Pope Leo vs. the East

When Byzantine Patriarch Michael I Cerularius made known to Pope Leo IX what he considered erroneous practices on the part of the Roman Church, Leo retaliated by reminding Michael that Leo "owned" him, Constantinople, and the Byzantine Empire. His argument for this was the Donation of Constantine.

The Donation (an action represented in the illustration) was an alleged decree from Roman Emperor Constantine I in the 4th century, offering to Pope Sylvester control over all the major dioceses and all the lands of the empire, both East and West. This was proven to be a forgery in the 15th century by the scholar Lorenzo Valla. Leo had no reason to think the Donation was a forgery, however; in fact, he had plenty of motivation to believe it was authentic.

Anyway, in 1054 Leo wrote to Michael, assuring him that the Donation was not a hoax and Michael had better accept that the pope in Rome was the only rightful head of the Church. Not trusting Michael to fall in line, Leo sent Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida to Constantinople to lay out the proper way forward for the Eastern Church.

Humbert was actually "in the thick" of this issue. Humbert was in Apulia in 1053, where he received a letter from the Byzantine Archbishop Leo of Ohrid that listed Patriarch Michael's complaints about Western Roman Church practices. It was partially this letter that caused Leo to invoke the Donation.

Humbert arrived in Constantinople in spring of 1054 and received a warm welcome from Emperor Constantine X. Michael was much colder, however, but the papal delegation and Byzantine clergy met several times, discussing religious issues with no real progress or compromise being made. During Mass on 16 July Humbert placed a papal bull on the high altar of the Hagia Sophia, excommunicating Michael and his supporters. Michael, in turn, gathered his clerics and four days later excommunicated Humbert and his entourage.

The papal bull is considered by many historians to be invalid, because Humbert delivered it even though Leo had died in on 19 April. Still, the events of 1054 brought to a head the doctrinal differences between east and west and guaranteed the East-West Schism, the official break between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

This Schism had been building for many years, and we will look at a timeline of the conflicts that made it inevitable next time.

Pope Leo IX

So many medieval popes were Italian (and maybe French) that it is unusual to find one with a German name, but France and Germany were essentially once West Francia and East Francia, and Bruno von Egisheim-Dagsburg (1002 - 1054) was actually born in what is modern Alsace, France. A child of privilege, his father was Count Hugh IV of Nordgau (a cousin of the future Holy Roman Emperor, Conrad II). Bruno was the fourth of eight children, and the third son, so was not expected to succeed his father.

He was therefore handed off at the age of five to Berthold, bishop of Toul, who established a school for the sons of nobility. At the age of 15, Bruno became a canon at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Toul. In 1024, his father's cousin Conrad became Emperor, and Bruno was chosen to serve in the imperial chapel. Two years later, the then-bishop of Toul died and Bruno took over the diocese, managing it for the next two decades.

During that time he exerted his influence to reform and raise the moral standards of monasteries and the regular clergy in his diocese. He favored spreading Cluniac rules. When Pope Damasus II died in 1048, the emperor and Roman delegates at an assembly in Worms agreed that he should become pope. Bruno anted instead to travel to Rome and have a proper election. He arrived in Rome wearing pilgrim garb in early 1049, where he was duly elected and took the name Leo IX.

He immediately called a synod for that Easter. At the synod, he demanded celibacy for all clergy down to the rank of subdeacon, and said simony, the practice of selling church positions, had to stop. He traveled to Mainz to meet with Italian, French, and German clergy to declare his positions. At another Easter synod in 1051 he discussed the potential re-ordination of those priests who had been defrocked because their positions had originally been purchased through simony. These decisions all seemed to be sensible.

Leo's real challenge was with the Eastern Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael I Cerularius, criticized some of the positions of the Roman/Latin Church, particularly fasting the day before Sunday Mass and the use of unleavened bread. Michael's letter was addressed to Leo as "brother" instead of "father."

Leo's response was to remind that Michael that the pope "owned" the entire Byzantine Church. Leo did not make this idea up on his own; he had documentation to "prove" it! Why he thought that will be explained tomorrow.

Richardis of Swabia

Richardis of Swabia (c.840 - c.895) was the daughter of a count. That and her reputation for piety made her a suitable choice to marry Charles the Fat, a son of Louis the German, in 862.

Over the next 20 years, her own status was elevated when Charles (almost through no actions of his own) became King of West Francia, King of Italy, King of East Francia, and finally Emperor of the Carolingian Empire in 881, when Richardis was crowned empress along with her husband. Charles was not very effective—he was just in the right place at the right time. He was traveling frequently to Italy and fumbling dealing with internal and external strife.

We know little about Richardis' life during this time. We do know that they had no children, which is a problem for rulers who want to leave their kingdoms to their offspring. The common solution to this for a ruler is to divorce the wife and marry again. Charles seemed to decide the best way to do this in 887 was to accuse Richardis of adultery with Charles' archchancellor, Bishop Liutward of Vercelli.

Richardis was subjected to Trial by Ordeal, which despite the 15th century depiction above, was usually having the defendant hold a piece of red-hot iron, then examining their hands for damage. She passed the ordeal. The pope put together a commission to handle Charles' request for annulment. An examination of Richardis by the commission concluded that she was still a virgin.

In 880, she had founded Andlau Abbey on her ancestral lands in northeast France, 20 kilometers north of where Charles had built his new palace in Selestat. She retired there now under the abbess Rotrud, her niece. She died on 18 September 880.

Then the legends began, of a virtuous wife harried by a mad husband. She finally agrees to go through ordeal by fire, being tied to a stake above a fire. Despite wearing a simple shirt covered in wax and being barefoot (see illustration), she survives with no marks on her. Afterward, she leaves her husband and wanders in the woods. An angel appears to her and tells her to found a convent where a bear indicates. This becomes Andlau Abbey. (Of course, Andlau was founded years earlier than the ordeal.)

The bear became part of her iconography. The nuns at Andlau kept a live bear on the grounds, and gave free lodging to bear-keepers. She is sometimes pictured with a bear. She was canonized by Pope Leo IX in 1049, the patron saint of protection against fire.

And speaking of Pope Leo IX...his reign was very consequential, and he is responsible for the final break between the Western Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Let's talk about him next.

William and Matilda

William wanted to marry the daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders, Matilda, in 1049, but Pope Leo IX did not approve. William was illegitimate (his mother was his father's mistress), and the two were cousins close enough to offend the concerns of consanguinity.

Flanders was a very powerful French territory, so the marriage would actually do more for William's status than Matilda's. According to some stories, Matilda saw this and said she would never marry someone of such lower status, whereupon William road to Bruges, and either 1) forced his way into her bedroom and beat her, or 2) met her on the road, dragged her from her horse by her hair, and "courting her" in the mud. Here father was outraged, but was stayed from getting revenge by Matilda saying she would marry William or no one.

What kind of man was he? The only surviving piece of him is a femur, from which the height of 5'10" can be deduced. This would make him tall for his time. He was considered a great fighter and very strong, able to draw bowstrings that others could not. A contemporary, Geoffrey Martel, Count of Anjou, says he was without equal as a fighter and horseman. Although considered greedy and cruel by contemporaries, he was also praised for his piety.

William turned to the abbot of Bec, Lanfranc, for help with the pope. Lanfranc also opposed the marriage, so William exiled him from Normandy, but at the last minute forgive him if Lanfranc would take on the task of convincing the pope to relent. A pope finally approved the marriage some time in the 1050s, but it was probably post-ceremony: William and Matilda had gone ahead and married without papal approval, it is assumed. One of the persuasions that supposedly worked to get the pope on their side was the founding of two monasteries, one by the groom and one by the bride.

The union produced four sons and several daughters. There is no inkling that William had mistresses on the side. As a mother, she made sure all her children were well-educated.

He trusted Matilda to rule when he was absent, and she was involved in many of the affairs of state. The illustration shows both of their signatures on the Accord of Winchester, which established the primacy of the Archbishop of Canterbury over the Archbishop of York. (It did not go over well with everyone.) After he went to England (and she bought a ship with her own money to contribute to the invasion), she stayed in Normandy until 1068, waiting to be crowned Queen of England until it could take place at Pentecost (11 May 1068). Phrases were added to the ceremony elevating queenship to be equal to kingship in terms of divine authority.

In the summer of 1083 she fell ill, and died on 2 November. William swore to give up hunting (his favorite pastime) as an expression of grief. She was buried under the floor at l'Abbaye aux Dames in Caen. When her skeleton was examined in 1959, it was determined that she was 5' in height, a typical stature for the day.

And now we turn to an earlier moment, when a member on England's royalty visited William and, perhaps, made him a promise.

Robert of Jumièges

Robert of Jumièges was Norman French, abbot of Jumièges Abbey. In the 1030s, Edward the Confessor was living in exile in Normandy, which is when and where the two men got to know each other. When the heirless Harthacnut offered the throne to Edward, the future king returned to England and brought Robert with him in 1042.

One of Edward's first opportunities to appoint a new clergyman came when Ælfweard, Bishop of London, died from leprosy in July 1044. Edward appointed Robert to the position in August. The English were wary of the Norman French influence in England, so Robert was already disliked by people like Godwin, Earl of Wessex. Godwin was expanding his family's power with appointments of his sons to earldoms and his daughter marrying Edward, but a biography of Edward claims that Robert remained the most influential advisor to Edward.

In October 1050, the English Archbishop of Canterbury, Eadsige, died. During his time as archbishop he had leased some of Canterbury's lands to Godwin. When Edward appointed Robert to the position, not only did the first Norman archbishop anger people—not least the monks of Canterbury, who had the right to elect their own choice—but also Robert immediately instigated strife with Godwin by demanding the return of the lands Eadsige had given away.

Robert had to travel to Rome in 1051 to receive the pallium, the symbol of his office. Rumor has it that he went through Normandy and told Duke William that Edward had named William his heir. Upon his return from Rome, he annoyed Edward by refusing to consecrate Edward's choice as his replacement for bishop of London. He claimed that Pope Leo IX had forbidden it, and there is some hint that it may have been so based on Leo's fight against simony, the purchase of ecclesiastical privileges.

It is also just after the Rome trip that Robert claimed knowledge of Godwin's plot to kill the king, contributing to Godwin's flight to Flanders. The biography of Edward also claims that Robert tried to (unsuccessfully) convince Edward to divorce Edith of Wessex, Godwin's daughter. When Godwin returned to England with an army, he was forgiven by Edward. Robert realized his attempts to vanquish Godwin had failed, and now he was in a precarious position in the kingdom.

He self-exiled, and was declared outlaw, and a royal council on 14 September 1052 removed him from his title. He was replaced with Stigand, who had negotiated the peace between Edward and Godwin, despite opposition from Pope Leo IX. Robert's property was divided between Godwin, Harold Godwinson, and Edith of Wessex.

Robert died at Jumièges some time in the 1050s. Duke William of Normandy used his treatment as one of the reasons to invade England in 1066, but that event has been told again and again.

I want to get back to Godwin's fate and Edward, but there's another character that was part of this story, and that is the man that Edward wanted to make bishop of London when Robert was elevated to the archbishopric. That man was named Spearhafoc—a monk and a goldsmith—and tomorrow we'll go into his story.

The Donation Hoax

The Donatio Constantini (Latin: "Donation of Constantine") was a document in which the converted Emperor Constantine, whose Edict of Milan ended Christian persecution, gave the popes authority over the western part of the Roman Empire.

The 5th-century "Legend of St. Sylvester" tells about the relationship between Constantine and Pope Sylvester I. In it, Sylvester cures Constantine of leprosy, who then converts to Christianity. Following this, Constantine grants to Sylvester authority over Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and all churches, as well as any estates that are attached to churches. The oldest manuscript of the story is from the 9th century, but it is not until Pope Leo IX (pope from 1049 - 1054) that it gets used to affirm the supremacy of the papacy over temporal lords. It became a valuable tool in the argument, especially with the Holy Roman Emperors, that the pope's decisions and decrees superseded anyone else's. There was plenty of legal opposition to the idea, especially starting with Otto III, but no one denied its authenticity.

Then, in 1440, a Catholic priest named Lorenzo Valla took a close look at the document. He was a specialist in Latin translation, and something about the document did not look right. His familiarity with numerous Latin documents of all types and all times led him to the conclusion that, rather than an official document from the 4th century, it was a poorly written forgery from the 8th century, and therefore a hoax. 

Why was he motivated to chop down the chief pillar of papal authority over secular powers, when he himself as a priest could benefit? He might have had a personal reason, which I will look into and share next time.

A Well-placed German Pope

Gebhard, the Count of Calw, was born about 1018 into an illustrious family. Holy Roman Emperor Henry III (1017 - 1056) recognized him as a kinsman. Despite some hesitation, he was named bishop of Eichstätt at a mere 24 years of age; he proved to be a good bishop and decent statesman.

He was present at the Easter synod of Pope Leo IX in 1049, in which Leo soundly condemned simony and the "wasteful" marriage of priests. Gebhard was respected by, and present for the meetings of, both the pope and the emperor. In fact, he was possibly the most respected advisor to Henry III. When Henry was sending part of the army to aid Pope Leo IX in his trouble with Normans, it was recalled on Gebhard's advice (Gebhard, when pope himself, regretted this decision).

When Leo died in April 1054, a Roman legation came to Henry, requesting that Gebhard be made pope. Gebhard initially resisted, but finally agreed on the condition that the emperor restore to the papacy the properties that had been taken from it by the emperor. Henry agreed—since Gebhard was a pope he could trust—and Gebhard became Pope Victor II on 13 April 1055.

Pope Victor ruled only two years, but his close connection with the emperor made him an enormously powerful pope. In June of 1055 he reaffirmed Leo's condemnations of simony and clerical marriage, and deposed several bishops who had previously resisted correction. Victor threatened to excommunicate King Ferdinand of Spain if he did not recognize Henry as Holy Roman Emperor; Ferdinand relented. Henry repaid him by giving to the pope the duchies of Spoleto and Camerino.

Victor was with Henry when he died, on 5 October 1056, and accepted from Henry the regency for Henry's young son, the six-year-old Henry IV (who might have saved himself some trouble had he grown up and stayed on the good side of the papacy). Victor had the opportunity to rule the Holy Roman Empire as regent for the child emperor!

Alas, he wasn't able to guide the young heir to power or himself to greater power. He died himself on 28 July 1057. While attendants carried his body back to Eichstätt for burial (although pope, he had never given up the bishopric of Eichstätt), zealous Italians snatched the remains and had them buried Ravenna.

The Book of Gomorrah

PLEASE NOTE: This post should have a NSFW [Not Safe For Work] label. My apologies if this is not to your liking.

Illumination from Liber Gomorrhianus

Peter Damian (c.1007 - 21 February 1072/3), who later became a saint, wrote a book called Liber Gomorrhianus ["The Book of Gomorroah"]. Addressed to Pope Leo IX about 1050, it blasted the clergy for their many sexual vices. There are many works that condemn sexual practices that were considered deviant—such as handbooks designed to describe (and help one avoid) vice—but the Liber Gomorrhianus goes into much greater detail than others.

There are four particular vices he rails against:

Four types of this form of criminal wickedness can be distinguished in an effort to show you the totality of the whole matter in an orderly way: some sin with themselves alone [masturbation]; some by the hands of others [mutual masturbation]; others between the thighs [interfemoral intercourse]; and finally, others commit the complete act against nature [anal intercourse]. The ascending gradation among these is such that the last mentioned are judged to be more serious that the preceding. Indeed a greater penance is imposed on those who fall with others than those who defile only themselves; and those who complete the act are to be judged more severely than those who are defiled through femoral fornication. The devil's artful fraud devises these degrees of failing into ruin such that the higher the level the unfortunate soul reaches in them, the deeper it sinks in the depths of hell's pit.*

He finds particularly damning those priests who have relations with young boys, and those superiors who do not enforce proper discipline and punch these actions.

Damian made no friends with this exposé of clerical sins. Pope Leo IX came to dislike the book, feeling that the situation was not as widespread in the Church for which he had responsibility and authority as the Liber painted it. The pope did not mete out punishments as harsh as the Liber suggested, choosing to dismiss only those priests who were long-time repeat offenders.

*from Pierre J. Payer (ed.): Book of Gomorrah: An eleventh century treatise against clerical homosexual practise, Waterloo, Ont., 1982.