THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
than before. For this reason, when the earth was divided among the apostles, Rome was reserved to Peter, that here, at the very center, the decisive triumph might be won over the earthly wisdom of philosophy and the power of the demons; and thus from the head the light of truth streams out through the whole body. In Leo's eyes the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon acquired their validity from his confirmation. The wide range of this theory justifies the application to him of the title of the first pope. (N. Bonwbtsch.)
Bibliography: The Opera were edited by P. Quesnel, 2 vols., Paris, 1675 (defended Hilary against Leo, therefore put on the Index); and by P. and H. Ballerini, 3 vols., Venice, 1753-57 (contain works of doubtful authenticity), from which they were reprinted in MPL, liv.-lvi., with life by Anastasius Bibliothecarius (given with commentary in MPL, cxxviii. 299 sqq.) and Quesnel's Dissertatio. Fifty selected letters are Iprinted in H. Hurter, Opuscula sacrorum patrum selecta, ser. 1, vols., xxv-xxvi., Innsbruck, 1874. An Eng. transl. of selected letters and sermons is given in NPNF, 2 ser., vol. xii., together with a life and prolegomena.
Data concerning Leo's life may be sought in: Liber pontificalia, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 101-106; Tillemont, Memoires, xv. 414-832 (accurate, impartial); Jaffe, Regesta, pp. 34 sqq.; W. A. Arendt, Leo der Grosse und seine Zeit, Mainz, 1835 (Roman Catholic, apologetic); E. Perthel, Leo's I. Leben und Lehren, Jena, 1843 (Protestant and depreciatory); T. Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., book vi., chaps, iv.-vi., London, 1S59; F. Bohringer, Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen, vol. xii., Stuttgart, 1879; C. H. Gore, in Fathers for English Readers, London, 1880; DCB, iii. 652-673 (minute); F Gregorovius, Hist, of the City of Rome, i. 189-228, London, 1894. Views of his activities are given by P. Kuhn, Die Christologie Leos I., Wurzburg, 1894; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ii. 302-356, 564, Eng. transl., vols, iii.-iv.; O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie, pp. 460 sqq., Freiburg, 1901; Harnack, Dogma, vols, ii.-v., passim. Consult also, Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, x. 169—275; Bower, Popes, i. 189-248; Milman, Latin Christianity, i. 253 sqq.; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii., passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 314 sqq. et passim.
Leo II.: Pope 682-683. The importance of his brief pontificate lies in his action in confirming the acts of the sixth ecumenical council, which contained the inclusion of his predecessor Honorius among the condemned leaders of Monothelitism (q.v.). Similarly, in sending the acts of the council to the Spanish bishops, he included Honorius as one " who did not, as became his apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine, but by his negligence fostered it." Macarius of Antioch and his Monothelite friends, who had been sent to Rome, were (according to the Liber pontificalis) imprisoned in various monasteries, with the exception of two who recanted. The same authority describes Leo as learned in the Scriptures, Greek, and ecclesiastical music, and as charitable. The date of his burial is July 3, 683. (N. Bonwbtsch.)
Bibliography: The Epistolw are in MPL, xcvi., cf. NA, viii. 363-364. Consult: Liber pontificalis, ed. Mommsen in MGH, Gest. pont. Rom., i (1898), 200-202; ASB, June, v. 375; R. Baxmann, Die Politik rlrr Papste, i. 185 sqq., Elberfeld, 1868; J. Langen, Gesrhirhte der romischen Kirche. ii. 568 sqq.. Bonn, 1885; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, xi. 784-785, xii. 955-958; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ui. 287 sqq., Eng. transl., v. 179 sqq.; Bower, Popes, i. 486-487; Milman, Latin Christianity, ii. 287; DCB, iii. 673-674.
Leo III.: Pope 795-816. A Roman by birth, he was elected Dec. 26 and consecrated the next day. His election is said by the Liber pontificalis
to have been unanimous; but the Roman aristocracy was certainly hostile to him at the start which drove him to rely on the support of Charlemagne. He sent word of his election to the king, assuring him of his fidelity, and Charlemagne's answer expressed his readiness to renew the alliance between the Frankish kingdom and the Church. At first this relation was useful to Leo, and soon enough was absolutely necessary, owing not only to the danger of Saracen attack but even more to the hostile attitude of Leo's personal opponents in Rome the men whom his elevation had robbed of their power. At the customary procession on St. Mark's day, 799, he was attacked and maltreated; and a tumultuous gathering judged him on various grave charges and declared him deposed. His partizans rallied and released him in the night. He fled to Germany, where Charlemagne received him as the lawful pope, and in November he was restored by the Frankish power. In Charlemagne's mind, however, the duty of protection involved the right of oversight. His commissioner was directed to make a full investigation as well of the charges against Leo as of the violence of his opponents. Difficulties stood in the way either of judging a pope or of allowing his sacred office to be filled by a man under suspicion of serious misdoing. The suggestion of Leo's voluntary retirement to a monastery was made, but not so easily carried out. Charlemagne decided to take the matter up in person, and appeared in Italy in the autumn of 800. The investigation ended not by a judicial condemnation or by a judicial acquittal, but by Leo's taking a solemn oath in Charlemagne's presence that he was innocent of the charges, after which his opponents were condemned to death as rebels, though the sentence was commuted to banishment. Two days later, on Christmas day, Leo crowned Charlemagne as emperor, apparently (though the question has been much debated) without any preliminary knowledge or desire on the king's, part, and to the profit rather of Leo's own importance.
Charlemagne deduced from the new title the conclusion that Rome was to be treated as an integral part of his empire, and thenceforth little essential difference can be observed between its bishop and the other metropolitans of the empire; the pope was considered a subject of the emperor. The extent to which this was carried may be seen from the small part assigned to Leo in the settlement of the controversies of the time. The Adoptionist controversy was taken in hand by Charlemagne himself, and Leo had nothing to do but to repeat at a Roman synod Oct. 23, 798, the condemnation already pronounced in Germany. In the negotiations as to the Filioque he ventured, indeed, to dissociate himself from the conclusion of the Frankish Church, but his solemn exposition of the ancient text of the creed, engraved on silver tablets, in St. Peter's made no impression on Charlemagne and his theologians, and the Filioque was accepted both in the Frankish Church and tacitly in Rome. Even in his relations with the Greek Church Leo was hampered by his relation to Charlemagne. When the emperor died (Jan. 28, 814), Leo neglected to have the Roman people do homage to his successor Louis