The beginnings of the temporal sovereignty of the popes, A.D. 754-1073

Paget

Na ie outs
agg me ee,
eee

e
fey

a Ar
wh ’

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/beginningsoftempO0Oduchuoft

Tur INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC LIBRARY

Edited by

REV. J. WILHELM, D.D., Pa.D.

Vou. XI.

Mihil obstat.
JOSEPH WILHELM, §,T.D.,

Censor deputatus.

Lmprimt potest.
i GULIELMUS,

Episcopus ARINDELENSIS,

Vicarius Generalis.

Westmonasterii,

die 30 Aprilis 1907.

ee

a)
ee P
m

THE BEGINNINGS

OF THE

TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNTY
OF THE POPES
A.D. 754—1073

BY

Mer. L. DUCHESNE, D.D.

(DIRECTOR OF THE ECOLE FRANCAISE AT ROME)

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION

FROM THE FRENCH BY

ARNOLD HARRIS MATHEW

(DE JURE EARL OF LANDAFF, OF THOMASTOWN, Co, TIPPERARY)

: tbs es
v bv"
aie

LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO. L®
DRYDEN HOUSE, GERRARD STREET, W.
1908

TRANSLATOR’S NOTE

Monsignor DucHEsNe’s volume on the beginnings
of the temporal power of the Popes appeared to me
to be the most accurate and concise of any of the
treatises on this important question which have
hitherto appeared. I accordingly sought his _per-
mission to translate the work into English, feeling
assured that it would prove interesting to a very
wide circle of readers.

For the kindness and readiness with which the
learned author acceded to my request, I desire to
record here my sense of gratitude.

I have endeavoured to express the meaning of
the original, rather than the actual words or idioms
of the author, in order to avoid the awkwardness
and clumsiness of diction, which a literal rendering
would have involved.

ARNOLD HARRIS MATHEW.

CHELSFIELD, KENT.

\<\

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

Tue learned author of this volume is well known,
and deservedly esteemed, by a very wide circle of
appreciative students of ecclesiastical history. His
honesty and trustworthiness in publishing the results
of his laborious investigations earned for him the
praise and encouragement of Pope Leo XIII.

In the hope that this short treatise may be of
service in an English version, I have ventured to
translate it, and for his permission to me to under-
take this work I must express my thanks to
Monsignor Duchesne.

ARNOLD HARRIS MATHEW.

CHELSFIELD, KENT.

vii

AUTHOR’S PREFACE

Tus book is the outcome of a course of lectures
given at Paris some twelve years ago. They made
their first public appearance, collected and printed,
in a Review, and, afterwards, a fairly large selection
of them was placed at the disposition of the public.
As the first edition of the lectures is now exhausted,
I am, in accordance with request, bringing out
another. This, however, is rather out of deference
to the advice of my publisher, than to any deep
sense of the book’s importance. So many people
have written on the subject, and with so much
erudition! At least, I suppose so; but not being
a person of unlimited leisure, I have, as a rule,
confined myself to the study of original documents,
without unduly troubling myself about the lucubra-
tions to which they have given rise. Few foot-notes
will be found in these pages, for I have been chary
of references, even with regard to my own first-
hand investigations. Many details are explained in
my notes on the Liber Pontificahs, to which the
learned and conscientious reader is respectfully re-
ferred. Small works of this kind are intended for
the average reader.

For the benefit of the latter, then, I have tried

to explain the formation of the little pontifical state
ix b

x AUTHOR'S PREFACE

in the eighth century, and how the conditions under
which it worked during the first three centuries of
its existence are connected with the great religious
conflicts in the time of Gregory VII. It is true
that the subject may appear remote, but as long
as it is a question of the Church and of Italy, its
interest can never pall.

CONTENTS

. THe SITUATION IN THE TIME OF KinG LIUTPRAND .
. Tat Ducuy or Roms

. THE SovEREIGNTY OF THE PopE AND THE FRANKISH

INTERVENTION

. STEPHEN II. .

. PAvuL

. Roman InstTItTuTIoNS IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY
. CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

. HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS .

. THE PoNTIFICAL STATE IN THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE
. RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

. THe ConstituTIOoN oF LOTHAIRE

. Toe Saracens at RoME

. Toe Emprror Lovis II.

. THe Trovustes or Joun VIII.

. THE EMPIRE oF SPOLETO

. Toe House or THEOPHYLACT

. ALBERIC AND JoHN XII.

. Tue Pores oF THE EMPIRE .

. THe GERMAN POPES.

CONCLUSION .

INDEX

xi

PAGE

112
122
136
144
167
190
204
217
234
253
270
277

THE TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNTY
OF THE POPES

CHAPTER I

THE SITUATION IN THE TIME OF KING
LIUTPRAND

Lombard and Byzantine Italy—Progress of the Lombards—Leo the
Isaurian, Liutprand, and Pope Gregory Il.—Roman politics under
Gregory III.—Zachary, the peace-loving Pope.

THe unity of Italy was first established by the
Romans, who, in the second century before our era,
conquered Cisalpine Gaul, and reached the barrier of
the Alps. This unity really consisted in unfailing
submission to the Romans and to the masters who
were appointed by them. Next to the senate and
the magistrates of the Republic came the Italian
and provincial emperors, and then the Gothic kings
of Ravenna. These were replaced, in the middle of
the sixth century, by a re-establishment of the imperial
rule, under the auspices of the Emperor of Constanti-
nople. All these revolutions had taken place without
any parcelling out of the land, for although there had
been frequent change of authority, it had always been
of the same nature. The last change resembled the
close of a long and disastrous war. Now, however,
people were beginning to forget not only the
prosperous reigns of Theodoric and Amalasontus,
but even the miseries of the Gothic war, and con-
A

2 . THE SITUATION IN THE

gratulated themselves on living peacefully under
the distant though unmistakable rule of the Emperor
Justinian: Hrat enim tota Itaha gaudeus.*

This happy state of affairs was interrupted in 569
by the Lombard invasion. At the same time the
unity of Italy received a mortal blow, from which it
took many centuries to recover. Not that Alboin
wished to harm it, for he would willingly have sup-
ported it could he have done so to his own advantage.
But his people had neither military power, nor unity
of purpose enough, to set themselves against the
whole of Italy, nor could they hold the same
position of authority as the Goths had done. Be-
sides, the Byzantine empire, suffering from the in-
roads of the Avaris in the north, and the Persians
and Arabs in the east, were no longer in a condition
to live up to the high ideals of Justinian. ‘The
dilapidated state of its military and financial power
enabled it to offer but a desultory opposition to the
attacks of the German barbarians. ‘Towards the
close of the sixth century the Roman defence was
represented by two efforts not tending in the same
direction. One—that of a boundless, unconquer-
able, but impotent hopefulness—was embodied in
the person of the Exarch Romanus—a lieutenant
of the Emperor Maurice. The other, that of local
interests and practical claims, was led by the diplo-
matic Pope Gregory. This last effort was the only
one which, under the circumstances, had any chance
of success. It resulted in peace, but at the same
time, in the loss of Italian unity, for the imperial
rule was divided with the Lombards.

Henceforward there were two _ Italies—the
Lombard and the Byzantine. The former was

* Liber Pontificalis, Life of John III.

TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND 3

subject to the barbarian masters of Northern
Tuscany and the Valley of the Po, and the latter
to the Roman Emperor of the East. The Byzantine
power in Italy was steadily declining, and, being
driven from the interior, was with difficulty sustained
on the coast of Genoa, the Venetian lagoons, and the
southern peninsulas. The two parties were never at
peace for long together, and the Lombards did not at
all agree with the Byzantines, who considered that
they had yielded enough. ‘The Lombard power
became more and more firmly established in the
conquered territory, and they finally found them-
selves in a position to accomplish issues for which
the strength of Alboin and his followers had been
inadequate. On all sides their plans of conquest were
renewed, and they were rapidly gaining control of
the coast. As early as the seventh century Rotharis
had annexed the Ligurian sea-coast as well as the
remaining imperial territory at the end of the
Adriatic. The duchy of Beneventum was rapidly
increasing its power; it took possession of Salerno,
the Lucanian coast and maritime Apulia, and, follow-
ing in the wake of the retreating Byzantines, extended
its sway as far as Otranto and Calabria. In the time
of St. Gregory it was still possible to journey from
the Venetian islands right down to the Straits of
Messina without leaving imperial ground. But
now things were changed. ‘The Lombard power
was making itself felt all along the line of Byzantine
possession, attacking any undefended positions, and
breaking up the imperial domain. ‘The possessions
that remained in the far south—Otranto, Gallipoli,
and Reggio—looked to Sicily for help, and, thanks
to the friendly sea, the promontories of Sorrento,
Naples, and Gaeta held out with fair success. The

eis THE SITUATION IN THE

island of Rialto, on which Venice was beginning to
rise, became the centre of the lagoons of the north.
Rome and Ravenna, though but poorly equipped,
were engaged in a painful struggle in mid-Italy.
While Rome, on her side, enjoyed a_ religious
deference inspired by her sanctuaries, Ravenna’s
only protecting influence lay in the majesty of the
frail and distant empire. lLiutprand, evidently at
deadly enmity with them both, was gaining great
successes. Sutri, Narni, Sora, Cumes, Osimo,
Ancona, Bologna, Cesena, and even Ravenna’s own
port, Classis, all yielded to the Lombard king, or
to the Dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum. Negotia-
tions, and even strategical manoeuvres were essayed,
not always in vain. The Pope tried the effect of
entreaties and offers of money, but in spite of an
occasional success it was obvious that the country
surrounding Rome and Ravenna would soon be
completely subjugated, and that finally the cities
themselves would be obliged to yield.

Affairs in Italy were already going badly enough,
when the Byzantine government. contrived to quarrel
with the Holy See. They disagreed on the fiscal
question, and, what was more important still, on
religious matters. Pope Gregory II., as the defender
of the Church’s patrimony, thought fit to protest
against certain new impositions. This opposition
had an adverse effect upon the emperor’s financial
plans, for the Church of Rome owned valuable pro-
perty in Sicily, Calabria, and the other Byzantine
districts, and the Pope was the richest contributor
in Italy. But the final blow was the quarrel about
images, in which the government interfered with the
services of the Church and tried to impose upon the
Pope religious regulations which had not even been

TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND 5

submitted to his approval. Gregory II., in alarm,
protested, and all Italy, Romans and Lombards
alike, rallied round him. |

He was, however, always a faithful subject of the
empire, and though he organised resistance, he did
not for a moment intend it as an act of rebellion. It
must be admitted that the Byzantine officials tried
his loyalty severely, for, from their point of view, it
was the Pope, and not the Lombards, against whom
they had to fight. They were under orders to
despatch him, and if the worst came to the worst,
they did not mean to stop short of assassination.
The Exarch Paul even sent troops to Rome, which
was on the side of the Pope. But the Lombards
came to their assistance, and Paul had to retreat
to Ravenna. ‘There he soon found himself in an un-
pleasant position, for the Venetian and Pentapolitan
troops refused to obey him, and even threatened to
announce the fall of Leo the Isaurian, to proclaim
another emperor, and to lead him to Constantinople.
The Pope, however, managed to calm this undue
enthusiasm.

The unfortunate Exarch perished at Ravenna, in
a riot, brought about by the general discontent.
Another, Eutychius by name, was sent by the
emperor to take his place. He was the last of the
Exarchs. Having been furnished with the same in-
structions as his predecessor, he at first adopted the
same tactics; but the resistance which he encountered
led him to try to break through the bond, which
_ religious defence had established between the Pope
and the Lombards. From the Byzantine point of
view this alliance was most undesirable. There was
no great harmony between the Lombards of the
kingdom and those of the two duchies of Spoleto

6 THE SITUATION IN THE

and Beneventum. ‘These duchies had, from the first,
enjoyed the privilege of self-government, a privilege
which had only strengthened as time went on.
They were, it is true, attached to the Lombard State,
but with ties as loose as those which, on the other
side of the Alps, bound the duchies of Aquitaine,
Alamanny, and Bavaria to the Frankish kingdom.
King Liutprand sought every opportunity of making
his authority felt in these detached provinces. He
responded to the overtures of the new Exarch, and
they both united in an effort to restore Spoleto and
Beneventum to the royal dominion, and Rome to
that of the imperial representative.

This amiable alliance gave general satisfaction,
though the result was hardly what the emperor
would have desired. The king entered Spoleto
and received the submission of the two dukes; then,
accompanied by the Exarch, he went on to Rome, or
rather to St. Peter’s, where they were received by
Pope Gregory. Liutprand was a Christian prince,
as well as an experienced politician, and he and
the Pope agreed to sacrifice the aggressive policy of
the emperor against the Holy See. ‘There seems to
have been much interchange of courtesies, and the
king overwhelmed St. Peter’s with gifts. Then, to
show that they harboured no ill-feeling towards the
Kmperor of Constantinople, the Romans, headed by
the Exarch, set out under the imperial banner to put
down a rival of Leo the Isaurian, who had seized a
favourable opportunity to land in a corner of Roman
Tuscia. This Petasius or Tiberius, as he was called,
was killed at Monterano, and from that time the
Exarch of Ravenna ceased his machinations against
the Roman pontiff. The emperor, if not the empire,
was practically ignored, and the administrative power

TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND 7

was distributed in such a way as enabled them to_
arrange matters among themselves without asking
the imperial opinion.

The situation soon became elear, As a result
of the iconoclast dispute the patriarch Germanus
of Constantinople (730) was compelled to resign.
Gregory II. not only refused to recognise his
successor, but severely reprimanded the prince who
was the cause of all these disturbances. ‘The Pope
died soon after (731), but his policy was continued by
Gregory III., who came after him. He even added
force to his convictions by sending ambassadors
to Constantinople, but Leo, far from giving way,
managed to rid himself of these unwelcome guests
by means of bribery and intimidation. Most often
they were stopped on their way by the cruisers of the
Sicilian patrician. ‘The property of the Holy See in
Sicily and in the other Byzantine possessions in the
south of Italy was seized, and the bishops of these
districts were despatched to Constantinople. Once
there they could not go to Rome for consecration,
and they were regarded as subject to the authority of
the patriarch of the imperial city.

The Exarch’s reconciliation with the Pope did
not tend to increase his popularity with his chiefs,
and availed but little against the Lombard attacks.
» Gregory II. had almost succeeded in protecting the
Roman territory against his enterprising neighbours.
Liutprand had yielded to his claims upon Lutri,
though Narni was still in the grip of the Duke of
Spoleto. Round Ancona and Ravenna the imperial
power was decreasing to such an extent that Ravenna
herself succumbed to the Lombards, and the Exarch
Kutychius was obliged to take refuge at Venice. In
compliance with the wishes of Gregory III. the

8 THE SITUATION IN THE

Venetians soon sent him back to Ravenna, and the
Exarchate continued for some years longer.

Just then the tranquillity of the situation was
almost upset by a political indiscretion. The Dukes
of Spoleto and Beneventum reasserted themselves,
and assumed an independent attitude towards King
Liutprand. Their neighbours at Rome, who could
no longer resist the temptation to take an active part
in Italian affairs, were unfortunately inspired to inter-
fere in the quarrels which ensued. The king invaded
Spoleto, expelled Duke Trasimund, and _ installed
another in his place. The outraged duke sought
refuge at Rome, and when the Romans refused to
give him up to Liutprand, the latter seized upon
Ameria, Orte, Bomarzo, and Blera, four places in the
north of the duchy. Being now at open enmity
with the Romans, his followers organised a series of
pillaging expeditions in their domains, pushing their
depredations even to the very gates of Rome.

Their interference seemed likely to cost the
Romans dear. Gregory III. in this extremity besought
Liutprand to restore the four towns that he had taken.
This request being, not unnaturally, refused, the Pope
had recourse to the extreme measure of imploring help
from France. Relays of messengers, charged with
eloquent letters and presents, and bearing the Keys
of the Confession of St. Peter, were despatched to
Charles Martel. Special attention was called by them
to the plundering of the Roman territory, which was
exhausting the revenues of St. Peter to such an
extent that the illumination of the apostolic sanc-
tuary had to suffer curtailment. Charles received
the Pope’s representatives with due respect, and
even sent an embassy in return. ‘The Romans, how-
ever, could expect but little help from this quarter,

TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND 9

for the relations between Charles and Liutprand were
too harmonious to be disturbed. Only a short time
before, the young Frankish prince, Pepin (the future
conqueror of Astolphus) had been sent by his father
to have his head shorn by Liutprand, in token of
military adoption. In the same year (789), the
Lombard king had, in response to Charles’s appeal,
united with him against their common enemies, the
Saracens, who were invading Provence. Besides,
the Franks were not ignorant of the state of affairs
in Italy, and they realised that the Romans had
themselves to blame, in some measure at least, for
the position in which they found themselves. If
they were in difficulties, they must get out of
them as best they could, such was the Frankish
opinion.

In time, the Romans succeeded in overcoming
the difficulty, but not without bloodshed. With
unwonted and commendable energy, they under-
took to subjugate the duchy of Spoleto, not for
themselves, but for their confederate, 'Trasimund.
One division of the army fell upon Abruzzo, while
the other devoted its attention to the despoiling
of Rieti and Spoleto. An entry was easily secured,
and Trasimund, after giving orders that Duke
Frederic, Liutprand’s protégé, should have his throat
cut, established himself in his place. This was in
December 740.

After this, it seemed that the least he could do was
to show his gratitude to the Romans by helping them
to regain the places they had lost in supporting his
cause. There were, however, difficulties in the way.
Trasimund saw that he would have his work cut out
to maintain authority in his duchy, and apparently
he did not feel equal to engaging in operations so

10 THE SITUATION IN THE

far from home. Liutprand, meanwhile, was leisurely
preparing to bear down upon his refractory vassal
of Spoleto, his ally, the Duke of Beneventum, and
their good friends of Rome. The year 741 was
passed in expectation. The Romans in vain de-
manded their towns from the helpless Trasimund.
In the midst of all this, in the month of December,
the Pope died, just a year after the triumphal entry
into Spoleto. The same year also witnessed the
passing of the two great Princes of the Hast and
West, Leo the Isaurian (June 18), and Charles of
France (October 22).

The Romans were in sore need of a man of
wisdom who would guide them with his counsel.
Pope Zachary, who was immediately elected, had
no difficulty in explaining to them their situation
and prospects. Liutprand and his army were about
to descend upon them, secure that no opposition
was to be feared on that side of the Alps. Had
not Spoleto and Beneventum already twice suc-
cumbed to the king of the Lombards, and was
it probable that the Roman forces, though not to
be despised, could hold out against him? ‘There
seemed every chance that they would be defeated,
and it was hardly likely under the circumstances
that the king would yield to the Pope’s petitions
that Rome should be spared. Their best course
would be to forsake their faithless ally, Trasimund,
and enlist themselves on the stronger side. They
might then have occasion to render the king
some service, which would redound to their ad-
vantage.

So it was arranged. The king, being approached by
the Pope, promised not to molest the duchy of Rome,
and further, to restore to them their lost towns.

TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND 11

As soon as he drew near to Spoleto the Roman
army advanced to his assistance. Trasimund made
an unconditional surrender, and the Pope, fearing
that the king’s promises might be as easily broken
as those of the Duke of Spoleto, sallied forth to
remind him of them, and at the same time to come
to an understanding with him on other matters,
ecclesiastical as well as political. The interview,
which took place at Terni, was most satisfactory.
The king agreed to keep peace with the duchy
of Rome for twenty years, and restored not only
the four towns, but also the imperial prisoners and
the estates of the Holy See which had been annexed
in the foregoing years. :

The Romans were not alone in experiencing
the truth of the saying that persuasion is often more
effective than force. ‘The following year Liutprand,
not content with Bologna and Imola, seized upon
the town of Cesena and even upon part of the land
belonging to Ravenna. In response to the terrified
appeal of the Ravennese, Pope Zachary hastened ,
to their help, leaving the government of Rome to—
Stephen, patrician and duke. On 29th June, 748,
he interviewed Liutprand at Pavia, and once more
the Lombard king yielded to the peaceful tactics
of the Pope, and Ravenna, for the time being, re-
mained under the Byzantine sway.

At the beginning of the next year, 744, the long
and glorious reign of Liutprand came to an end.
Impertinently enough, Zachary’s biographer attri-
butes his death to the prayers of the Pope, who had
had so much reason to be grateful to him. We
must, however, for Zachary’s honour, look upon this
as the slander of an unprincipled eulogist. Be this
as it may, the new king, Ratchis, at first appeared as

12 THE TIME OF KING LIUTPRAND

well disposed as his predecessor. Like him, he
granted the Pope’s request for a twenty years’ peace.
But this was only to affect the duchy of Rome, and
the Lombard king soon resumed the war against the
emperor, in the neighbourhood of Pentapolis and
Perugia. He was besieging the latter when he was
surprised by the Pope. Once more was the king
obliged to yield to his irresistible eloquence, and
deliver up the prey that he had already grasped. In-
deed, Zachary’s blandishments were so effectual that
Ratchis not only abandoned the siege of Perugia
but he actually abdicated the Lombard throne (749)
and entered upon a religious career. He, with his
whole family, withdrew to St. Peter’s at Rome, and
finally settled at Monte Cassino.

Zachary’s ambition had overleapt itself. He
might have been thankful at having to deal with
such kings as Liutprand and Ratchis, instead of
rejoicing at their deaths or driving them into con-
vents. The new king, Astolphus, proved himself
less amenable to the Pope’s influence, and matters
began immediately to assume a threatening aspect.
He began by settling the affairs of Ravenna and
Pentapolis, and at Zachary’s death, in March 752, the
imperial rule was definitely abolished in those regions.
In fact, to the north of the Apennines, the lagoons of
Venice alone acknowledged the dominion of the
Byzantine emperor.

CHAPTER II
THE DUCHY OF ROME

Political position of the Pope, in Rome, in Italy, and elsewhere—The
radius of his immediate influence—The Duchy of Rome, its limits
and its autonomy—The moral and the political authority of the
Pope in this province : the people of St. Peter—Relations with the
Greek Empire

St. GREGORY THE GREAT was, in modern parlance,
an excellent patriot, in spite of the fact that he was
the chief representative of the submissive policy
which assented to the division of Italy between the
Lombards and the empire. In theory his sorrow
was as keen as the hopes of the Exarch Romanus,
but in practice he was as much interested as anybody
in the safety and prosperity of the empire. Fortu-
nately for the imperial progress, his successors were
animated with the same spirit. ‘The Pope, indeed,
was a mighty moral power which, had the boundary
line between the spiritual and the temporal sphere
been less jealously defined, would probably have
become a powerful political factor. Over the
frontiers he held communication with other races—
the Franks, the Visigoths, the Anglo-Saxons, the
Bavarians, and, in particular, with the Lombards,
who heard him the more willingly as their converts
increased in number. He held quite an exceptional
situation in the interior of Byzantine Italy. It is a
mere theological quibble to speak of the Bishop of
Rome at any time as of an ordinary bishop. It is an

historical quibble, in connection with a Pope of the
13

14 THE DUCHY OF ROME

sixth, seventh, or eighth century, to lay stress on his
subordinate relation to the Emperor of Constanti-
nople. Undoubtedly, from a theoretical point of
view, he was a subject, for the emperor was supreme
ruler of the empire. But in reality the Pope was
elected by the Romans at Rome, and his appoint-
ment received the imperial sanction, merely as a
matter of form. He was in this way distinguished
from the highest dignitaries, particularly from the
Exarch. His authority was independent of the
emperor, and though his renown shone forth both
within and without the empire, it was certainly with
no reflection of Byzantine glory. Indeed he really
owed his prestige and position to the influence of
St. Peter. The succession of St. Peter, the See
of St. Peter, the authority of St. Peter, the tomb
of St. Peter —all these counted for much in the
atmosphere of respect and admiration which sur-
rounded the apostolic representative.

The Papal influence was by no means confined
to the Church. The Pope’s experience, his moral
authority, his sound financial position, and his powers
of administration were a valuable help in the conduct
of temporal affairs. We see him concerning him-
self, apparently in no meddlesome spirit, with war
operations, the arrangement of treaties, the appoint-
ment of officials, the management of the State ex-
chequer, as well as with municipal enterprises, such
as the repairing of ramparts and aqueducts and
schemes for the public food supply.

But, in spite of the solicitude for the general
welfare, the Pope’s influence was more particularly
concentrated on his own immediate surroundings—
above allon Rome. He certainly busied himself in
both thejpolitical and military affairs of Ravenna and

THE DUCHY OF ROME 1s

Naples, but it was the needs, temporal though they
might be, of his spiritual flock which specially claimed
his attention and sympathy. As might have been
expected, the result of this condition of affairs was
the creation around the apostolic sanctuary of a kind
of holy ground, whose limits spread beyond the city,
even to the boundary line of the duchy of Rome.

The extent of the duchy, which was the province
of the duke’ and other military authorities who
resided at Rome, had been defined by the limits of
the Lombard invasion. In Liutprand’s day it in-
cluded, between the ‘Tiber and the coast, part of
ancient Tuscia, called Roman Tuscia, to distinguish
it from Lombard Tuscia, now Tuscany. The most
northerly places on this side were Centumcellae
(Civita Vecchia) on the sea, and Orte on the Tiber,
and, between the two, /Blera (Bieda), Sutri, and
Bomarzo. On the other side of the Tiber, not very
far from Orte, on the line between Perugia and
Rome, was the town of Amelia, which was under
Roman jurisdiction. Except for this one place, the
left bank of the Tiber, as far as the outskirts of
Monte Rotondo, belonged to the duchy of Spoleto.’
The first Roman towns were Nomentum and Tilsur ;
then the frontier line followed the mountains behind
Prenesto, Anagni, Alatri, and Veroli as far as the
Liris, where it turned off to Terracina.®

1 The Commanders-in-Chief formerly bore other titles; that of
duke is used for the first time in 712.

2 This had not been the case for long, Narni was taken about
725, and Sabina, properly speaking, twelve years earlier. (L. P.,
t. i, p. 403, 428.) If the first two parts of the Farfa register were
authentic (which is not the case), the taking of Sabina was rather
earlier.

8’ For an account of the administration and politics of this
town, see the Memorandum by M. J. Gay, The Papal State, &c.,
in the mélanges of the Ecole de Rome, t. xxi. (1901), p. 487.

16 THE DUCHY OF ROME

This ducatus Romanus had originally been merely —
a military province, like the duchies of Naples or
Venetia. ‘The duke was subject to the Exarch, and -
the exercitus Romanus was a division of the Byzantine

army commanded by the vice-emperor of Ravenna.

But these relations did not last very long. There —

arose divisions, induced by the peculiar configuration
of Byzantine Italy, the difficulties in the way of

communication, and the differences of outlook

fostered by such conditions. Matters were worse
still when, about the year 727, in virtue of their
resistance to the iconoclastic jfiats of Leo the
Isaurian, the commissioned officials were banished

to Constantinople, and native dukes elected in their —

places. Henceforth each duchy was practically in-
dependent, though there was a kind of federation
among them. ‘This state of affairs was all the more
unavoidable as the superior authority, the Exarch,
had apparently freed himself from the imperial
power, and was disporting himself, like an ordinary
duke, in the province of Ravenna, which was visibly
disappearing as the Lombard conquests increased.
Under these circumstances it is far from surprising
that Rome should embark on a political career of her
own. We see her concluding alliances, declaring
war, and signing treaties. She it is and not the
Exarch with whom Trasimund,’ Duke of Spoleto,
negotiates at different times, and with whom King
Liutprand arranges the Peace of Terni in 742.
Ravenna is treated in quite a different manner.
Without so much as asking permission the prince
seizes upon her lands, towns, and even her capital.
On the other hand, if he feels inclined to annex parts

1 L, P.,t. i. p. 420 (Affaire de Gallese), 426 (treaty for its restora-
tion to Spoleto).

THE DUCHY OF ROME 17

of the duchy of Rome, Sutri, Blera, Bomarze, Orte,
or Amelia, he restores them without much difficulty.
This was, undoubtedly, an idiosyncrasy, for the Duke
of Spoleto, who in his reign took possession of both
Narni and Sabina, was by no means so easily pre-
vailed upon to part with them. Still ther: is no
doubt that Rome was treated very differently from
Ravenna. The real reason for this favouritism was
that Rome was under the protection of St. Peter
and his vicar, and not that the Lombard king con-
sidered that they had any special claim upon his
good will. Owing to the repeated solicitations of
the Pope, who spared neither pains nor money in
the cause, Sutri was restored, after an occupation
of several months. The king intended it as a gift
to the Apostles Peter and Paul. Gallesa,’ on which
the Duke of Spoleto had long cast a covetous
eye, was finally included again “22 compage sancte
reipublice atque corpore Christo dilecti exercitus
Roman.”* But this was really due to a money
arrangement entered into by Pope Gregory III.‘
It was Pope Zachary with whom Liutprand, on
two different occasions, both directly and indirectly,
settled the question of restoring the fu towns by

1 This document is lost, and we derive all a. information on
the subject from the L, P. We cannot Sheps thoroughly
understand the terminology used, and we do,“aot know whether
or not it was a question of the duchy of Rom: or of the empire.
The biographer, whose account is, above all e/se, practical, simply
wishes us to understand that if Sutri was recov):red it was owing to
the Pope. :

2 A village not far from Viterbo. !

8 These subtle expressions denote the imperial domain (sancte
reipublice) and the military command on or duchy of
Rome.

4 According to his biographer it would appear that the Pope
bought the place and gave it back to the duchy of Rome: annecti
precepit in compage, &c.

| B

18 THE DUCHY OF ROME

official charter. There is no mention of any military
representatives accompanying the Pope to Terni.
He and his clergy were alone, and, under these
circumstances, a twenty years’ truce was concluded
with the duchy of Rome. Again, it was with
Pope Stephen II. that Astolphus negotiated, before
making war on the Romans.

In keeping with all this is the form by which the
inhabitants of the duchy of Rome were introduced
to the foreign princes, whose aid was sought. ‘They
were called the “ peculiar people (peculiaris populus)
of St. Peter and the Church.”* Apart from any
rhetorical exaggeration, this expression seems to be
typical of the relations between the Pope and his
people. There was a very strong feeling among the
Romans that they must look for help and sympathy
in the approaching crisis to the Pope and St. Peter
rather than to the distant empire of Constantinople.

Peaceable relations with the latter were now
resumed. Following upon the iconoclastic quarrel,
there had been a series of disagreements, one —
counterbalancing the other, the final effect of
which had been to produce a kind of equilibrium,
True, the emperor’s decision had been opposed, his
representatives banished, and his authority reduced —
to a mere name. But to have no relations at all
with the Romans was surely better than to have
disagreeable ones. The emperor had been obliged
to relinquish thi: Pope’s help in his plans for religious
reform, but, on che other hand, the imperial treasury
had been considerably augmented by the confiscation
of the papal patrimonies in Sicily. The union, in brief,
was not dissolved, but there was no longer any intimacy
between the parties. The result made for peace.

1 Letters from Gregory III. to Charles Martel.

THE DUCHY OF ROME 19

There was even an exchange of amities. Pope
Zachary sent envoys with letters to his contempo-
rary, Constantine V., with intent as much personal
as ecclesiastical. ‘These letters, unlike the despatches
of Gregory III., arrived safely, but the messengers,
on reaching Constantinople, found a revolution in
full swing. ‘This was brought about by the claims of
one Artavasde to the imperial throne. Constantine,
the legal heir of Leo the Iconoclast, was himself
an iconoclast, while his rival held orthodox views.
There ensued a sharp and exciting struggle, jin which
Constantine hastened to besiege Artavasde in his
capital, and finally succeeded in gaining the upper
hand, 2nd November 744. The envoys were treading
on delicate ground, but as soon as Constantine was
reinstated at Constantinople they appeared before
him and were graciously received. He \acceded to
the Pope’s request that, to make up for ‘the loss of
his Sicilian estates, he should be granted at least the
two domains of Norma and Nimfa, in the /neighbour-
hood of Rome. ‘The envoys, after this/ satisfactory
interview, returned home with a substanjtial present.

The effect of the iconoclastic struggle upon
Italian affairs has been greatly exaggierated. Cer-
tainly there were at first a few critice
passed through, but, as the imperial | power in the
north and centre of Italy was practtically extinct,
its interference in religious affairs was no longer to
be dreaded. ‘The necessary declaraftions had been
made by the Popes Gregory II. anjfi Gregory III.,
and constant reiteration would have/ been futile. It
was no longer an Italian but an Iastern question.
The Holy See was particularly inj/volved, not only
because all religious matters, however distant, were
her peculiar province, but also bec/ause the forfeiture

f

20 THE DUCHY OF ROME

of her Sicilian patrimonies and the dividing up of her
ecclesiastical department which ensued ' affected her
very deeply. Again, as was shown by the gift of
Norma and Nimfa, certain mitigations might be
hoped for. After the embittered attitude of the
first few years, a new phase of a more or less diplo-
matic nature had been entered upon.

The Roman duchy, in brief, was about to become
a self-governing state, nominally subject to the Greek
empire, but really attached to it by very loose bonds.
Venice and Naples were in the same position. In
both places a local autonomy was being organised
on the strength of their strong maritime positions.
Naples could also rely upon efficient support from the
Patrician of Sicily. ‘That island was being organised
under a military government, presided over by the
local duke.

These ‘three autonomies contrived to exist for
many a long year. ‘That of Naples received its
death-blow. at the hands of the Norman King
Roger in 1139. The other two were much longer
lived. As \late as 1797 they were attacked by
Buonaparte, and again in 1870 by General Cadorna.
Indeed, these’ officers might almost be said to have
fired on the Roman empire.

Let us noiw turn our attention to the duchy of
Rome, to its situation at the death of Zachary (752),
and to the series of events which, while delivering it
out of the hands of the Lombards, yet indirectly
strengthened tht: opposition of the other two.

1 As a matter olf fact, these consequences survived the re-
conciliation of the !two Churches. The Byzantines retained
Calabria and the Sicilian patrimonies, and the bishoprics of
these countries were : not restored to the Roman rule till after
the Norman conquest.

1

CHAPTER III

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE AND THE
FRANKISH INTERVENTION

King Astolphus seizes on Ravenna—He threatens the Roman Duchy—

_The Annexation from a Religious Standpoint—Roman National

Attitude Antagonistic to Lombards—Roman Autonomy could only

be organised under the Pope’s direction—How the Franks under-
stood the Question.

ASTOLPHUS, who succeeded Ratchis in 749, did not
long leave Ravenna in peace. The exact date of his
seizure of the town is not known, but there is no
doubt that the Exarchate came to a miserable end,
so miserable, indeed, that we have no record of its
last moments. All that we know is that, from the
month of July 751, the Lombard king was estab-
lished in the Exarchal palace, and that thenceforward
his sway extended over the whole of the ancient
imperial territory between the Po, the Adriatic, and
the Apennines. Even Gubbio, the other side of the
mountains, had succumbed to him, but Perugia, Todi,
Amelia, and the duchy of Rome were not yet cap-
‘tured. Astolphus was meditating a descent on the
latter, when the newly elected Pope’ Stephen, de-
spatched ambassadors, who succeed+:d in bringing
about a peace which was to last for bl years. They
were Ambrose, the chief ( primicertus) of the notaries,
and the Pope’s own brother, Paul./ These negotia-
tions took place in June 752, but, by the following
autumn, the treaty was violated. {The Pope’s bio-
grapher does not enlarge upon tlae fact, and the

’

22 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE

Lombard king’s reasons for perjuring himself are not
given.

Hostilities, however, were not renewed, and Astol-
phus seems to have contented himself with levying a
poll tax of a gold sou on the inhabitants of Rome.
He further proposed, greatly to the consternation of
the Romans, to extend his jurisdiction over Rome
and its dependencies, thus creating a sort of protec-
torate. The Pope, not thinking it discreet to send
any of his own ambassadors to the king a second
time, despatched two Lombard subjects, the abbots
of Monte Cassino and St. Vincent of Vulturno.
These could, of course, represent things from a re-
ligious point of view only. They had no effect on
Astolphus. who sent them back to their convents,
with orders not to return to Rome.

The situation was becoming serious. The Romans
and the Pope, preoccupied with the dangers which
threatened them at home, naturally did not give
much thought to the late Exarchy. At Constanti-
nople, on tne other hand, they could not realise the
changes that were taking place in Italy, and inno-
cently imagined that a little diplomacy was all that
was requirec. in order to insure the return of the
annexed provinces. An important dignitary, John
the Silentiary, was sent to Rome with one imperial
letter for the |<ing of the Lombards; and another to
the Pope, invoking his good offices. Stephen, there-
fore, deputed his brother Paul to support the Silen-
tiary at his intzrview with Astolphus. The king
was then at Ravenna, and, though his reply was
somewhat vague, he gave orders that a Lombard
ambassador should accompany John back to the
emperor. On his way through Rome, the Byzan-
tine envoy acquailited the Pope with the non-success

AND FRANKISH INTERVENTION 28

of his errand, and the latter entrusted him with
letters explaining the position of affairs once more,
and urging the emperor to take definite steps in the
matter.

With the approach of winter, the outlook became
still more gloomy. The most alarming rumours
sprang up and grew apace. Astolphus, it was said,
meant to have all the Romans beheaded. ‘The pro-
tection of religion was sought. The most sacred
mysteries were carried in procession, in particular
the great acherophite picture of the Saviour, which
is still preserved in the Lateran. The Pope was
prolific in prayers, litanies, and exhortations, and a
copy of the treaty, broken by the terrible Lombard
king, was fastened to the stational cross.

So far, however, Astolphus had confined himself to
threats. ‘The only noteworthy event of the war seems
to have been the seizure of the Castle of Ceccano, part
of the ecclesiastical patrimony. ‘This castle was situ-
ated close to the southern frontier, on the side of the
duchy of Beneventum, and was a somewhat import-
ant centre of agricultural operations. Astolphus was,
at this time, awaiting the return of his ‘ambassador
from Constantinople, and the seizure of ‘“eccano was
probably due less to his efforts than to, those of the
duke.

What was to be the result of these negotiations,
and what could be expected from the. Pope’s repre-
‘sentations to the emperor of the neeti for his inter-
vention? Constantine had so much jto do at home,
that he could not effectually enter irito the affairs of
these distant provinces. He would probably advise
them to get out of their difficulties as best they
could. It would not be the first time that this atti-
tude had been adopted towards i Romans. From

24 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE

the beginning of the Lombard war the Emperor
Tiberius II. had maintained it.

If the goodwill of the Lombard king could not be
counted on, the only solution of the problem was
either to resign themselves to the annexation, or to
_ prevent it by calling in the help of the Franks.

There was, apparently, no insuperable religious
objection to the annexation. There is certainly no
sign of it, either in the papal correspondence, or in
the other documents of the time. We must not be
misled by the frequent evangelical allusions to the
“lost sheep” (oves perdite) which the Pope, like a
good shepherd, wishes to wrest from the wolf, or, in
other words, the Lombard king. The sheepfold in
question was a political, rather than a religious one,
and there was nothing to fear for the sheep from an
ecclesiastical point of view. The Pope had often to
deplore the Lombard depredations in the Roman
territory, but these were merely the accidents of war,
or psychological means, similar to the bombardments
of modern, times. The Lombards, to defend them-
selves against the Romans, or to effect their sur-
render, laid waste the country by fire. They followed
the universal custom and plundered, in order to live,
and also to gain some advantage from the war. In
more than one case the havoc made among church
property savoured of sacrilege, but, at that time,
warriors with any respect for ecclesiastical belongings
were few and far between. The followers of Astol-
phus are accused of having stolen some sacred corpses
from the Catacombs, in order to cherish them in
their monasteriey. The theft of relics in the eighth
century and sinc\2, has been, all over Christendom, a
very common ana readily condoned sin.

These unpleasant occurrences were, however, all

\

AND FRANKISH INTERVENTION 25

connected with the conditions of war. The ordinary
relations between the Lombards and their Roman
neighbours were by this time again of a tolerably
friendly nature. The Aryan and pagan element
brought into Italy by the Conquest had long been
absorbed. ‘The Lombards were all Catholics, and
had recently proved their faith by helping to defend
Pope Gregory II. against the proceedings of the
Exarchs. Their princes, Liutprand, Ratchis, Aistulf,
and Didier, far from being infidels, were men of
piety, with a taste for founding monasteries and
supporting churches, and full of the deepest respect
for the sanctuaries of Rome and the apostolic See.
The Romans, indeed, would not have lost much,
in passing from the Byzantine to the Lombard rule.
Even as part of the Lombard kingdom, Rome
would have remained a holy city and a living link
with the rest of Christendom. She would still have
been the resort of pilgrims, and the Pope could have
continued his somewhat restricted interest in the
religious affairs of both the East and the West.
Astolphus had his traditional capital at Pavia, and
he had just conquered Ravenna, the capital of the
Exarchs and of the Gothic kings. It was, therefore,
improbable that the seat of governmen/, would have
been moved to Rome. From the con litions which
the Lombards wished to impose upon the Romans,
we gather that the latter would in some measure
have retained the power of self-government, under
the protection of their pontiff, and that it would have
been a case of ordinary annexation. *

The stumbling-block in the way was that the
Romans in general, and the Pope in particular, did
not wish to be Lombard subjects. They considered
as derogatory any alliance with a people whom they

26 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE

regarded as barbarians, and who were personally
distasteful to them. All kinds of rumours concern-
ing the Lombard inferiority obtained credence. It
was said that leprosy flourished among them, that
they were malodorous, and so on. ‘Their laws, as
well as their manners and customs, were uncongenial
to the Romans; the Lombard law was strongly
imbued with German tradition, while the Roman
law had been religiously preserved from the tables
of stone up to the time of Justinian. Then again,
the Lombards and the Romans had quite a different
way of dressing, and of wearing their hair and beards.
Any change of nationality, such as was bound to
accompany an annexation of this kind, would im-

mediately be followed by a modification of these.

habits. In those days the barber followed closely
in the wake of the conqueror and the diplomat.

These are but trifles, we say. Truly, but one
might go far to seek the Englishman who would
not object to wear the pigtail and flowing garb of
the Chinese, or the Chinaman who would willingly
adopt our national habits. Apart, too, from these
material considerations, there was a certain subtle
and sacred prestige attached to the mere fact of
being a Roman. It was no mean thing, they
thought, to ,be a member of the Holy Republic,
and the subject of a man who was, after all, the
heir of Augustus and Constantine.

This question of escape from the Lombards was,
therefore, a vital one for the Romans of the eighth
century. Thc; Pope and the clergy were at one
with their cou!patriots in this matter, fortunately
for the maintenance of the ecclesiastical influence.
They espoused the cause of the autonomy without
any coercion, but from no particular religious feeling
in the matter.

AND FRANKISH INTERVENTION 27

The main point, however, was, not that the
autonomy should be established under the protec-
tion of any outside monarch, but that its interior
organisation should be under the supervision of
none other than the Pope himself. Although at
Naples and Venice the bishop was of some political
importance, it was the Byzantine duke who was
governor of the little republic. At Rome, too, they
had a duke whose title corresponded precisely with
that of his Venetian and Neapolitan colleagues.
Like them he was, at one and the same time, civil
chief and military governor; it was upon him that
depended the whole administration and the whole staff
of the Judices. The whole military body—the ewer-
citus Romanus, as it was called—including the aristo-
cratic cavalry, the urban foot soldiers, and the
garrisons with their tribunes—all these were under
hiscommand. He was undoubtedly a most important
personage. But besides the felicissimus exercitus, the
venerabilis clerus was no inconsiderable figure. He,
too, had his district organisation, his aristocracy, his
proceres Eicclesice, his deacons, his cardinal priests, his
chefs de service, and his suburban bishops. This
hierarchy culminated in the apostolic Lord, the
Vicar of St. Peter, the High Priest of the Roman
sanctuaries, the Primate of the bishops of the whole
world, and doctor of the Church Universal,! ze. a
dignitary who, even apart from his religious import-
ance, exercised over Italy a moral and_ political
influence beyond compare. For the Pope to have -
been subject to the duke as the Venetian Patriarch
was subject to the Doge would have been an in-
congruous and untenable position.

;
t

%. 1 Formula of the Pope’s Ordination, in use at that time. See
Origins of Christian Worship, 3rd edition, p. 363.

28 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE

As a matter of fact, even at the first, affairs
apparently showed not the slightest tendency to-
wards this attitude. ‘True, the Holy See had come
into collision with the Emperor of Constantinople,
during the monothelite crisis; again, at the time of
the Council in Trullo, and also at the beginning
of the iconoclastic struggle. These were, however,
but passing attempts at tyranny, and not the re-
sult of regularly organised institutions. In ordinary
practice, the Papal authority certainly tended in
the direction of sovereignty, as may be seen from
the documentary evidence concerning Gregory II.,
Gregory III., and Zachary. We have already seen
the latter in his outside transactions, on behalf of
~ the duchy of Rome. A strong light is shed upon
his position at home through a significant remark
made by his biographer in speaking of his journey
to Ravenna and Pavia. He set out, it is said,
“leaving the government of Rome to Stephen,
patrician and duke.” The duke is governor, during
the absence of the Pope! It is not thus that one
could have spoken of either the Doge of Venice or
the Duke of Naples.

The natural and traditional trend of affairs
pointed, then, towards the solution required by
the pontifical dignity; and, it may be added, this
solution was the only acceptable and imaginable
one for the Frankish princes, with whom explana-
tions were to ensue.

It was not the first occasion upon which the

Romans had thought of invoking the help of the

Franks. At the instigation of the emperor and
the Exarch, the Austrasian Franks had made
several descents on Italy, during the reign of
King Autharis, Pope Pelagius II. was careful to

AND FRANKISH INTERVENTION 29

explain to King Gontran that, as the Franks were
Catholics like the Romans, they ought to look
upon the Lombards as their common enemy,
instead of entering into an alliance with them.
St. Gregory, in his correspondence with the heirs
of Gontran and Childebert, refrains from _ this
attitude. Besides, in his day, the empire had left
off inciting fresh Frankish incursions into Italy,
having found them expensive and unprofitable.
There was still stronger reason for discouraging
them in the eighth century, when Liutprand’s
victories were threatening the safety of Ravenna
and the Exarchy. Charles Martel and Pepin were,
on the whole, fairly well disposed towards the
Lombard king, and recked little of his disputes
with the Greeks. This political archeology affected
them not at all.

But the interests of the Roman ex-empire and
of the apostolic sanctuary were quite another matter.
This was obvious to everybody in France and in
Rome. As Christian princes, the Frankish monarchs
felt bound to listen to the common Father of the
Faithful, and to support him in time of need. To
neglect what appeared to them a pressing necessity
would be to incur serious personal risks. St. Peter
is the chief of the apostles, and he is also the
doorkeeper of Heaven. Present-day politicians are
not greatly affected by this fact, but it was weighty
enough to give food for reflection to a Carlovingian
prince, and even to influence his politics.

We get an excellent idea of this state of mind
from the History written by the Venerable Bede,
a renowned writer of that period.

The English King Oswy (664) had been sum-
moned to arbitrate in a great religious discussion,

30 THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE

which affected the organisation and general pro-
gress of his people. ‘The subject of dispute was the
Kaster offertory. The Irish party, on the one hand,
laid stress on the patronage of their great Saint,
Columba, while the Romans pinned their faith on
the Apostle Peter. They had gone as far as quoting
the celebrated Gospel passage: ‘Thou art Peter
. . . I will give unto thee the keys of the. kingdom
of heaven,” when the king stopped the discussion,
and asked the Irish if they admitted that these words
had been addressed to St. Peter. On their replying
in the affirmative, he remarked, “ Well, then, he is a
doorkeeper with whom I should not like to have
dealings; for on my arrival at the portals of heaven,
if I happened to be in bad odour with the keeper of
the keys, he would very likely shut the doors upon
me!” ,

Bede was only half English, and we may perhaps
allow something for his somewhat humorous way of
looking at things. The Pope’s letters to Charles
Martel.and Pepin, though written in a different style,
breathe the same spirit: ‘“‘ Let us work for St. Peter,
and then we shall prosper in this world, as well as

the next.”
| It was not to be supposed that the Franks would
risk a quarrel with the Lombards, with the object of
procuring for the Romans the pleasure of remaining
under Byzantine rule, and of enabling the military
staff of the Palatine to enjoy this advantage in peace.
The conditions of the Frankish intervention would
obviously be as follows: The Lombards should leave
the Roman territory alone; the Romans should be
under the protection of the Franks, instead of under
the now enfeebled imperial power; in dealing with
the Greek monarch, everything inconsistent with the

AND FRANKISH INTERVENTION 31

new relations should be suppressed ; and, finally, the
Pope should be supreme at Rome and in the duchy.

But “there is many a slip *twixt the cup and the
lip,” and what Gregory III. had proposed, Charles
Martel had refused. It is true that the danger was
not as imminent as the Pope imagined, and the
Frankish prince had good reasons for not interfering.
Nevertheless, the pontiff’s proposal had created a
great sensation, and the chronicler who succeeded
Fredegarius and wrote under the direction of
Childebrand, brother of Charles Martel, speaks of
it with visible pride and pomp. ‘This is all the
more striking because, like his patrons, he usually
displayed but a mild interest in the affairs of the
Church.

Though Pope Zachary was constantly brought
into contact with Pepin and Carloman, either per-
sonally or through the medium of St. Boniface, it
was always in connection with ecclesiastical affairs
in France, the mission to Germany, and internal
reform. There had never been any question of the
Lombards and their quarrels with the Romans.
The Pope was quite capable of managing Italian
affairs, without any help from the Franks. Indeed,
it was the Franks who required his advice and
assistance in their political affairs; and not until
the papal sanction was obtained did they take
the important step of substituting the family of
Austrasian parvenus for the ancient royal race.

From this fact we see the majesty of the posi-
' tion held by the Roman pontiff in relation to the
Franks. As far as the new dynasty was particularly
concerned, it was a service of no importance. It
was still quite recent when the turn of events
compelled Pope Stephen II. to avail himself of it.

CHAPTER IV
STEPHEN II

The Pope’s journey to Pavia and to France—Interview at Ponthion—
Negotiations concerning Rome and Ravenna—Dignity of Patrician
Order bestowed on Frankish Kings—Attempts at Conciliation—
Assemblies at Braisne and Kierzy—Pepin in Italy—Peace signed
and then broken—Astolphus besieges Rome—Pepin’s second expe-
dition—Gift of the Exarchy and Pentapolis—Death of Astolphus—
Negotiations with Didier.’

Tue Pope had not been idle during the winter of
752-758. After a long period of consideration, the
time for action had arrived, and Stephen began
negotiations with the Frankish king. Everything
was carried on with the greatest secrecy, a peasant
acting as the medium of communication between
the two parties. ‘The first letters have been lost,
but from the account in the Liber Pontificalis we
gather that it was purely a question of the Roman
province and its escape from the Lombard yoke.
Pepin appeared well-disposed, and despatched with-
out delay, one after the other, two confidential
messengers—Oroctigang, Abbot of Jumiéges, and
another of his intimates. They soon returned to

1 Documents are scarce; there are none of Byzantine or Lom-
bard origin; on the Roman side we have the Life of Stephen II.
in the Liber Pontificalis, and this is our best source of information, as
the writer seems to have accompanied the Pope to France. There
are also two letters from Stephen II. addressed in 753 to Pepin
and to the Frankish dukes. On the Frankish side, the successor
of Fredegarius is about our only informant. In common justice,
we must remember that it is the winning side from whom we hear

most, and that the others have not a fair chance of stating their

case,
32

STEPHEN II 33

France with a verbal message, requesting Pepin to
send a reliable escort through the Lombard kingdom
for the Pope, who was anxious to come to France.
T'wo letters, conveyed by the Abbot of Jumiéges,
were inserted in the Codex Carolinus; they are
couched in very general terms, and merely call upon
the Frankish leaders to aid in furthering the interests
of the Apostle Peter.

Pepin, rising to the occasion, sent off two august
persons—Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, and Duke
Autchaire, the Oger of legendary fame. On their
arrival at Rome, they found Stephen quite ready to
set out. The Lombard ambassador and the Silentiary
John had returned from Constantinople, with orders
for a personal interview between the Pope and
Astolphus, to arrange about the restoration of
Ravenna. Stephen had already obtained a permit
for a journey to Pavia, so his way was clear before
him. ‘There was a public leave-taking at St. Peter’s
attended by many of the neighbouring citizens, as
well as by the Pope’s own people. The whole
caravan set out together on 14th October 753. The
papal retinue included representatives of the military
aristocracy, ex militice optimatibus, a certain number
of clerks of high degree, the two Frankish envoys,
and the imperial legate.

Autchaire, going on in front, was the first to
arrive at Pavia. Astolphus, when he heard of the
Pope’s approach, sent to meet him, begging that he
would refrain from any allusion to the Exarchy and
the other imperial possessions (rezpublicee loca) which
he or his predecessors had conquered. The Pope, em-
boldened by the presence of the Frankish envoys,
declared that he would not comply with this request.

The Lombard king was beset on all sides ; the Pope,
C

34 STEPHEN II

aided by tears and presents, addressed him on the
subject. The imperial legate and the emperor
himself (by means of his letters) also said their say.
_ All in vain was Astolphus warmly exhorted to “ give
back the Lord’s sheep which he had carried off, and
the estates, to their owners,” wt dominicas quas
abstulerat redderet oves et propria proprits restitueret.
He remained obdurate, and would concede nothing.

In this affair Stephen II. was acting in the in-
terests of the empire and as a subject of the emperor,
under whose commands he had gone to Pavia. But,
however great may have been his zeal for the
Exarchy, there can be no doubt that his keenest
sympathies were centred in the duchy of Rome.
This fact is beyond question, although his biographer
abstains from mentioning it. At Pavia the Pope
was playing two roles. The one, which was perfune-
tory and lacking in confidence, was that of the
imperial representative, demanding the restitution of
Ravenna. ‘The other, whole-hearted and sanguine,
was that of the Roman pontiff, whose desire was to
secure the independence of his fellow-citizens with
regard to the Lombards, and his own independence
with regard to his fellow-citizens.

Having thus disposed of the question of Ravenna,
the Pope, without more ado, begged permission to
enter France. Astolphus did his best to deter him,
but was overcome by the united representations of
the pontiff and the Frankish ambassadors.

Stephen’s presence in France did not require the
presence of the lay aristocracy, still less of a Byzan-
tine diplomat. ‘The latter, therefore, returned to
Rome under the escort of the optimates mihtic,
the clerks alone remained with the Pope. They
started forth on 15th November, and soon arrived

F

STEPHEN II 35

at the entrance to the Aosta valley (Francorum
clusas); they were then on Frankish ground, and
the Pope, beginning to breathe more freely, offered
up thanks to God. Their journey was nearly ended,
for the king had promised to meet them at the
Abbey of St. Maurice, just on the other side of the
St. Bernard pass. Their hearts were filled with a
great joy, for they were conscious of the fulfilment
of a grand task—the salvation of Rome: in Roma
salvanda petebant regno Francorum,' says the crude
epitaph of Dean Ambrose, one of the party. He died
at St. Maurice, the toils of the journey, which, for him,
was not the first, having proved too much for him.
When they arrived at the abbey they found that
Pepin had not come to meet them, but had sent
in his stead two ambassadors, Duke Rotard, and
Fulrad, Abbot of St. Denis, who were to conduct
the party to the royal palace of Ponthion. Near
Langres, about a hundred miles from the palace,
they encountered one of the king’s sons—Charles,
the future Charlemagne. Within three miles of the
royal residence, on the Feast of the Epiphany, ap-
peared Pepin himself, together with his family. He
greeted the Pope with much ceremony, getting off
his horse and prostrating himself on the ground.
Then, taking hold of the stirrup, he walked for some
time by the side of the pontiff’s horse. This is the
oldest example of that offictum stratoris which later
on became compulsion, and thus gave rise to severe
quarrels. ‘To the accompaniment of psalms and
chanting the procession continued its way, and at
last reached the palace of Ponthion. At the first
official interview, which took place in the palace
oratory, the Pope with tears besought the king to

1 Tiber Pontificalis, t. i. p. 458,

36 STEPHEN II

intervene “peacefully in order to arrange the affairs
of St. Peter and the Roman Republic,” wt cawsam
beati Petri et' reipublice Romanorwm disponeret.
The king promised to satisfy the Pope, and in due
season to procure the restoration of the Exarchy
and the rights or possessions of the republic, wt ak
placitum fuerit exarchatum Ravenne et reipublice
gura seu loca reddere.

So far we have followed the account of the Liber
Pontificaks. But the French chroniclers are also
well worth consulting. From the Moissac chronicle
we learn that the Pope’s entreaties were environed
with a good deal of pomp and circumstance. The
pontiff and his clerks, clothed in sackcloth and
ashes, cast themselves on the ground, imploring the
mercy of God, and calling to witness the blessed
Apostles Peter and Paul. Nor could they be pre-
vailed upon to rise until Pepin, his sons and _ his
nobles, had extended their hands in token of co-
operation and deliverance.

From the biographer we get a different im-
pression, but it is probable that his statements are
not altogether reliable. He passes lightly over
these doleful formalities, calling attention to the
prostrations of the king rather than to those of
the Pope. In his anxiety to give prominence to
Ravenna, it is to be feared that he takes a somewhat
distorted view of Stephen’s claims. Probability and
the quasi-official chronicler of Moissac alike incline
‘us to believe that it was Rome, and not Ravenna,
which was the leading theme of this interview.

It is, however, not to be denied that, in his
conference with the Frankish king, Stephen either
claimed or accepted what is called the “restitution ”

1 The et is doubtful.

STEPHEN II 37

of Ravenna, together with the Exarchy, Pentapolis,
and other territories conquered by Astolphus. This
‘restitution ”” was, in fact, brought about, or at
least agreed upon, after Pepin’s first Italian cam-
paign. But they did not restore propria propriis,
for neither the duchy of Rome nor the Roman
Church had the slightest claim to be regarded as
holding any right of sovereignty over these provinces.
The Emperor Constantine alone could claim this
right, and he alone could be made the “subject”
of a “restitution” in the strict sense of the term.
Stephen’s biographer treats the matter in a way
which reveals his anxiety to gloss over anything
at all questionable in the manner of the Pope's
‘succession to the emperor. ‘This attitude was also
maintained among the pontifical officials.

From our own point of view, as well as from that
of the Franks, the right was unquestionable, being
founded upon the basis of conquest. Astolphus
had conquered the imperial provinces, and they
belonged to him in the same way as Liguria, Friuli,
and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. But
Pepin had conquered Astolphus, and could impose
upon him what conditions he chose, one of these
conditions being the surrender of the provinces in
, question. ‘They were thus the legitimate property
of the Frankish king, who presented them to the
Pope, or rather to St. Peter, for this patron saint
was considered capable of owning and governing
them by means of his Church and his successors.

All this is obvious enough. If the Roman
chroniclers have given us confused accounts of the
affair, it is for two reasons. ‘To begin with, they
found it hard to divest themselves of the notion that
any part of Italy which did not belong to the

38 STEPHEN II

Lombards must somehow or other be the property

of the Romans. ‘Their expression “ vespublica”* is

a most unsuitable one, for it ought to be applied
only to a definite state, governed directly by the
Roman emperor. As a matter of fact, it is applied
to the various conditions of the Roman nationality,
whatever their link with the imperial power. In
the pontifical world, on the other hand, there was
a strong and pardonable objection to admit any
responsibility for a disloyalty to the empire, exacted
by circumstances ; for Rome apart from the Roman
empire; Rome ceasing to be Rome; this was in-
deed a political profanation. And yet there seemed
no way of escape. Now, if ever, was the time to
call upon the resources of literary style to deaden
the compunction awakened in the national conscience
by this violation of all loyal tradition.

The idea of St. Peter as sovereign of the Exarchy
naturally presupposes that he was sovereign of Rome;
for he who rules over the affairs of others may, not
unreasonably, be expected to rule over his own
“as well. As far as the Carlovingian princes were
concerned, at least, the papal dominion over Rome
seems to have been accepted as an incontrovertible
fact. At any rate they never sought to interfere
(in early times at least) either with his position at

1 This term is also employed by the successor of Fredegarius
in expressions concerning the misdeeds of Astolphus : quod nequiter
contra rempublicam et sedem Romanam apostolicam admiserat .. .
quicquid contra Romanam ecclesiam vel sedem apostolicam contra legis
ordinem fecerat . .. ulterius ad sedem apostolicam Romanam et
rempublicam hostiliter numquam accederet.” ‘There is no reason to
suppose that the chronicler was referring particularly to the
Exarchy of Ravenna. His interests centre on the Pope and the
Holy See, and though whatever there may be of ‘ respublica ”
around the apostolic throne is mentioned at the same time, it is in
an indefinite manner, which points to lack of any great interest.

a.

STEPHEN II 39

home or with his relations with Constantinople.

“--

They seem to have contented themselves with
promising him their protection and assuring him
of their good will in the most general terms, relying
in return on his friendship, and leaving him to do
the best he could for the papal prosperity. To assert
that Pepin recognised the duchy of Rome as an
independent state is rash, for we have no proof,
not even an indirect one, that such was the case.
Pepin always kept on good terms with the empire,
and although he and his sons were honoured by
the Pope with the title of “ patricius Romanorum,”
he never made use of it in his documents. Neither
does his chronicler, the successor of Fredegarius,
ever invest him with it.’

On the other hand, in the documents which
emanate from Rome, whether drawn up in the name
of the Pope or of others, the title is always used.’
There has been much discussion as to its origin and

meaning. In the empire the title of “patrician”

was merely an empty distinction, and had been borne
by exarchs, dukes, and strategists. In France it was
bestowed on the governors of Provence, e.g. Mum-
molus and Dynamius in the sixth century, and
Abbon in the eighth. But the title in question is
not that of “ patrician” in general, but of “ Patrician
of the Romans,” for the word Romanorum is never

1 The title is used in the Clausula de Pippino, which is a
private document.

2 It must, however, be remarked that the biographer of
Stephen II. makes no mention of it. In the life of the next Pope,
Paul, a dead silence is maintained on the subject of the Franks
and their prince. This is evidently intentional, for they would
have naturally been referred to in the account of the translation of
Saint Petronilla, To the author of this life, the Greek Emperors
Constantine V. and Leo IV. are paramount, and the title of
‘patrician’ only appears in the life of Stephen ITI.

40 STEPHEN II

absent. Later on, after the year 744, Charlemagne
made use of it in addition to his former titles of rex
Francorum and rex Langobardorum, which all served
as an expression of his rights over the Franks, the
Lombards, and the Romans—the Romans of the
Pope, be it understood, not the others. It is evident,
then, that the term patricius Romanorum was of
Roman rather than of imperial origin. .

It seems extremely probable, if we may venture to
say so, that the title was given by Stephen to the
Frankish princes, first of all as an expression of their
protectorships over the new order of things in
general; and secondly, to avoid reviving the Exarch
at Ravenna, and to maintain the duke at Rome.
In fact, after the year 754, there is no mention of
the Duke of Rome; there are dukes of Rome, in the
plural, the title being used in either an administrative
or a military sense; but the dovE ‘Poy: no longer
existed. With these two exceptions all the former
offices are preserved, and it must be noted that the
patriciate had been conferred on the holders of both
the extinct titles. ‘The Pope could henceforth dis-
pense with Exarch and duke; and, in order to re-
press any inconvenient desire for reassertion on their
part, he did his best to replace them by a patricius
Romanorum, whose influence, though remote, was
rendered important by the spell of his power and the
memory of services rendered in past days.

Before speeding the Pope on his homeward way,
Pepin was anxious to form some idea of the direction
affairs would take, as a result of their amicable inter-
view. Besides, the time of year was not suitable for
a long journey, especially in the case of a venerable
old man. The king, therefore, established his guest
at the Abbey of St. Denis, taking advantage of the

’
!
|
’

STEPHEN II 41

occasion to confirm his title to the crown by a second
coronation ceremony, which included not only him-
self, but his wife and sons. Soon afterwards, the
Pope, worn out by travelling, and tried by the
rigours of the winter, fell so seriously ill that his
life was despaired of. He recovered, nevertheless
—an event which was attributed by the monks to
the influence of their patron saint.’

Meanwhile, the negotiations were proceeding. In
vain did Pepin’s ambassadors surround the Lombard
king with incessant and urgent petitions. Stephen’s
biographer tells us that they had been sent propter

_pacis feedera et proprietatis sanctee Dei ecclesie ret-
publice restituenda jura. 'This curious expression,
which is employed several times in these accounts,
seems to contain incongruous elements. We get
a much more coherent account from Fredegarius’s
successor, who asserts that Pepin requested Astolphus
to avoid any display of enmity to Rome (én partibus
Rome) out of respect for the Apostles Peter and
Paul, and for his (Pepin’s) sake, to abstain from un-
accustomed impositions. History does not relate the
Lombard king’s reasons for refusing, but we know
that he despatched to France an ambassador of sacred
calling—no less a person than Pepin’s own brother,
Carloman, formerly king of the eastern part of the
Frankish empire, and at that time a monk of Monte
Cassino. This reverend personage proved as unsuc-
cessful with the Pope and the Frankish king as the
latter's envoys had been with Astolphus. Indeed,
Italy saw him no more, for the Frankish authorities
considered that he would more worthily fulfil his
vocation in their own territory, and established him

1 The Liber Pontificalis does not mention the intervention of
St. Denis.

42 STEPHEN II

in a convent at Vienna, where he soon afterwards
died.

A great national convocation was held on Ist
March 754 at Braisne, and another at Easter (14th
April) at Kiersy-sur-Oise. It was decided, though
not unanimously,’ to make war upon Astolphus, and
force him to yield to the Pope’s demands. One
last fruitless appeal was made to him, when the
Frankish army was already on the way to Italy.
The united letters of Pepin and the Pope produced
no effect. The Frankish army continued its way
towards the Mont Cenis pass. On both sides the
passes were in Frankish territory, and the somewhat
feebly garrisoned valley of the Susa was reinforced
in order to prevent the Lombards from taking posses-
sion. Astolphus made his appearance before he was
expected, but the Frankish vanguard presented such
a good front that the Lombards, in alarm and dis-
order, fled back towards their capital. Pepin, followed
at no great distance by the Pope, calmly crossed the
Alps and laid siege to Pavia.

Astolphus, utterly defeated, was obliged by
solemn treaty’ to deliver up Ravenna and the other
conquered provinces; he even agreed to yield Narni,
a town in the north of the duchy, which had been
seized by Liutprand. Pepin was quite satisfied,
and gave no heed to Stephen II., who, having
some reason to distrust the Lombard king, would
have preferred a more reliable guarantee of good
faith, and wanted the Frankish king to insist on

1 Eginhard is responsible for this statement. (Vita Karoli 6:)
Stephano papa supplicante, cum magna difficultate (bellum) susceptum est.
Quin quidam e primaribus Francorum, cum quibus consultare solebat,
adeo voluntati eius renisi sunt ut se regem deserturos domumque redituros
libera voce proclamarent.

2 L. P., vol. i. p. 403,

STEPHEN II 43

the immediate restoration of the provinces in ques-
tion.’

Pepin provided the Pope with the escort of his
brother Jerome,’ and other persons of consequence,
as far as Rome, which he entered at the end of
October 754. The clergy and the people* welcomed
him with open arms, and thanks were rendered to
God for His great mercies.

These rejoicings were but of brief duration.
Astolphus, plausible enough, had allowed the
Frankish army to return home, and even began to
carry out his promise of restoring Narni. But no
sooner was Pepin at a safe distance than the faithless
monarch absolutely refused any further concessions,
and actually resumed his former plundering expedi-
tions in the country round Rome. ‘The Pope wrote
two letters* of complaint to Pepin; one was en-
trusted to Wilchar, Bishop of Nomentum, and the
other to Abbot Fulrad, who had possibly been one
of the return escort. Meanwhile Astolphus, no
' longer concealing his animosity, prepared to invade
the duchy of Rome. On Ist January 756 there
arrived at Rome itself three military divisions. The
first, which came from Tuscany, established itself
before the gates of St. Pancratius; the second,
' with the king at its head, passed over the left bank
of the Tiber, and threatened the gate of Salaria;
while the third, which hailed from the duchy of
Beneventum, blockaded the gates of the Lateran
and St. Paul’s. ‘The surrounding country was
ravaged and laid waste in a pitiless manner. The

1 Reference is often made to these representations of the Pope
in the letters of Stephen II.; Jaffe, 2322, 2323, &c.

2 One of the numerous illegitimate children of Charles Martel.

8 The biography speaks only of the military aristocracy.
4 J., 2322, 2323. |

44, STEPHEN II

troops pressed closely around the city, but the
Pope continued to smuggle out fresh ambassadors,
who proceeded by sea to France, to seek help from
Pepin. These were George, Bishop of Ostia,
Thomaricus and Comita, two Roman nobles, and
one of Pepin’s own legates, a Frankish abbot named
Warneharius. This latter had taken part in the
Roman defence, wearing a suit of armour over his
monastic habit, and mounting guard in the ramparts.
Three letters were entrusted to these messengers ;
the first in the name of the Pope alone; the second
in the name of the Pope, the suburban bishops, the
Priests, Deacons, Dukes, Registrars, Counts, Tribunes,
the whole people, and the army. ‘This was of the
same import as the first, and was addressed not only
to Pepin, but also to his two sons, and to all the
Bishops, Abbots, Priests, Monks, Dukes, Counts,
and the whole Frankish army. The third is ad-
dressed to the same persons as the foregoing, but
it is supposed to be written by the Apostle Peter:
Ego Petrus apostolus. It contains, in this strange
form, the ingenuous expression of the idea likely to
prove most effective: the Prince of the Apostles,
the doorkeeper of heaven, was threatened in his
sanctuary; to come to his assistance was a sacred
duty, and those who responded to the call would
have special claims on his gratitude and patronage.

These cries of distress were heard. The Frankish
army again turned towards Mont Cenis, and Rome
was immediately set free. The Franks and the
Lombards engaged in deadly warfare, and the van-
quished Astolphus was driven to take refuge once
more in Pavia. Meanwhile, John the Silentiary re-
appeared at Rome, in company with another worthy,

1 J., 2325, 2326, 2327.

a ee md

ae

STEPHEN II 45

the great secretary George (proto a secreta). 'They
were entrusted with a mission to the Frankish king,
and the Pope provided them with a confidential
escort as far as Marseilles. On arriving there, how-
~ ever, they found that Pepin was already in Italy.
The Byzantine diplomats, much perturbed at this
discovery, made arrangements to detain the papal
delegate at Marseilles, while George hastened to
Pepin, whom he found in the neighbourhood of
Pavia. His entreaties that Ravenna, the Exarchy,
and the other contested cities should be restored
to the imperial government (¢mperial concederet
ditiont)* were fruitless. Pepin protested that he
had only undertaken the campaign out of love for
St. Peter, and to gain the remission of his sins, and
that no amount of bribery could have any effect
on him. Thus dismissed, the crestfallen envoy re-
turned to Rome, on his way to Constantinople.

Astolphus soon found himself obliged to enter
into a treaty, the terms of which were rather more
stringent than the first time. Comacchio was added
to the list of territories to be yielded, and Pepin not
only imposed a heavy war tax, but revived the
tribute which the Lombard kings had in former
times paid to the Franks.

To ensure the proper carrying out of this com-
pact, the Abbot Fulrad, who had stayed behind in
Italy with a military detachment, made a tour of the
towns with the Lombard commissioners, everywhere

1 The biographer uses this term in quite a different sense from
the word respublica which, up to the end of the life of Stephen IL.,
he employs, under circumstances in which it obviously cannot be
applied to a country in submission to the empire. Thus Didier
promises, in 757, to give back reipublice, the cities conquered by
Liutprand; Pope Stephen, who died during the course of this
transaction, ended rempublicam dilatans.

46 STEPHEN II

demanding the delivering up of the city keys, hos-
tages and delegates from the aristocracy. Then,
together with these representatives of the conquered
territory, he proceeded to Rome, and deposited in
the Confession at St. Peter’s, not only the keys of
the towns, but the deed by which King Pepin made
them over to the Apostle, to his Vicar, and to all his
successors.

The exact wording of this deed of gift is no
. longer preserved to us, but in the life of Stephen ITI.
we have the list of territories given up to the Holy
See. They include, first of all, Comacchio and
Ravenna, and then the tract of land between the
Apennines and the sea, from Forli in the north as
far as Jesi Sinigaglia in the south. ‘There is no
mention of Ancona and the remains of what was
known later as the Marches, nor of Faenza, Imola,
Bologna, and Ferrara. ‘The papal State had still
therefore much to acquire north of the Apennines.
To the south of the chain, EKugubium (Gubbio)
alone appears to be included. Perugia, which was a
near neighbour, still belonged to the Romans.

With the exception of Narni, which had formerly
been annexed by the duchy of Spoleto, and which
was restored in 756, the Lombard king’s “ restitu-
tions” were what he himself had seized. Rome,
though at first satisfied, had not forgotten the time
when these provinces had other limits. It was
hardly thirty years since the annexation of Bologna
in the north and Osimo in the south, and now the
Romans began to consider the possibility of recaptur-
ing Liutprand’s conquests in the same way as those
of Astolphus. They had not long to wait for their
opportunity. Only a few months after the departure
of the Frankish army, Astolphus met his death

STEPHEN II 47

through a hunting accident. There was great re-
joicing among the Romans, who thought they saw
the hand of Providence in the fact of the king’s
dying only a year after his last expedition. To make
matters still more cheerful, the possession of the
throne was disputed by two rivals, neither of them
very formidable. They were Desiderius, Duke of
Tuscany, and Ratchis, brother of the former king,
and at that time a monk of Monte Cassino. Desi-
derius intimated his willingness to acquiesce in all
the Pope’s wishes, so Stephen sent him a deputation,
consisting of his own brother Paul and the Councillor
Christopher, together with the Abbot Fulrad. Desi-
. derius promised to restore to the “republic” the
cities which were lacking, ctvitates quae remanserant,
2.¢., Faenza, Imola, and Ferrara, to the west of the
Exarchy, and Ancona, Osimo, and Umana to the
east of Pentapolis. An agreement was signed under
Fulrad’s supervision, and, with a little persuasion,
Desiderius promised to give up Bologna as well.

Stephen was beside himself with delight, and
poured forth his soul in a letter to Pepin written
in March or April 757. ‘Thanks to the Frankish
, protection and Fulrad’s vigorous action, the Pope
already looked upon himself as the sovereign dis-
poser of Italy: Desiderius, the new king, begged
his good offices in recommending him to the favour
of the Frankish monarch. The inhabitants of the
duchy of Spoleto, who had just elected a new duke,
and even those of the duchy of Beneventum, ap-
proached him with the same end in view. We may
add that the Dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum were,
in theory at all events, officially connected with the
Lombard kingdom.

The Byzantine empire, however, did not join its

48 STEPHEN II

note to this chorus. It was no longer in a position,
as in Zachary’s time, to benefit by the diplomatic
successes of the Holy See, which, by the way, were
not as complete as they had hoped. It was for the
Pope to yield first. He sent one of his priests,
Stephen, to Ratchis, exhorting him to go back to
his monastic life. The Abbot Fulrad sallied forth
at the head of his Frankish troops to support the
eloquence of the legate. The Roman army was
ready to follow him. MRatchis did as he was bidden,
and Desiderius was proclaimed king of the Lom-
bards.

The situation once conquered, he appeared in no
hurry to divide up his kingdom. It is true that
~ Faenza and Ferrara’ were restored to the Exarchy,
but as far as Pentapolis was concerned, no change
took place.

1 With the two little towns of Bagnacavallo (Castrum Tiberiacum) —
and Gabello, the former between Faenza and Ravenna, the latter
in the lagoons of Adria.

CHAPTER V
PAUL

Monumental Souvenirs—The Chapel of St. Petronilla—The Monastery
of the Via Lata—The Abbey of Nonantola—Relations between the
Pope, the Frankish King, the Lombard King, and the Greek Empire.

Pore STEPHEN was, however, spared this disillusion-
ment, for soon after the accession of Desiderius, on
26th April 757, he was gathered to his fathers. He
was immediately succeeded by his_ brother, the
deacon Paul, in spite of opposition from a section
who desired the appointment of the Archdeacon
Theophylact. These two brother Popes, under
whose auspices the temporal power began to rise,
were members of an aristocratic family who dwelt
at the end of the Via Lata, the rich quarter of that.
time. Paul turned the paternal mansion into a
monastery, so that they were, in all probability,
the last of their race.

We must here make mention of the religious
monuments which, at Rome and elsewhere, con-
secrate the memory of many events of this time.
One of the most important of these is the Chapel
of St. Petronilla.". In the cemetery of the Ardeatine
way at Rome, the tomb of St. Petronilla? was
venerated, who, according to the fabulous records

1 For further details on this subject see De Rossi, Bullettino,
1878, 1879.

2 There seems to have been a kind of revival of the worship
of St. Petronilla in the eighth century. Pope Gregory III. (L. P.,
i. p. 420), established a yearly “station,” to be celebrated in the
cemetery of the Ardeatine way.

Qn

50 PAUL

of the saints Néreus and Achilles, was considered
to be the daughter of St. Peter. Pepin, whose
interest in this cult had been by some means aroused
during Stephen’s stay in France, requested that
the body of the saint should be removed to the
Vatican, near to the tomb of her putative father.
For her resting-place was chosen one of two circular
mausoleums, constructed in the fifth century for
the Theodosian family; the first, which had prob-
ably never been used for purposes of interment,
had been dedicated to St. Andrew by Pope Sym-
machus (498-514), while the other became the
temple of the saint beloved by the Franks. The
necessary alterations were speedily completed, and
on 8th October 757, the Pontiff Paul presided over
the removal of the remains. Not long after, Rome
became possessed of an important memento of the
Carlovingian family, which was solemnly deposited
by the Pope in the new sanctuary. It was nothing
less than the sabanum* of Giséle, Pepin’s baby
daughter, to whom Paul had accepted the office
of god-father. ‘l‘henceforward in his correspondence
with the Franks, Paul always styles himself the
‘“‘compere” (or fellow-father) of King Pepin. His
brother Stephen, before him, had made use of
the same title, though in his case it was probably
an empty one, for there is no record of any
children being born to Pepin during the preceding
years.

Thus, through these family ties, represented by
Petronilla and Giséle, a close union was brought
about between the Frankish princes and the heads
of the Church—St. Peter and his successors, In

1 7.e, the linen cloth in which the child was wrapped after her
baptism.

na doa a — i dnd

PAUL 51

this connection we must also mention St. Sylvester
and St. Denis.

In the imposing legend of St. Sylvester, which
dates from the fifth century, the vivid Eastern
imagination had symbolised the remarkable effect
produced on the world by the conversion of Con-
stantine. One of the most prominent topographical
features of this old story was Mount Soracte.
This beautiful mountain, which towers over the
course of the Tiber and Roman Tuscia, had, from
early times, been the haunt of monastic colonies.
In the eighth century the highest peak was crowned
with a church dedicated to St. Sylvester, and lower
down were three other convents in connection with
the superior monastery. This was at one time
the abode of Pepin’s brother, Carloman, who had
resigned his temporal position. ‘The monastery and
all its dependencies had been presented to him by
Pope Zachary. Later on, however, Paul made over
the rights of the property to Pepin, who immediately
assigned it to the Roman Church.

Paul proceeded to affiliate this royal gift to
the monastic foundation which he had just estab-
lished in his paternal mansion in the Via Lata.
He named it in honour of the two saints, Stephen
and Sylvester. ‘The former was a third century
Pope, who had left his mark on the legendary lore
of the time, and with whose name were bound up
memories of Stephen II., formerly joint owner of
the estate to be consecrated. His remains were

_ taken from the catacombs ; those of St. Sylvester were

brought from his basilica in the Salarian way, and
those two sainted Popes were installed in the
interior church of the monastery. The convents of
Soracte, St. Sylvester, and others, were annexed to

52 PAUL

the monastery in the Via Lata. Furthermore, the
larger of the two churches of which the monastery
boasted, the external basilica, to which the public
had access, was dedicated to St. Denis of Paris.'

This was evidently to commemorate the Pope’s
visit to the royal abbey of St. Denis, whose abbot
was distinguished by a burning enthusiasm for the
Holy See. Pepin, Carloman, Stephen II., Fulrad,
and all the other prominent names of latter years
were to be found there under the rival protection
of the saints of Rome and of Paris. The Via Lata
monastery might, indeed, be called a memorial of
the foundation of the early Roman State.

But that St. Sylvester did not confine his pat-
ronage to memorials of this kind will be seen from
the following. King <Astolphus had married the
daughter of one of the principal Lombard dukes
Anselm. This latter, like his contemporaries,
Hunald of Aquitaine, Carloman of France, and
Ratchis of Italy, had devoted himself to a monastic
life, and his royal son-in-law bestowed on him a
large estate to the north of Modena, in the district
of Nonantola, as the site for a monastery. This
was in 751, shortly after the capture of Ravenna.
The following years (752 and 753) when the relations
between Astolphus and the Pope were already
somewhat strained, the Bishop of Reggio first, and
then the Archbishop of Ravenna, proceeded to con-
secrate the churches and oratories. The monastery
had not long been established when the Lombard
king undertook his expedition against Rome.
The Abbot Anselm followed his king as far as the
walls of the holy city, and though there is no

1 In connection with this name, see my Mémoire, St. Denis in
Via Lata, in the Mélanges of the Ecole de Rome, t. xx. p. 317.

}

PAUL 58

evidence that he actually engaged in fighting as
did such other well-known monks as Hunald? and
Warneharius, there is no doubt that he received his
share of the spoils. Among the treasures that he
brought away from Rome was the body of St.
Sylvester. Now, as this holy relic was preserved
in a church in the Salarian way, just where the
Lombard army had taken up its position, its
removal to Nonantola may safely be reckoned
among those depredations condemned as. sacri-
legious by the biographer of Stephen II. The
idea that it may have been a gift from the pontiff
is scarcely worth entertaining. The monks, later
on, tried to gloss over the misdeed by manufac-
turing letters of transfer, very difficult to reconcile
with the foundation of St. Sylvester in the Via
Lata.”

This is no place in which to investigate the
authenticity of the relics claimed by the two con-
vents. It is of no great moment whether the Lom-
bards or the Romans were mistaken as to the tomb,
or whether an unequal division was the result of a
theft on the one hand, or of a pious appropriation on
the other. The point to be accentuated is that the
Abbey of Nonantola and its local worship of St.
Sylvester, perpetuated in the Lombard district, and
in an essentially Lombard style, the memory of the
Roman crisis of 756, and the beginnings of the tem-
poral power.

No sooner was Paul elected than, without waiting
to be ordained, he announced to Pepin the facts of
his brother’s death and of his own succession, assuring

1 See L. P., t. i. p. cexxvii.
2 On this question, see the Memoirs of P. Bortolotti, Antica vita
di S. Anselmo, Modena, 1892.

54 PAUL

him at the same time of his readiness to carry out
faithfully the engagements: made by his predecessor.
A Frankish envoy, Immo by name, had just arrived
at Rome, and he was detained by the Pope, in order
that he might attend the ordination ceremony. A
few weeks later letters arrived from France; one of
them was addressed to the aristocracy and the lay
population, and urgently enjoined loyalty to the new
Pope.*

We will come back later to a consideration of
home affairs. Outside, serious transactions were
taking place. The Pope continued to clamour for
the towns that Desiderius had promised, but the
Lombard king was by no means eager to respond.
His reluctance was undoubtedly intensified by Paul’s
curious interference in the affairs of Spoleto and
Beneventum. In demanding the Frankish protec-
tion for these two duchies, the Holy See was en-
croaching upon the political domain of the Lombard
kingdom. It was going back twenty years to the
schemes of Gregory III., afterwards abandoned by
Zachary,’ under the pressure of circumstances.

Obviously it was not for Pepin to follow the Pope’s
example, and involve himself in these perilous politi-
cal affairs. He must have thought it odd that Paul
should have enlisted himself on the side of the Dukes
of Aquitaine and Bavaria, who were continually in
rebellion against the central power of the Frankish
kingdom. He, therefore, refused the protectorship,
and gave no support tothe Romans in their increased
claims upon the Exarchy and Pentapolis. Desiderius
imagined that he had a free hand in the matter, and

1 See the answer to this letter in the Codex Carolinus, No. 13
(JAFFE).
2 See L. P., vol. i. p. 426.

peta’.

Ye .

—_— a.

PAUL 55

began operations by starting forth to quell the re-
bellious dukes. In order to reach them he had to
pass through Pentapolis, most probably by way of
Gubbio, and the ravages committed by his soldiers
on the way created great indignation among the
Romans. The Duke of Spoleto, Alboni, was taken
prisoner with several of his “satraps,’ but the Duke
of Beneventum managed to take refuge at Otranto.
Desiderius installed another in his place, and then
_proceeded to Rome. The Pope met him outside the
walls of St. Peter’s, and pleaded persistently for the
restoration of the promised towns. His eloquence,
however, had no effect upon the king, who under-
took to surrender Imola alone, and that only on con-
dition that Pepin should deliver up the Lombard
hostages who had been taken to France. ‘The Pope,
seemingly resigned, wrote to the Frankish king to
this effect, but at the same time he contrived that
Pepin should receive another letter from him, can-
celling the contents of the first, maintaining all the
Roman claims, and urging him to insist on a com-
plete fulfilment of all the promises made by the
Lombard king.’

Pepin despatched to Italy his brother Remedius,
Bishop of Rouen, and the Duke Autchaire, and
they succeeded in arranging matters on the basis
of uti possidetis. Desiderius was to yield no other
town, not even Imola; the Pope was adjudged pos-
sessor of the remainder; the damage done by either
party was to be repaired; and many trifling ques-
tions concerning boundaries, customs, and _patri-
monies were affably settled. Pepin did his utmost
to persuade the Pope to submit, and even to cultivate
the friendship of the Lombard king. Paul, there-

1 J., 2340, 2341.

56 | PAUL

fore, resigned himself, though not without grief and
recriminations, to the dispelling of his dreams. It was,
nevertheless, extremely evident that the Frankish
king could neither undertake to place himself at
the disposal of the Romans and their plans, nor to
cross the Alps every time that there was a frontier
skirmish between the Romans and the Lombards.
Moreover, it was to the interest of the Lombards
to cultivate peace; henceforth they had a common
enemy, the Byzantine empire, which was quite ready
to take advantage of their disagreements. Constan-
tine V., disappomted in his hopes of the Frankish
intervention and the diplomacy of the Pope, con-
tinued his designs on Ravenna, and sought to regain
a footing in central Italy. His efforts were mainly
directed against the Pope, who at that time held
Ravenna, and was responsible for the emancipation
of the Romans. Instead, however, of entering into
direct communication with him, he began by making
friendly overtures to Desiderius. On the other hand,
he considered that the ecclesiastical disunion pro-
duced by the images dispute was pretext enough for
approaching the Frankish king. ‘The iconoclastic
reform did not, of course, affect the dwellers on the
other side of the Alps to anything like the same
extent as those of Byzantine Rome. Not only had
they taken no part in the papal demonstrations, on
behalf of the use of images and symbols in worship
for thirty years, but the worship itself, in spite of the
great decline of Frankish Christianity, did not appeal
to them at all seriously. An attempt might be made
to engage them in a struggle against what the em-
pire proscribed as a religious perversion. Piety, thus
understood, would provide a substitute for ground
lost in the political arena. One proof that this

PAUL 57

ground was well selected is to be found in the fact
that the Frankish Church, under Charlemagne and
Louis the Pious, far from sharing the Pope’s atti-
tude towards the image question, rather supported
the views of the iconoclast emperors.

At Rome they were quite cognisant of this
danger. Indeed, Pope Paul spent the whole of his
pontificate in listening to rumours from the south,
and quaking before the dread of a political alliance
between the Greeks and Lombards, or a religious
compact between the emperor and the Frankish
court.

But Pepin, who was a man of ability and common
sense, did not let himself be beguiled by the half-
theological diplomats who were sent to him from
Constantinople. Nor did he allow himself to be led
away, like the Romans, into constant plans for the
re-division of the Italian territory. He saw at once
that the important point was to bring about a recon-
ciliation between his two allies, the Pope and the
Lombard king, and with tact and energy he set
about producing this result without wounding the
feelings of either party. In spite of the Pope's
demands for a Frankish missus to be in permanent
residence at Rome, Pepin confined himself to supply-
ing temporary legations, deputies entrusted to arrange
transient or special difficulties. If there was any
need for the Frankish king to be represented in
Italy as the Pope’s protector, it was on Desiderius
himself that the office devolved. The latter was
induced to give up the intrigues formed with the
Greeks at the beginning of his reign, and the Pope
was persuaded to come to an understanding with
him, and, if necessary, to claim his support.

Towards the religious question, Pepin’s attitude

58 PAUL

was just as sane and simple. He listened to the
Pope’s continual exhortations against the imperial
unorthodoxy, and always acted in accord with him,
both at Constantinople (by means of their respective
ambassadors), and in France in the event of any dis-
pute. The Byzantines finally recognised their mis-
take; in Italy, Pepin’s friendly relations with the
Pope and the Lombards were an effectual hindrance
to their political schemes, while, as far as the Franks
were concerned, their loyalty to the great Head of
religious affairs of the west was deep enough to
discourage any further attempts on the part of the
orientals to arouse ill-feeling against their powerful
protector.

This is the impression that we get from the letters
written by Paul to King Pepin, and preserved to us
in the Codex Carolinus. Unfortunately we have no
means of correcting or supplementing this corre-
spondence, and, as the dates are lacking, it is often
difficult to arrange the letters in their chronological
order. Details on the subject are not easily obtained,
for, from the Leber Pontificalis we learn nothing,
and from the Frankish chronicles, but little, of these
events. But there is conclusive evidence that the
two Byzantine diplomats of 756, John the Silen-
tiary and George, the chief secretary, continued their
mission in the following year. ‘The former installed
himself at the Frankish court, and the latter in
Italy, where he combined with the Lombard king
in plotting against Ravenna. Later on, in 768,
Pepin and Paul united in sending two ambassadors
to Constantinople, where they stayed the winter.
The pontiff’s ‘chief adviser at that time was
Christopher, primicerius of the notaries. Among
the people of Constantinople he bore the reputa-

PAUL 59

tion of taking an undue part in the writing or
editing of the papal letters, and he was popularly
accused of trying to corrupt the Frankish and
Byzantine envoys. The imperial government was
anxious to do away with the papal legates, and to
transact business directly with the Frankish court,
but their endeavours in this line were apparently
unsuccessful. We hear of a conference held at
Gentilly early in 767, where, according to the
annalist of Lorsch, there was a discussion inter
Romanos et Grecos de sancta Trinitate et de sanc-
torum imaginibus. From the presence of the Romans
on this occasion, we conclude that Pepin continued
to persevere in his principle of referring all religious
discussions to the Pope.’

Very soon afterwards, on 28th June 767, Pope Paul
breathed his last. Affairs at Rome itself were quiet,
though with a superficial quietness which was speedily
and seriously to be disturbed. Let us now glance at
the ecclesiastical and military organisation of the
little Roman State and at the beginnings of the
contest which might have been observed or foretold
even at that time.

1 The mention of the Trinity is strange. From that time there
seems to have been no difference of opinion between East and
West on the subject of the Holy Spirit. At the Roman Council of
769 no Trinitarian question was discussed.

CHAPTER VI
ROMAN INSTITUTIONS IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY

The military schole and the staff of the Palatine—The Cardinal Clergy—
The Lateran Palace and the general services of the Roman Church
—The Recruiting of the Clergy—Pontifical Finances—Domwus culte—
Charitable offices—Monasteries.

THE military organisation of Rome was as follows :—
The population was divided, according to district,
into twelve groups or schol, and at the head of
each schola was a patronus, afterwards called a
decarco. The whole of the town on the left bank
of the Tiber was included in this arrangement, but
beyond this the inhabitants of the island (znswlanzt),
and the Trasteverians! formed at that time, or later,
two other sections. We must also mention the
Greek section, schola Grcacorum, which corre-
sponded with the Byzantine quarter par excellence,
the Palatine and its neighbourhood. Finally,” there
were in the unfortified suburbs of St. Peter’s schole
made up of foreign colonies; there were four of
these (if not just at that time, very soon after-
wards) belonging to the Saxons (Anglo-Saxons),
Frisians, Franks, and Lombards.

The headquarters were at the Palatine, in the old
imperial palace, which was again officially repaired
towards the close of the seventh century.* This was

1 See Les Régions de Rome au moyen age, in the Mélanges of the
Ecole de Rome, vol, x.; cf. L. P., vol. ii. p. 2538, note 7.
2 L. P., vol. i. p. 36, note 1.

8 L. P., vol. i. p. 386, note 1.
60

ROMAN INSTITUTIONS 61

the residence of the emperor on his one and only
visit to Rome (668), and of the Exarch, who appeared
there more often, as well as of the duke and the
military staff. In connection with this palace there
was an Official chapel,’ St. Cesar in Palatio, the place
of receptacle for the image of each emperor on his
accession. St. Cesar,’ of which there is no trace left,
was situated within the precincts of the palace itself ;
while, at the bottom of the hill, was the church bear-
ing the old priestly title of St. Anastasia. This had
become the headquarters of the Byzantine district.
In these times, when politics and religion were so
intimately related, the festivals in connection with
these churches were of the highest importance.
One of the Christmas masses was celebrated at
St. Anastasia, in honour of its patron saint; and
equally impressive was the festival of St. Cesar,
which was celebrated on ist November at the
Palatine, and distinguished by a grand procession.®

The superior degrees were those of duke, cartu-
lary, count, and tribune, and next below these in
dignity came the patroni scholarum, the primicerii,
domestici, and optiones. But we know very little
of the details of these offices, or, indeed, of the
military organisation in general.

1 Bull. Crit., vol. vi. p. 417; L. P., vol. i. p. 377, note 12.

2 The site indicated in the Forma Urbis of M. Lanciani is quite
out of the question; in fact it is outside not only the palace but the
Palatine also.

3 We must not omit to mention here the Byzantine Church of
Sta. Maria Antica, which recent excavations have brought to light.
The flight of stairs connecting it with the Palatine is still to be
seen. Its officiating clergy seem to have been monks, speaking
the Greek tongue, and in the eighth century it was a very popular
devotional resort, probably in consequence of its pictures and in-
scriptions. We will not attempt to record the countless attempts
which have been, and are still being made, to trace its origin back
to the time of Pope Sylvester in the fourth century.

’
"

62 ROMAN INSTITUTIONS

We hear no more of a chief duke after the time
of Stephen II. As was mentioned before, the title
of patricius Romanorum seems to have been con-
ferred on the Frankish princes, in order that the
Pope might be relieved from the presence in his
neighbourhood of a superior dignitary. The Pope
is the head of the government; and the army, like
the rest, is subject to his command. He claims no
other dignity than that which accrues to him from
his ecclesiastical position, and it is as head of the
ecclesia Dei that he, at the same time, assumes
authority over the respublica Romanorum.

Then there were also the cardinal priests, who
surrounded the Pope. They were generally about
twenty-five in number, and constituted a kind of
senate of the Church. At the present time they
recelve and manage the revenues of their churches,
reside in the ecclesiastical establishments attached
to them, and superintend the religious ceremonies.
But, although they constitute the official council of
the Pope, and are conspicuous in the pontifical
ceremonial, they are really of less importance than
the cardinal deacons.

These latter are always seven in number, and are
the permanent assistants and ordinary servants of
the Pope. Their special province is within their
district limits. The archdeacon is the director of
the ecclesiastical staff in general. Next below the
deacons come the sub-deacons, who are divided
into two groups of seven; some of them are
specially attached to the district government, while
others are in the more immediate service of the
Pope. |

The deacons lived at the Lateran, which was
the chief centre of the ecclesiastical administration.

IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY 63

But there was, also, another papal palace, that of
the Palatine’; it was erected about the beginning of
the eighth century, at a time when the safety of
the Lateran was not to be relied upon. During the
pontificate of Gregory II. the ramparts of Rome
were repaired, and the Lateran, thus protected, be-
came, from the time of Zachary onwards, the usual
residence of the Pope. To the diaconal administra-
tion were referred all matters connected with the
ecclesiastical staff, the charitable arrangements, and,
generally speaking, most of the temporal affairs of
the Church. The Lateran was also the headquarters
of the following :— .

1. The government of the palace itself, controlled
by the vice dominus (vidame), in conjunction with, or
instead of whom appears, after the end of the eighth
century, the swperista. Below the vidame are the
cubicularu: (chamberlains), the cellerari (cellarers),
the stvatores (equerries), &c. The nomenculator is
the grandmaster of the ceremonies; the vestararius,
or prior vestiari, is the guardian of the stores of
valuable furniture and other treasure.

2. The chancellor’s office, where the clerks were
known as notarz or scriniaru. These included the
seven district notaries, the two most important of
whom (the primicertus and the secundicerius) were
numbered among the great ecclesiastical dignitaries.
The primicerius of the notaries, together with the
chief priest and the archdeacon, made up the trium-
virate on which the government of the Roman
Church devolved, in the event of the Pope’s death
or absence. He was also trusteé of the archives

1 Probably at the northern angle, above Sta. Maria Antica,
The site is covered by a grove of evergreen oaks, and is one of the
most delightful spots in Rome.

64 ROMAN INSTITUTIONS

and manager of the library, though by this time
the functions of librarian were beginning to be
separated from those of the notaries.

As yet, there is no mention of the primiscrinius
or protoscrinius, who, later, succeeded the primicerius
as the real head of the chancellor’s office.

3. The financial administration presided over by
the arcarius, chief cashier, and the saccellarius, or
paymaster-general. Connected with them were the
advocates, who had to do with the courts of justice,
‘and particularly with the execution of ecclesiastical
sentences. They, like the notaries, possessed an
aristocracy of seven district officers, with a primi-
cerius at their head.

After the ninth century, some of these offices
became secularised, while others remained in eccle-
siastical’ hands. ‘These latter soon formed a special
and distinguished category, the seven Palatine judges,
viz., the primicerius and the secundicerius of the
notaries, the arcarius, the saccellarius, the proto-
scrinius, the chief of the advocates, and the nomen-
culator.

There were also the functions of the consilarius
and the ordinator. 'That of consiharius, sometimes
entrusted to the clergy and sometimes to the laity,
seems to have been of great importance. After
the eighth century, however, we hear no more of
either of them.

As a rule the Pope officiated at the Church of
the Lateran, which was included, since the time of
Constantine, in the domus ecclesia. He and his
court, however, were often present at other cere-
monies, either at Sta. Maria Maggiore or in some

1 But generally, ecclesiastics who had not been promoted to
the higher orders and were thus in no way bound to celibacy.

IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY 65

other of the city or suburban basilicas. The daily
religious service at the Lateran was presided over,
in turn, by the seven bishops in the closest vicinity
of Rome. It was through this system of papal
assistants that the class of cardinal bishops was
formed."

The Roman clergy were recruited from two
sources, according to the social position of the can-
didates. ‘Those belonging to the lower classes were
educated in a kind of seminary, the Schola cantorum,
which was situated not far from the Lateran. It
was also known as the Orphanage—Orphanotrophiwm.
The children of the nobility were received into the
papal palace among the cubicularz. Both classes
received the tonsure at the outset of their careers, a
rite which admitted them to the ranks of the clergy,
and gave them the much appreciated privilege of
decorating their horses with white saddle cloths.
During their novitiate they took the position of
acolytes; the other lesser orders, owing to their
practical disuse, had fallen into insignificance. The
acolytes were distributed among the priestly offices ;
they constituted the whole assistant clergy of the
cardinal priests. These clerics took no vows of
celibacy, but, as a rule, indulged in matrimony. It
was not until several years later, after promotion
to the higher orders, that they bound themselves
to a celibate life. Hven then, they only severed
their family relationships as far as was absolutely
necessary. The wives of the superior orders
of clergy were not sequestered in cloisters, and
they even shared, to a certain extent, in the

1 See Le sedi episcopal: nell’ antico ducato di Roma, in vol. xv. of
L’ Archivio Romano di storia patria.

E

66 ROMAN INSTITUTIONS

promotion of their husbands, becoming diacone,
presbytere, or episcope. On the day of the clerk’s
preferment to the priesthood, or the diaconate,
their wives were also honoured with a kind of
consecration ceremony, in celebration of this access
of dignity.

Besides the ordained clerks, who, for the most
part, had had time to found families, there was
still a very large number who were not ordained,
e.g. those engaged at the chancellor’s office or in
the administrative service, notaries, advocates, cham-
berlains, cellarers, &c. All these constituted a kind
of clerical reserve, from which the Schola cantorum
drew the necessary supplies. They also served to
fill up ecclesiastical offices, and being strengthened
in the cubiculum sacrum by the addition of an
aristocratic element, they attained to the highest
ranks of the sacred hierarchy, not excepting the
pontificate itself. The temporal power once defi-
nitely organised, it fell to the lot of the hierarchy
to manage many matters which were originally
foreign to it. Its importance and prestige increased
perceptibly, and at the Orphanage there was much
competition for the cubiculum as the means of entry.
As will be seen, this was a severe trial for the
ecclesiastical spirit.

The pontifical finances* were still drawn, in the
main, from the landed property of the Church.
Owing to the confiscations by the Byzantine govern-
ment, a large portion of the immense estates men-
tioned in the letters of St. Gregory had vanished.
The ancient patrimonies of Sicily and Calabria no
longer yielded any income, and it was only with

1 Cf. Paul Fabre’s book, De patrimoniis s. Romane ecclesia.
Paris, 1892.

IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY 67

great difficulty that the Pope obtained a small profit
from the domains which remained to him in Istria,
and the neighbourhood of Naples, and Gaeta. The
chief part of the papal revenues was drawn from
‘the Church property around Rome. But even this
source had been seriously affected by the long lease
system. In spite of all this, however, the constant
reception of gifts and legacies had enabled not only
Paul’s predecessors, but also some of his successors,
to reconstitute an important department. In order
to minimise the covert estrangement of property
which was continually going on, and also to re-
populate the sparsely inhabited country, the Popes
undertook to cultivate certain extensive districts
themselves without any outside help. This was
called the domus culte. The peasants who worked
for them were regarded as papal employés, and
formed rural mzlitze, which were not disarmed like
the militia ecclesiastica. Thus the ecclesiastical
revenues were being confirmed and _ strengthened,
while, at the same time, a staff was being consti-
tuted capable of military organisation, and having
the advantage over the exercitus Romanus of repre-
senting no tradition at variance with the ecclesia
Dei. If properly developed and employed, this
would be a valuable aid to the Popes in confront-
ing the internal difficulties of their temporal govern-
“ment.

In closing this review of the Roman institutions
in the eighth century, a word must be said of the
charitable establishments and monasteries. The
former were abundant, comprising hospices and
hospitals (wenodochia, ptochia, hospitalia), asylums
for foundlings (drephotrophia), for aged men (gero-
coma), and benevolent societies or deaconries.

68 ROMAN INSTITUTIONS

These establishments were founded on endowments,
and, like the presbyteral churches, had their own
incomes and official staff.

The same might also be said of the monasteries
which abounded at Rome. A large number of them
were occupied by Greek monks, while others sheltered
Orientals, Syrians, Armenians, &c. As a rule, they
were established in the neighbourhood of such sacred
places as St. Peter’s, St. Paul’s, St. Lawrence's, or
even the city basilicas. Each foundation had an
oratory of its own, though most of the services seem
to have been held in the neighbouring basilica,
several monasteries sometimes having one common
celebration in the same church. There were, for
example, four or five congregations meeting in the
basilica of St. Peter’s. This was the origin of the
chapters. The vicissitudes of the convent system
led to the formation of congregations of canons,
both regular and lay, the most important of which
have survived to the present day.

As we mentioned before, the monasteries of
Rome were of no great importance. The Popes
seemed to have been warned by the ill-effects pro-
duced on ecclesiastical discipline by large bodies of
monks in other places—Constantinople, for example.
Thus, while they encouraged the religious profession,
they did not favour the formation of powerful con-
gregations. Moreover, when the monks were offici-
ating in the basilicas it was much easier to keep
them under control. The large convents were else-
-where. Monte Cassino, which had been revived
under Pope Zachary, was situated in the Lombard
domains. So also were the Abbeys of Monte
Amiata, St. Saviour of Rieti, and Santa Maria of
Farfa. The latter, however, had been founded

IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY 69

on part of the territory which the Lombards under-
took to restore to the Pope. It was transferred
to the papal jurisdiction during Hadrian’s ponti-
ficate, when it did not fail to become a subject of
discord.

CHAPTER VII
CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

Government of Pope Paul—Divisions at the time of his death—Usur-
pation of Constantine II.—Reaction led by Christopher, with the
assistance of Desiderius — Constantine is expelled from the Holy
See—Election in the Forum—Stephen III.—Sanguinary retaliation
—The Council of 769—Desiderius at Rome—Paul Afiarta—Assassi-
nation of Christopher and his son Sergius—Deception and death of
Stephen IIT.

From the foregoing account of the institutions of
the little Roman State, it is not difficult to under-
stand that the existing conditions contained the
elements of an important internal crisis. There
were two great rival bodies, the clergy and the
army, and the transfer to the Church of the political
supremacy, hitherto enjoyed by the army, did not
tend to sweeten the relations between them. Affairs
seem to have gone on calmly at first, and we hear
of no definite resistance during Paul’s reign, except
in the case of a priest called Marin. This man resided
at the Frankish Court, and gave himself up to inces-
sant plotting against the Pope. The latter might
well have wished to be rid of him, through his
promotion to a French bishopric, but when his
parents were anxious to see him again, Paul formally
requested that he should be sent back to Italy,
promising to honour him with another ecclesiastical
title. Marin, notwithstanding, remained in France
during the rest of the Pope’s lifetime, apparently to
the complete satisfaction of the latter.

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 71

If order continued to prevail at Rome, it was
because Pope Paul ruled with a high hand. Even
his biographer, while lauding the papal virtues, refers
to the molestations practised by his “iniquitous
satellites,” and relates that the prisons often har-
boured prisoners under sentence of death. The
Pope was accused of many extortions,’ and rapidly
acquired a reputation for unjust severity. The
power of the papacy, while having its advantages,
was not without drawbacks. The army, ousted by
the government, watched the flame of rebellion
smouldering, and, if necessary, did what it could to
fan it. In the early summer of 767 the Pope, who
was living at that time in the neighbourhood of
St. Paul’s, was taken seriously ill. A reaction im-
mediately followed.

Under these conditions any change of authority
was not feasible, and the idea of a Byzantine restora-
tion does not seem to have occurred to anybody.
As at the accession of Stephen II., the emperor
was too far away and the Lombards too close at
hand to enable the Romans to dispense with the
intervention of the Franks, who would hardly have
consented to the transference of the political power
from the Pope to the army. The best way out of
the difficulty, they thought, would be to elect as
Pope a member of the military aristocracy, who
would be inclined to restore to the army at least
part of what it had lost during the pontificates of the
two brothers, Stephen and Paul. The clergy, realis-
ing that a crisis was at hand, had already taken pre-
cautions, and felt safe as to the result of the election,
provided that it was conducted in an orderly manner,
and among the Roman inhabitants of Rome.

1D. P., vol. i. p. 463, 475.

72 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

At this time the most important person in the
ecclesiastical world was Christopher, the primicerius.
From the time of Stephen II. he had been a con-
spicuous figure, having accompanied the Pope on his
Frankish mission! in 758, in virtue of his office as
district notary, or advocate. We hear of him again,
three years later, as one of those engaged in negotia-
tions for an alliance between Pope Stephen and
Desiderius,? the claimant to the Lombard throne.
This time he bears the title of consiliarius. He was
as devoted to Paul as he had been to his brother,
and seems to have had no inconsiderable share in
the most weighty transactions and correspondence of
the time. At the court of Constantinople it was
said that Pope Paul was nothing but a puppet, whom
Christopher forced to dance to his piping, and that
the latter was really responsible for the whole of the
papal policy. It is, indeed, more than probable, that
the primicerius was the chief promoter of the policy
of the last few years, the instigator and mainstay of
the Frankish alliance, as well as of the ecclesiastical
supremacy.

The nobles, who were stronger in the outlying
districts and the small towns than in the capital,
promulgated the idea that as the Pope was now
ruler of the whole duchy, it was only right that
all his future subjects should have a voice in his
election. Quiz omnibus praesse debet ab omnibus
ehgatur. This old maxim of canon law was now
applied to the episcopal instead of to the monarchical
election. This was all the more natural, because
the provincial governors formerly, and in later times
the dukes, had gained their position by election.

1 L. P., vol. i, p. 446.
2 Ibid., p. 455.

bh

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 73

How these ideas were translated into facts we shall
now see.

Residing at Nepi, but also owning a house at
Rome, was a certain Duke Toto’ (Theodore). He
arranged to confer with his three brothers, Con-
stantine, Passivus, and Pascal, and some confede-
rates, and together they plotted to hasten the Pope’s
death. Their evil designs were, however, thwarted
by Christopher, who even succeeded in making Toto
swear that the election should proceed in proper
form. But the duke straightway broke his oath;
he summoned around him all the troops of Roman
Tuscia, and these, reinforced by a large number of
peasants, presented themselves before the gate of
St. Pancratius, which was not barred or bolted.

The rebellion was being organised in the city
under the command of the new arrivals when the
Pope suddenly expired on 25th June. A _ pre-
liminary convocation was immediately held in the
basilica of the Apostles, at which, thanks to Chris-
topher’s influence, the clergy and the army met
in a friendly spirit, and overwhelmed one another
with mutual pledges of good-will. The outlook
seemed promising, and, according to custom, the
election was put off for a few days, when Toto and
his followers forced their way into the Lateran and
proclaimed, as Pope, Constantine, the eldest of the
three brothers. He was not a cleric, but a military
man, for they had ignored the old Roman custom,

often set forth in the canonical writings, and honoured

by constant observance, which forbade such a choice.

1 Our chief sources of information on these events are: (1)
The letters of the Codex Carolinus ; (2) the lives of Stephen III.
and Hadrian in the Liber Pontificalis ; (3) fragments of the Council
of 769 ; see my edition of the Liber Pontificalis, commentary on the
Life of Stephen ITI.

74 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

George, Bishop of Prenesto, whom they encountered
in the vicedominium, was obliged, in spite of protests,
to confer the tonsure on the newly appointed pontiff.
Christopher was sought, in order that he might have
a share in this usurpation, but he refused emphati-
cally to have any connection with it.

The next day Constantine was ordained sub-
deacon, and then deacon and priest, in the oratory
of St. Lawrence at the Lateran; he was then in-
ducted in due form, with the administration of a
solemn oath. On the following Sunday, 5th July,
he was consecrated Pope at St. Peter’s, again by the
Bishop of Prenesto, who was assisted by his col-
leagues of Albano and Porto. After this ceremony,
Christopher, and the most faithful of his adherents,
were alone in refusing to recognise Constantine’s
promotion. But Christopher was a force to be
reckoned with. His influence over the two _ pre-
ceding Popes had been marked, and now the vic-
torious party hoped to get rid of him and his
followers. Duke Gregory, one of the latter, was
assassinated, and the primicerius, feeling his own
situation to be precarious, fled with his children
to seek refuge at St. Peter’s. Nor could they be
Induced to emerge from its friendly shelter, until
Constantine himself assured them that their lives
were not in danger. In return, they undertook to
remain quiet until after Easter, when they were to
retire into monastic life. There was some slight
amount of local opposition, but 1t was speedily over-
come, and this severe treatment of Gregory and of
Christopher and his family was the only conspicuous
case of the kind. Those who had scruples awaited a
safer opportunity to declare them. It was, however,
related, with some consternation, that the Bishop of

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 75

Prenesto, who was paralysed in the right hand, had
not been able to use it since he had stretched it
forth at the consecration of Constantine. His death,
which occurred shortly after, was looked upon as a
token of divine displeasure.

The gratitude of the Frankish king had still to
be procured. Constantine immediately’ wrote to
him to announce the fact of his accession, but
Pepin, who must have had some inkling of the
state of affairs, seemed in no haste to reply. A
second letter’? was despatched in September, osten-
sibly to inform the prince of the arrival of oriental
communications connected with the veneration of
images. Constantine then proceeds to the sub-
ject of the election, attempting to plead extenuating
circumstances. He speaks of his unworthiness, of
the violence offered to him, of the decrees of Provi-
dence, in short, of all that might be urged in a
parallel case. Pepin, at that time, was very much
engaged with his war in Aquitaine, and although it
is certain that he took no active measures against
Constantine, there is no evidence that he made any
exertions on his behalf. He appears to have held
aloof from the whole affair, or, at least, not to have
taken any serious notice of it. ‘The Lombards, for
their part, lay low, and made no attacks on the
Roman State, a sign that they regarded the Frankish
protection as including, if not the person of the new
Pope, at any rate the domain consecrated to the
Prince of the Apostles.

About the middle of April (768) Christopher the
primicerius and his son, Sergius, who, under the last
Pope, had held the office of saccellarius, were left

t J., 2874. 2 J.; 2875.

76 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

free to embrace a religious career. For this purpose
they selected the monastery of St. Saviour at Rieti,
in the duchy of Spoleto. The abbot was sent for,
and undertook the custody of the two novices.
Once outside the Roman frontier, however, they
succeeded in eluding his vigilance, and, upon reach-
ing Spoleto, called on the duke for an escort to
Pavia. ‘Their plans were successful, and they came
to an understanding with the Lombard prince with-
out the intervention of their protectors on the other
side of the Alps. Desiderius was delighted at the
chance of profiting by the disordered state of affairs,
and assured the Roman dignitaries of his sympathy
and support. He had them escorted back to
Spoleto, bearing a message to the duke, who, act-
ing upon his instructions, put an army at the dis-
posal of Sergius. The latter, accompanied by the
priest Waldipert, a Lombard ambassador, set out at
the head of it, and they arrived at the Salarian
Bridge on the evening of 7th July, exactly thirteen
months after Constantine’s promotion to the Lateran.
The next day they crossed the Anio and the Tiber,
then, after an ineffectual attempt on the St. Peter’s
gate, they tried the gate of St. Pancratius, which is
at the top of the Janiculum, and commands a view
over the whole town. Here confederates were
awaiting them, the gate was opened, and Waldi-
pert’s troops passed through into the city of
Rome.

The Lombards had been in Italy for two hundred
years. ‘They had besieged Rome many times, but
never before, even by treason, had they succeeded
in gaining admittance to it. The new arrivals, con-
sequently, hardly daring to believe in their good
fortune, remained in trepidation on the fortifications,

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 77

without venturing to descend into the town.’ Their
hesitation gave the Romans time to flock together.
Toto and Passivus went up to the gate of St. Pan-
cratius and succeeded in making the Lombards beat
a retreat. But treachery stepped in for the second
time. Duke Toto was struck down from behind,
and his death threw the defending party into dis-
array. Passivus hastened to the Lateran, and the
unfortunate Constantine, quite broken-spirited, sought
refuge in chapel after chapel; he was discovered with
his brother Passivus, and the Bishop Theodore, his
vidame, cowering in the oratory of the sacristy.

Christopher had stayed behind, evidently detained
by some Lombard conspiracy. Waldipert, taking
advantage of his absence, managed to divert the
attention of Sergius, and the next day, which was
Sunday, proclaimed, as Pope, a venerable priest
named Philip, the superior of a monastery near the
church of St. Vitus. He was not a cardinal, but the
Lombards evidently thought him a suitable candi-
date for the papacy. He was acclaimed with the
customary ceremony, conducted to the basilica and
palace of the Lateran, and even followed the custom
of giving a banquet to the most important of his
electors, clerical or military.

This, however, was the only act of his pontifi-
cate. Christopher, who had arrived before the walls
of Rome during the day, had another candidate in
view ; and he sent a message to the Romans, saying
that he would not set foot in the town so long as
Philip was at the Lateran. They submitted, and

1 The biographer of Stephen III. seems to feel strongly about
this ; in spite of his devotion to Christopher, he does not hesitate
to describe as nefandissimi proditores those who opened the gate to
the Lombards.

78 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

one of Toto’s assassins, Gratiosus, undertook the
difficult task of conveying the Lombard Pope back
to his monastery of St. Vitus.

Christopher was now master of the situation.
The next day, lst August, he assembled the clergy
and the lay aristocracy, in fact, the whole population
of Rome, 272 Tribus Fatis, i.e. the ancient Forum,
near the church of St. Hadrian. After some dis-
cussion, they finally settled to appoint the candidate
of the primicerius. ‘This was Stephen, priest of St.
Cecilia, a man of about fifty years of age. He was
a native of Sicily, and his knowledge of men and
things had been limited to an experience of life
within the monasteries, the episcopal palace, and
the churches. His piety was an undoubted recom-
mendation, and the weakness of his disposition was
sufficient to justify Christopher and his family in their
intention of holding the reins of power in their own
hands. He was escorted to the Lateran, of which
he took formal possession, and his episcopal con-
secration was celebrated on the following Sunday,
7th August.

But the victorious party did not wait for this
ceremony before engaging in the most revolting acts
of revenge. ‘Those who had been captured on 30th
July in the sacristy oratory were brought forth from
their prison. Bishop Theodore and Passivus were
incarcerated in monasteries, after having had their
eyes put out. The wretched Constantine had first
to undergo the humiliation of taking part in a mock
cavalcade, and then, on the evening before Stephen’s
consecration, he was brought before an ecclesiastical
tribunal, and declared to have forfeited the papal
dignity. Finally, a few days later, some of his
enemies forced their way into the monastery of St.

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 79

Sabas, where the unfortunate wretch was imprisoned,
dragged him outside, and put out his eyes. The
same fate befell others, among them the tribune of
Alatri, Gracilis, and Waldipert, the Lombard priest.
The latter in vain sought refuge at Sta. Maria
Maggiore behind a sacred image; he was torn from
the sanctuary and cast into one of the Lateran
prisons. Finally he was dragged to the open space
in front of the palace, where his eyes were taken out.
They took him to a neighbouring hospital, but he
expired almost immediately.’

Such were the edifying circumstances under
which the new Pope, Stephen III., entered upon
his pontificate. For lack of further victims the dis-
_turbances were at last calmed down, and the victors
now hastened to acquaint the Frankish king with
their success. Sergius, who was chosen as the dele-
gate, was well adapted to represent things in their
most favourable light. When he arrived in France,
he found that the great Pepin had just passed away,
so he presented himself to Charles and Carloman,
the two Frankish princes, and succeeded in con-
vincing them of the urgent need for repairing the
breach of canon law caused by the election of
Constantine.” In accordance with his demand, a
deputation, consisting of certain members of the
Frankish episcopacy, was sent to Rome. ‘They were
chosen for their familiarity with the Scriptures,
and the ‘ceremonies of the holy canons.” First of
all came Wilchar, the former Bishop of Nomentum,
at that time Bishop of Sens, and bearing the title of
Archbishop of the Gauls. Then came the Metro-

1 We gather from this attack on a representative of King
Desiderius that the Lombards had already left Rome.

2 As a matter of fact they were not without qualms as to the
validity of the election of Stephen III.

80 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

politan Bishops of Mainz, Tours, Lyons, Bourges,
Narbonne, and Kheims; and finally the Bishops of
Amiens, Meaux, Worms, Wiirzburg, Langres, and
Noyon. On their arrival in Rome these thirteen
dignitaries met, together with about forty Italian
bishops, both from Lombardy and the Roman dis-
trict. After the Easter festivals (769) the council
assembled in the Basilica of the Lateran. ‘The first
to appear before them was the unhappy Constantine,
jam extra oculos. His defence turned upon the
violence to which he had been subjected, and the
reaction against Paul’s severity, which had culmi-
nated in his own election. ‘The breach of ecclesi-
astical law upon which so much stress was being
laid, had often occurred before for the benefit of
others, he maintained. Prostrating himself on the
ground, he implored mercy and forgiveness, but the
priests were not to be moved. Following in the
footsteps of Caiphas rather than of St. Gregory, they
struck the poor blind pleader across the face, cast
him outside, and ordered that his writ of election
should be burned. Having performed these graceful
acts, Pope Stephen, with his clerks and his faithful
followers, abased themselves on the ground, con-
fessing the sin they had committed in accepting
Constantine, and beseeching penance for their mis-
deeds. The very angels must have smiled at the
hypocritical litanies which were chanted over them.

But this was not all. The ordinations and enact-
ments of Constantine were declared illegal, and he
himself was condemned to a life of penance within
a monastery.

In order to prevent any recurrence of these dis-
turbances, it was decreed by the Council that cardinals
or deacons should alone be eligible for election, and,

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 81

moreover, that “laymen, both military and civil,”
and in particular, persons not belonging to the city
of Rome, should henceforth be excluded from the
electoral body, strictly speaking; though, after the
Pope’s election and installation at the Vatican, the
Roman laity would be allowed to go in and greet
him, and confirm, by their signatures, the act of his
election. This provision introduced a most important
change, but though, as will be seen, it was in force
for some time, it was eventually annulled.

Finally, the convocation ratified the veneration
of the images, and reprobated the decisions of the
iconoclastic Council of 754. All these decrees were
made public, with much solemnity, at St. Peter’s,
before a large audience of the clergy and people.

Between France and the Holy See, harmony
was again established. The military party was
subdued, and the lay aristocracy excluded from
the papal elections. But Christopher and Sergius,
the Pope’s advisers, and the virtual wielders of the
papal authority, had given King Desiderius very
grave cause for complaint. It was in virtue of
his support that they had succeeded in overthrowing
Constantine IJ., and in return for this friendly help,
they had not only debarred his candidate from the
papacy, but they had permitted the assassination of
his envoy, Waldipert. It was no wonder, therefore,
that Desiderius took umbrage. Besides, they did
their utmost to strengthen the Frankish alliance by
their influence on the papal policy. A good deal
of correspondence bearing on the subject is pre-
served in the Codex Carolinus.* In it the Lombards
are constantly accused of disregarding the satis-
factions ( justitias) due to St. Peter. One of these

1 J., 2380, 2381, 2386, 2387.
F

82 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

letters* is written with the object of deterring
the Frankish princes from a family alliance with
King Desiderius. The popular gossip as to the
leprous and malodorous conditions, and so on, ob-
taining among the Lombards, is brought forward
as an argument against the match, which took place
notwithstanding. Desiderata was the first legitimate,
or rather official, wife of Charlemagne, though, after
she had enjoyed the honour for a very short time,
she was cast off by her royal consort.’ Bertrade,
the Queen-mother, had herself come to Italy,
to arrange the affair; she had even penetrated
as far as Rome, where she seems to have re-
ported to the Pope some favourable remarks of
the Lombard king concerning the litigation between
them. .

Stephen III. was beginning to weary of Chris-
topher’s continual supervision. Desiderius, whose
path had been prepared, more or less consciously,
by Queen Bertrade, made up his mind to confer
with the Pope in person. In Lent 771, he under-
took a pilgrimage to Rome, orationis causa. He
had some confederates in the pontifical circle, in
particular a chamberlain, named Paul Afiarta. ‘The
news of the Lombard king’s pious intentions,
did not fail to arouse the suspicions both of Chris-
topher and Sergius. Summoning to Rome troops
from the country, and even from the duchy of
Perugia, they reinforced the gates, and prepared to
show a good front. Carloman, the one of the two

I J. 2381.

2 Eginhard, Vita Karol, 18; cf. Vita Adalardi, c. 7 (M. G., SS.,
t. ii. p. 525. Eginhard says “one year” later; but this is not
possible. In 770 Desiderata was already replaced by Hildegard,
See Julien Havet, Bibl. de ’ Ecole des Chartes, vol. xviii. p. 50.

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 88

Frankish kings whose estates bordered on Italy,
had at Rome a missus named Dodo, who took their
part with great zeal. It was pretty well known
against whom Desiderius’s animosity was directed.
On his arrival at Rome, he took up his position
near the Vatican, begging the Pope to come and
confer with him. But instead of complying, Stephen
proceeded to St. Peter’s, and then went back to
the Lateran without taking any notice of the
Lombard king. This was the signal’ for a most
bitter contest.

Afiarta and Christopher were already at daggers
drawn, and, as a result of their quarrels, Rome
had for some time been divided into two factions.
On the Pope’s return, Christopher and Sergius,
suspecting treason, appeared at the Lateran
with a strong escort, declaiming against their
enemies. The Pope succeeded in pacifying them,
and even swore a solemn oath in their favour.
But no sooner had the agitators taken their de-
parture, than he went back to the king, and by
means of fresh promises on the justitie S. Petri,
he basely delivered over to him those to whom he
owed his election. At his instigation two bishops
repaired to the nearest gate, and called upon Chris-
topher and his son Sergius to come to St. Peter’s,
to yield themselves into the Pope’s hands. The
two Roman nobles learned that day to what lengths
cowardice and treachery can go. ‘Their adherents
forsook them, in order to listen to the voice of

1 Besides the Liber Pontificalis and the letter by which Stephen III.
acquaints Queen Bertrade and Charlemagne with these events, we
get valuable details in a Bavarian chronicle (in bad preservation, it
is true) from which I have quoted in note 58 of the life of
Stephen ITI.

84 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

the Pope, who was morally a Lombard prisoner.
The first to desert Christopher was no less a person
than Gratiosus, the traitorous assassin of Toto (768),
the initiator of attempts on the person of Con-
stantine II., as well as of many other crimes, a
man who owed his elevation in rank to the one
against whom he now so ignobly turned. ‘To hasten
to the Pope’s summons he forced open the Porto
gate, and this action gave a decisive turn to affairs.
Sergius and Christopher, aghast at this sudden
change of front, were misguided enough to commit
themselves into the hands of the enemy. This took
place in the middle of the night.

The next day the Pope celebrated mass in the
presence of King Desiderius, and then returned into
the city, leaving Christopher and Sergius in the
basilica of St. Peter. According to his biographer,
Stephen’s wish was that they should adopt a
religious career, but he must have been aware that,
in neglecting to bring them back with him, he was
delivering them over to the discretion of those who
bore them ill-will. Indeed, before nightfall Afiarta
and his supporters had united with the king in a
design against them. Christopher and Sergius,
dragged from the most revered sanctuary in Chris-
tendom, were taken to the bridge of St. Angelo,
where their eyes were torn out. As a result of
this inhuman treatment, Christopher died, only three
days later. Sergius was cast into the great prison
of the Lateran, where he survived for more than
a year. A week before the death of Stephen III.,
Afiarta, and John, the Pope’s brother, had him
brought out of prison and assassinated. After being
half strangled, he was buried, while still alive, under
an arcade in the Via Merulana, quite near to the

CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS 85

palace. Afiarta probably got rid of him thus, in
the fear that he might be set free after the Pope’s
death.

The unhappy Stephen III., after having be-
trayed his benefactors, realised with grief that he
was being made a dupe of by Desiderius, who re-
fused him the least compensation. ‘ What,” said
the king, “surely the Pope can expect no further
concessions when I have relieved him of his
guardians! He had better mind his own business
and not fall out with me! Carloman is the champion
of Christopher and Sergius, and he will require an
explanation of their treatment. If I do not take
Stephen’s part he will be ruined.”?

The Pope undoubtedly recognised the correct-
ness of this reasoning, for he refrained from writing
to Carloman, who was little inclined to listen to
him. But he wrote to Charles and the Queen-
mother a letter which is still extant, setting forth
the above-mentioned sad events, from the stand-
point of his mentor Afiarta and the Lombard
king, whom he describes as being full of enthusiasm
for himself, as well as for the temporal concerns of
the Holy See. He lays great stress on the part
played by Dodo, basely making the most of the
discord between the two brothers, although two
years before it was he who exhorted them to re-
conciliation.?

At the beginning of December (771) Carloman
died, somewhat to the relief of the Pope and his
new advisers. But their contentment did not last
long. Only two months later, 3rd February 772,
Stephen joined Christopher and Sergius, his some-
time friends, in the unseen world. They had not

1 J., 2388, 2 J,, 2380.

86 CHRISTOPHER THE PRIMICERIUS

been mistaken in their expectation of finding in
him a submissive agent. But such agents, however
convenient they may be, require much discretion
in handling, and are by no means always to be re-
lied upon.

CHAPTER VIII
HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

Pope Hadrian—Restorative Measures—The Politics of King Desiderius—
His attempts against Rome—Overthrow of Afiarta and the Lombard
party—Appeal to Charlemagne—Charles in Italy—Siege of Pavia—
Central Italy and the Pope—Charles at Rome for the Easter
Festivals, 774—Donation of Charlemagne.

FortTuNATELY for the honour of the Holy See, the
election resulted in the appointment of a man of
probity, energy, and capability, the deacon Hadrian.
This new Pope was a scion of one of the noblest
families of Rome. Having been early deprived of
his father, he was entrusted by his widowed mother
to the care of his uncle, Theodotus, consul and
duke, afterwards primicerius and “father” of the
diaconate of St. Angelo. Hadrian had been trained
at the Lateran, and was distinguished for his piety,
high principles, and learning. His supporters hoped,
by electing him, to get out of difficulties, and to
please both the Church and the nobility, by giving
them a Pope who was at once a member of the
ecclesiastical profession and of the aristocracy. They
also wanted a man of action, who would avenge,
without delay, the iniquitous proceedings which had
disgraced the pontificate of Stephen ITI.

The attack on the unfortunate Sergius was not
the only offence of its kind. The death of Carloman
seemed to have let loose the evil passions of A fiarta’s
adherents. Exalted members of the clergy and the
military had suffered banishment in the last days of

88 HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

the deceased Pope. Hadrian lost no time in repair-
ing their wrongs, but, immediately on his election,
gave orders that they should be recalled. He at
once resumed negotiations with the Lombard king,
and awaited a favourable opportunity of bringing
the assassins and their accomplices to justice.

Since Carloman’s death, the situation had become
complex. He had left behind him only young chil-
dren, one of whom was little Prince Pepin, born in
770. ‘The aristocracy of his kingdom decided, by a
large majority, to amalgamate under the authority
of Charlemagne. The latter was at Corbeny, near
Laon, and thither were despatched deputies, em-
powered to endow him with the kingdom of his
brother. Gerberga, Carloman’s widow, fled with
her children to Italy, accompanied by a few faithful
followers; conspicuous among them was Autchaire.
Desiderius welcomed them with open arms; by ex-
tending his encouragement and protection to these
fugitives, he thought to undermine the formidable
power which was springing up on the other side of
the Alps. There was, at least, good reason to hope
that the time would come, when a diplomatic inter-
change might be profitably arranged. Great stakes
were at issue, but Desiderius was to be on the
losing side.

He was not relying on this means of action when,
on Hadrian's succession, he sent him greetings by
the Duke of Spoleto, and two other officials, who
urged the Pope to renew the agreement made with
Stephen III., undertaking, in return, to render to the
Holy See all the compensations (justitiw) that it
unceasingly demanded. Hadrian responded by send-
ing him a deputation, conducted by Paul Afiarta.
By this means, he succeeded in getting rid of the

HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS 89

latter, while, at the same time, he was giving the
Lombard king a pledge of his amiable intentions, by
despatching to him a persona grata.

But no sooner had the papal legates quitted
Rome than disquieting news arrived. Desiderius
had made himself master of Ferrara, Comacchio,
and Faenza, and was now meditating a descent
on Ravenna. There was no mistaking his political
attitude, for he publicly posed as the supporter of
Carloman’s children, and claimed that the Pope, by
his solemn consecration of the young princes, had
declared himself on their side. Afiarta was of the
king’s opinion, and undertook, at any cost, to bring
about a meeting between Desiderius and Hadrian.
The sacellarius Stephen, who had accompanied him
on his mission, seems also to have been of the same
mind.

They were, however, deluded. Hadrian having
got wind of their designs, changed Stephen for
another envoy, and Afiarta’s temporary absence be-
came permanent, under the following circumstances.
The Pope was determined to get to the bottom of
the mystery surrounding the assassination of Sergius
the secundicerius. The enquiry, which followed, re-
sulted in the arrest of the criminals, three Campa-
nini,s the chamberlain Calventzulus, the priest
Lunisso, and Leonatius, the tribune. These main-
tained that they had been but tools in the hands of
others, and denounced, as the instigators of the crime,
Paul Afiarta, the Duke John, brother of the late
Pope, a district advocate named Gregory, and
another chamberlain, Calvulus. Concerning the
fate of John and Gregory we know nothing, but
Calvulus, and the three Campanians, were handed

1 The Ciociari of the present day.

90 HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

over to the criminal judge, the Prefect of Rome, who
now reappears, after an interval of more than a cen-
tury and a half. Calvulus spent the rest of his life
in prison, while the other three were banished to
Constantinople.

According to the Pope’s instructions, Afiarta was
to be arrested on his return, by the Archbishop of
Ravenna, who, after communicating to him the
result of the inquest on the murder of Sergius, and
having verified his guilt, would condemn him also to
exile at Constantinople. Hadrian even caused a
letter to be sent to the Emperors Constantine V.
and Leo IV., acquainting them with what had
occurred, and recommending them to keep a strict
watch over the banished culprit.

On receiving these instructions, the archbishop
had Paul arrested, on his way to Rimini, and placed’
in charge of the consularius of Ravenna, who, after
making him listen to the reading of the indictment,
received his depositions and admission of guilt. ‘The
archbishop and his party were greatly incensed
against Afiarta, whom they justly regarded as an
adherent of the Lombards. Maurice, Duke of
Venice, was to have acted as intermediary between
Ravenna and Constantinople, but, as his son was,
at that time, a Lombard prisoner, the archbishop
dreaded that he might be exchanged for Afiarta, and
therefore wrote to the Pope, dissuading him from
entrusting his captive to the Venetian duke.

At this, the Pope, not without good grounds,
feared that the Ravennese might adopt a more
expeditious method of getting rid of their prisoner.
He therefore despatched another envoy to the
Lombard king, with instructions to fetch Afiarta
on his return through Ravenna, and bring him back —

HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS 91

to Rome. Arrived at Ravenna, this new ambassador
solemnly informed the archbishop and his circle of
the commission which he had to fulfil on his return
journey. But no sooner had he set out on his way
to Pavia than the consularius, at the archbishop’s
behest, had the prisoner executed. The Pope dis-
claimed any part in the matter, but, for all that, he
was well rid of a most troublesome subject. As for
Christopher and Sergius, they received an honourable
burial in the basilica of St. Peter.

Tradition was renewed, and the Pope withdrew
from the Lombard alliance. It must be admitted
that Desiderius did his best to promote ill-feeling
between them, and to throw the Pope back upon the
Franks. Not content with plotting against Charle-
magne, and seizing upon Exarchal territories, which
had been ceded fifteen or sixteen years before, he set
the Dukes of Spoleto and Tuscany to lay waste
Pentapolis and the duchy of Rome. Hadrian, in
alarm, tried to come to terms, and kept a constant
succession of envoys going between Rome and Pavia.
The Abbot of Farfa, escorted by twenty venerable
monks, was among them. But it was all in vain;
no treaty could be made. The king, remembering
his success with Paul and Stephen III., was most
anxious for a personal interview with the Pope. He
hoped to induce Hadrian to unite with him against
Charlemagne. ‘The former agreed to a meeting, but
only on condition that the recently annexed territories
should be first restored to him. |

At the same time he despatched a letter to Charle-
magne by an envoy named Peter, who arrived at
Thionville some time in the winter of 772-778. His
welcome was not enthusiastic, for the king had been
prejudiced by Desiderius, who had spread reports in

92 HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

France that the Pope’s lamentations were without
cause, and that he had received no injury. The
continual plaints with which the Frankish court had
been beset in the times of Paul and Stephen III.
made these declarations the more credible. But that
this time the case was really serious, was demon-
strated by the fact that Desiderius set out for Rome,
accompanied by Autchaire and some of Carloman’s
sons. The aim of this expedition was merely to
obtain audience of the Pope, and not, as in the case
of Astolphus (756), the conquest of the city. As
Hadrian declined to meet them at Pavia, Perugia,
or anywhere else, Desiderius did what he had done
several times before, under former Popes, and went
forward in the direction of Rome.

But Hadrian viewed things in a different light.
He imagined that he saw, or perhaps really did see,
in the pilgrim king an invading foe. He therefore
summoned the military forces from the neighbouring
towns to Rome; had the suburban basilicas stripped
of their valuables and closed ; and the ramparts made
ready for the defence. These precautions taken, the
Pope stationed at Viterbo (at that time the nearest
Lombard town) three bishops, charged to prohibit
Desiderius, under pain of excommunication, from
entering into Roman territory. This seems to have
had a quenching effect on the king’s spirit, for he
retreated in the direction of Pavia.

Just at this time the Lombard king had to
contend not only with the papal displeasure, but
also with the diplomacy of Charlemagne. George,
Bishop of Amiens (formerly of Ostia), and Gulfard,
Abbot of St. Martin, came over to Italy to satisfy
themselves of the state of affairs. First of all, they
paid a visit to Rome, from which they brought away

HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS 93

urgent letters; then they proceeded to Pavia, where
they made fruitless attempts to obtain concessions
from the king.

Charlemagne, on being informed of what was
taking place, sent fresh ambassadors to Desiderius,
charging him to restore what he had taken from
the Pope. He himself offered to pay down a sum

of fourteen thousand gold sous, as compensation.
- But again the Lombard king remained obdurate.

It was now about the middle of the year 773.
Charles assembled his followers at Geneva, sending
two military divisions to Italy. One of these, under
command of his uncle Bernard, went by way of
Valais and the Aosta valley, while the other crossed
the Mont Cenis. History again repeated itself,
and, as in the last campaign, there were summonses
in extremis, an encounter, then defeat of the Lom-
bards, and a siege of Pavia. This time, however,
there was a second revolt at Verona. It was led by
Adelchis, son of Desiderius, and the Frankish Duke
Autchaire, who had taken refuge there with the
family of Carloman. But Charles, after having
established his camp in front of Pavia, marched
against Verona, and soon succeeded in subduing
the rebellion. Autchaire and his royal comrades
cast themselves upon his generosity, and Adelchis
took refuge in Byzantine domains. The other towns
in the north of Italy also surrendered.

The days of the Lombard kingdom were
numbered. The struggle va soon recognised to
be an unequal one, and it was evident that the
patience of the Franks was nearly exhausted. The
people of Spoleto, always on the watch for a chance
to assert their independence, toek advantage of their
Duke Theodicius’ departure for’ the Cluses, and sent

94 HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

to Rome some of their most important inhabitants
(utiles persone) to proclaim their allegiance to the
Pope, and to receive the civil tonsure of the Romans.
After the overthrow of the Lombard army the whole
duchy presented itself, followed by the people of
Ancona, Osimo, Fermo, and Citta di Castello (cas-
tellum Felcitatis). So that, while Charlemagne was
conquering the northern towns, the Pope was taking
possession of the important districts of central Italy.
He bestowed legal rights upon Hildeprand, the new
Duke of Spoleto, elected by his subjects, and the
latter in the beginning of his office certainly regarded
himself as in subordination to the pontiff.

The siege of Pavia was protracted. Charles spent
the winter in camp, having sent to France for his
young wife, Hildegarde, to bear him company.
When spring came he made up his mind to go
to Rome for the Waster festivals. The Pope,
although not aware until the last moment of the
approach of such a distinguished visitor, found time
to send a deputation of judices, t.e. army officers,
with their banners, as, far as Lake Bracciano. On
the Saturday before Easter the king, with this
additional escort, arrived at the meadows of Nero.
There, drawn up before them, were to be seen the
Roman militia under arms; the school children,
palms in hand, singing Jaudes; and, finally, the
district crosses. It was in this ceremonious manner
that the Exarchs' had been received in bygone
days. The king dismounted from his horse and
advanced on foot towards the basilica of St. Peter’s.
The Pope, surrounded by his clergy, was awaiting

1 The emperor himself was treated with greater pomp. In
663 Pope Vitalian himself, escorted by his clergy, went to meet
Constantine II. six miles from Rome.

HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS 95

him at the top of the great staircase leading to the
atrium. Charles ascended this on his knees, kissing
each step on the way. Arrived at the top, he
embraced the Pope, accepted his right hand, and
accompanied him into the atrium or paradise, and
then into the church.

The succeeding days were spent in religious
festivals and official banquets. Nevertheless Charles
and his Frankish subjects did not enter Rome until
he and the pontiff had bound themselves by a
mutual oath. On 6th April, the Wednesday after
Easter, the great political agreements were drawn
up. A meeting was held in the basilica of St.
‘ Peter, at which the Pope presented Charles with
a document made out in 754 at Kiersy-sur-Oise,
in the names of Pepin, Charles himself, and his
brother Carloman. It was on behalf of St. Peter,
Stephen II., his vicar, and successors, and con-
tained a promise to surrender to the Pope a certain
number of Italian territories. Hadrian begged the
king for its fulfilment, and the latter, after re-
reading it, had drawn up another document of
the same purport (ad instar anterioris), and intro-
ducing the same cities and territories. These are
indicated with great precision by Hadrian’s biogra-
pher. It was, manifestly, not merely a question
of the donation of the Exarchy and Pentapolis,
placed by the Abbot Fulrad on the tomb of St.
Peter, in 756. The new agreement, we are told,
embraced, like that of Kiersy, the duchies of Spoleto
and Beneventum, the whole of Tuscany, Corsica,
Venetia, and Istria. Between Venetia and Tuscany,
the Exarchy, which had greatly enlarged its borders
in the north and west, included Parma, Reggio,
Mantua, and Montselice, to the south of Padua.

96 HADRIAN AND DESIDERIUS

If this promise had been carried out, the Lombard
kingdom would have been reduced to very narrow
limits. Indeed, almost the whole of Italy would
have belonged to the Pope.’

Several copies of the document having been
drawn up, it was invested with much solemnity.
One copy was placed on the altar and confided to
the Pope; another was deposited by Charles in the
most sacred spot of the apostolic sanctuary. He
then returned to Pavia, which surrendered shortly
afterwards. ‘The Lombard king and his queen,
Ansa, were confined at Corbi, where they seem to
have flourished for many years. Charles returned
to France, leaving behind him at Pavia a garrison
and a provisional government.

1 In the introduction to the Liber Ponitificalis, vol. i. p. eclxii, we
have tried to explain the treaties of Kiersy (754) and Rome (774)
by proceeding on the supposition that Pepin and Charles desired
to produce in Italy a Roman state strong enough to hold its own
against the Lombard kingdom. It would have allowed the latter
a separate existence, but only within such narrow limits as would
render it no longer formidable. M. P. Kehr, in the Historische
Zeitschrift, vol. 1xx. p. 385 et seq. (cf. Gottingische gel. Anz., 1895, p.
694), has lately proposed a more fundamental theory which is worthy
of consideration. According to his view, these conventions were
plans of distribution for an expected contingency, the suppression
of the Lombard kingdom. The Frankish kingdom would have
taken possession of the whole of northern Italy as far as Magra
and the neighbourhood of Venice, thus comprising the best part
of the plain of the Po, as well as all the watercourses of the Alps;
the remainder would have constituted a separate state under the
protection of the Pope.

CHAPTER IX

THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN THE TIME OF
CHARLEMAGNE

The Pope’s authority at Ravenna—The Archbishops Sergius and Leo—
Spoleto and Beneventum—Charles, King of the Lombards—Re-
linquishment of the Peace of 774—Arrangements of 771, in relation
to Terracino, the Duchies of Spoleto, Tuscany, and Sabina—Con-
cessions of domains in Tuscany and Campania (787)—The patriciate
of the Frankish King, and sovereignty of the Pope—Election of
Leo III.—The Lateran tricliniwm.

IMMEDIATELY after the fall of Pavia, Charles had
commanded the Lombard authorities to evacuate
the cities of Emilia, which, by the treaty of 756,
Desiderius had made over to the Pope, but which
he had since either retained or retaken. Among
the latter were Comacchio, Ferrara, and Faenza,
while Imola and: Bologna had remained in his
possession all along. The Frankish king would,
for the moment, make no further concessions to
the Pope, and even these were not likely to afford
much satisfaction, considering the aggressive influence
of the Archbishop of Ravenna.

The honoured founder of the Church of Raison
was the martyr saint Apollinarius, reputed to have
been a loyal disciple of St. Peter. His successors
were not always characterised by the same fidelity,
for their pride in the importance of their town soon
made them conspicuous by their greed for titles and _
precedence, and by a marked inclination to resent
what they, of their own accord, called the yoke of

- Roman servitude—jugum Romanorum § servitutis.
97
G

98 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

The Popes of the seventh century had hard work
to keep them under proper discipline. Old quarrels
were continually being revived, for the resistance
proceeded, not so much from the archbishops them-
selves, as from the Ravennese clergy in general,
and indeed from the whole population without
distinction of class.

In the last days of the Exarchy, when the
Lombards were about to descend on Ravenna, the
Pope’s intervention was hailed with gladness.
Zachary, when he passed through the town on his
way to Pavia, was welcomed by the Ravennese as a
deliverer and the father of the country. There
was less enthusiasm, however, in 756, when the
Abbot Fulrad and Pope Stephen II. inaugurated
the new régime. ‘The first consequence of this was
the utter decapitalisation of Ravenna. If the
Lombards had retained their supremacy, Ravenna
would have retained its importance. Its inhabitants
might hope that, as in the days of Theodoric and
Honorius, it would become the residence of the
Lombard kings, or that they would, at least, sojourn
from time to time among the splendour of its historic
palaces. ‘They would still be citizens of a royal city,
though no longer subjects of the emperor. But
Pepin’s donation caused the prospect to fade away.
They would have to pass under the yoke of the
pontiff and his Romans, and that without any re-
deeming feature, for it was impossible that St.
Peter’s successor should leave the palace of his seat
and tomb. The servitus Romanorum already made
itself felt in the spiritual domain, and now it was
getting involved in a temporal affair. The Pope
claimed the right to ratify the appointment of the
archbishop, to consecrate him with his own hands,

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE = 99

to summon him to his councils, and to veto his
decrees. ‘There was nothing for it but to submit.
Officials were already arriving from Rome, furnished
with a papal commission, and with instructions to
superintend the administration of the towns, the
government of the province, and the collecting of
the taxes. This was really a severe infliction.
The Archbishop Sergius took a _ prominent
position from the very first. The meaning con- ,
veyed to him by the donation of Pepin was, that °
although St. Peter was undoubtedly to enjoy
possession of the Exarchy and Pentapolis, it was
in the person of his disciple, St. Apollinarius. With-
out waiting for the approval of the Romans, he took
upon himself to appoint officials, and placed himself
at the head of the government in the provinces
surrendered by Astolphus. Stephen II., annoyed
at these proceedings, summoned the archbishop
to Rome, and, thanks probably to the Abbot Fulrad,
his command was obeyed. He even succeeded in
detaining him for a time, and meanwhile the papal
officials established themselves in the transapennine
provinces. In 758, as Sergius was still being kept
at Rome, King Pepin, who liked to encourage har-
monious relations among his Italian protégés, inter-
fered.” He arranged matters with Pope Paul, with
the result that Sergius was allowed to return to
Ravenna. He was invested with a certain authority
over the Exarchy and Pentapolis, but the right to
receive taxes and appoint functionaries was reserved —
for the Pope alone.*

1 J., 2408. 2 Jy 2338.

8 J., 2408. We must compare with this letter the information
evolved from the confused memories of the life of Sergius, collected
by Agnellus (157, 158,159). This Agnellus was aware of the
archbishop's detention at Rome, in the latter days of Stephen IL.,

100 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

After this Sergius and Paul continued on fairly
good terms with one another. From a letter written
by the Pope’ we learn that the archbishop remained
loyal to the new order of things, and did not fail to
keep him informed of the intrigues which were
growing up around him, in view of a Byzantine
restoration. He sent a deputation to the Roman
Council of 769.

Pope Paul had been wise in his generation. It
was absolutely necessary to keep on friendly terms
with so weighty a personage as the archbishop of
Ravenna. Since the dissolution of the Exarchy
there had been no centre in the Adriatic provinces
to compare in importance with his episcopal town,
and no body so influential as his clergy. The
difficulty with the Ravennese was that if they were
given an inch they showed a strong tendency to
take an ell, and thus to reduce the pontifical
authority to little more than a name.

This soon came to pass. On the death of
Sergius, 25th August 769, the people of Ravenna
appointed in his place one Michaelius, scrinzarius of
his state, and perhaps tonsured, but not a priest, or
in holy orders. Pope Stephen III., in conformity
with the recent decree of the Roman Council, strictly
forbidding this kind of preferment, refused to ac-
knowledge him. But Michaelius, supported by at
least a part of the populace and King Desiderius,
who seems to have had an aptitude for conspiracy,
his understanding with Paul (he reverses the names of these two
Popes), followed by the remittance of considerable sums of money
(wrongfully acquired), from the ecclesiastical treasury of Ravenna,
to the Pope, or, rather, to his representatives; the disapproval
accorded to this deed by the Ravennese; the punishment of
certain leaders; finally the supreme magistracy conferred on the

archbishop.
1 J., 2358.

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 101

succeeded in retaining his position for a year. That
the Pope did not eject him was from lack of power,
rather than from lack of will. This gives some idea
‘of the weakness of the pontifical authority in the
Exarchy. Eventually some envoys who had been
sent to Rome by Charlemagne were led by Stephen
to take an interest in the affair. Their united efforts
resulted in producing a revolt at Ravenna, and
Michaelius was ousted from his seat and despatched
to Rome. In his place the Ravennese elected their
Archdeacon Leo, whose confinement at Rimini by
the rebels had, from the outset, procured him much
sympathy. Immediately upon his promotion he
came to Rome, and was consecrated by the
Pope."

This was the same Leo who had been so anxious
to get rid of Paul Afiarta, the friend of Desiderius.
He had excellent reasons for not feeling amiably
disposed towards the Lombard king, who appears
to have taken some part, or, at any rate, shown
great interest in Charles’s expedition into Italy.’
He therefore considered himself entitled to the
spoils, and claimed all the surrendered cities of
Emilia, Bologna, Ferrara, &c., as the property of
St. Apollinarius.s He even went so far as to
dismiss the papal officials from other parts of the
Exarchy, and would doubtless have done the same
in Pentapolis if the inhabitants had not risen in
resistance. The Pope, annoyed at this impudent
interference, wrote to Charlemagne,? but the arch-
bishop, nothing daunted, betook himself to the

1 Hadrian’s letter, J., 2467, mentions a missus called Hucbald.
This, with the Liber Pontificalis (Stephen III.), is our only source of
information on the subject.

2 This we gather from a very incomplete account by Agnellus.
8 J., 2408, 2414, 2415, 2416,

102 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

Frankish king in person, and came back more
bumptious than before. We do not know how
this affair ended, but in 775 Hadrian became con-
vinced that Leo was playing Charlemagne false,
and did not hesitate to denounce him as a traitor.
Soon after this Leo died, in 777 or 778, and his
successors appear to have maintained peaceful re-
lations with Pope Hadrian.

But the pontiff had other sources of worry
besides those connected with the archbishop of
Ravenna. Duke MHildeprand, of Spoleto, was
adopting an independent attitude, which ill
accorded with the promises of 773 or with the
origin of his power. Neither was Duke Aricio of
Beneventum above suspicion, and the Pope feared
his entering into conspiracy with the former king,
Adelchis, who had taken refuge in the Byzantine
territories of the extreme south. Finally, the Patri-
arch of Grado wrote to inform him of preparations
for revolt that were taking place at Friuli. Even
the Duke of Chiusi was plotting in Tuscany.
Discontent grew into conspiracy.

Towards autumn 775 two Frankish ambassadors,
the Bishop Possessor and the Abbot Rabigaudus,
visited Spoleto, Beneventum, and Rome, and en-
deavoured in vain to bring about a reconciliation
between the Pope and Hildeprand. Finally they
returned to Charlemagne with such disturbing
reports that he felt it his duty to intervene. In
the spring of 776 he arrived in northern Italy, where
Rotgaud, Duke of Friuli, had proclaimed his atti-
tude and raised his standard. Unfortunately for his
cause he perished in the first battle, and his followers
were farther disconcerted by the death of the Emperor
Constantine V. (14th September 775). Charles was

—— ee re

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 103

thus enabled to begin his homeward journey, and
even to conduct an expedition into Saxony.

The Pope was desirous that he should come to
Rome, and especially that he should undertake to
carry out the Kiersy programme. But Charles, upon
his entry into Pavia in 774 (80th May-2nd June)
had assumed the title of king of the Lombards, and
was now in nowise disposed to divide up a state
which he looked upon as his own property. Hadrian
did his utmost to bring him to his own way of
thinking, but with very small success.

In 780 Charles again visited Italy; after spending
the winter in Lombardy, he proceeded to Rome for
the Easter celebrations of 781. In preceding years
the Pope had been very much occupied with Terra-
cina. He had taken possession of this place, which
had apparently been hitherto in the hands of the
Greeks of Gaeta and Naples, but the latter, led by
the Patrician of Sicily, had recaptured it and laid
waste the Roman Campagna. MHadrian had un-
doubtedly succeeded in repulsing them, but they
had returned to the fray. In this affair the
Romans saw clearly the influence of Duke Arichis.
As a matter of fact, the Pope did not lay great store
by Terracina, which was difficult of access, except by
way of the sea or through the territory of Gaeta.
He would willingly have exchanged it for the privi-
lege of enjoying his patrimonies in the Byzantine
portion of ancient Campania.

Some arrangement of this kind ought to have
been made during Charlemagne’s stay at Rome.
He had at that time all sorts of reasons for
wishing to be on good terms with the Greeks.
An alliance was being arranged between his
daughter, Rotrude, and the young Emperor Con-

104 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

stantine VI., who had just (780) succeeded his
father Leo IV., under the guardianship of his
mother, the Empress Irene. From this time Terra-
cina no longer made part of the papal state. On
the other hand, the latter increased on the side of
Sabina; the abbots of St. Martin, and of St. Denis,
Itherius, and Magenarius were charged to define
its limits on the side of Reiti, ze. towards the
duchy of Spoleto.

It was probably at this time that the Pope sub-
mitted to an agreement by which he relinquished '
the duchies of Spoleto and Tuscany, conceding the
tribute formerly paid by them into the treasury of
the Lombard kings.

Another very important matter was arranged
between the Pope and Charlemagne. The latter had
brought with him his two young sons, Pepin and
Louis (both the children of Hildegard), and they
were now crowned by the pontiff as kings of Italy
and Aquitaine. As far as Italy was concerned, this —
was a second confirmation of the continuance of
the Lombard kingdom, a second rejection of the
distribution policy set forth in the treaty of 6th
April 774. The fair dreams of the Romans were
becoming fainter and yet more faint.

A few years later, at the beginning of 787,
Charles returned to Rome with the idea of settling
the affairs of his distant possession of Beneventum,
for the Duke Arichis was continually. getting mixed
up with Byzantine intrigues, and was by no means
a satisfactory agent. One result of this expedition
was that the Pope obtained an important increase
of territory in Roman Tuscia, which henceforth
included Viterbo, Orvieto, Soana, and all the inter-

1 Privilege of 817.

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 105

vening places; while on the coast the territories
of Koselle (Grosseto) and Populonia (Piombino)
were also conceded. But there were difficulties in
the way. Charlemagne had taken all this from
the ancient Lombard Tuscia, which really belonged
to him. But, as regarded Beneventum, affairs were
more complicated. In order to succeed in his plans
it was necessary that Charles should enter the terri-
tory of the duchy in person. Arichis, in alarm,
shut himself up at Salerno, but he agreed to the
king’s conditions, which included the surrender to
the Pope of the left bank of the Liris, Sora, Arpino,
and Arce, as well as the towns of Aquino, ‘Teano,
and Capua, on the way to Naples. |

The projected marriage between Rotrude and
Constantine was given up. Soon afterwards Duke
Arichis died, and Charles appointed as successor his
son Grimoald, who had been taken by the Franks as
hostage. The connection between the Greeks and
the Lombards was then severed. ‘The latter, z.e. the
Dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum, displayed their
goodwill to Charles by vanquishing the patrician of
Sicily, in the Calabrian peninsula, in 788. Charles,
for his part, did not interpret the terms of the sur-
render of the Beneventine towns very strictly. To
Hadrian this was a great grievance, but he was
obliged to be satisfied with a very nominal authority
in the regions beyond Ceprano.

In short, setting aside these somewhat specu-
lative rights, one may say that Pope Hadrian suc-
ceeded in assigning to the Roman duchy limits
which were preserved during the Middle Ages and
up to the year 1870. He was also monarch of the
Exarchy, Pentapolis, and the intermediate terri-
tories, Amelia, Todi, and Perugia; as for the

106 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

duchy of Spoleto, that remained outside the papal
state.

Let us now try to realise the precise nature of the
papal sovereignty of the time.

Since the year 774, Charles had taken unto him-
self the title of patricius Romanorum as well as that
of rex Langobardorum. Judging by the Codex
Carolnus he must have attached a great deal of
importance to this, and to the privileges connected
_ therewith. Nevertheless, he does not appear to have
considered that his authority over the papal states
was on a level with his power over the rest of Italy,
even including the duchies of Spoleto and Beneven-
tum. Though, theoretically, the Dukes of Spoleto
and Beneventum were his functionaries, in reality
they were vassals. Owing to the distance, Charles
was obliged to permit a kind of self-government,
such as he would not have tolerated in the neigh-
bourhood of the Alps; but the governors of these
far-away provinces received and held their authority
from him. Whether they came into office by in-
heritance or by election, it was he who confirmed their
promotion, and his name in which they governed.

With the Pope it was otherwise. Charles neither
appointed him nor confirmed his appointment. He
had, in fact, absolutely no voice in the installation
of the Bishop of Rome. Once in possession of
St. Peter’s See, the Pope became, in consequence,
the apostle’s representative in all temporal affairs,
and the agent through whom he exercised his
rights of sovereignty. These rights originated in
two ways: Ist, the donations of the Frankish kings,
in virtue of which he acquired rights over the
Exarchy, Pentapolis, Sabina, and the south of
ancient Tuscan Lombardy ; 2nd, the ill-defined pre-

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 107

cedent, by which the Pope replaced the emperor
in the government of the ancient duchies of Rome
and Perugia. However they may have arisen,
the papal rights were recognised by the Frankish
state, and upheld by it in the face of all outside
claims, in particular, from that time, against the
Greek empire. It was an understood thing that
the Pope’s subjects should remain loyal to the
Frankish state, and should, under no circumstances,
enter into alliance with their enemies. ‘These were
the essential points in the compact of “love and
loyalty,” so often referred to in the correspondence
between the Pope and the Carlovingian princes.
So far it was only a question of external rela-
tions. But, from the beginning, the Pope had
bestowed on Pepin and his sons the title of patricii
Romanorum, and we have seen that this was a
sign that internal affairs were under consideration.
Originally, the patriciate had a purely negative
significance, its chief use being to facilitate the
suppression of the Duke of Rome and the anni-
hilation of the Exarch. At first, therefore, the
Frankish princes thought very little of the honour,
but by degrees his experience of Italian affairs
caused Charlemagne to consider the practical ad-
vantages connected with it. He began by persuading
himself that, as patrician of the Romans, he ought
to have a voice in the appointment of the most
important of the public officials. Among these was
the archbishop of Ravenna, who, owing partly to
the amiability of his disposition, had, to a certain
extent, filled the place of the old Exarch. Charles
claimed the right to be represented at his election,
but Hadrian tried to convince him that neither by
precedent, nor in any other manner, had he any

108 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

rights in the matter. As far as the Pope himself
was concerned, there was only one election (that of
Leo III.) from the time of Charles’s intervention in
Italy to the end of his neta and the king took no
part in that.’

But there was another constantly recurring
opportunity for the Frankish intervention. When-
ever a pontifical official or any of the Roman nobility
had any cause of complaint against their sovereign,
he did not hesitate to appeal for redress to the
Frankish court. That the king welcomed this
attitude is clear from the frequent recriminations
which occur in the Pope’s letters.2 No definite
arrangement was made. ‘The Pope complained
calmly, and the king, no less calmly, remonstrated
with him as he thought fit. Their relations con-
tinued quite amicable. Hadrian had sense enough
to know when to give way, and not to involve
himself in great conflicts or discussions under cir-
cumstances in which he would assuredly have been
worsted.

No constitutional progress, in short, was made
during MHadrian’s pontificate. All arrangements
seem to have been of a provisional and indefinite
kind. When the Pope died, at the close of the
year 795, Charlemagne mourned as for a friend;
he even caused a beautiful epitaph to be composed
and engraved, which was, at the same time, a
monument of royal sympathy, and of the revival
of letters, which was beginning to make itself felt
under the encouragement and patronage of this
great prince.

The new Pope, Leo III., was elected on the

1 J., 2467, 2478.
2 Especially J., 2413, 2442, 2478.

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 109

very day of Hadrian’s death, the 26th of December
795, and his consecration took place on the day
after,a Sunday. He was the head of the pontifical
vesttarium, and as such had enjoyed the confidence
of the deceased Pope. During the whole of his
career he had been connected with the administra-
tion, and even his elevation to the rank of cardinal
had not severed his relation with it. His titulary
church of St. Susanna speedily became the recipient
of his lavish generosity.

Immediately upon his installation, the new Pope
sent Charlemagne a copy of the deed of his election
(decretalis cartula), together with the keys of St.
Peter’s confession, and the standard of the city of
Rome. There was also a letter, the purport of which
can only be surmised from the king’s reply.t| From
one of the Frankish annalists?’ we learn that the
Pope begged the king to send one of his dignitaries
(optimates) to Rome in order to receive the oath of
the Roman people. The abbot of St. Riguier,
Angilbert, was chosen for this mission.

We are still in possession of Charlemagne’s reply
to the Pope, as well as of the instructions provided
for his mzssus, Angilbert. But there is no mention of
the taking of the oath. The sending of the keys and
the standard was clear enough demonstration of the
gratitude felt towards the Frankish, prince for his
protectorship of the tomb of St. Peter and his tem-
poral domain, now become, to a great extent, politi-
cal ground. It was only natural that each fresh
person charged with the care of the Apostle’s subjects

1 Jaffé, Monum. Carol., p. 354; cf. p. 353, letter from Charles
to Angilbert.

2 Rogavitque ut aliquem de suis optimatibus Romam mitteret, qui
populum Romanum ad suam fidem atque subjectionem per sacramenta
firmaret. (Ann. Einh.)

110 THE PONTIFICAL STATE IN

and his confession, should testify his allegiance to
their royal protector. Nevertheless, the preceding
Popes had neglected this formality; and there had
been, apparently, no official notice of election given,
before the time of Leo III. Whether these new
manifestations were spontaneous, or whether they
had been agreed upon with Pope Hadrian, there can
be no doubt that they had a beneficial effect upon
the relations between the two powers.

As to the taking of the oath, our evidence on this
point is not very reliable, and we do not clearly
understand whether it was to have been sworn by
the Pope or by the king. As, however, the elec-
tion itself was accompanied by promises of loyalty
towards the one elected, we may surmise that in this
case it was a question of swearing an oath to the
king. However this may be, the intervention of a
Frankish missus in such an affair must be regarded
as a protective act. ‘The Pope cannot be considered
completely master of his subjects, when they swear
political allegiance to other authorities.

The letters from Charles to Leo III. and Angil-
bert are full of moral exhortations. Leo is enjoined
to be a good Pope, pious, faithful in the discharge
of his duties, and strict in maintaining discipline,
especially in repressing simony; to sustain the friendly
relations existing between the Holy See and the
Frankish court, and, in particular, to protect the
rights of the royal patrician. In all these directions
Charles displays a certain consciousness of moral
authority, and of the advantage of having good
ecclesiastical leaders in his kingdom.

Leo appears to have accepted this advice with
much amiability. It was, after all, quite in harmony
with the spirit and the needs of the time. Not long

THE TIME OF CHARLEMAGNE 111

after his accession he had constructed in the Lateran
a large hall or tricliniwm, the apse of which was
decorated with a mosaic representing Christ and the
twelve apostles. On either side of the principal
scene were two groups, each consisting of three
persons; Christ giving the keys to St. Sylvester, and
the standard to Constantine; St. Peter giving the
pallium to Leo III., and the standard to Charle-
magne.’ Nothing could more aptly have expressed
the actual situation of Rome and of the Romans;
they were under two masters, the Pope and the
Frankish king.

1 This mosaic is now destroyed, but there still exist old copies,
made at different times, and a reproduction, also a mosaic, executed
in the time of Benedict XIV., on one of the outside walls of the
Sancta Sanctorum. Cf. L. P., vol. ii. p. 35.

CHAPTER X
RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

Opposition to Leo II].—The Attack of the 25th April 799—The Pope
in Saxony—-Insurrection and Legal Proceedings—The Purgatio by
Oath—Christmas, 800—Charles proclaimed Emperor at St. Peter's
—Signification of this New Title—The Donation of Constantine.

THE year 799 was witness of a deplorable occurrence,
which soon put to the proof the respective stability
of the two powers, and afforded an opportunity for
determining their mutual relations.

Almost from the first there had been an under-
current of hostility to Pope Leo. As his most
powerful opponents numbered among them some
relations of Pope Hadrian, there is good reason
to suppose that the opposition was caused by a
change, either in the manner of governing, or in
the distribution of favours. As early as the end
of 798, Arn, the archbishop of Salzburg, who was
visiting Rome, remarked a spirit of discord and
unreasonable resistance to the Pope’s authority.’
A plot was set on foot, and culminated on the 25th
April 799, the day of the rogations. The Pope was
on his way to join the procession, which was to
start from the Church of St. Lawrence, im Lucina.
He, with his retinue, had already arrived at the
new monastery of St. Sylvester, not far from their
destination, when he was suddenly attacked by a
body of armed men. He was thrown to the
ground, and the ringleaders of the riot, the przmi-

1 Letter to Alcuin, Jaffé, Monum. Alcuin., p. 445.
112

RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE 113

cerius Pascal and the saccelarius Campulus, seized
upon his person. Having failed in their first at-
tempts to scoop out his eyes and tear out his
tongue, they dragged him into the convent church,
where they set on him anew. The Pope, terribly
wounded and half-dead from the effect from blows,
was left for some time lying in front of the altar,
unconscious and weltering in blood. Finally he
was removed at nightfall to the monastery of St.
Erasmus, on the Ccelian, where he was kept im-
prisoned.

The traitors were disappointed in the success
of their plans, for Leo speedily recovered both
sight and speech. Neither did they succeed in
keeping him prisoner, for, thanks to the assist-
ance of Albinus, a friendly chamberlain, he
managed to escape by night to St. Peter’s. There
he was met by Wirundus, a Frankish missus, and
Winigis, Duke of Spoleto. They conducted him
safely to Spoleto, where he was soon surrounded
by a number of loyal Romans.

From Spoleto, Leo proceeded to Paderborn in
Saxony, where he was joined by Charles. The
latter received him with enthusiasm, and, after
detaining him for some time, sent him back to
_ Rome with an escort, consisting of several counts
and bishops, Hildebald of Cologne, Arn of Salzburg,
and others, all charged to see the Pope reinstated,
and to make an enquiry into the circumstances
of his maltreatment.

The situation of the Greek empire and of
Italy, at that time, was such as to preclude any
reliance on outside help. The insurrectionists,
therefore, after a few plundering expeditions in
the Church territories (domus culte), resolved to

H

114 RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

alter their methods, and the revolutionists who
had begun by sacrilegious attacks on the Pope’s
person, ended by instituting legal proceedings
against him.’

If we may believe his biographer, Leo was
received at Rome on 29th November with a public
display of welcome and sympathy. But the Frankish
commissioners immediately established themselves
at the Lateran, in the beautiful new ftriclinium,
containing the representation of Leo with Charles,
and proceeded to institute their enquiry. It was
no easy task, and, judging by certain details
of the correspondence between Alcuin and _ the
Archbishop Arn, the conspirators had not been al-
together without justification for their grievances.
The ringleaders, Pascal and Campulus, were sent
to appear before the king.

Charles had evidently reserved his judgment in
the matter, for no decision had been announced
when he arrived at Rome in person, one year after
Leo's return. On 1st December he convened a large
assembly at St. Peter’s, including, among others,
the two aristocratic sections of Rome, the upper
clergy and the nobles. The prince was surrounded
by his bishops, abbots, and barons. He expounded
the object of his journey, which was to put an end
to the existing strife. This was a difficult matter,
for, on the one hand, the plaintiffs were abandoning
the cause, and even if their grievances were real, there
was no one left to confirm them; while on the
other hand, the ecclesiastical world was strongly
imbued with the notion that no one could presume

1 L. P., vol. ii. p.6: post dira iniqua incendia que in possessionibus
seu rebus b, Petri ap. gesserunt.

RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE 115

to judge the Pope. The latter, therefore, remained
under an accusation, which no one was qualified
either to prove or to refute. Following some rather
hazy precedents, he decided to justify himself by
swearing a solemn oath, an undertaking which,
while implying a certain amount of personal
humiliation, involved no principle and repudiated
no claim.

As far as the canon law was concerned, there
was manifestly no higher ecclesiastical authority
than the pontiff. There had never yet been any
ecclesiastical tribune to pronounce judgment against
a Pope. Three centuries before (in 501) the history
of the lawsuit of Symmachus had demonstrated
the difficulties of such a situation. But with
regard to the civil law, the case was quite different.
Crimes against common law, such as_ homicide,
adultery, and high treason, were brought before
the ordinary tribunal, whatever the rank of the
accused, and, during the whole of the imperial
régime, the Pope had formed no exception to the
rule. But now the situation was changed. ‘The
Pope was a sovereign, and, as such, beyond the
pale of judgment.

It would be interesting to know the exact accusa-
tion’ brought against Leo, but unfortunately we are
not in a position to judge whether it was a question
of what the Roman law calls levia delicta, which

1 From a letter from Alcuin (No. 120), we learn that he was
accused of crimina adulteri et perjuri, but it is uncertain whether
the word “adultery” is used here in the full legal sense. In
another letter from the same writer (No, 127), we are told that the
Archbishop Arn complained keenly de moribus apostolict. Fornica-
tion, even in the case of clerks, is not a punishable crime according
to Roman law. Clerks who commit this sin are only answerable
to the ecclesiastical tribunals. Adultery, in the strict sense of the
word, is dealt with quite differently.

116 RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

being committed against the ecclesiastical law,
can be dealt with only by an ecclesiastical tri-
bunal; or of offences against the common law
which were formerly amenable to the imperia-.
courts.

There is no doubt, however, that Pope Leo vindi-
cated himself, by swearing a solemn oath before a
public assembly at St. Peter’s, to which all the people
were bidden (28rd December 800). We still have
the text of the declaration which he read from the
top of the ambo, proclaiming that he was acting of
his own free will, under neither pressure nor con-
straint, and without claiming to establish a precedent
for his successors, in the event of a similar case
arising.

But, notwithstanding all these reservations, the
fact remained that the Pope had taken the oath,
and it was patent to everybody that he had done
so because Charles had considered it essential.
Indeed, Leo cut but a poor figure by the side
of his protector, to whose clemency he clearly
owed the continuation of his reign over the
Romans.

Two days afterwards, the Romans and their® |

Frankish friends assembled at St. Peter’s for the
Christmas celebrations. As the king rose from his
prostrations before the confession, the Pope placed
a crown on his head, and the congregation, who had
been prepared for this, acclaimed him with the
words: ‘To Charles Augustus, crowned of God,
great and peaceable emperor of the Romans, life
and victory!” Then the assembly burst forth into
the imperial /awdes, while the Pope anointed with
chrism the forehead, not of the new emperor, who
had long been consecrated, but of his young son

~

RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE 117

Charles, who had accompanied him to Rome, and
was standing by his side.

| The Frankish king, then, emerged from this Christ-
mas mass with the title of Roman emperor. But,
according to Eginhard, a competent witness, he was
ill pleased at the turn affairs had taken. To judge
from the general opinion of contemporary infor-
mants, Charles seemed to have had no personal
objection to this change, which, indeed, was in con-
sonance with certain tendencies of western opinion.
But he probably had his own ideas as to the best
ways and means of bringing it about. At that time
the imperial throne of Constantinople was occupied
by the Empress Irene, a woman of marriageable
estate. This alliance (afterwards sought when too
late) was perhaps the means desired by the Frankish
king. It may also be reasonably conjectured that
the Pope’s idea of an improvised coronation cere-
mony was hardly in harmony with Charles’s concep-
tion of the form in which the new dignity should
have been transmitted. There is no doubt that, as
his end was approaching, he himself crowned and
proclaimed his son Louis as his successor to the
empire.

But the deed was done, and a precedent estab- ;,
lished. Charlemagne was emperor, and it was the
Pope who had crowned him. That Christmas day,
the first day of a new century, inaugurated an era in
the history of the West, and of Rome in particular.

As far as the West was concerned, it was, at
first, merely a question of title and ceremonial, and
no change occurred in the internal politics of the
Frankish and Lombard kingdoms. Externally, it is
true, there were efforts made to get Constantinople
to recognise this Frankish revival of the old Roman

118 RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

empire. But this only slightly affected the Italian
questions.

At Rome, the transformation of the patrician
into the emperor, gave him a more clearly defined
position. No one quite knew what were the exact
rights attached to this title of patricitus Romanorum,
conceived by Pope Stephen II. and his advisers.
On the other hand, there could be no mistaking
the meaning of the title Imperator. History,
tradition, and written law all shed a clear enough
light upon it. The emperor was monarch of
Rome, and every one, the Pope not excepted,
stood to him in the relation of subject. As ad-
ministrator, judge, and military chief, his authority
was paramount. Only in the domain of religion
did he yield to another, following the example of
his predecessors.

We must, nevertheless, remember that this
conception of imperial rights was hardly as clear
to the Romans in the year 800 as it is to us
to-day. They were imbued with the traditional |
idea of the Pope’s supremacy in the domain of
local politics. Memoirs of St. Gregory and Hono-
rius in the far past, and of Gregory II., Zachary,
Paul, and Hadrian, of more recent date, arose and
confronted the Justinian code with a commentary,
out of harmony with the text, it is true, but for
all that, irresistible.

Moreover, a great impression had been produced
by the form of the coronation, and as the memory of
the circumstances became fainter, there finally re-
mained in men’s minds only the significant picture
of Leo III. placing the imperial crown on the head
of the kneeling Charlemagne. At Constantinople
this was a frequent sight, for it was the patriarch

RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE 119

who crowned the emperor. But, still more in evi-
dence was the fact, that the patriarch was but the
humble servant of the emperor, one might almost
say his domestic chaplain. His right of occasionally
placing the imperial crown upon his sovereign’s
head was really of no more consequence than the
superior part which he played in the ordinary litur-
gical ceremonies.

At Rome it was different. Such a sight as that
of an emperor being crowned by a Pope had never
been seen before. The basilica of St. Peter was
henceforth regarded as the cradle of the empire,
which owed its rebirth to the Apostolic Vicar, the
Pope. Charlemagne had inaugurated the custom,
and who was greater than he? What tradition could
take the place of his ?

There was, at first, no definite arrangement, no
written agreement. ‘The empire was restored with-
out any decided plans having been made. But the
false donation of Constantine, which occurred at
- least twenty-five years earlier, expresses clearly the
conception of the new imperial régime which the
Romans (and in particular the Roman clergy)
adopted more and more definitely as time went
on. What they desired was a benevolent and
gracious protective sovereign, who would leave
Rome to the Pope, and take up his own abode as
far away as possible. ‘The faithful successor of
Constantine might set up his throne at Aix-la-
Chapelle, or anywhere else, provided that it was
at a safe distance from Rome, and that he did
not interfere with the heir of St. Sylvester. At
the same time he would be expected to come to
the help of the Romans in the event of any special
difficulty.

120 RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE

The donation of Constantine had already offered
in 800 (for the few who accepted it at that time)
an excellent judicial foundation for the Pope's
intervention. According to the ideas which pre-
vailed later, the emperor had rights over the whole
of the West, holding them from his consecrator the
Pope. But from whom did the Pope hold them ?
The donation tells us from Constantine, who had
yielded to St. Sylvester, omnes Italie seu occi-
dentalium regionum provincias loca et civitates. He
was thus in a position to do what he liked with
them.

Far be it from me to imply that Leo III. made
such use of the donation as to infer from it his
right to restore the empire and its constitutional
theory. By most of the critics this document is
dated back to the beginning of the year 744;
it was manufactured at Rome, probably at “the
Lateran, the very palace where Leo was, at that
time, beginning his career in the administra-
tion of the sacristy. It is more than likely,
therefore, that there was something in common
between the idea with which it is inspired and
the conceptions of the Pope and his party with
regard to the theoretical, or, at least, desirable,
relations between the two powers (800). As
may readily be imagined, such notions were not
calculated to please Charlemagne. It is doubt-
ful whether he had any very definite idea of
the extent of the ancient imperial power. ‘Times
were changed, and not even so mighty a king
as himself, not even the Byzantine successors of
the true empire, could lay claim to an authority
as absolute as that of a Trajan or a Constantine.
In the West, especially, the military aristocracy—

RESTORATION OF THE EMPIRE 121

the forerunners of the feudal system—were a force
to be reckoned with.

In short, Christmas Day, 800, had been witness
of a great and remarkable event, the full importance
of which was not understood at the time. And this
is not an isolated instance of the kind.

CHAPTER XI
THE CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

New plot against Leo III.—Severe repressions—Insurrection—Unpopu-
larity of the domus culte—Stephen IV.—Louis the Pious crowned at
Rheims—Pope Pascal—The privilege of Louis—Lothaire—Crowned
Emperor at Aix-la-Chapelle and at Rome—More plots and out-
rageous repressions— Pascal an unpopular Pope— Election of
Eugene II.—Lothaire comes back to Rome—Constitution of 824—
Roman Council—Elections of 827—Valentine and Gregory IV.

THE Pope’s relations with Charlemagne and with
his own subjects do not appear to have been
sensibly affected by the restoration of the empire.
The Romans stood in wholesome awe of the im-
posing person of the Frankish king, and the Pope,
in some measure, reaped the benefit of this attitude.
However, when Charlemagne died, on 28th January
~ 814, the Roman nobles began to assert themselves,
conspiring to get rid of the Pope by assassinating
him. It evidently did not occur to them to assail
so firmly established an institution as the temporal
pontificate. It was the administration of this par-
ticular Pope which was distasteful to them, and they
resolved to attack him in person.

But this conspiracy came to nought. The ponti-
fical police discovered it, and the numerous con-
spirators were arrested, tried for the crime of high
treason, condemned to death, and executed. This
event caused a remarkable sensation at the court
of Louis the Pious. The Frankish law, it was said,

was much less severe. Had not the Pope exceeded
122

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE § 128

his power in allowing sentences of death to be dealt
out with so liberal a hand? He ought, at any rate,
to have consulted the emperor. What would become
of the imperial authority at Rome if such things
were permitted to take place without any reference
to it?

Possibly Louis may have seen, in the Pope’s
attitude, a kind of protest against the manner of his
accession to the empire. For Leo had had no part
in the matter, and was therefore inclined to ignore
an emperor whom he had not consecrated.

However this may have been, Bernard, the
young king of Italy, and Gerald, count of the
Eastern Marches (Austria), were commissioned to go
to Rome and enquire into the affair. Gerald after-
wards betook himself to the imperial court with his
report of the proceedings. ‘The Pope, in self-defence,
sent three ambassadors to France, and their explana-
tions or excuses seem to have afforded Louis satis-
faction. Nevertheless, the disturbances at Rome
continued. A revolt took place in the country, and
the domus cultce was attacked and plundered.’ It is
probable that this was an act of revenge on the
militia for having assisted in putting down the con-
spirators. Moreover, the continual development of
these latifundia entailed a number of dispossessions
which were regarded by those who suffered them as
unjust usurpations. When the rural colonies had
been burned, the insurgents marched upon Rome
demanding redress. Pope Leo was seriously threat-
ened, but the rebels were dispersed by Winigis,
Duke of Spoleto, whom King Bernard had sent to

1 Ann. Einh., 815, predia que idem pontifex in singularum civi-
tatum territoriis noviter exstruxit ; Vita Lud., c. 25, predia omnia que
illi domocultas appellant et noviter ab eodem apostolico instituta erant.

124 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

his assistance. The ringleaders were banished to
France.

Such was the situation when Leo III. passed
away, the 12th June 816. The clergy, always in
evidence at election times, were quite convinced of
the propriety of choosing a more popular and
accommodating pontiff than the late Pope. Their
approbation fell on the deacon Stephen, the son of
a noble family, and protégé of Pope Hadrian. His
biographer tells us that he was much liked by the
Romans. In accordance with custom, his consecra-
tion took place on the Sunday following his election
(22nd June). He at once showed himself to be
peaceably disposed and anxious to smooth away all
traces of past discord, and freely to accept the
imperial protection. He began his reign by obliging
* the Romans to swear allegiance to the emperor, and
then sent notice of his election to the Frankish
court, announcing at the same time his intention of
meeting Louis. This interview actually took place
at Rheims in the month of October. It resulted in
the settlement of many questions, of which only two
seem to have been of much consequence. Louis and
his wife Ermengarde were crowned by the Pope
with crowns of gold, which he had brought with
him for the purpose. Thus the Roman ideas of
propriety were satisfied. Whether this ceremony
counted for much in the opinion of their contempo-
raries is doubtful, but it nevertheless constituted a
second precedent, and confirmed the predominance
of the papacy over the empire. Moreover, Stephen
brought back with him the exiles who were in France,
perhaps those of the 799 insurrection, or perhaps only
those banished after the last revolt.

Stephen’s pontificate thus opened with good

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE § 125

prospects of peace. But, alas for the frailty of
human plans, the month of January 817 had not
come to an end when the new Pope was called to
follow his predecessor.

On the very day of his death (25th January), the
priest Pascal, abbot of one of the monasteries of the
Vatican, was elected in his place. He was not of
the aristocracy, and seems to have been inspired with
the spirit of Leo III. rather than that of Hadrian.
As soon as his consecration had been accomplished,
he sent to inform the emperor of his accession,
protesting that he had been elected against his
will.

Shortly afterwards, another papal envoy, the
nomenclator Theodore, was despatched to Louis
the Pious, to request an official renewal of the
compact between the Carlovingian House and the
papacy. This agreement had already been recorded
several times, under the preceding kings and Popes,
but not one of these important documents has been
preserved. The compact between Louis the Pious
and Pope Pascal, is the oldest of which we know
the terms. It contains a confirmation of the rights
of the Roman Church over those Italian territories
which, in one way or another, were included in
its domain, the city of Rome, Roman Tuscia as de-
fined before 787, the district of Perugia, ancient Cam-
pania, Tibur, the whole of the Exarchy, Pentapolis,
including Ancona, Umana, and Osimo, the territory
of Sabina, Lombard Tuscia, as surrendered by Char-
lemagne, the rent formerly paid to the palace at
Pavia by the rest of Lombard Tuscia and the duchy
of Spoleto, and, finally, the territories beyond the
Liris and the ecclesiastical estates in Southern Italy,
7.e. domains over which the Pope had theoretical

126 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

rather than practical rights. The emperor under-
takes to guarantee all these possessions or claims,
and promises, besides, to allow the Pope a free
hand in governing, and only to interfere in the
event of violence or unjust oppression on the part
of the potentiores, which evidently means the ponti-
fical government itself. He also renounces any
right of intervention in the election of the Pope,
which is to be conducted in conformity with the
canons, and carried by unanimous consent. The
Pope, must, however, immediately after his conse-
cration, send representatives to the Frankish king,
charged to renew the friendly alliance.

In short, this document corresponds with the
actual situation, at the moment when it was drawn
up: protectorate of the Frankish monarch, liberty
of the Romans in the choice of the Pope, and free
exercise of the papal sovereignty, except in the
case of abuse of authority.

Louis had permitted Stephen IV. to officiate
at his coronation at Rheims, but, like his father,
he regarded the papal intervention simply as a
religious consecration of rights acquired from other
sources. In 817 he himself crowned his eldest
son Lothaire as emperor, before a large concourse
of people at Aix-la-Chapelle. At the same time
he created Pepin and Louis, his two other sons,
kings of Aquitaine and Bavaria. Bernard, king
of Italy and grandson of Charlemagne through his
deceased father Pepin, refused to accept this new
arrangement. He rebelled, but with ill success.
His eyes were torn out, and he died immediately
afterwards, in April 818. In 822, his kingdom was
entrusted to Lothaire, who set out to take possession
of it. Pope Pascal, on hearing of his arrival in

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE 127

Italy, took the opportunity to invite him to Rome,
and in virtue, undoubtedly, of an understanding
with his father, he consecrated the young prince
as emperor, on Easter Sunday, 5th April 823.
Already, in 821, Roman legates had journeyed to
Thionville, in order to be present at his marriage.
But in spite of these outward amenities the con-
flict did not cease. The Frankish princes objected
to be beholden to the Pope for their temporal
authority, and the Pope refused to yield the privi-
lege of consecrating them. He might be trusted to
make the best of circumstances, and by his per-
severance, finally succeeded in establishing — the
tradition.

The emperor had never been seen at Rome
since 800, the year in which the institution was
originated. Lothaire’ held a court of justice there,
and the Abbot Farfa brought before him a grievance
which he had long cherished against the pontifical
administration. He won his cause, and Pascal
renounced his claims to temporal power over the
abbey, as well as to the right of appointing an
abbot. The latter was of great importance in the
Roman state. The opposition to the Pope was
strengthened by the temporary presence of a young
emperor, who was disinclined to submit to ecclesi-
astical authority, and also by the prospect of his
residence in the neighbourhood of Rome. The
pontiff got deeper and deeper into difficulties.
Those who had grievances against him, posed as
champions of Lothaire and his imperial rights, and
soon after the latter’s departure, two dignitaries of
the first rank, the primicerius ‘Theodore and the

1 Compare Lothaire diploma of 840 (Bohmer-Muhlb., No. 1043 ;
Registr.-Farf., No. 298).

128 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

nomenclator Leo, were pointed out to the familia
S. Petri (i.e. the militia of the agricultural colonies),
as enemies of the Pope. Their disloyalty was
avenged by their first having their eyes put out,
and then being killed outright.

Upon hearing of this, the Emperor Louis was
about to send envoys to Rome with orders to
enquire into the affair. ‘They had not started,
however, when three papal legates approached, pro-
testing that their master had had no hand in the
tragedy. Louis listened to their tale, but, none
the less, despatched his envoys, the Abbot of Saint-
Waast and the Count of Coire. The enquiry, how-
ever, did not lead to any important result. The
Pope submitted to the formality of the purgatio
per sacramentum. He swore, before a solemn as-
sembly which included twenty-four bishops, that he
had taken no part in the assassination of the two
victims, but adding that, being guilty of high treason,
they were deserving of death.

This was quite possible, but for all that, it was
manifest that Theodore and Leo had been the
victims of violence unsanctioned by law, and that
the Pope was lacking in authority over his own
followers, not to mention his opponents.

Pascal sent a second detachment of legates to
the Emperor Louis, who, finding the whole affair
somewhat embarrassing, accepted the explanations
which they offered. On their return to Rome, they
found the Pope suffering from an illness which
terminated his career on the 11th of February 824.
So great was the aversion with which he was regarded,
that the people refused to allow him to be buried at
St. Peter's.

A remarkably exciting election followed; the

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE § 129

two factions—the nobles and the clergy—stood out
clearly : the exercitus Romanus and the famila S.
Petri, long at variance, now measured their re-
spective forces. Neither of them had any voice in
the ecclesiastical elections. Since the year 769, the
papal appointment had been in the hands of the
clergy only. But the clergy themselves could not
agree on the practical problem of meeting the pre-
sent exigencies, and the disunion became so great
that two candidates were proclaimed. Happily,
however, the strife did not last long. The cele-
brated monk Wala, an adviser of the young em-
peror Lothaire, happened to be in Rome at the
time, and he succeeded in bringing about the elec-
tion of the candidate nominated by the nobles, the
arch-priest Eugene of Santa Sabina.

His first act was to send a deputation to the
Emperor Louis, and he lost no time in arranging
that the remains of his predecessor should be in-
terred in a becoming manner.

The Frankish court was very much taken up
‘with the affairs of Rome, which, since the death
of Charlemagne, ten years before, had been gradually
growing more and more confused. Plots, insur-
rections, risings, and summary executions, all these
were common talk, and for the second time in one
generation the people had before them the pitiable
sight of a Pope compelled to vindicate his character
by taking a public oath. To make matters still
worse, party strife arose, an infliction which had
occurred but rarely during the last three centuries.
The root of the evil obviously lay in the conflicting
interests and ambitions of the clergy and the nobles.
This situation was not peculiar to Rome, but in
other places the sovereign power was strong enough

1

130 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

to insist on peace, while at Rome the authority was
held by one of two rival parties, and moreover by
just the one less able to wield it successfully. Hence
arose intrigues, schisms, violence, and abuse of
power. To the Emperor Louis it seemed that the
best way out of the difficulty was to make his
sovereign power felt at Rome in a visible and
palpable form, for up to that time, his authority
there had been of a distant and _ intermittent
nature. He would not, however, forcibly attack
the papal sovereignty, which, after all, did not
proceed merely from the concessions of his pre-
decessors, who had not so much originated as guaran-
teed it, and which, although under the gracious
protection of the Frankish princes, was also sus-
tained by tradition as well as by the dignity of its
representative.

Lothaire was sent to Rome under the escort of
Wala. It was a recognised fact that the present dis-
turbances resulted from the obstinacy or the weakness
of the Popes * Leo III. and Pascal, as well as from the
rapacity of their officials. Many of the properties
which had been amalgamated with the pontifical
estates were restored to their original owners.

The widows of Theodore, Horus, and Sergius,
the murdered officials, were given compensation,
and the exiles were recalled.2 A code of laws of

1 It is true that these expressions do not occur in the two
official documents of 824, which have come down to us, the
Constitutio and the Sacramentum, they are only found in the
Frankish annals ; but the privilege of Otto (962) which reproduces
the preceding official acts, and especially those of the time of
which we are speaking, contains these words: propter diversas
necessitates et pontificum erga populum sibi subjectum asperitates retun-
nS We get this detail from the Liber Poniificalis. It is the only

touch, in the short and inadequate account of Eugenius II., which
betrays any knowledge of the grave events of 824.

a ARE POE
ie AA Ate
< a ae

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE | 131

\ which the text' is still preserved, was drawn up,
to protect the rights of the individual. ‘The Pope
was treated with formal respect, but there can be
no doubt that the new measures were, on the

_whole, directed against him. They may be summed
up under five heads concerning: Ist, the imperial
protection; 2nd, the individual rights; 8rd, the
choice of functionaries; 4th, the organisation of

_ the protectorate ; 5th, the papal election.

Ist. On the first point it is declared that those
who are under the special protection of the Pope
and the emperor are inviolable. This must be taken
to mean that the papal authorities have no power
to bring about the execution of one of the imperial
protégés. As the imperial protection was of the
wide-spreading order, the Roman nobles and the
ecclesiastical dignitaries found themselves exempt
from the fear of execution for the crime of treason,
a form of punishment which had been much abused
in the past.

2nd. The Romans should be judged according
to the law of their choice, z.e. Roman, Salic, or
Lombard. These last two, being less lavish with
capital punishment than the Roman law, were
probably preferred by some.

8rd. The Roman magistrates should present
themselves before the emperor, not to be invested
by him, but in order that he might know their
names and their numbers, and admonish them as to
the exercise of their functions.

4th. Two missi should be instituted, one by the

1 This may be found in Migne, t. xevii. p. 459: Hardouin, Conc.,
t. iv. p. 1261; M. G, Leges, t. iv. p. 545; Capitul., t. i. p. 322, &c.

2 Ut omnes qui sub speciali defensione domni apostolict et nostra
fuerint suscepti impetrata inviolabiliter justa utantur defensione.

182 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

Pope, the other by the emperor. 'They should be
in permanent residence at Rome, and every year
should report to the emperor on the working of
the administration. They should listen to complaints
and retail them to the Pope, and if the latter should
not do them justice, the emperor should be called
upon to intervene.

5th. The election of the Pope should be in the
hands of the Romans alone. The laity as well as
the clergy should vote, notwithstanding the de-
cision of the Council of 769; finally, before his
consecration, the chosen candidate should take a
formal’ oath before the imperial missus and the
people.

Secondary provisions prohibit plundering, and
enjoin on all the Romans obedience to the Pope,
whether or not they may be under the special pro-
tection of the emperor.

The difference, not to say the contrast, between
these enactments and the state of things which we
have been observing, is obvious. The election of
the Pope was henceforth to be subject to the con-
firmation of the emperor. This rule was not formally
expressed, but we know from subsequent history that
it became a stringent though unwritten law.” The

1 The oath is not mentioned in the Constitution itself, but in a
formula which was at that time imposed on all the Romans, and
which is inserted after the text of the Constitution. The reform of
the electoral system, is indicated in veiled terms: Volumus ut in
electione pontijicis nullus praesumat venire, neque liber neque servus, qui
aliquod impedimentum faciat illis solummodo Romanis quibus antiquitus
fuit consuetudo concessa per constitutionem ss. Patrum eligendi ponti-
ficem. The ambiguity of these terms is clearly explained by the
accounts of elections in the Liber Pontificalis and elsewhere.

2 Before the time of Justinian neither the emperors nor the
Gothic kings had interfered in the papal elections, except, in the
case of schism, as arbitrators or guardians of the public peace. Under

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE 13838

right of choosing functionaries was restricted to the
Pope, but the emperor considered himself in a
position to keep them, if he so desired, at his beck
and call, to admonish, and above all, inspect them,
and, if necessary, to reform their decisions. Certain
privileged persons were exempt from the papal
jurisdiction, and submitted only to that of the
emperor. Finally, the latter was to be ever present
in the person of his missus who kept a keen watch
over the whole affairs of Rome.

Pope Eugenius III. not only accepted this
reform, but, of his own accord, instituted another
in the ecclesiastical domain. In November 826, he
assembled in conclave a council of his immediate
assistants, sixty-two bishops in all, and together
they drew up a code of some forty-five disciplinary
rules to meet the exigencies of the present situa-
tion."

The reign of this excellent and conscientious
Pope was all too short. He died in the month of
August 827, and, before many weeks had passed,
his successor, the deacon Valentine, followed his
example. The Romans then elected the priest
Gregory, who bore the title of St. Mark, but he

' Byzantine rule, the election had to be confirmed by the emperor
before ordination could take place. This, considering the distance
of Constantinople, naturally occasioned great delay. After the
sixth ecumenical council (681), the emperor empowered the
Exarch to deliver the letters of ratification, which expedited
matters considerably. This formality, of course, vanished with the
Exarchy itself. The Romans had never acquiesced very heartily
in this intervention, and the Frankish ratification was just as
distasteful to them. Indeed, they never neglected an opportunity
of evading it.

1 According to Deusdedit (i. p. 123) this council would also be
concerned in the papal election a sacerdotibus seu primatibus, nobili-
bus seu cuncto concilio Romane ecclesia.

134 CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE

was not ordained until his appointment had been
ratified by an imperial representative. This detail
is suppressed by the Liber Pontificals, which, on
the other hand, gives a full description of the two
elections of 827, showing that, in both of them, the
lay nobility took part from the outset, and that
they were concerned in the choice of the individual
Pope, as well as in his enthronement at the Lateran.
According [to the verdict of the Council of 769,
they had no right to share in the matter until both
these acts had been accomplished,® and then they
were permitted to sign the deed of election. Thus
the principle of the lay participation in the ap-
pointment of the pontiff was preserved, and to say
that he had been elected a sacerdotibus seu pro-
ceribus et omni clero necnon et optimatibus vel cuncto
populo Romano, was, theoretically, correct. This is
the formula employed in the Liber Pontificalis with
reference to Leo III. and Pascal; there is no special
mention of Hadrian and Stephen IV. in this con-
nection ; and in regard to Eugenius II. the vague
expression a Ltomanis cunctis electus is used. After
the time of Valentine, however, this part of the
papal history is always given in detail and in such
a way as to render prominent the part played by
the lay aristocracy, so prominent, indeed, that often

1 Ann. Ernunarpi.—Sed non prius ordinatus est quam legatus
imperatoris Romam venit et electionem popult qualis esset examinavit.
The ordination took place on the following day, as is noted in certain
manuscripts of the Hieronymite martyrology.

2 Et postquam pontifex electus fuerit et in patriarchium deductus,
omnes optimates militie vel cunctus exercitus et cives honesti atque
universa generalitas hujus Romane urbis ad salutandum eum sicut
omnium dominum properare debeat. Et more solito decretum facientes
et in eo cuncti pariter concordantes subscribere debent.

The alternative and meaningless reading priusquam is omitted
by Deusdedit.

CONSTITUTION OF LOTHAIRE = 135

but little justice is done to the influence of the
clergy.

Thus, it will be seen that, on this point, as well
as on many others, the position of the nobility had
been perceptibly confirmed and strengthened.

CHAPTER XII

THE SARACENS AT ROME

Dislocation of the Frankish State—The Saracens in the Tyrrhenian Sea
—Gregoriopolis—Election of Sergius II. (844) — Louis II. and
Drogo at Rome—Bad Government of Pope Sergius—Landing of the
Saracens — Violation of the Apostolic Sanctuaries — Restorative
measures.

Grecory IV. occupied the Holy See for fourteen
years. His pontificate was darkened by the grievous
lack of harmony between Louis the Pious and the
sons of his first wife, Lothaire, Pepin, and Louis the
German. ‘The Pope was indiscreet enough to inter-
fere in the affair and to take the side of the rebellious
sons, but he found himself in a land of disillusion-
ment, from which he emerged humiliated, a sadder
if not a wiser man.

Some years later (20th June 840), the Emperor
Louis died, and, as is well known, the appointment
of his successor gave rise to a great deal of strife.
The breaking up of the Frankish kingdom was
sanctioned by the Treaty of Verdun, and _ hence-
forward it was divided into three parts—the kingdom
of Western France, the kingdom of Germany, and,
between the two, the kingdom of Lothaire, extend-
ing from the mouths of the Meuse and the Rhine
to the estuary of the Rhone. With this was as-
sociated the kingdom of Italy, as well as Aix-la-
Chapelle, the sacred town of Charlemagne.

Since his early childhood (781), the Emperor

136

THE SARACENS AT ROME 137

Louis had never set foot‘in Rome. In settling
Italy upon Lothaire, he had also confided to him
the management of Roman affairs, and, in particular,
the protection of the Holy See. The great events
of 840-843 did not then produce any very re-
markable change in the pontifical relations, nor
indeed, on the whole, in the Italian situation. The
newly arrived Saracens were, however, beginning to
create disturbances.

The Saracens of the West had long since ceased
to be subject to the same princes. Those belonging
to Spain were under the dominion of the Ommiad
Caliph of Cordova; those of ancient Mauritania
were governed by the Edrisite dynasty, whose royal
seat was at Fez or at Tlemcen; while those of
Numidia and the eastern provinces of Africa (in-
cluding ‘Tunis and Tripoli), were under the Aglabites,
whose headquarters were at Kairwan. It was mainly
with these latter that the Italian states had to do.
For a long time they confined themselves to piratical
enterprises. The Sicilian patrician, supported by
the fleets of Naples, Amalfi, and Gaeta, defended the
Byzantine coast, together with the island of Sardinia,
to the best of his ability. Corsica,’ which was a part
of the Frankish empire, was placed under the
guardianship of the Marquis of Tuscany, who shared
with the Pope the supervision and protection of
the coasts between Luni and Terracino. This was
no light task. Since 831 Palermo had been in the
hands of the Mussulmans, and the whole of Sicily
was, by degrees, falling under their sway. More-

1 In 837 he was on the point of making the journey ad limina,
but was deterred by a Norman invasion.

2 For information on the situation of the islands of Corsica and
Sardinia in Carlovingian times, see the Memoir of M. A. Dove, in
the reports of the Munich Academy, 1894.

188 THE SARACENS AT ROME

over, since 840, the duchy of Beneventum had
been claimed by two rivals, Radelgiso and Siconulf.
They both called Saracen troops to their help, thus
affording the Mahometans every facility for getting
a footing on Italian soil.

During the latter part of his life, Pope Gre-
gory IV. constructed, in the neighbourhood of Ostia,
a fortress called Gregoriopolis, which is still in
existence. It soon became evident that this pre-
caution, far from being unnecessary, was even in-
adequate for purposes of defence.

Gregory died at the beginning of 844, and the
appointment of a successor gave rise to some diffi-
culty. By one party (not the nobles), the deacon
John was proclaimed, and they even succeeded in
introducing him at the Lateran. But the lay aris-
tocracy had set. their affections upon an old priest
who directed the property of St. Martin on the
Ksquiline. He was weak-minded, passionate, foul-
mouthed, and gouty; but he belonged to the
nobility, and was a member of the same family as
Pope Stephen IV. and the future Hadrian II. His
supporters escorted him from his church to the
Lateran palace, in stately procession. ‘The snow
was falling at the time, a sign of happy augury
in the eyes of the Romans. The unfortunate John
was soon ousted from the papal residence, several
of his opponents demanding that he should be cut
in pieces. Sergius, however, was satisfied with
ejecting him, and he himself was installed and
consecrated at St. Peter's without the formality
of consulting the emperor.

Lothaire was of opinion that the Romans did
not treat him with enough deference. He was
anxious to arrive at a proper understanding of this

THE SARACENS AT ROME 139

. contested election, and was especially determined
to maintain his right of confirmation, which had
been so calmly ignored. He despatched to Rome
his son Louis, the future Emperor Louis II., and —
his uncle Drogo, Bishop of Metz,’ a natural son of
Charlemagne. ‘These two princes were accompanied
by an army of considerable size, which, on arriving
on Roman ground, began plundering and ravaging,
as though on conquered territory. This unruly
behaviour was apparently intended as a manifestation
of the imperial wrath. When they reached Rome,
the Pope received them at the Vatican with the
customary honours. But, after the first act of
ceremony, the enquiry was instituted. Besides
Drogo, King Louis had been followed by twenty-
five Italian bishops, belonging to the Lombard
kingdom, and they had been joined by the Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, who, though ostensibly a subject
of the Pope, was always pleased to oppose him.
After lengthy discussions with the diocesan bishops,
and with the heads of the Roman clergy and of the
lay aristocracy, they decided to recognise Sergius
as the rightful Pope, and it was again settled that,
for the future, no one could be consecrated as
pontiff without the approval ( jussto) of the emperor
and the presence of his representatives. After
anointing the young prince, Sergius and the Romans
swore an oath of fidelity to the emperor, and, in
order to give proof of his desire to please the latter,
the Pope appointed Bishop Drogo apostolic vicar,
conferring upon him a kind of supremacy over all
the bishops of the various Frankish districts. He

1... Acturos ne deinceps decedente apostolico quisquam illic
preter sui jussionem missorumque suorum preesentiam ordinetur antistes.
—PrupDENCE, Ann., 844,

140 THE SARACENS AT ROME

refrained, however, from restoring to their sees the
Archbishops of Rheims and Narbonne, Ebbo and
Bartholomew, who were recognised as adherents
of Lothaire. Rheims and Narbonne belonged to
the kingdom of Charles the Bald, and the Pope
had the good sense not to wish to encourage ill-
feeling between Lothaire and his neighbour brother.

All this took place in June 844. When Louis,
with his army and his council, had taken his de-
parture, Sergius began to breathe more freely. Sad
to say, his reign was one of simony. ‘The traditions
of EKugenius II., the constitution of Lothaire, and
the decrees of the Council of 826, all these were
set at naught, and the buying and selling of dignities
soon became the order of the day. ‘To his brother
Benedict, a rustic boor of vicious habits, the Pope
gave the bishopric of Albano, and made over to
him the cares of the government.’ Convents, as
well as private individuals, were robbed, in order
to gratify their rapacious greed and pay their ex-
penses. Benedict, strange to say, was in high
favour with the emperor, and had obtained from
him the rank of imperial missus, or else the con-
firmation of that of papal missus. He always seems
to be represented as exercising at Rome a kind of
tyrannical authority, though, at the same time,
keeping within the bounds of the law.

The Roman clerk who describes this situation
can hardly speak too strongly in deprecation of the
evils caused at Rome by the reign of Sergius II.
He adds that, as no one had the courage to oppose
him, God took the matter in hand and sent the
Saracens as a scourge.

Whatever may have been the exact intentions

1 L, P., t. ii. p. 79 and p.-103, note 30,

THE SARACENS AT ROME 141

of Divine Providence, it cannot be denied that the
Saracens landed on 23rd August 846 at the mouth
of the Tiber. Porto and Ostia, abandoned by their
inhabitants, gave way before them. The chief
group of pirates, following the right bank of the
river, fell upon the basilica of St. Peter and plundered
it. The foreign schole, a mere handful of men whom
the Romans had despatched to Porto, were easily put
to flight, and the Romans themselves were defeated
on the meadows of Nero. Louis II., who had come
to their help with an insufficiently equipped army,
also received a check. ‘The invaders extended their
pillaging operations to St. Paul’s, but the militia of
Roman Campania gained some slight success on
the left bank of the Tiber. The Saracens, giving up
all hopes of forcing the town ramparts, turned their
attention in the direction of Fondi and Gaeta.
Another royal army, commanded, it is said,’ by the
Duke of Spoleto, followed and attacked them in a
strong position, where they were entrenched. Once
again the Saracens obtained the advantage, though
they were prevented from following it up by the
intervention of a fleet from Naples and Amalfi.
Seizing their booty, they re-embarked for home,
but before they reached the coast of Africa a huge
tempest arose, and the plunderers of the apostolic -
sanctuaries were engulfed, together with their ill-
gotten treasure, in the waves of the Sicilian Sea.
This was but cold comfort for the Romans. The
whole of Western Christendom was aghast at the
gloomy news. At Rome many clerks and. monks

1 The texts relating to this event are confused, disjointed, and
difficult to reconcile. I give here what I conceive to be the correct
conclusion. Cf., L. P., vol. ii. p. 104, note 38., M. Ph. Lauer has
taken up this question in the Meélanges of the Ecole de Rome, t. xix.
(1899) p. 310 and following.

142 THE SARACENS AT ROME

abased themselves before the divine judgment, by
which the wrath of Heaven was manifested against
the administration of Pope Sergius. But elsewhere,
not understanding the details of the Roman affairs,
they began to reflect upon the responsibility of the
emperor. ‘The tomb of the Prince of the Apostles, the
great Holy of Holies of the West, had been profaned
by the enemies of Christ. Mahomet had triumphed
over St. Peter, and had waged his insulting warfare
in the Apostle’s own dwelling, perhaps even within
his mysterious sepulchre.t. Was not the emperor the
armed protector of St. Peter, as well as the actual
ruler of Italy, and as such responsible for these
events ?

Lothaire, who had been joined by his son Louis,
lent an attentive ear to these complaints. A large
convocation was held, and it was decided”: Ist, that
the bishops, clerks, monks, and faithful should make
serious efforts to reform their conduct, and, as far as
lay in their power, to correct existing abuses; 2nd,
that the basilica of St. Peter should be surrounded
by fortifications, of which the cost was to be defrayed
by a tax, levied on all the imperial states; 3rd, that
an expedition under the command of King Louis
should be undertaken against the Saracens who had
settled in the duchy of Beneventum; 4th, that the
latter should be divided between the two claimants,
who, having arranged their differences, should join
forces against the enemy of the Christians.

Envoys were despatched to Radelgiso and Siconulf,
while others journeyed to Rome, Venice, and Naples

1 As to the damage done to the apostolic sanctuary, see Grisar,
Anal. Romana, p. 279 (cf. Studi e documenti di storia e diretto, 1892,
p. 344).

2 See this enactment in the Neues Archiv, t. xii. p. 535, 2nd
edition; M. G. Legum Sectio II. Capitularia, t. ii. p. 65.

THE SARACENS AT ROME 143

to organise a union of all the Italian states in view
of the new undertaking. A fast of three days was
ordered to precede the expedition, which was brought
to a successful issue (847). The Saracens were, for
the time, completely banished from Italy, though
they afterwards regained their footing. The state of
Beneventum was divided into two principalities,
having for their capitals Beneventum and Salerno.'

1 Distribution Act, M. G. Leg., t. iv. p. 221.

CHAPTER XIII
THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

Election of Leo IV.—Louis II. associated with the Empire—The Leonine
City—Leopolis—Leo IV. and Louis IJ.—Arsenius and Anastasius
—Election of 855—Rivalry of Anastasius—Death of Lothaire—
Benedict III.—Nicholas—The Papacy under the Empire—Nicholas
and the Archbishop of Ravenna—Contest in connection with Loth-
aire II. and Waldrade—Hadrian II. and the Family of Arsenius—
End of the Emperor Louis II.

Porr SEReius died on the 27th of January 847. He
was interred in the desecrated basilica, and a friendly
hand inscribed upon his tomb words more charitable,
alas, than veracious. ‘The Romans elected as his
successor the priest Leo, of the title of the Four
Crowned Martyrs, a man with a reputation for
integrity and prudence. . His election, for some
reason or other, was carried through without any
reference to the emperor, and a year and a half
afterwards, on Easter Day (10th April) the con-
secration took place. They were, nevertheless,
careful to justify themselves by the gravity of the
circumstances, and formally to reserve the imperial |
right.

Lothaire seems to have accepted the explanations
of the Romans quite placidly. Although he still
maintained a mild interest in Italian affairs it was
becoming increasingly difficult to prevail on him to
leave his own country of Lorraine, and his residence
of Aix-la-Chapelle. The Lombard kingdom was
governed by his son Louis, who was made an
associate of the empire, and, as such, consecrated

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 145

by the Pope in April 850. From that time the
pontiffs had to do with an Italian emperor, who,
in virtue of his residence in the neighbourhood, was
the better able to intervene in the internal affairs
of the Roman state.

The first question to be settled was how best
to deal with their enemies, the Saracen _ pirates.
Since 848 they had been working on the fortified
enclosure _near_St. . Peter's. The new walls were
continued as far as the castle of St. Angelo, so
that the fortifications reached the town itself,
communicating with it by means of the Porta
S. Petri. ‘The enclosed area comprised not only
the basilica and its dependencies, but also the
quarters, or schole, of the foreign colonies of
Saxons, Frisians, Franks, and Lombards. Out of
compliment to the reigning Pope it received the
name of the Leonine City. Part of the cost was
covered by the afore-mentioned imperial tax, aug-
mented by gifts from France and Germany. _The
Pope, for his part, exacted contributions from his
people; the towns of the Roman state, the monas-
teries, the masse publicee or domus culte, all provided
materials, money, or workers. Even to-day, on the
remains of this fortification, may be seen inscriptions
referring to the part taken in the work by various
papal mltie. The dedication was performed like
that of a church on the 27th June 852.

As if to prove the need for this protection, the
Saracens reappeared, from time to time, at the
mouth of the Tiber. In 849 they were followed
thither by the squadrons of Naples, Amalfi, and
Gaeta, under command of Cesar, son of Sergius,
Duke of Naples. The Pope was at first somewhat

perturbed at this alliance, but his fears were soon
K

146 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

dispelled, and he went down to the shore to speed
them with his blessing. A naval battle took place
off Ostia, and the Neapolitans had already gained
the upper hand when a great storm arose and
parted the combatants. Many of the Saracen
vessels were wrecked on the Roman coast; their
crews were taken captive, and made to work on
the fortifications of the Leonine City.?

The completion and solemn dedication of this
great work (27th June 852) caused no abatement
of Leo’s energy. At his instigation the walls of
Rome were restored, a colony of Corsicans was
established at Porto; and Centwmcelle (Civita
Vecchia), which had been devastated by the
Saracens and abandoned by its inhabitants, was
rebuilt at a short distance from the original site
under the name of Leopolis.2 The pirates seem
to have been impressed by the Pope’s capability
and activity, for they did not obtrude themselves
for several years.

The relations between Leo IV. and the emperor
were, apparently, irreproachable, but not genial.
From the Pope’s letters we gather that two of
the imperial mss, Peter and Hadrian, gave him
considerable cause for complaint,*? so that he mis-
trusted their presence at Rome. With the help
of George, Duke of Emilia, brother of the Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, they assassinated a_ papal

1 The Saracens are again mentioned in a letter from Leo IV.
(J., 2620), probably dating from 852; but he only speaks of
rumours and preventive measures.

2 For Leopolis see Ph. Lauer, La Cité carolingienne de Cencelle, in
the Mélanges of the Ecole de Rome, t. xx. p. 147 ; cf. the inscription
published by M. Or. Marucchi in the Nuovo Bullettino di arch. crist.,
1900, p. 195, pl. vi.

8 J., 2602, 2610.

; sh ~~ ee 4
~ j AL tai sf QOGAH? I
seo unuolieeull, Awe CH

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 147

legate who had been despatched to Lothaire. The
pilgrims who resorted to Rome had also good reason
for dreading Italian roads,’ for a certain Gratiano,’
a seeker after political power, ranged himself against
them, and became distinguished for his outrages.
All these personages appear to have been papal
officials, more or less encouraged by the imperial
government to ignore the authority of their
sovereign.

Having made his complaint Louis set off to
Ravenna* with the intention of assisting his ill-
treated subjects. George, Peter, and Hadrian were
taken to Rome, and, in accordance with the Roman
law, tried before the imperial miss. They were
condemned to death, but the execution was de-
ferred on account of the Easter festival (853), and
this gave Lothaire time to intervene. He com-
plained that, by coming so far, the Pope had
defied the Constitution of 824. There was also
question of one Christopher, of whom very little
is known. The Pope, while protesting on behalf
of his right, and of the Roman law, demanded
that an enquiry should be made into his conduct,
stipulating that it should be entrusted to envoys
of honourable character.’

Our sole information on this subject is gained
from fragments of letters, which were preserved from
the disaster which destroyed the papal registers.
The Liber Pontificahs relates the following story
with more details.

A magister militum named Gratiano (perhaps the

1 Cf. the capitulary of Louis II., MV. G. Leg., i. p. 405; Capit.,
t. ii. pp. 84, 86; Migne, L. P., t. exxxviii. p-. 572.
ca DF 2620. 8 J., 2627, 2628.

4 J., 2638, 2639, 2643, 2646.

148 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

same as the afore-mentioned), and at that time (855)
governor of the papal palace, was accused of taking
part in secret intrigues in favour of a Byzantine
restoration. ‘The Franks,” he said, “are not only
_ of no use to us, but they actually entertain base
designs upon our property. Why not call upon the
Greeks to help us to expel them and their king from
our midst?” These reyolutionary sentiments were
reported: to the emperor, Louis II., by Daniel,
another magister militum. 'They were the more
alarming, as Louis was at that time on bad terms
with the eastern court,' for, after having sought the
hand of the daughter of the emperor, Michael III.,
he had altered his mind, and married the celebrated
Engelberga instead. Suddenly, without any warning,
Louis, full of rage, arrived at Rome. The Pope
received him at St. Peter’s, and they arranged to
have a formal enquiry made concerning Daniel’s
representations. The affair was conducted in ac-
cordance with the Roman law, and Daniel was con-
victed of false testimony, and delivered up to his
antagonist. But the emperor pleaded for him suc-
cessfully, and even received him back into favour.
Whatever may have been the truth of this
matter, the effect produced by it leads us to sup-
pose that Rome, at that time, was the centre, if not
of an organised Byzantine party, at least of a certain
element inimical to the Frankish protectorate, which
might have been turned to profit, had the occasion
offered, by the Greek empire. Just then the power
of the latter in Italy was at alowebb. ‘The Sicilians
and the Calabrians were having a hard struggle
against the Saracens, as were also the practically
autonomous cities of Gaeta, Naples, and Amalfi.

1 Prud. Ann., 853.

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 149

Louis II. had twice descended upon the Beneventine
territory (847 and 852), and although, in his last
campaign, he had not succeeded in capturing Bari,
which was a stronghold of the infidels, he had never-
theless obtained considerable success. He might,
indeed, be regarded as the defender of Christendom,
and the virtual master of Italy. Under these cir-
cumstances it was futile to think of a Byzantine
restoration.

As may be readily supposed, having been so often
at variance with the Frankish emperors, Leo IV.
was not entirely a man after their own hearts. They
could forgive the informalities connected with his
accession, but they would have preferred a Pope
more intent on carrying out the constitution of 824,
and more faithful to his rdle of sovereign protégé.
Louis II. early began making plans for the election
of Leo’s successor.

According to the constitution of 824, there were
to be two missi charged with the affairs of the pro-
tectorate, kept in permanent residence at Rome.
One was appointed by the Pope, the other by the
emperor. Louis II.’s first choice fell upon the
deacon John, afterwards Bishop of Rieti; moreover,
he selected for papal promotion one of his most
devoted adherents, Arsenius, Bishop of Orta. This
dignitary was a member of one of the most import-
ant families of Rome, and from the time of Leo IV.
his influence had been predominant. As he was
already possessed of a bishopric, there could be no
question of making a Pope of him, but he had two
sons, Anastasius and Eleutherius, who were quite
worth considering. The latter enjoyed the pleasures
of a lay life, but Anastasius was destined for the
priesthood, and had received an excellent education.

150 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

Not only was his knowledge of Latin and ecclesi-
astical literature far in advance of his time, but he
also boasted an acquaintance with the Greek lan-
guage, probably acquired at the school of one of those
Greek monks, who owned numerous and flourishing
convents at Rome. His ecclesiastical career was
sufficiently advanced at the beginning of Leo’s pon-
tificate, for the latter, in compliance, probably, with
weighty recommendations, decided to ordain him
priest, and entrust him with the monastery of St.
Marcellus (848).?

As cardinal, Anastasius was eligible for the papacy,
so why he did not await the ordinary course of events
is not clear. But whatever may have been the
reason, he vanished from Rome almost immediately
after his ordination, and took refuge in Louis’ do-
mains, spending most of his time in Aquileia. This
conduct excited the most lively suspicions, and Pope
Leo did his utmost to prevail upon him to return.
Embassies, summonses, councils, ecclesiastical sen-
tences of excommunication, anathema, and depo-
sition, all were, in vain, directed against the deserter.
Louis II., on being appealed to, promised to deliver
him up, but never succeeded in finding him. Leo,
in exasperation, determined to invest his sentences
with a remarkable and pompous publicity. Over the
principal entrance to St. Peter’s he erected a huge
image of Christ and the Virgin, encircled by a series
of inscriptions, reproducing the sentences successively
pronounced against Anastasius, at Rome, 16th De-
cember 850; at Ravenna, 29th May 858; and again
at Rome, 8th December, of the same year. These
sentences—as one of them expressly notes—resulted -

1 For information regarding Anastasius the librarian, see A.
Lapétre, De Anastasio bibliothecario (now out of print). Paris, 1885.

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 151

from the defection of the culprit, but it is obvious
that Leo regarded Anastasius as a successor to be
avoided at any cost.!

Both Anastasius and his father Arsenius had
always maintained a warm friendship with Louis IT.,
and were his chief political agents at Rome. Al-
though they cannot be regarded as altogether desir-
able persons, they seem to have atoned to a certain
extent for their lack of virtue by a kind of methodi-
eal reliability, often to be found in ambitious persons
who are willing to restrain their natural tendencies,
when, by so doing, they can further their own ends.
If Leo IV. could find another pretext for condemn-
ing Anastasius, he was not anxious to quote against
him the third canon of the Council of Antioch, in
reference to clerks who deserted.

Moreover, Anastasius was not a man to make
light of the pontifical rights, at least as far as
spiritual affairs were concerned. From the letters of
Nicholas I., which he edited later, with a considerable
amount of licence, we gather that he had a high idea
of the papacy, its relations to the rulers and its
authority over the episcopate, even when the latter
might be represented by a Photius or a Hincmar.

Leo IV.’s objection to him is, therefore, some-
what difficult to understand. One can only con-
jecture that he regarded the accession of Anastasius
as the culminating political triumph of Louis II.—
the absorption of the Roman state into the kingdom
of Italy. It was possible, too, that once having
attained the papal throne, Anastasius might change

1 Set li . . . anathema et omnes qui et in electione, quod absit, ad
pontificatus honorem adjutorium prestare . . . voluerint, simili anathe-

mate subjaceant. Leo, perhaps, was afraid that the emperor did not
mean to await his death before encouraging Anastasius as his rival.
This, however, is not at all probable.

152 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

his attitude, “ scorning the base degrees by which he
did ascend.” ‘These revulsions are not uncommon
accompaniments of satisfied ambition.

However this may be, Leo’s death, on 17th July
855, afforded the priest an opportunity of showing
what weight he attached to the judgment passed
against him.

Louis had made an arrangement with the em-
perors that the election of his successors should be
juste et canonice. The Life of Benedict III. in. the
Liber Pontificalis is our only source of information on
the subject. The election, it seems, was held im-
mediately after the Pope’s death. ‘Two factions were
present, the imperial party and the adherents of the
deceased Pope, who were opposed to the aggrava-
tions of the protectorate. Anastasius was nominated
by the imperial party, though, according to the
Liber Pontificahs, he kept entirely in the _ back-
ground. The most popular candidate was Benedict,
Cardinal of St. Cecilia, but the Romans, having
elected him, postponed the coronation ceremony
until, in accordance with the ancient custom (con-
suetudo prisca ut poscit), they had sent his decree of
election, invested with much solemnity, to the em-
perors. ‘The deputies, Nicholas, Bishop of Anagni,
and Mercurius, the magister miltum, encountered
Arsenius at Gubbio on their way. Strange to say,
he had been absent from Rome at the time of the
election, and he now took the opportunity to try
to prejudice these dignitaries in favour of his son.

The decree of election was not approved by the
Emperor Louis, who, by means of letters and
envoys, made known his intention of sending special
missi to Rome. ‘They were Adalbert, Count of
Tuscany, and another, named Bernard. At Orta

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II . 153

Anastasius joined them, and together they continued
their way. As they approached the city, the leaders
of the imperial party, among them Radoald, Bishop
of Porto, and Agatho, Bishop of Todi, hastened to
meet them. At St. Lucius,’ some distance beyond
the Milvian bridge, they encountered some ambas-
sadors from Benedict. These they caused to be
arrested and ill-treated. A large number of Romans,
who had been summoned to hear the emperor's
decision, were beguiled into the opposite faction,
and it was at the head of a goodly procession that
Anastasius made his way towards the basilica of
St. Peter.

Arrived there, his first proceeding was to seize a
hatchet and hurl it against the eikon erected by
Leo IV. as a protest against his usurpation. He
then made his entry into Rome, and was escorted
to the Lateran, where he lost no time in securing
the person of Benedict. This was his day of triumph.
The next day things did not go so smoothly. A
large assembly, presided over by the Bishops of Ostia
and Albano, met in the Basilica Emiliana (SS.
Quattro), and the imperial mss? presented themselves
before the Roman clergy with the object of bringing
them to terms. Both threats and cajolery were em-
ployed, but the clerks held out, entrenching them-
selves behind the ecclesiastical law, which forbade the
promotion of deposed clerks. The mzssi were obliged
to yield, and, in order to cover their retreat, agreed
to a fresh election. Benedict was set at liberty;
Anastasius departed from the pontifical palace; and
a three days’ fast was proclaimed. As soon as this
was over, an electoral assembly met at Sta. Maria
Maggiore, and, with the full approbation of the

1 At present Tor di Quinto.

154 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

' imperial envoys, proclaimed Benedict Pope. ‘Thus
re-elected, he was once more installed at the Lateran,
and on the following Sunday was consecrated at St.
Peter’s, always with the approval of the missi. These
latter seem to have been quite satisfied that the
candidate of the Romans would answer the emperor's
purpose just as well as his own protégé, Anastasius,
would have done.

Bishop Radoald of Porto was not allowed to take
his customary part in the consecration ceremony.
As for Anastasius himself, the Liber Pontificals does
not say what became of him; but from Hincmar,
who was not well-disposed towards him, and was
always careful to record anything to his disadvantage,
we learn that he was brought before Benedict in
the synod and degraded by laicisation. It was un-
doubtedly at this juncture that he was provided with
the Abbey of St. Mary in Trastevere."

In 855 Louis II.’s policy had received a temporary
check. Not content with the possession of the two
misst of the Vatican, the papal missus et apocrisiarius,
_ he maintained the right of superintending the actual
choice of the Pope, and disclaimed any other foreign
interference in the Italian policy of the Holy See.
Anastasius, an excellent candidate as far as his
personal qualifications went, was, as regards his
antecedents, absolutely unsuitable. It is difficult,
indeed, to understand how such a man could have
presented himself in that capacity. But, whatever

1 It is hardly necessary to remark that abbots, in those days,
were not necessarily, or even usually, priests. The position of the
Abbot of Santa Maria, z.e. the head of the community of monks
who chanted the services in the basilica, must not be confounded
with that of the titulary cardinal. As a deposed priest, regarded
as a simple believer, Anastasius was excluded from the clergy, but
he might then take the position of either monk or abbot.

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 155

may be the solution of this obscure point, it is
probable that from the emperor’s point of view the
appointment of Anastasius was of less importance
than the triumph of the principles of which he was
the representative. Being unable to place him in
the pontifical chair, and foreseeing that his future
applications for candidateship would not be more
successful than that of 855, Louis made up his
mind to let him share his father’s réle of confidential
adviser and guardian to the Pope. But for this
end it was absolutely necessary that he should live
a life of celibacy. Anastasius, therefore, for three
years retired into private life, devoting himself to
religious exercises and literary pursuits. As for
Benedict III., Arsenius, who still kept his office of
missus, was there to keep an eye upon him.

The death of Lothaire was almost coincident
with the accession of Benedict III. It caused but
little change in Italian affairs, which for several
years had been under the sole superintendence of
Louis II.

In 858 Louis had come to Rome for the Easter
celebrations; he had already begun his return
journey, when he was greeted by the news of Pope
Benedict's demise (17th April). He immediately
> went back to Rome, and by his influence decided
the election of the deacon Nicholas. The clergy
were in favour of another candidate, but as the
emperor’s choice had fallen on a man of worth, the
election was confirmed without more ado. Louis
took part in the coronation which was held on
24th April. From the papal biographer we get a
lengthy account of the festivities, which appear to
have been accompanied by many compliments and
protestations of loyalty.

156 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

Nicholas just suited Louis II. He understood
how to combine a nice respect for papal conventions,
with an exalted idea of his duties as Pope and an
intense enthusiasm for fulfilling them. As we shall
shortly see, his occupation of the pontifical chair

arked a season of greater activity than had been
nown since the days of Gregory the Great. Unlike
aregory [V., of whom he was the precursor, he
ontrived to live on friendly terms with his emperor.
t is true that the latter had surrounded him with a
well-selected circle of confidential advisers better
ualified, perhaps, to help him in his political career,
/than to be the familiar friends of so upright a man.
- Besides Arsenius, who continued his functions as
missus, and was occasionally charged with important
errands, we may mention his son Anastasius, the
intruder of 855. This latter, it is true, was not
reinstated in his priestly functions, but he was
established at the Lateran as the Pope's secretary.
Then there was Radoald, Bishop of Porto, one of
the ringleaders of the Anastasius conspiracy, now
the one of Nicholas’s confidential advisers whom he
most readily despatched on the pontifical business.
Certainly the Pope had, later on, to rue the day
when he took Radoald into favour, and, after having
experienced his treachery several times, he was obliged
to expel him from the episcopate. But this was only
a last resource, after having borne with his faithless
ways for many a long day. Arsenius did nothing
worse than rob the Pope, and they seem to have
lived together for a long time on friendly terms.
As far as Anastasius was concerned, no cloud seems
ever to have darkened their relations, although it is

1 Nicolaus presentia magis ac favore Hludonici regis et procerum
ejus quam cleri electione substituitur, Ann, Prud.

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 157

beyond a doubt that the secretary, on more than one
occasion, betrayed his master’s confidence, and, in the
most important documents, attributed to him senti-
ments more in harmony with his own personal
passions and prejudices than with the desires and
tendencies of the pontiff himself. Fortunately for
the latter, he was not only a man of letters, but a
government official imbued with lofty conceptions of
the papal authority.

From the standpoint of local politics, the papacy
“had become very dependent on the empire. Louis II.
held firmly to the constitution of 824, and taxed his
people as well. After the death of Nicholas in 867,
Hadrian, who seems to have been elected by an
unanimous vote, did not receive consecration until
the emperor had investigated the documents and
circumstances of the election, and accorded his
sanction. The fact that John VIII. succeeded to
the papacy on the very day of Hadrian’s death, 14th
December 872, leads us to suppose that the emperor
must have been in Rome at the time, for it is far
from probable that any violation of the rule which
required the imperial sanction of the papal election
could have occurred. Moreover, we know that
John VIII. was a personal friend of Louis II., and
as long as the latter lived, his favourite continued to
fill the most exalted positions in the Holy See.

This system was continued until Louis’ death
in 875, when, as he left no children, the empire
ceased to be Italian, and the papal situation was
changed. It had lasted for twenty years (855-875),
since the time when Leo IV., somewhat displeased
at the secular guardianship, had yielded the position
to the official candidates.

It must not be supposed that this imperialist

158 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

papacy was lacking in prestige. Nicholas I., the
typical representative of the system, was undoubtedly
one of the most influential Popes ever known in the
history of the Church.

Still, there was always reason to fear that the
secular guardian might some day intrude upon the
spiritual domain. This actually came to pass in 864.
At the beginning of this year, the Emperor Louis
appeared before Rome with hostile and not friendly
intent. His object was to take the part of various
priests who were under ecclesiastical censure. One
of these was John, Archbishop of Ravenna, who, in
conjunction with his brother Gregory, continued to
oppress the Pope’s subjects in Emilia. These, and
other misdeeds of an ecclesiastical nature, had drawn
down upon him the papal displeasure. He was
summoned to appear before a Roman synod, but
refused to obey, with the intention of appealing to
Louis II. for support. But Nicholas was not to be
foiled. In a synod held in 860 or 861, he issued a
sentence of suspension and excommunication against
the archbishop, proclaimed anew several points of
dogma, on which he (the archbishop) was accused
of holding heterodox views, and, finally, without
. regard to the emperor’s feelings, renewed the decree
of the Council of 769, which forbade the intervention
of any foreigner in the papal elections. As we have
seen, Nicholas himself had benefited by a certain
infrmgement of this law. He probably had reason
to fear that Louis [I. wished to transform the fact
into a right, and to claim the power of electing, as
well as confirming, the choice of the Pope. When
he died, the imperial mzsst demanded a place among
the electors, having evidently received instructions
so todo. The Romans succeeded in eluding their

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 159

claim, but the very fact of the questions having been
raised, was enough to justify the fears of Pope
Nicholas, and his demonstration of 861.

This demonstration was, as I have said, of a
nature to cause ill-feeling between the Pope and the
emperor. The Archbishop John, recognising this,
immediately betook himself to Pavia, hoping to
profit by the prince’s annoyance. Louis indeed sent
two misst back with him to Rome, but Nicholas
was not to be alarmed. Entirely in his religious
capacity, he rebuked the legates for consorting with
one who had been excommunicated. He spoke
kindly, but the mzsst were terrified. ‘The arch-
bishop was again summoned to appear before a
council, convened for Ist November 861, and he
afterwards returned to Ravenna. Nicholas there-
upon, in response to the invitation of a large
number of the people of Emilia and Ravenna, who
were antagonistic to the archbishop and his brother,
followed him immediately. On hearing of his ar-
rival, John fled to Pavia, and while he was again
soliciting the emperor’s intervention, the Pope, in
his capacity as sovereign, reorganised the Ravennese
government, and made the necessary changes in the
ministry. So strongly was he supported by public
opinion that the emperor's hopes of defending the
archbishop were soon damped. Invited to make the
best terms he could with the Pope, the primate of
Ravenna appeared before the Roman council in the
month of November. He vindicated himself from
the imputation of heterodoxy, and otherwise com-
plied with the papal exactions.

But a forced submission is not, as a rule, a
satisfactory one. ‘The archbishop, on his return
home, lay low for a time, but his disposition had

160 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

not changed, and it was evident that he meant to
signalise the increasing animosity between the Pope
and Louis by another outburst of insubordination.

An opportunity soon presented itself, in con-
nection with the unfortunate divorce proceedings of
Lothaire I]. The divorce had been pronounced by
the episcopate of Lorraine, in two or three synods,
and afterwards sanctioned by the papal legates
at the Council of Metz (June 868). In October
of the same year, however, it was annulled by Pope
Nicholas, who maintained that the discarded wife
was so evidently in the right, that the divorce could
not, in honesty, be confirmed. He therefore de-
posed the leaders of the Lorraine clergy, Theutgaud
and Gunther, and the Archbishops of Treves and
Cologne, and awaited his leisure to deal with his
own legates.

This unexpected act caused a great sensation in
the episcopacy. But the right, already expounded
in the writings of Hincmar, was not to be denied.
The prevaricators did not arouse much interest, and
then finally compromised themselves by entering
into alliance with the suspended Bishop of Ravenna,
and Photius, the usurping patriarch of Constanti-
nople. Not content with this, they sought out
the Emperor Louis in the duchy of Beneventum,
and excited his wrath against the Pope, with whom
his relations had been somewhat strained ever since
the Ravenna affairs. Gathering around him all
the discontented bishops of Italy, they escorted
him to the walls of Rome. ‘The gates of the Leonine
city, which were still fresh with inscriptions bearing
the name of Lothaire, did not refuse to allow the
entry of the emperor and his son.

At Rome there were not lacking people ready

THE EMPEROR LOUIS Il 161

to uphold the emperor’s plans and to take part in
an assault on the Pope’s person. But Nicholas was
impervious to fear. Against his temporal enemies
he fought with spiritual weapons, especially prayer.
Fasts and litanies were organised, in order to invoke
the aid of heaven and to subdue the imperial anger.
One day, as a large procession was making its way
through the Leonine city to St. Peter’s, it was
attacked and dispersed by Louis’ followers, who
ill-treated the pilgrims, and trampled under foot
the sacred banners. After these outrages there was
indeed cause for alarm. One night the Pope emerged
from the Lateran, and evading the sentinelled gates,
reached the banks of the Tiber. A boat took him
across secretly and he succeeded in gaining an en-
trance to the basilica, where he remained for two
days fasting and communing with the Unseen.
His prayers were heard. Already one of the
soldiers who had thrown the processional cross into
the mud had been suddenly struck down by the
hand of death; and the emperor himself was
attacked by fever. The Pope, in abandonment of
soul, continued to pray, and only rose from his
knees at the urgent entreaties of the Empress
Engelberga, who begged him to accompany her to
the bedside of her imperial husband. She was a
proud woman, but the experiences of recent days
had given her cause for reflection, and the inter-
view which she had arranged between Nicholas and
Louis ended favourably. The emperor agreed to
_abandon his protégés, and to leave the Pope full
liberty in the ecclesiastical domain. In short,
the latter returned to Rome with his position
strengthened, and Louis, on his recovery, regained

the north of Italy.
L

162 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

Henceforward the two powers continued on more
or less amicable terms. At the council of Ist
November Radoald, Bishop of Porto, received his
well-merited sentence of deposition from the Pope.
Up to that time, through fear of the emperor, every
excuse had been made for him, in spite of the fact
that his guilt, in the affair of Photius, could not
possibly be denied.

Old Arsenius was of opinion that the Pope took
too much upon himself. Notwithstanding the favour
which his son Anastasius continued to enjoy at the
Lateran, and the profitable missions on which he
himself was constantly being despatched, fearing,
perhaps, that he might sooner or later be called
upon to give an account of his proceedings, he
found himself, towards the end of the reign, some-
what in disfavour with Nicholas.

Hadrian II., in celebration of his accession, dis-
pensed marks of favour to various compromised
persons, in particular to Anastasius and Theutgaud.
The former was even promoted to the position of
librarian of the Holy See. In the early days of the
new pontificate there was some difference of opinion
between his father and himself. Arsenius encouraged
the reaction against Nicholas, and even the rescinding
of certain acts to which the Emperor Louis had taken
exception. Summoning the Archbishops Gunther
and Theutgaud to Rome, he made them promises
of reinstatement, which, at first delayed, ended by
coming to nothing. Anastasius opposed his father’s
opinions. In the preceding pontificate he had been
the advocate of strict measures, and he now saw no
reason why they should be abated. Unlike Arsenius,
who was a devout imperialist, he had a natural inclina-
tion towards the papacy, and if Louis II. had suc-

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 163

ceeded in making a Pope of him, the emperor would
undoubtedly have met his match. He probably found
occasion more than once to thank the fates for having
crushed this project. In the disagreement with his
father, Anastasius ended by getting the upper hand,
and the family reputation does not appear to have
suffered by their difference. Arsenius retained his
post as missus et apocrisiarius, t.e. the Pope’s secular
guardian, and Anastasius continued to keep a high-
handed supervision over the secretaryship and the
affairs of the spiritual administration.

At this period nepotism was beginning to be in
evidence, and alliances with the papal family were
eagerly sought. Anastasius desired promotion for
his brother Eleutherius, who had aims of another
kind. ‘The nieces of Benedict III. and Nicholas I.
had contracted marriages with members of the lay
nobility. These unions, conspicuous for a lack
of sentiment, were the stepping-stones to worldly
advancement, though the wives were far from en-
joying unalloyed marital bliss. Before entering into
major orders, Hadrian II. had married, and his wife
and daughter were still living. The latter, consider-
ing the age and position of her father, could not have
been in the freshness of youth, but, in virtue of her
parentage, she was looked upon as a desirable match.
When Eleutherius appeared as her wooer, Hadrian
had already promised her to another. Arsenius,
like a prudent father, always did his utmost for
the advancement of his children, realising, too, that
the desired marriage would have a decidedly beneficial
effect upon his own position.

Hadrian, faithful to his promise, refused his con-
sent. Eleutherius, nothing daunted, succeeded in
circumventing the object of his desire, carrying her

164 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

and her mother away by force. The scandal that
resulted may more easily be imagined than described !
But this was not yet the worst. Hadrian, sorely
wounded, applied to the emperor for help in re-
covering his wife and daughter, and in avenging
their insulting treatment. Arsenius departed with
all speed to the south of Italy, where the court was
at that time established. He took care to provide
himself with plenty of money, well realising the value
of bribery in his present situation. No sooner, how-
ever, had he joined the princes at Acerenza than he
was overtaken by serious illness. He had just time
enough to confide his wishes and his treasure to the
empress, and then died, before he could receive the
last sacraments, thus giving rise to a report ,that
the devil had taken possession of his soul. His
servants undertook to convey his body to Rome or
to Orta, but on their arrival in the neighbourhood
of Monte Cassino the rapid putrefaction of the corpse
obliged them to resort to a hasty burial in a neigh-
bouring field.’

But this was not the last of the tragedies. The
Emperor Louis had sent his mzsst in pursuit of
Kleutherius, and the latter, hard pressed, and in a
dog-in-the-manger spirit, did not hesitate to assassi-
nate the daughter, and even the wife of the Pope.
Public opinion, reinforced by competent testimony,
declared Anastasius to be the instigator of this double
crime. Hadrian, infuriated, had him brought before
an assembly of the Roman clergy at St. Praxedes,
and renewed against him all the ecclesiastical cen-
sures which he had incurred under Leo IV. and
Benedict III., forbidding him to go beyond a radius
of forty miles from Rome. As for Eleutherius, he

1 See Hincmar, Ann., 868; and Biblioteca Casinensis, t. iii. p. 139.

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II 165

was arrested and executed by order of the imperial
legates.

Hadrian’s anger endured but for a season. It
was on 4th October 868 that he had fulminated his
condemnation of Anastasius, and before the end of
869 the latter was reinstated in his position of secre-
tary and pontifical librarian. This leads us to sup-
pose that he had proved himself innocent of any part
in his brother’s crime.

In the winter of 869-870, he set out, in company
with two imperial dignitaries, for Constantinople,
charged to negotiate an alliance between the daughter
of Louis II. and a son of the Greek monarch, Basil
the Macedonian. He arrived in time to be present
at the last sitting of the eighth ecumenical council,
and to witness the defeat of Photius, one of his most
bitter adversaries. It is, indeed, thanks to him, that
the Holy See was informed of the enactments of the
council, for the copy confided to the papal legates
was stolen from them on the way, and Photius
contrived, later, to have the others burned. But
Anastasius had taken the precaution of having one
specially prepared for his own benefit, and he took
good care not to let it be stolen. Not only did he
bring it in safety to Rome, but he had it translated
into Latin, in which form this important document
is still preserved to us.

These disturbances did not greatly affect the pon-
tifical organisation, and had practically no influence
on the personnel of the administration. Arsenius
was replaced by the nomenclator George, a man as
rapacious as his predecessor.

The alliance between the empire and the papacy
was distinguished by a touching episode. After
many struggles, Louis II. had succeeded in taking

166 THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

possession of Bari, thus destroying the chief resort of
the Mahometans in Southern Italy (2nd February
871). He was staying at Beneventum after his
campaign, when he was betrayed and taken prisoner
by the Duke Adelgis, who, after having robbed him,
only released him on condition that he swore not to
avenge himself. After thirty-five days of captivity,
the unfortunate emperor was set free, and he returned
to Ravenna by way of Spoleto, sadly humiliated by
this attack on the representative of the imperial
majesty. The following year he went to Rome,
about the time of the Whitsuntide celebrations.
Pope Hadrian welcomed him sympathetically, and,
in order to reinvest him, to some extent, with his
former dignity, he crowned him anew, and escorted
him with great pomp from St. Peter’s to the Lateran.
The oath which the duke had extorted from him was
solemnly pronounced invalid, and Louis thereupon
resumed his campaigns against the Mahometans, in
the direction of Capua and Salerno.

He died on 12th April 875, near Brescia, and was
buried at Milan, in the basilica of St. Ambrose, where
his tomb is still preserved.

CHAPTER XIV

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

The Pope and the Carlovingian family—Candidature of Charles the
Bald—His Imperial Coronation (875)—John VIII. and the Saracens
—The Formosians—Death of Charles the Bald—John VIII. and the
Dukes of Spoleto—Council of Troyes—Destruction of the Carlo-
vingian family—Charles the Fat, Emperor—Marino—Hadrian III.
—Deposition and death of Charles the Fat.}

One characteristic of the alliance between the Carlo-
vingian princes and the Pope was, that the latter
was regarded by them as a kind of venerable parent,
whose right, or even obligation, it was to take an
interest in their concerns, and to act as their pro-
tector in case of need. As regards external political
questions this was quite natural. The papacy was
no longer Byzantine, but Frankish, and the bare
idea of a political understanding between the Pope
and the Greek empire would have been considered a
profanity. Neither could the Frankish empire enter-
tain any thought of allowing the Greeks to resume
the least power at Rome over the Pope. But even
in the internal affairs of the Franks the Pope had
a share. He did his best to reconcile wrangling
princes,” and sometimes, an even more delicate

1 For information on John VIII. and his time, see A. Lapédtre,
L’ Europe et le Saint-Siége a lépoque carolingienne, 1st part; Le Pape
Jean VIII, Paris, 1895.
2 Stephen III. was interested in the reconciliation of Charle-
magne to Carloman (J., 2380).
167

168 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

matter, he interfered in their matrimonial affairs ;*
then, too, his warranty was sometimes required for
solemn acts, such as the division of the empire
arranged by Charlemagne in 806, and he was often
called upon to consecrate the princes, not only as
emperors, but as kings.

When the unity of the Frankish empire had been
destroyed, these relations became still more delicate.
It was not the papacy which was to blame for this
dislocation. 'The fatal plan of division, which Charle-
magne himself had sanctioned, was too strong for
the Pope’s influence to prevent its being carried out.
Once there was, among several sovereigns, a Frankish
emperor, resident in Italy; the Pope was obliged to
live on very intimate terms with him, not only
because he was the emperor, but also on account of
his neighbourly and protective attitude towards the
Romans. Hence there was always a tendency to
favour the particular political opinions of this prince.
Gregory IV. followed Lothaire into Alsace, and sup-
ported him against his father. When Lothaire died in
855, Benedict III. interfered to prevent his sons from
disputing the paternal heritage, and he even took to
himself the credit of having brought about the peace
which followed.* A little later, in 857, he engaged
in a vigorous attack against one of the foes of this
peace, Hubert, the intruded Abbot of St. Maurice,
who led a jovial life in this and various other holy
places. Besides owning a principality between the
Alps and the Juras, he was master of the passages

1 Stephen II. prevented Pepin from sending away Bertrade
and marrying his daughter Giséta to Leo. IV., son of Constantine
Copronymus ; Stephen III. objected to the marriage of Charlemagne
and Desideria.

2 Annals of Eginhard, 806. Cf. J., 3000.

8 Pacem quam munivimus (J., 2669).

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 169

between Italy and the domain of Lothaire II." The
Emperor Louis II. cast a longing eye on these
districts, and succeeded (859) in making Lothaire
surrender them, and even, a few years later (864), in
getting rid of Hubert. On the death of Charles of
Provence in 863, his kingdom was divided between
his two brothers, Lothaire II. and Louis II., and
Pope Nicholas wrote to Charles the Bald, to Louis
the German, and to their respective episcopates to
pledge them not to offer any opposition to this
division.2, When Lothaire II. went to Italy (869)
in order to make his peace with the Pope, Hadrian IT.
charged these same two kings to refrain from any
attack on the penitent’s states.? His wish was com-
plied with, but as Lothaire did not live long after his
return home, his uncles, Charles the Bald first, and
then Louis the German, seized upon his estates.
The Pope strongly remonstrated, by means of letters
and legates,‘ for he rightly considered their behaviour
as an attack upon the imperial authority. His
efforts, however, were fruitless. ‘The two uncles
took possession of the coveted lands, and Louis II.
was again reduced to Provence and Italy. The
treaty of Mersen (870) bestowed the greater part on
Louis the German, who was from that time in rather
bad odour at Rome. Charles the Bald, too, was
unpopular, for though he had inherited less than
Louis, it was he who had instigated the plan of
robbing the emperor. In 871 Carloman, one of the
two sons whom he had destined for a religious life,
having broken his vows and taken up arms against
his father, Hadrian supported him with energy. The

1 J., 2669 (badly arranged summary).
2 J. 2773-5. 8 J,, 2895-6,
4 J., 2917-23, 2926-32.

170 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

letters’ which Charles received from the Pope on
this subject were written in so bitter and insulting a
style that he protested. Suspecting that the pontiff
was not entirely responsible for the expression of
these sentiments, Charles investigated the matter.
His ambassador, Bishop Actard, succeeded in obtain-
ing a private interview with Hadrian, and returned
with a letter in which the papal opinions were can-
didly set forth, uncontrolled by the supervision of
Anastasius, who acted as the imperial representative.*

The old Pope expressed, in this confidential
epistle, not only his opinions with regard to his
family, but also his views as to the future.
Hitherto the papacy had been obliged to yield
to circumstances, and to accept a close alliance
with the Italian monarch, not untinged with sub-
ordination. But this could not be permanent.
While Charles the Bald was so abundantly supplied
with male progeny that he was obliged to devote
some of them to the priesthood, Louis II., on the
other hand, had no son at all. His death would
involve the succession, not of a prince, but of a
system of government. One of the three branches of —
Charlemagne’s lineage was arrested in its growth, and
it remained to be seen which of the two survivors
would be asked to act as protector of the Holy See,
. and which would receive the imperial title. Charles
the Bald and Louis the German, the two heads
of the French and German branches respectively,
seem to have been on much the same level. Louis,
it was true, was the elder, as well as the son of his
father’s first marriage, but these considerations were
not likely to have much weight with the Romans,
whether they looked upon the empire as the pro-

1 J., 2940-2, 2946. 2 J, 2951.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 171

tector of their various interests, or as a magistrature
emanating from themselves. Each of these princes
was the possessor of several sons, who had all dis-
tinguished themselves by insubordinate behaviour to
their father. The kingdom of Charles was more
civilised, though weaker, than that of Louis, and
in facilitating its succession to the Italian crown it
would be considerably strengthened. Affairs were
thus tolerably well balanced, and it was probable
that the scale would be turned by considerations of
sentiment or personal convenience.

The Romans are lovers of antiquity. Germany,
at that time, was brand new, hardly free indeed
from barbarism and paganism, while Roman Gaul
was the home of the best survivals of the ancient
Latin civilisation. An Italian or a Roman felt quite
at his ease at Arles, Vienne, or Lyons, and even
towns such as Rheims, Sens, St. Denis, and Tours
were not altogether foreign to him. He was familiar
with their names and traditions in his own language.
But Ratisbon, Frankfort, Paderborn, Halberstadt—
all these were in another world, and he was inclined
to think it wiser to exhaust the resources of the
ancient world before compromising himself in
unknown parts.

Charles, moreover, was a prince of piety, intelli-
gence, and learning. His abilities are now cast up
against him, but to the Romans they were an
. additional recommendation. It is probable, too,
that there has been a considerable amount of
romancing as to his actual valour. In the eyes of
German savants his was the unpardonable iniquity
of being the first king of France, and according to
the chroniclers of Fulda, to whom we generously
sacrifice the witness of Prudence and Hincmar, he

172 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

was too much addicted to opposing the ambitions
of Louis the German. The Romans were of a
different opinion. We must make allowance for the
prejudiced views set forth in the papal correspondence
as long as it was controlled by Anastasius and, to a
certain extent, by Louis II. From more reliable
sources of information it is evident that, on several
occasions, Charles lent his support to the Holy See
in maintaining a salutary attitude with reference to
the clergy of his kingdom. There can be no doubt,
either, that the Holy See had designed him for the
imperial crown directly there was any question of
Louis II.’s succession. This was in the time of
Hadrian IT.

Nevertheless, as long as Louis II. remained in
the land of the living, these preferences could only
be expressed with great caution and in purely con-
fidential documents. Outwardly, the papal policy
outside Italy remained in harmony with that of
Louis II. On two occasions at least? John VIII.
protested against the usurpations sanctioned by the
treaty of Mersen.

On 12th August 875 the settlement of the
succession began. Largely attended councils were
held at Pavia and at Rome. Charles the Bald set
great store by his friends at Pavia, but he had an
important opponent in the person of the Empress
Engelberga, who had long ago set her desires on
Carloman, eldest son of Louis the German, and
already king of Bavaria. The assembly became
divided into the opposite factions, with the result
that two embassies were sent from it, one to Carlo-
man, and the other to Charles the Bald. At Rome
there was no opposition; the nobility and the clergy

1 J., 2961, 3000,

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 173

with one voice acclaimed the king of Western
France. Three bishops, Gaudry of Velletri, For-
mosus of Porto, and John of Arezzo, immediately
set out to invite Charles to come to Rome and
receive the imperial coronation.

The circumstances were momentous. ‘The 395
destinies of Italy were hanging in the balance be-—
tween France-and—Germany. For the first time,

too, the choice of the imperial person was being
‘made at Rome under the auspices of the Pope. It
was no longer a question, as it had been in 816, 823,
and 850, of a mere consecration ceremony, nor, as in
800, of a more or less obvious external initiative, but
of a genuine election. The situation was indeed
changed! Since 824 the Popes had been in_prin-_, 1 ft
ciple, _ and_generally in fact, confirmed bythe (* .«
lemperor ; now the emperor_waschosenby—the ¢ » "pe
Pope! John VIII., even in his short pontifi- | ~
cate of ten years, twice exercised this right of
choice.

Charles did not require pressing. With alacrity
he crossed the St. Bernard, and appeared at Pavia
before the end of September. ‘There, probably,
he received the Roman envoys. But Louis the
German had lost no time in despatching to Italy
his younger son, Charles the Fat, king of Swabia.
Charles the Bald had no difficulty in repulsing him,
but Carloman gave him more trouble. The latter
had descended the Brenner Pass at the head of an
imposing army. Charles brought matters to a
successful issue by diplomatic artifices, which have
been the scandal of Germany for over a thousand
years. Meanwhile Louis the German, with his
other son, who also bore the name of Louis, turned
his attention to Western France, which was de-

174 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIU

fended by yet another Louis (Louis the Stammerer),
son of the imperial candidate.

The latter, in a hurry, arrived at Rome on
17th December. He naturally lavished rich gifts
upon St. Peter’s tomb, and behaved generously
to the Romans, who, in accofdance with custom,
expected a display of bounty. It may be remarked,
however, that although Charles showed himself
thus munificent in December, four months had
already elapsed since he had received his invitation,
and longer still since his candidature had been ac-
cepted and warmly welcomed.

The coronation took place on Christmas Day,
exactly seventy-five years after that of Charlemagne.
According to the Libellus de imperatoria potestate,
Charles would have introduced considerable modi-
fications into the relations between the empire and
the Holy See; in particular, he would have dis-
pensed with the permanent mss. This, however,
is open to question ; for in 885, under Charles the
Fat, the missus was still in office, and it is hardly
likely that the function would have been abolished
in 875, and re-established in 881, at Charles’s ac-
cession. ‘There is no documentary evidence of this.
In the Libellus there is also mention of territorial
transfers, such as the duchies of Spoleto and Bene-
ventum and the cities of Chiusi and Arezzo. As
far as the duchies are concerned, they undoubtedly
remained in the state, and Charles the Bald even
appointed a Duke of Spoleto on his own authority.
Moreover, the fact that the Bishop of Arezzo was
one of the three envoys despatched to Charles the
Bald, presumes that Arezzo was still attached to
the Roman state at the time of Louis II.’s death,
for the Pope was not in the habit of employing

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 175

legates, other than his own subjects, for missions of
this kind.

In short, it seems probable that the author of
the Libellus must have known of a privilege (now
lost) delivered by Charles the Bald to Pope
_ John VIII., in which the new emperor gave his
* sanction to certain papal claims, similar to those of
which it was a question in the lifetime of Hadrian,
though, as a matter of fact, very little change took
place either in the extent of the pontifical state,
or in the relations between it and the protective
empire.

The Pope was not in a position to devote much
attention to annexing territories, or making efforts
to throw off the Frankish protection. In spite of
some repulses, the Saracens were becoming more
and more formidable foes. The Emperor Louis II.
had ejected them from Bari in 871. In 876, in
answer to an appeal from the inhabitants, a Greek
fleet took possession of the town, and not long
after (880) ‘T'arento also gave way before one of
the generals of the Emperor Basil. Before the
Saracen occupation these places had been owned
by the Lombard duchy of Beneventum, but as the
Emperor Louis II. was no longer at hand to put
forward the claims of the Lombard crown, Basil
himself appropriated the conquered towns. From
that time the Greek empire began to establish a firm
footing on the south-east coast of Italy, meanwhile
extending its influence over the Dalmatian isles, and
the Croatian and Servian principalities of the in-
terior ; its position at Venice was also strengthened”
so that the Adriatic became Byzantine property.
Being prevented on this side, the Saracens fell back
upon the coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea, where they

176 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

often profited by the disunion among the Greek and
Lombard principalities. The heads of these little
states got on much more amicably with the
Mahometans than with the empire. Their egotis-
tical spirit, and their unjustifiable claims had been
an impediment to Louis II.’s plans. The Duke of
Beneventum had even gone so far as to attempt
the life of his sovereign, the defender of Christianity.
At Naples, which owned a Mahometan garrison,
the Duke Sergius openly proclaimed himself an
ally of the Saracens. It was the same at Gaeta,
and Campania was constantly the scene of military
raids. Owing to the attitude of Duke Sergius,
Louis II. effected but little during his several
months’ sojourn (872-873) in Capua and the neigh-°
bourhood. Finally, tired of resistance, the petty
princes of Amalfi, Gaeta, Salerno, and even
Capua, entered into treaty with the Saracens, who,
having no further occasion for plundering in those
regions, betook themselves to the north where they
carried on their operations in the district round
Rome.

Immediately on his election John VIII. was ob-
liged to turn his attention to this quarter. Louis II.’s
campaign had been succeeded by a series of naval
expeditions of which mention is made in his letters.’
A Roman fleet, manned by Greek sailors, had been
organised at the mouth of the Tiber, and the Pope
sometimes placed himself in command. In a letter
addressed to Louis and his wife Engelberga,’ he
relates various exploits such as his having seized
eighteen Saracen vessels, delivered six hundred
Christians, and killed numerous infidels. He did

1 J., 2959, 2960, 2966, 3008.
2 J., 3008 (February 875).

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 177

not confine himself to fighting, however, but put
forth all the might of his diplomacy in order to
dissolve the treaties concluded between the Saracens
and the Campanian principalities. Finally he com-
pleted the fortifications of Rome by building around
St. Paul’s an enclosure, resembling the Leonine city.
Following Leo IV.’s example, he desired that it
should bear his own name and be called Johannipolis
No trace of it remains at the present day, and even
its exact site is not known.

His first request to the new emperor was for
help in his crusade. Charles’s kingdom, invaded
by Louis the German and continually threatened
by the Normans, was in no position to be left
without its chief, so Lambert, Duke of Spoleto, and
his brother Guy, were deputed to go to the Pope’s
assistance, in default of Charles himself. These
dignitaries having been implicated in the plot against
Louis II. (871), had been deprived of their offices,
but had just been reinstated by Charles. ‘They were
thus not very reliable allies, either from his point
_ of view or the Pope’s. John VIII. made his entry
into Campania under their escort. He gained
some measure of success at Amalfi and Salerno,
but the final triumph of the expedition was pre-
vented by the pertinacity of the Duke of Naples,
who was secretly supported by Adakis of Bene-
ventum, and even by the Dukes of Spoleto.
The Saracens maintained their footing in Italy,
and they soon reappeared in the neighbourhood of
Rome.

Besides these external foes, John VIII. had
enemies at home. ‘There were differences of opinion
concerning the promotion of Charles the Bald. The

1 J., 3012, 3016.
M

178 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

Kmpress Engelberga, who took the part of Carloman,
had allies in the pontifical circle, particularly among
the high officials who had been imposed upon the
preceding Popes, by the policy of Louis II. and the
influence of his wife. As long as Louis was alive
the Popes had been obliged to tolerate them, but
now the time had come to get rid of them, and the
prospect was all the more attractive because their
attitude was not favourable to the papal designs.
John VIII. had a free hand, and his severity would
undoubtedly have been approved by the imperial
MISSI.

The adversaries suspected what was coming to
pass, for they knew how things had happened at
Rome on a like occasion. Rumours were already
afloat of the probabilities of their being cast into the
Tiber, mutilated, or having their eyes gouged out.
Such things had already occurred often enough to
render their repetition a possibility, and to strike
fear into their hearts. One night they succeeded in
escaping by the St. Pancratius’ Gate, and their
flight was not discovered until the next day. Among
them were the nomenclator Gregory, who had suc-
ceeded the celebrated Arsenius in the office of apocri-
starius; the two masters of the militia, George of
Aventino and Sergius; the secwndicerius Stephen ;
Constantine, Gregory’s daughter; and, finally, the
Bishop of Porto, Formosus.

Most of these seem to have been rather a shady
set of people, but there was no mistaking the genuine
piety and austerity of Formosus. Pope Nicholas
had confided to him the leadership of the Bulgarian
mission, and his ministrations met with so much
acceptance among the Bulgarians, that they vehe-
mently desired him for their archbishop. Hadrian

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 179

refused to gratify them, alleging that Formosus was
already Bishop of Porto, and that translations were
not admissible. Porto was at that time, as it is
to-day, a more or less honorary bishopric. The king
of Bulgaria was greatly annoyed at the Pope’s atti-
tude on this question of canon law, but he finally
yielded to the importunities of the Greeks, and
accepted an archbishop of their choice. In this way
did the Latin Church sever itself from the Bulgarian
mission, whereas if Hadrian had but given way on so
trifling a matter, he would have gained two important
advantages: the Bulgarians would have been retained
in submission, and Rome would have been freed
from a person who was in the future to be the cause
of much discord. Already, in 872, there had been
some question of raising him to the pontificate. This
alone was enough to make John VIII., who was far
from long-suffering, look upon him with disfavour.
Whether he was opposed to the consecration of
Charles the Bald, is not certain; but if such was the
case, it must be admitted that John VIII. made an
odd choice in selecting him as one of the ambassa-
dors to carry the invitation to that prince. There
is no proof either that Formosus ever entertained
‘German sentiments.” An exile from Rome, he
took refuge, not in Germany, but in France. It
cannot be denied that John did not like him, and
that he probably had a reason for his dislike, but
questions of nationality have nothing to do with this
affair.

When the Pope heard of the departure of his
enemies, he assembled a synod at the Pantheon
(19th April), and solemnly conjured them to return
to Rome. Then, as they were very far from com-
plying, he censured them at another synod held at

180 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

St. Peter’s on 30th June.’ Notice of this condem-
nation was sent to Charles the Bald and to the Synod
of Ponthieu, where the prince, surrounded by papal
legates, was just then being recognised as emperor.

Having got rid of his internal enemies, John soon
learned that they had been given shelter by the
Dukes of Spoleto and the Marquis of ‘Tuscany.
These nobles, ostensibly his protectors, were in reality
his persecutors. ‘The Saracens, too, were becoming
more and more offensive, and the Pope increased his
appeals to Charles the Bald.

But Charles found many obstacles in his way.
He had profited by the death of Louis the German
at Frankfort (28th June 876), to alter the treaty of
Mersen to his own advantage, and, by annexing
Louis’ share of the inheritance of Lothaire II., to
extend his frontier as far as the Rhine. He marched
upon Cologne and seized it, but Louis (son of the
German) defeated him at Andernach and forced him
to retreat. The following year he made arrange-
ments to go at last to the Pope’s help, and after
having taken measures to secure order during his
absence, by the capitulary of Kiersy-sur-Oise, he
crossed the Alps, and was met by John VIII. at
Pavia. While there he received notice of the arrival
of Carloman, who, while Charles was preparing to
fight the Saracens, had come to dispute with him the
possession of Italy. His intervention quite upset
the projected crusade, besides, the vassals on whom
Charles had counted the most, forsook him just at
this moment, and refused to cross the Alps. Thus
baffled, he relinquished his plan. He died on his

1 In the papal circle the fugitives were ridiculed in song. See
the Cena Cypriani, particularly the edition published by P. Lapdétre
in the Mélanges of the Ecole de Rome, t. xxi. p. 321.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 181

way back, poisoned, it is said, by his physician
(6th October 877). His only surviving son, Louis
the Stammerer, succeeded him without any diffi-
culty.

The Pope’s state of mind on returning to Rome
may be imagined. He was in the hands of his
adversaries. The Saracens might lay waste his
states without fear of punishment; and the exiles
would not fail to engage the services of their allies of
Lucca and Spoleto against him. From the moment
of John’s return, Lambert of Spoleto adopted an
insulting attitude, which the Pope did not lessen by
humiliating himself before Carloman. In the spring
of 878, Adalbert of Tuscany and Lambert of Spoleto
presented themselves before the Leonine city, and
insisted on effecting an entry. ‘The Pope thought it
wise to have an interview with them, and with the
exiles who had followed them, but their demands
were so excessive that he opposed them. He was
kept a prisoner for thirty days, during which they
sought to assure themselves of the Roman fidelity to
Carloman by instituting the taking of solemn oaths.
The Romans swore, but the Pope was inflexible,’ and
the enemy was obliged to retire without entering
Rome. As soon as they were gone John’s anger
burst forth. He began by placing the basilica of St.
Peter under an interdict as the scene of his outrage ;
he wrote to all the Carlovingian princes, and to
Carloman himself, feigning to believe that he had
had no knowledge of the affair; he even sent a pro-
test to the Greek emperor, Basil the Macedonian,
requesting him to come to his assistance. He then
announced that Rome being no longer endurable, he

1 Carloman was not emperor, and therefore the Pope was under
no obligation to take the oath.

182 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

was going to take refuge in France. In order to
keep the Saracens at bay during his absence, he
undertook to pay them a heavy tribute. Finally,
after excommunicating the two dukes, he took his
departure, going first to Genoa and then to Arles.

The Pope’s plan was as imposing as it was im-
practicable. He wished to summon a convocation of
the four Carlovingian princes and their episcopates,
and settle with them the important questions which
had arisen. But it was far from probable that the
sons of Louis the German would be inclined to meet
him in France, or even to enter into serious negotia-
tions with a Pope who, by the very choice of his
place of refuge, seemed to imply that he would
always support the claims of the younger and French
branch. Moreover, poor Louis the Stammerer had
quite enough to do at home without undertaking
foreign expeditions. He himself may or may not
have had cravings after the imperial office, but his
people were not at all anxious for the honour.
From the writings of Hincmar we see how little the
episcopate, and the lay aristocracy, had appreciated
the transformation of Charles the Bald into the
successor of Augustus.

The Pope soon realised that he must not expect
much sympathy from this quarter. It is true that
he held a great council at Troyes (878), where he
met Louis the Stammerer and received legates from
Germany, but all this led to no serious result. He
was, however, given an escort back to Italy in the
person of Boson, the ambitious Count of Vienne,
who the next year transformed himself into an
independent monarch. John VIII., making the
best of the situation, tried to arouse his interest by
holding up before him the splendours of Italy.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 183

Neither was there much to hope from the
Germans. Carloman, having returned from his
expedition of 877 in a feeble state of health, was
afflicted with paralysis, and thus unable to govern.
His brother Louis was far away in his provinces of
Saxony and Franconia, while the youngest of the
three brothers, Charles the Great, King of Swabia,
was distinguished neither by ability nor by bravery.
It was no easy matter to decide among so many and
such candidates.

After the departure and death of Charles the
Bald, Italy remained practically in the power of
Carloman. He came to Pavia, received the oaths
of the ecclesiastical and lay leaders, and spent
several weeks in the north of Italy. He then
retired to Bavaria, already attacked by the disease
which was to cost him his life. The other Frankish
princes did not as yet recognise his claims upon
Italy. From Louis the Stammerer in Western
France there was no very definite opposition’; he
was content to keep Provence, leaving the German
princes to settle the Italian question among them-
selves. The next winter the following arrangement
was made: the two kings in the Rhine district,
Louis and Charles the Fat, were to share the old
kingdom of Lothaire II., or rather such part of it as
the treaty of Mersen had allotted. to the German |
state; on the other hand they gave up Italy to
Carloman.

But, on account of his ill-health, the latter was
unable to take any active part in affairs. As we
have seen, John VIII. had been accompanied into
Italy after the Council of Troyes by Boson, son-in-

1 Cf. Poupardin, Le Royaume de Provence sous les Carolingiens,
p. 92, n. 3.

184 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

law to Louis II., with whose daughter Ermengarde
he had absconded. This ambitious individual had
been made a duke by Charles the Bald, and deputed
to represent him in the government of Italy. His
appearance as bodyguard and adopted son of Pope
John was calculated to arouse uneasiness. Boson,
however, soon returned to France.!' For some time
affairs were in an undecided state. ‘The Pope
turned a friendly face to all parties; to Carloman,
whom he treated as the actual sovereign; to Charles
the Fat, who was already posing as a candidate; to
Boson with whom he seemed to have some mysterious
understanding; and even to Louis III., the most
distant of Louis the German’s sons.

In 879 things began to fall into some semblance
of order. Louis the Stammerer died in April, leaving
two sons, who were both too young and weak to
have any designs on Italy. In October Boson
caused himself to be crowned king of Provence,
which usurpation brought enough difficulties in its
train to keep him for a long time a fixture on the
other side of the Alps. In Germany, Carloman,
realising the approach of death, surrendered Italy
to Charles the Fat. At the same time Louis, King
of Eastern France, after having profited by the
death of Louis the Stammerer to invade the
kingdom of the West, rushed into Bavaria and
established himself in the place of the unfortunate
Carloman. The latter passed away on 22nd March
880, and his successor only survived him until 20th
January 882. Three years later, at the end of
December 884, the last of the two reigning sons of
Louis the Stammerer died too, thus leaving the
Carlovingian dynasty with no other representative

1 For Boson, see Poupardin, op, cit.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 185

in the Western kingdom than the posthumous son
of Louis the Stammerer, Charles (the Simple)—a
little boy of four years old. In Germany it was
represented by the last son of Louis the German,
Charles the Fat. This latter received all the Carlo-
vingian heritage, and was recognised as sovereign
all over the empire of Charlemagne and Louis the
Pious, with the exception of Provence, where Boson
continued to flourish. This monarchy lasted only
three years, ending with the deposition and death
of Charles the Fat.

But these changes had no direct effect upon the
history of Italy, for after the year 879 Charles the
Fat is the only Carlovingian prince with whom the
Romans and Italians had dealings.

Having come to an understanding with his
brother and even with the two young kings of
Western France, whom he met at Arles, Charles
crossed the Alps. From the month of November
879 he was recognised as king in the north of Italy.
About 6th January 880 he was solemnly proclaimed
at Ravenna, in presence of the Pope and the chief
bishops of his new kingdom, who took an oath of
fealty to him.

The Pope was anxious to take him to Rome that
he might lend his aid against the Saracens. But
Charles, who was in a hurry to get back to France
to help his cousins in the subjugation of Boson, as
usual deputed the Duke of Spoleto to take his place.
He returned to Italy, however, the following autumn,
in response to the urgent entreaties of John VIIL.,
who hurled maledictions at his former friend Boson,
and protested that his relations with the Greeks
implied no disloyalty to the king. This was quite
true, for the Pope had merely requested them to set

186 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

their fleets in motion against the Saracen navy.
Charles arrived there again at the beginning of
February 881, and on the 12th of the same month
he and his wife Richarde received the imperial
consecration.

But the Pope’s plans did not progress much, in
spite of this event. Charles the Fat set off to the
north of Italy, where he tarried for more than a
year. In February 882 he had another interview
with the Pope at Ravenna. As long as he was
present the people of Spoleto were glib enough
with their promises, but no sooner was his back
turned than they declined to fulfil them. In May
of the same year the emperor crossed the Alps to
go and take possession of the dominions of his
brother Louis, who had just departed this life,
leaving Lorraine to be overrun by the Normans.
John again found himself deserted and helpless in
the midst of his enemies.

He died on the 15th December 882 under the
most distressing circumstances. A conspiracy was
set on foot against him, some of his own kinsmen
actually having a share in it. They began by trying
to poison him, but, in order to precipitate matters,
beat him to death with hammers.* This was the
first time that a Pope had met his death by assassina-
tion.

John VIII. had been the victim of circumstances
which no effort of his had succeeded in mitigating.
Of the three branches of the Carlovingian dynasty,
the first, the Italian, had come to grief under his
very eyes; the French branch, on which he had
then relied, had failed to support him; the German

1 Ann. Fuld., sole account, but must have been founded on
the reports sent to Charles the Fat.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 187

branch, to which he had in desperation turned, had
availed him just as little. The Saracens did not
cease to ravage the Roman state, and behind the
ramparts of Naples, Gaeta, and Capua there were
always found Christian allies ready to protect them
against the expeditions organised by the Pope, and
to assist them in enjoying their spoils. On the
interior frontiers, the Duke of Spoleto and the
Marquis of Tuscany were always undesirable neigh-
bours. Even at Rome the malcontents, incited by
the exiles, and perhaps also by the severity of the
government, renewed the opposition against which
John VIII. had fought in 876. The latter was
indeed the victim of defeat, but only after he had
fought a brave and unwearied fight.

His successor, Marinus, was elected without dis-
turbance. He was a man of intelligence, who had
been sent three times under former Popes as a legate
to Constantinople; he had even figured in this
capacity among the presidents of the ecumenical
council of 869, at the time of the deposition of
Photius. On his last visit to Constantinople he had
come across this personage again, not as a criminal
this time, but as the occupant of the patriarchal
throne, and not at all disposed to show favour to
one of his former judges. In order to keep on the
right side of the Emperor Basil, and to obtain his
assistance in his perpetual crusade, John VIII. had
recognised Photius; but for Marinus, Photius was
not merely an ecclesiastical opponent, but a personal
enemy. On this point he shared the sentiments of
Formosus.

Besides sharing this opinion with the most con-
spicuous enemy of John VIII., Marinus, it seems,
had other sympathies, which diverged from those of

188 THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII

his predecessor. His accession was the signal for
a marked reaction. Formosus, the apocrisiarius
Gregory, and the others who had been banished,
were now recalled to Rome and absolved from their
sentence of excommunication. The Bishop of 'Troyes
had sworn, at the council of Troyes, to live hence-
forth a secular life and never again to lay claim to
his see; John VIII. had even forced him to take
an additional oath, by which he bound himself never
again to enter Rome. Marinus absolved them from
all these vows.

Whatever may have been the sentiment which
guided him in this affair—and it is quite possible
that the emperor may have had some influence—there
can be no doubt at least that the recall of the exiles
relieved the situation of considerable embarrassment.

There had been some irregularity in the election
of Marinus. When John died he was exercising
the functions of archdeacon, but before that he had
been for some time Bishop of Caeri (Cervetri), and
though at the time no objection seems to have been
made to his translation, attention was soon called
to his origin by the case of Formosus. He had not
been in the pontifical seat sixteen months when he
was replaced by Hadrian III., whose reign proved
just as brief.

Of the relations between these short-lived Popes
and the empire we know but little. In June 883
Marinus had a meeting with Charles the Fat “at
Nonantola. ‘T'wo years later Hadrian III. _was-
the support of the papal authority i in arranging for
his succession. The Pope set out on the journey,
but death overtook him near Nonantola, where he
was buried.

THE TROUBLES OF JOHN VIII 189

There is no evidence to tell whether the ancient
right of confirmation was exercised in the case of
either of these Popes. Both in 882 and 884 the
papal seat appears to have been vacant for so short
a time that the emperor could not have been ap-
pealed to. It is possible, however, that the per-
manent missus may have been authorised to confirm
the appointment. ‘There is no doubt that in 885 a
missus existed in the person of John, Bishop of
Pavia. He it was, indeed, to whom Hadrian III.
committed the government of the city of Rome
before responding to the imperial summons to
Germany.

The sudden death of Hadrian having left the
papal chair again without an occupant, the Romans,
assisted by the mzssuws, chose the priest Stephen, a
man of rich and noble family, who was ordained
without delay (September 885). Charles the Fat,
it appears, had other views on the subject, and was
greatly provoked by not having been consulted in
the matter. He even despatched his chief chan-
cellor, Liutward, Bishop of Vercelli, with intent to
depose the newly-made Pope. The latter, however,
managed to assuage the imperial anger, and to
convince him, by the presentation of his decree of
election, that everything had been in order.

Two years later the emperor himself suffered
deposition at the hands of his own subjects. ‘The
event took place at the villa of Tribur in November
887, but the deposed sovereign did not long survive
this humiliation. Already in a few weeks (13th
January 898) kindly death came and bore him away
to a land where regrets for his past glories could no
longer oppress him.

CHAPTER XV
THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

Arnulph, King of Germany—Guy of Spoleto and Berengarius—Guy and
Lambert crowned as Emperors—Embarrassment of Pope Formosus
—Agiltrude—Arnulph at Rome and Spoleto—Lambert, master of
Italy—Death of Formosus—The Council of the Corpse—The Roman
Schism—Sergius III. and John IX.—The Councils of John IX.—
Death of Lambert.

Tue death of Charles the Fat gave rise to many
claimants to the throne. In Germany opposition
had proceeded from a natural son of Carloman,
Arnulph, Duke of Carinthia, who, like his father,
was a brave warrior. ‘The only surviving legiti-
mate Carlovingian prince was the posthumous son
of Louis the Stammerer, Charles (the Simple), who
was then but seven years of age. For the time his
claim was ignored, both in France and in Germany,
and Carloman’s illegitimate son received the general
support.

It was, however, impossible for the latter to
maintain the unity of the Frankish empire. He
was obliged to recognise as kings the following :—
Firstly, in France, Hugh, Count of Paris, son of
Robert the Strong, the first Capetian to reign;
secondly, in Provence, Louis (the Blind), son of
the usurper Boson, but grandson of the Emperor
Louis II., by his mother Ermengarda; thirdly, in
the Juras and Switzerland (rvegnuwm Jurense),
Rudolph, son of Conrad, Count of Auxerre, a
rebellious functionary ; fourthly, in Italy, Beren-

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 191

garius, Marquis of Friuli, grandson of Louis the
Pious by his mother, Gisele.

Besides these four royalties who, without being
actually under the dominion of Arnulph, never-
theless profited by their political intercourse with
the German sovereign, we must also take account,
in connection with France and Italy, of the House
of Spoleto.

Guy of Spoleto was sole heir of the Dukes (or
Marquesses) Lambert and Guy, whom we have
seen at daggers drawn with John VIII. He did
not belong, like Berengarius of Friuli and Louis
of Provence, to the Carlovingian family, but he
was none the less a man of parts. His ancestors,
like those of Charlemagne, came originally from
the banks of the Moselle, and sprang from as
noble a stock as did the House of Pepin. ‘Trans-
planted, about the middle of the ninth century,
to the centre of Italy, this Frankish family had
continued to consolidate its position. The duchy
of Spoleto had become for it a hereditary princi-
pality, and this was only a centre for various radu
of activity.

Taking advantage of the parcelling out of southern
Italy, and of the weakness of the central authority in
these distant regions, the Lamberts and Guys made
up their minds to be masters, not only of their |
own affairs, but also of their neighbours’. They
contracted marriages in ‘Tuscany and Beneventum,
intervened in the concerns of Capua, Naples, and
Salerno, protected (and, on occasion, oppressed) the
Pope, and entered into negotiations with the Greek
patricians, and even with the Saracens. These
latter alliances, which were always open to suspi-
cion, had already, on two separate occasions, incurred

192 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

the imperial displeasure. Louis II. had deprived
them of their principality (871-875). Charles the
Bald reinstated them, but they managed to fall foul
of Charles the Fat. In 883 Guy of Spoleto, the
one with whom we are at present concerned, was
arrested by order of the emperor, tried at a court
of justice held at Nonantola, and dismissed from
office. He succeeded in escaping, however, and
returned to his duchy, where, supported by a troop
of Mussulman mercenaries, he organised so decided
a rebellion that the military had to be called upon
to resist it. Berengarius of Friuli was placed at
the head of the defensive army, but, though he
was at first successful, the appearance of the
plague among his men forced him to retire. Not
long afterwards, at the beginning of 885, Guy was
received into the emperors good graces, but he
never ceased to cherish a violent grudge against
Berengarius.

On hearing of the death of Charles the Fat, Guy
promptly presented himself as a candidate for the
crown of France. His supporters, who were
numerous, were headed by the powerful Arch-
bishop of Rheims, Foulques, the successor of Hinc-
mar. Guy succeeded in having himself crowned
at Langres, but the disquieting behaviour of Hugh
compelled him to turn his attention immediately
to Italy. Here fighting was the order of the day,
and after an indecisive battle near Brescia (888),
the Duke of Spoleto gained the victory of Trebbia
(889). Berengarius, in spite of the German alliance,
was obliged to content himself with his marquisate,
augmented, it is true, by certain important towns,
such as Verona.

Both Guy of Spoleto and his rival laid claim to

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 193

the title of king,t though the former had much the
better right to it, being now master of Milan, Pavia,
and the whole of Italy south of the Po.

The kingdom of Luitprand and Astolphus was
thus reconstituted to the advantage of a family
- which, though certainly of Frankish origin, had
rapidly become Italianised, and that, not according
to the tradition of Louis II. and the Carlovingians,
but that of the old Lombard kings as opposed to
the Pope. ‘There was no family understanding
between the princes of Spoleto and the Holy See,
and though they had sometimes lent it their
support, it was in their capacity as imperial func-
tionaries carrying out the orders of their superior
officers, the Carlovingians. Still, they were more
given to furthering their permanent interests by
making themselves troublesome to the Pope.
They found as much difficulty in living at peace
with the occupant of the Holy See as Astolphus
had done in respecting the Byzantine provinces.

Guy’s kingship was, therefore, a serious menace
for the papacy. But what could be done? They
might indeed follow the popular example, and,
overlooking the fact of the illegitimacy of Carlo-
man’s son, accept him as the Roman emperor.
But Arnulph, far away, was too much taken up
with his own internal difficulties (in particular with
his enemies the Normans and the Moravians) to
be able to interfere in the affairs of Italy. At
this time the star of the Greek empire was in the
ascendant. Ever since it had re-established its
footing in Southern Italy by settling at Bari, its
successes, both military and diplomatic, had been

1 M. G. Cap., t. ii. p. 104; documents on the election of King
Guy by the bishops.
N

194 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

continually on the increase. With a more forcible
attempt, the vassalage of the Greek or Lombard
princes in the interior and on the west coast
might have been transformed into absolute subjec-
tion. Since the accession of the Emperor Leo VI.
(886) Photius had been turned out of the patri-
archal see to which the Pope Marinus had again
disputed his right; the bitter dissent between the
Roman Church and the empire of Constantinople
was at an end. He might have boldly interfered
in Italian affairs, exhausted the claimants of Spoleto
and Friuli by playing them off one against the other,
and taken advantage of the weakness of the trans-
Alpine kingdoms to emulate Justinian’s work in
Italy. The Greeks, however, let the opportunity
slip. After the demise of Charles the Fat, Pope
Stephen V. only had to reckon with two powers,
the new king of Italy and the heir, such as he
was, of Carlovingian tradition.

He adopted a crafty policy. Guy, who was
much to be feared, was not openly thwarted. In
order to obtain pardon for his rebellion of 883 the
duke had set out to fight against the Saracens
immediately after his restoration to favour (885),
and had even demolished their‘establishment between
Gaeta and the Garigliano; it was only a temporary
destruction, certainly, but one which gained him a
great deal of gratitude. Pope Stephen writing the
following year to the Archbishop of Rheims,’ a
relation of Guy’s, declares that he looks upon the
latter as his only son. This paternal tenderness, how-
ever, did not prevent him from appealing to Arnulph
for help, in 890. It is true that he avoided direct
letters, and had recourse to the medium of Zwenti-

1 J., 3420,

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 195

bald, duke of the Moravians, who in his name
begged the King of Germany “to come to Rome
to visit the sanctuary of St. Peter, and to resume
dominion over the kingdom of Italy which had
been appropriated by bad Christians, and was being
threatened by a heathen people.” ?

The following year, however, on 21st February
891, this same Pope Stephen V. consecrated Guy
as emperor at St. Peter’s. Formosus, who suc-
ceeded him some months later, performed the same
action for Lambert, Guy’s son (30th April 892).
Thus the House of Spoleto stood possessed not
only of the Italian kingship, but also of the imperial
title.

“In performing these ceremonies the Pope was
acting under compulsion. Formosus, like Stephen
V., was playing a double part. He consecrated the
Spoletans, and in his letters to his uncle of Rheims
referred to them in terms of the highest praise, with
protestations of loyalty and affection.? But he, none
the less, continued to beset Arnulph with lamenta-
tions, beseeching him to come and deliver him from
the “ bad Christians.” ‘There can be no doubt that
he alluded to the House of Spoleto and their oppres-
sion of the Holy See, for there was, at that time, no
question of the Saracens. It seemed like a return to
the situation of 754, and Formosus, Arnulph, and
Guy, being now in precisely the same relations as
had been Stephen II., Pepin, and Astolphus.

Arnulph, thus importuned, ended by coming.
His first expedition, at the beginning of 894, though
ill equipped with forces, succeeded in taking the

1 Ann. Fuld. 4
2 J., 3481, 3482, 3500, lost letters analysed by Flodoard,
8 J., 3486, 3501, lost letters mentioned in the Annals of Fulda.

196 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

territory north of the Po. Bergamo was captured
by storm and plundered, and this victory led the
other towns, even including Milan and Pavia, to
open their gates. ‘The Emperor Guy, having with-
drawn to the Apennines, awaited Arnulph at the
mountain pass. He was a doughty warrior, who,
if he had lived, would have given the emperor a
troublous time in Italy. But he died the same
year, soon after Arnulph, who did not deem it
discreet to attack him in his own mountains, had
re-crossed the Alps.

But, although Guy was dead, his cause was still
in capable hands. ‘The interests of the young
Lambert were watched by the Empress-Mother
Agiltrude, a woman of marked force of character.
She was the daughter of that Adalgis of Beneventum
who, in 871, had dared to attack the sacred person of
the Emperor Louis II., and, both by family tradition
and the exigencies of her present position, was the
deadly foe of the Carlovingian dynasty. She united
in herself the old grievances of the Lombard kings
with the new feelings of resentment harboured by
the princes of Spoleto. Arnulph was to find her
an enemy not to be despised.

In the autumn of 895 the latter reappeared in
Italy, and in the following February advanced
against Rome. His army had a trying time in
Tuscany owing to illness, bad weather, and the
dreadful state of the roads. The Marquess Adalbert,
too, was a questionable vassal. Up to Arnulph’s
arrival at Rome nothing had been heard of the
Spoletans. He imagined that the town was in the
Pope’s power, and expected to see a_ procession
advancing to meet him. But he had reckoned with-
out Agiltrude, who, with great intrepidity, had seized

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 197

upon Rome, quite ignoring the papal protestations.
She had already invested it with a garrison, and was
making ready to receive the invading party.

But her plans were checked by a chance incident
which, contrary to all expectation, delivered the Gate
of St. Pancratius into the hands of the astonished
besiegers. The Spoletans disappeared, leaving the
field to the Pope and the Carlovingian represen-
tatives. Arnulph was received on the steps of
St. Peter’s, and Formosus warmly embraced him,
for whom he and his predecessor had awaited as
the promised deliverer. On 22nd February 896
the Vatican was the scene of an imperial con-
secration, this time celebrated with whole-hearted
enthusiasm.

It now remained to follow up their victory.
Shut up in the castle whose ruins still crown the
picturesque mountain of Spoleto, Agiltrude and
Lambert awaited the coming of Arnulph. The
latter left as his representative at Rome, not the
peaceable missus of former times, but a substantial
military commander, Farold by name, and set out
on the road to Umbria. The Pope Formosus,
countenanced by Farold, was preparing to follow
the vicissitudes of the struggle between the two
emperors whom he had consecrated, when some
terrible news reached him. Arnulph had been ©
struck down by paralysis, and now had to be carried
on a litter, just as his father Carloman had been in
877. There was no prospect that he would ever
again be strong enough to fight for the Holy See
in Italy.

Overwhelmed by the overthrow of his plans,
Formosus immediately died, on 4th April 896.
Even more than in the case of Marinus, perhaps,

198 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

his election had defied the laws of the Church, for
at the time of his promotion he still held the bishopric
of Porto. The two elections that followed, under the
auspices of Farold the missus, showed no greater
degree of respect for the ancient rules of discipline.
Formosus was succeeded by Boniface VI., a priest
who had twice (both as sub-deacon and as priest)
incurred sentence of deposition. He seems to have
been thrust forward as candidate by the populace.
His reign was short, and in a fortnight’s time there
was another occupant of the Papal See in the person
of Stephen (VI.), Bishop of Anagni.

Meanwhile Lambert was regaining a footing in
Northern Italy. He had returned to Pavia and
Milan, and had come to terms with Berengarius
who had not been conciliated by his submissive
attitude with regard to Arnulph. The Adda and
the lower Po were agreed upon as boundaries be-
tween the kings of Italy. Lambert retained the
better part—Milan, Pavia, Spoleto, and the im-
perial title. There could be no further question
of Germany and its princes before the Ottos.

The affairs of Italy being thus arranged, Lambert
and his mother turned their steps towards Rome,
the final refuge of the German empire. On 20th
August 896 Farold was still supreme, and he seems
to have held his own until the end of the year.
But at the beginning of 897, Agiltrude and Lambert
again took possession of the town, though under
what circumstances there is no evidence to tell.
Then there happened an event of evil omen, which
was to be the foreshadower of a long and sad
series of disturbances in the heart of the apostolic
Church. :

Formosus had betrayed the House of Spoleto,

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 199

_ having treacherously abetted and consecrated the
barbarian candidate. He had now been dead and
buried for nine months, a fact which would have
sufficed to disarm any ordinary avenger on the
principle of jam parce sepulto. But even the
mysteries of death and the tomb were not sacred
before the unholy rage of the daughter of Adalgis,
for she, almost beyond a doubt, was the real insti-
gator of the crime carried out by Pope Stephen VI.,
the pitiable tool of her vengeance.

The withered corpse of the aged pontiff was
dragged from its sarcophagus, and exhibited before
a synod presided over by the Pope. Still dressed
in pontifical garments, it was propped up on a
throne, and by its side was installed a deacon, who,
pale with terror, had to reply in the name of the
deceased Formosus. The legal accounts of this
abominable trial were burned the following year,
but we get some of the details from contem-
porary writers. The whole history of his past, his
quarrels with John VIII., his oaths, his ambitious
conspiracies, the perjuries imputed to him, were
all brought up to his disadvantage. ‘They revived
old ecclesiastical canons, long forgotten by every one,
including the president of this gruesome council,
and ended by proclaiming the unworthiness of the
accused, the irregularity of his promotion, and the
invalidity of his acts, especially his ordinations. On
this point, however, they confined themselves to
the annulment of the Roman ordinations, con-
tinuing to recognise those outside. Not one of
the Roman clerks thus deposed was reordained.’
In accordance with the ancient ceremony, the papal
mummy was stripped of its insignia, and of all its

1 Auxilius, App. Diimmler, Auxilius and Vulgarius, p. 95.

200 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

clothing except the haircloth which still clung to
the withered flesh. It was then thrown into an
unconsecrated tomb, among the bodies of strangers.
But the brutal populace, anxious to have a share
in those outrages on the man before whom they
had long grovelled, had the corpse cast into the
Tiber.

In order that nothing should be lacking to the
horror of this gloomy time, the old Lateran basilica
collapsed. This catastrophe possibly preceded the
ghastly council; it seems almost a pity that it did
not occur just at the time of it, and that the
venerable building, which had so often been witness
of the prayers of Sylvester, Leo, Gregory, and
Nicholas, did not crash in upon the head of their
unworthy successor.

The latter, however, did not live long to enjoy
the horrible triumph of which he had been the
instigator rather than the hero. Whatever may
have been his exact motives for taking part in this
grim comedy, there can be no doubt that he thought
it would be to his own advantage. The judgment
pronounced against Formosus would have been his
own fate, if by a revolting casuistry he had not
been careful to have the ordinations of his pre-
decessor annulled. It was Formosus who had con-
secrated him Bishop of Anagni, but, the acts of
Formosus being repealed, this episcopal ordination
vanished with them, so that it could no longer be
said that Pope Stephen VI. had been transferred
from one See to another.

But Stephen was to meet with his deserts. A
rebellion arose, evidently incited by horror at his
proceedings, and he was cast out of the papal See.
As he had caused Formosus to be stripped while

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 201

dead, so was he stripped while alive; a monkish
garment was flung over his shoulders, and then he
was thrown into a prison. But this was not con-
sidered punishment enough and before long they
strangled him.

The reigns of the next two pontiffs, Romanus
and Theodore II., were extremely brief. Romanus
occupied the papal chair for four months, and
Theodore for only twenty days. But under the
latter reparatory measures were begun. The body
of Formosus had been cast up by the Tiber near
the church of St. Acontius, in his old diocese of
Porto. A monk, warned, it is said, in a dream by
the shade of the unfortunate Pope, found it and
bestowed upon it a temporary burial. Several
months later, Theodore II. having been elected
pontiff, decided to restore it to its original tomb in
the atrium of St. Peter’s, in the midst of the other
Popes. Clothed anew in his pontifical adornments,
Formosus was conveyed, with chanting and prayers,
to the last long home, of which he had been de-
prived by unholy rancour.'

Theodore did more still. He restored the clerks
deposed by the council of Stephen VI. to their lost
positions. A special assembly was convened for this
purpose, but its provisions, unfortunately, have not
been preserved.

Thus, in efforts to repair some of the ills that
had been incurred, the year 897, one of the darkest
in the long annals of the papacy, came to a close.
But the spirit of unrest was abroad, and peace was

1 The paintings in St. Peter’s had been restored by order of
Formosus, According toa legend related by Luitprand, when his
body was brought back to the basilica, the statues of the saints
bowed towards it.

202 THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO

not yet to be established. There was strife over
the tomb of Theodore II., two Popes, Sergius ITI.
and John IX., being elected at the same time.
The imperial authority appears to have supported
John, who was a lover of peace. Sergius was a
fierce and radical adherent of Stephen VI. and his
council. The Emperor Lambert had the upper
hand, and the idea of resorting to the transalpine
protection could not be entertained. ‘To extenuate,
as far as might be possible, the scandalous be-
haviour of the council of Stephen VI., to lessen the
internal dissensions of the Roman Church, and to
confirm the legitimacy and positions of the emperor,
the bishops, and the cardinals, such was the self-
imposed task of John IX. With this end in view,
he held three councils, of which we only know the
details of two, one held at Rome?! and the other
at Ravenna. Bishops from every part of Italy were
present. The decrees of Stephen’s council were
read and repealed, while those of Theodore’s council
were sealed with approbation. It was also decided
that in future no corpse could be brought up for
trial. ‘The ordinations of Formosus were recognised
as valid, as were also his decrees in general, with the

exception of the “surreptitious consecration of a
_ barbarian ”—wnctio illa barbarica, per surreptionem
extorta. Finally, the rights of the emperor in con-
nection with the jurisdiction over the Romans were
solemnly ratified. As regards the papal elections,
it was declared that any disorders that had occurred,
proceeded from the lack of the imperial participation
in the choice of the Pope, and that, consequently,
no future elections could be followed by consecra-

1 For this council, reference must be made to Mansi’s account,
which is more complete than others

THE EMPIRE OF SPOLETO 203

tion without the presence of the emperor’s legates—
presentibus legatis imperatoris.

In this way the Church of Rome returned, on
her own initiative, to the régime of the constitution
of Lothaire. She recognised that, outside these rules,
to which she had with so ill a grace resigned herself
under Lothaire and Louis II., there could be no
security, either for the papal elections or for the tem-
poral government of the Roman state.

The Pope’s hopes, like those of the rest of Italy
outside Berengarius’s kingdom, thus began to centre
upon the young Emperor Lambert. Unfortunately,
however, he was killed by a hunting accident on
15th October, not many weeks after the council
of Ravenna. Like his predecessors, John VIII.,
Stephen V., and Formosus, John IX. had to gaze
upon the ruins of the hopes which he had built on
the empire. He died in January 900, having no
doubt realised more than once the truth of the
psalmist’s words, Nolte confidere in principibus filiis
hominum, in quibus non est salus.

CHAPTER XVI
THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

The Empire annihilated—Theophylact and Sergius I1I.—John X. and
the Expulsion of the Saracens—Alberic of Spoleto—End of the
anti-Formosan quarrel—Marozia—<Accession of Alberic IT.

BERENGARIUS immediately assumed authority over
the kingdom of Lambert, and took possession of the
palace of Pavia. In the following year (899) the
Hungarians penetrated into Italy for the first time,
and laid waste everything not defended by fortified
walls. ‘The new king took up arms against them,
but while trying to cut off their retreat, he sustained
a crushing repulse on the Brenta—an unlucky omen
for his future reign. On the 8th December Arnulph
died; he was succeeded by his very youthful son,
Louis the Child.

Towards the beginning of the year 900, John IX.
was succeeded by Benedict IV., a man who shared
the same theories of government. Berengarius,
whose defeat had brought him into disrepute, had
now to struggle against a rival, King Louis of
Provence, whose mother was daughter to the Km-
peror Louis II. The success of the newcomer
was great enough to cause him to be recognised at
Pavia and even at Rome, where he was consecrated
emperor by Pope Benedict in February 901. But
his prosperity did not last long. Berengarius re-
gained the upper hand in 902, and compelled him
to retreat beyond the Alps, after having sworn never —

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 205

to reappear in Italy. This oath was broken in 905,
when Louis was besought to come to the support of
those Italian nobles who were ill-content with Beren-
garius’s government. He even succeeded in wresting
Verona from his rival, but fell into his power through
treachery, and after having his eyes put out, was
banished for ever.

Rome took no part in these quarrels. The par-
ticularistic spirit prevailed more and more strongly.
Nothing could be expected from the transalpine
dynasties, and the King of Italy was too weak and
beset by foes to be of any substantial support. But
help came from within. From the very heart of the
local aristocracy there issued an influential family,
which straightway placed itself at the head of
affairs, a position which it maintained for nearly
sixty years under one form or another.

At the time of which we are speaking, it was
represented by the papal vestararius or vestiarius
Theophylact, his wife Theodora, who bore the title
of vestararissa, and his two daughters, Marozia and
Theodora. The office of vestararius was one of the
most important in the whole of the pontifical ad-
ministration. It was early secularised, and its in-
cumbent seems to have been specially charged with
the supervision of the government of Ravenna and
the neighbouring provinces. Theophylact was both
duke and magister militum, and at Rome the titles
of consul and senator were his in an exclusive
fashion—he was not @ consul, but the consul,’ not
a senator, but the senator.

1 Eug. Vulgarius (ed. Diimmler, p. 147) calls him dominus
urbis, In 900 he appears for the first time at a court of justice,
held by the Emperor Louis of Provence (Memorie di Lucca, t. iii.

p. 639); his name appears second among the lay nobility. In a
document of 915 (Gattola, Hist. Abb. Cassin, Acc., t. i. p. 111) he

206 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

Upon the death of Benedict IV., towards the
end of July 903, they elected a priest forensis (i.e.
one who was not a cardinal). He was known as
Pope Leo V., but in less than two months he was
supplanted by another priest, Christopher, by whom
he was cast into prison. Hardly had the following
year begun, when who should turn up again but
Sergius, the exiled rival of John IX. (898). His
return was supported by the “ Franks,” probably,
that is, by Berengarius or the Marquess of Tuscany,
whose help was claimed by one Roman party. His
first proceeding was to send Christopher to keep
Leo V. company in prison. These two unfortu-
nates dragged out a wretched existence for some
time longer, when it was decided, “ out of pity,” to
relieve them of the burden of life.

With such a beginning, the pontificate of Sergius
III. seemed to shadow forth a period of passionate
reaction against Formosus, John [X., and his suc-
cessors. He revived in all its severity the tradition
of Stephen VI., with whose ecclesiastical position
he had much in common. He had indeed received
episcopal ordination at the hands of Formosus, and
that, too, for the See of Caeri, which had already
in 882 supplied Rome with a Pope. Certainly
Formosus was allowed to rest in his tomb, but on
that of Stephen was engraved an epitaph exalting
him for having “checked the licentiousness of the
haughty and intrusive Formosus”: Hic primum
repulit Formosi spurca superbi, culmina qui invasit
sedis apostolice. A convocation was summoned in
is spoken of as senator Romanorum, and named the first; at the
imperial consecration of Berengarius (fin. 915), his son appears
under the title of filius consulis, together with the brother of the

Pope (John X.), quite in the same rank, and above all the other
Roman nobles.

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 207

order to annul once again the ordinations of For-
mosus, and its decisions were carried out with
merciless severity. Bishops, priests, and deacons,
all who had been consecrated by Formosus, were
obliged either to resign their positions or to submit
to reordination. It was forbidden to use the title of
priest (sacerdos) with reference to Formosus, even in
correspondence, and there is still preserved a letter
from Sergius III. to Amelius, Bishop of Uzés, in
which the latter is vehemently reproached for not
having complied with this rule. John IX. and his
successors, who were looked upon as usurpers, were
designated on the epitaph of Sergius as “ ravening
wolves.” Sergius himself also uses the same ex-
pression when he refers to them in the monumental
inscriptions which he had placed in the Lateran
basilica, restored during his administration.

The unpleasant effect produced in the ecclesiasti-
cal world of Italy by these measures may easily be
imagined, Apart from the Roman clergy, strictly
speaking, who appear to have been too much alarmed
to make any show of resistance, there were in pen-
insular Italy a number of bishops who had _ been
consecrated by Formosus during his five years’
pontificate. Not only were these consecrations ren-
dered null and void, but the ordinations celebrated
in their own dioceses by these bishops themselves |
were also annulled. In such places as Naples and
Beneventum, which were not under the temporal
power of the papacy, some resistance was mani-
fested. There was even a series of polemical
writings directed against the Pope, several of which
have come down to us under the names of Auxilius
and Eugenius Vulgarius." These latter defended

1 Some of these writings have been published by Morinus,
Mabillon, and Bianchini ; others have been collected by E, Diimmler,

208 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

the ordinations of Formosus; Sergius I1I. wrote on
behalf of the opposite side, but his writings have
not been preserved.

EKugenius Vulgarius appears to have steered a
middle course between the two parties; although he
assailed Sergius III., there came a time when he
deemed it prudent to ingratiate himself with him,
lavishing flattery and compliments both in prose and
verse. He also addressed himself to influential

who has devoted to them “an ensemble study ”—Ausilius and
Vulgarius, Leipzig, 1866, Auxilius, a priest of French origin,
wrote to Naples. He had been summoned to attend the council
of Sergius III., but refused to comply. He wrote three works
upon the ordinations of Formosus: (a) In defensionem sacre ordina-
tionis pape Formosi, in two volumes (Diimmler, pp. 59-95), with an
appendix on the history of the Popes from Marinus to Sergius III. ;
this work must have been published in 908; (6) De ordinationibus
pape Formosi, a collection of texts (Migne, t. 129, p. 1059), of
which Diimmler has found a rather more extensive edition (op, cit.,
pp. 107-116); (c) a dialogue on the same subject (Infensor and
Defensor ; Migne, t. c. p. 1070), addressed with the preceding
work to Leo, Bishop of Nola. These last two books date from
911, or a little earlier. Besides these three works, Auxilius pub-
lished an apology for the ordinations of Stephen, Bishop of Naples,
who died in 907, or rather sooner, and who, like Formosus, had
been transferred from a bishopric.

Vulgarius, it seems, was a grammarian, a professor of a
school at Naples, or some other Greek town in southern Italy.
Unlike Auxilius, he was not deeply versed in ecclesiastical
literature, but, on the other hand, he had an extensive ac-
quaintance with the classics, and tenderly cultivated the various
poetical metres and forms of dialectic. His first work (Diimm-
ler, p. 117) was issued in the form of a letter addressed to the
Roman Church by a council of Gauls, held at Lutetia, the year 17
of the Emperor Charles IV., z.e. Charles the Simple (910); the
second is in the form of a dialogue (Insimulator, Actor ; Migne, p.
1103); it was composed at the request of a deacon, Peter. Mabillon
had published it under the name of Auxilius, but Diimmler dis-
covered that of Vulgarius at the beginning of both works. Besides
the letters and the pieces of verse mentioned in the text (Diimm-
ler, pp. 139-156), we must also quote the Jnvectiva in Romam, pub-
lished’ under John X. (i.e. between 914 and 928), the last of the
known arguments on behalf of Formosus; the latter was published
by Bianchini (Anast, bibl., t. iv. p. 1xx).

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 209

persons in high places at the Roman Court, the
apocrisiarius Vitalian, the vestararissa Theodora,
and many others.

From his letter to Theodora, and also in one from
Ravenna, discovered a few years ago,’ we gain some
idea of the influence and power of the vestiarius and
his wife. They made common cause with the Pope,
dealing out his favours, and generally behaving as if
they were the real masters of the Roman state.
The understanding went further. Sergius III. was
on terms of intimacy with Marozia, one of Theodora’s
daughters, and he even had a son by her, who, later
on, rose to the papacy as John XI. There seems to
have been no secret as to his paternity, for not only
the chroniclers, such as Luitprand, but also the semi-
official catalogues, by means of which the Liber Ponti-
ficalis was continued, do not hesitate to make mention
of it. From this we see how openly vice was tolerated
among the most exalted personages at that time.

Pope Sergius was spiteful, brutal, and a scoun-
drel,? but it must be admitted that he knew how to
retain the papal throne at a time when its occupants
came and went in rapid succession. He held it for
seven years, and then died a natural death. He also
had the power of making himself feared and obeyed,
in which he was greatly assisted by Theophylact
and his family. Neither must it be forgotten that
his pontificate was distinguished by the renewal of
the Lateran basilica, in which he displayed the most
lavish generosity possible.

1 Neues Archiv., t. ix. p. 517.

2 Sergius had been promoted to the sub-diaconate by Pope
Marinus (882-84); he was therefore over forty years of age when
his pontificate began (904). Marozia, who was married for the
third time in 932, could hardly have been born before 892. There
was thus a great disparity of age between her and Sergius III.

O

210 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

The two Popes who succeeded Sergius were
Anastasius III., who reigned rather more than two
years, and Laudo, who was in authority for less than
six months. We know nothing of their history, and
it seems improbable that they could have opposed
the influence of Theophylact, who was the virtual
temporal ruler. John X., who came after them,
maintained his position during fourteen years (914—
928).

It was even claimed that his promotion, due to
Theodora, was the consequence of his adulterous
relations with this woman, who, as Luitprand re-
marks, governed Rome with vigour, Romane civi-
tatis non inviriliter monarchiam obtinebat. However
this may be, there can be no doubt that John’s
government was conspicuous for its force and
virility.

The great question of the day was how best to
bring about the expulsion of the Saracens. Since
their defeat of 885, they had renewed their strength,
and, always welcome at Naples and Gaeta, had estab-
lished a fortified centre of plundering operations in
the mountains commanding the lower course of the
Garigliano. ‘This was extremely unpleasant for the
important possessions of the Roman Church in their
vicinity. Moreover, the Saracens, invading Roman
Campania, had set up at Sabina a kind of branch
of their Garigliano establishment on the site of the
Abbey of Farfa, which had been taken from the
monks in 898. John X. directed all his energies
towards the destruction of these two Mussulman
resorts.

He undoubtedly had this end in view when,
about the month of December 915, he invited Beren-
garius to Rome, and bestowed upon him the imperial

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 211

crown. Louis the Blind (died 928) was still living in
his kingdom of Provence. No attention was paid to
his claims, which went back to Pope Benedict IV.,
unrecognised by Sergius III. The poet by whom
the Gesta Berengaru were celebrated with so much
pomp, has left us a description of the fétes with which
his hero was honoured in 915. Berengarius, how-
ever, took no part in the struggle against the Sara-
cens; after his coronation he returned to the north
of Italy, leaving his subjects of ‘Tuscany and Spoleto
to help the Pope in his schemes for their overthrow.
This time their help was really worth having.
The governor of Spoleto, the Marquess Alberic, acted
in concert with the Romans. The infidels were de-
feated at Baccano and at Trevi, and forced to abandon —
their establishment, and to fall back upon the Garig-
liano. But this was not all. John X. was well
adapted for such an undertaking, and he succeeded
in organising in Southern Italy a league of all the
Christian principalities. Naples and Gaeta, indemni-
fied at the expense of the pontifical estates, broke off
their alliance with the Mussulmans; the Greek
strategist of Langobardium, Nicholas Picingli, ap-
peared in the Tyrrhenian Sea at the head of an im-
portant fleet; round him rallied the squadrons of
Naples and the neighbouring ports, not to mention
the pontifical vessels; the Lombard princes of Bene-
ventum, Capua, and Salerno, all lent their aid; and
the Roman state, Tuscany, and the duchy of
Spoleto, sent a considerable contingent under the
command of the Senator of the Romans, 'Theophy-
lact, and the Marquess Alberic.* So well managed

1 The treaty signed near Garigliano is still preserved with all
its signatures in a charter of 1014, published by Gattola, Hist. abd.
Cass. Acc., t. i. p. 109.

212 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

was the whole undertaking that in August 916, after
a two months’ siege, the Saracens, hemmed in on
every side, were utterly defeated. The Pope, who
was a worthy successor of John VIII., did not hesi-
tate to risk his own life in the fray, for on two
occasions we hear of his charging into the ranks of
the enemy. He himself does not disdain to boast of
his prowess in a letter written shortly afterwards to
the Archbishop of Cologne.

The Marquess Alberic has equal claims to dis-
tinction; he fought wt leo fortissimus, and to his
share fell the greater part of the laurels of the war.
He had been, for a long time, a conspicuous char-
acter. Already in the time of the Emperor Guy he
had been one of the chief captains of Italy. He
afterwards entered Berengarius’s service, and re-
ceived the spoils of the Lambert family in the
duchy of Spoleto. He was by no means scrupu-
lous as to the methods he employed, and the last
member of this family, the Marquess Guy, was
murdered by him on one of the Tiber bridges.’
Both Spoleto and Camerino were in subjection to
him, and like his predecessors in the same situation,
he cast longing eyes at Rome. 'The Romans, thanks
to his prowess in the Saracen war, looked upon him
with favour, and, after the Garigliano episode, 'Theo-
phylact bestowed on him the hand of his daughter,
Marozia, who, as we have already seen, had been the
mistress of the late Pope Sergius III.

John X., strong in his temporal supporters,
recked little of the scruples of those who considered
(and not without reason) that his promotion was
illegal. As deacon of Bologna, John had been
nominated as the successor of the Bishop Peter, but

1 Gesta Berengarii, ii. 29, 89.

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 213

the metropolitan throne of Ravenna being vacant
at the same time, he preferred to accept the more
important post. He retained the office for several
years until, by the favour of Theodora, he was pro-
moted to the chair of St. Peter. The Invectiva in
Romam, which blazed forth from Naples, and the
chronicles of Monte Cassino, treat him as an 22vasor.
The Roman catalogues, which are more discriminat-
ing, place him in his due rank, but otherwise pass
over the circumstance without remark. John, like
his predecessor Sergius, refused to recognise the ordi-
nations of Formosus. ‘They were strangely incon-
sistent, these popes—Stephen VI., Sergius III., and
John X. They were all three tarred with the same
brush as Formosus, having all of them been bishops
before their accession to the papacy, and yet they
with one accord condemned him, his promotion, and
his ordinations.’

The disagreement on this point of canon law
came to an end in the course of time. ‘Towards the
end of John X.’s reign, serious events were happen-
ing in Northern Italy. Rudolph II., king of trans-
juran Burgundy, was called upon in 922, by the
Marquess of Ivry and other local potentates, to fight
against the Emperor Berengarius. This unlucky
prince was assassinated at Verona, after many ups
and downs of fortune, including the Hungarian
invasion incited by himself. But Rudolph was not
long to enjoy his success unmolested. Another
rival appeared in the person of Hugh, Count of Pro-
vence, the successor of Louis the Blind, and grand-

1 It is probable that, like Stephen VI. and Sergius III., John
X. got out of the difficulty by the shifty theory of his first episcopal
ordinations having been annulled. If this is the case, his consecra-

tion as Archbishop of Ravenna must have taken place before the
time of Sergius III., z.e. 904.

214 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

son of Lothaire II., and Waldrade, by his mother
Bertha. Recognised at Pavia in 926, Hugh imme-
diately attracted the attention of the Romans. Dis-
sension again arose round the person of John X.
Theophylact and Alberic were both dead. There
could no longer be any question of the male descent
of the former, of that filius consulis who had made
such a brilliant figure at Berengarius’s consecration.
Theophylact’s daughter, Alberic’s widow, however,
was still alive, and had taken to herself a second
husband, Guy, Marquess of Tuscany, without in any
way yielding her claims upon the Roman state.

But her ambitions were thwarted by the Pope,
supported by his brother Peter, who had also taken
part in Berengarius’s consecration, in915. Relying on
his position as head of a principality at Orta, as well
as on the papal influence, he sought to counter-
balance the authority of Marozia. The Hungarians,
whom he had bidden, took the Saracens’ place in the
Roman district, and made it the scene of all kinds of
horrors. ‘To these dangerous allies the Pope was
anxious to add, or to substitute, the support of the
new king of Italy. He met him at Mantua, and
they concluded a treaty of which the details are
unknown.

This attempt at emancipation was not calculated
to please Marozia, and owing to the united efforts of
herself and her husband, a revolt sprang up at Rome.
The rebels, strengthened by the 'Tuscan troops, seized
Peter and murdered him in the sight of his brother.
The Pope himself was cast into prison and shortly
afterwards stifled under a cushion (928).

As the monk of Mt. Soracte remarks, in his
strange Latin: Subjugatus est Romam potestative in
manu femine. Marozia employed her power in

THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT 215

bestowing the Holy See on her tools, first on Leo
(Leo VI., 928), priest of St. Susan’s, then on Stephen
(Stephen VII., 929-981), priest of St. Anastasius’ ;
and finally on her own son John (John XI.), formerly
incumbent of St. Maria in the Trastevere. It was
only his youth, probably, which had kept him from
promotion before.

Meanwhile, Guy of Tuscany had died. Hugh,
King of Italy, who lived like a sultan in his palace
at Pavia, also lost his legal wife. Marozia, bursting
with ambition, and not content with reigning at
Spoleto and Lucca, saw no reason why she should
stop short of becoming queen, or even empress.
She, therefore, offered her hand to King Hugh, who
accepted it with alacrity. The wedding was cele-
brated at Rome, at the Castle of St. Angelo, where
Marozia appears to have taken up her abode. ‘There
was every reason to expect that John XI, like a
dutiful son, would adorn the heads of the newly
married pair with the imperial crowns. Things,
however, turned out differently.

In addition to John XI., who was illegitimate,
Marozia had had another son—the young Alberic—
by her first marriage with the Marquess of Spoleto.
He was displeased at his mother’s new matrimonial
alliance, particularly as King Hugh was imprudent
enough to insult him publicly in the midst of the
festivities. Alberic, goaded to desperation, rallied
round him a number of the discontented Romans,
and immediately laid siege to the Castle of St.
Angelo. Hugh, with difficulty, succeeded in
escaping, but Marozia was taken captive.

When all is said and done, this event was nothing
but a change of person. The power passed out of
the hands of Marozia into those of Alberic, her son.

216 THE HOUSE OF THEOPHYLACT

Marozia herself had inherited it from her father,
Theophylact, and the dynasty was continued. The
Pope was obliged to submit to circumstances, and
to confine himself more and more to his ecclesiastical
province. After John XI. (931-935) came Leo VII.
(936-939), Stephen VIII. (939-942), Marinus II.
(942-946), and Agapitus II. (946-955). Neither of
these Popes exercised any temporal authority ; they
were princes merely in theory, like the last of the
Merovingian kings. This had been the real state of
.affairs ever since the time of Sergius III. (904),
The Roman state had, from its constitution in 754,
been placed under the direction of the Pope and the
clergy, though evidently contrary to the inclinations
of the lay aristocracy. After many ineffectual
efforts, the latter had succeeded in obtaining a
place on the staff of management, but only by
means of allying themselves with the protective
government and taking advantage of its support.
When the Carlovingian line had come to an end,
and it had become obvious that the title of emperor
was no longer synonymous with practical power, the
lay aristocracy had no difficulty in getting the upper
hand. ‘The important question of who was to be
the primus inter pares, then the master, was solved
by Theophylact; circumstances with which we are
but imperfectly acquainted favoured his plans, and
for long generations the power was centred in the
family of the clever and ambitious vestararius.

CHAPTER XVII
ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

Alberic, Senator of the Romans—Limitsjof his Principality—Character
of his Authority—Relations with the Byzantine Court—Monastic
Revival—Octavian, Alberic’s Son and Successor—He is elected
Pope—His Disorderly Life—Otto is summoned by him to Rome
and consecrated Emperor—Quarrel between the Pope and Otto—
Deposition of John XII.—Election of Leo VIII.—Otto’s Privilege—
The Papal Election annulled by the Emperor—Return of John XIL.;
his Death—Benedict V. and Leo VIII.

ALBERIC, upon becoming prince of the Romans,
immediately set himself to defend his principality
against outside attacks. ‘There was no longer any-
thing to fear from the Saracens, and the relations
with the Greek empire had long been of a diplomatic
nature only; under Alberic they seem to have been
‘peculiarly amiable. He had no trouble with his
neighbours of Spoleto or ‘Tuscany, for his ambitions
did not soar beyond the limits of the old duchy of
Rome. As for the transapennine provinces of the
Exarchate and Pentapolis, they were, as a matter of
fact, already in the power of the King of Italy.
Alberic did not attempt to interfere with them,
but devoted his attention to plans for defending
his territory against the king’s claims, and for
strengthening his newly acquired power in the
interior. |
Hugh of Provence made several attempts (933,
986, 941) to take possession of Rome, and to gain
access to the Vatican, 2.e. to receive the imperial

coronation. Alberic, however, was more than a
217

218 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

match for him. After several truces, brought
about by the intervention of St. Odo, the worthy
Abbot of Cluny, Hugh finally agreed to cede all
the rights which had accrued to him through his
marriage with Marozia. ‘The same year he returned
to Provence, leaving the kingdom in the charge of
his son Lothaire. The latter, however, died in
950, while still in the prime of early manhood,
leaving behind him a widow, Adelaide, as youthful
as himself. Thereupon Berengarius, Marquess of
Ivrea, whose importance had remarkably increased
during the last few years, had himself proclaimed
king. But Adelaide was not a person to be
ignored. She resisted Berengarius on the strength
of rights acquired through her husband and her
father, Rudolph of Trans-juran Burgundy, who had
reigned between Berengarius and King Hugh. She
was defeated, and imprisoned in a tower on Lake
Garda, but managed to escape and take refuge at
Reggio, when she appealed for help to Otto, the
powerful king of the Germans.

Otto responded to some purpose. On the 22nd
September 951, while Berengarius was taking refuge
in a fortress, he appeared at Pavia, and took to wife
_ Lothaire’s young widow. Henceforward, for many
a long day, the destinies of Italy were to be closely
bound up with those of Germany. Alberic was
anxious not to encourage any resumption of the
ancient tradition of the imperial protectorate, and
coldly repulsed Otto’s desire to come to Rome,
even though the latter sent him an embassy con-
ducted by the Archbishop of Mainz and the
Bishop of Coire.

Otto was not importunate. Returning to his
kingdom, where there was still work enough to

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 219

occupy him for a long time, he decided to commit
the government of Italy to his rival, Berengarius,
who accepted the position of vassal king.

The Roman situation was not affected by these
external events. Except for a slight family con-
spiracy, which was checked and severely punished,
_ Alberic’s sway remained undisputed. Public acts
were still dated with the papal year, but on the
coinage the emperor's name was replaced by
Alberic’s," which appeared in conjunction with
that of the Pope. As in the past, the judicial
assemblies were held with the co-operation of the
dignitaries of the papal palace and the lay nobility.
In former times the pontiff rarely intervened,
although the usual place of meeting was the
Lateran palace, in a hall called ad Lupam, after
the famous bronze she-wolf popularly known as
mater Romanorum.” When the emperor was
present these assemblies were held in the Vatican;
under Alberic’s rule they sometimes took place at
his own dwelling in the palace of the Via Lata,
which probably corresponded with the Colonna
palace of to-day. In ll this there was no
essential alteration as regards outward forms, but,
apart from the inscription of Alberic’s name on
the coinage, the real change that had taken place
. was well symbolised in his title of princeps et
‘omnium Romanorum senator; to the title of
princeps he himself added the qualification of
humilis, others that of gloriosus.

In the early part of his reign Alberic had taken
advantage of favourable circumstances to enter into
family relationships with the Byzantine empire. The

1 Benedict of Mt. Soracte.
2 Libellus de imp. pot. Cf. Jaffé, 2633.

220 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

actual emperor at that time in Constantinople was
Romanus Lecapenus. He was the father of several
sons, one of whom, Theophylact, he intended for
the patriarchal throne. The child was then only
thirteen years of age, and, as his promotion was
strongly opposed at Constantinople, Lecapenus
begged that legates might be sent from Rome
with the Pope’s sanction, in order to prevent
further protest. John XI. did send four ambassa-
dors, among them two bishops, and these, on 2nd
February 933, by their presence at St. Sophia, in
company with the patriarchal child, countenanced |
a tremendous breach of ecclesiastical law. Affairs
at Rome had been conducted on the principle of
Do ut des. Marozia, the possessor of a consider-
able line of ancestors, offered a daughter to the
Greek emperor, who, for his part, was plentifully
provided with male offspring to be settled in life.
These negotiations had most probably been begun
as early as 932, before the revolution which had
substituted Alberic for Marozia. Our chief in-
formation about this affair is procured from a letter
written by Romanus Lecapenus to John XI., and
recently published by Cardinal Pitra.. We gather
from it that the Greek emperor, satisfied with the
concessions relating to Theophylact, was not at all
anxious to recognise them by making an alliance
with the prince of the Romans. According to
him the journey from Constantinople to Rome is
too long for his son, though Marozia may bring,
or even send, her daughter. If she has no ships
suitable for the undertaking they can be provided
for her.

According to Benedict of Mt. Soracte, it was

1 Analecta novissima, t. i. p. 469.

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 221

Alberic himself who had set his affections on a
Greek princess. He was even prepared to furnish
her with a whole staff of maids-of-honour, chosen
from among the aristocratic ladies of Rome, when
the plan fell through. Whether there were two
successive plans of marriage, or whether .we only
admit the one of 932-933, there can be no doubt
that the ruling family of Rome sought alliance
with the imperial parvenus of Constantinople.
Moreover, this fact has all the more weight when
we remember the determination with which Alberic
severed all links with Provence, Germany, and Italy.
Like the Popes Stephen and Paul before him, he
preferred a distant protector to one close at hand.
It was the principle of the Donation of Constantine,
only with a different application.

As regards Alberic’s government we have nothing
but favourable, not to say edifying, accounts. The
four Popes who owed their promotion to him, seem
to have been most estimable persons. He took an
active part in founding and reforming monasteries,
that of St. Mary on the Aventine being established
in one of his paternal mansions. He also founded
the convent of St. Cyriacus in the Via Lata, and
endowed and remodelled those of St. Gregory,
St. Paul, St. Lawrence, and St. Agnes. The
famous abbey of Subiaco, laden with memories
of St. Benedict, was, under his auspices, changed
from a mere country chapel to a great monastic
establishment. At Farfa he succeeded in restoring
discipline, a feat which, considering the extreme
decadence of conventual life, and the attitude of
the monks, necessitated nothing short of military
measures. In all this Alberic was led by St. Odo,
Abbot of Cluny, who, during his long stay at

222 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

Rome, made of him the instrument by which he
carried out his much-needed reforms.

In order that such an administration should pro-
duce any very permanent good effects, Alberic must
have lived to a good old age, and have left behind
him a capable successor, imbued with the same spirit.
This, however, was not the case. While not yet in
his fortieth year, the prince of the Romans recog-
nised the approach of death. Possibly he imagined
that his son, who bore the ambitious name of
Octavian, would one day become Augustus, and
that a native Roman empire would spring from his
principality and family. He must have been much
alarmed at the appearance of Otto upon the scene.
So powerful a prince, once established at Pavia,
could not fail to be stirred by thoughts of Charle-
magne, whose memory was still green in the ecclesi-
astical world of Rome. ‘This could bode no good
to the lay aristocracy, of whom Alberic was the
triumphant leader and head. The papacy, monarch
of the past, had less reason than ever to fear the
future. It was manifest to Alberic that the only
resource of his family when he was dead would be
in the possession of ecclesiastical power. Octavian,
therefore, was now destined for the pontificate instead
of for the empire. Alberic assembled the Romans
at St. Peter’s, and made them swear that his son
should be elected Pope on the death of Agapitus II.
Octavian was, at this period, in his sixteenth year.
Some time after, in the year 954, Alberic died, and
his son immediately succeeded him as princeps
et omnium Romanorum senator.

It would have been well for Rome and for the
Church, if Pope Agapitus could have postponed
his departure until his successor had had time to

—

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 223

gain a little wisdom. Unfortunately, however, he
died towards the end of the following year, and,
3 the second Sunday in Advent, 16th December

5, the young prince of the Romans became Vicar
| oF St. Peter's ie head of Christendom, under the

title of John XII. The fact of ‘his promotion put
an end to the struggle for supremacy between the
nobles andthe clergy.of-Rome. There was no
longer even a titular emperor, nor a foreign pro-
tector, patricius Romanorum. It was like a return
to the days before Sergius III. and Theophylact,
Nicholas and Louis II., Eugene II. and Lothaire,
to that state_of unstable equilibrium, in which the
temporal sovereignity of the Popes had had its rise.
John XII., except for certain changes introduced
by a tradition of two hundred years, was in much
the same position as had been Pope Zachary, or
Stephen II. before the expedition to France. The
difference lay in the fact that while the young Pope’s
only substantial support lay in the memory of his
father, the papacy of the eighth century had behind
it a long past of service and influence.

The situation was rendered still more unsettled
by the danger resulting from the extreme youth
of the new Pope. In his rash inexperience he set
out upon a venturesome enterprise against the Lom-
bard principalities of Southern Italy, but was de-
feated and obliged to sign a treaty. The indiscretion
of youth displayed itself in yet another way, and
Rome soon became witness of the most revolting
scandals. The young Pope took very little interest
in the offices of the Church and was never seen
at Matins. His days and nights were spent in
the society of women and young men, and in the
midst of the pleasures of the table and the chase.

224 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

His illicit amours were a matter of public knowledge,
for they were restrained neither by ties of blood
nor by respect of persons. The Lateran became
a resort of persons of ill-fame, and no virtuous woman
could remain in safety at Rome. ‘The ecclesiastical
treasury was, at that time, maintained by the
practice of simony, and was employed for such
illegitimate purposes as the support of these licen-
tious proceedings. We hear of a bishop consecrated
at the age of ten; of a deacon ordained in a stable,
and of dignitaries blinded or mutilated. Cruelty
and impiety were conspicuous, and it is said that
in the Lateran festivals the Pope even went so far
as to drink to the health of the devil !

It is true that, from force of habit, the pontifical
administration was carried on in the usual way,
like well-organised machinery, from force of long
custom. John XII. even issued a document in
which he enjoined that the monks of Subiaco should
every day chant a hundred Kyrie Eleisons, and as
many Christe Eleisons for the salvation of his soul.
He certainly was in a position to need the devout
prayers of all earnest Christians !

Strangely enough, the very person who was to
put an end to these scandals was summoned to
Rome by John himself. His relations with the
Italian kingdom were not altogether satisfactory,
and there seem to have been a few frontier disputes.
There was certainly no great need for alarm, but
the good people of Rome, not knowing which side
to take, were not at all sorry for the interposition.
John chose from among them two ambassadors,
the deacon John and the protonotary Azo, and
despatched them to Germany with complaints of
his royal neighbours. There is no doubt that they

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 225

took advantage of the occasion to lodge (though
unofficially) their own grievances against the Pope.
They were not alone in their protestations. Many
of the Italian princes were growing restive under the
government of Berengarius II. and his son Adalbert.
The Archbishop of Milan who had been expelled
from his See, the Bishop of Como, and many
others, joined with the Romans in begging Otto to
interpose.

Towards the autumn of 961, Otto bore down
upon Italy and entered Pavia without opposition.
Berengarius and his wife Willa took refuge in a
fortress in the Apennines, while Adalbert set out
to find assistance. In the middle of winter the
King of Germany started for Rome, after having
made arrangements with the Pope as to the con-
ditions of his stay, and the results that might be
expected to follow his demands.*

The coronation took place on 2nd February 962.
The Pope and the emperor signed an agreement by
which John XII. swore that he would be loyal to
Otto and never lend his support to Berengarius and
Adalbert. Otto, for his part, guaranteed to the
Pope all his temporal claims and possessions. At
the same time he stipulated for the imperial rights
over Rome and the papal elections. There still
exists a celebrated document relating to this com-
pact. It is known as “the Privilege of Otto,”

1 The formula of the agreement, preserved by Bonizo of Sutri
(cf. L. P., t. ii. p. 354), contains a clause which throws some un-
certainty upon this: Jn Romam nullum placitum aut ordinationem
faciam de omnibus que ad te aut ad Romanos pertinent sine tuo consulto.
Certainly the privilege set forth after the consecration presupposes
quite a different relationship. The formula de futuro might, how-
ever, bear more than one interpretation.

P

226 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

and dates from 13th February 962, a few days after
the imperial coronation."

John XII. and Otto parted on excellent terms,
and the emperor returned to Pavia.? He had hardly
left Rome, however, when the Pope began to enter
into conspiracy with the claimants to the Italian
throne. On hearing of this, Otto, not disposed to
hurry matters, affected indifference and set himself
to quell the opposition which he still encountered
in his new kingdom. But, the following year (968),
while he was besieging Berengarius Il. and _his
wife Willa in the Castle of Montfeltro above
Rimini, he received news that John XII., displaying
his true colours, had welcomed Adalbert to Rome.
He now hesitated no longer, and, on the 3rd
November, appeared before the town. John XII.

1 «The Privilege of Otto” (M. G. Diplom., t. i. p. 322; ef.
Lib, Censuum, No. 82) has been the object of an official investigation
by M. de Sickel (Das Privilegium Ottos I. fiir die rémische Kirche),
who has discovered that we possess a contemporary copy of this
document, at present preserved in the Vatican Archives. It is,
however, possible that this copy has been tampered with in this
passage : Et ut ille qui ad hoc sanctum et apostolicum regimen eligitur
nemine consentiente consecratus fiat pontifesx priusquam talem in presentia
missorum nostrorum vel filii nostri seu universe generalitatis faciat
promissionem qualem domnus et venerandus spiritalis pater noster Leo
sponte fecisse dinoscitur, According to M. de Sickel’s idea (cf.
Ottenthal, in Bohmer, Regesta imp., 2nd edition, t. ii. p. 153) the
Leo referred to is Leo III., and the Privilege of Otto here slavishly
reproduces the terms of a promise made by this Pope to Charlemagne
or Louis the Pious. Others think that it is Leo IV. who is meant.
M. B. Simson (Neues Archiv, t. xv. p. 577) points out the
strangeness of applying the formula domnus et venerandus spiritalis
pater noster to any other Pope than the contemporary one, in
which case it would refer to Leo VIII. The same phrase, however,
recurs in the privilege delivered by Henry II. to Benedict VIII.,
which is practically but a reproduction of Otto’s formula, while
the latter, although it may have borrowed something from previous
documents, is undoubtedly in the main original. It is evident
that the privilege of 962 is not yet free from obscurities.

2 He set out from Rome on 14th February and celebrated
Easter at Pavia (30th March),

, a

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 227

and Adalbert, powerless in face of the reaction
caused by the emperor’s arrival, speedily took flight.
‘The Romans opened their gates and took an oath

of fidelity, swearing that they would never again

elect or ordain any Pope without the consent and
choice of the Emperor Otto and his son Otto II.

~ On 6th November a huge conference was held
at St. Peter’s. The emperor presided, around him
being ranged his court, both ecclesiastical and lay,
including German and Italian priests, the episcopate
from the neighbourhood of Rome, the Roman clergy,
and the local aristocracy. Many complaints were
lodged against the Pope, and the council decided
to summon him to appear. lLegates were sent
with the message, but John returned a disdainful
and threatening response.” A second summons
was despatched on 22nd November to his residence
at Tivoli, but this did not affect him personally.
Finally, on 4th December, after a month of waiting,
the council pronounced on him a sentence of de-
position. ‘Thereupon the Romans, with Otto’s full
consent, elected as Pope the protoscriniarius Leo.
In accordance with custom he was introduced at
the Lateran, and on the following Sunday (6th
December) his consecration was celebrated at St.
Peter’s.

To return to the privilege of Otto. It was
perhaps at this juncture that it adopted the form in
which it has been handed down to us. The second

1 Fidelitatem repromittunt, hoc addentes et firmiter jurantes, num-
quam se papam electuros aut ordinaturos procter consensum et electionem
domni imp. Ottonis cesaris aug. filtique tpsius regis Ottonis, (Luit-
prand.)

2 Johannes episcopus, servus servorum Dei, omnibus episcopis. Nos
audivimus dicere quia vos vultis alium papam facere. Si hoc facilis,
excommunico vos de Deo omnipotente ut non habeatis licentiam nullum
ordinare et missam celebrare,

G6 >

228 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

part, which relates to imperial rights, is practically a
‘ replica of the constitution of 824. As far as the
papal election is concerned, it seems to be a revival
pure and simple of the law of the ninth century.
One point alone does not seem quite clear. By the
privilege of Otto, the Romans were bound not to
allow the consecration of any Pope until he had
sworn, in presence of the people and of the imperial
misst, an oath in conformity with that which domnus
et venerandus spiritals pater noster Leo sponte fecisse
dinoscitur. As regards words and signification, this
part of the privilege is a reproduction of the pre-
scribed form of the Sacramentum Romanorum at-
tached to the text of the constitution of 824. It
refers to a promise made in 824 by Pope Eugenius IL.,
as well as to another made by a Pope Leo, perhaps
Leo VIII. As, however, we do not possess the
actual wording of these stipulations, we are not in a

position to judge. It may, however, be asserted that
* the general tenor of the privilege of Otto does not
imply any progress in the imperial authority at
Rome,' either in the elections or in any other con-
nection.

This being the case, it is somewhat surprising
that Luitprand should have spoken of a veritable
renunciation of the right of election, for, according
to the passage quoted above, the Romans actually
relinquished their claims to the choice of the Pope.
And this is not the only reference to the subject.
In his account of the council of 964 at which the de-
position of Benedict V. was pronounced, Luitprand

1 No theoretical progress, be it understood, for since the death
of Lambert the constitution of Lothaire had become a dead letter.
But from the imperial standpoint, the mere reinforcement of the
regulations of 824 was an enormous advance,

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 229

relates that the archdeacon addressed the following
reproach to the accused Pope: “Canst thou deny
having, with the other Romans, taken a solemn oath
before the emperor that thou wouldst neither elect
nor ordain any Pope without his consent and that of
his son, King Otto?” It must here be pointed out
that this evidence on the part of Luitprand is much
more reliable than his prattle about Theodora and
Marozia. It is the testimony of one of the most in-
fluential bishops on the council, the confidential friend
of the Emperor Otto, and one who actually saw and
heard that to which he bears witness.

This account, twice repeated in the same terms,
obviously produces quite a different impression from
that of the privilege. I have, nevertheless, no hesi-
tation in maintaining that it is the correct one.
' With it accord all the statements concerning the
elections during a period of nearly a century from
the events of 963. As long as there was an emperor
| capable of doing so, he it was who actually chose
the Pope; when the imperial power was monopo-
lised at Rome by a patrician, or any other repre-
sentative of the emperor, it was still, so far as one
can tell, the responsible factor in the papal elections.
This election was merely a formality, and did but

confirm a choice made independently of those who
_ appeared to take part in it.

As for the privilege, it was not what it seemed
to be. In the first part it recognises the Pope’s
right to a territorial domain as large as that of which
it was a question in the life of Hadrian I. Otto, if
we are to take the words literally, was to guarantee
to the papacy the possession of Tuscany, Parma,
Mantua, Venice, Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto
and Beneventum, and was even ready to promise

230 ALBERIC AND JOHN XII

the Byzantine territories of Naples and Gaeta. No
one will venture to maintain that these professions
were put into practice. One might also suggest
that, even in the second part, as far as the papal
elections were concerned, there was a considerable
discrepancy between the theory sanctioned by the
document and the actual facts. This idea is con-
firmed by Luitprand’s evidence as well as by what
we know of the elections under the new régime.

That this was a very great change may be both
affirmed and denied. As far as the Romans were
concerned, it was not, for they had long exercised
their right in appearance only. Ever since the
beginning of the century there had always been a
chief elector in the person of Theophylact, or
Marozia, or Alberic. On the other hand, when we
take into consideration the fact that the nationality
of this dominating influence, up to and including
John XII., had always been Roman, we realise that
a serious change was taking place. The ruling
power was now to be a foreign one, that of the
Saxon family, which was, for the time being, charged
to preside over the destinies of Germany.

It must, of course, be clearly understood that all
this is true, and is proved, in spite of the apocryphal
documents’ by which it was later on sought to
confirm the pretensions of the kings of Germany,
by an alleged compact entered into between Otto
and Leo VIIL., to the right of investiture in general,
to the appointment of the Popes, and to certain

1 J., 3704-6. Of these and other documents it may be said
that they bear a striking resemblance to those charters of donation
which the monks took upon themselves to manufacture in place of
the originals, which had been lost. The forged documents, attri-
buted by them to Leo VIII. and other earlier Popes, correspond
with those of the period of 960-1060.

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 231

portions of the temporal estates of the Holy
See.

But John XII. and his followers did not meekly
accept the sentence pronounced against him. When
the Christmas festivities were over, the emperor
dismissed part of his army, and himself prepared to
undertake the siege of Montefeltro. On the 8rd
January 964 a rebellion burst forth, and barricades
were erected on the bridge of St. Angelo. The
Romans expected to have no difficulty in dispersing
Otto’s frail forces, but they soon found out their
mistake. The barricades were swept away, and a
huge massacre was set on foot. The vanquished
Romans the next day presented themselves in sorry
plight before the emperor and delivered up their
hostages, Leo being artless enough to interfere.
The emperor had only just taken his departure when
John XII. reappeared. His rival immediately de-
camped. A council, of which the records are still
preserved, was held at the Lateran in the early part
of February. Heavy sentences were passed on all
adherents of the imperial Pope (now regarded as an
usurper) who would not retract their opinions.
There were two very weighty arguments against
the promotion of Leo: first of all, the prevailing
idea that the Pope could not be judged by any one,
sancta sedes a nemine judicatur,’ and, consequently,
that the deposition of John having been pronounced

1 Owing to this principle, Leo III. and Pascal had avoided the
courts of justice, their innocence being established simply in virtue
of their own oaths. It was quite different with John XII., who
was involved in a notorious and permanent scandal; the Pope
would have been with difficulty made to undergo the purgatio per
sacramentum, and even had he done so, it would have been univer-
sally considered an additional sacrilege. There was nothing for
it but a trial extraordinary.

232 ALBERIC AND JOHN. XII

by an incompetent assembly, was null and void.
Moreover, the appointed Pope did not belong to
the clergy. It is not absolutely certain, though
very probable, that his office of protoscrinius presup-
posed the tonsure; but there is no doubt that at
the time of his election he did not possess any
ecclesiastical orders, not even that of door-keeper.
Ancient tradition required that the pontiff should be
elected from the cardinal clergy, among the priests
or deacons, and no deviation from this custom was
allowed to pass without protest.’

From the Roman point of view it seemed that
the council of February 964 had avenged the ancient
right: John XII. was the rightful Pope, the repre-
sentative of tradition, as well as of what may be
called the national sentiment. Otto, of course, was
far from seeing things in the same light. Never-
theless he did not think fit to interrupt his military
proceedings, with the result that John XII. was able
to enjoy his success for several weeks. He was
still in possession of the Holy See, when death over-
took him on 14th May 964.

Pope John XII, died, alas, as he had lived, his
last hours being passed in the gratification of an
illicit passion—in the bed of a young married lady.
Luitprand maintains that he was struck mortally on
the temples by the devil himself, but Gregorovius
justly surmises that it was more probably the injured
husband who acted as the avenging instrument of
the prince of darkness! However this may have
been, by some means or other the chair of St. Peter
was disencumbered of a most unworthy occupant.

It might have been supposed that the Romans

1 Silverius, Constantine II., Leo V.—John XII. himself was
cardinal deacon at the time of his promotion,

ALBERIC AND JOHN XII 238

would now rally round Leo VIII. But nothing of
the kind occurred. So far from troubling about the
imperial Pope, they immediately took unto them-
selves another—the Deacon Benedict. He was a
suitable person, and of some literary attainments
(grammaticus), and was apparently ordained on the
22nd of May. ‘The Romans were even good enough
to send notice of his accession to the emperor, who
was already advancing against Rome. The gates of
the city were closed, but the defence did not last
long. On 28rd June Otto and Leo VIII. having
obtained the mastery, convened a new synod at the
Lateran; the unfortunate Benedict was brought
before it, and, having received sentence of depo-
sition, was despatched to Germany, where he was
placed under the charge of the archbishops of Ham-
burg.

The opposition being thus quelled, Leo VIII.
was able to hold his own up to the time of his death,
which took place shortly afterwards.

eo

CHAPTER XVIII
THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

John XIII.—Rebellion of the Romans—Death of Otto I.—Boniface VIL.
and the Popes of the Emperor—Crescentius and Theophano—Otto
III. and Crescentius II.—Gregory V.—Sylvester II.—Tivoli: Otto
and Sylvester Expelled—Crescentius III.—The Counts of Tusculum:
their Authority at Rome—The Emperor Henry II. : his Privilege—
The*Popes of Tusculum: Benedict VIII., John XIX., Benedict IX.
—Conrad I].: Suppression of Personal Right—Revolt of the
Romans—Sylvester III.—Gregory VI.: the Pontificate Sold.

Towarps the month of March 965, the Holy See
was once more without an occupant. The Romans
dared not run the risk of an election, and communi-
cated with the Emperor Otto,* whose choice fell upon
a relation of Pope John XII., named John, Bishop
of Narni, son of Theodora II., and nephew of the
celebrated Marozia. It was a return to the family of
Theophylact, but with the imperial countenance.
John XIII. was installed on the 1st October, but
in less than three months a rebellion broke out at
Rome, caused, it was said, by the severity of the new
Pope, but, in reality, directed against the imperial
authority. John, after having suffered ill-treatment
and insults, was imprisoned in the castle of St.
Angelo, and finally banished from Rome. He took
refuge in Lombard territory, at Capua, and then

1 Cont. Reginonis: Legati Romanorum . . . imperatorem pro insti-
tuendo quem vellet Romano pontifice- in Saxonia adeuntes suscipiuntur et
remittuntur. The election took place at Rome, under the super-
vision of two missi, Otger, Bishop of Spires, and Luitprand, Bishop

of Cremona,
234

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 235

returned by way of the Abruzzi, Sabina, and Tuscany,
at the head of such an imposing army, that the
Romans decided to receive him back. He made his
re-entry with much pomp on 14th November 966.
This change of front was in great part due to the
report that the Emperor Otto had crossed the Alps,
and was advancing for the fourth time on Rome.
The monk of Mt. Soracte saw his army pass, and
thereupon terminated his chronicle with lamenta-
tions on the decline of Rome, once mistress of the
world, and now in bondage to the Saxons.

He was quite right. The Saxons had abolished
the ancient form of the papal elections, and the
Romans had now to learn what remained to them.
of the political power.

The chief instigator of the revolt, Count Rofred,
had been killed in the reaction which followed, but
some of his associates were still left at Rome.
Several “consuls” were arrested, and banished to
the other side of the Alps, and the twelve district
chiefs were sent to the gallows, to serve as deputies
for the common people. The prefect, who was
deeply implicated, was handed over to the Pope
for punishment. John had his beard shaved,’ and
ordered him to be hung by the hair to the caballus
Constantina, the celebrated equestrian statue of
Marcus Aurelius, which at that time adorned the
Lateran palace. After having been made to ride a
donkey, face backwards, with the animal’s tail
between his hands, he was cast into prison until
the departure of the emperor, when he was also
banished to Germany. Finally Otto had the bodies

1 This ceremony, according to Byzantine custom, was the
symbol of degradation. Even now, in the East, priests, on being
suspended, have their beards cut off.

236 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

of Rofred and the vestiarius Stephen exhumed, and
thrown into the public sewer.

Thanks to these severe methods of repression, the
authority of John XIII. was maintained without any
further difficulty. In April 967 he held a synod at
Ravenna in conjunction with the emperor, who then
restored to him (in theory) his transapennine terri-
tories, which had long been outside the power of
the Holy See. On Christmas Day of the same
year the young Prince Otto II. received the imperial
coronation at the hands of the Pope in the basilica
of St. Peter. John XIII. passed peacefully away on
6th September 972, and Otto appointed in his stead
Benedict, a cardinal deacon, whose ordination did
not take place until January 973. This long interval
is the only existing proof of the imperial intervention
on this occasion, but, considering the circumstances,
it is quite conclusive.

The great Otto died in Germany, 7th May 978.
The Romans, at first, did not make any disturbance,
but a fresh revolution broke out a year later, when
the young Otto II. was occupied in contending
against the Duke of Bavaria and other of his vassals.
The leader of the rebellion at Rome was Crescentius,
the son of Theodora, and brother of John XIII.
Benedict VI. was taken prisoner and confined in the
castle of St. Angelo, and replaced by a so-called
“national” Pope—Boniface VII., son of Ferruccius,
and formerly the deacon Franco. All in vain did
the imperial missus, Courit Sicco, protest against the
turn affairs were taking; his objections only served
to hasten matters. By order of the usurper, Benedict
was strangled in his prison. Sicco, nevertheless,
managed to gain the mastery, and succeeded in
ejecting Boniface VII. In place of the unfortunate

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE = 237

Benedict VI., they elected a new Pope, who adopted
the name of Benedict VII. Franco, some time
afterwards, fled from Rome, and took refuge at
Constantinople.

This was already the third time since the accession
of Leo VIII. that the Romans had openly rebelled
against the new order of things. They strongly
objected to having their Popes appointed for them,
and had not yet come to an end of their powers of
resistance. Benedict VII. had a tolerably easy time
of it during his reign, which lasted until his death on
10th July 983. The Emperor Otto came to Italy at
the end of 980, and from that time he often stayed at
Rome, making it the headquarters for his campaigns
in Southern Italy. He died there on 7th December
983, just as he was preparing to avenge a serious
defeat sustained the year before in Calabria.

On the death of Benedict VII. Otto had ap-
pointed in his place a bishop of his kingdom of
Italy, the Chancellor Peter, who took the name of
John XIV. This new Pope attended him on his
deathbed, and permitted his interment in the atrium
of St. Peter’s, a ceremony which was the precursor of
sad days to come. There were only two represen-
tatives of the imperial family—a child of three years
old, proclaimed in Germany under the name of Otto
III., and the Greek Princess Theophano, widow of
Otto II., and grand-daughter of the Emperor
Constantine Porphyrogenetis. ‘Theophano was a
strong-minded woman, as was soon made manifest.
But circumstances did not allow her to stay at
Rome; she was obliged to hasten to rejoin her
son in Germany, leaving the Pope to the mercies
of the Romans.

» Franco thought that his chance had come; in

238 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

April 984 he came back from Constantinople,
seized upon John XIV., and threw him into prison
at St. Angelo, where the wretched victim died four
months later, possibly from hunger. Boniface still
regarded himself as the rightful Pope, and reckoned
the years of his pontificate from the deposition of
Benedict in July 985. Rome put up with him for
more than a year, and in July 985 he died un-
expectedly. His death gave rise to a temporary
reaction; his corpse was treated with disrespect,
dragged through the town, and finally left in a nude
condition in front of the “ horse of Constantine.”

Crescentius, who had raised him (974) to the
papal throne, and played an important part in his
restoration (984), had died immediately after the
latter event. His epitaph’ is still to be seen at St.
Alexis. ‘The authority was boldly seized by his son
Crescentius, who assumed the new qualification of
patricitus Romanorum. There was no longer any
prospect of a complete independence. ‘Though the
emperor was but a child, the empire remained
solid, and to attack it too severely would have been
indiscreet. Crescentius, in adopting the title of patri-
clan, appears to have posed as a kind of lieutenant
or provisional manager during the interregnum.
His name appears, together with the Pope’s, in
certain documents of the time; possibly it figured
on the coins as well, but of this there is no
evidence.

1 He was a monk at the time of his death, and richly endowed
the monastery. His epitaph recommends him to the prayers:

ut tandem scelerum veniam mercatur habere.

His conscience, indeed, must have been heavily burdened, for he
and Franco between them had caused the overthrow and assassina-
tion of two Popes. +

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 239

John XV., who succeeded Boniface VII., pro-
bably owed his promotion to Crescentius, but we
have very little accurate information as to the ponti-
fical history of this period. At the close of 989 the
Empress Theophano reappeared at Rome, comport-
ing herself as if she were the sovereign. The docu-
ments are dated with her imperial year, and sometimes
even dignify her with the masculine title of emperor.
As we hear of no resistance, it is reasonable to suppose
that she was on good terms with Crescentius, and did
not dispute his patriciate.

John XV. seems to have shed as dim a lustre
round the papal throne as did the Pope appointed by
Marozia and Alberic. But meanwhile the young
king of Germany was growing up, and when, in 996,
he reached his majority, he made up his mind to visit ©
Italy where his presence was greatly desired. The
Pope himself, who was beginning to weary of Cres-
centius, had invited him to come to Rome. He had
not, however, the pleasure of receiving him there,
for he died at the beginning of April 996, when
Otto ILI. had got no further than Pavia.

Crescentius did not venture to appoint John’s
successor, and a solemn embassy was despatched to
Otto at Ravenna, begging him to undertake the re-
sponsibility. ‘The young emperor was at this time
barely sixteen years old, and he selected one of his
cousins, Bruno, son of the Duke of Carinthia, to
take the vacant post. He was a clerk, a young man
of only twenty-three. His consecration took place
at Rome, on 3rd May, under the title of Gregory V.,
and then, on the 21st of the same month, he cele-
brated the imperial coronation of his cousin. Though
this was not the first time that the Romans had
suffered the infliction of a young and immature

240 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

‘ pontiff, it was the first time that they had had one
of transalpine origin foisted upon them by the
Roman court. After Gregory V. came Sylvester
II., so that, thanks to Otto III., the chair of St.

Peter was occupied successively by the | first of the
German andthe first of the French Popes.

Otto’s arrival heralded the fall of Crescentius,
who had to render an account of his misdeeds before
the imperial tribunal. His trial resulted in a sen-
tence of banishment, which, however, through the
ill-advised intervention of Gregory V., was never
carried out.

Three months after the emperor’s departure, when
he had only just- crossed the Alps on his homeward
way, a rebellion broke out against the German Pope.
_ The latter was probably not altogether blameless: a
contemporary writer, John Caneparius,’ speaks of him
as multum fervide juventutis. But it is evident that
the old national leaven was fast fermenting. The
movement was headed by Crescentius himself, and
Gregory V. fled ignominiously. ‘The emperor was
just then busy fighting against the Slavs, and the
Pope was not in a position to do more than hurl
denunciations against the insurgent. A council was
held at Pavia, in February 997, at which Crescentius
was solemnly anathematised. He, however, in no
way disconcerted, brought forward a rival to Gregory
V., in the person of Philagath, Bishop of Piacenza,
who was passing through Rome on his way back
from Constantinople, where he had been sent on an
imperial embassy. He was a Calabrian Greek, who
owed everything to the favour of Theophano and her
son, but at the instigation of Crescentius he con-
sented to turn traitor to his benefactors, and, in the

1 Life of St. Adalbert, M. G. Scr., t. iv. p. 591.

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 241

month of April 997, he was installed as Pope under
the title of John XVI. |

But, less than a month afterwards, Otto came
back, in company with the German Pope. Rome
opened her gates; Philagath took flight, and Cres-
centius shut himself up in the castle of St. Angelo.
While they were preparing to besiege it, according
to rule, the unfortunate John XVI. was caught on
one of the Campanian roads. His captors hastened
to cut off his nose and his ears, and to tear out his
eyes and tongue. In this pitiable plight he was
brought before a council at the Lateran, formally
deposed and delivered over to the populace, who
subjected him to the humiliating process of riding
backwards on a donkey. In vain did the venerable
St. Nilus, the patriarch of the Greek monks of
Southern Italy, intercede on his behalf. His life
was spared, but that was all. He managed to sur-
vive his ill-treatment for another fifteen years, when
he died, probably at the abbey at Fulda, in the
year 10138.

To return to Crescentius. The assault on the
castle of St. Angelo was successful, so that on 29th
April 998 the fortress was seized by the Germans.
Crescentius, taken prisoner, was beheaded on the
battlements, and then his body and those of twelve
other Romans were hanged upon gibbets erected on
Mte. Mario (mons Malus, mons Gaudit).

But this torture did not succeed in suppressing
the patrician race. ‘There still remained, in addition
to the collateral branches, a son called John Cres-
centius, of whom we shall presently hear more. The
Romans had been profoundly impressed by the hardy
resistance and tragic death of Crescentius, who soon

passed into a legendary hero.
Q

242 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

Otto, from that time, made Rome his permanent
abode. His presence was absolutely necessary to
keep the Romans within bounds, although he applied
himself to winning them over by means of all kinds
of flattering attentions, and by reviving for their
benefit a sort of imperial court in the fashion of
bygone days. On 18th February 999 Gregory died,
either from poison, or in some even more tragic way.
Otto thereupon raised to the pontificate his former
tutor, Gerbert, at that time archbishop of Ravenna.
Sylvester II., as he was called, does not appear to
have been any more at ease than his predecessor as
chief shepherd of the Roman flock, and no sooner did
Otto leave him for a moment than he implored him
to come back.

The young emperor had a propensity for pious
companions, and he devoted much time to pilgrim-
ages. Close to his residence on -the Aventine arose
the convent of Saints Boniface and Alexis, just then
in all the first fervour and enthusiasm of its founda-
tion. Otto was on terms of friendship with the
monks there, some of whom were compatriots of his
own. He was known to perform his devotions at
Beneventum before the shrine of the Apostle Bar-
tholomew ; at Monte Cassino and at Monte Gargano
amid the solitudes of Campania, where St. Nilus,
hunted out of Calabria by the Saracen invasion, had
found a temporary refuge. At Ravenna he visited
another monkish patriarch, St. Romuald. Some-
times these devout pilgrimages led him farther still
to Aix-la-Chapelle, allured by memories of Charle-
magne, or to Gnesen, in the south of Poland, where
reposed the remains of his friend St. Adalbert of
Prague, who had been murdered on the shores of the
Baltic by the uncivilised Prussians.

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 243

These journeys seemed very long to Pope
Sylvester, but they had no disastrous conse-
quences. The danger lay in another quarter. In
the immediate neighbourhood of Rome there were
at that time several important seigniories. Various
branches of the family of 'Theophylact were in
possession of large estates, of which Tusculum, on
Monte Albano, Praeneste, Arci in Sabina, and
Galera on the Tuscan road, were the chief centres
and fortresses. The abbot of Farfa was likewise
a baron of the first rank. But the one and only
city which lived its own life was Tivoli. Thanks
partly to a certain degree of preservation in the
' municipal institutions of ancient Tibur, as well as
to the progress of the local organisation under the
auspices of the bishop, Tivoli was of considerable
importance. Not only did she exist by the side
of Rome, but she also had the power of irritating
the Romans by the very fact of her existence and
prosperity. ‘The Romans loathed ‘Tivoli, as, later
on, they loathed Tusculum, with a loathing as
deadly as it was irresponsible. When, in 1001,
the inhabitants of Tivoli were misguided enough to
rebel against the imperial authority, the emperor,
assisted by the Romans, who hoped for a share of
the spoil, set out to quell them. The Pope and
Bishop Bernard of Hildesheim* urged the rebels
to submit, and the emperor, having them at his
mercy, spared their lives. This was the very step
to displease the Romans, and, soon after his return
to Rome, Otto III. saw the rebellious populace
surging to the very doors of his palace in the Aven-
tine. With difficulty he succeeded in escaping to

1 His life, by Tangmar, is full of interest (M. G. Ser., t. iv.
p. 754).

244 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

Ravenna, taking with him the Pope Sylvester.
This was on 16th February 1001, and from that
time Otto never went back to Rome, although his
military expeditions against the southern provinces
must sometimes have led him to pass within sight
of the ramparts. On 24th January of the following
year, he died at Paterno, near Mt. Soracte. Rome,
the city which he so loved, was closed against him,
so that his body could not find a resting-place by
the side of his father, Otto II., and they were
obliged to take it to Aix-la-Chapelle. As he had
never been married, the male issue of Otto the
Great was now extinct, and the Germans rallied
round Henry, Duke of Bavaria, grand-nephew of
the great emperor.

Italy, for the last time, appointed a national king,
Arduin, Marquess of Ivrea, who was proclaimed at
Pavia on 15th February. At Rome the power,
without any pressure from outside, became once
more centred in the family of Crescentius. It is
probable that John Crescentius, son of the criminal
executed in 998, had been in some way connected
with the rebellion of 1001, and that from that time
the Romans had vested the chief authority in him.
After Otto’s death he assumed the title of patri-
cus Romanorum, which he maintained without any
difficulty.

History was repeating itself. For thirty years
Ottos and Crescentiuses had succeeded one another
alternately. Though the actual individuals varied,
it was always the same conflict between the
national chief and the foreign prince.

Sylvester II. returned to Rome, where the patri-
cian allowed him to die in peace. This event took
place on 12th May 1003, and the next Pope

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 245

appointed was John XVII., who, after a reign of
six months, was succeeded by John XVIII. This
latter occupied the papal See until the year 1009,
when his place was taken by Sergius IV. (Bucca-
porca), who, from being the son of a Roman shoe-
maker, had risen to the rank of bishop of Albano.
He died on 12th May 1012, the patrician having
preceded him to the grave by a few weeks.

Owing to the party strife among the aristocracy
the vacancy of the Holy See gave rise to a double
election. In opposition to the Crescentius family
was the increasing influence of the Counts of Tus-
culum, who were connected with the family of the
great Prince Alberic, as well as with the far-away
ancestor Theophylact. Gregory, the head of the
house, figures in the time of Otto III. under the
title of prefectus navalis. 'To him, doubtless, was
due the restoration and transformation of the acro-
polis of the old Latin city, which had been aban-
doned for centuries. He was the father of three sons,
Alberic, Romanus, and the Cardinal Theophylact.
There can be no doubt that this influential family
had long cherished the ambition of succeeding the
Crescentii in the government of the Roman state.’
But there were obstacles in the way. The power
was in the hands of the Crescentii, who represented
the tradition of independence, as far as this had
been possible, since the advent of the Saxon kings
in Italy. According as the German authority was
strong or weak, the Crescentii regulated their behavi-
our, resigning themselves or objecting, as the occasion

1 The chief country strongholds of the Crescentius party were
between the Tiber and Farfa, at Monticelli, Nomentum, and Arci.
At Rome they held the castle of St. Angelo, which was apparently
inherited by the family of Theophylact.

246 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

seemed to demand. In one way or another they
managed to express the attitude of the people, or
rather of the aristocracy, the only class which had
any weight at that time. The Tusculans, in order
to counter-check them, assumed a special devotion
to the German interests, but, in point of fact, this
was very little beyond assumption, though it un-
doubtedly made them more favourably regarded on
the other side of the Alps.

The patrician of the Romans being no longer
alive, the two papal candidates, Gregory, supported
by the waning Crescentian influence, and Theo-
phylact, the third son of the Count of Tusculum,
turned to King Henry II. ‘This latter had already
made a campaign in Northern Italy in 1004, and
had even gained an entry into Pavia, but the old
Lombard capital had risen up in arms against him,
so that, although the rebellion was checked by fire,
Henry had thought it wiser to curtail his sojourn
in the Italian kingdom. After his departure,
Arduin, the national king, had regained his footing,
and the internal difficulties of the German kingdom,
combined with the diplomacy of John Crescentius,
had sufficed to keep Henry II. on the north of the
Alps. ‘The present position of affairs seemed more
promising. Henry spoke encouraging words to
Gregory’s ambassadors, but withheld his decision,
which was clearly affected by the fact that Theo-
phylact, who, through the influence of his father
and brothers, had been proclaimed Pope under the
title of Benedict VIII., had succeeded in consolidating
his position.

At the end of February 1018 Henry II. made
his entry into Italy, thus causing Arduin to dis-
appear from public view. On 14th February of the

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 247

following year, the king of Germany and his wife,
Queen Cunegunda, were crowned by Benedict VIII.
at St. Peter’s. Arduin made a last effort to reassert
himself a little while afterwards, but with so little
success that he was reduced to entering a monastery,
where he spent the remainder of his days.

Pope Benedict VIII., who reigned twelve years
—to the 7th April 1024—left behind him a satis-
factory record. He seems to have always main-
tained amicable relations with the emperor. He led
a naval expedition against the Saracens, who had
seized upon Luni (1016), paid a visit to Germany in
1020, accompanied the emperor to the south of Italy
in 1022, and the same year united with him in holding
a synod at Pavia, where the long-forgotten regula-
tions concerning celibacy were once more brought to
light.

Benedict had plenty of time to occupy himself
with religious matters...The burden of the temporal.
government. was assumed by_his_ brother. Romanus,
“who bore the title of Senator omnium Romanorum,
revived in the time of Alberic, so that the whole
power of the papacy, spiritual as well as political,
was vested in the nobles of Tusculum. They had,
however, to reckon with the supreme authority of
the emperor as far as temporal affairs were con-
cerned. Like the Crescentii, they were in the
position of vice-governors, or permanent miss?, rather
than that of independent princes. Alberic had been
free from any such restraint, for there had been no
emperor in his day to impose it upon him. But the
situation had utterly changed since the consecration
of 962. Under the Crescentii, especially the first
two, the lay chiefs of the Roman aristocracy had
tried to resist the imperial authority, but with the

248 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

Tusculans things were on a more friendly footing.
When the emperor, as constantly happened, was
away from Rome, the governing power was left in
the hands of the Tusculum family; but when he
was in the city, he naturally took the headship of
affairs, presiding at the courts of justice, and modify-
ing the legislation if necessary. Thus we have an
edict of the Emperor Conrad II.* addressed to the
Roman judges, by which the personal right of the
Lombards over Roman territory is annulled. This
point of personal right had not been inserted in the
privilege of Otto I., which reproduced so many con-
ditions of the constitution of 824. Nevertheless,
the abbot of Farfa, in an action brought before
Otto III., appealed successfully to the Lombard
law. But the curious documents from which we
derive our information concerning this suit show how
very few and far between were the Roman magis-
trates who really understood the Lombard legalities.
Conrad brought things into better order, and com-
manded ut guecumque negotia mota fuerint tam inter
Romane urbis menia quam etiam de foris in Romanis
pertinentiis, actore Langobardo vel reo, a vobis dum-
taxat Romanis legibus terminentur.

This fact demonstrates how the emperors of the
eleventh century, like those of the ninth, regarded
themselves as genuine monarchs at Rome, particu-
larly in connection with legislation. Certainly the
privilege documents give no hint of this degree of
authority, but that only proves how little these are
to be relied upon in a question of defining the precise
circumstances. Henry II. issued one for the benefit
of Benedict VIII. on the occasion of his consecra- —
tion, and that is an exact reproduction of the privilege

1 Mon. Germ. Leges, ii. 40.

<

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 249
of Otto. It is probable that a document of this

_ kind was produced at every imperial consecration.

When Benedict died, the senator, without more
ado, calmly established himself in his place, taking
the name of John XIX. It was the counterpart of
the accession of John XII.—the family traditions
were being carried out. The new Pope, who, accord-
ing to one of the chroniclers, wno eodemque die pre-
fectus fuit et papa, was not well adapted to fulfil the
ideas of Benedict VIII., or rather of the Emperor
Henry II., on ecclesiastical reform, and the old
abuses cropped up again more vigorously than ever.
John XIX. reigned until 1032, the most conspicuous
event of his pontificate being the coronation of the
Emperor Conrad IT., successor to Henry.

The only survivor of Count Gregory’s three sons
was the eldest, Count Alberic, who had no inclina-
tion to assume the papal authority. He had four
sons. On one of them, Gregory, he bestowed the
temporal government, together with the title of
Consul Romanorum ; another, bearing, like his distant
ancestor and Benedict VIII., the name of Theophy-
lact, was appointed to succeed his two uncles in the
pontifical chair. That he was only twelve years old
was no obstacle, and he was proclaimed Pope under
the title of Benedict IX. To the German princes
there was nothing objectionable in this hereditary
transmission of the Apostolic Chair. They had
recognised John XIX., who, though a layman, was
a full-grown man, and they tolerated Benedict IX.,
a mere urchin, who was before long to become
actively offensive.

Indeed, as time went on, the young Pope revived

1 John XII., at any rate, was a cardinal at the time of his
election.

250 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

at the Lateran the rule of revelry which had flourished
under his ancestor John XII., eighty years before.
Conrad II., who understood how to manage this
papal puppet, not only encouraged him, but over-
whelmed him with attentions. He benefited by this
attitude in his struggle against the archbishop of
Milan, when, on two occasions, at Cremona 1087,
and at Spello 1038, Benedict went to meet him,
and at his request, pronounced sentence of excom-
munication against the Archbishop Heribert. Not
until seven years had passed did Henry III., who
succeeded Conrad in 1039, interfere and put a stop
to the gross scandals over which every earnest-
minded person in Christendom was obliged to
lament in helpless silence.

The Romans themselves were the first to grow
weary of their Pope’s proceedings. During the
autumn of 1044 they rose in rebellion and expelled
him from his See,’ together with his brother the
consul, and all connected with the House of Tus- ~
culum. However, the pontifical party succeeded
in maintaining their own in the Trastevere, while
Rome herself and the Leonine city remained in the
power of the rebels. The latter, on 7th January
1045 made an onslaught on the Trasteverans, but
were put to flight by the vassals of Tusculum,
under the leadership of Gerard, Count of Galeria.
They fell back in disarray on the Saxon gate, which,
however, was not forced, so the Romans, emboldened,
elected a successor to Benedict. This was John,
Bishop of Sabina, who took the name of Sylvester

1 Ann. Rom. (L. P., t. ii. p. 331). It is perhaps to this event
that Raoul Glaber’s account refers iv., 24 (ef. 17), only he con-
founds the dates. The Roman annalist mentions a solar eclipse

of 22nd November, immediately after having spoken of the ex-
pulsion of Benedict IX.

THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE 251

III. The chief electors had been heavily bribed,
but, as far as the new Pope was concerned, it was
money wasted, for at the end of forty-nine days
Rome had succumbed to her besiegers, and Sylvester
returned to his bishopric. In order for him to live
peacefully in Sabina, which was in the country of
the Crescentii, the powerful members of his flock
must have defended him against the re-established
Pope, Benedict IX. There is every reason to
suspect a revival of the Crescentian influence in
the revolt of 1044 and the election of Sylvester IIT.

Benedict, forcibly reinstalled, and yet not able
to prevail against the discontented attitude of the
Romans, made up his mind to resign the pontificate.
This he did on 1st May, in favour of his godfather,
John Gratian, Archpriest of St. John-before-the-
Latin-Gate. A charter of resignation was drawn
up,’ but that probably did not prevent a counterfeit
election. The new Pope, who took the title of
Gregory VI., was not a cardinal, but he had other
greater disqualifications than that. Benedict had not
yielded the papal seat for nothing, and Gregory had
been obliged to pay down ready money as the price
\of his promotion. The papacy had been sold, and
‘that not by the electors as had been done some-
‘times before, but by the actual Pope himself.

Gregory VI., who was an elderly man, found
no difficulty in leading a steadier life than his
predecessor had done. He took Hildebrand under
his protection, so that the chroniclers connected
with the latter speak of him with respectful con-
sideration.

His accession was, at any rate, welcomed by

1 Per cartulam refutavit Johanni, &c., Ann, Rom. This extra-
ordinary document has not come down to us,

252 THE POPES OF THE EMPIRE

people worthy of respect. From the recesses of
his convent in the Apennines, St. Peter Damian
wrote greeting him as the dove bringing back the
olive branch to the Ark; Hildebrand, who was at
that time residing in the monastery founded by
Alberic on the Aventine,’ became his chaplain and
adviser. These friendships do him credit, and we
can only suppose that these worthy persons were,
at first, ignorant of the simony involved in his
promotion. Moreover, it cannot be denied that the
papal morality had fallen to such an extremely low
level under John XIX. and Benedict IX., that
people were not now disposed to criticise Gregory

VI. too severely. 7

1 §, Maria del Priorato.

CHAPTER XIX
THE GERMAN POPES

The Events of 1044—Council of Sutri—The German Popes—Clement ITI.
—The Marquisate of Tuscany—The Normans—End of Benedict IX.
—Damasus IJ.—Leo IX.—His Crusade against the Normans—
Victor II.—Affairs of Tuscany—Death of Henry II1.—Hildebrand—
Stephen IX.—Benedict X. and Nicholas I].—Hildebrand’s Pro-
gramme—His Alliance with the Normans—Defeat of Benedict—
Enactment concerning the Papal Elections—Council of Melfi—

. Election of the Pope taken out of the hands of the Barons and
Emperors.

ALL these changes had been brought about by the
Romans; Benedict LX. had been disposed of, and
with him the House of Tusculum, without the
slightest interference on the part of the King of
Germany. The substitution of Gregory VI. for
Benedict IX. presented two different aspects ; from
one point of view it was the end of a scandal which
for years had put all Christendom to the blush;
while, from another, it was an attack against a family
which, for the last fifty years, had represented the
German influence at Rome, and even against the
rights that the German crown claimed in the election
of the Popes. Things were arranged amicably by
a written and signed agreement; but there can be
no doubt that the rebellion of 1044, together with
the invincible antipathy of the Roman people, had
greatly influenced Benedict’s decision.

Having regard to these occurrences, Henry III.
thought it well not to commit himself at first. The
next year (1046) he came to Italy, and began by

254 THE GERMAN POPES

holding a great council at Pavia, in which simony
was condemned in unmeasured terms.’ At Piacenza
he had an interview with Gregory VI., who came
to meet him. He welcomed him graciously, but
made no definite assertion as to his rights. Arrived
in Roman Tuscia, he held a council at Sutri on the
20th December, which resulted in the deposition
of Gregory VI. and Sylvester III. Both of them
seem to have been quite resigned to their fate.
Sylvester embraced a religious career; and Gregory
was detained that he might be transported to the
other side of the Alps on the king’s return.
Benedict IX., who, from the height of his fortress
at ‘Tusculum, was quietly waiting for the storm to
blow over, also received sentence of deposition, but
not until a few days later, at a synod held at
St. Peter’s on the 23rd and 24th of December.
Henry III. evidently considered Benedict more
legitimate than his rivals.

Having thus cleared the ground, they set
about electing a new Pope. Henry III. appointed
Suidger, the Bishop of Bamberg, who took the
title of Clement II., and was ordained. the next
day (Christmas). At the same time he consecrated
Henry and his queen, Agnes, as emperor and
empress.

Among the oaths taken at this season figured,
as in 968, the renunciation by the Romans of the
right of election. This fact is confirmed by the
witness of the Roman Aznals, as well as by that
of St. Peter Damian, not to mention other less
reliable sources. It was a new consecration of the
established tradition of eighty years.

Nevertheless, the German princes and _ their

1 This is the council mentioned by Raoul Glaber, v. 25.

THE GERMAN POPES 255

substitutes, the Crescentii and the Counts of
Tusculum, had, as a rule, chosen Roman Popes.
The occasional election of a foreigner, such as
Gregory V. and Sylvester II., had not been en-
thusiastically received. It might, perhaps, have
been more prudent to select a Roman, or even to
retain Gregory VI. who had his good points.
Henry III., however, thought otherwise, considering
himself powerful enough to maintain a transalpine
Pope at Rome. And, indeed, he succeeded in
thrusting four upon her: the Bishops of Bamberg,
Brixen, Toul, Eichstidt, who became respectively
Clement II., Damasus II., Leo [X., and Victor II.

But it was no easy task. Pope Clement II.
followed the emperor into Southern Italy, sum-
moned by the continual disturbances of the district.
On his way back he was seized by sudden illness
near Pesaro, and died on 9th October 1047. There
is every reason to suspect that his death was caused
by a poisonous potion, served at the instigation of
the deposed Pope, Benedict IX. The emperor
had already got to the other side of the Alps.
Benedict reappeared at Rome, where, with the help
of Boniface, Marquess of ‘Tuscany, he was soon re-
established. It was then 9th November, and he
succeeded in retaining his position until 17th July
of the following year (1048).

Two new powers now appeared upon the Italian
horizon, one to the north of Rome, the other to
the south. The first was represented by the House
of Tuscany, which had been founded in the last
century by Azzo, the chatelain of Canossa in
Emilia; the same who had posed as the protector
of Queen Adelaide on her escape from imprison-
ment by Berengarius II. He and his son Tedald

256 THE GERMAN POPES

had been reckoned among the most faithful ad-
herents of the House of Saxony, and were very
popular in the north of Italy (Mantua, Ferrara,
Brescia, Reggio, Modena); finally, Tedald’s son,
Boniface, had become Marquess of ‘Tuscany. The
great Countess Matilda, so famous in the Gregorian
annals, was his daughter. Altogether, Boniface
was too influential a vassal not to be formidable.

In Southern Italy the Saracens were keeping
fairly quiet, except for some raids upon the coasts
of Byzantine Calabria. The rest of the country
had long been the scene of struggles carried on by
the Lombards, either among themselves or against
the Greeks. Of the three Lombard principalities
of Capua, Beneventum, and Salerno, the latter was
predominant at the time. It owed its prosperity
to the arrival in the country of several bands
of adventurers from Basse-Normandie, substantial
warriors, not over-scrupulous as to their methods.
While ready to work for any one who would pay —
them, they sought at the same time to further
their own ends and to obtain a solid footing in
the land. ‘They had already succeeded in founding
two establishments—one at Aversa, near Capua,
and the other at Melfi, between Beneventum and
Byzantine Apuleia. ‘These Norman colonies, formed
by Frankish subjects (though for their own advan-
tage, it is true), would have had no political position
if the Prince of Salerno had not taken them under
his feudal responsibility. The Normans of Melfi
and Aversa were subject to Salerno, but the pre-
eminence of the latter was destroyed as a result
of Henry’s expedition. The German emperor,
however, extended his immediate protection to the
two little principalities (1047).

THE GERMAN POPES 257

This did not tend to increase their popularity.
The newly arrived Normans, who were always en-
larging their borders at other people’s expense, were
regarded with great distrust. They were as much
hated as the Saracens had been, and indeed were
often designated by the same name of Agareni, as
though they too were the disciples of Mahomet.

These two new powers of Tuscany and Normandy
played an important part in the period which followed.
Henceforth Boniface, by supporting the cause of
Benedict [X., acted in open opposition to the
emperor. As soon as the death of Clement was
made known, those of the Romans who had remained
loyal to Henry III. had sent to ask the emperor to
appoint a Pope. His choice fell upon Poppo, Bishop
of Brixen, who took the name of Damasus II. The
Marquess of ‘Tuscany refused at first to escort him to
Rome, on the pretext of Benedict’s reinstallation,
and only after many importunities and threats did
the enthronement of the new Pope take place, 17th
July 1048. His reign, however, was speedily termi-
nated by death, and the 9th of August saw him
committed to his last resting-place at San Lorenzo.
Benedict IX. passed, more or less, into oblivion;
according to one report he became a monk at Grotta
Ferrata; another, which seems more likely to be
true,’ states that he came to an early grave in con-
sequence of his continued dissolute way of living.

The Emperor Henry replaced Damasus II. by
Bruno, Bishop of Toul, who assumed the name of
Leo IX. He was a man of great piety and full of
zeal for ecclesiastical reform. Hildebrand, who had

1 See the legend related by St. Peter Damian, De abdicatione
episcopatus, c. 2. This supposes that the unfortunate Pope died in
a state of impenitence.

R

258 THE GERMAN POPES

followed Gregory VI. into exile, was now brought
back to Rome. Later on it was said that he re-
monstrated with Leo on his promotion, and that the
latter defended himself by reference to the Roman
freedom of election. If there is any truth in these
stories, they can only refer to external formalities.
Leo must have waited to be elected and installed at
Rome in due form before being invested with the
pontifical insignia. Indeed, like his two predecessors
and his successor, he was actually chosen by the
emperor, and the Romans could do no more than
confirm this choice by a simulated election.

It is certain that Leo displayed much energy on
behalf of ecclesiastical reform, and that he was
continually journeying about, preaching, excom-
municating, and holding councils, even visiting
Rheims for the latter purpose. He also made it
his aim to rid Italy of the new Saracens—the
Normans—-and headed a kind of crusade against
them. This, however, was a failure; at the battle
of Civita in Capitanate (1053) the Pope’s army was
put to flight, and many of his men were massacred
before his very eyes. He himself was forced to
surrender to the conquerors, and to withdraw the
sentences of excommunication which he had lavished
upon them. ‘They took him to Beneventum, which
had for two years been a papal possession; the in-
habitants, finding in their Dukes Pandulph and
Landulph inadequate protection against the Normans,
had banished them from power and put themselves
under the Pope’s governance (1051). The Emperor
Henry III. had sanctioned this change in return for
the papal retrocession of the bishopric of Bamberg,
which had been offered by his predecessor, Henry II.,
to St. Peter. It was from the Pope’s new position as

THE GERMAN POPES 259

sovereign of Beneventum that the struggle between
himself and the Normans had arisen.

In the spring of 1054 Leo returned to Rome, but
only in time to die. Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt,
succeeded him as Victor II. He was accompanied
by the emperor to Verona, where his stay was
signalised by certain arrangements in connection
with Tuscany. Beatrice, widow of the Marquess
Boniface, had taken for her second husband Geoffrey,
Duke of Lorraine, a rebellious vassal of the Emperor
Henry. Geoffrey had a brother Frederic, who,
under Leo IX., had become cardinal and chancellor
of the Roman Church. Just then he was performing
the function of papal legate at Constantinople.

The ducal family of Tuscany had every reason to
dread the emperor’s arrival. Geoffrey did not wait
for him, but repaired to Lorraine, and began opera-
tions there, hoping in this way to relieve Italy.
Henry III. seized upon Beatrice and her daughter
Matilda, then went in person to Florence, and ap-
pointed the Pope as his vicar in Italy, charging him
to arrest the Cardinal Frederic on his return from
the East. Warned in time, Frederic took refuge at
Monte Cassino, where he took the Benedictine habit,
and succeeded in getting sent to Tremiti, an obscure
little island in the Adriatic. ‘Thus sheltered, he let
the storm rage on.

The next year, 1056, Victor II. betook himself to
Germany, hoping to arouse the emperor’s interest in
his plan of resuming the aggressive policy of Leo IX.
with regard to the Normans. But death intervened,
and the Pope had the grief of seeing Henry III.
pass away on 5th October, leaving as his successor a
little son, Henry, only six years old, and still under
the guardianship of his mother, the Empress Agnes.

260 THE GERMAN POPES

This event seriously affected the Pope’s situation.
After spending several months in Germany, striving
to support the regency which was just beginning, he
returned to Italy, where he, in his turn, died, 28th
July 1057. On being deprived of the powerful pro-
tection of Henry III., he had at once realised the
necessity of being on good terms with the House
of Tuscany. He began by reconciling it with the
empress. Duke Geoffrey was restored to favour,
and his wife, daughter, and estates were given back
to him, while his brother Frederic was appointed
abbot of Monte Cassino and cardinal priest. The
whole aspect of things was completely changed.

Hildebrand had always united with the Popes
Leo IX. and Victor II., whose counsellor he had
been, in waging war against ecclesiastical abuses,
though he had never unduly troubled about the
incompatibility between ancient custom and the
origin of his patrons. But in his inmost heart he
cherished schemes for the enfranchisement of the
papacy and the freedom of the election, or rather
for its devolving upon those who could hardly do
otherwise than choose wisely.

When the Pope breathed his last at Arezzo,
Hildebrand was with him. Without waiting for
his return, the Romans proclaimed, as Victor’s suc-
cessor, the Cardinal Frederic of Lorraine, who hap-
pened to be in Rome at the time. He was elected
on 2nd August, and consecrated on 8rd August,
without any reference to the court of Germany.
This was a serious infraction of the agreement of
1046, but, as the choice had fallen on a man both -
honourable and powerful, and the brother of the
chief German vassal in Italian territory, the acqui-
escence of the queen-regent might not unreasonably

THE GERMAN POPES 261

be anticipated. Hildebrand was despatched, in the
hope of disarming her displeasure, and seems to have
accomplished his mission with success. During his
absence the new pontiff experienced a desire to
confer with his brother Geoffrey, and set out for
Tuscany. Before starting, however, he took the
precaution of assembling the clergy and the faithful
of Rome, and making them swear that, in the event
of his death during the journey, they would await
Hildebrand’s return from Germany before electing a
successor to the Holy See.

But it was one thing to take an oath and another
to keep it. Stephen IX. never came back, but died
from poison in Tuscany. His death was reputed to
have been brought about by the Romans, probably
the leaders of the aristocracy, who had been obliged
to bend under the yoke of the Emperor Henry III.
as well as under that of the Duke of Tuscany, and
who were strongly opposed to the government
notions of reform. Their ideas on the freedom of
election differed greatly from those of Hildebrand
and his party. Both sides wanted to throw off the
German supervision and to have the Pope to them-
selves; but while Hildebrand’s party desired a
pontiff who would have regard for the spiritual
dignity of his position, and encourage ecclesiastical
reform, the others wanted a sort of papal phantom,
who would act as an external screen for the main-
tenance of abuses of every kind, both in the govern-
ment of the Roman state as well as in the moral
domain.

Each of these two parties were soon provided
with a Pope. The Roman aristocracy were first in
the field, and, on 5th April 1058, installed at St.
Peter’s, John, Bishop of Velletri, surnamed “the

262 THE GERMAN POPES

Thin.”* He took the title of Benedict X. The
Crescentii, the Tusculans, the Count of Galeria,
all seemed in accord, and almost the only dissentient
voice was that of a Trasteverian noble, Leo, son of
Benedict the Christian, so called because he had been
converted from Judaism. These were the leaders of
the Pierleoni family, who rose to such renown in the
following century. The faithful clergy, who were at
that time headed by the holy monk, Peter Damian,
Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, had, it must be understood,
taken no part in the proceedings.

The ecclesiastical chiefs succeeded in escaping ;
they rallied round Hildebrand in Tuscany, on his
return from Germany. ‘The latter seems to have
come to an amicable understanding with Duke
Geoffrey, and, probably, also with the German
court, which was represented in Italy by the chan-
cellor Guibert; they united in choosing as their
Pope, Gerard, Bishop of Florence, who took the
name of Nicholas II. Guibert, Geoffrey, Nicholas,
and Hildebrand, together with the representatives
of the clergy and the faithful laity, betook them-
selves to Sutri in January 1059, and assembled a
solemn conclave, at which Benedict was deposed,
and Nicholas recognised. ‘Then Hildebrand and his
followers, aided by the internal disputes of the
aristocracy, as well as by Leo’s financial wealth,
succeeded in gaining an entrance to Rome. ‘ Bene-
dict X. was obliged to flee for shelter to his friends,
the barons of the Campagna, and Nicholas II. was
solemnly installed at St. Peter's, 24th January
1059.

The names of both Benedict X. and Nicholas II.

1 The description of his person is by St. Peter Damian (cp. iii.
4), and seems to be somewhat forced.

THE GERMAN POPES 263

appear in the papal lists, but that is no criterion
of their legitimacy. Benedict was certainly re-
garded by Hildebrand, and by Nicholas II. and his
successors, as an intruder, an zmvasor, but then what
claim had Nicholas II. to be considered legitimate ?
It is not a question of his personal qualities, with
which St. Peter Damian seems to have been so
deeply impressed. That an oath had been sworn to
Stephen IX. cannot be denied, It was quite within
the province of a Pope, during his lifetime, to ar-
range the conditions of his succession, always pro-
vided that they did not interfere with the liberty
of the electors. It is obvious that Nicholas IJ. was
not freely elected by the Romans, but that he was
foisted upon them without their consent. Where
then lies the explanation of his legitimacy ?

There is only one reasonable answer to this
question. The legitimacy of Nicholas I1., like that
of Clement II., Damasus II., Leo [X., Victor II.,
and Stephen IX. himself, hinged upon the co-
operation of the German court. ver since the
time of Leo VIII. this had been the external
guarantee of legitimacy. ‘The signature of the
chancellor Guibert, the future anti-pope, represented
the official stamp, which enabled the world to dis-
tinguish between usurpers and others.

As time went on, the incongruity of this situation
became more and more evident. Such a position
might be tolerated for the Sees of Spires or Salzburg,
‘ but that the papacy should remain indefinitely in
the condition of a German bishopric, within the
nomination of the king and his council, could hardly
be expected. Hildebrand had foreseen that, although
the question of reform might be the most urgent,
and that it might even be promoted with the sup-

264 THE GERMAN POPES

port of the imperial Popes, there was another no less
* serious question to be settled, that of the re-conquest
of the papacy by the Church. Since the days of
Otto and Theophylact, or one might say, since
Lothaire, or even Pepin and Charlemagne, the
spiritual papacy had been adversely affected by the
strife and contention connected with the temporal
papacy. It would never be free, either in thought or
action, until the day when it should have thrown
off the authority of its temporal masters.

Thus, by the logical and chronological sequence
of events, the head of the reform party came to
the conclusion that a stronger force than that which
had hitherto been employed was needed, and that
the case was urgent. But what was to be done?
To re-establish a prince of the Romans, an Alberic,
a Crescentius, or a Count of Tusculum, or to deliver
Rome over to the Duke of Tuscany, would have
been to create round spiritual Rome a temporal
Rome of much stricter limitations than had been
the case under the intermittent protectorate of the
transalpine kings. Hildebrand never recognised the
much loathed rule of the barons of Rome; he could
resign himself to the kings of Germany, and even
to the Tuscan princes, but that was the extent of
his forbearance. He was haunted by the phantom
of Benedict L-X., and on beholding it embodied anew
in Benedict X., he. became exasperated. He there-
upon ventured upon a remarkably bold measure, and
* threw himself into the arms of those “Christian
Saracens,” the hated Normans, who had been not
only excommunicated by the Popes, under his
influence, but actually combated by Hildebrand

himself.
As we have already mentioned, these Normans

THE GERMAN POPES 265

had established two colonies, one at Aversa, near
Capua, and the other at Melfi, in Apuleia. It was
to the former that Hildebrand first made application.
Richard, Count of Aversa, had just taken possession
of Capua, putting an end, as Leo IX. had done
before him, to one of the three Lombard principalities,
which, up to that time, had existed in those regions.
Thanks to his help, they succeeded in taking the
castle of Galeria, where Benedict X. was taking
refuge ; or rather, by dint of many solemn oaths as
to the safety of life and limb, and the comparative
liberty of the unfortunate Pope, they prevailed upon
him to deliver himself into the hands of Nicholas II.
Meanwhile, a large conference was held at the
Lateran, which resulted in the promulgation of
an edict on the papal elections. This important
act’ preserved the honour and respect due to King
Henry, in virtue of the concessions granted him,
and the honour and respect which might be due to
his successors by reason of possible personal con-
cessions ; at the same time it defined the respective
roles of the various categories of electors. The lead
was to be taken by the cardinal bishops, who, after
deliberation, were to combine with the other cardinals,
and then with the remainder of the clergy and the
people. The choice must fall on a member of the
Roman clergy, if there was one suitable, if not they
must seek further. Finally, if Rome itself was in
too great a state of disturbance to permit of the

1 There are two editions of this act; one in which the imperial
rights are accentuated, figures, according to the Vatic. 1984, in the
M. G. Leges, t. ii. app. p. 177, and in Watterich, t. ii. p. 229;
the other has been preserved by the canonists of the eleventh
century, and is to be found in the Council collections. This is the
more reliable, that of the Vatic. 1984, having been touched up by
the Guibertists.

266 THE GERMAN POPES

election’s taking place there, the cardinal bishops
and the pious laity might, even though they formed
but a very small number, proceed to hold the election
outside the city. In that case, the successful can-
didate, without being enthroned, would nevertheless
have full possession of all the papal rights and
dignities.

This decree, after all, was nothing else than the
legal transformation of all the circumstances which
had brought about the promotion of Nicholas II.,
and it seemed exactly calculated to meet the needs of
the present situation. It was clearly directed, first
and foremost, against the feudal aristocracy of the
Roman state; its chief opponents would be the
Crescentii, the Counts of Tusculum, Praeneste,
Galeria, and Sabina; but others also regarded it
as an injury. Notwithstanding the outward and
intentional demonstrations of respect for the im-
perial authority, the cardinal clergy were credited
with an initiative and an eligibility which over-
stepped the bounds prescribed by the German
authority, and seriously violated the traditional
rights of the successors of Otto I. and Henry III.
Not only were Popes like Benedict IX. or X.
debarred, but also such as Gregory V., Clement II.,
and Leo IX., were excluded from the powers
symbolised by the tiara and the cross keys.

But Hildebrand was not the man to make the
serious blunder of issuing such a manifesto without
having regard to the opposition which would follow.
After having relieved him of Benedict X. and the
Roman aristocracy, the Normans were commissioned
to try to find a means of thwarting the plans of the
German court, or, at least, of adopting towards it an
awe-inspiring attitude.

THE GERMAN POPES 267

On 28rd August of this same memorable year,
1059, Nicholas II. held a council at Melfi. The
Norman chiefs of Aversa and Apuleia, Richard and
Robert Guiscard, presented themselves before him,
and were invested with the principality of Capua,
and the duchy of Apuleia and Calabria respectively.
The very fact that the Pope performed this act
shows that he must have looked upon himself as
the sovereign of the country. Now, with the ex-
ception of Beneventum, which he had not yielded
to the Normans, his rights were confined to the
theoretical claims mentioned in the compacts or
privileges of the French or German kings since
Pepin and Charlemagne, but which had never been
realised. Moreover, the emperors and kings of
Germany arrogated the same rights over these
provinces as the old Lombard sovereigns had done
—the rights of the Italian crown, which they had
exercised on several occasions, and in particular
under the Emperor Henry III.

Thus, over the question of the sovereignty of
Southern Italy, as well as that of the papal elec-
tions, a contest arose between the Holy See and
Germany. It must be stated that in return for
their recognition by the Holy See, the Norman
princes held themselves henceforth in duty bound
to support the Pope. They were his vassals, and
he was their lord. Provision was even made for
the event of rivalry among several claimants to
the tiara—the Normans would then lend their
countenance to the one upheld by the “best
cardinals.” *

As might have been expected, the enactment

1 The wording of these promises has been preserved by the
pontifical canonists, Deusdedit, Albinus, and Cencius.

268 THE GERMAN POPES

concerning the elections and the alliance with the
Normans excited the keenest opposition in Germany;
a council was called to pronounce the decree invalid,
and when the Pope despatched a cardinal to explain
matters, he was not even granted a hearing.

On the 27th July 1061 Nicholas II. ended his
days at Florence. This was the signal for the out-
burst of a violent conflict. The Roman party, who
were not in favour of reform, communicated with
the German regency, which, in accordance with
ancient custom, appointed Cadalus, Bishop of
Parma, Pope, under the name of Honorius I1.;
Hildebrand, on the other hand, acted in conso-
nance with the decree of 1059, and the voting
favoured Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, who assumed
the title of Alexander II. The struggle between
these two rivals was long and bitter, but finally,
thanks to a change of opinion on the part of the
German government, Alexander gained the day.
By dint of making certain concessions in the form
of election, he obtained, in 1064, the royal recogni-
tion, which was solemnly awarded to him at the
council of Mantua.

In this last circumstance, just as at the accession
of Gregory VII. in_10738, the right claimed by the
German crown was, in some measure, taken into
account. We know how affairs had become en-
tangled, and how Henry IV., after having recog-
nised Gregory VII., tried to get him deposed.
But the days of Otto and John XII. were over
and past, and Christendom_no longer followed_the
lead of the German crown. The latter was engaged
in a dangerous game, by which she finally lost all
her authority over the papal elections. For the

‘future she was only concerned with the election

THE GERMAN POPES 269

of anti-popes. The legitimate pontiffs, Victor III.,
Urban II., Pascal II., Gelasius II., and Calistus II.,
were all installed without any reference to her. When
_ peace was concluded at Worms, 1122, the question
of the papal elections! was not even considered, and
from that time neither emperors nor kings were
Involved. in. them.

This ultimate triumph of liberty was, however,
quite a different thing from the particular success
of Nicholas II.’s decree. This latter seems shortly
to have been abandoned, not in its general tenor,
but with regard to its characteristic feature, z.e. the
predominant réle played by the cardinal bishops. In
its general drift and by what it had in common with
the tendencies of the reform party, its aim was to
free the papal elections: Ist, from all interference
on the part of the Roman feudal aristocracy ; and
2nd, from undue and harmful interference on the
part of the kings of Germany. As far as these
two points were concerned, its object was attained,
and even surpassed as far as the German kings
were concerned, for they did not even succeed in
retaining the position marked out for them by
Nicholas II.

1 They seem, rather, to have been disposed of in these words

appended to the rules on episcopal and abbatical investitures:
exceptis omnibus que ad Romanam ecclesiam pertinere noscuntur (Jaffé,

6986).

CONCLUSION

To prolong this account would be to exceed the
limits which I have sketched out. Moreover, with
the advent of the Gregorian papacy begins a new
epoch in the history of the temporal power as well
as in general history. This pontificate realises the
potential might of its religious and moral power, and,
with one vigorous stroke, rises above all the political
considerations of the West. As a result of this great
change, the relative importance of the little princi-
pality is somewhat diminished. It was by no means
destroyed, however, but, like all other rights con-
nected with the Holy See, adhered to with tenacity.
Sometimes it provided a temporary refuge from
outside attacks; even in times of depression, when
suffering the imperial occupation, hardly any change
was made in the manner of government; it was
always the pontifical estate. Gregory VII., Urban
II., and Gelasius II. might be compelled to live and
die away from Rome, but in the interval it was
occupied by the anti-popes. It was in their capacity
of vicars of St. Peter that they posed as sovereigns
of Rome. Although in and after the twelfth century
the papal dominion was often interfered with (at least
as far as Rome was concerned) by the commune, its
claims were quite in accord with the theory of the
pontifical sovereignty.

The Pope, therefore, held the sovereignty after
the time of Gregory VII. as before; one may even

say that the conditions were the same, with the
270

CONCLUSION 271

double anxiety of his untractable subjects at home and
of the empire abroad. But, though the sovereignty
did not change, the same cannot be affirmed of the
Sovereign. Formerly he had been the high priest of
the Roman pilgrimage, the theoretical head of the
episcopate, the dispenser of benedictions and of privi-
leges, and of anathemas. But, over the Church as a
whole, his influence was lacking in vigour and conti-
nuity. ‘True, he had been known to organise or insti-
gate certain missions, and occasionally, as in the time of
Nicholas I., energetically to interpose in the general
affairs of the Church; but these cases were excep-
tional. He had had no part in furthering the some-
what evanescent reforms brought about under the
early Carlovingian princes, though the author of the
*‘ Forged Decretals,” recognising their decline, sought
to make out that they were placed under the protec-
tion of the earliest Popes, without succeeding in
arousing in their successors any sustained interest.
These latter, as we have seen, were drawn from an
environment which, to put it mildly, bore but an
indifferent reputation. Indeed, even if we eliminate
the gross scandals which are on record, it must be
admitted that the personal character of almost all of
the Popes of those days was very far removed indeed
from the apostolic ideal.

What a contrast do they present with later times,
when we have to deal with such men as Gregory
VII., Urban II., and Alexander III. !

With so extensive a papacy it was impossible to
avoid difficulties in connection with the old temporal
establishment. There were often quarrels with the
emperors, in which the Romans displayed but little
interest, although they suffered considerably from
their effects, When once they were organised into

272 CONCLUSION

a commune, their wishes had more than ever to be
reckoned with. On the other hand, the pontifical
‘ curia was gradually becoming less Roman. German
Popes were no longer appointed, but there were
several of French, and even one of English nation-
ality. It naturally followed that the members of the
second and lower degrees of the clergy were drawn
from various nationalities. This fresh set had but
few ties with Rome. The cardinals had long since
ceased to take any personal interest in their churches,
_ and rarely came into contact with the native popula-
tion. As time went on, the personnel of the Holy
See became more and more distinct from that of the
old Roman days. Many complications arose, but,
notwithstanding these, the combined pressure of ex-
ternal influences, the emperors, the anti-popes, and
especially the commune, finally succeeded in moving
this venerable and weighty mass. By dint of con-
stantly changing place it became accustomed ‘to a
wandering existence. Theoretically the centre of
Catholicism remained at Rome, the Lateran being
the official residence of the Popes. But, as a matter
of fact, those who wished to come into touch with
the head of the Churches, had generally to go further
afield—to Anagni, Viterbo, Perugia, Cluny, Sens, or
even to Avignon, not to mention the high roads of
Italy and France, where the papal retinue often made
a halt.

As regards the finances, it is not to be supposed
that pilgrimages or the revenues, such as they were,
of the duchy of Rome, could afford adequate means
of subsistence. Like the papal staff, the funds, as
well as warrants of security, were drawn from various
sources. The travelling Pope might meet with ad-
ventures on the way, but he could always make sure,

CONCLUSION 273

wherever he might go, in the whole of Latin Chris-
tendom, of finding places where he could remain in
_ absolute safety. As long as he was in opposition to
the emperor, the Normans of Italy were on his side,
and more than one common Italian had the happi-
ness of giving him shelter. In France, too, the
kings, the monks, and the bishops always welcomed
him with sympathy.

| It is easy to understand that, under these circum-
stances, temporal politics should have been relegated
to the background. Not that they were altogether
forgotten, but they suffered from a certain neglect.
It was not until the end of the fourteenth and be-
ginning of the fifteenth centuries that they regained
their former position of importance.

Enough has now been said to justify the break
that I have introduced in this history. It now
merely remains for me to sum up the main points of
the pages dedicated to the earlier period.

The temporal power had its origin in_ the. repug-—
nance of the Romans to becoming Lombards, and in
their inability to organise their_autonomy. unless the
Pope’ was placed. at its head. From the very outset
the new state felt and displayed a twofold weakness,
an external incapacity to_cope with the Lombards
and Greeks, and an internal lack of cohesion, due to
the constant dissensions between the lay aristocracy
and the clergy. A.protector was necessary to defend
the Roman state against outside attacks, as well as
to help the Roman clergy in the struggle against
their rivals at home. The external enemy speedily
ceased to give cause of offence, and indeed, except
perhaps for the Saracen inroads of the ninth century,
the Romans had very little to complain of on this

score after the year 774. But the internal situation
s

274 CONCLUSION

became more and more strained, as is evidenced by
the tragedies which followed the death of Pope Paul,
and the riots in the times of Leo III. and Pascal.
But the crisis did not pass, and it became necessary
to deal with it effectively. The sovereign protector
intervened, and in 824 the new order of thin
became incorporated in the constitution of Lothaire.

That this arrangement had been submitted to,
rather than initiated by the clergy, is not to be
gainsaid. On several occasions they sought exemp-
tion from it, but as long as the emperor’s authority
had any weight, they were obliged to put up with it.
Moreover, the clergy themselves, after some experi-
ence, ended by recognising its inevitability.

The charter of 824 was concerned with the pro-
tectorate, and implied the presence of a resident,
and the existence of a protector. At the close of
the ninth century, however, these two essential
elements were conspicuous by their absence, and
the Roman clergy found themselves defenceless
against the lay aristocracy. ‘The nobles thereupon
made themselves masters of the state, and for the
space of a century and a half the House of Theophy-
lact provided them with a succession of leaders, who
undertook the direction of the political destinies of
the pontifical estate. First of all they ruled alone,
unimpeded by the Carlovingian heirs, but after the
time of the Ottos they were obliged, in some measure
at least, to submit to the guardianship of the kings
of Germany. In the main they managed to keep
the upper hand, and if they had confined themselves
to the retention of the political power, things would
have turned out differently. But they took upon
themselves the right of choosing the dignitary who
was, at one and the same time, their theoretical

CONCLUSION O75

sovereign and their bishop, and the Pope, therefore,
was appointed by this incongruous company of feudal
barons.’ After their first encroachments the conclave
of 769 had excluded them from the electoral council,
but they returned to it in 824 in company with the
emperor, who was invested with the right of verify-
ing and confirming the papal elections, a right which
had been exercised by the Greek sovereigns since the
time of Justinian. This intervention of a higher
power might have acted as a check on the unsuit-
able elections made by the nobility; certainly the
Popes of the ninth century, who were elected under
this régime, seem to have no blot upon their fair
fame. The empire, however, underwent some
eclipses; the princes of the House of Saxony either
could not or would not intervene as often as was
desirable. They apparently cared little for the holi-
ness of the pontificate, so long as it remained in
subjection to them, and it was for his intractability
rather than for his unexampled licentiousness, that
John XII. was deposed. Otto immediately took
upon himself the actual choice of the Pope—not
merely the confirmation of the choice of others.
Afterwards the system became elaborated. The
German emperor appointed his intimates, Gregory
V. and Sylvester II., and then some of his own
bishops. In the hierarchy of the Church under
German influence the Pope was promoted from the

1 Almost everywhere the same effects were produced by the
same cause. Monopolised by the feudal aristocracy, the episcopal
sees were often occupied by very unworthy bishops. With the
lapse of time they have passed into oblivion, one result of which is
that the scandals created by the feudal Popes stand out all the
more conspicuously. It is only right to place these things in their
proper perspective and not to represent the Roman milieu in a
darker light than the others.

276 CONCLUSION

lower ecclesiastical ranks, rather than from the
cardinalate.

But this state of affairs could not last indefinitely.
On Gregory VII. fell the onus of setting matters on
a different basis, and great was the scandal and affront
among those who had long been nourished on the
traditional abuses. But Pope Gregory VII. had
confidence in the ark which he was steering through
such devious ways—a confidence which was not
misplaced, for the bark of Peter responded willingly
to the guidance of her captain.

INDEX

A

Abbon, governor of Provence, patri-
cius Romanorum, 39

Abbots not necessarily priests, 154 note

Abruzzo attacked by Romans for Tra-
simund, 9

Acolytes distributed among priestly
offices, 65

Acontius, St., body of Pope Formosus
cast up near church of, 201

Actard, Bishop,ambassador of Charles
the Bald, 170; interview of, with
Hadrian II., 170

Adalbert, Count of Tuscany, missus of
Emperor Louis II., 152

Adalbert, Marquess, questionable
vassal of Arnulph, 196

Adalbert, son of Berengarius II., 225 ;
welcomed in Rome by John XII.,
226 ; flies before Emperor Otto from
Rome, 227

Adda, the, one of boundaries between
kings of Italy, 198

Adelaide, widow of Lothaire of Pro-
vence, 218; resists Berengarius,
218 ; defeated, and imprisoned on
Lake Garda, 218; escapes, and
appeals to Otto, King of the Ger-
mans, 218; marries Otto, 218;
Azzo, chatelain of Canossa, pro-
tects, 255

Adelchis, son of Desiderius, leads re-
volt at Verona, 93; when revolt
subdued, seeks Byzantine refuge, 93

Adelgis, Duke of Beneventum, takes
Louis II. prisoner, 166, 196

Administration, diaconal, 63

Administration, financial, at Lateran,
presided over by arcarius, 64;
funds of, drawn from many sources,

272
Adriatic, the, becomes Byzantine, 175
Adultery, judged at ecclesiastical

tribunals, 115 note
Advocates of the Lateran, 64
Afiarta, Paul, pontifical chamberlain,

82; confederate of Desiderius, $2;

at daggers drawn with Christopher

277

(primicerius) 83; inhuman treat-
ment of Sergius (son of Christopher)
by, 84-5 ; Stephen III. takes stand-
point of, 85; sent by Hadrian I.
to Desiderius, 88; undertakes to
arrange interview between Hadrian
and Desiderius, 89 ; denounced to
Hadrian, 89; arrested by Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, 90 ; executed, 91

Agapitus II., Pope, 216; Romans
swear to elect Octavian on death
of, 222; death of, 223

Agareni, Normans often called, 257

Agatho, Bishop of Todi, leader of
imperial*party, 153

Agiltrude, Empress-mother (widow
of Emperor Guy), 196; marked
character of, 196; daughter of
Adelgis of Beneventum, 196;
watches interests of Lambert of
Spoleto, 196; deadly foe of Carlo-
vingians, 196; seizes Rome, 196-7 ;
plans checked, 197; shut up in
castle of Spoleto, 197; retakes
Rome, 198; institutes mock trial
of dead Pope Formosus, 199

Aglabites, Saracens of Numidia and
East Africa under the, 137

Agnellus, Life of Sergius, Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, by, 99 note;
reverses names of Popes Paul and
Stephen II., 100 note ; incomplete
account by, of revolt at Ravenna,
IOI note

Agnes, Empress (wife of Henry III.),
consecrated by Clement II., 254;
guardian of Henry IV., 259;
Victor II. reconciles House of
Tuscany with, 260

Agnes, St., convent of, remodelled,

221
Aistulf, Lombard prince, full of piety,

2

Ain la- Chapelle, sacred town of
Charlemagne, 136; much frequented
by Emperor Lothaire, 144; visited
by Otto III., 242

Alamanny, duchy of, loosely bound
to Frankish kingdom, 6

278

Alatri, Roman frontier line followed
mountains behind, 15; tribune of,
cruelly treated, 79

Alberic, Marquess, governor of Spoleto,
211; acts with Romans against
Saracens, 211; laurels of war fall
to, 212; murders Marquess Guy on
bridge of Tiber, 212; Spoleto and
Camerino in subjection to, 212;
marries Marozia, daughter of Theo-
phylact and mistress of Sergius III.,
212; connected with Counts of
Tuscany, 245

Alberic, son of Marquess Alberic and
Marozia, 215; insulted by mother’s
husband, Hugh, King of Italy, 215;
lays siege to Castle St. Angelo, and
takes mother prisoner, 215; title
of princeps et omnium Romanorum
senator, 219; defends territory
against King of Italy, 217; repulses
Otto’s desire to come to Rome, 218;
and coldly receives his embassy,
218; name of, on Roman coinage,
219; judicial assemblies sometimes
held at dwelling of, 219; enters
into family relations with Byzantine
Emperor, 219; is said to have set
affections on Greek princess, 220-1;
severs links with Provence,Germany,
and Italy, 221; favourable accounts
of government of, 221; four popes
owe promotion to, 221; founds and
reforms monasteries, 221; founds
and remodels convents, 221 ; makes
Abbey Subiaco great establish-
ment, 221; led by St. Odo, Abbot
of Cluny, 221-2; alarmed by ap-
pearance of Otto at Pavia, 222;
death of, 222

Alberic, Count (son of Count Gregory),
no inclination for papal authority,
249; bestows temporal government
on son, Gregory, 249

Albinus, pontifical canonist, on Nor-
man promises to Pope, 267 note

Alboni, Duke of Spoleto, taken
prisoner by Desiderius, 55

Alcuin, correspondence of, with Arch-
bishop Arn of Salzburg, 114

Alexander II., Pope (Anselm, Bishop
of Lucca), 268; struggle with rival
Pope, Honorius II., 268; gains the
day against Honorius, 268; con-
cessions in form of election of, 268 ;
claim of German crown at election
of, 268

Alexis, St., epitaph of Crescentius in
church of, 238 ; Otto III. friend of
monks of, 242

Amalasontus, prosperous reign of, I

INDEX

Amalfi, fleet from, intervenes against
Saracens, 141

Ambrose, chief of notaries (primi-
cerius), sent by Pope to Astolphus,
21

Ambrose, Dean, describes journey of
Stephen II. to France, 35

Amelia, town under Roman jurisdic-
tion, 15; not yet captured by
Lombards, 21; Hadrian I. monarch
of, 105

Amelius, Bishop of Uzés, forbidden
to call Pope Formosus sacerdos,
207

Ameria seized by Luitprand, 8

Amiata, Monte, Abbey of, in Lombard
domains, 68

Amiens, Bishop of, with twelve other
radi a tries Pope Constantine,

e)

Anagni, Roman frontier line follows
mountains behind, 15; Nicholas,
Bishop of, Arsenius tries to prejudice
in favour of son as Pope, 152;
Stephen VI., Bishop of, 198

Anastasia, St., Church of, below
Palatine Hill, 61 ; important festi-
vals connected with, 61

Anastasius, son of Arsenius, Bishop
of Orta, 149; destined for priest-
hood, and possible future Pope,
149; scholarship of, 150; becomes
cardinal, 150; entrusted with
Monastery St. Marcellus, 150;
spends time in Aquileia, 150; Pope.
Leo desires return of, to Rome, 150;
Leo opposed to successorship of,
151; sentences pronounced against,
150; warm friendship of, with
Louis II., 151; has high idea of
papacy, 151; nominated Pope by
imperial party, 152 ; goes to Rome,
and is met by imperialist leaders,
153; hurls hatchet at eikon erected
by Leo IV.,153; seizes Benedict IIL,
153; leaves pontifical palace, and
Benedictisreleased, 153-4; brought
before Benedict, and degraded,
154; provided with Abbey St.
Mary, in Trastevere, 154; retires,
for study, into private life, 155;
secretary to Nicholas I., 156;
betrays confidence, 157; favoured
by Hadrian IJ., 162; made librarian
to Holy See, 162 ; advocates strict
measures, 162; desires promotion
for brother Eleutherius, 163; con-
sidered instigator of murder of
Pope’s wife and daughter, 164 ;
ecclesiastical censures against, 164 ;
reinstated, 165 ; negotiates alliance

INDEX

for daughter of Louis II, 165;
attends eighth ecumenical council,
Constantinople, 165 ; preserves copy
of enactments of council, 165; con-
trols papal correspondence, 172

Anastasius III. reigns two years,
210

Ancona yields to Lombard king, 4;
decrease of imperial power in, 7;
not mentioned in list of territories
of Holy See—time of Stephen II.,
46; people of, declare allegiance
to Pope, 94; included in compact
between Louis the Pious and Pope
Pascal, 125

Angelo, St., Castle of, wedding of
Marozia and King Hugh of Italy
at, 215; Alberic, son of Marozia,
besieges, 215; Marozia taken
prisoner at, 215 ; Crescentius taken
prisoner at, 241 ; taken by Germans
under Otto III., 241 ; huge massacre
before, 231

Angilbert, Abbot of St. Riguier,
mission of, to Charlemagne, 109

Ansa, queen of Desiderius, confined
at Corbi, 96

Anselm, Bishop of Lucca (Alexander
II.), 268

Anselm, Lombard duke and abbot,
523; adopts monastic life, 52; es-
tate of, in district Nonantola, 52;
daughter of, marries King Astol-

‘ phus, 52; follows Lombard king
to Rome, 52; receives share of
Roman spoils, 53; brings body St.
Sylvester from Rome to Nonan-
tola, 53

Antica vita di S. Anselmo, Memoirs of
P. Bortolotti, 53 note

Antioch, Council of, third canon on
deserting clerks, 151

Anti-popes, Germany concerned in
election of, 268-9 ; Rome occupied
by, 270

Aosta valley (Francorum clusas),
Stephen II. reaches Frankish
ground at entrance of, 35

Apollinarius, St., founder of Church
of Ravenna, 97; Archbishop of
Ravenna claims churches as pro-
perty of, 101

Apuleia, Robert Guiscard, Norman
chief of, and Nicholas II., 267

Apulia, maritime, taken by duchy
Beneventum, 3.

Aquileia, Cardinal Anastasius takes
refuge in, 150

Aquitaine, duchy of, loosely bound
to Frankish kingdom, 6; Paul I.
on side of Duke of, 54; Pepin at

279

war in, 75; Louis, son of Charle-
magne, crowned King of, 104
Arcarius (chief cashier) at Lateran,

4

Archdeacon, director of ecclesiastical
staff, 62

Archives, primicerius
trustee of Roman, 63

Archivio Romano di storia patri, L’,
65 note

Arci in Sabina, fortress in hands of
family Theophylact, 243; strong-
hold of party of Crescentius, 245
note

Ardeatine Way, cemetery of, with
tomb St. Petronilla, 49; yearly
** station” at cemetery of, 49 note

Arduin, Marquess of Ivrea, ‘‘ na-
tional” King of Italy, 244; op-
posed by Henry II., 246; regains
footing, 246; Henry II. causes to
disappear in 1013, 246

Arezzo, transfer of city of, 174;
Bishop of, envoy to Charles the
py 174 ; Pope Victor II. dies at,
260

of notaries

Arichis, Duke of Beneventum, in-
fluence of, 103 ; mixes in Byzan-
tine intrigues, 104 ; shuts himself
up in Salerno, 105; death of, 105

Aricio, Duke of Beneventum, not
above suspicion, 102

Aristocracy, Roman, element of, in
Roman clergy, 65 ; Pope, as mem-
ber of military, 71; disinclination
of, for papal direction of Roman
state, 216; internal disputes of,
262: Benedict X. befriended by,
261-2; decree of Council of Lateran
directed against, 266; decree of
Nicholas II. against interference
of, at papal elections, 269

Armenian monks in Rome, 68

Army, Roman, rivalry of, with clergy,
70; influence of Christopher the
primicerius towards friendly spirit
of, 73

Arn, Archbishop of Salzburg, re-
marks discord in Rome, I12;.
charged to see Pope Leo III. rein-
stated, 113; correspondence with
Alcuin, 114

Arnulph, Duke of Carinthia, 190 ; na-
tural son of Carloman, 190; re-
ceives general support in France
and Germany, 190; obliged to
recognise many kings, 190; diffi-
culties of, with Normans and Mo-
ravians, 193; Pope Stephen V.
appeals to, for help, 194; Pope
Formosus besets, withlamentations,

280

195 ; takes territory north of Po,
195-6; opposes Emperor Guy,
196; recrosses Alps, 196; finds
Agiltrude a foe not to be despised,
196 ; advances against Rome, 196 ;
which is seized by Agiltrude,
196-7; on disappearance of Spo-
letans, enters Rome, 197 ; received
on steps of St. Peter’s by Pope,
197; leaves Farold in Rome, 197 ;
struck by paralysis, 197 ; death of,
204; succeeded by Louis the
Child, 204

Arsenius, Bishop of Porta, thought
of by Louis II. for papal promo-
tion, 149; not eligible for pope-
dom, 149; has two sons, Anas-
tasius and Eleutherius, 149;
question of popedom for son,
Anastasius, 140 (see Anastasius) ;
meets imperial deputies at Gubbio,
152; keeps office of missus under
Benedict III., 155, and Nicholas L.,
156; robs Pope, 156; disagrees
with Anastasius, 162; departs to
South Italy, after scandal of son,
Eleutherius, 164; death of, 164 ;
story of burial at Monte Cassino,
164

Artavasde besieged by Constantine
V., 19

Aryan and pagan element in Italy
absorbed, 25

Astolphus, King, conquered by Pepin,
9; less amenable to Pope Zachary
than Kings Luitprand and Ratchis,
12; succeeds Ratchis in 749, 21;
seizes Ravenna, 21; negotiates
with Pope Stephen II., 22; creates
kind of protectorate at Rome, 22;
copy of treaty, broken by, fastened
to stational cross, 23; to have
interview with Pope concerning
Ravenna, 33; begs Pope not to
refer to conquered possessions, 33 ;
vainly exhorted to ‘‘ give back the
Lord’s sheep,” 345; property con-
quered from, given by Pepin to St.
Peter, 37; Pepin exhorts against
enmity to Rome, 41; despatches
Pepin’s brother, Carloman, to
France, 41 ; defeated by Pepin and
Pope, 42; agrees to restore con-
quered provinces, 42; faithlessly
refuses concessions, 43; sends
three military divisions to Rome,
43 ; vanquished, 44; takes refuge
in Pavia, 44; forced into treaty,
45; death, through hunting acci-
dent, 46-7 ; marriage with daugh-
ter of Duke Anselm, 52

INDEX

_Autchaire, Duke Oger, 33; legen-

dary fame of, 33 ; escort of Pope
Stephen II., 33 ; arrives with Pope
at Pavia, 33; sent by Pepin to
Pope Paul I., 55; accompanies
Gerberga, Carloman’s widow, to
Italy, 88 ; accompanies Desiderius
to Rome, 92; leads revolt at Ve-
rona, 93
Autonomy, in Venice and Naples, 20;
in Rome, cause of, espoused by
Pope and clergy, 26; Roman, to
be under supervision of Pope, 27
Auxilius, polemics by, 207 ; a priest
of French origin, 208 note; three
works of, on ordinations of For-
mosus, 208 note ; publishes apology
for ordinations of Stephen, Bishop
of Naples, 208 note
Avaris, inroads of the, 2
Aversa, Norman colony,
Count of. See Richard
Azo, ambassador of John XII., 224
Azzo, chatelain of Canossa, in Emi-
lia, 255; protector of Queen Ade-
laide on her escape from imprison-
ment, 255

Richard,

B

Baccano, defeat of Saracens at, 211

Bagnacavallo restored to Exarchy, 48
note

Bamberg, bishopric of, offered by
Henry II. to St. Peter, 258

Bari, Louis II. attempts to capture,
from Saracens, 149; Louis II. suc-
ceeds in taking, 165-6, 175; Greek
fleet takes possession of, in 876,
175; Emperor Basil appropriates,
175 ; Greek empire settled at, 193

Barons of Rome, rule of, not recog-
nised by Hildebrand, 264; incon-
gruous company of, appoint Pope,
275

Basil, Emperor, Tarento taken by,
175; Bari appropriated by, 175

Basil, the Macedonian, alliance of
son of, with daughter of Louis II.,
165

Basilica of St. Peter. See St. Peter’s

Basilica Lateran. See Lateran

Bavaria, duchy of, loosely bound to
Frankish kingdom, 6; Pope Paul
I. takes part of Duke of, 54

Beards, shaving of, Byzantine symbol
of degradation, 235 note; John
XIII. orders shaving of, for prefect
of Rome, 235

Beatrice, widow of Boniface, Marquess

INDEX

of Tuscany, 259 ; marries Geoffrey,

Duke of Lorraine, 259; seized by

Henry III., 259

- Bede, the Venerable, History by, 29

Benedict, Bishop of Albano, rustic,
vicious boor, elevated by Sergius
II., 140

Benedict III., Pope, Life of, in Liber
Pontificalis, 152; Cardinal of St.
Cecilia, 152; election of, 152;
rival, Anastasius, nominated by im-
perial party, 152; seized by Anas-
tasius, 153; set at liberty, 153;
proclaimed Pope at Sta. Maria
Maggiore, 153-4; installed at
Lateran, and consecrated at St.
Peter’s, 154; death of, 155;
marriage of niece of, 163; inter-
fered about heritage of sons of
Lothaire, 168; attacked Hubert,
intruded Abbot St. Maurice, 168

Benedict IV., succeedsJohn IX., 204;
consecrates King Louis of Pro-
vence, emperor, 204

Benedict V., deposition of, 228

Benedict VI., appointed by Otto I.,
236; taken prisoner by Crescen-
tius, 236; strangled in prison, 236

Benedict VII., tolerably easy reign

of, 237

Benedict VIII., privilege of Henry
II. to, 226 note; proclaimed Pope,
246; Gregory, rival candidate to,
for popedom, supported by Crescen-
tian influence, 246 ; was formerly
Theophylact, son of Count of Tus-
culum, 246; crowns Henry II. and
Cunegunda, 247; reigns twelve
years, and leaves good record, 247 ;
led naval expedition against Sara-
cens, 247; holds synod with Henry
II. at Pavia, 247; (where regula-
tions for celibacy discussed, 247) ;
temporal government assumed for,
by brother Romanus, 247; Henry
II. issues privilege for, 248 ; death
of, 249

Benedict IX., Pope at twelve years
old, 249; tolerated by German
princes, 249; hereditary trans-
mission for, 249; revives rule of
revelry, 249-50; excommunicates
Archbishop Heribert at request
Conrad II., 250; Romans rebel
against, 250; expelled from See,
250; reinstalled, 251; resigns in
favour John Gratian (Gregory VI.),
2513; suspected of causing death
Clement II., 255; re-established in
Rome, 255; on appointment Da-
masus II. passes into oblivion, 257

281

Benedict X. (John, Bishop of Velletri)
installed by Roman aristocracy,
261-2; regarded as an invasor,
263; takes refuge at Galeria, 265 ;
delivers himself to Nicholas ILI.,
265

Berengarius I., Marquess of Friuli
(later Emperor), 190-1 ; grandson
of Louis the Pious, 191 ; opposed
by Guy of Spoleto, 192; in spite
of German alliance, contents him-
self with marquisate, 192; makes
terms with Lambert of Spoleto,
198 ; assumes authority over Lam-
bert’s kingdom on his death,
204; defeated by Hungarians in
Italy, 204; King Louis of Pro-
vence rival of, 204; regains upper
hand over Louis, 204; Verona
wrested from, 205; supports pon-
tificate Sergius III., 206 ; crowned
Emperor, in Rome, by John X.,,
210-11; fétes in honour of, de-
scribed in Gesta Berengarti, 211 ;
Rudolph II., of Trans-juran Bur-
gundy, to fight against, 213;
assassinated at Verona, 213

Berengarius II., Marquess of Ivrea,
proclaimed King of Provence, 218 ;
Otto I. commits government of
Italy to, 219; Italian princes
restive under, 225; Otto inter-
poses against, 225; takes refuge
with wife, Willa, in} fortress in
Apennines, 225 ; besieged in Castle
Montfeltro by Otto, 226

Bernard, Bishop Hildesheim, urges
submission people of Tivoli, 243

Bernard, King of Italy, inquires into
Roman affairs, 123

Bernard, missus of Emperor Louis
IL, 292

Bertrade, Queen-mother (Charle-
magne), 82; goes to Rome on
matter of family alliance, 82

Bianchini publishes polemics against
Sergius III., 207 note

Bibl. de UV Ecole des Chartes, Julien
Havet, 82 note

Bishop of Rome, unique position of,
among bishops, 13

Bishops, cardinal, formation of, 65

Blera (Bieda), besieged by Luitprand,
8 ; position of, in duchy of Rome,
I

Rinkatar surrender of, 4; not men-
tioned in list of territories given
by Pepin to Holy See, 46; in
possession Desiderius, 97; Arch-
bishop of Ravenna claims, for St.
Apollinarius, 101

282 INDEX

Bomarzo seized by Luitprand, 8

Boniface, Marquess of Tuscany, re-
establishes Benedict IX., 255 ; son
of Tebald, 256; father of famous
Countess Matilda, 256; formid-
able vassal, 256; in open opposi-
tion to Emperor Henry, 257

Boniface VI., Pope, irregular election
of, 198; had incurred deposition
as sub-deacon and priest, 198 ;
short reign of, 198; taken pri-
soner, 236; confined in Castle St,
Angelo, 236

Boniface VII., Pope (son of Ferruc-
cius), formerly Deacon Franco, 236;
so-called “ national” Pope, 236;
Count Sicco succeeds in ejecting,
236; returns, and seizes John XIV.,
237-8; death of, 238; corpse of,
treated with disrespect, 238

Boniface, St., Otto III. friend of
monks of, 242

Bonizo of Sutri preserves document,
** Privilege of Otto,” 225 note

Bortolotti, Memoirs of, Antica vita de
S. Anselmo, 53 note

Boson, Count of Vienne, 182; son-in-
law, Louis II., 183-4; absconded
with Louis’ daughter, Ermengarde,
184; made Duke by Charles the
Bald, 184; crowned King of Pro-
vence, 184; bodyguard and adopted
son of John VIII., 184; John VIII.
asks Charles the Fat for help

against, 185; Louis the Blind, son |

of, 190

Bourges, Bishop of, meets digni-
taries in Rome to try Pope Con-
stantine, 80

Braisne, national convocation at, in
754; 42

Brephotrophia (asylums for found-
lings), 67

Brescia, indecisive battle at, 192;
Azzo and Tebald very popular in,
255-6

Brixen, Poppo, Bishop jof, Damasus
II., 255, 257. See Damascus II.

Bruno, Bishop of Toul, Leo I[X., 257.
See Leo IX.

Buccaporca, Sergius IV., 245. See
Sergius IV.

Bulgarians, Formosus, leader of
mission to, 178; desire Formosus
as Archbishop, 178; King of
the, annoyed by Pope, 179; Pope
Hadrian refuses appointment For-
mosus to the, 178-9; King of the,
yields to Greeks about Arch-
bishopric, 179; Latin Church thus
separated from mission to the, 179

Bulletino, De Rossi, 1878, 1879, 49
note

Buonaparte and Italian autonomies,
20

Byzantine Empire suffers from in-
roads, Avaris, Persians, and Arabs,
2; exceptional situation of Gregory
the Great in Italy of, 13; power
in Italy steadily declining, 3; not
in agreement with Lombards, 3;
government of, quarrels with Holy
See,. 4; regards alliance of Pope
and Lombards as undesirable, 5;
Church of, and Roman Church, 20
note; non-success of envoy of, with
Astolphus, 22

waieht Be party organised in Rome,
14

Byzantine quarter par excellence in

.. Rome, 60

C

Cadorna, General, and Italian auto-
nomies, 20

Caeri, Pope Marinus I., formerly
Bishop of, 188

Czesar, son of Sergius, Duke of Naples,
commands squadrons against Sara-
cens, 145

Cesar, St., festival of, at Palatine, 61

Cesar, St., i Palatio, official chapel,
61; receptacle for images of em-
perors, 61

Calabria, sway of Beneventum ex-
tends to, 3; value of Church pro-
perty in, 4; Byzantines retained,
after reconciliation with Roman
Church, 20 note ; yields no income
to pontifical finances, 66; struggle
of, against Saracens, 148; Saracen
raids on, 256; Nicholas II. invests
Norman chief with duchy of, 267

Calventzulus, chamberlain, con-
cerned in murder of Sergius the
secundicerius, 89; handed over to
criminaljjudge, 89—90 ; banished, 90

Calvulus, chamberlain, said to be
instigator of assassination, Sergius,
secundicerius, 89; imprisoned for
life, 90

Campagna, Roman, Greeks of Naples
lay waste, 103

Campania, Louis the Pious confirms
rights of Pascal I. over, 125; in-
vaded by Saracens, 210

Campulus, the saccelarius attacks
Leo III., 113; judgment of, re-
served, 114

Caneparius, contemporary writer, on
Gregory V., 240

INDEX

Canon law, old maxim of, applied to
episcopal election, 72; Frankish
bishops familiar with, 79 ; inquiry
into breach of, at election Constan-
tine, 79

Cantorum, Schola, seminary for
priests, 65; draws from clerical
reserve, 66

Capua, Emperor Louis II. resumes
campaign against Saracens near,
166; petty prince of, enters into
treaty with Saracens, 176 ; Chris-
tian allies of Saracens in, 187;
Dukes of Spoleto interfere in con-
cerns of, 191; John XIII. takes
refuge in, 234; Richard, Count of
Aversa, takes possession of, 265

Cardinal bishops, leading part of,
at papal elections, 265

Cardinal clergy, power of, inconsis-
tent with German authority, 266

Cardinal deacons always seven in
number, 62

Cardinal priests, about twenty-five in
number, 62; constitute kind of
senate of Church, 62

Carloman, brother of Pepin, monk of
Monte Cassino, 41 ; formerly king
eastern part Frankish empire, 41 ;
despatched as ambassador to
France, 41 ; mission of, unsuccess-
ful, 41; monastery on Mount
Socracte presented to, by Pope
Zachary, 51

Carloman, Frankish king, 82-3;
Dodo, missus of, at Rome, 83;
called champion of Christopher
and Sergius, 85; Italy practically
in power of, 183; afilicted with
paralysis, 183 ; surrenders Italy to
Charles the Fat, 184; Louis, King
of Eastern France, takes place of,
184; death of, 184; Arnulph,
illegitimate son of, 190

Carlovingian princes accept papal
dominion over Rome, 38 ; alliance
of, with Pope, 167 ; one character-
istic of alliance of, 167

Carlovingians, Charles the Simple
only representative of, in Western
kingdom, 185; three branches of,
fail to support John VIII., 186-7 ;
A. Lapétre on time of, 167 note ;
Poupardin on (Le Royaume de Pro-
vence sous les Carolingiens), 183
note

Cartulary, office of, 61

Cassino Monte, convent of, revived
under Pope Zachary, 68

Catacombs, accusations of stealing
sacred corpses from, 24

283

Catholicism, centre of, theoretically
at Rome, 272

Ceccano, castle of, seized by Astol-
phus, 23

Celibacy not imposed on lower orders
of clergy, 64 note, 65; regulations
concerning, discussed at Synod of
Pavia in 1022, 247

Cellerarii (cellarers)
palace, 63

Cena Cypriani, the, 180 note

Cencius, pontifical canonist, on Nor-
man promises to Pope, 267 note

Cenis, Mont, Frankish army at pass
of, 42

Centumcellz (Civiti Vecchia), posi-
tion of, in Roman duchy, 15; rebuilt
after devastation by Saracens, 146;
called Leopolis, 146 ; Ph. Lauer on,
146 note

Ceprano, Pope’s authority nominal
beyond, 105

Charlemagne, King and Emperor,
meets Stephen II. at Ponthion, 35 ;
ceremonious greeting of Pope by,
35; uses title ‘‘ patricius Roman-
orum,” 39-40; Desiderata, first
legitimate wife of, 82 ; Desiderata,
wife of, succeeded by Hildegard,
82 note; aristocracy of Carloman’s
kingdom unite under, 88; de-
puties sent to, at Corbeny, 88;
Desiderius plots against, 91; and
tries to induce Hadrian I. to oppose,
91; charges Desiderius to make
restitution to Pope, 93; offers four-
teen thousand gold sous to Pope, 93;
sends troops to Italy, 93; goes to
Rome, 94; ascends grand staircase
to atrium, on knees, 95; great
political agreements of, with Pope,
95; question of territory for Pope
with, 95; pontifical state in time
of, 97-I11; commands Lombard
evacuation of cities of Emilia, 97 ;
arrives in northern Italy, 102;
assumes title, King of the Lom-
bards, 103; goes to Rome for
Easter, 103; desires good terms
with Greeks, 103 ; alliance arranged
between daughter, Rotrude, and
Constantine VI., 103-4; goes to
Beneventum, 105; appoints
Grimoald Duke of Beneventum,
105; has no voice in appointment
Pope, 106; papal rights recog-
nised by, 107; claims voice in
appointment Archbishop Ravenna,
107; mourns death of Hadrian
I., 108; has decretalis cariula from
Leo III., 109; joins Leo III. at

of Lateran

284 INDEX

Paderborn, 113 ; convenes assembly
at St. Peter’s, Rome, 114; is
crowned Emperor of Romans, 116 ;
according to Eginhard, ill-pleased
with turn of affairs, 117; crowns
and proclaims son Louis as suc-
cessor, 117; has no definite idea of
extent of ancient imperial power,
120; death of, in 814, 122 ; division
of empire arranged by, in 806, 168

Charles the Bald, first King of France,
171 ; charged by Pope Hadrian II.
to accede to division of kingdom,
Provence, 169; seizes estates of
nephew, Lothaire II., 169; Pope
remonstrates with, 169 ; son, Carlo-
man, takes arms against, 169;
Pope writes to, insultingly, 169-70 ;
is head French branch of Charle-
magne’s lineage, 170; has intelli-
gence, piety, and learning; 171;
supports Holy See with reference
to clergy, 172; question of imperial
crown for, 172; opposed by Em-
press Engelberga, 172; invited to
Rome for imperial coronation, 173;
receives Roman envoys at Pavia,
173; diplomatic artifices of, 173;
coronation of, 174; makes rich gifts
to St. Peter’s tomb, 174; question
of wishes regarding permanent
missus, 1743; appoints Duke of
Spoleto, 174; privilege of, to John
VIITI., 175 ; sends Lambert and Guy
of Spoleto to Pope, 177; differences
of opinion on promotion of, 177;
notice of condemnation by synod
at Pantheon sent to, 179-80;
seizes Cologne, but is defeated at
Andernach, 180 ; meets John VIII.
at Pavia, 180; Carloman disputes
possession of Italy with, 180; is
forsaken by vassals, 180; death of,
said to be due to poison, 180-1 ;
is succeeded by Louis the Stam-
merer, 181

Charles the Fat (of Swabia), son of
Louis the German, 173; is de-
spatched by father to Italy, 173;
repulsed by Charles the Bald, 173;
function of missus retained by, 174;
to share old kingdom of Lothaire
II., 183 ; Carloman surrenders Italy
to, 184; Carlovingians represented
in Germany by, 185 ; deposition and
death of, 185 ; had been recognised
King of Italy, 185 ; his interview
with Pope at Ravenna, 186; re-
ceives imperial coronation, with
wife Richarde, 186; takes pos-
session dominions of brother Louis,

186; provoked by election Stephen
VI., 189 ; deposed by subjects, 189;
dies at villa at Tribur, 189; many
claimants for throne of, 190

Charles the Great (of Swabia) not
distinguished for ability or bravery,
183

Charles Martel, aid of, asked by
Gregory III., 8; refuses aid, 31;
well disposed to Lombard king,
29

Charles of Provence, kingdom of,
divided between Lothaire II, and
Louis II., 169

Charles the Simple, posthumous son,
Louis the Stammerer, 185; only
Carlovingian in Western kingdom,
185

Childebrand on Gregory III. and
Charles Martel, 31

Chiusi, Duke of, plots against Had-
rian I., 102

Christmas Day, 800; era in history
of the West inaugurated on, 117,
I2I

Christopher, primicerius of notaries,
chief adviser of Pope, 58 ; popular
accusation against, 58-9; events
of time of, 70-86; important in
ecclesiastical world, 72; accom-
panied Pope Stephen II. on Frank-
ish mission, 72; negotiates for
alliance between Stephen II. and
Desiderius, 72 ; Pope Paul called
puppet dancing to piping of, 72;
thwarts plot to hasten Pope’s
death 73; friendlier feeling of
clergy and army due to, 73;
opposes usurping Pope, Constan-
tine, 74; seeks refuge in St. Peter’s
74; undertakes to be quiet till
Easter, 74; then to retire with
son Sergius to monastic life, 74;
eludes Abbot St. Saviour of Rieti,
76; asks Duke of Spoleto for
escort to Pavia, 76; arrives before
walls of Rome, 77; refuses ac-
knowledgment of Philip, proclaimed
Pope by Waldipert, 77; selects as
Pope, Stephen, priest of St. Cecilia,
78 ; (Stephen III.) assembles clergy
and lay aristocracy, 78; is, with
Sergius, virtual wielder papal
authority, 81; suspects designs
of Desiderius, 82 ; reinforces gates
of Rome, 82; appears at Lateran
with strong escort, 83 ; is pacified
by Pope, 83; deserted by Gratiosus,
84; is treacherously treated by
Pope, 84; dragged from St. Peter’s,
84; inhumanly handled, 84 ; death

oi

INDEX 285

of, 84; honourable burial of, in
St. Peter’s, 91

Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, escort
of Pope Stephen II., 33

Chronicle, Moissac, on meeting of
Pepin and Stephen II., 36

Chronicle, Bavarian, valuable details
in, 83 note

Chronicler succeeding Fredegarius, 32
note, 39, 41; use of term “ respub-
lica,” 38 note

Church, Frankish, rather supports
iconoclast emperors, 57

Church property, depredations in,
24, 66; pontifical revenue drawn
from landed, 66 ; plunders in, 113

Churches, Byzantine and Roman, re-
conciliation of, 20 note; East and
West, no difference between, in
767; on Holy Spirit, 59 note

Citta di Castello (Castellum Felici-
tatis), people of, proclaim allegi-
ance to Pope, 94

Clausula de Pippino, title of “ patri-
cius Romanorum” used in, for
Pepin, 39 note

Clergy, Roman, recruited from two
sources, 65 ; rivalry of, with army,
70; meet army in friendlier spirit
in convocation, 73; interests and
ambitions conflict with those of
nobles, 129; election of John XII.
ends struggle of, with nobles, 223 ;
Pope to be chosen from, 265

Cluny, St. Odo, Abbot of, 218

Code of Lothaire, 131-2

Codex Carolinus, letters in, 33, 58,
73 note; correspondence in, on
Desiderius, Sergius, and Christo-
pher, 81; on Charlemagne and title
* patricius Romanorum,” 106

Coire, Count of, envoy of Louis the
Pious, 128

Cologne, Archbishop of, deposed by
Pope Nicholas I., 160

Columba, St., Irish party lay stress
on patronage of, 30

Comacchio, yielded by Astolphus,
45; named in list of territories
given to Holy See, 46; taken by
Desiderius, 89; Lombards to
evacuate, 97

Comita, Roman noble, sent by Pope
to Pepin, 44

Como, Bishop of, begs interposition
of Otto I. with Berengarius, 225

Compact between Louis the Pious
and Pascal I., 125

Conrad II., Emperor, edict of, 248 ;
annuls personal right of Lombards
over Roman territory, 248; corona-

tion of, 249 ; knows how to manage
Benedict IX., 250; Benedict IX.
excommunicates Archbishop Heri-
bert at request of, 250

Consiliarius, functions of, 64

Constantine, brother of Toto, plots
for Pope Paul’s death, 73; pro-
claimed Pope, 73; ordained sub-
deacon, deacon, and priest, 74 ;
consecrated by Bishops of Pren-
esto, Albano, and Porto, 74; is
treated with treachery, 77; takes
refuge in chapel after chapel, 77;
undergoes humiliations, 78; de-
clared to have forfeited papal
dignity, 78; eyes put out, and
cruelly treated, 79; death of, re-
sult of cruelties, 79; indignities
suffered at trial, 80; ordinations
and enactments declared illegal, 80

Constantine V., Emperor, Pope
Zachary sends envoys to, 19; an
iconoclast, 19; besieges Artavasde
in his capital, 19; designs of, on
Ravenna, 56; makes overtures to
Desiderius, 56 ; death of, 102

Constantine VI., proposed alliance of
with Rotrude, daughter of Charle-
magne, 103-4; alliance of, given
up, 105

Constantinople, Emperor of, replaces
Gothic kings, 1; Romans look for
help from Rome, rather than from,
18; Constantine V. reinstated in,
19 ; little realisation in, of Roman
changes, 22; collisions of Holy
See with Emperor of, 28; Empress
Irene occupies throne at, 117;
efforts made in, to get recognition
of Roman Empire, 117-8; Patri-
arch of, crowns Emperor, 118-9;
ecumenical council (eighth) in,
165; bitter dissent between Roman
Church and empire of, ends, 194;
Emperor Lecapenus at, 220; John
XI. sends four ambassadors to,
220; presence of ambassadors in
St. Sophias’ at, breach of ecclesi-
astical law, 220

Constitution of Lothaire, 122-35

Consul of Rome, Theophylact the,
205

Convention, national, at Braisne, in
754, 42; at Kiersy-sur-Oise at
Easter, 754, 42

Convocation, after death of Pope
Paul IL. 73

Corbi, Desiderius and Ansa confined
at, 96

Council, ecumenical, at Constan-
tinople, 165

286 INDEX

Cordova, Spanish Saracens subject
to Caliph of, 137

Corsica, placed under guardianship
Marquess of Tuscany, 137; in Car-
lovingian times, Memoir of M. A.
Dove, 137 note

Crescentius, brother of John XIII.
and son of Theodora, 236; leads
rebellion in Rome against Otto
II., 236; raises Boniface VII. to
papal throne, 236; death of, 238;
epitaph on, at St. Alexis, 238;
was monk at time of death, 238
note

Crescentius the Younger seizes
father’s authority, 238; assumes
title ‘‘ patricius Romanorum,” 238 ;
John XV. probably owed pro-
motion to, 239; on good terms
with Empress Theophano, 239;
does not venture to appoint suc-
cessor to John XV., 239; fall of,
240; leads movement against
Gregory V., 240; anathematised
at Council of Pavia, 240; brings
forward Philagath, Bishop Pia-
cenza, as rival of Gregory V.,,
240; on flight of Philagath, shuts
himself in castle, St. Angelo, 241;
taken prisoner, and beheaded, 241;
becomes legendary hero, 241

Crescentius, John, son of Crescen-
tius the Younger, 244; assumes
title “ patriciws Romanorum,” 244;
diplomacy of, 246

Crescentius, family of, opposed to
Counts of Tusculum, 245; strong-
holds of, 245 note; action of, re-
gulated by condition of German
power, 245 ; support Gregory, papal
candidate, 246 ; in position of per-
manent missi, 247; as a rule,
chose Roman Popes, 255; part
taken by, in appointment Benedict
X., 262

Crotia, Greek influence in, 175

Cubicularii (chamberlains) of Late-
ran, 63; nobles’ sons, to be edu-
cated priests, received among,

5

Cubiculum, aristocratic element in,
66

Cultivation of districts by Popes,

Cumes surrenders to Luitprand, 4

Cunegunda, Queen (wife, Henry II.),
crowned at St. Peter’s, 247

Curia, pontifical, gradually becomes
less Roman, 272

Cyriacus, St., convent of, in Via Lata,
founded by Alberic, 221

D

Dalmatian Isles, influence of Greek
empire in, 175

Damasus II. (Poppo, Bishop of
Brixen), 255; chosen by Henry
IIl., 257; Marquess of Tuscany
opposed to, 257 ; enthroned, 257;
death of, 257

Damian, St. Peter, greets Gregory
VI., 252 ; in convent in Apennines,
252; on Roman rights at papal
elections, 254; legend related by,
concerning Benedict IX., 257 note ;
takes no part in election, Benedict
X., 262 ; describes person of Bene-
dict X., 262 note

Daniel (magister militum), reports re-
volutionary expressions to Louis
II., 148; convicted of false testi-
mony, 148; received back into
emperor’s favour, 148

Deacons, cardinal, seven in number, 62

Deacons-sub, cardinal, two groups of
seven, 62

Decarco, head of a schola (group) of
Roman population, 60

Decretals, forged, author of the, 271

Denis, St., in Via Lata, Mémoire, in
Mélanges de l’ Ecole de Rome, 52 note

Denis, St., recovery of Stephen II,
attributed to, 41; basilica dedi-
cated to, 52; Stephen II. Pepin’s
guest at abbey of, 40; abbot of,
to define limits of papal state, 104

Desiderata, first legal wife of Charle-
magne, 82; cast off, 82 ; replaced
by Hildegard, 82 note

Desiderius, King, Duke of Tuscany,
47; Claims Lombard throne, 47 ;
promises to restore cities to Roman
republic, 47; becomes king, 48;
isin no hurry to divide kingdom,
48 ; Pope Paul clamours for resto-
ration of cities by, 54; attempts to
quell rebellious dukes, 54—5 ; meets
Pope outside walls, St. Peter’s, 55 ;
will surrender no town, except
Imola, 55 ; comes to understanding
with Pope, 57; assures Christo-
pher the primicerius of sympathy,
76; has grave cause of complaint
against Christopher and Sergius,
81; makes pilgrimage to Rome, 82 ;
neglected by Pope, 83; makes
dupe of Stephen III., 85 ; Hadrian
I. resumes negotiations with, 88 ;
welcomes Gerberga, widow of Car-
loman, 88; Pope Hadrian sends
deputation, headed by Paul Afiarta,

a

Ss

Ne

INDEX 287

88 ; makes himself master of Fer-
rara, Comacchio, and Faenza, 89;
has designs on Ravenna, 89 ; plots
against Charlemagne, 91; goes
towards Rome, 92; perturbed by
threat of excommunication, re-
treats towards Pavia, 92; Charle-
magne charges, to make restitution
to Pope, 93 ; is obdurate, 93 ; troops
of, defeated, and Pavia taken, 93 ;
Adelchis, son of, leads revolt at
Verona, 93; son, Adelchis, de-
feated, 93 ; confined at Corbi, with
queen, Ansa, 96

Deusdedit, pontifical canonist on
Council in 826, of Eugenius III.,
133 note; on lay participation in
papal elections, 134 note ; on Nor-
man promises to Pope, 267 note

Diacone, wives of clergy, 66

Diaconal administration, 63

Didier, Lombard prince, piety of, 25

Documents, forged, 230 note

Dodo, missus of Carloman, at Rome,
83 ; Stephen III. writes of, 85

Doge of Venice, Venetian Patriarch
subject to, 27

Domestici, rank of, 61

Dominus, vice (vidame), of Lateran
palace, 63

Domus culte, cultivation of districts
by Popes, 67

Domus ecclesie, Church of Lateran,
included in, 64

Donation (false) of Constantine, 119,
120

Dove, M. A., memoir by, 137 note

Drogo, Bishop of Metz, natural son
of Charlemagne, 139; sent to
Rome by Emperor Lothaire, 139 ;
appointed apostolic vicar, 139

Duchy, Roman, 13-20; extent of,
15; no mention of ‘‘ the Duke of,”
after 754, 40

Duchy of Naples, 20

Duchy of Spoleto, 15

Duchy of Venice, 20

Duke, military degree of, 61

Duke, Roman, subject to Exarch, 16

Dukes, native, take place of commis-
sioned officials, 16

Diimmler, polemics against Sergius
III. collected by, 207 note; on
work by Vulgarius, 208 note

Dynamius has title of “‘ patrician,”

39
E

East, Roman Emperor of the, 3
Ecclesia Dei, Pope head of, 62

Eclipse, solar, after expulsion Bene-
dict IX., 250 note
cole de Rome, mélanges of, account
of Terracina in, 15 note; on Tras-
teverians, 60 note; on attack of
Duke of Spoleto on Saracens, 141
note ; on Leopolis, 146 note; Cena
Cypriani, in, 180 note

Ecumenical council at Constanti-
nople, 165

Edrisite dynasty governs Saracens of
Mauritania, 137

Eginhard, on national conventions
at Braisne and Kiersy, 42 note; on
Desiderata and Hildegard, 82 note ;
on Charlemagne as Roman em-
peror, 117; annals of, 168 note

Hichstidt, Gebhard, Bishop of, Pope
Victor IT., 255, 259. See Victor II.

Election of Popes, by Romans, 14;
crisis concerning, at death of Paul
I., 71; question whether all future
subjects should share in, 72; new
rules for, 80-1 ; remarkably excit-
ing case of, 128-9; by Romans
alone, subject to imperial confir-
mation, 132; lay participation in,
134; necessity of emperor’s ap-
proval of, 139; of Leo IV., not
referred to emperor, 144 ; of Bene-
dict III. referred to emperor, 152;
of Benedict III. not approved by
Emperor Louis, 152; irregularity
of, in case Marinus I., 188; no
evidence of imperial confirmation
in cases of Marinus I. and St.
Hadrian IIIJ., 189; of Formosus,
irregular, 198 ; of Boniface VI. and
Stephen VI., defy rules of Church,
198 ; law concerning, in privilege
of Otto, 228; Romans rebel against
new rules for, 237; renunciation
by Romans of part in, 254; pro-
mulgation of edict on, 265; con-
test between Papal See and Ger-
many on, 266; Alexander II,
makes concessions in form of, 268 ;
Germany finally loses authority
over, 268 ; Germany concerned in,
with regard to anti-popes, 268-9

Election of Nicholas II. not free by
Romans, 263

Electors, Chief, Theophylact, Marozia,
and Alberic, 230

Eleutherius, possibility of Popedom
of, 149; Anastasius desires promo-
tion for, 163 ; wooer of daughter of
Hadrian II., 163; carries her and
her mother off by force, 163-4;
pursued by missus of Louis II., 164 ;
assassinates wife and daughter of

288 INDEX

Hadrian, 164; arrested and exe-
cuted, 165

Emilia, Charlemagne commands Lom-
bard evacuation of, 97; claimed by
Archbishop Ravenna, 101; George,
Duke of, helps to assassinate papal
legate, John, 146-7; Archbishop
Ravenna, oppresses Pope’s subjects
in, 158; people of, ask Pope to inter-
vene, 159

Emiliana Basilica (SS. Quattro),
assembly in, 153

Empire, Roman, restoration of, 112—
21; Charlemagne crowned, in St.
Peter’s, as head of, 116, 119

Engelberga, Empress, marries Em-
peror Louis II., 148; entreats pre-
sence of Pope, at bedside Louis,
161; desires imperial succession
for Carloman, son of Louis the
German, 172, 178

Episcopee, wives of clergy, 66

Epitaph of Crescentius in St. Alexis,
238

Erasmus, St., Monastery of, Leo III.
imprisoned at, 113

Ermengarde, Queen, crowned at
Rheims, 124

Eugene, arch priest, Santa Sabina,
elected Pope (Eugenius II.), 129;
arranges for burial of predecessor,
St. Pascal I., 129; sends deputation
to Emperor Louis, 129; code of
laws directed against, 131-2

Eugenius Vulgarius, polemical writ-
ings of, 207; steers a middle
course, 208 ; grammarian and pro-
fessor, 208 note ; first work, Letter
to Roman Church, 208 note; second
work published under name of
Auscilius, 208 note; letter to the
vestararissa, Theodora, 209

Europe et le saint siege a Vepoque
Carolingienne, L. A. Lapétre, 167 note

Eutychius, last of the Exarchs. See
Exarch

Exarch, Duke of Rome subject to, 16

Exarch Eutychius, last of the Exarchs,
5; Opposes Petasius (or Tiberius),
rival of Leo the Isaurian, 6; re-
conciliationof with Pope unpopular,
7; takes refuge in Venice, 7; sent
back to Ravenna, 8

Exarch Paul sends troops to Rome, 5 ;
perishes at Ravenna, 5

Exarch Romanus, lieutenant of Em-
peror Maurice, 2; efforts for Roman
defence by, 2

Exarchs ceremoniously received in
Rome, 94

Exarchy, end of, 21; Stephen II.

either claims or accepts “ restitu-
tion” of, 36-7; Archbishop of
Ravenna assumes authority in, 99
Exercitus felicissimus, 27
Exercitus, Romanus, 16, 27

F

Fabre, Paul, De patrimoniis Romane
ecclesice, 66 note

Factions in Rome, 83

Faenza not mentioned in list of terri-
tories given to Holy See in time of
Stephen II., 46; Desiderius makes
himself master of, 89; Lombards
to evacuate, 97

Farfa, register of, not authentic, 15
note; Abbey of Santa Maria of, 68 ;
Abbot of, envoy of Hadrian I., 91;
Abbot of, brings grievance before
Lothaire I., 127; Abbot of, baron
of first rank, 243 ; Abbot of, appeals
to Lombard law, 248; Saracen
establishment on site of Abbey of,
210

Farold, military commander left in
Rome by Arnulph, 197; counte-
nances Formosus, 197; elections
under auspices of, 198

Fermo, people of, declare allegiance
to Pope, 94

Ferrara, not on list of territories of
Holy See in time of Stephen ILI., 46;
Desiderius makes himself master
of, 89; Lombards to evacuate, 97 ;
claimed by Archbishop of Ravenna,
1o1; Azzo and Tebald of Tuscany
very popular in, 255-6

Fez royal seat of Edrisite dynasty, 137

Financial administration at Lateran.
See Administration

Fiscal questions, disagreement on,
between Holy See and Byzantine
Government, 4

Florence, Gerard, Bishop of (Nicholas
II.), 262

Forgery of documents, 230 note

Forged decretals, 271

Forli given up to Holy See, 46

Forma Urbis, by M. Lanciani, opinion
of, on site St. Caesar in Palatio, 61
note

Formosus, Pope, as Bishop of Porto,
invites Charles the Bald for im-
perial coronation, 173; escapes
from Rome, 178; genuine piety of,
178; had been leader of Bulgarian
mission, 178; desired by Bulgarians
as Archbishop, 178; becomes Pope,
195; crowns Lambert of Spoleto,

INDEX 289

195; plays double part, 195; re-
ceives King Arnulph in Rome, 197;
overwhelmed by failure of plans,
197; death of, 197 ; mock trial of,
after death, 199; corpse thrown
into an unconsecrated tomb, 200;
afterwards into the Tiber, 200;
restored to original tomb in atrium,
St. Peter’s, by Theodore II., 201 ;
legend regarding reburial of, 201
note; use of name of sacerdos for-
bidden for, 207 ; Sergius III. once
again annuls ordinations of, 207

Fortifications of Rome, 145; cost of,
and tax for, 145; dedication of,
145, 146; John VIII. completes,
I

France, Western, Kingdom of, formed
from Frankish Kingdom, 136

Franco, son of Ferrucius, ‘‘national”’
Pope. See Boniface VII.

Franks, help of, invoked by Romans,
28; Austrasian, make descents on
Italy, 28; Pope Pelagius II. calls
Catholics, like the Romans, 28-9 ;
in suburbs of St. Peter’s schole, 60

Frankish Kingdom broken up, 136;
consequences of destruction of
empire, 168 ; one emperor of, resi-
dent in Italy, 168 ; number of kings
recognised in, 190; Italianised, 193

Fredegarius, successor of, as chroni-
cler, 31, 32 note, 38 note, 39

Frederick, Duke, Luitprand’s protégé,
killed by order of Trasimund, 9

Frederick of Lorraine (Cardinal), 259;
brother of Duke Geoffrey of Lor-
raine, 259; Henry III. charges
Victor II. to arrest, 259; takes
Benedictine habit at Monte Cas-
sino, 259; made Abbot Monte
Cassino and Cardinal priest, 260;
becomes Pope (Stephen IX.), 260;
elected without reference to Court
of Germany, 260 ; goes to Tuscany,
261 ; dies from poison, 261

Frisians, in suburbs of St. Peter’s
schole, 60

Friuli, right of Astolphus to, 37;
Rotgaud, Duke of, raises standard
of revolt, 102; Berengarius of, 191

Fulda, chroniclers of, on Charles the
Bald, 171-2

Fulrad, Abbot of St. Denis, to conduct
Stephen II. to palace of Ponthion,
35; letter to Pepin, entrusted to,
by Pope, 43; makes tour of towns,
with Lombard commissioners, 45 ;
deposits deeds and keys in Con-
fession at St. Peter’s, 46; supports
return of Ratchis to monastic life,

48 ; under rival protection of saints
of Rome and Paris, 52; Pope’s
visit to abbey of, 52; enthusiasm
of, for Holy See, 52; influences
Archbishop of Ravenna to obey
summons of Stephen II., 99

G

Gabello restored to Exarchy, 48 note

Gaeta holds out against Lombards,
3; Pope’s domains yield small
profit in, 67; Terracina in hands
of Greeks of, 103; autonomous
city, 148; struggle of against
Saracens, 148; petty prince of,
allies himself with Saracens, 176;
oo allies of Saracens in,
107

Galeria, Gerard, Count of, leads
vassals of Tusculum, 250; Count
of, in accord with appointment
Benedict X., 262

Gallesa included in ‘‘ compage sanctz
reipublices atque corpore Christo
dilecti exercitus Romani,” 17

Gallese, Affaire de, 16 note

Gallipoli looks to Sicily for help, 3

Garigliano, lower course of, Saracens
plunder in mountains, command-
ing, 210

Gattola Hist. Abb. Cassin, 205 note

Gay, M. J., Memorandum by, ‘ The
Papal State,” 15 note

Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt (Victor
II.), 259. See Victor II.

Gelasius II. lives and dies away from
Rome, 270

Genoa, Byzantine power sustained
with difficulty, on coast of, 3

Gentilly, conference at, in 767, 59

Geoffrey, Duke of Lorraine marries
Beatrice, widow of Marquess Boni-
face of Tuscany, 259; rebellious
vassal of Henry III., 259; wife
and daughter of, seized by Henry
III., 259

George, Bishop of Amiens, sent to
Italy, 92

George of Aventino, master of
militia, escapes from Rome, 178

George, Bishop of Presento, confers
tonsure on Constantine, pro-
laimed Pope, 73-4; consecrates
Constantine Pope, at St. Peter's,

74
George, Duke of Emilia, helps in
assassination of papal legate,
146-7; trial of, before imperial
misst, 147
¢ |

nn

290

George, Chief Secretary, accompanies
John the Silentiary to Rome, 44-5;
ill-success of mission to Pepin, 45 ;
continues mission, 58; plots, with
Lombard king, against Ravenna,

8

5

Gerald, Count of Eastern Marshes,
inquires into affairs in Rome, 123

Gerard, Count of Galeria, leads
vassals of Tusculum, 250

Gerard, Bishop of Florence, Nicholas
II., 262. See Nicholas II.

Gerberga, widow of Carloman, 88;
flies to Italy, 88; received cor-
dially, by Desiderius, 88

Gerbert, Archbishop of Ravenna,
appointed Pope (Sylvester II.), by
Otto III., 242. See Sylvester II.

German, Louis the, 136. See Louis
the German

German influence in Rome, 253;
co-operation necessary for legiti-
mate papal appointment, 263 ;
incongruity of necessity for co-
operation, 263; authority over
papal elections lost, 268; concern
in election of anti-popes, 268-9

Germanus, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, forced to resign, 7

Germany, Kingdom of, formed from
Frankish Kingdom, 136; destinies
of Italy bound up with, 218

Gerocomia (asylums for aged men),

7

Gesta Berengarii describes Roman
fétes for Berengarius, 211

Giséle, daughter of Pepin, godchild
of Pope Paul I., 50

Giséta, daughter of Pepin, Stephen
II. prevents marriage of, to Leo
IV., son of Constantine Coprony-
mus, 168 note

Glaber Raoul, account by, of re-
bellion against Benedict IX., 250
note; mentions Council at Pavia,
denouncing simony, 254 note

Gnesen, St. Adalbert of Prague
buried at, 242; Otto III. visits,
242

Gontran King, Pope Pelagius II. ex-
plains religious position of Franks
to, 28-9

Gothic Kings of Ravenna, 1; war,
miseries of, I

Gottingische gel. Anz., 1895 ; 96 note

Grado, Patriarch of, warns Pope
Hadrian, respecting Friuli, 102

Grandmaster of ceremonies, Lateran
palace (nomenculator), 63

Gratiano, magister militum, story of,

147-8

INDEX

Gratiosus conveys Lombard Pope
Philip back to monastery, St.
Vitus, 78; initiator of attempts
on Constantine II, 84; deserts
Christopher the primicerius, 84

Greek Empire, Roman duchy nomin-
ally subject to, 20; establishes
footing on south-east coast Italy,
175; star of, in ascendant, 193

Greek section, Roman population,
(schola Greecorum), 60

Greeks, Pope Paul I. dreads political
alliance of, with Lombards, 57;
connection of, with Lombards
severed, 105

Gregorovius on death of John XIL.,
232

Gregory, advocate, concerned in
murder of Sergius, the secunderius,
89

Gregory, Duke, follower of Christo-
pher, the primicerius, assassinated,

74

Gregory the nomenclator, escapes
from Rome, 178

Gregory, St., the Great (Gregory I.),
in modern parlance, a great patriot,
13; correspondence of, with heirs
of Gontran and Childebert, 29;
mentions vast estates of Church,

Gregory, St., convent of, remodelled
by Alberic, 221

Gregory II. protests against new
fiscal impositions, 4; and against
religious regulations, 4-5 ; receives
Luitprand and Eutychius, 6; refuses
to recognise successor of Germanus
of Constantinople, 7; Luitprand
yields to claims of, on Lutri, 7;
declarations of, 19; Lombards de-
fend against Exarchs, 25; docu-
mentary evidence on sovereignty
of, 28 ; ramparts of Rome repaired
under, 63

Gregory III. continues policy Gregory
Il., 7; sends ambassadors to Con-
stantinople, 7; desires return of
Exarch Eutychius to Ravenna, 7-8;
beseeches Luitprand to restore
four towns, 8; asks aid of Charles
Martel, 8; death of, 10; money
regulations of, about Gallesa,
17; declarations of, 19; docu-
mentary evidence concerning
sovereignity of, 28; establishes
yearly ‘“‘ station,” in honour of St,
Petronilla, 49 note

Gregory IV. elected Pope, 133;
election of imperially confirmed,
1343 pontificate of, darkened by

INDEX

discord between Louis the Pious
and sons, 136; indiscreetly inter-
feres, 136; constructs fortress
Gregoriopolis, 138; death of, in
844, 138; followed Lothaire into
— and supported against father,
I

Gregory V. (Bruno of Carinthia),
appointed by Otto III., 239;
crowns his cousin, Otto IIL, 239;
succeeded by Sylvester II., 240;
ill-advised intervention of, against
banishment Crescentius, 240; death
probably caused by poison, 242

Gregory VI., John Gratian, archpriest
of St. John-before-the-Latin-Gate,
251; succeeds, on resignation
Benedict IX., 251 ; not a Cardinal,
251; pays for election, 251 ; steady
life of, 251; St. Peter Damian
greets, 252; has Hildebrand, as
Chaplain, 252; interview of, with
Henry III., 254; deposed, 254;
sent to the other side Alps, 254;
Hildebrand follows into exile,
257-8.

Gregory VII. lives and dies away
from Rome, 270; has onus of sett-
ling affairs, on different basis, 276

Grimoald, appointed Duke of Bene-
ventum, 105

Grisar, on Saracen injuries to apos-

_ tolic sanctuary, 142 note
Grotto Ferrata, Benedict IX. perhaps
monk at, after deposition, 257

Gubbio succumbs to Lombards, 21

Guibert attends conclave at Sutri,
deposing Benedict X. and recog-
nising Nicholas II., 262

Guibertists, touch up account of
edict on papal elections, 265 note

Guiscard, Richard and Robert, Nor-
man chiefs, invested by Nicholas
II., 267

Gulfard, Abbot of St. Martin, brings
important letters from Rome, 92-3

Gunther, Archbishop, leader of Lor-
raine clergy, deposed,160 ; receives
promise of reinstatement, 162

Guy, of Spoleto, deputed to assist
John VIII., 177

Guy, Duke of Spoleto (later Emperor),
sole heir of Dukes Lambert and
Guy, 191; not Carlovingian, I91 ;
a man of parts, 191; dismissed
from office, 192; a candidate for
crown of France, 192; crowned
at Langres, 192; supporters of,
headed by Foulques, Archbishop of
Rheims, 192; gains victory at
Trebbia, 192; master of Milan,

291

Pavia, and Italy, South of Po,
193'; kingship of, menace to papacy,
193; documents on election of,
by bishops, 193 note; not openly
thwarted by Stephen V., 194 ; Pope
Stephen writes of, as his only
son, 194; consecrated Emperor, by
Stephen V., 195 ; Pope Formosus
consecrates Lambert, son of, 195 ;
opposed by King Arnulph, 195-6;
death of, 196

Guy, Marquess of Tuscany, marries
Theophylact’s daughter, Marozia,
214; death of, 215

H

Hadrian I. made Pope, 87; man of
probity, energy, and capability, 87 ;
scion of noble family, 87 ; recalls
banished member of clergy and
military, 87-8; resumes negotia-
tions with Lombard King, Deside-
rius, 88 ; sifts mystery of assassina-
tion Sergius, the secwndicerius, 89 ;
sends envoy for Afiarta, 90-1;
withdraws from Lombard alliance,
91; tries to come to terms with
Desiderius, 91; agrees to meet
Desiderius, 91 ; but sees in pilgrim
king an invading foe, 92; threatens
excommunication if Desiderius
enters Roman territory, 92; Desid-
erius refuses restitution to, 93;
Charlemagne offers restitution to,
93; people of Spoleto proclaim
allegiance to, 93-4; takes pos-
session districts of central Italy, 94;
ceremonious reception of Charle-
magne, in Rome, by, 94-5 ; political
agreements with Charlemagne, 95 ;
question of donation of Exarchy
and Pentapolis to, 95; duchies
embraced in agreement of, with
Charlemagne, 95 ; denounces Leo,
Archbishop of Ravenna, I0I-2 ;
troubled by Duke Hildeprand of
Spoleto, Duke Aricio of Bene-
ventum, and Duke of Chiusi, 102 ;
has small success with Charle-
magne, regarding Kiersy pro-
gramme, 103; much occupied
with Terracina, 103; relinquishes
duchies of Spoleto and Tuscany,
104; crowns sons of Charlemagne
kings of Italy and Aquitaine, 104 ;
has only nominal authority beyond
Ceprano, 105; limits assigned by, of
Roman duchy, preserved till 1870,
105; recriminations of, in letters to

292 INDEX

Charlemagne, 108; no constitu-
tional progress in pontificate of,
108 ; death of, in 795, 108

Hadrian II. succeeds to papacy,

' 157; John VIII. succeeds, 157;
dispenses marks of favour to
compromised persons, 162; was
married, before entering major
orders, 163; daughter of, carried
off, by Eleutherius, 163-4; re-
monstrates with Charles the Bald
for seizing estates of Lothaire II.,
169; supports Carloman, son of
Charles the Bald, against father,
169 ; writes insultingly to Charles,
170

Hadrian III., short pontificate of,
188 ; summoned to Germany, by
Emperor, 188; death of, near
Nonantola, 188; during absence
in Germany, missus, John, Bishop
of Pavia, governs, 189

Hadrian, Imperial missus, assassinates
papal legate, 146-7; tried before
imperial missi, 147

Henry II. (Duke of Bavaria), King
of Germany, 244; Germans rally
round, on death of Otto III., 244;
papal candidates, Gregory and
Theophylact turn to, 246; had
made campaign in Northern Italy,
246; old Lombard capital had
risen against, 246; entrance of,
into Italy, causes disappearance of
Arduin, 246 ; crowned, with Queen
Cunegunda, by Benedict VIII. at
St. Peter’s, 247; issues privilege
for Benedict VIII., 248

Henry III., Emperor, succeeds Conrad
II., 250; puts a stop to gross
scandals, 250; holds Council at
Pavia, condemning simony, 253-4 ;
appoints Suidger, Bishop of Bam-
berg, Pope (Clement II.), 254;
consecrated, with Queen Agnes,
254; pre-eminence of Salerno de-
stroyed by, 256; on death of
Clement II., asked to appoint Pope,
257; chooses Poppo, Bishop of
Brixen (Damasus II.), 257 ; Boni-
face, Marquess of Tuscany, opposes
choice of, 257; replaces Damasus
II. by Bruno, Bishop of Toul (Leo
IX.), 257; Geoffrey, Duke of
Lorraine, rebellious vassal of, 259 ;
seizes Geoffrey’s wife and daughter,
259; appoints Pope vicar in Italy,
259; and charges him to arrest
Cardinal Frederic of Lorraine, 259

Henry IV., six years old, at father’s
death, 259; under guardianship

of Empress Agnes, 259; Regency
under, appoints Cadalus of Parma,
Pope (Honorius II.), 268; after
recognising Gregory VIL., tries to
have him deposed, 268

Hereditary transmission of papal
chair, 249

Heribert, Archbishop, excommuni-
cated by Benedict IX. at request
of Conrad II., 250

Hildebald of Cologne charged to see
Leo III. reinstated, 113

Hildebrand taken under protection
of Gregory VI., 251; at monastery
founded by Alberic, on Aventine,
252; chaplain and adviser, Gre-
gory VI., 252; follows Gregory
into exile, 257-8; remonstrates
with Leo IX., 258; is with Victor
II. at his death, 260; despatches
to Empress Agnes, regarding papal
appointment, 260-1; ideas of, on
freedom of election, differ from
those of aristocracy, 261 ; ecclesi-
astical chiefs rally round, on ap-
pointment of Benedict X., 262 ; at
conclave (Sutri) where Benedict
deposed, and Nicholas II. recog-
nised, 262; never recognised rule
of Barons of Rome, 264; throws
himself into the arms of Normans,
264; applies to Richard, Count of
Aversa, 265; discusses, with Nor-
mans, means of thwarting German
court, 266; in favour of appoint-
ment Alexander II., 268

Hildegard succeeds Desiderata as
wife of Charlemagne, 82 note;
sent for by Charlemagne, to camp,
94; two sons of, Pepin and Louis,

104

Hildeprand, elected Duke of Spoleto,
94; adopts independent attitude,
102; Frankish ambassadors try to
reconcile to Pope, 102

Hildesheim, Bernard, Bishop of, 243

Hincmar, papal rights expounded by,
160; on Benedict III. and Anas-
tasius, 154; on Charles the Bald,
171, 182

Honorius II., Pope (Cadalus, Bishop
of Parma), 268; struggle against
Alexander II., 268

Hospices, Roman, of eighth century,

67

Hubert, intruded Abbot of St.
Maurice, Benedict III. attacks,
168

Hucbald, a missus mentioned in letter
of Hadrian I., 101 note

Hugh, Count of Paris, 190

ww
<

i.

’ ar
a oe

ee

; Kom

ees ee

INDEX

Hugh, Count of Provence, grandson,
Lothaire II., 213-14; often at-
tempts to take possession of Rome,
217 ; and to receive imperial coro-
nation, 217

Hugh, King of Italy, Marozia offers
her hand to, 215; life in Pavia
that of Sultan, 215 ; marriage with
Marozia celebrated at Castle St.
Angelo, Rome, 215; insults Alberic,
son of Marozia, by first marriage,
215; Alberic besieges in Castle St.
Angelo, 215; escapes with diffi-
culty, 215

Hunald, fighting monk, 53

Hungarians penetrate into Italy, 204

I

Iconoclast, Leo the, 19

Image of each Emperor in Church of
St. Czesar in Palatio, 61

Images, Pope’s dispute about with
Byzantine government, 4 ; ecclesi-
astical disunion produced by dis-
pute about, 56; Convocation ratifies
veneration of, 81

Immo, Frankish envoy, attends coro-
nation Paul I., 54

Imola, not mentioned in territories
Holy See, time of Stephen II., 46 ;
Desiderius offers to give up con-
ditionally, 55; Lombards to eva-
cuate, 97

Imperator, title
‘* patricius,” 118

Institutions, Roman, in eighth cen-
tury, 60-69

Insulani, section of Roman popula-
tion, 60

Invectiva in Romam, 213

Irene, Empress, guardian of Con-
stantine VI., 104; occupies im-
perial throne at Constantinople,
117

Isaurian, Leo the, 5.
Isaurian

Istria, domains of, Pope yields small
profit in, 67

Italy, Lombard and Byzantine, 2;
imperial power extinct in north
and centre of, 19; peculiar con-
figuration of Byzantine, 16 ; son of
Charlemagne crowned king of,
1043 destinies of, in balance be-
tween France and Germany, 173

Italian unity first established by
Romans, I ; mortal blow to, 2

Itherius, Abbot of, to define certain
limits of Papal State, 104

substituted for

See Leo the

293

Ivrea, Berengarius, Marquess of,
218; proclaimed king, 218

J

Jaffé, 43 note
Jerome, illegitimate son Charles
Martel, escort for Stephen II.,

43

Jesi-Sinigaglia in territory given upto
Holy See, 46

Johannipolis, named after Pope John
VIIlI., 177

John, Archbishop of Ravenna, under
ecclesiastical censure, 158; papal
action against, 158-61

John, Bishop of Pavia, Hadrian III.
commits government of city of
Rome to, 189

John, brother of Stephen III., cruel
treatment of Sergius the secunderius
by, 89

John Caneparius on Gregory V., 240

John Crescentius, power of, in Rome,

244

John the Deacon, afterwards Bishop
of Rieti, 149; at one time selected
by Louis II. as future Pope, 149

John the Deacon, ambassador of John
XII. to Germany, 224

John the Deacon proclaimed Pope by
a party in Rome, 138; ousted from
papal residence, 138

Jobn Gratian. See Gregory VI.

John the Silentiary sent to Rome,
22; bears imperial letter to King
of Lombards, 22; non-success of
errand, 22-3; has orders for inter-
view between Pope and Astolphus
about Ravenna, 33; reappears in
Rome with George, chief secretary,
44-5; continues mission, 58; in-
stalled in Frankish court, 58

John III., Pope, Life of, Ziber Ponti-
jicalis, 2 note

John VIII., Pope, succeeds to papacy,
on day of death Hadrian II., 157 ;
personal friend of Louis II., 157 ;
emperor probably in Rome at elec-
tion of, 157; twice, at least, pro-
tested against treaty of Mersen,
172; situation changed, for two
emperors chosen by, 173; privilege
(now lost) delivered to, by Charles
the Bald, 175; commands fleet
against Saracens, 176 ; relates ex-
ploits to Louis and Engelberga,
176; builds Johannipolis, 177;
makes entry into Campania, 177 ;
attempts to dissolve Saracen

294

treaties, 177; gains only partial
success against Saracens, 177 ; has
enemies at home, 177; tries to rid
himself of enemies, 178; who fly
from Rome, 178 ; sends Formosus
to Charles the Bald, 179; dislikes
Formosus, 179; assembles synod
at the Pantheon, 179; censures
enemies at another synod at St.
Peter’s, 179-80 ; Dukes of Spoleto
and Marquess of Tuscany persecute,
180 ; increases appeals to Charles
the Bald, 180; meets Charles at
Pavia, 180; on Charles’s death is
in hands of enemies, 181 ; Lambert
of Spoleto insults, 181; places
basilica St. Peter’s under interdict,
181 ; requests assistance of Greek
emperor, Basil, 181 ; pays tribute
to Saracens, 182; goes to Genoa
and Arles, 182 ; wishes to summon
convocation of Carlovingian prin-
ces, 182; holds great council at
Troyes (878), 182; escorted back
to Italy by Boson, Count of Vienne,
182 ; Boson, adopted son of, 184;
turns friendly face to all parties,
184; Charles the Fat proclaimed
at Ravenna, in presence of, 185 ;
anxious for help of Charles the Fat,
185 ; hurls maledictions at Boson,
185; finds himself deserted and
helpless, 186; beaten to death with
hammers, 186; had been victim of
circumstances, 186

John [X., elected with Sergius ITI.,
202; lover of peace, 202; holds
three councils, 202 ; repeals decrees
of Stephen VI., 202 ; decides that
no corpse may be brought up for
trial, 202; decides that presence
imperial legates necessary for papal
election, 202-3; death of, in 900,
203

John X. reigns fourteen years, 210;
rules with virility, 210; directs
energy to destruction Mussulman
resorts, 210; invites Berengarius
to Rome, 210; bestows imperial
crown on Berengarius, 210-11;
organises league against Saracens,
211; risks life against Saracens,
212; promotion of, considered
illegal, 212; had retained metro-
politan throne of Ravenna several
years, 213; will not recognise or-
dinations of Formosus, 213; though
tarred with same brush as Formo-
sus, 213; dissension arises round,
214; thwarts Marozia, 214; Hun-
garians dangerous allies of, 214 ;

INDEX

seeks support of King of Italy, 214
rebels murder brother Peter, 214 ;
cast into prison, and stifled, 214

John XI., son of Marozia, 215 ; sends
ambassadors to Lecapenus, 220;
ambassadors of commit breach of
ecclesiastical law, by presence at
St. Sophia, 220; letter to, by
Romanus Lecapenus, 220

John XII. (Octavian, son of Alberic),
222 ; in sixteenth year, 222 ; pro-
motion of ends struggle between
nobles and clergy, 223; venture-
some expedition against Lombard
principalities, 223 ; defeated, 223;
dissolute life of, 223-4; simony
and scandals under, 224; issues
document to monks of Subiaco, for
Kyrie Eleisons and Christie Eleisons,
for soul, 224; sends two ambassa-
dors to Germany, 224; King of
Germany arranges with, for visit
to Rome, 225; crowns Otto, 225;
signs agreement with Emperor,
225; conspires with claimants to
Italian throne, 226 ; summoned to
appear before Otto’s council, at St.
Peter’s, 227; returns disdainful
answer, 227; deposed, 227; does
not meekly accept sentence of
deposition, 231 ; reappears in Rome,
231; question concerning incom-
petent assembly, which deposed,
231-2 ; takes repossession of Holy
See, 232; last hours spent in gra-
tification of illicit passion, 232 ;
was cardinal-deacon at time of
promotion, 232 note, 249 note;
unexampled licentiousness of,

275

John XIII. appointed by Otto (John,
Bishop of Narni, and son of Theo-
dora II.), 234; relation of John
XII., 234; rebelled against, im-
prisoned, and then banished, 234 ;
re-enters Rome, 235; humiliates
leaders of revolt, 235 ; authority of,
maintained, 236; death of, in 973,
230

John XIV. (Chancellor Peter) ap-
pointed by Otto II., 237; attends
Otto on deathbed, 237; Theo-
phano, widow of Otto II., leaves to
mercy of Romans, 237; Franco
(Boniface VII.) returns, and thrusts
into prison, 238 ; death of, possibly
from hunger, 238

John XV. succeeds Boniface VII.,
239; very little information about,
239; shed dim lustre on papal
throne, 239 ; grows weary of Cres-

INDEX

céntius, 239; invites Otto III. to
Rome, 239 ; death of, 239

John XVI. (Philagath, Bishop of
Piacenza), rival of Gregory V., 240 ;
brought forward by Crescentius,
240; a Calabrian Greek, owing
everything to Theophano, and son,
240; installed Pope, 241; takes
flight, but is captured and cruelly
treated, 241 ; humiliations suffered
by, 241; death of, probably at
Abbey of Fulda, 241

John XVII. reigns six months,

245

John XVIIL., place of, taken by Ser-
gius IV., 245

John XIX. follows Benedict VIII.,
249; not adapted to fulfil ideas of
Benedict VIII. and Henry II., 249;
crowns Conrad II., 249; recog-
nised by German princes, 249

Jumiéges, Abbot of, confidential
messenger of Pepin, 32

Justinian, rule of, 2; commentary on
code, 118

K

Kairwan, headquarters of Aglabites,

137

Kehr, M. P., Historische Zeitschrift, 96
note

Kiersy sur Oise, National Convention
at, in 754, 42; document made out
at, presented to Charlemagne by
Pope, 95 ; Hadrian anxious for ful-
filment of programme of, 103

L

Lambert, Duke of Spoleto (brother
of Guy), deputed to assist John
VIII, 177; insulting attitude of,
to Pope, 181; insists on entry into
Leonine city, 181; keeps Pope a
prisoner, 181; obliged to retire,
181

Lambert, Emperor (of Spoleto), son
of Guy, 195; consecrated Emperor
by Pope Formosus, 195; interests
of, guarded by Empress-Mother,
Agiltrude, 196; awaits with Em-
press-Mother the coming of Ar-
nulph, 197; makes terms with
Berengarius, 198; takes possession
of Rome, 198 ; hopes of Pope centre
round, 203; killed in a hunting
accident, 203

295

Lanciani, M., opinion as to site of St.
Ceesar in Palatio, 61 note

Landulph, Duke, banished from
power in Beneventum, 258

Langres, Bishop of, meets dignitaries
3 Rome and tries Pope Constantine,

fe)

Lapétre, A., gives information re-
garding Anastasius the librarian,
150 note

Lateran, troops of Astolphus blockade
gates of, 43; synod of, held by
Otto I. and Leo VIII., 233; con-
ference at, resulting in edict on
papal elections, 265

Lateran, Basilica of, as a rule Pope
officiated at, 64; daily service at,
presided over by seven bishops, 65 ;
collapse of old, 200

Lateran Palace, chief centre ecclesi-
astical administration, 62; from
time of Zachary usual residence of
Pope, 63; some offices of, secular-
ised, 64; resort of persons of ill
fame under John XII., 224

Laudo, Pope, in authority less than
six months, 210

Lauer, M. Ph., on Saracens in Rome,
141 note ; on Leopolis, 146 note

Law, Civil (not Canon), Pope could be
judged for offences against, 115

Law, Roman, Salic, or Lombard,
choice of, for Romans, 131

Lawrence, St., monasteries near
church of, 68

Lawrence, St., Alberic endows and
remodels convent of, 221

Laymen excluded in 769 from papal
elections, 81

Lecapenus Romanus, Emperor at
Constantinople, 220 ; son of (Theo-
phylact), intended for patriarchal
throne, 220 ; asks for papal legates,
220; legates to, commit breach of
ecclesiastical law, 220 ; letter of, to
John XI. (recently published by
Cardinal Pitra), 220 ; letter of, tells
of offer of daughter, by Marozia,
220

Legates, papal, Imperial government
anxious to do away with, 59

Leo, Archdeacon, elected Archbishop
of Ravenna, 101; had been hostile
to Paul Afiarta, 101 ; claims cities,
101; visits Charlemagne, 101-2;
denounced by Pope Hadrian, 102 ;
death of, 102

Leo, son of Benedict the Christian,
opposes appointment Benedict X.,
262

Leo the Isaurian, Exarch Paul’s troops

296 INDEX

threaten to announce fall of, 5;
Petasius (or Tiberius), rival of,
killed at Monterano, 6; bribery
and corruption by, 7; death of, 10

Leo, the nomenclator, accused of dis-
loyalty to Pascal I., 127-8; eyes
put out and then killed, 128

Leo III., Pope, election and consecra-
tion of, 108-9 ; at head of pontifical
vestiarum, 109; sends to Charle-
magne copy of deed of election,
109; advised by Charlemagne,
110; constructs triclintum in
Lateran, III ; mosaic in hall, con-
structed by, shows Romans under
two masters, I11; current of
hostility to, 112; attack on, by
armed men, II2-13; escapes to
Spoleto, 113; sent back to Rome
by Charlemagne, 113; accused of
crimina adultertt et perjurit, 115
note ; vague information about accu-
sations against, 115 ; takes oath at
public assembly at St. Peter’s, 116 ;
crowns Charlemagne Roman Em-
peror, 116-17; use made by, of
donation of Constantine, 120;
plots to assassinate, 122; con-
spirators against, executed, 122;
sends ambassadors to Louis the
Pious, 123; revolt against, in
country, 123; death of, 124; M. de
Sickel’s views on promise to Charle-
magne by, 226 note; principle on
which, had avoided courts of justice,
231 note

Leo IV., Pope, election of, 144 ; title,
‘The Four Crowned Martyrs,” of,
144; complains of imperial missi,
Peter and Hadrian, 146; objects
to Anastasius as successor, 151 ;
reason for objection to Anastasius,
151; death of, in 855, 152

Leo IV., Emperor, succeeded by
Constantine VI., 103-4

Leo V., Pope, imprisoned and sup-
planted by Christopher, 206; im-
prisoned, 206; relieved of burden
of life, 206

Leo VI., Pope, priest of St. Susan,
215; tool of Marozia, 214-15

Leo VI., Emperor, accession of, 194

Leo VII., Pope, accession of, in 936,
216

Leo VIII., Pope, protoscrinarius, 227 ;
promise perhaps made by, 228;
weighty arguments against promo-
tion of, 231; did not belong to
clergy, 232; obtains mastery over
newly elected Benedict, 233; de-
poses Benedict at synod at Lateran,

233; holds his own till death,

233

Leo [X., Pope (Bruno, Bishop of
Toul), 255; appointed by Henry
III., 257; man of piety and zeal,
257; Hildebrand remonstrates
with, 257-8 ; reforming energy of,
258 ; possible external informalities
in election of, 258; tries to rid
Italy of Normans, 258 ; defeated at
Civita in Capitanate, 258; sur-
renders to Normans and taken to
Beneventum, 258 ; returns to Rome,
259; death in Rome, 259

Leonatius, the tribune, concerned in
murder of Sergius, the secunderius,
89 ; handed over to criminal judge,
8

9-90

Leonine Oity, the, 145

Leopolis, Centumcelle (CivitaVecchia)
rebuilt and called, 146

Leprosy said to flourish among Lom-
bards, 26, 82

Letters of transfer manufactured by
monks, 53

Letters of St. Gregory mention vast
estates of Church, 66; of Pope
Paul I. to King Pepin (Codex Caro-
linus), 58; of Stephen III. to
Charles and Queen-Mother, 85

Liber Censum, 226 note

Liber Pontificalis, life of John III.
in, 2 note ; life of Stephen II. in, 32
note ; on Stephen II. in France, 35
note; on recovery of Stephen, 41
note; silent on matter of Pepin’s
religious attitude, 58; on accusa-
tions against Paul I., 71 note; on
Christopher the primicerius, and
Stephen’s Frankish mission, 72;
lives of Stephen ITI. and Hadrian
in, 73 note; introduction to, on
treaties of Kiersy and Rome, 96
note ; on Stephen IIT., 101 note ; on
Eugenius II., 130 note; suppresses
detail of election of Gregory IV.,
134; gives account of Gratiano
(magister militum), 147-8; life of
Benedict III. in, 152; on paternity
of John XI., 209

Library, Lateran, primicerius of
notaries manager of, 63-4

Ligurian sea coast, annexed by
_Rotharis, 3

Liris, the, 15 ; compact of Louis the
Pious and Pope Pascal on territories
beyond, 125

Lombards, invasion of Italy by, 2;
establishment of power by, 3;
alliance of with Pope, 5; duchy of
Rome delivered from, 20; sway

INDEX

of extended, 22; frequent depreda-
tions by, in Roman territory, 24 ;
all Catholics, 25; regarded by
Romans as barbarians, 26; laws,
manners, and customs of, differ
from Roman, 26; Frankish inter-
vention sought by Romans against,
30; Pepin negotiates with King of
the, 41; Pope Paul I. dreads
alliance of, with Greeks, 57; in
schole of suburbs of St. Peter’s, 60 ;
lie low at time of accession of Pope
Constantine, 75; in Italy two
hundred years, and often besieged
Rome, 76; retreat before Toto and
Passivus, 77; Pope Hadrian with-
draws from alliance with, 91;
defeated by Charlemagne, 93 ; days
of kingdom of, numbered, 93;
question of portion of kingdom of,
given to Pope, 95-6 ; Charlemagne
takes title of King of, 103; con-
tinuance of kingdom of, 104;
connection with Greeks severed,
105; expedition of John XII.
against principalities of, in S. Italy,
223 ; personal right of, over Roman
territory annulled by Conrad IL,
248 ; Abbot of Farfa appeals to law
of, 248

Lorraine, Geoffrey, Duke of. See
Geoffrey

Lorraine, Frederic of, Cardinal. See
Frederic

Lorsch, record of annalist. of, on
Council at Gentilly, 59

Lothaire I., Emperor, constitution of,
122-35 ; crowned by father, Louis
the Pious, 126; kingdom of Italy
entrusted to, 126; consecrated
Emperor by Pope Pascal I., 127 ;
marriage of, at Thionville, 127 ;
holds court of justice at Rome,
127; goes to Rome, under escort
of Wala, 130; lack of harmony of,
with father, 136; despatches son
Louis, and uncle Drogo of Metz,
with troops to Rome, 139; is
armed protector of St. Peter, 142 ;
holds convocation in Rome, 142 ;
complains that Leo IV. defies con-
stitution, 147; death of, 155;
Benedict III. tries to prevent dis-
pute of sons of, about heritage,
168 ; Church of Rome returns to
constitution of, 203

Lothaire II., unfortunate divorce pro-
ceedings of, 160; divorce of,
annulled by Pope, 160; shares
kingdom of Charles of Provence,
169; makes peace with Pope

297

Hadrian II., 169; at death of,
Charles the Bald and Louis the
German seize estates of, 169

Lothaire, son of Hugh of Provence,
218; dies in early manhood, 218 ;
Adelaide, widow of, resists Beren-
garius, 218

Louis II, King and Emperor, goes in
father’s lifetime to Rome, 139;
checked in Rome, by Saracens, 141 ;
expedition of, against Saracens in
Beneventum, 142; governs Lom-
bard Kingdom, 144 ; madeassociate
of Empire, 144; revolutionary
sentiments of Gratiano reported
to, 148; sought hand daughter of
Emperor Michael III., 148 ; alters
mind, and marries Engelberga,
148; arrives in Rome, full of
rage, 148 ; descends on Beneventine
territory, 149; regarded as de-
fender of Christendom, 149 ; makes
plans for election of Pope, 149;
friendship of, for Arsenius and
Anastasius, 151 ; decree of election
of Benedict III. not approved by,
152; sends misst to Rome, 152;
maintains right to superintend
choice of Pope, 154; claim of,
not due to mere preference of
Anastasius, 155; goes to Rome, for
Easter, 155; goes back to Rome on
death of Benedict III, 155; in-
fluence of, decides election of
Deacon Nicholas, 155 ; takes part
in coronation of Pope, 155; John
VIII. personal friend of, 157 ; prob-
ably in Rome, at election John
VIIL, 157; takes part of priests
under censure, 158 ; wrath excited
against Nicholas I., 160; sends
misst to pursue Eleutherius, 164 ;
negotiations for alliance of
daughter of, with son of Basil
the Macedonian, 165; taken
prisoner by Adelgis, 166 ; crowned
anew at Rome, 166; death of,
near Brescia, 166; buried at St.
Ambrose, Milan, 166; leaves no
son, 170; John VIII. relates ex-
ploits to, 176

Louis III. son of Louis the German,
184

Louis, King of Eastern France,
invades Kingdom of the West, 184

Louis, King of Provence, grandson
of Emperor Louis II., 204 ; rival
of Berengarius, 204; falls from
power, 205 ; has his eyes put out,
and is banished, 205

Louis the Blind, son of the usurper,

298

Boson, 190; succeeded by Hugh,
Count of Provence, 213

Louis the Child succeeds Arnulph,
204

Louis the German, lack of harmony
of, with father, 136; Pope Hadrian
II. reproaches, for seizing estates
of Lothaire II., 169; treaty of
Mersen bestows lands on, 169; in
ill odour at Rome, 169; head of
German branch of Charlemagne’s
lineage, 170; sends to Italy
younger son, Charles the Fat, of
Swabia, 173 ; death of, 180

Louis, son of Louis the German,
defeats Charles the Bald at
Andernach, 180

Louis the Pious, Emperor, Frankish
Church under, 57; crowned by
father, Charlemagne, as successor,
117; conspiracy against Pope
causes sensation at court of, 122;
crowned by Pope Stephen IV.
with wife Ermengarde, at Rheims,
124; crowns eldest son Lothaire
Emperor, 126; crowns Pepin and
Louis Kings Aquitaine and Bavaria,
126 ; despatches envoys to Rome,
128; resolves to make power felt
in Rome, 130; lack of harmony
with sons, 136; Gregory IV. con-
cerned by quarrels in family of,
136; death of, in 840, 136 ; strife
subsequent to death of, 136; had
not visited Rome except in child-
hood, 136-7

Louis the Stammerer succeeds father,
Charles the Bald, 181 ; not inclined
for secret negotiations with Pope,
Jobn VIII., 182; content to keep
Provence, 183; death of, in 879,
184; death of last two reigning
sons of, 184; Charles the Simple,
posthumous son of, 185

Lucca, Anselm, Bishop of, Alexander
II. See Alexander II.

Luitprand, King of Lombards,
successes of, 4; Christian prince,
and experienced politician, 6 ; over-
whelms St. Peter’s with gifts, 6;
desires to make power felt in
Spoleto and Beneventum, 5-6;
Dukes of Spoleto and Beneventum
assume independent attitude to,
8; expels Duke Trasimund of
Spoleto, 8; seizes Ameria, Orte,
Bomarzo, and Blera, 8; Gregory
III. asks to restore the four towns,
8; comes to understanding with
Pope Zachary, 11; interviews Pope
at Pavia, 11; seizes Cesena, II ;

INDEX

yields to peaceful tactics of
Zachary, 11; death of, 11; ar-
ranged peace of Terni, 16

Luitprand (author) on renunciation
of right of election, 228; on de-
position of Benedict V., 228-9;
prattle of, about Marozia and
Theodora, 229

Luni, protection of coasts between
Terracino and, 137; seized by
Saracens, 247

Lupam, ad, hall in Lateran palace,
called after famous bronze she-
wolf, 219

Lutri, Luitprand yields claims on, 7

Lyons, Bishop of, meets dignitaries
in Rome and tries Pope Constan-
tine, 80

M

Mabillon publishes polemics against
Sergius III., 207 note

Magenarius, Abbot of, to define
certain limits of Papal State, 104

Magistrates, Roman, to present them-
selves before Emperor (Constitu-
tion of Lothaire), 131

Magra, position with regard to
Frankish kingdom, 96 note

Mainz, Bishop of, meets dignitaries
in Rome, and tries Pope Constan-
tine, 80; Archbishop of, envoy
from Otto I. to Alberic, 218

Mantua, Azzo and Tebald of Tuscany
popular in, 255-6

Maria Antica, Santa, Byzantine
church of, connected with Palatine,
61 note; countless attempts to
trace origin of, 61 note

Maria, Santa, of Farfa, Abbey of, 68 ;
transferred to papal jurisdiction, 69

Maria Maggiore, Santa, Pope and
court often present at ceremonies
in basilica of, 64; Waldipert, Lom-
bard priest, vainly seeks refuge in,
79; Pope Benedict III. proclaimed
in, 153-4

Marin plots against Paul I., 70; pro-
moted to French bishopric, 70

Marinus I. elected Pope, 187; had
been three times legate to Constan-
tinople, 187; recalls. Formosus,
188; absolves Bishop of Troyes
from oath, 188 ; some irregularity
in election of, 188 ; had been Bishop
of Caeri (Cervetri), 188; meets
Charles the Fat at Nonantola,
188; replaced by Hadrian III,
188

INDEX

Marinus II., Pope (942-946), 216
Marozia, daughter of Theophylact,
205 ; has son, by Sergius III., 209 ;
son of, becomes Pope John XI,
209; marries for third time, 209
note ; great disparity of age between
Sergius III. and, 209 note; marries
the Marquess Alberic, 212; and
afterwards Guy, Marquess of Tus-
cany, 214; thwarted by John
X., 214; organises revolt, ending
in murder of Pope, 214; bestows
Holy See on tools, Leo V. and
Stephen VII., and then on her son
(John XI.), 215; offers her hand
to Hugh, King of Italy, 215;
marries King Hugh in Castle St.
Angelo, 215; is besieged and taken
captive by son, Alberic, 215; had
offered her daughter to Greek Em-
peror, 220; John XIII, nephew of,

234

Martin, St., Gulfard, Abbot of, sent
to Italy, 92; charged to define
limits Papal State, on side Reiti, 104

Marucchi, M. Or. Nuovo Bulletino di
arch. crist., 146 note

Mater Romanorum, famous bronze
she-wolf, 219

Matilda, Countess, famous in Gre-
gorian annals, 256

Maurice, Emperor, Exarch Romanus,
lieutenant of, 2

Maurice, St., Abbey of, Pope Stephen
II. meets Pepin’s ambassadors at,
35 ; Benedict III. attacks Hubert,
intruded Abbot of, 168

Mauritania, ancient, Saracens of, 137

Meaux, Bishop of, meets dignitaries
in Rome, and tries Pope Constan-
tine, 80

Melfi, Norman colony at, 256; Nor-
mans of, subject to Salerno, 256;
Nicholas II. holds council at, 267

Mercurius, a magister militum, meets
Arsenius at Gubbio, 152

Mersen, treaty of, 169; Charles the
Bald alters treaty of, 180

Messina, Straits of, within imperial
ground, 3

Metz, Council of, divorce of Lothaire
II. sanctioned at, 160

Michael III., Emperor, Louis II.
seeks hand of daughter of, 148

Michaelius appointed Archbishop of
Ravenna, 100; Pope Stephen III.
refuses to acknowledge, 100;
ousted from seat, IOI

Milan retained by Lambertof Spoleto,
198; Archbishop of, expelled from
See, 225

299

Milite ecclesiastica, 67

Milite, rural, 67

Military organisation of Rome, 60

Missus, Pope’s demand for permanent
Frankish, at Rome, 57; interven-
tion of Frankish at papal election,
IIo

Missi of Pope and Emperor in perma-
nent residence at Rome, 131-2;
imperial (Peter and Hadrian) mis-
trusted by Pope Leo IV., 146; im-
perial (Peter and Hadrian) assassi-
nate a papal legate, 146-7 ; Charles
the Bald would have dispensed
with permanent, 174

Modena, Azzo and Tebald of Tuscany
very popular in, 255-6

Moissac, Chronicle, 36 ; account in, of
wer oe of Stephen II. and Pepin,

3

Monasteries, Roman, in eighth cen-
tury, 67,68; in Rome had Greek,
Oriental, Syrian, and Armenian
monks, 68

Monks, ill effects produced by, in
Constantinople, 68

Monothelite crisis, the, 28

Monte Amiata, Abbey of, in Lombard
domains, 68

Monte Cassino, Abbot of, a Lombard
subject, sent by Pope to Astol-
phus, 22; Pepin’s brother, Carlo-
man, monk at, 41; convent of,
revived, under Pope Zachary, 68 ;
Otto III. performs devotions at,
242; Cardinal Frederic of Lorraine
takes Benedictine habit at, 259;
Cardinal Frederic made Abbot of,
260

Monte Gargano, Otto III. visits,
242

Monte Rotondo, left bank of Tiber
to outskirts of, belongs Duchy of
Spoleto, 15

Montfeltro, Castle of, Otto I. besieges
Berengarius and wife, Willa, in,
226, 231

Monticelli, stronghold of Crescentii,
245 note

Monuments, religious,
events of their time, 49

Moravians, difficulties of
Arnulph with, 193

Morinus publishes polemics against
Sergius III., 207 note

Mosaic representing position of
Romans, under Pope and Frank-
ish king, 111; reproduction of,
III note

Mummolus, Governor of Provence,
has title of Patrician, 39

consecrate

King

300 INDEX

N

Naples holds out against Lombards,
3; local autonomy organised in,
20; autonomy of receives death-
blow, 20; struggle of against
Saracens, 148; a Mahometan
garrison in, 176; Duke Sergius,
of, an ally of Saracens, 176;
Christian allies of Saracens in,
187; Dukes of Spoleto intervene
in affairs of, 191; breaks off
alliance with Mussulmans, 211

Narbonne, Metropolitan Bishop of,
meets dignitaries in Rome, and
tries Pope Constantine, 80; Bar-
tholomew, Archbishop of, adherent
of Lothaire, 140; belonged to
kingdom of Charles the Bald, 140

Narni yields to King Luitprand, 4;
Duke of Spoleto takes possession
of, 17; Astolphus agrees to yield,
42; had formerly been annexed by
Duchy of Spoleto, 46

Nepotism begins to be in evidence,
163

Nicholas, Bishop of Anagni, meets
Arsenius at Gubbio, 152

Nicholas I., Pope, influence of Louis
II. decides election of, 155;
just suited Louis II., 156; great
activity of, 156; action of against
John, Archbishop of Ravenna,
158-61; annuls divorce of Lothaire
II., 160; outrages against, 161 ;
spends two days in fasting and
prayer, 161; at Engelberga’s re-
quest, goes to bedside of Emperor
Louis, 161; niece of marries
member of lay nobility, 163

Nicholas II., name of, in papal lists,
with Benedict X., 262-3; was
Gerard, Bishop of Florence, 262;
supported by Hildebrand, Duke
Geofirey, and German Court, 262;
recognised by Conclave at Sutri
deposing Benedict X., 262; ques-
tion of legitimacy of, 263; legiti-
macy of hinges on German
co-operation, 263; Benedict X.
delivers himself into hands of,
265; holds council at Melfi, 267 ;
invests Norman chiefs, Richard
and Robert Guiscard, 267; holds
Beneventum, 267; rights, other-
wise, theoretical, 267; alliance of,
with Normans opposed in Ger-
many, 268; death of, at Florence,
268 ; decree of, soon abandoned,
296

Nilus, St., hunted from Calabria,
takes refuge at Monte Gargano,
242

Nimfa, Constantine V. accedes to
Pope’s request concerning, 19, 20

Nobles, Roman, measure forces
against clergy, 129

Nomenculator (grandmaster of cere-
monies) at Lateran Palace, 63;
disloyalty of Leo, the, punished
by death, 128

Nomentum, Roman town of, 15;
stronghold of Crescentii, 245 note

Nonantola, monastery in district of,
given to Anselm, father-in-law of
Astolphus, 52; body of St. Sylvester
removed to, 53

Norma, Constantine V. accedes to
Pope’s request concerning, 19, 20

Normans, difficulties of King Arnulph
with, adventurers of Basse Nor-
mandie, in Salerno, 256; establish-
ments of at Aversa and Melfi, 256;
at Aversa and Melfi, subject to
Salerno, 256; often called ‘* Agare-
ni,” 257; Leo IX. tries to rid Italy
of, 258; Leo IX. surrenders to,
258; Hildebrand throws himself
into hands of, 264; princes re-
cognise Pope as lord, 267; of
Italy support Pope, when he op-
poses Emperor, 273

Notarii clerks of Chancellor’s office
in Lateran, 63

Noyon, Bishop of, with other digni-
taries, tries Pope Constantine, 80

Numidia, Saracens of, under Agla-
bites, 137

O

Oath, Leo III. asks Charlemagne
to send dignitary to take of
Roman people, 109; sworn either
by Pope or King, 110; taken
by Pope Eugenius II., 129; to be
taken by Pope before imperial missus
and people, 132

Octavian, son of Alberic, 222; des-
tined for pontificate, 222; Alberic
assembles Romans at St. Peter’s,
who swear to elect, 222; becomes
Pope as John XII., 223. See John
XII.

Odo, St., Abbot of Cluny, 218 ; Alberic
led by, 221

Officium stratoris, oldest example of,

35 ‘
Oger (Duke Autchaire), of legendary
fame, 33; escort of Stephen II., 33

INDEX

Ommiad, Caliph of Cordova, Saracens
of Spain under, 137

Optiones, rank of, 61

Orders, higher, bound to celibate
life, 65

“30g lesser, not bound to celibacy,

5
Ordination, formula of Pope’s, 27 note
Ordinations of Formosus condemned
by Stephen VI., Sergius III., and
John X, (all tarred with his brush),
213
Organisation, military, of Rome, 60
Oriental monks in Rome, 68
Oroctigang, Abbot of Jumiéges, de-
spatched by Pepin to Stephen II.,

32

Orphanotrophium,the Schola cantorum,
not far from Lateran, 65

Orta, Arsenius, Bishop of, father of
Anastasius and Eleutherius, 149

Orte, seized by Luitprand, 8 ; position
in Roman duchy, 15

Orvieto included in papal territory,
104

Osimo yields to Luitprand, 4 ; Romans
desire to recapture, 46; Desiderius
promises to restore to Roman re-
public, 47; people of, declare
allegiance to Pope, 94; mentioned
in compact, Louis the Pious and
Pope Pascal, 125

Ostia, George, Bishop of, ambassador
to Pepin from Stephen II., 44; gives
way before Saracens, 141; naval
battle off, 146; Bishop of, presides at
assembly in Basilica Emiliana, 153

Oswy, King, stops religious discussion
by appeal to St. Peter, 29-30

Otranto, sway of Beneventum extends
to, 3; looks to Sicily for help, 3;
Duke of Beneventum takes refuge
at,

Otto, privilege of, 130 note, 225-6;
official investigation of, by M. de
Sickel, 226 note ; juncture at which
adopts form handed down, 227-8 ;
was not what it seemed, 229

Otto I., King of the Germans, 218;
Adelaide, widow of Lothaire of
Provence, appeals for help to, 218 ;
marries Adelaide, 218; commits
government Italy to Berengarius as
vassal king, 219; presence of, at
Pavia, alarms Alberic, 222; bears
down upon Italy and enters Pavia,
225; crowned in Rome by John XII.,
225; makes compact with Pope,
known as ‘‘ Privilege of Otto,” 225 ;
John XII. treacherous to, 226; be-
sieges Berengarius and Willa at

801

Montfeltro, and goes on to Rome,
226; Romans open gates to, and
swear fidelity to, 227; presides
over Council at St. Peter’s, 227;
summons John XII. to appear at
Council, 227; on deposition of
John XII., consents to election of
protoscriniarius Leo, 227; alleged
compact of, with Leo VIII., 230;
troops of, disperse barricades on
bridge St. Angelo, 231 ; too occupied
to interfere with returnof John XII.,
232; convenes with Leo VIII. new
synod at Lateran, 233; appoints
John XIII., 234; has bodies of
Rofred and vestiarius Stephen ex-
humed and thrown into sewer,
235-6 ; dies in Germany, 236

Otto II, contends against Duke of
Bavaria and other vassals, 236;
often stays at Rome, 237; appoints
Chancellor Peter, Pope (John XIV.),
237; attended by new Pope at
deathbed, 237 ; defeated at Calabria,
237; death of, 237

Otto III., child of three years old,
237 ; proclaimed in Germany, 237 ;
invited to Rome to appoint Pope,
239; selects Bruno of Carinthia
(Gregory V.), 239; when papal
throne seized by John XVI., goes
to Rome with Gregory V., 241 ; suc-
cessfully attacks castle St. Angelo,
241; on Gregory’s death, ap-
points Gerbert Archbishop Ravenna
(Sylvester II.), 242; friend of monks
of Saints Boniface and Alexis, 242 ;
sees rebels of Tivoli at doors Aven-
tine Palace, 243 ; escapes to Ravenna
with Pope Sylvester, 243-4; never
returns to Rome, 244; dies at
Paterno, near Mt. Soracte, 244;
buried at Aix-la-Chapelle, 244;
never married, 244

P

Paderborn, Charlemagne joins Leo
III. at, 113

Palatine, headquarters of military
schole, 60; old imperial palace of,
60 ; papal palace of, 63 ; residence
of Emperor on visit to Rome in 663,
61; residence of Exarch, 61

Palatio, St. Cesar in, official chapel,
61

Palermo in hands of Mussulmans, 137

Pallium, St. Peter giving to Leo III,
mosaic of, 111

Paucratius, St., gate of, Rome, troops

302

of Astolphus before, 43; Duke
Toto’s rebellious troops before, 73

Pandulph, Duke, banished from
power at Beneventum, 258

Papacy could not remain in position
of German bishopric, 263; Hilde-
brand’s views on, 264; strife about
temporal, affects spiritual, 264 ;
Gregorian marks new epoch, 270

Papal Eléction. See Election

Papal patrimonies confiscated in
Sicily, 18 ; Calabrian and Sicilian
retained by Byzantines, 20 note

Papal State, The, by M, J. Gay, 15

note

Pape, Jean VIII., Le, A. Lapétre, 167
note

Pascal (brother of Duke Toto) plots
against Paul I., 73

Pascal, primicerius, attacks Leo III.,
112-13; trial of, 114

Pascal I., St., Pope, not of the
aristocracy, 125; compact with
Louis the Pious, 125 ; consecrates
Lothaire Emperor at Rome, 127 ;
renounces temporal power over
Abbey Farfa, 127 ; in deep diffi-
culties, 127 ; Theodore, primicerius,
and nomenclator Leo, enemies of,
killed, 127-8; Emperor Louis sends
envoys to, 128; regarded with
aversion, 128; death of, 128;
principle on which, avoided courts
of justice, 231 note

Passivus (brother of Duke Toto) plots
to hasten death of Paul I., 73;
incarcerated and eyes put out, 78

Patrician, of Sicily, Naples relies for
support on, 20; of Sicily defends
Byzantine coast and Sardinia
against Saracens, 137; title be-
stowed on governors Provence, 39 ;
title of, an empty distinction, in
Empire, 39; ‘‘of the Romans,”
title of Charlemagne, 39~40 ; title
of Roman rather than imperial
origin, 40; title of, changed to
‘* Emperor,” 118 ; title of, asserted
by Crescentius, 238

Patricius Romanorum, title of, used
by Pepin, 39; by Charlemagne,
40; title conferred on Frankish
princes, 62 ; meaning of title, 107

Patrimoniis De, Romanz ecclesiz,
by Paul Fabre, 66 note

Patronus head of schola (group) of
Roman population, 60 ; rank of, 61

Paul, St., Church of, in Rome,
monasteries near, 68

Paul the Exarch, sends troops to
Rome, 5 ; perishes at Ravenna, 5

INDEX

Paul I., St., Pope (Paul the Deacon,
brother of Stephen II.), 21; sent
by Stephen II. to Astolphus, 21;
and to Desiderius, 47; becomes
Pope in 757, 49; of aristocratic
family, 49 ; turns paternal mansion
into monastery, 49 ; presides over
removal of remains, St. Petronilla,
49-50; is godfather to Pepin’s
daughter, Giséle, 50; founds monas-
tery St. Stephen and St. Sylvester,
51; announces his accession to
Pepin, 53 ; clamours for restoration
of towns, by Desiderius, 54; takes
side of Dukes Aquitaine and
Bavaria, 54; pleads with Desi-
derius, outside walls of St. Peter’s,
55; writes to Pepin, maintaining
claims, 55; Pepin urges submission
to Desiderius on, 55 ; resigns him-
self to dispelling of dreams,
56; Constantine V. directs efforts
against, 56; dreads alliance of
Greeks and Lombards, 57 ; or com-
pact between Emperor and Franks,
57; desires Frankish missus in
Rome, 57; persuaded into under-
standing with Desiderius, 57 ; ex-
hortations of, against imperial
unorthodoxy, 58; in accord with
Pepin, at Constantinople, 58; Pepin
refers religious discussions to, 59 ;
death of, in 767, 59; thought of,
at Constantinople, as a puppet, 72 ;
action of, respecting Sergius, Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, 99-100

Pavia, interview between Pope
Zachary and Luitprand at, 11;
traditional capital of Astolphus,
25; Stephen II. goes to, as subject
of the Emperor, 34; rent paid to
palace at, 125 ; Council held at, on
imperial succession, 172; John,
Bishop of, a missus in 885, 189;
Lambert of Spoleto retains, 198 ;
success of Louis of Provence re-
cognised at, 204

Pelagius II., Pope, explains that
Franks are Catholics, 28-9

Pentapolis, restitution of, claimed by
Stephen II., 36-7 ; Desiderius and
ravaging troops pass through, 55 ;
Dukes of Spoleto and Tuscany lay
waste, 91; people of, resist Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, 101; Pope
Hadrian I. monarch of, 105

Pepin, King, military adoption of,
by Luitprand (as prince), 9 ; fairly
well disposed towards Lombard
King, 29; asked to send escort for
Stephen II. through Lombard

INDEX

kingdom, 33 ; sends Chrodegang,
Bishop of Metz,and Duke Autchaire
(Oger), 33; meets Pope at Ponthion,
with much ceremony, 35; promises
Pope to restore Exarchy, 36;
presents imperial provinces to Pope
and St. Peter, 37 ; question whether
recognised Roman duchy, 39 ; has
title patricius Romanorum, 39;
establishes Pope at Abbey St.
Denis, 40; second coronation of,
by Pope, 40-1 ; lays siege to Pavia,
42; has letter from Stephen II.
with words: ‘‘Ego Petrus apos-
tolus,” 44; army of, sets Rome
free, 44 ; requests removal, to Vati-
can, of body St. Petronilla, 49-50 ;
Pope Paul I. announces succession
to, 53; despatches Remedius,
Bishop Rouen, and Duke Autchaire
to Italy, 55 ; not beguiled by theo-
logical diplomats from Constanti-
nople, 57; attitude to religious
question, sane and simple, 57-8;
refers religious questions to Pope,
59; usurping Pope Constantine
announces succession to, 75; en-
gaged in war in Aquitaine, 75 ;
aloof from affair of Constantine,
75; death of, 79 ; had arranged for
return of Archbishop Sergius to
Ravenna, 99

Pepin, son of Louis the Pious,
crowned king of Aquitaine, 126 ;
lack of harmony with father, 136

Perugia, siege of, abandoned by King
Ratchis, 12; not captured by
Astolphus, 21 ; Pope, monarch of,
105 ; position of, in compact, Louis
the Pious and Pope Pascal, 125

Petasius (or Tiberius) rival Leo the
Isaurian, killed at Monterano, 6

Peter, envoy of Pope Hadrian I. to
Charlemagne, 91

Peter, imperial missus, helps to
assassinate papal legate, 146;
tried, and condemned to death,

I

ihetes. brother of John X., murdered,
214

Peter, St., influence of, gives prestige
to papal position, 14; position
as ‘‘doorkeeper,” referred to,
by Oswy, to stop discussion,
29-30; sovereignty of, over Rome,

Peter, St., Basilica of, leave-taking
of Stephen II. at, before journey
to France, 33; keys of con-
quered towns deposited in, 46;
monasteries near, 68; decrees of

303

iconoclastic council made public
at, 81; Charlemagne crowned
Emperor at, 116-17; Saracens
plunder, 141 ; to be surrounded by
fortifications, 142; Nicholas I.
spends two days in fasting and
prayer in, 161; John VIII. holds
synod at, 179-80; John VIII.
places under interdict, 181 ; Alberic
assembles Romans at, 222; who
swear to elect Octavian Pope, 222

Petronilla, St., chapel of, 49; tomb
of, in cemetery of Ardeatine way,
49 ; yearly ‘‘ station,” in honour of,
49 note; according to fabulous re-
cords, daughter of St. Peter, 49-50;
Pepin requests removal of body of,
to Vatican, 50; body of, removed
to mausoleum, 50

Philagath, Bishop Piacenza, rival of
Gregory V., 240; Calabrian Greek,
owing everything to Theophano
and son, 240; installed Pope, as
John XVI. See John XVI.

Philip, superior of monastery St,
Vitus, proclaimed Pope by Waldi-
pert, 77 ; conveyed back to monas-
tery by Gratiosus, 78

Photius, usurping Patriarch Con-
stantinople, 160; has enactments
of council burned, 165; personal
enemy of Pope Marinus I., 187;
turned out of patriarchal see, 194

Piacenza, Henry III. has interview
with Gregory VI. at, 254

Picingli, Nicholas, heads fleet, in Tyr-
rhenian Sea, against Saracens, 211

Pitra, Cardinal, on letter by Romanus
Lecapenus to John XI., 220

Ponthion, royal palace of, Pepin and
Stephen ITI. at, 35

Pontifical State, in time of Charle-
magne, 97—III

Pope, attempt to impose religious
regulations on, 4; election of by
Romans, at Rome, 14 (see Elec-
tion); prestige of owed to St.
Peter, 14, 17; Roman autonomy
to be under supervision of, 27 ;
‘* Apostolic Lord,’ ‘‘ Vicar of St.
Peter,” ‘‘High Priest of Roman
Sanctuaries,” ‘‘ Primate of Bishops
of Whole Church,” ‘‘ Doctor of the
Church Universal,” 27 ; not subject
to Duke of Rome, 27 ; Roman army
subject to, 62; head of “ ecclesia
Dei” and ‘‘respublica Romano-
rum,” 62; idea that all subjects of
should share in election of, 72;
new rules for election of, 80-1;
no ecclesiastical tribunal to judge,

804

115; question from whom holds
rights, 120; election of, according
to constitution Lothaire, 132-3;
election of subject to imperial con-
firmation, 132; lay participation
in election of, confirmed, 134;
choice of emperor, for first time,
under auspices of, 173; held
sovereignty, from time Gregory
VIL, as before, 270

Popes, of sixth, seventh, and eighth
centuries, relations of to Emperor
of Constantinople, 13-14; of
seventh century, have troubles
with Ravennese, 97-8 ; John XI.,
Leo VII., Stephen VIII., Marinus
II., and Agapitus II. exercised no
temporal authority, 216; of the
Empire, 234-252; German, 253-
269 ; French, 272; one English-
man, among, 272 ; often away from
Rome, 272

Popes, Anti-, Germany concerned in
election of, 268-9 ; Rome occupied
by, 270

Poppo, Bishop of Briscen, Damasus
II. See Damasus II.

Populonia (Piombino) conceded to
papal territory, 105

Porto, colony of Corsicans at, 146;
Radoald, Bishop of (see Radoald)

Possessor, Bishop, Frankish ambassa-
dor, 102

Poupardin, ‘‘ Le Royaume de Pro-
vence sous les Carolingiens,” 183
note

Prefectus navalis, 245

Preeneste, in possession of Theophy-
lact family, 243

Prefect of Rome, humiliating degra-
dation of, by John XIII., 235

Prenesto, George, Bishop of, confers
tonsure on Constantine, declared
Pope, 74 ; consecrates Constantine,
74; paralysed in right hand, 75 ;
death of, regarded as token divine
displeasure, 75

Presbyterz, wives of clergy, 66

Presbyteral churches, 68

Primicerii, rank of, 61

Primicerius, Christopher, 70-86

Primicerius of notaries, with chief
priest and archdeacon, makes up
governing triumvirate Roman
church, 63

Primiscrinius (or Protoscrinius) suc-
ceeds Primicerius, as head of
chancellor’s office, 64

Princeps, et omnium Romanorum,

_ senator, title of Alberic, 219

Prior vestiarii, at Lateran palace, 63

INDEX

Property, church, depredations in,
24, 66; pontifical revenues drawn
from landed, 66 ; arrangements for,
in Privilege of Otto, 229-30

Protoscrinius (or Primiscrinius) real
head of chancellor’s office, at La-
teran, 64

Provence, invaded by Saracens, 9;
Louis the Stammerer keeps, 183 ;
‘* Le Royaume de, sous les Carolin-
giens,” 183 note; Boson crowned
king of, 184 (see Boson) ; Louis the
Blind of, 190; King Louis of, rival
of Berengarius, 204; Louis of,
consecrated Emperor, 204 ; Beren-
garius compels Louis of, to retreat,
204; Louis of, wrests Verona, but
falls, through treachery, 205 ;
Theophylact at court of justice
held by Emperor Louis of, 205
note ; Berengarius proclaimed King
of, 218 ; Berengarius resisted in, by
Adelaide, 218

Q

Quinto, Tor di (St. Lucius), 153 note

R

Rabigaudus, Abbot, Frankish am-
bassador, endeavours to reconcile
Pope Hadrian I. and Duke Hilde-
prand, 102

Radelgiso, claimant to duchy Bene-
ventum, 138; envoys sent to, re-
garding expedition against Sara-
cens, 142

Radoald, Bishop of Porto, 153; did
not take customary part, in con-
secration Benedict III., 154;
ringleader in the Anastasius con-
spiracy, 156; now confidential
adviser, Pope Nicholas, 156;
treachery of, 156; expelled from
episcopate, 156; receives sentence
of deposition from Pope, 162

Ratchis, King, succeeds Luitprand,
Il; grants Pope’s desire for
twenty years’ peace, 12; abandons
siege of Perugia, 12; abdicates,
12; succeeded by Astolphus, 12

Ratchis, brother of preceding king,
Astolphus, claims Lombard throne,
47; a monk at Monte Cassino, 47 ;
Pope exhorts to return to monastic
life, 48; complies, and leaves field
to Desiderius, 48

Ravenna, Gothic Kings of, 1; en-

INDEX 805

gaged in struggle in mid-Italy, q ;
port of, Olassis, yields to Luit-
prand, 4; succumbs to Lombards,
7; receives different treatment
from that given Rome, 16; restitu-

Remedius, brother of Pepin, sent to
Italy, 55

Republic, the Holy, no mean thing to
be member of, 26

Respublica, unsuitable expression as

tion of, demanded by Stephen II.,
34; Astolphus forced to deliver up,
42; Pepin refuses to restore to im-
perial government, 45; name on
list of territories given to Holy See
(Stephen II.), 46; Archbishop of,
and Bishop of Reggio, consecrate
churches and oratories, 52; de-
signs of Constantine V. upon, 56;
George, chief secretary, plots with
Desiderius against, 58 ; Desiderius
meditates descent on, 89; leaders
of, conspicuous for greed, 97 ;
Pope’s intervention for, gladly re-

used in Chronicles, 38; sense in
which used by Didier, 45 note

Rex Francorum and Rex Langobar-

dorum, title used by Charlemagne,

40
Rheims, Bishop of, with other digni-

taries, tries Pope Constantine,
80; Stephen IV. crowns Louis the
Pious and Ermengarde at, 124;
Ebbo, Archbishop of, adherent of
Lothaire, 140; belonged to king-
dom, Charles the Bald, 140;
Foulques, Archbishop of, supports
Guy of Spoleto, 192

ceived, 98; people of, welcome
Pope Zachary, 98; decapitalisa-
tion of, 98 ; formerly residence of
Lombard kings, 98 ; Charlemagne
claims voice in election of Arch-
bishops of, 107

Ravenna, Archbishops of, Gerbert,
afterwards Sylvester II., 242 (see
Sylvester II.). John of, summoned
to appear before Roman Synod,
158 ; accused of heterodox views,
suspended, and excommunicated,
158; papal action against, 158-60.
John X., formerly of, 212-13.
Leo of, claims cities, as property
St. Apollinarius, 101 ; visit Charle-
magne, whom he treats falsely,
101-2. Michaelius of, appointed
by people, 100; Stephen III. re-
fuses to acknowledge, 100 ; eventu-
ally ousted, 101. Sergius of, ag-
gressive influence of, 99 ; appoints
officials, without reference to
Rome,99 ; summoned toRome, 99 ;
returns to Ravenna, 99 ; invested
with authority over Exarchy and
Pentapolis, 99 ; later, on good terms
with Pope, 100

Reggio, looks to Sicily for help, 3;
consecration of church and ora-
tories, by Bishop of, 52; Azzo and
Tebald popular in, 255-6

Régions de Rome, au moyen age
(Mélanges de I’Ecole de Rome), 60

Rialto, Venice beginning to rise on
island of, 4

Richard, Count of Aversa, applied to
by Hildebrand, 265; has posses-
sion of Capua, 265 ; presents him-
self before Nicholas II. at Council
Melfi, 267; invested with princi-
pality of Capua, 267

Richarde, wife of Charles the Fat,
imperial consecration of, 186

Rieti despoiled by Romans, for Trasi-
mund, 9 ; Abbey of St. Saviour at,
68; Christopher and Sergius retire
to Abbey at, 75-6; possibility of
Popedom for John, Bishop of, 149

Riguier, St., Angilbert, Abbot of, sent
to Rome by Charlemagne, 109

Robert, the Strong, 190

Robert Guiscard, Norman chief, 267

Rofred, Count, instigates revolt
against John XIII., 235 ; killed in
reaction following revolt, 235 ;
body exhumed and thrown into
public sewer, 235-6

Roger, Norman King, 20

Romans establish Italian unity, 1 ;
undertake to subjugate Spoleto, 9

Rome, Duchy of, 13-20; extent of
Duchy of, 15; Duchy of a self-
governing state, 20 ; Bishop of has
exceptional position, 13; election
of Pope at, 14; treated very differ-
ently from Ravenna, 17 ; people of
called “peculiaris populis,” 18
reconciled with Byzantine Church,
20 note; sort of protectorate created
at, 22; Astolphus levies poll-tax
on people of, 22; copy of treaty,
broken by Astolphus, fastened to
stational cross at, 23 ; even as part
of Lombard kingdom would have
been Holy City, 25; no wish for

U

note
Reiti, limits of Papal State on side of,

104

Relic of body of St. Sylvester taken
from Rome to Nonantola, 53 ; ques-
tion of authenticity of, 53

Relics, frequent thefts of in eighth
century, 24

306

Lombard rule in, 25; position of
Duke of, 27; leave-taking of
Stephen II. at, before journey to
France, 33; no mention of Duke
of, after 754, 40; Stephen II. wel-
comed back in, 43; attacked by
Astolphus, 43-4 ; set free, by Pepin,
44; treaty of, 96 note; Charle-
magne convenes assembly at, 114 ;
Charlemagne crowned at, 116 ; new
empire of, 116-119; Saracens at,
136-143; fortifications of, 145 ;
Saracen captives work on fortifica-
tions of, 146; walls of restored,
146; Byzantine party in, 148; pro-
cession in, attacked by followers
Emperor Louis, 161; councils on
imperial succession in, 172; gates
of, opened to Otto I., 227; Em-
perors, of ninth and eleventh cen-
turies, regarded as monarchs of,
248 ; occupied by anti-popes, 270

Romanus, brother of Benedict VIII.,
assumes temporal government, 247

Romanus, Exarch, 2, 13

Romanus Lecapenus, Emperor in Con-
stantinople. See Lecapenus.

Romanus, Pope for four months, 201

Romuald, St., Otto III. visits, 242

Roselle (Grosseto) conceded to papal
territory, 105

Rossi, De, Bullettino, 49 note

Rotard, Duke, ambassador from Pepin
to Stephen II., 35

Rotgaud, Duke of Friuli, sets up
standard, 102 ; falls in battle, 102

Rotharis annexes territory in seventh
century, 3

Rotrude, daughter of Charlemagne,
103; proposed alliance of, with
Emperor Constantine, 103-4

Rouen, Remedius, Bishop of (Pepin’s
brother), despatched to Italy, 55

Rudolph, son of Conrad of Auxerre,

190

Rudolph II., king of transjuran Bur-
gundy, fights against Emperor
Berengarius, 213

8

Sabanum (baptismal cloth) of Pepin’s
daughter, Giséle, 50

Sabina, taking of, 15 note; papal
state, increased on side of, 104;
mentioned in compact of Louis
the Pious and Pope Pascal, 125 ;
Saracen establishment at, 210;
in the country of the Crescentii,
251

INDEX

Saccellarius (paymaster - general) at
Lateran, 64

Sacramentum Romanorum, Privilege
of Otto, reproduction of, 228

Saddle Cloths, tonsure gives right to
decorate horses with white, 65

Salaria, gate of, Rome, troops of
Astolphus before, 43.

Salerno, taken by duchy Beneventum,
3; Emperor Louis resumes cam-
paign against Saracens, near, 166 ;
petty prince of, enters into treaty
with Saracens, 176; John VIII.
gains partial success at, 177 ; Dukes
of Spoleto intervene in concerns of,
191; Prince of, takes Norman
colonies under feudal responsi-
bility, 256; owes prosperity to
Norman establishment, 256 ; Nor-
mans of Melfi and Aversa subject
to, 256

Salic law, Romans to be~judged by,
if desired, 131

Salzburg, Arn, Archbishop of, re-
marks discord in Rome, 112;
charged to see Leo III. reinstated,
113; correspondence of, with
Alcuin, 114

Saracens, the, at Rome, 136-143;
begin to create disturbances, 137 ;
Spanish, under command Ommiad,
Caliph of Cordova, 137; of ancient
Mauritania, governed by Edrisite
dynasty, 137; of Numidia, under
Aglabites, 137; land at mouth of
Tiber, 141; unable to follow up
successes, 141 ; re-embark, and are
engulfed in Sicilian Sea, 141;
banished for the time from Italy,
143 ; reappear at mouth of Tiber,
145 ; vessels of, wrecked on Roman
coast, 146 ; captives from wrecked
crews, work on fortifications, 146 ;
are formidable foes, 175; ejected
from Bari, by Emperor Louis, 175 ;
fall back on coast Tyrrhenian Sea,
175; have treaties with Amalfi,
Gaeta, Salerno, and Capua, 176;
exploits of John VIII. against, 176 ;
reappear in neighbourhood Rome,
177; ravage Roman state, 187 ;
Christian allies of, 187 ; renewal of
strength of, 210; great question of
day, expulsion of, 210 ; defeated at
Baccano and Trevi, 211 ; utter de-
feat of, 212; Benedict VIII. leads
naval expedition against, 247 ;
make raids on coasts Byzantine
Calabria, 256

Sardinia defended by Sicilian Patri-
cian, 137; account of, in Carlo-

INDEX

vingian times, by M. A. Dove, 137
note

Saxons-Anglo, in schole of suburbs
of St. Peter’s, 60; family, ruling
power in Rome, 230

Schola Cantorum, seminary for priests,

5

Schola Grecorum, Greek section,
Roman population, 60

Scriniarii, clerks of chancellor’s
office in Lateran, 63

Secundicerius of notaries, 63, 64

Sedi episcopali, nell’ antico ducato di
Roma, Le, 65 note

See, Holy, the. See Papacy

Sees, Episcopal, often unworthily
occupied, 275 note

Senate of Church, species of, formed
by Cardinal priests, 62

Senator of Rome, Theophylact, 205

Sergius II. ejects claimant, John,
from papal residence, 138 ; member
of same family as Stephen IV. and
Hadrian IJ., 138; receives King
Louis, son of Lothaire, and a great
following, 139; appoints Bishop
Drogo apostolic vicar, 139 ; anoints
Louis, 139 ; reign of, one of simony,
140 ; gives bishopric of Albano to
brother, rustic, vicious boor, 140;
evils caused by reign of, 140;
death of, 144; interred in dese-
crated basilica, 144

Sergius III., elected at same time as
John IX., 202; was supporter
Stephen VI., 202; returns, after
exile, supported by “ the Franks,”
206; sends Pope Christopher to
prison, 206; revives tradition of
Stephen VI., 206; had received
episcopal ordination from Formo-
sus, 206; calls Formosus “ haughty
and intrusive,” 206 ; summons con-
vocation to annul ordinations of
Formosus, 206-7; forbids Bishop
of Uzés to call Formosus “ sacer-
dos,” 207; calls John IX. and
successors ‘‘ravening wolves,”
207 ; consternation caused by con-
demnation of ordinations by,
207; has son by Marozia, after-
wards John IX., 209; a spiteful,
brutal scoundrel, 209; death of,
209 ; showed generosity in renewal
Lateran basilica, 209

Sergius IV. (Buccaporca), son of
Roman bootmaker, 245

Sergius (son of Christopher primi-
cerius) the secundicerius, 75; to
retire to religious life, 75-6 ; eludes
vigilance of Abbot of St. Saviour’s,

307

Rieti, 76; Duke of Spoleto puts
army at disposal of, 76; sets out
at head of army, with Waldipert,
Lombard ambassador, 76 ; delegate
to Pepin, 79; on arrival of, in
France, finds that Pepin is dead,
79; presents himself to Charles
and Carloman, 79; urges princes
to repair breach of canon law, in
election of Constantine, 79; with
Christopher, wielder of papal
authority, 81; gives Desiderius
cause of complaint, 81; news of
pilgrimage to Rome of Desiderius,
arouse suspicions of, 82 ; betrayed,
84; commits himself to enemy, 84 ;
left by Pope, in St. Peter’s, 84 ;
dragged from sanctuary, 84; eyes
torn out, 84; cast into prison, 84 ;
death of, 84

Sergius, Archbishop of Ravenna, See
Ravenna, Archbishop of

Sergius, Duke of Naples, Czsar, son
of, commands squadrons against
Saracens, 145

Sergius, master of militia, escapes
from Rome, 178

Sicco, Count, ejects Boniface VII.,
236

Sicily, Otranto, Gallipoli, and Reggio
look to for help, 3 ; valuable church
property in, 4; property of Holy
See in seized, 7; Bishops of sent
to Constantinople, 7 ; Naples relies
for support on Patrician of, 20;
Byzantines retain patrimonies of,
20 note; ancient patrimonies of
yield no income, 66 ; falling under
sway of Mussulmans, 137 ; struggle
of against Saracens, 148

Sickel, M. de, official investigation
by, of Privilege of Otto, 226 note

Siconulf claims Duchy of Beneven-
tum, 138; envoys visit regarding
expedition against Saracens, 142-3

Simony under Sergius II., 140 ; under
John XII., 224; condemned at
Council of Pavia, 254 f

Soana included in papal territory,
104

Societies, Benevolent, in eighth cen-
tury, 67

Sophia, St., presence of papal ambas-
sadors in, breach ecclesiastical law,
220

Sora yields to Luitprand, 4

Soracte, Mt., connected with legend
St. Sylvester, 51 ; monastic colonies
on, 51; convent of annexed to
monastery in Via Lata, 51-2;
monk of, comments on Marozia,

308 INDEX

214; and on decline of Rome,
235
Sorrento holds out against Lombards,

3

Spanish Saracens subject to Caliph
of Cordova, 137

Spoleto, Duke of, increases posses-
sions, 4 ; Lombards of, not harmo-
nious with those of kingdom, 5;
self-government of, 6; Trasimund,
Duke of, assumes independence, 8 ;
expelled by King Luitprand, 8;
Romans subjugate Duchy of, for
Trasimund, 9; right of Astolphus
to Duchy of, 37; inhabitants of
approach Stephen II., 47; Desi-
derius takes prisoner Alboni, Duke
of, 55; Duke of, puts army at dis-
posal of Sergius, son of Christopher,
76; Duke of, stirred up by Desi-
derius to lay waste Roman Duchy,
91; Charlemagne bestows legal
rights on Hildeprand, Duke of, 94 ;
Duke Hildeprand, of, elected by
subjects, 94 ; Hildeprand, of, as-
sumes independence, 102 ; Frank-
ish ambassadors try to reconcile
to Pope, 102; Duke of vanquishes
Patrician of Sicily, 105 ; Duchy of
outside papal state, 106 ; Leo III.
conducted to, on escape, 113;
Winigis, Duke of, disperses rebels
against Pope Leo, 123; Duke of,
attacks Saracens, 141; transfer of
Duchy of, mentioned in the Libellus,
174; Charles the Bald appoints
Duke of, 174; Lambert, Duke of,
and Guy, to assist John VIILI.,
177; Lambert, Duke of, perse-
cutes, rather than helps, Pope,
180; Lambert of, insists on enier-
ing Leonine city, 181; Lambert
of, obliged to retire, 181; Duke
of, takes place of Charles the Fat,
185; Empire of, 190-203; Guy
of, enemy of John VIII., 191 (see
Guy) ; Dukes of, desire mastery of
neighbours’ concerns, 191; Dukes
of, protect ‘or oppress Pope, 191 ;
no understanding between princes
of, and Holy See, 193; House of,
has imperial title as well as Italian
kingship, 195; Emperor Guy of,
succeeded by Lambert (see Lam-
bert); Marquess Alberic of, acts
with Romans against Saracens, 211

State, Roman, protector necessary .

for, 273

Stephen, Patrician and Duke, gov-
erns Rome in absence of Pope
Zachary, 11

Stephen, Priest, sent by Pope to

exhort Ratchis, 48

Stephen, St., and St. Sylvester, Paul

I. names monastic foundation after,

51
Stephen, St., a third-century Pope, 51
Stephen II., Pope, negotiates with

Astolphus, 18 ; brings about peace,
21; deputes brother, Paul, to sup-
port the Silentiary with Astolphus,
22; is told of non-success of errand,
22-3; prolific in prayers, litanies,
and exhortations, 23; desires es-
cape from Lombards, 26; nego-
tiates with Frankish king, 32;
starts, with escort, for France, 33;
acts as subject of emperor, 34;
enters France, 34-5 ; is met by two
ambassadors at Abbey St. Maurice,
35; received ceremoniously by
Pepin at Ponthion, 35; account
in Moissac Chronicle, of meeting
with Pepin, 36; guest of Pepin
at Abbey St. Denis, 40; falls ill,
but recovers, 41; recovery of, attri-
buted to St. Denis, 41; makes
fruitless appeal to Astolphus, 42;
distrusts terms made with Pepin,
by Astolphus, when defeated, 42-3 ;
wishes Pepin to insist on restora-
tion of provinces, 42-3; sends
i, three letters—one supposed
to be by St. Peter, 44; sends depu-
tation to new king, Desiderius, 47 ;
delighted with result of deputation,
47; regards himself sovereign dis-
poser of Italy, 47; death of, 49;
had prevented Pepin sending away
Bertrade and marrying daughter
to son of Constantine Copronymus,
168 note

Stephen III., Pope, native of Sicily,

priest of St. Cecilia, 78; selected
by Christopher (primicerius), 78;
takes possession of Lateran, 78;
episcopal consecration of, 78;
grows weary of Christopher’s super-
vision, 82; Desiderius desires to
confer with, 82; neglects Desi-
derius in Rome, and causes bitter
contest, 83; writes to Queen Ber-
trade and Charlemagne, 83 note;
leaves Christopher and Sergius to
their fate, 84; realises that he is
dupe of Desiderius, 85; relieved
by death of Carloman, 85; death
of, 85; had refused to acknow-
ledge Michaelius, Archbishop Ra-
venna, 100; had been interested in
reconciliation of Charlemagne to
Carloman, 167 note

INDEX

Stephen IV., election and consecra-
tion of, 124; crowns Louis and
. Ermengarde at Rheims, 124 ; death
of, 125
Stephen V., election of, 189; crafty
policy of, 194; does not openly
thwart Guy of Spoleto, 194; writes
of Guy as his only son, but appeals
for help to Arnulph, 194; conse-
crates Guy, Emperor, at St. Peter’s,

195

Stephen VI., Bishop of Anagni, 198 ;
orders ghastly mock trial of dead
Pope Formosus, 199; had been
consecrated Bishop of Anagni, by
Formosus, 200; cast out of Holy
See, 200; imprisoned and stran-
gled, 201

Stephen VII., tool of Marozia, 215

Stephen VIII., 216; exercises no
temporal authority, 216

Stephen IX., Cardinal Frederic of
Lorraine, 260; election of, infrac-
tion of agreement of 1046, 260;
sets out for Tuscany, 261; takes
oath of clergy and faithful not to
appoint future Pope, without
Hildebrand, 261; dies from poison
in Tuscany, 261

Stephen, the sacellarius, 89

Stephen, the secundecerius, escapes
from Rome, 178

Stratores (equerries), of Lateran, 63

Subiaco, Abbey of, made great estab-
lishment by Alberic, 221; docu-
ment issued to monks of, by John
XII., 224

Succession to imperial crown, ques-
tion of, 172; councils concerning,

172

Suidger, Bishop of Bamberg. See
Clement II.

Superista of Lateran palace, 63

Susa, garrisoned valley of, reinforced
against Lombards, 42

Sutri yields to Luitprand, 4; position
of, in Roman duchy, 15; restored
by Lombard king, as gift to apostles
Peter and Paul, 17; conclave at,
deposes Benedict X., and recog-
nises Nicholas II., 262

Swabia, Charles the Fat, of (see
Charles the Fat); Charles the
Great, of, 183

Sylvester, St., imposing legend of,
51; Mount Soracte, topographical
feature of legend of, 51; remains
of, brought to monastery Saints
Stephen and Sylvester, 51; body
of taken from Rome, by Abbot
Anselm, 52-3

309

Sylvester II. (Gerbert), succeeds
Gregory V., 240; appointed by
Otto III., 242; had been Arch-
bishop of Ravenna, 242; deplores
absence of Otto IIT., 242-3; urges
rebels of Tivoli to submit, 243;
escapes to Ravenna with Otto III.,
243-4; dies in Rome, 244; ap-
pointment of, had not been enthu-
siastically received, 255

Sylvester IIT. (John, Bishop of Sa-
bina), election of, 250-1; electors
of, heavily bribed, 251 ; returns to
bishopric, and Benedict IX. re-
established, 251; re-elected, in
1044, 251; deposed, 254; em-
braces religious career, 254

Symbolism in worship, different
views of, 56

Symmachus, Pope, dedicates mau-
soleum to St. Andrew, 50

Syrian monks in Rome, 68

bi

Tangmar, Life of Bishop Bernard of
Hildesheim, 243 note

Tarento, gives way before general of
Emperor Basil, 175

Tedald, son of Azzo, of Tuscany, 255 ;
faithful adherent of House of
Saxony, 256; popular in North
Italy, 256

Temporal power, strife about, affects
spiritual, 264; difficulties con-
nected with, 271; originated in
repugnance of Romans to become
Lombards, 273

Terni, interview of Luitprand and
Pope Zachary at, 11; Peace of, 16;
no military representatives accom-
pany Pope to, 18

Terracina, frontier line of Roman
Duchy, turns off to, 15; no longer
part of Papal State, 104; protec-
tion of coast between Luni and,

137
Thsodoctns, Duke of Spoleto, Spole-
tans declare allegiance to Pope
during absence of, 93-4
Theodore, Bishop, revolting cruelty

to,7
Theodore II., Pope for twenty days,
201; has body Pope Formosus re-
buried in atrium, St. Peter’s, 201 ;
restores deposed clerks, 201
Theodoric, prosperous reign of, 1
Theodotus, uncle and guardian of
Hadrain I., 87
Theophano, widow of Otto II., 237;

310

hastens to Germany, 237; reap-
pears at Rome, and comports
herself as sovereign, 239

Theophylact, Archdeacon, a section
desire as Pope when Paul I.
appointed, 49

Theophylact, Cardinal, 245

Theophylact, sen of Count Alberic,
249; made Pope (Benedict IX.) at
twelve years old, 249

Theophylact, House of, 204-16;
Papal vestararius, 205 ; Theodora,
wife of, 205; Marozia and Theo-
dora, daughters of, 205; Duke and
magister militum, 205; the Consul,
and the Senator of Rome, 205;
called, by Vulgarius, dominus
urbis, 205 note; Eugenius Vul-
garius writes to the vestararissa
Theodora, wife of, 209; letter of
Vulgarius shows power and in-
fluence of, 209; Sergius III. has
son by Marozia, daughter of, 209 ;
makes common cause with Pope,
209 ; is virtual temporal ruler under
Anastasius III. and Laudo, 210;
relations of Theodora, wife of,
with John X., 210; commands
contingent against Saracens, 211;
bestows hand of daughter Marozia
on Marquess Alberic, 212; Marozia,
daughter of, afterwards marries
Guy, Marquess of Tuscany, 214;
power, for many generations, in
family of, 216; estates possessed
by branches of family of, 243; for
a century and a half family of
direct pontifical destinies, 274

Theutgard, Archbishop, leader of
Lorraine clergy, 160; deposed by
Nicholas I., 160; favoured by
Hadrian II., 162; Arsenius pro-
mises reinstatement of, 162

Tiberius (or Petasius), rival of Leo
“39 Isaurian, killed at Monterano,

Tiberius II., Emperor, attitude of
towards Romans, 23-4

Tibur included in compact of Louis
the Pious and Pascal I., 125; pre-
servation of municipal institutions
of ancient, 243

Tilsur, Roman town of, 15

Tivoli, summons sent to John XII.
at, 227; prosperity and importance
of, 243; loathed by Romans, 243 ;
inhabitants of rebel against im-
perial authority, 243 ; lives of in-
habitants of, at emperor’s mercy,
spared, 243

Tlemcen, Edrisite dynasty at, 137

INDEX

Tonsure, received at outset educa-
tional course, 65 ; gives privilege
of decorating horses with white
saddle-cloths, 65

Toto, Duke (Theodore), plots to hasten
Pope’s death, 73 ; summons troops
of Roman Tuscia, 73; proclaims
brother, Constantine, Pope, 73;
death of, through treachery, 77

Tours, Bishop of, with other digni-
taries, tries Pope Constantine, 80

Trasimund, Duke of Spoleto, expelled
by Luitprand, 8; takes refuge in
Rome, 8; restored by Romans, 9;
Romans, in vain, demand towns
from, 10; surrenders to Luit-
prand, 11; negotiates with Rome
rather than Exarch, 16

Trastevere, pontifical party maintain
their own in, 250

Trasteverans, section of Roman popu-
lation, 60; unsuccessfully attacked
by rebels, 250

Trebbia, Guy of Spoleto gains victory
at, 192

Treves, Archbishop of, deposed by
Nicholas I., 160

Trevi, defeat of Saracens at, 211

Trial, mock, of Pope Formosus after
death, 199

Tribus Fatis, ancient Forum, 78;
Christopher, primicerius, assembles
clergy and lay aristocracy in, 78

Triclinium, at Lateran, suggestive
mosaic in, I11; inquiry in, on
attack on Leo ITI., 114

Trinity, the Holy, strange mention
of, 59 note

Triumvirate, a—primicerius, chief
priest, and archdeacon, 63

Troyes, Council of, summoned by
John VIII., 182; Bishop of, ab-
solved from oath by Marinus I.,
188

Tuscany, Northern, Lombard Italy
subject to, 3; Adelbert, Marquess
of, persecutes John VIII., 180;
insists on entry into Leonine city,
181; keeps Pope prisoner, 181 ;
obliged to retire, 181; Boniface,
Marquess of, re-establishes Bene-
dict IX., 255; House of, founded
by Azzo, 255; Countess Matilda,
daughter of Boniface, 256

Tuscia, Lombard (now Tuscany), 15 ;
ancient, called Roman, 15

Tusculum, on Monte Albano, in
possession of family of Theophy-
lact, 243 ; loathed by Romans, 243 ;
Counts of, oppose Crescentii, 245 ;
Theophylact, son of Count of, and

INDEX

Henry II., 246; power of papacy
vested in nobles of, 247; like the
Crescentii, nobles of, in position
permanent missi, 247; family of,
govern, in absence of emperor,
248; Gerard, Count of Galeria,
leads vassals of, 250; House of,
disposed of, 253; Counts of, had
chosen Romans as Popes, 255

U

Umana, Desiderius promises to re-
store to Roman Republic, 47;
named in compact between Louis
the Pious and Pascal I., 125

Unity of Italy first established by
Romans, I ; mortal blow to, 2

Urban II. lives and dies away from
Rome, 270

Uzés, Amelius, Bishop of, forbidden
to call Formosus sacerdos, 207

Vv

Valentine, short pontificate of, 133

Vatican, assemblies held in, when
emperor present, 219

Velletri, Gaudy, Bishop of, invites
Charles the Bald for imperial coro-
nation, 173; John, “the Thin,”
Bishop of, installed Pope, as Bene-
dict X., 261-2

Veneration of images, Convocation
of 769 ratifies, 81

Venetian lagoons, Byzantine auto-
nomy organised in, 3, 12

Venice, local autonomy organised in,
20; patriarch of, subject to Doge,
27; position of Greek empire
strengthened at, 175

Verdun, treaty of, sanctions disloca-
tion Frankish kingdom, 136

Vestariarius (or prior vestiarii) guar-
dian of stores at Lateran, 63;
importance of office of, 205 ; Theo-
phylact, the, 205

Via Lata, paternal house of Pope
Paul in, made monastery, 49, 51;
monastery of, memorial of founda-
tion of Roman State, 52

Victor II., Gebhardt, Bishop of Hich-
stidt, 255; succeeds Leo IX., 259 ;
makes arrangements regardingTus-
cany, 259; goes to Germany, 259 ;
charged by Henry III. to arrest
Cardinal Frederic of Lorraine, 259 ;

811

grief of, at death Henry III., 259;
sees need for good terms with
House of Tuscany, 260; appoints
Cardinal Frederic Cardinal-priest
and Abbot Monte Cassino, 260;
Hildebrand united with, 260 ; death
of, at Arezzo, 260

Vidame of Lateran palace
dominus), 63

Vienne, Boson, Count of, 182

Vincent, St., of Vulturno, sent by
Pope to Astolphus, 22

Vitalian, Pope, receives Constantine
II. with great pomp in Rome, 94
note

Viterbo included in papal territory,
104

Vitus, St., Lombard Pope, Philip,
taken back to monastery of, 77-8

Vulgarius, Eugenius, polemical writ-
ings of, 207; a grammarian and
professor, 208 note; Diimmler dis-
covers authorship by, of work attri-
buted to Auxilius, 208 note

(vice

WwW

Waast, St., Abbot of, envoy of Em-
peror Louis, 128

Wala, adviser of Emperor Lothaire,
129 ; Lothaire goes to Rome, under
escort of, 130

Waldipert, Lombard priest, accom-
panies Sergius, the seewndicerius,
to Rome, 76; troops of, pass
through city of Rome, 76; pro-
claims Pope, Philip, superior of
monastery St. Vitus, 77; cruel
treatment of, 79; vainly seeks
refuge behind image at Sta Maria
Maggiore, 79

Walls of Rome restored, 146

Warneharius, Abbot, ambassador
from Stephen II. to Pepin, 44;
takes part in Roman defence,
wearing armour over habit, 44;
well known as fighting monk, 53

Watterich, 265 note

Wilchar, Bishop of Noventum, takes
letter of Stephen II. to Pepin, 43;
goes, as Bishop of Sens (bearing
title Archbishop of the Gauls), to
Rome, 79

Willa, wife of Berengarius II., takes
refuge in fortress in Apennines, 225

Winigis, Duke of Spoleto, conducts
Leo III. to Spoleto, 113

Wirundis, Frankish missus, conducts
Leo III, to Spoleto, 113

312

Wives. of superior clergy (married
during time of lesser orders), 65 ;
not sequestered in cloisters, 65;
become diacone, presbytere, or
episcope, 66; kind of consecration
ceremony of, 66

Worms, Bishop of, with other digni-
taries, tries Pope Constantine, 80 ;
question of papal elections not
considered at Peace of, 269

Wiirzburg, Bishop of, with other dig-
nitaries, tries Pope Constantine, 80

x
Xenodochia (hospital), 67

»'§

Yoke of Roman servitude (jugum
Romanorum servitutis), resented in
Ravenna, 97, 98

INDEX

Z

Zachary, Pope, election of, 10; comes
to terms with Luitprand, 10, 11;
peaceful tactics of, prevail, 11;
death of Luitprand attributed to
prayers of, 11; finds Astolphus less

“ amenable than Luitprand and
Ratchis, 12; ambition of, over-
leaps itself, 12; had settled ques-
tion, with Luitprand, of restoration
of four towns, 17-18 ; sends envoys
to Constantine V., 19; death of, in
752, 20; documentary evidence
concerning, 28; significant remark
of biographer of, 28 ; relations of,
with Pepin and Carloman, 31;
presented monastery on Monte
Soracte to Carloman, 51; was
welcomed by Ravennese, 98; John
XII. afterwards in same position
as, 223

Zwentibald, Duke of Moravians,
medium between Stephen VY. and
Arnulph, 194-5

THE END

Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co.
Edinburgh & London

9

one
ey eras

1 DEPT. DEC1L9 1987

wihG

Pas O28 z
‘ :

He
Che we

.

4

versity of Toronto
Library

Acme Library Card Pocket

LOWE-MARTIN CO.

| “‘ALVG

JO “AquStetsA08""

*sodog

TSTATIO Shit StHoy *suseySHG toMy

rar ee oT
Sn nD eee

as

eo
EE geo;

eae =

Sore SS
MEX
AS ores en 5 si

ees

se

ig a ae Sg SH