JOHN X. AND THE IRON CENTURY
The next great stride in the development of the Papacy is taken by
Gregory VII., the true successor of Nicholas I. and Gregory I. Europe
seemed, indeed, entirely prepared for that last development of the
Papal system which we connect with the name of Hildebrand, and a
student of its essential growth may be tempted to pass at once from
the ninth to the eleventh century. But to do so would be to omit one
of the most singular phases of the story of the Papacy and leave in
greater obscurity than ever one of its most interesting problems. How
comes it that a Century of Iron, as Baronius has for ever branded the
tenth century, falls between the work of Nicholas and the still greater
work of Gregory? May we trust those modern writers who contend that
the devout father of ecclesiastical history was gravely unjust to the
Papacy, and that we may detect the play of a romantic or a malicious
imagination in the familiar picture of Theodora and Marozia controlling
the chair of Peter and investing their lovers or sons with the robes of
the Vicar of Christ? Some consideration must be given to this phase,
and it will be convenient to take John X. as its outstanding and
characteristic figure.
I have already observed that few really unworthy men sat in the chair
of Peter until the close of the ninth century. Among the hundred
Popes who preceded Nicholas I. there had been, it is true, few men of
commanding personality, but there had been still less men of ignoble
character. They had been, on the whole, men whose real mediocrity is
not obscured by the fulsome praises of their official panegyrists, yet,
for the most part, men of blameless life. In the ninth century we see a
gradual deterioration. Hadrian II. tries, with equal sincerity though
less personality, to play the great part of Nicholas, and it is from no
fault of character that he fails to coerce princes and prelates. John
VIII. plays a not ignoble human part during the calamitous decade of
his Pontificate, though there is more soldierly ardour than religious
idealism in his defence of the Papacy. After him, in quick succession,
come five Popes of little-known character, and then we have that famous
Stephen VI. who digs the half-putrid body of a predecessor, Formosus,
from its grave and treats it with appalling outrage. In the gloom
which now descends on Rome, we follow with difficulty the passionate
movements of the rival parties, but we know that after Formosus there
were nine Popes in eight years (896-904). With Sergius III. (904-911),
the Century of Iron fitly opens, and his name and that of John X., who
became Pope in 914, are chiefly associated with the names of Theodora
and Marozia.
The general causes of this deterioration are easily assigned. In that
age of violent character, uncontrolled by culture, a multiplication
of small princedoms was sure to lead to bloody rivalries. To this the
dissolution of the Empire of Charlemagne and the feebleness of his
descendants had led, especially in Italy, where the weakness of a
sacerdocracy--that is to say, its liability, if not obligation, to
use temporal resources for religious rather than military and civic
purposes--soon became apparent. The Papacy had the further weakness
that, being nominally independent yet unable to defend itself, it was
ever on the watch for another Pippin--a monarch who would protect it
and not govern it--and it dangled its tawdry imperial crown before the
eyes of the kings of Italy, France, and Germany, to say nothing of
the smaller princes of Italy. Hence arose the factions which rent a
degraded Rome. We must remember, too, that this was a fresh period of
invasion and devastation: the waves of Saracen advance lapped the walls
of Rome from the south and the fierce Hungarians reached it from the
north.
These general causes of decay are substantial, yet we must not be
too easily contented with them. Some day a subtler or more candid
science will tell the whole story of the making of the Middle Ages. I
need note only that the disorder existed in Rome, and often burst its
bonds, long before the time of Stephen VI. Even under Hadrian I. we saw
relatives and friends of the Pope promoted to high office, yet in the
end betraying characters of revolting brutality. We remember also a
certain legate of Nicholas I., Bishop Arsenius, who handled anathemas
with such consummate ease. This man's nephew abducted the daughter
of Pope Hadrian II., and, when he was pursued, murdered her and the
Pope's wife. There was some taint in the blood--or the brain--of this
new Roman aristocracy which gathered round the Lateran. Under John
VIII., the strongest successor of Nicholas, they broke into appalling
disorders. "Their swinish lust," says one of the most conservative and
most reticent of recent writers on the Popes, speaking of the leading
Papal officials of the time, "was only second to their cruelty and
avarice."[178] Hadrian II. had the widow of one of these officials
whipped naked through the streets of Rome, and had another official
blinded. Under Stephen VI. and Sergius III. these corrupt Roman
families come into clearer light, and the domination of Theodora and
Marozia is merely one episode in this lamentable development, which
has been recorded more fully because of the piquancy of this feminine
ascendancy in a nominal theocracy.
The period with which we are concerned really opens with Pope Formosus,
a not unworthy man, who looked for support to Arnulph of Germany.
The Italian faction, which looked to Guido of Spoleto and Adalbert
of Tuscany, regarded this "treachery" with the bitterest rancour
and imprisoned the Pope. One of the leaders of this section was the
deacon (later Pope) Sergius. Arnulph came to Rome, and swept the
Tuscan-Spoletan faction, including Sergius, out of the city. Formosus
died in 896, his gouty successor followed him within a fortnight, and
Stephen VI. was elected. As soon as Arnulph had left Rome, the Pope
surrendered to the Italian faction, and the Lateran witnessed that
ghastly outrage of the trial of the mouldering corpse of Formosus:
on the nominal charge of having exercised his functions after being
deposed and having passed from another bishopric to that of Rome. There
seems to be some lack of sense of moral proportion in historians who,
knowing these far graver things, make elaborate efforts to disprove
the love-affairs of one or two Popes of the period. Three not unworthy
Popes filled, and soon quitted, the Roman See after Stephen. The last
of these, Leo V., was dethroned and imprisoned by the cardinal-priest
Christopher, who seized the Papacy. Sergius and his friends in exile
now entered into correspondence with the dissatisfied Romans, mastered
the city with an army, and threw Christopher in turn into a dungeon.
This was the rise to power of Sergius III.; the beginning of what has
been called, with more vigour than accuracy, the Pornocracy.[179]
With the weakening of the Empire, the Roman nobles had wrested from
the Popes the political control of the city, and we gather from the
titles assigned to them that there was a debased restoration of
the old republican forms. The head of one of the leading families,
Theophylactus, is described as Master of the Papal Wardrobe, Master of
the Troops, Consul, and Senator. His wife, Theodora, called herself
the Senatrix: their elder and more famous daughter Marozia is named
the Patricia. The family belonged, of course, to the Tuscan-Spoletan
faction which triumphed with Sergius. Culture had now fallen so low at
Rome that there is no writer of the time able or willing to leave us a
portrait of these remarkable ladies; the nearest authority, the monk
Benedict of Soracte, is so far from artistic feeling that it would be
literally impossible to write a grosser and more barbarous Latin than
he does. From some documents of the time it appears that there were
ladies of this great family who could not write their names, and we
may presume that this was their common condition. But it is uniformly
stated that they were women of great beauty and ambition: it is certain
that Marozia was the mother of John XI., and that she put him on the
Papal throne: and it is claimed that Sergius was the father of John
XI., and that John X. was the lover of Theodora.
These stories of amorous relations would not in themselves deserve
a severe historical inquiry, but they have been made a test of the
accuracy or inaccuracy of our authorities. The older ecclesiastical
historians admitted them without demur. In the pages of Baronius
Theodora is "that most powerful, most noble, and most shameless whore"
and Sergius is the lover of that "shameless whore" Theodora. Pagi
and Mansi reproduce these words, and they are complacently prefixed
to the collection of John's letters in the Migne edition.[180] More
recent writers like Duchesne and Dr. W. Barry admit the charge
against Sergius; but the learned Muratori boldly questioned the whole
tradition, and various modern Italian writers have attempted to support
his case.[181]
The claim that we have discovered, since the days of Baronius, new
documents which materially alter the evidence, must at once be set
aside. Of the Formosian writers of the time whose pamphlets have been
recovered, the priest Auxilius throws no light on this subject and
the grammarian Vulgarius is unreliable. We have letters and poems in
which Vulgarius hails Pope Sergius as "the glory of the world" and
"the pillar of all virtue," and professes a profound regard for the
matchless virtue and the "immaculate bed" of Theodora.[182] The fact
is that Vulgarius had previously indicted Sergius in lurid terms and
had been significantly summoned to Rome by that vigorous Pontiff.
His charges of murder and outrage then changed into the most fulsome
flattery, to which we cannot pay the slightest regard. His earlier
charges are more serious, as, writing only six years after the events,
he appeals to the still fresh recollection in the minds of the Romans
that Sergius had had his two predecessors murdered in prison.[183]
We have no serious reason to differ from Baronius. Liutprand, Bishop
of Cremona, is the chief accuser. As servant of the court of Berengar
II. and then of Otto I., he often visited Rome in the first half of
the tenth century, and he knew the city well during the Pontificate
of John XI., the son of Marozia. He says that Theodora, "a shameless
whore," was all-powerful at Rome: that she was the mistress of John
X., whom she promoted to the See of Ravenna and then to that of Rome:
that her daughters Marozia and Theodora were more shameless than she:
and that John XI. was the son of Sergius and Marozia.[184] Liutprand
would hardly scruple to reproduce gossip, and he is often wrong, so
that one reads him with caution. Yet his statement about Sergius is
so far confirmed that so careful a writer on the Popes as Duchesne is
compelled to accept it.[185]
Benedict of Soracte, a very meagre and confused chronicler, gives
Marozia a dark character in his _Chronicle_.[186] Her son Alberic
was, he says, born out of wedlock: presumably before she married the
father, Alberic I. Flodoard, the most respectable chronicler of the
time, tells us in his _Annals_ (year 933) that John XI. was the son of
Marozia and the brother of Alberic II.; but neither there nor elsewhere
does he mention the father, and the omission is significant. Flodoard,
a deeply religious monk, under personal obligations to the Papacy, was
not the man to repeat scandalous Roman gossip; yet in his long poetic
history of the Papacy he brands Marozia as an incestuous woman united
to an adulterer, and he describes John XI., whom he disdains, as so
puny a thing that we can scarcely conceive him as a son of the vigorous
Alberic.[187] Lastly, the one-line notice of John XI. in the _Liber
Pontificalis_ says that he was "the son of Sergius III." We do not know
when or by whom this was written, but recent attempts to represent
it as an echo of Liutprand have failed. We must agree with Duchesne
that it is a distinct testimony and "more authoritative" than that of
Liutprand.
I have analyzed afresh the original evidence on this not very important
point merely in order to show the futility of recent attempts to
rehabilitate the age of John X. Pope Sergius, the chief ecclesiastic
of the Italian faction to which John belonged, was a violent and
unscrupulous man. He resigned a bishopric, and returned to the rank of
deacon, in order that he might have a better chance of the Papacy. He
was Anti-Pope to John IX. in 898, and was excommunicated and driven
from Rome; and he forced his way back at the point of the sword. The
charge that he was responsible for the death of his two predecessors
cannot be disregarded, and he certainly dealt violently with his
opponents. The charge of loose conduct is not more serious than these
things, and it rests on strong evidence.
To this party John X. belonged. His early career is not very plain,
but he appears first as a deacon at Bologna. He was chosen to succeed
Bishop Peter of that city, but, before he was consecrated, Archbishop
Kailo of Ravenna died, and John passed to Ravenna and occupied its
See. Nine years later, in 914, he was elected Bishop of Rome. It was
scarcely thirty years since his party had foully treated the body of
Formosus, partly on the charge of passing from another bishopric to
that of Rome. One naturally suspects ambition in John and powerful
influence in his favour at Rome. We know, in fact, that he was on
excellent terms with Theophylactus and Theodora,[188] and no one now
doubts that they secured his election. We are therefore not wholly
surprised, considering the age, when Liutprand assures us that he was a
charming man, and that Theodora, meeting him during one of his missions
to Rome, conceived a passion for him.
It is neither possible nor profitable to linger over the subject, and
the impartial student will probably neither assent to nor dissent
from this unconfirmed statement of the Bishop of Cremona. Liverani
ridicules it on the ground that Theodora must have been far from young,
since her daughter Marozia married Albert of Camerino about the year
915. It is curious to find a native of Italy, where girls are often
mature at twelve, and were in the old days often mothers at thirteen,
raising such an objection. Theodora may quite well have been still in
her thirties in 915. I would, however, rather call attention to the
moral condition of Europe at the time. The pious Bishop of Verona,
Ratherius, gives us an extraordinary picture of the life of some of
his episcopal colleagues.[189] They rush through their mass in the
morning, don gorgeous dresses and gold belts, and ride out to hunt on
horses with golden bridles: they return at night to rich banquets, with
massive goblets of good wine, and dancing girls for company, and dice
to follow: and they retire, too often with their companions, to beds
that are inlaid with gold and silver and spread with covers and pillows
of silk. Bishop Atto of Vercelli gives us a corresponding picture of
the lives of the lower clergy and their wives and mistresses.[190]
The proceedings of the Council of Troslé, in the year 909, confirm
and enlarge this remarkable picture.[191] Assuredly no historian who
knows the tenth century will find the charges against Sergius and John
implausible.
Whatever may be their value, John was no idle voluptuary. He found the
Saracens still devastating southern Italy and he helped, in 915, to
form a great league against them. When the Duke of Capua led out his
troops, and the Spoletans and Beneventans fell into line at last, and
even the Greeks sent a fleet, the Roman militia was marshalled, and
John rode at their head beside the fiery young Alberic of Camerino.
He was not the first of the many fighting Popes: John VIII. had built
a Papal navy and dealt the Saracens some shrewd blows. But John X.
was the first Pope to take the field in person, and we lament that
the wretched scribes of the time have left us no portrait of the
consecrated warrior. We know from his letters that he exposed himself
on the field, and from the chronicles that he fired the troops. The
Saracens were at last pinned in their camp on a hill near the mouth of
the Garigliano, and, after a long blockade, were annihilated.
John and the Marquis Alberic enjoyed a splendid ovation at Rome, and
it was probably at this date that the hand of Marozia was bestowed on
Alberic. But the victory had its price. John had to surrender some of
his patrimonies to the Duke of Gaeta and to confer the imperial crown
on King Berengar for his assistance. When Berengar came to Rome, and
promised to maintain all the rights and properties of the Papacy as
other Emperors had done, and received the crown from the hand of the
Pope, it must have seemed that a brighter day had dawned at last on
Italy. But the restless factions murmured, and in a few years Rudolph
II. of Burgundy was invited to come and seize the crown. Berengar
brought the half-civilized Hungarians to his aid, and a fresh trail of
blood and fire marred the face of Italy. He lost, and was assassinated
(924); but Rudolph, who won only the crown of Italy, was not left long
in peaceful possession of it, and the next movement of Italian politics
shows John in a singular situation at Rome.
An earlier chapter of this history was enlivened by the amours of
Lothair of Lorraine and Waldrada. They left behind them an illegitimate
daughter, Bertha, who had all the spirit and more than the ambition
of her mother. There were many women of commanding personality (and,
usually, little scruple) in the early Middle Ages, and the story
of Theodora and Marozia must not be regarded as very exceptional.
Bertha made vigorous efforts to win Italy for her favourite son,
Hugh of Provence, and, when she died in 925, his sister, Irmengard,
a fascinating woman who maintained the domestic tradition, won the
bishops and nobles of Lombardy for him by an unsparing use of her
charms. He was presently invited to come and drive the Burgundians out
of Italy. John X. joined in the invitation and went to Mantua to meet
him.
It is recorded that the Pope made some obscure bargain with him at
Mantua, and there can be little doubt that he asked Hugh's aid against
Marozia. Theophylactus and Theodora were dead, and Marozia was at
deadly feud with the Pope. Her first husband seems to have died about
925, and she had married Guido of Tuscany. Whether her quarrel with
John began before her marriage we do not know, but Liutprand tells
us that she and Guido wanted to depose the Pope. Both Liutprand and
Benedict[192] make the cause of the quarrel clear. John had called
his brother Peter to his side at Rome, and the power he gave to his
brother, and therefore withdrew from the lay nobles, infuriated his
earlier supporters. He turned, as so many Popes had done, to a distant
prince, and his career soon came to a close.
The chronicle is crude and meagre, but it suggests elementary and
unbridled passions. "The Marquis Peter," says Benedict, "so infuriated
the Romans that he was compelled to leave the city." He fortified
himself in Horta and summoned the dreaded Hungarians to his aid: than
which there could hardly be a graver crime in an Italian of the time.
They came in large numbers and trod the life out of the Roman province.
When Peter concluded that his opponents were sufficiently weakened, he
returned to Rome and gathered troops about him. There must have been
sombre days in the city in that year 928. One day, however, when it was
observed that few of Peter's men had accompanied him to the Lateran, a
band of Marozia's followers burst into the palace and laid him dead at
the Pope's feet. John himself was taken from the palace and imprisoned,
and he died in prison in the following year (929). Whether he was
murdered or died a natural death is uncertain.[193]
Such was the not unnatural termination of one of the longest
Pontificates in the history of Rome, and we have no reason to suppose
that, if we had fuller narratives than those I have quoted, they would
redeem the character of John X. His desertion of Bologna for Ravenna,
and his transfer to Rome within twenty years of the time when his
party had foully treated a dead man for just such an irregularity:
his alliance with the unscrupulous house of Theophylactus: his quite
superfluous appearance on the battlefield: his easy distribution of
royal and imperial crowns: and, above all, the maintenance of his
unprincipled brother in the teeth of deadly hostility, sufficiently
indicate his character. He was an accomplished adventurer. He writes
a very good Latin for the period, and may well have been a charming
and handsome and brave man. It is recorded that he richly decorated
the Lateran Palace. But he was a child of his age, and the historian
finds it easier to respect the sad and sincere reflection of the older
ecclesiastical writers--that Christ then slumbered in the tossing
barque of Peter--than the strained efforts of a few modern writers to
convince us that the chosen Pope of an aristocracy which they depict in
the darkest colours was merely the victim of calumny.
The little Pontifical work which John did during his fourteen years
as Pope does not dispose us to alter this estimate. The score of
his letters which survive generally relate to privileges of abbeys
or prelates which he was asked to grant or confirm. He gave support
to the monks of Fulda,[194] of St. Gall,[195] and of Cluny.[196] He
sent legates on a vague mission to Spain and granted a pallium to the
Bishop of Hamburg, who was converting the far north. He intervened
in the religious troubles of Dalmatia, at the invitation of the
local prelates, and wrote them many letters[197] for the regulation
(or Romanization) of their Slav liturgy and discipline. Even to
Constantinople, which had one of its rare moods of affection for Rome,
he sent legates to assist the Greeks in obliterating the effects of
their latest quarrel.
His work in Bulgaria is not wholly clear, or it might be interesting.
King Simeon quarrelled with the Eastern Church and turned to Rome,
and John naturally encouraged him. He sent legates to Bulgaria, and
we learn from a letter of Innocent III., long afterwards, that they
presented Simeon with a golden crown from John. It looks as if the
Pope gave Simeon some kind of imperial rank, but he did not secure the
adhesion to Rome of the Bulgarian Church.
A few letters to France and Germany are hardly more instructive.
Heribert of Vermandois seized the person of Charles the Simple, and,
when he was threatened with excommunication, hoodwinked the Pope.
Heribert then, in 925, conferred the rich See of Rheims on his
five-year-old son, and John--either in order to secure the release
of the King or dreading worse things--acquiesced.[198] In Germany
John sent his brother to assist in the restoration of discipline at
the Synod of Altheim (916). A few years later he summoned Herimann,
Archbishop of Cologne, and Hilduin and Richer, rival bishops of Liège,
to the bar of Rome. But in this apparent assertion of authority he was
really acting under pressure of the Emperor Berengar, and the sequel is
not flattering. There was a complicated quarrel about the bishopric of
Liège, and, when the litigants refused to come to Rome, John laid down
a principle which would have seemed to Nicholas I. or Gregory VII. an
outrage. He rebuked Herimann on the ground of "an ancient custom that
none save the King, to whom the sceptre is divinely committed, shall
confer a bishopric on any cleric."
These letters, a poor record of official work for so long a Pontificate
and in so disordered a world, do not alter our impression of John. Rome
shared the gloom which lay over Europe, and it is foolish to suppose
that the degenerate nobles who ruled the Papacy would put on its throne
a man who would rebuke their vices or resent their domination. Indeed,
it will be useful to follow the lamentable story a little further, as
an introduction to the revival which culminates in Gregory VII.
Marozia crowned her adventurous life in 932 by marrying the
step-brother of her late husband--the licentious Hugh of Provence whom
John had helped to put on the throne of Italy. In the preceding year
she had put in the chair of Peter her son, John XI., a mere shadow
of a Pope. But the disgusted Romans flew to arms, imprisoned John
and Marozia, and sent the brutal Hugh flying for his life. Alberic
II. then controlled the city and the Papacy for twenty years, and a
series of obscure, though apparently not unworthy, men were appointed
to discharge the scanty spiritual duties which Popes could or would
perform in that darkest of the dark ages. Alberic bequeathed his
power to his illegitimate son Octavian, and compelled the nobles and
clergy to swear to make him Pope at the next vacancy. John XII., as
he called himself, proved the worst Pope yet recorded: more at home
in the helmet than the tiara, and more expert in the cultivation than
in the suppression of vice. When his own sword proved incapable of
securing his rights, he summoned Otto I., with the customary bribe of
the imperial crown. Otto at length deposed him, after six years of
scandalous abuse of the Papacy, and he disappears from history in a
singular legend; he died, it was said, of a blow on the temples given
him by the devil--possibly in the person of the injured husband--during
one of his amorous adventures.
Ten Popes and Anti-Popes, generally men of no distinction either in
vice or virtue, succeeded each other in the next thirty years. The
factions at Rome became more and more violent, and Europe sank deeper
and deeper into the corruption from which Gregory VII. would endeavour
to rouse it. The Iron Century closed, oddly enough, with the appearance
on the Papal throne of one of the first scholars of Christian Europe,
the famous Gerbert (Silvester II.), but his brief and premature
Pontificate made no impression on that dark age. Under Sergius IV.
the Roman faction was at length destroyed, but the counts of Tusculum
now dragged the unhappy Papacy to a lower depth. Two sons of the
first Count, Benedict VIII. and John XIII., successively purchased
the votes of the electors, and, by their venality and violence, added
fresh stains to the Papal chronicle. The third son of the Count then
placed his own youthful offspring in the chair of Peter, and, under
the name of Benedict IX., this youth degraded it with crimes and
vices so well authenticated that even the most resolute apologist
cannot challenge the indictment. Pope Victor III., a few years later,
shudders to mention the "murders and robberies and nameless vices" of
Benedict,[199] and his vague charges, supported by Raoul Glaber and
other authorities, suggest that the Lateran Palace must have recalled
to the mind of any sufficiently informed Roman some of the scenes
which had been witnessed in Nero's Golden House in the lowest days of
paganism. At length, after being twice expelled from Rome, he wearied
of the Papacy--one authority says that he wished to marry--and sold it
to his uncle John Gratian for one or two thousand pounds of gold. By
this time there was a certain young Hildebrand studying in the Lateran
School, and the story of his life will tell us the sequel of this
extraordinary chapter of Papal history.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 178: Dr. Mann, iii., 285.]
[Footnote 179: Inaccurate because, however many lovers Theodora and
Marozia may have had, they were certainly not courtesans.]
[Footnote 180: See Baronius, year 912, and Mansi, xviii., 314 and 316.]
[Footnote 181: Barry's _Papal Monarchy_ (1902), pp. 146 and 150. For
criticism of the tradition see F. Liverani's study of John X. in vol.
ii. of his _Opere_ (1858) and P. Fedele's "Ricerche per la Storia da
Roma e del Papato nel Secolo X." in the _Archivi della R. Società
Romana di Storia Patria_ (vols. xxxiii. and following). Dr. Mann
follows these critics in his chapters on Sergius and John (vol. iv.).]
[Footnote 182: Published by E. Dümmler in his _Auxilius und Vulgarius_
(1866), pp. 139-146. Dr. Mann (iv., 139 and 141) thinks it incredible
that if Theodora were a vicious woman any man should write thus; but
two pages later he recollects that Vulgarius has accused Pope Sergius
of murdering his two predecessors, and he advises us to place no
reliance on the word of such a "wretched sycophant."]
[Footnote 183: _De Causa Formosiana_, c. 14.]
[Footnote 184: _Antapodosis_, ii., 48.]
[Footnote 185: In the notes to his edition of the _Liber Pontificalis_.]
[Footnote 186: C. 29.]
[Footnote 187: _De Christi Triumphis apud Italiami_, xii., 7.]
[Footnote 188: See a letter from him at Ravenna to them in Liverani,
_Opere_, iv., 7.]
[Footnote 189: _Præloquia_, v., 7.]
[Footnote 190: _Ep._, ix.]
[Footnote 191: Mansi, xviii., 263.]
[Footnote 192: _Antapodosis_, iii., 43; _Chronicon_, c. 29.]
[Footnote 193: Benedict merely records his death. Flodoard (_Annals_,
year 929) says that "some attributed his death to violence, but the
majority to grief." Liutprand (iii., 43) affirms that he was smothered
with a pillow.]
[Footnote 194: _Ep._, ii.]
[Footnote 195: _Ep._, iv.]
[Footnote 196: _Ep._, xiv.]
[Footnote 197: Published by Liverani, iv., 76-79.]
[Footnote 198: Flodoard, _Ecclesiæ Remensis Historia_, iv., 20.]
[Footnote 199: _Dialogues_, bk. iii.]