Italy suppose it subsequent to that title, and rest it on a different ground.1

66. The King of France, as Patrician of the Romans, had not the Sovereignty of Rome.

From these observations we infer, that the title of patrician of the Romans, however honourable it undoubtedly was to Pepin and to Charlemagne, did not of itself invest them with any sovereignty, properly so called, over Rome and the exarchate, but solely made it their right and their duty to protect the Holy See against its enemies, and to regulate, in concert with the pope, all that regarded public order and tranquillity in his states. This consequence, which naturally follows from the facts already stated, is moreover confirmed by the manner in which the ancient authors usually speak of the patrician dignity of Pepin and of Charlemagne. The popes, the senate, and the people of Rome, and the king of France himself, far from attaching to that title the sovereignty of Rome, regarded it merely as synonymous with patrician and defender of the Roman Church. The popes Paul I. and Adrian I., who themselves assumed the sovereignty of Rome and of the exarchate, style the king of France, indiscriminately, sometimes Patrician of the Romans, sometimes tutor, defender, or liberator of the Roman Church and of the people. The Roman senate and people also use those expressions as synonymous in a letter to Pepin during the pontificate of Paul I. Charlemagne had the same notion of the powers of the patrician; and it is very remarkable that in his letters and public acts he assumes indiscriminately the title of patrician and of defender of the Church, sometimes combining both titles; sometimes omitting patrician, and taking only that of defender, and always placing those titles after that of king of France and of the Lombards. Is it credible that he would have constantly

See the authors cited above, p. 246, note 2.

2 See principally, on this point, Alamanni, De Lateranensibus Parietinis, cap. ii.; Pagi, Critica, ann. 740, n. 8; ann. 796, n. 3, &c.; Orsi, Del Dominio, &c. cap. viii. p. 126, &c.; Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. tom. i. pp. 294, 296; De Maistre, Du Pape, book ii. ch. vi. p. 257.

Cod. Carol. Ep. 13, 17, 18, 30, 83, 93 (Cenni, Monumenta, tom. i. pp. 136, 150, 153, 189, 460, 500, et alibi passim).

4 Cod. Carol. Ep. 15 (alias 36) (Cenni, ibid. pp. 142, 144).

5 Caroli Magni Epist. ad Offam Regem ; ad Fastradam Reginam; ad Angil

used such a style had he regarded the sovereignty of Rome as annexed to his title of patrician of the Romans?

His letter to Pope Leo III., in 790, congratulating him on his accession to the papal throne, and soliciting a confirmation of his title as patrician of the Romans, is a decisive corroboration of these observations. "We send to thee," he says, "Angilbert our secretary, to whom we have given our instructions, that you may arrange between you all that you think necessary for the exaltation of the holy Church, for the support of your dignity, and the confirmation of our title of patrician. For as we maintained an alliance with your predecessor of happy memory, we desire to contract one as inviolable with your beatitude, that with the grace of God, and by the prayers of the saints, your holiness's apostolic benediction may ever accompany me, and that, with God's help, I may always defend zealously the Holy See of the Roman Church." It certainly is exceedingly difficult to reconcile this letter with the opinion of modern authors, who attribute to the king of France, as patrician of the Romans, the sovereignty of Rome at that time. Far from assuming to himself that sovereignty, Charlemagne clearly recognises the pope as the true sovereign of Rome, both by applying to him for a confirmation of the dignity of patrician of the Romans, and by declaring expressly that the sole motive of that application was to contract an alliance with him, whereby he might efficaciously defend the Holy See against its enemies.

1

bertum; ad Leonem III. etc. (Baluzii Capitularia, tom. i. pp. 194, 255, 271, 272. Labbe, Concil. tom. vii. p. 1128, &c.). Ejusdem Capitularia, annorum 769, 789, &c. (Baluz. ibid. tom. i. pp. 190, 210).

"Ad dilectionis pacificam unitatem, Angilbertum, manualem nostræ familiaritatis, Vestræ direximus Sanctitati, ... illique omnia injunximus, quæ vel nobis voluntaria, vel vobis necessaria esse videbantur; ut ex collatione mutuâ conferatis quidquid ad exaltationem sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ, vel ad stabilitatem honoris vestri, vel patriciatûs nostri firmitatem necessarium intelligeretis. Sicut enim cum prædecessore Vestræ sanctæ Paternitatis pactum inii, sic cum Beatitudine Vestrâ ejusdem fidei et caritatis inviolabile fœdus statuere desidero; quatenus apostolicæ Sanctitatis Vestræ, divinâ donante gratiâ, sanctorum advocata precibus me ubique apostolica benedictio consequatur, et sanctissima Romanæ Ecclesiæ sedes, Deo donante, nostra semper devotione defendatur."-Car. Mag. Epist. 1 ad Leonem III. (Labbe, Concil. tom. vii. p. 1128. Baluzii Capitularia, tom. i. p. 271). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlv. n. 5.

67. The Pope's Sovereignty as absolute in the Duchy of Rome as in the Exarchate.

To explain more fully the nature and extent of the pope's temporal sovereignty at this period, one important reflection must not be omitted. This sovereignty, some modern authors pretend, was less absolute in the duchy of Rome than in the exarchate; that in the duchy of Rome being limited by the powers of the Roman senate and people; while there was no such restriction in the other provinces subject to the Holy See. This difference arose, according to these authors, from the different titles of the Holy See to sovereignty in these provinces. In the duchy of Rome it was founded exclusively, they say, on the free choice of the Roman senate and people, who, in their submission to the pope, did not renounce, however, the exercise of those rights which they had constantly enjoyed under the emperors; whereas, in the exarchate, the sovereignty of the Holy See was not founded on the free choice of the people alone, but also on the liberality of the king of France, who recovered those provinces from the Lombards, and ceded them absolutely and unreservedly to the Holy See.1

We can discover nothing in history to justify this explanation; on the contrary, we find reasons for believing that the sovereignty of the Holy See was not less absolute in the duchy of Rome than in the exarchate. In both it was founded on the free choice of the people, who, in the abandoned state to which they had been reduced, placed all their interests in the hands of the pope, and intrusted to him all that authority which the emperors of Constantinople had formerly exercised over them through his representatives. The legitimacy of this title had been recognised by Pepin and Charlemagne themselves, by restoring to the Holy See the cities and provinces which had been wrested from it by the Lombards.

68. The Roman Senate and People had no Share in this Sovereignty. But can it be said that the Roman senate and people, by submitting to the authority of the pope, had not renounced the exercise of those rights which they had constantly enjoyed under

Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. tom. ii. p. 108. 2 See supra, n. 63, 65.

the emperors? This objection supposes that the Roman senate and people had retained down to this period their ancient rights in the government of the state. But it is certain, on the contrary, and generally admitted, that by the successive increase of the imperial power they had long since been deprived of those rights. The Roman senate, especially from the time of Constantine, was no more than a municipal institution, venerable, no doubt, from the associations of its character, but possessed of no jurisdiction outside the city walls, and without any political authority. Its municipal rights were, it is true, in existence at the time when Italy renounced its allegiance to the emperor of Constantinople; and there are good reasons for believing that the municipal regime survived long after that epoch in Rome, as well as in many other Italian cities; but this municipal government, which existed in the principal cities of the exarchate, as well as in those of the duchy of Rome, was limited to matters relating to the interests and public order of each city; and it in no respect diminished the rights of the sovereign in the government of the state.

V.-From Charlemagne's election to the empire, the pope continued to enjoy exclusive sovereignty, properly so called, in the duchy of Rome (and of course in the exarchate), as well during the Carloringian as during the German dynasty of emperors.

1 Cenni, ubi supra.

Mæhler, Manuel d'Hist. du Moyen Age, ch. i. § 3. Naudet, Des Changements opérés dans l'Administration de l'Empire sous Dioclétien et Constantin, vol. i. p. 289, &c.; vol. ii. ch. vii. Muratori, Chorogr. Medii Ævi, § 20 (Rerum. Ital. Script. tom. x.).

3 We know that under the Roman emperors most of the cities in Italy were communes, or republics, having a kind of municipal government under the "altum dominium," or administration of the emperor. These republics had their own senate and magistrates, elected by themselves; and their own councils and laws, for matters connected with the order and interests of each city. (Godefroy, Cod. Theod. lib. xii. Præamb. in tit. i.; Comment. in tit. ii. n. 1, tom. iv. p. 289, &c. Muratori, Antiquit. Ital. Med. Ævi, Dissert. xviii. tom. i. p. 981. Naudet, ubi supra, vol. i. p. 49, &c.; vol. ii. p. 101, &c. Mohler, ubi supra, p. 49. Guizot, Essais sur l'Hist. de France, essay i.) This order of things continued to exist under the Christian emperors; and traces of it remained under the Gothic kings, and even under the Lombards and Franks. (Muratori, ubi supra, pp. 982, 1007, &c.)

• Muratori, Antiquit. Ital. Medii Ævi, Dissert. 18, 45, tom. i. iii.

5 I say, "of course in the exarchate," because, independently of those arguments which demonstrate equally the pope's sovereignty in both those pro

69. Fifth Proposition-From Charlemagne's Elevation to the Empire the Pope retains the Sovereignty of Rome and of the Exarchate.

If we examine attentively the course of events relating to the temporal power of the pope subsequent to Charlemagne's elevation to the empire, we shall find that, by that great revolution, the sovereignty previously enjoyed by the pope in the duchy of Rome and in the exarchate was in no degree impaired; we shall find him from that period exercising in those provinces all the rights of sovereignty, without any dependence either on the emperor of Constantinople or on the new emperor of the West. Historians generally admit the pope's independence of the emperor of Constantinople after Charlemagne's election to the empire; and there can be no reasonable grounds, we are convinced, for questioning it. Long before Charlemagne's election to the empire, we have seen the emperors of Constantinople deprived of all their rights over the duchy of Rome and the exarchate by the legitimate will of the people of those provinces; and the pope himself, who at first had accepted the government of those provinces provisionally, had been definitively emancipated from all dependence on those emperors by Pepin's donation in the year 754.1

It is more difficult to decide whether the sovereignty of the pope in Rome was equally independent of the emperor of the West after the establishment of the new empire. The opinion, however, which maintains that independence appears clearly demonstrated by history, both under Charlemagne and under the successors of that great prince.2

vinces, the Holy See had additional titles to the sovereignty of the exarchate, by the donations of Pepin and Charlemagne. See supra, n. 63.

See supra, Nos. 60, 65. From these observations we may infer that, correctly speaking, "the empire of the Greeks" was not transferred "to the French by Charlemagne's elevation to the imperial dignity, as Baronius, Bellarmine, and many others, imagined. Long before that time the empire of the West had been destroyed, because the emperor had lost all his rights in the duchy of Rome and in the exarchate. Properly speaking, therefore, the Western empire was not transferred, but revived in Charlemagne ; and the latter is the precise word found on many of his medals: "Renovatio Imperii." See on this point, D. Bouquet, Receuil des Historiens de France, vol. v. pp. 23, 53, &c.; Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. tom. ii. p. 17, &c.

2 Cenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. tom. ii. Dissert. 1; De Leonis III. Epist. n. 2, 19, &c. Orsi, Della Origine del Dominio, &c. cap. ix. x.