Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:18:06.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

1. The Origins of the Ottonianum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2011

Walter Ullmann
Walter Ullmann
Affiliation:
Lecturer in History in the University
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Communications
Information
Cambridge Historical Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , 1953 , pp. 114 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1953

Access options

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

References

1 Sickel, Th. v., Das Privilegium Ottos I für die römische Kirche (Innsbruck, 1883)Google Scholar. Sickel handed a copy to Leo XIII personally; see the delightful description of the audience in his Römische Erinnerungen, ed. Santifaller, L. (Vienna, 1947), pp. 57–8Google Scholar, 71. To facilitate checking the texts we append the Sacramentum Romanorum and § 15 of the Ottonianum.

2 But it seems that no final conclusion has been reached. Duchesne, L., Les premiers temps de Vital pontifical (Engl. translation, London, 1908), p. 226Google Scholar, n. 1, remarks: ‘It is evident that the privilege of 962 is not yet free from obscurities’; cf. p. 227 where he says that ‘it was perhaps at this juncture (963) that it adopted the form in which it has been handed down to us’. Cf. also Amann, E., L'église au pouvoir des laīques (Paris, 1948), p. 50Google Scholar, n. 1, and p. 53, n. 5, who does not advance any new point. Our own conclusions come nearest to those of Sackur, E., ‘Das Römische Pactum Ottos I ’ in Neues Archiv, xxv (1900), pp. 411–24Google Scholar, although his premisses are different.

3 See Codex Carolinus (in M[onumenta] G[ermaniae] H[istorica], Epp. iii), no. 6, p. 489, lines 27–8; no. 7, p. 493, lines 28–30; no. 13, p. 510, lines 19–20. As early as the unfortunate Martin I ‘patricius’ and ‘brachium’ were identical in meaning, cf. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum…Collectio, x, col. 856.

4 M.G.H. Concilia, 11, 86 f: ‘Sed et hoc sub anathematis interdictionibus decernimus, ut nulli umquam laicorum sive ex manu armata vel ex aliis ordinibus praesumant inveniri in electione pontificis, sed a cunctis sacerdotibus atque proceribus ecclesiae et cuncto clero ipsa pontificalis electio proveniat. Et postquam pontifex electus fuerit, et in patriarchium deductus, tune optimates militiae vel cunctus exercitus et cives honesti atque universa generalitas populi huius Romanae urbis ad salutandum eum sicut omnium dominum properare debent. Et ita more solito decretum facientes et in eo cuncti pariter concordantes subscribere debent….’ Cf. also Gratian, Decretum, Dist. lxxix, cc. 4, 5.

5 This decree was prompted by the unruly conditions at that time in Rome which resulted in the ‘election’ of Constantine II and Philip. Nicholas I re-enacted it, see Mansi, xv, col. 659, cap. xi, and Phillips, G., Kirchenrecht (Munich, 1863), v, 780Google Scholar. See also Dopffel, H., Kaisertum und Papstwechsel (Freiburg, 1889), pp. 49–50Google Scholar, 131.

6 M.G.H. Epp. iv, no. 93, p. 136: ‘Perlectis excellentiae vestrae litteris et audita decretali cartula, valde, ut fateor, gavisi sumus, seu in electionis unanimitate seu in humilitatis vestrae obedientia et in promissionis ad nos fidelitate.’

7 See Liber Diurnus, ed. Th. Sickel, form. 62, p. 58; form. 3, p. 4, and form. 78, p. 84, also form. 34, pp. 25–6. For the formula petitioning the imperial authority for confirmation see form. 58, pp. 47–9.

8 The term ‘decretalis cartula’ is a technical, papal chancery term and hence must have been referred to as such by Leo in his letter; it is otherwise with Charlemagne's reference to ‘promissionis fidelitas’; we do not know whether Leo had used this expression and, if so, what in precise terms it was to convey. One should not forget that the situation in Rome in 795, when he became pope, demanded protection. If Leo did use ‘promissionis fidelitas’, this meant, not a promise of fidelity, but rather a faithful promise, i.e. an assurance to be true to his calling, see also Dopffel, op. cit., p. 24: ‘Es handelt sich um ein treues (in treuer Gesinnung gegebenes) Versprechen, nicht um ein Treueversprechen.’

9 A[nnales] R[egni] F[rancorum], ed. F. Kurze, ad ann. 816, p. 144: ‘Aliisque utilitatibus sanctae Dei ecclesiae pro temporis oportunitate dispositis pontifex Romam, imperator Compendium palatium petiit.’

10 It was still preserved in 1105, cf. Ficker, J., Forschungen zur Reichs und Rechtsgeschichte Italiens (Innsbruck, 1863), 11, 346Google Scholar.

11 A.R.F. ad ann. 817, p. 146: ‘Missa tamen alia legatione pactum, quod cum praecessoribus suis factum erat, etiam secum fieri et firmari rogavit. Hanc legationem Theodorus nomenclator et detulit et ea, quae petierat, impetravit.’

12 Written immediately after his consecration, 25 January 817, see A.R.F. p. 145: ‘Cui (scil. Stephano) Paschalis successor electus post completam solemniter ordinationem suam et munera et excusatoriam imperatori misit epistolam, in qua sibi non solum nolenti, sed etiam plurimum renitenti pontificatus honorem velut impactum adseverat.’ Cf. also Vita Hludowici, in M.G.H. Scriptores, 11, 621: ‘Qui post expletam consecrationem legatos cum epistola apologetica et maximis imperatori misit muneribus, insurans non se ambitione nec voluntate, sed cleri electione et populi adclamatione huic succubuisse potius quam insiluisse dignitati.’

13 E.g. Hartmann, L., Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter (Vienna, 1910), iii/i, p. 98Google Scholar; Schubert, H. v., Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frühmittelalter (Leipzig, 1923), p. 396Google Scholar; cf. also Halphen, L., Charlemagne et l'empire Carolingien, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1949), pp. 234 ffGoogle Scholar.

14 M.G.H. Leges, ii, appendix, p. 9: ‘…quae piae recordationis domnus Pippinus rex ac bonae memoriae genitor noster Karolus imperator b. Petro apostolo et praedecessoribus vestris jamdudum per donationis paginam restituerunt, hoc est civitatem Ravennam….’ About the alleged interpolation of the three islands, Corsica, Sardinia and Sicily, see the judicious observation of Kehr, P., in Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen (1896), p. 138Google Scholar, and Stengel, E. E., ‘Die Entwicklung des Kaiserprivilegs’, in Historische Zeitschrift, cxxxiv (1926), p. 233Google Scholar.

15 M.G.H. loc. cit. n. 14, above, p. 10: ‘Dum consecratus fuerit, legati ad nos vel successores nostros regis Francorum dirigantur, qui inter nos et illum amicitiam et caritatem et pacem socient, sicut temporibus piae recordationis domni Karoli attavi nostri seu domni Pippini avi nostri vel etiam Karoli imperatoris genitoris nostri consuetudo erat faciendi.’ This is also in Gratian, Dist. LXIII, cap. 30 (Ego Ludovicus).

16 If, as is generally maintained, the Lotharianum stands in direct contrast to the Ludovicianum, enacted only 7 years earlier, the silence of Eugenius II, Paschal's successor, would be incomprehensible. If the Lotharianum was so anti-papal and wiped out what is termed the pope's sovereignty, one would have expected some protest by Eugenius. But we read of none. On the contrary, the annalist informs us that Eugenius received Lothar ‘honorifice’ and agreed to his measures ‘benivola adsensione’ (A.R.F. ad 824, p. 166).

17 The Lotharianum (M.G.H. Capitularia, I, 323) is not always correctly understood. It says: ‘Illis solummodo Romanis quibus antiquitus fuit consuetudo concessa per constitutionem sanctorum patrum eligendi pontificem.’ Surely this can only be a reference to the decree of 769.

18 The point is made by Hinschius, P., System des katholischen Kirchenrechts (Berlin, 1869), 1, 236CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 For the text see Appendix A. Halphen characterized this oath as ‘un serment de loyalisme envers l'empereur’, op. cit. p. 257.

20 M.G.H. Epp. v, no. 34, p. 604.

21 This was the basis of Kehr's contention that the Leo in the Ottonianum (see infra p. 125) was Leo IV, but no evidence can be adduced to show that Leo IV had taken the oath. Stengel, art. cit. p. 223, and Holtzmann, R., Geschichte der sächsischen Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1942), p. 199Google Scholar, also held that the Leo in the Ottonianum was Leo IV.

22 Mansi, xviii, col. 221; M.G.H. Leges, ii, appendix, p. 158. This is also incorporated in Gratian, Dist. LXIII, cap. 28, though wrongly attributed to Stephen IV (V); about the cause of this attribution see Funk, J., ‘Das Papstwahldekret in c. 28, Dist. 63’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, VI (1888), pp. 284 ffGoogle Scholar.

23 L[iber] P[ontificalis], ed. L. Duchesne, 11, 107, lines 19 ff.

24 A.R.F. ad 827, p. 173. Cf. also Vita Hludowici, in M.G.H. SS, 11, no. 41, p. 631.

25 Annales Prudentii Trecensis, in M.G.H. SS, 1, 440.

26 L.P. 11, 141, lines 2 ff.

27 Ibid. p. 175, lines 3 ff.

28 We may note the verbal identity with the letter sent by Charlemagne, supra, n. 6; cf. also Annales Fuldenses, ad 885, in M.G.H. SS, 1, 402, about the election of Stephen VI.

29 The view not rarely voiced by modern historians that these accounts demonstrate the exercise of effective imperial control is explicable by ignoring the intention behind these papal actions. If the intention—namely, to obtain protection from the emperor—is omitted, naturally a distorted view will be taken. It is therefore noteworthy that little more than a century after the Ottonianum, the anti-Gregorian provost of Osnabruck, Wido, selects these accounts in order to show that the emperor has a right to control papal elections. Wido fails to consider the papal intention behind the invocation of imperial intervention and is thus able to construct a purely propagandistic thesis. John IX's speech serves Wido as a particularly good piece of evidence, see Wido, Liber de controversia Hildebrandi et Heinrici, in M.G.H. Libelli de Lite, 1, 465–6. Not even Wido knew of an oath taken by the popes to the emperors.

30 Cf. the ‘examinavit’ used by the Frankish annalist, supra p. 119; cf. also Annales Fuldenses, loc. cit.

31 Liutprand of Cremona, De rebus gestis Ottonis Magni imperatoris (in Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, ed. I. Becker), p. 159, cap. i: ‘Regnantibus, immo saevientibus in Italia, et ut verius fateamur, tyrannidem exercentibus, Berengario atque Adalberto, Johannes, summus pontifex et universalis papa, cuius tune ecclesia supradictorum Berengarii atque Adalberti, saevitiam erat experta, nuntios sanctae Romanae ecclesiae… serenissimo atque piissimo tune regi, nunc augusto caesari Ottoni destinavit, suppliciter litteris et rerum signis orans, quatinus Dei pro amore sanctorumque apostolorum Petri et Pauli, quos delictorum suorum cupierat esse remissores, se sibique commissam sanctam Romanam ecclesiam ex eorum faucibus liberaret ac saluti et libertati pristinae restitueret.’

32 The oath is handed down in several recensions: M.G.H. Const. 1, no. 10 and no. 11. Cf. also Gratian, Dist. LXIII, cap. 33.

33 So Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 3rd/4th ed. (Leipzig, 1920), iii, 224Google Scholar: ‘Zugeständnisse’.

34 See the passage transcribed from Urkundenbuch Magdeburg, 1,41, by the late Erdmann, C., Forschungen zur politischen Ideenwelt des Frühmittelalters, ed. Baethgen, F. (Berlin, 1951), p. 44Google Scholar, n. i (Migne, P[atrologia] L[atind], cxxxiii, cols. 1027 f.). The report of Liutprand, ed. cit. c. iii, p. 160, that Otto made John swear at the coronation he would never give aid to Berengar and Adalbert, lacks all credibility. For it was, as Liutprand himself points out, the raging of the two kings in Italy which prompted John to appeal to Otto—and now the same pope is supposed to have taken an oath not to ally himself with those against whom he had invoked Otto's help. But Liutprand, in cap. iv, says that Otto could not explain why John had made an alliance with Adalbert: ‘Imperator denique Justus, cur Adalbertum Johannes papa, quem prius odio vehementi insequebatur, nunc diligeret, satis mirari non potuit.’ Cf. also cap. xv, p. 171, about Otto's dismay at the synod of 963.

35 On this cf. also Simson, B., ‘Zum Privilegium Ottonianum’ in Neues Archiv, xv, 1890, p. 578Google Scholar.

36 Sickel, op. cit. pp. 33 ff., esp. 41.

37 See L.P. ed. cit. i, 452; see also E. Sackur, op. cit. p. 419.

38 It is significant that, to impress Otto, the pope had ordered an ornamental copy of the Donation of Constantine to be made by the deacon Johannes. This was the deacon whose fingers John XII later chopped off and who hence was known as ‘Johannes diaconus cognomento digitorum mutilus’ : Diploma of Otto III, no. 389. On this see Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio (Leipzig, 1928), I, 71–2Google Scholar, 163, with further literature; R. Holtzmann, op. cit. pp. 199–200. Considering the contents of t he Donation, it is really impossible to reconcile all this with §15 of the Ottonianum. And John is supposed to have agreed to it when he had once written: ‘Totius Christianitatis post Deum caput effecti (sumus) non aliquo privilegio humano, sed voce ipsius Domini’, Ph. Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, 3674, Migne, P.L. CXXXIII, col. 1014.

39 For details see Liutprand, cap. vi, p. 163. Otto did not deny this, but retorted that after the completion of the campaign he would return the territory to the pope. Cf. also Holtzmann, op. cit. p. 202.

40 See also L.P. ii, 246, lines 2 ff.: ‘Iste denique infelicissimus, quod sibi peius est, totam vitam suam in adulterio et vanitate duxit. Cuius temporibus Otto imperator Romam veniens ab eo honorifice susceptus est; cum quo ipse imperator multum decertans ab errore et nequitia sua numquam potuit eum removere.’

41 How flexible the idea of protection is, may be gleaned from the appellation by Thietmar of Otto I as ‘patronus Romanae ecclesiae’ (Thietmar, Chronicon, in M.G.H. SS. RR. GG. ii, cap. 13, p. 26) and by the Saxon Annalist of Otto III as ‘advocatus ecclesiae sancti Petri’ (Annalista Saxo, in M.G.H. SS, vi, 641).

42 Ideologically, the proprietary church system is the effluence of the ancient Teutonic conception of protection. Seen from this angle, the later Investiture Contest is indeed a combat between Teutonic and Roman ideologies, as Kallen, G. holds, ‘Der Investiturstreit als Kampf zwischen germanischem und romanischem Denken’ in jahrbuch des kölnischen Geschichtsvereins, xix (1937), pp. 89–110Google Scholar, although Kallen does not set out from the fundamental idea of protection.

43 Liutprand, cap. viii, p. 164. Cf. Sackur's cautious remarks on this oath, loc. cit. p. 418.

44 In this context we should remember that Liutprand had great imaginative powers and was liberal with his ‘literal’ quotations, for instance, putting into the mouth of the Roman mob words which are taken from Juvenal, cap. xv, p. 172. Speaking of this oath reported by Liutprand, Father Borino, G. B. says: ‘Già evidente il desiderio di Liutprando di esagerare il diritto imperiale del privilegio’, ‘L' elezione e la deposizione di Gregorio VI’ in Archivio della R. società Romana di storia patria, xxxix (1916), p. 359Google Scholar. About Liutprand cf. also Schneider, F., Rom und Romgedanke (Leipzig, 1926), p. 268Google Scholar; Holtzmann, W., in Wattenbach-Holtzmann, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (Tübingen, 1948), i, 321Google Scholar; Folz, R., Le Souvenir et la légende de Charlemagne (Paris, 1950), p. 62Google Scholar.

45 The persons chiefly involved were the primicerius Theodore and the nomenclator Leo, both belonging in any case to the ‘familia’ of St Peter, see Duchesne, op. cit. pp. 127–8; Schubert, op. cit. p. 398.

46 This was also Sickel's view, although he arrived at it by a different route. The general opinion is that this Leo is Leo VIII, the immediate successor of John XII, cf. amonst others Sackur, art. cit. p. 424; Folz, op. cit. p. 62; Amann, op. cit. p. 53, n. 5. Grammatically it is not possible to assert this, because the whole sentence is dependent on ‘id est… ’ and Leo is included in it. It is perfectly possible that the original Sacramentum had the usual designation of a dead pope (‘bonae memoriae ’ or ‘piae recordationis’ or something like it), but this was replaced by ‘spiritalis pater noster’ as there was conveniently enough another Leo, Leo VIII. Even so, there is no proof that Leo VIII had taken an oath, and Liutprand would not have omitted to report on it. Yet Amann, p. 53, maintains that ‘il est vraisemblable quʼil(Léon VIII) renouvela dans l'occurrence le même serment de fidelité a l'empereur’. Where is the evidence for this?

47 See the edition in M.G.H. Scriptores Rerum Langobardorum, pp. 201–3, where the borrowings from the L.P. are easily recognizable by the small print.

48 The trustworthiness of this source has never been high. Cf. Simson, B., Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reichs unter Ludwig d. Frommen (Munich, 1894), p. 230Google Scholar: ‘Die Formel des Eides ist uns in römischen Annalen überliefert, die zwar für sich selbst nur ein äusserst geringes Ansehen beanspruchen können, jedoch nachweislich gute Quellen, die fränkischen Jahrbücher und das Papstbuch ausschreiben und auch hier vielleicht aus dem letzteren geschöpft haben.’ B. Niehues, Verhältnis von Kaisertum und Papsttum, says: ‘Die Quelle welche den Wortlaut des Eides aufbewahrt hat, ist eine höchst zweifelhafte’, cit. Dopffel, op. cit. p. 83. Dopffel himself said: ‘In der Tat ist die Bezeugung eine dürftige. Kein einziger Berichterstatter weiss etwas davon.’ And yet, despite these serious doubts the veracity of this source was accepted. Cf. also the observations of G. Waitz in his edition of the Continuatio, loc. cit. p. 200: ‘Nonulla habet peculiaria, res praesertim Romanas a. 823, 824 illustrantia, quae fortasse ex Vita Eugenii deperdita sumta sunt.’ The L.P. in the Vita of Eugenius II contains nothing about this oath, cf. ed. cit. ii, 69. Phillips, op. cit. v, 774–5, denied the authenticity of the oath, although on insufficient grounds. This continuatio is also printed by Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, i, 2, p. 184b, where it is headed: ‘Fragmentum Langobardicae Historiae Paulo Diacono attributum’; by A. Duchesne, Historiae Francorum Scriptores, ii, 207; by St. Baluzius, Capitularia Regni Francorum, i, 647–8. Pertz in M.G.H. Leges, i, 239, printed from Duchesne; Boretius in M.G.H. Capitularia, i, 323, printed from Duchesne and Muratori.

It may be of interest to direct attention to some diplomatic points of the Ottonianum. The transmitted copy was written by an Italian, as Sickel classically demonstrated on the basis of the vowels employed in proper names. (1) The numeral after the pope's name. Sickel, p. 117, of course noticed this, but said that this was a novelty of the tenth century. Is there any other official papal document of this century which has the pope's numeral? (2) The curious dating ‘anno vero domini Ottonis imperii invictissimi imperatoris XXVIIo’, whilst the very next Diploma—DO. cap. 1, 236 issued 8 days afterwards, 21 February 962 at Riana—has the dating one would expect: ‘…anno regni serenissimi regis Ottonis XXVII, imperii primo.’ (3) The wording of the initium of §16: ‘Praeterea alia minora [note the tendentious phraseology] huic operi inserenda praevidimus’ (cf. also Simson, art. cit. p. 578). (4) The conflicting tenses in the first and second part of the document: in the first throughout the diplomatically correct present tense; the second part has present and past tenses: praevidimus—prohibemus—placuit—utantur—confirmamus—perspeximus, etc. Cf. the attractive suggestion of Sackur, art. cit. p. 419, that the document was drawn up at successive stages and by special commissions. (5) The incongruity of naming the living pope and giving him his numeral, and the reference to a Leo without indication which is intended. At the time of the supposed making of the document, 13 February 962, there was no Leo, and yet he is referred to as a living pope: ‘venerandus spiritalis pater noster’. (6) The employment of ‘pactum’, ‘constitutio’, ‘promissio’ in one breath in the second part ‘gibt zu schweren Bedenken Anlass’, Sackur, art. cit. p. 414. The employment of ‘opus’ in §16 and in an official document will not escape attention (7) The eschatocol says: ‘… hoc pactum confirmationis nostrae roboravimus et bullae nostrae inpressioni adsignari jussimus.’ But the preceding sections have ‘opus’, ‘constitutio imperialis’, ‘institutio’, which would prove the thesis that §20 (eschatocol) followed §14 immediately in the original of 962, because §§1–14 are a confirmation of the donations: in this case the eschatocol is in perfect order.

49 Henry II's reissue of the Ottonianum (DH. II, 427 = Const. 1, no. 33) is significant. It was not reissued, when one would have expected, at his imperial coronation, but 6 years later, in 1020; not at Rome, but at Bamberg, on the memorable visit of Pope Benedict VIII imploring the emperor's help. The reason for reissuing then stands in closest proximity with the very real threat to Rome from the Byzantine armies. By that time the whole of Apulia was in their hands, whilst Pandulf IV of Capua and the Abbot of Monte Cassino had crossed over to the Byzantine general. His aim to capture Rome prompted Benedict's approach. The ‘imperator Romanorum’ could not deny confirmation and protection of papal possessions, but on the other hand insisted on imperial control of papal elections. Considering the coronation Ordo in force at that time (Ordo C, according to the late Father Eichmann, E., Die Kaiserkrönung im Abendlande (Würzburg, 1942), 1, 151–7Google Scholar) it would have been quite incongruous to have reissued the Ottonianum on the occasion of Henry's coronation.