Pope Leo V (July/August - September 903)

A transitional pope on the threshold of the saeculum obscurum

Leo V neither promulgated a doctrinal decree, nor fought a theological battle, nor left a canonical work. His pontificate is, materially, almost empty of archives. Why, then, devote a notice to it? Because he occupies a chronologically decisive position: he is the last legitimate pope before the full and complete entry of the papacy into the saeculum obscurum, this period of sixty years (904-964) that the cardinal Caesar Baronius will designate, in his Annales Ecclesiastici of the 16th century, as the "dark age" (saeculum obscurum).^[19]

The immediate successor of Leo V, Sergius III, would accede to the Roman see with the decisive support of Count Theophylact of Tusculum - according to the current historiographical reconstruction, derived from the account of Liutprand of Cremona, a disputed source - and would inaugurate the long sequence of pontificates under the supervision of the Roman aristocracy - Theophylact, his wife Theodora, and their daughters Marozia and Theodora the Younger. With Sergius III began the political mechanism that the German Protestant theologians of the 19th century would describe, not without excess, as pornocracy.^[20] Leo V still belongs to the world before: he was elected, it seems, by ecclesial compromise, not by decision of an aristocratic family; he was deposed, certainly, by a coup of force - but this coup of force was still the act of a cardinal-priest, not of a secular aristocrat.

His deposition and his death thus mark a turning point. It was from Christopher and Sergius III that the troublemakers in Rome ceased to be just ambitious clerics to become entire families, operating over several generations.

The only contemporary testimony: a man of God

The second interest of Leo V is to have received, despite his obscurity, a very favorable personal testimony from a leading contemporary. Auxilius of Naples, a Frankish cleric ordained in Rome by Formosus himself - priest, or perhaps only deacon -, composed between 908 and 911 a long defense of Formosian ordinations against Sergius III - defense whose pieces were published in the 19th century by Ernst Dümmler from a Bamberg manuscript.^{[21] [22]} In these pamphlets, Auxilius has no reason to be complacent: he writes to expose the truth against a pope he fights. However, when he talks about the succession of popes between Formosus and Sergius III, he describes Leo V as:

“A man of God, of praiseworthy life and holiness, who held the rudder of the holy Roman Church for thirty days. " - Auxilius of Naples, In defensionem sacrae ordinationis papae Formosi^[23]

This testimony is valuable for three reasons. First, it comes from a man who knew Rome personally at that time and who was himself a direct witness to the post-Formosian crisis. Second, it comes from an opponent of Sergius III - therefore from a man who had an interest in demeaning the enemies of Leo V, which makes his praise all the more credible. Finally, it sets two concrete figures: "thirty days" of pontificate and the epithet of holiness.^[24] The majority of modern notices rely explicitly on this line from Auxilius - "a man of God and of praiseworthy life and holiness" - to characterize Leo V.^{[25] [26] [27]}

A fragile victim of Roman political violence

Leo V's third interest is spiritual. He recalls that the political violence does not stop at the gates of the Apostolic See. Like Stephen VI before him, strangled in prison in 897, like Christopher himself after him, deposed and probably eliminated in 904, Leo V was a defeated pope, stripped, and died in prison. It is in this black series that the Christian memory of the 10th century inscribed its name, without doctrinal trial, without conciliar condemnation - only by force of numbers and of the sword.

Auxilius' gesture - preserving his name and reputation in a pamphlet dated a few years later - is, strictly speaking, an act of Catholic historical piety. It is he who prevents Leo V from falling entirely into oblivion.

The posthumous trial of Formosus (January 897)

To understand the brevity of Leo V's pontificate, we must go back six years before his election - to January 897, and to the most unprecedented gesture in medieval papal history. Pope Stephen VI had the corpse of his predecessor Formosus († April 4, 896) exhumed, nine months after his death. The body was dressed with pontifical ornaments, seated on a throne, and a deacon was appointed to answer in its place while the living pope delivered the indictment.^[28]

Three charges are brought against the corpse: having changed episcopal sees (Formosus, before being pope, had been bishop of Porto, which was considered canonically irregular); having committed perjury; and having governed the Church as a layman (since his previous ordinations were declared void). The corpse is found guilty. Three fingers of the right hand - those of blessing - are cut off. The body is stripped of sacred vestments, dragged through the streets, thrown first into a mass grave for strangers, then exhumed a second time, weighted with stones, and thrown into the Tiber.^[29]

The scandal caused by this cadaver synod (concilium cadavericum) deeply shook Rome. Stephen VI himself was deposed and then strangled in prison, in July or August 897.^[30] The Roman city then opened up to a cycle of ecclesial violence and very brief successions of which Leo V would be one of the last victims.

The civil war between Formosians and anti-Formosians

The verdict of the Cadaver Synod immediately divided the Roman clergy and the Italian episcopate. The Formosians support the validity of the acts and ordinations of Formosus; they are numerous, because the late pope had ordained priest or bishop a large part of the high Italian clergy in seven years of pontificate (891-896), notably Auxilius himself.^[31] The anti-Formosians, heirs of the faction of Stephen VI, refuse the legitimacy of these ordinations and want to prolong the sanctions against the memory of Formosus. Between the two, the Roman see becomes an exposed position: each new pope must choose, and each choice earns him the hatred of a party.

Source: synthesis from the notices Holy See, Catholic Encyclopedia, Treccani and Kelly.^{[32] [33] [34] [35]}

About ten popes in seven years

The pace is exceptional. In seven years - from April 896 (death of Formosus) to January 904 (consecration of Sergius III) - the Roman see changed seven times legitimate holder, not counting the antipope Christopher. No other moment in papal history, except perhaps the Western Schism from 1378 onward, knew such compressed instability. Four of these men died violent deaths (Stephen VI strangled, Leo V killed or left to die, the antipope Christopher probably eliminated) or suspicious deaths (Benedict IV, whose death in the middle of summer 903 is the subject of a modern suspicion, reported without a primary source, implicating the entourage of Berengar I^[36]). Four died in less than a year of pontificate. None succeed in imposing a lasting policy.

Rome, in those years, wore out its pontiffs at a pace unparalleled in the history of the Roman see.^[37]

It was in this climate of institutional exhaustion and permanent distrust that Leo V was elected in the summer of 903.

The death of Benedict IV (July 903)

Benedict IV, Roman by birth and son of a certain Mammolo, ordained priest by Formosus himself, has occupied the see of Peter since February 1, 900. His pontificate is generally considered honest and calming, in the moderately pro-Formosian line of Theodore II and John IX. The chronicler Flodoard of Reims, in his De Christi triumphis apud Italiam, nicknamed him "the Great" and praised his public generosity.^[38]

Benedict IV died in Rome on July 30, 903 and is buried in front of the Vatican basilica, near Gate of Guy.^{[39] [40]} A modern suspicion, reported by the English-language Wikipedia without citing a primary source, lends king Berengar I of Italy a share of responsibility for his death, but no direct documentary evidence is preserved.^[41] The death of Benedict IV in the middle of the Roman summer - a difficult season, endemic fevers - was, in itself, nothing extraordinary; it is enough to provoke a succession in the middle of a heatwave, in a city exhausted by seven years of ecclesial violence.

Choosing a presbiter forensis

The election of Leo V took place in the weeks following the death of Benedict IV. Contemporary sources are silent on the details of the procedure. We simply know that the successful candidate did not belong to the Roman clergy of the Lateran familia. This is what the Latin expression presbiter forensis, used by the papal biographies, designates: a priest "foreign" to the city, attached to a church in the countryside or the suburbicarian dioceses.^{[42] [43]}

The expression is not pejorative: it is descriptive. It means that the chosen pope did not follow the usual Roman curriculum (subdeacon, deacon, cardinal priest of a Roman titulus). It suggests either a compromise between Roman factions incapable of agreeing on one of their own, or a deliberate choice of a man reputedly holy precisely because he was outside the Lateran intrigues. In the context of 903, where every Roman cardinal-priest necessarily took sides for or against Formosus, choosing a forensis can be read as a pacifying gesture - a conscientious gesture that elects a man whose conscience had not been implicated in the Cadaver Synod.

This reading is suggested by the very clear contrast between the portrait that Auxilius paints ("a man of God and of praiseworthy life and holiness") and the portrait that can be composed of Christopher – Roman cardinal-priest, immersed in factions, ambitious. The election of a forensis resembles a spiritual leap; his rapid deposition, in revenge for the urban party which had not obtained its candidate.

Where was Priapi?

The preserved records locate Leo V in a place called Priapi, "a small place in the district of Ardea".^{[44] [45]} Ardea is an ancient city in Lazio, approximately 37 km south of Rome, on the road which connects the capital to the Tyrrhenian coasts in the direction of Anzio.^[46] At the beginning of the 10th century, this area was part of the Roman suburbicarian dioceses; it is still semi-rural, dotted with parish churches and monastic estates directly dependent on the Holy See.

The very name Priapi has long intrigued historians, but the origin of this toponym is established by none of the reference notices, which merely place it in the district of Ardea.^{[47] [48]} No medieval church survives today in the Ardea district with this name; the exact village where Leo V lived has very probably disappeared or been absorbed into the later agrarian fabric.

A later manuscript tradition, taken up in particular by Gaetano Moroni in his monumental Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica of the 19th century, makes Leo V a Benedictine monk of the monastery of Brandallo - location almost unidentifiable on current maps, but consistent with a rural monastic setting.^[49] The majority of modern historians treat this data with caution: it could be a later projection, intended to connect the praise of Auxilius to an identifiable monastic framework. But it is compatible with what we know about the ecclesial breeding ground of the Roman suburbs in the 10th century, where monasteries and parish churches were closely linked.

Why an improbable compromise

Is the choice of a foreign priest in Rome "a compromise"? The honest answer is that we don't know much about it. Contemporary sources describe neither the actors in the election, nor the possible unsuccessful candidates, nor the preliminary maneuvers. Historiography has often inferred a compromise from the result - a forensis was elected, so no Roman candidate had been able to win a majority - but this inference remains hypothetical.

What we can say, on the other hand, is that the sequence of events shows that Christopher, cardinal-priest of the titulus of Saint Damasus, did not accept this election. His violent reaction in September 903 suggests that he considered himself dispossessed, or that he represented a party which considered itself dispossessed. This is one of the elements that make plausible the hypothesis according to which Leo V was a compromise candidate, chosen precisely to neutralize the ambitions of the first rank Roman cardinals.

The testimony of Auxilius: a man of God

As we have seen, the only coherent spiritual portrait of Leo V comes from Auxilius of Naples, a Frankish cleric ordained by Formosus - priest, or perhaps only deacon -, who devoted around 908-911 several pamphlets to the defense of Formosian ordinations against Sergius III.^[50] Four treatises by Auxilius have been preserved:

Source: Catholic Encyclopedia and New Catholic Encyclopedia, art. Auxilius of Naples.^{[51] [52]}

In these pamphlets, Auxilius supports a major theological thesis for post-Formosian vexata quaestio: the validity of ordinations does not depend on the personal dignity of the ordaining bishop. This principle - which prefigures the mature Catholic doctrine of the sacramental ex opere operato - is defended by Auxilius precisely with regard to Formosus, whose ordinations were declared void by the Cadaver Synod then confirmed as void by Sergius III. The defense is therefore both personal (Auxilius owes his priesthood to Formosus) and doctrinal (sacramentality itself is at stake).^[53]

It is in this context of doctrinal combat that Auxilius mentions Leo V - not as a champion of Formosus, but as a chronological reference point whom he praises in passing. His formula, as reported in English by the Catholic Encyclopedia and repeated by all the notices, became the only portrait of this pope:

“Leo, man of God, of praiseworthy life and holiness, held the rudder of the holy Roman Church for thirty days. " - Auxilius of Naples, cited by Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, vol. IV, 1910, pp. 111-115^{[54] [55]}

The bull for the canons of Bologna

The only known papal act of Leo V is a bull in favor of the canons of Bologna Cathedral, exempting them from the payment of certain taxes - a "letter of protection" (epistola tuitionis in the diplomatic sense, the Latin title being attested by none of the sources consulted).^{[56] [57] [58]} The piece, listed by Jaffe in his Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (2nd ed., vol. II, p. 746)^[59], contains neither major doctrinal declaration nor innovation major legal issue. It is, in the canonical order of the time, an act of administrative routine such as the popes regularly delivered to the cathedral churches and monasteries of the pontifical domain.

Its scope is, despite everything, interesting on two counts. First, it shows that the papal chancellery continued to function during these thirty days: Leo V had time to receive a request from Bologna, to have it investigated, and to issue a solemn sealed letter. It is the material trace of a actually exercised pontificate. Second, the choice of Bologna rather than a Roman church corroborates the image of a forensis pope - of a man whose first correspondents were the Italian dioceses, and not primarily the tituli of the city of Rome.

“His only known act is contained in a bull issued in the interest of the canons of the church of Bologna. " - Catholic Encyclopedia, art. Pope Leo V^[60]

In all honesty, the reservation of Duchesne must be noted: the editor of the Liber Pontificalis knew of no act attributable to this pope - the attribution of the Bologna bull therefore rests on Mann (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910) and on the registers of Jaffe, not on the Liber Pontificalis.^[61]

An eloquent documentary silence

Beyond this single bull, no document does not survive from the pontificate of Leo V: no correspondence with the Carolingian kings - Louis the Blind, crowned emperor in Rome in 901, was driven out of Italy by Berengar as early as 902 and would not return until 904-905 -, no Roman synod, no canonical judgment, no privilege given to the great abbeys (Saint-Denis, Fulda, Corbie, Bobbio) which usually receive bulls with each new pontificate. The silence is heavy. It is not neutral.

Three causes can explain it. First, objective brevity: thirty days are not enough to structure an episcopal policy. Second, the conflictual climate: a little-known forensis pope probably did not have time to build channels of correspondence with the outside world. Third, the possible work of documentary destruction carried out after the deposition by the supporters of Christopher then of Sergius III, who had an interest in erasing all traces of a predecessor considered illegitimate - a mechanism already observed for the acts of Formosus after the Cadaver Synod.

The silence on Leo V is therefore a information in itself: it speaks of the fragility of a pontificate stuck between a sudden death (Benedict IV) and a coup d'état (Christopher).

Christopher, cardinal-priest of Saint Damasus

The man who deposed Leo V is known: Christopher, Roman, son of a certain Leo, cardinal-priest of titulus Saint Damasus (San Lorenzo in Damaso). Little is known of his previous career: he belonged to the Roman clerical body, to a prestigious titulus in the historic center, located not far from the Champ-de-Mars, and which was rebuilt in the 15th century by Cardinal Riario.^{[62] [63]}

A later tradition claims that Christopher had been ordained priest by Leo V himself, during the thirty days of the pontificate - detail reported by the Italian Wikipedia based on Moronnian sources.^[64] If this tradition is correct, it adds to the betrayal of September 903 a dimension of moral scandal: the subordinate overthrowing his ordinant. But the information is not confirmed by contemporary sources (Auxilius, Eugene the Vulgar) and remains subject to doubt.

The Lateran Coup

Towards the end of September 903 - the exact date is not kept - Christopher organized a armed seizure of the Lateran. The scenario, in its broad outlines, resembles those which punctuated the decade: a cardinal-priest gathers his supporters, undoubtedly with the support of a Roman aristocratic faction, forces the doors of the episcopal palace, seizes the legitimate pope, and is acclaimed in his place. The Catholic Encyclopedia summarizes:

“Christopher became pope by forcefully dethroning his predecessor Leo V and throwing him in prison, probably around October 903.” - Catholic Encyclopedia, art. Pope Christopher^[65]

Christopher is not undisputedly recognized. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that "some maintain that he was an antipope", but that "although his manner of taking possession of the papacy was wholly uncanonical, he appears afterwards to have been recognized as pope".^[66] This recognition earned him, for centuries, a place in the official list of popes - his portrait still appears among those of the pontiffs in the gallery of the basilica Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome - before being removed in the 20th century from the Annuario Pontificio in due to the non-canonical nature of his election. Today it is officially considered a antipope.^[67]

Leo V thrown in prison

Leo V is imprisoned. No source specifies the exact location of his dungeon: undoubtedly one of the Roman prisons of the Lateran or the episcopal palace, in accordance with the custom of the 10th century. No canonical process is mentioned. No conciliar procedure - like that which Stephen VI had imagined against the remains of Formosus - is investigated. Leo V was simply removed, by force, without legal formalism. This is a statement of fact, not of law.

This difference is important. The Cadaver Synod, despite its horror, claimed to follow a procedure; the deposition of Leo V even renounces this pretext. We slide from procedural violence (897) to raw violence (903), and it is this shift, more than the brutality itself, which announces saeculum obscurum. From this moment, the Roman seat is no longer just disputed: it is taken, and its previous occupants eliminated.

Hypothesis 1: killed by Christopher

The first hypothesis, defended by the chronicler Hermann the Lame (Hermannus Contractus, 1013-1054, monk of Reichenau), is that Christopher himself had Leo V assassinated shortly after imprisoning him. Hermann does not specify the mode of operation: poison, suffocation, simple food deprivation. Its formulation is laconic but clear: Leo V was "slain" (occisus est) by his immediate successor.^{[68] [69]}

This version has a simple political logic: Christopher had an interest in not letting a deposed pope live who could once again become, at any moment, the rallying center of a Roman reaction. The prolonged detention of a legitimate pope was a risk; its discreet removal, a protection. Later medieval historiography - Platina in particular, in his Vitae Pontificum of 1479 - takes up this thesis.^[70]

Hypothesis 2: strangled by order of Sergius III

The second hypothesis rests on the accusation made by Eugenius Vulgarius (Eugenius Vulgarius), Neapolitan priest and grammarian, a Formosian author hostile to Sergius III: writing around 907-908 a pamphlet against this pope, he states that Sergius III, shortly after his accession (January 29, 904), had both Leo V and Christopher strangled in prison.^{[71] [72]} The Catholic Encyclopedia (art. Christopher) warns that Eugene "sought to blacken the reputation of Sergius III" (who was interested in blackening the character of Sergius III) and judges his testimony unsatisfactory.^[73]

This version is taken up by several modern authorities:

“According to the pro-Formosian Eugene the Vulgar, Sergius ordered that the two men [Leo V and Christopher] be strangled in prison, some time at the beginning of 904.” - Historiographic synthesis relayed by Wikipedia based on the Dümmler editions of Vulgarius.^[74]

The hypothesis is not absurd. Sergius III, who had risen to power thanks to the Count Theophylact of Tusculum, had an interest in eliminating any potential dynastic competition, whether it was the deposed legitimate pope or the antipope he himself had deposed. A double elimination – silent, in a cell – is consistent with what we know about the political methods of the Roman aristocracy at the turn of the 10th century.

Hypothesis 3: natural death in the dungeon or monastery

The third hypothesis, the most measured, is defended by Catholic Encyclopedia of Horace K. Mann (1907): it is possible that the two previous versions are polemical projections (Hermann the Contracted wrote a century and a half later; Eugene the Vulgar is a declared opponent of Sergius III). Mann suggests that Leo V died from the ordinary hardships of prison - fevers, malnutrition, untreated wounds - or that he may have been relegated to a monastery where he died shortly after.^[75]

“According to one version, Sergius III had them both put to death; but it is more likely that Leo died a natural death in prison or in a monastery. " - Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, vol. IV, 1910, p. 114, included in Catholic Encyclopedia^{[76] [77]}

This hypothesis has the advantage of caution: it recognizes the possibility of murder without committing to an accusation that contemporary sources do not definitively establish. It is compatible with a third version, defended by certain medieval chroniclers for Christopher (who would have been forced to end his days as a monk, according to Hermann the Contracted): perhaps Leo V suffered a similar fate before dying.^[78]

The verdict of modern critics

Modern historiography, unable to decide between the three versions, mainly retains the central fact: Leo V did not survive at his deposition. Whether he was suffocated by Christopher, strangled by Sergius III, or died of mistreatment, the result is the same - a legitimate pope, removed by force, never leaves prison. His death is somewhere between autumn 903 and spring 904, without us being able to be more precise. Several notices offer 903 or 904; some go as far as 905, but this last dating is in the minority.^{[79] [80]}

What must be noted, doctrinally, is this: the legitimacy of Leo V as a valid pope was never contested by the Church, neither before, nor during, nor after his deposition. No council, no decretal, no subsequent bull has declared his election invalid. He is, from start to finish, the 118th pope of the Catholic Church in the official list of the Holy See.^[81] The violence of Christopher is, on the other hand, what pushes the latter into the category of antipopes, after his medieval rehabilitation and his contemporary deregistration.

The election of Sergius III (January 29, 904)

Christopher's pontificate was itself swept away in less than four months. On January 29, 904, Sergius III - consecrated bishop of Caere (Cerveteri) in 893 by Formosus, unsuccessful candidate against John IX at the election of 898 - was consecrated pope in Rome.^[82] His return was made possible by the military and political support of the Count Theophylact I of Tusculum - according to the current reconstruction, derived from the account of Liutprand of Cremona, a disputed source -, vestararius (steward) of the palace and head of the main Roman aristocratic family.

Sergius III deposes Christopher - and it is the accusation made by Eugene the Vulgar, a Formosian author hostile to Sergius III, who states that the two men were then eliminated in prison.^{[83] [84]} He reopens, moreover, the Formosus case: he officially rehabilitated the Cadaver Synod of Stephen VI, declared the ordinations of Formosus null again, and had a laudatory epitaph composed for the tomb of Stephen VI.^[85] It is, doctrinally, the exact return to the anti-Formosian line of 897. The violence of the means testifies to the depth of the crisis.

A tenacious medieval belief also attributed to him a second Cadaver Synod against Formosus, but modern historiography, following the criticisms against Liutprand of Cremona, considers this attribution as an error: Liutprand would have confused the synod of Stephen VI (897) with a supposed event of the pontificate of Sergius III.^[86] The hatred of Sergius III against Formosus was very real; the second synod, probably not.

Theophylact, Theodora and Marozia

With Sergius III, the effective reign of a family over the papacy begins. Theophylact I (~864-924), Count of Tusculum, consul of Rome, takes charge of the civil administration. His wife Theodora, described by Liutprand as senatrix Romanorum, exercises direct political power; the same Liutprand accuses her of having steered the papal election by successive influences. Their daughters, Marozia (~890-937) and Theodora the Younger, will extend this influence for two generations. Marozia, who, according to Liutprand, was the concubine of Sergius III at the age of fifteen, gave birth to a son who later became Pope John XI.^[87]

It is this configuration - a Roman aristocratic family which chooses, makes and unmakes the popes - that Cardinal Baronius will designate in his Annales Ecclesiastici (1588-1607) by the expression which has become famous:

"What will henceforth be the face of the holy Roman Church? How horrible will this age be, at this time when all-powerful prostitutes, and even prostitutes whose shamelessness equaled their power, governed everything in Rome, and raised to the very seat of Peter their lovers, those false pontiffs. " - Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici, ad annum 912, n° 8 (translation by the editors from the Latin original)^[88]

The expression saeculum obscurum - "dark age" - will henceforth designate this period of sixty years (904-964), from the accession of Sergius III until the scandalous death of John XII in 964. Twelve popes will succeed one another during this century, many of them deposed, some strangled, several born from the irregular loves of Marozia or her family. In the 19th century, the German Protestant theologians coined, from Greek, the term pornocracy (German Pornokratie, from pornocratía = "rule of prostitutes") to designate the same reality - a polemical term, more violent than Baronius himself had been.^[89]

Leo V as the last milestone before pornocracy

Leo V is, in this perspective, the last strictly pre-pornocratic pope. Christopher, who deposes him, is still a Roman cardinal acting on his behalf; Sergius III, who succeeded Christopher, was already a family pope - brought to power by Theophylact, linked to Marozia, enthroning the Tusculan dynasty. Leo V belongs to the world before: a world where a forensis can still - according to a current reading of historians - access the seat of Peter thanks to a compromise between factions.

This chronological position gives his pontificate a valeur symbolique disproportionate to its duration. It is with his deposition and his death that the old papal world of the 9th-10th centuries closes - a world still structured, despite all its crises, by the Roman clerical body - and that the world of the papacy captured by the gentes Romanae opens.

In September 903, the papacy ceased to be fought over by synods: it was now taken by force.^{[90] [91]}

A portrait in Saint Paul Outside the Walls?

In the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, a long gallery of medallions represents, along the tops of the arcades, the ideal portraits of all the popes since Saint Peter. The current gallery was reconstituted after the fire of 1823 but takes up an iconographic tradition dating back to Leo I (5th century) and continues until the reigning pope. Christopher still appears there - the Catholic Encyclopedia itself notes that his portrait is among those of the popes in the basilica, proof of his long medieval recognition as pope, prior to his removal from the Annuario Pontificio in the 20th century.^[92] Leo V should, by the logic of the series, be found there in his chronological place, between Benedict IV and Sergius III; but none of the sources consulted for this notice attests this explicitly - this point therefore remains to be verified on site and is put forward here only as an expectation, not as an established fact.

No authentic portrait historique of Leo V is preserved. Modern representations are ideal iconographic compositions, based on the conventions of papal portraiture: bearded face, tiara, liturgical ornaments. The fragility of the documentation does not allow any serious physical reconstruction.

The 118th pope according to the official list

The position of Leo V in the official list of the Holy See is stable. The Vatican file records Leo V as 118th pope of the Catholic Church, with pontificate "VII.903 - IX.903", and place of birth "Ardea".^[93] This official indication excludes, by construction, the antipope Christopher - who would have been the 119th if he had been recognized as pope - and renews the legitimacy of Leo V as last canonical pope before Sergius III.

The Catholic Church has maintained this numbering throughout all revisions of the Annuario Pontificio of the 20th century. Leo V is therefore, in the modern ecclesial canon, a true pope, despite the extreme brevity of his pontificate and the almost total absence of documentation. This historiographic stability is a lesson in itself: the legitimacy of a pope, for the Church, depends neither on the duration nor on the brilliance of his pontificate - it depends on the canonical regularity of his election, attested by contemporary sources.

An unknown burial (the Lateran according to a late tradition)

According to a late tradition, taken up by Gaetano Moroni in the 19th century and relayed by the Italian Wikipedia, Leo V was reportedly buried in the Lateran basilica, Saint John Lateran, cathedral of the diocese of Rome.^[94] The information is poorly supported: no contemporary source mentions the translation of his body, and the Lateran basilica has not preserved an epitaph or a tomb identifiable as his. It is possible that the tradition was constructed by default, in the absence of Vatican mention (the popes of the 10th century are mostly buried in Saint-Pierre), or as a fallback to the pope's own cathedral.

Another possibility is that Leo V was buried in a anonymous monastery - perhaps the one where he would have been relegated according to Mann's hypothesis -, and that his exact tomb was lost in the following decades. The secrecy surrounding his death makes it difficult to decide.

The Breton legend of Saint Tugdual

A Breton legend, taken up in particular in the hagiography of Saint Tugdual (or Tudwal) of Treguier (died around 564), claims that this Breton monk, son of king Hoel the Great, who became bishop of Treguier, was elected pope under the name "Leo Britigena" during a pilgrimage to Rome - a name reported by the Treccani notice on Leo V, which judges the identification unlikely.^{[95] [96]} The legend unfolds in the late Middle Ages, in Breton monastic circles concerned with local prestige. Some late versions explicitly identify this figure of Leo Britigena with Leo V.

The identification does not hold, for two decisive reasons. First, Saint Tugdual died around 564 - at the latest at the very beginning of the reign of Pope John III (561-574). He cannot, by temporal construction, have been pope at the beginning of the 10th century. Second, no contemporary source of Leo V - Auxilius, Eugene the Vulgar, Liber Pontificalis - mentions a Breton origin; all place it at Priapi, near Ardea. The legend is therefore a local fiction hagiographique, without historical basis for Leo V.

However, it is interesting for one reason. It shows how, in medieval Christian memory, the brevity and obscurity of a pontificate could have served as an empty framework for later identity constructions. Leo V, because we knew almost nothing about him, became a screen name onto which we could project - a Breton saint, later, perhaps even other figures. This is the opposite of the fate reserved for Benedict III: the legend of Pope Joan lodged itself precisely between Leo IV and him, where a few weeks' interval left a gap for fiction^[97]. Leo V was a habitable void in ecclesial memory.

Leo V is, from a strictly event-related point of view, one of the least documented popes in papal history. Thirty days of pontificate, only one bull preserved, no personal writing, no authentic portrait, a death that is dated approximately to within several months, a cause of death that is still debated a thousand years later. If we measured the importance of a pope by density of his archives, Leo V would be negligible.

But the Church does not measure its popes that way. It measures the canonical regularity of their election, the validity of their sacramental ministry, their place in the apostolic succession. As such, Leo V is a true pope - the 118th - and his name continues to appear in the official list of the Holy See.

Above all, Leo V occupies a historically decisive position: he is the last marker of the pre-pornocratic papacy. With his deposition in September 903 and his silent death in the following months, the old Lateran regime ended, where coups d'état were still the work of cardinals; begins the new regime, where coups d'état will be the work of families. Leo V died before Theophylact had established a foothold in the palace; Sergius III, his successor, will be the first pope from the Tusculum family.

The gesture of Auxilius of Naples is, in this picture, luminous. This man formerly ordained by Formosus, declared enemy of Sergius III, took the time, in his polemical pamphlet of 908-911, to write that Leo V was "a man of God, of praiseworthy life and holiness".^[98] Without this line, Leo V would have remained a simple administrative interval between Benedict IV and Christopher. With it, he becomes a small holy pontificate in a dark century - a bright spot that posterity has almost forgotten.

Editorial comment - and not a quotation: the Church does not collapse when the pope reigns for only thirty days, if those thirty days are held by a man of God.

Related articles

• Pope Benedict IV (900-903)
• Antipope Christopher (903-904)
• Pope Sergius III (904-911)
• Pope Formosus (891-896)
• Pope Stephen VI and the Cadaver Synod (896-897)
• Pope John IX (898-900)
• The saeculum obscurum (904-964)
• The papal pornocracy
• Theophylact Iᵉʳ of Tusculum
• Marozia
• The Synod of the Corpse
• Auxilius of Naples
• The Liber Pontificalis

Main sources

• Holy See, official file Leo V, list of sovereign pontiffs: 118th pope, VII.903 - IX.903, born in Ardea.
• Auxilius of Naples, In defensionem sacrae ordinationis papae Formosi libellus prior et posterior, ed. Ernst Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 59-95.
• Auxilius of Naples, De ordinationibus a Formoso papa factis, Patrologia Latina 129, col. 1059-1074.
• Eugenius Vulgarius, De causa Formosiana libellus, ed. Ernst Dümmler, Auxilius und Vulgarius, Leipzig, 1866, pp. 117-139.
• Liber Pontificalis, notice of Leo V, ed. Louis Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, t. II, Paris, 1892, p. 234.
• Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, vol. IV, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1910, pp. 111-115.
• Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 9, art. Pope Leo V, Robert Appleton Company, 1913; transcription New Advent.
• Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 3, art. Pope Christopher, Robert Appleton Company, 1908; transcription New Advent.
• Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, art. Auxilius of Naples, Robert Appleton Company, 1907; transcription New Advent.
• Hermann the Lame (Hermannus Contractus), Chronicon ad annum 904, MGH Scriptores, t. V.
• J. N. D. Kelly & Michael J. Walsh, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed. 2010.
• Umberto Longo, art. Leone V, Enciclopedia dei Papi, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani, 2000.
• Bartolomeo Platina, Le Vite dei Sommi Pontefici, first ed. 1479; English trans., Griffith Farran & Co., London, vol. I, p. 242.
• Caesar Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici (princeps ed.: Rome, 1588-1607), ad annum 912, n° 8; text of the Theiner reprint, Bar-le-Duc, 1864, vol. XV, pp. 533-534, re-read on the digitized copy on October 4, 2026.