28 gennaio - S. Carlo Magno, re ed imperatore del Sacro Romano Impero

[Augustinus]

Oggi ricorre la memoria del celebre imperatore dei Franchi, canonizzato da un antipapa, ma che è molto venerato in diverse parti dell'Europa. Alludo a Carlo Magno. Egli morì il 27° giorno dell'814, a 72 anni, e gli fu data sepoltura ponendogli sulle ginocchia un vangelo d'oro; sul corpo le insegne imperiali, ma sotto le insegne un cilizio. Fondatore di tanti conventi e di tante chiese quanti furono i giorni della sua vita, provvide con generosità per essi anche nel testamento, ma senza una parola per Roma. Prima di morire, aveva già spartito l'impero fra i suoi figli ed eredi (il figlio Pipino, fatto re d'Italia, a lungo guerreggiante col duca di Benevento e sconfitto dai Veneziani, gli era premorto, e a lui era successo Bernardo), dando con ciò un colpo alla sua ciclopica creazione. Di lui, o da lui firmata, abbiamo una prefazione ad una scelta di omelie, ove, meditando sulla sua vita, dice che, se qualche merito gli si può riconoscere, è per avere sempre protetto la cultura. Ha inoltre un trattatello sulle virtù dello Spirito Santo. Eccolo poeta in versi latini; compositore di un epitaffio per Adriano; autore di un salterio in cui è il panegirico del pontificato. E se non dovessimo raccogliere tutto in sintesi, potremmo discorrere ancora di Carlo Magno correttore di esemplari della Scrittura e lessicografo tedesco; da vecchio conosceva il greco, l'ebraico e altre lingue orientali.
Ebbero, ad aiutarlo Alcuino, sassone, che forse scrisse il celebre "Pange lingua", Angilberto, Landrado, Agobardo, Teodolfo, Adalardo e altri. Scrissero delle sue gesta, Eginardo e Turpino. Quando fu giunto all'estremo della sua vita (in Aquisgrana), le cronache dicono che si ebbero eclissi, macchie nere nel sole, rovine di portici del suo palazzo. Secondo le leggende una gran striscia di fuoco lampeggiò un giorno nel cielo e il cavallo dell'imperatore cadde sì violentemente in aperta campagna che la fibbia d'oro della sella si ruppe, e così la cintura della spada di Carlo. II suo giavellotto poi dalla scossa fu confitto in terra per dieci piedi. Di più, bruciò il ponte di Magonza, un fulmine colpì una palla d'oro della cupola del duomo di Aquisgrana, il terremoto sommosse questa città e fu da un prodigio cancellata sul tempio la scritta : "Carlo principe".
In suo onore apro questo thread.

Augustinus

*****
dal sito SANTI E BEATI (http://www.santiebeati.it/search/jump.cgi?ID=91756):

San Carlomagno Imperatore

28 gennaio

742 - 28 gennaio 814

La canonizzazione di Carlomagno nel 1165 da parte dell'antipapa Pasquale III non è che un momento dello straordinario destino postumo dell'imperatore d'Occidente. Qui si ricorderà brevemente ciò che, nella sua vita e nella sua opera, ha fornito occasione a un culto in alcune regioni cristiane.
Nato nel 742, primogenito di Pipino il Breve, gli succedette il 24 settembre 768 come sovrano d'una parte del regno dei Franchi, divenendo unico re alla morte (771) del fratello Carlomanno. Chiamato in aiuto dal papa Adriano I, scese in Italia, contro Desiderio, re dei Longobardi, nell'aprile 774. In cambio d'una promessa di donazione di territori italiani al sommo pontefice, riceve il titolo di re dei Longobardi quando lo sconfitto Desiderio fu rinchiuso nel monastero di Corbie. Nel 777 iniziò una serie di campagne per la sottomissione e l'evangelizzazione dei Sassoni, capeggiati da Vitichindo. Dopo una cerimonia di Battesimo collettivo a Paderborn, la rivalsa dei vinti fu soffocata, nelle campagne del 782-85, con tremendi massacri, fra i quali quello di molte migliaia di prigionieri a Werden. Spintosi oltre i Pirenei, nella futura Marca di Spagna, Carlomagno subì nel,778 un grave rovescio a Roncisvalle. Nelle successive discese in Italia (781 e 787) stabilì legami con l'Impero d'Oriente (fidanzamento di sua figlia Rotrude col giovane Costantino VI), e s'inserì sempre più a fondo, attraverso i missi carolingi, nella vita di Roma. Consacrato re d'Italia e spinto a occuparsi del patrimonio temporale della Chiesa, non trascurò il suo ruolo di riformatore, continuando l'opera iniziata dal padre col concorso di S. Bonifacio. Nel 779, benché occupatissimo per le rivolte dei Sassoni, promulgò un capitolare sui beni della Chiesa e i diritti vescovili, e accentuò la sua azione riformatrice sotto l'impulso dei chierici e dei proceres ecclesiastici e, soprattutto, di Alcuino e di Teodulfo d'Orleans.
La celebre “Admonitio generalis” del 789 mostra a pieno la concezione di Carlomagno in materia di politica religiosa, richiamandosi all'esempio biblico del re Giosia per il quale il bisogno più urgente è ricondurre il popolo di Dio nelle vie del Signore, per far regnare ed esaltare la sua legge. Nascono da questa esigenza il rinascimento degli studi, la revisione del testo delle Scritture operata da Alcuino, la costituzione dell'omeliario di Paolo Diacono.
Al concilio di Francoforte del 794, Carlomagno si erge di fronte a Bisanzio come il legittimo crede degli imperatori d'Occidente, promotori di concili e guardiani della fede. Non è un caso che i testi relativi alla disputa delle immagini (Libri Carolini), benché redatti da Alcuino o da Teodulfo, portino il nome di Carlomagno. Pertanto, l'incoronazione imperiale del giorno di Natale dell'anno 800 non fu che il coronamento d'una politica che il papato non poté fare a meno di riconoscere, sollecitando la protezione del sovrano e accettandolo, nella persona di Leone III, come giudice delle sue controversie. Ma Carlomagno (come mostrano le origini della disputa sul “Filioque”) estese la sua influenza fino alla Palestina. La sua sollecitudine per il restauro delle chiese di Gerusalemme e dei luoghi santi mediante questue (prescritte in un capitolare dell'810) gli valse più tardi il titolo di primo dei crociati. Del patronato esercitato sulla Chiesa dalla forte personalità di Carlomagno restano monumenti documentari ed encomiastici negli “Annales”, che ricordano i concili da lui presieduti, le chiese e i monasteri da lui fondati.
La vita privata di Carlomagno fu obiettivamente deplorevole. E non si possono certo dimenticare due ripudi e molti concubinati, né i massacri giustificati dalla sola vendetta o la tolleranza per la libertà dei costumi di corte. Non mancano, tuttavia, indizi di una sensibilità di Carlomagno per la colpa, in tempi piuttosto grossolani e corrotti. Il suo biografo Eginardo informa che Carlomagno non apprezzava punto i giovani, sebbene li praticasse, e, per quanto la sua vita religiosa personale ci sfugga, sappiamo che egli teneva molto all'esatta osservanza dei riti liturgici che faceva celebrare, specialmente ad Aquisgrana (odierna Aachen), con sontuoso decoro. Cosi, quando mori ad Aquisgrana il 28 gennaio 814, Carlomagno lasciò dietro di sé il ricordo di molti meriti che la posterità si incaricò di glorificare. La valorizzazione del prestigio di Carlomagno assunse il carattere di un'operazione politica durante la lotta delle Investiture e il conflitto fra il Sacerdozio e l'Impero. La prima cura di Ottone I, nel farsi consacrare ad Aquisgrana (962), fu quella di ripristinare la tradizione carolingia per servirsene.
Nell'anno 1000, Ottone III scopri ad Aquisgrana il corpo di Carlomagno in circostanze in cui l'immaginazione poteva facilmente sbrigliarsi. Nel sec. XI, mentre Gregorio VII scorgeva nell'incoronazione imperiale di Carlomagno la ricompensa dei servigi da lui resi alla cristianità, gli Enriciani esaltarono il patronato esercitato dall'imperatore sulla Chiesa. Quando l'impero divenne oggetto di competizione fra principi germanici, Federico I, invocando gli esempi della canonizzazione di Enrico II (1146), di Edoardo il Confessore (1161), di Canuto di Danimarca (1165), pretese e ottenne dall'antipapa Pasquale III la canonizzazione di Carlomagno col rito dell'elevazione agli altari (29 dic. 1165). Egli pensò di gettare in tal modo discredito su Alessandro III, che gli rifiutava l'impero, e, insieme, sui Capetingi che lo pretendevano. E se più tardi Filippo Augusto, vincitore di Federico II a Bouvines nel 1214, si richiamò alle analoghe vittorie di Carlomagno sui Sassoni, lo stesso Federico II si fece incoronare ad Aquisgrana il 25 luglio 1215 e dispose, due giorni dopo, una solenne traslazione delle reliquie di Carlomagno. Intanto Innocenzo III, risoluto sostenitore della teoria delle “due spade”, ricordava che è il papa che eleva all'impero e dipingeva Carlomagno come uno strumento passivo della traslazione dell'impero da Oriente a Occidente. La grande figura di Carlomagno venne piegata a interpretazioni opposte almeno fino all'elezione di Carlo V.
Ma a parte le utilizzazioni politiche contrastanti, il culto di Carlomagno appare ben radicato nella tradizione letteraria e nell'iconografia. Il tono agiografico è già evidente nei racconti di Eginardo e del monaco di S. Gallo di poco posteriori alla morte dell'imperatore. Rabano Mauro, abate di Fulda e arcivescovo di Magonza, iscrive Carlomagno nel suo Martirologio. La leggenda di Carlomagno è soprattutto abbellita dagli aspetti missionari della sua vita.
A Gerusalemme, la chiesa di S. Maria Latina conservava il suo ricordo. Alla fine del sec. X si credeva che l'imperatore si fosse recato in Terrasanta in pellegrinaggio. Urbano II, nel 1095, esaltava la sua memoria davanti ai primi crociati. Nel 1100 l'avventura transpirenaica dei paladini si trasfigurò in crociata, attraverso l'interpretazione della Chanson de Roland. Ognuno ricorda la frequenza di interventi soprannaturali nelle “chansons de gestes”: Carlomagno è assistito dall'angelo Gabriele; Dio gli parla in sogno; simile a Giosué, egli arresta il sole; benché il suo esercito formicoli di chierici, benedice o assolve lui. stesso i combattenti, ecc.
Dal sec. XII al XV si moltiplicano le testimonianze di un culto effettivo di C., connesse da un lato con la fedeltà delle fondazioni carolingie alla memoria del fondatore, dall'altro con l'atteggiamento dei vescovi verso gli Staufen, principali promotori del culto imperiale. A Strasburgo si trova un altare prima del 1175, a Osnabruck e ad Aquisgrana prima del 1200. Nel 1215, in seguito alla consacrazione di Federico II e alle cerimonie che l'accompagnarono, si stabilirono due festività: il 28 genn. (data della morte di C.), festa solenne con ottava, e il 29 dic., festa della traslazione. Roma rispose istituendo la festa antimperiale di S. Tommaso Becket, campione della Chiesa di fronte al potere politico; ma nel 1226 il cardinale Giovanni di Porto consacrò ufficialmente ad Aquisgrana un altare “in honorem sanctorum apostolorum et beati Karoli regis”. A Ratisbona, il monastero di S. Emmerano e quello di S. Pietro, occupato dagli Irlandesi, adottarono, nonostante l'estraneità dell'episcopato, il culto di Carlomagno che, secondo M. Folz, si andò estendendo in un’area esagonale con densità più forti nelle regioni di Treviri, di Fulda, di Norimberga e di Lorsch. Nel 1354, Carlo IV fondò presso Magonza, nell'Ingelheim, un oratorio in onore del S. Salvatore e dei beati Venceslao e Carlomagno. Toccato l'apogeo nel sec. XV, il culto di Carlomagno non fu abolito neppure dalla Riforma, tanto da sopravvivere fino al sec. XVIII in una prospettiva politica, presso i Febroniani.
In Francia, nel sec. XIII, una confraternita di Roncisvalle si stabilì a S. Giacomo della Boucherie. Carlo V (1364-80) fece di Carlomagno un protettore della casa di Francia alla pari di S. Luigi, e ne portò sullo scettro l'effigie con l'iscrizione “Sanctus Karolus Magnus”. Nel 1471, Luigi XI estese a tutta la Francia la celebrazione della festa di Carlomagno il 28 genn. Nel 1478, Carlomagno fu scelto come patrono della confraternita dei messaggeri dell'università e, dal 1487, fu festeggiato come protettore degli scolari (nel collegio di Navarra si celebrò fino al 1765, il 28 genn., una Messa con panegirico). Per queste ragioni il cardinale Lambertini, futuro Benedetto XIV, indicò nel caso di Carlomagno un tipico esempio di equivalenza fra una venerazione tradizionale e una regolare beatificazione (De servorum Dei beatificatione, I, cap. 9, n. 4).
Oggi il culto di Carlomagno si celebra solo ad Aachen, con rito doppio di prima classe, il 28 genn. con ottava; la solennità è fissata alla prima domenica dopo la festa di S. Anna. A Metten ed a Múnster (nei Grigioni) il culto è “tollerato” per indulto della S. Congregazione dei Riti.

Autore: Gerard Mathon

http://santiebeati.it/immagini/Original/91756/91756.JPG

http://santiebeati.it/immagini/Original/91756/91756C.JPG

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/d/durer/1/08/2empero1.jpg Albrecht Dürer, L'imperatore Carlo Magno, 1512 circa, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Norimberga

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/d/durer/1/08/2empero.jpg Albrecht Dürer, Gli imperatori Carlo Magno e Sigismondo, 1512 circa, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Norimberga

http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/r/raphael/4stanze/3borgo/3corona.jpg Raffaello Sanzio, L'incoronazione di Carlo Magno, 1516-17, Stanza dell'Incendio di Borgo, Palazzi Pontifici, Vaticano

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/NFMOSV/94-051649.jpg Ary Scheffer, Carlo Magno presenta i suoi capitolari all'assemblea dei Franchi nel 779, 1827, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/3H3I0G/98-026383.jpg Sébastien-Melchior Cornu, S. Carlo Magno, decorazione della cappella del Palazzo dell'Eliseo, 1864, Musée du Louvre, Parigi

[Ninco Nanco]

Scusatemi, ma se è stato canonizzato da un antipapa, perchè lo appellate come Santo, se la vera Chiesa non l'ha mai dichiarato tale?
E dico ciò nonostante la grande ammirazione che ho verso l'Imperatore Carlo!
Con cordialità.

[Augustinus]

Originally posted by Ninco Nanco
Scusatemi, ma se è stato canonizzato da un antipapa, perchè lo appellate come Santo, se la vera Chiesa non l'ha mai dichiarato tale?
E dico ciò nonostante la grande ammirazione che ho verso l'Imperatore Carlo!
Con cordialità.

Caro Ninco,
lo si appella quale santo, nonostante sia stato elevato agli onori degli altari da un antipapa, per le ragioni che bene espresse l'allora cardinale Prospero Lambertini, indicando in Carlo un tipico esempio di equivalenza fra una venerazione tradizionale ed una regolare beatificazione. Cioè, sebbene non ebbe una regolare venerazione, tuttavia, la Chiesa, storicamente, non poteva ignorare la devozione dei fedeli tributata a quest'uomo. Di qui, il riconoscimento della santità del medesimo, pur in assenza di una pronuncia regolare della Chiesa.
Cordialmente

Augustinus

[Leborino (POL)]

Originally posted by Augustinus
Caro Ninco,
lo si appella quale santo, nonostante sia stato elevato agli onori degli altari da un antipapa, per le ragioni che bene espresse l'allora cardinale Prospero Lambertini, indicando in Carlo un tipico esempio di equivalenza fra una venerazione tradizionale ed una regolare beatificazione. Cioè, sebbene non ebbe una regolare venerazione, tuttavia, la Chiesa, storicamente, non poteva ignorare la devozione dei fedeli tributata a quest'uomo. Di qui, il riconoscimento della santità del medesimo, pur in assenza di una pronuncia regolare della Chiesa.
Cordialmente

Augustinus

Non ci ho capito molto. Se l'ho elevato agli onori dell'altare un antipapa, la canonizzazione è invalida, o sbaglio?
Inoltre il riconoscimento della Santità di Carlo Imperatore può venire da noi fedeli, senza pronunciamento ufficiale della Chiesa Indefettibile?
Saluti fraterni.

P.S.: sono sempre Ninco Nanco.

[Augustinus]

Originally posted by Hobbit2
Non ci ho capito molto. Se l'ho elevato agli onori dell'altare un antipapa, la canonizzazione è invalida, o sbaglio?
Inoltre il riconoscimento della Santità di Carlo Imperatore può venire da noi fedeli, senza pronunciamento ufficiale della Chiesa Indefettibile?
Saluti fraterni.

P.S.: sono sempre Ninco Nanco.

Caro Ninco Nanco,
la Chiesa cattolica non è un monolite rigido. Essa è massimamente rigida quando si tratta di legge divina ed è massimamente elastica quando si tratta di legge umana (ecclesiastica o civile). Cionondimeno, essa non è sorda alle esigenze dei fedeli. Quindi, se nasce spontaneamente un culto verso Cristo o i Santi, la Chiesa non è indifferente a questi bisogni dei fedeli, intervenendo con strumenti repressivi. Ne valuta i frutti. Se questi sono giudicati positivamente, allora vi dà il suo placet, sia pure tacito.
Questo è avvenuto con Carlo Magno. Pur essendo stato canonizzato da un antipapa - e, quindi, invalidamente, secondo la tua ottica - ciononostante la Chiesa non poteva condannare il culto verso quell'imperatore, che nel frattempo era nato e si era sviluppato in diverse parti d'Europa. Ecco perchè la Chiesa ha permesso e tollera il culto che è tributato all'Imperatore dei Franchi, in diverse regioni.
Qualcosa di analogo è accaduto anche a Costantino, che non è Santo per la Chiesa cattolica (per gli ortodossi, invece, sì, anzi è considerato come 13° apostolo), ma che tuttavia il suo culto è tollerato, pur nella Chiesa, in diverse regioni anche italiane (ad es., la Sardegna). Proprio sul culto di Costantino in Oriente ed Occidente ci fu un convegno di studi presso l'Università di Sassari nell'estate del 2001.
D'altro canto, devi considerare anche un altro argomento di carattere squisitamente storico.
La canonizzazione di Carlo avvenne in un periodo storico nel quale la disciplina delle beatificazioni/canonizzazioni non si era ben assestata come in epoca moderna. Questo giustifica qualche defaillance verificatosi in passato.
Insomma, l'errore che commetti è quello di guardare alla disciplina ed alla dottrina della Chiesa come se queste fossero sempre state quelle sin dalle sue origini e non invece che esse sono frutto di un travagliato lavoro di comprensione storica e teologica.
Cordialmente

Augustinus

[Augustinus]

La Chiesa ha sempre avuto e sempre avrà gli strumenti necessari per valutare la santità di un servo di Dio o meno.
Il discorso che fai è assai riduttivo.
Cordialmente

Augustinus

[Augustinus]

In rilievo :) :) :)

Augustinus

[Augustinus]

Carlo Magno, Epistulae, VIII in PL XCVIII, 908

È mio vivo desiderio creare con Vostra Santità in quest'anno di grazia 796 un patto inviolabile di fede e di carità, in virtù del quale l'apostolica benedizione possa seguirmi ovunque e la Santa Sede romana possa essere costantemente difesa dalla mia devozione. Spetta a me difendere con le armi in ogni luogo e con l'aiuto della divina Provvidenza la Santa Chiesa di Cristo, combattendo contro le incursioni dei pagani e le devastazioni degli infedeli e proteggendo la diffusione della fede cattolica. A Voi, Santissimo Padre, spetta invece il compito di aiutare con le vostre preghiere il successo delle nostre armi.

[Augustinus]

MESSAGGIO DEL SANTO PADRE
GIOVANNI PAOLO II
AL CARD. ANTONIO MARÍA JAVIERRE ORTAS
IN OCCASIONE DEL CONVEGNO PER IL 1200° ANNIVERSARIO DELL’INCORONAZIONE IMPERIALE DI CARLO MAGNO

Al Venerato Fratello nell'Episcopato
il Signor Cardinale Antonio María Javierre Ortas

Con piacere ho appreso che il 16 dicembre prossimo Ella presiederà una seduta accademica dedicata al 1200° anniversario dell'incoronazione imperiale di Carlo Magno, compiuta dal Papa Leone III nel Natale dell'800. Volendo partecipare almeno spiritualmente alla celebrazione della storica ricorrenza, Le invio questo mio Messaggio, con il quale intendo far pervenire a Lei ed alla distinta assemblea il mio beneaugurante saluto.

La commemorazione dello storico evento ci invita a volgere lo sguardo non soltanto al passato, ma anche all'avvenire. Essa, infatti, coincide con la fase decisiva della stesura della "Carta dei diritti fondamentali" dell'Unione Europea. Questa fausta coincidenza invita a riflettere sul valore che anche oggi conserva la riforma culturale e religiosa promossa da Carlo Magno: il suo rilievo, infatti, è ben maggiore dell'opera da lui svolta per la materiale unificazione delle varie realtà politiche europee dell'epoca.

E' la grandiosa sintesi tra la cultura dell'antichità classica, prevalentemente romana, e le culture dei popoli germanici e celtici, sintesi operata sulla base del Vangelo di Gesù Cristo, ciò che caratterizza il poderoso contributo offerto da Carlo Magno al formarsi del Continente. Infatti, l'Europa, che non costituiva una unità definita dal punto di vista geografico, soltanto attraverso l'accettazione della fede cristiana divenne un continente, che lungo i secoli riuscì a diffondere quei suoi valori in quasi tutte le altre parti della terra, per il bene dell'umanità. Al tempo stesso, non si può non rilevare come le ideologie, che hanno causato fiumi di lacrime e di sangue nel corso del XX secolo, siano uscite da un'Europa che aveva voluto dimenticare le sue fondamenta cristiane.

L'impegno che l'Unione Europea si è assunto di formulare una "Carta dei diritti fondamentali" costituisce un tentativo di sintetizzare nuovamente, all'inizio del nuovo millennio, i valori fondamentali ai quali deve ispirarsi la convivenza dei popoli europei. La Chiesa ha seguito con viva attenzione la vicenda dell'elaborazione di tale documento. Al riguardo, non posso nascondere la mia delusione per il fatto che non sia stato inserito nel testo della Carta neppure un riferimento a Dio, nel quale peraltro sta la fonte suprema della dignità della persona umana e dei suoi diritti fondamentali. Non si può dimenticare che fu la negazione di Dio e dei suoi comandamenti a creare, nel secolo passato, la tirannide degli idoli, espressa nella glorificazione di una razza, di una classe, dello stato, della nazione, del partito, in luogo del Dio vivo e vero. E' proprio alla luce delle sventure riversatesi sul ventesimo secolo che si comprende come i diritti di Dio e dell'uomo s'affermino o cadano insieme.

Nonostante molti nobili sforzi, il testo elaborato per la "Carta europea" non ha soddisfatto le giuste attese di molti. Poteva, in particolare, risultare più coraggiosa la difesa dei diritti della persona e della famiglia. E' infatti più che giustificata la preoccupazione per la tutela di tali diritti, non sempre adeguatamente compresi e rispettati. In molti Stati europei essi sono minacciati, ad esempio, dalla politica favorevole all'aborto, quasi dappertutto legalizzato, dall'atteggiamento sempre più possibilista nei confronti dell'eutanasia e, ultimamente, da certi progetti di legge in materia di tecnologia genetica non sufficientemente rispettosi della qualità umana dell'embrione. Non basta enfatizzare con grandi parole la dignità della persona, se essa viene poi gravemente violata nelle norme stesse dell'ordinamento giuridico.

La grande figura storica dell'imperatore Carlo Magno rievoca le radici cristiane dell'Europa, riportando quanti la studiano ad un'epoca che, nonostante i limiti umani sempre presenti, fu caratterizzata da un'imponente fioritura culturale in quasi tutti i campi dell'esperienza. Alla ricerca della sua identità, l'Europa non può prescindere da un energico sforzo di recupero del patrimonio culturale lasciato da Carlo Magno e conservato lungo più di un millennio. L'educazione nello spirito dell'umanesimo cristiano garantisce quella formazione intellettuale e morale che forma ed aiuta la gioventù ad affrontare i seri problemi sollevati dallo sviluppo scientifico-tecnico. In questo senso, anche lo studio delle lingue classiche nelle scuole può essere un valido aiuto per introdurre le nuove generazioni alla conoscenza di un patrimonio culturale di inestimabile ricchezza.

Esprimo, pertanto, il mio apprezzamento a quanti hanno preparato questa sessione accademica, con un particolare pensiero per il Presidente del Pontificio Comitato di Scienze Storiche, Monsignor Walter Brandmüller. L'iniziativa scientifica costituisce un prezioso contributo per la riscoperta di quei valori nei quali è riconoscibile l'«anima» più vera dell'Europa. In questa occasione vorrei salutare anche il coro degli Augsburger Domsingknaben, che per mezzo del loro canto arricchiscono degnamente il convegno.

Con questi sentimenti, invio volentieri a Lei, Signor Cardinale, ai relatori, ai partecipanti ed ai pueri cantores una speciale Benedizione Apostolica.

Dal Vaticano, 14 dicembre 2000

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

[Augustinus]

MESSAGGIO DEL SANTO PADRE GIOVANNI PAOLO II
AL VESCOVO DI AACHEN (GERMANIA) IN OCCASIONE
DELLE CELEBRAZIONI DEL 12° CENTENARIO
DELLA COSTRUZIONE DEL DUOMO

Al mio venerato Fratello nell'Episcopato,
l'Ecc.mo Mons. Heinrich Mussinghoff, Vescovo di Aachen

1. «Quale gioia, quando mi dissero: Andremo alla casa del Signore» (Sal 122, 1).

La gioiosa esclamazione del Salmista trova ad Aachen un'eco vivace da 1200 anni, ossia da quando Carlo Magno completò la Cappella del suo Palazzo e la dedicò a Maria, Ausiliatrice dei cristiani. Nel corso della storia innumerevoli pellegrini, grandi e piccoli, si sono recati in codesta Cattedrale dedicata alla Madonna, per sostare di fronte all'immagine miracolosa e per invocare la protezione materna della Vergine sulla Chiesa e sul mondo.

2. Non mi è possibile essere personalmente presente in occasione dei 1200 anni della Cattedrale di Aachen, ma ho voluto mandarvi un Inviato Speciale nella persona di Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Darío Hoyos Castrillón, che fa le mie veci in questa occasione festosa in qualità di mio rappresentante personale. In tal modo, si manifesta la comunità cattolica che trova il proprio centro nella Chiesa di Roma e come una rete abbraccia tutta la terra. Carlo Magno, edificatore di codesta Casa di Dio, era già consapevole della necessità di questi stretti vincoli con il Successore di Pietro. Con la sua incoronazione a Imperatore, la notte di Natale dell'anno 800, da parte del Papa Leone III, tale consapevolezza raggiunse un apice significativo, dopo che pochi anni prima lo stesso Carlo Magno aveva dato vita alla «Schola Francorum» all'ombra della Basilica di san Pietro. Doveva essere un albergo per i pellegrini, che si recavano nella Città Eterna, dopo aver varcato le Alpi, per visitare le tombe dei Principi degli Apostoli.

3. Oltre a questi legami con Roma, la Cattedrale di Aachen possiede un altro vincolo. Conserva cose preziose, che ci portano col cuore e con la mente non solo nella Città Eterna, ma anche nella Città Santa. Gerusalemme donò a Carlo Magno quattro reliquie di stoffa, che ricordano in modo sensibile e pieno di profonda riverenza significativi avvenimenti della storia della salvezza e, al tempo stesso, possono essere considerate come vesti di pellegrino per il popolo di Dio in cammino nel corso del tempo.

Chi guarda le fasce di Gesù, si ricorda che la comunità di fede dev'essere comunità di vita con Gesù. Infatti anche Cristo ha cominciato la sua vita così come fa ogni cristiano: da neonato. Come Gesù crebbe in sapienza, età e grazia davanti a Dio e agli uomini (cfr Lc 2, 52), anche a noi è chiesto di preoccuparci della crescita e della maturità della nostra fede. Gesù nella mangiatoia non era solo un neonato, ma il Figlio di Dio. Così le fasce sono un invito a onorarlo con la nostra vita e a portare altre persone sulla via dell'adorazione: Venite adoremus! Venite, adoriamo il Re, il Signore!

Il trono del Re è la croce. A ciò allude la reliquia più preziosa, dal punto di vista della storia della salvezza, che si veneri nella Cattedrale di Aachen: il panno che cingeva i fianchi di Gesù. Al Re sulla croce non fu lasciato che questo, cosi che potesse offrire tutto se stesso per Dio e per il mondo. Come Egli si affidò al Padre e al contempo affidò la sua opera a Maria e Giovanni, così anche la Chiesa nel suo pellegrinaggio nel corso del tempo ha il compito di procedere verso Dio senza riserve e di presentare a Lui «le gioie e le speranze, le tristezze e le angosce degli uomini d'oggi» (Gaudium et spes, n. 1).

Ciò attesta che l'ortodossia dell'insegnamento si deve rispecchiare nella coerenza della vita. In questo contesto ricordiamo il panno della decapitazione di Giovanni Battista. Ai cristiani della società moderna professare la fede non costa, in genere, la vita. Nondimeno la testimonianza ha il prezzo di qualche notte insonne e di innumerevoli gocce di sudore in un ambiente sociale in cui Cristo è diventato spesso un estraneo. Proprio in un'epoca nella quale Dio non di rado viene messo a tacere, sono necessari forza e coraggio, per farsi garanti dell'inalienabile dignità di tutti gli uomini per amore di Dio che ha inviato il proprio Figlio, «perché abbiano la vita e l'abbiano in abbondanza» (Gv 10, 10).

La parola vita ci fa pensare a Maria, che fu scelta per portare Cristo, la Vita del mondo. La quarta reliquia di stoffa nella Cattedrale di Aachen ricorda quell'abito che avvolgeva la Madre di Dio nella notte santa. Come Maria ha portato il Figlio nel suo grembo, così la Chiesa, sua immagine, porta Cristo nell'abito da pellegrino durante i secoli. Ciò per cui visse Maria deve essere il movente della Chiesa nel corso della storia: il «mistero della fede» in Gesù Cristo, il «Salvatore degli uomini» ieri, oggi e sempre. È un grande onore e un nobile compito della Chiesa poter vivere con un mistero che Dio stesso le ha affidato. La Chiesa, in quanto custode del mistero divino, è inviata a rivelare il mistero della salvezza «fino agli estremi confini della terra» (At 1, 8).

4. Questo mandato evangelizzatore della Chiesa è la sua missione in ogni tempo, ma in particolare nell'Anno Santo 2000, che festeggiamo quale grande Giubileo dell'Incarnazione di Dio. Ringraziamo il Datore di tutte le cose poiché non solo non ci fermiamo 2000 anni dopo Cristo, ma abbiamo potuto procedere per 2000 anni con Cristo. Anche nel nuovo secolo il cristianesimo ha un futuro luminoso. Questo l'aveva già ricordato il venerato e purtroppo precocemente scomparso Vescovo Klaus Hemmerle, quando pochi mesi prima di morire fece un bilancio con una specie di «previsione»: «Non siamo solo amministratori di un passato così prezioso e santo, ma precursori di un futuro, che non possiamo costruire noi, ma che verrà perché Egli viene» (Omelia del 7 novembre 1993, in occasione del 18° anniversario della sua consacrazione episcopale).

Il mio auspicio è che l'anniversario dei 1200 anni della Cattedrale di Aachen ricordi a tutti i cristiani che sono impiegati come pietre vive nell'edificio di Dio (cfr 1 Pt 2, 5). Il pellegrinaggio ai santuari, che coincide con l'anno giubilare, sia per la Chiesa di Aachen un impulso a considerarsi più profondamente popolo peregrinante di Dio e a mettersi in cammino con cuore gioioso e coraggioso! Sulla via verso il Signore Maria, Madre di Dio e Madre della Chiesa, sia una fedele guida! Unito nello spirito, sono vicino a tutti voi che vi riunite intorno al Vescovo per celebrare il Giubileo della Cattedrale di Aachen, e vi imparto di cuore la Benedizione Apostolica.

Dal Vaticano, 25 gennaio 2000.

[Augustinus]

In rilievo

Aug. :) :) :)

[Augustinus]

In rilievo

Aug. :) :) :)

[Augustinus]

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/2233/charlemagnewbi1.jpg http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/8924/charlemagnebwb4.jpg Agostino Cornacchini, Statua equestre di Carlo Magno, 1725, Portico della Basilica di S. Pietro, Roma

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/4101/navefcpbcq1.jpg Navata della Basilica di S. Pietro. Al centro, è possibile vedere un cerchio di porfido rosso egiziano di 2,50 metri di diametro. Esso apparteneva alla precedente Basilica, poi demoliata in epoca rinascimentale. Essa ne aveva ben altre 5. Solo questo, già collocato dinanzi all'Altare dell'antica Basilica costantiniana, si è conservato e c'è una ragione. Infatti, proprio su questo cerchio di porfido rosso si inginocchiò Carlo Magno allorché fu incoronato da Papa Leone III il giorno di Natale dell'anno 800. E dopo di lui ben altri 23 re ed imperatori si sono inginocchiati su questa pietra per essere incoronati. E' la c.d. rota porfiretica (v. QUI (http://www.stpetersbasilica.org/Docs/SPB-VirtualTour4.htm#marble) e QUI (http://www.essepiquerre.it/luoghi/basiliche/sp_nvcen.html)).

http://asv.vatican.va/immagini/visit/p_nob/p_nobile_sala3_04.jpg Marzio o Marco Ganassini, Pipino il Breve (752-768), re dei Franchi, e padre di Carlo Magno, dona a Stefano III (768-772), per mezzo del suo legato Fulrado, abate di Saint-Denis, le province dell'Esarcato e della Pentapoli, sottratte ad Astolfo, re dei Longobardi (749-756), Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Città del Vaticano, Roma

http://asv.vatican.va/immagini/visit/p_nob/p_nobile_sala3_05.jpg Marzio o Marco Ganassini, Carlo Magno, re dei Franchi (768-814), conferma ad Adriano I (772-795) la donazione di Pipino il Breve, suo padre, e ne aggiunge altre, Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Città del Vaticano, Roma

[Augustinus]

Carlo Magno, Epistulae, VIII, in PL, XCVIII, col. 908

È mio vivo desiderio creare con Vostra Santità in quest'anno di grazia (796) un patto inviolabile di fede e di carità, in virtù del quale l'apostolica benedizione possa seguirmi ovunque e la Santa Sede romana possa essere costantemente difesa dalla mia devozione. Spetta a me difendere con le armi in ogni luogo e con l'aiuto della divina Provvidenza la Santa Chiesa di Cristo, combattendo contro le incursioni dei pagani e le devastazioni degli infedeli e proteggendo la diffusione della fede cattolica. A Voi, Santissimo Padre, spetta invece il compito di aiutare con le vostre preghiere il successo delle nostre armi.

[Augustinus]

http://www.wga.hu/art/d/durer/2/16/2/07crown.jpg Albrecht Dürer, Corona imperiale di Carlo Magno, 1510 circa, Kupferstichkabinett, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Norimberga.
E' da notare la scritta che è possibile leggere a sinistra: "Per me reges regnant". Si tratta di un versetto dei Proverbi (8, 15): «per me reges regnant et legum conditores iusta decernunt». L'imperatore sapeva bene che regnava in vece di Dio e che il potere gli era dato dall'Alto, attraverso la Chiesa

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/ILPTBI/76-001460.jpg Gillot Saint-Evre, Carlo Magno stabilisce Alcuino al Louvre nel 780, 1835, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/WJ0KEZ/94-052335.jpg Jules Laure, Carlo Magno, circondato dalla sua corte, riceva Alcuino, che gli presenta dei manoscritti, opera dei suoi monaci, nel 781, 1837, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/2AVUYL/94-052341.jpg Louis-Félix Amiel, Carlo Magno, imperatore d'Occidente, 1839, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/ILMOSV/94-052342.jpg Louis Joseph Toussaint Rossignol, Carlo Magno, imperatore d'occidente, in una cornice decorativa dipinta da Alaux, 1837, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/P313X7/94-052344.jpg Claude Jacquand detto Claudius-Jacquand, Carlo Magno incoronato re dei Longobardi a Milano da Papa Adriano I il 5 giugno 774, 1837, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

[Augustinus]

Charlemagne: Biographical Data

Biographical Data

The English name Charlemagne comes from the Latin Carolus Magnus, which means Charles the Great. Hence the medieval French Charlemagne, which was adopted also in the English language.
Johann Baptist Weiss in his renowned World History tells us that:

In 772, the 30-year-old Charles took over the government of the whole Frankish Kingdom.

With reason he is called Magnus: he earned the title as general and conqueror, as the man who put order into his immense Empire and as a legislator, and also as one who reformed and stimulated the spiritual life of the West.

By means of his government, Christian ideas were victorious over the barbarian peoples. His life was a constant struggle against the rudeness and barbarism that threatened the Catholic Religion and the burgeoning new culture.

He led no less than 53 wars: 18 against the Saxons, one against Aquitaine, five against the Lombards, seven against the Arabs in Spain, one against the Turungians, four against the Avars, two against the Bretons, one against the Bavarians, four against the Slavs, five against the Saracens in Italy, three against the Danish, and two against the Greeks.

On Christmas in the year 800 Pope St. Leo III raised him to the dignity of Emperor, founding by such act the noblest temporal institution of Christendom, which was the Holy Roman Empire.

On February 28, 814 Charlemagne died, after having received the Holy Eucharist.

He was buried in a niche of the Basilica of Aachen (in Latin, Aquisgranen; in French, Aix-la-Chapelle.) According to the legend, he was buried seated on his throne in upright position, wearing his sword and with the book of Gospels in his hands.

He became the model of Catholic Emperors, the prototype of the cavalier, and the central figure of most of the medieval Chansons de Geste.

FONTE (http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A03CharlemagneData.html)

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/0MAD3S/05-519302.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/YGYQ6N/05-519301.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/Q34A1Q/05-519303.jpg Charles-François Leboeuf detto Nanteuil o Nanteuil-Leboeuf, Carlo Magno imperatore d'Occidente nell'800, 1840, Castello di Versailles e di Trianon, Versailles

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/1TS4GY/03-016547.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/TCDEI4/03-016545.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/P3S4GY/03-016543.jpg http://www.photo.rmn.fr/LowRes2/TR1/D8ICK1/03-016559.jpg Orefice anonimo, Scettro di Carlo V detto di Carlo Magno con scene della Leggenda di Carlo Magno, 1364-80, Musée du Louvre, Parigi

[Augustinus]

The Personality of Charlemagne

with a commentary by Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Historical excerpt from the World History by Johann Baptist Weiss:

Einhard provides us with a close-up of Charlemagne:
“He was large and strong, and of lofty stature, though not disproportionately tall (seven-feet tall). His head was round and well-formed, his eyes very large and vivacious, his nose a little long, his hair white, and his face jovial. His appearance was always stately and very dignified, whether he was standing or sitting. …. His gait was firm, his whole carriage manly, and his voice clear.” (1)

(1) Einhard, Life of Charlemagne, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1880), pp. 56-7.

This heroic figure was possessed of a joyful spirit. The Monk of St. Gall recounts that whoever came before Charlemagne sad and disturbed would leave him serene, just by the effect of his presence and some few words. The freshness and honesty of his nature strengthened all those who were associated with him. His majesty did not have a rigid arrogance, nor a suspicious reserve; rather the tranquil grandeur of his personality dominated everything around him, and, notwithstanding, was unpretentious and self-contained.

The terrifying impression he caused in the hearts of his enemies as a warrior leading his army is described by the Monk of St. Gall:
“Then, one could see the Charlemagne of iron, with his head covered by a iron helmet, his arms bearing iron protectors; in his left hand he carried an iron lance, and in the right his always victorious steel sword. His muscles were covered with iron plates, and his shield made of pure iron.

"When he appeared, the inhabitants of Pavia cried out with fear: O, the Iron Man! O, the Iron Man!”
This Iron Man had a profoundly sensitive heart. Charlemagne wept like a boy at the death of a friend. The victor of 100 battles showed a paternal care for the poor. The man whose steps caused all of Europe to tremble and by whose grand campaigns a million men were conquered was the most tender of fathers, who never could dine without the presence of one of his children.

It was his Religion that gave the noblest impulse to his strong and fecund spirit and that conferred glory to his power. And under its protection he placed the peoples that his sword had conquered (2).

(2) Historia Universal, Spanish Edition, vol. IV, pg. 790.

Comments of Prof. Plinio:

This magnificent portrait of Charlemagne motivates two different comments from me.

The first regards Charlemagne while he was living; the second, his role after he died.

Considering Charlemagne during his life, one realizes that he was a masterpiece of Divine Providence in which God was pleased to manifest His glory by the beauty of harmony. With this, God was pleased to shine co-naturally in him.

Often God wants to celebrate the supremacy of great and powerful souls over small bodies by contrast: the soul seems to be almost independent of the body.

At other times, it is the opposite. God makes men with colossal bodies and with lesser intelligences who became known for their virtues, proving that the grandeur of the body is nothing without moral grandeur. It is said, for example, that St. Christopher was of enormous stature and very strong, but very simple of mind, very naïve, even a little backward. Notwithstanding, from this man with super-abundant physical strength and under-sufficient intellectual capacity, God made a work of art whose upright spirit and great bodily strength charmingly served the Child Jesus.

In Charlemagne God put perfection in everything. In him, we see not the beauty of contrast, but the beauty of harmony, of coherence in all things: a great intelligence animating a great body; a great body that reflected the immense grandeur of a soul that would carry out a colossal work, achieve a high virtue and leave a great memory. Grandeur in everything was the characteristic of Charlemagne.

Let me consider here only one aspect: Charlemagne as a warrior. In the warfare of that time, where gunpowder and modern technical equipment were not present, the physical strength of a warrior was very important. So, Charlemagne – well armed and covered with iron – appeared then in a battle against his enemies like a tank would in our days. He was a kind of human tank, running over and devastating his enemies with his stupendous sword that never broke and never failed. When he advanced, he cut through and destroyed the enemies, leaving after him a wake through which his men could follow.

From the descriptions that were read (above), you can imagine Charlemagne in battle. A tall man, advanced in years but still vigorous, white hair, eyes of steel, strong muscles, all covered with iron, mounted on a horse that is also raring to attack the enemy. He is the father of his people who takes upon himself great risks for the entire people, and advances to lead his people to victory. This was the man whom the inhabitants of Pavia saw pressing forward against them and cried out in fear: “O, the Iron Man! O, the Iron Man!”

Yes, he was an Iron Man, but more important than that, he was a man who inspired an iron nerve in the warriors who fought for him and with him. When he was present, they all became iron warriors, and the army of the Iron Emperor was an iron army. He was more than a mere combatant, he was the source of the combativeness of the whole army. This was the man who fought against the unjust aggressors of the Frankish Kingdom and of the Holy Catholic Church, of which he was the defender.

The battle over, the Emperor returns to the campground covered with glory, but also covered with dust, sweat, and blood.

He goes to his tent and takes off his helmet; some assistants come to help him remove his armor. He washes and goes to eat. You can picture the Carolingian table: a wood trunk covered with a precious cloth, on it is a golden goblet in a strong primitive shape inlaid with roughly hewn stones to make it sparkle. Charlemagne asks for wine and drinks one or two full chalices, because a man so powerful of nature would naturally drink heartily. He eats, drinks, makes an unpretentious review of the battle, thanks Our Lady for the victory, and retires to sleep.

In his huge bed he rests. His rest is communicative. When Charlemagne sleeps in his tent, that tranquility flows to everyone around him, and from there it spreads in concentric circles to reach all the warriors who are also resting. Even in his sleep he is the Guardian Angel of the army that slumbers. How calming it is for an army to know that it is commanded by an Emperor who is a giant called The Iron Man.
He awakes, and his day begins at the campsite. He receives persons who want to talk to him. He is amiable, calm, accessible, transmitting his joy and goodness to everyone. He is the source of the contentment of the whole camp. He is at the same time the fortified tower that protects everyone and the fountain of fresh water from which all can drink. Everyone wants to sip a little of his presence. So, Charlemagne is the joy of the whole camp ground, the delight of the Kingdom of the Franks.

Let us imagine that three or four Catholic Bishops, knowing that Charlemagne was in the area, come to present themselves, to speak with the Emperor, to request a few favors. Because they know the fame of Charlemagne as protector of the Church, they do not feel any sense of competition with him in his role as head of the temporal sphere. They feel esteem, respect, and affection. They know that they are Princes of the Church of God, and for this reason, Charlemagne is just one of the simple faithful before them. But they also know that God had chosen that one man as a Prophet to guide and protect the interests of the Church and Christendom and give to Him the victory.

They approach with all assurance knowing that the Emperor will not dispute their prerogatives, but will treat them with due honor and respect. They also know that they have the liberty to ask anything they want – from a crusade to the building of a hospital – and that the Emperor will give them what he can.

You can picture these men as they present themselves, grave, dignified, and serene. When they arrive, the sentinel makes a deep bow, all the talk ceases, and everyone looks at them. Someone announces: “The Bishops of the Holy Church of God have arrived. They desire to speak with the Emperor.” Another person goes to announce their arrival to Charlemagne.

He raises up his immense frame and receives the Bishops standing. Greetings are exchanged. Charlemagne invites them to sit down: “My Lords and Fathers, what is it you desire?” We would like this and that. Charlemagne attends to the requests, and gives a little more than what was asked. Satisfied, they take their leave. The army raises camp and moves on to either another battle or returns to Aix-la-Chapelle for a period of rest and tranquility.
Here is the great Charlemagne: a kind of light that intensifies the color of everything around him. Before him the Bishops feel themselves more as Bishops, his sons feel themselves more as sons, the joyful souls are more joyful, the warriors more warriors. There is in him a propelling strength that it is not just physical power, but also the mental strength of a great soul, and more than that, an irradiation of graces that exudes from him. This makes him the source of the life and joy of the entire Empire.

Let me just say a quick word about the role of Charlemagne after he died. After his death, many Bishops would come to better understand their own mission because they would be formed by Bishops who had known Charlemagne. Many warriors would be more perfect warriors because they would converse with and be formed by knights who had seen Charlemagne fighting in a battle. In many courts the splendor would be greater because they would talk about the Carolingian magnificence and the work of the great Emperor. Many Emperors would be more majestic and many Kings would better understand their lordship because the irradiating warmth of the presence of Charlemagne could still be felt there.(2)

(2) These comments were taken from personal notes of A.S. Guimarães, which were adapted and translated to English for TIA’s website.

FONTE (http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A01CharlemagnePersonality.html)

[Augustinus]

Prayer to Charlemagne

Dom Prosper Gueranger O.S.B.

The original French edition of The Liturgical Year by Don Geranger listed January 28 as the feast day for Saint Charlemagne, which the Church permitted to be celebrated in some German villages. Later editions of the same work left out that feast day.[/B]

We present here for the benefit of our readers the prayer composed by the renowned liturgist in honor of Charlemagne:

“Hail, o Charles, beloved of God, Apostle of Christ, defender of His Church, protector of justice, guardian of good customs, terror of the enemies of the Christian name!

"The tainted diadem of the Caesars – purified by the hands of Leo – sits on your august forehead; the globe of the Empire rests in your vigorous hand; the ever-victorious sword in your combats for Our Lord is sheathed at your waist, and on your forehead the imperial anointing was added to the royal unction by the hand of the Pontiff who consecrated you and confirmed your authority. As the representative of the figure of Christ in His temporal Royalty, you desired that He would reign in you and through you.
“Now God rewards you for the love you had for Him, for the zeal you displayed for His glory, for the respect and confidence you showed toward His Spouse. In exchange for an earthly kingship, transitory and uncertain, you enjoy now an immortal kingdom where so many million of souls, who by your hands escaped idolatry, today honor you as the instrument of their salvation.

“During the days of celebration of the birth of Our Lord by Our Lady, you offered to them the gracious temple you built in their honor (the Basilica of Aix-la-Chapelle), and which is still today the object of our admiration. It was in this place that your pious hands placed the newborn garment worn by her Divine Son. As retribution, the Son of God desired that your bones should gloriously rest in the same place to receive the testimony of the veneration of the peoples.

"O glorious heir to the three Magi Kings of the East, present our souls before the One who wore such a humble garment. Ask Him to give us a part of the profound humility you had as you knelt before the Manger, a part of that great joy that filled your heart at Christmas, a part of that fiery zeal that made you realize so many works for the glory of the Infant Christ, and a part of that great strength that never abandoned you in your conquests for His Kingdom.

“O mighty Emperor, you who of old was the arbiter of the whole European family assembled under your scepter, have mercy on this society that today is being destroyed in all its parts. After more than a thousand years, the Empire that the Church placed in your hands has collapsed as a chastisement for its infidelity to the Church that founded it. The nations still remain, troubled and afflicted. Only the Church can return life to them through the Faith; only she continues to be the depositary of public law; only she can govern the powerful and bless the obedient.

"O Charles the Great, we beseech you to make that day arrive soon when society, re-established at its foundations, will cease asking liberty and order from the revolutions. Protect with a special love France, the most splendid flower of your magnificent crown. Show that you are always her king and father. Put an end to the false progress of the faithless empires of the North that have fallen into schism and heresy, and do not permit the peoples of the Holy Empire to fall prisoner to them.”

FONTE (http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A02CharlemagneTribute.html)

[Augustinus]

Da dom Prosper Guéranger, L’Année Liturgique - Le Temps de Noël, Paris-Poitiers, 1901, t. II, p. 492-511

XXVIII JANVIER

LE BIENHEUREUX CHARLEMAGNE, EMPEREUR.

Au gracieux souvenir de la douce martyre Agnès, un grand nombre d’Eglises, surtout en Allemagne, associent aujourd’hui la mémoire imposante du pieux Empereur Charlemagne. L’Emmanuel, en venant en ce monde, doit recevoir le titre de Roi des rois et de Seigneur des seigneurs; il doit ceindre l’épée et tenir sous son sceptre la multitude des nations: quoi de plus juste que d’amener à son berceau le plus grand des princes chrétiens, celui qui se fit toujours gloire de mettre son épée au service du Christ et de son Eglise!

Le respect des peuples était déjà préparé en faveur de la sainteté de Charlemagne, lorsque Frédéric Barberousse fit rendre le décret de sa canonisation par l’antipape Pascal III, en 1165: c’est pourquoi le Siège Apostolique, sans vouloir approuver une procédure irrégulière, ni la recommencer dans les formes, puisqu’on ne lui en a pas fait la demande, a cru devoir respecter ce culte en tous les lieux où il fut établi. Cependant les nombreuses Eglises qui honorent, depuis plus de sept siècles, la mémoire du grand Charles, se contentent, par respect pour le martyrologe Romain où son nom ne se lit pas, de le fêter sous le titre de Bienheureux.

Avant l’époque de la Réforme, le nom du Bienheureux Charlemagne se trouvait sur le calendrier d’un grand nombre de nos Eglises de France; les Bréviaires de Reims et de Rouen l’avaient conservé jusqu’à nos jours. L’Eglise de Paris le sacrifia, de bonne heure, aux préjugés des Docteurs dont les opinions avancées se manifestèrent dans son Université, dès la première moitié du XVIe siècle. La Réforme avait conçu de l’antipathie contre un homme qui avait été la plus magnifique et la plus complète représentation du Prince catholique; et ce fut bien moins le défaut d’une canonisation en règle que l’on mit en avant pour effacer du calendrier le nom de Charlemagne, que la prétendue licence de ses mœurs, dont on affecta de relever le scandale. Sur cette question comme sur bien d’autres, le sentiment public se forma à la légère; et nous ne nous dissimulons pas que les personnes qui se sont le moins occupées d’étudier les titres de Charlemagne à la sainteté, seront les plus étonnées de trouver son nom dans cet ouvrage.

Plus de trente Eglises, en Allemagne, célèbrent encore aujourd’hui la fête du grand Empereur; sa chère Eglise d’Aix-la-Chapelle garde son corps et l’expose à la vénération des peuples. Les Vies des Saints publiées en France, même celle de Baillet et de Godescard, n’ont point été infidèles à sa mémoire. Par un étrange retour, l’Université de Paris le choisit pour son Patron en 1661; mais sa fête, qui était abrogée depuis plus d’un siècle, ne se releva que comme solennité civile, sans aucune mention dans la Liturgie.

Il n’entre point dans le plan de cet ouvrage de discuter les raisons pour lesquelles un culte a été attribué aux Saints sur lesquels nous réunissons les éloges liturgiques; on ne doit donc pas attendre de nous une démonstration en forme de la sainteté de Charlemagne. Cependant nous avouerons, en passant, que nous inclinons avec Bossuet, dont la sévérité en morale est assez connue, à croire que les moeurs de Charlemagne furent toujours pures (1), et que le préjugé contraire, qui n’a pour lui que quelques textes assez vagues et contradictoires de certains auteurs du moyen âge, a dû ses développements à la malheureuse influence de l’esprit protestant. Nous rappellerons que D. Mabillon, qui insiste sur le fait de la répudiation d’Hermengarde, que cet Empereur quitta pour reprendre Himiltrude, sa première femme, comme sur une action qui fut justement blâmée, conclut le récit des actions de Charlemagne, dans ses Annales Bénédictines, en avouant qu’il n’est pas démontré que la pluralité des femmes de ce prince ait été simultanée. Le P. le Cointe et le P. Noël Alexandre, auteurs non suspects de partialité, et qui ont examiné à fond la question, montrent, avec évidence, que le seul reproche qui puisse être adressé à Charlemagne, au sujet des femmes, est relatif à la répudiation d’Himiltrude, qu’il quitta momentanément pour prendre Hermengarde, par complaisance pour sa mère, et qu’il reprit, l’année suivante, pour obéir à son devoir, et céder aux remontrances du Pape Etienne IV. Nous avouons volontiers qu’après la mort de Liutgarde, la dernière de ses femmes qui ait eu les honneurs de Reine, Charlemagne en a eu plusieurs autres, qui sont appelées concubines par Eginhard, parce qu’elles ne portaient point la couronne, et que leurs enfants n’étaient pas considérés comme princes du sang; mais nous disons, avec D. Mabillon, que Charlemagne a pu avoir successivement ces femmes: ce qui, dit-il, est tout à fait croyable de la part d’un prince si religieux, et à qui les lois de l’Eglise étaient tant à cœur (2).

Indépendamment du sentiment des auteurs si graves que nous venons de citer, un fait incontestable suffit pour garantir Charlemagne de tout reproche sérieux au sujet de la pluralité des femmes, du moins depuis le renvoi d’Hermengarde, pour reprendre Himiltrude. Le prince avait alors vingt-huit ans. On connaît la sévérité des Pontifes romains sur le respect dû au mariage par les princes. L’histoire du moyen âge est remplie du récit des luttes qu’ils ont soutenues pour venger un point si essentiel de la morale chrétienne contre les monarques même les plus puissants, et quelquefois les plus dévoués à l’Eglise. Comment serait-il possible que saint Adrien Ier, qui siégea de 772 à 795, et fut honoré par Charlemagne comme un père, dont celui-ci requérait l’avis en toutes choses, eût laissé ce prince s’abandonner aux plus graves désordres, sans réclamer, tandis qu’Etienne IV, qui n’a siégé que trois ans, et n’a pas eu la même influence sur Charlemagne, a bien su procurer le renvoi d’Hermengarde? Comment serait-il possible que saint Léon III, qui a siégé de 795 jusqu’après la mort de Charlemagne, dont il a récompensé la piété en lui mettant sur la tête la couronne impériale, n’eût fait aucun effort pour le détacher des concubines qui auraient succédé à la dernière reine Liutgarde? Or, nous ne trouvons aucune trace de telles réclamations de la part des deux Pontifes qui ont occupé, à eux seuls, le Saint-Siège pendant plus de quarante ans, et que l’Eglise universelle a placés sur ses autels; nous sommes donc en droit de conclure que l’honneur de l’Eglise est intéressé dans cette question, et il est de notre devoir de catholiques de n’être pas indifférents à la cause des mœurs de Charlemagne.

Quoi qu’il en soit des motifs de conscience qui légitimèrent, aux yeux de ce prince, la répudiation d’Himiltrude, dont il paraît, par la lettre d’Etienne IV, que le mariage avait pu être cassé comme invalide, quoique à tort, Charlemagne trouva, plus tard, dans sa propre conduite, assez de confiance pour insister avec la plus grande énergie contre le crime d’adultère, et même de simple fornication, dans ses Capitulaires. Nous nous contenterons de citer un seul exemple de cette vigueur chrétienne; et nous demanderons à tout homme de bonne foi s’il eût été possible à un prince compromis lui-même dans ses mœurs, de s’exprimer, non seulement avec cette simplicité tout évangélique, mais encore avec cette assurance d’honnête homme, en présence des Evêques et des Abbés de son empire, en face des Princes et des Barons dont il voulait contenir les passions, et qui auraient été en mesure d’opposer à ses exhortations et à ses menaces le spectacle humiliant de sa propre conduite.

«Nous défendons, sous peine de sacrilège, dit-il dans un Capitulaire publié sous le pontificat de saint Léon III, l’envahissement des biens de l’Eglise, les injustices de tout genre, les adultères, les fornications, les incestes, les unions illicites, les homicides injustes, etc., par lesquels nous savons que périssent, non seulement les royaumes et les rois, mais encore les simples particuliers. Et comme, par le secours de Dieu, par le mérite et l’intercession des Saints et des serviteurs de Dieu, que nous avons toujours honorés, nous avons acquis jusqu’ici grand nombre de royaumes, et remporté beaucoup de victoires, c’est à nous tous de prendre garde de ne pas mériter de perdre ces biens par les susdits crimes et luxures honteuses. En effet, nous savons que beaucoup de contrées, dans lesquelles ont eu lieu ces envahissements des biens des Eglises, ces injustices, ces adultères, ces prostitutions, n’ont su être ni braves dans la guerre, ni stables dans la foi. Chacun peut, en lisant leurs histoires, connaître comte ment le Seigneur a permis aux Sarrasins et autres peuples de subjuguer les ouvriers de telles iniquités; et nous ne doutons pas que semblables choses ne nous arrivassent, si nous ne nous gardions de tels méfaits; car Dieu a coutume de les venger. Que chacun de nos sujets sache donc que celui qui sera surpris et convaincu de quelqu’un de ces crimes, perdra tous ses honneurs, s’il en a; qu’il sera mis en prison, jusqu’à ce qu’il se soit amendé et qu’il ait fait la satisfaction d’une pénitence publique; et aussi qu’il sera séparé de toute société des fidèles, tant nous devons craindre la fosse dans laquelle nous savons que d’autres sont tombés». Charlemagne eût-il tenu ce langage, si, comme on l’a prétendu, sa vieillesse eût été livrée à la débauche, au temps même où il publiait ce Capitulaire, c’est-à-dire après la mort de Liutgarde?

Quand bien même on admettrait que ce grand prince eût commis des fautes, c’est aux premières années de son règne qu’il faudrait les reporter; alors il serait juste, en même temps, de considérer dans le reste de sa vie les traces admirables de la plus sincère pénitence. N’est-ce pas un spectacle merveilleux que devoir un si grand guerrier, parvenu à la monarchie universelle, s’exercer continuellement, non seulement à la sobriété, si rare dans sa race, mais encore à des jeûnes comparables à ceux des plus fervents solitaires, porter le cilice jusqu’à la mort, assister de jour et de nuit aux Offices de l’Eglise, jusque dans ses campagnes, sous la tente; secourir par l’aumône, qui, comme parle l’Ecriture, couvre la multitude des péchés, non seulement tous les pauvres de ses Etais, qui venaient implorer sa charité, mais jusqu’aux chrétiens de l’Afrique, de l’Egypte, de la Syrie, de la Palestine, en faveur desquels il épuisa souvent ses trésors? Mais, ce qui dépasse tout, et nous découvre dans Charlemagne, d’un seul trait, l’ensemble des vertus chrétiennes que l’on peut désirer dans un prince, c’est qu’il ne parut avoir reçu le pouvoir suprême que pour le faire servira l’extension du règne de Jésus-Christ sur la terre. Si l’on cherche un autre mobile dans tout ce qu’il a fait par ses victoires et par sa législation, on ne le trouvera pas.

Cet homme qui tenait en sa main, non seulement la France, mais encore la Catalogne, la Navarre et l’Aragon; la Flandre, la Hollande et la Frise; les provinces de la Westphalie et de la Saxe, jusqu’à l’Elbe; la Franconie, la Souabe, la Thuringe et la Suisse; les deux Pannonies, c’est-à-dire l’Autriche et la Hongrie, la Dacie, la Bohème, l’Istrie, la Liburnie, la Dalmatie et jusqu’à l’Esclavonie; enfin toute l’Italie jusqu’à la Calabre-Inférieure; cet homme, disons-nous, est le même qui s’intitulait ainsi dans ses Capitulaires: « Moi, Charles, par la grâce de Dieu et le don de sa miséricorde, Roi et gouverneur du Royaume des Français, dévot défenseur de la sainte Eglise de Dieu, et son humble champion. » Tant d’autres, moins puissants que lui, et qu’on sait encore admirer malgré leurs crimes, dont on dissimule avec tant d’art les dépravations, n’ont vécu, pour ainsi dire, que pour l’asservissement de l’Eglise. On a vu jusqu’à des princes pieux tenter de mettre la main sur sa liberté; Charles l’a toujours respectée comme l’honneur de sa propre mère. C’est lui qui, marchant sur les traces de Pépin son père, a préparé généreusement l’indépendance du Siège Apostolique. Jamais les Pontifes Romains n’eurent de fils plus dévoué et plus obéissant. Bien au-dessus des jalousies de la politique, il rendit au clergé et au peuple les élections épiscopales qu’il avait trouvées aux mains du prince. Ses conquêtes eurent pour principale intention d’assurer la propagation de la foi chez les nations barbares; on le vit entrer en Espagne pour affranchir les Chrétiens opprimés par les Sarrasins. Il voulut resserrer les liens des Eglises de son Royaume avec le Siège Apostolique, en établissant pour jamais dans tous les Etats de sa domination la Liturgie romaine. Dans sa législation tout entière, rendue dans des assemblées où les Evêques et les Abbés avaient la prépondérance, on ne trouve aucune trace de ces prétendues Libertés Gallicanes, qui consistent dans l’intervention du prince ou du magistrat civil en des matières purement ecclésiastiques. « Charles, dit Bossuet dans ce même Sermon sur l’Unité de l’Eglise, eut tant d’amour pour l’Eglise Romaine, que le principal article de son testament fut de recommander à ses successeurs la défense de l’Eglise de saint Pierre, comme le précieux héritage de sa maison, qu’il avait reçu de son père et de son aïeul, et qu’il voulait laisser à ses enfants. Ce même amour lui fit dire, ce qui fut répété depuis par tout un Concile, sous l’un de ses descendants, que quand cette Eglise imposerait un joug à peine supportable, il le faudrait souffrir».

D’où pouvait donc provenir cette modération sublime, avec laquelle Charlemagne inclinait son glaive victorieux devant la force morale, cet apaisement des mouvements de l’orgueil qui croit ordinairement en proportion de la puissance, si ce n’est de la sainteté? L’homme seul, sans le secours d’une grâce qui habite son cœur, n’arrive point à cette élévation, et surtout n’y demeure pas durant une vie entière. Charlemagne a donc été choisi par l’Emmanuel lui-même pour être la plus admirable représentation du prince chrétien sur la terre; et les cœurs catholiques aimeront à proclamer sa gloire en présence de l’Enfant qui vient régner sur toutes les nations, pour les régir dans la sainteté et la justice. Jésus-Christ est venu apporter du ciel l’idée de la royauté chrétienne; et nous sommes encore à chercher dans l’histoire l’homme qui l’aurait conçue et réalisée avec autant de plénitude et de majesté que Charles le Victorieux, toujours Auguste, couronné de Dieu.

Nous demanderons aux Bréviaires de l’Allemagne le récit liturgique des actions du grand Apôtre des Germains. Les Leçons qui suivent ne sont pas parfaites sous le rapport de la rédaction; mais elles sont précieuses, parce qu’on y entend encore la voix d’un peuple catholique et fidèle dans ses affections.

Le Bienheureux Charles eut pour père Pépin, qui était fils du duc de Brabant, et qui fut dans la suite élu au trône de France, et pour mère Bertrade, fille de l’Empereur des Grecs. Il se montra digne, par ses hauts faits et son zèle pour la Religion chrétienne, d’être surnommé le Grand; et un Concile de Mayence lui donna le titre de Très Chrétien. Après avoir expulsé les Lombards de l’Italie, il fut le premier qui mérita d’être couronné Empereur, par les mains du Pape Léon III. A la prière d’Adrien, prédécesseur de Léon, il entra en Italie avec une armée et rendit à l’Eglise son patrimoine, et l’Empire à l’Occident. Il vengea le Pape Léon des violences des Romains qui l’avaient traité injurieusement, durant la grande Litanie, et chassa de la ville ceux qui s’étaient rendus coupables de ce sacrilège. Il fit beaucoup de règlements pour la dignité de l’Eglise; entre autres il renouvela cette loi, ordonnant que les causes civiles seraient remises au jugement de l’Eglise, lorsque l’une des parties le demanderait. Quoiqu’il fût de mœurs très douces, il réprimait cependant les vices avec une grande sévérité, surtout l’adultère et l’idolâtrie, et établit des tribunaux particuliers revêtus d’un pouvoir étendu, qui, jusqu’à ce jour, existent encore dans la Basse-Saxe.

Après avoir combattu trente-trois ans contre les Saxons, il les soumit enfin, et ne leur imposa d’autre loi que de se faire chrétiens; il obligea à perpétuité les possesseurs de terres à élever des croix de bois dans leurs champs, afin de confesser ouvertement leur foi au Christ. Il purgea la Gascogne, l’Espagne et la Galice des idolâtres qui s’y trouvaient, et il remit en honneur le tombeau de saint Jacques, comme il l’est aujourd’hui. Dans la Hongrie, pendant huit ans entiers, il soutint le Christianisme par ses armes; et il se servait contre les Sarrasins de cette lance toujours victorieuse dont un soldat avait ouvert le côté du Christ. Dieu favorisa de plusieurs prodiges tant d’efforts pour l’extension de la foi: ainsi les Saxons qui assiégeaient Sigisbourg, frappés de terreur par la main de Dieu, prirent la fuite; et, dans la première révolte de ce peuple, il sortit de terre un fleuve abondant qui désaltéra l’armée des Francs privée d’eau depuis trois jours. Un si grand Empereur se montrait vêtu d’un habit qui le distinguait à peine du peuple; presque habituellement il portait le cilice; et ce n’était qu’aux principales fêtes de Jésus-Christ et des Saints que l’or paraissait sur lui. Il défrayait les pauvres et les pèlerins, tant dans son propre palais que dans les autres contrées, par les aumônes qu’il, envoyait de toutes parts. Il bâtit vingt-quatre Monastères, et remit à chacun ce qu’on appelait la bulle d’or, du poids de deux cents livres. Il établit deux Sièges Métropolitains et neuf Evêchés. Il construisit vingt-sept Eglises; enfin, il fonda deux Universités, celle de Pavie et celle de Paris.

Comme Charles cultivait les lettres, il employa le docteur Alcuin pour l’éducation de ses enfants dans les sciences libérales, avant de les former aux armes et à la chasse. Enfin la soixante-huitième année de son âge, après avoir fait couronner et élire roi Louis son fils, il se donna tout entier à la prière et à l’aumône. Sa coutume était de se rendre à l’Eglise le matin et le soir, souvent même aux heures de la nuit; car ses délices étaient d’entendre le chant grégorien, qu’il établit le premier en France et en Germanie, après avoir obtenu des chantres d’Adrien Ier. Il eut soin aussi de faire transcrire en tous lieux les hymnes de l’Eglise. Il écrivît les Evangiles de sa propre main, et les conféra avec les exemplaires grecs et syriaques. Il fut toujours très sobre dans le boire et dans le manger, ayant coutume de traiter les maladies par le jeûne, qu’il prolongea quelquefois jusqu’à sept jours. Enfin, après avoir beaucoup souffert de la part des méchants, il tomba malade en la soixante-douzième année de son âge. Ayant reçu la sainte communion des mains de l’Evêque Hildebalde, et fait lui-même, sur chacun de ses membres, le signe de la croix, il récita ce verset: « Je remets, Seigneur, mon esprit entre vos mains », et rendit son âme à Dieu le cinq des calendes de février, plein de nombreux mérites. Il fut enseveli dans la Basilique d’Aix-la-Chapelle, qu’il avait bâtie et enrichie de reliques des Saints. Il y est honoré par la piété et l’affluence des pèlerins, et par les faveurs que Dieu accorde à son intercession. Sa fête est célébrée dans la plupart des diocèses d’Allemagne, du consentement de l’Eglise, depuis le pontificat d’Alexandre III, comme celle du principal propagateur de la foi dans le Nord.

L’Hymne suivante fait partie de l’Office du Bienheureux Charlemagne, d’où sont tirées les Leçons qu’on vient de lire.

O Roi triomphateur de l’univers, Empereur des rois de la terre, du séjour des bienheureux, daignez écouter nos gémissements.

Par vos prières la mort s’enfuit, les maladies s’éloignent, la vie est rendue; vous désaltérez ceux qui ont soif, vous purifiez les nations par le baptême.

Votre prière renverse les murailles que l’art et la nature rendaient inexpugnables; aux nations que vous avez vaincues, vous enseignez à porter le joug suave du Christ.

O digne serviteur du ciel, serviteur prudent et fidèle! du sein des camps, vous êtes monté aux cieux, vous êtes allé au séjour de la paix.

De votre épée frappez le rocher; faites-en sortir pour nous une fontaine vive; implorez Dieu pour nous, par vos pieuses prières, et rendez-le clément envers nous.

Gloire et louange à la Trinité, honneur à l’Unité, qui, dans la vertu souveraine, règnent d’un droit égal.

Amen.

Cette Antienne appartient à la même Liturgie

Ant. Espoir des affligés, terreur des ennemis, douceur pour les vaincus, règle de vertu, sentier du droit, forme du salut, ô Charles, recevez les pieux hommages de vos serviteurs.

Parmi les Séquences consacrées à notre grand Empereur, nous trouvons la suivante, extraite d’un ancien Missel d’Aix-la-Chapelle.

SÉQUENCE.

Cité d’Aix, cité royale, siège principal de la royauté, palais préféré de nos princes;

Chante gloire au Roi des rois, aujourd’hui que tu célèbres la mémoire du grand roi Charles.

Que notre chœur chante dans l’allégresse, que le clergé fasse entendre le mélodieux accord des voix.

Quand la main est occupée aux bonnes œuvres, le cœur médite douce psalmodie.

En ce jour de fête, que l’Eglise honore les grands gestes du grand Roi.

Rois et peuples de la terre, que tous applaudissent d’un concert joyeux.

Charles est le fort soldat du Christ, le chef de l’invincible cohorte; à lui seul il renverse dix mille combattants.

De l’ivraie il purge la terre; il affranchit la moisson, en sarclant de son glaive cette herbe maudite.

C’est là le grand Empereur, bon semeur d’une bonne semence, et prudent agriculteur.

Il convertit les infidèles, il renverse temples et dieux; sa main brise les idoles.

Il dompte les rois superbes, il fait régner les saintes lois avec la justice;

La justice: mais il lui donne pour compagne la miséricorde.

Il est sacré de l’huile de liesse, par un don de grâce, plus que tous les autres rois.

Avec la couronne de gloire, il reçoit les insignes de l’Impériale Majesté.

O Roi triomphateur du monde, toi qui règnes avec Jésus-Christ, ô père saint! ô Charles! sois notre intercesseur ;

Afin que, purs de tout péché, dans le royaume de la lumière, nous, ton peuple, soyons les habitants du ciel avec les bienheureux.

Etoile de la mer, ô Marie, salut du monde, voie de la vie! dirige nos pas vacillants et donne-nous accès auprès du Roi suprême, dans la gloire sans fin.

O Christ! splendeur du Dieu Père, fils de la Mère immaculée, par ce Saint dont nous fêtons le jour, daigne nous accorder l’éternelle joie.

Amen.

Nous conclurons les hommages rendus par les diverses Eglises au Bienheureux Charlemagne, en donnant ici la Collecte de sa fête.

PRIONS

O Dieu, qui, dans la surabondante fécondité de votre bonté, avez décoré du manteau de la glorieuse immortalité le bienheureux Empereur Charlemagne, après qu’il a eu déposé le voile de la chair: accordez à nos prières de mériter pour pieux intercesseur dans les cieux, celui que vous avez élevé sur la terre à l’honneur de l’Empire, pour la propagation de la vraie foi. Par Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur. Amen.

Salut, ô Charles, bien-aimé de Dieu, Apôtre du Christ, rempart de son Eglise, protecteur de la justice, gardien des mœurs, terreur des ennemis du nom Chrétien! Le diadème souillé des Césars, mais purifié par les mains de Léon, couronne votre front auguste; le globe de l’empire repose en votre forte main; l’épée des combats du Seigneur, toujours victorieuse, est suspendue à votre baudrier; et l’onction impériale est venue s’unir à l’onction royale dont la main du Pontife avait déjà consacré votre bras puissant. Devenu la figure du Christ dans sa royauté temporelle, vous avez voulu qu’il régnât en vous et par vous. Il vous récompense maintenant de l’amour que vous avez eu pour lui, du zèle que vous avez montré pour sa gloire, du respect et de la confiance que vous avez témoignés à son Epouse. Pour une royauté de la terre, caduque et périssable, vous avez reçu une royauté immortelle, au sein de laquelle tant de millions d’âmes, arrachées par vous à l’idolâtrie, vous honorent comme l’instrument de leur salut.
Dans ces jours où nous célébrons le divin enfantement de la Reine des deux, vous lui présentez le temple gracieux et magnifique que vous élevâtes en son honneur, et qui fait encore sur la terre notre admiration. C’est dans ce saint lieu que vos pieuses mains placèrent les langes de son divin Fils; en retour, l’Emmanuel a voulu que vos ossements sacrés y reposassent avec gloire, afin d’y recevoir les témoignages de la vénération des peuples. Glorieux héritier de la foi des trois Rois de l’Orient, présentez-nous à Celui qui daigna revêtir ces humbles tissus. Demandez pour nous une part de cette humilité avec laquelle vous aimiez à vous incliner devant la crèche, de cette pieuse joie que goûtait votre cœur dans les solennités que nous célébrons, de ce zèle ardent qui vous fit entreprendre tant de travaux pour la gloire du Fils de Dieu, de cette force qui ne vous abandonna jamais dans la recherche de son Royaume.

Puissant Empereur, qui fûtes autrefois l’arbitre de la famille européenne réunie tout entière sous votre sceptre, prenez en pitié cette société qui s’écroule aujourd’hui de toutes parts. Après mille ans, l’Empire que l’Eglise avait confié à vos mains est tombé: tel a été le châtiment de son infidélité envers l’Eglise qui l’avait fondé. Mais les nations sont restées, et s’agitent dans l’inquiétude. L’Eglise seule peut leur rendre la vie par la foi; seule, elle est demeurée dépositaire des notions du droit public; seule, elle peut régler le pouvoir, et consacrer l’obéissance. Faites que le jour luise bientôt, où la société rétablie sur ses bases cessera de demander aux révolutions l’ordre et la liberté. Protégez d’un amour spécial la France, le plus riche fleuron de votre splendide couronne. Montrez que vous êtes toujours son Roi et son Père.

Arrêtez les progrès des faux empires qui s’élèvent au Nord sur le schisme et l’hérésie, et ne permettez pas que les peuples du Saint Empire Romain deviennent à jamais leur proie.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE

1. Vaillant, savant, modéré, guerrier sans ambition, et exemplaire dans sa vie, je le veux bien dire en passant, malgré les reproches des siècles ignorants, ses conquêtes prodigieuses furent la dilatation du règne de Dieu, et il se montra très chrétien dans toutes ses oeuvres. Sermon sur l’unité de l’Eglise.

2. Annales Benedictini. Tome II, pag. 408.

FONTE (http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/gueranger/anneliturgique/noel/noel02/032.htm)

http://www.manfredhiebl.de/karl.jpg

http://www.ibl.uni-bremen.de/lehre/lui/user/ag20/kroenung54k.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Die_deutschen_Kaiser_Karl_der_Gro%C3%9Fe.jpg http://worldroots.com/brigitte/gifs3/karldergrosse.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Charles_Ier_le_Grand_ou_Charlemagne.jpg

Altre immagini (http://www.photo.rmn.fr/cf/htm/CSearchT.aspx?V=CSearchT&SID=22S39UWP66220&E=S_22S39UWP66220&NoR=500&New=T)

[catholikos]

Correggetemi se sbaglio, ma ne sono abbastanza sicuro. Terminologicamente sarebbe piu' corretto chiamare Carlo Magno "Beato". Infatti "beatitudine" indica un culto locale approvato dalla Chiesa, una condizione di santita' celeste che puo' essere dichiarata anche localmente da un Vescovo in ragione di un culto locale o dei particolari meriti pastorali di un uomo. La "santita'" invece puo' essere dichiarata solo da un Patriarca che ne abbia facolta' ed in comunione col Papa o dal Papa stesso. Impegna l'infallibilita' apostolica ed impegna al culto la Chiesa Universale.
Dunque a meno che il Papa non proclami Carlo Magno Santo lo si dovrebbe considerare, con corretta derminologia, Beato.

[arduinus]

Correggetemi se sbaglio, ma ne sono abbastanza sicuro. Terminologicamente sarebbe piu' corretto chiamare Carlo Magno "Beato". Infatti "beatitudine" indica un culto locale approvato dalla Chiesa, una condizione di santita' celeste che puo' essere dichiarata anche localmente da un Vescovo in ragione di un culto locale o dei particolari meriti pastorali di un uomo. La "santita'" invece puo' essere dichiarata solo da un Patriarca che ne abbia facolta' ed in comunione col Papa o dal Papa stesso. Impegna l'infallibilita' apostolica ed impegna al culto la Chiesa Universale.
Dunque a meno che il Papa non proclami Carlo Magno Santo lo si dovrebbe considerare, con corretta derminologia, Beato.

Tu forse ignori che la differenza tra canonizzazione e beatificazione è una cosa relativamente recente della Chiesa...
E poi in base alle tue astruse teorie San Pietro (per fare un esempio) non è santo, perchè nessun Papa lo ha mai canonizzato...

[catholikos]

Tu forse ignori che la differenza tra canonizzazione e beatificazione è una cosa relativamente recente della Chiesa...
E poi in base alle tue astruse teorie San Pietro (per fare un esempio) non è santo, perchè nessun Papa lo ha mai canonizzato...

Non vorrei apparir presuntuoso... ma ne sei sicuro? Anche nel primo millennio si autorizzavano culti solo locali e culti universali.
Per S.Pietro e gli altri personaggi evangelici... beh li ha canonizzati Cristo scegliendoli, non c'e' bisogno di nessun'altra canonizzazione. S.Pietro e' in paradiso con certezza... ne possiede addirittura "le chiavi" ;)

[Augustinus]

Correggetemi se sbaglio, ma ne sono abbastanza sicuro. Terminologicamente sarebbe piu' corretto chiamare Carlo Magno "Beato". Infatti "beatitudine" indica un culto locale approvato dalla Chiesa, una condizione di santita' celeste che puo' essere dichiarata anche localmente da un Vescovo in ragione di un culto locale o dei particolari meriti pastorali di un uomo. La "santita'" invece puo' essere dichiarata solo da un Patriarca che ne abbia facolta' ed in comunione col Papa o dal Papa stesso. Impegna l'infallibilita' apostolica ed impegna al culto la Chiesa Universale.
Dunque a meno che il Papa non proclami Carlo Magno Santo lo si dovrebbe considerare, con corretta derminologia, Beato.

Secondo le moderne distinzioni, effettivamente, come segnala anche Dom P. De Gueranger, Carlo Magno dovrebbe essere qualificato come Beato (anche se per beatificazione equipollente, come direbbe P. Lambertini). Pervero, tuttavia, egli fu "canonizzato" da un antipapa e, quindi, fu dichiarato Santo. Per questo si hanno due valutazioni: se ci si riferisce a quest'ultimo atto - anche se posto in essere da un soggetto non dotato di autorità pontificia (in quanto vero e proprio "pirata" asceso al trono papale) - Carlo Magno dovrebbe essere considerato Santo; se, invece, considerata la nullità di quell'atto, si considera il culto locale che ne viene tributato, allora è davvero Beato. Ma alla fine si tratta di distinzioni, che, come detto, sono il frutto dell'elaborazione canonistica e teologica avutasi in special modo dai decreti di Urbano VIII, che portò un po' di ordine nella materia. Abbiamo notevoli esempi, infatti, nell'agiografia di personaggi che non è chiaro se siano formalmente Santi o Beati. Ad es., un altro caso è quello di Costantino il Grande. Dove vi è un problema speculare rispetto a quello di Carlo Magno. :-01#44

[catholikos]

Secondo le moderne distinzioni, effettivamente, come segnala anche Dom P. De Gueranger, Carlo Magno dovrebbe essere qualificato come Beato (anche se per beatificazione equipollente, come direbbe P. Lambertini). Pervero, tuttavia, egli fu "canonizzato" da un antipapa e, quindi, fu dichiarato Santo. Per questo si hanno due valutazioni: se ci si riferisce a quest'ultimo atto - anche se posto in essere da un soggetto non dotato di autorità pontificia (in quanto vero e proprio "pirata" asceso al trono papale) - Carlo Magno dovrebbe essere considerato Santo; se, invece, considerata la nullità di quell'atto, si considera il culto locale che ne viene tributato, allora è davvero Beato. Ma alla fine si tratta di distinzioni, che, come detto, sono il frutto dell'elaborazione canonistica e teologica avutasi in special modo dai decreti di Urbano VIII, che portò un po' di ordine nella materia. Abbiamo notevoli esempi, infatti, nell'agiografia di personaggi che non è chiaro se siano formalmente Santi o Beati. Ad es., un altro caso è quello di Costantino il Grande. Dove vi è un problema speculare rispetto a quello di Carlo Magno. :-01#44

Che problema c'e' con Costantino il Grande? Scusate l'ignoranza...
Su Carlo Magno condivido l'analisi di Augustinus. Ovviamente io appartengo alla "scuola" che considera le canonizzazioni antipapali nulle...

[Augustinus]

Che problema c'e' con Costantino il Grande? Scusate l'ignoranza...
Su Carlo Magno condivido l'analisi di Augustinus. Ovviamente io appartengo alla "scuola" che considera le canonizzazioni antipapali nulle...

Su Costantino si discute se sia Santo o Beato per la Chiesa cattolica. Infatti, egli ha un culto (tollerato) a livello locale (essenzialmente in Sardegna) e nella Chiesa cattolica orientale. Quindi, ciò farebbe pensare che si tratti di un Beato. Però, solitamente in quegli ambiti viene considerato santo a tutti gli effetti. :-01#44

[Aganto]

Una donanda personle ad Augustinus: lavori in Vaticano alla Rota? Sembri abbastanza addentro a certe questioni...

[codino]

Tra un po' lo legheranno sulla Rota :D :D :D

Comunque io sono stato ad Aquisgrana (Aachen), la capitale di Carlo Magno, ed è veramente molto bello, se passate da quelle parti andateci!

[Augustinus]

Una donanda personle ad Augustinus: lavori in Vaticano alla Rota? Sembri abbastanza addentro a certe questioni...

No. Non lavoro in Vaticano. Però mi capita spesso - facendo le cause di nullità col docente col quale collaboro - di frequentare gli "ambienti rotali". E non dimenticare che le materie nelle quali sono dottore di ricerca sono appunto il diritto ecclesiastico e quello canonico :-01#44

[codino]

No. Non lavoro in Vaticano. Però mi capita spesso - facendo le cause di nullità col docente col quale collaboro - di frequentare gli "ambienti rotali". E non dimenticare che le materie nelle quali sono dottore di ricerca sono appunto il diritto ecclesiastico e quello canonico :-01#44

università di Bari? o Foggia?

[Augustinus]

università di Bari? o Foggia?

Bari :-01#44

[Aganto]

No. Non lavoro in Vaticano. Però mi capita spesso - facendo le cause di nullità col docente col quale collaboro - di frequentare gli "ambienti rotali". E non dimenticare che le materie nelle quali sono dottore di ricerca sono appunto il diritto ecclesiastico e quello canonico :-01#44

Non ero a conoscenza di ciò...

[catholikos]

Su Costantino si discute se sia Santo o Beato per la Chiesa cattolica. Infatti, egli ha un culto (tollerato) a livello locale (essenzialmente in Sardegna) e nella Chiesa cattolica orientale. Quindi, ciò farebbe pensare che si tratti di un Beato. Però, solitamente in quegli ambiti viene considerato santo a tutti gli effetti. :-01#44

Il problema e', credo, vedere chi ha proclamato Santo Costantino, quindo, e se come Santo della Chiesa Universale. Augustinus, per caso lo ricordi? Perche' se e' stato proclamato Santo della Chiesa Universale dal Patriarca di Costantinopoli prima della scismae come tale accettato dagli altri Patriarchi e dal Papa, allora e' santo...

[Augustinus]

Il problema e', credo, vedere chi ha proclamato Santo Costantino, quindo, e se come Santo della Chiesa Universale. Augustinus, per caso lo ricordi? Perche' se e' stato proclamato Santo della Chiesa Universale dal Patriarca di Costantinopoli prima della scismae come tale accettato dagli altri Patriarchi e dal Papa, allora e' santo...

Per Costantino non è mai avvenuta alcuna canonizzazione. Ma il popolo ha spontaneamente tributato il suo culto all'imperatore (v. QUI (http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4006274&postcount=36) e QUI (http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/54250)). Comunque per maggiori dettagli chiederei agli ortodossi. :-01#44

[catholikos]

Per Costantino non è mai avvenuta alcuna canonizzazione. Ma il popolo ha spontaneamente tributato il suo culto all'imperatore (v. QUI (http://www.politicaonline.net/forum/showpost.php?p=4006274&postcount=36) e QUI (http://www.santiebeati.it/dettaglio/54250)). Comunque per maggiori dettagli chiederei agli ortodossi. :-01#44

Quindi come culto tollerato, sarebbe "beato" secondo i nostri criteri... poi che gli ortodossi abbiano fatto cose inaccettabili tipo, come leggo nel link:

Dopo la sua morte, i cortigiani, l’esercito, il popolo di Costantinopoli, gli resero gli onori della venerazione dei ‘beati’ e dopo la morte, ottenne ciò che aveva desiderato in vita, cioè di essere associato agli Apostoli, non solo con la sepoltura nel tempio a loro dedicato, ma ricevendo anche gli onori e le preghiere a loro rivolte nelle chiese e nelle celebrazioni liturgiche.
La rivalità tra l’Oriente e l’Occidente ecclesiastico, a causa della controversia ariana del IV secolo e tra Costantinopoli e Roma per motivi di prestigio, portò gli orientali a proclamare Costantino “uguale agli Apostoli”, emulo di Pietro e paragonabile a Paolo.
Ecco perché la sua tomba fu onorata come quella di un santo e il suo nome invocato come quello di un martire per ottenere grazie. Nell’iconografia orientale è spesso rappresentato con s. Elena ai lati della Croce.


:rolleyes:


Il problema e': la santita' e' una dichiarazione che impegna l'infallibilita' oppure no? Io so di si... oppure un domani un santo potrebbe essere "decanonizzato"?

[Augustinus]

Lezioni su Carlo Magno di Alessandro Barbero (http://www.radio.rai.it/radio2/alleotto/carlomagno/)

[Augustinus]

Il problema e': la santita' e' una dichiarazione che impegna l'infallibilita' oppure no? Io so di si... oppure un domani un santo potrebbe essere "decanonizzato"?

La dichiarazione di santità è irrevocabile. Nella Chiesa Cattolica (compresa quella orientale), Costantino come anche Carlo Magno hanno un culto locale tollerato. Nella Chiesa ortodossa le cose sono un po' diverse, non esistendo un'autorità papale. :-01#44

[catholikos]

Grazie Augustinus, per il link e le precisazioni.
Prezioso come sempre :)

[Aganto]

Quando uno è santo, è santo.

Vox Populi.

[Augustinus]

Charlemagne

(French for Carolus Magnus, or Carlus Magnus ("Charles the Great"); German Karl der Grosse).

The name given by later generations to Charles, King of the Franks, first sovereign of the Christian Empire of the West; born 2 April, 742; died at Aachen, 28 January, 814. Note, however, that the place of his birth (whether Aachen or Liège) has never been fully ascertained, while the traditional date has been set one or more years later by recent writers; if Alcuin is to be interpreted literally the year should be 745. At the time of Charles' birth, his father, Pepin the Short, Mayor of the Palace, of the line of Arnulf, was, theoretically, only the first subject of Childeric III, the last Merovinigian King of the Franks; but this modest title implied that real power, military, civil, and even ecclesiastical, of which Childeric's crown was only the symbol. It is not certain that Bertrada (or Bertha), the mother of Charlemagne, a daughter of Charibert, Count of Laon, was legally married to Pepin until some years later than either 742 or 745.

Charlemagne's career led to his acknowledgment by the Holy See as its chief protector and coadjutor in temporals, by Constantinople as at least Basileus of the West. This reign, which involved to a greater degree than that of any other historical personage the organic development, and still more, the consolidation of Christian Europe, will be sketched in this article in the successive periods into which it naturally divides. The period of Charlemagne was also an epoch of reform for the Church in Gaul, and of foundation for the Church in Germany, marked, moreover, by an efflorescence of learning which fructified in the great Christian schools of the twelfth and later centuries.

To the Fall of Pavia (742-774)

In 752, when Charles was a child of not more than ten years, Pepin the Short had appealed to Pope Zachary to recognize his actual rule with the kingly title and dignity. The practical effect of this appeal to the Holy See was the journey of Stephen III across the Alps two years later, for the purpose of anointing with the oil of kingship not only Pepin, but also his son Charles and a younger son, Carloman. The pope then laid upon the Christian Franks a precept, under the gravest spiritual penalties, never "to choose their kings from any other family". Primogeniture did not hold in the Frankish law of succession; the monarchy was elective, though eligibility was limited to the male members of the one privileged family. Thus, then, at St. Denis on the Seine, in the Kingdom of Neustria, on the 28th of July, 754, the house of Arnulf was, by a solemn act of the supreme pontiff established upon the throne until then nominally occupied by the house of Merowig (Merovingians).

Charles, anointed to the kingly office while yet a mere child, learned the rudiments of war while still many years short of manhood, accompanying his father in several campaigns. This early experience is worth noting chiefly because it developed in the boy those military virtues which, joined with his extraordinary physical strength and intense nationalism, made him a popular hero of the Franks long before he became their rightful ruler. At length, in September, 768, Pepin the Short, foreseeing his end, made a partition of his dominions between his two sons. Not many days later the old king passed away.

To better comprehend the effect of the act of partition under which Charles and Carloman inherited their father's dominions, as well as the whole subsequent history of Charles' reign, it is to be observed that those dominions comprised:

first, Frankland (Frankreich) proper;
secondly, as many as seven more or less self-governing dependencies, peopled by races of various origins and obeying various codes of law.

Of these two divisions, the former extended, roughly speaking, from the boundaries of Thuringia, on the east, to what is now the Belgian and Norman coastline, on the west; it bordered to the north on Saxony, and included both banks of the Rhine from Cologne (the ancient Colonia Agrippina) to the North Sea; its southern neighbours were the Bavarians, the Alemanni, and the Burgundians. The dependent states were: the fundamentally Gaulish Neustria (including within its borders Paris), which was, nevertheless, well leavened with a dominant Frankish element; to the southwest of Neustria, Brittany, formerly Armorica, with a British and Gallo-Roman population; to the south of Neustria the Duchy of Aquitaine, lying, for the most part, between the Loire and the Garonne, with a decidedly Gallo-Roman population; and east of Aquitaine, along the valley of the Rhone, the Burgundians, a people of much the same mixed origin as those of Aquitaine, though with a large infusion of Teutonic blood. These States, with perhaps the exception of Brittany, recognized the Theodosian Code as their law. The German dependencies of the Frankish kingdom were Thuringia, in the valley of the Main, Bavaria, and Alemannia (corresponding to what was later known as Swabia). These last, at the time of Pepin's death, had but recently been won to Christianity, mainly through the preaching of St. Boniface. The share which fell to Charles consisted of all Austrasia (the original Frankland), most of Neustria, and all of Aquitaine except the southeast corner. In this way the possessions of the elder brother surrounded the younger on two sides, but on the other hand the distribution of races under their respective rules was such as to preclude any risk of discord arising out of the national sentiments of their various subjects.

In spite of this provident arrangement, Carloman contrived to quarrel with his brother. Hunald, formerly Duke of Aquitaine, vanquished by Pepin the Short, broke from the cloister, where he had lived as a monk for twenty years, and stirred up a revolt in the western part of the duchy. By Frankish custom Carloman should have aided Charles; the younger brother himself held part of Aquitaine; but he pretended that, as his dominion were unaffected by this revolt, it was no business of his. Hunald, however, was vanquished by Charles single-handed; he was betrayed by a nephew with whom he had sought refuge, was sent to Rome to answer for the violation of his monastic vows, and at last, after once more breaking cloister, was stoned to death by the Lombards of Pavia. For Charles the true importance of this Aquitanian episode was in its manifestation his brother's unkindly feeling in his regard, and against this danger he lost no time in taking precautions, chiefly by winning over to himself the friends whom he judged likely to be most valuable; first and foremost of these was his mother, Bertha, who had striven both earnestly and prudently to make peace between her sons, but who, when it became necessary to take sides with one or the other could not hesitate in her devotion to the elder. Charles was an affectionate son; it also appears that, in general, he was helped to power by his extraordinary gift of personal attractiveness.

Carloman died soon after this (4 December, 771), and a certain letter from "the Monk Cathwulph", quoted by Bouquet (Recueil. hist., V, 634), in enumerating the special blessings for which the king was in duty bound to be grateful, says,

Third . . . God has preserved you from the wiles of your brother . . . . Fifth, and not the least, that God has removed your brother from this earthly kingdom.

Carloman may not have been quite so malignant as the enthusiastic partisans of Charles made him out, but the division of Pepin's dominions was in itself an impediment to the growth of a strong Frankish realm such as Charles needed for the unification of the Christian Continent. Although Carloman had left two sons by his wife, Gerberga, the Frankish law of inheritance gave no preference to sons as against brother; left to their own choice, the Frankish lieges, whether from love of Charles or for the fear which his name already inspired, gladly accepted him for their king. Gerberga and her children fled to the Lombard court of Pavia. In the mean while complications had arisen in Charles' foreign policy which made his newly established supremacy at home doubly opportune.

From his father Charles had inherited the title "Patricius Romanus" which carried with it a special obligation to protect the temporal rights of the Holy See. The nearest and most menacing neighbour of St. Peter's Patrimony was Desidarius (Didier), King of the Lombards, and it was with this potentate that the dowager Bertha had arranged a matrimonial alliance for her elder son. The pope had solid temporal reasons for objecting to this arrangement. Moreover, Charles was already, in foro conscientiae, if not in Frankish law, wedded to Himiltrude. In defiance of the pope's protest (PL 98:250), Charles married Desiderata, daughter of Desiderius (770), three years later he repudiated her and married Hildegarde, the beautiful Swabian. Naturally, Desiderius was furious at this insult, and the dominions of the Holy See bore the first brunt of his wrath.

But Charles had to defend his own borders against the heathen as well as to protect Rome against the Lombard. To the north of Austrasia lay Frisia, which seems to have been in some equivocal way a dependency, and to the east of Frisia, from the left bank of the Ems (about the present Holland-Westphalia frontier), across the valley of the Weser and Aller, and still eastward to the left bank of the Elbe, extended the country of the Saxons, who in no fashion whatever acknowledged any allegiance to the Frankish kings. In 772 these Saxons were a horde of aggressive pagans offering to Christian missionaries no hope but that of martyrdom; bound together, normally, by no political organization, and constantly engaged in predatory incursions into the lands of the Franks. Their language seems to have been very like that spoken by the Egberts and Ethelreds of Britain, but the work of their Christian cousin, St. Boniface, had not affected them as yet; they worshipped the gods of Walhalla, united in solemn sacrifice -- sometimes human -- to Irminsul (Igdrasail), the sacred tree which stood at Eresburg, and were still slaying Christian missionaries when their kinsmen in Britain were holding church synods and building cathedrals. Charles could brook neither their predatory habits nor their heathenish intolerance; it was impossible, moreover, to make permanent peace with them while they followed the old Teutonic life of free village communities. He made his first expedition into their country in July, 772, took Eresburg by storm, and burned Irminsul. It was in January of this same year that Pope Stephen III died, and Adrian I, an opponent of Desiderius, was elected. The new pope was almost immediately assailed by the Lombard king, who seized three minor cities of the Patrimony of St. Peter, threatened Ravenna itself, and set about organizing a plot within the Curia. Paul Afiarta, the papal chamberlain, detected acting as the Lombard's secret agent, was seized and put to death. The Lombard army advanced against Rome, but quailed before the spiritual weapons of the Church, while Adrian sent a legate into Gaul to claim the aid of the Patrician.

Thus it was that Charles, resting at Thionville after his Saxon campaign, was urgently reminded of the rough work that awaited his hand south of the Alps. Desiderius' embassy reached him soon after Adrian's. He did not take it for granted that the right was all upon Adrian's side; besides, he may have seen here an opportunity make some amends for his repudiation of the Lombard princess. Before taking up arms for the Holy See, therefore, he sent commissioners into Italy to make enquiries and when Desiderius pretended that the seizure of the papal cities was in effect only the legal foreclosure of a mortgage, Charles promptly offered to redeem them by a money payment. But Desiderius refused the money, and as Charles' commissioners reported in favour of Adrian, the only course left was war.

In the spring of 773 Charles summoned the whole military strength of the Franks for a great invasion of Lombardy. He was slow to strike, but he meant to strike hard. Data for any approximate estimate of his numerical strength are lacking, but it is certain that the army, in order to make the descent more swiftly, crossed the Alps by two passes: Mont Cenis and the Great St. Bernard. Einhard, who accompanied the king over Mont Cenis (the St. Bernard column was led by Duke Bernhard), speaks feelingly of the marvels and perils of the passage. The invaders found Desiderius waiting for them, entrenched at Susa; they turned his flank and put the Lombard army to utter rout. Leaving all the cities of the plains to their fate, Desiderius rallied part of his forces in Pavia, his walled capital, while his son Adalghis, with the rest, occupied Verona. Charles, having been joined by Duke Bernhard, took the forsaken cities on his way and then completely invested Pavia (September, 773), whence Otger, the faithful attendant of Gerberga, could look with trembling upon the array of his countrymen. Soon after Christmas Charles withdrew from the siege a portion of the army which he employed in the capture of Verona. Here he found Gerberga and her children; as to what became of them, history is silent; they probably entered the cloister.

What history does record with vivid eloquence is the first visit of Charles to the Eternal City. There everything was done to give his entry as much as possible the air of a triumph in ancient Rome. The judges met him thirty miles from the city; the militia laid at the feet of their great patrician the banner of Rome and hailed him as their imperator. Charles himself forgot pagan Rome and prostrated himself to kiss the threshold of the Apostles, and then spent seven days in conference with the successor of Peter. It was then that he undoubtedly formed many great designs for the glory of God and the exaltation of Holy Church, which, in spite of human weaknesses and, still more, ignorance, he afterwards did his best to realize. His coronation as the successor of Constantine did not take place until twenty-six years later, but his consecration as first champion of the Catholic Church took place at Easter, 774. Soon after this (June, 774) Pavia fell, Desiderius was banished, Adalghis became a fugitive at the Byzantine court, and Charles, assuming the crown of Lombardy, renewed to Adrian the donation of territory made by Pepin the Short after his defeat of Aistulph. (This donation is now generally admitted, as well as the original gift of Pepin at Kiersy in 752. The so-called "Privilegium Hadriani pro Carolo" granting him full right to nominate the pope and to invest all bishops is a forgery).

To the Baptism of Wittekind (774-785)

The next twenty years of Charles' life may be considered as one long warfare. They are filled with an astounding series of rapid marches from end to end of a continent intersected by mountains, morasses, and forests, and scantily provided with roads. It would seem that the key to his long series of victories, won almost as much by moral ascendancy as by physical or mental superiority, is to be found in the inspiration communicated to his Frankish champion by Pope Adrian I. Weiss (Weltgesch., 11, 549) enumerates fifty-three distinct campaigns of Charlemagne; of these it is possible to point to only twelve or fourteen which were not undertaken principally or entirely in execution of his mission as the soldier and protector of the Church. In his eighteen campaigns against the Saxons Charles was more or less actuated by the desire to extinguish what he and his people regarded as a form of devil-worship, no less odious to them than the fetishism of Central Africa is to us.

While he was still in Italy the Saxons, irritated but not subdued by the fate of Eresburg and of Irminsul had risen in arms, harried the country of the Hessian Franks, and burned many churches; that of St. Boniface at Fritzlar, being of stone, had defeated their efforts. Returning to the north, Charles sent a preliminary column of cavalry into the enemy's country while he held a council of the realm at Kiersy (Quercy) in September, 774, at which it was decided that the Saxons (Westfali, Ostfali, and Angrarii) must be presented with the alternative of baptism or death. The northeastern campaigns of the next seven years had for their object a conquest so decisive as to make the execution of this policy feasible. The year 775 saw the first of a series of Frankish military colonies, on the ancient Roman plan established at Sigeburg among the Westfali. Charles next subdued, temporarily at least, the Ostali, whose chieftain, Hessi, having accepted baptism, ended his life in the monastery of Fulda (see SAINT BONIFACE; FULDA). Then, a Frankish camp at Lübbecke on the Weser having been surprised by the Saxons, and its garrison slaughtered, Charles turned again westward, once more routed the Westfali, and received their oaths of submission.

At this stage (776) the affairs of Lombardy interrupted the Saxon crusade. Areghis of Beneventum, son-in-law of the vanquished Desiderius, had formed a plan with his brother-in-law Adalghis (Adelchis), then an exile at Constantinople, by which the latter was to make a descent upon Italy, backed by the Eastern emperor; Adrian was at the same time involved in a quarrel with the three Lombard dukes, Reginald of Clusium, Rotgaud of Friuli, and Hildebrand of Spoleto. The Archbishop of Ravenna, who called himself "primate" and "exarch of Italy", was also attempting to found an independent principality at the expense of the papal state but was finally subdued in 776, and his successor compelled to be content with the title of "Vicar" or representative of the pope. The junction of the aforesaid powers, all inimical to the pope and the Franks, while Charles was occupied in Westphalia, was only prevented by the death of Constantine Copronymus in September, 775 (see BYZANTINE EMPIRE). After winning over Hildebrand and Reginald by diplomacy, Charles descended into Lombardy by the Brenner Pass (spring of 776), defeated Rotgaud, and leaving garrisons and governors, or counts (comites), as they were termed, in the reconquered cities of the Duchy of Friuli, hastened back to Saxony. There the Frankish garrison had been forced to evacuate Eresburg, while the siege of Sigeburg was so unexpectedly broken up as to give occasion later to a legend of angelic intervention in favour of the Christians. As usual, the almost incredible suddenness of the king's reappearance and the moral effect of his presence quieted the ragings of the heathen. Charles then divided the Saxon territory into Missionary districts. At the great spring hosting (champ de Mai) of Paderborn, in 777, many Saxon converts were baptized; Wittekind (Widukind), however, already the leader and afterwards the popular hero of the Saxons, had fled to his brother-in-law, Sigfrid the Dane.

The episode of the invasion of Spain comes next in chronological order. The condition of the venerable Iberian Church, still suffering under Moslem domination, appealed strongly to the king's sympathy. In 777 there came to Paderborn three Moorish emirs, enemies of the Ommeyad Abderrahman, the Moorish King of Cordova. These emirs did homage to Charles and proposed to him an invasion of Northern Spain; one of the, Ibn-el-Arabi, promised to bring to the invaders' assistance a force of Berber auxiliaries from Africa; the other two promised to exert their powerful influence at Barcelona and elsewhere north of the Ebro. Accordingly, in the spring of 778, Charles, with a host of crusaders, speaking many tongues, and which numbered among its constituents even a quota of Lombards, moved towards the Pyrenees. His trusted lieutenant, Duke Bernhard. with one division, entered Spain by the coast. Charles himself marched through the mountain passes straight to Pampelona. But Ibn-el-Arabi, who had prematurely brought on his army of Berbers, was assassinated by the emissary of Abderrahman, and though Pampelona was razed, and Barcelona and other cities fell, Saragossa held out. Apart from the moral effect of this campaign upon the Moslem rulers of Spain, its result was insignificant, though the famous ambuscade in which perished Roland, the great Paladin, at the Pass of Roncesvalles, furnished to the medieval world the material for its most glorious and influential epic, the "Chanson de Roland".

Much more important to posterity were the next succeeding events which continued and decided the long struggle in Saxony. During the Spanish crusade Wittekind had returned from his exile, bringing with him Danish allies, and was now ravaging Hesse; the Rhine valley from Deutz to Andenach was a prey to the Saxon "devil-worshipers"; the Christian missionaries were scattered or in hiding. Charles gathered his hosts at Düren, in June, 779, and stormed Wittekind's entrenched camp at Bocholt, after which campaign he seems to have considered Saxony a fairly subdued country. At any rate, the "Saxon Capitulary" (see CAPITULARIES) of 781 obliged all Saxons not only to accept baptism (and this on the pain of death) but also to pay tithes, as the Franks did for the support of the Church; moreover it confiscated a large amount of property for the benefit of the missions. This was Wittekind's last opportunity to restore the national independence and paganism; his people, exasperated against the Franks and their God, eagerly rushed to arms. At Suntal on the Weser, Charles being absent, they defeated a Frankish army killing two royal legates and five Counts. But Wittekind committed the error of enlisting as allies the non-Teutonic Sorbs from beyond the Saale; race-antagonism soon weakened his forces, and the Saxon hosts melted away. Of the so-called "Massacre of Verdun" (783) it is fair to say that the 4500 Saxons who perished were not prisoners of war; legally, they were ringleaders in a rebellion, selected as such from a number of their fellow rebels. Wittekind himself escaped beyond the Elbe. It was not until after another defeat of the Saxons at Detmold, and again at Osnabrück, on the "Hill of Slaughter", that Wittekind acknowledged the God of Charles the stronger than Odin. In 785 Wittekind received baptism at Attigny, and Charles stood godfather.

Last Steps to the Imperial Throne (785-800)

The summer of 783 began a new period in the life of Charles, in which signs begin to appear of his less amiable traits. It was in this year, signalized, according to the chroniclers, by unexampled heat and a pestilence, that the two queens died, Bertha, the king's mother, and Hildegarde, his second (or his third) wife. Both of these women, the former in particular, had exercised over him a strong influence for good. Within a few months the king married Fastrada, daughter of an Austrasian count. The succeeding years were, comparatively speaking, years of harvest after the stupendous period of ploughing and sowing that had gone before; and Charles' nature was of a type that appears to best advantage in storm and stress. What was to be the Western Empire of the Middle Ages was already hewn out in the rough when Wittekind received baptism. From that date until the coronation of Charles at Rome, in 800, his military work was chiefly in suppressing risings of the newly conquered or quelling the discontents of jealous subject princes. Thrice in these fifteen years did the Saxons rise, only to be defeated. Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria, had been a more or less rebellious vassal ever since the beginning of his reign, and Charles now made use of the pope's influence, exercised through the powerful bishops of Freising, Salzburg, and Regensburg (Ratisbon), to bring him to terms. In 786 a Thuringian revolt was quelled by the timely death, blinding, and banishment of its leaders. Next year the Lombard prince, Areghis, having fortified himself at Salerno, had actually been crowned King of the Lombards when Charles descended upon him at Beneventum, received his submission, and took his son Grimwald as a hostage, after which, finding that Tassilo had been secretly associated with the conspiracy of the Lombards, he invaded Bavaria from three sides with three armies drawn from at least five nationalities. Once more the influence of the Holy See settled the Bavarian question in Charles' favour; Adrian threatened Tassilo with excommunication if he persisted in rebellion, and as the Duke's own subjects refused to follow him to the field, he personally made submission, did homage, and in return received from Charles a new lease of his duchy (October, 787).

During this period the national discontent with Fastrada culminated in a plot in which Pepin the Hunchback, Charles' son by Himiltrude, was implicated, and though his life was spared through his father's intercession, Pepin spent what remained of his days in a monastery. Another son of Charles (Carloman, afterwards called Pepin, and crowned King of Lombardy at Rome in 781, on the occasion of an Easter visit by the king, at which time also his brother Louis was crowned King of Aquitaine) served his father in dealing with the Avars, a pagan danger on the frontier, compared with which the invasion of Septimania by the Saracens (793) was but an insignificant incident of border warfare. These Avars, probably of Turanian blood, occupied the territories north of the Save and west of the Theiss. Tassilo had invited their assistance against his overlord; and after the Duke's final submission Charles invaded their country and conquered it as far as the Raab (791). By the capture of the famous "Ring" of the Avars, with its nine concentric circles, Charles came into possession of vast quantities of gold and silver, parts of the plunder which these barbarians had been accumulating for two centuries. In this campaign King Pepin of Lombardy cooperated with his father, with forces drawn from Italy; the later stages of this war (which may be considered the last of Charles' great wars) were left in the hands of the younger king.

The last stages by which the story of Charles' career is brought to its climax touch upon the exclusive spiritual domain of the Church. He had never ceased to interest himself in the deliberations of synods, and this interest extended (an example that wrought fatal results in after ages) to the discussion of questions which would now be regarded as purely dogmatic. Charles interfered in the dispute about the Adoptionist heresy (see ADOPTIONISM; ALCUIN; COUNCIL OF FRANKFORT). His interference was less pleasing to Adrian in the matter of Iconoclasm, a heresy with which the Empress-mother Irene and Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, had dealt in the second Council of Nicaea. The Synod of Frankfort, wrongly informed, but inspired by Charles, took upon itself to condemn the aforesaid Council, although the latter had the sanction of the Holy See (see CAROLINE BOOKS). In the year 797 the Eastern Emperor Constantine VI, with whom his mother Irene had for some time been at variance, was by her dethroned, imprisoned, and blinded. It is significant of Charles' position as de facto Emperor of the West that Irene sent envoys to Aachen to lay before Charles her side of this horrible story. It is also to be noted that the popular impression that Constantine had been put to death, and the aversion to committing the imperial sceptre to a woman's hand, also bore upon what followed. Lastly, it was to Charles alone that the Christians of the East were now crying out for succour against the threatening advance of the Moslem Caliph Haroun al Raschid. In 795 Adrian I died (25 Dec.), deeply regretted by Charles, who held this pope in great esteem and caused a Latin metrical epitaph to be prepared for the papal tomb. In 787 Charles had visited Rome for the third time in the interest of the pope and his secure possession of the Patrimony of Peter.

Leo III, the immediate successor of Adrian I, notified Charles of his election (26 December, 795) to the Holy See. The king sent in return rich presents by Abbot Angilbert, whom he commissioned to deal with the pope in all manners pertaining to the royal office of Roman Patrician. While this letter is respectful and even affectionate, it also exhibits Charles' concept of the coordination of the spiritual and temporal powers, nor does he hesitate to remind the pope of his grave spiritual obligations. The new pope, a Roman, had bitter enemies in the Eternal City, who spread the most damaging reports of his previous life. At length (25 April, 799) he was waylaid, and left unconscious. After escaping to St. Peter's he was rescued by two of the king's missi, who came with a considerable force. The Duke of Spoleto sheltered the fugitive pope, who went later to Paderborn, where the king's camp then was. Charles received the Vicar of Christ with all due reverence. Leo was sent back to Rome escorted by royal missi; the insurgents, thoroughly frightened and unable to convince Charles of the pope's iniquity, surrendered, and the missi sent Paschalis and Campulus, nephews of Adrian I and ringleaders against Pope Leo, to the king, to be dealt with at the royal pleasure.

Charles was in no hurry to take final action in this matter. He settled various affairs connected with the frontier beyond the Elbe, with the protection of the Balearic Isles against the Saracens, and of Northern Gaul against Scandinavian sea-rovers, spent most of the winter at Aachen, and was at St. Riquier for Easter. About this time, too, he was occupied at the deathbed of Liutgarde, the queen whom he had married on the death of Fastrada (794). At Tours he conferred with Alcuin, then summoned the host of the Franks to meet at Mainz and announced to them his intention of again proceeding to Rome. Entering Italy by the Brenner Pass, he travelled by way of Ancona and Perugia to Nomentum, where Pope Leo met him and the two entered Rome together. A synod was held and the charges against Leo pronounced false. On this occasion the Frankish bishops declared themselves unauthorized to pass judgment on the Apostolic See. Of his own free will Leo, under oath, declared publicly in St. Peter's that he was innocent of the charges brought against him. Leo requested that his accusers, now themselves condemned to death, should be punished only with banishment.

After His Coronation in Rome (800-814)

Two days later (Christmas Day, 800) took place the principal event in the life of Charles. During the pontifical Mass celebrated by the pope, as the king knelt in prayer before the high altar beneath which lay the bodies of Sts. Peter and Paul, the pope approached him, placed upon his head the imperial crown, did him formal reverence after the ancient manner, saluted him as Emperor and Augustus and anointed him, while the Romans present burst out with the acclamation, thrice repeated: "To Carolus Augustus crowned by God, mighty and pacific emperor, be life and victory" (Carolo, piisimo Augusto a Deo coronato, magno et pacificio Imperatori, vita et vicotria). These details are gathered from contemporary accounts (Life of Leo III in "lib. Pont."; "Annales Laurissense majores"; Einhard's Vita Caroli; Theophanes). Though not all are found in any one narrative, there is no good reason for doubting their general accuracy. Einhard's statement (Vita Caroli 28) that Charles had no suspicion of what was about to happen, and if pre-informed would not have accepted the imperial crown, is much discussed, some seeing in it an unwillingness to imperial authority on an ecclesiastical basis, others more justly a natural hesitation before a momentous step overcome by the positive action of friends and admirers, and culminating; in the scene just described. On the other hand, there seems no reason to doubt that for some time previous the elevation of Charles had been discussed, both at home and at Rome, especially in view of two facts: the scandalous condition of the imperial government at Constantinople, and the acknowledged grandeur and solidity of the Carolingian house. He owed his elevation not to the conquest of Rome, nor to any act of the Roman Senate (then a mere municipal body), much less to the local citizenship of Rome, but to the pope, who exercised in a supreme juncture the moral supremacy in Western Christendom which the age widely recognized in him, and to which, indeed, Charles even then owed the title that the popes had transferred to his father Pepin. It is certain that Charles constantly attributed his imperial dignity to an act of God, made known of course through the agency of the Vicar of Christ (divino nutu coronatus, a Deo coronatus, in "Capitularia", ed. Baluze, I, 247, 341, 345); also that after the ceremony he made very rich gifts to the Basilica of St. Peter, and that on the same day the pope anointed (as King of the Franks) the younger Charles, son of the emperor and at that time probably destined to succeed in the imperial dignity. The Roman Empire (Imperium Romanum), since 476 practically extinguished in the West, save for a brief interval in the sixth century, was restored by this papal act, which became the historical basis of the future relations between the popes and the successors of Charlemagne (throughout the Middle Ages no Western Emperor was considered legitimate unless he had been crowned and anointed at Rome by the successor of St. Peter). Despite the earlier goodwill and help of the papacy, the Emperor of Constantinople, legitimate heir of the imperial title (he still called himself Roman Emperor, and his capital was officially New Rome) had long proved incapable of preserving his authority in the Italian peninsula. Palace revolutions and heresy, not to speak of fiscal oppression, racial antipathy, and impotent but vicious intrigues, made him odious to the Romans and Italians generally. In any case, since the Donation of Pepin (752) the pope was formally sovereign of the duchy of Rome and the Exarchate; hence, apart from its effect on his shadowy claim to the sovereignty of all Italy, the Byzantine ruler had nothing to lose by the elevation of Charles. However, the event of Christmas Day, 800, was long resented at Constantinople, where eventually the successor of Charles was occasionally called "Emperor", or "Emperor of the Franks", but never "Roman Emperor". Suffice it to add here that while the imperial consecration made him in theory, what he was already in fact, the principal ruler of the West, and impropriated, as it were, in the Carolingian line the majesty of ancient Rome, it also lifted Charles at once to the dignity of supreme temporal protector of Western Christendom and in particular of its head, the Roman Church. Nor did this mean only the local welfare of the papacy, the good order and peace of the Patrimony of Peter. It meant also, in face of the yet vast pagan world (barbarae nationes) of the North and the Southeast, a religious responsibility, encouragement and protection of missions, advancement of Christian culture, organization of dioceses, enforcement of a Christian discipline of life, improvement of the clergy, in a word, all the forms of governmental cooperation with the Church that we meet with in the life and the legislation of Charles. Long before this event Pope Adrian I had conferred (774) on Charles his father's dignity of Patricius Romanus, which implied primarily the protection of the Roman Church in all its rights and privileges, above all in the temporal authority which it had gradually acquired (notably in the former Byzantine Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate of Ravenna) by just titles in the course of the two preceding centuries. Charles, it is true, after his imperial consecration exercised practically at Rome his authority as Patricius, or protector of the Roman Church. But he did this with all due recognition of the papal sovereignty and principally to prevent the quasi-anarchy which local intrigues and passions, family interests and ambitions, and adverse Byzantine agencies were promoting. It would be unhistorical to maintain that as emperor he ignored at once the civil sovereignty of the pope in the Patrimony of Peter. This (the Duchy of Rome and the Exarchate) he significantly omitted from the partition of the Frankish State made at the Diet of Thionville, in 806. It is to be noted that in this public division of his estate he made no provision for the imperial title, also that he committed to all three sons "the defence and protection of the Roman Church". In 817 Louis the Pious, by a famous charter whose substantial authenticity there is no good reason to doubt, confirmed to Pope Paschal and his successors forever, "the city of Rome with its duchy and dependencies, as the same have been held to this day by your predecessors, under their authority and jurisdiction", adding that he did not pretend to any jurisdiction in said territory, except when solicited thereto by the pope. It may be noted here that the chroniclers of the ninth century treat as "restitution" to St. Peter the various cessions and grants of cities and territory made at this period by the Carolingian rulers within the limits of the Patrimony of Peter. The Charter of Louis the Pious was afterwards confirmed by Emperor Otto I in 962 and Henry II in 1020. These imperial documents make it clear that the acts of authority exercised by the new emperor in the Patrimony of Peter were only such as were called for by his office of Defender of the Roman Church. Kleinclausz (l'Empire carolingien, etc., Paris, 1902, 441 sqq.) denies the authenticity of the famous letter (871) of Emperor Louis II to the Greek Emperor Basil (in which the former recognizes fully the papal origin of his own imperial dignity), and attributes it to Anastasius Bibliotheca in 879. His arguments are weak; the authenticity is admitted by Gregorovius and O. Harnack. Anti-papal writers have undertaken to prove that Charles' dignity of Patricius Romanorum was equivalent to immediate and sole sovereign authority at Rome, and in law and in fact excluded any papal sovereignty. In reality this Roman patriciate, both under Pepin and Charles, was no more than a high protectorship of the civil sovereignty of the pope, whose local independence, both before and after the coronation of Charles, is historically certain, even apart from the aforesaid imperial charters.

The personal devotion of Charles to the Apostolic See is well known. While in the preface to his Capitularies he calls himself the "devoted defender and humble helper of Holy Church", he was especially fond of the basilica of St. Peter at Rome. Einhard relates (Vita, c. xxvii) that he enriched it beyond all other churches and that he was particularly anxious that the City of Rome should in his reign obtain again its ancient authority. He promulgated a special law on the respect due this See of Peter (Capitulare de honoranda sede Apostolica, ed. Baluze I, 255). The letters of the popes to himself, his father, and grandfather, were collected by his order in the famous "Codex Carolinus". Gregory VII tells us (Regest., VII, 23) that he placed a part of the conquered Saxon territory under the protection of St. Peter, and sent to Rome a tribute from the same. He received from Pope Adrian the Roman canon law in the shape of the "Collectio Dionysia-Hadriana", and also (784-91) the "Gregorian Sacramentary" or liturgical use of Rome, for the guidance of the Frankish Church. He furthered also in the Frankish churches the introduction of the Gregorian chant. It is of interest to note that just before his coronation at Rome Charles received three messengers from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, bearing to the King of the Franks the keys of the Holy Sepulchre and the banner of Jerusalem, "a recognition that the holiest place in Christendom was under the protection of the great monarch of the West" (Hodgkin). Shortly after this event, the Caliph Haroun al Raschid sent an embassy to Charles, who continued to take a deep interest in the Holy Sepulchre, and built Latin monasteries at Jerusalem, also a hospital for pilgrims. To the same period belongs the foundation of the Schola Francorum near St. Peter's Basilica, a refuge and hospital (with cemetery attached) for Frankish pilgrims to Rome, now represented by the Campo Santo de' Tedeschi near the Vatican.

The main work of Charlemagne in the development of Western Christendom might have been considered accomplished had he now passed away. Of all that he added during the remaining thirteen years of his life nothing increased perceptibly the stability of the structure. His military power and his instinct for organization had been successfully applied to the formation of a material power pledged to the support of the papacy, and on the other hand at least one pope (Adrian) had lent all the spiritual strength of the Holy See to help build up the new Western Empire, which his immediate successor (Leo) was to solemnly consecrate. Indeed, the remaining thirteen years of Charles' earthly career seem to illustrate rather the drawbacks of an intimate connection between Church and State than its advantages.

In those years nothing like the military activity of the emperor's earlier life appears; there were much fewer enemies to conquer. Charles' sons led here and there an expedition, as when Louis captured Barcelona (801) or the younger Charles invaded the territory of the Sorbs. But their father had somewhat larger business on his hands at this time; above all, he had to either conciliate or neutralize the jealousy of the Byzantine Empire which still had the prestige of old tradition. At Rome Charles had been hailed in due form as "Augustus" by the Roman people, but he could not help realizing that many centuries before, the right of conferring this title had virtually passed from Old to New Rome. New Rome, i.e. Constantinople, affected to regard Leo's act as one of schism. Nicephorus, the successor of Irene (803) entered into diplomatic relations with Charles, it is true, but would not recognize his imperial character. According to one account (Theophanes) Charles had sought Irene in marriage, but his plan was defeated. The Frankish emperor then took up the cause of rebellious Venetia and Dalmatia. The war was carried on by sea, under King Pepin, and in 812, after the death of Nicephorus, a Byzantine embassy at Aachen actually addressed Charles as Basileus. About this time Charles again trenched upon the teaching prerogative of the Church, in the matter of the Filioque although in this instance also the Holy See admitted the soundness of his doctrine, while condemning his usurpation of its functions.

The other source of discord which appeared in the new Western Empire, and from its very beginning, was that of the succession. Charles made no pretence either of right of primogeniture for his eldest son or to name a successor for himself. As Pepin the Short had divided the Frankish realm, so did Charles divide the empire among his sons, naming none of them emperor. By the will which he made in 806 the greater part of what was later called France went to Louis the Pious; Frankland proper, Frisia, Saxony, Hesse, and Franconia were to be the heritage of Charles the Young; Pepin received Lombardy and its Italian dependencies, Bavaria, and Southern Alemannia. But Pepin and Charles pre-deceased the emperor, and in 813 the magnates of the empire did homage at Aachen to Louis the Pious as King of the Franks, and future sole ruler of the great imperial state. Thus is was that the Carolingian Empire, as a dynastic institution, ended with the death of Charles the Fat (888), while the Holy Roman Empire, continued by Otto the Great (968-973), lacked all that is now France. But the idea of a Europe welded together out of various races under the spiritual influence of one Catholic Faith and one Vicar of Christ had been exhibited in the concrete.

It remains to say something of the achievements of Charlemagne at home. His life was so full of movement, so made up of long journeys, that home in his case signifies little more than the personal environment of his court, wherever it might happen to be on any given day. There was, it is true, a general preference for Austrasia, or Frankland (after Aachen, Worms, Nymwegen, and Ingleheim were favourite residences). He took a deep and intelligent interest in the agricultural development of the realm, and in the growth of trade, both domestic and foreign. The civil legislative work of Charles consisted principally in organizing and codifying the principles of Frankish law handed down from antiquity; thus in 802 the laws of the Frisians, Thuringians, and Saxons were reduced to writing. Among these principles, it is important to note, was one by which no free man could be deprived of life or liberty without the judgment of his equals in the state. The spirit of his legislation was above all religious; he recognized as a basis and norm the ecclesiastical canons, was wont to submit his projects of law to the bishops, or to give civil authority to the decrees of synods. More than once he made laws at the suggestion of popes or bishops. For administrative purposes the State was divided into counties and hundreds, for the government of which counts and hundred-men were responsible. Side by side with the counts in the great national parliament (Reichstag, Diet) which normally met in the spring, sat the bishops, and the spiritual constituency was so closely intertwined with the temporal that in reading of a "council" under Charles, it is not always easy to ascertain whether the particular proceedings are supposed to be those of a parliament or of a synod. Nevertheless this parliament or diet was essentially bicameral (civil and ecclesiastical), and the foregoing descriptions applies to the mutual discussion of res mixtae or subjects pertaining to both orders.

The one Frankish administrative institution to which Charles gave an entirely new character was the missi dominici, representatives (civil and ecclesiastical) of the royal authority, who from being royal messengers assumed under him functions much like those of papal legates, i.e. they were partly royal commissioners, partly itinerant governors. There were usually two for each province (an ecclesiastic and a lay lord), and they were bound to visit their territory (missatica) four times each year. Between these missi and the local governors or counts the power of the former great crown-vassals (dukes, Herzöge) was parcelled out. Local justice was administered by the aforesaid count (comes, Graf) in his court, held three times each year (placitum generale), with the aid of seven assessors (scabini, rachimburgi), but there was a graduated appeal ending in the person of the emperor.

While enough has been said above to show how ready he was to interfere in the Church's domain, it does not appear that this propensity arose from motives discreditable to his religious character. It would be absurd to pretend that Charlemagne was a consistent lifelong hypocrite; if he was not, then his keen practical interest in all that pertained to the services of the Church, his participation even in the chanting of the choir (though, as his biographer says, "in a subdued voice") his fastidious attention to questions of rites and ceremonies (Monachus Sangallensis), go to show, like many other traits related of him, that his strong rough nature was really impregnated with zeal, however mistaken at times, for the earthly glory of God. He sought to elevate and perfect the clergy, both monastic and secular, the latter through the enforcement of the Vita Canonica or common life. Tithes were strictly enforced for the support of the clergy and the dignity of public worship. Ecclesiastical immunities were recognized and protected, the bishops held to frequent visitation of their dioceses, a regular religious instruction of the people provided for, and in the vernacular tongue. Through Alcuin he caused corrected copies of the Scripture to be placed in the churches, and earned great credit for his improvement of the much depraved text of the Latin Vulgate. Education, for aspirants to the priesthood at least, was furthered by the royal order of 787 to all bishops and abbots to keep open in their cathedrals and monasteries schools for the study of the seven liberal arts and the interpretation of Scriptures. He did much also to improve ecclesiastical music, and founded schools of church-song at Metz, Soissons, and St. Gall. For the contemporary development of Christian civilization through Alcuin, Einhard, and other scholars, Italian and Irish, and for the king's personal attainments in literature, see CAROLINGIAN SCHOOLS; ALCUIN; EINHARD. He spoke Latin well, and loved to listen to the reading of St. Augustine, especially "The City of God". He understood Greek, but was especially devoted to his Frankish (Old-German) mother tongue; its terms for the months and the various winds are owing to him. He attempted also to produce a German grammar, and Einhard tells us that he caused the ancient folksongs and hero-tales (barbara atque antiquissima carmina) to be collected; unfortunately this collection ceased to be appreciated and was lost at a later date.

From boyhood Charles had evinced strong domestic affections. Judged, perhaps, by the more perfectly developed Christian standards of a later day, his matrimonial relations were far from blameless; but it would be unfair to criticize by any such ethical rules the obscurely transmitted accounts of his domestic life which have come down to us. What is certain (and more pleasant to contemplate) is the picture, which his contemporaries have left us, of the delight he found in being with his children, joining in their sports, particularly in his own favourite recreation of swimming, and finding his relaxation in the society of his sons and daughters; the latter he refused to give in marriage, unfortunately for their moral character. He died in his seventy-second year, after forty-seven years of reign, and was buried in the octagonal Byzantine-Romanesque church at Aachen, built by him and decorated with marble columns from Rome and Ravenna. In the year 1000 Otto III opened the imperial tomb and found (it is said) the great emperor as he had been buried, sitting on a marble throne, robed and crowned as in life, the book of the Gospels open on his knees. In some parts of the empire popular affection placed him among the saints. For political purposes and to please Frederick Barbarossa he was canonized (1165) by the antipope Paschal III, but this act was never ratified by insertion of his feast in the Roman Breviary or by the Universal Church; his cultus, however, was permitted at Aachen [Acta SS., 28 Jan., 3d ed., II, 490-93, 303-7, 769; his office is in Canisius, "Antiq. Lect.", III (2)]. According to his friend and biographer, Einhard, Charles was of imposing stature, to which his bright eyes and long, flowing hair added more dignity. His neck was rather short, and his belly prominent, but the symmetry of his other members concealed these defects. His clear voice was not so sonorous as his gigantic frame would suggest. Except on his visits to Rome he wore the national dress of his Frankish people, linen shirt and drawers, a tunic held by a silken cord, and leggings; his thighs were wound round with thongs of leather; his feet were covered with laced shoes. He had good health to his sixty-eighth year, when fevers set in, and he began to limp with one foot. He was his own physician, we are told, and much disliked his medical advisers who wished him to eat boiled meat instead of roast. No contemporary portrait of him has been preserved. A statuette in the Musée Carnavalet at Paris is said to be very ancient.

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, New York, 1908 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03610c.htm)

[Augustinus]

Carolingian Schools

Under the Merovingian Kings there was established at the court a school -- scola palatina, the chroniclers of the eighth century styled it -- for the training of the young Frankish nobles in the art of war and in the ceremonies of the court. This was not, however, a school in the modern acceptation of the term. Whatever education there was of the literary kind at that time was imparted at the monastic and cathedral schools. With the accession of Charlemagne (768) a scheme of educational reform was inaugurated, first in the palace school itself, and later in the various schools established or reformed by imperial decrees throughout the vast empire over which Charlemagne reigned. The reform of the palace school, the change, namely, from a school of military tactics and court manners to a place of as the learning, was begun in 780, as soon as the victories over the Lombards, Saxons, and Saracens afforded. It was not, however, until the arrival of Alcuin at Aachen in 782 that the work of educational reform began to have any measure of success. Alcuin was not only placed at the head of the emperor's school in the palace, but was admitted to the council of the emperor in all educational matters and became Charlemagne's "prime minister of education". He represented the learning of the school of York, which united in its traditions the current of educational reform inaugurated in the South of England by Theodore of Tarsus and that other current which, starting from the schools of Ireland, spread over the entire northern part of England. He was not, indeed, an original thinker. Nevertheless, he exerted a profound cultural influence on the whole Frankish Kingdom by reason of the high esteem in which Charlemagne and his courtiers held him. He taught grammar, rhetoric, dialectic and the elements of geometry, astronomy, and music (see ARTS, SEVEN LIBERAL). And his success as a teacher of these branches seems to have been generally acknowledged by all the courtiers as well as by his royal patron. We know from Einhard's biography of Charlemagne that the emperor, the princes and the princesses, and all the royal household formed a kind of higher school at the palace in order to learn from Alcuin what would nowadays be considered the merest rudiments.

Charlemagne was not content with securing for his palace school the services of the ablest teacher of that cage. Acting under Alcuin's advice he proceeded by a series of enactments dating from 787 (two years after the final triumph over the Saxons) to 789, to inaugurate a reform in the educational conditions throughout the empire. In 787 he issued the famous capitulary which has been styled the "Charter of Modern Thought". In it he addresses himself to the bishops and abbots of the empire, informing them that he "has judged it to be of utility that, in their bishoprics and monasteries committed by Christ's favour to his charge, care should be taken that there should not only be a regular manner of life, but also the study of letters, each to teach and learn them according to his ability and the Divine assistance". He has observed, he says, in the letters which, during past years, he has received from different monasteries, that though the thoughts contained therein are most just, the language in which those thoughts are expressed is often uncouth, and the fear arises in his mind lest if the skill to write correctly were thus lacking, the power of rightly comprehending the Scriptures might be less than it should be. "Let there, therefore, be chosen [for the work of teaching] men who are both willing and able to learn and let them apply themselves to this work with a zeal equal to the earnestness with which we recommend it to them". Copies of this letter are to be sent to all suffragan bishops and to all (dependent) monasteries. In the great council held at Aachen (789) he issued more explicit instructions regarding the education of the clergy. From the wording of the capitulary of 787, it is clear that Charlemagne intended to introduce the reform of education into all the cathedral and monastic schools of the empire.

Again in the capitulary of 789 we read: "Let every monastery and every abbey have its school, in which boys may be taught the Psalms, the system of musical notation, singing, arithmetic and grammar". There can be no doubt that by boys are meant not only the candidates for the monastery and the wards (generally the children of nobles) committed to the care of the monks, but also the children of the village or country district around the monastery, for whom there was usually an external school attached to groups of monastic buildings. This is made evident by an enactment of Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans, who, when Alcuin retired to the monastery of Tours in 796, succeeded him at the Court as adviser of the emperor in educational matters. The document dates from 797, ten years after Charlemagne's first capitulary was issued, and enacts explicitly "that the priests establish schools in every town and village, and if any of the faithful wish to entrust their children to them to learn letters, that they refuse not to accept them but with all charity teach them . . . and let them exact no price from the children for their teaching nor receive anything from them save what parents may offer voluntarily and from affection" (P.L., CV., col. 196). To Alcuin himself tradition has assigned the lines set up in the streets of Strasburg in which the attractions of a school are compared with those of a nearby tavern: "Choose, O traveller; if thou wilt drink thou must also pay money, but if thou wilt learn thou wilt have what thou seekest for nothing." In these free schools the teacher was, apparently, the priest of the town or village, and, as far as we can judge, the curriculum composed what may be called the rudiments of general education, with an elementary course in Christian Doctrine.

The "new learning" inaugurated at the palace school, which seems to have had no fixed location, but to have followed the court from place to place, was not slow in spreading throughout the empire. Its first noticeable success was at Fulda, which since the days of its first abbot, Sturm, had maintained a tradition of fidelity to the ideals of St. Benedict. The man to whose enlightened zeal the success of the schools of Fulda was largely due was Rhabanus Maurus. While still a young monk at Fulda, Rhabanus, learning of the fame of Alcuin, begged to be sent to Tours, where, for a year, he listened to the aged teacher, and imbibed some of his zeal for the study of the classics and the cultivation of the sciences. On his return to Fulda he was placed at the head of the monastic school and, amid many difficulties, continued to labour for the intellectual reform of his own monastery and his own land. What these difficulties were we may judge from the treatment which he received at the hands of his abbot, Ratgar, who, believing that the monks were better employed in building churches than in studying their lessons, closed the school of the monastery and confiscated the teacher's note-books. Rhabanus' unpleasant experiences on this occasion are reflected by his saying "He alone escapes calumny who writes nothing at all." He was not, however, discouraged, and the day finally came when, as Abbot of Fulda, he could give full authority to his measures for educational reform. Later, as Archbishop of Mainz, he continued to sustain the programme of the Carolingian revival, and by his efforts for the improvement of popular preaching, and by his advocacy of the use of the vernacular tongue, earned the title of the "Teacher of Germany". His influence, indeed, may be traced beyond the territory which belonged to the monastery of Fulda; to him and to his educational activity is due the revival of learning in the schools of Solenhofen, Celle, Hirsfeld, Petersburg and Hirschau. Even Reichenau and St. Gall owe much to him, and it is perhaps no exaggeration to say that who, like Otfried of "Der Krist", first the Old High German an instrument of literary expression.

In France, the Carolingian revival was, as has been said, taken up by Theodulf, Bishop of Orléans, who, both by his own diocesan enactments and by the advice which he gave the emperor, proved his right to the title of Alcuin's successor. Alcuin, himself, after his retirement to the monastery of Tours, devoted his attention almost exclusively to monastic education and the transcription of liturgical and theological works. Whatever love he had for the classics changed towards the end of his life into a deep-seated suspicion of all "pagan literature." In this he offers a striking contrast, with Lupus Servatus, a disciple of Rhabanus, who, as Abbot of Ferrières, early in the ninth century encouraged and promoted the study of the pagan classics with all the ardour of a fifteenth century Humanist. Through the influence of Alcuin Theodulf, Lupus and others, the Carolingian revival spread to Reims, Auxerre, Laon, and Chartres, where even before the schools of Paris had come into prominence, the foundations of scholastic theology and philosophy were laid. In Southern Germany and Switzerland the Carolingian revival was felt before the close of the eighth century in Rheinau, Reichenau, and St. Gall, and early in the following century in Northern Italy, especially in Pavia and Bobbio. Under the successors of Charlemagne there sprang up the schools of Utrecht, Liège, and St. Laurent in the Low Countries which continued the movement.

With the extension and promotion of the Carolingian revival of education are associated the names of the Irish teachers who were Alcuin's rivals and who are certainly entitled to a share in the credit of having been the first masters of the schools. According to the St. Gall chronicler who wrote the history of Charles the Great, two Irish monks arrived in France before Alcuin had received Charlemagne's invitation, and having made known somewhat boastfully their desire to teach wisdom, were received by the emperor with honour, and one of them placed at the head of the palace school. The story, however, is not accepted as reliable. We know for certain that after Alcuin left the court of Charlemagne, Clement the Irishman succeeded him as master of the palace school, and that he had pupils sent to him even from the monastery of Fulda. The grammarian, Cruindmelus, the poet Dungal, and Bishop Donatus of Fiesole were among the many Irish teachers on the Continent who enjoyed the favour of Charlemagne. Indeed, the emperor, according to Einhard, "loved the strangers" and "had the Irish in special esteem". His successors, likewise, invited the Irish teachers to their court. Louis the Pious was the patron of the Irish geographer Dicuil, Lothair II stood in a similar relation to the Irish poet and Scribe Sedulius, founder of the school at Liège, and Charles the Bald equalled his grandfather in his affectionate esteem for the Irish teachers. Under him Elias taught at Laon, Dunchad at Reims, Israel at Auxerre, and, the greatest of all the Irish scholars, John Scotus Eriugena, was head of the palace school. Naturally the Irish teachers flocked to the places already known to them by the missionary activity of their fellow-countrymen of former generations We find them at Reichenau, St. Gall, and Bobbio, "a whole herd of philosophers" as a ninth century writer expresses it. Every monastery or cathedral school at-which they appeared soon showed the effect of their influence. To the curriculum already in vogue in the Carolingian Schools the Irish teachers added the study of Greek, and wherever they taught philosophy or theology (dialectic and the interpretation of the Scriptures) they drew largely from the writings of the neo-Platonists and from the works of the Greek Fathers.

With regard to the details of schoolwork in the institutions founded or reformed by Charlemagne, the chronicles of the time do not furnish us as much information as one would desire. We know that the course of studies in the town and village schools (per villas et viocos) comprised at least the elements of Christian Doctrine, plainsong, the rudiments of grammar, and perhaps, where the influence of St. Benedict's rule was still felt, some kind of manual training. In the monastic and cathedral schools the curriculum included grammar (corresponding to what we now call language-work in general, as well as the study of poetry), rhetoric, dialectic, geometry, arithmetic, music and astronomy. The text-book in these subjects was, wherever the Irish teaching prevailed, Martianus Capella, "De Nuptiis Mercurii et philologiae"; elsewhere, as in the schools taught by Alcuin, the teacher compiled treatises on grammar, etc. from the works of Cassiodorus, St. Isidore of Seville, and Venerable Bede. In some instances the works of Boethius were used as texts in dialectic. The master, scholasticus or archischolus (earlier capiscola), had at his command, besides his assistants, a proscholus, or prefect of discipline, whose duty it was (in the monastic school of Fulda, at least) to teach the children "how to walk, how to bow to strangers, how to behave in the presence of superiors". The teacher read (legere was synonymous with docere) while the pupils took down his dictation in their wax-tablets. The "school-room" was, until as late as the twelfth century the cloister of the monastery and, in the case of some very popular teachers, the street or a public square. The floor of the schoolroom was strewn with straw on which the pupils sat -- boarded floors and benches do not appear to have been in use in schools until the fifteenth century, although seats of a certain kind were provided at Cluny, in the twelfth century, namely, wooden boxes which served the double purpose of a seat and a repository for writing materials. Discipline in the Carolingian schools was maintained by the proscholus, and that the medieval scholar dreaded the rod is clear from an episode in the history of the school of St. Gall where, in order to escape a birching, the boys set fire to the monastery. Regulations regarding neatness, the hours to be given to work, and provision for the mid-day siesta, etc. show that some attention was paid to the health and comfort of the pupils. After the death of Charlemagne and the dismemberment of the empire, the educational reforms introduced by him received a setback. There was a brief period under Charles the Bald, when royal favour was once more bestowed on scholars. But with the advent of the tenth century came other cares and occupations for the royal mind. Nevertheless, the monastic and episcopal schools, and no doubt the village schools too, continued wherever war and pillage did not render their existence impossible. Thus the educational influence of the Carolingian revival of learning was continued in some way down to the dawn of the era of university education in the thirteenth century.

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, New York, 1908 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03349c.htm)

[Augustinus]

Charlemagne and Church Music

Charlemagne's interest in church music and solicitude for its propagation and adequate performance throughout his empire, have never been equalled by any civil ruler either before or since his time. Great as was his father Pepin's care for the song of the Church, Charles's activity was infinitely more intelligent and comprehensive. Aided by a technical knowledge of the subject, he appreciated the reasons why the Church attaches so much importance to music in her cult and the manner of its performance. He used all his authority to enforce the wishes of the Church which he had made his own. The key-note of his legislation on this subject, as on every other point regarding the liturgy, was conformity with Rome. To this end, tradition tells us, he not only took members of his own chapel to Rome with him, in order that they might learn at the fountain head, but begged Pope Adrian I, in 774, to let him have two of the papal singers. One of these papal chanters, Theodore, was sent to Metz, and the other, Benedict, to the schola cantorum at Soissons. According to Ekkehart IV, a chronicler of the tenth century of the monastery of St. Gall, the same pope sent two more singers to the Court of Charlemagne. One of these, Peter, reached Metz, but Romanus at first being detained at St. Gall by sickness, afterwards obtained permission from the emperor to remain there, and it is to the presence in St. Gall and elsewhere, of monks from Rome, that we owe the manuscripts without which a return to the original form of the Gregorian chant would be impossible. The great Charles made strenuous though not wholly successful efforts to wean Milan and its environs from their Ambrosian Rite and melodies. In 789 he addressed a decree to the whole clergy of his empire, enjoining on every member to learn the Cantus Romanus and to perform the office in conformity with the directions of his father (Pepin), who for the sake of uniformity with Rome in the whole (Western) Church, had abolished the Gallican chant. Through the synod held at Aachen in 803, the emperor commanded anew the bishops and clerics to sing the office sicut psallit ecclesia Romana, and ordered them to establish scholae cantorum in suitable places, while he himself provided for the support of those already in existence that is, those in Metz, Paris, Soissons, Orléans, Sens, Tours, Lyons, Cambrai, and Dijon in France, and those of Fulda, Reichenau, and St. Gall. The sons of nobles of his empire and of his vassals were expected, by imperial commands to be instructed in grammar, music, and arithmetic, while the boys in the public schools were taught music and how to sing, especially the Psalms. The emperor's agents and representatives were everywhere ordered to watch over the faithful carrying out of his orders regarding music. He not only caused liturgical music to flourish in his own time throughout his vast domain, but he laid the foundations for musical culture which are still potent today.

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, New York, 1908 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03618a.htm)

[Augustinus]

Caroline Books (Libri Carolini)

A work in four books (120 or 121 chapters), purporting to be the composition of Charlemagne, and written about 790-92. It is a very severe critique of the Seventh General Council, held at Nicaea in 787, particularly as regards its acts and decrees in the matter of sacred images. In fact, it is a grave theological treatise in which both the Iconoclastic council of 754 and its opponent, the aforesaid Second Nicene of 787, are brought before the bar of Frankish criticism and judged equally erroneous, the former for excluding all images from the churches as sheer idolatry, the latter for advocating an absolute adoration of images. Though launched under the royal name, the theological, philosophical, and philological learning displayed far surpass the known powers of Charlemagne. The author may be Alcuin; possibly one or more of the Spanish or Irish theologians who were then residing at the Frankish court. The work had its origin in a very faulty (see Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Mansi, Coll. Conc. XII, 981) Latin version of the Greek acts of the Seventh General Council (Second Nicene) which the negligence of the Roman copyists disfigured still more; in one crucial text, e.g., the negative particle was omitted, and in another the council was made to assert that the images were to be adored as the Trinity itself, whereas the genuine Greek text is quite orthodox. This version was severely criticized by an assembly of Frankish theologians at which Charlemagne assisted. Some (85) obnoxious passages were gathered therefrom and brought to Pope Adrian I by Abbot Angilbert for correction. This document is lost, but its content may be gathered from the moderate and prudent reply (794) of Adrian (PL 1247-92; cf. Nam absit a nobis ut ipsas imagines, sicut quidam garriunt, deificemus, etc.). Dissatisfied with this defence of the council (not reputed oecumenical by the king's theologians) Charlemagne caused the preparation (790-92) of the large work in question, known since then as "Quattuor Libri Carolini".

In further explanation of this remarkable step, it has been noted that Charlemagne was at this time much irritated against the Greek Empress Irene, partly for the failure of the marriage projected between her son and his daughter Rotrudis, partly for the protection and help she was affording to Adelchis, the son of the dethroned King of Lombardy, to which may be added a certain jealousy of any authority over his Frankish subjects by a Greek council in which they had taken no part. Some believe that he was even then contemplating the assumption of the imperial title, and was therefore only too willing to discredit Greek authority wherever possible. The work was first printed at Paris in 1549 by the priest Jean du Tillet (Tilius), later Bishop of Saint Brieuc and then of Meaux, but anonymously and without indication of the place where he found the manuscript (Tilius was suspected of a leaning to Calvinism). While the Centuriators of Magdeburg at once made use of it as an evidence of Catholic corruption of the true doctrine concerning images, some Catholic apologists asserted that it was only an heretical work sent by Charlemagne to Rome for condemnation, others that it was a forgery of Carlstad (the manuscript of Tilius was, after all, a very recent one; Floss, De suspecta librorum Carolinorum a Joanne Tilio editorum fide, Bonn, 1860). They overlooked the fact that Augustinus Steuchus (1469-1549) librarian of the Vatican, writing in defence of the Donation of Constantine, had already quoted a passage from the "Libri Carolini" (I, 6) which he declared he had found in a Vatican manuscript written in an ancient Lombard hand; it had disappeared, however, by 1759, according to a letter of Cardinal Passionei to the learned Abbot Frobenius Förster, then meditating a new edition of the work (see preface no. 10 to his edition of the Opera Alcuini. Floss (op. cit.) maintained the thesis of a forgery, but the genuinity of the work can no longer be questioned since the discovery (1866) by Reifferscheid of a tenth century (imperfect) manuscript in the Vatican Archives (Narratio de Vaticano Libror. Carol. codice, Breslau, 1873). Moreover, the work is evidenced as extant in the latter half of the ninth century by Hincmar of Reims (Adv. Hincmar. Laud., c. 20). Its genuinity was long since admitted by Catholic scholars like Sirmond and Natalis Alexander VIII, (Saec. VIII, Diss. VI, 6). The work was reprinted by the imperialist editor Michael Goldast (Imperialia decreta de cultu imaginum, Frankfort, 1608, p. 67, sqq., and Collect. Constitut. imper., I. 23) whence it was taken by others, e.g. Migne (P. L., XCVIII, 989-1248), though the latter had at his disposition the better edition of G. A. Heumann, Augusta Concilii Nicaeni II Censura, i.e. Caroli M. de impio imaginum cultu libri IV (Hanover, 1731). Some excerpts from it are reprinted in Jaffé, Bibl. Rer. Germanic. VI, 220-42.

The authors of the "Libri Carolini" admit that images may be used as ecclesiastical ornaments, for purposes of instruction, and in memory of past events; it is foolish, however, to burn incense before them and to use lights, though it is quite wrong to cast them out of the churches and destroy them. The writers are scandalized chiefly by the Latin term adoratio, taking it wrongly to mean absolute adoration, whereas the original Greek word, Proskynesis, means no more than reverence in a prostrate attitude. So they insist that God alone is to be adored (adorandus et colendus). The saints are to be venerated, only in a suitable manner (opportuna veneratio). Ecclesiastical tradition, they insist, holds of reverential honour, to the Cross of Christ, the Holy Scripture, the sacred vessels, and the relics of the saints. They blame the excessive reverence shown by the Greeks to their emperors, criticize unfavourably the elevation of Tarasius to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and find fault (not always unreasonably) with the Scriptural and patristic exegesis of the Greeks. On the other hand, they ignorantly confound the sayings and doings of this orthodox council with those of the Iconoclastic conciliabulum of 754, frequently misrepresent the facts, and in general exhibit a strong anti-Greek bias. In explanation of their attitude the following words of Cardinal Hergenröther (Kircheng., ed. Kirsch, 1904, II, 132) seem appropriate:

Apart from the [unrecognized] errors of the translation, the acts and decrees of the Seventh General Council offended in various ways the customs and opinions of the Teutonic world where heathenism, but lately vanquished, was still potent in folklife and manners. The rude semi-heathen Teuton might easily misunderstand in an idolatrous sense the honours awarded to images, as yet few in number owing to the uncultivated taste of the people. While, therefore, images were tolerated, they were not yet encouraged and held but a subordinate place. The Greeks had always reverenced highly, not alone the person of the Emperors, but also their portraits and statues, and in this respect incense and prostrations (Gr. Proskynesis, Lat. adoratio) were immemorial usages. It seemed to them, therefore, that they could not otherwise pay due reverence to the images of the Saviour and the saints. It was otherwise with the Germans, unaccustomed to prostrate themselves or to bend the knee before their kings. Such acts seemed fitted to express that adoration (latreia) which was due to God alone; when exhibited to others they were frequently a source of scandal. In the Teutonic mind, moreover, the freer ecclesiastical life of the West already shone by contrast with the extravagance of Oriental emperor-worship.

As stated above, Pope Hadrian I, in a letter addressed to Charlemagne, answered lengthily the eighty-five Capitula submitted to him. He reminded the king that twelve of his bishops had taken part in a Roman Synod (previous to the Second Nicene Council) and had approved the "cultus" of images; he refuted a number of the arguments and objections brought forward, and asserted the identity of his teaching with that of the highly-respected Pope Gregory the Great concerning images. He also defended in a dignified way the Second Nicene Synod, not yet finally acknowledged by him, calling attention at the same time to his own just grievances against the Greeks who still retained the churches and estates that the Iconoclast Leo III (717-41) had violently withdrawn from Roman jurisdiction. This letter of Pope Adrian (d. 795) may not have been known to the bishops and abbots of the synod which met at Frankfort in 794 and on the above-described erroneous supposition rejected (can. 2) the Second Nicene Council. Charlemagne sent the acts of this synod to Rome, with a demand for the condemnation of Irene and Constantine VI, but seems gradually to have yielded to the mild and prudent firmness of Adrian for whom he professed at all times the most sincere admiration and friendship. A last echo of the theological conflict crystallized in the "Libri Carolini" is heard at the Paris Synod of 825, which, no wiser than its predecessor as to the erroneous version of the acts in question, sought in vain to obtain from Pope Eugene II an abandonment of the position taken by Adrian I. Despite the increasing favour of the "cultus" of images among their people, the Frankish bishops continued their opposition to the Second Nicene Council; the latter, however, eventually gained recognition especially after a new and somewhat more accurate version of its acts and decrees was made by Anastasius Bibliothecarius under John VIII (872-82). In the meantime the Frankish writer Walafrid Strabo had summarized and popularized the true ecclesiastical doctrine in his excellent "Liber de exordiis et incrementis rerum ecclesiasticarum", written about 840 (ed. Knöpfler, Munich, 1890). See ICONOCLASM; IMAGES; FRANKFORT, COUNCIL OF; DUNGAL OF ST. DENYS; JONAS OF ORLEANS.

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, New York, 1908 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03371b.htm)

[Augustinus]

Council of Frankfort

Convened in the summer of 794, by the grace of God, authority of the pope, and command of Charlemagne (can. 1), and attended by the bishops of the Frankish kingdom, Italy, and the province of Aquitania, and even by ecclesiastics from England. The council was summoned primarily for the condemnation of Adoptionism. According to the testimony of contemporaries two papal legates were present, Theophylact and Stephen, representing Pope Adrian I. After an allocution by Charlemagne, the bishops drew up two memorials against the Adoptionists, one containing arguments from patristic writings; the other arguments from Scripture. The first was the Libellus sacrosyllabus, written by Paulinus, Patriarch of Aquileia, in the name of the Italian bishops; the second was the Epistola Synodica, addressed to the bishops of Spain by those of Germany, Gaul, and Aquitania. In the first of its fifty-six canons the council condemned Adoptionism, and in the second repudiated the Second Council of Nicaea (787), which, according to the faulty Latin translation of its Acts (see CAROLINE BOOKS), seemed to decree that the same kind of worship should be paid to images as to the Blessed Trinity, though the Greek text clearly distinguishes between latreia and proskynesis. The remaining fifty-four canons dealt with metropolitan jurisdiction, monastic discipline, superstition, etc.

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. VI, New York, 1909 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06236a.htm)

[Augustinus]

Adoptionism

Adoptionism, in a broad sense, a christological theory according to which Christ, as man, is the adoptive Son of God; the precise import of the word varies with the successive stages and exponents of the theory. Roughly, we have (1) the adoptionism of Elipandus and Felix in the eighth century; (2) the Neo-Adoptionism of Abelard in the twelfth century; (3) the qualified Adoptionism of some theologians from the fourteenth century on.

(1) Adoptionism of Elipandus and Felix in the Eighth Century

This, the original form of Adoptionism, asserts a double sonship in Christ: one by generation and nature, and the other by adoption and grace. Christ as God is indeed the Son of God by generation and nature, but Christ as man is Son of God only by adoption and grace. Hence "The Man Christ" is the adoptive and not the natural Son of God. Such is the theory held towards the end of the eighth century by Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, then under the Mohammedan rule, and by Felix, Bishop of Urgel, then under the Frankish dominion. The origin of this Hispanicus error, as it was called, is obscure. Nestorianism had been a decidedly Eastern heresy and we are surprised to find an offshoot of it in the most western part of the Western Church, and this so long after the parent heresy had found a grave in its native land. It is, however, noteworthy that Adoptionism began in that part of Spain where Islamism dominated, and where a Nestorian colony had for years found refuge. The combined influence of Islamism and Nestorianism had, no doubt, blunted the aged Elipandus's Catholic sense. Then came a certain Migetius, preaching a loose doctrine, and holding, among other errors, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity did not exist before the Incarnation. The better to confute this error, Elipandus drew a hard and fast line between Jesus as God and Jesus as Man, the former being the natural, and the latter merely the adoptive Son of God. The reassertion of Nestorianism raised a storm of protest from Catholics, headed by Beatus, Abbot of Libana, and Etherius, Bishop of Osma. It was to maintain his position that Elipandus deftly enlisted the co-operation of Felix of Urgel, known for his learning and versatile mind. Felix entered the contest thoughtlessly. Once in the heat of it, he proved a strong ally for Elipandus, and even became the leader of the new movement called by contemporaries the Haeresis Feliciana. While Elipandus put an indomitable will at the service of Adoptionism, Felix gave it the support of his science and also Punic faith. From Scripture he quoted innumerable texts. In the patristic literature and Mozarabic Liturgy he found such expressions as adoptio, homo adoptivus, ouios thetos, supposedly applied to the Incarnation and Jesus Christ. Nor did he neglect the aid of dialectics, remarking with subtilty that the epithet "Natural Son of God" could not be predicated of "The Man Jesus", who was begotten by temporal generation; who was inferior to the Father; who was related not to the Father especially, but to the whole Trinity, the relation in questions remaining unaltered if the Father or the Holy Ghost had been incarnate instead of the Son. Elipandus's obstinacy and Felix's versatility were but the partial cause of the temporary success of Adoptionism. If that offspring of Nestorianism held sway in Spain for wellnigh two decades and even made an inroad into southern France, the true cause is to be found in Islamitic rule, which practically brought to naught the control of Rome over the greater part of Spain; and in the over-conciliatory attitude of Charlemagne, who, in spite of his whole-souled loyalty to the Roman Faith, could ill afford to alienate politically provinces so dearly bought. Of the two heresiarchs, Elipandus died in his error. Felix, after many insincere recantations, was placed under the surveillance of Leidrad of Lyons and gave all the signs of a genuine conversion. His death would even have passed for a repentant's death if Agobar, Leidrad's successor, had not found among his papers a definite retraction of all former retractions. Adoptionism did not long outlive its authors. What Charlemagne could not do by diplomacy and synods (Narbonne, 788; Ratisbon, 792; Frankfort, 794; Aix-la-Chapelle, 799) he accomplished by enlisting the services of missionaries like St. Benedict of Aniane, who reported as early as 800 the conversion of 20,000 clerics and laymen; and savants like Alcuin, whose treatises "Adv. Elipandum Toletanum" and "Contra Felicem Urgellensem" will ever be a credit to Christian learning.

The official condemnation of Adoptionism is to be found (1) in Pope Hadrian's two letters, one to the bishops of Spain, 785, and the other to Charlemagne, 794; (2) in the decrees of the Council of Frankfort (794), summoned by Charlemagne, it is true, but "in full apostolic power" and presided over by the legate of Rome, therefore a synodus universalis, according to an expression of contemporary chroniclers. In these documents the natural divine filiation of Jesus even as man is strongly asserted, and His adoptive filiation, at least in so far as it excludes the natural, is rejected as heretical. Some writers, mainly Protestant, have tried to erase from Adoptionism all stain of the Nestorian heresy. These writers do not seem to have caught the meaning of the Church's definition. Since sonship is an attribute of the person and not of the nature, to posit two sons is to posit two persons in Christ, the very error of Nestorianism. Alcuin exactly renders the mind of the Church when he says, "As the Nestorian impiety divided Christ into two persons because of the two natures, so your unlearned temerity divided Him into two sons, one natural and one adoptive" (Contra Felicem, I, P. L. CI, Col. 136). With regard to the arguments adduced by Felix in support of his theory, it may be briefly remarked that (1) such scriptural texts as John 14:28, had already been explained at the time of the Arian controversy, and such others as Romans 8:29, refer to our adoption, not to that of Jesus, Christ is nowhere in the Bible called the adopted Son of God; nay more, Holy Scripture attributes to "The Man Christ" all the predicates which belong to the Eternal Son (cf. John 1:18; 3:16; Romans 8:32). (2) The expression adoptare, adoptio, used by some Fathers, has for its object the sacred Humanity, not the person of Christ; the human nature, not Christ, is said to be adopted or assumed by the Word. The concrete expression of the Mozarabic Missal, Homo adoptatus, or of some Greek Fathers, ouios thetos, either does not apply to Christ or is an instance of the not infrequent use in early days of the concrete for the abstract. (3) The dialectical arguments of Felix cease to have a meaning the moment it is clearly understood that, as St. Thomas says, "Filiation properly belongs to the person". Christ, Son of God, by His eternal generation, remains Son of God, even after the Word has assumed and substantially united to Himself the sacred Humanity; Incarnation detracts no more from the eternal sonship than it does from the eternal personality of the Word. (See NESTORIANISM).

(2) New-Adoptionism of Abelard in the Twelfth Century

The Spanish heresy left few traces in the Middle Ages. It is doubtful whether the christological errors of Abelard can be traced to it. They rather seem to be the logical consequence of a wrong construction put upon the hypostatical union. Abelard began to question the truth of such expressions as "Christ is God"; "Christ is man". Back of what might seem a mere logomachy there is really, in Abelard's mind, a fundamental error. He understood the hypostatical union as a fusion of two natures, the divine and the human. And lest that fusion become a confusion, he made the sacred Humanity the external habit and adventitious instrument of the Word only, and thus denied the substantial reality of "The Man Christ" -- "Christus ut homo non est aliquid sed dici potest alicuius modi." It is self-evident that in such a theory the Man Christ could not be called the true Son of God. Was He the adoptive Son of God? Personally, Abelard repudiated all kinship with the Adoptionists, just as they deprecated the very idea of their affiliation to the Nestorian heresy. But after Abelard's theory spread beyond France, into Italy, Germany and even the Orient, the disciples were less cautious than the master. Luitolph defended at Rome the following proposition -- "Christ, as man, is the natural son of man and the adoptive Son of God"; and Folmar, in Germany, carried this erroneous tenet to its extreme consequences, denying to Christ as man the right to adoration. Abelard's new-Adoptionism was condemned, at least in its fundamental principles, by Alexander III, in a rescript dated 1177: "We forbid under pain of anathema that anyone in the future dare assert that Christ as man is not a substantial reality (non esse aliquid) because as He is truly God, so He is verily man." The refutation of this new form of Adoptionism, as it rests altogether on the interpretation of the hypostatical union, will be found in the treatment of that word. (See HYPOSTATIC UNION).

(3) Qualified Adoptionism of Later Theologians

The formulas "natural Son of God", "adopted Son of God" were again subjected to a close analysis by such theologians as Duns Scotus (1300); Durandus a S. Portiano (1320); Vasquez (1604); Francisco Suárez (1617). They all admitted the doctrine of Frankfort, and confessed that Jesus as man was the natural and not merely the adoptive Son of God. But besides that natural sonship resting upon the hypostatical union, they thought there was room for a second filiation, resting on grace, the grace of union (gratia unionis). They did not agree, however, in qualifying that second filiation. Some called it adoptive, because of its analogy with our supernatural adoption. Others, fearing lest the implication of the word adoption might make Jesus a stranger to, and alien from God, preferred to call it natural. None of these theories runs counter to a defined dogma; yet, since sonship is an attribute of the person, there is danger of multiplying the persons by multiplying the filiations in Christ. A second natural filiation is not intelligible. A second adoptive filiation does not sufficiently eschew the connotation of adoption as defined by the Council of Frankfort. "We call adoptive him who is stranger to the adopter." The common mistake of these novel theories, a mistake already made by the old Adoptionists and by Abelard, lies in the supposition that the grace of union in Christ, not being less fruitful than habitual grace in man, should have a similar effect, viz., filiation. Less fruitful it is not, and yet it cannot have the same effect in Him as in us, because to Him it was said: "Thou art my Son, today have I begotten Thee" (Hebrews 1:5); and to us, "You were afar off" (Ephesians 2:13).

Fonte: The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I, New York, 1907 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01150a.htm)

[Augustinus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Karl-der-gro%C3%9Fe.jpg http://k53.pbase.com/v3/93/329493/1/47265444.frajul05276.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Karl_der_Grosse_Frankfurt_Historisches_Museum.jpg http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/78647509_36a4be4b25.jpg Johann Nepomuk Zwerger, Carlo Magno, 1843, Historische Museum, Frankfurt am Main