Hymns translated from the Parisian Breviary. London 1839.
Edward Caswall (Anglican, joined the R.C. Church 1847, d. Jan. 2, 1878): Lyra Catholica. Containing all the Breviary and Missal Hymns together with some other hymns. Lond. 1849. (311 pages). Reprinted N. Y. 1851. Admirable translations. They are also included in his Hymns and Poems, original and translated. London 2d ed. 1873.
John David Chambers (Recorder of New Sarum): Lauda Syon. Ancient Latin Hymns in the English and other Churches, translated into corresponding metres. Lond. 1857 (116 pages.)
J. M. Neale: Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences. Lond. 1862; 3d ed. 1867. (224 pages). Neale is the greatest master of free reproduction of Latin as well as Greek hymns. He published also separately his translation of the new Jerusalem hymns: The Rhythm of Bernard de Morlaix, Monk of Cluny, on the Celestial Country. Lond. 1858, 7th ed. 1865, with the Latin text as far as translated (48 pages). Also Stabat Mater Speciosa, Full of Beauty stood the Mother (1866).
The Seven Great Hymns of the Mediaeval Church. N. York (A. D. F. Randolph & Co.) 1866; seventh ed. enlarged, 1883. 154 pages. This anonymous work (by Judge C. C. Nott, Washington) contains translations by various authors of Bernard’s Celestial Country, the Dies Irae, the Mater Dolorosa, the Mater Speciosa, the Veni Sancte Spiritus, the Veni Creator Spiritus, the Vexilla Regis, and the Alleluiatic Sequence of Godescalcus. The originals are also given.
Philip Schaff: Christ in Song. N. Y. 1868; Lond. 1869. Contains translations of seventy-three Latin hymns by various authors.
W. H. Odenheimer and Frederic M. Bird: Songs of the Spirit. N. York 1871. Contains translations of twenty-three Latin hymns on the Holy Spirit, with a much larger number of English hymns. Erastus C. Benedict (Judge in N. Y., d. 1878): The Hymn of Hildebert and other Mediaeval Hymns, with translations. N. York 1869.
Abraham Coles (M. D.): Latin Hymns, with Original Translations. N. York 1868. Contains 13 translations of the Dies Irae, which were also separately published in 1859.
Hamilton M. Macgill, D. D. (of the United Presb. Ch. of Scotland): Songs of the Christian Creed and Life selected from Eighteen Centuries. Lond. and Edinb. 1879. Contains translations of a number of Latin and a few Greek hymns with the originals, also translations of English hymns into Latin.
The Roman Breviary. Transl. out of Latin into English by John Marquess of Bute, K. T. Edinb. and Lond. 1879, 2 vols. The best translations of the hymns scattered through this book are by the ex-Anglicans Caswall and Cardinal Newman. The Marquess of Bute is himself a convert to Rome from the Church of England.
D. F. Morgan: Hymns and other Poetry of the Latin Church. Oxf. 1880. 100 versions arranged according to the Anglican Calendar.
Edward A. Washburn (Rector of Calvary Church, N. Y. d. Feb. 2, 1881): Voices from a Busy Life. N. York 1883. Contains, besides original poems, felicitous versions of 32 Latin hymns, several of which had appeared before in Schaff’s Christ in Song.
Samuel W. Duffield: The Latin Hymn Writers and their Hymns (in course of preparation and to be published, New York 1885. This work will cover the entire range of Latin hymnology, and include translations of the more celebrated hymns).
IV. German translations of Latin hymns: (Mostly accompanied by the original text) are very numerous, e.g. by Rambach, 1817 sqq. (see above); C. Fortlage (Gesänge christl. Vorzeit, 1844); Karl Simrock (Lauda Sion, 1850); Ed. Kauffer (Jesus-Hymnen, Sammlung altkirchl. lat. Gesänge, etc. Leipz. 1854, 65 pages); H. Stadelmann (Altchristl. Hymnen und Lieder. Augsb. 1855); Bässler (1858); J. Fr. H. Schlosser (Die Kirche in ihren Liedern, Freiburg i. B. 1863, 2 vols); G. A. Königsfeld (Lat. Hymnen und Gesänge, Bonn 1847, new series, 1865, both with the original and notes).
§ 96. Latin Hymns and Hymnists.
The Latin church poetry of the middle ages is much
better known than the Greek, and remains to this day a rich source of
devotion in the Roman church and as far as poetic genius and religious
fervor are appreciated. The best Latin hymns have passed into the
Breviary and Missal (some with misimprovements), and have been often
reproduced in modern languages. The number of truly classical hymns,
however, which were inspired by pure love to Christ and can be used
with profit by Christians of every name, is comparatively small. The
poetry of the Latin church is as full of Mariolatry and hagiolatry as
the poetry of the Greek church. It is astonishing what an amount of
chivalrous and enthusiastic devotion the blessed Mother of our Lord
absorbed in the middle ages. In Mone’s collection the
hymns to the Virgin fill a whole volume of 457 pages, the hymns to
saints another volume of 579 pages, while the first volume of only 461
pages is divided between hymns to God and to the angels. The poets
intended to glorify Christ through his mother, but the mother
overshadows the child, as in the pictures of the Madonna. She was made
the mediatrix of all divine grace, and was almost substituted for
Christ, who was thought to occupy a throne of majesty too high for
sinful man to reach without the aid of his mother and her tender human
sympathies. She is addressed with every epithet of praise, as Mater
Dei, Dei Genitrix, Mater summi Domini, Mater misericordiae, Mater
bonitatis, Mater dolorosa, Mater jucundosa, Mater speciosa, Maris
Stella, Mundi domina, Mundi spes, Porta paradisi, Regina coeli, Radix
gratiae, Virgo virginum, Virgo regia Dei. Even the Te Deum was adapted
to her by the distinguished St. Bonaventura so as to read “Te Matrem
laudamus, Te Virginem confitemur.” See the Marianic Te Deum in Daniel, II.
293; and in Mone, II. 229 sq.
The Latin, as the Greek, hymnists were nearly all monks; but an emperor (Charlemagne?) and a king (Robert of France) claim a place of honor among them.
The sacred poetry of the Latin church may be
divided into three periods: 1, The patristic period from Hilary (d.
368) and Ambrose (d. 397) to Venantius Fortunatus (d. about 609) and
Gregory I. (d. 604); 2, the early mediaeval period to Peter Damiani (d.
1072); 3, the classical period to the thirteenth century. The first
period we have considered in a previous volume. Its most precious
legacy to the church universal is the Te Deum laudamus. It is popularly
ascribed to Ambrose of Milan (or Ambrose and Augustin jointly), but in
its present completed form does not appear before the first half of the
sixth century, although portions of it may be traced to earlier Greek
origin; it is, like the Apostles’ Creed, and the Greek
Gloria in Excelsis, a gradual growth of the church rather than the
production of any individual. A curious mediaeval legend makes the Te
Deum the joint product of St. Ambrose and St. Augustin, which was
alternately uttered by both, as by inspiration, while Augustin ascended
from the baptismal font; Ambrose beginning: Te Deum laudamus,
Augustin responding; ”Te Dominum confitemur.” But neither the
writings of one or the other contain the slightest trace of the hymn
and its origin. The first historic testimony of its existence and use
is the eleventh rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, a.d. 529, which prescribes to the monks of
Monte Casino: ”Post guartum autem responsorium incipiat Abbas hymnum
Te Deum laudamus.” But five or eight lines of the hymn are found in
Greek as a part of the Gloria in Excelsis (Δοξαἐνὑψίστοις, etc. ) in the Alexandrian
Codex of the Bible which dates from the fifth century. See Daniel, II
289 sqq.;Christ p. 39 (from καθ̓ἡμέραν to εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας), and Kayser, 437 sqq. Daniel
traces the whole Te Deum to a lost Greek original (of which the
lines in the Cod. Alex. are a fragment), Kayser to an unknown Latin
author in the second half of the fifth century, i.e. about one
hundred years after the death of St. Ambrose.
Venantius Fortunatus, of Poitiers, and his cotemporary, Pope Gregory I., form the transition from the patristic poetry of Sedulius and Prudentius to the classic poetry of the middle ages.
Fortunatus (about 600) The dates of his birth and death are quite
uncertain, and variously stated from 530 or 550 to 600 or
609.
and
Both have a place in the Roman Breviary. See two Latin texts with critical notes in
Daniel, I. 160 sqq., rhymed English Versions by Mant, Caswall, and
Neale. The originals are not rhymed, but very melodious. See vol. III.
597. The Opera of Fortunatus were edited by Luchi,
Gregory I. (d. 604), though far inferior to
Fortunatus in poetic genius, occupies a prominent rank both in church
poetry and church music. He followed Ambrose in the metrical form, the
prayer-like tone, and the churchly spirit, and wrote for practical use.
He composed about a dozen hymns, several of which have found a place in
the Roman Breviary. Daniel, I. 175-183, gives ten hymns of Gregory,
and an additional one (Laudes canamus) in vol. V. 248. Mone adds
some more of doubtful authorship, I. 370, 376 sqq.; III. 325 sqq., and
includes hymns in praise of Gregory, as ”O decus sacerdotum, flosque
sanctorum.” English translations of his Breviary hymns in Mant,
Chambers, Caswall, Newman. On his merits as a poet, see Ebert, I. 827
sqq. Luther, in his Tischreden (which are a strange mixture of
truth and fiction), declared the passion hymn Rex Christe, factor
omnium, to be the best of all hymns (”der allerbeste
Hymnus“), but this extravagant praise is inconsistent with the poetic
taste of Luther and the fact that he did not reproduce it in
German.
or, as it has been changed in the Breviary,
From Newman’s free reproduction (in Verses on Various Occasions). See the Latin text in both recensions in Daniel, I. 175,
The Venerable Bede (d. 735) wrote a beautiful ascension hymn
and a hymn for the Holy innocents,
Daniel, I. 206 sq.; Mone, I.1 (”Primo Deus coeli globum“) and 284 (Ave sacer Christi sanguis). The hymn for the infant martyrs at Bethlehem is far inferior to the Salvete flores martyrum of Prudentius. The first of the hymns quoted in the text is translated by Mrs. Charles and by Neale. German versions by Königsfeld (Ihr Siegeshymnen schallet laut, and Unschuld’ger Kinder Martyrschaar), Knapp, and others. Bede composed also a metrical history, of St. Cuthbert, which Newman has translated in part (”Between two comrades dear”).
Rabanus Maurus, a native of Mainz (Mayence) on the
Rhine, a pupil of Alcuin, monk and abbot in the convent of Fulda,
archbishop of Mainz from 847 to 856, was the chief Poet of the
Carolingian age, and the first German who wrote Latin hymns. Some of
them have passed into the Breviary. His carmina were edited from an old MS.
found in the convent of Fulda by Christopher Brower, a Jesuit, in 1617
(as an appendix to the poems of Venantius Fortunatus), and reprinted in
Migne’s Rab. MauriOpera (1852) Vol. VI. f. 1583-1682. Comp. Kunstmann,
Hrabamus Magnentius Maurus, Mainz 1841; Koch, I. 90-93; Ebert,
II. 120-145; Hauck in Herzog2XII. 459-465. Hauck refers to Dümmler on the MS.
tradition of the poem, of R. M.
He is probably the author of the pentecostal Veni,
Creator Spiritus. So Brower, and quite recently S. W. Duffield, in
an article In Schaff’s “Rel. Encycl.” III. 2608 sq.
Also Clément, Carmina, etc., p.
379. 9 In the abridged and not very happy
translation of Bishop Cosin (only four stanzas),
beginning: “Come, Holy Ghost, our souls
inspire, And
lighten with celestial fire. Thou the anointing Spirit
art, Who
dost thy sevenfold gift, impart.” It
was introduced into the Prayer Book after the Restoration, 1662. The
alternate ordination hymn, “Come, Holy Ghost, eternal God,” appeared in
1549, and was altered in 1662. By Tomasi (I. 375) and even Daniel (I. 213, sq.;
IV. 125), apparently also by Trench (p. 167). Tomasi based his view on
an impossible tradition reported by the Bollandists (Acta
SS. Apr. 1, 587), that Notker sent to Charlemagne (who died a
hundred years before) his sequence Sancti Spiritus adsit nobis
gratia, and received in response the Veni, Creator Spiritus
from the emperor (whose Latin scholarship was not sufficient for poetic
composition). The author of the article “Hymns” in the 9th ed. of the
“Encycl. Brit.” revives the legend, but removes the anachronism by
substituting for Charlemagne his nephew, Charles the Bald (who was
still less competent for the task). By Mone (I. 242, note), Koch, Wackernagel.
Mone’s reasons are “the classical metre with partial
rhymes, and the prayer-like treatment.” In the twelfth and thirteenth century
(Komm,
Schöpfer, heiliger Geist), as also by Luther
(Komm,
Gott Schöpfer, heiliger Geist), by Königsfeld
(Komm,
Schöpfer, heil’ger Geist,
erfreu), and others. The oldest German translator (as reported by
Daniel, I. 214), says that he who recites this hymn by day or by night,
is secure against all enemies visible or invisible. As contained in his work De Universo 1. I.
c.3 (in Migne’s edition of the Opera, V.
23-26). Here he calls the Holy Spirit digitus Dei (as in the
hymn), and teaches the double procession which had come to be the
prevailing doctrine in the West since the adoption of the
Filioque at the Synod of Aix in Creed. The scanning of
Paraclêtus with a long penultimate differs from that 809,
though under protest of Leo III. against its insertion into the Nicene
of other Latin poets (Paraecletos).
We give the original with two translations. The Latin text is from Brower, as reprinted in
Migne (VI. 1657), with the addition of the first doxology. The first
translation is by Robert Campbell, 1850, the second by Rev. S. W.
Duffield, made for this work, Feb. 1884. Other English versions by
Wither (1623), Drummond (1616), Cosin (1627), Tate (1703), Dryden
(1700), Isaac Williams (1839), Bishop Williams (1845), Mant (“Come,
Holy Ghost, Creator blest”), Benedict (“Spirit, heavenly life
bestowing”), MacGill (“Creator Holy Spirit! come”), Morgan (“Creator
Spirit, come in love”), in the Marquess of Bute’s
Breviary (“Come, Holy Ghost, Creator come”). See nine of these
translations in Odenheimer and Bird, Songs of the Spirit, N. Y.
1871, p. 167-180. German versions are almost as numerous. Comp. Daniel,
I. 213; IV. 124; Mone, I. 242; Koch, 1. 74 sq.
Perpetim, adv., perpetually, constantly. Some copies read perpeti (from perpes).
The concluding conventional benediction in both forms is a later addition. The first is given by Daniel (I. 214), and Mone (I. 242), the second in the text of Rabanus Maurus. The scanning of Paraecletos differs in both from that in the second stanza.
In this connection we mention the Veni, Sancte
Spiritus, the other great pentecostal hymn of the middle ages. It is
generally ascribed to King Robert of France
(970–1031), the son and success or of Hugh Capet. A few writers claim it for Pope Innocent
III.
See the Latin text in Daniel II. 35; V. 69; Mone, I. 244. In ver. 8 line 2 Daniel reads frigidum for languidum.
The following is a felicitous version by an American
divine. Dr. E. A. Washburn, late rector of Calvary
Church, New York, a highly accomplished scholar (d. 1881). The version
was made in 1860 and published in “Voices from a Busy Life,” N. Y.
1883, p. 142.
Notker, surnamed the Older, or Balbulus (“the
little Stammerer, “from a slight lisp in his speech), was born about
850 of a noble family in Switzerland, educated in the convent of St.
Gall, founded by Irish missionaries, and lived there as an humble monk.
He died about 912, and was canonized in 1512. Comp. on Notker the biography of Ekkehard; Daniel
V. 37 sqq.; Koch I. 94 sqq.; Meyer von Knonau,Lebensbild des heil. Notker
von St. Gallen, and his article in Herzog2X. 648 sqq. (abridged in
Schaff-Herzog II. 1668); and Ans. Schubiger, Die Sängerschule St.
Gallens vom 8ten his 12ten Jahrh. (Einsiedlen, 1858). Daniel II. 3-31
gives thirty-five pieces under the title Notker et Notkeriana. Neale
(p. 32) gives a translation of one sequence: Sancti Spiritus adsit
nobis gratia.
He is famous as the reputed author of the
Sequences (Sequentiae), a class of hymns in rythmical prose, hence also
called Proses (Prosae). They arose from the custom of prolonging the
last syllable in singing the Allelu-ia of the Gradual, between the
Epistle and the Gospel, while the deacon was ascending from the altar
to the rood-loft (organ-loft), that he might thence sing the Gospel.
This prolongation was called jubilatio or jubilus, or laudes, on
account of its jubilant tone, and sometimes sequentia (Greek
ajkolouqiva), because it followed the reading of the Epistle or the
Alleluia. Mystical interpreters made this unmeaning prolongation of a
mere sound the echo of the jubilant music of heaven. A further
development was to set words to these notes in rythmical prose for
chanting. The name sequence was then applied to the text and in a wider
sense also to regular metrical and rhymed hymns. The book in which
Sequences were collected was called Sequentiale. For further information on Sequences see
especially Neale’s Epistola Critica de
Sequentiis at the beginning of the fifth vol. of
Daniel’s Thes. (p. 3-36), followed by literary notices
of Daniel; also the works of Bartsch and Kehrein (who gives the largest
collection), and Duffield in Schaff’s Rel. Encyl. III.
161. Neale defines a sequentia:
“prolongatio syllabae τοῦ Alleluia.”
Notker marks the transition from the unmeaning musical sequence to the literary or poetic sequence. Over thirty poems bear his name. His first, attempt begins with the line
More widely circulated is his Sequence of the Holy Spirit:
Translated by Neale, p. 32.
The best of all his compositions, which is said to have been inspired by the sight of the builders of a bridge over an abyss in the Martinstobe, is a meditation on death (Antiphona de morte):
Daniel, II. 329; Mone, I. 397. Several German versions, one by Luther (1524): ”Mitten wir im Leben sind mit dem Tod umfangen.” This version is considerably enlarged and has been translated into English by Miss Winkworth in “Lyra Germanica” : “In the midst of life behold Death has girt us round. See notes in Schaff’s Deutsches Gesangbuch, No. 446.
This solemn prayer is incorporated in many burial services. In the Book of Common Prayer it is thus enlarged:
The text is taken from The First Book of Edward VI., 1549 (as republished by Dr. Morgan Dix, N. Y. 1881, p. 268). In the revision of the Prayer Book the third line was thus improved:
O Lord, who for our sins art justly displeased (irasceris).”
Peter Damiani (d. 1072), a friend of Hildebrand and promoter of his hierarchical refrms, wrote a solemn hymn on the day of death:
Daniel, I. 224. English Versions by Neale,
Benedict, and Washburn (l. c. p. 145). German translation by
Königsfeld: “Wie du mich mit Schrecken
schüttelst.” Neale (p. 52) calls this “an awful hymn, the
Dies Irae of individual life.” His version
begins:
“O what terror in
thy forethought, Ending scene in mortal life!”
He is perhaps also the author of the better known descriptive poem on the Glory and Delights of Paradise, which is usually assigned to St. Augustin:
Daniel, I. 116-118 (Rhythmus de gloria et gaudiis Paradisi), under the name of St. Augustin. So also Clément, Carmina, p. 162-166, who says that it is, attributed to Augustin ”per les melleurs critiques,” and that it is “un reflet de la Cité de Dieu.” But the great African father put his poetry into prose, and only furnished inspiring thoughts to poets. German translation by Königsfeld (who gives it likewise under the name of St. Augustin) ”Nach des ew’gen Lebens Quellen.”
The subordinate hymn-writers of our period are the
following: See their hymns in Daniel, I. 183 sqq., and
partly in Mone, and Clément.
Isidor of Seville (Isidoris Hispalensis, 560–636). A hymn on St. Agatha: “Festum insigne prodiit.”
Cyxilla of Spain. Hymnus de S. Thurso et sociis: Exulta nimium turba fidelium.”
Eugenius of Toledo. Oratio S. Eugenii Toletani Episcopi: “Rex Deus.”
Paulus Diaconus (720–800), of
Monte Casino, chaplain of Charlemagne, historian of the Lombards, and
author of a famous collection of homilies. On John the Baptist (“Ut
queant laxis), From this poem (see Daniel I. 209 sq.) Guido of
Arezzo got names for the six notes Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol,
La: “Ut queant
laxis Re-sonare fibris Mi-ra gestorum
Fa-muli tuorum, Sol ve polluti
La-bii reatum, Sancte
Joannes.”
Odo of Cluny (d. 941). A hymn on St. Mary Magdalene day, “Lauda, Mater Ecclesiae,” translated by Neale: “Exalt, O mother Church, to-day, The clemency of Christ, thy Lord.” It found its way into the York Breviary.
Godescalcus (Gottschalk, d. about 950, not to be confounded with his predestinarian namesake, who lived in the ninth century), is next to Notker, the best writer of sequences or proses, as “Laus Tibi, Christe” (“Praise be to Thee, O Christ”), and Coeli enarrant (“The heavens declare the glory”), both translated by Neale.
Fulbert Of Chartres (died about 1029) wrote a paschal hymn adopted in several Breviaries: “Chorus novae Jerusalem” (“Ye choirs of New Jerusalem”), translated by Neale.
A few of the choicest hymns of our period, from
the sixth to the twelfth century are anonymous. See Daniel, Hymni adespotoi circa sec. VI-IX.
conscripti, I. 191 sqq. Mone gives a larger
number.
“Hymnum dicat turba fratrum.” A morning hymn mentioned by Bede as a fine specimen of the trochaic tetrameter.
“Sancti venite.” A communion hymn.
“Urbs beata Jerusalem.” In the Roman Breviary: ”Coelestis urbs Jerusalem.”
Neale thinks that the changes in the revised Breviary of Urban VIII.
have deprived “this grand hymn of half of its
beauty.”
“Apparebit repentina.” An alphabetic and acrostic poem on the
Day of Judgment, based on See the original in Daniel, I. 194. Other English
translations by Mrs. Charles, and E. C. Benedict. In German by
Königsfeld: ”Plötzlich wird der Tag
erscheinen.”
“Ave, Maris Stella.” This is the favorite
mediaeval Mary hymn, and perhaps the very best of the large number
devoted to the worship of the “Queen of heaven,” which entered so
deeply into the piety and devotion of the Catholic church both in the
East and the West. It is therefore given here in full with the version
of Edward Caswall. Daniel (I. 204) says of this hymn: ”Hic hymnus Marianus,
quem Catholica semper ingenti cum favore prosecuta est, in omnibus
breviarriis, quae inspiciendi unquam mihi occasio data est, ad honorem
beatissimae virginis cantandus praescribitur, inprimis in
Annunciatione; apud permultos tamen aliis quoque diebus Festis Marianis
adscriptus est. Quae hymni reverentia ad recentiora usque tempora
permansit.” It is one of the few hymns which Urban VIII. did not
alter in his revision of the Breviary. Mone (II. 216, 218, 220, 228)
gives four variations of Ave Maris Stella, which is used as the
text.
This designation of Mary is supposed to be meant for a translation of the name; maria being taken for the plural of mare: see Gen. I: 10 (Vulgate) ”congregationes aquarum appellavit maria. Et vidit Deus, quod esset bonum.” (See the note in Daniel, I. 205). Surely a most extraordinary exposition, not to say imposition, yet not too far-fetched for the middle ages, when Greek and Hebrew were unknown, when the Scriptures were supposed to have four senses, and allegorical and mystical fancies took the place of grammatical and historical exegesis.
The comparison of Mary with Eve—the mother of obedience contrasted with the mother of disobedience, the first Eve bringing in guilt and ruin, the second, redemption and bliss—is as old as Irenaeus (about 180) and is the fruitful germ of Mariolatry. The mystical change of Eva and Ave is mediaeval—a sort of pious conundrum.
The words of our Lord to John: “Behold thy mother” (
The Latin hymnody was only, for priests and monks, and those few who understood the Latin language. The people listened to it as they do to the mass, and responded with the Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, which passed from the Greek church into the Western litanies. As the modern languages of Europe developed themselves out of the Latin, and out of the Teutonic, a popular poetry arose during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and afterwards received a powerful impulse from the Reformation. Since that time the Protestant churches, especially in Germany and England, have produced the richest hymnody, which speaks to the heart of the people in their own familiar tongue, and is, next to the Psalter, the chief feeder of public and private devotion. In this body of evangelical hymns the choicest Greek and Latin hymns in various translations, reproductions, and transformations occupy an honored place and serve as connecting links between past and modern times in the worship of the same God and Saviour.
§ 97. The Seven Sacraments.
Mediaeval Christianity was intensely sacramental, sacerdotal and hierarchical. The ideas of priest, sacrifice, and altar are closely connected. The sacraments were regarded as the channels of all grace and the chief food of the soul. They accompanied human life from the cradle to the grave. The child was saluted into this world by the sacrament of baptism; the old man was provided with the viaticum on his journey to the other world.
The chief sacraments were baptism and the eucharist. Baptism was regarded as the sacrament of the new birth which opens the door to the kingdom of heaven the eucharist as the sacrament of sanctification which maintains and nourishes the new life.
Beyond these two sacraments several other rites
were dignified with that name, but there was no agreement as to the
number before the scholastic period. The Latin sacramentum, like the
Greek mystery (of which it is the translation in the Vulgate), was long
used in a loose and indefinite way for sacred and mysterious doctrines
and rites. Rabanus Maurus and Paschasius Radbertus count four
sacraments, Dionysius Areopagita, six; Damiani, as many as twelve. By
the authority chiefly of Peter the Lombard and Thomas Aquinas the
sacred number seven was at last determined upon, and justified by
various analogies with the number of virtues, and the number of sins,
and the necessities of human life. Otto, bishop of Bamberg (between 1139 and 1189), is usually
reported to have introduced the seven sacraments among the Pomeranians
whom he had converted to Christianity, but the discourse on which this
tradition rests is of doubtful genuineness. The scholastic number seven
was confirmed by the Council of Florence (the Greek delegates
assenting), and by the Council of Trent which anathematizes all who
teach more or less, Sess. VII. can. I. The Protestant churches admit
only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper,
because these alone are especially commanded by Christ to be observed.
Yet ordination and marriage, and in some churches confirmation also,
are retained as solemn religious ceremonies.
But seven sacraments existed as sacred rites long before the church was agreed on the number. We find them with only slight variations independently among the Greeks under the name of “mysteries” as well as among the Latins. They are, besides baptism and the eucharist (which is a sacrifice as well as a sacrament): confirmation, penance (confession and absolution), marriage, ordination, and extreme unction.
Confirmation was closely connected with baptism as
a sort of supplement. It assumed a more independent character in the
case of baptized infants and took place later. It may be performed in
the Greek church by any priest, in the Latin only by the bishop. The Lutheran church retains confirmation by the minister,
the Anglican church by the bishop.
Penance was deemed necessary for sins after
baptism. See above, § 87.
Ordination is the sacrament of the hierarchy and indispensable for the government of the church.
Marriage lies at the basis of the family and society in church and state, and was most closely and jealously guarded by the church against facility of divorce, against mixed marriages, and marriages between near relatives.
Extreme unction with prayer (first mentioned among
the sacraments by a synod of Pavia in 850, and by Damiani) was the
viaticum for the departure into the other world, and based on the
direction of St.
The efficacy of the sacrament was defined by the
scholastic term ex opere operato, that is, the sacrament has its
intended effect by virtue of its institution and inherent power,
independently of the moral character of the priest and of the
recipient, provided only that it be performed in the prescribed manner
and with the proper intention and provided that the recipient throw no
obstacle in the way. Here, too, the Protestant (at least the Reformed)
confessions differ from the Roman Catholic by requiring faith in active
exercise as a condition of receiving the benefit of the sacrament. In
the case of infant baptism the faith of the parents or responsible
guardians is taken into account. Without such faith the sacrament would
be wasted and profaned.
Three of the Sacraments, namely baptism,
confirmation, and ordination, have in addition the effect of conferring
an indelible character. Character indelebilis
§ 98. The Organ and the Bell.
To the external auxiliaries of worship were added the organ and the bell.
The Organ, Organum from the Greek ὄργανον, which is used in the Septuagint for
several musical terms in Hebrew, as cheli, chinor
(cithara), nephel (nablium), yugab. See the
passages in Trommius, Concord. Gr. V. LXX, II.
144.
The attitude of the churches towards the organ
varies. It shared to some extent the fate of images, except that it
never was an object of worship. The poetic legend which Raphael has
immortalized by one of his master-pieces, ascribes its invention to St.
Cecilia, the patron of sacred music. The Greek church disapproves the
use of organs. The Latin church introduced it pretty generally, but not
without the protest of eminent men, so that even in the Council of
Trent a motion was made, though not carried, to prohibit the organ at
least in the mass. The Lutheran church retained, the Calvinistic
churches rejected it, especially in Switzerland and Scotland; but in
recent times the opposition has largely ceased. See Hopkins and Rimbault: The Organ, its History and
Construction, 1855; E. de Coussemakee: Histoire, des instruments de
musique au moyen-age, Paris 1859; Heinrich Otte: Handbuch der Kirchl.
Kunstarchäologie, Leipz. 4th ed. 1866, p. 225 sqq. O.
Wangermann: Gesch. der Orgel und der Orgelbaukunst, second ed. 1881. Comp. also Bingham,
Augusti, Binterim, Siegel, Alt, and the art. Organ in Smith and
Cheetham, Wetzer and Welte, and in Herzog.
The Bell is said to have been invented by Paulinus
of Nola (d. 431) in Campania; Hence the names campanum, or campana, nola(continued in the Italian language), but it is more probable that
the name is derived from Campanian brass (aes campanum), which
in early times furnished the material for bells. In later Latin it is
called cloqua, cloccum, clocca, cloca, also
tintinnabulum, English: clock; German:
Glocke;
French: cloche;
Irish: clog (comp. the Latin clangere and the
German klopfen).
Bells, like other church-furniture, were
consecrated for sacred use by liturgical forms of benediction. They
were sometimes even baptized; but Charlemagne, in a capitulary of 789,
forbids this abuse. “Ut cloccae non baptizentur.” According to Baronius,
Annal. ad a. 968, Pope John XIII. baptized the great bell of the
Lateran church, and called it John. The reformers of the. sixteenth
century renewed the protest of Charlemagne, and abolished the baptism
of bells as a profanation of the sacrament, See Siegel,
Handbuch der christl.
kirchlichen Alterthümer, II. 243. Campanarii, campanatores. Called Campanile. The one on place of San Marco at
Venice is especially celebrated.
The literature on bells is given by Siegel, II. 239, and Otte, p.2 and 102. We mention Nic. Eggers: de Origine et Nomine Campanarum, Jen., 1684; by the same: De Campanarum Materia et Forma 1685; Waller: De Campanis et praecipuis earum Usibus, Holm., 1694; Eschenwecker: Circa Campanas, Hal. ) 1708; J. B. Thiers. Traité des Cloches, Par., 1719; Montanus: Hist. Nachricht von den Glocken, etc., Chemnitz, 1726; Chrysander: Hist. Nachricht von Kirchen-Glocken, Rinteln, 1755; Heinrich Otte: Glockenkunde, Leipz., 1858; Comp. also his Handbuch der kirchlichen Kunst-Archäologie des deutschen Mittelalters, Leipz., 1868, 4th ed., p. 245-248 (with illustrations); and the articles Bells, Glocken, in the archaeological works of Smith and Cheetham, Wetzer and Welte, and Herzog. Schiller has made the bell the subject of his greatest lyric poem, which ends with this beautiful description of its symbolic meaning:
“Und diess sei fortan ihr Beruf,
Wozu der Meister sie erschuf:
Hoch über’m niedern Erdenleben
Soll sie im blauen Himmelszelt,
Die Nachbarin des Donners, schweben
Und gränzen an die Sternenwelt;
Soll eine Stimme sein von oben,
Wie der Gestirne helle Shaar,
Die ihren Schöpfer wandelnd loben
Und führen das bekränzte Jahr.
Nur ewigen und ersten Dingen
Sei ihr metall’ner Mund geweiht,
Und stündlich mit den schnellen Schwinger
Berühr’ im Fluge sie die Zeit.
Dem Schicksal leihe sie die Zunge;
Selbst herzlos, ohne Mitgefühl,
Begleite sie mit ihrem Schwunge
Des Lebens wechselvolles Spiel.
Und wie der Klang im Ohr vergehet,
Der mächtig tönend ihr entschallt,
So lehre sie, dass nichts bestehet,
Dass alles Irdische verhallt.”
§ 99. The Worship of Saints.
Comp. vol. III. §§ 81–87 (p. 409–460).
The Worship of Saints, handed down from the Nicene age, was a Christian substitute for heathen idolatry and hero-worship, and well suited to the taste and antecedents of the barbarian races, but was equally popular among the cultivated Greeks. The scholastics made a distinction between three grades of worship: 1) adoration (λατρεία), which belongs to God alone; 2) veneration (δουλεία), which is due to the saints as those whom God himself has honored, and who reign with him in heaven; 3) special veneration (ὑπερδουλεία), which is due to the Virgin Mary as the mother of the Saviour and the queen of all saints. But the people did not always mind this distinction, and the priests rather encouraged the excesses of saint-worship. Prayers were freely addressed to the saints, though not as the givers of the blessings desired, but as intercessors and advocates. Hence the form “Pray for us” (Ora pro nobis).
The number of saints and their festivals
multiplied very rapidly. Each nation, country, province or city chose
its patron saint, as Peter and Paul in Rome, St. Ambrose in Milan, St.
Martin, St. Denys (Dionysius) and St. Germain in France, St. George in
England, St. Patrick in Ireland, St. Boniface in Germany, and
especially the Virgin Mary, who has innumerable localities and churches
under her care and protection. The fact of saintship was at first
decided by the voice of the people, which was obeyed as the voice of
God. Great and good men and women who lived in the odor of sanctity and
did eminent service to the cause of religion as missionaries or martyrs
or bishops or monks or nuns, were gratefully remembered after their
death; they became patron saints of the country or province of their
labors and sufferings, and their worship spread gradually over the
entire church. Their relics were held sacred; their tombs were visited
by pilgrims. The metropolitans usually decided on the claims of
saintship for their province down to a.d. 1153. Sometimes also bishops, synods, and, in cases of political
importance, kings and emperors. The last case of a metropolitan
canonization is ascribed to the archbishop of Rouen,
a.d.1153, in favor of St. Gaucher, or Gaultier,
abbot of Pontoise (d. April 9, 1130). But Labbe and Alban Butler state
that he was canonized by Celestine III. in 1194. It seems that even at
a later date some bishops exercised a limited canonization; hence the
prohibition of this practice as improper by Urban VIII. in 1625 and
1634. The occasion of the papal decision in 1170 was the fact
that the monks of a convent in the diocese of Lisieux worshiped as a
saint their prefect, who had been killed in the refectory by two of
their number in a state of intoxication. Comp. on this subject Benedict XIV. (Lambertini): De
Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonisatione. Bononisae
1734-’38; ed. II. Venet. et Patav. 1743, 4 vol. fol.
Ferraris: Bibliotheca Canonica, a. v. “Veneratio Sanctorum.”
Canonization includes seven privileges: 1) recognition as saint by the
whole (Roman) church; 2) invocation in public and private prayers; 3)
erection of churches and altars to the honor of the saints; 4)
invocation at the celebration of the mass; 5) appointment of special
days of commemoration; 6) exhibition of their images with a crown on
their head; 7) exhibition of their bones and relics for veneration. The
question whether the papal bulls of canonization are infallible and
de fide, or only sententia communis et certa, seems to be
still disputed among Roman Catholics.
The first known example of a papal canonization is
the canonization of Ulrich, bishop of Augsburg (d. 973), by John XV.
who, at a Lateran synod composed of nineteen dignitaries, in 993,
declared him a saint at the request of Luitolph (Leuthold), his
successor in the see of Augsburg, after hearing his report in person on
the life and miracles of Ulrich. His chief merit was the deliverance of
Southern Germany from the invasion of the barbarous Magyars, and his
devotion to the interests of his large diocese. He used to make tours
of visitation on an ox-cart, surrounded by a crowd of beggars and
cripples. He made two pilgrimages to Rome, the second in his
eighty-first year, and died as an humble penitent on the bare floor.
The bull puts the worship of the saints on the ground that it redounds
to the glory of Christ who identifies himself with his saints, but it
makes no clear distinction between the different degrees of worship. It
threatens all who disregard this decree with the anathema of the
apostolic see. See Mansi, XIX. f. 169-179. The bull is signed by, the
pope, five bishops, nine cardinal priests, an archdeacon and four
deacons. It decrees that the memory of Saint Udalricus be venerated
“affectu piisimo et devotione fidelissima,” and be dedicated to
divine worship (”divino cultui dicata“). It justifies it by the
reason ”quoniam sic adoramus (!) et colimus reliquius m et
confessorum, ut eum, Cuius martyres et confessores sunt, adoremus
Honaramus servos ut honor redundet in Dominum, qui dixit: Qui vos
recipit me recipit’: ac proinde nos, qui fiduciam
nostrae justitiae non habemus, illorum precibus et meritis apud
clementissimum Deum jugiter adiuvemur.” The bull mentions many
miracles of Ulrich, “quae sive in corpore, sive extra corpus gesta
sunt, videlicet Caecos illuminasse, daemones ab obsessis effugasse,
paralyticos curasse, et quam plurima alia signa gessisse.” On the
life of St. Ulrich see the biography by his friend and companion
Gerhard (between 983 and 993), best edition by Wirtz in the Monum.
G. Scriptores, IV. 377 sqq.; Acta Sanct., Bolland. ad 4
Jul.; Mabillon, Ada Ordinis S. B., V. 415-477;
Braun, Gesch. der Bischöfe von
Augsburg(Augsb.
1813), vol. I.; Schrödl, in Wetzer and Welte, vol. XI.
370-383, and Vogel in Herzog1vol.
XVI. 624-628. Ulrich cannot be the author of a tract against celibacy
which was first published under his name by Flacius in his Catalogus
Testium Veritatis, but dates from the year 1059 when Pope Nicolas
II. issued a decree enforcing celibacy. See Vogel, l.c. p.
627.
A mild interpretation of the papal prerogative of
canonization reduces it to a mere declaration of a fact preceded by a
careful examination of the merits of a case before the Congregation of
Rites. But nothing short of a divine revelation can make such a fact
known to mortal man. The examination is conducted by a regular process
of law in which one acts as Advocatus Diaboli or accuser of the
candidate for canonization, and another as Advocatus Dei. Success
depends on the proof that the candidate must have possessed the highest
sanctity and the power of working miracles either during his life, or
through his dead bones, or through invocation of his aid. A proverb
says that it requires a miracle to prove a miracle. Nevertheless it is
done by papal decree on such evidence as is satisfactory to Roman
Catholic believers. The most recent acts of canonization occurred in our
generation. Pope Pius IX. canonized in 1862 with great solemnity
twenty-six Japanese missionaries and converts of the Franciscan order,
who died in a persecution in 1597. Leo XIII. canonized, December 8,
1881, four comparatively obscure saints of ascetic habits and
self-denying charity, namely, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, Lorenzo di
Brindisi, Giuseppe Labre, and Clara di Montefalco. A Roman priest
describes “the blessed Labre” as a saint who “never washed, never
changed his linen, generally slept under the arches of the Colosseum
and prayed for hours together in the Church of the Orphanage where
there is a tablet to his memory.” St. Labre evidently did not believe
that “cleanliness is next to godliness”
The question, how the saints and the Virgin Mary can hear so many thousands of prayers addressed to them simultaneously in so many different places, without being clothed with the divine attributes of omniscience and omnipresence, did not disturb the faith of the people. The scholastic divines usually tried to solve it by the assumption that the saints read those prayers in the omniscient mind of God. Then why not address God directly?
In addition to the commemoration days of particular saints, two festivals were instituted for the commemoration of all the departed.
The Festival of All Saints Omnium Sanctorum Natalis, or Festivas, Solemnitas,
Allerheiligenfest. The Greek church had long before a similar
festival in commemoration of all martyrs on the first Sunday after
Pentecost, called ΚυριακὴτῶνἉγίωνπάντων. Chrysostom, in a sermon for that day, says that
on the Octave of Pentecost the Christians were surrounded by the host
of martyrs. In the West the first Sunday after Pentecost was devoted to
the Trinity, and closed the festival part of the church year. See vol.
III. 408. Martyrologio Romano, May 13 and Nov. 1. The Pantheon
or Rotunda, like Westminster Abbey, and St. Paul’s
Cathedral in London, contains the ashes of other distinguished men
besides saints, and is the resting-place of Raphael, and since 1883
even of Victor Emanuel, the founder of the Kingdom of Italy, whom the
pope regards as a robber of the patrimony of Peter.
The Festival of All Souls Omnium Fidelium defunctorum Memoria
orCommemoratio, Allerseelentag.
The festival of Michael the Archangel, Festum S. Michaelis, or Michaelis Archangeli,
Michaelmas. Hence also called Festum omnium Angelorum,
St. Michael and all Angels. In the Eastern church on November 8. The origin of the
Eastern celebration is obscure. Namely, sundry apparitions of Michael, at Chonae, near
Colossae, in Monte Gargano in the diocese of Sipontum in Apulia
(variously assigned to a.d.492, 520,
and 536), in Monte Tumba in Normandy (about 710), and especially one to
Pope Gregory I. in Rome, or his successor, Boniface III. (607-610),
after a pestilence over the Moles Hadriani, which ever since has
been called the Castello di St. Angelo, and is adorned by the statue of
an angel. See vol. III. 444 sq. Acta Sanct., Sept. 29;
Siegel, Handbuch der christl. Kirchl.
Alterthümer, III. 419-425; Smith & Cheetham, II. 1176-1180; also
Augusti, Binterim, and the monographs mentioned by Siegel, p. 419. The
angel-worship in Colossae was heretical and probably of Essenic origin.
See the commentaries in loc., especially Lightfoot, p. 101 sqq.
A council of Laodicea near Colossae, about 363, found it necessary
strongly to forbid angelolatry as then still prevailing in Phrygia. St.
Augustin repeatedly objects to it, De vera Rel. 110;
Conf. X. 42; De Civ. D. X. 19,
25.
§ 100. The Worship of Images. Literature. Different Theories.
Comp. Vol. II., chs. vi. (p.266 sqq.) and vii. (p. 285); Vol. III. §§109–111 (p. 560 sqq.).
(I.) John of Damascus (chief defender of image-worship, about 750): Lovgoi ajpologhtikoi; pro;” tou;” diabavllonta” ta;” aJgiva” eijkovna” (ed. Le Quien I. 305). Nicephorus (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. 828): Breviarium Hist. (to a.d. 769), ed. Petavius, Paris, 1616. Theophanes (Confessor and almost martyr of image-worship, d. c. 820): Chronographia, cum notis Goari et Combefisii, Par., 1655, Ven. 1729, and in the Bonn ed. of the Byzant. historians, 1839, Tom. I. (reprinted in Migne’s “Patrol. Graeca,” Tom. 108). The later Byzantine historians, who notice the controversy, draw chiefly from Theophanes; so also Anastasius (Historia Eccles.) and Paulus Diaconus (Historia miscella and Hist. Longobardorum).
The letters of the popes, and the acts of synods, especially the Acta Concilii Nicaeni II. (a.d. 787) in Mansi, Tom. XIII., and Harduin, Tom. IV.
M. H. Goldast: Imperialia Decreta de Cultu Imaginum in utroque imperio promulgata. Frankf., 1608.
The sources are nearly all on the orthodox side. The seventh oecumenical council (787) ordered in the fifth session that all the books against images should be destroyed.
(II.) J. Dalleus (Calvinist): De Imaginibus. Lugd. Bat., 1642.
L. Maimbourg (Jesuit): Histoire de l’hérésie des iconoclastes. Paris, 1679 and 1683, 2 vols. (Hefele, III. 371, calls this work “nicht ganz zuverlässig,” not quite reliable).
Fr. Spanheim (Calvinist): Historia Imaginum restituta. Lugd. Bat. 1686 (in Opera, II. 707).
Chr. W. Fr. Walch (Lutheran): Ketzerhistorie. Leipz., 1762 sqq., vol. X. (1782) p. 65–828, and the whole of vol. XI. (ed. by Spittler, 1785). Very thorough, impartial, and tedious.
F. Ch. Schlosser: Geschichte der bilderstürmenden Kaiser des oströmischen Reichs. Frankf. a. M., 1812.
J. Marx (R.C.): Der Bilderstreit der Byzant. Kaiser. Trier, 1839.
Bishop Hefele: Conciliengesch. vol III. 366–490; 694–716 (revised ed., Freib. i. B. 1877).
R. Schenk: Kaiser Leo III. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Bilderstreites. Halle, 1880.
General Church Histories: 1) R. Cath.: Baronius, Pagi, Natalis Alexander, Alzog, Hergenröther (I. 121–143; 152–168). 2) Protest.: Basnage, Gibbon (ch. 49), Schröckh (vol. XX.), Neander (III. 197–243; 532–553, Bost. ed.; fall and fair); Gieseler (II. 13–19, too short).
The literature on the image-controversy is much colored by the doctrinal stand-point of the writers. Gibbon treats it with cold philosophical indifference, and chiefly in its bearing on the political fortunes of the Byzantine empire.
With the worship of saints is closely, connected a subordinate worship of their images and relics. The latter is the legitimate application of the former. But while the mediaeval churches of the East and West—with the exception of a few protesting voices—were agreed on the worship of saints, there was a violent controversy about the images which kept the Eastern church in commotion for more than a century (a.d. 724–842), and hastened the decline of the Byzantine empire.
The abstract question of the use of images is connected with the general subject of the relation of art to worship. Christianity claims to be the perfect and universal religion; it pervades with its leavening power all the faculties of man and all departments of life. It is foreign to nothing which God has made. It is in harmony with all that is true, and beautiful, and good. It is friendly to philosophy, science, and art, and takes them into its service. Poetry, music, and architecture achieve their highest mission as handmaids of religion, and have derived the inspiration for their noblest works from the Bible. Why then should painting or sculpture or any other art which comes from God, be excluded from the use of the Church? Why should not Bible history as well as all other history admit of pictorial and sculptured representation for the instruction and enjoyment of children and adults who have a taste for beauty? Whatever proceeds from God must return to God and spread his glory.
But from the use of images for ornament, instruction and enjoyment there is a vast step to the worship of images, and experience proves that the former can exist without a trace of the latter. In the middle ages, however, owing to the prevailing saint-worship, the two were inseparable. The pictures were introduced into churches not as works of art, but as aids and objects of devotion. The image-controversy was therefore a, purely practical question of worship, and not a philosophical or artistic question. To a rude imagination an ugly and revolting picture served the devotional purpose even better than one of beauty and grace. It was only towards the close of the middle ages that the art of Christian painting began to produce works of high merit. Moreover the image-controversy was complicated with the second commandment of the decalogue which clearly and wisely forbids, if not all kinds of figurative representations of the Deity, at all events every idolatrous and superstitious use of pictures. It was also beset by the difficulty that we have no authentic pictures of Christ, the Madonna and the Apostles or any other biblical character.
We have traced in previous volumes the gradual introduction of sacred images from the Roman Catacombs to the close of the sixth century. The use of symbols and pictures was at first quite innocent and spread imperceptibly with the growth of the worship of saints. The East which inherited a love for art from the old Greeks, was chiefly devoted to images, the Western barbarians who could not appreciate works of art, cared more for relics.
We may distinguish three theories, of which two came into open conflict and disputed the ground till the year 842.
1. The theory of Image-Worship. It is the orthodox
theory, denounced by the opponents as a species of idolatry, Its advocates were called εἰκονολάτραι, ξυλολάτραι, εἰδωδολάτραι. τιμητικὴπροσκύνησις. For this word the Latin has no precise
equivalent. The English word ” worship” is used in different
senses. λατρεία. adoratio. See § 94, p. 403 sqq.
The chief argument against this theory was the second commandment. It was answered in various ways. The prohibition was understood to be merely temporary till the appearance of Christ, or to apply only to graven images, or to the making of images for idolatrous purposes.
On the other hand, the cherubim over the ark, and the brazen serpent in the wilderness were appealed to as examples of visible symbols in the Mosaic worship. The incarnation of the Son of God furnished the divine warrant for pictures of Christ. Since Christ revealed himself in human form it can be no sin to represent him in that form. The significant silence of the Gospels concerning his personal appearance was supplied by fictitious pictures ascribed to St. Luke, and St. Veronica, and that of Edessa. A superstitious fancy even invented stories of wonder-working pictures, and ascribed to them motion, speech, and action.
It should be added that the Eastern church confines images to colored representations on a plane surface, and mosaics, but excludes sculptures and statues from objects of worship. The Roman church makes no such restriction.
2. The Iconoclastic theory occupies the opposite
extreme. Its advocates were called image-breakers. Εἰκονοκλάσται(from κλάω, to break), εἰκονοκαύσται, εἰκονομάχοι, χριστιανοκατήγοροι.
The iconoclastic party, however, was not consistent; for it adhered to saint-worship which is the root of image-worship, and instead of sweeping away all religious symbols, it retained the sign of the cross with all its superstitious uses, and justified this exception by the Scripture passages on the efficacy of the cross, though these refer to the sacrifice of the cross, and not to the sign.
The chief defect of iconoclasm and the cause of its failure was its negative character. It furnished no substitute for image-worship, and left nothing but empty walls which could not satisfy the religious wants of the Greek race. It was very different from the iconoclasm of the evangelical Reformation, which put in the place of images the richer intellectual and spiritual instruction from the Word of God.
3. The Moderate theory sought a via media between image-worship and image-hatred, by distinguishing between the sign and the thing, the use and the abuse. It allowed the representation of Christ and the saints as aids to devotion by calling to remembrance the persons and facts set forth to the eye. Pope Gregory I. presented to a hermit at his wish a picture of Christ, of Mary, and of St. Peter and St. Paul, with a letter in which he approves of the natural desire to have a visible reminder of an object of reverence and love, but at the same time warned him against superstitious use. “We do not,” he says, “kneel down before the picture as a divinity, but we adore Him whose birth or passion or sitting on the throne of majesty is brought to our remembrance by the picture.” The same pope commended Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, for his zeal against the adoration of pictures, but disapproved of his excess in that direction, and reminded him of the usefulness of such aids for the people who had just emerged from pagan barbarism and could not instruct themselves out of the Holy Scriptures. The Frankish church in the eighth and ninth centuries took a more decided stand against the abuse, without, however, going to the extent of the iconoclasts in the East.
In the course of time the Latin church went just as far if not further in practical image-worship as the Eastern church after the seventh oecumenical council. Gregory II. stoutly resisted the iconoclastic decrees of the Emperor Leo, and made capital out of the controversy for the independence of the papal throne. Gregory III. followed in the same steps, and Hadrian sanctioned the decree of the second council of Nicaea. Image-worship cannot be consistently opposed without surrendering the worship of saints.
The same theories and parties reappeared again in the age of the Reformation: the Roman as well as the Greek church adhered to image-worship with an occasional feeble protest against its abuses, and encouraged the development of fine arts, especially in Italy; the radical Reformers (Carlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox) renewed the iconoclastic theory and removed, in an orderly way, the pictures from the churches, as favoring a refined species of idolatry and hindering a spiritual worship; the Lutheran church (after the example set by Luther and his friend Lucas Kranach), retained the old pictures, or replaced them by new and better ones, but freed from former superstition. The modern progress of art, and the increased mechanical facilities for the multiplication of pictures have produced a change in Protestant countries. Sunday School books and other works for old and young abound in pictorial illustrations from Bible history for instruction; and the masterpieces of the great religious painters have become household ornaments, but will never be again objects of worship, which is due to God alone.
Notes.
The Council of Trent, Sess. XXV. held Dec. 1563, sanctions, together with the worship of saints and relics, also the “legitimate use of images” in the following terms: “Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshiped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.” The Profession of the Tridentine Faith teaches the same in art. IX. (See Schaff, Creeds, II. p. 201, 209).
The modern standards of the Eastern Church reiterate the decision of the seventh (Ecumenical Council. The Synod of Jerusalem, or the Confession of Dositheus, includes pictures of Christ, the mother of God, the saints and the holy angels who appeared to some of the patriarchs and prophets, also the symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit under the form of a dove, among the objects of worship (proskunou’men kai; timw’men kai; ajspazovmeqa). See Schaff, l.c. II. 436. The Longer Russian Catechism, in the exposition of the second commandment (Schaff, II. 527), thus speaks of this subject:
“What is an icon (εἰκών)?
“The word is Greek, and means an image or representation. In the Orthodox Church this name designates sacred representations of our Lord Jesus Christ, God incarnate, his immaculate Mother, and his saints.
“Is the use of holy icons agreeable to the second commandment?
It would then, and then only, be otherwise, if any
one were to make gods of them; but it is not in the least contrary to
this commandment to honor icons as sacred representations, and to use
them for the religious remembrance of God’s works and
of his saints; for when thus used icons are books, writen(sic) with the
forms of persons and things instead of letters. (See Greg. Magn. lib.
ix.
“What disposition of mind should we have when we reverence icons?
“While we look on them with our eyes, we should mentally look to God and to the saints, who are represented on them.”
§ 101. The Iconoclastic War, and the Synod of 754.
The history of the image-controversy embraces three periods: 1) The war upon images and the abolition of image-worship by the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 726–754. 2) The reaction in favor of image-worship, and its solemn sanction by the second Council of Nicaea, a.d. 754–787. 3) The renewed conflict of the two parties and the final triumph of image-worship, a.d. 842.
Image-worship had spread with the worship of saints, and become a general habit among the people in the Eastern church to such an extent that the Christian apologists had great difficulty to maintain their ground against the charge of idolatry constantly raised against them, not only by the Jews, but also by the followers of Islam, who could point to their rapid successes in support of their abhorrence of every species of idolatry. Churches and church-books, palaces and private houses, dresses and articles of furniture were adorned with religious pictures. They took among the artistic Greeks the place of the relics among the rude Western nations. Images were made to do service as sponsors in the name of the saints whom they represented. Fabulous stories of their wonder-working power were circulated and readily believed. Such excesses naturally called forth a reaction.
Leo III., called the Isaurian
(716–741), a sober and energetic, but illiterate and
despotic emperor, who by his military talents and successes had risen
from the condition of a peasant in the mountains of Isauria to the
throne of the Caesars, and delivered his subjects from the fear of the
Arabs by the new invention of the “Greek fire,” felt himself called, as
a second Josiah, to use his authority for the destruction of idolatry.
The Byzantine emperors did not scruple to interfere with the internal
affairs of the church, and to use their despotic power for the purpose.
Leo was influenced by a certain bishop Constantinus Not Theophilus, as Baronius and Schlosser erroneously call
him. See Hefele, III. 372. Theophanes mentions also a renegade Beser,
who had become a Mohammedan, and then probably returned to Christianity
and stood in high honor at the court of Leo. There is considerable confusion about the beginning of the
conflict and the precise order of events. See Hefele, III. 376
sqq.
These edicts roused the violent opposition of the
clergy, the monks, and the people, who saw in it an attack upon
religion itself. The servants who took down the picture from the palace
gate were killed by the mob. John of Damascus and Germanus, already
known to us as hymnists, were the chief opponents. The former was
beyond the reach of Leo, and wrote three eloquent orations, one before,
two after the forced resignation of Germanus, in defence of
image-worship, and exhausted the argument. See summaries of his λόγοιἀπολογητικοίin Schrceckh and
Neander. According to older historians (Baronius), the pope even
excommunicated the emperor, withdrew his Italian subjects from their
allegiance, and forbade the payment of tribute. But this is an error.
On the contrary, in a second letter, Gregory expressly disclaims the
power of interfering with the sovereign, while he denies in the
strongest terms the right of the emperor to interfere with the Church.
See the two letters of Gregory to Leo (between 726 to 731) in Mansi,
XII. 959 sqq., and the discussion in Hefele, III.
389-404.
Constantine V., surnamed Copronymos, The surname Κοπρώνυμος(from κόπρος, dung) was given him by his
enemies on account of his having polluted the baptismal gont in hid
infancy. Theophanes, Chronogr. ed. Bonn. I. 615 He was also
called Cabellinus, from his love of horses.
He called an iconoclastic council in
Constantinople in 754, which was to be the seventh oecumenical, but was
afterwards disowned as a pseudo-synod of heretics. It numbered three
hundred and thirty subservient bishops under the presidency of
Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus (the son of a former emperor), and
lasted six months (from Feb. 10th to Aug. 27th); but the patriarchs of
Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, being under Moslem rule, could not
attend, the see of Constantinople was vacant, and Pope Stephen III.
disregarded the imperial summons. The council, appealing to the second
commandment and other Scripture passages denouncing idolatry ( Mansi, XIII. 205-363; Gieseler, II. 16; Hefele, III.
410-418.
The emperor carried out the decree with great
rigor as far as his power extended. The sacred images were ruthlessly
destroyed and replaced by white-wash or pictures of trees, birds, and
animals. The bishops and clergy submitted; but the monks who
manufactured the pictures, denounced the emperor as a second Mohammed
and heresiarch, and all the iconoclasts as heretics, atheists and
blasphemers, and were subjected to imprisonment, flagellation,
mutilation, and all sorts of indignities, even death. The principal
martyrs of images during this reign (from 761–775) are
Petrus Kalabites (i.e. the inhabitant of a hut, kaluvbh), Johannes,
Abbot of Monagria, and Stephanus, Abbot of Auxentius, opposite
Constantinople (called “the new Stephanus,” to distinguish him from the
proto-martyr). The emperor made even an attempt to abolish the
convents. On these persecutions see, besides Theophanes, the Acta
Sanct. of the Bolland. for Oct., Tom. VIII. 124 sqq. (publ.
Brussels, 1853), and Hefele, III. 421-428.
§ 102. The Restoration of Image-Worship by the Seventh Oecumenical Council, 787.
Leo IV., called Chazarus (775–780), kept up the laws against images, though with more moderation. But his wife Irene of Athens distinguished for beauty, talent, ambition and intrigue, was at heart devoted to image-worship, and after his death and during the minority of her son Constantine VI. Porphyrogenitus, labored with shrewdness and perseverance for its restoration (780–802). At first she proclaimed toleration to both parties, which she afterwards denied to the iconoclasts. She raised the persecuted monks to the highest dignities, and her secretary, Tarasius, to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, with the consent of Pope Hadrian, who was willing to overlook the irregularity of the sudden election of a layman in prospect of his services to orthodoxy. She removed the iconoclastic imperial guard, and replaced it by one friendly to her views.
But the crowning measure was an oecumenical council, which alone could set aside the authority of the iconoclastic council of 754. Her first attempt to hold such a council at Constantinople in 786 completely failed. The second attempt, owing to more careful preparations, succeeded.
Irene convened the seventh oecumenical council in
the year 787, at Nicaea, which was less liable to iconoclastic
disturbances than Constantinople, yet within easy reach of the court,
and famous as the seat of the first and weightiest oecumenical council.
It was attended by about three hundred and fifty bishops, The accounts vary between 330 and 367. The Acts are signed
by 308 bishops and episcopal representatives. Nicephorus, the almost
contemporaneous patriarch of Constantinople, in a letter to Leo III.,
mentions only 150. See Hefele, III. 460. Theodore of the Studium, himself a zealous advocate of
image-worship, exposes this trick, and intimates that the council was
not strictly oecumenical, although he sometimes gives it that name. The
question connected with these two irresponsible monks is discussed with
his usual minuteness and prolixity by Walch, X. 551-558. See also
Neander, III. 228, and Hefele, III. 459.
The Nicene Council nullified the decrees of the
iconoclastic Synod of Constantinople, and solemnly sanctioned a limited
worship (proskynesis) of images. The definition (ὂρος) sanctions the ἀσπασμὸς
καὶ
τιμητικὴ
προσκύνησις, osculum (or salutatio)
et honoraria adoratio, but not ἀληθινὴ
λατρεία ἡ
πρέπει
μόνη τῇ θείᾳ φύσει, vera latria, quae solam divinam naturam
decet. Mansi, XIII. 378 sq. The term Gr. ajpasmov” embraces
salutation and kiss, the προσκύνησις, bowing the knee, and other
demonstrations of reverence, see p. 450.
Under images were understood the sign of the cross, and pictures of Christ, of the Virgin Mary, of angels and saints. They may be drawn in color or composed of Mosaic or formed of other suitable materials, and placed in churches, in houses, and in the street, or made on walls and tables, sacred vessels and vestments. Homage may be paid to them by kissing, bowing, strewing of incense, burning of lights, saying prayers before them; such honor to be intended for the living objects in heaven which the images represented. The Gospel book and the relics of martyrs were also mentioned among the objects of veneration.
The decree was fortified by a few Scripture
passages about the Cherubim ( Walch (X. 572) says of these proofs from tradition:
“Die
untergeschobenen Schriften, die in der Hauptsache nichts entscheidenden
Stellen und die mit grosser Unwissenheit verdrehten
Aussprüche sind so haeufig, dass man sich beides
über die Unwissenheit und Unverschämtheit nicht
genug verwundern kann, welche in diesen Sammlungen sichtbar
sind.” Even
moderate Roman Catholic historians, as Alexander Natalia and Fleury,
admit quietly the errors in some patristic
quotations. See the acts of the council in the twelfth and thirteenth
vols. of Mansi, and a summary in Hefele, III. 460-482. On the different
texts and defective Latin versions, see Walch, X. 420-422, and Hefele,
III. 486. Gibbon calls the acts “a curious monument of superstition and
ignorance, of falsehood and folly.” This is too severe, but not without
some foundation. The personal character of Irene cuts a deep shadow
over the Council, and would have been condemned even by the Byzantine
historians, if her devotion to images had not so blinded them and Roman
historians, like Baronius and Maimbourg, that they excuse her darkest
crimes and overwhelm her with praise.
The decrees of the Synod were publicly proclaimed in an eighth session at Constantinople in the presence of Irene and her son, and, signed by them; whereupon the bishops, with the people and soldiers, shouted in the usual form: “Long live the Orthodox queen-regent.” The empress sent the bishops home with rich presents.
The second Council of Nicaea stands far below the first in moral dignity and doctrinal importance, and occupies the lowest grade among the seven oecumenical synods; but it determined the character of worship in the oriental church for all time to come, and herein lies its significance. Its decision is binding also upon the Roman church, which took part in it by two papal legates, and defended it by a letter of Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne in answer to the Libri Carolini. Protestant churches disregard the council because they condemn image-worship as a refined form of idolatry and as a fruitful source of superstition; and this theory is supported by the plain sense of the second commandment, the views of the primitive Christians, and, negatively, by the superstitions which have accompanied the history of image-worship down to the miracle-working Madonnas of the nineteenth century. At the same time it may be readily conceded that the decree of Nicaea has furnished aid and comfort to a low and crude order of piety which needs visible supports, and has stimulated the development of Christian art. Iconoclasm would have killed it. It is, however, a remarkable fact that the Catholic Raphael and Michael Angelo, and the Protestant Lucas Kranach and Albrecht Dürer, were contemporaries of the Reformers, and that the art of painting reached its highest perfection at the period when image-worship for a great part of Christendom was superseded by the spiritual worship of God alone.
A few months after the Nicene Council, Irene
dissolved the betrothal of her son, the Emperor Constantine, to
Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne, which she herself had brought
about, and forced him to marry an Armenian lady whom he afterward cast
off and sent to a convent. Charlemagne afterwards offered Irene his hand with a view
to unite the Eastern and Western empires, and she accepted the offer;
but her prime-minister, Aëtius, who wished to raise his own
brother, Leo, to the throne, prevented the marriage. The memory of Irene is celebrated by the Greeks on the 15th
of August. Her patriarch, Tarasius (d. 806), is canonized in the Roman
as well as the Greek Church.
§ 103. Iconoclastic Reaction, and Final Triumph of Image-Worship, a.d. 842.
Walch, X. 592–828. Hefele, IV. 1–6; 38–47; 104–109.
During the five reigns which succeeded that of Irene,
a period of thirty-eight years, the image-war was continued with
varying fortunes. The soldiers were largely iconoclastic, the monks and
the people in favor of image-worship. Among these Theodore of the
Studium was distinguished by his fearless advocacy and cruel sufferings
under Leo V., the Armenian (813–820), who was slain at
the foot of the altar. Theophilus (829–842) was the
last and the most cruel of the iconoclastic emperors. He persecuted the
monks by imprisonment, corporal punishment, and mutilation. Hefele, IV. 105, says that under this reign the famous
poets, Theophanes and his brother, Theodore of the Studium, were
punished with two hundred lashes and the branding of Greek mock-verses
on their forehead, whence they received the name “the Marked”
(γραπτοί). But, according to the Bollandists,
Theophanes died in 820, and Hefele himself, III. 370, puts his death in
818, although in vol. IV. 108 be reports that Theophanes
γράπτοςwas made bishop of Smyrna by Theodora,
842. See on this conflict in chronology above, p.
407.
But his widow, Theodora, a second Irene, without
her vices, The tongue of slander, however, raised the story of her
criminal intimacy with the patriarch Methodius, whom she had appointed.
The court instituted an investigation during which the patriarch by
indecent exposure furnished the proof of the physical impossibility of
sexual sin on his part; whereupon the accuser confessed that she had
been bribed by his iconoclastic predecessor. Hefele, IV.
109.
On the 19th of February, 842, the images were
again introduced into the churches of Constantinople. It was the first
celebration of the “Sunday of Orthodoxy,” ἡκυριακὴτῆςὀρθοδοξίας. See the description of Walch (X. 800-808) from the
Byzantine historians and from Allacci, and King (on the Russian
church).
§ 104. The Caroline Books and the Frankish Church on Image-Worship.
I. Libri Carolini, first ed. by Elias Philyra (i.e., Jean du Tillet, or Tilius, who was suspected of Calvinism, but afterwards became bishop of Meaux), from a French (Paris) MS., Paris, 1549; then by Melchior Goldast in his collection of imperial decrees on the image-controversy, Francof., 1608 (67 sqq.), and in the first vol. of his Collection of Constitutiones imperiales, with the addition of the last ch. (lib. IV., c. 29), which was omitted by Tilius; best ed. by Ch. A. Heumann, Hanover, 1731, under the title: Augusta Concilii Nicaeni II. Censura, h. e., Caroli Magni de impio imaginum cultu libri IV., with prolegomena and notes. The ed. of Abbé Migne, in his “Patrol. Lat.,” Tom. 98, f. 990–1248 (in vol. II. of Opera Caroli M.), is a reprint of the ed. of Tilius, and inferior to Heumann’s ed. (“Es ist zu bedauern,” says Hefele, III. 696, “dass Migne, statt Besseres, entschieden Geringeres geboten hat, als man bisher schon besass”.)
II. Walch devotes the greater part of the eleventh vol. to the history of image-worship in the Frankish Church from Pepin to Louis the Pious. Neander, III. 233–243; Gieseler, II. 66–73; Hefele, III 694–716; Hergenröther, I. 553–557. Floss: De suspecta librorum Carolinorum fide. Bonn, 1860. Reifferscheid: Narratio de Vaticano librorum Carolinorum Codice. Breslau, 1873.
The church of Rome, under the lead of the popes, accepted and supported the seventh oecumenical council, and ultimately even went further than the Eastern church in allowing the worship of graven as well as painted images. But the church in the empire of Charlemagne, who was not on good terms with the Empress Irene, took a position between image-worship and iconoclasm.
The question of images was first discussed in
France under Pepin in a synod at Gentilly near Paris, 767, but we do
not know with what result. See Walch, XI. 7-36; Hefele, III. 461-463. The sources are
silent. Walch carefully gives the different conjectures of Baronius,
Pagi, Daillé, Natalis, Alexander, Maimburg, Fleury, Sirmond,
Spanheim, Basnage, Semler. Nothing new has been added since. But the
preceding iconoclastic zeal of Bishop Serenus of Marseilles, and the
succeeding position of Charlemagne and the Frankish church, rather
favor the inference of Sirmond and Spanheim, that the synod rejected
the worship of images.
Charlemagne, with the aid of his chaplains,
especially Alcuin, prepared and published, three years after the Nicene
Council, an important work on image-worship under the title Quatuor
Libri Carolini (790). Alcuin’s share in the composition appears
from the similarity of thoughts in his Commentary on John, and the old
English tradition that he wrote a book against the Council of Nicaea.
See Walch, XI. 65 sqq.; Hefele, III. 697. He calls it posterior tempore, non tamen posterior
crimine, eloquentia, sensuque carens, synodus ineptissima, etc. He
distrusted a Council in which the Church of his dominions was not
represented. He also objected to a woman assuming the office of teacher
in the church, as being contrary to the lex divina and lex
naturae (III. 13, ed. Migne, fol. 1136). He had reason to be angry
with Irene for dissolving the betrothal of her son with his
daughter.
The author of the Caroline books, however, falls into the same inconsistency as the Eastern iconoclasts, by making an exception in favor of the sign of the cross and the relics of saints. The cross is called a banner which puts the enemy to flight, and the honoring of the relics is declared to be a great means of promoting piety, since the saints reign with Christ in heaven, and their bones will be raised to glory; while images are made by men’s hands and return to dust.
A Synod in Frankfort, a.d. 794, the most important
held during the reign of Charlemagne, and representing the churches of
France and Germany, in the presence of two papal legates (Theophylactus
and Stephanus), endorsed the doctrine of the Libri Carolini,
unanimously condemned the worship of images in any form, and rejected
the seventh oecumenical council. The Synod is often called universalis, and condemned
Adoptionism (see Hefele, III. 678 sqq. ). The decision against images
see in Mansi, xiii. 909. The chief passage is: “Sanctissimi Patres
nostri omnimodis et adorationem et servitutem eis [sc. imaginibus
Sanctorum] renuentes contemserunt atque, consentientes
condemnaverunt.” Einhard made the following entry in his Annals
ad a.d.794 (in
Pertz, Monum. I. 181, and Gieseler II. 67): ”Synodus etiam, quae
ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli [where the Nicene Synod was
closed] sub Herena [Irene,]et Constantino filio ejus
congregata, et ab ipsis non solum septima, verum etiam universalis est
appellata, ut nec septima nec universalis haberetur dicereturve, quasi
supervacua in totum ab omnibus [the bishops assembled at Frankfort]
abdicata est.” Baronius, Bellarmin, and even Hefele (III. 689),
charge this Synod with misrepresenting the Council of Nicaea, which
sanctioned the worship (in a wider sense), but not the adoration, of
images. But the Latin version, which the pope sent to Charlemagne,
rendered προσκύνησιςuniformly by adoratio, and
Anastasius, the papal librarian, did the same in his improved
translation, thus giving double sanction to the
confusion. This rests partly on the probable share which the
Anglo-Saxon Alcuin had in the composition of the Caroline Books, partly
on the testimony of Simeon of Durham (about 1100). See
Twysden’s Hist. Angl. Scriptores decem I, III;
Mon. Hist. Brit., p. 667; Wilkin’s Conc. Magn.
Brit., I. 73; Gieseler, II. 67, note 6, and
Hardwick’s Church Hist. of the Middle Age, p.
78, note 3.
Charlemagne sent a copy of his book, or more
probably an extract from it (85 Capitula or Capitulare de Imaginibus)
through Angilbert, his son-in-law, to his friend Pope Hadrian, who in a
long answer tried to defend the Eastern orthodoxy of Nicaea with due
respect for his Western protector, but failed to satisfy the Frankish
church, and died soon afterwards (Dec. 25, 795). There is a difference of opinion whether Charlemagne sent
to the pope his whole book, or only an abridgement, and whether he sent
Angilbert before or after the Frankfort synod to Rome. Hefele (III.
713) decides that the Capitula (85) were an extract of the
Libri Carolini (121 chs.), and that Angilbert was twice in
Rome, a.d.792 and
794. Hadrian’s answer must have been written at all
events before Dec. 25, 795. It is printed in Mansi, XIII. 759-810, and
Migne, Opera Car. M. II. fol. 1247-1292. It is full of glaring
blunders. Bishop Hefele (p. 716) divides the responsibility between the
(fallible) pope, the emperor, and the copyists.
A Synod of Paris, held under the reign of
Charlemagne’s son and successor, Louis the Pious, in
the year 825, renewed the protest of the Frankfort Synod against
image-worship and the authority of the second council of Nicaea, in
reply to an embassy of the Emperor Michael Balbus, and added a slight
rebuke to the pope. Mansi, XIV. 415 sqq.; Walch, XI. 95 sqq.; Gieseler, II. 68;
Hefele, IV. 41 sqq. (second ed. 1879). Walch says (p. 98) that the
Roman church played comedy with the acts of this Synod. Mansi was the
first to publish them, but he did it with an excuse, and added as
indispensable the refutation of Bellarmin in the appendix to his tract
De Cultu Imaginum. Hefele and Hergenröther represent
this synod as being guilty of the same injustice to the Nicene Council
as the Synod of Frankfort; but this does not alter the
fact.
Notes.
The Caroline Books, if not written by Charlemagne, are at all events issued in his name; for the author repeatedly calls Pepin his father, and speaks of having undertaken the work with the consent of the priests in his dominion (conniventia sacerdotum in regno a Deo nobis concesso). The book is first mentioned by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims in the ninth century as directed against the pseudo-Synodus Graecorum (the second Nicene Council), and he quotes a passage from a copy which he saw in the royal palace. The second mention and quotation was made by the papal librarian Augustin Steuchus (d. 1550) from a very old copy in the Bibliotheca Palatina. As soon as it appeared in print, Flavius and other Protestant polemics used it against Rome. Baronius, Bellarmin, and other Romanists denied the genuineness, and ascribed the book to certain heretics in the age of Charlemagne, who sent it to Rome to be condemned; some declared it even a fabrication of the radical reformer Carlstadt! But Sirmond and Natalis Alexander convincingly proved the genuineness. More recently Dr. Floss (R.C.) of Bonn, revived the doubts (1860), but they are permanently removed since Professor Reifferscheid (1866) discovered a new MS. from the tenth century in the Vatican library which differs from the one of Steuchus, and was probably made in the Cistercian Convent at Marienfeld in Westphalia. “Therefore,” writes Bishop Hefele in 1877 (III. 698), “the genuineness of the Libri Carolini is hereafter no longer to be questioned (nicht mehr zu beanstanden).”
§ 105. Evangelical Reformers. Agobardus of Lyons, and Claudius of Turin.
I. Agobardus: Contra eorum superstitionem qui picturis et imaginibus SS. adorationis obsequium deferendum putant. Opera ed. Baluzius Par. 1666, 2 vols., and Migne, “Patrol. Lat.” vol. 104, fol. 29–351. Histoire litter. de la France, IV. 567 sqq. C. B. Hundeshagen: De Agobardi vita et scriptis. Pars I. Giessae 1831; and his article in Herzog2 I. 212 sq. Bähr: Gesch. der röm. Lit. in Karoliny. Zeitalter, p. 383–393. Bluegel: De Agobardi archiep. Lugd. vita et scriptis. Hal. 1865. Simson: Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig dem Frommen. Leipz. 1874 and ’76. C. Deedes in Smith and Wace, I. 63–64. Lichtenberger, I. 119.
II. Claudius: Opera in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.” vol. 104, fol. 609–927. Commentaries on Kings, Gal., Ephes., etc., Eulogium Augustini, and Apologeticum. Some of his works are still unpublished. Rudelbach: Claudii Tur. Ep. ineditorum operum specimina, praemissa de ejus doctrina scriptisque dissert. Havniae 1824. C. Schmidt: Claudius v. Turin in Illgen’s “Zeitschrift f. die Hist. Theol.” 1843. II. 39; and his art. in Herzog2, III. 243–245.
III. Neander, III. 428–439 (very full and discriminating on Claudius); Gieseler, II. 69–73 (with judicious extracts); Reuter: Geschichte der Aufklärung im Mittelalter, vol. I. (Berlin 1875), 16–20 and 24–41.
The opposition to image-worship and other superstitious practices continued in the Frankish church during the ninth century.
Two eminent bishops took the lead in the advocacy of a more spiritual and evangelical type of religion. In this they differed from the rationalistic and destructive iconoclasts of the East. They were influenced by the writings of Paul and Augustin, those inspirers of all evangelical movements in church history; with this difference, however, that Paul stands high above parties and schools, and that Augustin, with all his anti-Pelagian principles, was a strong advocate of the Catholic theory of the church and church-order.
Agobard (in Lyonese dialect Agobaud or Aguebaud),
a native of Spain, but of Gallic parents, and archbishop of Lyons
(816–841), figures prominently in the political and
ecclesiastical history of France during the reign of Louis the Pious.
He is known to us already as an opponent of the ordeal, the judicial
duel and other heathen customs. See § 79. Reuter (I. 24) calls him “the clearest head of the ninth
century,” and “the systematizer of the Aufklärung“
(i.e. of Rationalism in the middle age). De Imaginibus Sanctorum, in Migne, vol. 104, fol.
199-228. Cap. 35 (in Migne, fol. 227): ”Flectamus genu in nomine
solius Jesu, quod est super omne nomen; ne si alteri hunc honorem
tribuimus, alieni judicemur a Deo, et dimittamur secundum cordis nostri
ire in adinventionibus nostris.” Gieseler directs attention to the
verbal agreement between Agobart and Claudius in several
sentences.
Agobard was not disturbed in his position, and
even honored as a saint in Lyons after his death, though his saintship
is disputed. See Acta SS. Jun. II. 748, and the Elogia
de S. Agobardo in Migne, fol. 13-16. The Bollandists honor him with
a place in their work, because Masson, the first editor, allows him the
title saint, and because he is commonly called St. Aguebatud in the
church of Lyons, and is included in the local martyrologies. A rite of
nine lessons is assigned to him in the Breviarium
Lugdunense.
Claudius, bishop of Turin
(814–839), was a native of Spain, but spent three
years as chaplain at the court of Louis the Pious and was sent by him
to the diocese of Turin. He wrote practical commentaries on nearly all
the books of the Bible, at the request of the emperor, for the
education of the clergy. They were mostly extracted from the writings
of Augustin, Jerome, and other Latin fathers. Only fragments remain. He
was a great admirer of Augustin, but destitute of his wisdom and
moderation. In his comments on Paul’s Epistles (in
Migne, 104 f. 927 sq. ), he eulogizes Augustin as ”amantissimus
Domini sanctissimus Augustinus. calamus Trinitatis lingua Spiritus
Sancti, terrenus homo, sed coelestis angelus, in quaestionibus
solvendis acutus, in revincendis haereticis circumspectus, in
explicandis Scripturis canonicis cautus.” In the same place, he
says of Paul that his epistles are wholly given to destroy
man’s merits and to exalt God’s grace
(”ut merita hominum tollat, unde maxime nunc monachi gloriantur, et
gratiam Dei commendet“). On his Augustinianism, see the judicious
remarks of Neander. Reuter (I. 20) calls him both a biblical reformer
and a critical rationalist.
He found the Italian churches full of pictures and picture-worshipers. He was told that the people did not mean to worship the images, but the saints. He replied that the heathen on the same ground defend the worship of their idols, and may become Christians by merely changing the name. He traced image-worship and saint-worship to a Pelagian tendency, and met it with the Augustinian view of the sovereignty of divine grace. Paul, he says, overthrows human merits, in which the monks now most glory, and exalts the grace of God. We are saved by grace, not by works. We must worship the Creator, not the creature. “Whoever seeks from any creature in heaven or on earth the salvation which he should seek from God alone, is an idolater.” The departed saints themselves do not wish to be worshipped by us, and cannot help us. While we live, we may aid each other by prayers, but not after death. He attacked also the superstitious use of the sign of the cross, going beyond Charlemagne and Agobard. He met the defence by carrying it to absurd conclusions. If we worship the cross, he says, because Christ suffered on it, we might also worship every virgin because he was born of a virgin, every manger because he was laid in a manger, every ship because he taught from a ship, yea, every ass because he rode on an ass into Jerusalem. We should bear the cross, not adore it. He banished the pictures, crosses and crucifixes from the churches, as the only way to kill superstition. He also strongly opposed the pilgrimages. He had no appreciation of religious symbolism, and went in his Puritanic zeal to a fanatical extreme.
Claudius was not disturbed in his seat; but, as he
says himself, he found no sympathy with the people, and became “an
object of scorn to his neighbors,” who pointed at him as “a frightful
spectre.” He was censured by Pope Paschalis I.
(817–824), and opposed by his old friend, the Abbot
Theodemir of the diocese of Nismes, to whom he had dedicated his lost
commentary on Leviticus (823), by Dungal (of Scotland or Ireland, about
827), and by Bishop Jonas of Orleans (840), who unjustly charged him
with the Adoptionist and even the Arian heresy. Some writers have
endeavored, without proof, to trace a connection between him and the
Waldenses in Piedmont, who are of much later date. C. Schmidt in Herzog2III. 245
says of this view: ”Deise, sehr spaet, in dogmatischem Interesse aufgenommene
Ansicht, die sich bei Léger und andern ja selbst noch bei
Hahn findet, hat keinen historischen Grund und ist von allen
gründlichen Kennern der Waldensergeshichte längst
aufgegeben. Dabei soll nicht geleugnet werden, dass die Tendenzen des
Claudius sich noch eine zeitlang in Italien erhalten haben; es ist
soeben bemerkt worden, dass, nach dem Zeugniss des Jonas von
Orléans, man um 840 versuchte, sie von neuen zu verbreiten.
Dass sie sich aber bis zum Auftreten des Peter Waldus und speciell in
den piemontesischen Thälern fortgepflanzt, davon ist nicht
die geringste Spur vorhanden.”
Jonas of Orleans, Hincmar of Rheims, and Wallafrid Strabo still maintained substantially the moderate attitude of the Caroline books between the extremes of iconoclasm and image-worship. But the all-powerful influence of the popes, the sensuous tendency and credulity of the age, the ignorance of the clergy, and the grosser ignorance of the people combined to secure the ultimate triumph of image-worship even in France. The rising sun of the Carolingian age was obscured by the darkness of the tenth century.
CHAPTER XI.
DOCTRINAL CONTROVERSIES.
§ 106. General Survey.
Our period is far behind the preceding patristic and the succeeding scholastic in doctrinal importance, but it mediates between them by carrying the ideas of the fathers over to the acute analysis of the schoolmen, and marks a progress in the development of the Catholic system. It was agitated by seven theological controversies of considerable interest.
1. The controversy about the single or double Procession of the Holy Spirit. This belongs to the doctrine of the Trinity and was not settled, but divides to this day the Greek and Latin churches.
2. The Monotheletic controversy is a continuation of the Eutychian and Monophysitic controversies of the preceding period. It ended with the condemnation of Monotheletism and an addition to the Chalcedonian Christology, namely, the doctrine that Christ has two wills as well as two natures.
3. The Adoptionist controversy is a continuation of the Nestorian. Adoptionism was condemned as inconsistent with the personal union of the two natures in Christ.
4 and 5. Two Eucharistic controversies resulted in the general prevalence of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
6. The Predestinarian controversy between Gottschalk and Hincmar tended to weaken the influence of the Augustinian system, and to promote semi-Pelagian views and practices.
7. The Image-controversy belongs to the history of
worship rather than theology, and has been discussed in the preceding
chapter. See ch. X. §§
100-104.
The first, second, and seventh controversies affected the East and the West; the Adoptionist, the two Eucharistic, and the Predestinarian controversies were exclusively carried on in the West, and ignored in the East.
§ 107. The Controversy on the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
See the Lit. in § 67 p. 304 sq. The arguments for both sides of the question were fully discussed in the Union Synod of Ferrara-Florence, 1438–’39; see Hefele: Conciliengesch. VII. P. II. p. 683 sqq.; 706 sqq.; 712 sqq.
The Filioque-controversy relates to the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, and is a continuation of the trinitarian controversies of the Nicene age. It marks the chief and almost the only important dogmatic difference between the Greek and Latin churches. It belongs to metaphysical theology, and has far less practical value than the regenerating and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men. But it figures very largely in history, and has occasioned, deepened, and perpetuated the greatest schism in Christendom. The single word Filioque keeps the oldest, largest, and most nearly related churches divided since the ninth century, and still forbids a reunion. The Eastern church regards the doctrine of the single procession as the corner-stone of orthodoxy, and the doctrine of the double procession as the mother of all heresies. She has held most tenaciously to her view since the fourth century, and is not likely ever to give it up. Nor can the Roman church change her doctrine of the double procession without sacrificing the principle of infallibility.
The Protestant Confessions agree with the Latin
dogma, while on the much more vital question of the papacy they agree
with the Eastern church, though from a different point of view. The
church of England has introduced the double procession of the Spirit
even into her litany. “O God the Holy Ghost, who proceedeth from the Father and
the Son, have mercy upon us miserable sinners.” No orthodox Greek or
Russian Christian could join an Anglican in this prayer without treason
to his church. It is to be understood, however, that some of the
leading divines of the church of England condemn the insertion of the
Filioque in the Creed. Dr. Neale (Introduction to the History
of the Holy Eastern Church, vol. II. p. 1168) concludes that this
insertion “in the inviolable Creed was an act utterly unjustifiable,
and throws on the Roman church the chief guilt in the horrible schism
of 1054. It was done in the teeth of the veto passed in the sixth
session of the Council of Ephesus, in the fifth of Chalcedon, in the
sixth collation of the second of Constantinople, and in the seventh of
the third of Constantinople. It was done against the express command of
a most holy Pope, himself a believer in the double Procession, who is
now with God. No true union—experience has shown
it—can take place—between the
churches till the Filioque be omitted from the Creed, even if a
truly oecumenical Synod should afterwards proclaim the truth of the
doctrine.” Bishop Pearson was of the same opinion as to the insertion,
but approved of the Latin doctrine. He says (in his Exposition of
the Creed, Art. VIII): “Now although the addition of the words to
the formal Creed without the consent, and against the protestation of
the Oriental Church, be not justifiable; yet that which was added, is
nevertheless certainly a truth, and may be so used in that Creed by
them who believe the same to be a truth; so long as they pretend it not
to be a definition of that Council, but an addition or explication
inserted, and condemn not those who, out of a greater respect to such
synodical determinations, will admit of no such insertion, nor speak
any other language than the Scriptures and their fathers
spake.”
Let us first glance at the external history of the controversy.
1. The New Testament. The exegetical
starting-point and foundation of the doctrine of the procession of the
Holy Spirit is the word of our Lord in the farewell address to his
disciples: When the Paraclete (the Advocate) is come, whom I will send
unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth (or,
goeth forth) from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.”
On this passage the Nicene fathers based their
doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit, ἐκπόρευσις, a patristic noun, derived from the biblical and
classical verb ἐκπορεύομαι, the Latin processio is from
procedere. Called by the Greeks ἰδιονor ἰδιότηςby the Latins proprietas
personalis or character hypostaticus. See vol. III.
§ 130. ἀγεννησία, paternitas. γεννησία, γέννησις, generation
filiatio.
Our Lord says neither that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father alone, nor that he proceeds from the Father
and the Son. But in several other passages of the same farewell
addresses he speaks of the Spirit as being sent by the Father and the
Son, and promises this as a future event which was to take place after
his departure, and which actually did take place on the day of
Pentecost and ever since.
On these passages is based the doctrine of the
mission of the Spirit. ἐκπεμψις, missio
Modern exegetes, who adhere closely to the
grammatical sense, and are not governed by dogmatic systems, incline
mostly to the view that no metaphysical distinction is intended in
those passages, and that the procession of the Spirit from the Father,
and the mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son, refer alike to
the same historic event and soteriological operation, namely, the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and his
continued work in the church and in the heart of believers. The Spirit
“proceeds” when he “is sent” on his divine mission to glorify the Son
and to apply the redemption to men. The Saviour speaks of the office
and work of the Spirit rather than of his being and essence.
Nevertheless there is a difference which must not be overlooked. In the
procession, the Spirit is active: in the mission, he is passive; the
procession is spoken of in the present tense (ejkporeuvetai) as a
present act, the mission in the future tense (pevmyw) as a future act,
so that the former seems to belong to the eternal Trinity of essence,
the latter to the historical or economical Trinity of revelation. Now
God indeed reveals himself as he actually is, and we may therefore
reason back from the divine office of the Spirit to his divine nature,
and from his temporal mission to his eternal relation. Yet it may be
questioned whether such inference justifies the doctrine of a double
procession in the absence of any express Scripture warrant. On the exegetical question, see the commentaries on
2. The Nicene Creed, in its original form of 325,
closes abruptly with the article: “And [we believe] into the Holy
Spirit. Καὶ[πιστεύομεν] εἰς τὸ
ἅγιον
πνεῦμα. τὸ
κύριον [καὶ] τὸ
ζωοποιὸν,
τὸ ἐκ τοῦ
πατρὸς·
ἐκπορευόμενον,
κ.τ.λ. See my Creeds of Christendom, vol. II, 57,
60. The chief passages of Augustin on the double procession are
quoted in vol. III. § 131. See on his whole doctrine of the
Trinity, Theod. Gangauf, Des heil. Augustinus’ speculative
Lehre von Gott dem dreieinigen(Augsb. 1866), and Langen, Die trinitarische
Lehrdifferenz,
etc. (Bonn, 1876). On the teaching of Leo. I. comp.
Perthel, Leo der Grosse, p. 138 sqq.
The Latin church had no right to alter an oecumenical creed without the knowledge and consent of the Greek church which had made it; for in the oecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople the Western church was scarcely represented, at Nicaea only by one bishop (Hosius of Spain), in the second not at all; and in the Council of Chalcedon the delegates of Pope Leo I. fully agreed to the enlarged Greek form of the Nicene symbol, yet without the Filioque, which was then not thought of, although the doctrine of the double procession was already current in the West. A departure from this common symbolical standard of the most weighty oecumenical councils by a new addition, without consent of the other party, opened the door to endless disputes.
The Enlargement of the Nicene Creed.
The third national Synod of Toledo in Spain, a.d.
589, held after the conversion of King Reccared to the Catholic faith,
in its zeal for the deity of Christ against the Arian heresy which
lingered longest in that country, and without intending the least
disrespect to the Eastern church, first inserted the clause Filioque in
the Latin version of the Nicene Creed. Mansi, IX. 981: ”Credimus et in Spiritum S., dominum et
vivificatorem, ex Patre et Filioprocedentem,” etc. On the third Synodus Toletana see Hefele, III. 48
sqq. The fourth Council of Toledo (633) likewise repeated the
Creed with the Filioque, see Hefele III. 79. All the other
Councils of Toledo (a.d.638, 646,
655, 675, 681, 683, 684, 688, 694) begin with a confession of faith,
several with the unaltered Nicene creed, others with enlarged
forms.
From Spain the clause passed into the Frankish
church. It was discussed at the Synod of Gentilly near Paris in 767,
but we do not know with what result. Hefele, III. 432. At a synod in Forumjulii (Friaul), at that time the seat of
the bishops of Aquileja. Hefele, III. 718 sq. Alcuin wrote a book De Processione S. Spiritus
(Opera, ed. Migne, II. 63), and Theodulf another, at the request
of Charlemagne (Migne, Tom. 105). Ver. 23: ”Spiritus Sanctus a Patre
EtFilio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus: sed
procedens.” For
this reason the Greek church never adopted the Athanasian Creed. Most
Greek copies read only ἀποτοῦπατρός, and omit et
Filio.” It is uncertain whether the Synod also sanctioned the
insertion of the Filioque in the creed. Pagi denies,
Burterim, Hefele (III. 751), and Hergenröther (I. 698)
affirm it. The Synod of Arles (813) likewise professed the double
procession, Hefele, III. 757. Mansi, XIV. 18; Baronius, ad arm. 809; Gieseler, II. 75
(Am. ed.); Hefele, III. 754; Hergenröther, Photius,
I. 699 sqq. The fact of the silver tablets weighing nearly one hundred
pounds, is related by Anastasius (in Vita Leonis III.), and by
Photius (Epist. ad Patriarch. Aquilej.), and often appealed to
by the Greek controversialists. The imperial commissioners urged that
the belief in the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son was
necessary for salvation; but the pope replied that other things were
necessary for salvation, and yet not mentioned in the creed. He also
advised to omit the signing of the clause in the imperial chapel; all
other churches in France would follow the example of omission, and thus
the offence given would be most easily removed. In his defence of the second council of Nicaea against the
Libri Carolini, which had charged Tarasius with error. See
Migne’s Opera Caroli M., II.
1249. Pope John VIII., in a letter to Photius, condemned the
Filioque; but this letter is disputed, and declared by Roman
Catholic historians to be a Greek fabrication. See above, p. 315, and
Hefele, IV. 482. It is not quite certain when the Roman church adopted
the Filioque in her editions of the Nicene Creed. Some date it
from Pope Nicolas, others from Pope Christophorus (903), still others
from Sergius III. (904-911), but most writers from Benedict VIII.
(1014-1015). See Hergenröther, Photius, I.
706.
The coincidence of the triumph of the Filioque in the West with the founding of the new Roman Empire is significant; for this empire emancipated the pope from the Byzantine rule.
The Greek church, however, took little or no
notice of this innovation till about one hundred and fifty years later,
when Photius, the learned patriarch of Constantinople, brought it out
in its full bearing and force in his controversy with Nicolas I., the
pope of old Rome. In his Encyclical letter, 867, and in his Liber de
Spiritus Sancti Mystagogia, written after 885, first edited by
Hergenröther, Ratisbon, 1857. Also in PhotiiOpera, ed. Migne (Par., 1861), Tom. II.
722-742 and 279-391. Comp. Hergenröther’s
Phoitius, vol. III., p. 154 sqq. The title μυσταγωγία(=ἱερολογία, θεολογία, sacra doctrina) promises a
treatise on the whole doctrine of the third person of the Trinity, but
it confines itself to the controverted doctrine of the procession. The
book, says Hergenröther (III. 157), shows “great dialectical
dexterity, rare acumen, and a multitude of various sophisms, and has
been extensively copied by later champions of the schism.” On the
controversy between Photius and Nicolas, see § 70 this
vol. Liber adv. Graecos, in Acheri Spileg., and in
Migne, ”Patrol. Lat.,” vol. 121, fol. 685-762.
Insignificant. Ratamni contra Graecorum opposita, Romanam ecclesiam
infamantia, libri IV., in Acherii Spicil. , and in Migne,
l.c., fol. 225-346. This book is much more important than that
of Aeneas of Paris. See an extract in
Hergenröther’s Photius, I. 675
sqq. De Processione Spiritus Sancti. He went in the name of Pope Paschalis II. to
Constantinople, to defend the Latin doctrine before the
court. In his Dialogues with the Greeks when he was ambassador of
Emperor Lothaire II. at the court of Constantinople. Contra errores Graecorum, and in his Summa
Theologiae. Photius, I. p. 684-711.
§ 108. The Arguments for and against the Filioque.
We proceed to the statement of the controverted doctrines and the chief arguments.
I. The Greek and Latin churches agree in holding-
(1) The personality and deity of the third Person of the holy Trinity.
(2) The eternal procession (ἐκπόρευσις, προχεσσιο) of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity.
(3) The temporal mission (πέμψις, μισσιο) of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, beginning with the day of Pentecost, and continued ever since in the church.
II. They differ on the source of the eternal procession of the Spirit, whether it be the Father alone, or the Father and the Son. The Greeks make the Son and the Spirit equally dependent on the Father, as the one and only source of the Godhead; the Latins teach an absolute co-ordination of the three Persons of the Trinity as to essence, but after all admit a certain kind of subordination as to dignity and office, namely, a subordination of the Son to the Father, and of the Spirit to both. The Greeks approach the Latins by the admission that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (this was the doctrine of Cyril of Alexandria and John of Damascus); the Latins approach the Greeks by the admission that the Spirit proceeds chiefly (principaliter) from the Father (Augustin). But little or nothing is gained by this compromise. The real question is, whether the Father is the only source of the Deity, and whether the Son and the Spirit are co-ordinate or subordinate in their dependence on the Father.
1. The Greek doctrine in its present shape. The
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (ἐκ
μόνου τοῦ
πατρός), as the beginning (ἀρχή), cause or root (αἰτία,
ῤιζη, χαυσα,
ραδιξ), and fountain (πηγή) of the Godhead, and not from the Son. Confessio Orth., Qu. 71 (Schaff’s
Creeds of Christendom, II. 349 sq.): Διδάσκει
[ἡ
ἀνατολικὴ
ἐκκλησία] πῶς τὸ
πνεῦμα τὸ
ἃγιον
ἐκπορεύεται
ἐκ μόνου
τοῦ Πατρὸς ,
ὡς πηγῆς
καὶ ἀρχῆς
τῆς
θυότητος. Then follow the proofs from
John of Damascus, who gave the doctrine of the
Greek fathers its scholastic shape, about a.d. 750, one hundred years
before the controversy between Photius and Nicolas, maintained that the
procession is from the Father alone, but through the Son, as
mediator. See the doctrine of John of Damascus, with extracts from
his writings, stated by Hergenröther, Photius, I. 691
sq.; and in the proceedings of the Döllinger Conference
(Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, II. 553 sq. ).
Dr. Langen (Old Cath. Prof. in Bonn), in his monograph on John of
Damascus (Gotha, 1879, p. 283 sq. ), thus sums up the views of this
great divine on the procession: 1) The Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father and rests in the Son. 2) He does not proceed from the Son, but
from the Father through the Son. 3) He is the image of the Son, as the
Son is the image of the Father. 4) He forms the mediation between the
Father and the Son, and is through the Son connected with the
Father. Langen, l.c. p. 286: ”So hat demnach die grosse Trennung
zwischen Orient und Occident in diesem Lehrstücke die Folge
gehabt, dass die, Auffassung des Damasceners, gleichsam in der Mitte
stehend, von dem Patriarchen Tarasius amtlich approbirt und vom Papste
Hadrian I. vertheidigt, weder im Orient noch im Occident zur Geltung
kam. Dort galt sie als zu zweideutig und hier ward sie als unzureichend
befunden.”
The arguments for the Greek doctrine are as follows:
(a) The words of Christ,
(b) The supremacy or monarchia of the Father. He is the source and root of the Godhead. The Son and the Spirit are subordinated to him, not indeed in essence or substance (oujsiva), which is one and the same, but in dignity and office. This is the Nicene subordinatianism. It is illustrated by the comparison of the Father with the root, the Son with the stem, the Spirit with the fruit, and such analogies as the sun, the ray, and the beam; the fire, the flame, and the light.
(c) The analogy of the eternal generation of the Son, which is likewise from the Father alone, without the agency of the Spirit.
(d) The authority of the Nicene Creed, and the Greek fathers, especially Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and John of Damascus. The Antiochean school is clearly on the Greek side; but the Alexandrian school leaned to the formula through the Son (dia; tou’ uiJou’, per Filium). The Greeks claim all the Greek fathers, and regard Augustin as the inventor of the Latin dogma of the double procession.
The Latin doctrine is charged with innovation, and with dividing the unity of the Godhead, or establishing two sources of the Deity. But the Latins replied that the procession was from one and the same source common to both the Father and the Son.
2. The Latin theory of the double procession is defended by the following arguments:
(a) The passages where Christ says that he will
send the Spirit from the Father (
(b) The equality of essence (oJmoousiva) of the Father and Son to the exclusion of every kind of subordinationism (since Augustin) requires the double procession. The Spirit of the Father is also the Spirit of the Son, and is termed the Spirit of Christ. But, as already remarked, Augustin admitted that the Spirit proceeds chiefly from the Father, and this after all is a kind of subordination of dignity. The Father has his being (oujsiva) from himself, the Son and the Spirit have it from the Father by way of derivation, the one by generation, the other by procession.
(c) The temporal mission of the Spirit is a reflection of his eternal procession. The Trinity of revelation is the basis of all our speculations on the Trinity of essence. We know the latter only from the former.
(d) The Nicene Creed and the Nicene fathers did not understand the procession from the Father in an exclusive sense, but rather in opposition to the Pneumatomachi who denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Some Greek fathers, as Epiphanius, Cyril of Alexandria, and John of Damascus, teach the Latin doctrine. This is not the case exactly. The procession of the Spirit “through the Son,” is not equivalent to the procession “from the Son,” but implies a subordination.
(e) The Latin fathers are in favor of Filioque,
especially Ambrose, Augustin, Jerome, Leo I., Gregory I. Hilary of Poitiers is also quoted, as he uses the formula
a Patre et Filio (Trinit. II. 29) as well as the other
ex Patre per Filium. Tertullian, however, is rather on the Greek
side: ”Spiritum S. non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium.”
Adv. Prax. c. 4. So also Novatian, De
Trinit.
(f) The insertion of the Filioque is as justifiable as the other and larger additions to the Apostles’ Creed and to the original Nicene Creed of 325, and was silently accepted, or at least not objected to by the Greek church until the rivalry of the Patriarch of Constantinople made it a polemical weapon against the Pope of Rome. To this the Greeks reply that the other additions are consistent and were made by common consent, but the Filioque was added without the knowledge and against the teaching of the East by churches (in Spain and France) which had nothing to do with the original production.
This controversy of the middle ages was raised from the tomb by the Old Catholic Conference held in Bonn, 1875, under the lead of the learned historian, Dr. Döllinger of Munich, and attended by a number of German Old Catholic, Greek and Russian, and high Anglican divines. An attempt was made to settle the dispute on the basis of the teaching of the fathers before the division of the Eastern and Western churches, especially the doctrine of John of Damascus, that is, the single procession of the Spirit from the Father mediated through the Son. The Filioque was surrendered as an unauthorized and unjustifiable interpolation.
But the Bonn Conference has not been sanctioned by
any ecclesiastical authority, and forms only an interesting modern
episode in the, history of this controversy, and in the history of the
Old Catholic communion. See the theses of the Conference in the Proceedings
published by Dr. Reusch, Bonn, 1875, p. 80 sqq., and in
Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, vol. II. 552
sqq. Formerly Dr. Döllinger, when he was still in communion
with Rome, gave the usual one-sided Latin view of the
Filioque-controversy, and characterized Photius as a man “of unbounded
ambition, not untouched by the corruption of the court, and well versed
in all its arts of intrigue.” Hist. of the Church, trans. by E.
Cox, vol. III. 86. Comp. his remarks on the Council of Photius (879),
quoted in § 70, p. 317.
§ 109. The Monotheletic Controversy.
Literature.
(I.) Sources: Documents and acts of the first Lateran Synod (649), and the sixth oecumenical Council or Concilium Trullanum I., held in Constantinople (680), in Mansi, X. 863 sqq. and XI. 187 sqq.
Anastasius (Vatican librarian, about 870): Collectanea de iis quae spectant ad controv. et histor. monothelit. haeret., first ed. by Sirmond, Par. 1620, in his Opera, III., also in Bibl. Max. PP. Lugd. XII. 833; and in Gallandi, XIII.; also scattered through vols. X. and XI. of Mansi. See Migne’s ed. of Anastas. in “Patrol. Lat.” vols. 127–129.
Maximus Confessor: Opera, ed. Combefis, Par. 1675, Tom. II. 1–158, and his disputation with Pyrrhus, ib. 159 sqq. Also in Migne’s reprint, “Patrol. Gr.” vol. 91.
Theophanes: Chronographia, ed. Bonn. (1839), p. 274 sqq.; ed. Migne, in vol. 108 of his “Patrol. Graeca” (1861).
(II.) Franc. Combefisius (Combefis, a learned French Dominican, d. 1679): Historia haeresis Monothelitarum ac vindiciae actorum Sexti Synodi, in his Novum Auctuarium Patrum, II. 3 sqq. Par. 1648, fol. 1–198.
Petavius: Dogm. Theol. Tom. V. l. IX. c. 6–10.
Jos. Sim. Assemani, in the fourth vol. of his Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis. Romae 1784.
CH. W. F. Walch: Ketzerhistorie, vol. IX. 1–666 (Leipzig 1780). Very dry, but very learned.
Gibbon (Ch. 47, N. Y. ed. IV. 682–686, superficial). Schröckh, vol. XX. 386 sqq. Neander, III. 175–197 (Boston ed.), or III. 353–398 (Germ. ed.). Gieseler, I. 537–544 (Am. ed.).
The respective sections in Baur: Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeii und Menschwerdung (Tüb. 1841–’43, 3 vols.), vol. II. 96–128; Dorner: Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi (second ed. 1853), II. 193–305; Nitzsch: Dogmengesch. I. 325 sqq.; and Hefele: Conciliengeschichte (revised ed. 1877) III. 121–313. Also W. Möller. in Herzog2 X. 792–805.
The literature on the case of Honorius see in the next section.
§ 110. The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ.
The Monotheletic or one-will controversy is a
continuation of the Christological contests of the post-Nicene age, and
closely connected with the Monophysitic controversy. The name Monotheletism is derived from μόνονand θέλημα, will. The heresy, whether
expressive of the teacher or the doctrine, always gives name to the
controversy and the sect which adopts it. The champions of the
heretical one-will doctrine are called (first by John of
Damascus). Μονοθεληταί, or Μονοθελῆται, Monotheletes, or
Monothelites; the orthodox two-will doctrine is called
Dyotheletism (from δύοθελήματα), and its advocates Δυοθελῆται, Dyothelites. The corresponding
doctrines as to one nature or two natures of the Redeemer are termed
Monophysitism and Dyophysitism.
This question had not been decided by the ancient fathers and councils, and passages from their writings were quoted by both parties. But in the inevitable logic of theological development it had to be agitated sooner or later, and brought to a conciliar termination.
The controversy had a metaphysical and a practical aspect.
The metaphysical and psychological aspect was the
relation of will to nature and to person. Monotheletism regards the
will as an attribute of person, Dyotheletism as an attribute of nature.
It is possible to conceive of an abstract nature without a will; it is
difficult to conceive of a rational human nature without impulse and
will; it is impossible to conceive of a human person without a will.
Reason and will go together, and constitute the essence of personality.
Two wills cannot coexist in an ordinary human being. But as the
personality of Christ is complex or divine-human, it may be conceived
of as including two consciousnesses and two wills. The Chalcedonian
Christology at all events consistently requires two wills as the
necessary complement of two rational natures; in other words,
Dyotheletism is inseparable from Dyophysitism, while Monotheletism is
equally inseparable from Monophysitism, although it acknowledged the
Dyophysitism of Chalcedon. The orthodox doctrine saved the integrity
and completeness of Christ’s humanity by asserting his
human will. This benefit, however, was lost by the idea of the
impersonality (anhypostasia) of the human nature of Christ, taught by
John of Damascus in his standard exposition of the orthodox
Christology. His object was to exclude the idea of a double
personality. But it is impossible to separate reason and will from
personality, or to assert the impersonality of
Christ’s humanity without running into docetism. The
most which can be admitted is the Enhypostasia, i.e. the
incorporation or inclusion of the human nature of Jesus in the one
divine personality of the Logos. The church has never officially
committed itself to the doctrine of the
impersonality.
The practical aspect of the controversy is connected with the nature of the Redeemer and of redemption, and was most prominent with the leaders. The advocates of Monotheletism were chiefly concerned to guard the unity of Christ’s person and work. They reasoned that, as Christ is but one person, he can only have one will; that two wills would necessarily conflict, as in man the will of the flesh rebels against the Spirit; and that the sinlessness of Christ is best secured by denying to him a purely human will, which is the root of sin. They made the pre-existing divine will of the Logos the efficient cause of the incarnation and redemption, and regarded the human nature of Christ merely as the instrument through which he works and suffers, as the rational soul works through the organ of the body. Some of them held also that in the perfect state the human will of the believer will be entirely absorbed in the divine will, which amounts almost to a pantheistic absorption of the human personality in the divine.
The advocates of Dyotheletism on the other hand contended that the incarnation must be complete in order to have a complete redemption; that a complete incarnation implies the assumption of the human will into union with the pre-existing divine will of the Logos; that the human will is the originating cause of sin and guilt, and must therefore be redeemed, purified, and sanctified; that Christ, without a human will, could not have been a full man, could not have been tempted, nor have chosen between good and evil, nor performed any moral and responsible act.
The Scripture passages quoted by Agatho and other
advocates of the two-will doctrine, are
These Scripture passages, which must in the end decide the controversy, clearly teach the human will of Jesus, but the other will from which it is distinguished, is the will of his heavenly Father, to which he was obedient unto death. The orthodox dogma implies the identity of the divine will of Christ with the will of God the Father, and assumes that there is but one will in the divine tripersonality. It teaches two natures and one person in Christ, but three persons and one nature in God. Here we meet the metaphysical and psychological difficulty of conceiving of a personality without a distinct will. But the term personality is applied to the Deity in a unique and not easily definable sense. The three Divine persons are not conceived as three individuals.
The weight of argument and the logical consistency
on the basis of the Chalcedonian Dyophysitism, which was acknowledged
by both parties, decided in favor of the two-will doctrine. The
Catholic church East and West condemned Monotheletism as a heresy akin
to Monophysitism. The sixth oecumenical Council in 680 gave the final
decision by adopting the following addition to the Chalcedonian
Christology: Actio XVIII., in Mansi, XI. 637; Gieseler, I. 540 note 15;
Hefele, III. 284 sq.
“And we likewise preach two natural wills in him
[Jesus Christ], and two natural operations undivided, inconvertible,
inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers;
and the two natural wills [are] not contrary (as the impious heretics
assert), far from it! but his human will follows the divine will, and
is not resisting or reluctant, but rather subject to his divine and
omnipotent will. δύὁ
φυσικὰς̔
θελήσεις̔
ἢτοι
θελήματἁ
ἐν̔ αὐτᾦ, καἱ δύὁ
φυσικὰς̔
ἐνεργείας̔
ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως… κηρύττομεν(duas naturales voluntates et duas
naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter,
inconfuse … praedicamus). Comp. the following passage from the letter of Pope Agatho
to the emperor who called the Council, which evidently suggested the
framing of the decision (Mansi, XI. 239; Gieseler, I. 540; Hefele, III.
255): ”Cum duas autem naturas duasque, naturales voluntates, et duas
naturales operationes confitemur in uno Domino nostro J. Ch., non
contrarias eas, nec adversas ad alterutrum dicimus (sicut a via
veritatis errantes apostolicam traditionem accusant, absit haec
impietas a fidelium cordibus), nec tanquam separatas in duabus personis
vel subsistentiis, sed duas dicimus unum eundemque Dominum nostrum J.
Ch., sicut naturas, ita et naturales in se voluntates et operationes
habere, divinam scilicet a humanam: divinam quidem voluntatem et
operationem habere ex aeterno cum coëssentiali Patre,
communem; humanam temporaliter ex nobis cum nostra natura
susceptam.” Agatho quotes Scripture passages and testimonies of the
fathers, but does not define the mode in which the two wills
cooperate.
The theological contest was carried on chiefly in the Eastern church which had the necessary learning and speculative talent; but the final decision was brought about by the weight of Roman authority, and Pope Agatho exerted by his dogmatic epistle the same controlling influence over the sixth oecumenical Council, as Pope Leo I. had exercised over the fourth. In this as well as the older theological controversies the Roman popes—with the significant exception of Honorius—stood firmly on the side of orthodoxy, while the patriarchal sees of the East were alternately occupied by heretics as well as orthodox.
The Dyotheletic decision completes the Christology of the Greek and Roman churches, and passed from them into the Protestant churches; but while the former have made no further progress in this dogma, the latter allows a revision and reconstruction, and opened new avenues of thought in the contemplation of the central fact and truth of the divine-human personality of Christ.
§ 111. History of Monotheletism and Dyotheletism.
The triumph of Dyotheletism was the outcome of a bitter conflict of nearly fifty years (633 to 680). The first act reaches to the issue of the Ekthesis (638), the second to the issue of the Type (648), the third and last to the sixth oecumenical Council (680). The theological leaders of Monophysitism were Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia (known to us only from a few fragments of his writings), Sergius and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul in the patriarchal see of Constantinople, and Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria; the political leaders were the Emperors Heraclius and Constans II.
The champions of the Dyotheletic doctrine were Sophronius of Palestine, Maximus of Constantinople, and the popes Martin and Agatho of Rome; the political supporter, the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668–685).
1. The strife began in a political motive, but
soon assumed a theological and religious aspect. The safety of the
Byzantine empire was seriously threatened, first by the Persians, and
then by the Arabs, and the danger was increased by the division among
Christians. The Emperor Heraclius (610–640) after his
return from the Persian campaign desired to conciliate the
Monophysites, who were more numerous than the orthodox in Armenia,
Syria, and Egypt. In Egypt the Monophysitic or national Coptic church
numbered between five and six millions, the orthodox and imperial party
only three hundred thousand heads. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch.
Alexandr. Jacob. (Par., 1713), p 163 sq., as quoted by Hefele, III.
130. The phrase was borrowed from the mystic writings of
Dionysius Areopagita (Epist. IV. ad Cajum). Maximus, who was an
admirer of Pseudo-Dionysius, gave this passage and a similar one from
Cyril Of Alexandria a different meaning. See Hefele, III.
129. See the nine chapters of Cyrus in Mansi, XI. 563, and
Hefele, III. 138.
But Sophronius, a learned and venerable monk in
Palestine, who happened to be in Alexandria at that time, protested
against the compromise-formula as a cunning device of the Monophysites.
When he became patriarch of Jerusalem (in 633 or 634), he openly
confessed, in a synodical letter to the patriarchs, the doctrine of
Dyotheletism as a necessary part of the Chalcedonian Christology. It is
one of the most important documents in this controversy. It is preserved in the acts of the sixth oecumenical
council. See Mansi, XV. 461-508; and Hefele, III.
159-166.
A few years afterwards, the Saracens besieged and conquered Jerusalem (637); Sophronius died and was succeeded by a Monotheletic bishop.
In the year 638 the Emperor issued, as an answer
to the manifesto of Sophronius, an edict drawn up by Sergius, under the
title Exposition of the Faith (e[kqesi” th’” pivstew”), which commanded
silence on the subject in dispute, but pretty clearly decided in favor
of Monotheletism. It first professes the orthodox doctrine of the
Trinity and incarnation in the Chalcedonian sense, and then forbids the
use of the terms “one” or “two energies” (miva or duvo ejnevrgeiai)
since both are heretically interpreted, and asserts one will (qevlhma)
in Christ. Mansi, X. 991 sq.; Hefele, III. 179 sq.
2. Two synods of Constantinople (638 and 639) adopted the Ekthesis. But in the remote provinces it met with powerful resistance. Maximus Confessor became the champion of Dyotheletism in the Orient and North Africa, and Pope Martinus I. in the West. They thoroughly understood the controversy, and had the courage of martyrs for their conviction.
Maximus was born about 580 of a distinguished
family in Constantinople, and was for some time private secretary of
the Emperor Heraclius, but left this post of honor and influence in
630, and entered a convent in Chrysopolis (now Scutari). He was a
profound thinker and able debater. When the Monotheletic heresy spread,
he concluded to proceed to Rome, and passing through Africa be held
there, in the presence of the imperial governor and many bishops, a
remarkable disputation with Pyrrhus, who had succeeded Sergius in the
see of Constantinople, but was deposed and expelled for political
reasons. This disputation took place in July, 645, but we do not know
in what city of Africa. It sounded all the depths of the controversy
and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to Dyotheletism. The disputation is printed in the Opera of Maximus,
ed. Combefis, II. 159 sqq., and Migne, I. 287 sqq. Compare Walch, IX.
203 sqq., and Hefele, III. 190-204. The report in Mansi, X. 709-760, is
full of typographical errors (as Hefele says). Maximus dealt in nice
metaphysical distinctions, as θέλησις, βούλησις, ἐνέργεια, βουλευτικὸνθέλημα, ὑποστατικόν, ἐξουσιαστικόν, προαιρετικόν, γνωμικόν, οἰκονομικόν. Pyrrhus returned afterwards to the see
of Constantinople and adopted the absurd theory of three wills in
Christ, one personal anti two natural.
About the same time, several North-African synods declared in favor of the Dyotheletic doctrine.
In the year 648 the Emperor Constans II.
(642–668) tried in vain to restore peace by means of a
new edict called Typos or Type, which commanded silence on the subject
under dispute without giving the preference to either view. Also called τύποςπερὶπίστεως. In Mansi, X. 1029; Walch, IX. 167;
Hefele, III. 210; also Gieseler, 1. 539, note 9. The Typos was
composed by Paul, the second successor of Sergius, who had written the
Ekthesis.
3. An irrepressible conflict cannot be silenced by
imperial decrees. Pope Martin I., formerly Apocrisiarios of the papal
see at Constantinople, and distinguished for virtue, knowledge and
personal beauty, soon after his election (July 5th, 649), assembled the
first Lateran Council (Oct., 649), so called from being held in the
Lateran basilica in Rome. It was attended by one hundred and five
bishops, anathematized the one-will doctrine and the two imperial
edicts, and solemnly sanctioned the two-will doctrine. It anticipated
substantially the decision of the sixth oecumenical council, and comes
next to it in authority on this article of faith. See the acts in Mansi, X., and Hefele, III.
212-230.
The acts of this Roman council, together with an encyclical of the pope warning against the Ekthesis and the Type, were sent to all parts of the Christian world. At the same time, the pope sent a Greek translation of the acts to the Emperor Constans II., and politely informed him that the Synod had confirmed the true doctrine, and condemned the heresy. Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus had violated the full humanity of Christ, and deceived the emperors by the Ekthesis and the Type.
But the emperor, through his representative, Theodore Calliopa, the exarch of Ravenna, deposed the pope as a rebel and heretic, and removed him from Rome (June, 653). He imprisoned him with common criminals in Constantinople, exposed him to cold, hunger, and all sorts of injuries, and at last sent him by ship to a cavern in Cherson on the Black Sea (March, 655). Martin bore this cruel treatment with dignity, and died Sept. 16, 655, in exile, a martyr to his faith in the doctrine of two wills.
Maximus was likewise transported to Constantinople (653), and treated with even greater cruelty. He was (with two of his disciples) confined in prison for several years, scourged, deprived of his tongue and right hand, and thus mutilated sent, in his old age, to Lazica in Colchis on the Pontus Euxinus, where he died of these injuries, Aug. 13, 662. His two companions likewise died in exile.
The persecution of these martyrs prepared the way for the triumph of their doctrine. In the meantime province after province was conquered by the Saracens.
§ 112. The Sixth Oecumenical Council. a.d. 680.
Constans II. was murdered in a bath at Syracuse (668). His son, Constantine IV. Pogonatus (Barbatus, 668–685), changed the policy of his father, and wished to restore harmony between the East and the West. He stood on good or neutral terms with Pope Vitalian (6 57–672), who maintained a prudent silence on the disputed question, and with his successors, Adeodatus (672–676), Donus or Domnus (676–678), and Agatho (678–681).
After sufficient preparations, he called, in
concert with Agatho, a General Council. It convened in the imperial
palace at Constantinople, and held eighteen sessions from Nov. 7, 680,
to Sept. 16, 681. it is called the Sixth Oecumenical, and also the
First Trullan Synod, from the name of the hall or chapel in the
palace. Τρούλλονor Τρούλλιον, Trullum, Trulla, Trullus, a
technical term for buildings with a cupola. The Acts say that the
sessions were held ἐντῷ σεκρέτῳ τοῦθείουπαλατίου, τῷ οὕτωλεγομένῳ Τρούλλῳ , and Anastasius: ”in basilica, quae Trullus
appellatur, intra palatium.” Mansi, XI. 195-922. See a full account in Hefele, III.
252-313.
After a full discussion of the subject on both
sides, the council, in the eighteenth and last session, defined and
sanctioned the two-will doctrine, almost in the very language of the
letter of Pope Agatho to the emperor. See above, § 110.
The epistle of Agatho is a worthy sequel of
Leo’s Epistle to the Chalcedonian Council, and equally
clear and precise in stating the orthodox view. It is also remarkable
for the confidence with which it claims infallibility for the Roman
church, in spite of the monotheletic heresy of Pope Honorius (who is
prudently ignored). Agatho quotes the words of Christ to Peter, Comp. Creeds of Christendom, I. 163 and
187.
But while the council fully endorsed the dyotheletic view of Agatho, and clothed it with oecumenical authority, it had no idea of endorsing his claim to papal infallibility; on the contrary, it expressly condemned Pope Honorius I. as a Monotheletic heretic, together with Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, and Theodore of Pharan.
Immediately after the close of the council, the
emperor published the decision, with an edict enforcing it and
anathematizing all heretics from Simon Magus down to Theodore of
Pharan, Sergius, Pope Honorius, who in all was their follower and
associate, and confirmed the heresy. τὸν̔
κατὰ πάντα τούτοις
συναιρέτην
καὶ σύνδρομον
καὶβεβαιωτὴν
τῆς αἱρέσεως.
Pope Agatho died Jan. 10, 682; but his successor,
Leo II., who was consecrated Aug. 17 of the same year, confirmed the
sixth council, and anathematized all heretics, including his
predecessor, Honorius, who, instead of adorning the apostolic see,
dared to prostitute its immaculate faith by profane treason, and all
who died in the same error. “Honorium [anathematizamus] qui hanc apostolicam sedem
non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustraVit. sed profana proditione
immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est, et omnes qui in suo errore
defuncti sunt.” Mansi, XI. 731; Hefele, III. 289. See §
113.
§ 113. The Heresy of Honorius.
J. von Döllinger (Old Cath.): Papstfabeln des Mittelalters. München, 1863. The same translated by A. Plummer: Fables respecting the Popes in the Middle Ages; Am ed. enlarged by Henry B. Smith, N. York, 1872. (The case of Honorius is discussed on pp. 223–248 Am. ed.; see German ed. p. 131 sqq.).
Schneemann (Jesuit): Studien über die Honoriusfrage. Freiburg i. B, 1864.
Paul Bottala (S. J.): Pope Honorius before the Tribunal of Reason and History. London, 1868.
P. Le Page Renouf: The Condemnation of Pope Honorius. Lond., 1868. The Case of Honorius reconsidered. Lond. 1870.
Maret (R.C.): Du Concil et de la paix relig. Par. 1869.
A. Gratry (R.C.): Four Letters to the Bishop of Orleans (Dupanloup) and the Archbishop of Malines (Dechamps), 1870. Several editions in French, German, English. He wrote against papal infallibility, but recanted on his death-bed.
A. de Margerie: Lettre au R. P. Gratry sur le Pape Honorius et le Bréviaire Romain. Nancy, 1870.
Jos. von Hefele (Bishop of Rottenburg and Member of the Vatican Council): Causa Honorii Papae. Neap., 1870. Honorius und das sechste allgemeine Concil. Tübingen, 1870. (The same translated by Henry B. Smith in the “Presbyt. Quarterly and Princeton Review, “N. York, April, 1872, p. 273 sqq.). Conciliengeschichte, Bd. III. (revised ed., 1877), pp. 145 sqq., 167 sqq., 290 sqq.
Job. Pennachi (Prof. of Church Hist. in the University of Rome): De Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio VI. ad Patres Concilii Vaticani. Romae, 1870. 287 pp. Hefele calls this the most important vindication of Honorius from the infallibilist standpoint. It was distributed among all the members of the Vatican Council; while books in opposition to papal infallibility by Bishop Hefele, Archbishop Kenrick, and others, had to be printed outside of Rome.
A. Ruckgaber: Die Irrlehre des Honorius und das Vatic. Concil. Stuttgart, 1871.
Comp. the literature in Hergenröther; Kirchengesch., III. 137 sqq.
The connection of Pope Honorius I. (Oct. 27, 625, to Oct. 12, 638) with the Monotheletic heresy has a special interest in its bearing upon the dogma of papal infallibility, which stands or falls with a single official error, according to the principle: Si falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It was fully discussed by Catholic scholars on both sides before and during the Vatican Council of 1870, which proclaimed that dogma, but could not alter the facts of history. The following points are established by the best documentary evidence:
1. Honorius taught and favored in several official
letters (to Sergius, Cyrus, and Sophronius), therefore ex cathedra, the
one-will heresy. He fully agreed with Sergius, the Monotheletic
patriarch of Constantinople. In answer to his first letter (634), he
says: “Therefore we confess one will (qevlhma, voluntas) of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” ὅθεν καὶ ἓν θέλημα ὁμολογοῦμεν
τοῦ Κυρίου
Ἰης. Χρ. —-unde et unam voluntatatem fatemur Domini
nostri lesu Christi. Mansi, XI. 538 sqq.; Hefele, III. 146
sq. Mansi, p. 579; Hefele, p. 166 sq. The same view is taken by Neander, the fairest among
Protestant, and by Döllinger, the most learned of modern
Catholic, historians. Neander (III. 179, E. ed.; 1II. 360, Germ. ed.)
says: “Honorius, in two letters, declared his entire concurrence
(erklärte, sich ganz
übereinstimmend) with the views of Sergius, and wrote also in the same
terms to Cyrus and Sophronius. He too was afraid of logical
determinations on such matters. It seemed to him altogether necessary
to suppose but one will in Christ, as it was impossible to conceive, in
him, any strife between the human and divine will such as by, reason,
of sin exists in men.” [“It seemed to him, as well as to Sergius, that
a duplicity of will in one and the same subject could not subsist
without opposition.” From the foot-note.] “He approved, indeed, of the
accommodation (οἰκονομία), whereby the patriarch Cyrus had
brought about the re-union of the Monophysites with the Catholic
Church. But as hitherto no public decision of the church had spoken of
’one mode of working,’ or of
’two modes of working’ of Christ, it
seemed to him the safest course, that in future such expressions should
be avoided, as the one might lead to Eutychianism, the other to
Nestorianism. He reckoned this whole question among the unprofitable
subtilties which endanger the interests of piety. Men should be content
to hold fast to this, in accordance with the hitherto established
doctrine of the church, that the self-same Christ works that which is
divine and human in both his natures. Those other questions should be
left to the grammarians in the schools. If the Holy Spirit operates in
the faithful, as St. Paul says, in manifold ways how much more must
this hold good of the Head himself!” Neander adds in a note: “Although
the theory, of two modes of working” [which is the orthodox doctrine]
“lies at the foundation of the very thing he here asserts, yet he
carefully avoided expressing this.” In the same sense, Dr.
Döllinger, when still in communion with Rome, stated the
doctrine of Honorius, and said (Fables of the Popes, p. 226, Am.
ed.): “This doctrine of Honorius, so welcome to Sergius and the other
favorers and supporters of Monotheletism, led to the two imperial
edicts, the Ekthesis and the Typus.”
The only thing which may and must be said in his excuse is that the question was then new and not yet properly understood. He was, so to say, an innocent heretic before the church had pronounced a decision. As soon as it appeared that the orthodox dogma of two natures required the doctrine of two wills, and that Christ could not be a full man without a human will, the popes changed the position, and Honorius would probably have done the same had he lived a few years longer.
Various attempts have been made by papal
historians and controversialists to save the orthodoxy of Honorius in
order to save the dogma of papal infallibility. Some pronounce his
letters to be a later Greek forgery. Bellarmin, and Bishop Bartholus (Bartoli) of Feltre, who
questioned also the integrity of the letters of Sergius to Honorius (in
his Apol. pro Honorio I., 1750, as quoted by,
Döllinger, p. 253, and Hefele, III. 142).
Döllinger declares this to be “a lamentable
expedient!’ So Perrone, Pennachi, Manning. These divines presume to
know better than the infallible Pope Leo II., who ex cathedra
denounced Honorius as a heretic. So Pope John IV. (640-642), who apologized for his
predecessor that he merely meant to reject the notion of two
mutually opposing wills, as if Christ had a will tainted
with sin (Mansi, X. 683). But nobody dreamed of ascribing a sinful will
to Christ. Bishop Hefele and Cardinal Hergenröther resort
substantially to the same apology; see notes at the end of this
section. Walch, Neander, Gieseler, Baur, Dorner, Kurtz, etc. See
note on p. 502. Richer, Dupin, Bossuet,
Döllinger.
2. Honorius was condemned by the sixth oecumenical
Council as “the former pope of Old Rome,” who with the help of the old
serpent had scattered deadly error. Mansi, XI. 622, 635, 655, 666
Here again ultramontane historians have resorted
to the impossible denial either of the genuineness of the act of
condemnation in the sixth oecumenical Council, Baronius (Ad ann. 633 and 681), and Pighius (Diatribe de
Actis VI. et VII. concil.). As a condemnation, not of the heresy of Honorius, but of
his negligence in suppressing heresy by his counsel of silence (ob
imprudentem silentii oeconomiam). So the Jesuit Garnier De
Honorii et concilii VI. causa, in an appendix to his edition of the
Liber diurnus Romanorum pontificum, quoted by Hefele (III. 175),
who takes the trouble of refuting this view by, three
arguments. An error not in the dogmatic definition, but in
facto dogmatico. It is argued that an oecumenical council as well
as a pope may err in matter, de facto, though not de fide
and de jure. This view was taken by Anastasius, the papal
librarian, Cardinal Turrecremata, Bellarmin, Pallavicino, Melchior
Canus, Jos. Sim. Assemani, and recently by Professor Pennachi. See
Hefele, III. 174, note 4.
3. But this last theory is refuted by the popes
themselves, who condemned Honorius as a heretic, and thus bore
testimony for papal fallibility. His first success or, Severinus, had a
brief pontificate of only three months. His second successor, John IV.,
apologized for him by putting a forced construction on his language.
Agatho prudently ignored him. Or rather he told an untruth when be declared that all
popes had done their duty with regard to false
doctrine. In this Confession the popes are required to anathematize
“Sergium … una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum
assertionibus fomentum impendit.” Lib. Diurn. cap. II. tit. 9,
professio 2. The oath was probably prescribed by Gregory II. at the
beginning of the eighth century. Baronius rejects the letter of Leo II. as spurious,
Bellarmin as corrupted. Bower (History of the Popes) remarks:
“Nothing but the utmost despair could have suggested to the annalist
(Baronius) so desperate a shift.”
The verdict of history, after the most thorough investigation from all sides and by all parties remains unshaken. The whole church, East and West, as represented by the official acts of oecumenical Councils and Popes, for several hundred years believed that a Roman bishop may err ex cathedra in a question of faith, and that one of them at least had so erred in fact. The Vatican Council of 1870 decreed papal infallibility in the face of this fact, thus overruling history by dogmatic authority. The Protestant historian can in conscience only follow the opposite principle: If dogma contradicts facts, all the worse for the dogma.
Notes.
Bishop Hefele, one of the most learned and impartial Roman Catholic historians, thus states, after a lengthy discussion, his present view on the case of Honorius (Conciliengesch., vol. III. 175, revised ed. 1877), which differs considerably from the one he had published before the Vatican decree of papal infallibility (in the first ed. of his Conciliengesch., vol. III. 1858, p. 145 sqq., and in big pamphlet on Honorius, 1870). It should be remembered that Bishop Hefele, like all his anti-infallibilist colleagues, submitted to the decree of the Vatican Council for the sake of unity and peace.
“Die beiden Briefe des Papstes Honorius, wie wir sie jetzt haben, sind unverfälscht und zeigen, dass Honorius von den beiden monotheletischen Terminis ejn qevlhma und miva ejnevrgeia den erstern (im ersten Brief) selbst gebrauchte, den anderen dagegen, ebenso auch den orthodoxen Ausdruck duvo ejnevrgeiai nicht angewendet wissen wollte. Hat er auch Letzteres (die, Missbilligung des Ausdruckes duvo ejnevrg.) im zweiten Brief wiederholt, so hat er doch in demselben selbst zwei natürliche Energien in Christus anerkannt und in beiden Briefen sich so ausgedrückt, dass man annehmen muss, er habe nicht den menschlichen Willen überhaupt, sondern nur den Verdorbenen menschlichen Willen in Chistus geläugnet, aber obgleich orthodoz denkend, die monotheletische Tendenz des Sergius nicht gehörig durchschaut und sich missverständlich ausgedrückt, so dass seine Briefe, besonders der erste, den Monotheletismus zu bestätigen schienen und damit der Häresie Factisch Vorschub leisteten. In dieser Weise erledigt sich uns die Frage nach der Orthodoxie des Papstes Honorius, und wir halten sonach den Mittelweg zwischen denen, welche ihn auf die gleiche Stufe mit Sergius von Constantinopel und Cyrus von Alexandrien stellen und den Monotheleten beizählen wollten, und denen, welche durchaus keine Makel an ihn duldend in das Schicksal der nimium probantes verfallen sind, so dass sie lieber die Aechtheit der Acten des sechsten allgemeinen Concils und mehrerer anderer Urkunden läugnen, oder auch dem sechsten Concil einen error in facto dogmatico zuschreiben wollten.” Comp. his remarks on p. 152; “Diesen Hauptgedanken muss ich auch jetzt noch festhalten, dass Honorius im Herzen richtig dachte, sich aber unglücklich ausdrückte, wenn ich auch in Folge wiederholter neuer Beschäftigung mit diesem Gegenstand und unter Berücksichtigung dessen, was Andere in neuer Zeit zur Vertheidigung des Honorius geschrieben haben, manches Einzelne meiner früheren Aufstellungen nunmehr modificire oder völlig aufgebe, und insbesondere über den ersten Brief des Honorius jetzt milder urtheile als früher.”
Cardinal Hergenröther (Kirchengeschichte, vol. I. 358, second ed. Freiburg i. B. 1879) admits the ignorance rather than the heresy of the pope. “Honorius,” he says, “zeigt wohl Unbekanntschaft mit dem Kern der Frage, aber keinerlei häretische oder irrige Auffassung. Er unterscheidet die zwei unvermischt qebliebenen Naturen sehr genau und verstösst gegen kein einziges Dogma der Kirche.”
§ 114. Concilium Quinisextum. a.d. 692.
Mansi., XI. 930–1006. Hefele, III. 328–348. Gieseler,I. 541 sq.
Wm. Beveridge (Bishop of St. Asaph, 1704–1708): Synodicon, sive Pandectae canonum. Oxon. 1672–82. Tom. I. 152–283. Beveridge gives the comments of Theod. Balsamon, Joh. Zonaras, etc., on the Apostolical Canons.
Assemani (R.C.): Bibliotheca juris orientalis.
The pope of Old Rome had achieved a great dogmatic triumph in the sixth oecumenical council, but the Greek church had the satisfaction of branding at least one pope as a heretic, and soon found an opportunity to remind her rival of the limits of her authority.
The fifth and sixth oecumenical councils passed
doctrinal decrees, but no disciplinary canons. This defect was supplied
by a new council at Constantinople in 692, called the Concilium
Quinisextum, Σύνοδος
πενθέκτη. The Greeks consider it simply as the
continuation of the sixth oecumenical council, and call its
canons κανόνες
τῆς ἒκτης συνόδου. For this reason it was held in the
same locality. The Latins opposed it from the start as a ”Synodus
erratica,” or ”Conciliabulum pseudosextum.” But they
sometimes erroneously ascribed its canons to the sixth
council. Concilium Trullanum in an emphatic sense. The sixth
council was held in the same locality.
It was convened by the Emperor Justinian II.
surnamed Rinotmetos, Ῥινότμητος
from ῥις, nose, in allusion to his
mutilation. Gibbon (ch. 48) gives the following description of his
character: “After the decease of his father the inheritance of the
Roman world devolved to Justinian II.; and the name of a triumphant
law-giver was dishonored by the vices of a boy, who imitated his
namesake only in the expensive luxury of building. His passions were
strong; his understanding was feeble; and he was intoxicated with a
foolish pride that his birth had given him the command of millions, of
whom the smallest community would not have chosen him for their local
magistrate. His favorite ministers were two beings the least
susceptible of human sympathy, a eunuch and a monk: to the one he
abandoned the palace, to the other the finances; the former corrected
the emperor’s mother with a scourge, the latter
suspended the insolvent tributaries, with their heads downward, over a
slow and smoky fire. Since the days of Commodus and Caracalla the
cruelty of the Roman princes had most commonly been the effect of their
fear; but Justinian, who possessed some vigor of character, enjoyed the
sufferings, and braved the revenge of his subjects about ten years,
till the measure was full of his crimes and of their
patience.”
The supplementary council was purely oriental in its composition and spirit. It adopted 102 canons, most of them old, but not yet legally or oecumenically sanctioned. They cover the whole range of clerical and ecclesiastical life and discipline, and are valid to this day in the Eastern church. They include eighty-five apostolic canons so called (thirty-five more than were acknowledged by the Roman church), the canons of the first four oecumenical councils, and of several minor councils, as Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, etc.; also the canons of Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzum, Amphilochius of Iconium, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius of Constantinople, and an anti-Roman canon of Cyprian of Carthage. The decretals of the Roman bishops are ignored.
The canons were signed first, by the emperor; the second place was left blank for the pope, but was never filled; then follow the names of Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch (strangely after that of the patriarch of Jerusalem), and others, in all 211 bishops and episcopal representatives, all Greeks and Orientals, of whom 43 had been present at the sixth oecumenical council.
The emperor sent the acts of the Trullan Council
to Sergius of Rome, and requested him to sign them. The pope refused
because they contained some chapters contrary to ecclesiastical usage
in Rome. The emperor dispatched the chief officer of his body guard
with orders to bring the pope to Constantinople. But the armies of the
exarch of Ravenna and of the Pentapolis rushed to the protection of the
pope, who quieted the soldiers; the imperial officer had to hide
himself in the pope’s bed, and then left Rome in
disgrace. This is related by Anastasius, Bede, and Paulus Diaconus.
See Mansi, XII. 3, Baronius ad a. 692, and Hefele, III.
346.
The seventh oecumenical Council (787) readopted the 102 canons, and erroneously ascribed them to the sixth oecumenical Council.
The Roman church never committed herself to these
canons except as far as they agreed with ancient Latin usage. Some of
them were inspired by an anti-Roman tendency. The first canon repeats
the anathema on Pope Honorius. The thirty-sixth canon, in accordance
with the second and fourth oecumenical Councils, puts the patriarch of
Constantinople on an equality of rights with the bishop of Rome, and
concedes to the latter only a primacy of honor, not a supremacy of
jurisdiction. Clerical marriage of the lower orders is sanctioned in
canons 3 and 13, and it is clearly hinted that the Roman church, by her
law of clerical celibacy, dishonors wedlock, which was instituted by
God and sanctioned by the presence of Christ at Cana. But second
marriage is forbidden to the clergy, also marriage with a widow (canon
3), and marriage after ordination (canon 6). Bishops are required to
discontinue their marriage relation (canon 12). Justinian had
previously forbidden the marriage of bishops by a civil law. Fasting on
the Sabbath in Lent is forbidden (canon 55) in express opposition to
the custom in Rome. The second canon fixes the number of valid
apostolical canons at eighty-five against fifty of the Latin church.
The decree of the Council of Jerusalem against eating blood and things
strangled (
These differences laid the foundation for the great schism between the East. and the West. The supplementary council of 692 anticipated the action of Photius, and clothed it with a quasi-oecumenical authority.
§ 115. Reaction of Monotheletism. The Maronites.
The great oecumenical councils, notably that of Chalcedon gave rise to schismatic sects which have perpetuated themselves for a long time, some of them to the present day.
For a brief period Monotheletism was restored by Bardanes or Philippicus, who wrested the throne from Justinian II. and ruled from 711 to 713. He annulled the creed of the sixth oecumenical Council, caused the names of Sergius and Honorius to be reinserted in the diptycha among the orthodox patriarchs, and their images to be again set up in public places. He deposed the patriarch of Constantinople and elected in his place a Monotheletic deacon, John. He convened a council at Constantinople, which set aside the decree of the sixth council and adopted a Monotheletic creed in its place. The clergy who refused to sign it, were deposed. But in Italy he had no force to introduce it, and an attempt to do so provoked an insurrection.
The Emperor Anastasius II. dethroned the usurper, and made an end to this Monotheletic episode. The patriarch John accommodated himself to the new situation, and wrote an abject letter to the Pope Constantine, in which he even addressed him as the head of the church, and begged his pardon for his former advocacy of heresy.
Since that time Dyotheletism was no more disturbed in the orthodox church.
But outside of the orthodox church and the
jurisdiction of the Byzantine rulers, Monotheletism propagated itself
among the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon under the lead
of abbot John Marun (Marwvn), their first patriarch (d. 701). The
maronites, Μαρωνεῖται.
§ 116. The Adoptionist Controversy. Literature.
I. Sources.
The sources are printed in Harduin, Vol. IV., Mansi, XIII., and in Alcuin’s Opera, ed. Frobenius (1777), reprinted by Migne (in his “Patrol. Lat.,” vols. 100 and 101), with historical and dogmatical dissertations.
(1.) The writings of the Adoptionists: a letter of Elipandus Ad Fide lem, Abbatem, a.d. 785, and one to Alcuin. Two letters of the spanish bishops—one to Charlemagne, the other to the Gallican bishops. Felicis Libellus contra Alcuinum; the Confessio Fidei Felicis; fragments of a posthumous book of Felix addressed Ad Ludovicum Pium, Imperat.
(2.) The orthodox view is represented in Beatus et Etherius: Adv. Elipandum libri II. Alcuin: Seven Books against Felix, Four Books against Elipandus, and several letters, which are best edited by Jaffé in Biblioth. rer. Germ. VI. Paulinus (Bishop of Aquileja): Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri tres. In Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” vol. 99, col. 343–468. Agobard of Lyons: Adv. Dogma Felicis Episc. Urgellensis, addressed to Louis the Pious, in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” vol. 104, col. 29–70. A letter of Charlemagne (792) to Elipandus and the bishops of Spain. The acts of the Synods of Narbonne (788), Ratisbon (792), Francfort (794), and Aix-la-Chapelle (799).
II. Works.
(1.) By Rom. Cath. Madrisi (Congreg. Orat.): Dissertationes de Felicis et Elipandi haeresi, in his ed. of the Opera Paulini Aquil., reprinted in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” vol. 99( col. 545–598). Against Basnage. Enhueber (Prior in Regensburg): Dissert. dogm. Hist. contra Christ. Walchium, in Alcuin’s Opera, ed. Frobenius, reprinted by Migne (vol. 101, col. 337–438). Against Walch’s Hist. Adopt., to prove the Nestorianism of the Adoptionists. Frobenius: Diss. Hist. de haer. Elip. et Felicis, in Migne’s ed., vol. 101, col. 303–336. Werner: Gesch. der Apol. und polem. Lit. II. 433 sqq. Gams: Kirchengesch. Spaniens (Regensb., 1874), Bd. II. 2. (Very prolix.) Hefele: Conciliengesch., Bd. III. 642–693 (revised ed. of 1877). Hergenröther: Kirchengesch., 2nd ed., 1879, Bd. I. 558 sqq. Bach: Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters (Wien, 1873), I. 103–155.
(2.) By Protestants. Jac. Basnage: Observationes historicae circa Felicianam haeresin, in his Thesaurus monum. Tom. II. 284 sqq. Chr. G. F. Walch: Historia Adoptianorum, Göttingen, 1755; and his Ketzergeschichte, vol. IX. 667 sqq. (1780). A minute and accurate account. See also the Lit. quoted by Walch.
Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. III., pp. 313–339, Engl. transl. III. 156–168. Gieseler, vol. II., P. I., p. 111 sqq.; Eng. transl. II. 75–78. Baur: Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, Tübingen, 1842, vol. II., pp. 129–159. Dorner: Entwicklungs-Geschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, second ed., Berlin, 1853, vol. II., pp. 306–330. Helfferich: Der Westgothische Arianismus und die spanische Ketzergeschichte, Berlin, 1880. Niedner: Lehrbuch der christl. K. G., Berlin, 1866, pp. 424–427. J. C. Robertson: History of the Christian Church from 590 to 1122 (Lond., 1856), p. 154 sqq. Milman: Lat. Christ. II. 498–500; Baudissin: Eulogius und Alvar, Leipz., 1872. Schaff, in Smith and Wace, I. (1877), pp. 44–47. W. Möller, in Herzog2 I. 151–159.
§ 117. History of Adoptionism.
The Adoptionist controversy is a revival of the
Nestorian controversy in a modified form, and turns on the question
whether Christ, as to his human nature, was the Son of God in essence,
or only by adoption. Those who took the latter view were called
Adoptionists. Adoptiani, Adoptivi; in English Adoptianists
or Adoptionists (from adoptio) Filius proprius or verus. Filius adoptivus or
nuncupativus.
The orthodox opponents held that Christ was the one undivided and indivisible Son of God; that the Virgin Mary gave birth to the eternal Son of God, and is for this reason called “the mother of God;” that sonship is founded on the person, not on the nature; and that Adoptionism leads to two Christs and to four persons in the Trinity.
Both parties displayed a degree of patristic learning which one would hardly expect in this period of the middle ages.
The history of this movement is confined to the West (Spain and Gaul); while all the older Christological controversies originated and were mainly carried on and settled in the East. It arose in the Saracen dominion of Spain, where the Catholics had to defend the eternal and essential Sonship of Christ against the objections both of the Arians and the Mohammedans.
The Council of Toledo, held in 675, declared in
the preface to the Confession of Faith, that Christ is the Son of God
by, nature, not by adoption. “Hic etiam Filius Dei natura est Filius, non
adoptione.” So Baronius, Gfrörer, Baudissin; but Hefele
(III. 649) objects to this for the reason that the Adoptionists very
strongly asserted the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, which were so
offensive to the Mohammedans. So Neander and Jacobi; see his ed. of
Neander’s Dogmengesch. II. 26 sqq. Jacobi tries to show a connection
of Adoptionism with the writings of Theodor of Mopsueste. Gams
(Kirchengesch. Spaniens, II. 2, p. 261 sqq.) conjectures that some
Eastern Nestorians settled in Spain under Moslem rule, and suggested
the Adoptionist theory. Hefele (III. 646) and Möller
(Herzog2I. 159) are
inclined to the same view. Enhueber, Walch, and Bach hold that
Elipandus was led to his view by opposition to Migetius, who made no
distinction between the Logos and Christ, as if the second person of
the Trinity had not existed before the
incarnation.—The reports on Migetius are vague.
Elipandus charged him with teaching three corporeal persons in the
Trinity who became incarnate in David (the Father), in Jesus (the Son),
and in Paul (the Holy Spirit). He probably fell into the error of the
Priscillianists, which was confounded with Sabellianism (hence his name
magister Salibanorum, which is a corruption for
Sabellianorum). See on this mysterious phenomenon Henrique
Florez, España sagrada, T. V. 543 sq., and Hefele,
l.c. III. 629-635 and 657.
Having little confidence in his own opinions,
Elipandus consulted Felix, bishop of Urgel Urgelis, Urgela, Orgellis, in the Marca Hispanica. It
formerly belonged to the metropolis of Tarracona, but since the middle
of the eighth century, to the province of Narbonne.
Confirmed by his friend, Elipandus taught the new
doctrine with all the zeal of a young convert, although he was already
eighty years of age; and, taking advantage of his influential position,
he attacked the orthodox opponents with overbearing violence. Etherius,
Bishop of Osma or Othma (formerly his pupil), and Beatus, a presbyter,
and after Alcuin abbot at Libana in Asturia, He is still honored in Spain as San Biego, but Elipandus
called him a disciple of Antichrist,“heretical, schismatical, ignorant,
and devoted to carnal lusts, and the very opposite of what his name
Beatus (Blessed) would suggest.
Pope Hadrian, being informed of these troubles,
issued a letter in 785 to the orthodox bishops of Spain, warning them
against the new doctrine as rank Nestorianism. Hadrian is also reported to have written to Charlemagne,
and called the Synod of Narbonne, 788; but the acts of this Synod
(first published by Cattell, 1633) are rejected as spurious by Pagi,
Walch, and Hefele (III. 662 sq. ).
But when the Adoptionist heresy, through the influence of Felix, spread in the French portion of Spain, and even beyond the Pyrenees into Septimania, creating a considerable commotion among the clergy, the Emperor Charlemagne called a synod to Regensburg (Ratisbon) in Bavaria, in 792, and invited the Bishop of Urgel to appear, that his case might be properly investigated. The Synod condemned Adoptionism as a renewal of the Nestorian heresy.
Felix publicly and solemnly recanted before the Synod, and also before Pope Hadrian, to whom he was sent. But on his return to Spain he was so much reproached for his weakness, that, regardless of his solemn oath, he yielded to the entreaties of his friends, and re-affirmed his former opinions.
Charlemagne, who did not wish to alienate the
spanish portion of his kingdom, and to drive it into the protection of
the neighboring Saracens, directed Alcuin, who in the mean time had
come to France from England, to send a mild warning and refutation of
Adoptionism to Felix. When this proved fruitless, and when the Spanish
bishops, under the lead of Elipandus, appealed to the justice of the
emperor, and demanded the restoration of Felix to his bishopric, he
called a new council at Frankfort on the Main in 794, which was
attended by about three hundred (?) bishops, and may be called
“universal,” as far as the West is concerned. See a full account in Hefele III. 678 sqq. He calls it the
most splendid of all the synods of Charlemagne. It was held
apostolica auctoritate, two delegates of Pope Hadrian being
present. But Charlemagne himself presided. The number of members is not
given in the sources, but Baronius and many others after him say
300.
Subsequently Felix wrote an apology, which was answered and refuted by Alcuin. Elipandus reproached Alcuin for having twenty thousand slaves (probably belonging to the convent of Tours), and for being proud of wealth. Charles sent Archbishop Leidrad of Lyons and other bishops to the Spanish portion of his kingdom, who succeeded, in two visits, in converting the heretics (according to Alcuin, twenty thousand).
About that time a council at Rome, under Leo III., pronounced, on very imperfect information, a fresh anathema, erroneously charging that the Adoptionists denied to the Saviour any other than a nuncupative Godhead.
Felix himself appeared, 799, at a Synod in
Aix-la-Chapelle, and after a debate of six days with Alcuin, he
recanted his Adoptionism a second time. He confessed to be convinced by
some passages, not of the Scriptures, but of the fathers (especially
Cyril of Alexandria, Leo I., and Gregory I.), which he had not known
before, condemned Nestorius, and exhorted his clergy and people to
follow the true faith. Hard. IV. 929-934; Alcuin, Epp. 92, 176; and the
Confessio Fidei Felicis in Mansi, XIII. 1035
sq.
Elipandus, under the protection of the government
of the Moors, continued openly true to his heretical conviction. But
Adoptionism lost its vitality with its champions, and passed away
during the ninth century. Slight traces of it are found occasionally
during the middle ages. Duns Scotus (1300) and Durandus a S. Porciano
(1320) admit the term Filius adoptivus in a qualified sense. 6 See
Walch, Hist. Adopt., p. 253; Gieseler, Church History,
4th Germ. ed vol. II., part I., p. 117, note 13 (E. tr. II.
78).
§ 118. Doctrine of Adoptionism.
The doctrine of Adoptionism is closely allied in
spirit to the Nestorian Christology; but it concerns not so much the
constitution of Christ’s person, as simply the
relation of his humanity to the Fatherhood of God. The Adoptionists
were no doubt sincere in admitting at the outset the unity of
Christ’s person, the communication of properties
between the two natures, and the term Theotokos (though in a qualified
sense) as applied to the Virgin Mary. Yet their view implies an
abstract separation of the eternal Son of God and the man Jesus of
Nazareth, and results in the assertion of two distinct Sons of God. It
emphasized the dyophysitism and dyotheletism of the orthodox
Christology, and ran them out into a personal dualism, inasmuch as
sonship is an attribute of personality, not of nature. The Adoptionists
spoke of an adoptatus homo instead of an adoptata natura humana, and
called the adopted manhood an adopted Son. They appealed to Ambrose,
Hilary, Jerome, Augustin, and Isidore of Seville, and the Mozarabic
Liturgy, which was used in Spain. A strong passage was quoted in the letter of the Spanish
bishops to Charlemagne from Isidore of Seville, who says
(Etymolog., lib. II., c. 2; see Mignes ed. of Alcuin II. 1324):
“Unigenitus vocatur secundum Divinitatis excellentiam, quia sine
fratribus: Primogenitussecundum susceptionem hominis, in qua per adoptionem gratiae
fratres habere dignatus est, de quibus esset
primogenitus.”
From the Mozarabic liturgy they quoted seven passages. See Hefele III.
650 sqq. In a passage of Hilary (De Trinit. II. 29), there is a
dispute between two readings—”carnis
humilitas Adoptatur,” and
“adoratur“ (Alcuin)—although the former alone
is consistent with the context, and ”adoptatur“ is used in a
more general sense for assumitur (so Agobard). See Walch,
Hist. Adopt. , p. 22 sqq., and Gieseler, II. 76, note
2. See Neander, Kirchengeschichte, III. p. 318 sqq.; E. ed. III. 159
sqq.
The fundamental point in Adoptionism is the
distinction of a double Sonship in Christ—one by
nature and one by grace, one by generation and one by adoption, one by
essence and one by title, one which is metaphysical and another which
is brought about by an act of the divine will and choice. The idea of
sonship is made to depend on the nature, not on the person; and as
Christ has two natures, there must be in him two corresponding
Sonships. According to his divine nature, Christ is really and
essentially (secundum naturam or genere) the Son of God, begotten from
eternity; but according to his human nature, he is the Son of God only
nominally (nuncupative) by adoption, or by divine grace. By nature he
is the Only-Begotten Son of God; Unigenitus, μονογενής, Primogenitus, πρωτότοκος
ἐν
πολλοῖς
ἀδελφοῖς,
The Adoptionists quoted in their favor mainly
Alcuin, Contra Felicem, I. 12, and III.
1.
It is not clear whether he dated the adopted
Sonship of Christ from his exaltation Dorner, II. 319. Walch. Neander. l.c. II. 15. l.c. V. 1.
The Adoptionists, as already remarked, thought
themselves in harmony with the Christology of Chalcedon, and professed
faith in one divine person in two full and perfect natures; “In una persona, duabus quoque naturis plenis atque
perfectis.” Alcuin, Opp. II. 567.
The champions of orthodoxy, among whom Alcuin, the
teacher and friend of Charlemagne, was the most learned and able, next
to him Paulinus of Aquileja, and Agobard of Lyons, unanimously viewed
Adoptionism as a revival or modification of the Nestorian heresy, which
was condemned by the third Oecumenical Council (431). Alcuin, contra Felicem, lib. l.c. 11:
“Sicut Nestoriana impietas in duas Christum dividit personas propter
duas naturas; ita et vestra indocta temeritas in duos eum dividit
filios, unum proprium, alterum adoptivum. Si vero Christus est proprius
Filius Dei Patris et adoptivus, ergo est alter et alter,” etc. Lib.
IV. c. 5: ”Nonne duo sunt, qui verus est Deus, et qui nuncupativus
Deus? Nonne etiam et duo sunt, qui adoptivus est Filius, et ille, qui
verus est Filius?”
Starting from the fact of a real incarnation, the
orthodox party insisted that it was the eternal, only begotten Son of
God, who assumed human nature from the womb of the Virgin, and united
it with his divine person, remaining the proper Son of God,
notwithstanding this change. Ibid. II. 12: ”Nec in illa assumptione alius est Deus,
alius homo, vel alius Filius Dei, et alius Filius Virginis; sed idem
est Filius Dei, qui et Filius Virginis; ut sit unus Filius etiam
proprius et perfectus in duabus naturis Dei et hominis.” In the
Confession which Felix had to sign in 799 when he abjured his error, it
is said that the Son of God and the Son of man are one and the same
true and proper Son of the Father, ”non adoptione, non appellatione
seu nuncupased in utraque natura unus Dei Patrus verus et proprius Dei
Dei Filius.”
The radical fault of this heresy is, that it shifts the whole idea of Sonship from the person to the nature. Christ is the Son of God as to his person, not as to nature. The two natures do not form two Sons, since they are inseparably united in the one Christ. The eternal Son of God did not in the act of incarnation assume a human personality, but human nature. There is therefore no room at all for an adoptive Sonship. The Bible nowhere calls Christ the adopted Son of God. Christ is, in his person, from eternity or by nature what Christians become by grace and regeneration.
In condemning Monotheletism, the Church emphasized the duality of natures in Christ; in condemning Adoptionism, she emphasized the unity of person. Thus she guarded the catholic Christology both against Eutychian and Nestorian departures, but left the problem of the full and genuine humanity of Christ unsolved. While he is the eternal Son of God, he is at the same time truly and fully the Son of man. The mediaeval Church dwelt chiefly on the divine majesty of Christ, and removed him at an infinite distance from man, so that he could only be reached through intervening mediators; but, on the other hand, she kept a lively, though grossly realistic, remembrance of his passion in the daily sacrifice of the mass, and found in the worship of the tender Virgin-Mother with the Infant-Saviour on her protecting arm a substitute for the contemplation and comfort of his perfect manhood. The triumph of the theory of transubstantiation soon followed the defeat of Adoptionism, and strengthened the tendency towards an excessive and magical supernaturalism which annihilates the natural, instead of transforming it.
Note.
The learned Walch defends the orthodoxy of the Adoptionists, since they did not say that Christ, in his two-fold Sonship, was alius et alius, ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος(which is the Nestorian view), but that he was Son aliter et aliter, a[llw” kai; a[llw”. Ketzerhistorie, vol. IX., pp. 881, 904. Baur (II., p. 152) likewise justifies Adoptionism, as a legitimate inference from the Chalcedonian dogma, but on the assumption that this dogma itself includes a contradiction. Neander, Dorner, Niedner, Hefele, and Möller concede the affinity of Adoptionism with Nestorianism, but affirm, at the same time, the difference and the new features in Adoptionism (see especially Dorner II., p. 309 sq.).
§ 119. The Predestinarian Controversy.
Comp. vol. III., §§ 158–160, pp. 851 sqq.
Literature.
I. The sources are: (1) The remains of the writings of Gottschalk, viz., three Confessions (one before the Synod of Mainz, two composed in prison), a poetic Epistle to Ratramnus, and fragment of a book against Rabanus Maurus. Collected in the first volume of Mauguin (see below), and in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” Tom. 121, col. 348–372.
(2) The writings of Gottschalk’s friends: Prudentius: Epist. ad Hincmarum, and Contra Jo. Scotum; Ratramnus: De Praedest., 850; Servatus Lupus: De tribus Questionibus (i.e., free will, predestination, and the extent of the atonement), 850; Florus Magister: De Praed. contra J. Scot.; Remigius: Lib. de tribus Epistolis, and Libellus de tenenda immobiliter Scripturae veritate. Collected in the first vol. of Mauguin, and in Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” vols. 115, 119 and 121. A poem of Walafrid Strabo on Gottschalk, in Migne, Tom. 114, col. 1115 sqq.
(3) The writings of Gottschalk’s opponents: Rabanus Maurus (in Migne, Tom. 112); Hincmar of Rheims: De Praedestinatione et Libero Arbitrio, etc. (in Migne, Tom. 125 and 126); Scotus Erigena: De Praedest. Dei contra Gottescalcum, 851 (first ed. by Mauguin, 1650, and in 1853 by Floss in Migne, Tom. 122). See also the Acts of Councils in Mansi, Tom. XIV. and XV.
II. Works of historians: Jac. Ussher (Anglican and Calvinist): Gotteschalci et Praedestinatianae controversiae ab eo motto Historia. Dublin, 1631; Hanover, 1662; and in the Dublin ed. of his works.
Gilb. Mauguin (Jansenist, d. 1674): Vet. Auctorum, qui IX. saec. de Praedest. et Grat. scripserunt, Opera et Fragm. plurima nunc primum in lucem edita, etc. Paris, 1650, 2 Tom. In the second volume he gives the history and defends the orthodoxy of Gottschalk.
L. Cellot (Jesuit): Hist. Gotteschalci praedestinatiani. Paris, 1655, fol. Against Gottschalk and Mauguin.
J. J. Hottinger (Reformed): Fata doctrinae de Praedestinatione et Gratia Dei. Tiguri, 1727. Also his Dissertation on Gottschalk, 1710.
Card. Noris: Historia Gottesc., in his Opera. Venice, 1759, Tom. III.
F. Monnier: De Gotteschalci et Joan. Erigenae Controversia. Paris, 1853.
Jul. Weizsäcker (Luth.): Das Dogma von der göttl. Vorherbestimmung im 9ten Jahrh., in Dorner’s “Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theol.” Gotha, 1859, p. 527–576.
Hefele (R. Cath.): Conciliengesch. IV. 130–223 (second ed., 1879).
V. Borrasch: Der Mönch Gottschalk v. Orbais, sein Leben u. seine Lehre. Thorn, 1868.
Kunstmann: Hrabanus Maurus (Mainz, 1841); Spingler: Rabanus Maurus (Ratisbon, 1856); and C. v. Noorden: Hinkmar v. Rheims (Bonn, 1863); H. Schrörs: Hincmar Erzbisch v. R. (Freil. B. 1884).
See also Schröckh, vol. XXIV. 1–126; Neander, Gieseler, Baur, in their Kirchengeschichte and their Dogmengeschichte; Bach (Rom. Cath.), in his Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters, I. 219–263; Guizot: Civilization in France, Lect. V.; Hardwick: Middle Age, 161–165; Robertson, II. 288–299; Reuter, Rel. Aufklärung im Mittelalter, I. 43–48; and Möller in Herzog2, V. 324–328.
Gottschalk or Godescalcus, There axe several persons of that name; the three best
known are, 1) the subject of this chapter; 2) the writer of sequences
mentioned in this volume, p. 433; 3) the prince of the Slavonic and
Wendish tribes on the borders of Northern Germany, who died a martyr
June 7, 1066. The meaning of Gottschalk is
God’s servant. The German word
Schalk, Knecht, has
undergone the same change as the English word knave. Milman (IV. 184)
calls our Gottschalk a “premature Luther” (who was also a Saxon), but
gives no account of the controversy on “the dark subject of
predestination.” Schrörs (l.c. 96) likewise compares
Gottschalk with Luther, but the difference is much greater than the
resemblance.
The Greek church ignored Augustin, and still more Gottschalk, and adheres to this day to the anthropology of the Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers, who laid as great stress on the freedom of the will as on divine grace. John of Damascus teaches an absolute foreknowledge, but not an absolute foreordination of God, because God cannot foreordain sin, which he wills not, and which, on the contrary, he condemns and punishes; and he does not force virtue upon the reluctant will.
The Latin church retained a traditional reverence
for Augustin, as her greatest divine, but never committed herself to
his scheme of predestination. See vol. III. 866 sqq. Neander says (Church Hist.
III. 472): “The Augustinian doctrine of grace had finally gained a
complete victory even over Semi-Pelagianism; but on the doctrine of
predestination nothing had as yet been publicly determined.” Gieseler
(II. 84): ”Strict Augustinianism had never been generally
adopted even in the West. ” In the language of Gregory I.: ”Bonum, quod agimus, et
Dei est, et nostrum: Dei per praevenientem gratiam, nostrum per
obsequentem liberam voluntatem. Si enim Dei non est, unde ei gratias in
eteruum agimus? Rursum si nostrum non est, unde. nobis retribui praemia
speramus?“ Moral., Lib. XXXI. in Cap. 41 Job, in
Migne’s ed. of Gregory’s
Opera, II. 699.
The relation of the Roman church to Augustin in
regard to predestination is similar to that which the Lutheran church
holds to Luther. The Reformer held the most extreme view on divine
predestination, and in his book on the Slavery of the Human Will,
against Erasmus, he went further than Augustin before him and Calvin
after him; Melanchthon, too, at first was so strongly impressed with
the divine sovereignty that he traced the adultery of David and the
treason of Judas to the eternal decree of God; but be afterwards
changed his view in favor of synergism, which Luther never
did.
§ 120. Gottschalk and Babanus Maurus.
Gottschalk, the son of Count Berno (or Bern), was sent in his childhood by his parents to the famous Hessian convent of Fulda as a pious offering (oblatus). When he had attained mature age, he denied the validity of his involuntary tonsure, wished to leave the convent, and brought his case before a Synod of Mainz in 829. The synod decided in his favor, but the new abbot, Rabanus Maurus, appealed to the emperor, and wrote a book, De Oblatione Puerorum, in defence of the obligatory character of the parental consecration of a child to monastic life. He succeeded, but allowed Gottschalk to exchange Fulda for Orbais in the diocese of Soissons in the province of Rheims. From this time dates his ill feeling towards the reluctant monk, whom he called a vagabond, and it cannot be denied that Rabanus appears unfavorably in the whole controversy.
At Orbais Gottschalk devoted himself to the study
of Augustin and Fulgentius of Ruspe (d. 533), with such ardent
enthusiasm that he was called Fulgentius. By Walafrid Strabo his fellow-student at Fulda, who had a
high opinion of his learning and piety, and wrote a poem entitled
“Gotescalcho monacho qui et Fulgentius;” in Opera ed.
Migne, Tom. II. (“Patr. Lat.,” Tom. 114, col. 1115-1117). Neander (III.
474, note) supposes that Gottschalk probably borrowed from Fulgentius
the term praedestinatio duplex.
Rabanus Maurus wrote a letter to Noting on
predestination, intended against Gottschalk, though without naming
him. Epist, V. ad Notingum, De Praedestinatione, first
published, together with a letter Ad Eberhardum comitem, by
Sirmond, Paris, 1647; also in Rabani Mauri Opera, Tom. VI., ed. Migne (“Patr. Lat.,” Tom. 112, col. 1530-1553).
Hefele (IV. 134) complains that this edition has many inaccuracies and
typographical errors. Hefele (IV. 136) declares this to be inconsistent, because
both sentences amount to the same thing and give a good orthodox sense.
“In
Wahrheit ist ja auch der Sünder praedestinirt ad mortem oder
poenam, aber seine Praedestination ist keine absolute, wie die des
electus, sondern sie ist bedingt durch die praevisa
demerita.” Chiefly from the Hypomnesticon (Commonitorium,
Memorandum), usually called Augustinian work against the called
Hypognosticon (Subnotationes), a pseudo-Pelagians, which
was freely quoted at that time as Augustinian by Scotus Erigena and
Hincmar; while Remigius proved the spuriousness. It is printed in the
tenth vol. of the Benedict. ed. of Augustin, and in
Migne’s reprint, X. 1611-1664. See Feuerlein:
Disquis. Hist. de libris Hypognosticon, an ab Hincmaro, in Augustana
Confessione et alibi recte tribuantur divo Augustino. Altdorf,
1735.
Gottschalk saw in this tract the doctrine of the
Semi-Pelagian Gennadius and Cassianus rather than of “the most catholic
doctor” Augustin. He appeared before a Synod at Mainz, which was opened
Oct. 1, 848, in the presence of the German king, and boldly professed
his belief in a two-fold predestination, to life and to death, God
having from eternity predestinated his elect by free grace to eternal
life, and quite similarly all reprobates, by a just judgment for their
evil deserts, to eternal death. The fragment of this confession is preserved by Hincmar, De
Praedest., c.5 (Migne, 125, col. 89 sq. ): ”Ego Gothescalcus credo
et confiteor, profiteor et testificor ex Deo Patre, per Deum Filium, in
Deo Spiritu Sancto, et affirmo atque approbo coram Deo et sanctis .
ejus, quod gemina est praedestinatio, sive electorum ad requiem, sive
reproborum ad mortem [so far quoted verbatim from Isidore of
Seville, Sent. II. 6]: quia sicut Deus incommutabilis ante mundi
constitutionem omnes electos suos incommutabiliter per gratuitam
gratiam suam praedestinavit ad vitam aeternam, similter omnino omnes
reprobos, quia in die judicii damnabuntur propter ipsorum mala merita,
idem ipse incommutabilis Deus per justum judicium suum incommutabiliter
praedestinavit ad mortem merito sempiternam.”
The details of the synodical transaction are unknown, but Rabanus, who presided over the Synod, gives as the result, in a letter to Hincmar, that Gottschalk was condemned, together with his pernicious doctrine (which he misrepresents), and handed over to his metropolitan, Hincmar, for punishment and safe-keeping.
§ 121. Gottschalk and Hincmar.
Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, a most influential,
proud and intolerant prelate, was ill-disposed towards Gottschalk,
because he had been somewhat irregularly (though not invalidly)
ordained to the priesthood by a rural bishop (chorepiscopus), Rigbold
of Rheims, without the knowledge of his own bishop of Soissons, and
gone on travels without permission of his abbot. Mauguin vindicates Gottschalk in both
respects. Carisiacum, Cressy or Crécy in Northern France,
in the department of Somme, celebrated by the battle of 1346 between
the English Edward III. and the French Philip VI. Mansi, XIV. 921; Pertz, Monum. I. 443 sq.; Migne,
Tom. 115, col. 1402; Hefele, IV. 142 sqq. Hefele doubts, with plausible
reason, the concluding sentence of the synod, in which Gottschalk is
condemned to everlasting silence.
In his lonely prison at Hautvilliers, the
condemned monk composed two confessions, a shorter and a longer one, in
which he strongly re-asserted his doctrine of a double predestination.
He appealed to Pope Nicolas, who seems to have had some sympathy with
him, and demanded a reinvestigation, which, however, never took place.
He also offered, in reliance on the grace of God, to undergo the fiery
ordeal before the king, the bishops and monks, to step successively
into four cauldrons of boiling water, oil, fat and pitch, and then to
walk through a blazing pile; but nobody could be found to accept the
challenge. Hincmar refused to grant him in his last sickness the
communion and Christian burial) except on condition of full
recantation. Gottschalk had provoked him by his disregard of episcopal
authority, and by the charge of Sabellianism for altering ”trina
Deitas,” in a church hymn, into ”summa Deitas.” Hincmar
charged him in turn with Arianism, but the word to which he had
objected, retained its place in the Gallican service.
He had the courage of his convictions. His ruling idea of the unchangeableness of God reflected itself in his inflexible conduct. His enemies charged him with vanity, obstinacy, and strange delusions. Jesuits (Sirmond, Peteau, Cellot) condemn him and his doctrine; while Calvinists and Jansenists (Ussher, Hottinger, Mauguin) vindicate him as a martyr to the truth.
§ 122. The Contending Theories on Predestination, and the Victory of Semi-Augustinianism.
During the imprisonment of Gottschalk a lively controversy, was carried on concerning the point in dispute, which is very creditable to the learning of that age, but after all did not lead to a clear and satisfactory settlement. The main question was whether divine predestination or foreordination which all admitted as a necessary element of the Divine perfection, was absolute or relative; in other words, whether it embraced all men and all acts, good and bad, or only those who are saved, and such acts as God approves and rewards. This question necessarily involved also the problem of the freedom of the human will, and the extent of the plan of redemption. The absolute predestinarians denied, the relative predestinarians affirmed, the freedom of will and the universal import of Christ’s atoning death.
The doctrine of absolute predestination was defended, in substantial agreement with Gottschalk, though with more moderation and caution, by Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, Ratramnus, monk of Corbie, Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferrières, and Remigius, Archbishop of Lyons, and confirmed by the Synod of Valence, 855, and also at Langres in 859.
The doctrine of free will and a conditional predestination was advocated, in opposition to Gottschalk, by Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, and Bishop Pardulus of Laon, and confirmed at a synod of Chiersy, 853, and in part again at Savonnières, near Toul, in 859.
A third theory was set forth by John Scotus Erigena, intended against Gottschalk, but was in fact still more against the orthodox view, and disowned by both parties.
I. The doctrine of an Absolute and Two-Fold Predestination.
Gottschalk professed to follow simply the great
Augustin. This is true; but he gave undue disproportion to the tenet of
predestination, and made it a fundamental theological principle,
inseparable from the immutability of God; while with Augustin it was
only a logical inference from his anthropological premises. He began
where Augustin ended. To employ a later (Calvinistic) terminology, he
was a supralapsarian rather than an infralapsarian. He held a two-fold
predestination of the elect to salvation, and of the reprobate to
perdition; not in the sense of two separate predestinations, but one
predestination with two sides (gemina, i.e. bipartita), a positive side
(election) and a negative side (reprobation). He could not conceive of
the one without the other; but he did not teach a predestination of the
sinner to sin, which would make God the author of sin. In this respect
he was misrepresented by Rabanus Maurus. Rabanus makes Gottschalk teach a ”praedestinatio Dei,
sicut in bono, sic ita et in malo … quasi Deus eos
[reprobos] fecisset ab initio incorrigibiles.” But even Hincmar
concedes (De Praed., c. 15, in Migne 125, col. 126) that the
predestinarians of his day (moderni Praedestinatiani) taught
only a predestination of the reprobates ad interitum, not ad
peccatum. Cardinal Noris and Hefele (IV. 140) admit the perversion
of Gottschalk’s words in malam partem by
Rabanus. The same charge of making God the author of sin by
predestinating and creating men for sin and damnation, has again and
again been raised against supralapsarians and Calvinists generally, in
spite of their express denial.
His predestinarian friends brought out the
difference in God’s relation to the good and the evil
more clearly. Thus Ratramnus says that God was the author (auctor) as
well as the ruler (ordinator) of good thoughts and deeds, but only the
ruler, not the author, of the bad. He foreordained the punishment of
sin, not sin itself (poenam, not peccatum). He directs the course of
sin, and overrules it for good. He used the evil counsel of Judas as a
means to bring about the crucifixion and through it the redemption.
Lupus says that God foreknew and permitted Adam’s
fall, and foreordained its consequences, but not the fall itself.
Magister Florus also speaks of a praedestinatio gemina, yet with the
emphatic distinction, that God predestinated the elect both to good
works and to salvation, but the reprobate only to punishment, not to
sin. He was at first ill-informed of the teaching of Gottschalk, as if
he had denied the meritum damnationis. Remigius censured the “temerity”
and “untimely loquacity” of Gottschalk, but defended him against the
inhuman treatment, and approved of all his propositions except the
unqualified denial of freedom to do good after the fall, unless he
meant by it that no one could use his freedom without the grace of God.
He subjected the four chapters of Hincmar to a severe criticism. On the
question whether God will have all men to be saved without or with
restriction, and whether Christ died for all men or only for the elect,
he himself held the particularistic view, but was willing to allow
freedom of opinion, since the church had not decided that question, and
the Bible admitted of different interpretations. The particularists appealed to the passage
The Synod of Valence, which met at the request of
the Emperor Lothaire in 855, endorsed, in opposition to Hincmar and the
four chapters of the Synod of Chiersy, the main positions of the
Augustinian system as understood by Remigius, who presided. See the canons of this Synod in Mansi, XV. I sqq., and
Hefele, IV. 193-195.
We may briefly state the system of the Augustinian school in the following propositions:
(1) All men are sinners, and justly condemned in consequence of Adam’s fall.
(2) Man in the natural state has no freedom of choice, but is a slave of sin. (This, however, was qualified by Remigius and the Synod of Valence in the direction of Semi-Pelagianism.)
(3) God out of free grace elected from eternity and unalterably a part of mankind to holiness and salvation, and is the author of all their good deeds; while he leaves the rest in his inscrutable counsel to their merited damnation.
(4) God has unalterably predestinated the impenitent and persistent sinner to everlasting punishment, but not to sin, which is the guilt of man and condemned by God.
(5) Christ died only for the elect.
Gottschalk is also charged by his opponents with
slighting the church and the sacraments, and confining the effect of
baptism and the eucharist to the elect. This would be consistent with
his theory. He is said to have agreed with his friend Ratramnus in
rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation. Augustin certainly did
not teach transubstantiation, but he checked the logical tendency of
Predestinarianism by the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration,
and of the visible historical church as the mediatrix of salvation. Dr. Bach, a learned Roman Catholic historian, states this
point thus (l.c., I. 230): ”Der historische Christus und die
Kirche, der sichtbare Leib Christi verflüchtigt sich schon
bei Gottschalk zu einem leeren Abstraktum, sobald der concrete Boden
der Erwählung nicht mehr die Kirche und ihre Sakramente,
sondern ein lediglich fingirtes vorzeitliches Decret Gottes ist. Es
taucht dann immer ein Surrogat der Phantasie, die s. g. unsichtbare
Kirche auf, und diejenigen, welche die grossartige realistische Lehre
des hl. Augustin von der Kirche und den Sakramenten
zerstören, nennen sich vorzüglich Augustinianer,
indem sie nicht wissen, dass die Lehre Augustins von der
Praedestination auf dem concreten Boden der Christologie und
Anthropologie steht und ohne diese zur gefährlichsten
Häresie wird.“
II. The doctrine of a Conditional and Single Predestination.
Rabanus and Hincmar, who agreed in theology as well as in unchristian conduct towards Gottschalk, claimed to be Augustinians, but were at heart Semi-Pelagians, and struck a middle course, retaining the Augustinian premises, but avoiding the logical consequences. Foreknowledge (praescientia) is a necessary attribute of the omniscient mind of God, and differs from foreordination or predestination (praedestinatio), which is an attribute of his omnipotent will. The former may exist without the latter, but not the latter without the former. Foreknowledge is absolute, and embraces all things and all men, good and bad; foreordination is conditioned by foreknowledge, and refers only to what is good. God foreknew sin from eternity, but did not predestinate it; and so he foreknew the sinners, but did not predestinate them to sin or death; they are simply praesciti, not praedestinati. There is therefore no double predestination, but only one predestination which coincides with election to eternal life. The fall of Adam with its consequences falls under the idea of divine permission. God sincerely intends to save all men without distinction, and Christ shed his blood for all; if any are lost, they have to blame themselves.
Hincmar secured the confirmation of his views by
the Synod of Chiersy, held in presence of the Emperor, Charles the
Bald, 853, It adopted four propositions: Capitula IV. Carisiacensia, in Hincmar, De Praed.,
c. 2; in Mansi, XIV. 920; Gieseler, II. 88; and Hefele, IV.
187.
(1) God Almighty made man free from sin, endowed
him with reason and the liberty of choice, and placed him in Paradise.
Man, by the abuse of this liberty, sinned, and the whole race became a
mass of perdition. Out of this massa perditionis God elected those whom
he by grace predestinated unto life eternal; others he left by a just
judgment in the mass of perdition, foreknowing that they would perish,
but not foreordaining them to perdition, though he foreordained eternal
punishment for them. “perituros praescivit, sed non ut perirent
praedestinavit, poenam autem illis, quia justus est, praedestinavit
aeternam.”
(2) We lost the freedom of will through the fall
of the first man, and regained it again through Christ. This chapter,
however, is so vaguely worded that it may be understood in a
Semi-Pelagian as well as in an Augustinian sense. “Libertatem arbitrii in primo homine perdidimus, quam
per Christum Dominum nostrum recepimus: et habemus liberum arbitrium ad
bonum, praeventum et adjutum gratia: et habemus liberum arbitrium ad
malum, desertum gratia. Liberum autem habemus arbitrium, quia gratia
liberatum, et gratia de corrupto sonatum.”
(3) God Almighty would have all men without exception to be saved, although not all are actually saved. Salvation is a free gift of grace; perdition is the desert of those who persist in sin.
(4) Jesus Christ died for all men past, present and future, though not all are redeemed by the mystery of his passion, owing to their unbelief.
The last two propositions are not Augustinian, but catholic, and are the connecting link between the catholic orthodoxy and the Semi-Pelagian heresy.
Hincmar defended these propositions against the objections of Remigius and the Synod of Valence, in two books on Predestination and Free Will (between 856 and 863). The first is lost, the second is preserved. It is very prolix and repetitious, and marks no real progress. He made several historical blunders, and quoted freely from the pseudo-Augustinian Hypomnesticon, which he thought presented Augustin’s later and better views.
The two parties came to a sort of agreement at the
National Synod of France held at Toucy, near Toul, in October, 860, in
presence of the Emperor, Charles the Bald, King Lothaire II., and
Charles of Provence, and the bishops of fourteen ecclesiastical
provinces. Mansi, XV. 563; Hefele, IV. 215 sqq.
Here ended the controversy. It was a defeat of predestinarianism in its rigorous form and a substantial victory of Semi-Augustinianism, which is almost identical with Semi-Pelagianism except that it gives greater prominence to divine grace.
Practically, even this difference disappeared. The mediaeval church needed the doctrine of free will and of universal call, as a basis for maintaining the moral responsibility, the guilt and merit of man, and as a support to the sacerdotal and sacramental mediation of salvation; while the strict predestinarian system, which unalterably determines the eternal fate of every soul by a pre-temporal or ante-mundane decree, seemed in its logical consequences to neutralize the appeal to the conscience of the sinner, to cut off the powerful inducement of merit and reward, to limit the efficacy of the sacraments to the elect, and to weaken the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
But while churchly and sacerdotal
Semi-Augustinianism or covert Semi-Pelagianism triumphed in France,
where Hincmar had the last word in the controversy, it was not
oecumenically sanctioned. Pope Nicolas, who was dissatisfied with
Hincmar on hierarchical grounds, had some sympathy with Gottschalk, and
is reported to have approved the Augustinian canons of the Synods of
Valence and Langres in regard to a “two-fold predestination” and the
limitation of the atonement. The decree of the pope is lost; but the fact rests on the
authority of the well-informed Prudentius of Troyes in the Annales
Bertiniani ad ann. 859 (Pertz, Mon. Germ., I. 453 sq.):
“Nicolas, pontifex Romanus, de qratia Dei et libero arbitrio, de
veritate Geminaepraedestinationis et sanguine Christi, ut pro
credentibusomnibus fusus sit, fideliter confirmat et catholice
decernit.”
Hincmar doubted such a decision, and charged Prudentius with partiality
(Ep. 24 addressed to Egilo, Bishop of Sens). The Jesuits labored
hard to set it aside against the Jansenists and Calvinists, but without
good reason. Weizsäcker (p. 574), Hardwick (p. 165), and
Möller (in Herzog2V. 327)
accept the statement of Prudentius, and Weizsäcker says:
“Hatte
in Gallien die Hoftheologie des Königs den Semipeligianimus
(?) durchgebracht, so hat doch der Papst für Augustin
entschieden … Die Kirchengeschichte darf ganz
unbedenklich in ihre Blätter diese Entscheidung des
römischen Stuhls gegen den Semipelagianismus des neunten
Jahrhunderts aufnehmen, die man seit Mauguin niemals hätte
bezweifeln sollen.” Neander and Gieseler are silent on this
point.
Thus the door was left open within the Catholic church itself for a revival of strict Augustinianism, and this took place on a grand scale in the sixteenth century.
Notes.
The Gottschalk controversy was first made the subject of historical investigation and critical discussion in the seventeenth century, but was disturbed by the doctrinal antagonism between Jansenists (Jansen, Mauguin) and Jesuits (Sirmond, Cellot). The Calvinistic historians (Ussher, Hottinger) sided with Gottschalk and the Jansenists. The controversy has been more calmly and impartially considered by the Protestant historians of the nineteenth century, but with a slight difference as to the limits and the result of the controversy; some representing it merely as a conflict between a stricter and a milder type of Augustinianism (Neander, Kurtz), others as a conflict between Augustinianism and a revived and triumphant Semi-Pelagianism (Baur, Weizsäcker). The former view is more correct. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned by the Synod of Orange (Arausio), 529; again by the Synod of Valence in the same year, and by Pope Boniface II., 530, and has ever since figured in the Roman catalogue of heresies. The Catholic Church cannot sanction what she has once condemned.
Both parties in the contest of the ninth century (leaving the isolated Scotus Erigena out of view) appealed to Augustin as the highest patristic authority in the Latin church. Both agreed in the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology, i.e. in the doctrine of a universal fall in Adam, and a partial redemption through Christ; both maintained that some men are saved by free grace, that others are lost by their own guilt; and both confined the possibility of salvation to the present life and to the limits of the visible church (which leads logically to the horrible and incredible conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the human race, including all unbaptized infants, are eternally lost). But the Augustinian party went back to absolute predestination, as the ultima ratio of God’s difference of dealing with the saved and the lost, or the elect and the reprobate; while the Semi-Augustinian party sought the difference rather in the merits or demerits of men, and maintained along-side with a conditional predestination the universal benevolence of God and the universal offer of saving grace (which, however, is merely assumed, and not at all apparent in this present life). The Augustinian scheme is more theological and logical, the Semi-Augustinian more churchly and practical. Absolute predestinarianism starts from the almighty power of God, but is checked by the moral sense and kept within the limits of infralapsarianism, which exempts the holy God from any agency in the fall of the race, and fastens the guilt of sin upon man. Relative predestinarianism emphasizes the responsibility and salvability of all men, but recognizes also their perfect dependence upon divine grace for actual salvation. The solution of the problem must be found in the central idea of the holy love of God, which is the key-note of all his attributes and works.
The practical difference between the catholic Semi-Augustinianism and the heterodox Semi-Pelagianism is, as already remarked, very small. They are twin-sisters; they virtually ignore predestination, and lay the main stress on the efficacy of the sacramental system of the historical church, as the necessary agency for regeneration and salvation.
The Lutheran system, as developed in the Formula of Concord, is the evangelical counterpart of the Catholic Semi-Augustinianism. It retains also its sacramental feature (baptismal regeneration and the eucharistic presence), but cuts the root of human merit by the doctrine of justification by faith alone.
Calvinism is a revival of Augustinianism, but without its sacramental and sacerdotal checks.
Arminianism, as developed in the Reformed church of Holland and among the Wesleyan Methodists, and held extensively in the Church of England, is an evangelical counterpart of Semi-Pelagianism, and differs from Lutheranism by teaching a conditional election and freedom of the will sufficient to accept as well as to reject the universal offer of saving grace.
§ 123. The Doctrine of Scotus Erigena.
A complete ed. of the works of Scotus Erigena by H. J. Floss, 1853, in Migne’s “P. L.,” Tom. 122. The book De Praedestinatione in col. 355–440. Comp. the monographs on S. E. by Hjort (1823), Staudenmaier (1834), Taillandier (1843), Christlieb (1860, and his art. in Herzog2 XIII. 788 sqq.), Hermens (1861), Huber (1861); the respective sections in Schröckh, Neander, Baur (on the Trinity), Dorner (on Christology); and in the Histories of Philosophy by Ritter, Erdmann, and Ueberweg. Also Reuter: Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im Mittelalter (1875), I. 51–64 (a discussion of Erigena’s views on the relation of authority and reason).
At the request of Hincmar, who was very anxious to
secure learned aid, but mistook his man, John Scotus Erigena wrote a
book on Predestination (in 850), and dedicated it to Hincmar and his
friend Pardulus, Bishop of Laon. This most remarkable of
Scotch-Irishmen was a profound scholar and philosopher, but so far
ahead of his age as to be a wonder and an enigma. He shone and
disappeared like a brilliant meteor. We do not know whether he was
murdered by his pupils in Malmsbury (if he ever was called to England),
or died a natural death in France (which is more likely). He escaped
the usual fate of heretics by the transcendental character of his
speculations and by the protection of Charles the Bald, with whom he
was on such familiar terms that he could answer his saucy question at
the dinner-table: “What is the difference between a Scot and a sot?”
with the quick-witted reply: “The table, your Majesty.” His system of
thought was an anachronism, and too remote from the spirit of his times
to be properly understood and appreciated. He was a Christian
Neo-Platonist, a forerunner of Scholasticism and Mysticism and in some
respects of Spinoza, Schleiermacher, and Hegel. With him church
authority resolves itself into reason, theology into philosophy, and
true philosophy is identical with true religion. Philosophy is, so to
say, religion unveiled and raised from the cloudy region of popular
belief to the clear ether of pure thought. So it was with Hegel. His pious widow told me that her
husband often politely declined her request to accompany her to church,
with the remark: ”Mein liebes Kind, dos Denken ist auch
Gottesdienst.”
From this alpine region of speculation he viewed
the problem of predestination and free will. He paid due attention to
the Scriptures and the fathers. He often quotes St. Augustin, and calls
him, notwithstanding his dissent, “the most acute inquirer and asserter
of truth.” “De Praed., cap. 15, col. 413: ”acutissimus
veritatis et inquisitor et assertor.” κατ̓ἀντίφρασιν, e contrario. De Praed., cap. 9 (in Migne, col. 392): ”In Deo
sicut nulla locorum sunt, ita nulla temporum intervalla.” A
profound thought, not fully considered by either party in the
strife. He thus sums up his discussion at the close (Migne, col.
438) ”Cum omnibus orthodoxis fidelibus anathematizo eos, qui dicunt,
duas praedestinationes esse, aut unum geminam, bipartitam, aut duplam.
Si enim duae sunt, non est una divina substantia. Si gemina, non est
individua. Si bipartita, non est simplex, sed partibus composita. Si
dupla est, complicata est. Quod si prohibemur divinam unitatem dicere
triplam, qua dementia audet haereticus eam asserere duplam? Tali igitur
monstroso, venenoso, mortifero dogmate a cordibus nostris radicitus
exploso, credamus, unam aeternam praedestinationem Dei Domini esse, et
non nisi in his, quae sunt, ad ea vero, quae non sunt, nullo modo
pertinere.” Negatio, privatio, defectus justitiae, absentia boni,
corruptio boni. On the other hand, Scotus seems to regard sin as a
necessary limitation of the creature. But this idea is inconsistent
with the freedom of will, and runs into necessitarianism and pantheism.
As sin is the defect of justice, so death is simply the defect of life,
and pain the defect of bliss. See cap. 15 (col. 416). God knows only what is, and sin has no real existence.
“Sicut Dem mali auctor non est ita nec praescius mali, nec
praedestinans est.” Cap. 10 (col. 395). ”Ratio pronunciare non
dubitat, peccata eorumque supplicia nihil esse, ac per hoc nec
praesciri nec praedestinari posse; quomodo enim vel praesciuntur, vel
praedestinantur, quae non sunt?” Cap. 15. The same thought occurs
in his work, De Divis. Nat. He refers to such passages of the
Scriptures where it is said of God that he does not know the
wicked. The predestination theory of Scotus has some points of
resemblance with that of Schleiermacher, who defended the Calvinistic
particularism, but only as a preparatory stage to universal election
and restoration.
This appears more clearly from his remarkable work, De Divisione Naturae, where he develops his system. The leading idea is the initial and final harmony of God and the universe, as unfolding itself under four aspects: 1) Natura creatrix non creata, i.e. God as the creative and uncreated beginning of all that exists; 2) Natura creatrix creata, i.e. the ideal world or the divine prototypes of all things; 3) Natura creata non creans, i.e. the created, but uncreative world of time and sense, as the reflex and actualization of the ideal world; 4) Natura nec creata nec creans, i.e. God as the end of all creation, which, after the defeat of all opposition, must return to him in an ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων. “The first and the last form,” he says, “are one, and can be understood only of God, who is the beginning and the end of all things.”
The tendency of this speculative and mystical
pantheism of Erigena was checked by the practical influence of the
Christian theism which entered into his education and personal
experience, so that we may say with a historian who is always just and
charitable: “We are unwilling to doubt, that he poured out many a
devout and earnest prayer to a redeeming God for his inward
illumination, and that he diligently sought for it in the sacred
Scripture, though his conceptual apprehension of the divine Being seems
to exclude such a relation of man to God, as prayer presupposes.” Neander, III. 462. The same may be said still more
confidently of Schleiermacher, who leaned with his head to pantheism,
but lovingly clung with his heart to Christ as his Lord and Saviour. He
keenly felt the speculative difficulty of confining the absolute being
to the limitations of personality (”omnis definitio est
negatio“), and yet sincerely prayed to a personal God. We
cannot pray to an abstraction, but only to a personal being that is
able to hear and to answer. Nor is personality necessarily a
limitation. There may be an absolute personality as well as an absolute
intelligence and an absolute will.
Hincmar had reason to disown such a dangerous
champion, and complained of the Scotch “porridge.” “Pultes Scotorum.”
§ 124. The Eucharistic Controversies. Literature.
The general Lit. on the history of the doctrine of the Eucharist, see in vol. I., § 55, p. 472, and II. 241.
Add the following Roman Catholic works on the general Subject: Card. Jo. de Lugo (d. 1660): Tractatus de venerabili Eucharistiae Sacramento, in Migne’s “Cursus Theol. Completus,” XXIII. Card. Wiseman: Lectures on the Real Presence. Lond., 1836 and l842. Oswald: Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sacramenten der katholischen Kirche. Münster, 3rd ed., 1870, vol. I. 375–427.
On the Protestant side: T. K. Meier: Versuch einer Gesch. der Transsubstantiationslehre. Heilbronn, 1832. Ebrard: Das Dogma v. heil. Abendmahl und seine Gesch. Frankf. a. M., 1845 and ’46, 2 vols. Steitz: Arts. on Radbert, Ratramnus, and Transubstantiation in Herzog. Schaff: Transubstantiation in “Rel. Encycl.” III. 2385.
Special Lit. on the eucharistic controversies in the ninth and eleventh centuries.
I. Controversy between Ratramnus and Paschasius Radbertus.
(1) Paschasius Radbertus: Liber de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, dedicated to Marinus, abbot of New Corbie, 831, second ed., 844, presented to Charles the Bald; first genuine ed. by Nic. Mameranus, Colon. 1550; best ed. by Martene and Durand in “Veter. Script. et Monum. amplissima Collectio,” IX. 367.—Comm. in Matth. (26:26); Epistola ad Fridegardum, and treatise De Partu Virginis. See S. Pasch. Radb.: Opera omnia in Tom. 120 of Migne’s “Patrol. Lat.,” Par. 1852.
Haimo: Tract. de Corp. et Sang. Dom. (a fragment of a Com. on 1 Cor.), in D’Achery, “Spicil.” I. 42, and in Migne, “P. L.,” Tom. 118, col. 815–817. Hincmar: Ep. ad Carol. Calv. de cavendis vitiis et virtutibus exercendis, c. 9. In Migne, T. 125, col. 915 sqq.
(2) Ratramnus: De Corpore et Sanguine Domini liber ad Carolum Calvum Reg. Colon., 1532 (under the name of Bertram), often publ. by Reformed divines in the original and in translations (from 1532 to 1717 at Zürich, Geneva, London, Oxford, Amsterdam), and by Jac. Boileau, Par., 1712, with a vindication of the catholic orthodoxy of Ratramnus. See Ratramni Opera in Migne,” P. L.,” Tom. 121, col. 10–346.
Rabanus Maurus: Poenitentiale, cap. 33. Migne,” P. L.” Tom. 110, col. 492, 493. Walafrid Strabo: De Rebus Eccls., c. 16, 17. See extracts in Gieseler, II. 80–82.
(3) Discussions of historians: Natalis Alexander, H. Eccl. IX. and X., Dissert. X. and XIII. Neander, IV. 458–475, Germ. ed., or III. 495–501, Engl. transl., Bost. ed. Gieseler, II. 79–84, N. Y. ed. Baur: Vorlesungen über Dogmengesch. II. 161–175.
II. Controversy between Berengar and Lanfranc.
(1) LANFRANCUS: De Eucharistiae Sacramento contra Berengarium lib., Basil,. 1528, often publ., also in “Bibl. PP. Lugd.,” XVIII. 763, and in Migne,” Patrol. Lat.,” Tom. 150 (1854), col. 407–442.
(2) Berengarius: De Sacra Coena adv. Lanfrancum liber posterior, first publ. by A. F. & F. Th. Vischer. Berol., 1834 (from the MS. in Wolfenbüttel, now in Göttingen. Comp. Lessing: Berengarius Turon. oder Ankündigung eines wichtigen Werkes desselben. Braunschweig, 1770). H. Sudendorf: Berengarius Turonensis oder eine Sammlung ihn betreffender Briefe. Hamburg and Gotha, 1850. Contains twenty-two new documents, and a full list of the older sources.
(3) Neander: III. 502–530 (E. Tr. Bost. ed.; or IV. 476–534 Germ. ed.). Gieseler: II. 163–173 (E. Tr. N. York ed.). Baur: II. 175–198. Hardwick: Middle Age, 169–173 (third ed. by Stubbs). Milman: III. 258 sqq. Robertson: II. 609 sqq. (small ed., IV. 351–367). Jacobi: Berengar, in Herzog2 II. 305–311. Reuter: Gesch. der relig. Aufklärung im Mittelalter (1875), I. 91 sqq. Hefele: IV. 740 sqq. (ed. 1879).
§ 125. The Two Theories of the Lord’s Supper.
The doctrine of the Lord’s Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschasius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In the second, Pope Hildebrand was implicated, as mediator between Berengar and the orthodox party.
In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. The one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith. The transubstantiationists (if we may coin this term) believed that the eucharistic body of Christ was identical with his historical body, and was miraculously created by the priestly consecration of the elements in every sacrifice of the mass; their opponents denied this identity, and regarded the eucharistic body as a symbolical exhibition of his real body once sacrificed on the cross and now glorified in heaven, yet present to the believer with its life-giving virtue and saving power.
We find both these views among the ancient
fathers. The realistic and mystical view fell in more easily with the
excessive supernaturalism and superstitious piety of the middle age,
and triumphed at last both in the Greek and Latin churches; for there
is no material difference between them on this dogma. The Greek fathers do not, indeed, define the real
presence as transubstantiatio or μετουσίωσις, but Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom,
and John of Damascus use similar terms which imply a miraculous change
of the elements. The Lutheran theory, as formulated by the Formula of
Concord, is usually and conveniently styled consubstantiation,
in distinction from transubstantiation; but Lutheran divines
disown the term, because they confine the real presence to the time and
act of the sacramental fruition, and hence reject the adoration of the
consecrated elements.
It is humiliating to reflect that the, commemorative feast of Christ’s dying love, which should be the closest bond of union between believers, innocently gave rise to the most violent controversies. But the same was the case with the still more important doctrine of Christ’s Person. Fortunately, the spiritual benefit of the sacrament does not depend upon any particular human theory of the mode of Christ’s presence, who is ever ready to bless all who love him.
§ 126. The Theory of Paschasius Radbertus.
Paschasius Radbertus (from 800 to about 865), a
learned, devout and superstitious monk, and afterwards abbot of Corbie
or Corvey in France Corbie, Corvey, Corbeia (also called Corbeia aurea
or vetus), was a famous Benedictine Convent in the diocese of
Amiens, founded by King Clotar and his mother Rathilde in 664, in honor
of Peter and Paul and the Protomartyr Stephen. It boasted of many
distinguished men, as St. Ansgarius (the Apostle of the Danes),
Radbert, Ratramnus, Druthmar. New Corbie (Nova Corbeia) was a
colony of the former, founded in 822, near Höxter on the
Weser in Germany, and became the centre for the christianization of the
Saxons. Gallia Christiana, X., Wiegand, Gesch. v. Corvey,
Höxter, 1819; Klippel, Corvey, in
Herzog2III.
365-370. He denies the grossly Capernaitic conception (”Christum
vorari fas dentibus non est“) and the conversion of the body and
blood of Christ into our flesh and blood. He confines the spiritual
fruition to believers (”iste eucharistiae cibus non nisi filiorum
Dei est“). The unworthy communicants, whom he compares to Judas,
receive the sacramental “mystery” to their judgment, but not the
“virtue of the mystery” to their benefit. He seems not to have clearly
seen that his premises lead to the inevitable conclusion that all
communicants alike receive the same substance of the body and blood of
Christ, though with opposite effects. But Dr. Ebrard is certainly wrong
when he claims Radbert rather for the Augustinian view, and denies that
he was the author of the theory of transubstantiation. See his Dogma
v. heil. Abendmahl I. 406, and his Christl. Kirchen- und
Dogmengesch. II.
27 and 33. See Steitz on Radbert, and also Reuter (I. 43), who
says: ”Die Radbertische Doctrin war das synkretistische Gebilde, in
welchem die spiritualistische Lehre Augustin’s mit der
uralten Anschauung von der realen Gegenwart des Leibes und dei Blutes
Christi, aber in Analogie mit dem religiösen Materialismus
der Periode combinirt wurde; die gegnerische Theorie der Protest gegen
das Becht dieser Combination.“
He supports his doctrine by the words of
institution in their literal sense, and by the sixth chapter of John.
He appealed also to marvellous stories of the visible appearances of
the body and blood of Christ for the removal of doubts or the
satisfaction of the pious desire of saints. The bread on the altar, he
reports, was often seen in the shape of a lamb or a little child, and
when the priest stretched out his hand to break the bread, an angel
descended from heaven with a knife, slaughtered the lamb or the child,
and let his blood run into a cup! See several such examples in ch. 14 (Opera, ed.
Migne, col. 1316 sqq. ).
Such stories were readily believed by the people, and helped to strengthen the doctrine of transubstantiation; as the stories of the appearances of departed souls from purgatory confirmed the belief in purgatory.
The book of Radbert created a great sensation in
the West, which was not yet prepared to accept the doctrine of
transubstantiation without a vigorous struggle. Radbert himself admits
that some of his contemporaries believed only in a spiritual communion
of the soul with Christ, and substituted the mere virtue of his body
and blood for the real body and blood, i.e., as he thinks, the figure
for the verity, the shadow for the substance. He clearly contrasts the two theories, probably with
reference to Ratramnus, in his comments on the words of institution,
His opponents appealed chiefly to St. Augustin, who made a distinction between the historical and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between a false material and a true spiritual fruition of his body and blood. In a letter to the monk Frudegard, who quoted several passages of Augustin, Radbert tried to explain them in his sense. For no divine of the Latin church dared openly to contradict the authority of the great African teacher.
§ 127. The Theory of Ratramnus.
The chief opponent of transubstantiation was
Ratramnus, In the middle ages and during the Reformation he was known
by a writing error under the name of Bertram. De Corpore et Sanguine Domini, in Migne 121, col.
103-170, to which is added the Dissertation of Boileau, 171-222. The
tract of Ratramnus, together with Bullinger’s tract on
the same subject and the personal influence of Ridley, Peter Martyr,
and Bucer, produced a change in Archbishop Cranmer, who was
successively a believer in transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and a
symbolic presence. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I.
601. Cap. 88 (col. 164): ”Quapropter corpus et sanguis, quod
in ecclesia geritur, differt ab illo corpore et sanquine, quod in
Christi corpore per resurrectionem jam glorificatum cognoscitur. Et hoc
corpus pignus est et species, illud vero ipsa
veritas.”—“Videmus itaque multa differentia separari
mysterium sanguinis et corporis Christi, quod nunc a fidelibus sumitur
in ecclesia, et illud, quod natum est de Maria Virgine, quod passum,
quod sepultum, quod resurrexit, quod ad caelos ascendit, quod ad
dexteram Patris sedet.” Cap. 89, col. 165. Cap. 78-83 (col. 160-162). Cap. 17 and 18 (col. 135 sq. ): ”Consideremus sacri
fontem baptismatis, qui fons vitae non immerito nuncupatur.
… Si consideretur solummodo, quod corporeus aspicit
sensus, elementum fluidum conspicitur … Sed accessit
Sancti Spiritus per sacerdotis consecrationem virtus et efficax facta
est non solum corpora, verum etiam animas diluere. …
Igitur in proprietate humor corruptibilis, in mysterio vero virtus
sanabilis.
It is consistent with this view that Ratramnus regarded the sacrifice of the mass not as an actual (though unbloody) repetition, but only as a commemorative celebration of Christ’s sacrifice whereby Christians are assured of their redemption. When we shall behold Christ face to face, we shall no longer need such instruments of remembrance.
John Scotus Erigena is also reported to have
written a book against Radbert at the request of Charles the Bald.
Hincmar of Rheims mentions among his errors this, that in the sacrament
of the altar the true body and blood of Christ were not present, but
only a memorial of them. De Praed., c. 31. See Laufs, Ueber die für verloren gehaltene Schrift
des Johannes Scotus Erigena von der Eucharistic, in the ’Studien und
Kritiken” of Ullmann and Umbreit, 1828, p. 755 sqq. Laufs denies that
Erigena wrote on the Eucharist. In his newly discovered Expositions on the Celestial,
and on the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy of St. Dionysius, and the
fragments of a Com. on St. John. See Op. ed. Floss in
Migne, 122 (col. 126-356); Christlieb, Scotus Er., p. 68-81, and
in Herzog2XIII. 790 sq.,
and Huber, Sc. Erig., p. 98 sqq. Dr. Baur is of the same opinion (Dogmengesch. II. 173): ”Scotus Erigena dachte
sich(De Div.
Nat. V. 38) eine Ubiquität der vergeistigten und
vergöttlichten Natur, die die Annahme einer speciellen
Gegenwart in den Elementen des Abendmahls nicht zuliess, sondern
dieselben nur als Symbole zu nehmen gestattete. Brod und Wein konnten
ihm daher nur als Symbolejener Ubiquität der verherrlichten
menschlichen Natur gelten; er hat sich aber hierüber nicht
näher erklärt.”
Among the divines of the Carolingian age who held
the Augustinian view and rejected that of Radbert, as an error, were
Rabanus Maurus, Walafrid Strabo, Christian Druthmar, and Florus
Magister. They recognized only a dynamic and spiritual, not a visible
and corporeal presence, of the body of Christ, in the sacrament. “Corpus Christi esse non in specie visibili, sed in
virtute spirituali,” etc. See Baur, II. 166, 172, and the notes in
Gieseler, II. 80 and 82.
On the other hand, the theory of Radbert was
accepted by Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, Bishop Haimo of Halberstadt,
and other leading ecclesiastics. It became more and more popular during
the dark post-Carolingian period. Bishop Ratherius of Verona (about
950), who, however, repelled all curious questions about the mode of
the change, and even the learned and liberal-minded Gerbert (afterwards
Pope Sylvester II., from 999 to 1003), defended the miraculous
transformation of the eucharistic elements by the priestly
consecration. It is characteristic of the grossly sensuous character of
the theology of the tenth century that the chief point of dispute was
the revolting and indecent question whether the consecrated elements
pass from the communicant in the ordinary way of nature. The opponents
of transubstantiation affirmed this, the advocates indignantly denied
it, and fastened upon the former the new heretical name of
“Stercorianists.” Gerbert called stercorianism a diabolical blasphemy,
and invented the theory that the eucharistic body and blood of Christ
do not pass in noxios et superfluos humores, but are preserved in the
flesh for the final resurrection. De Corpore et Sanguini Domini, edited by Pez, in
“Thes. nov. Anecd.” I., Pars II. 133 sqq.
Radbertus was canonized, and his memory, is
celebrated since 1073, on the 26th of April in the diocese of
Soissons. See the Acta Sanct Bolland. ad 26 Apr., with the
Vita of Pasch. Radb. by Sirmond, and the Martyrol. Bened.
with the Vita by Ménard. Notwithstanding this prohibition, Mabillon, Natalis
Alexander, and Boileau have defended the catholic orthodoxy of
Ratramnus, with the apologetic aim to wrest from the Protestants a
weighty authority of the ninth century. See Gieseler II. 82, and J. G.
Müller in Wetzer and Welte (first ed. ) VIII. 170
sq.
Notes.
In connection with this subject is the subordinate
controversy on the delicate question whether Christ, admitting his
supernatural conception, was born in the natural way like other
children, or miraculously (clauso utero). This question troubled the
pious curiosity of some nuns of Vesona (?), and reached the convent of
Corbie. Paschasius Radbertus, following the lead of St. Ambrose and St.
Jerome, defended the theory that the holy Virgin remained virgo in
partu and post partum, and used in proof some poetic passages on the
hortus conclusus and fons signatus in
Ratramnus, in his book De eo quod Christus ex Virgine natus est (in D’Achery, “Spicilegium,” I., and in Migne, Tom. 121, col. 82–102), likewise taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, but assumed that Christ came into the world in the natural way (“naturaliter per aulam virgineam” or “per virginalis januam vulvae”). The conception in utero implies the birth ex utero. But he does not controvert or name Radbert, and uses the same Scripture passages for his view. He refers also to the analogy of Christ’s passing through the closed doors on the day of the resurrection. He quotes from Augustin, Jerome, Pope Gregory, and Bede in support of his view. He opposes only the monstrous opinion that Christ broke from the womb through some unknown channel (“monstruose de secreto ventris incerto tramite luminis in auras exisse, quod non est nasci, sed erumpi.” Cap. 1, col. 83). Such an opinion, he thinks, leads to the docetic heresy, and to the conclusion that “nec vere natus Christus, nec vere genuit Maria.”
§ 128. The Berengar Controversy.
While the doctrine of a corporeal presence and participation of Christ in the eucharist made steady progress in the public opinion of Western Christendom in close connection with the rising power of the priesthood, the doctrine of a spiritual presence and participation by faith was re-asserted by way of reaction in the middle of the eleventh century for a short period, but condemned by ecclesiastical authority. This condemnation decided the victory of transubstantiation.
Let us first review the external history of the controversy, which runs into the next period (till 1079).
Berengar (c. 1000–1088), a pupil
of Fulbert of Chartres (d. 1029), was canon and director of the
cathedral school in Tours, his native city, afterwards archdeacon of
Angers, and highly esteemed as a man of rare learning and piety before
his eucharistic views became known. During and after the eucharistic controversy he was charged
with vanity, ambition, and using improper means, such as money and
patronage, for the spread of his opinions. See Hefele, IV. 742. Card.
Hergenröther (I. 707) calls Berengar oberflächlich,
eitel, ehrgeizig, verwegen and
neuerungsüchtig. Archbishop Trench (Lectures on Medieval Church
History, p. 189 sq. ), dissenting from Coleridge’s
charitable judgment, finds fault with Berengar’s
“insolent tone of superiority” in addressing Lanfranc, and with a
“passionate feebleness” and “want of personal dignity” in his whole
conduct. He thinks his success would have been a calamity, since it
would have involved the loss of the truth which was concealed under the
doctrine of transubstantiation. “Superstition sometimes guards the
truth which it distorts, caricatures, and in part conceals.” Coleridge
wrote a touching poem on Berengar’s
recantation. As an ”Aufklärer,” Berengar is one-sidedly represented by
Reuter, l.c. Comp. also Baur, in his Kirchengesch. des
Mittelalters, p.
66 sqq. Neander III. 504. The Discourse is published in
Martène and Durand, Thes. nov. Anecdotorum, Tom.
I.
By continued biblical and patristic studies Berengar came between the years 1040 and 1045 to the conclusion that the eucharistic doctrine of Paschasius Radbertus was a vulgar superstition contrary to the Scriptures, to the fathers, and to reason. He divulged his view among his many pupils in France and Germany, and created a great sensation. Eusebius Bruno, bishop of Angers, to whose diocese he belonged, and Frollant, bishop of Senlis, took his part, but the majority was against him. Adelmann, his former fellow-student, then arch-deacon at Lüttich (Liège), afterwards bishop of Bresci, remonstrated with him in two letters of warning (1046 and 1048).
The controversy was fairly opened by Berengar
himself in a letter to Lanfranc of Bec, his former fellow-student
(1049). He respectfully, yet in a tone of intellectual superiority,
perhaps with some feeling of jealousy of the rising fame of Bec,
expressed his surprise that Lanfranc, as he had been informed by
Ingelram of Chartres, should agree with Paschasius Radbertus and
condemn John Scotus (confounded with Ratramnus) as heretical; this
showed an ignorance of Scripture and involved a condemnation of Ambrose
(?), Jerome, and Augustin, not to speak of others. The letter was sent
to Rome, where Lanfranc then sojourned, and caused, with his
co-operation, the first condemnation of Berengar by a Roman Synod held
under Pope Leo IX. in April, 1050, and attended mostly by Italian
bishops. At the same time he was summoned before another Synod which
was held at Vercelli in September of the same year; and as he did not
appear, He was prevented by a violent act of King Henry I. of
France, who committed him to prison and seized his
property. Berengar makes no mention of this Synod. Lessing, Gieseler
and Baur (II. 178) doubt whether it was held. Neander, Sudendorf,
Robertson and Hefele (IV. 753 sqq.) credit the report of Durandus, but
correct his dates.
After a short interval of silence, he was tried
before a Synod of Tours in 1054 under Leo IX., This seems to be the correct date, instead of 1055 under
Victor II., according to Lanfranc’s account. The
difference involves the veracity of Berengar, who assigns the Synod to
the pontificate of Leo IX.; but it is safer to assume, with Leasing,
Sudendorf (p. 45), and Hefele (IV. 778), that Lanfranc, after a lapse
of ten or more years had forgotten the correct date. “Panis atque vinum altaris post consecrationem sunt
corpus Christi et sanguis.” De S. Coena, p. 52. Berengar meant a
real, though uncorporeal presence. He admitted a conversion of the
elements in the sense of consecration, but without change of substance.
Hildebrand was willing to leave this an open question. See
below.
Confiding in this powerful advocate, Berengar
appeared before a Lateran council held in 1059, under Nicolas II., but
was bitterly disappointed. The assembled one hundred and thirteen
bishops, whom he compares to “wild beasts,” would not listen to his
notion of a spiritual communion, and insisted on a sensuous
participation of the body and blood of Christ. The violent and bigoted
Cardinal Humbert, in the name of the Synod, forced on him a formula of
recantation which cuts off all spiritual interpretation and teaches a
literal mastication of Christ’s body. “Ego Berengarius, indignus diaconus ... anathematizo
omnem haeresim, praecipue eam de qua hactenus infamatus sum, quae
astruere conatur, panem et vinum, quae in altari ponuntur, post
consecrationem solummodo sacramentum, et non verum et sanguinem Domini
nostri I. Ch. esse nec posse sensualiterin solo sacramento [non solum sacramento,
sed, in veritate] manibus sacerdotum tractari, vel
frangi, aut fidelium dentibus atteri,” etc. So Lanfranc reports the creed in
De Corp. et Sang. Dom., c.2 (Migne, vol. 150, p. 410); comp.
Berengar, De S. Coena, p. 68. Gieseler calls this creed “truly
Capernaitic.” Hergenröther (I. 703) admits that it sounds
very hard, but may be defended by similar language of Chrysostom.
Luther expressed his faith in the real presence almost as strongly when
be instructed Melanchthon to insist, in his conference with Bucer,
1534, that Christ’s body was literally eaten and torn
with the teeth (”gegessen und mit den Zähnen
zerbissen“). See
his letters to Jonas and Melanchthon in Briefe, ed. De Wette,
Bd. IV. 569 and 572. But I doubt whether any Lutheran divine would
endorse such language now. Lanfranc charges him with downright perjury. But according
to his own report, Berengar did not sign the formula, nor was he
required to do so. De S. Coena, p. 25 sq.; comp. p. 59
sq.
As soon as he returned to France, he defended his
real conviction more boldly than ever. He spoke of Pope Leo IX. and
Nicolas II. in language as severe as Luther used five centuries
later. Leo is ”minime leo de tribu Iuda;” the pope is not a
pontifex, but a pompifex and pulpifex, and the see
of Rome not a sedes apostolica, but a sedes Satanae.
De S. Coena, p. 34, 40, 42, 71. Lanfranc, c. 16. See Neander,
III. 513, who refers to other testimony in Bibl. P. Lugd. XVIII.
836. De Sacra Coena adversus Lanfrancum Liber posterior
(290 pages). This book, after having been long lost, was discovered by
Lessing in the Library of Wolfenbüttel (1770), who gave
large extracts from it, and was published in full by A. F. and F. Th.
Vischer, Berlin, 1834, with a short preface by Neander. Berengar gives
here a very different version of the previous history, and charges
Lanfranc with falsehood. He fortifies his view by quotations from
Ambrose and Augustin, and abounds in passion, vituperation and
repetition. The style is obscure and barbarous. The MS. is defective at
the beginning and the close. Lessing traced it to the eleventh or
twelfth century, Stäudlin to Berengar himself, the editors
(p. 23), more correctly to a negligent copyist who had the original
before him. Comp. Sudendorf, p. 47.
Hildebrand who in the mean time had ascended the
papal throne as Gregory VlI., summoned Berengar once more to Rome in
1078, hoping to give him peace, as he had done at Tours in 1054. He
made several attempts to protect him against the fanaticism of his
enemies. But they demanded absolute recantation or death. A Lateran
Council in February, 1079, required Berengar to sign a formula which
affirmed the conversion of substance in terms that cut off all
sophistical escape. “Corde credo et ore confiteor, panem et vinum, quae
ponuntur in altari, per mysterium sacrae orationis et verba nostri
Remptoris substantialiter converti in
veram et propriam et vivifratricem carnem et sanguinem Jesu Christi
Domini nostri, et post consecrationem esse verum Christi corpus, quod
natum est de Virgine, et quod pro salute mundi oblatum in cruce
pependit, et quod sedet ad dexteram Patris, et verum sanguinem Christi,
qui de latere ejus effusus est, non tantum per signum et virtutem
sacramenti, sed in proprietate naturae et veritate substantiae.”
Berengar was willing to admit a conversio panis, but salva
sua substantia,i.e. non amittens quod erat, sed assumens
quod non erat; in other words, conversion without annihilation. A
mere sophistry. Substantialiter can mean nothing else but
secundum substantiam. See the Acts of the Council in Mansi, XIX.
762. D’Achery, Spicileg. III. 413.
Mansi, XX. 621. Neander, III. 520. Sudendorf, 57.
Berengar returned to France with a desponding
heart and gave up the hopeless contest. He was now an old man and spent
the rest of his life in strict ascetic seclusion on the island of St.
Côme (Cosmas) near Tours, where he died in peace 1088. Many
believed that he did penance for his heresy, and his friends held an
annual celebration of his memory on his grave. But what he really
regretted was his cowardly treason to the truth as he held it. This is
evident from the report of his trial at Rome which he drew up after his
return. See the Acta Concilii Romani sub Gregorio papa VII. in
causa Berengarii ab ipso Berengario conscripta cum ipsius
recantatione (after Febr., 1079), printed in Mansi, XIX. 761. Comp.
Neander, III. 521, and Sudendorf, p. 58 sqq. Berengar is reported to
have repeated his creed before one of the two Synods which were held at
Bordeaux in 1079 and 1080, but of these we have only fragmentary
accounts. See Mansi, XX. 527; Hefele, V. 142 sq.; Sudendorf, p.
196.
His doctrine was misrepresented by Lanfranc and
the older historians, as denying the real presence. He was treated as a heretic not only by Roman Catholics,
but also by Luther and several Lutheran historians, including
Guericke.
This explains also the conduct of Gregory VII.,
which is all the more remarkable, as he was in every other respect the
most strenuous champion of the Roman church and the papal power. This
great pope was more an ecclesiastic than a theologian. He was willing
to allow a certain freedom on the mysterious mode of the eucharistic
presence and the precise nature of the change in the elements, which at
that time had not yet been authoritatively defined as a change of
substance. He therefore protected Berengar, with diplomatic caution, as
long and as far as he could without endangering his great reforms and
incurring himself the suspicion of heresy. His enemies of the party of Henry IV. charged him with
skepticism or infidelity on account of his sympathy with Berengar. See
the quotations in Gieseler, II. 172.
Berengar was a strange compound of moral courage and physical cowardice. Had he died a martyr, his doctrine would have gained strength; but by his repeated recantations he injured his own cause and promoted the victory of transubstantiation.
Notes. Hildebrand and Berengar.
Sudendorf’s Berengarius
Turonensis (1850) is, next to the discovery and publication of
Berengar’s De Sacra Coena (1834), the most important
contribution to the literature on this chapter. I obtained a copy by the kindness of Professor Thayer from
the library of Harvard College, after hunting for one in vain in the
libraries of New York, and the Niedner library in Andover (which has
B.’s D. S. Coena, but not
Sudendorf’s B. T.).
1. A letter of Count Gaufried of Anjou (d. 1060)
to Cardinal Hildebrand, written in March, 1059, shortly before the
Lateran Synod (April, 1059), which condemned Berengar (p. 128 and 215).
The Count calls here, with surprising boldness and confidence, on the
mighty Cardinal to protect Berengar at the approaching Synod of Rome,
under the impression that he thoroughly agreed with him, and had
concealed his real opinion at Tours. He begins thus: “To the venerable
son of the church of the Romans, H.[ildebrand]. Count Gauf. Bear
thyself not unworthy of so great a mother. B.[erengar] has gone to Rome
according to thy wishes and letters of invitation. Now is the time for
thee to act with Christian magnanimity (nunc magnanimitate christiana
tibi agendum est), lest Berengar have the same experience with thee as
at Tours [1054], when thou camest to us as delegate of apostolic
authority. He expected thy advent as that of an angel. Thou wast there
to give life to souls that were dead, and to kill souls that should
live .... Thou didst behave thyself like that person of whom it is
written [
2. A letter of Berengar to Pope Gregory VII. from the year 1077, in which he addresses him as “pater optime,” and assures him of his profound reverence and love (p. 182 and 230). He thanks him for a letter of protection he had written to his legate, Bishop Hugo of Die (afterwards Archbishop of Lyons), but begs him to excuse him for not attending a French council of his enemies, to which he had been summoned. He expresses the hope of a personal conference with the pope (opportunitatem vivendi praesentiam tuam et audiendi), and concludes with the request to continue his patronage. “Vel [i.e. Valeat] Christianitas tua, pater optime, longo parvitati meae tempore dignum sede apostolica patrocinium impensura.” The result of this correspondence is unknown. Berengar’s hope of seeing and hearing the pope was fulfilled in 1078, when he was summoned to the Council in Rome; but the result, as we have seen, was his condemnation by the Council with the pope’s consent.
3. A letter of Berengar to Archbishop Joscelin of
Bordeaux, written in a charitable Christian spirit after May 25, 1085,
when Gregory VII. died (p. 196 and 231). It begins thus: “The
unexpected death of our G. [regory] causes me no little disturbance
(G. nostri me non
parum mors inopinato [a] perturbat).” The nostri sounds rather too familiar
in view of Gregory’s conduct in 1079, but must be
understood of the personal sympathy shown him before and after in the
last commendatory letters. B. then goes on to express confidence in the
pope’s salvation, and forgives him his defection,
which he strangely compares with the separation of Barnabas from Paul.
“Sed, quantum mihi
videor novisse hominem, de salute hominis certum constat, quicquid illi
prejudicent, qui, secundum dominicam sententiam [
Hildebrand’s real opinion on the eucharistic presence can only be inferred from his conduct during the controversy. He sincerely protected Berengar against violence and persecution even after his final condemnation; but the public opinion of the church in 1059 and again in 1079 expressed itself so strongly in favor of a substantial or essential change of the eucharistic elements, that he was forced to yield. Personally, he favored a certain freedom of opinion on the mode of the change, provided only the change itself was admitted, as was expressly done by Berengar. Only a few days before the Council of 1078 the pope sought the opinion of the Virgin Mary through an esteemed monk, and received as an answer that nothing more should be held or required on the reaI presence than what was found in the Holy Scriptures, namely, that the bread after consecration was the true body of Christ. So Berengar reports; see Mansi, XIX. 766; Gieseler, II. 172; Neander, III. 519. (The charge of Ebrard that the pope acted hypocritically and treacherously towards B., is contradicted by facts).
The same view of a change of the elements in a manner inexplicable and therefore indefinable, is expressed in a fragment of a commentary on Matthew by a certain “Magister Hildebrand,” published by Peter Allix (in Determinatio Ioannis praedicatoris de, modo existendi Corp. Christi in sacramento altaris. Lond., 1686).” In this fragment,” says Neander, III. 511, “after an investigation of the different ways in which the conversio of the bread into the body of Christ may be conceived, the conclusion is arrived at, that nothing can be decided with certainty on this point; that the conversio therefore is the only essential part of the doctrine, namely, that bread and wine become body and blood of Christ, and that with regard to the way in which that conversion takes place, men should not seek to inquire. This coincides with the view which evidently lies at the basis of the cardinal’s proceedings. But whether the author was this Hildebrand, must ever remain a very doubtful question, since it is not probable, that if a man whose life constitutes an epoch in history wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, it should have been so entirely forgotten.” Sudendorf, however (p. 186), ascribes the fragment to Pope Hildebrand.
§ 129. Berengar’s Theory of the Lord’s Supper.
The chief source is Berengar’s second book against Lanfranc, already quoted. His first book is lost with the exception of a few fragments in Lanfranc’s reply.
Berengar attacked the doctrine of transubstantiation,
and used against it nearly every argument: it is not only above reason,
but against reason and against the testimony of the senses; it involves
a contradiction between subject and predicate, and between substance
and its qualities, which are inseparable; it is inconsistent with the
fact of Christ’s ascension and presence in heaven; it
virtually assumes either a multiplication or an omnipresence of his
body, which contradicts the necessary limitations of corporeality. “Quod diversis in locis eodem momento sensualiter adsit
corpus, corpus non esse constabit.” De S. Coena, p.
199.
To this notion of a corporeal or material presence
on the altar, he opposed the idea of a spiritual or dynamic presence
and participation. His positive view agrees essentially with that of
Ratramnus; but he went beyond him, as Calvin went beyond Zwingli. He
endeavors to save the spiritual reality without the carnal form. He
distinguishes, with St. Augustin and Ratramnus, between the historical
and the eucharistic body of Christ, and between the visible symbol or
sacramentum and the thing symbolized or the res sacramenti. He
maintains that we cannot literally eat and drink
Christ’s body and blood, but that nevertheless we may
have real spiritual Communion by faith with the flesh, that is, with
the glorified humanity of Christ in heaven. His theory is substantially
the same as that of Calvin. Baur very clearly puts the case (II. 190):
“Die
Lehre Berengar’s schliesst sich ganz an die des
Ratramnus an, ist aber zugleich eine Fortbildung derselben. Wie
Ratramnus sich eigentlich nur in der Sphäre des
Verhältnisses von Bild und Sache bewegt, so sucht dagegen
Berengar zu zeigen, dass ungeachtet keine andere Ansicht vom Abendmahl
möglich sei, als die symbolische, dem Abendmahldoch seine
volle Realität bleibe, dass, wenn man auch im Abendmahl den
Leib und das Blut Christi nicht wirklich geniesse, doch auch so eine
reelle Verbindung mit den Fleisch oder der in den Himmel
erhöchten Menschheit Christi stattfinde. Es ist im
Allgemeinen zwischen Ratramnus und Berengar ein analoges
Verhältniss wie später zwischen Zwingli und
Calvin.” Comp.
also the exposition of Neander, III. 521-526, and of Herzog, in
his Kirchengesch. II. 112-114.
1) The elements remain in substance as well as in
appearance, after the consecration, although they acquire a new
significance. Hence the predicate in the words of institution must be
taken figuratively, as in many other passages, where Christ is called
the lion, the lamb, the door, the vine, the corner-stone, the rock,
etc. De S. Coena, p. 83. B. lays down the hermeneutic
principle: ”Ubicunque praedicatur non praedicabile, quia tropica
locutio est, de non susceptibili, alter propositionis terminus tropice,
alter proprie accipiatur.” Zwingli used the same and other examples
of figurative speech in his controversy with Luther. He found the
figure in the verb (esti=significat), OEcolampadius in the
predicate (corpus=figura corporis). L.c., p. 165 and 236. He quotes Augustin in his
favor, and refers to
2) Nevertheless bread and wine are not empty, symbols, but in some sense the body and blood of Christ which they represent. They are converted by being consecrated; for whatever is consecrated is lifted to a higher sphere and transformed. They do not lose their substance after consecration; but they lose their emptiness, and become efficacious to the believer. So water in baptism remains water, but becomes the vehicle of regeneration. Wherever the sacramentum is, there is also the res sacramenti.
3) Christ is spiritually present and is spiritually received by faith. Without faith we can have no real communion with him, nor share in his benefits. “The true body of Christ,” he says in a letter to Adelmann,” is placed on the altar, but spiritually to the inner man and to those only who are members of Christ, for spiritual manducation. This the fathers teach openly, and distinguish between the body and blood of Christ and the sacramental signs of the body and blood. The pious receive both, the sacramental sign (sacramentum) visibly, the sacramental substance (rem sacramenti) invisibly; while the ungodly receive only the sacramental sign to their own judgment.”
4) The communion in the Lord’s
Supper is a communion with the whole undivided person of Christ, and
not with flesh and blood as separate elements. As the whole body of
Christ was sacrificed in death, so we receive the whole body in a
spiritual manner; and as Christ’s body is now
glorified in heaven, we must spiritually ascend to heaven.” P. 157. The believer receives ”totam et integram Domini
Dei sui carnem, non autem coelo devocatam, sed in coelo manentem,”
and he ascends to heaven ”cordis ad videndum Deum mundati devotione
spatiosissima.”
Here again is a strong point of contact with Calvin, who likewise taught such an elevation of the soul to heaven as a necessary condition of true communion with the life-giving power of Christ’s humanity. He meant, of course, no locomotion, but the sursum corda, which is necessary in every act of prayer. It is the Holy, Spirit who lifts us up to Christ on the wings of faith, and brings him down to us, and thus unites heaven and earth.
A view quite similar to that of Berengar seems to
have obtained about that time in the Anglo-Saxon Church, if we are to
judge from the Homilies of Aelfric, which enjoyed great authority and
popularity. Thus he says in the Homily on Easter day: “Great is the
difference between the invisible might of the holy housel [sacrament]
and the visible appearance of its own nature. By nature it is
corruptible bread and corruptible wine, and is, by the power of the
Divine word, truly Christ’s body and blood: not,
however, bodily, but spiritually. Great is the difference between the
body in which Christ suffered and the body which is hallowed for
housel. ... In his ghostly body, which we call housel, there is nothing
to be understood bodily, but all is to be understood spiritually.” The
passage is quoted by J. C. Robertson from Thorpe’s
edition of Aelfric, II. 271. Thorpe identifies the author of these
Anglo-Saxon Homilies with Aelfric, Archbishop of York, who lived till
the beginning of the Berengar controversy (d. 1051), but the identity
is disputed. See Hardwick, p. 174, and L. Stephen’s
“Dict. of Nat. Biogr.” I. 164 sqq.
§ 130. Lanfranc and the Triumph of Transubstantiation.
The chief opponent of Berengar was his former friend,
Lanfranc, a native of Pavia (b. 1005), prior of the Convent of Bet in
Normandy (1045), afterwards archbishop of Canterbury
(1070–1089), and in both positions the predecessor of
the more distinguished Anselm. He was the first of the Norman line of English archbishops,
and the chief adviser of William the Conqueror in the conquest of
England. See Freeman, History of the Norman Conquest, vols. III.
and IV.; and R.C. Jenkins, Diocesan History of Canterbury
(London, 1880), p. 78 sqq. On the different editions and the date of the book (between
1063 and 1069), see Sudendorf p. 39 sqq. De Corp. et Sang. Dom., c. 18 (in Migne, T. 150,
col. 430): ”Credimus terrenas substantias, quae in mensa Dominica
per sacerdale mysterium divinitus sanctificantur, ineffabiliter,
incomprehensibiliter, mirabiliter, operante superna potentia, converti
in essentiam Dominici corporis, reservatis ipsarum rerum speciebus, et
quibusdam aliis qualitatibus, ne percipientes cruda et cruenta
horrerent, et ut credentes fidei praemia ampliora perciperent, ipso
tamen Dominico corpore existente in coelestibus ad dexteram Patris,
immortali, inviolato, integro, incontaminato, illaeso: ut vere dici
posset, et ipsum corpus, quod de Virgine sumptum est, nos sumere, et
tamen non
ipsum.’’ Cap 20 (col. 436): ”Est quidem et peccatori bus et
indigne sumentibus vera Christi caro, verusque sanguis, sed essentia,
non salubri efficentia.”
Among the less distinguished writers on the
Eucharist must be mentioned Adelmann, Durandus, and Guitmund, who
defended the catholic doctrine against Berengar. Guitmund (a pupil of
Lanfranc, and archbishop of Aversa in Apulia) reports that the
Berengarians differed, some holding only a symbolical presence, others
(with Berengar) a real, but latent presence, or a sort of impanation,
but all denied a change of substance. This change he regards as the
main thing which nourishes piety. “What can be more salutary,” he
asks,” than such a faith? Purely receiving into itself the pure and
simple Christ alone, in the consciousness of possessing so glorious a
gift, it guards with the greater vigilance against sin; it glows with a
more earnest longing after all righteousness; it strives every day to
escape from the world ... and to embrace in unclouded vision the
fountain of life itself.” Neander, III. 529 sq., from Guitmund’s
De Corp. et Sang. Christi veritate in eucharistia. It was
written about 1076, according to Sudendorf, p. 52
sqq.
From this time on, transubstantiation may be regarded as a dogma of the Latin church. It was defended by the orthodox schoolmen, and oecumenically sanctioned under Pope Innocent III. in 1215.
With the triumph of transubstantiation is closely
connected the withdrawal of the communion cup from the laity, which
gradually spread in the twelfth century, In place of the older custom of administering the bread
dipped in wine, especially to infants and sick persons. In the Greek
church, where infant communion still prevails, both elements are
delivered in a golden spoon; but the priest receives each element
separately as in the Roman church. Anselm was the first to teach ”in utraque, specie totum
Christum sumi.“ See J. J. de Lith, De Adoratione Panis
consecrati, et Interdictione sacri Calicis in Eucharistia, 1753;
Spittler, Gesch. des Kelchs im Abendmahl, 1780; Gieseler, I. 480 sqq.,
notes.
The doctrine of transubstantiation is the most characteristic tenet of the Catholic Church of the middle age, and its modern successor, the Roman Church. It reflects a magical supernaturalism which puts the severest tax upon the intellect, and requires it to contradict the unanimous testimony of our senses of sight, touch and taste. It furnishes the doctrinal basis for the daily sacrifice of the mass and the power of the priesthood with its awful claim to create and to offer the very body and blood of the Saviour of the world. For if the self-same body of Christ which suffered on the cross, is truly present and eaten in the eucharist, it must also be the self-same sacrifice of Calvary which is repeated in the mass; and a true sacrifice requires a true priest, who offers it on the altar. Priest, sacrifice, and altar form an inseparable trio; a literal conception of one requires a literal conception of the other two, and a spiritual conception of one necessarily leads to a spiritual conception of all.
Notes.
A few additional remarks must conclude this subject, so that we need not return to it in the next volume.
1. The scholastic terms transsubstantiatio, transsubstantiare (in Greek metousivwsi”, Engl. transubstantiation, Germ. Wesensverwand-lung), signify a change of one substance into another, and were introduced in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The phrase substantialiter converti was used by the Roman Synod of 1079 (see p. 559). Transsubstantiatio occurs first in Peter Damiani (d. 1072) in his Expos. can. Missae (published by Angelo Mai in “Script. Vet. Nova Coll.” VI. 215), and then in the sermons of Hildebert, archbishop of Tours (d. 1134); the verb transsubstantiare first in Stephanus, Bishop of Autun (1113–1129), Tract. de Sacr. Altaris, c. 14 (“panem, quem accepi, in corpus meum transsubstantiavi”), and then officially in the fourth Lateran Council, 1215. See Gieseler, II. ii. 434 sq. (fourth Germ. ed.). Similar terms, as mutatio, transmutatio, transformatio, conversio, transitio, had been in use before. The corresponding Greek noun metousivwsi” was formally accepted by the Oriental Church in the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogilas, 1643, and later documents, yet with the remark that the word is not to be taken as a definition of the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. See Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom, II. 382, 427, 431, 495, 497 sq. Similar expressions, such as metabolhv, metabavllein, metapoiei’n, had been employed by the Greek fathers, especially by Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and John of Damascus. The last is the chief authority quoted in the Russian Catechism (see Schaff, l.c. II. 498).
All these terms attempt to explain the inexplicable and to rationalize the irrational—the contradiction between substance and accidents, between reality and appearance. Transubstantiation is devotion turned into rhetoric, and rhetoric turned into irrational logic.
2. The doctrine of transubstantiation was first strongly expressed in the confessions of two Roman Synods of 1059 and 1079, which Berengar was forced to accept against his conscience; see p. 557 and 559. It was oecumenically sanctioned for the whole Latin church by the fourth Lateran Council under Pope Innocent III., a.d. 1215, in the creed of the Synod, cap. 1: “Corpus et sanguis [Christi] in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini veraciter continentur, TRANSSUBSTAN-TIATIS PANE IN CORPUS ET VINO IN SANGUINEM, POTESTATE DIVINA, ut ad perficiendum mysterium unitatis accipiamus ipsi de suo, quod accepit ipse de nostro. Et hoc utique sacramentum nemo potest conficere, nisi sacerdos, qui fuerit rite ordinatus secundum claves Ecclesiae, quas ipse concessit Apostolis et eorum successoribus lesus Christus.”
The Council of Trent, in the thirteenth session, 1551, reaffirmed the doctrine against the Protestants in these words: “that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord (conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam corporis Christi Domini), and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is by the holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.” The same synod sanctioned the adoration of the sacrament (i.e. Christ on the altar under the figure of the elements), and anathematizes those who deny this doctrine and practice. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II. 130–139.
3. Thomas Aquinas, the prince of scholastic divines, has given the clearest poetic expression to the dogma of transubstantiation in the following stanzas of his famous hymn, “Lauda Sion Salvatorem,” for the Corpus Christi Festival:
See the Thes. Hymnol. of Daniel, II. 97–100, who calls St. Thomas “summus laudator venerabilis sacramenti,” and quotes the interesting, but opposite judgments of Möhler and Luther. The translation is by Edward Caswall (Hymns and Poems, 2nd ed., 1873, and previously in Lyra Catholica, Lond., 1849, p. 238). The translation of the last two stanzas is not as felicitous as that of the other two. The following version preserves the double rhyme of the original:
4. The doctrine of transubstantiation has always
been regarded by Protestants as one of the fundamental errors and
grossest superstitions of Romanism. But we must not forget the
underlying truth which gives tenacity to error. A doctrine cannot be
wholly false, which has been believed for centuries not only by the
Greek and Latin churches alike, but as regards the chief point, namely,
the real presence of the very body and blood of
Christ—also by the Lutheran and a considerable portion
of the Anglican communions, and which still nourishes the piety of
innumerable guests at the Lord’s table. The mysterious
discourse of our Saviour in the synagogue of Capernaum after the
miraculous feeding of the multitude, expresses the great truth which is
materialized and carnalized in transubstantiation. Christ is in the
deepest spiritual sense the bread of life from heaven which gives
nourishment to believers, and in the holy communion we receive the
actual benefit of his broken body and shed blood, which are truly
present in their power; for his sacrifice, though offered but once, is
of perpetual force to all who accept it in faith. The literal miracle
of the feeding of the five thousand is spiritually carried on in the
vital union of Christ and the believer, and culminates in the
sacramental feast. Our Lord thus explains the symbolic significance of
that miracle in the strongest language; but he expressly excludes the
carnal, Capernaitic conception, and furnishes the key for the true
understanding, in the sentence: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the
flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are
spirit, and are life” (
CHAPTER XII.
HERETICAL SECTS.
§ 131. The Paulicians.
I. Petrus Siculus (imperial commissioner in Armenia, about 870): Historia Manichaeorum, qui Pauliciani dicuntur ( JIstoriva peri; th’” kenh’” kai; mataiva” aiJrevsew” tw’n Maniccaivwn tw’n kai; Paulikianw’n legomevnwn). Gr. Lat. ed. Matth. Raderus. Ingolst., 1604. Newly ed. by J. C. L. Gieseler. Göttingen, 1846, with an appendix, 1849. Photius (d. 891): Adv. recentiors Manichaeos, lib. IV. Ed. by J. Chr. Wolf. Hamburg, 1722; in Gallandii “Bibl. PP.” XIII. 603 sq., and in Photii Opera ed. Migne, Tom. II., col. 9–264 (reprint of Wolf). For the history of the sect after a.d. 870 we must depend on the Byzantine historians, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Cedrenus.
II. Mosheim: Century IX., ch. V. Schroeckh: vols. XX. 365 sqq., and XXIII. 318 sqq. Gibbon: Ch. LIV. (vol. V. 534–554). F. Schmidt: Historia Paulicianorum Orientalium. Kopenhagen, 1826. Gieseler: Untersuchungen über die Gesch. der Paulicianer, in the “Studien und Kritiken,” 1829, No. I., 79 sqq.; and his Church History, II. 21 sqq., and 231 sqq. (Germ. ed. II. 1, 13 and 400). Neander, III. 244–270, and 586–592. Baur: Christl. K. im Mittelalter, p. 22–25. Hergenröther, I. 524–527. Hardwick, Middle Age, p. 78–84. Robertson, II. 164–173 (revised ed. IV. 117–127). C. Schmidt, in Herzog2 XI. 343–348. A. Lombard: Pauliciens, Bulgares et Bons-hommes en Orient et Occident. Genève, 1879.
The Monothelites, the Adoptionists, the Predestinarians, and the Berengarians moved within the limits of the Catholic church, dissented from it only in one doctrine, and are interwoven with the development of’ catholic orthodoxy which has been described in the preceding chapter. But there were also radical heretical sects which mixed Christianity with heathen notions, disowned all connection with the historic church, and set themselves up against it as rival communities. They were essentially dualistic, like the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans, and hence their Catholic opponents called them by the convenient and hated name of New Manichaeans; though the system of the Paulicians has more affinity with that of Marcion. They appeared first in the East, and spread afterwards by unknown tracks in the West. They reached their height in the thirteenth century, when they were crushed, but not annihilated, by a crusade under Pope Innocent III.
These sects have often been falsely represented Antipathetically by Roman Catholic, sympathetically by
Protestant historians.
The Paulicians Παυλικοί, Παυλικιανοί, Παυλιανῖτοι.
I. Their name is derived by their Greek
opponents Peter the Sicilian and Photius, followed by Mosheim and
Schroeckh. Gibbon, Gieseler, Neander, Baur,
Hardwick.
II. The founder of the sect is Constantine a Syrian from a Gnostic (Marcionite) congregation in Mananalis near Samosata. Inspired by the epistles of St. Paul and pretending to be his genuine disciple, he propagated under the name of Sylvanus dualistic doctrines in Kibossa in Armenia and in the regions of Pontus and Cappadocia, with great success for twenty-seven years, until the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668–685) sent an officer, Symeon, for his arrest and execution. He was stoned to death in 684, and his congregation scattered. But Symeon was struck and converted by the serene courage of Constantine-Sylvanus, revived the congregation, and ruled it under the name of Titus. When Justinian II. heard of it, he condemned him and the other leaders to death by fire (690), according to the laws against the Manichaeans.
But in spite of repeated persecution and inner dissensions, the sect spread throughout Asia Minor. When it decayed, a zealous reformer rose in the person of Sergius, called Tychieus, the second founder of the sect (801–835). He had been converted by a woman, visited the old congregations and founded new ones, preached and wrote epistles, opposed the antinomian practices of Baanes, called “the Filthy” (oJ rJuparov”), and introduced strict discipline. His followers were called Sergiotes in distinction from the Baanites.
The fate of the sect varied with the policy of the Greek emperors. The iconoclastic Leo the Isaurian did not disturb them, and gave the leader of the sect, Gegnaesius, after a satisfactory examination by the patriarch, a letter of protection against persecution; but the wily heretic had answered the questions in a way that deceived the patriarch. Leo the Armenian (813–820) organized an expedition for their conversion, pardoning the apostates and executing the constant. Theodora, who restored the worship of images, cruelly persecuted them, and under her short reign one hundred thousand Paulicians were put to death by the sword, the gibbet, or the flames (844). Perhaps this large number included many iconoclasts.
Provoked by these cruelties, the Paulicians raised
the standard of revolt under the lead of Karbeas. He fled with five
thousand to the Saracens, built a strong fort, Tephrica, Now Divrigni in the mountains between Sirvas and Trebizond,
still occupied by a fierce people.
After this the sect lost its political significance, and gradually disappeared from history. Many were transferred to Philippopolis in Thrace about 970, as guards of the frontier, and enjoyed toleration. Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118) disputed with their leaders, rewarded the converts, and punished the obstinate. The Crusaders found some remains in 1204, when they captured Constantinople.
III. The doctrines and practices of the Paulicians are known to us only from the reports of the orthodox opponents and a few fragments of the epistles of Sergius. They were a strange mixture of dualism, demiurgism, docetism, mysticism and pseudo-Paulinism, and resemble in many respects the Gnostic system of Marcion.
(1) Dualism was their fundamental principle. Petrus Siculus puts this first (p. 16): Πρῶτον μὲν
γάρ ἐστι τὸ κατ̓ αὐτοὺς
γνώρισμα
τὸ
δύο ἀρχὰς
ὁμολογεῖν, πονηρὸν
θεὸν καὶ ἀγαθόν. He says the Paulicians reject the impious
writings of the Manichaeans, but propagate their contents by tradition
from generation to generation.
(2) Contempt of matter. The body is the seat of evil desire, and is itself impure. It holds the divine soul as in a prison.
(3) Docetism. Christ descended from heaven in an ethereal body, passed through the womb of Mary as through a channel, suffered in appearance, but not in reality, and began the process of redemption of the spirit from the chains of matter.
(4) The Virgin Mary was not “the mother of God,” and has a purely external connection with Jesus. Peter the Sicilian says, that they did not even allow her a place among the good and virtuous women. The true theotokos is the heavenly Jerusalem, from which Christ came out and to which he returned.
(5) They rejected the Old Testament as the work of
the Demiurge, and the Epistles of Peter. They regarded Peter as a false
apostle, because he denied his master, preached Judaism rather than
Christianity, was the enemy of Paul (
(6) They rejected the priesthood, the sacraments, the worship of saints and relics, the sign of the cross (except in cases of serious illness), and all externals in religion. Baptism means only the baptism of the Spirit; the communion with the body and blood of Christ is only a communion with his word and doctrine.
In the place of priests (ἱερεῖςand πρεσβύτεροι) the Paulicians had teachers and pastors (διδάσκαλοιand ποιμένες), companions or itinerant missionaries (συνέκδημοι), and scribes (νωτάριοι). In the place of churches they had meeting-houses called “oratories” (προσευχαί); but the founders and leaders were esteemed as “apostles” and “prophets.” There is no trace of the Manichaean distinction between two classes of the electi and credentes.
(7) Their morals were ascetic. They aimed to emancipate the spirit from the power of the material body, without, however, condemning marriage and the eating of flesh; but the Baanites ran into the opposite extreme of an antinomian abuse of the flesh, and reveled in licentiousness, even incest. In both extremes they resembled the Gnostic sects. According to Photius, the Paulicians were also utterly deficient in veracity, and denied their faith without scruple on the principle that falsehood is justifiable for a good end.
§ 132. The Euchites and other Sects in the East.
I. Michael Psellus (a learned Constantinopolitan, 11th cent.): Diavlogo” peri; ejnergeiva” daimovnwn, ed. Gaulmin. Par. 1615; also by J. F. Boissonade. Norimbergae, 1838. Cedrenus (in the 11th cent.): Histor. Compend. (ed. Bonn. I. 514).—On the older Euchites and Messalians see Epiphanius (Haer. 80), Theodoret (Hist. Eccl. IV. 10), John of Damascus (De Haer., c. 80), Photius (Bibl. cod. 52), and Walch: Ketzer-Historie, III. 481 sqq. and 536 sqq.
II. Schnitzer: Die Euchiten im elften Jahrh., in Stirm’s “Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit Würtemberg’s,” vol. XI., H. I. 169. Gieseler, II. 232 sq. Neander, III. 590 sqq., comp. II. 277 sqq.
The Euchites were mystic monks with dualistic
principles derived from Parsism. They held that a demon dwells in every
man from his birth, and can be expelled only by unceasing silent
prayer, which they exalted above every spiritual exercise. Hence their
name. Εὐχήταιor Ευχῖται, from Εὐχή, prayer. The Syriac name
Messalians (ְןילצָמְ), praying people,
from אלָצְ oravit(
They appear in the eleventh century in Mesopotamia and Armenia, in some connection with the Paulicians. They were probably the successors of the older Syrian Euchites or Messalians of the fourth and fifth centuries, who in their conceit had reached the height of ascetic perfection, despised manual labor and all common occupations, and lived on alms—the first specimens of mendicant friars.
From the Euchites sprang towards the close of the
eleventh century the Bogomiles (the Slavonic name for Euchites), From Hospodi pomilui, the Slavonic Kyrie eleison,
Lord, have mercy upon us. It is the response in the Russian litany,
and is usually chanted by a choir with touching effect. Schaffarik
derives the name from a Bulgarian bishop named Bogomil, who represented
that heresy in the middle of the tenth century.
Another Eastern sect, called Thondracians (from
the village Thondrac), was organized by Sembat, a Paulician, in the
province of Ararat, between 833 and 854. They sprang from the
Paulicians, and in spite of persecution made numerous converts in
Armenia, among them a bishop, Jacob, in 1002, who preached against the
corruptions in the Armenian church, but was branded, exposed to public
scorn, imprisoned, and at last killed by his enemies. See Tschamtschean’s ”History of
Armenia,” used by Neander (from Petermann’s
communications), III. 587-589.
Little is known of the sect of the Athingians who
appeared in Upper Phrygia. ́ Ἀθγγανοι, from θιγγάνω, to touch, to handle; probably
with reference to
§ 133. The New Manichaeans in the West.
I. The chief sources for the sects of the Middle Age belong to the next period, namely, the letters of Pope Innocent III., Honorius III., Bernhard of Clairvaux, Peter the Venerable; the acts of Councils; the chronicles; and the special writings against them, chiefly those of the Dominican monk Reinerius Sacchoni of Lombardy (d. 1259), who was himself a heretic for seventeen years. The sources are collected in the “Maxima Biblioth. Patr.” (Lugd., 1677, Tom. XXII., XXIV.); in Martene and Durand’s “Thesaurus novus anecdotorum” (Par., 1682); in Muratori’s “Rerum Italic. Scriptores” (Mediol., 1723 sqq.); in Bouquet’s “Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France” (Par., 1738 sqq.), etc. See the Lit. in Hahn I. 23 sqq.
II. J. Conr. Fuesslin: Neue unparth. Kirchen-und Ketzerhistorie der mittleren Zeit. Frankf, 1770. 2 Parts.
Chr. U. Hahn: Geschichte der Ketzer im Mittelalter, besonders im 11., 12. und 13. Jahrh., nach den Quellen bearbeitet. Stuttgart, 1845–’50, 3 vols. The first vol. contains the History of the New Manichaeans.
C. Schmidt: Histoire et doctrine de la secte des Cathares. Paris, 1849, 2 vols.
Razki: Bogomili i Catareni. Agram, 1869.
Neander, III. 592–606. Gieseler, II. 234–239. Hardwick, p. 187–190. Robertson, II. 417–424.
The heretical sects in the West are chiefly of three distinct classes: 1) the dualistic or Manichaean; 2) the pantheistic and mystic; 3) the biblical (the Waldenses). Widely differing among themselves, they were united in hatred of the papal church and the sacerdotal system. They arose from various causes: the remains of heathen notions and older heresies; opposition to the corruptions of the church and the clergy; the revolt of reason against tyrannical authority; and popular thirst for the word of God. They spread with astonishing rapidity during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries from Bulgaria to Spain, especially through Italy and Southern France, and called forth all the energies of the papacy at the zenith of its power (under Innocent III.) for their forcible suppression. One only survived the crusade, the Waldenses, owing to their faithful adherence to the positive truths of the Scriptures.
In the West the heretical tendency in organized
form made its first appearance during the eleventh century, when the
corruption of the church and the papacy had reached its height. It
appeared to that age as a continuation or revival of the Manichaean
heresy. Other names, however, were invented to distinguish the
different branches which were compared to foxes with tails tied
together. In the time of Innocent III., more than forty heretical names
were used, about twelve of them for the Manichaean branch, chiefly
“Manichaeans,” “Catharists,” and “Patareni.” See Hahn, I. 49
sqq. On the different derivations see the notes of Gieseler, II.
234 sq., and Hahn, I. 30 sqq.
New Manichaeans were first discovered in Aquitania and Orleans, in 1022, in Arras, 1025, in Monteforte near Turin, 1030, in Goslar, 1025. They taught a dualistic antagonism between God and matter, a docetic view of the humanity of Christ, opposed the worship of saints and images, and rejected the whole Catholic church with all the material means of grace, for which they substituted a spiritual baptism, a spiritual eucharist, and a symbol of initiation by the imposition of hands. Some resolved the life of Christ into a myth or symbol of the divine life in every man. They generally observed an austere code of morals, abstained from marriage, animal food, and intoxicating drinks. A pallid, emaciated face was regarded by the people as a sign of heresy. The adherents of the sect were common people, but among their leaders were priests, sometimes in disguise. One of them, Dieudonné, precentor of the church in Orleans, died a Catholic; but when three years after his death his connection with the heretics was discovered, his bones were dug up and removed from consecrated ground.
The Oriental fashion of persecuting dissenters by the faggot and the sword was imitated in the West. The fanatical fury of the people supported the priests in their intolerance. Thirteen New Manichaeans were condemned to the stake at Orleans in 1022. Similar executions occurred in other places. At Milan the heretics were left the choice either to bow before the cross, or to die; but the majority plunged into the flames.
A few men rose above the persecuting spirit of the
age, following the example of St. Martin of Tours, who had vigorously
protested against the execution of the Priscillianists at Treves. Wazo,
bishop of Liège, about 1047, raised his voice for toleration
when he was asked for his opinion concerning the treatment of the
heretics in the diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne. Such
doctrines, he said, must be condemned as unchristian; but we are bound
to bear with the teachers after the example of our Saviour, who was
meek and humble and came not to strive, but rather to endure shame and
the death of the cross. The parable of the wheat and the tares teaches
us to wait patiently for the repentance of erring neighbors. “We
bishops,” he tells his fellow-bishops, “should remember that we did not
receive, at our ordination, the sword of secular power, the vocation to
slay, but only the vocation to make alive.” All they had to do was to
exclude obstinate heretics from the communion of the church and to
guard others against their dangerous doctrines. Neander, III. 605 sq.; Gieseler, II. 239,
note.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE STATE OF LEARNING.
§ 134. Literature.
Comp. the list of works in vol. II. 621 sqq.
I. The ecclesiastical writers of this period are collected for the first time by Migne, the Greek in his Patrologia Graeca, Tom. 90 (Maximus Confessor) to 136 (Eustathius); the Latin in his Patrologia Latina, Tom. 69 (Cassiodorus) and 75 (Gregory I.) to 148 (Gregory VII.).
II. General works: Du Pin, Ceillier, and Cave, and the bibliographical works of Fabricius (Biblioth. Graeca, and Bibl. Latina); especially the Histoire Générale des auteurs sacrés ecclésiastiques by the Benedictine Dom Remy Ceillier (1688–1761), first ed., 1729–63, in 23 vols.; revised ed. by Abbé Bauzon, Paris, 1857–’62, in 14 vols. 4to. This ed. comes down to St. Bernard and Peter the Lombard. Tom. XI., XII. and XIII. cover the 6th century to the 11th.
A. H. L. Heeren (Prof. in Göttingen): Geschichte der classischen Literatur im Mittelalter. Göttingen, 1822. 2 Parts. The first part goes from the beginning of the Middle Age to the 15th century.
Henry Hallam: State of Europe in the Middle Ages. Ch. IX. (New York ed. of 1880, vol. III. 254 sqq.); and his Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th and 17th Centuries. Part I., Ch.1 (N. York ed. of 1880, vol. I., p. 25–103).
Hermann Reuter: Geschichte der relig. Aufklärung in Mittelalter. Berlin, 1875, 2 vols.
III. Special works.
(1) Learning and Literature in the East: Leo Allatius: Graeciae orthodoxae Scriptores. Rom., 1652–’59, 2 vols. The Byzantine Historians, ed. by Niebuhr and others, Gr. and Lat. Bonn, 1828–’78, 50 vols., 8vo. Monographs on Photius, especially Hergenröther (the third volume), and on John of Damascus by Langen (1879), etc.; in part also Gass: Symbolik der griech. Kirche (1872).
(2) Literature in the Latin church: Johann Christ. Felix Bähr: Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Carlsruhe, 1836 sqq.; 4th revised ed., 1868–’72, 4 vols. The 4th vol. embraces the Christian Roman literature to the age of Charlemagne. This formerly appeared in three supplementary vols., 1836, 1837 and 1840, the third under the title: Gesch. der röm. Lit. im karolingischen Zeitalter (619 pages).—Wilhelm S. Teuffel: Geschichte der römischen Literatur. Leipzig, 1870, 4th ed. edited by L. Schwabe, 1882. Closes with the middle of the eighth century. Adolph Ebert: Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande. Leipzig, 1874–’80, 2 vols.
Comp. also Léon Maitre: Les écoles episcopales et monastiques de l’occident depuis Charlemagne jusqu’ à Philippe-Auguste, 1866. H. Jos. Schmitz: Das Volksschulwesen im Mittelalter. Frankf a. M., 1881.
(3) For Italy: Muratori: Antiquitates italicae medii aevi (Mediol., 1738–’42, 6 vols. fol.), and Rerum italicarum Scriptores praecipui ab anno D. ad MD. (Mediol., 1723–’51, 29 vols. fol.). Tirabsoschi (a very learned Jesuit): Storia della letteratura italiana, antica e moderna. Modena, 177l-’82, and again 1787–’94; another ed. Milan, 1822–26, 16 vols. Gregorovius: Geschichte ’der Stadt Rom. im Mittelalter. Stuttgart, 1859 sqq., 3rd ed. 1874 sqq., 8 vols.
(4) For France: the Benedictine Histoire litteraire de la France. Paris, 1733–’63, 12 vols. 4to., continued by members of the Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, 1814 sqq.—Bouquet: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. Paris, 1738–1865, 22 vols. fol.; new ed. 1867 sqq. Guizot: Histoire générale de la civilisation en Europe et en France depuis la chute de l’empire romain jusqu’ à la revolution française. Paris, 1830, 6 vols., and many editions, also two English translations.—Ozanam: La civilisation chrétienne chez les Francs. Paris, 1849.
(5) For Spain: The works of Isidore of Seville. Comp. Balmez: European Civilization, in Spanish, Barcelona, 1842–44, in 4 vols.; transl. into French and English (against Guizot and in the interest of Romanism).
(6) For England: The works and biographies of Bede, Alcuin, Alfred. Monumenta Historica Brittannica, ed. by Petrie, Sharpe, and Hardy. Lond., 1848 (the first vol. extends to the Norman conquest). Rerum Britannicarum medii xvi Scriptores, or Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain. London, 1858–1865, 55 vols. 8vo. Comp. J. R. Lumby: Greek Learning in the Western Church during the Seventh and Eighth Centuries. Cambridge, 1878.
(7) For Germany: The works and biographies of Bonifacius, Charlemagne, Rabanus Maurus. The Scriptores in the Monumenta Germaniae historica, ed. Pertz and others, Han., 1826 sqq. (from 500 to 1500); also in a small ed. Scriptores rer. Germ. in usum scholarum, 1840–1866, 16 vols. 8vo. Wilhelm Wattenbach: Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter his zur Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1858, 4th ed., 1877–’78, 2 vols.
(8) On the era of Charlemagne in particular: J. J. Ampere: Histoire littéraire de la France avant Charlemagne (second ed., 1867, 2 vols.), and Histoire litteraire de la France sous Charlemagne et durant les Xe et XIe siècles. Paris, 1868.—Bähr: De litter. studiis a Carolo M. revocatis ac schola Palatina. Heidelb., 1856.—J. Bass Mullinger: The Schools of Charles the Great, and the Restoration of Education in the Ninth Century. London, 1877.—Ebert: Die liter. Bewegung zur Zeit Karls des Gr., in “Deutsche Rundschau,” XI. 1877. Comp. also Rettberg: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, I. 427 sqq., and the works quoted on p. 236. The poetry of the Carolingian age is collected in two magnificent volumes by E. Dümmler.: Poëtae Latini Aevi Carolini. Berlin, 2 vols. in 3 parts, 1880–’84 (in the Scriptorum series of the Mon. Germania).
§ 135. Literary Character of the Early Middle Ages.
The prevailing character of this period in sacred learning is a faithful traditionalism which saved the remains of the ancient classical and Christian literature, and transferred them to a new soil. The six centuries which intervene between the downfall of the West Roman Empire (476) and the age of Hildebrand (1049–1085), are a period of transition from an effete heathen to a new Christian civilization, and from patristic to scholastic theology. It was a period of darkness with the signs of approaching daylight. The fathers were dead, and the schoolmen were not yet born. The best that could be done was to preserve the inheritance of the past for the benefit of the future. The productive power was exhausted, and gave way to imitation and compilation. Literary industry took the place of independent investigation.
The Greek church kept up the connection with classical and patristic learning, and adhered closely to the teaching of the Nicene fathers and the seven oecumenical councils. The Latin church bowed before the authority of St. Augustin and St. Jerome. The East had more learning; the West had more practical energy, which showed itself chiefly in the missionary field. The Greek church, with her head turned towards the past, tenaciously maintains to this day the doctrinal position of the eighth century; the Latin church, looking to the future, passed through a deep night of ignorance, but gathered new strength from new blood. The Greek church presents ancient Christianity at rest; while the Latin church of the middle ages is Christianity in motion towards the modern era.
§ 136. Learning in the Eastern Church.
The Eastern church had the advantage over the Western in the knowledge of the Greek language, which gave her direct access to the Greek Testament, the Greek classics, and the Greek fathers; but, on the other hand, she had to suffer from the Mohammedan invasions, and from the intrigues and intermeddling of a despotic court.
The most flourishing seats of patristic learning,
Alexandria and Antioch, were lost by the conquests of Islam. The
immense library at Alexandria was burned by order of Omar (638), who
reasoned: “If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God
(the Koran), they are useless and need not be preserved; if they
disagree, they are pernicious and ought to be destroyed.” Gibbon (ch. 50) doubts this fact, related by Abulpharagius
and other Mohammedan authorities; but Von Hammer, Silv. de Sacy, and
other Oriental scholars accept it as well authenticated. See the note
of Smith in his edition of Gibbon (vol. V. 358 sq.). The library was
variously estimated as containing from four to seven hundred thousand
volumes.
Constantinople was the centre of the literary,
activity of the Greek church during the middle ages. Here or in the
immediate vicinity (Chalcedon, Nicaea) the oecumenical councils were
held; here were the scholars, the libraries, the imperial patronage,
and all the facilities for the prosecution of studies. Many a library
was destroyed, but always replaced again. A library of 120,000 volumes, begun by Constantius and
Julian the Apostate, was burned by accident under Basiliscus (478).
Another Constantinopolitan library of 33,000 volumes perished in the
reign of the iconoclastic Leo the Isaurian, who is made responsible for
the calamity by Cedrenus and other orthodox
historians.
The Latin was the official language of the Byzantine court, and Justinian, who regained, after a divorce of sixty years, the dominion of ancient Rome through the valor of Belisarius (536), asserted the proud title of Emperor of the Romans, and published his code of laws in Latin. But the Greek always was and remained the language of the people, of literature, philosophy, and theology.
Classical learning revived in the ninth century under the patronage of the court. The reigns of Caesar Bardas (860–866), Basilius I. the Macedonian (867–886), Leo VI. the Philosopher (886–911), who was himself an author, Constantine VII. Porphyrogenitus (911–959), likewise an author, mark the most prosperous period of Byzantine literature. The family of the Comneni, who upheld the power of the sinking empire from 1057 to 1185, continued the literary patronage, and the Empress Eudocia and the Princess Anna Comnena cultivated the art of rhetoric and the study of philosophy.
Even during the confusion of the crusades and the disasters which overtook the empire, the love for learning continued; and when Constantinople at last fell into the hands of the Turks, Greek scholarship took refuge in the West, kindled the renaissance, and became an important factor in the preparation for the Reformation.
The Byzantine literature presents a vast mass of
learning without an animating, controlling and organizing genius. “The
Greeks of Constantinople,” says Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Ch. LIII. (V.
529).
The theological controversies developed dialectical skill, a love for metaphysical subtleties, and an over-estimate of theoretical orthodoxy at the expense of practical piety. The Monotheletic controversy resulted in an addition to the christological creed; the iconoclastic controversy determined the character of public worship and the relation of religion to art.
The most gifted Eastern divines were Maximus Confessor in the seventh, John of Damascus in the eighth, and Photius in the ninth century. Maximus, the hero of Monotheletism, was an acute and profound thinker, and the first to utilize the pseudo-Dyonysian philosophy in support of a mystic orthodoxy. John of Damascus, the champion of image-worship, systematized the doctrines of the orthodox fathers, especially the three great Cappadocians, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Gregory of Nyssa, and produced a monumental work on theology which enjoys to this day the same authority in the Greek church as the “Summa” of Thomas Aquinas in the Latin. Photius, the antagonist of Pope Nicolas, was the greatest scholar of his age, who read and digested with independent judgment all ancient heathen and Christian books on philology, philosophy, theology, canon law, history, medicine, and general literature. In extent of information and fertility of pen he had a successor in Michael Psellus (d. 1106).
Exegesis was cultivated by Oecumenius in the
tenth, Theophylact in the eleventh, and Euthymius Zygabenus in the
twelfth century. They compiled the valuable exegetical collections
called “Catenae.” So called from being connected like chains,
σειραί, catenae. Other terms
are: ἐπιτομαίor συλλογαὶ
ἑρμηνειῶν, glossae, postillae. Among Latin
collections of that kind, the Catena Aurea of Thomas Aquinas on
the Gospels is the most famous. See Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca,
vol. VII., and Noesselt, De Catenis patrum Graecorum in N. T.
Hal., 1762. What these Catenae did for patristic exegesis, the
Critici Sacri (London, 1660 sqq.; Frankfort, 1695 sqq.;
Amsterdam, 1698-1732, with supplements, 13 vols.), and Matthew
Poole’s Synopsis (London, 1669 sqq., an
abridgment of the former) did for the exegesis of the reformers and
other commentators of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Still indispensable to Greek scholars, and important to
theologians and historians for the biblical glosses, the explanations
of theological terms, and the biographical and literary notices of
ecclesiastical writers. Best editions by Gaisford (Oxford, 1834), and
Bernhardy (Halle, 1853, 4 vols.).
§ 137. Christian Platonism and the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings.
Literature.
I. Best ed. of Pseudo-Dionysius in Greek and Latin by Balthasar Corderius (Jesuit), Antwerp, 1634; reprinted at Paris, 1644; Venice, 1755; Brixiae, 1854; and by Migne, in “Patrol. Gr.,” Tom. III. and IV., Paris, 1857, with the scholia of Pachymeres, St. Maximus, and various dissertations on the life and writings of Dionysius. French translations by Darboy (1845), and Dulac (1865). German transl. by Engelhardt (see below). An English transl. of the Mystical Theology in Everard’s Gospel Treasures, London, 1653.
II. Older treatises by Launoy: De Areopagiticis Hilduini (Paris, 1641); and De duabus Dionysiis (Par., 1660). Père Sirmond: Dissert. in qua ostenditur Dion. Paris. et Dion. Areop. discrimen (Par., 1641). J. Daillé: De scriptis quo sub Dionys. Areop. et Ignatii Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur (Geneva, 1666, reproduced by Engelhardt).
III. Engelhardt: Die angeblichen Schriften des Areop. Dion. übersetzt und mit Abhandl. begleitet (Sulzbach, 1823); De Dion. Platonizante (Erlangen, 1820); and De Origine script. Dion. Areop. (Erlangen, 1823). Vogt: Neuplatonismus und Christenthum. Berlin, 1836. G. A. Meyer: Dionys. Areop. Halle, 1845. L. Montet: Les livres du Pseudo-Dionys., 1848. Neander: III. 169 sqq.; 466 sq. Gieseler: I. 468; II. 103 sq. Baur: Gesch. der Lehre v. der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, II. 251–263. Dorner: Entw. Gesch. der L. v. d. Pers. Christi, II. 196–203. Fr. Hipler: Dionys. der Areopagite. Regensb., 1861. E. Böhmer: Dion. Areop., 1864. Westcott: Dion. Areop. in the “Contemp. Review” for May, 1867 (with good translations of characteristic passages). Joh. Niemeyer: Dion. Areop. doctrina philos. et theolog. Halle, 1869. Dean Colet: On the Hierarchies of Dionysius. 1869. J. Fowler: On St. Dion. in relation to Christian Art, in the “Sacristy,” Febr., 1872. Kanakis: Dionys. der Areop. nach seinem Character als Philosoph. Leipz., 1881. Möller in “Herzog”2 III. 617 sqq.; and Lupton in “Smith & Wace,” I. 841 sqq. Comp. the Histories of Philosophy by Ritter, II. 514 sqq., and Ueberweg (Am. ed.), II. 349–352.
The Real and the Ficitious Doinysius.
The tendency to mystic speculation was kept up and
nourished chiefly through the writings which exhibit a fusion of
Neo-Platonism and Christianity, and which go under the name of
Dionysius Areopagita, the distinguished Athenian convert of St. Paul
( Dionysius of Corinth (d. 170) in Euseb., Hist. Eccl.
III. 4; IV. 23. So also in Const. Apost. VII. 46. Nothing is
said in these passages of his martyrdom, which is an uncertain
tradition of later date. Quadratus, the oldest Christian writer of
Athens, makes no mention of him. Suidas (eleventh century), in his
Lexicon, sub ΔιονύσιοςὁἈρεωπαγίτης(Kuster’s ed,
Cambridge, 1705, vol. I. 598-600), says that Dionysius visited Egypt in
the reign of Tiberius, witnessed with a friend at Heliopolis the
extraordinary eclipse of the sun which occurred at the time of the
crucifixion (comp. the 7th Ep. of Dion.); that he was converted by Paul
and elected bishop of the Athenians; that he excelled in all secular
and sacred learning, and was so profound that his works seem to be the
productions of a celestial and divine faculty rather than of a human
genius. He knows nothing of the French Dionysius. According to the oldest authorities (Sulpicius Severus, d.
410, and Gregory of Tours, d. 595, see his Hist. Franc. I. 28),
the French Dionysius belongs to the middle of the third century, and
died a martyr either under Decius (249-251) or under Aurelian
(270-273). Afterwards he was put back to the first century. The
confusion of the French martyr with the Areopagite of the same name is
traced to Hilduin, abbot of St. Denis, A.D. 835, who at the request of
the Emperor Louis the Pious compiled an uncritical collection of the
traditions concerning Dionysius (Areopagitica). Gieseler (II.
103) traces it further back to the age of Charlemagne and the Acta
Dionys., which were first printed in the Acta Sanct. mens.
Oct. IV. 792. After that time it was currently believed that Dionysius
was sent by Pope Clement of Rome to Gaul with twelve companions, or
(according to another tradition) with a presbyter Rusticus, and a
deacon Eleutherius, and that he suffered martyrdom with them under
Domitian. His identity with the Areopagite became almost an article of
faith; and when Abélard dared to call it in question, he was
expelled from St. Denis as a dangerous heretic. It has been
conclusively disproved by Launoy, Sirmond, Morinus, Le Nourry,
Daillé; and yet it still finds defenders among French
Catholics, e.g. the Archbishop Darboy of Paris, who was shot by
the Commune in May, 1871. The Abbé Dulac thus
epigrammatically expresses this exploded tradition (Oeuvres de Saint
Denis, 1865, p.
13): ”Né dans Athènes, Lutèce
d’Orient, il meurt à Lutèce,
Athènes d’Occident; successivement epoux de
deux églises, dont l’une
possédera son borceau, et l’autre sa tombe.
Montmartre vaudra la colline de Mars.”
Pseudo-Dionysius is a philosophical counterpart of Pseudo-Isidor: both are pious frauds in the interest of the catholic system, the one with regard to theology, the other with regard to church polity; both reflect the uncritical character of mediaeval Christianity; both derived from the belief in their antiquity a fictitious importance far beyond their intrinsic merits. Doubts were entertained of the genuineness of the Areopagitica by Laurentius Valla, Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan; but it was only in the seventeenth century that the illusion of the identity of Pseudo-Dionysius with the apostolic convert and the patron-saint of France was finally dispelled by the torch of historical criticism. Since that time his writings have lost their authority and attraction; but they will always occupy a prominent place among the curiosities of literature, and among the most remarkable systems of mystic philosophy.
Authorship.
Who is the real author of those productions? The
writer is called simply Dionysius, and only once. In Ep. VII. 3, where Agollophanes addresses him: “O
Dionysius.” Hipler and Boehmer assume that those names do not refer to
the well-known apostolic characters, but this is
untenable. See the Collatio Catholicorum cum Severianis in
Mansi, VIII. 817 sqq., and an account of the conference in
Walch’s Ketzergeschichte, VII 134 sqq. Westcott asserts (p. 6) that the coincidences with
Damascius, the second in succession from Proclus, and the last Platonic
teacher at Athens, are even more remarkable. He was of Syrian
origin. Different conjectures as to the author, time and place of
composition: 1) A pseudonymous Dionysius (of Egypt) at the end of the
fifth century. Gieseler, Engelhardt, Dorner, and others. 2) Dionysius
of Alexandria, d. 265. Baratier. 3) Another Dionysius of the fourth
century. 4) During the Eutychian and Nestorian controversies. Le
Nourry. 5) A Pseudo-Dionysius of the third century, who wished to
introduce the Eleusynian mysteries into the church. Baumgarten Crusius.
6) Apollinaris the elder, d. 360. 7) Apollinaris the younger, d. 370.
Laurentius Valla. 8) Synesius of Ptolemais, c. 410. La Croze. 9) Peter
Gnapheus or Fullo, patriarch of Constantinople. Le Quien. 10) A writer
in Edessa, or under the influence of the Edessene school, between 480
and 520. Westcott.—See the Prolegomena of Le Nourry,
De Rubeis, Corderius, in the first vol. of Migne’s
ed., and Lupton, l.c.
In the same way the pseudo-Clementine writings were assigned to the first bishop of Rome.
The Fortunes of Pseudo-Dionysius.
Pseudo-Dionysius appears first in the interest of
the heretical doctrine of one nature and one will in the person of
Christ. The Monothelites appealed to a passage in Ep. IV. ad
Caium. See Hefele, III. 127 sq. Dorner (II. 196 sqq.) correctly
represents the mystic Christology of Pseudo-Dionysius as a connecting
link between Monophysitism and the orthodox dogma. The first book which he notices in his “Bibliotheca” (about
845) is a defense of the genuineness of the Dionysian writings by a
presbyter Theodorus, who mentions four objections: 1) they were unknown
to the earlier fathers; 2) they are not mentioned in the catalogues of
writing by Eusebius; 3) they are filled with comments on church
traditions which grew by degrees long after the apostolic age; 4) they
quote an epistle of Ignatius, written on his way to martyrdom under
Trojan. Photius seems to think that the objections are stronger than
the answers of Theodorus. See Neander, III. 170; Westcott, l.c.
p. 4, and Hergenroether, Photius, III. 29 and
331.
In the West the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius were
first noticed about 590 by Pope Gregory I., who probably became
acquainted with them while ambassador at Constantinople. Pope Hadrian
I. mentions them in a letter to Charlemagne. The Emperor Michael II.
the Stammerer, sent a copy to Louis the Pious, 827. Their arrival at
St. Denis on the eve of the feast of the saint who reposed there, was
followed by no less than nineteen miraculous cures in the neighborhood.
They naturally recalled the memory of the patron-saint of France, and
were traced to his authorship. The emperor instructed Hilduin, the
abbot of St. Denis, to translate them into Latin; but his scholarship
was not equal to the task. John Scotus Erigena, the best Greek scholar
in the West, at the request of Charles the Bald, prepared a literal
translation with comments, about 850, and praised the author as
“venerable alike for his antiquity and for the sublimity of the
heavenly mysteries” with which he dealt. Other Latin versions were made afterwards by Johannes
Sarracinus in the twelfth century, by Ambrosius Camaldulensis in the
fifteenth, by Corderius in the seventeenth.
The Areopagitica stimulated an intuitive and
speculative bent of mind, and became an important factor in the
development of scholastic and mystic theology. Hugo of St. Victor,
Peter the Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Robert Grosseteste,
and Dionysius Carthusianus wrote commentaries on them, and drew from
them inspiration for their own writings. St. Thomas, the “Angelic Doctor,” is so full of quotations
from Dionysius that Corderius says, he drew from him ”totam fere
doctrinam theologicam.” Migne I. 96.
Dante places Dionysius among the theologians in the heaven of the sun:
Paradiso, X. 115.
Luther called him a dreamer, and this was one of his heretical views which the Sorbonne of Paris condemned.
The Several Writings.
The Dionysian writings, as far as preserved, are
four treatises addressed to Timothy, his “fellow-presbyter,” namely: 1)
On the Celestial Hierarchy (περὶ
τῆς
οὐρανίας
ἱεραρχίας). 2) On the Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy (περὶ
τῆς
ἐκκλησιαστικῆς
ἱεραρχίας). 3) On the Divine Names (περὶ
θείων
ὀνομάτων). 4) On Mystic Theology (περὶ
μυστικῆς
θεολογίας). To these are added ten letters
addressed to various persons of the apostolic age. An eleventh letter which exists only in Latin (said to have
been written by Scotus Erigena), and a Latin Liturgy of Dionysius
(published by Renaudot and in Migne’s ed. I.
1123-1132), are spurious.
The System of Dionysius.
These books reveal the same authorship and the same system of mystic symbolism, in which Neo-Platonism and Christianity are interwoven. The last phase of Hellenic philosophy which heretofore had been hostile to the church, is here made subservient to it. The connecting ideas are the progressive revelation of the infinite, the hierarchic triads, the negative conception of evil, and the striving of man after mystic union with the transcendent God. The system is a counterpart of the Graeco-Jewish theology, of Philo of Alexandria, who in similar manner mingled the Platonic philosophy with the Mosaic religion. The Areopagite and Philo teach theology in the garb of philosophy; both appeal to Scripture, tradition, and reason; both go behind the letter of the Bible and the facts of history to a deeper symbolic and allegoric meaning; both adulterate the revealed truths by foreign elements. But Philo is confined to the Old Testament, and ignores the New, which was then not yet written; while the system of the Areopagite is a sort of philosophy of Christianity.
The Areopagite reverently ascends the heights and
sounds the depths of metaphysical and religious speculation, and makes
the impression of profound insight and sublime spirituality; and hence
he exerted such a charm upon the great schoolmen and mystics of the
middle ages. But he abounds in repetitions; he covers the poverty of
thought with high-sounding phrases; he uses the terminology of the
Hellenic mysteries; As for the three stages of spiritual ascent,
κάθαρσις, μύησις, τελείωσις, and the verb ἐποπτεύεσθαι,i.e. to be admitted to the
highest grade at mysteries, to become an ἐπόπτηςor μύστης. For other rare words see the vocabulary
of Dion. in Migne, I. 1134 sqq., and II. 23 sqq.
The unity of the Godhead and the hierarchical
order of the universe are the two leading ideas of the Areopagite. He
descends from the divine unity through a succession of manifestations
to variety, and ascends back again to mystic union with God. His text,
we may say, is the sentence of St. Paul: “From God, and through God,
and unto God, are all things” (
He starts from the Neo-Platonic conception of the
Godhead, as a being which transcends all being and existence το ̀ὃν
ὑπερούσιον, das ueberseiende
Sein.
The world forms a double hierarchy, that is, as he defines it, “a holy order, and science, and activity or energy, assimilated as far as possible to the godlike and elevated to the imitation of God in proportion to the divine illuminations conceded to it.” There are two hierarchies, one in heaven, and one on earth, each with three triadic degrees.
The celestial or supermundane hierarchy consists
of angelic beings in three orders: 1) thrones, cherubim, and seraphim,
in the immediate presence of God; 2) powers, mights, and dominions; 3)
angels (in the narrower sense), archangels, and principalities. Or, in the descending order, they are: (a) σεραφίμ,
χερουβίμ,
θρόνοι. (b) κυριότητες,
δυνάμεις ,
ἐξουσίαι. (c) ἀρχαί,
ἀρχάγγελοι,
ἀγγελοι. Five of these orders are derived from St. Paul, “These orders upward all of them are gazing, And downward so prevail, that unto God They all attracted are and all attract. And Dionysius with so great desire To contemplate these orders set himself, He named them and distinguished them as I do.” (Longfellow’s translation .)
The earthly or ecclesiastical hierarchy is a
reflex of the heavenly, and a school to train us up to the closest
possible communion with God. Its orders form the lower steps of the
heavenly ladder which reaches in its summit to the throne of God. It
requires sensible symbols or sacraments, which, like the parables of
our Lord, serve the double purpose of revealing the truth to the holy
and hiding it from the profane. The first and highest triad of the
ecclesiastical hierarchy are the sacraments of baptism which is called
illumination (fwvtisma), the eucharist (suvnaxi”, gathering,
communion), which is the most sacred of consecrations, and the holy
unction or chrism which represents our perfecting. Three other
sacraments are mentioned: the ordination of priests, the consecration
of monks, and the rites of burial, especially the anointing of the
dead. The three orders of the ministry form the second triad. They are not called bishop, priest, and deacon,
but ἱεράρχης, ἱερεύς, and λειτουργός. Yet Dionysius writes to Timothy
as πρεσβύτερος
τῷ
συμπρεσβυτέρῳ.
These two hierarchies with their nine-fold orders of heavenly and earthly ministrations are, so to speak, the machinery of God’s government and of his self-communication to man. They express the divine law of subordination and mutual dependence of the different ranks of beings.
The Divine Names or attributes, which are the
subject of a long treatise, disclose to us through veils and shadows
the fountain-head of all life and light, thought and desire. The
goodness, the beauty, and the loveliness of God shine forth upon all
created things, like the rays of the sun, and attract all to Himself.
How then can evil exist? Evil is nothing real and positive, but only a
negation, a defect. Cold is the absence of heat, darkness is the
absence of light; so is evil the absence, of goodness. But how then can
God punish evil? For the answer to this question the author refers to
another treatise which is lost. Περὶ
δικαίου και
̀θείου
δικαιωτηρίου.
The Mystic Theology briefly shows the way by which the human soul ascends to mystic union with God as previously set forth under the Divine Names. The soul now rises above signs and symbols, above earthly conceptions and definitions to the pure knowledge and intuition of God.
Dionysius distinguishes between cataphatic or
affirmative theology) καταφατικός, affirmative from
καταφάσκω(κατάφημι), to affirm ἀποφατικός, negative, from
ἀποφάσκω(ἀπόφημι), to deny.
The ten Letters treat of separate theological or moral topics, and are addressed, four to Caius, a monk (θεραπεύτης), one to Dorotheus, a deacon (λειτουργός), one to Sosipater, a priest (ἱερεύς), one to Demophilus, a monk, one to Polycarp (called ἱεράρχης, no doubt the well-known bishop of Smyrna), one to Titus (ἱεράρχης, bishop of Crete), and the tenth to John, “the theologian,” i.e. the Apostle John at Patmos, foretelling his future release from exile.
Dionysian Legends.
Two legends of the Pseudo-Dionysian writings have
passed in exaggerated forms into Latin Breviaries and other books of
devotion. One is his gathering with the apostles around the death-bed
of the Virgin Mary. See above p. 592, and Περὶθείωνὀνομάτ. cap. III. 2. (ed. of Migne, I. 682 sq.) Comp.
the lengthy discussion of Baronius, Annal. ad ann. 48. In this
connection St. Peter is called by Dionysius κορυφαίακαὶπρεσβυτάτητῶνθεολόγωνἀκρότης(suprema ista atque antiquissima
summitas theologorum). Corderius (see Migne I, 686) regards this as
“firmissimum argumentum pro primatu Petri d consequeenter (?)
Pontificum Romanorumm ejusdem successorum.” The exclamation is variously given: ὁἄγνωστοςἐνσαρκὶπάσχειθεόςby Syngelus); or ἢ τὸθεῖονπάσχει, ἢ τῷ πάσχοντισυμπάσχει
(”Aut Deus patitur, aut patienti
compatitur“), or, as the Roman Breviary has it: ”Aut Deus
naturae patitur, aut mundi machina dissolvitur,” “Either the God of
nature is suffering, or the fabric of the world is breaking up.” See
Corderius in his annotations to Ep. VII., in Migne, I. 1083, and
Halloix, in Vita S. Dion., ibid. II. 698. The exclamation of Dionysius
is sometimes (even by so accurate a scholar as Dr. Westcott,
l.c., p. 8) erroneously traced to the 7th Ep. of Dion., as a
response to the exclamation of Apollophanes. In Ep. VII. 2, where Dionysius asks Polycarp to
silence the objections of Apollophanes to Christianity and to remind
him of that incident when be exclaimed: ταῦτα, ὦ καλὲ
Διονύσιε, θείων
ἀμοιβαὶ
πραγμάτων, ”Istae O praeclare Dionysi,
divinarum sunt vicissitudines rerum.” The same incident is alluded
to in the spurious eleventh letter addressed to Apollophanes himself.
So Suidas also gives the exclamation of Apollophanes, sub
verbo Διον.
The Roman Breviary has given solemn sanction, for
devotional purposes, to several historical errors connected with
Dionysius the Areopagite: 1) his identity with the French St. Denis of
the third century; 2) his authorship of the books upon “The Names of
God,” upon “The Orders in Heaven and in the Church,” upon “The Mystic
Theology,” and “divers others,” which cannot have been written before
the end of the fifth century; 3) his witness of the supernatural
eclipse at the time of the crucifixion, and his exclamation just
referred to, which he himself ascribes to Apollophanes. The Breviary
also relates that Dionysius was sent by Pope Clement of Rome to Gaul
with Rusticus, a priest, and Eleutherius, a deacon; that he was
tortured with fire upon a grating, and beheaded with an axe on the 9th
day of October in Domitian’s reign, being over a
hundred years old, but that “after his head was cut off, he took it in
his hands and walked two hundred paces, carrying it all the while!” Brev. Rom. for Oct. 9, in the English ed. of the
Marquess of Bute, vol. II. 1311. Even Alban Butler, in his Lives of
the Saints (Oct. 9), rejects the fable of the identity of the two
Dionysii.
§ 138. Prevailing Ignorance in the Western Church.
The ancient Roman civilization began to decline soon
after the reign of the Antonines, and was overthrown at last by the
Northern barbarians. The treasures of literature and art were buried,
and a dark night settled over Europe. The few scholars felt isolated
and sad. Gregory, of Tours (540–594) complains, in the
Preface to his Church History of the Franks, that the study of letters
had nearly perished from Gaul, and that no man could be found who was
able to commit to writing the events of the times. In Migne’s ed., Tom. LXXIX.
159.
“Middle Ages” and “Dark Ages” have become
synonymous terms. The tenth century is emphatically called the iron
age, or the saeculum obscurum. According to the terminology of Cave and others, the 7th
century is called Saeculum Monotheleticum; the eighth, S.
Eiconoclasticum; the ninth, S. Photianum; the eleventh,
S. Hildebrandinum; the twelfth, S. Waldenses; the
thirteenth, S. Scholasticum; the fourteenth, S.
Wicklevianum; the fifteenth, S. Synodale; the sixteenth,
S. Reformationis. All one-sided or wrong except the last.
Historical periods do not run parallel with
centuries. Hallam (Lit. of Europe, etc., ch. 1, §
10) puts the seventh and eighth centuries far beneath the tenth as to
illumination in France, and quotes Meiners who makes the same assertion
in regard to Germany. Guizot dates French civilization from the tenth
century; but it began rather with Charlemagne in the
eighth. In Migne’s Patrologia Latina the
number of volumes which contain the works of Latin writers, is as
follows: Writers of the seventh century, Tom.
80—88
8 vols.
“ ”
“
eighth
“
“
89—96
7 ”
“ ”
“
ninth
“
“
97—130
33 ”
“ ”
“
tenth
“
“
131-138
7 ”
“ ”
“ eleventh
“
“
139-151
12 ”
“ ”
“
twelfth
“
“
152-191
39 ”
“ ”
“ thirteenth
“
“
192-217
25 ” None of these centuries comes up to the Nicene and
post-Nicene ages. Migne gives to Augustine alone 12, and to Jerome 11
volumes, and both of these were no compilers, but original writers. The
contrast between the literary poverty of the middle ages and the
exuberant riches of the sixteenth or nineteenth century is still
greater; but of course the invention of the art of printing and all the
modern facilities of education must be taken into account.
But we must not be misled by isolated facts into sweeping generalities. For England and Germany the tenth century was in advance of the ninth. In France the eighth and ninth centuries produced the seeds of a new culture which were indeed covered by winter frosts, but not destroyed, and which bore abundant fruit in the eleventh and twelfth.
Secular and sacred learning was confined to the clergy and the monks. The great mass of the laity, including the nobility, could neither read nor write, and most contracts were signed with the mark of the cross. Even the Emperor Charlemagne wrote only with difficulty. The people depended for their limited knowledge on the teaching of a poorly educated priesthood. But several emperors and kings, especially Charlemagne and Alfred, were liberal patrons of learning and even contributors to literature.
Scarcity of Libraries.
One of the chief causes of the prevailing
ignorance was the scarcity of books. The old libraries were destroyed
by ruthless barbarians and the ravages of war. After the conquest of
Alexandria by the Saracens, the cultivation and exportation of Egyptian
papyrus ceased, and parchment or vellum, which took its place, was so
expensive that complete copies of the Bible cost as much as a palace or
a farm. King Alfred paid eight acres of land for one volume of a
cosmography. Hence the custom of chaining valuable books, which
continued even to the sixteenth century. Hence also the custom of
erasing the original text of manuscripts of classical works, to give
place to worthless monkish legends and ascetic homilies. Even the Bible
was sometimes submitted to this process, and thus “the word of God was
made void by the traditions of men.” One of the most important uncial manuscripts of the
Scriptures, the Codex Ephraem (C), is a palimpsest (codex
rescriptus), but the original text can with difficulty be
deciphered, and has been published by Tischendorf (Lipsiae, 1843). See
Schaff’s Companion to the Greek Testament, p.
120 sq., and Gregory’s Prolegomena to
Tischendorf’s eighth critical ed. of the Gr. Test.
(Leipzig, 1884), I. 366 sq.
The libraries of conventual and cathedral schools were often limited to half a dozen or a dozen volumes, such as a Latin Bible or portions of it, the liturgical books, some works of St. Augustin and St. Gregory, Cassiodorus and Boëthius, the grammars of Donatus and Priscianus, the poems of Virgil and Horace. Most of the books had to be imported from Italy, especially from Rome.
The introduction of cotton paper in the tenth or
eleventh century, and of linen paper in the twelfth, facilitated the
multiplication of books. The oldest manuscript on cotton paper in the British Museum
is dated 1049; the oldest in the National Library of Paris, 1050. The
oldest dated specimen of linen paper is said to be a treaty of peace
between the kings of Aragon and Castile of 1177.
§ 139. Educational Efforts of the Church.
The mediaeval church is often unjustly charged with
hostility to secular learning. Pope Gregory I. is made responsible for
the destruction of the Bibliotheca Palatina and the classical statues
in Rome. But this rests on an unreliable tradition of very late date. The testimony of John of Salisbury in the twelfth century
(c. 1172) is more than neutralized by opposite contemporary
testimonies, and is justly rejected by Bayle (Diction.), Heeren
(I. 66), Gregorovius, Neander (III. 150 sq. , Baur (Dogmengesch. II. 4), and Ebert (I. 525). Gieseler (I. 490 sq.) speaks of
“the monkish contempt of Gregory for the liberal sciences;” but he adds
that “the law traditions of his hostility to all literature are not to
be fully believed.” Ep. ad Leandrum, prefixed to his Expos. of Job, and
Ep. ad Desiderium, XI. 54 (Opera, ed. Migne, III.
1171). The author of this commentary represents it as a device of
the evil spirit to dissuade Christians from liberal studies, ”ut et
secularia nesciant et ad sublimitatem spiritualium non
pertingant.” The Vatican library, which can be traced back to Pope
Nicolas V., is perhaps the most valuable in the world for manuscripts
(e.g. the Cod. B. of the Greek Bible) and important
ecclesiastical documents, but also one of the most inaccessible to
outsiders. The present Pope Leo XIII. has liberalized the management,
but under the exclusive direction of cardinals and in the interest of
the Roman church (1883).
The preservation and study of ancient literature during the entire mediaeval period are due chiefly to the clergy and monks, and a few secular rulers. The convents were the nurseries of manuscripts.
The connection with classical antiquity was never
entirely broken. Boëthius (beheaded at Pavia, c. 525), and
Cassiodorus (who retired to the monastery, of Viviers, and died there
about 570), both statesmen under Theodoric, the Ostrogothic king of
Italy, form the connecting links between ancient and mediaeval
learning. They were the last of the old Romans; they dipped the pen of
Cicero and Seneca in barbaric ink, “Boëtius barbara verba miscuit Latinis.”
Opera ed. Migne, II. 578. De Consolatione Philosophiae Libri V., first
printed, Venice, 1497; best ed. by Theod. Obbarius, Jenae, 1843, in
Migne’s ed., I. 578-862. Boëthius
translated also works of Aristotle, and wrote books on arithmetic,
geometry, rhetoric, and music; but the theological works which bear his
name, De sancta Trinitate, De duabus naturis et una persona Christi,
Fidei Confessio seu Brevis Institutio religionis Christianae, based
upon the Aristotelian categories and drawn in great part from St.
Augustin, are not mentioned before Alcuin and Hincmar, three centuries
after his death, and are probably the production of another
Boëthius, or of the martyr St. Severinus, with whom he was
confounded. The most complete edition of his works is that of Migne in
two vols. (in the “Patrol. Lat.,” Tom. 63 and 64). Comp. Fr.
Nitzsch, Das System des Boëthius und die ihm zugeschriebenen
Theol. Schriften (Berlin, 1860); Dean Stanley’s article in
Smith’s “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography,” I.
496; and Jourdain, De l’origine des traditions sur le
christianisme de Boèce, Paris, 1861. De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, in 33 chps., in
Migne, Tom. 70, col. 1106-1150. Cassiodorus wrote also a work on the
Liberal Arts, twelve books of Varieties (letters, edicts, and
rescripts), a Tripartite Church-History from Constantine to his
time (an epitome of Sozomen, Socrates, Theodoret), and commentaries.
Best edition is that of Migne, ”Patrol. Lat.” in 2 vols. (vols.
69 and 70.) He will be more fully discussed in the next chapter,
153.
Boëthius has had the singular fortune of enjoying the reputation of a saint and martyr who was put to death, not for alleged political treason, but for defending orthodoxy against the Arianism of Theodoric. He is assigned by Dante to the fourth heaven in company with Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Gratian, Peter the Lombard, Dionysius the Areopagite, and other great teachers of the church:
Paradiso, X. 125-129. Cieldauro or Cieldoro is the church San Pietro in Ciel d’oro at Pavia, where Liutprand, King of the Lombards, erected a monument to Boëthius, about 726. So says Karl Witte, in Dante Allighieri’s Goettliche Komoedie(1865), p. 676.
And yet it is doubtful whether Boëthius
was a Christian at all. He was indeed intimate with Cassiodorus and
lived in a Christian atmosphere, which accounts for the moral elevation
of his philosophy. But, if we except a few Christian phrases, As angelica virtus, coaeternus, purgatoria
clementia. Some suppose that he reserved this for a sixth book which
he was prevented from writing; others read Christianity into the work
by allegorical interpretation, or supplement it by theological works
falsely ascribed to him. Decline and Fall, Ch. 39 (vol. IV. 138). Ebert
(Gesch.
der christl. lat. Lit. I. 472) assumes a partial influence of Christianity upon this
work. ”Boëtius,” he says, ”war nur ein Namenchrist, aber doch
immerhin ein solcher; die erste christliche Erziehung war keineswegs
spurlos an ihm voruebergegangen. Sein Werk ruht zwar seinem ganzen
Gehalt nach auf der heidnisch-antiken Philosophie,
hauptsächlich dem Platonismus, und zwar in der
neuplatonischen Form, wie schon eine sehr fluechtige Kenntniss
desselben alsbald zeigt, und in allen Einzelheiten, freilich nicht ohne
einige Uebertreibung, von Nitzsch nach gewiessen worden Werk
erhält nicht bloss durch das starke Hervortreten
stoischroemischer Ethik einen christlichen Anschein, sondern diesenimmt
hier auch mitunter in der That eine specifisch christliche
Färbung an, wie es denn selbst auch an Reminiscenzen aus der
Bibel nicht ganz fehlt. Hoechst merkwuerdig ist, wie in diesem Werke
des letzten der roemischen Philosophen, wie Zeller ihn mit Recht nennt,
diese verschiedenen, zum Theil ganz heterogenen Elemente sich
durchdringen zu einer doch einigen Gesammtwirkung in Folge des
sittlichen Moments, worin seine, wie ueberhaupt des
römischen Eklekticismus Stärke
beruht.”
Greek And Hebrew Learning.
The original languages of the Scriptures were little understood in the West. The Latin took the place of the Greek as a literary and sacred language, and formed a bond of union among scholars of different nationalities. As a spoken language it rapidly degenerated under the influx of barbaric dialects, but gave birth in the course of time to the musical Romanic languages of Southern Europe.
The Hebrew, which very few of the fathers (Origen and Jerome) had understood, continued to live in the Synagogue, and among eminent Jewish grammarians and commentators of the Old Testament; but it was not revived in the Christian Church till shortly before the Reformation. Very few of the divines of our period (Isidore, and, perhaps, Scotus Erigena), show any trace of Hebrew learning.
The Greek, which had been used almost exclusively, even by writers of the Western church, till the time of Tertullian and Cyprian, gave way to the Latin. Hence the great majority of Western divines could not read even the New Testament in the original. Pope Gregory did not know Greek, although he lived several years as papal ambassador in Constantinople. The same is true of most of the schoolmen down to the sixteenth century.
But there were not a few honorable exceptions. Comp. Cramer, De Graecis medii aevi studiis, and the
pamphlet of Lumby quoted on p. 584.
As to Italy, the Greek continued to be spoken in
the Greek colonies in Calabria and Sicily down to the eleventh century.
Boëthius was familiar with the Greek philosophers.
Cassiodorus often gives the Greek equivalents for Latin technical
terms. E.g. in De Artibus, etc., cap. 1 (in
Migne’s ed. II. 1154): ”Nominis partes
sunt: Qualitas, ποιότης. Comparatio, σύγκρισις. Genus, γένος. Numerus, ἀριθμός. Figura, σχῆμα. Casus, πτῶσις.” In the same work he gives the divisions of philosophy
and the categories of Aristotle in Greek and Latin, and uses such words
as ἦθος, πάθος, παρέκβασις, ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, στάσις, ἀντέγκλημα, ἀντίστασις, πραγματική, ἀπόδειξις, ἐπιχειρήματα, etc.
Several popes of this period were Greeks by birth,
as Theodore I. (642), John VI. (701), John VII. (705), Zachary (741);
while others were Syrians, as John V. (685), Sergius I. (687),
Sisinnius (708), Constantine I. (708), Gregory III. (731). Zachary
translated Gregory’s “Dialogues” from Latin into
Greek. Pope Paul I. (757–768) took pains to spread a
knowledge of Greek and sent several Greek books, including a grammar,
some works of Aristotle, and Dionysius the Areopagite, to King Pepin of
France. He provided Greek service for several monks who had been
banished from the East by the iconoclastic emperor Copronymus.
Anastasius, librarian of the Vatican, translated the canons of the
eighth general Council of Constantinople (869) into Latin by order of
Pope Hadrian II. See Hefele, IV. 385 sq.
Isidore of Seville (d. 636) mentions a learned Spanish bishop, John of Gerona, who in his youth had studied seven years in Constantinople. He himself quotes in his “Etymologies” from many Greek authors, and is described as “learned in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.”
Ireland was for a long time in advance of England, and sent learned missionaries to the sister island as well as to the Continent. That Greek was not unknown there, is evident from Scotus Erigena.
England derived her knowledge of Greek from
Archbishop Theodore, who was a native of Tarsus, educated in Athens and
appointed by the pope to the see of Canterbury (a.d. 668). Bede (Hist. Eccl. IV. 1) calls him ”vir et saeculari et
divina literatura et Graece instructus et Latine.” Pope Zachary
speaks of Theodore as ”Athenis eruditus“ and ”Graeco-Latinus
philosophus.” William of Malmesbury calls this Hadrian “a fountain of
letters and a river of arts.” L.c. V. c. 2, and V. 8, 23. He quotes e.g. In Luc. 6:2 the Greek, for
Sabbatum secundum primum (δευτερόπρωτον). Opera, ed. Migne, III.
392. De Arte Metrica Opera, I. l50-176. He explains here
the different metres of Greek poetry. Lumby (l.c., p. 15) mentions his allusions to
Eusebius, Athanasius, and Chrysostom, and a few familiar words,
as ἐπίσκοπος, παραβάτης, and ἄνθρωπος. As paradeigma, gazophylacia,
paraclitus.
The greatest Greek scholar of the ninth century, and of the whole period in the West was John Scotus Erigena (850), who was of Irish birth and education, but lived in France at the court of Charles the Bald. He displays his knowledge in his Latin books, translated the pseudo-Dionysian writings, and attempted original Greek composition.
In Germany, Rabanus Maurus, Haymo of Halberstadt, and Walafrid Strabo had some knowledge of Greek, but not sufficient to be of any material use in the interpretation of the Scriptures.
The Course of Study. Comp. besides the Lit. already quoted in this vol.
§134, the following: Heppe: Das Schulwesen des Mittelalters. Marburg, 1860. Kämmel: Mittelalterliches
Schulwesenin
Schmid’s “Encykl. des gesammten Erziehungs und
Unterrichswesens.” Gotha. Bd. IV. (1865), p. 766-826.
Education was carried on in the cathedral and conventual schools, and these prepared the way for the Universities which began to be founded in the twelfth century.
The course of secular learning embraced the
so-called seven liberal arts, namely, grammar, dialectics (logic),
rhetoric, music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy. The first three
constituted the Trivium, the other four the Quadrivium. The division is expressed in the memorial
lines: “Grammatica loquitur, Dialectica
verba docet, Rhetorica verba colorat; Musica canit,
Arithmetica numerat, Geometria ponderat, Astronomia colit
astra.” De Ordine, II., c. 12 sqq., in
Migne’s ed. of Augustin, Tom. l. 1011 sqq. Augustin
connects poëtica with
musica. Or, De Artibus ac Disciplinis Liberalium Literarum,
in Migne’s ed. of Cassiodori Opera, II.
1150-1218. It is exceedingly meagre if judged by the standard of modern
learning, but very useful for the middle ages.
These studies were preparatory to sacred learning, which was based upon the Latin Bible and the Latin fathers.
The Chief Theologians.
A few divines embraced all the secular and
religious knowledge of their age. In Spain, Isidore of Seville (d. 636)
was the most learned man at the end of the sixth and the beginning of
the seventh century. His twenty books of “Origins” or “Etymologies”
embrace the entire contents of the seven liberal arts, together with
theology, jurisprudence, medicine, natural history, etc., and show
familiarity with Plato, Aristotle, Boëthius, Demosthenes,
Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Anacreon, Herodotus, Cicero, Horace, Virgil,
Ovid, Terence, Juvenal, Caesar, Livy, Sallust. “However we may be disposed to treat the labors of Isidore
with something of contempt, it is probably not possible to overrate the
value and usefulness of this treatise to the age in which he lived, and
indeed for many ages it was the most available handbook to which the
world had access.” Smith & Wace III. 308. Comp. this vol.
§ 155. See this vol. § 169. Comp. this vol. §§ 123 and
175. See this vol. §§
128-130.
Biblical Studies.
The literature of the Latin church embraced penitential books, homilies, annals, translations, compilations, polemic discussions, and commentaries. The last are the most important, but fall far below the achievements of the fathers and reformers.
Exegesis was cultivated in an exclusively practical and homiletical spirit and aim by Gregory the Great, Isidore, Bede, Alcuin, Claudius of Turin, Paschasius Radbertus, Rabanus Maurus, Haymo, Walafrid Strabo, and others. The Latin Vulgate was the text, and the Greek or Hebrew seldom referred to. Augustin and Jerome were the chief sources. Charlemagne felt the need of a revision of the corrupt text of the Vulgate, and entrusted Alcuin with the task. The theory of a verbal inspiration was generally accepted, and opposed only by Agobard of Lyons who confined inspiration to the sense and the arguments, but not to the “ipsa corporalia verba.”
The favorite mode of interpretation was the
spiritual, that is, allegorical and mystical. The literal, that is,
grammatico-historical exegesis was neglected. The spiritual
interpretation was again divided into three ramifications: the
allegorical proper, the moral, and the anagogical From ἀναγωγικός, exalting, lifting up; ἀναγωγή, a leading up, is used in ecclesiastical Greek for higher,
spiritual interpretation.
Notes.
St. Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, who was first
(like Cyprian, and Ambrose) a distinguished layman, and father of four
children, before he became a monk, and then a bishop, wrote in the
middle of the fifth century (he died c. 450) a brief manual of
mediaeval hermeneutics under the title Liber Formularum Spiritalis
Intelligentiae (Rom., 1564, etc., in Migne’s “Patrol.”
Tom. 50, col. 727–772). This work is often quoted by
Bede and is sometimes erroneously ascribed to him. Eucherius shows an
extensive knowledge of the Bible and a devout spirit. He anticipates
many favorite interpretations of mediaeval commentators and mystics. He
vindicates the allegorical method from the Scripture itself, and from
its use of anthropomorphic and anthropopathic expressions which can not
be understood literally. Yet he allows the literal sense its proper
place in history as well as the moral and mystical. He identifies the
Finger of God (Digitus Dei) with the Spirit of God (cap. 2; comp.
The theory of the fourfold interpretation was more fully developed by Rabanus Maurus (776–856), in his curious book, Allegoriae in Universam Sacram Scripturam (Opera, ed. Migne, Tom. VI. col. 849–1088). He calls the four senses the four daughters of wisdom, by whom she nourishes her children, giving to beginners drink in lacte historiae, to the believers food in pane allegoriae, to those engaged in good works encouragement in refectione tropologiae, to those longing for heavenly rest delight in vino anagogiae. He also gives the following definition at the beginning of the treatise: “Historia ad aptam rerum gestarum narrationem pertinet, quae et in superficie litterae continetur, et sic intelligitur sicut legitur. Allegoria vero aliquid in se plus continet, quod per hoc quod locus [loquens] de rei veritate ad quiddam dat intelligendum de fidei puritate, et sanctae Ecclesiae mysteria, sive praesentia, sive futura, aliud dicens, aliud significans, semper autem figmentis et velatis ostendit. Tropologia quoque et ipsa, sicut allegoria, in figuratis, sive dictis, sive factis, constat: sed in hoc ab allegoria distat quod Allegoria quidem fidem, Tropologia vero aedificat moralitem. Anagogia autem, sive velatis, sive apertis dictis, de aeternis supernae patriae gaudiis constat, et quae merces vel fidem rectam, vel vitam maneat sanctam, verbis vel opertis, vel apertis demonstrat. Historia namque perfectorum exempla quo narrat, legentem ad imitationem sanctitatis excitat; Allegoria in fidei revelatione ad cognitionem veritatis; Tropologia in instructione morum ad amorem virtutis; Anagogia in manifestatione sempiternorum gaudiorum ad desiderium aeternae felicitatis. In nostrae ergo animae domo Historia fundamentum ponit; Allegoria parietes erigit; Anagogia tectum supponit; Tropologia vero tam interius per affectum quam exterius per effectum boni operis, variis ornatibus depingit.”
§ 140. Patronage of Letters by Charles the Great, and Charles the Bald.
Comp. §§ 56, 90, 134 (pp. 236, 390, 584).
Charlemagne stands out like a far-shining beacon-light in the darkness of his age. He is the founder of a new era of learning, as well as of a new empire. He is the pioneer of French and German civilization. Great in war, he was greater still as a legislator and promoter of the arts of peace. He clearly saw that religion and education are the only solid and permanent basis of a state. In this respect he rose far above Alexander the Great and Caesar, and is unsurpassed by Christian rulers.
He invited the best scholars from Italy and
England to his court,—Peter of Pisa, Paul Warnefrid,
Paulinus of Aquileia, Theodulph of Orleans, Alcuin of York. “Toutes les provinces de
l’occident,” says Ozanam, ”concoururernt au grand ouvrage des
écoles carlovinggiennes.”
Charles aimed at the higher education not only of
the clergy, but also of the higher nobility, and state officials. His
sons and daughters were well informed. He issued a circular letter to
all the bishops and abbots of his empire (787), urging them to
establish schools in connection with cathedrals and convents. At a
later period he rose even to the grand but premature scheme of popular
education, and required in a capitulary (802) that every parent should
send his sons to school that they might learn to read. Theodulph of
Orleans (who died 821) directed the priests of his diocese to hold
school in every town and village, “per villas et vicos.”
The emperor founded the Court or Palace School
(Schola Palatina) for higher education and placed it under the
direction of Alcuin. A similar school had existed before under the Merovingians,
but did not accomplish much. Comp. Oebeke, De academia Caroli M. Aachen, 1847.
Philips, Karl der Gr. im Kreise der Gelehrten. Wien, 1856. The Histoire litteraire de France, Tom. III.,
enumerates about twenty episcopal schools in the kingdom of the
Franks.
The creations of Charlemagne were threatened with utter destruction during the civil wars of his weak successors. But Charles the Bald, a son of Louis the Pious, and king of France (843–877), followed his grandfather in zeal for learning, and gave new lustre to the Palace School at Paris under the direction of John Scotus Erigena, whom he was liberal enough to protect, notwithstanding his eccentricities. The predestinarian controversy, and the first eucharistic controversy took place during his reign, and called forth a great deal of intellectual activity and learning, as shown in the writings of Rabanus Maurus, Hincmar, Remigius, Prudentius, Servatus Lupus, John Scotus Erigena, Paschasius Radbertus, and Ratramnus. We find among these writers the three tendencies, conservative, liberal, and speculative or mystic, which usually characterize periods of intellectual energy and literary productivity.
After the death of Charles the Bald a darker night of ignorance and barbarism settled on Europe than ever before. It lasted till towards the middle of the eleventh century when the Berengar controversy on the eucharist roused the slumbering intellectual energies of the church, and prepared the way for the scholastic philosophy and theology of the twelfth century.
The Carolingian male line lasted in Italy till 875, in Germany till 911, in France till 987.
§ 141. Alfred the Great, and Education in England.
Comp. the Jubilee edition of the Whole Works of Alfred the Great, with Preliminary Essays illustrative of the History, Arts and Manners of the Ninth Century. London, 1858, 2 vols. The biographies of Alfred, quoted on p. 395, and Freemann’s Old English History 1859.
In England the beginning of culture was imported with Christianity by Augustin, the first archbishop of Canterbury, who brought with him the Bible, the church books, the writings of Pope Gregory and the doctrines and practices of Roman Christianity; but little progress was made for a century. Among his successors the Greek monk, Theodore of Tarsus (668–690), was most active in promoting education and discipline among the clergy. The most distinguished scholar of the Saxon period is the Venerable Bede (d. 735), who, as already stated, represented all historical, exegetical and general knowledge of his age. Egbert, archbishop of York, founded a flourishing school in York (732), from which proceeded Alcuin, the teacher and friend of Charlemagne.
During the invasion of the heathen Danes and Normans many churches, convents and libraries were destroyed, and the clergy itself relapsed into barbarism so that they did not know the meaning of the Latin formulas which they used in public worship.
In this period of wild confusion King Alfred the Great (871–901), in his twenty-second year, ascended the throne. He is first in war and first in peace of all the Anglo-Saxon rulers. What Charlemagne was for Germany and France, Alfred was for England. He conquered the forces of the Danes by land and by sea, delivered his country from foreign rule, and introduced a new era of Christian education. He invited scholars from the old British churches in Wales, from Ireland, and the Continent to influential positions. He made collections of choice sentences from the Bible and the fathers. In his thirty-sixth year he learned Latin from Asser, a monk of Wales, who afterwards wrote his biography. He himself, no doubt with the aid of scholars, translated several standard works from Latin into the Anglo-Saxon, and accompanied them with notes, namely a part of the Psalter, Boëthius on the Consolation of Philosophy, Bede’s English Church History, Pope Gregory’s Pastoral Theology, Augustin’s Meditations, the Universal History of Orosius, and Aesop’s Fables. He sent a copy of Gregory’s Pastoral Theology to every diocese for the benefit of the clergy. It is due to his influence chiefly that the Scriptures and service-books at this period were illustrated by so many vernacular glosses.
He stood in close connection with the Roman see,
as the centre of ecclesiastical unity and civilization. He devoted half
of his income to church and school. He founded a school in Oxford
similar to the Schola Palatina; but the University of Oxford, like
those of Cambridge and Paris, is of much later date (twelfth or
thirteenth century). He seems to have conceived even the plan of a
general education of the people. In the preface to Gregory’s
Pastoral, he expresses his desire that every freeborn English
youth might learn to read English. The work has also great philological
importance, and was edited by H. Sweet in 1872 for the “Early English
Text Society.” Freeman calls Aelfred “the most perfect character in
history,” a saint without superstition, a scholar without ostentation,
a conqueror whose hands were never stained by cruelty. History of
the Norman Conquest, I. 49, third ed. (1877)
His example of promoting learning in the
vernacular language was followed by Aelfric, a grammarian, homilist and
hagiographer. He has been identified with the archbishop Aelfric of
Canterbury (996–1009), and with the archbishop Aelfric
of York (1023–1051), but there are insuperable
difficulties in either view. He calls himself simply “monk and priest.”
He left behind him a series of eighty Anglo-Saxon Homilies for Sundays
and great festivals, and another series for Anglo-Saxon
Saints’ days, which were used as an authority in the
Anglo-Saxon Church. They were edited by Thorpe. See Wright’s
Biograph. Britan. Lit. (Anglo-Saxon Period), p. 485, 486; and
article “Aelfric” in Leslie Stephen’s “Dictionary of
National Biography.” London and New York, 1885, vol. I.
164-166.
CHAPTER XIV.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS.
[This chapter, with the exception of the last four sections, has been prepared under my direction by the Rev. Samuel M. Jackson, M. A., from the original sources, with the use of the best modern authorities, and has been revised, completed and adapted to the plan of the work.—P. S.
§ 142. Chronological List of the Principal Ecclesiastical Writers from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century.
I. Greek Authors.
St. Maximus Confessor
c. 580–662 See §§ 109-112, pp. 495, 496,
498.
St. John of Damascus
c. 676–754 See §§ 94, 100-102, pp. 405 sq., 413,
450, 456.
Photius
c. 805–891 See §§ 67, 70, 107 and 108, pp. 304,
312 sqq., 476 sqq.
Simeon Metaphrastes
10th century.
Oecumenius
10th century.
Theophylact
11th century.
Michael Psellus
c. 1020–c. 1106
Euthymius Zigabenus
12th century.
Eustathius of Thessalonica
12th century
Nicetas Acominatos
d. c. 1126
I. Latin Authors.
Cassiodorus
c. 477–c. 580
St. Gregory of Tours
538–594
St. Gregory the Great
c. 540–604 See §§ 10, p. 30 sqq., and 50, 52,
pp. 211 sqq.
St. Isidore of Seville
c. 560–636
The Venerable Bede (Baeda)
674–735 See §§ 13, p. 40
sq.
Paulus Diaconus (Paul Warnefrid)
c. 725–800
St. Paulinus of Aquileia
c. 726–804
Alcuin
735–804 See §§ 116, p. 511
sqq.
Liudger
c. 744–809
Theodulph of Orleans
-821
Eigil
-822
Amalarius
-837
Claudius of Turin
-839 See § 105, p. 472 sqq.
Agobard of Lyons
779–840 See § 105, p. 471 sq.
Einhard (Eginhard)
c. 770–840
Smaragdus
-c. 840
Jonas of Orleans
-844
Rabanus Maurus
c. 776–856 See § 96, p. 426, and 120, p. 525
sq.
Haymo
c. 778–853
Walafrid Strabo
c. 809–849
Florus of Lyons
-c. 860
Servatus Lupus
805–862
Druthmar
c. 860
St. Paschasius Radbertus
c. 790–865 See § 127, p. 549.
Ratramnus
-c. 868 · See § 126, p. 546
sqq.
Hincmar of Rheims
c. 806–882 See § 123, p. 529 sqq.
Johannes Scotus Erigena
c. 815–877 · See § 121, p. 528
sqq.
Anastasius
-886
Ratherius of Verona
c. 890–974
Pope Sylvester II. (Gerbert)
-1003 §§ 64 and 65, pp. 292 and
295.
Fulbert of Chartres
c. 950–1029
Peter Damiani
1007–1072
Bere
§ 143. St. Maximus Confessor.
I. Maximus Confessor: Opera in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. XC., XCI., reprint of ed. of Fr. Combefis, Paris, 1673 (only the first two volumes ever appeared), with a few additional treatises from other sources. There is need of a complete critical edition.
II. For his life and writings see his Acta in Migne, XC. col. 109–205; Vita Maximi (unknown authorship) col. 67–110; Acta Sanctorum, under Aug. 13; Du Pin (Eng. transl., Lond. 1693 sqq. ), VI. 24–58; Ceillier (second ed., Paris, 1857 sqq. ), XI. 760–772.
III. For his relation to the Monotheletic controversy see C. W. Franz Walch: Historie der Kezerien, etc., IX. 60–499, sqq.; Neander: III. 171 sqq.; this History, IV. 409, 496–498. On other aspects see J. N. Huber: Die Philosophie der Kirchenväter. München, 1859. Josef Bach: Die Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters. Wien, 1873–75, 2 parts, I. l5–49. Cf. Weser: Maximi Confesoris de incarnatione et deificatione doctrina. Berlin, 1869.
As a sketch of St. Maximus Confessor (c. 580-Aug. 13,
662) has been elsewhere given, See pp. 409, 496-498.
Notwithstanding his frequent changes of residence, Maximus is one of the most prolific writers of the Greek Church, and by reason of his ability, stands in the front rank. Forty-eight of his treatises have been printed, others exist in MS., and some are lost. By reason of his pregnant and spiritual thoughts he has always been popular with his readers, notwithstanding his prolixity and frequent obscurity of which even Photius and Scotus Erigena complain.
His Works may be divided into five classes. Migne, XC. col. 244-785. l.c. col. 785-856. l.c. col. 856-872. l.c. col 872-909.
I. Exegetical. A follower of the Alexandrian school, he does not so
much analyze and expound as allegorize, and make the text a starting
point for theological digressions. He wrote (1) Questions [and Answers]
upon difficult Scripture passages,
II. Scholia upon Dionysius Areopagita and Gregory
Nazianzen, which were translated by Scotus Erigena (864). XCI. col. 1032-1417.
III. Dogmatical and polemical. (1) Treatises. l.c. col. 9-285. l.c. col. 288-353. Migne, XXVIII. col. 1116-1285. XCI. col. 353-361.
IV. Ethical and ascetic. (1) On asceticism XC. col. 912-956 l.c. Cols. 960-1080. l.c. cols. 1084-1176. l.c. cols. 1177-1392.
V. Miscellaneous. (1) Initiation into the
mysteries, XCI. cols. 657-717. l.c. cols. 721-1017. l.c. cols. 364-649. l.c. cols. 1417-1424, and this; vol., p.
409.
Maximus was the pupil of Dionysius Areopagita, and
the teacher of John of Damascus and John Scotus Erigena, in the sense
that he elucidated and developed the ideas of Dionysius, and in turn
was an inspiration and guide to the latter. John of Damascus has
perpetuated his influence in the Greek Church to the present day.
Scotus Erigena introduced some of his works to Western Europe. The
prominent points of the theology of Maximus are these: Cf. Neander and Bach in loco.
An interesting point of a humane interest is his declaration that slavery is a dissolution, introduced by sin, of the original unity of human nature, and a denial of the original dignity of man, created after the image of God.
§ 144. John of Damascus.
Cf. §§ 89 and 103.
I. Joannes Damascenus: Opera omnia in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. XCIV.-XCVI. (reprint, with additions, of Lequien’s ed. Paris, 1712. 2 vols. fol. 2d ed. Venice, 1748).
II. John of Jerusalem: Vita Damasceni (Migne, XCIV. col. 429–489); the Prolegomena of Leo Allatius (l.c. 118–192). Perrier: Jean Damascène, sa vie et ses écrits. Paris, 1862. F. H. J. Grundlehner: Johannes Damascenus. Utrecht, 1876 (in Dutch). Joseph Langen (Old-Catholic professor at Bonn): Johannes von Damaskus. Gotha, 1879. J. H. Lupton: St. John of Damascus. London, 1882. Cf. Du Pin, V. 103–106; Ceillier, XII., 67–99; Schroeckh, XX., 222–230; Neander, iii. passim; Felix Nève: Jean de D. et son influence en Orient sous les premiers khalifs, in “Revue Belge et etrangère,” July and August, 1861.
I. Life. John of Damascus, Saint and Doctor of the
Eastern Church, last of the Greek Fathers, Grundlehner, p. 22; Langen, p. 20. The usual date is 676. Grundlehner says (p. 19), “probably
about the year 680.” This Life is summarized by Lupton, pp.
22-36.
The facts seem to be these. He sprang from a
distinguished Christian family with the Arabic name of Mansur
(ransomed). His father, Sergius, was treasurer to the Saracenic caliph,
Abdulmeled (685–705), an office frequently held by
Christians under the caliphs. His education was derived from Cosmas, a
learned Italian monk, whom Sergius had ransomed from slavery. He made
rapid progress, and early gave promise of his brilliant career. On the
death of his father he was taken by the caliph into his service and
given an even higher office than his father had held. The term is πρωτοσύμβουλος, ” chief councillor.” This is commonly
interpreted ” vizier,” but that office did not then exist. Langen (p.
19) thinks ” chief tax-gatherer” a more likely translation. Cf. Lupton,
p. 27. See this vol. p. 456. See analysis, p. 630. Lequien (i. § 452) conjectures that he was
ordained before the iconoclastic controversy broke out, because in a
sermon he alludes to the peaceful condition of the empire, which was
not applicable to the time after that event. Cf. Lupton, p.
57. Grundlehner (p. 55, n.1) accepts the statement of the
Menaea Graecorum that John of Damascus died at the age of 104,
and sets the date at “about 780.”
Many legends are told of him. The most famous is
that Leo the Isaurian, enraged at his opposition to the iconoclastic
edicts, sent to the caliph a letter addressed to himself which
purported to have come from John, and was written in imitation of his
hand and style, in which the latter proposed to the emperor to capture
Damascus—a feat easily accomplished., the writer said,
because of the insufficient guard of the city. Moreover, in the
business he could count upon his support. The letter was of course a
forgery, but so clever that when the caliph showed John the letter he
acknowledged the similarity of the writing, while he denied the
authorship. But the caliph in punishment of his (supposed) treachery
had his right hand cut off, and, as was the custom, hung up in a public
place. In answer to John’s request it was, however,
given to him in the evening, ostensibly for burial. He then put the
hand to the stump of his arm, prostrated himself before an image of the
Virgin Mary in his private chapel, and prayed the Virgin to cause the
parts to adhere. He fell asleep: in a vision the Virgin told him that
his prayer had been granted, and he awoke to find it true. Only a scar
remained to tell the story of his mutilation. The miracle of course
convinced the caliph of the innocence of his servant, and he would fain
have retained him in office, but John requested his absolute
dismission. This famous tale falls of its own weight. Even Roman
Catholics, like Alzog (Patrologie, 2d ed., p. 405) admit that it
lacks support. It is certainly noteworthy that the second Nicene
council apparently knew nothing of this miracle. Cf Grundlehner, p. 42
n.; Langen, p. 22. Langen, p. 22.
Other legends which have more of a basis of fact relate to his residence in the convent of St. Sabas. Here, it is said., he was enthusiastically received, but no one would at first undertake the instruction of so famous a scholar. At length an old monk undertook it, and subjected him to the most humiliating tests and vexatious restrictions, which he bore in a very saintly way. Thus he sent him once to Damascus to sell a load of convent-made baskets at double their real value, in order that his pride might be broken by the jeers and the violence of the rabble. He was at first insulted; but at last a man who had been formerly his servant, bought out of compassion the baskets at the exorbitant price, and the saint returned victorious over vanity and pride. He was also put to the most menial services. And, what must have been equally trying, he was forbidden to write prose or poetry. But these trials ended on a hint from the Virgin Mary who appeared one night to the old monk and told him that John was destined to play a great part in the church. He was accordingly allowed to follow the bent of his genius and put his immense learning at the service of religion.
II. Writings. The order of his numerous writings Carefully analyzed by Lupton and Langen. De Imaginibus Orationes III., in Migne,
XCIV. l.c. col. 1232-1284. l.c.. col. 1284-1317. l.c. col. 1317-1420.
In the first of these three letters John advanced
these arguments: the Mosaic prohibitions of idolatry were directed
against representations of God, not of men, and against the service of
images, not their honor. Cherubim made by human hands were above the
mercy-seat. Since the Incarnation it is allowable to represent God
himself. The picture is to the ignorant what the book is to the
learned. In the Old Testament there are signs to quicken the memory and
promote devotion (the ark, the rod of Aaron, the brazen serpent). Why
should the sufferings and miracles of Christ not be portrayed for the
same purposes? And if Christ and the Virgin have their images, why
should not the saints have theirs? Since the Old Testament Temple
contained cherubim and other images, churches may be adorned with
images of the saints. If one must not worship an image, then one must
not worship Christ, for he is the image of the Father. If the shadows
and handkerchiefs of apostles had healing properties, why can one not
honor the representations of the saints? It is true there is nothing
about such worship in the Holy Scriptures, but Church ordinances depend
for authority on tradition no less than on Scripture. The passages
against images refer to idols. “The heathens dedicate their images to
demons, whom they call gods; we dedicate ours to the incarnate God and
his friends, through whom we exorcise demons.” He ends his letter with
a number of patristic quotations of greater or less relevancy, to each
of which he appends a comment. The second letter, which is
substantially a repetition of the first, is characterized by, a violent
attack upon the Emperor, because of his deposition and banishment of
Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople. It closes with the same
patristic quotations, and a few new ones. The third letter is almost
necessarily a repetition of the preceding, since it goes over the same
ground. It likewise looks upon the iconoclasts as the servants of the
devil. But it bears marks of more care in preparation, and its proofs
are more systematically arranged and its quotations more numerous. Langen, p. 141.
For his writings in favor of images he was
enthusiastically lauded by the second Nicene Council (787). Page 461.
But the fame of John of Damascus as one of the
greatest theologians of history rests chiefly on his work entitled the
Fount of Knowledge. Πηγὴ γνώσεως, in Migne, l.c. col.
521-1228. This is his own statement, l.c. col.
533.
The first part of the trilogy, “Heads of
Philosophy,” Κεφάλαια
φιλοσοφικά, l.c. col. 521-676. Lupton, pp.
67, 68; Langen, pp. 46-52. There is a special essay by Renoux,
entitled, De Dialectica Sancti Joannis Damasceni
(1863). Langen, p. 46. Περὶαἰρέσεωνἐνσυντομίᾳ l.c. col. 677-780. ῎Εκδοσις
ἀκριβὴς
τῆς
ὀρθοδόξου
πίστεως. l.c. col.
789-1228. The exact date rests upon the statement of John of Brompton
that the translation was made in the same year in which the Thames was
frozen over, i.e. in the Great Frost of 1150. Cf. Lupton, p.
70.
The entire work is a noteworthy application of
Aristotelian categories to Christian theology. In regard to Christology
he repudiates both Nestorianism and Monophysitism, and teaches that
each nature in Christ possessed its peculiar attributes and was not
mixed with the other. But the divine in Christ strongly predominated
over the human. The Logos was bound to the flesh through the Spirit,
which stands between the purely divine and the materiality of the
flesh. The human nature of Jesus was incorporated in the one divine
personality of the Logos (Enhypostasia). John recognizes only two
sacraments, properly so called, i.e. mysteries instituted by
Christ—Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
In the latter the elements are at the moment when the Holy Ghost is
called upon, changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but how is not
known. He does not therefore teach transubstantiation exactly, yet his
doctrine is very near to it. About the remaining five so-called
sacraments he is either silent or vague. He holds to the perpetual
virginity of Mary, the Mother of our Lord, and that her conception of
Christ took place through the ear. He recognizes the Hebrew canon of
twenty-two books, corresponding to the twenty-two Hebrew letters, or
rather twenty-seven, since five of these letters have double forms. Of
the Apocrypha he mentions only Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, and these as
uncanonical. To the New Testament canon he adds the Apostolical Canons
of Clement. The Sabbath was made for the fleshly
Jews—Christians dedicate their whole time to God. The
true Sabbath is the rest from sin. He extols virginity, for as high as
angels are above men so high is virginity above marriage. Yet marriage
is a good as preventive of unchastity and for the sake of propagation.
At the end of the world comes Antichrist, who is a man in whom the
devil lives. He persecutes the Church, kills Enoch and Elijah, who are
supposed to appear again upon the earth, but is destroyed by Christ at
his second coming. Migne, l.c. col. 1217.
His remaining works are minor theological
treatises, including a brief catechism on the Holy Trinity;
controversial writings against Mohammedanism (particularly interesting
because of the nearness of their author to the beginnings of that
religion), and against Jacobites, Manichaeans, Nestorians and
Iconoclasts; homilies, Lequien gives thirteen and the fragment of a fourteenth;
but some, if not many, of them are not genuine. See p. 405.
Besides these there is a writing attributed to
him, The Life of Barlaam and Joasaph Migne, vol. XCVI., col. 860-1240. Brunet gives the titles of Latin, French, Italian, Spanish,
German, Danish, Norwegian and Bohemian translations. It was abridged in
English under the title Saint Josaphat. Lond., 1711. It
appears in the Golden Legend. The Greek text was first printed
in 1832. So Langen, pp. 251-254. Lupton, p. 217.
Another writing of dubious authorship is the
Panegyric on St. Barbara, l.c. col. 781-813. Langen, p. 238.
III. Position. John of Damascus considered either as a Christian office-holder under a Mohammedan Saracenic Caliph, as the great defender of image-worship, as a learned though credulous monk, or as a sweet and holy poet, is in every way an interesting and important character. But it is as the summarizer of the theology of the Greek fathers that he is most worthy of attentive study; for although he seldom ventures upon an original remark, he is no blind, servile copyist. His great work, the “Fount of Knowledge,” was not only the summary of the theological discussions of the ancient Eastern Church, which was then and is to-day accepted as authoritative in that communion, but by means of the Latin translation a powerful stimulus to theological study in the West. Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas and other schoolmen are greatly indebted to it. The epithets, “Father of Scholasticism” and “Lombard of the Greeks” have been given to its author. He was not a scholastic in the proper meaning of that term, but merely applied Aristotelian dialects to the treatment of traditional theology. Yet by so doing he became in truth the forerunner of scholasticism.
An important but incidental service rendered by
this great Father was as conserver of Greek learning. “The numerous
quotations, not only from Gregory Nazianzen, but from a multitude of
Greek authors besides would provide a field of Hellenic literature
sufficient for the wants of that generation. In having so provided it,
and having thus become the initiator of a warlike but ill-taught race
into the mysteries of an earlier civilization, Damascenus is entitled
to the praise that the elder Lenormant awarded him of being in the
front rank of the master spirits from whom the genius of the Arabs drew
its inspiration.” Lupton, p. 212.
One other interesting fact deserves mention. It
was to John of Damascus that the Old Catholics and Oriental and
Anglo-Catholics turned for a definition of the relation of the Holy
Spirit to the Father and Son which should afford a solid basis of
union. Schaff, Creeds, vol. ii., pp.
552-54. Neander, vol. iii., p. 554. Comp. above, p. 307
sqq.
§ 145. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
I. Photius: Opera omnia, in Migne, “Patrol. Gr.” Tom. CI.-CIV. (1860). Also Monumenta Graeca ad Photium ejusgue historiam pertinentia, ed. Hergenröther. Regensburg, 1869.
II. David Nicetas: Vita Ignatii, in Migne, CV., 488–573. The part which relates to Photius begins with col. 509; partly quoted in CI. iii. P. De H. E. (anonymous): Histoire de Photius. Paris, 1772. Jager: Histoire de Photius. Paris, 1845, 2d ed., 1854. L. Tosti: Storia dell’ origine dello scisma greco. Florence, 1856, 2 vols. A. Pichler: Geschichte der kirchlichen Trennung zwischen Orient und Occident. Munich, 1864–65, 2 vols. J. Hergenröther: Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel. Sein Leben, seine Schriften und das griechische Schisma. Regensburg, 1867–69, 3 vols. (The Monumenta mentioned above forms part of the third vol.) Cf. Du Pin, VII., 105–110; Ceillier, XII., 719–734.
Photius was born in Constantinople in the first decade of the ninth century. He belonged to a rich and distinguished family. He had an insatiable thirst for learning, and included theology among his studies, but he was not originally a theologian. Rather he was a courtier and a diplomate. When Bardas chose him to succeed Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople he was captain of the Emperor’s body-guard. Gregory of Syracuse, a bitter enemy of Ignatius, in five days hurried him through the five orders of monk, lector, sub-deacon, deacon, and presbyter, and on the sixth consecrated him patriarch. He died an exile in an Armenian monastery, 891.
As the history of Photius after his elevation to
the patriarchate has been already treated, Cf. chapter V.§ 70. Cf. the exhaustive analysis of his works by
Hergenröther (vol. iii. pp. 3260.
The greatest of these was his so-called Library, Bibliotheca or Μυριοβίβλιον, Migne, CIII., CIV. col. 9-356;
Hergenröther, III. pp. 13-31.
Unique and invaluable as the Library is, it has
been criticized because more attention is given to some minor works
than to other important ones; the criticisms are not always fair or
worthy; the works spoken of are really few, while a much larger
anthology might have been made; and again there is no order or method
in the selection. It is, however, to be borne in mind that the object
of the work was to mention only those books which had been read in the
circle to which he and his brother belonged, during the absence of the
latter; that it was hastily prepared, and was to have been followed by
a second. Hergenröther, p. 14, 28-31.
Among the Greek fathers, he esteems most highly Athanasius, Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ephraem, Cyril of Alexandria, the fictitious Dionysius the Areopagite, and Maximus; among the Latin fathers, Leo. I. and Gregory I. He recognizes also Ambrose, Augustin, and Jerome as fathers, but often disputes their views. Of the ante-Nicene writers he has a rather low opinion, because they did not come up to his standard of orthodoxy; he charges Origen with blasphemous errors, and Eusebius with Arianism.
One of the earlier works of Photius, perhaps his
earliest, was his Greek Lexicon, Best edition, by Dobrée, Φωτίου
λέξεων
συναγωγή. Photii Lexicon e codice Galeano
descripsit R. Porsonus. London, 1822, 2 vols.; reprinted 1823 in
Leipzig.
The most important of the theological works of
Photius is the Amphilochian Questions Migne, CI. col. 45-1172. Hergenröther (vol. iii., pp. 31 sqq. ) tells at
length the curious story of the singular way in which the
Amphilochia has gradually come to the knowledge of modern
scholars.
Although it is doubtful whether Photius composed a
complete commentary on any book of the Old Testament, it is very likely
that he wrote on the Gospels and on Romans, Corinthians and Hebrews,
since in the printed and unprinted catenae upon these books there are
found many citations of Photius. Collected in Migne, l.c. col.
1189-1253.
Two canonical works are attributed to Photius, “A
Collection of Canons” and “A Collection of Ecclesiastical and Civil
Laws.” Commonly called Syntagma Canonum, Migne, CIV. col.
441-976, and Nomocanon, ibid. col.
976-1217. The Nomocanon is minutely discussed by
Hergenröther, l.c. iii. 92-128. See also F. A.
Biener, Geschichte der Novellen Justinians, Berlin, 1824; and De Collectionibus
canonum ecclesiae Graecae. Schediasma litterarium. Berlin, 1827. Card. J. B. Pitra,
Juris eccles. Graec. historia et monumenta. Rome, 1868.
Hergenröther, Griech. Kirchenrecht bis zum Ende, des 9ten
Jahrhunderts.
Mainz, 1870.
The historical and dogmatico-polemical writings of
Photius may be divided into two classes, those against the Paulicians
or Manichaeans, and those against the Roman Church. In the first class
are four books which bear in the editions the general title “Against
the new Manichaeans.” Διήγησις
περὶ τῆς
τῶν
νεοφάντων
Μανιχαίων
ἀναβλαστήσεως, in Migne, CII. col. 16-264. Cf.
Hergenröther, l.c. iii. 143-153.
The works against the Latin Church embrace (1) The
Mystagogia, or doctrine of the Holy Spirit; his most important writing
against the Latins. Liber de S. Spiritus Mystagogia, first published by
Hergenröther at Regensburg, 1857; Comp. his Photius, III.
l54-160, and Migne, CII. 280-400. The word μυσταγωγίαis used in the same sense
as ἱερολογίαor θεολογία, sacra
doctrina, Hergenröther, Photius, III.
157. Ibid. 160-165. Συναγωγαὶ
και
̀ἀπόδειξεις
ἀκριβεῖς, in Migne, CIV. col.
1220-1232. Hergenröther, l.c. p.
174. See above, p. 314 sq.
The genuine works of Photius include besides those
already mentioned three books of letters Migne, CII., col. 585-989. They are analyzed by Du Pin,
l.c. 106-109. Migne, CII., col. 548-576. Ibid. col. 577-584.
§ 146. Simeon Metaphrastes.
I. Simeon Metaphrastes: Opera omnia, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. cxiv.-cxvi.
II. Panegyric by Psellus, in Migne, CXIV. col. 200–208; Leo Allatius: De Symeonum scriptis, in Migne, CXIV. col. 19–148; and the Preface to Migne’s ed. Cf. Du Pin, VIII. 3; Ceillier, XII. 814–819.
This voluminous author probably lived in
Constantinople during the reigns of Leo the Philosopher
(886–911) and Constantine Porphyrogenitus
(911–959). Cf. Gassin
Herzog2IX. pp.
677-679.
To this collection Simeon owes his fame. It is found in Migne, and utilized in the great
hagiographies of A. Lippomani (Paris, 1551-60, 8 vols. ), Surius
(Cologne, 1570-79, 6 vols. ) and the Boltandists (1643-1875, 61
vols.). Du Pin, in loco.
Besides the Lives, nine Epistles, several sermons,
orations, hymns, and a canonical epitome bear his name. Migne, CXIV. col. 209-292.
§ 147. Oecumenius.
I. Oecumenius: Opera omnia, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. CXVIII., CXIX., col. 726, reprint of ed. of Hentenius. Paris, 1630–31, 2 vols. fol. Ceillier, XII. 913, 914.
Oecumenius was bishop of Tricca, in Thessaly, toward
the close of the 10th century, and wrote a commentary upon the Acts,
the Epistles of Paul and the Catholic Epistles, which is only a catena,
drawn from twenty-three Fathers and writers of the Greek Church, Their names are given in Migne, CXVIII. col.
9.
§ 148. Theophylact.
I. Theophylact: Opera omnia, in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. CXXIII.-CXXVI., reprint of ed. Of de Rubeis. Venice, 1754–63, 4 vols. fol. Du Pin, IX. 108, 109; Neander, III. 584–586; Ceillier, XIII. 554–558.
Theophylact, the most learned exegete of the Greek
Church in his day, was probably born at Euripus, This is the name likewise of the narrowest part of the
Euboic Sea.
His fame rests upon his commentary Migne, CXXIII.-CXXVI. col. 104.
Besides his commentary, his works embrace orations
on the Adoration of the Cross, Migne, CXXVI. col. 105-129. Ibid. col.
129—144. Ibid. col 288-305. Ibid. col. 253-285. Ibid. col. 152-221. Ibid. col. 221-249. Viz. Exhortations, On Virtues and Vices, and Way
of the King, spoken of farther on. Neander, l.c. p. 586.
§ 149. Michael Psellus.
I. Michael Psellus: Opera, in Migne, Patrol. Gr., Tom. CXXII., col. 477–1358. His Hist. Byzant. et alia opuscula, ed. by Constantin Sathas. Paris, 1874.
II. Leo Allatius: Diatriba de Psellis, in Migne, l.c., col. 477–536. Ceillier, XIII. 335–337.
Michael Psellus, the third of the five of that name
mentioned by Allatius, was born of a consular and patrician family in
Constantinople about 1020. He took naturally to study, and denied
himself the amusements and recreations of youth in order that he might
make all the more rapid progress. Having completed his studies at
Athens, he returned to Constantinople, and was appointed chief
professor of philosophy. Constantine Monomachus invited him to his
court, and entrusted him with secular business. He then turned his
attention from philosophy and rhetoric to theology, physics, medicine,
mathematics, astronomy and military science. In short, he explored the
entire domain of knowledge, and as his memory was tenacious, he was
able to retain everything he studied. “It has been said that in him
human nature yielded up its inmost powers in order that he might ward
off the downfall of Greek learning.” Gass in Herzog,2s. v.
xii. 340.
Psellus was a prolific author, but many of his
writings are unprinted, and many are lost. See lists in Allatius, Diatriba, in Migne, CXXII.
col. 498-532.
(1) Exposition of the Song of Songs, Ἑρμηνεία
κατὰ
παράφρασιν
τοῦ ᾄσματος
τῶν ᾀσμάτων. Ibid. col.
537-685.
(2) A Learned Miscellany, Διδασκαλία
παντοδαπή. Ibid. col.
688-784.
(3) The Operations of Demons, Περὶἐνεργαίαςδαιμόνων. Ibid. col.
820-876.
Twelve letters of Psellus have been printed. Ἐπιστολαί. Ibid. col.
1161-1185. See p. 642. Χαρακτήρες. Migne, CXXII. col.
901-908. Ibid. col. 908-910.
Besides certain legal and philosophical treatises
he wrote a poem on Doctrine, Περι ̀δόγματος. Ibid. col.
812-817. Σύνοψις
τῶν νόμων. Ibid. col.
925-974.
§ 150. Euthymius Zigabenus.
I. Euthymius Zigabenus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Patrol. Gr., Tom, CXXVIII.-CXXXI.
II. See the Prolegomena in Migne. Ceillier, XIV. 150–155.
Euthymius Zigabenus (or Zigadenus) was a learned and
able Greek monk of the order of St. Basil in the convent of the Virgin
Mary near Constantinople, and enjoyed the marked favor of the emperor
Alexius Comnenus (1081–1118) and his wife Anna. In her Alexiad (XV. 490, Migne, CXXXI. col. 1176)
she extols his learning and piety. Migne, CXXX. Migne gives the sources. Contra Massalianos; Contra Bogomilos; Disputatio de fide
cum philosopho Saraceno; Dialogus Christiani cum Ismaelica (all in
Migne, CXXXI. col. 4048; 48-57; 20-37; 37-40). Migne, CXXVIII. col. 41-end. Migne, CXXIX. col. 107-end.
§ 151. Eustathius of Thessalonica.
I. Eustathius: Opera omnia in Migne, Patrol. Gr. Tom. CXXXV. col. 517; CXXXVI. col. 764 (reprint of L. F. Tafel’s ed. of the Opuscula. Frankfort, 1832, and appendix to De Thessalonica. Berlin, 1839. Tafel published a translation of Eustathius’ ’ jEpivskeyi” bivou monacikou’. Betrachtungen über den Mönchstand. Berlin, 1847. The valuable De capta Thessalonica narratio was reprinted from Tafel in a vol. of the “Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae” (Bonn, 1842, pp. 365–512), accompanied with a Latin translation.
II. The funeral orations by Euthymius of Neopatria and Michael Choniates in Migne, Patrol. Gr. CXXXVI. col. 756–764, and CXL. col. 337–361. Fabricius: Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. Harless, XI. 282–84. Neander, IV. 530–533, and his essay, Characteristik des Bustathius von Thessalonich in seiner reformatorischen Richtung, 1841, reprinted in his “Wissenschaftliche Abhandlungen,” Berlin, 1851, pp. 6–21, trans. in Kitto’s “Journal of Sacred Literature,” vol. IV., pp. 101 sqq.
Eustathius, archbishop of Thessalonica and
metropolitan, the most learned man of his day, was born in
Constantinople, and lived under the Greek emperors from John Comnenus
to Isaac II. Angelus, i.e., between 1118 and 1195. His proper name is
unknown, that of Eustathius having been assumed on taking monastic
vows. His education was carried on in the convent of St. Euphemia, but
he became a monk in the convent of St. Florus. He early distinguished
himself for learning, piety and eloquence, and thus attracted the
notice of the Emperor Manuel, who made him successively tutor to his
son John, deacon of St. Sophia and master of petitions, a court
position. In the last capacity he presented at least one petition to
the Emperor, that from the Constantinopolitans during a severe
drought. Manuel was warlike and dissolute and ground the people down
under heavy taxes. The petition alluded to is given in Migne, CXXXV.
col. 925-932. Cf Gibbon, Harpers’ ed. V. 81,
82.
To this period of his life probably belong those
famous commentaries upon the classic authors, Homer, Dionysius Periegetes the geographer, Pindar and
probably Aristophanes. His “vast commentary” on Homer is a perfect
storehouse of classical learning and Homeric criticism, and has unique
value from its numerous extracts of lost scholia. It was first
published and beautifully printed, at Rome, 1542-50. 4 vols. Perhaps
tidings of its prospective issue had reached Zwingli; for his friend
James Amman writes to him from Milan on April 19, 1520, evidently in
answer to his queries: Commentaria Eustothii in Homerum Mediolani
non extant, nec satis compertum habes, num Romae an vel alibi excusa
sint; nemo id me edocere potest. Zwingli, Opera, VII. 131.
The Proaemium to Pindar, all that is now extant, is given in
Migne, CXXXVI. col. 369-372 Greek only). The commentary on Dionysius
Periegetes was first printed by Robert Stephens, Paris,
1547. See hisAllocatio ad Imperatorem cum esset Myrorum
metropolita electus in Migne, CXXXV. col.
933-973. Neander, IV. 530-531. Ibid 535. Migne, CXXXV. col. 973-1032. He wrote a valuable history of this siege, Narratio de
Thessalonica urbe a Latinis capta, Migne, CXXXVI. col.
9-140.
His writings upon practical religious topics have
great interest and value. Besides sermons upon Migne, CXXXV. col. 520-540. Ibid. col. 540-560. Four orations, ibid. col. 561-728. CXXXVI. col. 141-216; 264-301. De emendanda vita monachica, CXXXV. col.
729-909. Ad Stylitam quendam Thessalonicensem, CXXXVI. col.
217-264. Epistola ad Thessalonicenses, CXXXV. col. 1032-1060;
De obedientia magistratui Christiano debita, CXXXVI. col.
301-357; De simulatione, ibid. col. 373-408; Adversus
implacabilitatis accusationem (or Contra injuriarum
memoriam), ibid. col. 408-500. CXXXVI. col. 1245-1334 (Greek only). Interpretatio hymni Pentecostalis Damasceni in Mai,
Spicilegium Romanum, V. (Rome, 1841) pp. xxiv. 161-383, and in
Migne, CXXXVI. col. 504-753.
§ 152. Nicetas Acominatos.
I. Nicetas Choniates: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXXXIX., col. 287—CXL., col. 292. His History was edited by Immanuel Bekker in Scriptores Byzantinae. Bonn, 1835.
II. See Allatius in Migne, CXXXIX., col. 287–302. Ceillier, XIV. 1176, 1177. Karl Ullmann: Die Dogmatik der griechischen Kirche im 12. Jahrhundert, reprinted from the “Studien und Kritiken,” 1833.
Nicetas Acominatos, also called Choniates, to denote
his birth at Chonae the old Colossae in Phrygia, was one of the great
scholars and authors of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He was
educated at Constantinople, studied law and early rose to prominence at
the imperial court. He married a descendant of Belisarius; and at the
time when Constantinople was taken by the crusaders (1204) he was
governor of Philippopolis. He fled to Nicaea, and there died about
1216. It was during this last period of his life that he composed his
Treasury of Orthodoxy, Θησαυρὸς
ὀρθοδοξίας. Migne, CXXXIX. col. 1093-CXL. col.
292. So Morel believed. See the interesting story in Migne,
CXXXIX. col. 295.
Book 1st is a statement of Gentile philosophy and of the errors of the Jews. Book 2d treats of the Holy Trinity, and of angels and men. Book 3d of the Incarnate Word. From Book 4th to the end the several heresies are described and combated. Nicetas begins with Simon Magus and goes down to his own day.
But his fame really rests upon his History, Ἱστορια. Ibid. col. 309-1057.
§ 153. Cassiodorus.
I. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator: Opera omnia, in Migne, “Patrol. Lat.” Tom. LXIX. col. 421-LXX. Reprint of ed. of the Benedictine Jean Garet, Rouen, 1679, 2 vols. 2d ed., Venice, 1729. The Chronicon was edited from MSS. by Theodor Mommsen, Leipzig, 1861, separately published from Abhandlungen der königlichsächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Historische Klasse. Bd. III. The Liber de rhetorica, a part of his Institutiones, was edited by C. Halm, Leipzig, 1863.
II. Vita, by Jean Garet, in Migne, LXIX., col. 437–484, and De vita monastica dissertatio by the same, col. 483–498. Denis de Sainte-Marthe: Vie de Cassiodore. Paris, 1694. Olleris: Cassiodore conservateur des livres de l’antiquité latine. Paris, 1841. A. Thorbecke: Cassiodorus Senator. Heidelberg, 1867. A. Franz: Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorius Senator. Breslau, 1872. Ignazio Ciampi: I. Cassiodori nel V. e nel VI. secolo. Imola, 1876. Cf. Du Pin, V. 43–44. Ceillier, XI. 207–254. Teuffel, 1098–1104. A. Ebert, I. 473–490.
Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator Senator was a part of his proper name. Cassiodorius is a
variant of Cassiodorus.
But about 540 he withdrew from the cares and
dangers of office, and found in the seclusion of his charming paternal
domains in Bruttium abundant scope for his activities in the pursuit of
knowledge and the preservation of learning. He voluntarily closed one
chapter of his life, one, too, full of honor and fame, and opened
another which, little as he expected it, was destined to be of
world-wide importance. Cassiodorus the statesman became Cassiodorus the
monk, and unwittingly exchanged the service of the Goths for the
service of humanity. The place of his retirement was the monastery of
Viviers (Monasterium Vivariense), at the foot of Mt. Moseius, Var. xii. 15 (Migne, LXIX. col.
867). De Instit. div. litt. c. 28, 30, 31 (Migne,
LXX. cols. 1141-1147).
The Works of Cassiodorus are quite numerous. They
are characterized by great erudition, ingenuity and labor, but
disfigured by an incorrect and artificial style. Some were written
while a statesman, more while a monk. The order here followed is that of Migne.
1. The most important is the Miscellany, Variarum libri duodecim, in Migne, LXIX. col.
501-880.
2. His Ecclesiastical History, called
Tripartita, Historica ecclessiastica vocata Tripartita, ibid.
col. 879-1214.
3. The Chronicle, Chronicon, ibid. col. 1213-1248.
4. The Computation of Easter, written in 562. Computus Paschalis, ibid. col. 1249,
1250.
5. Origin and History of the Goths, originally in
twelve books, but now extant only in the excerpt of Jordanis. De Getarum sive Gothorum origine et rebus gestis,
ibid. 1251-1296.
6. Exposition of the Psalter. Expositio in Psalterium. Migne, LXX. col.
9-1056. Inst. I. 4. 1. 1. (Migne, LXX. col. 1115)
“Sequitur qui nobis primus est in commentatorum
labore.” The Expositio in Canticum, which comes next in the
editions, is now thought to be by another author. So Garet (Migne, LXX.
col. 1055).
7. Institutions of Sacred and Secular Letters, Institutiones divinarum et secularium lectionum.
Ibid. col. 1105-1220. So Ebert l. 477. Their common titles are (a) De
institutione divinarum litterarum. (b) De artibus et disciplinis
liberalium litterarum.
8. On Orthography, De orthographia. Migne, LXX., col.
1239-1270. Prefatio. Ibid. col. 1241, 1.
9.
9. The Soul, De anima. Ibid. col. 1279-1308.
10. Notes upon some verses in the Epistles, Acts
of the Apostles, and Apocalypse Complexiones in Epistolas et Actus apostolorum necnon in
Apocalypsim. Ibid. col. 1321-1418. Ibid. col. 1219-1240.
§ 154. St. Gregory of Tours.
I. St. Georgius Florentius Gregorius: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. LXXI. (reprint of Ruinart’s ed. Paris, 1699). The best critical edition of Gregory’s great work, Historiae Francorum libri decem, is by W. Arndt and Br. Krusch. Hannover, 1884 (Gregorii Turonensis opera pars I. in “Scriptorum rerum Merovingicarum,” T. I., pars I. in the great “Monumenta Germaniae historica” series), and of his other works that by H. L. Bordier, Libri miraculorum aliaque opera minora, or with the French title, Les livres des miracles et autres opuscules de Georges Florent Grégoire, evêque de Tours. Paris, 1857- 64, 4 vols., of which the first three have the Latin text and a French translation on opposite pages, and the last, containing the De cursu stellarum and the doubtful works, the Latin only. There are several translations of the Historia Francorum into French (e.g., by Guizot. Paris, 1823, new ed. 1861, 2 vols.; by H. L. Bordier, 1859–61, 2 vols. ), and into German (e.g., by Giesebrecht, Berlin, 1851, 2 vols., 2d ed., 1878, as part of Pertz, “Geschichtsschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit”). The De cursu stellarum was discovered and first edited by F. Hasse, Breslau, 1853.
II. The Lives of Gregory, by Odo of Cluny (d. 943, valuable, ) Migne, l.c., and by Joannes Egidius (Jean Gilles of Tours, 16th cent., of small account) are given by Bordier, l.c. IV. 212–237. Modern biographies and sketches of Gregory are: C. J. Kries: De Gregorii Turonensis Episcopi vita et scriptis. Breslau, 1839. J. W. Löbell: Gregor von Tours. Leipzig, 1839, 2d ed. 1869. Gabriel Monod: Grégorie de Tours, in Tome III.” Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études.” Paris, 1872 (pp. 21–146). Cf. Du Pin, V. 63. Ceillier, XI, 365–399. Hist. Lit. de la France, III. 372–397. Teuffel, pp. 1109–10. Wattenbach, I. 70 sqq. Ebert, I. 539–51. L. von Ranke: Weltgeschichte, 4ter Theil, 2te Abtheilung (Leipzig, 1883), pp. 328–368, mainly a discussion of the relation of Gregory’s Historia to Fredegar’s Historia Epitomata and to the Gesta regum Francorum. He maintains that they are independent. Cf. W. Arndt’s preface (30pp.) to edition mentioned above.
Georgius Florentius, or as he called himself on his
consecration Gregorius, after his mother’s
grand-father, the sainted bishop of Langres, was born in Arverna (now
Clermont), 001 The birth-place of Pascal, in the department of Puy de Dome, 220
miles S. by E. from Paris.
Tours was the religious centre of Gaul. The shrine
of St. Martin was the most famous in the land and so frequented by
pilgrims that it was the source of an immense revenue. In
Alcuin’s day (eighth century) the monastery of Tours
owned 20,000 serfs, and was the richest in the kingdom. Tours was also
important as the frontier city of Austrasia, particularly liable to
attack. The influences which secured the position to Gregory were
probably personal. Several facts operated to bring it about. First,
that all but five of the bishops of Tours had been members of his
family (Euphronius whom he succeeded was his mother’s
cousin), and further, that he was in Tours on a pilgrimage to the
shrine of St. Martin to recover his health about the time of
Euphronius’ death, and by his life there secured the
love of the people. Add to this his travels, his austerities, his
predominant love for religion, and his election is explained. Monod, p. 29. He was charged with having accused Fredegund wife of
Chilperic, of adultery with Bertrand, bishop of Bordeaux. Hist.
Franc. V. 49, (Migne, l.c., col. 364).
In 584 Chilperic died. Tours then fell to Guntram, king of Orleans, until in 587 it was restored to Childebert, the son of Sigebert. The last nine years of Gregory’s life were comparatively quiet. He enjoyed the favor of Guntram and Childebert, did much to beautify the city of Tours, built many churches, and particularly the church of St. Martin (590). But at length the time of his release came, and on Nov. 17, 594, he went to his reward. His saintship was immediately recognized by the people he had served, and the Latin Church formally beatified and canonized him. His day in the calendar is November l7.
The Works of Gregory were all produced while
bishop. Their number attests his diligence, but their style proves the
correctness of his own judgment that he was not able to write good
Latin. Only one is of real importance, but that is simply inestimable,
as it is the only abundant source for French history of the fifth and
sixth centuries. It is the Ecclesiastical History of the Franks, in ten
books, Historiae ecclesiasticae Francorum libri decem.
Migne, LXXI. col. 159-572.
Gregory gives at the close of his Ecclesiastical
History a catalogue of his writings, all of which have been preserved,
with the exception of the commentary on the Psalms, of which only the
preface and the titles of the chapters are now extant. X. xxxi. 19. Migne, col. 571-572. Ibid. col. 705 sqq. The dates given above are Monod’s,
l.c. pp. 41-49.
§ 155. St. Isidore of Seville.
I. St. Isidorus Hispalensis Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. LXXXI.-LXXXIV. (reprint of F. Arevalo’s ed. Rome, 1797–1803, 7 vols., with the addition of the Collectio canonum ascribed to Isidore). Migne’s Tom. LXXXV. and LXXXVI. contain the Liturgia Mozarabica secundum regulam beati Isidori. Editions of separate works: De libris iii. sententiarum. Königsburg, 1826, 1827, 2 parts. De nativitate Domini, passione et resurrectione, regno atque judicio, ed. A. Holtzmann, Carlsruhe, 1836. De natura rerum liber, ed. G. Becker, Berlin, 1857.
II. Besides the Prolegomena of Arevalo, which fill all Tom. LXXXI., see Vita S. Isidori, LXXXII., col. 19–56. P. B. Gams: Kirchengeschichte von spanien. Regensburg, 1862–1879, 5 parts. (II. 2, 102 sqq). J.C.E. Bourret: L’école chrétienne de Seville sous la monarchie des Visigoths. Paris, 1855. C. F. Montalembert: Les moines d’ occident. Paris, 1860–67, 5 vols. (II. 200–218), Eng. trans. Monks of the West. Boston, 1872, 2 vols. (I. 421–424). Hugo Hertzberg: Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus von Sevilla, 1ste, Th. Die Historien. Göttingen, 1874. “Die Chroniken” appeared in Forschungen zur deutchen Geschichte, 1875, XIV. 289–362. Chevalier: Répertoire des sources historiques du moyen âge. Paris, 1877, sqq. II. 112, sqq. Du Pin, VI. 1–5; Ceillier, XI. 710–728; CLARKE, II. 364–372; Bähr, IV. I. pp. 270–286; Teuffel, pp. 1131–1134; Ebert, I. 555–568.
Isidore of Seville, saint and doctor of the Latin
Church, was born about 560 either at Carthagena or Seville. He was the
youngest child of an honored Roman family of the orthodox Christian
faith. His father’s name was Severianus. His eldest
brother, Leander, the well-known friend of Gregory the Great, and the
successful upholder of the Catholic faith against Arianism, was
archbishop of Seville, the most prominent see in Spain, from about 579
to 600; another brother, Fulgentius, was bishop of Astigi (Ecija) in
that diocese, where his sister, Florentina, was a nun. Montalembert says she was the superior of forty convents
and a thousand nuns (Eng. trans. I. 419). But this is mere
tradition. The canons of these councils are given by Hefele, III. 72,
73; 79-88. This has its bearings on the case of
Gottschalk.
Warned by disease of death’s
approach, Isidore began the distribution of his property. For the last
six months of his life he dispensed alms from morn till night. His end
was highly edifying. Accompanied by his assembled bishops he had
himself carried to the church of St. Vincent the Martyr, and there,
having publicly confessed his sins, prayed God for forgiveness. He then
asked the pardon and prayers of those present, gave away the last thing
he owned, received the Holy Communion, and was carried to his cell, in
which he died four days later, Thursday, April 4, 636. Vita S. Isidori, 33-36, in Migne, LXXXII. col.
45-49.
Isidore of Seville was the greatest scholar of his day. He was well read in Latin, Greek and Hebrew, in profane as well as in sacred and patristic literature. He was also a vigorous and dignified prelate, admired for his wondrous eloquence and beloved for his private virtues. He did much for education, especially of the clergy, and established at Seville a highly successful school, in which he himself taught. But his universal fame rests upon his literary works, which embrace every branch of knowledge then cultivated, and which though almost entirely compilations can not be too highly praised for their ability and usefulness. He performed the inestimable service of perpetuating learning, both sacred and secular. It is a striking testimony to his greatness that works have been attributed to him with which he had nothing to do, as the revision of the Mozarabic Liturgy and of Spanish ecclesiastical, and secular laws, and especially the famous Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.
His Works may be divided loosely into six classes. We have two lists of them, one by his friend and colleague Braulio, bishop of Saragossa, and the other by his pupil, Ildefonsus of Toledo. No strict division of these works is possible, because as will be seen several of them belong in parts to different classes.
I. Biblical. This class embraces, 1. Scripture
Allegorics, Allegoriae quaedam Sacrae Scripturae, Migne,
LXXXIII. col. 97-130. De ortu et obitu patrum qui in Scriptura laudibus
efferuntur, ibid. col. 129-156. In libros V. ac N. T. prooemia, ibid. col.
155-180. Liber numerorum qui in S. S. occurunt, ibid. col.
179-200. De, V. et N. T. quaestiones, ibid. col.
201-208. Mysticorum expositiones sacramentorum seu quaestiones in
V. T. ibid. col. 207. 434.
II. Dogmatic. 1. The Catholic Faith defended
against the Jews. De fide catholica ex V. et N. T. contra Judaeos,
ibid. col. 449-538. Fragments of an old High German translation have been
published by A, Holtzmann, Karlsruhe, 1836, and by Weinhold, Paderborn,
1874. Sententiarum libri tres, Migne, LXXXIII. col.
537-738. It was probably itself suggested by
Prosper’s Sentences from
Augustin. Synonyma de lamentatione animae peccatricis, Migne,
ibid. col. 825-868. The term “synonyms” was apparently given to it because
there are so many ideas repeated in slightly different
words.
4. The Order of Creation. De ordine creaturarum liber, ibid.
913-954.
III. Ecclesiastic and monastic. 1. The
Ecclesiastical Offices, i.e., the old Spanish liturgy. De ecclesiasticis officiis, ibid. col.
737-826. I. 18, ibid. col. 754-757. Regula monachorum, ibid. col.
867-894. See p. 657.
IV. Educational and philosophical. 1. Twenty books
of Etymologies. Etymologiarum libri XX. Migne, LXXXII. col.
73-728. Arevalo, Prolegomena, c. 53, in Migne, LXXXI. col.
337-340. Differentiarum, sive de proprietate sermonum, libri
duo, LXXXIII. col. 9-98. De natura rerum, ibid. col.
963-1018. See Becker’s ed. for a careful statement
of his sources.
V. Historical. 1. A Chronicle, Chronicon, LXXXIII. col. 1017-1058. In abbreviated
form in the Etymologies, cf. V. 39. Migne, LXXXII. col.
224-228. De Civitate Dei, XXII. 30 (ed. Dombart, II. 635,
Clark’s Aug. Lib. II. 544). See the essays of Hertzberg, already mentioned in Lit.in
§155 II. Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandalorum et
Suevorum, Migne, LXXXIII. col. 1057-1082. Ebert, I. 566. De viris illustribus, Migne, LXXXIII. col.
1081-1106.
VI. Miscellaneous. Under this head come thirteen
brief Letters Epistolae, ibid. col. 893-914.
§ 156. The Venerable Bede (Baeda).
I. Venerabilis Baeda: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. XC.-XCV., substantially a reprint of Dr. J. A. Giles’ edition. London, 1843–1844, 12 vols. His Ecclesiastical History (Historica ecclesiastica) has been often edited, e.g. by John Smith, Cambridge, 1722; Joseph Stevenson, London, 1838, and in the Monumenta historica Britannica I. 1848; George H. Moberley, Oxford, 1869; Alfred Holder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882. Books III.-V. 24 were separately ed. by John E. B. Mayor and John R. Lumby, Cambridge, 1878. The best known English translation of the History is Dr. Giles’ in his edition, and since 1844 in Bohn’s Antiquarian Library. His scientific writings are contained in Thomas Wright: Popular Treatises on Science written during the Middle Ages. London, 1841. Marshall translated his Explanation of the Apocalypse, London, 1878. For further bibliographical information regarding the editions of Bede’s History, see Giles’ ed. ii. 5–8.
II. Biographies are contained in the above-mentioned editions. Hist. V. 24, and the letter on his death by Cuthbert (Giles’ trans. in Bohn, pp. xviii.-xxi.) are the best original sources. The old Vitae given in the complete editions are almost worthless. Modern works are Henrik Gehle: Disputatio historico-theologica de Bedae venerabilis presbyteri Anglo-Saxonis vita et scriptis. Leyden, 1838. Carl Schoell: De ecclesiasticae Britonum Scotorumque historiae fontibus. Berlin, 1851. Karl Werner: Beda der Ehrwürdige und seine Zeit. Wien, 1875. 2d ed. (unchanged), 1881. Geo. F. Browne: The Venerable Bede. London, 1879. Cf. Du Pin, VI. 89–91. Cave, II. 241–245. Ceillier, XII. 1–19. Clarke, II. 426–429. Bähr, IV. 175–178, 292–298. Ebert, I. 595–611.
The Venerable Bede (properly Baeda) is never spoken
of without affectionate interest, and yet so uneventful was his useful
life that very little can be said about him personally. He was born in
673, probably in the village of Jarrow, on the south bank of the Tyne,
Northumbria, near the Scottish border. At the age of seven, being
probably an orphan, he was placed in the monastery of St. Peter, at
Wearmouth, on the north bank of the Wear, which had been founded by
Benedict Biscop in 674. In 682 he was transferred to the newly-founded
sister monastery of St. Paul, five miles off, at Jarrow. King Egfrid gave the land for these
monasteries. Biscop was the first to import masons and glaziers into
England, and to introduce the Roman liturgy and the art of
chanting. 043 Hist. V. 24 (Giles’ trans. in
Bohn’s Library, p. 297, altered
slightly). Giles, ibid., p. x. Hist. V. 24 (Giles, ibid., p.
297).
He died on Wednesday, May 26, 735, of a complaint
accompanied with asthma, from which he had long suffered. The
circumstances of his death are related by his pupil Cuthbert. Giles gives Cuthbert’s letter in full,
ibid., pp. xviii.-xxi.
Bede’s body was buried in the church at Jarrow, but between 1021 and 1042 it was stolen and removed to Durham by Elfred, a priest of its cathedral, who put it in the same chest with the body of St. Cuthbert. In 1104 the bodies were separated, and in 1154 the relics of Bede were placed in a shrine of gold and silver, adorned with jewels. This shrine was destroyed by an ignorant mob in Henry VIII’s time (1541), and only a monkish inscription remains to chronicle the fact that Bede was ever buried there.
The epithet, “Venerable,” now so commonly applied to Bede, is used by him to denote a holy man who had not been canonized, and had no more reference to age than the same name applied to-day to an archdeacon in the Church of England. By his contemporaries he was called either Presbyter or Dominus. He is first called the Venerable in the middle of the tenth century.
Bede’s Writings are very
numerous, and attest the width and profundity of his learning, and also
the independence and soundness of his judgment. “Having centred in
himself and his writings nearly all the knowledge of his day, he was
enabled before his death, by promoting the foundation of the school of
York, to kindle the flame of learning in the West at the moment that it
seemed both in Ireland and in France to be expiring. The school of York
transmitted to Alcuin the learning of Bede, and opened the way for
culture on the continent, when England under the terrors of the Danes
was relapsing into barbarism.” His fame, if we may judge from the
demand for his works immediately after his death, extended wherever the
English missionaries or negotiators found their way.” Beda in Smith and Wace, Dict. Chr. Biog. I.
301, 302.
Bede himself, perhaps in imitation of Gregory of
Tours, See last paragraph of §154, this
vol. Hist. V. 24 (Bohn’s ed., pp.
297-299). Stubb’s art., p. 301.
I. Educational treatises. (a) On orthography De orthographia in Migne, XC. col.
123-150. De arte metrica. Ibid., col.
149-176. De schematis et tropis sacrae scripturae. Ibid.,
col. 175-186. De natura rerum. Ibid., col.
187-278. De temporibus. Ibid., col.
277-292. De temporum ratione. Ibid., col.
293-578. De ratione computi. Ibid., col,
579-600. De Paschae celebratione. Ibid., col.
599-606. De tonitruis. Ibid., col. 609-614.
II. Expository works. These are compilations from
the Fathers, which originally were carefully assigned by marginal notes
to their proper source, but the notes have been obliterated in the
course of frequent copying. He wrote either on the whole or a part of
the Pentateuch, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,
Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Tobit,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. Bede’s expository works fill Tom. XCI.,
XCII., XCIII. in Migne’s series. G. F. Browne, The Venerable Bede, pp. 129-132. A
translation of one of Bede’s homilies is given on pp.
148-159. The Uncial E (2), the Codex Laudianus, which dates from the
end of the sixth century, and contains an almost complete Greek-Latin
text of the Acts, is known to have been used by Bede in writing his
Retractions on the Acts. The Codex was brought to England in
668.
III. Homilies. Tom. XCIV., col. 9-268.
IV. Poetry. Ibid., col. 515-529, 575-638. Hist. IV. 20. Bohn’s ed., pp. 207,
208.
V. Epistles. Migne, XCIV. col. 655-710. Browne (I. c., pp. 172-179) reproduces
it.
VI. Hagiographies. Migne, XCIV., col. 713-1148. Browne (pp. 80-126) gives a
full account of the first two of these works.
VII. Ecclesiastical History of England. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. Tom. XCV.,
col. 21-290.
§ 157. Paul the Deacon.
I. Paulus Winfridus Diaconus: Opera omnia in Migne, Tom. XCV., col. 413–1710. Editions of Paul’s separate works: Historia Langobardorum in: Monumenta Germanicae historica. Scriptores rerum langobardorum et italicarum. Saec. VI.-IX. edd. L. Bethmann et G. Waitz, Hannover, 1878, pp. 45–187. Historia romano in: Monum. Germ. Hist. auctor. antiquissimor. Tom. II. ed. H. Droysen, Berlin, 1879. Gesta episcoporum Mettensium in: Mon. Germ. Hist. Script. Tom. II. ed. Pertz, pp. 260–270. Homiliae in: Martène et Durand, Veterum scriptorum collectio, Paris, 1733, Tom. IX. Carmina (both his and Peter’s) in: Poetae latini aevi Carolini, ed. E. Dümmler, Berlin, 1880, I. 1. pp 27–86. Translations: Die Langobardengeschichte, übertsetzt Von Karl von Spruner, Hamburg, 1838; Paulus Diaconus und die übrigen Geschichtschreiber der Langobarden, übersetzt von Otto Abel, Berlin, 1849.
II. Felix Dahn: Paulus Diaconus. I. Abtheilung, Leipzig, 1876. Each of the above mentioned editions contains an elaborate introduction in which the life and works of Paul are discussed, e.g. Waitz ed. Hist. pp. 12–45. For further investigations see Bethmann: Paulus Diaconus’ Leben und Schriften, and Die Geschichtschreibung der Langobarden, both in Pertz’s “Archiv der Gesellsch. für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde.” Bd. X. Hannover, 1851; Bauch: Ueber die historia romana des Paulus Diaconus, eine Quellenuntersuchung, Göttingen, 1873; R. Jacobi: Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus, Halle, 1877; and Mommsen: Die Quellen der Langobardengeschichte des Paulus Diaconus in: Neues Archiv der Gesellsch. für ältere Geschichtskunde, Bd. V. pp. 51 sqq. Du Pin, VI. 115–116. Ceillier, XII. l141–148. Ebert, II. 36–56.
Paul the Deacon (Paulus Diaconus), the historian of
the Lombards, was the son of Warnefrid and Theudelinda. Hence he is
frequently called Paul Warnefrid. He was descended from a noble Lombard
family and was born in Forum Julii (Friuli, Northern Italy), probably
between 720 and 725. His education was completed at the court of King
Liutprand in Pavia. His attainments included a knowledge of Greek, rare
in that age. Under the influence of Ratchis,
Liutprand’s successor (744–749), he
entered the church and became a deacon. King Desiderius
(756–774) made him his chancellor, Fabricius in Migne, XCV. col. 413 . Ebert, l. c. p. 37.
Paul sought Charlemagne; in a touching little poem
of twenty-eight lines, probably written in Gaul in 782, he set the
pitiful case before him Migne, l c. col. 1599, Carmen VIII. cf. lines 9,
10: “Illius in patria
conjux miseranda per omnes Mendicat plateas,
ore tremente, cibos.”
He did not plead in vain. He would then at once have returned to Monte Cassino, but Charlemagne, always anxious to retain in his immediate service learned and brilliant men., did not allow him to go. He was employed as court poet, teacher of Greek, and scribe, and thus exerted great influence. His heart was, however, in his monastery, and in 787 he is found there. The remainder of his life was busily employed in literary labors. He died, April 13, probably in the year 800, with an unfinished work, the history of the Lombards, upon his hands.
Paul was a Christian scholar, gentle, loving, and beloved; ever learning and disseminating learning. Although not a great man, he was a most useful one, and his homilies and histories of the Lombards are deservedly held in high esteem.
His Works embrace histories, homilies, letters, and poems.
I. Histories. (1) Chief in importance is the
History of the Lombards. De gestis Langobardorum, Migne, XCV. col.
433-672.
(2) Some scholars Mommsen quoted by Ebert, l.c. p. 45;
Weizsäcker in Herzog,2xi.
390. Historia romana, with its additions, Migne, XCV.
col. 743-1158. Best edition by Hartel, Berlin, 1872. Eng. trans. in
Bohn’s Class. Lib. Migne, XXXI. col. 663-1174. Muratori, Rer. Ital. script. I.
222-242. In Migne, LI. col. 535-608.
Besides these histories several other briefer works in the same line have come down to us.
(3) Life of St. Gregory the Great, Vita S. Gregorii Maqni, Migne, LXXV. col.
41-60.
(4) A short History of the bishopric of Metz. Gesta episcoporum Mettensium, Migne, XCV. col.
699-724.
II. Homilies. Homilarius, ibid. col.
1159-1584.
III. Letters, Epistolae, ibid. 1583-1592.
IV. Poems, including epitaphs. Carmina, ibid. col. 1591-1604. Ebert
discusses these at length, l.c. pp. 48-56.
§ 158. St. Paulinus of Aquileia.
I. Sanctus Paulinus, patriarcha Aquileiensis: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. XCIX. col. 9–684, reprint of Madrisius’ ed., Venice, 1737, folio, 2d ed. 1782. His poems are given by Dümmler: Poet. Lat. aevi Carolini I. (Berlin, 1880), pp. 123–148.
II. Vita Paulini, by Madrisius in Migne’s ed. col. 17–130. Cf. Du Pin, VI. 124. Ceillier, XII. 157–164. Hist. litt. de la France, IV. 284–295; Bähr: Geschichte der römischen Literatur im Karolingischen Zeitalter, Carlsruhe, 1840 (pp. 88, 356–359); Ebert, II., 89–91.
Paulinus, patriarch of Aquileia, was born about 726 Migne, l.c. Vita II. v. (col. 30, 1.
4). Jaffè, Mon. Alc., p.
162. At the request of Alcuin he wrote explicit directions for
their conversion and baptism. Ebert ii. p. 89. Mon. Alc., ed.
Jaffè, p. 311-318. Alc. Epist. 56. Ed. Migne,
Epist. 39 (C. col. 198). Madrisius devotes a chapter of his biography to
Paulinus’ friendships with the illustrious men of his
time. Migne, l.c. Vita, XVI. (col.
109-117). Migne, l.c. col. 149, 1. 2 Vita XVII. iii. (col. 118). Ibid. XIV. xvi. (col 100). Ibid. XVII. vii viii. (col. 123-126). Madrisius
prints the oration delivered on the latter occasion (col.
133-142).
The writings of Paulinus comprise (1) Brief
treatise against Elipandus, Libellus sacrosyllabus contra Elipandum, Migne,
XCIX. col. 151-166. Contra Felicem Urgellitanum episcopum libri tres.,
ibid. col. 343-468. Ibid. col. 468, 1. 12. The writings of Felix and Elipandus are found in Migne,
Patr. Lat. XCVI. Concilium Forojuliense, Migne, XCIX. col.
283-302. Liber exhortationis, ibid. col.
197-282.
(5) Epistles. (a) To Heistulfus, Ibid. col. 181-186. Smith and Wace, Dict. Christ. Biog. s. v.
Heistulfus. Madrisius in Migne, l.c. col. 185. Ibid. col. 511-516. The present Altino, a town on the Adriatic, near
Venice. Migne, l.c. col. 503-510.
(6) Verses. (a) The rule of faith, De regula fidei, ibid. col.
467-471 Hymni et rhythmi, ibid. col.
479-504. De Herico duce, ibid. col.
685-686.
(7) A Mass. Ibid. col. 625-627.
(8) The preface to a tract upon repentance Ibid. col. 627-628.
(9) A treatise upon baptism. Not in Migne, but in Mansi, Tom. XIII.
§ 159. Alcuin.
I. Beatus Flaccus Albinus seu Alcuinus: Opera omnia, Migne, Tom. C. CI., reprint of the ed. of Frobenius. Ratisbon, 1772, 2 vols. fol. Monumenta Alcuiniana, a P. Jaffé preparata, ed. Wattenbach et Dümmler (vol. vi. Bibliotheca rerum germanicarum). Berlin, 1773. It contains his letters, poems and life of Willibrord. His poems (Carmina) have been separately edited by E. Dümmler in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, I. 1. 169–351, and some additional poetry is given in Addenda, Tom. II. 692.
II. Vita (Migne, C. col. 89–106), anonymous, but probably by a monk of Ferrières, based upon information given by Sigulf, Alcuin’s pupil and successor as abbot of Ferrières. De vita B. F. Albini seu Alcuini commentatio (col. 17–90), by Froben, for the most part an expansion of the former by the introduction of discussions upon many points. Eulogium historicum Beati Alcuini (CI. col. 1416–1442), by Mabillon. Of interest and value also are the Testimonia veterum et quorumdam recentiorum scriptorum (col. 121–134), brief notices of Alcuin by contemporaries and others.
III. Modern biographies and more general works in which Alcuin is discussed. Friedrich Lorentz: Alcuin’s Leben, Halle, 1829, Eng, trans. by Jane Mary Slee, London, 1837. Francis Monnier: Alcuin et son influence littéraire, religieuse et politique chez les France, Paris, 1853, 2d ed. entitled Alcuin et Charlemagne, Paris, 1864. Karl Werner: Alcuin and sein Jahrhundert, Paderborn, 1876, 2d ed. (unchanged), 1881. J. Bass Mullinger: The schools of Charles the Great, London, 1877. Cf. Du Pin, VI. 121–124. Ceiller, XII. 165–214. Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 295–347. Clarke, II. 453–459. Bähr, 78–84; 192–195; 302–341. Wattenbach, 3d ed. I. 123 sqq; Ebert, II. 12–36. Guizot: History of Civilization, Eng. trans, , Bohn’s ed. ii. 231–253. The art. Alcuin by Bishop Stubbs in Smith and Wace, Dict. Chr. Biog. (i. 73–76), deserves particular mention.
Flaccus Albinus, or, as he is commonly called in the
Old English form, Alcuin Other forms are Ealdwine, Alchwin,
Alquinus. Vita S. Willibrordi, I. i. (Migne, CI. col.
695). De pontificibus et sanctis eccles. Ebor., vv.
1453-56 (CI. Mullinger (p. 47) says in 768. De pont. et Sanct. eccles. Eb. vers. 1535-1561
(Dümmler, l.c. 203, 204; Migne, CI. col. 843 sq.
).
On his return he met Charlemagne at Parma (Easter,
781), and was invited by him to become master of the School of the
Palace. This school was designed for noble youth, was attached to the
court, and held whenever the court was. Charlemagne and his family and
courtiers frequently attended its sessions, although they could not be
said to be regular scholars. The invitation to teach this school was a
striking recognition of the learning and ability of Alcuin, and as he
perceived the possibilities of the future thus unexpectedly opened to
him he accepted it, although the step involved a virtual abnegation of
his just claim upon the archiepiscopate of York. In the next year
(782), having received the necessary permission to go from his king and
archbishop, he began his work. The providential design in this event is
unmistakable. Just at the time when the dissensions of the English
kings practically put a stop to educational advance in England, Alcuin,
the greatest teacher of the day, was transferred to the continent in
order that under the fostering and stimulating care of Charlemagne he
might rescue it from the bondage of ignorance. But the effort taxed his
strength. Charlemagne, although he attended his instruction and styles
him “his dear teacher,” at the same time abused his industry and
patience, and laid many very heavy burdens upon him. On this ground Guizot (l.c. 246-7) explains in part
Alcuin’s frequent expressions of
weariness. There is an English translation in Guizot, l.c. 237,
and in Mullinger, 97-99. See pp. 465 sqq. Already spoken of in connection with Gregory of
Tours. See the old life of Alcuin, cap. VIII. in Migne, C. col.
98.
One of his important services to religion was his revision of the Vulgate (about 802) by order of Charlemagne, on the basis of old and correct MSS., for he probably knew little Greek and no Hebrew. This preserved a good Vulgate text for some time.
Alcuin was of a gentle disposition, willing,
patient and humble, and an unwearied student. He had amassed all the
treasures of learning then accessible. He led his age, yet did not
transcend it, as Scotus Erigena did his. He was not a deep thinker,
rather he brought out from his memory the thoughts of others. He was
also mechanical in his methods. Yet he was more than a great scholar
and teacher, he was a leader in church affairs, not only on the
continent, but, as his letters show, also in England. Charlemagne
consulted him continually, and would have done better had he more
frequently followed his advice. Particularly is this true respecting
missions. Alcuin saw with regret that force had been applied to induce
the Saxons to submit to baptism. He warned Charlemagne that the result
would be disastrous. True Christians can not be made by violence, but
by plain preaching of the gospel in the spirit of love. He would have
the gospel precepts gradually unfolded to the pagan Saxons, and then as
they grew in knowledge would require from them stricter compliance.
Alcuin gave similar council in regard to the Huns. He requested advice on this point from Paulinus of
Aquileia. See p. 681. Froben in his life of Alcuin, cap. XIV., gives his
doctrinal position at length. Migne, col. l.c.
82-90. For the proof of the statements in this paragraph see
Neander, III. passim.
Writings.—The works of Alcuin are divided into nine classes.
I. Letters. Epistolae, Migne, C. col. 139-512. See above, p. 615 sq. Ebert, II. 32-35. Guizot analyzes them (l.c.
243-246).
II. Exegetical Miscellany. Opuscula exegetica, Migne, C.
515-1086. That on Revelation in Migne is not his, but probably by a
pupil of Alcuin. It is, however, a mere compilation from Ambrosius
Autpertus (d. 779.)
III. Dogmatic Miscellany. Opuscula dogmatica, Migne, CI. col.
11-304.
IV. Liturgical and Ethical Works. Opuscula liturgica et moralia, ibid. col.
445-656.
V. Hagiographical Works. Opuscula hagiographica, ibid. col.
657-724.
VI. Poems. Carmina, Ibid. col. 723-848. De gallo fabula, Ibid. col. 805. Dümmler,
l.c. 262. Ibid. col. 814-846. Dümmler, l.c.
169-206.
VII. Pedagogical Works. Opuscula didascalica, Migne, CI. col.
849-1002 Guizot gives a translation of this in his Hist.
Civilization (Eng. trans. ii. 239-242.
VIII. Dubious Works. Opuscula dubia , Migne, CI. col.
1027-1170.
IX. Pretended Works Opuscula supposita ibid. col.
1173-1314.
§ 160. St. Liudger.
I. S. Liudgerus, Minigardefordensis Episcopus: Opera, in Migne, Tom. XCIX. col. 745–820.
II. The old Lives of S. Liudger are four in number. They are found in Migne, but best in Die Vitae Sancti Liudgeri ed. Dr. Wilhelm Diekamp. Münster, 1881 (Bd. IV. of the series: Die Geschichtsquellen des Bisthums Münster). Dr. Diekamp presents revised texts and ample prolegomena and notes. (1) The oldest Vita (pp. 3–53) is by Altfrid, a near relative of Liudger and his second successor in the see of Münster. It was written by request of the monks of Werden about thirty years after Liudger’s death, rests directly upon family and other contemporary testimony, and is the source of all later Lives. He probably divided his work into two books, but as the first book is in two parts, Leibnitz, Pertz and Migne divide the work into three books, of which the first contains the life proper, the second the miracles wrought by the saint himself, and the third those wrought by his relics. (2) Vita Secunda (pp. 54–83) was written by a monk of Werden about 850. The so-called second book of this Life really belongs to (3) Vita tertia (pp. 85–134.) (2) Follows Altfrid, but adds legendary and erroneous matter. (3) Written also by a Werden monk about 890, builds upon (1) and (2) and adds new matter of a legendary kind. (4) Vita rythmica (pp. 135–220), written by a Werden monk about 1140. Biographies of Liudger have been recently written in German by Luise von Bornstedt (Münster, 1842); P. W. Behrends (Neuhaldensleben u. Gardelegen, 1843); A. Istvann (Coesfeld, 1860); A. Hüsing (Münster, 1878); L. Th. W. Pingsmann (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1879). Cf. Diekamp’s full bibliography, pp. CXVIII.-CXMI. For literary criticism see Ceillier, XII. 218. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 57–59. Ebert, II. 107, 338, 339.
Liudger, or Ludger, first bishop of
Münster, was born about 744 at Suecsnon (now Zuilen) on the
Vecht, in Frisia. His parents, Thiadgrim and Liafburg, were earnest
Christians. His paternal grandfather, Wursing, had been one of
Willibrord’s most zealous supporters (c. 5). This sketch has been derived for the most part directly
from Altfrid’s Acta seu Vita (ed. Diekamp, pp.
3-53, Migne, col. 769-796). The letter “c” throughout refers to the
chapter of the Acta in Migne in which the statement immediately
preceding is found. The dates are mainly conjectural. The Acta
gives none except that of the saint’s death, but
merely occasionally notes the lapse of time.
For the next seven years Liudger was priest at Doccum in the Ostergau, where Boniface had died, but during the three autumn months of each year he taught in the cloister school at Utrecht (c. 15). At the end of this period Liudger was fleeing for his life, for the pagan Wutukint, duke of the Saxons, invaded Frisia, drove out the clergy, and set up the pagan altars. Albric died of a broken heart, unable to stand the cruel blow. Liudger with two companions, Hildigrim and Gerbert, retired to Rome, where for two and a half years he lived in the great Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino (c. 18). There he not only had a pleasant retreat but also opportunity to study the working of the Benedictine rule. He did not, however, take monastic vows.
His fame for piety and learning had meanwhile
reached the ears of Charlemagne,—probably through
Alcuin,—and so on his return the emperor assigned to
his care five Frisian districts (Hugmerchi, Hunusga, Fuulga, Emisga,
Fedirga) upon the eastern side of the river Labekus (Lauwers), and also
the island of Bant. His success as missionary induced him to undertake
an enterprise in which even Willibrord had failed. He sailed over the
German Ocean to Heligoland, then called Fosetelant (the land of the god
Fosete). His confidence was justified by events. He made many converts,
among them the son of the chief of the island who became a priest and a
missionary. Shortly after on the mainland there was another irruption
of pagans from East Frisia, and the usual disheartening scenes of burnt
churches, scattered congregations, and martyred brethren were enacted.
But once more the Christian faith conquered (c. 19).
Charlemagne’s continued regard for Liudger was proved
by his gift to him of the abbey Lothusa (probably Zele, near Ghent in
Belgium), in order that its revenues might contribute to his support,
or that being far from Frisia he might retreat thither in times of
danger; and further by his appointment of him to the bishopric of
Mimigernaford (later form Mimigardevord, now Münster, so
called from the monasterium which he built there), in Westphalia, which
was now sufficiently christianized to be ruled ecclesiastically. He
still had under his care the five districts already named, although so
far off. At first these charges were held by him as a simple presbyter,
and in that capacity he carried out one of his darling purposes and
built the famous monastery of Werden C. 18. Migne, l.c. col. 778. Erat enim cu piens
haereditate sua coenobium construere monachorum, quod ita postea Domino
opitulante concessum est in loco qui vocatur
Vuerthina A document of Jan., 802, calls him “abbott,” and one of
April 23, 805, calls him “bishop.”
The only extant writing of Liudger is his Life of
St. Gregory, Vita S. Gregorii Migne, l.c. col.
749-770. Vita Altfridi, II. c. 6, Migne, l.c. col.
783, l. 4.
§ 161. Theodulph of Orleans.
I. Theodulph, Aurelianensis episcopus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CV. col. 187–380. His Carmina are in Dümmler’s Poëtae Lat. aev. Car. I. 2. pp. 437–58l, 629, 630.
II. L. Baunard: Théodulfe, Orleans, 1860. Rzehulka: Theodulf, Breslau, 1875 (Dissertation). Cf. the general works, Mabillon: Analecta, Paris, 1675. Tom. I. pp. 386 sqq.; Tiraboschi: Historia della letteratura italiana new ed. Florence. 1805–18, 20 parts, III. l. pp. 196–205 (particularly valuable for its investigation of the obscure points of Theodulph’s life). Du Pin, VI. 124; Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 459–474; Ceillier, XII. 262–271, Bähr, 91–95, 359, 860; Ebert, II. 70–84.
Theodulph, bishop of Orleans, one of the most useful
churchmen of the Carolingian period, was probably born in Spain, Curiously enough the word used in his epitaph to express
his native land is ambiguous. The line reads: ”Protulit hunc Speria,
Gallia sed nutriit“ (Migne, l.c. col. 192); but Speria
(Hesperia) is a poetical term for either Italy or Spain. Cf. Ebert
l.c. p. 70. I.e. the official dispenser of justice who
accompanied the bishop on his visitation, and was particularly charged
with the examination of the church buildings. It was a post of great
responsibility. On which Alcuin congratulated him (Migne, Patrol.
Lat. C. col. 391, Mon. Alc., Epist. 166, p.
606). It is said he was poisoned by order of the person who had
received his see.
Theodulph was an excellent prelate; faithful,
discreet and wise. He greatly deplored the ignorance of his clergy and
earnestly labored to elevate them. To this end he established many
schools, and also wrote the Capitula ad presbyteros parochicae suae
mentioned below. In this work he was particularly successful. The
episcopal school of Orleans was famous for the number, beauty and
accuracy of the MSS. it produced. In his educational work he enjoyed
the assistance of the accomplished poet Wulfin. Theodulph was himself a
scholar, well read both in secular and religious literature. Cf. Carmina, IV. i. (Migne, l.c. col. 331),
in which he names his favorite authors. Alcuin proposed him to
Charlemagne as competent to refute Felix the Adoptionist. Cf. Alcuin,
Epistolae, LXXXIV. (Migne, Patrol. Lat. C. col.
276). Léopold Delisle, Les bibles de
Théodulfe, Paris, 1879. Cf. Herzog2VIII.
449. Carmina, III.4 (Migne, CV. col. 326). Her
husband’s name is given thus: ”Suaveque, Gisla, tuo
feliciter utere rico,” 1. 29. The occasion of the poem was
Theodulph’s presentation to her of a beautifully
illuminated psalter.
The extant prose works of Theodulph are: 1.
Directions to the priests of his diocese, Capitula ad presbyteros parochiae suae, Migne, CV.
col. 191-208. Capitulare ad eosdem, ibid. col.
207-224. De Spiritu Sancto, ibid. col.
239-276. De ordine baptismi ad Magnum Senonensem libri, ibid.
col. 223-240. Fragmenta sermonum duorum, ibid. col.
275-282.
The Poetical works of Theodulph are divided into
six books. Carmina, ibid. col. 283-380. Ebert
(l.c. pp. 73-84) analyzes these poems at length
. Peraenesis ad Judices, ibid. col.
283-300. Cf. H. Hagen: Theodulfi episcopi Aurelianensis de
iudicibus versus recogniti, Bern, 1882 (pp 31). Ibid. col. 377-380.
§ 162. St. Eigil.
I. Sanctus Eigil, Fuldensis abbas: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CV. col. 381–444. His Carmina are in Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, ed. Dümmler I. 2 (Berlin, 1881).
II. S. Eigilis vita auctore Candido monacho Fuldensi, in Migne CV. col. 383–418. Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 475–478. Ceillier, XII. 272, 273. Ebert, II. Cf. Carl Schwartz: Uebersetzung und Bemerkungen zu Eigil’s Nachrichten über die Gründung und Urgeschichte des Klosters Fulda. Fulda, 1858.
Eigil was a native of Noricum, the name then given to
the country south of the Danube, around the rivers Inn and Drave, and
extending on the south to the banks of the Save. In early childhood,
probably about 760, he was placed in the famous Benedictine monastery
of Fulda in Hesse, whose abbot, its founder Sturm (Sturmi, Sturmin),
was his relative. There Eigil lived for many years as a simple monk,
beloved and respected for piety and learning. Sturm was succeeded on
his death (779) by Baugolf, and on Baugolf’s
resignation Ratgar became abbot (802). Ratgar proved to be a tyrant, See section on Rabanus Maurus. Mullinger, Schools of Charles the Great, London,
1877, pp. 141, 142.
Loath as he had been to accept the responsible position of abbot in a monastery which was in trouble, he discharged its duties with great assuiduity. He continued Ratgar’s building operations, but without exciting the hatred and rebellion of his monks. On the contrary, Fulda once more prospered, and when he died, June 15, 822, he was able to give over to his successor and intimate friend, Rabanus Maurus, a well ordered community.
The only prose writing of Eigil extant is his
valuable life of Sturm. Migne, CV. col. 423-444. The second part is in Dümmler, Poetae,
II. pp. 94-117.
§ 163. Amalarius.
I. Symphosius Amalarius: Opera omnia in Migne, Tom. CV. col. 815–1340. His Carmina are in Dümmler, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, I.
II Du Pin, VII. 79, l58–160. Ceillier, XII. 221–223. Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 531–546. Clarke, II. 471–473. Bähr, 380–383. Hefele, IV. 10, 45, 87, 88. Ebert, II. 221, 222.
Amalarius was a deacon and priest in Metz, and died
in 837, as abbot of Hornbach in the same diocese. It is not known when
or where he was born. During the deposition of Agobard
(833–837), Amalarius was head of the church at Lyons.
He was one of the ecclesiastics who enjoyed the friendship of Louis the
Pious, and took part in the predestination controversy, but his work
against Gottschalk, undertaken at Hincmar’s request,
is lost. He was prominent in councils. Thus he made the patristic
compilation from the Fathers (particularly from Isidore of Seville) and
councils upon the canonical life, which was presented at the Diet at
Aix-la-Chapelle in 817, The Forma institutionis canonicorum et
sanctimonialium in Migne, Tom. CV. 815-976, is the full collection
in two books, but Amalarius’ share was confined to the
first book and probably only to a part of that. Cf. Hefele, IV.
10. See Florus’ letters in Migne, Tom. CXIX.
col. 71-96.
His writings embrace (1) Rules for the canonical
life, Regula canonicorum, in Migne, CV. col.
815-934.
(2) Four books upon The ecclesiastical offices. De ecclesiasticis officiis libri quatuor, ibid. col.
985-1242.
(3) On the order of the anthems, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, ibid. col.
1243-1316.
(4) Eclogues on the office of the Mass, Eclogae de officio missae ibid. col.
1315-1832.
(5) Epistles. Epistolae, ibid. l333-1340.
§ 164. Einhard.
I. Einhardus: Opera in Migne, Tom. CIV. col. 351–610; and Vita Caroli in Tom. XCVII. col. 25–62; also complete Latin and French ed. by A. Teulet: OEuvres complètes d’Éginhard, réunies pour la première fois et traduites en français. Paris, 1840–43, 2 vols. The Annales and Vita of Migne’s ed. are reprinted from Pertz’s Monumenta Germaniae historica (I. 135–189 and II. 433–463, respectively); separate ed. of the Vita, Hannover, 1839. The best edition of the Epistolae and Vita, is in Philipp Jaffé: Monumenta Carolina, Berlin, 1867, pp. 437–541; and of the Passio Marcellini et Petri is in Ernest Dümmler; Poëtae Latini aevi Carolini, Tom. II. (Berlin, 1884), pp. 125–135. Teulet’s translation of Einhard’s complete works has been separately issued, Paris, 1856. Einhard’s Vita Caroli has been translated into German by J. L. Ideler, Hamburg, 1839, 2 vols. (with very elaborate notes), and by Otto Abel, Berlin, 1850; and into English by W. Glaister, London, 1877, and by Samuel Epes Turner, New York, 1880. Einhard’s Annales have been translated by Otto Abel (Einhard’s Jahrbücher), Berlin, 1850.
II. Cf. the prefaces and notes in the works mentioned above. Also Ceillier, XII. 352–357. Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 550–567. Bähr, 200–214. Ebert, II. 92–104. Also J. W. Ch. Steiner: Geschichte und Beschreibung der Stadt und ehemal Abtei Seligenstadt. Aschaffenburg, 1820.
Einhard (or Eginhard), The name is variously spelled, but the now common form
Eginhard is first found in the twelfth
century. Jaffé l.c. p. 488. The legend that Imma was the daughter of Charlemagne dates
from the twelfth century, and probably arose from the false reading
neptitatem (“nephew”) for ne pietatem in
Eginhard’s letter to Lothair. See Jaffé, p.
446 Walahfrid’s Prologue to the Vita,
see Jaffé, p. 508. Annales 806, in Migne, CIV. col. 466, l. 2, fr.
bel. Epistolae, ed. Jaffé, no. 56, p. 478, ed.
Migne, no. 30 (col. 520). Alcuin, Epist. ed. Jaffé, no. 112, p.
459. See below.
Although a layman he had received at different
times since 815 a number of church preferments. Louis made him abbot of
Fontenelle in the diocese of Rouen, of St. Peter’s of
Blandigny and St. Bavon’s at Ghent, of St.
Servais’ at Maestricht, and head of the church of St.
John the Baptist at Pavia. On Jan. 11, 815, Louis gave Einhard and Imma
the domains of Michelstadt and Mulinheim in the Odenwald on the Main;
and on June 2 of that year he is first addressed as abbot. For his preferments see Jaffé p. 493-495. On p.
493, Jaffé proves that Einhard did not separate himself from
his wife after becoming an abbot. See Account of the removal, etc.,
below. See Lupus’ reply to his letter (Lupus,
Epist. ed. Migne, CXIX. col. 445). See his letter to Lupus and Lupus’ reply,
ibid. col. 437-446. Jaffé ed. p. 499.
He and his wife were originally buried in one sarcophagus in the choir of the church in Seligenstadt, but in 1810 the sarcophagus was presented by the Grand Duke of Hesse to the count of Erbach, who claims descent from Einhard as the husband of Imma, the reputed daughter of Charlemagne. The count put it in the famous chapel of his castle at Erbach in the Odenwald.
Einhard was in stature almost a dwarf, but in mind he was in the esteem of his contemporaries a giant. His classical training fitted him to write an immortal work, the Life of Charlemagne. His position at court brought him into contact on terms of equality with all the famous men of the day. In youth he sat under Alcuin, in old age he was himself the friend and inspirer of such a man as Servatus Lupus. His life seems to have been on the whole favored, and although a courtier, he preserved his simplicity and purity of character.
His Writings embrace:
1. The Life of the Emperor Charlemagne. Vita Caroli Imperatoris, in Migne, XCVII. col.
27-62. Cf. Jaffé’s ed., pp.
507-541. The critical editions of the Vita bring this fact out very
plainly. Cf Ebert, l.c. 95. .Pertz collated sixty MSS. of it. Cf. Bähr, l.c. 210.
2. The Annals of Lorsch. Annales Laurissenses et Eginhard, in Migne, CIV.
col. 367-508. Mon. Germ. Script. I. 134-218. These are known as The Annales Laurissenses because
the oldest and comletest MS. was found in the monastery of Lorsch.
Their original text is printed alongside of Einhard’s
revision.
3. Account of the removal of the relics of the
blessed martyrs Marcellinus and Petrus. Historia translationis BB. Christi martyrum Marcellini
et Petri in Migne, Ibid. col. 537-594.
4. The Passion of Marcellinus and Petrus De passione M. et P. Ibid. col.
593-600. So Ebert, l.c. 103.
5. Letters. Epistolae in Migne, ibid. col.
509-538.
§ 165. Smaragdus.
I. Smaragdus, abbas monasterii Sancti Michaelis Virdunensis: Opera omnia in Migne, Tom. CII. cols. 9–980: with Pitra’s notes, cols. 1111–1132. His Carmina are in Dümmler, Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, I. 605–619.
II. Hauréau: Singularités historiques et littéraires. Paris, 1861 (pp. 100 sqq.) H. Keil: De grammaticis quibusdam latinis infimae aetatis (Program) . Erlangen, 1868. Hist. Lit. de la France, IV. 439–447. Ceillier, XII. 254–257. Bähr, 362–364. Ebert, II. 108–12.
Of the early life of Smaragdus nothing is known. He joined the Benedictine order of monks, and after serving as principal of the convent school was elected about 805 abbot of the monastery on Mt. Castellion. Sometime later he moved his monks a few miles away and founded the monastery of St. Mihiel on the banks of the Meuse, in the diocese of Verdun. He was a man of learning and of practical activity. In consequence he was highly esteemed by the two monarchs under whom he lived, Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. The former employed him to write the letter to Pope Leo III. in which was communicated the decision of the council of Aix la Chapelle (809) respecting the adoption of the Filioque, and sent him to Rome with the commissioners to lay the matter before the pope. He acted as secretary, and drew up the protocol. Louis the Pious showed him equal consideration, richly endowed his monastery, and in 824 appointed him to act with Frotharius, bishop of Toul (813837) as arbitrator between Ismund, abbot of Milan, and his monks. Smaragdus died about 840.
His writings show diligence and piety, but no
originality. His published works in prose are: (1) Collections of
Comments on the Epistle and Gospel for each holy day in the year, Collectiones in epistolas et evangelia de tempore. et de
sanctis. Migne, CII. col 13-552. Diadema monachorum, ibid. col.
593—690. 98 “Et quia mos est monachorum. ut regulam beati Benedicii ad
capitulum legant quotidie matutinum: volumus ut iste libellus ad eorum
capitulum quotidie legatur vespertinum (col. 693).
“ Paris, 1532, 16 40; Antwerp, 1540; Bibliotheca
Maxima, Lyons, 1677, Tom. XVI. pp. 1305-1342, and Migne, Patrol
Lat., CI I., Paris, 1851. Commentaria in regulum Sancti Benedicti, Migne, CII.
col. 689- 932. Via regia, ibid. col 933-970. So Ebert, l.c. p. III. Acta collationis Romanae Migne, CII. col.
971-976 Epistola Caroli Magni ad Leonem Papam de processione
Spiritus Sancti, Migne, XCVIII. col. 923-929. Epistola Frotharii et Smaragdi ad Ludovicum Imperatorem,
Migne, CVI. col, 865-866. Grammatica major seu commentarius in
Donatum. Mabillon, Vetera analectam, Nov. ed. (Paris, 1723)
pp. 357, 358. Cf. Mabillon, l.c. Ebert, l.c. p. 112.
§ 166. Jonas of Orleans.
I. Jonas, Aurelianensis episcopus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CVI. col. 117–394.
II. Du Pin, VII. 3, 4. Ceillier, XII. 389–394. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 20–31. Bähr, 394–398. Ebert, II. 225–230.
Jonas was a native of Aquitania, and in 821 succeeded
Theodulph as archbishop of Orleans. In the first year of his episcopate
he reformed the convent at Mici, near Orleans, and thereby greatly
extended its usefulness. His learning in classical and theological
literature joined to his administrative ability made him a leader in
important councils, and also led to his frequent employment by Louis
the Pious on delicate and difficult commissions. Thus the emperor sent
him to examine the administration of the law in certain districts of
his empire, and in 835 to the monasteries of Fleury and St. Calez in Le
Mains. His most conspicuous service was, however, in connection with
the gathering of bishops and theologians held at Paris in Nov. 825 to
consider the question of image-worship. The emperor sent him and
Jeremiah, archbishop of Sens, to Rome to lay before the pope that part
of the collection of patristic quotations on the subject made by
Halitgar and Amalarius, which was most appropriate. Hefele, IV. 46. Ebert, l.c. p. 226. Hefele does not mention him in
this connection. Hefele, IV. 87.
His Writings are interesting and important, although few.
1. The layman’s rule of life, . De institutione laicali. Migne, CVI. col.
121-278. Ebert, l.c. p. 229
2. The Kings rule of life, De institutione regia. Migne, CVI. col.
279-306. The fact that portions of these two books not only agree
word for word but also with the Acts of the Paris reform-council of 829
is proof, as Ebert maintains (pp. 227-29), of the prior existence of
the Acts.
3. The Worship of Images. De cultu imaginum, Migne, CVI. col.
305-388.
4. History of the translation of the relics of
Saint Hubert. Historia translationis S. Hucberti, ibid. col.
389-394.
§ 167. Rabanus Maurus.
I. Rabanus Maurus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CVII.-CXII. His Carmina are in Dümmler’s Poetae Latini aevi Carolini, II. 159–258. Migne’s edition is a reprint, with additions, of that of Colvenerius, Cologne, 1617, but is not quite complete, for Dümmler gives new pieces, and others are known to exist in MS.
II. The Prolegomena in Migne, CVII. col. 9–106, which contains the Vitae by Mabillon, Rudolf, Raban’s pupil, and by Trithemius. Johann Franz Buddeus: Dissertatio de vita ac doctrina Rabani Mauri Magnentii, Jena, 1724. Friedrich Heinrich Christian Schwarz: Commentatio de Rabano Mauro, primo Germaniae praeceptore (Program). Heidelberg, 1811. Johann Konrad Dahl: Leben und Schriften des Erzbischofs Rabanus Maurus. Fulda, 1828. Nicolas Bach: Hrabanus Maurus; der Schöpfer des deutschen Schulwesens (Program). Fulda, 1835. Friedrich Kunstmann: Hrabanus Magnentius Maurus. Mainz, 1841. Theodor Spengler: Leben des heiligen Rhabanus Maurus. Regensburg, 1856. Köhler: Hrabanus Maurus und die Schule zu Fulda (Dissertation). Leipzig, 1870. Richter: Babanus Maurus. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Paedagogik im Mittelalter (Program). Malchin, 1883. Cf. E. F. J. Dronke: Codex dip Fuld. Cassel, 1850. J. Bass Mullinger: The Schools of Charles the Great. London, 1877, pp. 188–157. J. F. Böhmer: Regesten zur Gesch. d. Mainzer Erzbischöfe, ed. C. Will. 1. Bd. a.d. 742–1160. Innsbruck, 1877.
III. Du Pin, VII. 160–166. Ceillier, XII. 446–476. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 151–203. Bähr, 415–447. Ebert, II. 120–145.
His Life.
Magnentius Hrabanus Maurus is the full name, as
written by himself, Praefatio to his De laudibus sanctae crucis
Migne, CVII. col. 147, 148. Magnentius indicates his birth at Mainz.
which was called in the Old High German Magenze (see Ebert II. 121 n.).
Hrabanus is the Latinized form of Hraban (i e.“raven ”). Rabanus
is the ordinary spelling. Maurus was the epithet given to him by
Alcuin (Migne, CIX. col. 10) to indicate that in Rabanus were found the
virtues which had made Maurus the favorite disciple of the great St.
Benedict. Cf. his self-written epitaph, Migne, CXII. col.
1671. Only one of the two, Alcuin’s, has been
preserved (Migne, C. col. 398). That Raban wrote first is a reasonable
conjecture from Alcuin’s letter. Cf Mullinger, p.
139.
Raban was appointed principal of the
monastery’s school. In his work he was at first
assisted by Samuel, his fellow-pupil at Tours, but when the latter was
elected bishop of Worms Raban carried on the school alone. The new
abbot, Ratgar, quickly degenerated into a tyrant with an architectural
mania. He begrudged the time spent in study and instruction.
Accordingly he chose very effective measures to break up the school. He
took the books away from the scholars and even from their principal,
Raban Maur. In a poem (Migne, CXII. col. 1600) addressed to Ratgar, he
gently pleads for the return of his books and papers. In another longer
poem he describes the defection caused by Ratgar’s
tyranny (ibid. col. 1621). In his comment on Migne, CVII. col. 15.
In 817 Ratgar was deposed and
Raban’s friend Eigil elected in his place. See p. 700.
In 822 Eigil died and Raban was elected his
successor. He proved a good leader in spiritual affairs. He took
personal interest in the monks, and frequently preached to them. He
paid particular attention to the education of the priests. He compiled
books for their especial benefit, and as far as possible taught in the
school, particularly on Biblical topics. The principal of the school
under him was Canadidus, already mentioned as the biographer of
Eigil. See. p. 701.
In the spring of 842 Raban laid down his office
and retired to the “cell” on the Petersberg, in the neighborhood of
Fulda. There he thought he should be able to end his days in literary
activity undisturbed by the cares of office. To this end he called in
the aid of several assistants and so worked rapidly. But he was too
valuable a man to be allowed to retire from active life. Accordingly on
the death of Otgar, archbishop of Mainz (April 21, 847), he was
unanimously elected by the chapter, the nobility and the people of
Mainz his successor. He reluctantly consented, and was consecrated June
26, 847. In October of that year he held his first synod in the
monastery of St. Alban’s, Mainz. It was a provincial
council by command of Louis the German. Among the notables present were
his suffragans, Samuel of Worms, his former fellow-teacher, Ebo of
Hildesheim, Haymo of Halberstadt, his fellow-student under Alcuin, and
also Ansgar of Hamburg, who had come to plead for the Northern mission.
This synod renewed the command to the priests to preach. In this act
Raban is recognized. On October 1, 848, a second synod was held at
Mainz, which is memorable as the first in which the Gottschalk matter
was discussed. Gottschalk had been a pupil at Fulda and his course had
incurred the anger of Raban, who accordingly opposed him in the
council. The result was that the synod decided adversely to Gottschalk
and sent him for judgment to Hincmar. In the Annals of Fulda begun by
Enhard (not to be confounded with Einhard), and continued by Rudolf, it
is gratefully recorded that during the great famine in Germany in 850
Raban fed more than 300 persons daily in the village of Winzel. Migne, CVII, col. 24. Hefele, IV. 179-181.
Raban died at Mainz Feb. 4, 456, and was buried in the monastery of St. Alban’s. He wrote his own epitaph which is modest yet just. In 1515 Cardinal Albert of Brandenburg removed his bones to Halle.
His Position And Influence.
Raban was one of the most eminent men in the ninth century for virtue, piety and scholarship. As pupil he was unremitting in his pursuit of learning; as teacher he was painstaking, inspiring and instructive; as abbot he strove to do his whole duty; as archbishop he zealously contended for the faith regardless of adversaries; according to his own motto, “When the cause is Christ’s, the opposition of the bad counts for naught.” He bore his honors modestly, and was free from pride or envy. While willing to yield to proper demands and patient of criticism, he was inflexible and rigorous in maintaining a principle. He had the courage to oppose alone the decision of the council of 829 that a monk might leave his order. He denied the virtues of astrology and opposed trial by ordeal. He early declared himself a friend of Louis the Pious and plainly and earnestly rebuked the unfilial conduct of his sons. After the death of Louis he threw in his fortune with Lothair and the defeat of the latter at Fontenai, June 25, 841, was a personal affliction and may have hastened his resignation of the abbotship, which took place in the spring of the following year. The relations, however, between him and his new king, Louis the German, were friendly. Louis called him to his court and appointed him archbishop of Mainz.
Raban’s permanent fame rests upon
his labors as teacher and educational writer. From these he has won the
proud epithet, Primus Germaniae Praeceptor. The school at Fulda became
famous for piety and erudition throughout the length and breadth of the
Frankish kingdom. Many noble youth, as well as those of the lower
classes, were educated there and afterwards became the bishops and
pastors of the Church of Germany. No one was refused on the score of
poverty. Fulda started the example, quickly followed in other
monasteries, of diligent Bible study. And what is much more remarkable,
Raban was the first one in Germany to conduct a monastic school in
which many boys were trained for the secular life. Migne, CVII. col. 82, 83, 84. Migne, CIV. col. 519.
His Writings.
Raban was a voluminous author. But like the other writers of his time, he made mostly compilations from the Fathers and the later ecclesiastics. He was quick to respond to the needs of his day, and to answer questions of enquiring students. He betrays a profound acquaintance with the Holy Scripture. His works may be divided into seven classes.
I. Biblical. (1) Commentaries upon the whole
Bible, except Ezra, Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the
Minor Prophets, Catholic Epistles and Revelation. He commented also on
the Apocryphal books, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees. Unprinted are the commentaries on Isaiah, Daniel and John;
lost those on Mark, Luke and Acts. The remainder are found in Migne,
CVII. col. 439-670; 727-1156. CVIII., CIX., CXI. 679-1616. CXII.
9-834. Preface to Matt., Migne, CVII. col.
727. Migne, CXII. col. 849.
In accordance with these principles his commentaries’ except that of Matthew, the earliest issued (819), contain very little proper exegesis, but a great deal of mystical and spiritual interpretation. The labor in their composition must have been considerable, but he carried it on for twenty years. He did not always copy the exact language of his sources, but reproduced it in his own words. He was particular to state the place of his excerpts. Each successive commentary had a separate dedication. Thus, those on Judith and Esther were dedicated to the empress Judith, because, he says, she resembled the Hebrew heroines; that on Chronicles to Louis the Pious, her husband, as a guide in government; that on Maccabees to Louis the German; that on Jeremiah to Lothair.
(2) He also prepared a commentary in the same
style upon the Biblical hymns sung in morning worship. Comment. in cantica quae ad matutinas laudes
dicuntur. [CXII. col. 1089-1166.
(3) Scripture Allegories Allegoriae in universam Sacram Scripturam. Ibid.
col. 849-1088. Ibid. col. 858.
(4) The life of Mary Magdalene and her sister
Martha. De vita beatae Mariae Magdalenae et sororis ejus sanctae
Marthae, ibid. col. 1431—1508.
II. Educational. (1) The Institutes of the
clergy. De clericorum institutione, CVII. col.
293-420. He defends the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist by
an appeal to Jewish Passover usage, the Eucharist being the Christian
Passover, and the use of wine mingled with water for the reason that
out of the Saviour’s pierced side there flowed both
water and blood. The water signifies the people, the wine the blood of
Christ. Therefore their union in the cup signifies the union of the
people with Christ, ibid. Lib. 1. Cap. XXX[. (col. 319,
320.) Ibid. Lib. III. Cap. If. (col.
379.) Ibid. Lib. III. Cap. XXXIX. col.
420
(2) On Computation. Liber de computo, CVII. col.
669-728.
(3) The Universe. De universo, CXI. col. 9-614.
(4) Excerpt from Priscian’s
Grammar, Excerptio de arte grammatica Prisciani, ibid. col.
613-678. Bähr, l.c. 419.
(5) The holy orders, divine sacraments and
priestly garments. Liber de sacris ordinibus, sacramentis divinis et
vestimentis sacerdotalibus, Migne, CXII. col.
1165-1192.
(6) Ecclesiastical discipline. De ecclesiastica disciplina libri tres, CXII. col.
1191-1262.
(7) The parts of the human body, in Latin and
German. Glossae latino-barbaricae de partibus humani corporis,
ibid. col. 1575-1578. There are also extant a few words from his Latin-German
glossary to the Bible, ibid. col. 1583. Cf. Steinmeyer u.
Sievers, Die althochdeutschen Glossen gesammelt u.
bearbeitet,
Berlin, 1879 (I.3 sqq.); quoted by Ebert, l.c.
127.
(8) The invention of languages De inventione linguarum, Migne, CXII. col.
1579-1584.
III. Occasional writings, i.e., upon current
questions and in answer to questions. (1) The oblation of boys, Liber de oblatione puerorum, CVII. col.
419-440. Quasi illi libertatem ac nobilitatem generis sui perdant
qui servitium Christi profitentur. CVII. col.
431. Ibid. col. 432.
(2) The reverence of children to their parents,
and of subjects to their king. De reverentia filiorum erga patres et subditorum erga
reges. Cf. Ebert, l.c. 139, 140.
(3) On the degrees of relationship within which
marriage is permissible. De consanguineorum nuptiis et de magorum praegtigiis
falsisque divinationibus tractatus, CX. col.
1087-1110.
(4) Magic arts. De consanguineorum nuptiis et de magorum praegtigiis
falsisque divinationibus tractatus, CX. col.
1087-1110. CX. col. 1100.
(4) A Response to certain Canonical Questions of
the Suffragan Bishop Reginald. Responsa canonica super quibusdam interrogationibus
Reginbaldi chorepiscopi, ibid. col.
1187-1196.
(5) Whether it is permissible for a suffragan
bishop to ordain priests and deacons with the consent of his bishop. Si liceat chorepiscopis presbyteros et diaconos ordinare
cum consensu episcopi sui ibid. col. 1195-1206.
IV. Writings upon Penance. (1) Two Penitentials. Poenitentiale, ibid. col. 467-494.
Poenitentium liber, CXII. col. 1397-1424. De quaestionibus canonum poenitentialium libri tres,
ibid. col. 1333-1336. (The preface only.) De vitiis et virtutibus et peccatorum satisfactione,
ibid. col. 1335-1398. (Only the third book.)
V. Miscellaneous. (1) Homilies. Homiliae, CX. col. 9-468. Ebert, l.c. p. 141, mentions particularly
Lib. I., Hom. XLII., XLIII. and LXIII. The first is
directed against the ridiculous custom of making a great noise,
shooting arrows and throwing fire in the air when the moon is waning in
order to prevent its being swallowed up by a monster. The second is
directed against soothsaying in its various forms, and the third
against gluttony, drunkenness and scurrility.
(2) Treatise on the Soul. Tractatus de anima, Migne, CX. col. 1109-1120. The
Vegitian extracts are not given in Migne, but by Dümmler, cf
Ebert l.c. p. 136. So Ebert conjectures, l.c. p. 136.
(3) A martyrology. 267 Martyrologium, Migne, CX. col.
1121-1188.
(4) The vision of God, purity of heart and mode of
penance. De vivendo Deum, de puritate cordis et modo
poenitentiae, CXII. col. 1261-1332.
(5) The Passion of our Lord, De passione Domini, CXII. col.
1425-1430.
VI. Letters. (1) A letter to Bishop Humbert upon
lawful degrees of relationship between married persons. Quota generatione licita sit connubium epistola, CX.
col. 1083-1088. Epistolae, CXII.
VII. Poems. Raban was no poetic genius; yet he had
carefully studied prosody and he was able to write verses to his
friends and for different occasions. Carmina, ibid. col. 1583-1682.
The hymns of Raban are few in number, for although many have been attributed to him his right to most of them is very doubtful.
§ 168. Haymo.
I. Haymo, Halberstatensis episcopus: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXVI.-CXVIII.
II. Paul Anton: De vita et doctrina Haymonis, Halle, 1700, 2d ed. 1705; C. G. Derling: Comm. Hist. de Haymone, Helmstädt, 1747. Ceillier XII. 434–439. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 111–126. Bähr, 408–413.
Haymo (Haimo, Aymo, Aimo) was a Saxon, and was probably born about 778. He took monastic vows at Fulda, was sent by, his abbot (Ratgar) with his intimate friend Rabanus Maurus in 803 to Tours to study under Alcuin; on his return he taught at Fulda until in 839 he was chosen abbot of Hirschfeld. In 841 he was consecrated bishop of Halberstadt. In 848 he sat in the Council of Mayence which condemned Gottschalk. He founded at considerable expense the cathedral library of Halberstadt, which unfortunately was burnt in 1179. He died March 27, 853. He was an excellent scholar. As an exegete he was simple and clear, but rather too verbal.
His writings are voluminous, and were first
published by the Roman Catholics in the Reformation period
(1519–36). They teach a freer and less prejudiced
Catholic theology than the Tridentine. Thus he denies that Peter
founded the Roman church, that the pope has universal supremacy, and
rejects the Paschasian doctrine of transubstantiation. His works
consist principally of (1) Commentaries. Migne, CXVI. col. 193-CXVII. col. 1220.
Besides these commentaries, (2) Homilies, Homiliae, Migne, CXVIII. col.
11-816. De corpore et sanguine Domini, CXVIII. col.
815-818. Historiae sacrae Epitome, ibid. col.
817-874. De varietate librorum, sive de amore coelestis patriae,
ibid. col. 875-958.
§ 169. Walahfrid Strabo.
I. Walafridus Strabus, Fuldensis monachus: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXIII.-CXIV. His Carmina have been edited in a very thorough manner by Ernst Dümmler: Poetae Latini aevi Carolini. Tom. II. (Berlin, 1884), pp. 259–473.
II. For his life see the Preface of Dümmler and Ebert, II. 145–166. Cf. also for his works besides Ebert, Ceillier, XII. 410–417; Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 59–76; Bähr, pp. 100–105, 398–401.
Walahfrid, poet and commentator, theologian and
teacher, was born of obscure parentage in Alemannia about 809, and
educated in the Benedictine abbey school of Reichenau on the island in
Lake Constance. His cognomen Strabus or, generally, Strabo was given to
him because he squinted, but was by himself assumed as his name. E. g. in Preface to his epitome of
Raban’s commentary on Leviticus. Migne, CXIV. col.
795. Ebert, p. 147. 80 Dümmler, l.c. 261. XV. Kal. Sept. Dümmler, l.c.
261.
Walahfrid was a very amiable, genial and witty man, possessed remarkable attainments in both ecclesiastical and classical literature, and was moreover a poet with a dash of genius, and in this latter respect is a contrast to the merely mechanical versifiers of the period. He began writing poetry while a mere boy, and in the course of his comparatively brief life produced many poems, several of them of considerable length.
His Writings embrace
1. Expository Works. 1. Glosses, Glossa ordinaria, Migne,
CXIII.—CXIV. col. 752. Bähr (pp. 398 sq.) gives the dates of nine
editions between 1472 and 1634. Expositio in XX. primos Psalmos, Migne, CXIV. col.
752-794. Epitome commentariorum Rabani in Leviticum, ibid.
col. 795-850. Expositio in Evangelia, ibid. col.
849-916. De ecclesiasticarum rerum exordiis et incrementis,
CXIV. col. 919-966. De rebus eccl. XVI. Ibid. col.
936.
II. A Homily on the Fall of Jerusalem. De subversione Jerusalem, ibid. col.
965-974.
III. Biographies. 1. Life of the Abbot St. Gall, 290 Vita S. Galli, ibid. col. 975-1030. Dümmler, l.c., Vita Galli, pp.
428-473. Vita S. Othmari, Migne, CXIV. col.
1031-1042. Jaffé, Monumenta Carolina, pp.
507-8.
IV. Poetry. 1. The Vision of Wettin. De visione Wettini, Migne, CXIV. col. 1063-1082.
Heito’s work la in Tom. CV. col. 771-780. Both are
given by Dümmler, l. c pp. 267-275;
301-333. Migne, CXIV. col. 1064, ”qui pene octavum decimum jam
annum transegi.” Ebert, l.c. 149. Cf. Bernold’s
Vision in section on Hincmar. Vita S. Mammae, Migne, CXIV. col. 1047-1062.
Dümmler, l.c. pp. 275-296. Vita S. Blaitmaici, Dümmler, l.c.
pp. 297-301. Migne, col. 1043-1046. Hortulus, Dümmler, pp. 335-350. Migne,
col. 1121-1130. De imagine Tetrici, Dümmler, pp. 370-378.
Migne, col. 1089-1092. See Ebert, pp. 154-158. Dümmler, pp. 350-428. Migne, CXIV, col.
1083-1120.
§ 170. Florus Magister, of Lyons.
I. Florus, diaconus Lugdunensis: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXIX. ol. 9–424. His poems are given by Dümmler: Poet. Lat. aev. Carolini, II. (Berlin, 1884), pp. 507–566.
II. Bach: Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, Wien, 1873–1875, 2 Abth. I. 240. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 213–240. Ceillier, XII. 478–493. Bähr, 108, 109; 447–453. Ebert, II. 268–272.
Florus was probably born in the closing year of the
eighth century and lived in Lyons during the reigns of Louis the Pious,
Charles the Bald and Louis II. He was head of the cathedral school, on
which account he is commonly called Florus Magister. He was also a
deacon or sub-deacon. He enjoyed a wide reputation for learning, virtue
and ability. He stood in confidential relations with his bishop,
Agobard, and with some of the most distinguished men of his time. His
library was a subject of remark and wonder for its large size. Cf. Wandalbert, in Migne, CXXI. col. 577.
Like every other scholar under Charles the Bald, he made his contribution to the Eucharistic and Predestination controversies. In the former he took the side of Rabanus Maurus and Ratramnus against the transubstantiation theory of Paschasius Radbertus; in the latter he opposed Johannes Scotus Erigena, without, however, going entirely over to the side of Gottschalk. He sat in the council of Quiercy (849), the first one called by Hincmar in the case of Gottschalk. He died about 860.
His complete works are:
1. A patristic cento on the election of Bishops, Liber de electionibus episcoporum, collectus ex
sententiis patrum, Migne CXIX. col. 11-14.
2. An Exposition of the Mass, Opusculum de expositione missae, Migne, CXIX, col.
15-72.
3. A Treatise against Amalarius, Opusculum adversus Amalarium, ibid. col.
71-96. See Amalarius in Migne, CV. col. 815 sqq.
4. A Martyrology, Martyrologium, Migne, XCIV. col. 797
sqq.
5. Sermon on Predestination. Sermo de praedestinatione, Migne, CXIX. col.
95-102.
6. A treatise against Scotus
Erigena’s errors, Adversus J. S. Erigenae erroneas definitiones liber,
ibid. col. 101-250. See his preface (col. 101-103).
7. St. Augustin’s Exposition of
the Pauline Epistles, Expositio in epistolas Beati Pauli ex operibus Sancti
Augustini collecta, ibid. col. 279-420.
8. Capitulary collected from the Law and the
Canons. Capitula ex lege et canone collecta, ibid. col.
419-422.
9. Miscellaneous Poems, Carmina varia, ibid. col. 249-278. Ebert discusses them, II. 269-272.
10. There is also extant a letter which he wrote
to the empress Judith. Flori epistola ad imperatricem Judith, Migne, CXIX.
col. 423, 424.
§ 171. Servatus Lupus.
I. Beatus Servatus Lupus: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXIX. col. 423–694 (a reprint of the edition of Baluze. Paris, 1664, 2d ed. 1710). The Homilies and hymns given by Migne (col. 693–700) are spurious.
II. Notitia historica et bibliographica in Servatum Lupum by Baluze, in Migne, l.c. col. 423–6. Nicolas: Étude sur les lettres de Servai Loup, Clermont Ferrant, 1861; Franz Sprotte: Biographie des Abtes Servatus Lupus von Ferrières, Regensburg, 1880. Du Pin, VII. 169–73. Ceillier, XII. 500–514. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 255–272. Bähr, 456–461. Ebert, II. 203–209. J. Bass Mullinger: The Schools of Charles the Great. London, 1877, pp. 158–170. For Lupus’ part in the different councils he attended, see Hefele: Conciliengeschichte, IV. passim.
Lupus, surnamed Servatus, Perhaps in memory of his recovery from some severe illness,
as that which in the winter of 838-9 confined him for a time in the
convent of St. Trend in the diocese of
Liège Lupus, Epist. I. (Migne, CXIX. col.
433). Baluze, in Migne, ibid. col. 425. Migne, ibid col. 445. Although he thus lived six years in Germany he never
obtained a mastery of German. Wetzer u. Welte, Kirchenlexicon s. v.
Lupus. So Baluze, in Migne, CXIX col. 423. It was upon this journey that Lupus fell sick. See fn. 864
p.735. So Baluze, ibid. col. 425. Pertz, Legg. I. 223 326 Hefele, IV. III. Pertz, Legg. I. 383. Epist. 71, Migne, CXIX. col. 533. It appears as Epist. 100 in Migne, ibid. col.
575.
Servatus Lupus was one of the great scholars of
the ninth century. But he gained knowledge under great difficulties,
for the stress of circumstances drove him out of the seclusion he
loved, and forced him to appear as a soldier, although he knew not how
to fight, to write begging letters instead of pursuing his studies, and
even to suffer imprisonment. Yet the love of learning which manifested
itself in his childhood and increased with his years, notwithstanding
the poor educational arrangements at Ferrières, Epist. 1, ibid. col. 433. Epist. 35, ibid. col. 502. Neander, vol. iii. p. 482. Ebert has a good passage on this
point (l.c. p. 205-206). Also Mullinger, p. 165
sqq.
His Works are very few. Perhaps the horrible confusion of the period hindered authorship, or like many another scholar he may have shrunk from the labor and the after criticism. In his collected works the first place is occupied by his
1. Letters, Epistolae, Migne, CXIX. col.
431-610. “No other correspondence, for centuries, reveals such
pleasant glimpses of a scholar’s life, or better
illustrates the difficulties which attended ita pursuits.” Mullinger p.
166.
2. The Canons of Verneuil, 844. Canones concilii in Verno, Migne, l.c. col.
611-620.
3. The Three Questions, in 852. Liber de tribus quaestionibus, ibid. col.
621-666.
4. Life of St. Maximinus, bishop of Treves. Vita Sancti Maximini, Episcopi Trevirensis, Migne,
CXIX. col. 665-680. Cf. Baluze (Migne, l.c. col. 425) and Ebert,
l.c. p. 208.
5. Life of St. Wigbert, in thirty chapters,
written in 836 at the request of Bun, abbot of Hersfeld. Vita Sancti Wigberti, abbatis Fritzlariensis, Migne,
l.c. 679-694.
§ 172. Druthmar.
I. Christianus Druthmarus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CVI. col. 1259–1520.
II. Ceillier, XII. 419–423. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 84–90. Bähr, 401–403.
Christian Druthmar was born in Aquitania in the first
part of the ninth century. Before the middle of the century he became a
monk of the Benedictine monastery of old Corbie. The monastery of Old Corbie was in Picardy, in the present
department of Somme, nine miles by rail east of Amiens. That of New
Corbie was in Westphalia, and was founded by Louis the Pious in 822 by
a colony of monks from Old Corbie. Stavelot is twenty-four miles southeast of
Liège, in present Belgium. It is now a busy manufacturing
place of four thousand inhabitants. Its abbey was founded in 651, and
its abbots had princely rank and independent jurisdiction down to the
peace of Luneville in 1801. The town of Malmédy lies about
five miles to the northeast, and until 1815 belonged to the abbey of
Stavelot. It is now in Prussia.
He was a very superior scholar for his age, well
versed in Greek and with some knowledge of Hebrew. Hence his epithet,
the “Grammarian” (i.e. Philologist). His fame rests upon his Commentary
on Matthew’s Gospel, Expositio in Matthaeum Evangelistam, Migne, CVI.
col. 1261-1504. “Studui autem plus historicum sensum sequi quam
spiritalem, quia irrationabile mihi videtur spiritalem intelligentiam
in libro aliquo quaerere, et historicam penitus ignorare: cum historia
fundamentum omnis intelligentize sit,” etc. Ibid. col. 1262,
l. 6, Fr. bel. Ibid. col. 1476, l. 16 and 3 Fr.
bel.
The brief expositions of Luke and John Ibid. col. 1503-1514, 1515-1520. Ibid. col. 1263.
§ 173. St. Paschasius Radbertus.
I. Sanctus Paschasius Radbertus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXX.
II. Besides the Prolegomena in Migne, see Melchior Hausher: Der heilige Paschasius Radbertus. Mainz 1862. Carl Rodenberg: Die Vita Walae als historische Quelle (Inaugural Dissertation). Göttingen 1877. Du Pin, VII. 69–73, 81. Ceillier, XII. 528–549. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 287–314. Bähr, 233, 234, 462–471. Ebert, II. 230–244.
Radbertus, surnamed Paschasius, From Pascha, probably in allusion to big position in the
Eucharistic controversy. Their abbess was Theodrada. Mabillon, Annales, lib.
27 (vol. 2, p. 371).
In the year 822 he accompanied his abbot, Adalhard, and the abbot’s brother and successor, Wala, to Corbie in Saxony, in order to establish there the monastery which is generally known as New Corbie. In 826 Adalbard died, and Wala was elected his successor. With this election Radbertus probably had much to do; at all events, he was deputed by the community to secure from Louis the Pious the confirmation of their choice. This meeting with the emperor led to a friendship between them, and Louis on several occasions showed his appreciation of Radbertus. Thus in 831 he sent him to Saxony to consult with Ansgar about the latter’s northern mission, and several times asked his advice. Louis took the liveliest interest in Radbertus’s eucharistic views, and asked his ecclesiastics for their opinion.
In 844 Radbertus was elected abbot of his
monastery. He was then, and always remained, a simple monk, for in his
humility, and probably also because of his view of the
Lord’s Supper, he refused to be ordained a priest. His
name first appears as abbot in the Council of Paris, Feb. 14, 846. He
was then able to carry through a measure which gave his monastery
freedom to choose its abbot and to govern its own property. Privilegium monasterii Corbeiensis, in Migne, CXX.
col. 27-32. Cf Hefele, IV. 119.
Immediately upon his resignation, Radbertus went
to the neighboring abbey of St. Riquier, but shortly returned to
Corbie, and took the position of monk under the new abbot. His last
days were probably his pleasantest. He devoted himself to the
undisturbed study of his favorite books and to his beloved literary
labors. On April 26, 865, This is the date given in the Necrology of Nevelon. See
Mabillon, Annales, lib. XXXVI. (vol. III. p.
119).
The fame of Paschasius Radbertus rests upon his
treatise on The body and blood of the Lord, De corpore et sanguine Domini, in Migne, CXX. col.
1259-1350. Epistola de corpore et sanguine Domini ad Frudegardum.
Ibid. col. 1351-1366. Pp. 543, 546 sqq. De partu virginis, Migne, CXX. col.
1367-1386. Page 553.
Besides these Radbertus wrote, 1. An Exposition of
the Gospel of Matthew. Expositio in evangelium Matthaei, Migne, CXX. col.
31-994. Ibid. col. 35. Ibid. col. 394. Bähr, 465.
2. An Exposition of Psalm XLIV Expositio in Psalmum XLIV. Ibid. col.
993-1060.
3. An Exposition of the Lamentations of
Jeremiah. In Threnos sive Lamentationes Jeremiae. Ibid. col.
1059-1256. Ibid. col. 1220.
4. Faith, Hope and Love. De fide, spe et charitate. Migne, CXIX, col.
1387-1490. Ebert, l.c. 235.
5. Life of Adalhard, Vita Sancti Adalhardi, Migne. CXX. col. 1507-1556.
Ebert, l.c. 236-244, gives a fulI account of
Paschasius’ Lives of Adalhard and
Wala.
6. Life of Wala, Epitaphium Arsenii seu vita venerabilis Walae.
Migne, CXX. col. 1559-1650.
7. The Passion of Rufinus and Valerius, De Passione SS. Rufini et Valeri. Ibid. col.
1489-1508.
§ 174. Patramnus.
I. Ratramnus, Corbeiensis monachus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXXI. The treatise De corpore et sanguine Domini was first published by Johannes Praël under the title Bertrami presbyteri ad Carolum Magnum imperatorum, Cologne, 1532. It was translated into German, Zürich 1532, and has repeatedly appeared in English under the title, The Book of Bertram the Priest, London 1549, 1582, 1623, 1686, 1688 (the last two editions are by Hopkins and give the Latin text also), 1832; and Baltimore., U. S. A., 1843. The best edition of the original text is by Jacques Boileau, Paris, 1712, reprinted with all the explanatory matter in Migne.
II. For discussion and criticism see the modern works, Du Pin, VII. passim; Ceillier, XII. 555–568. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 332–351. Bähr, 471–479. Ebert, II. 244–247. Joseph Bach: Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, Wien, 1873–75, 2 parts (I. 193 sqq.); Joseph Schwane: Dogmengeschichte der mittleren Zeit, Freiburg in Br., 1882 (pp. 631 sqq.) Also Neander, III. 482, 497–501, 567–68.
Of Ratramnus Bertramnus, although a common variant, is due to a slip of
the pen on the put of a scribe and is therefore not an allowable
form.
He was not a prolific author. Only six treatises have come down to us.
1. A letter upon the cynocephali. Epistola de cynocephalis, Migne, CXXI. col.
1153-1156. “Nam et baptismi sacramentum divinitus illum consecutum
fuisse, nubis ministerio eum perfundente, sicut libellus ipse testatur,
creditur,” col. 1155.
2. How Christ was born. De eo quod Christus ex virgine natus est liber,
ibid. col. 81 [not 31, as in table of
contents]-102. Chap. I. col. 83. Chap. II. col. 84. Chap. VIII. col. 96. See Steitz in Herzog2(art.
Radbertus) XII. 482-483.
3. The soul (De anima). It exists in MS. in several English libraries, but has never been printed. It is directed against the view of Macarius (or Marianus) Scotus, derived from a misinterpreted sentence of Augustin that the whole human race had only one soul. The opinion was condemned by the Lateran council under Leo X. (1512–17).
4. Divine predestination. De praedestione Dei libri duo, Migne, CXXI. col.
11-80.
5. Four books upon the Greeks’
indictment of the Roman Church. Contra Graecorum opposita Romanam ecclesiam infamantium
libri quatuor, ibid. col. 225-346. IV. 1. Ibid. col. 303. It is instructive to compare the apology of Aeneas, bishop
of Paris (reprinted in the same vol. of Migne, col. 685-762), which is
a mere cento of patristic passages.
6. The Body and Blood of the Lord. De corpore et sanguine Domini liber. Ibid. col.
125-170. See p. 743. P. 543 sqq.
The book has had a strange fate. It failed to turn
the tide setting so strongly in favor of the views of Radbertus, and
was in the Middle Age almost forgotten. Later it was believed to be the
product of Scotus Erigena and as such condemned to be burnt by the
council of Vercelli (1050). The first person to use it in print was
John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, who in writing against Oecolampadius
quotes from it as good Catholic authority. De Verit. Corp. et sang. Christi contra OEcolampad.,
Cologne, 1527. Ruchat, Reform. de la Suisse, vol. iv. p. 207; ed.
Vulliemin, vol. iii. p. 122.
It remains but to add that in addition to learning, perspicuity and judgment Ratramnus had remarkable critical power. The latter was most conspicuously displayed in his exposure of the fraudulent character of the Apocryphal tale, De nativitate Virginis, and of the homily of Pseudo-Jerome, De assumptione Virginis, both of which Hincmar of Rheims had copied and sumptuously bound.
§ 175. Hincmar of Rheims.
I. Hincmarus, Rhemensis archiepiscopus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXXV.-CXXVI., col. 648. First collected edition by Sirmond. Paris, 1645.
II. Prolegomena in Migne, CXXV. Wolfgang Friedrich Gess: Merkwürdigkeiten aus dem Leben und Schriften Hincmars, Göttingen, 1806. Prichard: The life and times of Hincmar, Littlemore, 1849. Carl von Noorden: Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Rheims, Bonn, 1863. Loupot: Hincmar, évêque de Reins, sa vie, ses oeuvres, son influence, Reims, 1869. Auguste: Vidieu: Hincmar de Reims, Paris, 1875. Heinrich Schrörs: Hincmar, Erzbischof von Reims, Freiburg im Br., 1884 (588 pages).
III. Cf. also Flodoard: Historia ecclesia, Remensis, in Migne, CXXXV., col. 25–328 (Book III., col. 137–262, relates to Hincmar); French trans. by Lejeune, Reims, 1854, 2 vols. G. Marlot: Histoire de Reims, Reims, 1843–45, 3 vols. F. Monnier: Luttes politiques et religieuses sous les Carlovingiens, Paris, 1852. Max Sdralek: Hinkmar von Rheims kanonistisches Gutachten über die Ehescheidung des Königs Lothar II. Freiburg im Br., 1881. Du Pin, VII. 10–54. Ceillier, XII. 654–689, Hist. Lit. de la France, V., 544–594 (reprinted in Migne, CXXV. col. 11–44). Bähr, 507–523. Ebert, II. 247–257. Hefele: Conciliengeschichte, 2d ed. IV. passim.
Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, was born of noble and
distinguished ancestry, probably in the province of that name, Schrörs, l.c. p. 9. August 12, 844. See Schrörs, l.c. p.
26.
No sooner had he been established in his see and had secured from Charles the restitution of all property that belonged to it, than trouble broke out. His diocese had fallen into more or less disorder in consequence of the ten years which had elapsed between Ebo’s deposition and his election. Hincmar’s first trouble came from Ebo, who contested Hincmar’s election, on the ground that he was still archbishop. But the council of Paris in 846 affirmed Hincmar’s election, and, in 847, Leo IV. sent him the pallium. The first difficulty being overcome, a second presented itself. For a few months in 840 Ebo had occupied his old see by force, and during this time bid ordained several priests. Hincmar degraded them and the council of Soissons in 853 approved his act. But naturally his course was opposed. The leader of the malcontents was Wulfad, one of the deposed priests. The matter was not disposed of until 868, when Pope Hadrian decided practically in favor of the deposed priests, for while exonerating Hincmar of all blame, at the same time he confirmed the election of Wulfad (866) as archbishop of Bourges.
Another trouble came from Rothad, bishop of
Soissons, who had consecrated him, and who was one of his suffragans.
Rothad had deposed a priest, for unchastity and the deposition was
confirmed by an episcopal council. Hincmar took the ground that Rothad,
being only a suffragan bishop, had no right of deposition, and also no
right to call a council. He also brought formal charges of disobedience
against him and demanded the reinstatement of the deposed priest.
Rothad persistently refusing compliance was then himself deposed (861).
Both parties appealed to the pope, who at last (January 21, 865)
decided in Rothad’s favor and re-instated him. Hefele, IV. 292.
In 863 Hincmar refused to give his assent as metropolitan to the elevation of Hilduin, brother of Günther of Cologne, to the bishopric of Cambrai. Hilduin had been nominated to this position by Lothair, but Hincmar said that he was unfit, and the pope approved of his action.
His longest and hardest fight was with his nephew and namesake, Hincmar, bishop of Laon. The latter was certainly very insubordinate and disobedient both to his metropolitan and his king. In consequence Hincmar of Rheims deposed him (871) and the king took him prisoner and blinded him. Pope Hadrian II. (d. 872) defended him but accomplished nothing. Pope John VIII. also pleaded his cause, and in 878 gave him permission to recite mass. He died in 882.
These controversies, and those upon Predestination
and the Eucharist, and his persecution of Gottschalk, elsewhere treated
at length, See pp. 528 sqq; 552. See Hefele, IV. 507. The letter is in Migne, CXXIV. col.
881-896.
One of the most important facts about these
Hincmarian controversies is that in them for the first time the famous
pseudo-Isidorian decretals See pp. 268 sqq. See p. 750.
Hincmar was not only a valiant fighter, but also a faithful shepherd. He performed with efficiency all the usual duties of a bishop, such as holding councils, hearing complaints, settling difficulties, laying plans and carrying out improvements. He paid particular attention to education and the promotion of learning generally. He was himself a scholar and urged his clergy to do all in their power to build up the schools. He also gave many books to the libraries of the cathedral at Rheims and the monastery of St. Remi, and had many copied especially for them. His own writings enriched these collections. His attention to architecture was manifested in the stately cathedral of Rheims, begun by Ebo, but which he completed, and in the enlargement of the monastery of St. Remi.
The career of this extraordinary man was troubled to its very end. In 881 he came in conflict with Louis the Third by absolutely refusing to consecrate one of the king’s favorites, Odoacer, bishop of Beauvais. Hincmar maintained that he was entirely unfit for the office, and as the Pope agreed with him Odoacer was excommunicated. In the early part of the following year the dreaded Normans made their appearance in the neighborhood of Rheims. Hincmar bethought himself of the precious relics of St. Remi and removed them for safety’s sake to Epernay when he himself fled thither. There he died, Dec. 21, 882. He was buried two days after at Rheims.
Looking back upon Hincmar through the vista of ten centuries, he stands forth as the determined, irrepressible, tireless opponent of both royal and papal tyranny over the Church. He asserted the liberty of the Gallican Church at a time when the State on the one hand endeavored to absorb her revenues and utilize her clergy in its struggles and wars, and the Pope on the other hand strove to make his authority in ecclesiastical matters supreme. That Hincmar was arrogant, relentless, self-seeking, is true. But withal he was a pure man, a stern moralist, and the very depth and vigor of his belief in his own opinions rendered him the more intolerant of the opinions of opponents, as of those of the unfortunate Gottschalk. The cause he defended was a just and noble one, and his failure to stem the tide setting toward anarchy in Church and State was fraught with far-reaching consequences.
His Writings.
His writings reveal his essentially practical
character. They are very numerous, but usually very short. In contents
they are designed for the most part to answer a temporary purpose. This
makes them all the more interesting to the historian, but in the same
degree of less permanent importance. The patristic learning they
exhibit is considerable, and the ability great; but the circumstances
of his life as prelate precluded him from study and quiet thought, so
he was content to rely upon the labors of others and reproduce and
adapt their arguments and information to his own design. Only the more
important can be here mentioned. Some twenty-three writings are known
to be lost. See Hist. Lit. de la France, l.c. The philosophical
treatise De diversa et multiplici animae ratione (Migne, CXXV. col.
929-952) is probably falsely attributed to him. Cf. Ebert, l.c.
p. 250.
I. Writings in the Gottschalk Controversy. See pp. 528 sqq.
1. The first was in 855, Divine Predestination and
the Freedom of the Will. It was in three books. All has perished,
except the prefatory epistle to Charles the Bald. Migne, CXXV. col. 49-56.
2. At the request of this king he wrote a second
treatise upon the same subject. De Praedestinatione, ibid. col.
55-474.
3. In 857 he refuted the charge made against him
by Gottschalk and Ratramnus that in altering a line of a hymn from “Te,
trina Deitas,” to “Te, sancta Deitas,” he showed a Sabellian leaning. Collectio de una et non trina Deitate, ibid. col.
473-618.
II. Writings in the Hincmar of Laon Controversy. Opuscula et epistolae in causa Hincmari Laudunensis,
Migne, CXXVI. col. 279-648.
III. Writings relative to political and social affairs.
1. The divorce of king Lothair and queen
Theutberga. De divortio Lotharii regis et Tetbergae reginae,
Migne, CXXV. col. 619-772. See especially Inter. vi., xvii., xviii.,
ibid. col. 659-673, 726-730.
2. Addresses and prayers at the coronation of
Charles the Bald, his son Louis II. the Stammerer, his daughter Judith,
and his wife Hermintrude. Coronationes regiae ibid. col.
803-818.
3. The personal character of the king and the
royal administration. De regis persona et regio ministerio, ibid. col.
833-856. See preface, col. 833, 834.
(a) the royal person and office in general [chaps.
1–15]; (b) the discretion to be shown in the
administration of justice [chaps. 16–28]; (c) the duty
of a king in the unsparing punishment of rebels against God, the Church
and the State, even though they be near relatives [chaps.
29–33]. It was composed in a time of frequent
rebellion, and therefore the king had need to exercise severity as well
as gentleness in dealing with his subjects. Ebert (II. 251) accordingly finds the explanation of the
treatise in its third division.
4. The vices to be shunned and the virtues to be
exercised. De cavendiis vitiis et virtutibus exercendio, ibid.
col. 857-930.
5, 6. Treatises upon rape, a common offense in
those lawless days. De coercendis militum rapinis, and De
coërcendo et exstirpando raptu viduarum puellarum ac
sanctimonialium, ibid. col. 953-956, 1017-1036.
7. To the noblemen of the Kingdom for the
instruction of King Carloman Ad proceres regni, ibid. col.
993-1008.
IV. Writings upon ecclesiastical affairs. 1. The
Capitularies of 852, 874, 877, 881. Capitula, ibid. col. 773-804,
1069-1086. Pro ecclesiae libertatum defensione ibid. col.
1035-1070.
3. The crimination of priests, a valuable treatise
upon the way in which their trials should be conducted, as shown by
synodical decrees and quotations from Gregory the Great and others. De presbyteris criminosis, ibid. col.
1093-1110.
4. The case of the presbyter Teutfrid, who had
stolen Queen Imma’s tunic, a golden girdle set with
gems, an ivory box, and other things. De causa Teutfridi presbyteri, ibid. col.
1111-1116.
V. Miscellaneous. 1. Exposition of De verbis Psalmi: Herodii domus dux est eorum, ibid.
col. 957-962.
2. The vision of Bernold. De visione Bernoldi presbyteri, ibid. col.
1115-1120. See , 169, p. 732.
3. The life of St. Remigius, Vita Sanctii Remigii, Migne. CXXV. col.
1129-1188. Encomium ejusdem S. Remigii, ibid. col.
1187-1198. Ebert. l.c. p. 256.
4. Hincmar appears as a genuine historian in the
third part of the Bertinian Annals, Annalium Bertinianorum pars tertia, Migne, CXXV.
col. 1203-1302. Reprint f Pertz, “Monum. Germ. Hist. Script.” I.
455-515. Ebert, l.c. 367, 868.
5. Letters. Epistolae, Migne, CXXVI. col.
9-280.
6. Poems.. Carmina, Migne, CXXV. col. 1201-1202. There are a
few verses elsewhere in Migne, and a poem on the Virgin Mary in Mai,
“Class. auctori e Vaticanis codicibus, ” 452
sqq. Ebert, l.c. 257.
§ 176. Johannes Scotus Erigena.
I. Johannes Scotus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXXII. (1853). H. J. Floss prepared this edition, which is more complete than any other, for Migne’s series. The De divisione naturae was separately edited by C. B. Schlüter, Münster, 1838, who reprints in the same vol. (pp. 593–610) thirteen religious poems of Scotus as edited by Cardinal Mai (Class. Auct. V. 426 sqq.). B. Hauréau has edited Scotus’s commentary on Marcianus Capella, Paris, 1861; and Cardinal Mai, his commentary on the Heavenly Hierarchy of Dionysius Areopagita in Appendix at opera edita ab Mai, Rome, 1871. There is an excellent German translation of the De Div. Nat. by L. Noack (Erigena über die Eintheilung der Natur, mit einer Schlussabhandlung Berlin, 1870–4, Leipzig, 1876, 3 pts.),
II. Besides the Prolegomena and notes of the works already mentioned, see Peder Hjort: J. S. E., oder von dem Ursprung einer christlichen Philosophie und ihrem heiligen Beruf, Copenhagen, 1823. F. A. Staudenmaier: J. S. E., u. d. Wissenschaft s. Zeit., vol. I. (all published), Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1834. St. Réné Taillandier: S. E. et la philosophie scholastique, Strasbourg, 1843. N. Möller: J. S. E. u. s. Irrthümer, Mayence, 1844. Theodor Christlieb Leben u. Lehre d. J. S. E., Gotha, 1860; comp. also his article in Herzog,2 XIII. 788–804 (1884). Johannes Huber: J. S. E. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Philosophie und Theologie im Mittelalter, Munich, 1861. A. Stöckl: De J. S. E., Münster, 1867. O. Hermens: Das Leben des J. S. E., Jena, 1869. R. Hoffmann: De J. S. E. vita et doctrina, Halle, 1877 (pp. 37). Cf. Baur: Geschichte der Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, II. 263–344. Dorner: Gesch. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi, II. 344–359. Neander, III. 461–466.
III. On particular points. Torstrick: Philosophia Erigenae; 1. Trinitatis notio, Göttingen, 1844. Francis Monnier: De Gothescalci et J. S. E. controversia, Paris, 1853. W. Kaulich: Das speculative System des J S. E., Prag, 1860. Meusel: Doctrina J. S. E. cum Christiana comparavit, Budissae (Bautzen), 1869. F. J. Hoffmann: Der Gottes u. Schöpfungsbegriff des J. S. E., Jena, 1876. G. Anders: Darstellung u. Kritik d. Ansicht dass d. Kategorien nicht auf Gott anwendbar seien, Sorau, 1877 (pp. 37). G. Buchwald: Der Logosbegriff de J. S. E., Leipzig, 1884. For his logic see Prantl: Geschichte d. Logik im Abendlande, Leipzig, 1855–70, 4 vols. (II. 20–37). For his philosophy in general see B. Hauréau: Histoire de la philosophie scholastique, Paris, 1850, 2 vols., 2d ed. 1872–81, (chap. viii). F. D. Maurice: Mediaeval Philosophy, London, 1856, 2d ed. 1870 (pp. 45–79). F. Ueberweg: History of Philosophy, Eng. trans. I., 358–365. Reuter.: Geschichte d. religiösen Aufklärung im Mittelalter, Berlin, 1875–1877, 2 vols. (I. 51–64). J. Bass Mullinger.: The Schools of Charles the Great, London, 1877 (pp. 171–193). Also Du Pin, VII. 82–84. Ceillier, XII. 605–609. Hist. Lit. de la France, V. 416–429. Bähr., 483–500. Ebert, II. 257–267.
His Life.
Of Johannes Scotus Erigena, philosopher and theologian, one of the great men of history, very little is known. His ancestry, and places of birth, education, residence and death are disputed. Upon only a few facts of his life, such as his position at the court of Charles the Bald, and his literary works, can one venture to speak authoritatively.
He was born in Ireland See supplementary note to this section. He even stood on a very familiar footing if the story of
Matthew of Paris mentioned on p. 539 may be credited. Cf Matthew Paris,
Chronica major, ed. Luard, pp. 415 sq. His affinity with Maximus has been shown by Baur and
Dorner. Ueberweg, l.c. p. 359. See full account in this vol. pp. 539 sqq. and 551
sqq.
His Writings.
Besides the treatise upon Predestination and the
translation of Dionysius, already discussed, These works are in Migne, CXXII. col. 355-440, and col.
1029-1194.
1. A translation of the Obscurities of Gregory
Nazianzen, by Maximus Confessor. Versio Ambiguorum S. Maximi. Migne, CXXII. col.
1193-1222.
2. Expositions of the Heavenly Hierarchy, the,
Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and the Mystical Theology of Dionysius. Expositiones super ierarchiam coelestem S. Dionysii,
etc. Ibid. col. 125-284.
3. Homily upon the prologue to
John’s Gospel. Homilia in prologum S. Evangelii secundum Joannem.
Ibid. col. 283-296.
4. A commentary upon John’s
Gospel. Commentarius in S. Evangelium secundum Joannem.
Ibid. col. 297-548.
5. A commentary upon the Dialectic of Martianus
Capella. This has been published by Hauréau. See Lit., p. 762.
6. The outgoing and in-coming of a soul to God. Liber de egressu et regressu animae ad Deum. Migne,
CXXII. co.,1023, 1024.
7 The vision of God. This is in MS. at St. Omer and not yet printed.
8. Verses. Ibid. Verses, col.
1221-1240.
9. The great work of Scotus Erigena is The
Division of Nature. Περὶφύσεωςμερισμοῦ. Id est, de divisione naturae.
Ibid.col.
411-1022. V. 40, ibid. col. 1022, I. 13.
His Theological Teaching.
In the Division of Nature Scotus Erigena has
embodied his theology and philosophy. By the term “Nature” he means all
that is and is not. Est igitur natura generale nomen ut diximus, omnium quae
sunt et quae non sunt.”De Div. Nat. I. Ibid. col.
441, l. 10. I. 3-7. Cf Ueberweg, l.c., p. 361. Metaph. XII. 7; cf. Augustin, who mentions the first
three forms,
One of the fundamental ideas of his theology is
the identity of true philosophy and true religion. Both have the same
divine source. “Ambo siquidem ex uno fonte, divina videlicet sapientia,
manare dubium non est.”De div. Nat. I. 66, Migne, ed. col.
511, l. 28. Ibid. II. 16, col 548. IV. 16. col. 816, cf. col.
829. Ibid. IV. 5, col. 749. 2 “Septuaginta prae manibus non habemus.” Migne col.
243. Neander, III. p. 462.
The doctrinal teaching of Scotus Erigena can be reduced, as he himself states, to three heads. (1) God, the simple and at the same time the multiform cause of all things; (2) Procession from God, the divine goodness showing itself in all that is, from general to particular; (3) Return to God, the manifold going back into the one.
First Head. God, or Nature, which creates but is
not created. a. The Being of God in itself considered. God is the
essence of all things, alone truly is, “Ipse namque omnium essentia est, qui solus vere
est.” Migne, Ibid. I.3 (col. 443). “Est igitur principium, medium et finis.” I. 11(col.
451). “Dem per seipsum incomprehensibilis
est!’ I. 10 (col. 451). I. 14 (col. 459). II. 28 (col. 593). For a discussion of this point see
Christlieb, J. 8 B., pp. 168-176. De div. Nat. I. 13 (col. 455). Ueberweg, l.c.
, p. 361. De div. Nat. II. 33 (col. 612). III. 10 (col. 650). This is the remark of the “disciple,”
but the “master” does not contradict it. Cf. III. 17, V. 30; I.
13. I. 7, 8 (cols. 445448). Igitur omnis theophania, id est omnis virtus, et in hac
vita et in futura vita,“I. 9 (col. 449). I. 7, 8, 13 (cols. 445-448, 454-459).
2. The Procession from God or Nature. a. Nature
which creates and is created, or the primordial ideas of the world and
their unity in the Logos. God is the nature and essence of the world.
Creation is the effect of the divine nature, which as cause eternally
produces its effects, indeed is itself in the primordial ideas the
first forms and grounds of things. III. 23 (col. 689). II. 15, 22 (cols. 545-548, 562-566, especially col.
566).
b. Nature, which is created and does not create,
or the phenomenal world and its union in man. In the Logos all things
existed from eternity. Creation is their appearance in time. The
principle of the development of the primordial ideas is the Holy
Spirit. II. 22 (col. 566). III. 19 (col. 680). I. 27, 56-58 (col. 474, 475; 498-501). II. 9 (col. 536). “Intellectus omnium est omnia,” III.4 (col. 632, 1.3
Fr. bel.). ”Intellectus rerum veraciter ipsae res sunt,” II. 8
(col. 535). IV. 7 (cols. 762-772), e.g. ”In homine omnis creatura
substantialiter creata sit.”(col. 772). IV. 7 (col. 762-772).
Paradise is to be interpreted spiritually. Adam is
not so much an historical personage as the human race in its
preëxistent condition. Man was never sinless, for sin, as a
limitation and defect, is not accidental or temporal, but original in
the creation and nature of man. IV. 14 (col. 807, 808).
c. The union of divinity and created existence, or
the Godman. Scotus Erigena shows upon this point the duality
of’ his system. On the one hand he presents Christ as
an historical character, with body, mind, soul, spirit, in short the
union of the entire sensible and intellectual qualities of the
creature. “’Corpus quippe,’
inquit, ’et sensum et animam secundum nos
habens,’ Christus videlicet, ’et
intellectum:’ His enim veluti quatuor partibus humana
natura constituitur.” II. 13 (col. V. 25 (col. 912). V. 25 (col. 912).
3. The return to God, or the completion of the
world in Nature, which creates not and is not created. a. The return to
God according to its pre-temporal idea, or the doctrine of
predestination. There is only one true predestination, viz. to
holiness. There is no foreknowledge of the bad. God has completest
unity and simplicity; hence his being is not different from his
knowledge and will; and since he has full liberty, the organization of
his nature is free. But this organization is at the same time to the
world law and government, i.e. its predestination; and because God is
himself goodness, the predestination can only be to good. The very
character of wickedness,—it is opposed to God, not
substantial in nature, a defect mixed up with the good, transitory, yet
essential to the development of the world,—renders it
unreal and therefore not an object of divine knowledge. God does not
know the bad as such, but only as the negation of the good.
“God’s knowledge is the revelation of his essence, one
and the same thing with his willing and his creating. As evil cannot be
derived from the divine causality, neither can it be considered as an
object of divine knowledge.” Neander, l.c. III. p. 465. “Nullum peccatum est quod non se ipsum puniat, occulte
tamen in hoe vita, aperte vero in altera, quae est futura.” De Divina
Praedestinatione, XVI. vi. (col. 4236) “Sicut enim Deus electorum, quos praedestinavit ad
gratiam, liberavit voluntatem, eamque caritatis suae affectibus
implevit, ut non solum intra fines aeternae legis gaudeant contineri,
sed etiam ipsos transire nec velle, nec posse maxi mum suae gloriae
munus esse non dubitent: ita reproborum, quos praedestinavit ad poenam
turpissimam, coercet voluntatem, ut e contrario, quicquid illis
pertinet ad gandium beatae viae, istis vertatur in supplicium
miseriae.” De div. Praed. XVIII. vii. (col. 434), cf. XVII. i.
v.
b. The return of all things to God considered
according to their temporal principles, or the doctrine of salvation.
There are only a few scattered remarks upon this subject in Scotus
Erigena. Christ is the Saviour by what he is in himself, not by what he
does. His death is important as the means of resurrection; which began
with the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, because then all things
began to return to their union in their primordial causes, and this
return constitutes salvation. The consequences of salvation are
therefore felt by angels as well as men, and even by inanimate
things. “Nonne Verbum assumens hominem, omnem creaturam
visibilem et invisibilem accepit, et totum, quod in homine accepit
salvum fecit.” De div. Nat. V. 25 (col. 913). “Commune ommium, quae facta sunt, quodam veluti interitu
redire in causas, quae in Deo subsistunt; proprium vero intellectualis
et raitonalis substantiae, unum cum Deo virtute contemplationis, et
Deus per gratiam fieri. ” V. 21 (col. 898).
c. The return of all things to God considered
according to their future completion. All things came out from God, all
things go back to God. This is the law of creation. The foundation of
this return is the return of man to the Logos. The steps are, 1st,
deliverance from the bodily forms; 2d, resurrection and the abrogation
of sex; 3d, the transformation of body into spirit; 4th, the return to
the primordial causes; 5th, the recession of nature, along with these
causes, into God. But this, of course, implies that God alone will
exist forever, and that there can be no eternal punishment. Scotus
Erigena tries in vain to escape both these logical conclusions. II. 6, 8, V. 7, 8, 3-6. Cf. Christlieb, l.c. p.
802.
His Philosophy.
Ueberweg thus states Scotus
Erigena’s philosophical position and teachings: I. pp. 360, 363, 364.
“The most noteworthy features in his theory of the categories are his doctrine of the combination of the categories with each other, and his attempt to subsume them under the conceptions of motion and rest; as also his identification of the categories of place with definition in logic, which, he says, is the work of the understanding. The dialectical precepts which relate to the form or method of philosophising are not discussed by him in detail; the most essential thing in his regard is the use of the four forms, called by the Greeks division, definition, demonstration and analysis. Under the latter he understands the reduction of the derivative and composite to the simple, universal and fundamental; but uses the term also in the opposite to denote the unfolding of God in creation.”
His Influence and Importance.
Scotus Erigena was considered a heretic or a
madman while he lived, and this fact joined to the other that his views
were far in advance of his age, caused his influence to be at first
much less than might have been expected. He passed into almost complete
obscurity before he died, as the conflicting reports of his later years
show. Yet he did wield a posthumous influence. His idea of the unity of
philosophy and theology comes up in Anselm and Thomas Aquinas; his
speculation concerning primordial causes in Alexander of Hales and
Albertus Magnus. From him Amalrich of Bena, and David of Dinanto drew
their pantheism; and various mystical sects of the Middle Ages were
inspired by him. The Church, ever watchful for orthodoxy, perceived
that his book, De Divisione Naturae, was doing mischief. Young persons,
even in convents read it eagerly. Everywhere it attracted notice.
Accordingly a council, at Sens, formally condemned it, and then the
Pope (Honorius III.) ordered, by a bull of Jan. 23, 1225, the
destruction of all copies that could be found, styling it “a book
teeming with the worms of heretical depravity.” The full text of the bull is given by Floss, Migne, CXXII.
col. 439.
Scotus Erigena was a man of rare originality and
mental vigor. His writings are full of ideas and bold arguments. His
strongly syllogistic mode of developing his theme was all his own, and
the emphasis he put upon logic proves his superiority to his age.
Unlike the scholastics, who meekly bowed to tradition, he treated it
with manly independence. To his “disciple” he said: “Let no authority
terrify thee. De div. Nat. I. 66 (col. 511). In the line of Spinoza, Schelling, and especially Hegel. On
the other band be sums up the ancient philosophy in its Christianized
shape. “Ein organisch gegliedertes, die höchsten speculativen
Ideen umfassendes System.”L.c. II. 274.
Note on the country of birth and death of Scotus Erigena.
The statement that John was born in Ireland rests
upon the interpretation of his name. Scotus is indefinite, since it was
used of both Ireland and Scotland, the former country being called
Scotia Major. But Erigena is most probably a corruption of
JIerou’ [sc. nhvsou] gena, Hierugena, which John, with
his fondness for using Greek words on all occasions, added to his
original name to indicate his birth in the “holy isle,” or “isle of
saints,” a common designation of Ireland. The derivation is the more
probable since he himself calls Maximus Confessor Graiga-gena, to
indicate the latter’s birth in Greece. By his
contemporaries and in the oldest codices he is called Joannes Scotus or
Scottus, So Pope Nicolas I. (Epist. cxv. in Migne, Patrol.
Lat. CX [X. col. 11 19); Prudentius (De Praedestinatione contra
J. Scotum, in Migne, CXV. col. 1011), and the council of Langres
(859). Christlieb in Herzog2vol.
xiii. p. 789.
The absence of authentic information to the contrary makes it probable that Scotus Erigena died in France. But there is a tradition that he was called by Alfred the Great into England and made abbot of Malmesbury, and there died a violent death at the hands of his scholars. It is inherently improbable that a conservative and loyal son of the church like Alfred, would invite to any position so eccentric, if not heretical, a man as Scotus Erigena. Charles the Bald died in 877. It is not likely that Erigena would leave France before that date, but then he was at least sixty-two, and hence rather old to change his residence. A reference to Asser’s biography of King Alfred affords a rational explanation of the tradition. Asser says that Alfred invited from Gaul a priest and monk named John, who was remarkable for energy, talent and learning, in order that the king might profit by his conversation. A few pages further on, Asser calls this John an old Saxon, and says that Alfred appointed him the first abbot of Athelney, and that he was almost murdered by hired ruffians. Mon. Hist. Brit. vol. i. [1848], pp. 489, 493, 4 Eng. trans. Six Old English Chronicles in Bohn’s “Antiquarian Library,” pp. 70, 80, 81. It needed only that the fame of John Scotus should reach England for the John of Asser’s biography to be confounded with him, and thus the story arose as it is found in Ingulph, William of Malmesbury, and Matthew Paris.
§ 177. Anastasius.
I. Anastasius Bibliothecarius: Opera omnia in Migne, Tom. CXXVII.-CXXIX. col. 744.
II. The Prolegomena in Migne, CXXVII. Ceillier, XII. 712–718. Bähr, 261–271.
Anastasius, librarian of the Roman Church, hence surnamed the “Librarian,” to distinguish him from others of the same name, was abbot of the monastery of Sancta Maria trans Tiberim under Nicolas I. (858–867). He was sent in 869 to Constantinople as ambassador to arrange a marriage between the daughter of Louis II. and a son of Basil the Macedonian. While there the eighth oecumenical council was in session, and by his knowledge of Greek he was very useful to the Papal ambassador in attendance. He brought back with him the canons of the council and at the request of Hadrian II. translated them into Latin. He died, according to Baronius, in 886.
He has been identified by some (e.g. Fabricius Bib. Lat. med., Hamburg, 1734, I.
230. Photius, II. 230-240. Wetzer u. Welte, 2d ed. 1.
col. 788-792.
The fame of Anastasius rests upon his numerous
translations from the Greek and his supposed connection with the Liber
Pontificalis. Migne, CXXVII. col. 103-CXXVIII. Migne, CXXIX. col. 27-512. Those of the sixth council are
unprinted. Idem. col. 511-554. Collecteana. Idem. col. 557-714. Idem. col. 713-738.
His original writings now extant consist of a
valuable historical introduction to the translation of the canons of
the Eighth Oecumenical Council, a preface to that of the Collectanea,
three letters (two to Charles the Bald and one to archbishop Ado), Idem. col. 737-742. CXXVIII. col. 1357-1378.
§ 178. Ratherius of Verona.
I. Ratherius, Veronensis episcopus: Opera omnia, in Migne, Tom. CXXXVI. col. 9–768 (reprint of ed. by Peter and, Jerome Balterini, Verona, 1765).
II. See Vita by Ballerini in Migne, l.c. col. 27–142. Albrecht Vogel: Ratherius von Verona und das 10. Jahrhundert. Jena, 1854, 2 vols. Cf. his art. in Herzog2, XII. 503–506. Du Pin, VIII. 20–26.Ceillier, XII. 846–860. Hist. de la France, VI. 339–383. Bähr, 546–553.
Ratherius (Rathier) was born of noble ancestry at or near Liège in 890 (or 891) and educated at the convent of Lobbes. He became a monk, acquired much learning and in 931 was consecrated bishop of Verona. By his vigorous denunciation of the faults and failings of his clergy, particularly of their marriages or, as he called them, adulteries, he raised a storm of opposition. When Arnold of Bavaria took Verona (934), king Hugo of Italy deposed him for alleged connivance with Arnold and held him a close prisoner at Pavia from February, 935, until August, 937, when he was transferred to the oversight of the bishop of Como.
In the early part of 941 Ratherius escaped to Southern France, was tutor in a rich family of Provence, and in 944 re-entered the monastery of Lobbes. Two years later he was restored to his see of Verona; whence he was driven again in 948. From 953 to 955 he was bishop of Liège. On his deposition he became abbot of Alna, a dependency of the monastery of Lobbes, where he stirred up a controversy upon the eucharist by his revival of Paschasian views. In 961 he was for the third time bishop of Verona, but having learned no moderation from his misfortunes he was forced by, his indignant clergy to leave in 968. He returned to Liège and the abbotship of Alna. By money he secured other charges, and even for a year (971) forcibly held the abbotship of Lobbes. On April 25, 974, he died at the court of the count of Namur.
Ratherius “deserves in many respects to be styled
the Tertullian of his time.” Neander, Hist. Chr. Ch. III. 469.
1. The Combat, also called Preliminary discourses,
in six books. Agnosticon or Libri Proeloquiorum. Migne,
CXXXVI. col. 145-344.
2. On contempt for canonical law. De contemptu canonum. Ibid. col.
485-522.
3. A conjecture of a certain quality. Qualitatis conjectura cujusdam. Ibid. col.
521-550. Epistolae. Ibid. col. 643-688. Sermones.
Ibid. col. 689-758.
§ 179. Gerbert (Sylvester II.).
I. Silvester II. Papa (Gerbertus): Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXXXIX. col. 57–350. Contains also the biographical and literary notices of Natalis Alexander, Fabricius, and the Bened. Hist. Lit. de la France. OEuvres de Gerbert par A. Olleris. Clermont, 1867. Pertz: Monum. Germ. Tom. V. Script. III. contains Gerberti archiep. Remensis Acta Concilii Remensis, and the Libri IV. Historiarum of Richerus monachus S. Remigii. Richer was a pupil of Gerbert, and his history of France was first edited by Pertz.
II. Abr. Bzovius: Sylvester vindicatus. Rom., 1629. Hist. Lit. de la France, VI., 559–614. C. F. Hock: Gerbert oder Papst Sylvester und sein Jahrh. Wien, 1837. Max Büdinger: Ueber Gerberts wissenschaftl. und polit. Stellung. Marburg, 1851. Gfrörer: Allgem. Kirchengeschichte, Bd. III. Abth. 3. Wilmanns: Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter Otto III. Berlin, 1840. Giesebrecht: Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, Bd. I. 613–616; 712–715: 842 (3d ed. 1865). Hefele: Conciliengesch. Bd. IV. 637 and passim. (2d ed. 1879). A. Olleris: Vie de Gerbert. Clermont-Ferrand, 1867. Eduard Barthelémy: Gerbert, étude sur sa vie et ses ouvrages, suivie de la traduction de ses lettres. Paris, 1868. Loupot: Gerbert, sa vie et ses écrits. Lille, 1869. Karl Werner: Gerbert von Aurillac. Wien, 1878. Hauck: Silvester II., in Herzog, XIV. 233–240. Comp. also Ceillier, XII. 901–9II. Neander: III. 371–374, and Reuter: Aufklärung in Mittelalter, I. 78–84.
Gerbert, the scholar and philosopher in the Fisherman’s chair, and the brightest light in the darkness of the tenth century was born before 950, of low parentage, in or near Aurilac in Auvergne, and educated as a monk in the Benedictine convent of that place. He accompanied Count Borel of Barcelona to Spain and acquired there some knowledge of Arabic learning, but probably only through Latin translations. He also visited Rome (968) in company of his patron Borel, and attracted the attention of Pope John XIII., who recommended him to Emperor Otho the Great. He afterwards became the tutor and friend of the youthful Otho III., and inspired him with the romantic and abortive scheme of re-establishing the Graeco-Roman empire of Constantine the Great in the city of Rome. He was ambitious and fond of basking in the sunshine of imperial and royal favor.
Gerbert became master of the cathedral school of
Rheims and acquired great fame as a scholar and teacher. He collected
rare and valuable books on every subject. He was intensely interested
in every branch of knowledge, divine and human, especially in
mathematics, astronomy, physics, and music; he first introduced the
Arabic numerals and the decimal notation into France, and showed his
scientific and mechanical genius by the construction of astronomical
instruments and an organ blown by steam. At the same time he was a man
of affairs, a statesman and politician. Giesebrecht (I. 615) says of Gerbert: ”Er gehörte zu den
seltenen Gelehrten, die in den weltlichen Dingen gleich heimisch sind,
wie in dem Reich der Ideen, die von unbegrenzter
Empfänglichkeit sich jeden Stoff aneignen, leicht alle
Verhältnisse durchschauen und bemeistern, denen die
Hülfsmittel des Geistes nie versiegen, und deren
Kräfte auch die zerstreuteste Thätigkeit kaum
erschöpft.”
In 972 he obtained through imperial favor the
abbey, of Bobbio, but was involved in contentions with the neighboring
nobles and left in disgust, though retaining his dignity. “All Italy,”
he wrote to a friend, “appears to me a Rome, and the morals of the
Romans are the horror of the world.” He returned to his position at
Rheims, attracted pupils from near and far and raised the cathedral
school to the height of prosperity. He was the secretary of the council
held in the basilica of St. Basolus near Rheims in 991, and gave shape
to the flaming speech of the learned bishop Arnulf of Orleans against
the assumptions and corruptions of the papacy. See above, p. 290 sqq. Baronius declares this synod a
fiction of Gerbert, and makes him responsible for the sentiments, the
Benedictine editors of the Hist. Lit. only for the style, of the acts,
“qui est
beaucoup au-dussus de celuis de quantité d’
autres écrits du mème
temps.” The acts
were first published in the Magdeburg Centuries, and then by Mansi and
Pertz. See Hefele, IV. 647 sq. Richer says Senlis (in the province of Rheims); Aimons, his
continuator says Rheims. The acts of that synod are lost. See Hefele,
IV. 646.
“Scandit ab R. Gerbertus in R., fit postea papa vigens R.”
As Gerbert of Rheims he had advocated liberal
views and boldly attacked the Roman Antichrists who at that time were
seated in the temple of God; but as Sylvester II. he disowned his
Gallican antecedents and supported the claims of the papacy. Hefele (IV. 654) assumes a gradual change in his views on
the papal power in consequence of deeper reflection and bitter
experience, and applies to him the words of Pius II.: ”Aeneam
rejicite, Pium recipite.” Reuter says (I. 84): ”Der Heros der
Aufklärung wurde, der Repräsentant der auf
übernatürlichem Fundament basirten
Autorität.” But Gerbert was a strong supernaturalist before that time, as
his book on the Lord’s Supper proves. His controversy
with the papacy had nothing to do with doctrine any more than the
controversy between Gallicanism and Ultramontanism. It was simply a
question as to the extent of papal jurisdiction. See above, p. 295 sq.
His character has been very differently judged.
The papal biographers of the later middle ages malignantly represent
him as a magician in league with the devil, and his life and
pontificate as a series of monstrous crimes. Döllinger, in his Papstfabeln des
Mittelalters (English transl. ed. by Henry B. Smith, pp. 267-272),
devotes several pages to this fable, and tram it to Rome and to
Cardinal Benno, the calumnious enemy of Gregory VII., who was likewise
accused of black arts. According to Benno, Satan promised his pupil
Gerbert that he should not die till he had said mass in Jerusalem.
Gerbert thought himself safe till he should get to Palestine; but when
he read mass in the Jerusalem church (Santa Croce in Jersalemme)
at Rome, he was summoned to die, and caused his tongue and hand to be
cut off by way of expiation. The Dominicans adopted the myth, and
believed that Gerbert early sold himself to Satan, was raised by him to
the papal throne, and had daily intercourse with him, but confessed at
last his enormous crimes, and showed his repentance by hacking off one
limb after another. Since that time the rattling of his bones in the
tomb gives notice of the approaching death of the
pope. So especially Gfrörer, partly also Hauck. But
Hock, Büdinger and Damberger defend his character and
orthodoxy. Neander, Hefele, Giesebrecht deal justly with
him.
His literary labors are chiefly mathematical. 502 “Lesavoir dominant de Gerbert était la science des
mathematiques.”
(Hist. Lit. de la France.) He wrote De numerorum divisione; De
geometria; De spherae constructione; De Rationali et Ratione
uti, etc. See
Migne, l.c. 125 sqq. In Migne, col. 179-188. Comp. above, p.
552. De Corp. et Sang. D. c. 7 (col. 185): ”Ecce
quantum fides proficit, ubi sermo deficit.”
In his sermon De informatione episcoporum, if
genuine, Olleris and Giesebrecht doubt the
genuineness. L.c. col. 170: ”Sublimitas episcopalis nullis
poterit comparationibus aequari. Si regum compares infulas et principum
diademata, longe erit inferius, quasi plumbi metallum ad auri fulgorem
compares.’’ L.c. col. 171, in explaining ”Pasce oves meas
“ (
His Epistles to popes, emperors, kings, queens,
archbishops and other dignitaries., shed light on the history of the
times, and show his high connections, and his genius for politics and
intrigue. Migne, col. 201-286. “Dominae et gloriosae Adelaidi reginae semper Augustae
Gerbertus, gratia Domini Remorum episcopus, et omnibus suis
confratribus et coëpiscopis Remorum dioeceseos, bene valere
in Christo.” Migne, 242-244. Mansi, XIX. 242; Hefele, IV. 654.
§ 180. Fulbert of Chartres.
I. Sanctus Fulbertus, Carnotensis episcopus: Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXLI. col. 163–374. They were first printed by Masson at Paris, 1585.
II. Du Pin, IX. 1–6. Ceillier, XIII. 78–89. Hist. Lit. de la France, VII. 261–279 (reprinted in Migne, l.c. col. 167–184). Neander III. passim. Reuter: Gesch. der Rel. Aufklärung in Mittelalter (1875), I. 89–91. J. B. Souchet: Hist. du diocèse et de, la ville de Chartres. Chartres, 1867–1876.4 vols. Cf. Karl Werner: Gerbert von Aurillac. Wien, 1878. A. Vogel in Herzog2 IV. 707 sq.
The most distinguished pupils of Gerbert were the Emperor Otho III., King Robert of France, Richer, the historian of France, and Fulbert of Chartres, the most renowned teacher of his age. They represent the rise of a new zeal for learning which began to dispel the darkness of the tenth century. France took the lead, Italy followed.
Fulbert, called by his admiring disciples “the
Socrates of the Franks,” was born of poor and obscure parents, probably
at Chartres, about 950, and educated in the cathedral school of Rheims
by Gerbert. He founded a similar school at Chartres, which soon
acquired a brilliant reputation and rivalled that of Rheims. About 1003
he was elected chancellor of the church of Chartres, and in 1007 its
bishop. When the cathedral burned down (1020), he received
contributions from all parts of France and other countries for its
reconstruction, but did not live to finish it. He was involved in the
political and ecclesiastical disturbances of his country, opposed the
use of the sword by the bishops, and the appropriation of church
property, and sale of offices by the avaricious laity. He lost the
favor of the court by his opposition to the intrigues of Queen
Constantia. He died April 10, 1029. An epitaph (in Migne, l.c. 165) describes Fulbert as
“suae tempestatis [sui temporis] pontificum decus, lux praeclara
mundo a Deo data, pauperum sustentator, desolatorum consolator,
praedonum et latronuin refrenator, vir eloquentissimus, et
sapientissimus tam in divinis quam in liberalium artium libris“
There is also an epitaph in poetry, l.c. col.
171.
Fulbert’s fame rests chiefly on
his success as a living teacher. This is indicated by his surname. “Venerabilis ille Socrates“ he is called by
Adelmann. Reuter (I. 89) characterizes him very well:
“Ein
ungewöhnliches pädagogisches Talent ist sicher
demjenigen eigen gewesen, welchen die bewundernden Schüler
den Socrates der Franken nannten. Die Persönlichkeit war
ungleich grösser als die wissenschaftliche Leistung, das
individuell Anfassende bedeutsamer als die materielle Unterweisung.
Nicht fähig originelle Gedanken zu entwickeln und
mitzutheilen, hat Fulbert als Bildner der Eigenthümlichkeit
begabter Schüler seine Virtuosität in der
anreqenden Kraft seines Umgangs gezeigt. Dieser Lehrer wurde der Vater
gar verschieden gestimmter wissenschaftlicher
Söhne.” Adelmann, one of his pupils, in a letter to Berengar, his
fellow-student, reminded him of these memorable conversations, and
warned him against error. See p. 554, and Neander, III.
502.
His ablest pupil was Berengar of Tours, the
vigorous opponent of transubstantiation, and it has sometimes been
conjectured that he derived his views from him. By Bishop Cosin (in his Hist.
Transsubstantiationis), as quoted by Robertson, If.
607. Ep. V. (Migne, col. 201): ”Jam nunc ad illud Dominici
corporis et sanguinis transeamus venerabile sacramentum, quod quidem
tantum formidabile est ad loquendum: quantum non terrenum, sed coeleste
est mysterium; non humanae aestimationi comparabile, sed admirable non
disputandum, sed metuendum. De quo silere potius aestimaveram quam
temeraria disputatione indigne aliquid definire; quia coelestis
altitudo mysterii plane non valet officio linguae corruptibilis exponi.
Est enim mysterium fide non specie aestimandum, non visu corporeo, sed
spiritu intuendum.” Then toward,; the close of the same letter
(col. 204) he says: ”Si Deum omnia posse credis, et hoc consequitur
ut credas; nec humanis disputationibus discernere curiosus insistes, si
creaturas quas de nihilo potuit creare, has ipsas multo magis valeat in
excellentioris naturae dignitatem convertere, et in sui corporis
substantiam transfundere.” The last phrase is nearly equivalent to
transubstantiation.
The works of Fulbert consist of one hundred and
thirty-nine (or 138) Letters, including some letters of his
correspondents; Epistolae, Migne, l.c. col. 189-278.
Giesebrecht, Damberger, and Werner have analyzed and made much use of
them. Sermones ad populum. Ibid. col.
317-340. Hymni et carmina ecclesiastica. Ibid. col. 339-352.
See above, 96, p. 433. Vita S. Autberti, Cameracensis episcopi. Ibid. col.
355-368. Ep. V. (formerly
From the school of Gerbert at Rheims proceeded the school of Fulbert at Chartres, and from this again the school of Berengar at Tours—all equally distinguished for popularity and efficiency. They in turn were succeeded by the monastic school of Lanfranc at Bec, who came from Italy, labored in France, opposed Berengar, his rival, and completed his career in England as archbishop of Canterbury. He was excelled by his pupil and successor, Anselm, the second Augustin, the father of Catholic scholasticism. With him began a new and important chapter in the development of theology.
§ 181. Rodulfus Glaber. Adam of Bremen.
I. Rodulfus Glaber (Cluniacnesis monachus): Opera, in Migne, Tom. CXLII. col. 611–720. The Historia sui temporis or Historia Francorum is also printed in part, with textual emendations by G. Waitz, in the Monum. Germ. Script., ed. by Pertz, Tom. VII. 48–72, and the Vita Willelmi abbatis in Tom. IV. 655–658. Comp. Ceillier: XIII. 143–147. Wattenbach: Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen. Potthast: Biblioth. Hist. medii aevi, p. 521.
II. Adamus Bremensis: Gesta Hammaburgenais ecclesiae Pontificum, seu Historia ecclesiastica. Libri IV. Best. ed. by Lappenberg in Pertz, Mon. Germ. Scriptores, Tom. VII. 267–389. German translation by Laurent, with introduction by Lappenberg, Berlin, 1850 (in “Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit;” XI. Jahrh. B. VII.). In Migne, Tom. CXLVI. col. 433–566 (reprinted from Pertz).—Comp. Giesebrecht: Wendische Geschichte, III. 316 sqq.; Wattenbach: Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen (first ed. p. 252 sqq.); Koppmann: Die mittelalterlichen Geschichtsquellen in Bezug auf Hamburg (1868); Potthast, l.c p. 100; C. Bertheau in Herzog2 I. 140 sqq. Of older notices see Ceillier, XIV. 201–206.
Among the historical writers of the eleventh century, Rodulfus Glaber, and Adam of Bremen deserve special mention, the one for France, the other for the North of Europe.
Rodulfus Glaber i.e. Calvus, Kahlkopf, Baldhead. His proper name was
Rodulfus or Radulphus. Ceillier (l.c. p. 143):
“Rodulphe ou Raoul, surnommé Glaber parce
qu’il était chauve et sans
poil.”
His chief work is a history of his own time, from
1000–1045, in five books. Though written in barbarous
Latin and full of inaccuracies, chronological blunders, and legendary
miracles, it is an interesting and indispensable source of information,
and gives vivid pictures of the corrupt morals of that period. This is the judgment of Waitz (Mon. Germ. VII. 49), and
Giesebrecht (II. 567). Wattenbach (Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen,
first ed., 1858, p. 322) calls it ”ein Werk voll
merkwürdiger Dinge, und mannigfach belehrend, aber ohne
festen Plan und chronologische Ordnung.” The Vita S. Guillelmi or Willelmi, in Migne,
l.c. col. 701-720.
Adam of Bremen, a Saxon by birth, educated
(probably) at Magdeburg, teacher and canon of the chapter at Bremen
(1068), composed, between 1072 and 1076, a history of the Bishops of
Hamburg-Bremen. Hamburg was the original seat of the Northern episcopate,
and remained so nominally, but owing to the constant irruptions of the
Wends and Normans, it was transferred to Bremen. Lappenberg gives a full account of all his
sources. Wattenbach (p. 254): Sein Vorbild ist besonders
Sallust, der in den Schulen vorzugeweise gelesen wurde und darum auch
eine übergrossen Einfluss auf den Stil der Zeit
übte“
He adds (p. 255): ”Jede gewissenhafte Forschung geht auf Adam
zurück und seine Autorität stand von Anfang an
mit Recht in hohem Ansehen.” Lappenberg (in Mon. Gem. VII. 267): ”Paucissimi
sane sunt inter medii aevi historicos, qui rerum traditarum gravitate,
perspicuitate, iudicii ingenuitate, fontium scriptorum cognitione,
sermonium ore traditorum accurata perceptione ita emineant, ut Adamus,
magister scolarum Bremensis.”
§ 182. St. Peter Damiani.
I. Beati Petri Damiani (S. R. E. cardinalis Episcopi
Ostiensis Ordinis S. Benedicti) Opera omnia in quatuor tomos
distributa, studio et labora Domni Constantini Cajetani (of
Montecassino), first publ.
II. Three biographies of Damiani, one by his pupil, Joannes monachus, who, however, only describes his monastic character. See Migne, I. 47–204. Acta Sanctorum (Bolland.), for February 23, Tom. III. 406–427. Acta Sanctorum Ordinis S. Bened., Saec. VI. Also the Annales Ordinis S. Benedicti, ed. Mabillon, Tom. IV., lib. LVIII.-LXII. (which extend from a.d. 1039–1066, and notice the public acts of Damiani in chronological order).
III. Jac. Laderchi: Vita S. Petri Damiani S. R. E.
Cardinalis.
I. Life. Peter Damianus or Damiani
(1007–1072), There are several distinguished persons of that name, (a)
Damianus, brother of Cosmas; they were physicians in Sicily who took no
fees, and died as “silverless” martyrs of the Diocletian persecution
(303), and became the patrons of physicians and druggists throughout
the middle ages. The Greeks distinguish three pairs of these brothers.
(b) Damianus, patriarch of Alexandria, d. 601, who leaned to
Sabellianism and Monophysitism. (c) D., bishop of Pavia, who drew up a
confession of faith against the Monothelites, A.D.
679. As Eusebius called himself Pamphili after his friend and
patron Pamphilus, See above, p. 366 sqq.
He systematized and popularized a method of
meritorious self-flagellation in connection with the recital of the
Psalms; each Psalm was accompanied with a hundred strokes of a leathern
thong on the bare back, the whole Psalter with fifteen thousand
strokes. This penance became a rage, and many a monk flogged himself to
death to the music of the Psalms for his own benefit, or for the
release of souls in purgatory. The greatest expert was Dominicus, who
wore an iron cuirass around his bare body (hence called Loricatus), and
so accelerated the strokes that he absolved without a break twelve
Psalters; at last he died of exhaustion(1063). See Damiani’s account in Vita Dominici
Loricati, c. 10, in Migne, I. 1017.
The ascetic practice which he encouraged by word
and example, had far-reaching consequences; it became a part of the
monastic discipline among Dominicans St. Dominic, the founder of the order of the Dominicans
(1170-1221), is said to have scourged himself every night three times,
first for himself, then for his contemporaries, and last for the souls
in purgatory. Boileau, Historia Flagellantium, Paris, 1700;
Förstemann, Die christl.
Geisslergesellschaften, Halle, 1828; Cooper, Flagellation and the Flagellants,
London, 1870. 3d ed., 1877.
Damiani became the leader of the strict monastic party which centred at Cluny and labored, from the sacerdotal and theocratic point of view, for a reformation of the clergy and the church at a time of their deepest degradation and corruption. He compared the condition of his age to that of Sodom and Gomorrah; he opposed simony and the concubinage of priests, as the two chief sources of evil. He advocated a law which punished simony with deposition, and which prohibited the laity from hearing mass said by married priests. Such a law was enacted by the Lateran Council of 1059. He also condemned in the clergy the practice of bearing arms, although even Pope Leo IX., in 1053, led an army against the pillaging Normans. He firmly maintained that a priest should not draw the sword even in defense of the faith, but contend only with the Word of God and the weapon of the Spirit.
A man of such talent, piety and energy could not
remain hidden in the desert. He was drawn to Rome, and against his will
chosen bishop of Ostia and Cardinal of the Roman church by Stephen X.
in 1058. He narrowly escaped the triple crown in 1061. He was the
spiritual counsellor and censor of the Hildebrandian popes (Gregory
VI., Clement II., Leo IX., Victor II., Stephen X., Nicolas II.,
Alexander II.), and of Hildebrand himself. He was employed on important
missions at Milan, Florence, Montecassino, Cluny, Mainz, Frankfort. He
helped to put down the papal schism of Cadalous. Or Cadalus, bishop of Parma, very rich and guilty of
simony. In two of his best epigrams, he says of Hildebrand (Migne,
II. 961, 967): “Vivere vis
Romae, clara depromito voce: Plus Domino papae
quam Domno pareo papae. ******* Papam rite colo,
sed te prostratus adoro: Tu facis hunc
Dominum; te facit iste Deum.”
His last work was to heal a schism in the church of his native city. On his return he died of fever at Faenza, Feb. 23, 1072, one year before Hildebrand ascended the papal chair to carry out the reforms for which Damiani had prepared the way with narrow, but honest, earnest and unselfish devotion.
II. The Works of Damiani consist of Epistles, Sermons, Lives of Saints, ascetic tracts, and Poems. They are a mirror of the church of his age.
1. The Epistles are divided into eight books. They are addressed (a) to contemporary Roman Bishops (Gregory VI., Clement II., Leo IX., Victor II., Nicolas II., Alexander II., and the Anti-pope Cadalous or Honorius II.); (b) to the Cardinal Bishops, and to Cardinal Hildebrand in particular; (c) to Patriarchs and to the Archbishops of Ravenna and Cologne; (d) to various Bishops; (e) to Archpresbyters, Archdeacons, Presbyters and other clergy. They give a graphic picture of the corruptions of the church in his times, and are full of zeal for a moral reform. He subscribes himself “Petrus peccator monachus.” The letters to the anti-pope Cadalous show his power of sarcasm; he tells him that his very name from cado, to fall, and laov”, people, was ominous, that he deserved a triple deposition, that his new crime was adultery and simony of the worst sort, that he had sold his own church (Parma) and bought another, that the church was desecrated to the very top by such adulteries. He prophesied his death within one year, but Cadalous outlived it, and Damiani defended his prophecy as applying to moral death.
2. Sermons, seventy-four in number. Migne, I. 506-924.
3. Lives of Saints, of the Benedictine order,
namely, Odilo of Cluny, Romuald, Rodulphus, and Dominicus Loricatus
(the hero of self-flagellation), whose examples are held up for
imitation. Migne, 925-1024.
4. Dogmatic Discussions, De Fide Catholica; Contra
Judaeos; Dialogus inter Judaeum et Christianum; De Divina Omnipotentia;
De Processione Spiritus Sancti (against the Greeks), etc. II. 20 sqq. and 595 sqq.
5. Polemic and ascetic treatises. The most
important is the Liber Gomorrhianus (1051), a fearless exposure of
clerical immorality which appeared to him as bad as the lewdness of
Sodom and Gomorrah (hence the title). II. 159-190. II. 99 sqq. II. 191 sqq.
6. On Miracles and Apparitions. II. 571 sqq.
7. On the Pictures of the chief Apostles,
especially Peter and Paul. II. 590 sqq.
8. Exposition of the Canon of the Mass, and other
liturgical topics. II. 979 sqq.
9. Exegetical Fragments on the Old and New
Testaments. II. 892 sqq. and 985 sqq.
10 Poems, satires, epigrams and Prayers. II. 918 sqq. II. 862. See above, p. 431 sq.
Genesis
Exodus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ezra
Job
Psalms
2:8 22:23 44:2 48 60:4 90:9 102:24 104:17 109:28
Proverbs
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
Malachi
Matthew
2:1 3:2 6:3-4 12:28 16:18 16:19 20:26 23:24 24 25:31-36 26:26 26:26 26:26-28 26:27 26:28 26:39 27:34 27:45
Mark
Luke
1:28 1:80 2:51 9:26 11:20 11:52 13:34 18:19 22:31 22:31-32 22:42 23:22 23:44
John
1 1:14 1:43 3:16 4:14 4:21 4:24 5:21 6:38 6:38 6:54 6:63 6:63 8 10:35 12:8 14:16 14:26 14:28 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:7 17:21 17:24 19:27 19:28 19:38 20:22 20:25 21 21:17
Acts
Romans
1:23 1:24 1:25 8:29 8:29 8:32 11:36 12:1 15:28 16:10 1588 1606 1655 1658 1702 1738 1741 1766 1786 1835
1 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1:15 1:16 2:18 2:21 206 212 841 1507 1556
1 Timothy
Hebrews
James
1 John
Revelation