may be confidently appealed to, both because its authenticity appears to us to be generally admitted and solidly vindicated by the majority of the learned, and because it is formally cited as genuine by many even of those whose opinions on the present subject of dispute it contradicts.1

76. The Proof drawn from this Charter confirmed by those of Otho I. and of Henry II.

We may add, that however decisive this document is, our opinion can be established without it; for it is certain that the same words and the same provisions are found in the charters given by the emperor Otho I. in 962, and by Henry II. in 1020, the authenticity of which is generally admitted. In both these diplomas we find the same expressions as in that of Louis le Débonnaire, confirming to the Holy See the jurisdiction hitherto exercised by the popes in the duchy of Rome, and in the other provinces which then constituted the states of the Church.3

77. The Pope's Independence of the Emperor proved by the Oath of Fidelity to the Emperors taken by the Romans.

Independently of those diplomas, the emperor's authority in the government of those provinces is clearly proved to have been subordinate to that of the pope, by the oath of fidelity which the Romans took to the emperors who succeeded Charlemagne, at

rights over Sicily. See on this subject Cenni, Monumenta, tom. ii. Dissert. 1, n. 3; Dissert. 2, n. 20, note 14, p. 128, et alibi passim.

See authors cited in note 2, p. 263.

2 The text of those diplomas may be seen in Cenni's work, already cited, tom. ii. pp. 157, 187. The same author carefully discusses the sense and the authenticity of the same documents, ibid. tom. i. Præf. §§ 3, 4; tom. ii. p. 134, &c.

Cenni, ubi supra, tom. ii. pp. 157, 187. It must be observed, 1st, that the reading "sicut à prædecessoribus vestris," which is disputed by some critics, in Louis le Débonnaire's diploma, does not occur in those of Otho I. and of Henry II.; 2nd, that in these two latter diplomas, as well as in the first, the clause "saving our rights over these duchies and their subjection to us," applies solely to the duchies of Spoleto and of Tuscany. Fleury and many other French authors, from not having read attentively the original documents, suppose that the same clause applied to all the states of the Holy See without distinction; whence they inferred, contrary to facts and even the express text of the diplomas, that the pope had only the "dominium utile" of those states, and that the emperor was their real sovereign.--Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xii. book lvi. n. 1; book lviii. n. 46. Berault-Bercastel, Hist. de l'Eglise, vol. v. book xxix. p. 208.

least from the election of Pope Sergius II. in 844.' That oath, it is certain, never was taken except "by the pope's good pleasure," and "saving the fidelity due to him by the Romans." This is proved especially from the conduct of Pope Sergius II. to Prince Louis, son of Lothaire the First, in 844. The latter having sent his son to Italy on account of some grounds of complaint which he had against the Romans, who had not awaited his consent for consecrating the new pope, the prince was not admitted by the pope into the church of St. Peter until he had protested in presence of the people, "that he had come with good intentions, for the good of the Church and of the state." Some days after, "the French having asked all the Roman lords to take the oath of fidelity to Prince Louis," the prudent pontiff took care not to allow it, but answered with dignified firmness: "If you wish merely that they should take this oath to the emperor Lothaire, I consent and allow it; but to his son, Prince Louis, neither I nor the Roman lords can consent.”

1 Cenni, Monumenta Dominat. Pontif. tom. ii. Dissert. 1, n. 25, &c. Fleury and some other modern writers suppose that a similar oath was taken by the Romans to Lothaire I. in 824. (Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlvi. n. 53; Hist. de l'Egl. Gall. vol. v. ann. 824, p. 322. Receveur, Hist. de l'Egl. vol. iv. p. 241.) This assertion, however, rests exclusively on the testimony of an anonymous author, who continued Paul the Deacon's History of the Lombards; a testimony which appears very doubtful to the best critics. (See on this subject, Cenni, ibid. Dissert. 2, n. 35, 45; Dissert. 4, n. 21, &c.) We may add, that the formula of this oath, like that subsequently taken to the emperors by the Romans, contains the clause "saving the fidelity which I have promised to my lord the pope," which manifestly proves that the emperor's authority was subordinate to the pope's in the government of Rome. The whole formula of the oath is given in Cenni's work, already cited, p. 113, and in the Capitularia, tom. i. p. 647, of Baluze. It is certain, moreover, that the emperor Lothaire exercised no act of authority in Rome at that time without the consent and good pleasure of the pope. (Baron. Annal. tom. ix. ann. 824, n. 11, &c.; Hist. de l'Egl. Gall. ubi supra.)

2 Anastasius, Vita Sergii II. (Labbe, Concil. tom. vii. p. 1793, &c.). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlviii. n. 16; Hist. de l'Egl. Gall. vol. v. ann. 844, p. 500. Daniel, Hist. de France, vol. ii. ann. 844, p. 346.

3 "Tunc almificus præsul claudi faciens omnes januas beati Petri, . . . sancto Spiritu admonente, regi sic dixit: Si pura mente et sincera voluntate, et pro salute reipublicæ ac totius orbis, hujusque Ecclesia, huc advenisti, has ingredere januas, meâ jussione; sin aliter, nec per me, nec per meam concessionem, istæ tibi porta aperientur. Statim rex illi respondens dixit; Quòd nullo maligno animo, aut aliqua pravitate, vel malo ingenio advenisset. Tunc, eodem præsule præcipiente, appositis manibus, prædictas januas patefecerunt."-Anastasius, ubi supra, p. 1794.

"His igitur peractis, [Franci] à prædicto postulaverunt pontifice, ut omnes primates Romani fidelitatem ipsi Ludovico regi per sacramentum promitterent. Quod prudentissimus pontifex fieri nequaquam concessit, sed sic orsus est illis :

That the imperial power in the government of Rome was subordinate to the popes, is proved also by the formula of the oath of fidelity taken by the Romans to the emperor Arnolph in 896.1 This formula was to the following effect: "I swear by all the holy mysteries, that, saving mine honour, my law, and the fealty which I owe to my lord Pope Formosus, I am and will be, all the days of my life, faithful to the emperor Arnolph, and that I shall contract no alliance against him with any person whatsoever." 2

It is really difficult to conceive how so great a number of modern authors could undertake to prove the sovereignty of the emperors in Rome from the formula of this oath, which demonstrates so clearly the pope's independence of the emperor in that government. The sequel of our inquiry will give us an opportunity of proving, that during the whole course of the middle ages the emperors themselves, at their coronation, took an oath of fidelity to the pope, which implied not only that the Holy See was independent of them, but that they were specially dependent on the pope.*

78. Explanation of the Title of Emperor given to Charlemagne by Pope Leo III.

If such were the case, what, it may be asked, were the effects of the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III., and of the title of emperor conferred on him on that solemn occasion ? 5 I answer, that the pope wished to secure for himself more effectually the powerful protection of Charlemagne, by conferring on

Quia, si vultis, domino Lothario magno imperatori hoc sacramentum ut faciant, solummodo consentio atque permitto; nam Ludovico ejus filio ut hoc peragatur, nec ego, nec omnis Romanorum nobilitas permittit."—Anastasius, ibid. p. 1795.

Cenni, Monumenta, tom. ii. Dissert. 1, n. 25, 26. Pagi, Critica in Baronii Annales, ann. 896, n. 3. Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. xi. book liv. n. 25. D. Ceillier, Hist. des Auteurs Ecclés. vol. xix. p. 460.

2 "Juro per hæc omnia Dei mysteria, quòd, salvo honore, et lege med, atque fidelitate Domini Formosi Papæ, fidelis sum et ero, omnibus diebus vitæ meæ, Arnolpho imperatori, et nunquam me ad illius infidelitatem cum aliquo homine sociabo."-Luitprand, Hist. vol. i. ch. viii. (Duchesne's Collection, vol. iii.; Muratori, Script. Rer. Ital. tom. ii.).

3 See among others, Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. x. book xlvi. n. 21, 53, &c.

4 Second part of this Inquiry, ch. ii. art. 4.

5 The various opinions of modern authors on this point are stated and discussed by Nat. Alexander, Dissert. 1, Hist. Eccl. sæc. ix. See also remarks of P. Roncaglia and Mansi on that Dissertation; Documentary Evidences, No. 6, § 3, at the end of this work; and supra, note 2, n. 69.

him a title pre-eminently honourable at that time in the opinion of all nations. However respectable was the title of patrician of the Romans, hitherto enjoyed by the king of France, that of emperor was much more so. Though it added no new territory to those previously occupied by Charlemagne, it gave him the first rank among all the princes of the West; it imparted an august character to royalty itself; and in some measure revived on Charlemagne's brow the halo of the ancient glories of Rome.

This explanation, which at first sight may appear extraordinary, is a natural consequence of the principles which we have established, and of the facts on which they are grounded. We have seen that Charlemagne's coronation by Pope Leo III., and the title of emperor then conferred on that prince, did not, properly speaking, deprive the emperor of Constantinople of the sovereignty of Rome and of the exarchate, for he had been deprived of it long before, at least since Pepin's donation in 754. From our principles it also follows, that Charlemagne's coronation, in 800, had not the effect of transferring to the king of France the sovereignty of Rome and of the exarchate, because from that time the pope alone continued to exercise there all the rights of sovereignty, as he had constantly done since Pepin's donation. What other effect, then, could Charlemagne's coronation, in 800, have but to attach him more closely to the defence and protection of the Holy See, by a title more honourable than that of patrician of the Romans, which he had hitherto borne ?

This explanation of the title of emperor given to Charlemagne by Pope Leo III. is, we must add, not peculiar to the advocates of that opinion which we have embraced on the nature and extent of the pope's authority in Rome, after Charlemagne's elevation to the empire. Many even of the authors who do not adopt that opinion, believe that, before Charlemagne's elevation to the empire, he already possessed the sovereignty of Rome either in common with or exclusively of the pope. From that opinion, as well as from ours, it follows necessarily that the title of

Supra, n. 62, &c.

2 Ibid. n. 69.

3 This is manifestly the opinion of M. de Marca, of Nat. Alexander, Fleury, and of many others whom we have cited above, n. 56.

emperor conferred by Leo III. on Charlemagne did not give him the sovereignty of Rome, but only a more august title, under which he was henceforward to exercise an authority which he had hitherto possessed as patrician of the Romans.

To establish more clearly the truth of our opinion, it may not be useless to examine here briefly the principal arguments urged in favour of other conflicting opinions by modern authors.

79. Arguments urged for attributing to the Emperor of Constantinople the Sovereignty of Rome and of the Exarchate until the Close of the Eighth Century.

I. Those who attribute to the emperor of Constantinople the sovereignty of Rome and of the exarchate until the close of the eighth century, urge, in the first place, that the popes of that period still dated their public acts very frequently by the years of the imperial reigns.1 2nd. That they still gave him in their letters and public acts the title of lord. 3rd. That Pope Adrian I., when wishing to save the life of the chief of a faction, in order to give him time to do penance, wrote to the emperor, imploring him to give an asylum to the unhappy man in Greece.3 4th. That on a mosaic, still preserved in the Lateran palace, our Saviour is represented giving with one hand the keys to St. Peter, and with the other a standard to a prince named Constantine V.; whence it would appear to follow, that under the reign of that prince, that is, about the close of the eighth century, the pope still acknowledged the sovereignty of the emperor of Constantinople.

1 Bossuet and Fleury, besides others, regard this fact as a decisive proof of their opinion. (Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xliii. n. 31. Bossuet, Defens. Declarat. lib. ii. cap. xix. p. 482.) Besides the letters of the popes, cited on this subject by Fleury, Bossuet produces a privilege, granted by Pope Stephen II. to Fulrade, abbot of St. Denis, and dated in the 38th year of the reign of Constantine Copronymus. (Labbe, Concil. tom. vi. p. 1647.) P. Longueval, in his Hist. de l'Egl. Gall. (tom. iv. ann. 757), throws some suspicion on the authenticity of that document. But his arguments do not appear conclusive against the authority of the MSS., which have led the majority of critics to maintain its authenticity. See Mabillon, Annales Ordinis Benedict. tom. iii. part. ii. p. 336; Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xliii. n. 28; Félibien, Hist. de l'Abbaye de St. Denys, ann. 757; Gallia Christiana, tom. vii. p. 345 ; D. Ceillier, Hist. des Aut. Ecclés. vol. xviii. p. 189.

2 Privileg. Fulradi, ubi supra. Adriani I. Epistola ad Constantinum et Irenem (Labbe, Concil. tom. vii. p. 99). Bossuet, Defens. Declar. lib. ii. сар. 19.

3 Anastasius, Vita Adriani I. (Labbe, Concil. tom. vi. p. 1730). Fleury, Hist. Eccl. vol. ix. book xliv. n. 2.

4 Ciampini, Vetera Monimenta, par. ii. cap. 21. Muratori, Annali d'Italia,