Каролинговы книги

Carolingian books (Libri Carolini). The reason for writing the Carolingian books was the debate about the veneration of icons (see Enz. V) and the immediate sending by Hadrian (see Enz. I) to Charlemagne of the acts of the second Council of Nicaea in 787 in a very faulty translation, the author of which is unknown. The Pope obviously expected that these definitions would be accepted by the Franks. But the recent breakdown in the matter of marriage between the king’s daughter and Irina’s son could not set Charles V. up for a favorable attitude towards eastern definitions - especially since his own convictions went against them. In general, in the Frankish church, a middle opinion prevailed regarding the veneration of icons. If Eastern Christians began to especially honor icons because of the contrast with their Mohammedan neighbors, the Franks, on the contrary, abstained in this regard, due to the need to counteract the idolatry of the Germans who had not yet converted to Christianity. This question was discussed at one of the mixed meetings of clergy and laity, held under Pepin, in Gentilly, in the presence of representatives from Pope Paul and envoys of Constantine Copronymus; and, although their decision has not reached us, there can hardly be any doubt that it was in agreement with the general views of the national church. Having received the acts of the council, Charles V. sent them to England to King Offa, who proposed them for discussion to the English bishops. On behalf of the English bishops and princes, Alcuin, who was there (see “Enc.” I), compiled a refutation of the acts, which was sent to the king of the Franks. This refutation has not survived, and it is unknown in what relation it stands to that, at least more extensive, work, which was compiled at the behest of Charles V. with the consent of the bishops of his state against the Seventh Ecumenical Council under the title: Opus illustrissimi et excellentissimi seu spectabilis viri Caroli Magni nutu Dei regis Francorum contra synodum, quae in partibus Graeciae pro adorandis imaginibus stolide et arroganter gesta est. The Carolingian books are now available in two manuscripts - the Parisian and the Vatican, but there are also references to other manuscripts that have not survived to us, according to one of which, mentioned by Cassander, the first edition was made, and then all the others, reprinted from the first. This first edition was published in Paris in 1549 in the name of Eli. Phili (i.e. Elias Philyra), under which hides Jean du Tillet or Joh. Tilius, later bishop of Meux (in the north of the Fraction). Since Protestants often relied on this publication in their attacks on the Catholic Church, it was included in the index in 1564, which is why copies of it are very rare. In addition, there are editions: 1555 in Cologne, Melchior Goldast in Imperialia decreta, Frankfurt 1608 and 1673; Philippa Pareya, Frankfurt 1628; anonymous, without place or time, by Heimann in Hanover in 1731 (best); Minya (ser. lat. 98 vols., reprinted from Goldast's edition): Jaffe in Monumenta Alcuiniana 1873. The authenticity of this work is disputed by some Catholic scholars, but it is undoubted both from the contents of the Carolingian books and from the testimony of Adrian I (see Ming lat. XCVIII, 1247) and Ginkmar of Rheims (ibid. 996). Who was the author of the Carolingian books is unknown. Many scholars consider Alcuin to be the author, pointing to his scholarship, the proximity of one place in the book (p. IV, 6, p. 455 according to Gaiman’s edition) to Alcuin’s comments on Hev. from John 4, 5 ff., and on the remark of Simeon of Durham (Simeon Dunelm. under 792), that Alcuin wrote against the Council of Nicaea. But the first two foundations are shaky, and Simeon's words refer to Alcuin's letter to Charles V. Therefore, other scholars dispute Alcuin's authorship. Wagemann, on the basis of a note in the manuscript of Tilius: “Ingerlannus abbas jussu Caroli hunc librum scripsit et ad A. papam tulit,” makes the assumption that the Carolingian books were written by another scientist close to Charles V., Abbot Anigilbert (see “Enz.” I), but the only basis in favor of this hypothesis is the confused and therefore unreliable note of the manuscript Tilia. It remains to be recognized that the Carolingian books were the collective work of the court theologians of Charles V. From the note of the Carolingian books regarding the Council of Nicaea, which lasted from September 24 to October 23, 787: “Gesta est ferme ante triennium” (happened almost three years ago), we can conclude that the time of writing these books was 789, or 790. The purpose of compiling the Carolingian books was to abolish the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, but from the response of Pope Adrian to Charles V. it is clear that it was not the Carolingian books that were sent to him, but some 85 chapters. How these 85 chapters relate to the Carolingian books is a controversial issue. It is usually believed that the Carolingian books are only a further development of the 85 chapters and were written after the 85 chapters were refuted in the letter of Hadrian, but this is contradicted by the complete silence of the Carolingian books about the letter of Hadrian. It would be more accurate to agree with Gauck’s opinion that 85 chapters constitute an extract from the Carolingian books. One should, apparently, accept Gauk's other opinion that the 85 chapters were sent to Hadrian not after the Frankfurt Council of 794, but before it, since the decisions of the council, which was attended by the legates of the pope, were binding on Adrian and he could not write a refutation of the 85 chapters after the council. The Frankfurt Cathedral, which rejected the veneration of icons, thus serves as Charles W.'s response to Adrian's letter. The Carolingian books consist of 4 books and 120 chapters. The tone of this treatise is firm and dignified. While declaring great respect for the apostolic seat, the author strongly supports the Frankish view of icons and criticizes the reasons given in favor of the doctrine, the contents of the East and Rome. Blaming the iconoclasts and the Byzantine Council of 754 for losing sight of the difference between icons and idols, the author declares their mistake to be less than the confusion allegedly committed by the Council of Nicaea between the use of icons and their worship; one error is attributed to ignorance, the other to wickedness. Much is said against the style officially used by the Byzantine court, and this style is condemned as infringing on the honor due to God. The Council is condemned for admitting that it was led by a woman, contrary to the command of the Ap. Paul (1 Cor. 11:14; 1 Tim. 2:12), so that women were not allowed to teach. Its claim to a universal character is rejected on the ground that its members were not gathered from all churches, and it did not contain the faith of the universal church; the divine sanction that belongs to him is also denied. In the opinion of the author, it is unreasonable for one part of the church to anathematize other parts in a matter concerning which no positive decrees were given by the Apostles, and especially when the rejected opinions may be agreed with by more ancient councils and fathers. The author examines all the passages cited in the Nicene Acts from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and the Fathers and gives them a different interpretation; condemns the council for allowing many stories of a fabulous or apocryphal nature; questions the story of the correspondence of the Savior with Abgar, strongly condemns the legend about the monk and the unclean spirit, expresses doubt about the truth of many stories about miracles and proves that even if miracles were actually performed through icons, they still do not give the right to idolize them. Notes are made about the expressions used by individual bishops at the council. Among them there is an important inaccuracy, as if Constantius from Constantia in Cyprus was accused of showing reverence to icons, the same as reverence for the Holy Trinity, and he allegedly anathematized everyone who thought differently; Meanwhile, in reality, this hierarch believed that there was a difference between the reverence shown to icons and that which was shown only to the Holy Trinity. Then the arguments given in favor of icons are discussed and refuted in general. By way of analogy, the honors given in the East to statues of emperors were pointed out; but the author denies that this instruction could serve as a basis for icon veneration: “for what madness is it to defend one illegal thing with another.” As proof of the illegality of the Eastern custom, Daniel's behavior in Babylon is pointed out. In the opinion of the author, it is extremely humiliating for the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, for the cross, the symbol of our salvation and the sign of our Christian confession, for the sacred vessels and for the sacred books, that the veneration shown to them is placed on the same level as the veneration for icons. The reverence shown to sacred remains, which are parts of the body of saints, or, in general, to things in any way connected with them, cannot serve as a basis for showing the same reverence to icons, which are a simple work of the artist. Christ and His saints did not seem to require such veneration, and although the more educated are able to treat icons without idolatry, directing their reverence to what the icons mean, the uneducated, who do not have the art of subtle distinctions, can easily move on to deifying what they see, without any thought about an object standing outside the boundaries of the image. The blame for such a sin should fall not on those who allow icons and only refuse to worship them, but on those who force such worship. The use of icons, according to the author, can only be permissible in the form of decorations, or as historical memories. Their true use as a means of remembering is persistently opposed to the argument that without them it is impossible to remember God. Those persons must have too unreliable memory, who need to be reminded of God through icons, and who are unable to rise in spirit above the material creation except with the help of a material and created object. The king ends by declaring to the pope that he adheres to the principles laid down by Gregory the Great in his letters to Serenus of Marseilles, and that he considers this the rule of the universal church. Icons can be allowed, but they cannot be forced to be venerated, although, at the same time, they should not be broken or destroyed. In addition to its passionate tone, this polemic against icon veneration - even in the minds of Protestants - is unfair in that it does not pay attention to the difference between λατρεία, which befits only God, and προσκύνησις τιμητική, given to creatures, and attributes to the Nicene a blasphemous position for the cathedral: icons should be given the same servitium adorationis as the Most Holy One. Trinity. This unfair reproach to the Council of Nicea is explained, on the one hand, by an incorrect translation (προσκύνησις - adoratio), and on the other, by a misunderstanding of the Greek text. Literature. The older literature is listed in the above-mentioned edition of Gaiman's Carolingian Books. H. J. Floss, Commentatio de suspecta librorum Carol. a J. Tilio I ed. fide, Bonn 1860. Prof. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschl. II 2, 316 ff. Robertson and Duke, East. Christ churches lane † A.P. Lopukhina, I, 673–676. Iconoclasm and the Popes in “Christ. Readings" 1865 O. V. Chr. Preobrazhensky (Bishop Vasily), The question of icon veneration during the time of Charlemagne, in “Christ. Thu,” 1883, I, 115; his, Eastern and Western schools during the time of Charlemagne, St. Petersburg. 1881; St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council, St. Petersburg. A.Ya. Dorodnitsyn (now Bishop Alexy), Church-legislative activity of Charlemagne (Moscow 1889), pp. 123–125. [Vacant et Mangenot, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique II, col. 1792–1799. Wetzer und Welte, Kirchenlexikon VII 2, Sp. 189–196. Herzog-Hauck, R. E. X 3, 88–97. W. Smith and H. Ware, A Dictionary of Christian Biography 1, p. 405–406).