1. Schieffer, Theodor, Winfrid-Bonifatius und die Christliche Grundlegung Europas (Freiburg, 1954), pp. 221–2, 229, 231–2, 241–2Google Scholar, and the other modern lives of Boniface mention them. The only article specifically devoted to these heretics is that of Laux, J., “Two Early Medieval Heretics: An Episode in the Life of Saint Boniface,” Catholic Historical Review, XXI (1935).Google Scholar Unfortunately Mr. Laux left many answerable questions unanswered.

2. See Appendix for sources on Aldebert and Clement.

3. BLR (see appendix, item 6).

4. ZB-1 (see appendix, item 4a).

5. Life of Aldebert read at Rome. This was Aldebert's claim, but there seems no reason to dispute it.

6. BLR.

7. ZB-1; BLR.

8. ZB-1; BLR.

9. ZB-1.

10. ZB-1; BLR.

11. Passio Sancti Bonifacii.

12. BLR. That he lead mulierculas astray may well be simply a medieval topos, however. This was frequently alleged against heretics, following 2 Timothy iii 6.

13. BLR.

14. ZB-1.

15. The above is from the “Life of Aldebert.”

16. Above doctrines reported by BLR.

17. ZB-1.

18. Since it is unlikely that Aldebert himself wrote the copy of the prayer Denehard had, the spelling of the names cannot be presumed to be exact. Boniface or one of his informants must have committed them to writing after hearing the prayer from the lips of Aldebert or one of his followers.

19. BLR.

20. See a “Katalog der Engelnamen” by Michl, J. in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1962), V, 200–239.Google Scholar

21. Schwab, Moïse, “Vocabulaire de l'angélologie d'après les manuscrits hébreux de la Bibliothèque Nationale,” in Mémoires présentés à l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, X (1897), 158–9.Google Scholar

22. Etymologies, Book VII, chapter 5.

23. Paradise Lost, III, 647ff and IV, 555ff. Rabbinical tradition made of Uriel one of Zachariah's (iv 10) eyes of God; one is of course reminded of Blake's fantastic Tiriel, Thel, and Urigen. Fletcher, Harris, Milton's Rabbinical Readings (Urbana, 1930)Google Scholar which contains a good bibliography on angelology in general (see also West, Robert H., Milton and the Angels, Athens (Ga.) 1955).Google Scholar For the angel in the early church, see Bareille, G., “Le Culte des Anges à l'époque des Péres de l'Eglise,” Revue Thomiste, VIII, (1900);Google Scholar George Barton, A., “The Origin of the Names of Angels and Demons in the Extra-Canonical Apocalyptic Literature to 100 A.D.,” Journal of Biblical Literature, XXX-XXXI (1911-1912).Google Scholar

24. Leclercq, H., “Anges,” Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie, I, 2082ff.Google Scholar

25. Leclercq, esp. coll. 2091, 2094.

26. Barton, p. 158.

27. Milton mentions Tobias in his angelology P.L., V, 222)Google Scholar but only as the Biblical, human Tobias aided by the Angel Raphael With his Ariel, Abdiel, Zophiel, Milton shows an acquaintance with uncanonieal angels. The story of Tobias and the angel is told in the Apocryphal Book of Tobit and was such a commonplace in Christian art that it is quite possible that Tobias became an angel by association in the popular mind. One of the many later paintings of Tobias and Raphael is that of Filippino Lippi in the National Gallery in Washington.

28. Jean Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, (1723 ed.), p. 170.

29. Op. cit., 2139–2140.

30. Schwab, p. 245.

31. Schwab, p. 246.

32. Leisegang, Hans, Die Gnosis (Leipzig, 1924) pp. 119–120.Google Scholar The gnostics sometimes used the spelling Adoneus. See Leclercq, op. cit., col. 2154.

33. Schwab, p. 154.

34. Schwab, p. 153.

35. Leclercq, col. 2088.

36. Adversus Haereses, II, xxv, 3Google Scholar: Sabaoth and Adonai are both described as “virtutes et deos” in Basilides' system. See also Adv. Haer., I, xxx.Google Scholar

37. Schwab, op. cit., p. 309.

38. Schwab, p. 307.

39. Schwab, p. 311.

40. Besides St. Irenaeus' indications, modern writers on gnosticism have noted the use of these angels by the gnostics. Michael himself was used by them: see Schmidt, Carl, Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften (Leipzig, 1905) I, 84, 86–89, 91, 95.Google Scholar For use of Sabaoth by the gnostics, see Schmidt, pp. 8, 17, 79, 80–83, 125, 138, 188, 232, 238, 234–6, 304–330, and Leisegang, pp. 176, 181, 187, 252, 304, 362, 373, 377. For Adinus or similar, see Schmidt, pp. 15, 23, 89, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113. For Samael, see Leisegang, p. 180, and Baur, F. C., Die Christliche Gnosis (Tübingen, 1835) p. 186.Google Scholar For Tobias, see Leisegang, p. 181. Most of the references are from the Pistis Sophia or the Books of Jeu. For these works, see the edition of Schmidt. See Stegműller, Otto, “Das manichäische Fundamentum in einem Sakramentar der frühen Karolingerzeit,” Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie, LXXIV (1952), 462–463.Google Scholar Stegmüller argues, unconvincingly I think, that Aldebert was following an old pagan custom of naming the days of the week with the names of angels. The sacramentary itself shows the curious uncritical confusion of Christian and gnostic ideas that marks Aldebert's list.

41. M.G.H. Legg, I, 276.Google Scholar

42. Tangl, p. 285.

43. See Delehaye, Hippolyte, “Note sur la légende de la lettre du Christ tombée du ciel,” Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres de l'Académie Royale de Belgique, 1899, n. 2, pp. 171–213Google Scholar; Morin, G., “A propos du travial du P. Delehaye sur la lettre du Christ tombée du ciel,” Revue bénédictine, XVI (1899), 217Google Scholar, adding another example; Rivière, E. M., “La Lettre du Christ tombée du ciel. Le Ms. 208 de Toulouse,” Revue des questions historiques, LXXIX (1906,) 600–605Google Scholar, adding another example; Bittner, M., “Der vom Himmel gefallene Brief Christi in seine morgenländischen Versionen und Rezensionen,” Denkschrift der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissensehaften zu Wien, 1905.Google Scholar This monograph is the most complete study of the letter's oriental variations, which appears in Greek, Armenian, Syriae, Arabic, and Hebrew. See also Delehaye, , “Un Exemplaire de la lettre tombée du ciel,” Recherches de science religieuse, XVIII (1928).Google Scholar

44. M.G.H. Legg., I, 60.

45. BLR.

46. BLR.

47. BLR.

48. BLR.

49. ZB-3 (see appendix, item 10).

50. BLR.

51. ZB-3.

52. BLR.

53. Proceedings of the synod.

54. ZB-1.

55. ZB-1.

56. ZB-2.

57. The account states: “multi illi non solum clerici quilibet haeretica pravitate infecti extra ecclesiae communionem pellebantur, sed etiam episcopi capitalium criminum maculis infames deponebantur.” The deposition refers to Gewilib, and although Clement was purportedly a bishop, he is doubtless to be included with Aldebert as one of the excommunicated heretics. He and Aldebert are described as “haeretici.”

58. For the above, see the account of the synod.

59. For the above, see the account of the synod of Rome.

60. ZB-3.

61. ZB-4.

62. ZB-4.

63. See my forthcoming book, The Errant Flame (Berkeley, 1965).Google Scholar

1. Letter of Gregory III to Boniface (before November 29, 741, the death of Gregory), Jaffé, Regesta, #2255. Jaffé gives the date June 30, but the year is unknown.

2. First letter of Boniface (now lost, but there must have been a letter from the Englishman to the pope announcing the continued activity of the heretics, which would have provoked the council that follows. Zacharias says in his letter of June 22, 744, “Retulisti nobis (italics mine) … quod duos pseudoprophetas …”

3. The Council of Soissons, March 3, 744, See Krusch, B., “Das Datum des Concils von Soissons 744, März 3,” Neues Archiv, XXX (1905), 708.Google Scholar Accounts of this council appear in the following: Mansi, XII, 389, giving a note of Pagus; Mansi, XII, appendix, 109–112; Sirmond, Jacques, Concilia antiqua Galliae, I, 543Google Scholar; Baluze, Etienne, Capitularia Regum Francorum, 1677, I, 155Google Scholar; M. G. H. Legum I, 20Google Scholar; Collectio Regia Conciliorum, XVII, 436Google Scholar, Labbe, , Conciliorum Collectio, VI, 1552–1555Google Scholar; Hardouin, , Collectio Conciliorum, III, 1931Google Scholar; Coleti, , Concilia (ed. of 1729), VIII, 290Google Scholar; M. G. H. Leges, I, 20–21Google Scholar; M.P.L., LXXXIX, 824Google Scholar; Werminghoff, A., Concilia aevi karolini, 1906, pp. 33–36Google Scholar; Bouquet, , Recueil (1741 ed), IV, 110Google Scholar; Gousset, Th., Les Actes de la province ecclésiastique de Reims, 1842–1844, I, pp. 101–104Google Scholar; see Hefele-Leclercq, III, 854ff: de Clercq, Carlo, La législation religieuse franque de Clovis d Charlemagne (Paris-Louvain, 1936) pp. 122–124.Google Scholar Most of the editions (the M. G. H. Leges being the outstanding exception) give the date as March 2. but we may accept the reasoning of Krusch and assign the date as March 3.

4. Two letters of Zacharias to Boniface. We know that these come after the council of Soissons because they make mention of it, and the dates they carry bear this out.

a. (ZB-1) Letter of Zacharias to Boniface, June 22, 744. Tangl, Michael, Die Briefe des heitigen Bonifatius und Lullius, Berlin, 1916, p. 102Google Scholar; Emerton, Ephraim, The Letters of Saint Boniface, New York, 1940, p. 94.Google Scholar

b. (ZB-2) Letter of Zacharias to Boniface, November 5, 744. Tangl, p. 105; Emerton, p. 96.

5. The German Council of 745. The date of this council is not exactly known, and reports of the council are indirect. But a messenger of Boniface at the council of Rome on October 25, 745, says that Boniface has called such a synod to deal with the heretics. The council therefore must have taken place before October 5, allowing a minimum elapse of time between the council and the arrival of the messenger in Rome. At the same time, the synod could not have occurred before October 15, 744, or else it would have been mentioned by Zacharias in his letter of that date to Boniface. With reasonable certainty we can, then, fix the terminus a quo at about October 15, 744, and the terminus ante quem at about October 5, 745, with the probability being that the council took place sometime in the year 745. The date of 745 is also attested to by Othloh of St. Emmeram (see Mansi, XII, coll. 391–394), who, however, wrote more than 300 years after the event (for cdd. of Othloh's Life of Boniface, see AASOSB, III, part II, 28–87; M. P. L., LXXXIX, 633–664)Google Scholar; Pagus accepted the date, as did Mansi, Ibid., and Hefele-Leclercq, III, p. 861, although Hefele-Leclercq maintain that the date depends largely upon Othloh's authority, whereas in fact it also depends largely upon the logic of the chronology. The locale of the council remains a mystery, and it has been suggested that owing to the vagueness of the references, these may have been misunderstood, and that the council was in fact identical with the Council of Soissons, Hefele-Leclercq, ibid., argue convincingly against this on the grounds that the deposition of Gawilib attributed to this German council could not have occurred at Soissons. I further suggest that the logic of the sequence of events requires the assumption of a separate council at this time. The council is mentioned in the letter of Zacharias to Bonifnce dated October 31, 745, and that of the pope to the clergy and laity of the French, also written at the end of October: Tangl, pp. 120, 125. See also Schicffer, p. 220. An alternate theory, that the Council of Germany occurred before the letter of November 5, is not without some merit. We are told in the letter of June 22 and in the accounts of the Synod of Soissons that Pepin presided. We are told in the account of the Synod of Germany that Carloman presided. Now the letter of November 5 praises Boniface for actions taken against the heretics at a council at which Carloman presided, so that it looks as if it must be referring, not to the Synod of Soissons, but to the German Synod, and that the German Synod therefore is to be dated between June 22 and November 5, 744. The argument that HefeleLaclercq make in proving that the German Synod cannot be identified with the Synod of Soissons owing to the fact that Gewilib could not have been condemned at Soissons would have no effect on the present argument. In the case of the identity theory, Hcfelc-Leclercq maintain that since Gewilib's crime was committed in the summer of 744 during the campaign against the Saxons, he obviously could not have been condemned by the Council of March 3, 744. However, the crime was committed before November 5, so that one might posit the condemnation by the German Council of Gewilib as having also taken place before November 5. It is thus possible that this theory is correct. However. the evidence against it seems more convincing. A letter of Bonifacc announcing the decisions of a German council is brought by a messenger to the Council of Rome on October 25, 745; it is not conceivable that there would have been such a delay in reporting to Rome, which would have been the case if the synod had taken place more than a year earlier. The letter of November 5, 744, moreover, acknowledges receipt of information in regard to a synod: if we maintain that this synod was in fact the German Synod under consideration, we will be at a loss to explain why Boniface should announce to the pope the results of a synod which have already been announced and the report of which the pope has already acknowledged. How then do we explain the confusion between Pepin and Carloman? The answer is probably this: Othloh wrote more than 300 years after the event, and he may well have said Carloman when the proper name was Pepin, and when the letter of November 5 says that Carloman presided over a council condemning the heretics, we may assume that Carloman as well as Pepin was present at the Synod of Soissons, and this is the synod to which the letter of November 5 refers. This interpretation is borne out by the account of Willibald (ch. 9), who says that Boniface condemned and excommunicated them, “conscntieatibus Carolomanno et Pipino gloriosis ducibus.” Thus it seems best to retain the date 745 for the Synod of Germany.

6. (BLR) A letter of Boniface reported at:

7. The Council of Rome, October 25, 745. Accounts in Tangl, p. 108, Emerton, p. 98. See also Hefele-Leclercq, III, 873ff; Labbe, VI, 1556–1565; Coleti, VIII, 300.

8. Fragments of a Life of Aldebert, reported at the Council of Rome.

9. A letter of the cnrial Deacon Gemmulus to Boniface, after October 25, 745, and presumably before the end of the year. This letter reports to Boniface the decisions of the Council of Rome. Tangl, p. 127; Emerton, p. 113.

10. (ZB-3) A letter of Zncharias to Boniface dated October 31, 745. Tangl, p. 120; Emerton, p. 107.

11. (ZB-4)A letter of Zacharias to Boniface, January 5, 747, edited in: Tangl, p. 159; Emerton, p. 134.

12. References to the Aldebert-Clement affair are made by Willibald, ch. 9, by the Passio Sancti Bonifacii; in Jaffé, , Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicorumn, Berlin, 6 vol., 1864-1873, III, 473Google Scholar; by Othloh in his Life of Boniface, p. 495 in the Jaffé, Bibliotheca, edition; and by the Anonymous of Mainz, Vita Sancti Bonifacii, in the AASS, June, I, 473–474.Google Scholar