S. LEO IV

A.D. 847-855.

 

 

EMPERORS OF THE EAST.                                EMPERORS OF THE WEST.

 

Michael II (the Stammerer), 820-829.                    Louis the Pious, 814-840.

Theophilus, 829-842.                                                Lothaire I, 823-855.

Theodora and Michael III, 842-856.

 

THE new Pope whose name, through the Leonine city, was to be for ever indelibly connected with the Eternal City, was a Roman, and the son of one Radoald, or Radwald, a name which suggests, if it does not prove, a Lombard extraction. Following in the footsteps of his biographer, we have to write of him that he was distinguished for his patience and humility, that he was generous, holy, and kind; a lover of justice, and a benign ruler; a man in whose breast was “the wisdom of the serpent and the simplicity of the dove”. He was a lover of good men, the comfort of the poor, and a despiser of himself. The deeds which Leo performed dispose us to believe that in his case, at any rate, these words of his biographer were neither merely idle nor contrary to fact. They prove him, at least, a man of exceptional energy and courage, and as possessed of remarkable powers of organization and magnificent ideas.

For his education his parents sent him to the monastery of Blessed Martin, near St. Peterßs, a monastery which, after he became Pope, Leo rebuilt on a grander scale than before. There not only did he advance in learning, but his pious behaviour, “not like that of a boy, but of a perfect monk”, disposed even his elders to a more devout service of God. Moved by all he heard of the youth’s virtues, Gregory IV brought him to the Lateran, and made him a subdeacon. This advance in life only made him more anxious to move forward in the service of God. By Sergius he was made cardinal priest of the Church of the “Quatuor Coronatorum”, on a spur of the Coelian Hill.

When, from the charge of this basilica, Leo was called to govern the whole Church of God, he did not forget it. He not only rebuilt it on a larger scale and in a more beautiful style, but was never tired of making presents to it. Leo IV was one of the popes whose work, while it preserved many of the relics of the saints, hastened the abandonment and utter forgetfulness of the catacombs which took place in this century. He brought into the city many bodies of the Saints, and among others those of the four martyred soldiers, the Quatuor Coronati, which he discovered after diligent search. These and many others he deposited beneath the altar of his new basilica. In the present church there are two inscriptions dealing with this translation of relics. One is of the year IV, and belongs to the pontificate of Paschal II. The other merely reproduces the list of relics given in the Liber Pontificalis, and is also posterior to it. Though the work of Leo was almost entirely destroyed by Robert Guiscard (1084), his confession was left untouched by him and by the restoration of Paschal. In it are still to be found in urns, which date only from the days of the latter Pontiff, the relics of the martyrs. In the course of the centuries they were again lost and again found, as is set forth by yet another inscription of the time of Urban VIII (1624), and now to be read at the base of the sanctuary arch on the right.

The details of Leo’s election, which we have from his biographer, show us the panic into which the appearance of the Saracens had thrown the inhabitants of Rome. He says that the catastrophe had completely broken the spirit of the people; and that, what with the sudden death of Sergius, and what with the devastation caused by the infidels not only in the churches of the apostles, but “in all the territories of the Romans”, they thought that they could not themselves avoid the danger of death. Their danger made “all the Roman nobility”, cleric and lay, really anxious to find one “who could rule so holy and inviolable a place with the fear of God”. Hence, even before Sergius had been buried, the minds of all were directed towards Leo.

With one accord all betook themselves to his titular church, and, though much against his will, carried him in triumph to the Lateran palace, and, “in accordance with ancient custom”, kissed his feet. But no sooner was the first exciting joy of the election over than the Romans felt they were between Scylla and Charybdis. On the one hand the barbarous ‘protest’ made by the young king Louis, in his father’s name, in the reign of Sergius, showed them that it would not be safe “to consecrate the future pontiff without the imperial assent”, and on the other hand they feared for the safety of the city. However, after waiting for some time, Leo was consecrated (April to, 847), “without the consent of the Prince”. Even after thus waiting for over two months for an approval from Lothaire, which for some cause did not come, the Romans, in order to avoid complications, took care to state that in this their conduct they meant to “preserve the fidelity and honor which, after God, they owed to the emperor”. It is most likely that to negotiations in connection with this consecration, we must refer a fragment of a letter of Leo to the emperors Lothaire and Louis II (this latter was crowned emperor in 850), preserved by Ivo. In this fragment Leo declares that it has been solemnly agreed between them and himself that “the election and consecration of one who is to be Pope must only be performed with due regard to justice and the canon law”. By this he no doubt intended to express his adhesion to the ‘constitutio’, of Eugenius II.

As the one object of Leo’s life was to oppose the depredations of the Saracens, our account of the work of his pontificate may well begin with a narrative of what he accomplished in this direction. Towards the close of the year, 848, Leo began the work of putting the walls of the city into a thorough state of repair. Constantly going around on horseback or on foot, he urged on the work. Walls, towers, and gates were strengthened or renewed. No less than fifteen of the great towers were entirely rebuilt. To still further add to the defenses of the city, the Pope built two strong towers, one on each bank of the Tiber, where it leaves the city near the Gate of Portus, and provided them with chains for throwing across the river. So that whereas before by this approach “not only ships but even men could effect an entrance into the city, now very little boats will scarcely be able to enter”, notes the biographer. The conclusion of this important work meant salvation for the city.

The same year that the general repairing of the city was begun, Leo resolved on and started a work of even greater magnitude. The sacking of St. Peter’s by the “wicked and malevolent” Saracens had filled all Rome with the greatest grief, and a second and worse visitation of the pirates was feared. The Pope therefore determined to surround St. Peter’s and the Vatican hill with a wall. But, as this was a great undertaking, he first wrote for advice and help to the emperor, with whom he seems always to have lived on good terms. Lothaire not only gladly urged the Pope to undertake the work with all possible dispatch, but, along with his brothers, sent him no small sum of money. This he did the more readily for the reason that the idea of surrounding the Vatican hill with a wall appears to have originated with him. Before the death of Sergius, he had issued a Capitulary (November or December) bewailing the fact that the Roman Church itself, which is the head of Christianity, should have been delivered into the hands of the infidels, and in particular regretting the destruction wrought that year (hoc anno) in St. Peter’s by the pagans, and expressing his great desire of having the Church restored and placed out of harm’s way for the future. He directs the Pope to enclose St. Peter’s with a wall, and proclaims his wish that money should be sent to Rome for the purpose from every part of his kingdom, “that so great a work, which was for the glory of all, should be completed with the help of all”. The need of money had to be made known by the bishops in the churches throughout the empire, “for it is only right that sons should honor their mother, and, as far as they can, protect and defend her”. At the same time he ordered troops from the various parts of the empire to march in an orderly manner to the assistance of Louis and his Italians against the Saracens. The Pope and the duke of the Venetians are also instructed to help.

Next, with “the advice of all his counselors”, Leo decided that all the towns of his dominions (at least of the duchy of Rome), all the public domains (massae publicae, the domus cultae of the Roman Church) and all the monasteries, should bear their share of the burden of the work. And extant inscriptions prove that, just as the Roman wall from the Tyne to the Solway was built in sections by different companies of the Roman forces, so a certain length of wall and a certain number of towers were built by the different agricultural colonies (domus cultae) of the Roman Church.

During the four years the building was in progress, neither cold, wind, nor rain could keep the Pope away from unceasingly urging on and superintending the work in all directions. Leo III had made a commencement of enclosing the Vatican, but the very foundations which he had made had disappeared. The work, then, of including the Vatican within fortifications was wholly that of Leo IV, and it was from him that the new enclosure, “a masterpiece of medieval military engineering”, was called the Leonine city. According to Gregorovius and Lanciani, the walls of the new city were formed of layers of tufa and tiles, were twelve feet thick and nearly forty feet in height, and were defended by forty-four towers. Two of these round towers, which protected “the most exposed angles, are still in existence, and form a conspicuous landmark in the Vatican landscape”. One of them, “which stands at a height of 187 feet above the sea … is now used as an observatory”.

“Where the wall runs along the level, it has two galleries, one above the other. The lower gallery is supported by open arcades facing within. They were walled up in the fifteenth century by Pope Borgia, and the gallery itself was transformed into a secret passage—the famous Corridojo di Castello—connecting the palace of the Vatican with the fortress of S. Angelo. To this corridor many popes and cardinals have been indebted for escape from death or servitude”.

Of the three gates which led into the new city, the most important, the one through which the emperors entered, was the gate of St. Peregrinus, so called because near the church of that name. But the most interesting, at least to us, is the one which, from the name given to it by our countrymen, was called the Postern gate of the Saxons, as it stood in the school or quarter of the Anglo-Saxons. Various inscriptions set forth the builder and the date of the building of the new city. Over the principal gate was inscribed :

 

“Qui venis ac vadis decus hoc adtende viator,

Quod Quartus struxit nunc Leo Papa libens.

 

Caesaris invicti quod cernis iste Holothari

Praesul tantum [ovans] tempore gessit opus.

 

Roma, caput orbis, splendor, spes, aurea Roma,

Praesulis ut monstrat en labor alma tui”.

 

When the work was at length concluded, the walls were with great ceremony blessed by the Pope. Round the walls in solemn procession, chanting litanies, psalms, and hymns, went all the different orders of the clergy, bare­foot and with ashes on their heads. At each of the three gates the procession halted, and the Pope prayed that Our Lord, through the intercession of the saints and angels, would preserve the city safe for ever from the attacks of its enemies. The Book of the Popes gives the three prayers. The one which was offered up at the “Postern of the Saxons” ran as follows : “Grant, we beseech Thee, O almighty and merciful God, that crying to Thee with all our hearts, we may, through the intercession of Blessed Peter, Apostle, obtain Thy merciful forgiveness; and we unceasingly implore Thy great clemency to grant that this city, which I, Thy servant, Leo IV, bishop, have by Thy help newly dedicated, may be ever preserved intact. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ”.

After the circuit of the walls had been performed, the clergy and the nobles went to St. Peter’s to assist at a Mass sung by the Pope for the safety of the people and the city. After the Mass was over, Leo not only made presents to the nobles of gold, silver, and silk stuffs; but, in fulfillment of a vow, gave great largesses to all the inhabitants of the Leonine city, whether native or foreign.

849. Saracens are back

The Pope had not been left to carry out all these great works in peace. In fact, they had not been long begun another when the Saracens gathered together at Totarum, near Sardinia—probably one of the small islands off its east coast. Fortunately this assembling of a powerful fleet by the infidels caused others, as well as the Romans, to fear for themselves. The great maritime cities of Naples, Amalfi, and Gaeta, still nominally recognizing the emperor at Constantinople, but for a long time practically independent, joined their fleets, and sent word to the Pope that they were coming to his help against the common foe. The arrival of this unexpected fleet at the mouth of the Tiber caused quite a flutter at Rome. In those days, when almost every man’s hand was against his neighbour’s, the first thought which came into the minds of the Romans was one of anxiety to know whether the Greeks had really come to help them, or to take advantage of their troubles and oppress them. Leo sent to ask some of their commanders to come and explain their intentions. Among others there went to Rome Caesarius, the admiral of the combined fleet, who had inflicted some loss on the Saracens after their first attempt on Rome. Abundantly satisfied with his assurances, Leo resolved to co-operate with him. With a large force of Romans he marched to Ostia, where he received the Neapolitans with every sign of welcome. They, on their part, overjoyed to see the Pope, humbly kissed his feet, and gave thanks to God for giving them such a Pontiff. “That they might become the better victors over the sons of Belial, they earnestly begged that from his sacred hands they might receive the Body of the Lord”. Accordingly, in the Church of Blessed Aurea, Leo sang Mass, at which all communicated, and at which he poured forth ardent prayers to God to give victory to His people.

On the following day the Pope returned to Rome and the fleet of the Saracens appeared in sight. The allied fleets attacked the enemy with vigor. But a great wind, “which God produced from his treasury”, and which arose in the midst of the engagement, separated the fleets, and completely destroyed that of the Saracens. Their ships were dashed to pieces on the shore, and their crews were either drowned, put to the sword, or taken prisoners. Of these latter a considerable number were hanged by the Romans at Ostia as pirates. The rest were brought to Rome and made to help at the work of building the fortifications which was then going on.

Gibbon concurs with Voltaire in singing the praises of Leo IV for saving Rome from the Saracens, and both say of him that “he stood erect, like one of the firm and lofty columns that rear their heads above the fragments of the Roman Forum”. And if this victory of the Pope at Ostia inspired the pen of the writer, it furnished Raphael with a subject for one of the frescos, illustrative of the triumphs of the Church, which he designed for what are now known as his Stanze in the Vatican. With, however, the possible exception of the faces of the Pope and his attendants, faces which are portraits of Leo X and of members of his court, the fresco of the victory of Leo IV in the so-called stanza dell' Incendio is the work of Giovanni da Udine.

No sooner had Leo finished fortifying the Vatican hill than he began to consider what was the next thing to do to guard against the attacks of the Saracens. Then, reflecting that his predecessor Gregory IV had done something to defend the mouth of the Tiber by rebuilding Ostia on its southern bank, he resolved to rebuild Portus on its northern shores. Its walls were accordingly once  again rendered serviceable; new gates were made, and, where necessary, new buildings erected.

No sooner were these new structures completed than, to the great joy of the Pope, a sturdy body of men offered themselves to his hands to take possession of his new city. A band of Corsicans, whom the ravages of the Saracens had driven into exile from their native land, presented themselves to Leo, and, in return for protection, offered to serve him and his successors for ever. He received them with the greatest kindness, and told them that, if they would take up their abode in his new city, he would give them vineyards, plough-lands and meadow-lands, so that they would want for nothing. Further, till by their labor they were able to provide for their wants, he promised them horses and cattle and stock of all kinds, if they would do as they had agreed. The grateful Corsicans professed their readiness “to live and die” in the place appointed for them. Accordingly a formal charter was drawn up, setting forth that, in virtue of the concession made them by the emperors Lothaire and Louis (the latter had been crowned emperor 850) and by the Pope, what had been granted them should be theirs “as long as they remained in all things obedient and faithful to the prelates of the Holy See and the Roman people”.

In the interior of the states of the Church, long peace had caused some of the cities to be very careless about looking to their fortifications. Among these the Tuscan cities of Horta and Ameria seem to have been the most apathetic. Fearing lest the Saracens might be more successful another time, and penetrate further into the interior, as they were doing in Southern Italy, Leo stirred up the inhabitants of these cities to put their defensive works in thorough repair.

There was yet another city, the state of which very much distressed the good Pope, and that was Centumcellae, which Trajan had made of importance by the harbor which he built there. As we have already seen, it was sacked (813) by the Moors even during the lifetime of Charlemagne himself. For forty years its walls had remained dismantled, and the miserable remnant of its inhabitants led a wretched life among the mountains, always in fear of the Saracens. Leo, who carried out to perfection the sage recommendation of praying as though all depended on God, and working as though all depended on oneself, earnestly prayed to God to show him where it would be best for him to rebuild the city, so as to afford the greatest security for the people. At the same time he went down to the neighborhood, and made a most careful examination of the country. At first the want of water made it difficult for him to fix on a suitable site. But later on he found a most desirable spot, strong by nature, and abundantly supplied with water, twelve miles from the old Centumcellae. His biographer goes on to inform us that by the divine mercy the Pope planned out the new city in a dream. One night he seemed to be at the place he had fixed upon for the new city, and there to a certain Peter, the master of the soldiers, he pointed out where he must place the churches, and, from the nature of the ground, no more than two gates. Next morning the magister militum was called before the Pope, and a large sum of silver mancuses given him to aid the people to build the new city. Under the hand of the energetic Pontiff a fresh town sprang into being, and, after his name, was known as Leopolis. It was solemnly blessed, with similar ceremonies to those used in blessing the Leonine city “in the eighth year of Leo’s pontificate, the second indiction (854)”. Among the presents he made to the churches of his new city are noted “seven Catholic codices”, among which were an antiphonary, a book of the Gospels, a psalter, etc.

All the time that this building of cities was going on, Leo was rebuilding, redecorating, and making presents to churches not only in Rome, but in other parts of his dominions, and especially to those which had been damaged by the Saracens. Incredible were the sums of money he expended on these works, particularly in refurnishing St. Peter’s, to which of course he devoted the most concern. Though the body of the Apostle himself had not been interfered with, his basilica had been completely stripped of its priceless ornaments, the very altar over his confession had been broken, and the silver doors of the church stripped of their plates. To repair the damage done was one of the constant (aims of Leo IV.  Inasmuch as he had the care of all the churches, it grieved him to the heart to see the mischief wrought by the Saracens, and the distress which the ruin caused to the faithful who came from all parts to pray at the Apostle’s tomb. Consistently with making as little change as possible in the arrangements of the confession, and as far as his means would allow, he worked wonders in the matter of effecting a thorough renovation. The altar, indeed, is said to have been made more magnificent than before. Once again the shrine became resplendent with the precious metals. Once more was the basilica the possessor of splendid candelabra, hangings, and church furniture generally. Its silver gates were made even more beautiful than they were before they had been robbed “by the Saracen breed”. The little basilica of St. Andrew which adjoined the sacristy of St. Peter’s was provided with a campanile and bells. But to make good all that had been devastated was “a task far beyond the powers of a single man to accomplish, and the shrine of St. Peter never again attained to anything like its former glory”.

Besides, Leo had other places to repair as well as St.  Peter’s. “For it was his eager desire to rebuild all the places of the saints which had been destroyed”. Among other buildings repaired and beautified by him was the Lateran palace. He completed the erection of the marble seats which adorned its entrance, and renewed some of the additions which Leo III had made to it. During the pontificate of Paschal I, there had been stolen the gold cross set with jewels which Charlemagne, “Emperor of the Franks and Romans”, had presented to the Lateran basilica in the time of Leo. It was the one carried before the popes during the procession of the litanies. Leo caused another similar one to be made and used for the old purpose. For we are assured that he was always anxious about preserving old habits and customs; and as a further example of this tendency of his, we are given the fact that after he restored the triclinium of Leo III, he renewed the custom of the popes dining therein on Christmas Day.

Subiaco.

Educated in a monastery, he did not forget the interests of monks when he became Pope. Very numerous were the valuable presents he made to different monasteries, some of which he restored  and endowed even out of his own private property. Among those which benefited by his generosity was the famous one on the site of the cave of St. Benedict at Subiaco. To this abode of peace, destined to be the foster-mother of art, situated on the side of a glorious gorge of the rushing, roaring Aniane, he is even said to have paid a visit to consecrate an altar. At any rate the traveller who is fortunate enough to behold the frescos of the monastery of the Sacra Speco will see that its tradition counts him as one of its great patrons. He is one of the four popes whose frescos meet the eye in the entrance corridor; and among those in the upper chapel, painted perhaps by Pietro Cavallini, the master of Giotto, there is one occupying the space above the rood-screen, which shows him enthroned, and having presented to him two members of the family of the Anicii.

Another great fire in the Anglo-Saxon quarter in the very beginning of his pontificate, a fire the advance of which he stopped by making the sign of the cross, also helped to increase the building operations of Leo. But those who would know more of his work in stone must read the Liber Pontificalis. We will return to his dealings with men.

One of the most important events in his reign was the crowning of Lothaire’s son Louis as emperor. That this happened in 850 we know from the annals of Prudentius of Troyes. Some authors write that it took place on April 6th, but the month and day are not certain. As an account of the ceremony observed on the occasion of the coronation of an emperor at Rome in Carolingian times has come down to us, it may not be out of place to give some notice of it here. For even if the ordo itself belongs to a somewhat later date, it will be clear from the extracts from contemporary authorities which we shall quote in the notes, that it represents, to all intents and purposes, exactly what took place in the year 850 at the coronation of Louis II.

The function began with the Consecration, or anointing, and was continued by the first prayer : “Hear, O Lord, our prayers, and fit Thy servant to rule the empire, that through Thee he may begin to rule, and through Thee faithfully continue to rule”. Then followed a longer prayer, wherein God is asked to bless “this Thy glorious servant”, as He blessed the patriarchs of old, to grant that in his reign there might be health, peace, and dignity; to make him a most valiant protector of his empire, the comforter of the Church, a well-doer to high and low, and feared and loved by all; and to give him sons to succeed him, and eternal life hereafter.

Then the Pope placed on the head of the emperor a crown of gold, with the words: “Receive the crown that God has destined for you; may you have, hold, and possess it; and, by the help of God, leave it to your sons after you for their honor”. Then a prayer was offered up begging God to bless the emperor, and to give him prosperity in this life and the next. During the Mass that was afterwards said for the emperor, special prayers were intoned that he might reign by the power of God, and might over­come his enemies. The “end” of the empire in the mind of the Church is plainly expressed in the prayer at the Post-communion: “O God, who hast prepared the Roman empire for the preaching of the Gospel of Thy eternal kingdom, give to Thy servant our emperor, the might of heaven, that the peace of the Church may not be troubled by any tempest of war”. When the sword was presented to and girt on the emperor, the Pope said : “From the bishop’s hands, which though unworthy have been consecrated in the stead and by the authority of the Holy Apostles, receive the sword, royally given to thee, and, by our blessing, divinely ordained for the defence of Holy Church. Be mindful of the words of the Psalmist : ‘Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, 0 thou most mighty!’ (Ps. XLIV. 4) —that by it you may exercise the might of justice”. Then begin the laudes; or, to use the words of the rubric, when the Pope has finished the prayer, before the reader ascends the ambo or pulpit, two deacons or cantors give out certain versicles, to which the college of secretaries (schola scriniarum) makes answer as follows : “Graciously hear us, 0O Christ!” The college replies : “Life to our illustrious Lord, by God decreed our chief Bishop and Universal Pope!” This was to be thrice repeated. Then the cantors intoned : “O Saviour of the world!” and the chorus : “Do Thou help him!” The cantors : “Hear us, O Christ!” The chorus : “Life to our illustrious Lord, Augustus, crowned by God, great and pacific emperor!” To shorten this account, it may be added that Holy Mary, St. Peter, and  St. Theodore are next invoked to bestow their aid on the emperor’s children, and on the army of the “Franks, Romans, and Germans” (Theutonici). The laudes concluded with various ejaculations in praise of Our Lord, such as : “Christ conquers!” “To Him alone be honor and glory!”

By some such ceremony as this was Louis II proclaimed emperor of the Franks and of the Romans. Differing in this respect from the other Carolingian emperors who had gone before him, he was to reside in Italy for the twenty-five years of his reign, and was thus to be more in a position to show himself practically Emperor of the Romans.

Before, however, temporarily dismissing him for the present from our thoughts, as he departs from Rome after thus receiving the imperial crown from the Pope, it may be well to observe here that, whatever disagreements may have arisen between Louis and the popes from time to time during his rule of a quarter of a century, he never lost his respect for Rome and the successors of the Apostles —a respect entertained, despite occasional outbreaks of temper, by all the Carolingian monarchs. And so in this very year (850) we find him legislating for the safety of those journeying to Rome “for the sake of prayer”, and for the proper honor, support, and means of transport to be given to the missi, not only of his father and himself, but also of the Apostolicus (Leo IV.).

Three years after the coronation of Louis, Leo anointed another prince, and that no less a person than our own great king Alfred, the only one of our sovereigns who “received sacred unction in Rome at the hands of the Pope”. The ravages of time have played such havoc with the sources of history, that, with the exception of the notice that Archbishop Ceolnoth received his pallium from Gregory IV, we have not found any fact of history connecting England with the popes in the records of many years. But in 853, with “an honorable escort of nobles and commoners”, Ethelwulf, the king of the West Saxons, following the example so frequently set by the Carolingian monarchs, sent to Rome his favorite son Alfred, then a mere child, to receive the regal unction. Leo not only anointed him as king, but adopted him as his spiritual son by standing godfather to him at confirmation. Writing to Ethelwulf to tell him of what he had done, the Pope, in a fragment of one of his letters which we possess, speaks of having invested Alfred, as his spiritual son, with the customary “consular girdle (probably the lorus), honour and raiment, inasmuch as he had offered himself into his hands”.

Passing over the theory that nothing more was meant by all this than that Alfred became the Pope’s godson in confirmation, the object of Ethelwulf’s action may be stated in the words of one of Alfred’s modern biographers. “It is difficult to say”, remarks Dr Pauli, “what may have been his father’s motive for this proceeding; we can only suppose that his veneration for the capital city of Christendom, and for the representative of Christ upon earth, made him hope to receive the same gifts from the Holy Father which the earlier popes had bestowed upon the sons of Pippin and Charlemagne—viz., their holy unction and benediction. He wished his favorite child, whom he secretly desired might succeed him on the throne, to receive, in the blessing of the bishop of Rome, a kind of prophetic authorization of the succession”. Whether these reflections of the learned German be just or not, and they are in complete harmony with the views of Freeman, the visit of Alfred to Rome must have made a lasting impression for good on his youthful mind—an impression doubtless deepened by a second visit two years later, of which we shall speak under the reign of Benedict III.

Synod Rome, 853.

at At the close of this same year Leo held a synod at Rome (December 8, 853) of sixty-seven bishops. Of these, four were sent by the emperors Lothaire and Louis, with whose concurrence the assembly was held. Forty-two canons were passed by this council. Thirty-eight of them renewed those of the Roman council of 826 under Eugenius II, and were for the most part concerned with the improvement of discipline and learning among the clergy. The council renewed for the fourth time a sentence of excommunication against Anastasius, cardinal of St. Marcellus, and declared him definitively suspended.

This severe action brings prominently before our notice one of the most remarkable figures that appeared on the stage of the Western world during the ninth century, a figure that looms the larger from being seen through the historical haze which hangs over the period. At one time we catch a glimpse of him hurrying along the path of the world's ambitions, now scheming for the papacy and now actually an antipope. again and again deposed and restored ; and anon he was to be seen like a scholar, buried deep in books, writing histories and biographies and translating from the Greek. Then once more is he a man of action, librarian of the Roman Church and secretary of the Holy See. He was the Photius of the Latin Church.

The son of the haughty and covetous Arsenius, sometime (855-868) bishop of Horta (Orta), often legate of the Holy See, and brother of the ambitious Eleutherius, the murderer of his would-be wife and mother-in-law, his career shows that he was not untainted with some of the vices of his family. His erudition, or perhaps his family influence, attracted the attention of Leo IV, and he made him cardinal-priest of S. Marcellus in 848. But he soon saw cause to repent of his action, and Anastasius became to him an object of suspicion. He was thought, perhaps, to be either unduly attached to the imperial party or to be intriguing to secure the papacy. He was probably one of those “strenuous men, well acquainted with the powers exercised by the emperors of old” whom Louis, “anxious to subject all Italy to his sway”, supported at Rome. Had it not been “for his reverence for the Blessed Apostles”, he would, at their suggestion, have taken all authority in the Eternal City into his own hands. Finding himself under a cloud, the cardinal fled from Rome to Aquileia, whence nothing could induce him to return to his duty at S. Marcellus.

Already, in 850, a council at Rome of seventy-five bishops had excommunicated him for being absent for two years from his titular church without cause, and for neglecting to take any notice of repeated summonses to come and give an account of his conduct. Then at Ravenna, where he had had an interview with the emperor Louis II, Leo had renewed (May 29, 853) the sentence, and once again at Rome (June 19, 853), with fifty-six bishops. His subsequent life proved still further that Anastasius was a turbulent, disobedient spirit, and fully justified the strong measures which we find Leo taking against him so frequently excommunicating him, and “all who might wish to afford him any help to obtain episcopal”, or perhaps, rather, “papal election”. Two years after this and we shall see Anastasius an antipope.

Several of the fragments of Leo’s letters, if they do no more, reveal at least the fact that Anastasius was not the only rebellious spirit with whom he had to contend. It is quite possible, however, that several of the others belonged to the party of which he was the tool or the prime mover. Whether or not with the connivance of the imperial government, a considerable amount of oppression was being exercised in the papal territories in the north. One of the offenders, traditional it might almost be added, was John (IX. or X., 850-878), archbishop of Ravenna, a partisan of the emperor Louis II. “Without legal sanction”, he seized the property of the Pope’s subjects. In the pursuit of his ambition or his avarice he was ably seconded by his brother George or Gregory, the duke of Emilia, who, with the assistance of two other nobles, Peter and Hadrian, went to the length of murdering a papal legate while on his way to the emperor Lothaire. The assassins no doubt supposed he was going to lodge a complaint against them. With their excesses we must join those of a certain Gratian, perhaps the magister militum of that name, with whom Leo had lately had trouble. This ruffian not only did not scruple to put men to death by the sword, by the scourge, or by drowning, but affected to play the part of an independent sovereign even in theory, and forced several people to take an oath of fidelity to him. With robbers such as these at large, the roads became unsafe for pilgrims and merchants alike. But not in vain was appeal made to Leo. He betook himself to Ravenna after intimating to John and his brother that he would not tolerate their oppression of his people.

This journey was undertaken seemingly just before Easter, and the Pope appears to have remained at Ravenna till after his interview with the emperor Louis, and his condemnation of Anastasius.

George, Hadrian, and Peter were tried and condemned to death “by Roman law”. The fact that the trial took place at Easter (853) saved the lives of the culprits. The law forbade executions at that sacred season, and they had time to appeal to Louis. Ashamed to take their part openly, and yet anxious to support them as his partisans, he proposed that Peter and Hadrian should be sent to Rome, and that a fresh trial should be held. The Pope absolutely refused to agree to the first proposal. His life, he said, would be in danger if they came to Rome. With regard to the second, he expressed his astonishment that it should be made, considering that the accused had had a fair trial in presence of the emperor’s missi. However, he had no objection to another trial if it were only conducted by imperial missi, possessed of the fear of God, and who would act as they would in presence of the emperor himself. How all this affair ended is not known. But John and his brother George or Gregory were still in undisturbed possession of their positions and property in the days of Nicholas I.

Before the Pope left Rome for Ravenna, expecting to be absent for some time, and anxious that good order should be observed in his absence, he issued a special injunction ordering all the officials, clerical and lay, connected with the administration of justice to attend at the Lateran palace at the appointed times, just as if he himself were present.

Hincmar of Rheims also, to whom Leo had sent the  pallium in the first year of his reign, had dealings with the Pope this same year (853)

It was the emperor Lothaire himself who had asked for the pallium for Hincmar, in a letter which began, “Divine Providence wished that the Apostolic See (which, through the most Blessed Prince of the Apostles, is the head and foundation of sanctity wherever in the world the Christian religion is spread) should obtain the primacy of the churches, that in all religious difficulties recourse should be had to it by all as to the standard (norma) of religion and the fount of justice”.

The case of Wulfad.

It has been already stated that Ebbo of Rheims, after his canonical deposition, was restored to the archdiocese by the power of the emperor Lothaire in 840. On his restoration, Ebbo had ordained certain priests and deacons. These ordinations Hincmar, on the advice of his brethren, as he afterwards maintained, refused to recognize, and they were subsequently declared invalid by a council at Soissons (853). For this council Hincmar endeavored to procure the confirmation of Leo IV. This, however, he refused on various grounds. The acts of the council had not been sent to him, his legates had not been present at it, no explanatory imperial letter had been sent him, and finally the degraded clerics, chief of whom was one Wulfad, had appealed to the Holy See. He therefore wrote (c. July 853) to order Hincmar to hold a fresh synod in presence of the papal vicar, Peter, bishop of Spoleto, and to go into the case again. If the deposed clerics, not satisfied with the verdict of this new synod, persisted in appealing to Rome, then, “that the privilege of the Apostolic See might not be rendered nugatory”,  not only was leave to go to Rome not to be denied them, but Hincmar or his envoy must accompany them. But before he could succeed in effecting the repeal of the archbishop’s unnecessary severity against the clerics, Leo died, and Hincmar managed to obtain a qualified approval of the doings of the Council of Soissons from Leo’s successor Benedict. This latter gave his approval “on condition that everything was as stated to him” in the letters of Hincmar. Nicholas I, too, gave 4 (863) a similarly guarded confirmation of the acts of the council of 853. Later on, however, Nicholas listened to the repeated protests of the deposed clerics against the harshness of the sentence decreed against them, and at once took up the affair with his characteristic energy. He wrote (866, April 3) to Herard of Tours, Remigius of Lyons, and other metropolitans, bidding them convoke a synod at Soissons (August 18, 866) and restore the deposed clerics to their respective ranks if Hincmar would not do so of his own accord. He at the same time wrote to Hincmar himself, and begged him to be merciful to the unfortunate clerics. He added, however, that if Hincmar could not see his way in conscience to restore the clerics, he had ordered the archbishops and bishops of Gaul and Neustria (Galliarum et Neustrix) to meet at Soissons, and restore them; or, if they could not agree on that course, to insist at least on envoys from Hincmar and the clerics coming to Rome. He concluded by telling him that he had ordered Remigius to approach him, and to summon the council himself, “if he (Hincmar) feared to restore the clerics on his own authority”. The acts of the council must be sent to the Pope, and Hincmar must take good care not to neglect anything which has been ordered.

This was one of those cases always difficult to manage, where one in authority has inflicted punishment on grounds which are, at least, prima facie just, and then will not yield to those reasons of mercy, if not of the strictest justice, which strongly commend themselves to the common superior of the one who has inflicted and the one who has to endure the punishment. Hincmar in degrading the clerics had not done wrong. But he would not extend that mercy to them which, under the circumstances, was really their due. The synod was accordingly summoned.

It met at the time and place appointed by Nicholas.  “To Remigius (of Lyons), to Wenilo (of Rouen), and to the other archbishops and bishops, by the authority of the Lord Pope Nicholas, assembled in the synod at which he has ordered me and my suffragans to appear”, Hincmar addressed four letters or memoirs. He unfolded the whole history of the affair from his point of view; and while declaring his readiness to obey the decrees of Nicholas, endeavored to make capital out of his previous confirmation and out of that of Benedict III; and urged that, as he had not himself condemned the clerics, he could not by himself restore them, and that what had once been decreed in councils ought not to be altered without necessity.

The council, however, decided in favor of the deposed clerics. It is true it followed a course suggested by Hincmar. It did not annul the previous decisions against the clerics in question, but it resolved to reinstate them as an act of grace. In its synodal letter to the Pope (August 25) the council showed how much it was influenced by the character of Hincmar, a character which certainly wanted more Christian humility to put it on the road to perfection. While professing to think as the Pope thought, and to put into execution what he decreed, the council endeavored to make the Pope unsay what he had said, rather than themselves, as a body, undo mercifully what the former Council of Soissons had done with severity. They would be only too glad to restore the clerics—but then there were the former decrees ratified by popes. The corroboration of those decisions naturally rested with the Apostolic See, and, therefore, to that magisterial authority they would leave the restoration of the clerics. Hence, if the Pope thought it advisable, these clerics might be reinstated on the same lines as the Council of Nice had restored the reconciled Donatists. In conclusion, they begged the Pope to see to it that no advantage of this indulgence was taken by any in future to exercise clerical duties without proper authority.

Egilo, archbishop of Sens, who was commissioned to take the synodal decrees to Rome, was also the bearer of letters from Charles the Bald, and Hincmar himself to the Pope—both for different reasons anxious for the confirmation of the council. Hincmar’s letters (dated September 3, 866), is addressed “to the Lord most holy and reverend Father of Fathers, Nicholas, the Pope of the first and greatest Apostolic See and of the universal Church, Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, the most devoted servant of your most holy paternity”. It was quite in the same strain as that of the synod : “If you will stretch out a hand to the clerics, we will also do so with you”. However, he begs the Pope’s confirmation of the synod, and asserts his readiness to stand by the papal decision.

But Nicholas I was not the Pope to be first hoodwinked and then played with. Four letters of December 6, 866, to the bishops of the synod, to Hincmar, to Charles the Bald, and to the oft-mentioned clerics made the Pope’s mind tolerably plain. In his letter to the bishops, Nicholas goes back to the doings of the previous Council of Soissons, and shows that many things were there done or said which were not correct. It was said, for instance, that the clerics had of their own accord appeared before the synod, whereas the fact was that they had been forced to appear. Their metropolitan (Hincmar), acting at this synod now as the accused, now as the accuser, and now again as judge, showed himself like the chameleon. In the acts of the council important documents, such as the appeal of the clerics, had been omitted, and others of much less importance inserted. With regard to the confirmations of that synod by the Holy See, safeguarding clauses had been introduced as well by Benedict III as by himself. And though at the synod assembled by his orders (866) its members had decided that the clerics ought to be restored, they had not restored them, nor had they sent to him a full account of what had been accomplished. He therefore ordered (1) that the bishops should come together to discuss the matter again; (2) that meanwhile the clerics should be restored; and (3) that within a year Hincmar must present to him his accusations against the clerics, and his proofs that they had been canonically deposed. Besides this letter, Nicholas sent a very severe one to Hincmar, which he concluded by threatening to take away his pallium from him, if he used it at unwonted seasons for the purpose of raising himself above the other archbishops. A letter to the clerics, whilst announcing their restoration to them, exhorted them to respectful obedience to their archbishop (Hincmar).

These letters of Nicholas were followed in the first instance by the immediate dispatch to him (July 867) of a very submissive letter from Hincmar. He assured Nicholas that he had at once restored the clerics, that in this matter his one desire was to please the Pope, and that despite all that had been said against him, he had always, wherever opportunity offered, showed himself “faithful and devoted, humble also, and ever and in all things subject as regards the Holy See and its rulers”. In proceeding to defend himself against the Pope’s charges, he most earnestly assures him that in so doing he wishes not to resist the Pope’s authority in any way, “because he desires to follow that authority as a servant obeys his master, a son his father”. With this letter of Hincmar Nicholas expressed himself (867) completely satisfied.

To carry out the instructions of the Pope, Charles the Bald, by virtue of the authority of the same (auctoritate Nicolai), summoned a synod to meet at Troyes (October 25, 867). The bishops sent a full account of their proceedings to the Pope. In their synodal letter they inform Nicholas that they are forwarding him, at his request, all the documents that relate to the case of Ebbo, Hincmar, and the deposed clerics, and conclude by asking him to decree that in future, to avoid similar troubles, no bishop be deposed without the consent of the Holy See.

Actard, bishop of Nantes, was deputed to carry this letter to Rome. And here Hincmar was to learn how foolish it is to put faith in princes. The archbishop tells us, in the Annals which he wrote, “that Charles the Bald, now interested in advancing Wulfad, one of the deposed clerics, unmindful of the fidelity and toil of Hincmar in his service, forced Actard to give up the Acts of the Synod, broke their seal and read them. And, finding that Hincmar had not been condemned by the synod, forwarded, with the Acts, a letter directed against him”.

This tedious affair did not end even under Pope Nicholas. When Actard reached Rome, Hadrian II was Pope. But Rome was tired of this business. Hadrian at once (February–March 868) issued various letters on the matter to Charles, Hincmar, etc. The last-named is praised, Charles is told to let this useless question “die for ever”, the synod of Troyes is confirmed, and Wulfad recognized as archbishop of Bourges. This case of Ebbo, which we have thought advisable to follow out here to its close, is interesting, not as giving us any further insight into the ecclesiastical polity of the day—for that it does not do—but as supplying us with a study of character. It shows us also to what extent a proud and headstrong man in the grasp of authority will turn and twist in his efforts to get his own way, and only succeed in the end in securing for himself greater humiliation.

It may also be noted in connection with this case that in every instance in which they find the Pope intervening, some historians always see him striving to rob someone of his rights in order to increase his own power. It should not, then, surprise anyone to find certain historians trying to calculate how much fresh power accrued to the popes by this case of Ebbo. It would, however, be more than difficult to point out what the popes did in settling this “useless question”, which we have not seen them doing often enough before.

Still there is no doubt that the increased frequency of papal intervention in the affairs of the Church among the Franks, furnished some ground for the idea entertained by some of their bishops that their privileges were being interfered with. We know how much local authorities at home resent any unwonted, even if perfectly legal, intrusion of the central government into their affairs. Such an attitude on their part is perfectly natural. Are they not on the spot? Are they not in a better position to be acquainted with the circumstances of their own neighborhood? There is much in this thought calculated to explain the persistent opposition sometimes offered to the action of the popes in different countries.

But for all that, it is the right of the chief authority to judge how far its direct action in any locality is necessary either for the preservation of its own power, or for the advantage of the community; and, despite all opposition, to see that such action is respected and that its decisions are acknowledged.

Hincmar, for instance, was often able, in his differences with the popes, to make out a good case of having precedent on his side. But if that fact gave him some title for endeavoring to maintain the status quo, it certainly did not debar the central authority of Rome from putting an end to a state of things which it conceived to be, from any cause, undesirable.

Several other fragments of Leo’s letters enable us to get glimpses of many further transactions between him and the Franks or their rulers—glimpses which serve to bring out the uncompromising yet conciliatory character of the Pope. While assuring Lothaire that he will ever observe his decrees and those of his predecessors, he does not see his way to granting his request for the pallium for Alteus of Autun.

He reminds Charles the Bald, that if,” a thing which we do not believe, we are thought by you to be of no account, the Church, at least, over which we preside is rightly regarded by everyone as the head and source of all”. Another fragment to the emperors Lothaire and Louis is useful as showing how the freedom of election of bishops in the empire, proclaimed in theory by Charlemagne and Louis the Pious, was practically non-existent. The Pope had to write to ask the permission of the emperors before he could consecrate the deacon Colonus to be bishop of Reate, a town in the duchy of Spoleto, and hence under the emperor’s jurisdiction.

One of the forces at work in disintegrating the empire of  the Franks was Nomenoius, duke of Brittany. It was in the course of his efforts in that direction that he entered into correspondence with Pope Leo. Originally one of the counts missi of Louis the Pious he was given (826) jurisdiction over Brittany with the title of duke. It was not long, however, before he aimed at making himself independent of the empire, and securing the title of king. Understanding right well what was best at least for his own interests, he made up his mind to create a national Church, or, at least, to have in Brittany an ecclesiastical organization, over which he could have complete control. As he found matters, the bishops of Brittany were spiritually subject to the archbishopric of Tours, a See in the realm of Charles the Bald. An opportunity of forwarding his views was not long in presenting itself. St. Convoyon, abbot of Redon, accused the Breton bishops of simony. Nomenoius took cognizance of the matter; and, as the bishops did not succeed in justifying themselves, it was agreed that the Pope should be consulted as to whether a simoniacal bishop could be received into penance without being deposed. Solutions of other questions were to be likewise sought from Rome, “which”, as the anonymous disciple of the saint informs us, the accused bishops called “the head of all the churches under the expanse of heaven”; and where, “before the vicar of S. Peter, i.e., the Roman pontiff”, they declared their intention of stating their case and of receiving judgment. St. Convoyon and two of the accused bishops therefore set out to lay the matter before Leo. Though the Pope decided that bishops found guilty of simony must be deposed, he did not himself order the deposition of the Breton bishops. He would only have them condemned before twelve bishops, or on the evidence given on oath of seventy-two witnesses. And further, as he laid down in the letter which he addressed to the bishops of Brittany (848 or later), if any bishop appealed to Rome, no one was to presume to pass sentence on him. In this same letter, in answer to various queries addressed to him, Leo decided that it belonged to bishops to regulate ecclesiastical affairs and to govern the diocese; condemned the practice of judging cases by lots, and pointed out by what canons bishops were to be tried.

The decision of Leo regarding the bishops accused of simony did not suit Nomenoius. With threats of death he made them resign their bishoprics, had their places filled by men devoted to him, and created three fresh bishoprics, making one of these, Dol, the metropolitan See for his new kingdom. It was not till the thirteenth century that the upstart claims of Dol were once for all finally put down, and those of Tours again allowed to have their way. Despite the protest of Leo, and that of a council of Paris (849), which urged the authority of the Holy See on him, Nomenoius not only persisted in his course in the matter of the Breton bishops, but even expelled Actard from Nantes, which did not properly belong to Brittany, and put one, Gislard, in his place. Nomenoius, however, did not continue long to defy the authority of the Church. He died in 851.

The trouble raised in the Church by Nomenoius was but a trifle compared to the one which was now gathering in the East, and of which Leo witnessed the first forerunners. St. Ignatius had been enthroned as patriarch of Constantinople on July 4, 846. To show his good-will to the Pope he sent him a present of a pall (pallium superhumerale). Leo, however, felt compelled politely to refuse the proffered gift—“because it is not the custom of this Church, the mistress and head of all the churches, to receive the pall from others, but throughout Europe to send it to those to whom it is appointed”."

The holy patriarch had occasion, on some grounds not known to us, to slight Gregory Asbestas, bishop of Syracuse, who, after the coming of the Saracens to Sicily, had withdrawn to Constantinople. So outrageously did Gregory behave in consequence, that Ignatius caused him to be deposed in a council at Constantinople (854). According to a letter of Stylian, the metropolitan of Neocaesarea, addressed to Pope Stephen (V) VI, Gregory, and the few clergy of no standing who adhered to him, appealed to the Pope. Leo at once wrote to Ignatius to ask him to send an envoy to Rome who might lay the case of the schismatics before him from the patriarch’s point of view. Ignatius thereupon sent one Lazarus, a monk illustrious as a confessor of the faith, who was thoroughly acquainted with the case. Lazarus, who was the bearer of letters from the patriarch, put the whole matter before the Pope, who confirmed the sentence of Ignatius, a decision which was repeated by his successor Benedict. This version of Leo’s action given by Stylian, who in this letter gives a summary of the whole affair of Photius, a name to be for ever notorious in the history of the Church, does not quite agree with the notice left of it in several of his letters, by Nicholas I, nor with the Liber Pontificalis, according to which Lazarus only reached Rome in the pontificate of Benedict III. And certainly it is more likely that Nicholas would know what exactly had been done by his predecessors, than a Greek who lived at a distance. According to Nicholas, though Ignatius asked the Apostolic See to consent to the deposition of Gregory, Leo and Benedict, “guarding the moderation of the Holy See”, were unwilling so far to give ear to one side as to leave no opening for the other.

And, indeed, within comparatively recent years, the discovery made by Mr. Bishop of many fragments of papal letters in the British Museum has proved conclusively that at least for a time Leo certainly did not approve of the action of Ignatius. For an extract from a letter of his (c. 853) to the patriarch runs thus : “From the time when the only Son of God founded on Himself His holy Church, and by His apostolic institutions (apostolicis institucionibus, i.e., as I take it, by the dispositions He made among His apostles), established a head of all His priests, any difficulty or trouble which arose in your Church your predecessors hastened with all zeal and diligence to make known to the Roman pontiff, and then, strengthened by his assent and light-giving counsel, they peacefully accomplished whatever the circumstances required. But you, their successor, have assembled bishops and deposed certain prelates without our knowledge. This you certainly ought not to have done in the absence of our legates or of letters from us”.

Leo died before the evidence before him could be cleared up. Benedict, though he declared Gregory suspended, did not go to the length of deposing him, a fact which, as Nicholas acknowledges in the first of the three letters just quoted, only made Gregory more insolent against his patriarch. We have said that Leo witnessed the forerunners of the storm soon to be caused by Photius. Gregory and his party were the chief tools made use of by Bardas Caesar and Photius. It was Gregory that made Photius from a layman into a patriarch in a day or two.

Another Greek affair, much nearer home, also troubled last days of Leo. A certain Daniel, a magister militum, who, according to the description of him in the Liber Pontificalis, was partly wicked and partly foolish, went off to the emperor Louis to lay a charge against Gratian, who is therein set down not only as the most eminent magister militum, but also as “the worthy Superista of the Roman palace (the Lateran) and councilor” of the Pope. It is possible he may be the Gratian of whom mention has already been made. Daniel assured Louis that Gratian had secretly said to him that the best policy of the Romans was to form an alliance with the Greeks and get rid of the domination of the Franks. Roused to fury at once, as his relations with the East were at this period not of the best, Louis flew to Rome, without a word of warning either to the Pope or to the Senate. Leo received him, on the steps of St. Peter’s, and soon calmed the imperial anger. The two, assisted by the Roman and Frankish nobles, held a placitum to examine into the affair. Daniel was soon condemned out of his own mouth when tried by the Roman law, and only the intercession of the emperor saved the unfortunate man’s life.

Soon after the departure of Louis, died the energetic and courageous Pope Leo IV, a pontiff as ready, when duty called, to wield the spear as the crozier (July 17). He was buried in St. Peter’s, and is ranked among the saints in the Roman martyrology on July 17. It is on this day that the feast of St. Leo IV is still kept.

According to the Liber Pontificalis, Leo was illustrious, even in life for the working of miracles. As examples we find there cited his stopping the advance of the fire in the Anglo-Saxon quarter by making the sign of the cross, of which we have spoken above; and his destroying by his prayers, “in the first year of his Pontificate”, and on the day “on which the Assumption of the Blessed Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary is celebrated”, a serpent of the “dire kind, which in Greek is known as a basilisk, and in Latin as a regulus”. According to the papal biographer this serpent infested certain dark caverns in the vicinity of the Church of S. Lucia in Orfea (so called from its proximity to a fountain with a statue of Orpheus), now S. Lucia in Selci, and caused general consternation by the number which it killed “by its breath and by its appearance”. Leo, with all the clergy, went in solemn procession to the said caverns, singing hymns and carrying a statue, or rather a representation of Our Lord. After the Pope had earnestly begged of God to drive away the serpent, the reptile was never afterwards seen. Whatever may have been the origin of this portent, it reminds one of the devastating monster Cacus represented by Livy (as living on the Aventine, who, according to Varro, used to vomit forth flames, and who was finally slain by Hercules. Leo’s basilisk is evidently related to the dragon, which, according to the legend of Pope Silvester, that Pope shut up in its cave in the Tarpeian rock. And whatever was done by Leo to give rise to this curious legend, the memory of it survived for centuries. Canon Benedict, who wrote an Ordo Rornanus, or Book of Ceremonies of the Roman church, during the reign of Innocent II (1130-43), speaking of the very procession of the image of Our Lord just described, says that, when it left the Church of St. Hadrian, the statue was carried through the arch in Lathone, because of old the devil had caused great trouble in that part. Then the procession passed by the Domus Orphei on account of the basilisk which used to lurk there in a cavern, and which by its breath and hissing used to cause people who passed thereby to sicken and die. Hence Pope Sergius (II) instituted this procession on this great festival, that by the prayers of so many people and by the intercession of the most blessed Virgin, the Roman people might be freed from these troubles. From a sixteenth century writer, it appears that the arch, in Lathone, or really in Latrone, the Robber arch, was so called from the robberies and murders which took place near it, and which the neighborhood of the ruins of the Basilica of Constantine enabled to be committed with more or less impunity. The same author assures us that it was on account of these outrages that the mid-August procession of the statue of Our Saviour carried on the shoulders of the Roman nobility passed by the Robber arch. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the original basilisk of Leo IV was a robber band.

Doubtless in connection with this event Leo ordered the octave day of the Assumption to be observed in Rome.  Up to this time, only the feast itself (August 15), introduced from the East during the course of the seventh century, had been kept there. He was so pleased with the attendance of the people on the occasion of the first celebration of this new octave that he gave all present a considerable present of money.

Among the frescos discovered in the subterranean basilica of St. Clement was one of the Assumption. It represents Our Lady with outstretched arms, standing on the top of an empty tomb, and looking up towards God and His angels. On each side of the tomb are six of the apostles in various attitudes of astonishment, and beside them on one side a figure with the words (Scs. Vitus); and on the other a figure bearing a square nimbus, wearing the pallium, and with the words Sanctissimus Dom. Leo —rt PP Romanus. A letter in front of the “rt” is effaced; it was doubtless “q”—qrt, quarti (IV). Beneath the fresco are the words : “That this picture may outshine the rest in beauty, lo! the priest Leo studied to compose it”. As the titular Church of Leo when cardinal priest of the Quatuor Coronati is just opposite that of St. Clement, it is not unlikely that he either designed or painted this fresco whilst a simple priest, and that the pallium, etc., were added afterwards. Of course it may be that the work was executed by another priest of the same name.

His homily.

 Seeing that Leo’s preaching is especially alluded to by his biographer, it is the opinion of many, that the “Homily on the Pastoral Care”, which is still in the Pontificals, and which is also to be found in the various editions of the Councils, should be assigned to Leo IV. The homily is an instruction on sacerdotal duties which Leo wished that bishops should read to all priests who had the cure of souls. The instruction first tells the priests what they themselves must do, and then what they must impress upon the people—for instance, that on Ash Wednesday they must exhort the people to come and confess their sins. They must urge them to approach “to the communion of the Body and Blood of the Lord at Christmas, Maundy Thursday, Easter, and Pentecost, and must, on the contrary, condemn’ wakes’. Farm laborers of various kinds have to be especially reminded of their duty to go to Mass on Sundays, and to teach their children, or cause them to be taught, the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed”.

Besides being a preacher, Leo was also a musician, or, at least, took great interest in music. It would seem that at the monastery of St. Martin, where he had been educated, that art was especially cultivated. Its abbot John, at the time archcantor of St. Peter’s, had two centuries before this been sent to England to instruct our countrymen in the ecclesiastical chant. We have two indications of Leo’s concern for matters musical. In 847 he ordered that vespers should be publicly chanted in the basilica of St. Paul. The schola cantorum and all the clergy had to proceed thither on the saint’s feast (June 30), just as they betook themselves to the stational churches for Mass. And somewhere about the year 852 he wrote to Honoratus, possibly abbot of Farfa, the following letter, which will speak for itself, and which, especially on account of the interest now taken in the Gregorian chant, is worth inserting to the full extent in which it has come down to us.

“A quite incredible story has reached our ears, which, if it be true, must rather prejudice than do us honor.. . . It is averred that you have such an aversion to the sweet chant of St. Gregory, and the system of singing and reading which he drew up and bequeathed to the Church, that you are at variance in this matter not only with this See, which is near to you, but almost with every other church in the West, and, in fact, with all those who use the Latin tongue to pay to the King of Heaven their tribute of praise. All these churches have received with such eagerness and such devoted affection the aforesaid system (traditio) of Gregory, that although we have communicated the whole to them, they are so delighted that they leave us no peace with their inquiries about it, thinking that there must be more of the same remaining with us. It was, indeed, the holy Pope Gregory ... who both devoted his best energies to the salvation of souls, and who also with great labor and much musical skill composed this chant which we sing in the church, and even elsewhere. It was his desire to rouse and touch the hearts of men, so that by the sound of these highly elaborated strains he might draw to church not only ecclesiastics, but also those who were uneducated and hard to move.

“I beg of you not to allow yourself to remain in opposition to this Church, the supreme head of religion, from whom no one wishes to separate, or to the other churches mentioned, if you desire to live in entire peace and harmony with the universal Church of God. For if, which we cannot believe, you have such an aversion to our teaching and to the system of our holy Pontiff, that you will not conform in every point to our rite, whether in the chanting or in the lessons, know that we shall reject you from our communion”.