70. The Pope's Independence of Charlemagne proved by the Will of that Prince in 800.

I. The independence of the pope with regard to Charlemagne, after that prince's elevation to the empire, appears to be clearly proved by the will which he made in the diet of Thionville, in 806, for the partition of his states between his children.1 The emperor declares, in that instrument, that it is drawn up "in order to remove all grounds for dispute between his three sons, by dividing the whole of his empire between them." "We hereby make it known," he declares, "that we wish to leave our three sons, if it be God's will, heirs of our kingdom and of our empire. Not wishing, however, to bequeath that kingdom to them to be possessed conjointly and without any partition, an arrangement whence discord would arise, but to divide it into three parts, we hereby assign to each that portion which he is to govern and protect." After this preamble the emperor assigns to each of his three sons a portion of his states, of which he gives a detailed enumeration, and among which he does not omit the Italian provinces, of which the Lombard monarchy was then. composed. But it is remarkable that in this partition of all his kingdom he entirely omits the duchy of Rome and the exarchate. He merely orders his sons" that they should all combine for the protection and defence of the Roman Church, after the example of Charles Martel, his grandfather; of Pepin, his father, of happy memory, and of himself." Is it possible to imply more clearly that the duchy of Rome and the exarchate did not then form any part of his kingdom? If they did, would he have omitted them

Baluze, Capitular. tom. i. p. 437. That document is given entire in the Annales du Moyen Age, vol. viii. book xxix. p. 267. Fleury also mentions it in his Eccl. Hist. vol. x. book xlv. n. 34. See Marchetti's observations on this subject, Critique of Fleury, vol. ii. n. 95. Orsi, Della Origine del Dominio, cap. ix. p. 154.

"Non ut confusè atque inordinatè, aut sub totius regni dominatione, jurgii controversiam eis relinquamus; sed trinâ partitione totum regni corpus dividentes, quam quisquis illorum tueri vel regere debeat portionem distribuere et designare volumus."-Baluze, ubi supra, p. 439.

3 This document supplies very useful data for fixing the limits and extent of the empire of Charlemagne. See on that subject, D. Lieble's Mémoire, cited supra, n. 49, note.

"Super omnia autem jubemus atque præcipimus, ut ipsi tres fratres curam et defensionem Ecclesiæ sancti Petri simul suscipiant, sicut quondam ab avo nostro Carolo, et beatæ memoriæ genitore nostro Pippino rege, et à nobis postea suscepta est."-Baluze, ubi supra, n. 15, p. 443.

in the enumeration and partition of his territories? By omitting them, would he not have bequeathed to his children a great cause of discord by that very deed which he drew up for the express purpose of removing all grounds of quarrel between them?

71. Letters of Pope Leo III. in support of this Proof.

In support of this argument may be cited many letters written. by Pope Leo III. to Charlemagne after his election to the empire, and which clearly imply that the title of emperor conferred on the king of France had in no degree impaired the papal sovereignty in the duchy of Rome and in the exarchate.1 In these letters the pope gives to Charlemagne the title sometimes of emperor, sometimes of defender of the Church; and he uses both titles as synonymous, attaching to the word emperor the same signification, defender of the Church,-which the title Patrician of the Romans had formerly implied. Other letters of the same pope suppose that he was then exercising in the duchy of Rome and in the exarchate, without any protest on the part of the emperor, all the rights of sovereignty, appointing independently the dukes or governors of cities, and taking measures for the defence of the coasts against the Saracens.3

72. The same Proof confirmed by a joint Deed of the Pope and Emperor. Another document of this period proves that the authority of the emperor was then subordinate to that of the pope in the duchy of Rome. In the Bullarium there is a deed, dated A.D. 805, by which the pope and Charlemagne secure to the monastery of St. Anastasius of the Three Fountains the possession of some property lying in the environs of Rome. In this document we find the pope named before the emperor both in the title of the charter and in the date, which gives the year of the pontificate of Leo, before the year of Charlemagne's reign; and also in the order of signatures, the pope's having the precedence. Can it

Cenni, ubi supra, n. 2.

2 Leonis III. Epistol. ad Carol. Imperat. 2, 4, 5 (Cenni, ubi supra, pp. 51, 59, 62).

3 Ibid. Epist. 4, 5, 8, pp. 60, 63, 74.

For our purpose it is enough to cite the title, preamble, and conclusion of that charter:

"In nomine Domini Dei Salvatoris nostri Christi.

"Leo episcopus, servus servorum Dei, et Carolus Magnificus et præsens rex,

be reasonably supposed that an act of that kind, whose direct object was to secure the temporal rights of an important establishment, would have been so drawn up, if the pope's authority in Rome was subordinate to the emperor's? Does not that charter, on the contrary, manifestly prove that the emperor's authority in Rome was subordinate to the pope's?

73. The Pope's Independence of the Successors of Charlemagne proved by the Charter of Louis le Débonnaire.

II. The pope's independence of the successors of Charlemagne, both of the Carlovingian and of the German dynasty, is equally well established by history. To be satisfied of the truth of this position, we need only peruse attentively the charters of Louis le Débonnaire, of Otho I., and of Henry II., confirming the donations made to the Holy See by Pepin and Charle

magne.

The first of those charters, which was given by Louis le Débonnaire in 817, clearly supposes that the duchy of Rome and the exarchate had long been the property of the Holy See; the emperor declares expressly "that he does not pretend to assume to himself or to his successors any authority in them, except in case the pope should apply for his intervention." "I, Louis,1

hâc die, nullo prohibente nec contradicente, sed propriâ nostrâ voluntate, concedimus, tradimus, etc. . . . Actum est hoc traditum anno Dominica Incarnationis octingentesimo quinto, indictione decimâ tertiâ, et Domini Leonis summi papæ tertii anno decimo, Caroli imperatoris anno quinto.

Ego Leo, episcopus Romanæ Ecclesiæ subscripsi.

Ego Carolus rex, imperator augustus subscripsi."

This charter is given entire in tom. i. (p. 161) of the Bullarium Magnum Romanum, Romæ, 1739-1750, 28 vols. fol. It is also in Santelli's Italian Dissertation, entitled, Oltragio fatto a Leone ed a Carlomagno, in un Quadro ed una Stampa esprimenti l'Adorazione del Pontefice all' Imperadore. Roma, 1815, 4to. (p. 19).

"Ego Ludovicus, imperator augustus, statuo et concedo per hoc pactum confirmationis nostræ, tibi beato Petro, principi apostolorum, et per te vicario tuo Domino Paschali, summo pontifici, et universali papæ, et successoribus ejus in perpetuum, sicut à prædecessoribus vestris usque nunc in vestrâ potestate et ditione tenuistis et disposuistis, civitatem Romanam cum ducatu suo et suburbanis atque viculis omnibus, etc. . . . Nullamque in eis nobis partem, aut potestatem disponendi, vel judicandi, subtrahendive aut minorandi vindicamus, nisi quando ab illo qui eo tempore hujus sanctæ Ecclesiæ regimen tenuerit, rogati fuerimus."— Privilegium Ludov. Imperat. apud Cenni, ubi supra, tom. ii. p. 125. Fleury speaks of this act in his Hist. Eccl. (ibid. book xlvi. n. 26), but very briefly and very incorrectly, as we shall see immediately. M. de Receveur's History of the Church may serve as a corrective on that and many other points (vol. iv. p. 209).

Emperor Augustus, decree and grant, by this deed of confirmation, to thee, blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, to your vicar the Lord Pascal, sovereign pontiff and universal pope, and to his successors for ever, the city of Rome, with its duchy and dependencies, as the same have been held to this day by your predecessors under their authority and jurisdiction." Then follows an enumeration of the cities and territories in Italy that belonged to the Holy See; after which the emperor thus continues: "And we do not pretend to attribute to ourselves any right or power of governing or of judging in the said cities or territories; of diminishing or of taking anything from them, except when we may be solicited by him who for the time being shall hold the government of the holy Roman Church."

74. Mistake of Fleury and some others regarding this Deed.

After so formal a testimony, it is amazing to find Fleury, and some other modern historians, citing this document in confirmation of the opinion which supposes that Pepin and Charlemagne gave to the pope nothing but the "dominium utile," or administration, of those provinces, reserving to themselves and to their successors the "dominium altum, or sovereignty. But the least examination of the context of the passage proves that these authors have entirely misunderstood its meaning; for Louis le Débonnaire, after confirming in the passage cited the donations made to the Holy See by Pepin and Charlemagne, confirms to it also some pensions and other revenues from the duchies of Spoleto and of Tuscany, with this remarkable proviso: "saving our

In place of those words "sicut à prædecessoribus vestris," which is the reading in all MSS. the Decretum Gratiani, which has been followed by some modern critics, has "sicut à prædecessoribus nostris." But abstracting altogether from the authority of MSS., the last reading is palpably opposed to the testimony of history; for it is perfectly certain that the duchy of Rome, which is mentioned immediately after the disputed words, never was given to the Holy See by Pepin or Charlemagne, who never had any right of sovereignty Louis le Débonnaire, therefore, could not say that his predecessors had it under their jurisdiction. On the contrary, it is certain, and could be truly asserted by Louis le Débonnaire, that the said duchy was under the jurisdiction of the popes, predecessors of Pascal, for they were its sovereigns from the year 754, and even earlier, as we have proved already. See on this subject, Čenni, Monumenta Domin. Pontif. tom. i. Præf. n. 26; tom. ii. Dissert. 1, n. 12, &c. and note 3, p. 125.

over it.

2 Fleury, ubi supra. magne, ch. v. p. 30.

Leblanc, Dissert. sur quelques Monnaies de CharleD. Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Ecclés. vol. xviii. p. 618.

dominion over those duchies, and their subjection to us."

Now

it is very clear that this proviso applies to the duchies of Tuscany and of Spoleto only, and not at all to those states of the Holy See which the emperor had previously enumerated. The authors whom we oppose appear, in truth, not to have read this deed attentively; for they cite the clause relating to the duchies of Spoleto and of Tuscany as if it applied to all the states of the Holy See, and omit altogether the other words of the charter, which clearly prove our opinion.

75. Authenticity of this Deed.

It must not be concealed that skilful critics have raised doubts regarding the authenticity of this deed; still, in our opinion, it

2

"Simili modo, per hoc nostræ confirmationis decretum, firmamus. . . . censum et pensiones, seu cæteras donationes quæ annuatim in palatium regis Langobardorum inferri solebant, sive de Tusciâ Langobardorum, sive de ducatu Spoletino; sicut in suprascriptis donationibus continetur, et inter sanctæ memoriæ Adrianum Papam et dominum ac genitorem nostrum Carolum imperatorem convenit, quando idem Pontifex eidem de suprascriptis ducatibus, id est Tuscano et Spoletino, suæ auctoritatis præceptum confirmavit; eo scilicet modo, ut annis singulis prædictus census Ecclesiæ beati Petri apostoli persolvatur; salvâ super eosdem ducatus nostrâ in omnibus dominatione, et illorum ad nostram partem subjectione.”—Privileg. Ludov. apud Cenni, ubi supra, pp. 129, 130. See above (n. 52, note), some observations on that passage of the diploma of Louis le Débonnaire.

2 The authenticity of this document is contested principally by P. Pagi, and by Muratori. (Pagi, Critica in Annales Baronii, ann. 817, n. 7. Muratori, Annales Medii Ævi, tom. iii. p. 29. Idem, Piena Esposizione dei Diritti Imperiali, cap. iv. p. 42, &c.) It is ably defended by Gretzer, Defensio in Goldastum, p. 204. Idem, Apologia Baronii, cap. viii. p. 340. Cenni, Monumenta Dominat. Pontif. tom. i. Præf. § 3; tom. ii. p. 83, &c. See also Dissertation, by the same author, on Louis le Débonnaire's diploma, at the end of Orsi's work, Della Origine del Dominio, &c. Marini, Nuovo Esame dell' Autenticita de' Diplomi di Ludovico Pio, Ottone I. e Arrigo II. etc. Roma, 1822, 8vo. In support of his opinion, this last author (pp. 10, 11) cites many other Italian writers, who appear to have solidly examined this question.

The principal argument urged against the authenticity of the diploma of Louis le Débounaire is founded on the rights which it attributes to the Holy See over Sicily, which then belonged to the Greek emperors, and over which the emperors of the West had no rights. To solve the objection, the defenders of the diploma observe, that the Holy See, which had long since been unjustly deprived by the Greek emperors of the extensive patrimonies which it possessed in Sicily and in Calabria (supra, ch. i. n. 31), was still exposed for many years past, to lose all hope of recovering them, in consequence of the excursions of the Saracens, who were threatening to seize those provinces. In such circumstances it was certainly lawful for the king of France to sustain the rights of the Holy See, both against unjust spoliation by the emperor of Constantinople, and against the equally unjust incursions of the Saracens, by assuring to it the possession of Sicily. There is every reason to believe that Charlemagne had taken the same means of securing the rights of the Holy See, since Louis le Débonnaire manifestly supposes that the Holy See had