Pope Leo IX

“[Leo] to work for the reform of the Church” (1883)1 “a great reforming pope” (1889)2 “the first pope who desired reform” (1924)3 “the reformer Leo IX” (1935)4 “the great reform pope” (2005)5 “the reform minded ... Leo IX” (2015)6 These interpretations and descriptions of Pope Leo IX (1049–1054) illustrate clearly the predominant historiographical view of Leo for the last 136 years. During this period, the overriding emphasis has been on Leo as a reform pope and dissenting voices are rare. It is only very recently that the concept of reform, in contextual terms and not necessarily specifically related to Leo, has begun to be re-evaluated; notably by Maureen Miller, Leidulf Melve and currently by the Leverhulme International project Rethinking Reform 900–1150 Conceptualising Change in Medieval Religious Institutions.7 However, the specific consensus of interpretation of Leo as a reform pope, which has so far escaped re-evaluation, is unfortunately bedevilled by two crucial factors. Firstly, there has been little historiographical focus on attempting to define what is meant by reform, and secondly, there has been relatively limited systematic evaluation of Leo's pontificate in relation to what he actually did during his 5-year reign. His pontificate has almost always been viewed via the adjective of reform and his actions and policies interpreted accordingly. The idea of reform may now be defined as the idea of free, intentional and ever perfectible, multiple, prolonged and ever repeated efforts to reassert and augment values pre-existent in the spiritual-material compound of the world.8 The word “reform” has been used to form a whole range of composite words and phrases ... This immense vocabulary is often confusing and conceals more than it reveals because it has no concrete reference and is vague and imprecise as to what is really understood by reform.12 However, the concept and definition of reform have recently begun to receive a long overdue measure of scholarly attention. This attention has not, as yet, been focussed on any particular individual and it is to Pope Leo IX that proper scrutiny will now be given. In order to re-evaluate Leo's pontificate, it is a prerequisite to put forward, for the first time, a new definition of reform. This will remedy the scholarly lacuna relating to the definition of reform which characterises almost all of the historiography pertaining to Leo IX. It will also assist in positioning Leo as a pope in his own right and will enable an analysis of his pontificate without him being perceived under the long interpretational shadow of ill-defined reform. A reforming or reform minded individual is one who sets out, with intent, to re-imagine the established order and in so doing to fundamentally change, for the better, organisations and/or society. This re-evaluation of Leo's pontificate under the focus of this new definition is founded upon three principal elements of his pontificate: travels, Synods, and governance of the Church. It will lead to a better understanding of the overall concept of reform and it is underpinned by a detailed analysis of a number of Leo's extant letters. The newly commissioned translations of all 111 of these provide a new perspective and analysis relating to what Leo actually accomplished.13 In relation to the first element, that is, his travels, it is undeniable that Leo travelled widely and often and the summary details of when and where he spent his time are set out in Tables 1 and 2 below. The overall result of these travels is that out of the 5 years of his pontificate, Leo spent only around 8 months in Rome and not too far short of that in his home town of Toul and home region of Alsace. It is, at the very least, a moot point whether or not this was what Emperor Henry III intended when he selected Leo to become pope in late 1048. The historiography related to Leo's travels has tended to focus on the process rather than the outcomes. It emphasises that Leo's itinerant modus operandi was similar to that of major secular rulers of the time.14 It posits that this itinerant mode was a deliberate policy choice for the operation of the papacy by Leo.15 It focusses on and emphasises the frequency of Leo's trans Alpine travels and contrasts this with a comparative lack of such journeys by his predecessors.16 Finally and above all, it attributes a variety of purposes to these travels, for example, to Europeanise the role of the bishop of Rome and the papacy; to implement his so-called reform agenda; and to extend the reach of his governance of the Church.17 The historiographical interpretation of Leo's itinerant modus operandi is essentially correct. It is also a reasonable assumption that Leo almost certainly learned about the value of travelling for a ruler from his time (1024–1026) in the chapel at the court of Emperor Conrad II. Leo's near contemporary biographer noted how important a role Leo played in that court.18 From this early experience in his life, it can be safely concluded that, when he became pope, Leo's decision to travel was a deliberate policy/political choice. Where Leo differed from other 11th century popes was that he travelled considerably more than any of them, up to and including Gregory VII (1073–1085). Notwithstanding this, there remain specific questions relating to the purposes of his travels and in particular of his trans Alpine journeys which need to be reassessed. It can be accepted that he did significantly more of this than any of his predecessors dating back to the late ninth century. However, it is also crucial that this trans Alpine emphasis is re-evaluated. In fact, the greatest density and frequency of his travels was across a trans Appenine corridor (Maps 1 and 2) and the consequences and outcomes arising from this are set out in the following analyses. The historiographical consensus on his travels is focussed, principally, on the three purposes outlined above i.e. Europeanisation, reform and governance. Having said that, however, the following new analyses of his travels reveal a far more complex and nuanced perspective which calls into question this long held consensus. Leo dealt with a considerable volume of business whilst en route. The great majority of this (over 90% in the first 18 months) was in response to requests for confirmations of possessions and/or privileges (legal rights) for monasteries and churches. Across journeys Two to Five inclusive (see Table 1), Leo issued 61 letters in total. Of this total, 32 were issued to institutions which were on or in close proximity to either the route he travelled or the places where he stayed for more than a few days, that is, Reims, Mainz, and Toul. This locally requested business was far from Leo pursuing reform as defined above or trying to Europeanise the papacy. This was a routine papal workload; dealt with by Leo as sought by the requesters and largely implicitly designed by them to maintain their estates and rights as they stood. The importance of this corridor to Leo can be gauged by the fact that he criss-crossed it in every year of his pontificate. In 1 year in particular (June 1051–April 1052: Journey Four), he did not travel outside the corridor at all (save for one brief excursion to Osimo). On Journey Four, he issued seven letters whilst en route of which four were to institutions close to his route, and on Journey Five, he issued seven letters whilst in the corridor of which four were close to his route. The density and frequency of his journeys across the corridor illustrates markedly the importance of this area to Leo and the papacy and the amount of time and energy he devoted or was forced to devote to the issues which arose within it. It is also worth noting that Leo's propensity to travel in the corridor was in significant contrast to all preceding 11th century popes who, if they travelled at all, travelled infrequently in this corridor. The principal issues Leo dealt with were the role of the Normans, the role of Constantinople, the strategic importance of the monastery of Monte Cassino, the similar importance attached to Benevento, and the ceaseless political machinations of a number of local secular rulers, notably Pandulf IV. The business conducted by Leo in the corridor had little to do with reform or Europeanising the papacy and everything to do with the balance of political power and the perceived safety of the papacy in Rome. The fact that Leo's policy in the corridor ended disastrously in defeat at the hands of the Normans at the battle of Civitate in June 1053 should not detract from the considerable skill and energy he devoted to it prior to that Leo spent around 20 weeks in Toul and Alsace which were his home town and local region, respectively. It is crucial to note that Leo was elected bishop of Toul in May 1026 and demitted office in January 1051.19 During the time he spent here when he was pope, he took care, by confirming possessions and/or privileges, to protect and maintain his own family's interests in their monasteries and nunneries. Leo also used Toul as a base for around 3 months (October 1050–January 1051) when he issued 10 letters, seven of which were to institutions in or close to Toul itself. This retention of his bishopric, his frequent visits to Toul/Alsace (which were noted by contemporaries),20 his use of Toul as a base, and his protection of his own family's interests reflect, to a great extent, Leo's desire to retain power and authority in his home town/region. His actions here did not amount to reform or Europeanisation but were more to do with consolidation and maintenance of his own family's and his own episcopal interests. Leo also used his travels for a number of other important purposes. He met with Emperor Henry III five times, with two of these meetings during Synods (Mainz: October 1049 and Bamberg: October 1052). He performed significant ecclesiastical ceremonies; for instance, the consecration of the church and translation of relics at Reims (October 1049), the translation of the relics of Gerard at Toul (October 1050), and the Purification of St. Mary at Augsburg (February 1053). He undertook a diplomatic mission on behalf of Henry III to Bratislava (summer 1052), and lastly and fatefully, he travelled to take military action against the Normans at Civitate in June 1053. It will be evident from the foregoing analysis that the purposes of Leo's travels were very complex and that he undertook his peregrinations for different reasons, at different times, and to a multitude of different places. This very complexity precludes the use of any “single interpretive lens” to explain them.21 Whilst the analysis does not rule out entirely the purposes of reform, Europeanisation, and the reach of papal governance, it does provide a much needed and long overdue re-balancing of the prevailing historiography and, crucially, it focusses on the outcomes and not the process of his travels. The second element of his pontificate concerns his Synods. Leo held 14 of these and the details are set out in Table 3. The Synod at Bamberg is a new addition to the usual number following analysis of Leo's letters XXII and LXXV. The predominant theme of the historiography concerning his Synods emphasises their role in relation to his so-called reform agenda, Europeanisation of the papacy, and alleged radical approach to church governance, for example, simony (improper payment of money for church office).22 Historians have focussed on a small group of Synods because of the limitations of extant information but even given that it is still possible to question the orthodox view. The following new analysis faces similar source constraints but highlights a more nuanced and less straightforward perspective. For instance, in terms of their location, Leo only held three Synods north of the Alps: two in October 1049 (Reims and Mainz) and the third in Bamberg (October 1052). Given that three quarters of his Synods were held in Italy, it is hard to accept that they were an integral part of a coordinated and planned policy of Europeanisation. Furthermore, Leo's choice of locations was not new and thus cannot be seen as part of an attempt to reform this aspect of papal policy, Pope Benedict VIII had held a Synod north of the Alps in 1020 and many previous popes had held Synods in Italy both in and outside Rome.23 Leo used his Synods as an instrument of church governance and in particular to resolve internal ecclesiastical disputes which were dealt with at five Synods.24 At these Synods, Leo used an approach consistent with contemporary contexts, that is, neither radical nor reform based. For instance, he allowed the disputants to present their case with legal representation, there was a collegiate style of decision making with Leo ensuring that the full Synod arrived at its judgement, and finally, Leo ensured that the decision was recorded in writing and in most cases attested by those present.25 It is pertinent to observe that although Leo clearly attached great importance to resolving disputes at Synods, this was not a new, reforming departure and that he was merely following the well-worn practice of previous popes.26 The vexed question of simony was also dealt with by Leo in his Synods. The first occasion was at his opening Synod in Rome in April 1049. Here, Leo set out his initial policy position very clearly, that is, “he rendered all simoniacal ordinations null and void.”27 This was followed by uproar from those present who argued that if this policy were to be followed, then “nearly all major churches would be without episcopal services.”28 At this point, Leo executed a rapid reversal of policy and decided after “long and voluminous discussion” that simoniacs would have to do 40 days penance and then, crucially, “function in the office of orders he had received.”29 In other words, no one found guilty of simony would lose their job in the church. This policy turnaround can hardly be seen as the action of a pope intending to vigorously pursue reform as defined above and that the approach which he originally intended was fatally compromised less than 3 months into his pontificate. This policy was also adopted at the Synod of Reims in October 1049. It is sufficient to note that of the five clerics who confessed to simony in this Synod, four were reinstated in their office and only one was demoted to the priesthood. In short, the policy set out at Rome was followed at Reims. There would, of course, have been a degree of principally individual reputational damage, which should not be underestimated, but it is argued that this would have been significantly outweighed by the advantages of retention of office. He [Leo] demonstrated how great was the wisdom that he devoted to preserving the catholic laws in the first Roman council that he held, in the company of many bishops, where in his discourse he restated the decisions of the four principal synods and confirmed that the decrees of all preceding popes were to be respected.30 The final element of his pontificate concerns his governance of the church. This new analysis focusses on the business he conducted, primarily through the medium of his letters, in his first 18 months in office. This period is when his Chancellor Peter held office, he died in September 1050, and this allows a consistent analysis which is unaffected by the potential influence of a change of Chancellor. In this period, Leo issued 43 letters of which 37 were to monasteries and churches as set out in Table 4 below. A number of analytical issues arise specifically from this table and in relation to Leo's letters more generally. A strand of the prevailing historiography highlights that when he became pope, Leo is thought to have begun, intentionally, to Europeanise the role of the papacy. However, from Table 4, it is evident that Leo's sphere of reach was significantly less than Euro-wide and was primarily focussed on France and Italy; with nearly 80% of his letters issued to these two areas. The letters to monasteries and churches in this period were largely in response to requests (over 90%) and nearly 80% of these were for the confirmation of existing possessions and/or privileges. This indicates that Leo was operating a principally reactive office or rescript government and not taking the initiative in relation to where he exercised his influence and authority. These letters were specific and routine responses to requests which did not in themselves bear witness to a papal desire to reform matters in respect of these 37 monasteries and churches. The letters do, though, provide a fascinating insight into how the operation of Leo's office evolved in one specific way. In his first letter 1049), Leo that to and not to from such This and response was in October 1049 when Leo he would only to This more was followed up in April when he that requests would be where they The word and are not defined but their the fact that the of governance and of operating a papal office were to It is a point whether or not any requests were because they were not seen to be or It should be noted that of Leo's letters a Leo's first 18 months were by a in papal 1 illustrates the of this which was five the for any preceding 11th century pope and above that for those who The of this be to a pope to his reform, and his power and influence across However, as can be seen from the analyses this was not entirely the case and the question of what have this of It is to be from the extant letters and his but three may have had an Firstly, that Leo's pontificate was perceived as a new and thus the papacy was seen as safely to do in contrast to the brief and preceding that Leo was seen as the to to on his long and as bishop of Toul. and finally, that the in particular requests for a of on Leo and the papacy by many monasteries and churches across of This new analysis of Pope Leo pontificate is founded on a number of In the first instance, there is the new definition of reform which emphasises change and and which from that ... has so much that it to be as a and from that of a This definition the for the new analyses of his travels, Synods, and governance of the church. These lead to a perspective on Leo set within the of the new definition of reform. From this Leo can no be as a reform He should be seen as a and largely on trying to as they had always He was also a pope who did not, for the most new but he did have an to and a the Having said this, Leo is not to be as he and should perceived as an important pope in his own Leo was not, as he was a for the so-called reform in the 11th century. He was an pope who undertook at the as a pope attempting to his in a across of as the bishop of as bishop of Toul for part of his and as a local and political The long held historiographical practice of Leo through the of reform does not or or lead to a understanding of his pontificate. The long interpretational of reform the question as to how to these It is that to one adjective with would one interpretive with and would not take The complexity of Leo's and out any other Furthermore, Leo from the of reform, there the question of how this the of the of 11th century There is a need to the very of reform with a new focus on change and There is an need to as the of reform is from Leo, where the for reform from that Pope Gregory there is a need to about the role of the other in the early to century and to about Leo's his and whether his style of the papacy. would to and one of for and on an of this This was by an and was an in in at and has his Leo IX A of his in also at He is now an of that and part time, and Medieval

Political science · Catholicism and Religious Studies · Historical and Religious Studies of Rome · Medieval Literature and History · Psychology

• Um Mundo de Subornos

  Open Access•Leandro Duarte Rust•História histórias•2026

  Add to list

• Homo Corruptus

  Open Access•Leandro Duarte Rust•Antíteses•2022

  Add to list

• The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century

  Open Access•Gerd Tellenbach, Timothy Reuter•Church in Western Europe from the…•1993

  Add to list

• The Crisis in the Investiture Crisis Narrative

  Open Access•Maureen C Miller•History Compass•2009

  Add to list

• Ecclesiastical Reform in Historiographical Context

  Open Access•Leidulf Melve•History Compass•2015

  Add to list

• The Papal Reform of the Eleventh Century

  Colin Morris•The English Historical Review•2005

  Add to list

• Reform and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century

  R Moore, R Laurence Moore•The English Historical Review•2006

  Add to list