A True Miracle? Maybe Only in the Telling

this, but the result was that the very enemies who had tried to maim Leo were themselves cast into Frankish prisons. This was 799.

The next year was monumental, both for Leo and for all of Europe.

In 800, Charlemagne brought the conspirators to Rome to answer to Leo. And rather than send his enemies to their deaths, Pope Leo decided to send them into exile, from which they could return on pain of death. Then, Leo placed a crown on Charlemagne's head and proclaimed him emperor. The Holy Roman Empire had begun.

But this is not the end of the analysis. One question remains: Why would the Chronicle writers and others insist that Leo had been fully muted and blinded when he hadn't? Was it to make his complete recovery all the more miraculous? Of course. Remember that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written years after these events took place. The chroniclers wanted to make their heroes look good. Leo was a hero because he gave the crown to Charlemagne. Leo was an astonishing figure because he courageously retook the papacy. He was injured, yes, perhaps severely, and he did recover completely, so much so that to chroniclers of the events, his recovery took on miraculous overtones. And why go for a halfway miracle when you can have the whole thing?

Related Information
Biography of Pope Leo III
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic