INCMARO, archbishop of REIMS. — Born ca. 806 into a noble Frankish family, he died on 21 December 882 at Epernay while fleeing the Normans. Educated in the monastery of St-Denis under Abbot Ilduin, in 822 he entered the court of Ludovicus the Pious at Aachen. In 845 he received from Carlo il Calvo the archbishopric of Reims, LEONE (v.). He was intensely active as a bishop, politician, theologian, and canonist, taking part in all the political, theological, and juridical issues of his time.
I. THE POLITICIAN
He was a faithful adherent of King Carlo il Calvo, for whom he wrote: De regia persona et regio ministerio (PL 125, 833–56), De fide Carolo regi servanda (ibid. 961 ff.); Pro institutione Carlomanni (ibid. 993 ff.). This displeased the Emperor Lotario I, and he consequently had to suffer the consequences of his political stance.In the case of Lotario’s vassal Fulerico, whom I. had excommunicated, Pope Leone IV energetically protested against the manner in which the “monk I.” had usurped the see of Reims, against all right and while Ebbone was still alive. The Pope expressed these sentiments also in a letter to Lotario (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2619). Nevertheless, after the Conference of Péronne (January 849), Lotario recognized I. and requested for him the daily use of the pallium, as well as the title and authority of vicar of the Holy See. Leone IV granted only the pallium.
II. THE METROPOLITAN
In asserting his metropolitan authority, he encountered many difficulties from his suffragan bishops and the Roman pontiffs.The question of the ecclesiastics ordained by Ebbone during the period in which he had resumed possession of the see of Reims (from December 840 to the autumn of 841) clouded his relations with the Roman Curia. Pope Leone IV, not approving the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Soissons, reinstated them. In the dispute with his suffragans, Rotado of Soissons and Incmaro of Laon, I. behaved high-handedly. Rotado, suffragan of Reims and the finest representative of the spirit that at that time inspired the False Isidorian Decretals (limitation of secular power in ecclesiastical matters and limitation of metropolitan authority), was deposed by I. in 862 (cf. E. Perels, Denkschrift Hinkmars im Prozess Rotbada, in Neues Archiv, 44 [1922], pp. 43-100). Pope Niccolò I, however, reinstated him. The younger Incmaro, his nephew, whom he had educated and promoted to the episcopal see of Laon in the province of Reims, was resentful of his uncle’s interference in the administration of his diocese. In the summer of 868, his discontent found an opportunity to erupt: accused of having taken away from certain “men of the King” some benefices assigned to them, the bishop was summoned to appear before the secular tribunal; but he did not appear. The King ordered the revenues to be seized, but I.’s intervention settled the matter. At the Council of Douzy, I. pronounced the sentence of deposition against his nephew, subject to a contrary judgment by the Holy See, which once again disapproved the action.
III.
II. THEOLOGIAN
Against the Benedictine Gotescalco di Orbais and his predestinarianism, I. composed a brief refutation (the text was discovered and edited by W. Gundlach under the title Ad reclusus et simplices, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 10 [1889], pp. 258–309). He also wrote a letter to the archbishop of Lyon, expressing his ideas on divine foreknowledge and predestination, and added some observations at the Council of Quierzy in 849. His successor, Remigio di Lione, replied with the Liber de tribus epistolis (PL 121, 985–1068). After the Council of Soissons in 853, the four famous chapters were drafted and submitted for the signature of King Carlo il Calvo; in them I. intended to summarize orthodox doctrine. The first criticism of I.’s theology came from the Church of Lyon. The dogmatic canons of the Council of Valence (855) were directed specifically against I. Meanwhile, he was preparing a third treatise on predestination (PL 125, 55–474), in which he intended to draw a parallel between the canons of Valence and the articles of Quierzy, placing all his scriptural and patristic erudition at the service of his thesis. Despite its defects, I.’s Treatise inaugurated a new manner of addressing the thorny problem. The synodal letter of the Second Council of Toul, in 860, represented a relative success for I.; he had at least managed to introduce into the conciliar document (Ep. 21: PL 126, 122–32) a good number of the ideas and expressions dear to him, precisely those to which later theology would resort. Ultimately, the arbiter of the situation remained I., who did not readmit Gotescalco, imprisoned at Hautvilles, to ecclesiastical communion until after his abjuration of his alleged errors (cf. Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, VI, passim). I. also wrote against the formula Trina Deitsa in the hymn Sanctorum meritis inclita gaudia of the “Common of Martyrs.” Ratranno, however, a monk of Corbie, replied to him with a short work now lost.IV. LEGAL AND LITERARY ACTIVITY
I. had two opportunities to demonstrate his extensive knowledge of canon law: the first in the divorce of the emperor Lotario I from Teutberga (cf. De divortio Lotharii et Teutbergae: PL 125, 623 ff.), the second in the struggle with his nephew Incmaro of Laon, against whom he wrote the Opusculum LV capitulorum (ibid. 126, 290–494), in which he also opposed the Isidorian False Decretals, by means of which Incmaro of Laon defended his right. Among I.’s other writings, 80 letters remain, addressed to the Pope, the King, and the Synods, dealing with the problems of his time (ibid. 9 ff.); in addition, several historical works.The Life of St. Remigius (ibid. 125, 1129–88; MGH, Script. rer. Merov., III, pp. 239–341) is merely a work of edification. The Annals of St. Bertin, which he continued from 861 to 882, written in an involved style, testify to a penetrating intellect and a broad outlook (MGH, Script. rer. Germ. in usum schol., IV [1883], pp. 55–154).