THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
recently as 1860 by Floss of Bonn, who succeeded in convincing Baur that it was at least doubtful. But these doubts have long since been abandoned by Catholic theologians (the Jesuit Sirmond, Xatalis Alexander, Du Pin, Hefele). The oldest external evidence in its favor is the letter of Adrian himself (printed by Mansi, Migne, and Jaff6); the next is that of Hincmar of Reims, who says he has seen the book in the imperial palace, and quotes a chapter (iv. 26) from it. If, however, the origin of the work from Charlemagne's immediate entourage and by his authority is indubitable, the question as to the actual author is still 3. Problem unsolved. This can not, of course, of Author- have been Charlemagne himself, ship. though his name is used, but must have been one (if not more than one) of the most prominent theologians of his court. The majority of scholars are inclined to favor Alcuin; but there is some reason to think that it may have been Abbot Angilbert of St. Riquier, who stood in close relations to Charlemagne and was entrusted by him with negotiations at Rome regarding this controversy.
The composition of the work was begun, as appears from the preface to the first book, not earlier than the winter of 789-790 and not later than the summer of 791. When it was completed is not now known, but Charlemagne was not likely to have granted his theologians more time than was necessary, so that it may have been finished in 790 or 791. It was intended to affect public opinion in favor of Charlemagne's rejection of the Xicene decrees. He endeavored to obtain like action from Pope Adrian, and sent Angilbert to Rome for this purpose. Adrian's answer referred to above discusses and controverts eighty-five chapters somewhat fully. The question arises whether Angilbert laid before him the whole work or only these chapters, and whether 4. The these eighty-five were the basis for Work Sent a revised and enlarged edition, or a to Pope condensation of the larger work. A Adrian. supplementary question also arises as to the date of Angilbert's mission, whether it was before or after the Synod of Frankfort in 794. The answer to the first question is determined by Adrian's assertion that he has answered each chapter seriatim, and by a similar assertion of the Council of Paris (825). Hincmar was probably in error when he said that the " not small volume " which he saw had been sent to Rome. The second question involves more difficulty. The theory, recently supported by Hampe, that Adrian's answer led to the expansion of the original document into the 5. Relation present Caroline Books is invalidated of by the fact that in their present shape
Original they contain no reference to Adrian's Work to answer, and make no attempt to rebut Larger Re- it. It is more likely that the eightycension. five chapters consisted of extracts from the larger work. Adrian was asked to condemn certain propositions, not to confirm Charlemagne's official pronouncement. As to the date of this proceeding, it must have
been before the Synod of Frankfort, whose decision was taken in the presence of papal legates and its validity never questioned, while the rejection of the eighty-five chapters would have been tantamount to a condemnation of it. Angilbert was in Kume in 792, and the occurrence probably took place then — possibly not till the next year. In consequence Charlemagne laid the matter before the synod.
We come now to the contents and character of the Libri Carolini. Each book has its own preface. That of Book I. begins with a rhetorical eulogy of the Church as the ark of safety, Charlemagne's duty to which leads him to take up this question. Pride and ambition have led the Eastern princes and bishops to introduce innovations into the true doctrine "by notorious and senseless synods." The Council of Constantinople (754) erred in one direction, by abolishing the pictures which had from of old served to adorn the churches and commemorate past events, referring what God had spoken of idols to images. The Nicene Council, on the other hand, three years before the date of writing, had erred not less, by exhorting the people to worship such images. Both perverted the teaching of the fathers, who allowed
the possession of images, but forbade 6. Book I. the worship of them. We, however,
resting on the foundation of the Scriptures, the orthodox fathers, and the six ecumenical councils, reject all innovations, especially those of the Nicene Council, whose acts have reached us. We have undertaken to combat these errors with the assistance of the clergy of our kingdom. Neither of these councils deserves the name of ecumenical; and in contrast with both, the via media must be followed, which consists in neither breaking down the images nor worshiping them, but retaining them as ornaments and memorials, adoring God alone and rendering due veneration to the saints. The standpoint being thus set forth in the preface, the polemic of Book I. is directed first against the imperial summons to the Nicene Council, whose phraseology is condemned in four several points. The council itself is accused of erroneous exposition of the Scriptures and erroneous employment of patristic citations. The author thinks it necessary (i. 6) to express his acknowledgment of the authority of the Roman Church, both in faith and in worship, founded not on human ordinances but on divine prescription. The section i. 7-ii. 12 examines the passages of Scripture alleged by the council, and ii. 15-20 the patristic passages, some of which are not authentic and others inconclusive. In ii. 26 the conclusion is drawn that, as the whole of Scripture proclaims in thunder-tones, "God alone is to be worshiped and adored," the "cultusof images" is altogether to be reprobated, as contrary to the Christian religion; whether or not pictures are retained in the churches is a matter of indifference,
though, indeed, visible memorials of 7. Book II. Christ and the saints are unnecessary.
The friends of images (obviously including the pope) are warned not to disturb the peace of the Church and the prosperity of Charles's kingdom by their councils. The apostles never