THE pcwncm OF: 1 *f ;-._::»;~;.i 7-55}: ‘ HADHHH E (772495); ‘ 51 H 2.5:; _ ; ‘ WHETHEQHYAHD PGLMCAL_RE&W}IJ_ * . 325* , IN 'THE‘ Ham-Hos CHARLEHAGHE .. ' 'Eisseriatim farms Begrgeof PH. 9.7 _ ' V MECHEGHN fiME UNEVERSITY" ‘ DA‘ulED‘ STEVERS SEF‘a'ON» 1975. .. _ LIBRARY Michigan 5:313 Univcrsi r7 This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘ The Pontificate of Hadrian I (77 Papal Theory and Political Rea ' ‘ 1n the Reign of Charlemagne presented by David Stevens Sefton has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ADJ—degree in ML 34 faflwgi r Majox professor Date September 1925 , infant x. | ~ \auux ammw ml: 1 LB R I may slung 5 ml :77. We PM”? I, 1 mm; ‘ t 53‘ g M hfiortuttn 3-71 3 “ Mmcr‘mn ‘_;',«. «p . } Wit... F‘ar‘,_:cx‘l;‘l _ \ ‘» "”'T‘~ . the hietori gr "1-5" _ r, ‘ ieitzng in Spec: “.3! to focus ‘ I .3: problems *0r.1'\~'~ r.» . ,7 ; K “010v cenr'mr-p: 'r- '.- .m;__ $3137on himself .n :29 '~ . Lift: - ‘7: , . .- Dy concentrating at K“: ,. .u‘vidual 9,4,... “M.” YEW 13574 or. the creativ'r- of r 5.533; w ‘ ' , much had a frl'tdamerfial impact or.» Imam " r t m Iiddle Ages. W3” an on the activities of Hadrian m- i ‘ *fiuflm of the page‘s letters to it. ”3%i';.‘ annotate the cone of the cause H ‘ fl: tannin-u. mm“: w t . “‘8!!! “by. ABSTRACT THE PONTIFICATE OF HADRIAN I (772-795). PAPAL THEORY AND POLITICAL REALITY IN THE REIGN 0F CHARLEMAGNE By David Stevens Sefton During the eighth century the bishop of Rome emerged as an important political factor in Western Europe. While this phenomenon has received a great deal of attention from historians. particularly in the realm of the papal-Carolingian alliance. the historiography of the eighth century is pecu- liarly lacking in specialized studies of the individual popes. This work seeks to focus on Pope Hadrian I in an attempt to discern the problems confronting the papacy in the second- half of the eighth century and the motivations which compelled the pope to involve himself in the political life of Italy and Francia. By concentrating on an individual pope it is possible to shed some new light on the creation of the papal— Carolingian union, which had a fundamental impact on papal development throughout the Middle Ages. This concentration on the activities of Hadrian neces- sitated a careful scrutiny of the pope's letters to the Frankie): king the Byzantine emperors and some of the other 0 P°1itica1 forces in Italy- In addition, Hadrian's biography, completed shortly after his death, supplied additional David Stevens Seft on information on the pope's early life and first years of his pontificate. In order to overcome the one-sided nature of this material, it was necessary to consult Frankish and Italian chronicles and charters. What emerged was a picture of an ambitious pope with designs on ruling most of Italy in the wake of the Lombard kingdom's collapse. In several respects, the conclusions which emerged from this study differ radically from traditional views of papal activities in the eighth century. It was found that the papal-Carolingian union was by no means an alliance of equals. Hadrian's aspirations for sovereign rule in Italy were over- whelmed by the growing power of the Franks. Additionally, Frankish interest went beyond political affairs in Italy and forced Hadrian's concurrence with the Frankish position on the iconoclastic issue. The early years of Hadrian's pontificate were filled with attempts to convince the papal protector, the Frankish king. to honor papal claims to large amounts of land in Italy. These papal claims were originally expressed in the papal Version of the donation of 771+. Yet, while Hadrian never abandoned his attempts to gain more land, he was con- tinually frustrated by the Frankish king's insistence on proof of the validity of papal claims before any transfers of land could take place. The insistence on proof compelled .1!“ to shift his aspirations from whole duchies in Italy *6‘-‘Sthe‘5iestorati°n of lost church patrimonies and to supply I “'7‘ David Stevens Sefton the Frankish king with documents, probably including the Constitgtum Constantini, to verify the papal claims. Yet, by the end of his pontificate, Hadrian had received far less land than he had desired and he was totally dependent on the Frankish king in virtually every situation. This study also found that, in part, Hadrian was respon- sible for the growth in the Frankish king's conception of his own authority. To persuade the king to honor papal desires Hadrian had continually referred to him as the protector and defender of the Roman Church and the beloved of St. Peter. The Frankish king took these labels seriously and applied them not only to a military defense of the pope, but also to a defense of the doctrinal purity of the church. The pope found that his cooperation with the Byzantines in healing the iconoclastic schism was damaged by the Frankish attack on the decisions of the council of Nicaea. As he had done in every political crisis during his pontificate, Hadrian was forced to comply with the wishes of the Frankish king on the problem of iconoclasm. FiIIRlIYI Hadrian's pontificate, the papacy had been in a position to this study argues that at the beginning of free itself from the political dangers Posed by both Lombards and Byzantines in Italy. The POPe had attempted to deal with these dangers in an independent fashion, but he had been increasingly forced to rely on the aid of the Frankish king, when conceptions of his own authority collided with the A 53h. ‘_‘ David Stevens Sefton v' ' Frank . For ' 5.9:flgfl2'9555mttered by the power of the s " ,s"'1nq§nqgra. papal dreams of independence in Italy SUL’ni ed to liohigan Sat-'1'" Uri?“ 51.4. v in fulfillment ‘3.“ tie: Iraq-inwaw 1-: for the datum: THE PONTIFICATE OF HADRIAN I (772-795): PAPAL THEORY AND POLITICAL REALITY IN THE REIGN OF CHARLEMAGNE By David Stevens Sefton A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1975 ~‘-‘J" Q'Wrw I” I “mlmu, r .7 e 7 W‘s-c W grate" ‘ " ' ““3 .' .V:"u" ‘IIII. 17271.": - : t ,. ”‘7‘.” . 5‘ In! firing my any Cdbtl 02‘ We” 110%me in tr»..- “Mlflg as. "T. ‘L"' 1. MT. an away fast“ ‘0 “scribe the mm Mm. sine.) woz'w . 7 Male am- e‘rx'. ' W" "Mfll‘tfi breathe the air, it is most right m $9355.?!“ tongue declare all that I owe." ‘ ”Wat's arc-rt m as m Wm- , . Dante ‘ ' :1 "in years hm 7m . v.2 , “fiicb I Ghull aiwzavri in» ll ’ this" concernnq t. \15 nthjw .,,., me ~ - .~ *1“ it would HIhHrwrin‘: ham: veer 5, ml.“ $0 be in that unique assesiav; .;. L: "User “0' Stanley Chojnacki and Ind-arm am. we lut- several years. “it. A“ a. {the discipline or history and both and «"h- entirety m1: careful M ACKNOWLEDGMENTS During my years of graduate study, I have accumulated many debts of gratitude. A number of people have helped me not only in the preparation of this study, but also in my training as an historian. To express sufficiently my thanks is not an easy task, since words alone are adequate neither to describe the extent of their help nor to state my gratitude. liowever, since words are still the tools of the historian, I must make the attempt to use them to express my thanks. I owe my greatest debt to my mentor, Dean Richard E. Sullivan. Dean Sullivan introduced me to the intricacies of 'the medievalist's craft and had a fundamental influence on my formation as an historian. His diligence and patience over the past six years has provided me with an example of scholarly dedication'which I shall always try to emulate. His sugges— tions and criticisms concerning this study have made it a far better work than it would otherwise have been. I consider it a.great privilege to be in that unique association of "Dean Sullivan's students." Further, I must thank the other members of my guidance committee, Professors Stanley Chojnacki and Marjorie Gesner, for their help over the last several years. Both led me along the paths of the discipline of history and both read. this dissertation in its entirety. Their careful comments forced me to correct a number of errors which I would have otherwise overlooked. Also, to Professor Josef Konvitz goes my gratitude for agreeing on short notice to read this study and for making many penetrating observations. Needless to say, if this work has any merits, they are largely due to the efforts of my guidance committee. Part of the research for this study was done in Germany. I must acknowledge the Fulbright Commission of West Germany for the award of a Fulbright Fellowship which enabled me to study for a year at a German university. During that year I had the honor of studying with Prof.Dr. Hans Hubert Anton 0f the Universitat Trier. He not only made a number of 'Valuable suggestions concerning my work, but he also taught Ine the value of meticulous scrutiny of the sources. I shall always remember Prof.Dr. Anton's kindness and patience with a-sometimes confused American graduate student. Additionally, I would be negligent if I did not express mN'thanks to the staffs of several libraries, both in Germany and the United States, for their help in locating materials. I would like especially to thank the staff of the Stadt- bibliothek in Trier for their aid, without which my work Would have been much more difficult. Finally, all of this was for Jan. D.S.S. East Lansing. Michigan 16 July 1975 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . vi Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I. The Foundation of the Carolingian Papacy . 4 II. Romans, Franks and Lombards, 772-77“ . . #1 III. The Donation of 774 . . . . . . 71 IV. The First Settlement, 774-778 . . . . 101 V. The New Program, 778-785 . . . . . 13# VI. The Final Order, 786—795 . . . . . 165 VII. Hadrian, Charles and the Images . . . 19h Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . 223 Bibliographical Essay . . . . ‘ . . . . 231 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . 241 ABBREVIATIONS Abel-Simson Sigurd Abel and Bernhard “ Simson, Jahrbficher des frank- ischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen Bflz J.F. Bohmer, E. Mfihlbacher gt al, Regesta Imperii I, 2nd ed. Bulletin g3 littérature ecclésiastigue BLE 9A Deutsches Archiv fiir Erfor- schung des Mittelalters m English Historical Review 13!; ' Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte El Eon—ti pe_r l_a Ste—ria LEM H\Jb Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorresgesellschaft H~L C.J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire des conciles Historische Zeitschrift P. Jaffé gt gl, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum it; E M Mélanges d'Archéologie _e_t d'Histoire ML: J.D. Mansi (ed.), Sacrorum Conciliorum nova gt amplissima collectio flfifi Monumenta Germaniae Historica 3 Cap. Capitularia vi 3 h E w w t :U E ’1! REEEI (D '1 5 H Concilia Diplomata Karolinorum Epistolae Scriptores n usum schol. Scriptores rerum German- lcarum gg usum scholarum Scriptores rerum Lang — bardicarum gt Italicarum saec. 11-2; Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichtsforschung Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fur alters deutsche Geschichtskunde J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus com letus, series Graeca J.P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus completus, series Latina Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken Revue Bénédictine Revue d'histoire gg l'église gg France Revue Historigue Speculum Traditio Zeitschrift ffir Kirchen- geschichte Zeitschrift der Saviggy— Stiftggg fur— Rechtsgeschichte, seraaaisiisehs Abte 1l Zeitsghrift der Saviggy— Stiftggg f Reghtgggschichte, .2; kanonlstische Abteilun ng During +7.7. elohente chJm fiflt distinr tic dove 101.;0201. distance of «1 political 1.1 states in he {-Ubnt, a ser . turn of tn: Wr=tu, l.~iiidpo to an in» ; . ‘1'! - . ' v: ;‘~._- I $1.. ”$18 l’hel r, 1 "‘.,“ i§:”‘ ‘ km, in conuegt 1 . *_ .~ ' . . T‘Jpecta cf pfi" Th5 ‘DOCGY‘E‘ 2‘. 1: J ‘- :1;- i Conflictmp up *- ~11! desnaw of 5‘“ 3 '2 .V .'; ‘ V110“. and PDQ .ihfirfuf": ?‘ 17:". . ' J - “1138.111 traoi? it‘ll“: . "'1 it?) '23., i. '1 :. ”P." JL‘ gyreckage of scholazi: tyinien and v r.li $33 in tonne of H:- nexzmrmiimies may ye: 3-- to In other words. specialitw=5 etsiieo 2 could supply some substance 2‘ Carol- iflditdogito presenting “old vino is '2' ’a CI. INTRODUCTION During the course of the eighth century, the various elements of Western European life coalesced to form the first distinctive Western European civilization. Probably no development was more important in this process than the emergence of the bishop of Rome as a primary element in the political life of Europe. Through the creation of the Papal States in Italy and the recreation of the Empire in the West, a series of politically-minded popes changed the struc- ture of the Western Church from an agency of the Byzantine Empire to an institution of political influence in Western Europe. This phenomenon has fascinated scholars for genera- tions and, in consequence of the vast literature concerning various aspects of papal history, a new examination of the subject has become a massive undertaking. Confronted with the wildly conflicting opinions on the eighth-century papacy, one could easily despair of ever finding clarity in the midst of such confusion, and thus abandon the entire period. Yet, a new and paradoxically traditional approach could clear away some of the wreckage of scholarly opinion and clearly outline the process in terms of the personalities who part- icipated in the events. In other words, specialized studies of the individual popes could supply some substance to schol- arly theories. so, in addition to presenting "old wine in 1 — 2 new bottles," an approach concentrating on individual popes could also alter the nature of the wine. ’ Such an approach to history is by no means revolutionary, but it is striking to note that the historiography of the eighth-century papacy is distinctly lacking in examinations of individual popes.1 Perhaps blinded by the brilliance of the Carolingian kings, scholars have failed to provide thor- ough studies of the other partners in the Frankish-papal union. We are certainly not lacking in such studies of Charles, or of some of the important personalities of his reign.2 In contrast, however, the popes often appears as shadowy figures engaged in plots, plans and policies which were motivated by seemingly unseen forces. In many cases the conflict of conclusions concerning the nature of these plans and policies has blurred the outlines of the issues themselves. Yet, it is clear that individuals, and not un- seen forces, formulated the policies which propelled the bishop of Rome into a position of political influence in Western Europe. 'The subject of this work, Pope Hadrian I, was such an individual. Hadrian, whose long pontificate encompassed most of the years of the reign of Charles before the elevation of the 1About the only attempt is H.K. Mann, The Lives g; the Popgs ig thg Middle Ages (London, 1925). The volumes in the series are characterized by a solid narrative and little interpretation. Cf. for example Jose h Calmette, Charlemggge, a vie 2 $1.222 uvr (Paris, 1945 ; A. Kleinclausz, Charlem e Paris, 19 ; Thomas Hodgkin, Charles the Great (London, 1921); A. Kleinclausz. Alcuin (Lyon, 19 ; and many others. ‘ 3 Frankish king to the imperial dignity, was an heir to the aspirations of the Roman Church in the eighth century. If it is accurate to view papal history in terms of a long- range policy, it was Hadrian's lot to preside over the greatest triumph of that policy and over its most bitter dis- illusionment. During his years, the major threat to papal territorial security in Italy, the Lombard kingdom, was destroyed by the papal protector, the King of the Franks. Yet, Hadrian's hopes of harnessing the protector to insure papal sovereignty in Italy were frustrated over the years by the monarchical ideas of Charles. Even worse, Hadrian had to face the danger that the papal protector could become a master. The pope's ultimate frustration and defeat ended papal efforts in the Carolingian period to achieve an inde- pendent position in Italy and anticipated the beginning of the papal-imperial clashes which so dominated the history of the Middle Ages. However, since so much of what Hadrian attempted to accomplish was an outgrowth of the efforts of his predecessors, no study of his pontificate can begin without a glance backward to the mid-eighth century. CHAPTER ONE THE FOUNDATION OF THE CAROLINGIAN PAPACY By the beginning of the eighth century, the uneasy truce between Byzantines and Lombards in Italy had broken down under the renewed efforts of Lombard kings to unite the entire peninsula under their rule. The Roman Church, threa— tened by Lombard military might and pressured by Byzantine religious measures, began to formulate plans to extricate itself from the impending crisis. The key element of this policy was the establishment of a secure territorial foun- dation in Italy to supplement and to solidify the papal spiritual claims.1 It has been correctly shown that these ideas were generated within the papal Curia, staffed for the most part by a select group of noble Roman families, during the first half of the eighth century and were devoted to establishing a territorial entity in Italy, independent of direct Byzantine or Lombard control and ruled over by the 1Ferdinand Gregorovius, Gegchichte der St dt 32m 2E PmV . bis x__v1. nghgndgrt meal Stuttgart, .637 See also E. Delarue 1e, "L' église romain et ass relations avec l'église franque jusqu' en 800," Le Chiese r ggl;v§gg_p_ o ci t e g lloror rgpporti con Roma ' 00, 01 VII: Sgtt mgge _dl Studio fig; centro §tngi spll' alto Mggio evo (Spoleto, 19305, pp. 1+ —' 5 Prince of the Apostles, represented by the pope.2 The people within this entity would be set apart from the rest of Italy, particularly from the Lombards, and would be the chosen people of God.3 This idea of the "chosen people" was an indication that the Church of Rome was no longer willing to assume a purely passive role in the political affairs of Italy.“ The positive political action under the leadership of the popes had taken the form, under Pope Zachary (741-752). of direct negotiations with the Lombards in an effort to bring peace to Italy and security to the areas around Rome and Ravenna. Zachary had been quite successful in restraining the ambitions of King Liutprand of the Lombards. But the possibility for peaceful negotiations was seemingly removed by the conquest of Ravenna by the Lombard King Aistulf in 751. The newly consecrated pope, the Roman Stephen II, at— tempted to continue the policy of negotiation and was 20. Bertolini, "Il problema della origini del poteri temporale dei Papi," Misgellanea Pio Paschini (Rome, 1948), p 122-123. 3The phrase ecclesia Qgi gt peculiaris populus appears in the first letters from Rome to the Frankish subregglus, Charles Martel. Cf. Codex Carolinus 1 and 2, Egg E22. III, 477, 478. Here the inference is clear that the chosen peo- pie age those living under the protection of St. Peter and h s V car. “Peter Partner, Egg ngds gt §t. Peter: Egg ngal States lg tag ddle éggg and tgg Early Renaissance (Berkeley, 19725, p. 2: ” hr stlanlty—Is the religion of the people of God, or as the fathers of the Church claimed: 'We are the true peo- ple of Israel.‘ As the fathers read the Old Testament, Israel was a human society as well as a religious ideal; when God Said that he would defend his people, he was talking politics. The city of God is not of this world, but the people of God are truly and corporeally a people, a social group, and not appetqphorical expression. iafi.’ ‘ 6 initially able to secure a peace for forty years with Aistulf.5 Yet, as the papal biographer lamented, Aistulf only kept the peace for four months and then began moving south toward Rome, demanding tribute from the citizens of Rome and refusing to negotiate further.6 It was clear at this point that the territorial position of the papacy in Italy was in the gravest danger. Even the appearance of an envoy from Constantinople and a joint papal-imperial mission to Ravenna failed to persuade Aistulf to relinquish his con- quests of Ravenna and other erstwhile Byzantine districts in Italy. Still hoping for Byzantine aid, Stephen II then dis— patched his own appeals for support to accompany the imperial envoy back to Constantinople.7 5v1ta Ste hani g, in g Liber Pontificalis, edited by L. Duchesne (Paris, 1955), I, 441. All future citations of the Liber Pontificalis will be from the Duchesne edition. 6Vita Stephm lII, c. 6-7, pp. 441- 442: At vero isdem protervus Langobardorum rex, antiqui hostis invasus versutia, ipsa foedera pacis post poene IIII menses, in periurii inci- dens reatu, disrupit, multas iamfato sanctissimo viro vel cuncto populo Romano ingerens contumelias, varias illi minas dirigens. Cupiens quippe, Deo sibi contrario, cunctam hanc provinciam invadere, honerosum tributum huius Romanae urbis inhabitantibus adhibere nitebatur; per unumquemque scilicet caput sin 03 auri solidos annue auferre iniabat et seu iurisdict one civitatem hanc Romanam vel subiacentes ei cas- tra subdere indi anter asserebat. Cernens vero isdem sanct— issimus papa vallde praefati regis perniciosa inminere ser- vitia, magnopere ad se accersitis venerabilium monasteriorum sanctorum Vincentii et Benedicti religiosis abbatibus, sua vice eidem cruderissimo misit regi, obnixe per eos postulans pacis foedera et quietem utrarumque partium populi Dei ob- tinere-confirmandam. Quos nempe suscipiens, omnino contemp- tui habens, eorum monita et ad suae animae detrimentum sine effectu causae condusos ad prOpria absolsit monasteria, ob— testans eos minime ad praefatum sanctissimum papa declinari. 7;p%%. .442: Tune praelatus sanctissimus vir, ignitb igni regis oonsilio, misit regiam urbem suos missos 7 The appearance of the imperial envoy in Rome, the re- newed attempts to negotiate with Aistulf, and Stephen's plea for help from Constantinople all demonstrate that continued reliance on the Byzantines for protection and the impulse to achieve a secure territorial position in Italy were not mutually exclusive policies.8 Yet, the pope's dispatch of envoys seeking aid from Constantinople should not lead to . the conclusion that Stephen was still operating within the traditional boundaries of papal policy. That policy, based upon direct papal negotiation and what little aid the Byzan- tines could provide, had demonstrated its shortcomings in dealing with Aistulf. Stephen II, undoubtedly aware that substantial support from Constantinople was not likely, also sent appeals for aid to the new Carolingian king, Pepin the Short, in Francia.9 While not insuring a positive response et apostolicos affatos cum imperiale praefato misso, depre- cans imperialem clementia ut iuxta quod ei sepius exercit— andis has Italiae in partes scripserat, modis omnibus ad- veniret et de iniquitatis filii morsibus Romanam hanc urbem vel cunctam Italiam provinciam liberaret. 8Walter Mohr and many others have viewed papal partici- pation in the Frankish dynastic change and Gregory III's initial appeal for aid to the Franks as part of a consistent policy directed primarily against the Byzantines. However, this does not adequately explain the fact that even after the fall of Ravenna in 751, Rome continued in contact with Constantinople, hoping for continued aid from the Byzantines. Cf. Walter Mohr, S§%dien zur Charakteristik des karolin i- ggngn,§§nigtgm§ 1g . JahrTund ert tlSaarloui is, 195 55 , pp. 188ff. 9_1§g _§§pngg_ II, c. 15, p. 444: .... et dum ab eo nihil hac de re optineret, cernens praesertim et ah imper- iale potentia nullum esse subveniendi auxilium, tunc que- Iadnodum praedecessore eius beate memoriae domni Gregorius 0t .Grogorius atque domnus Zacharias beatissimi pontifices 662616 éxcellentissime memorie regi Francorum direxerunt, potentes sibi subveniri propter oppressiones ac invasiones 8 from Pepin, the fact that Rome had given its approval for Pepin's usurpation of the Frankish throne considerably im- proved Stephen's chances of obtaining a more sympathetic hearing than Gregory III had received in 739. Stephen's actions demonstrate that the major issue for him was the ac- For the moment, the source of the quisition of a protector. protection was secondary. The initial contact with the Franks brought a Frankish Ellabot to Home with the message that Pepin stood ready to ful- 10 In reply Stephen sent two fill the wishes of the pope. 3— etters, one to King Pepin and the other to the Frankish nobles, emphasizing in both the rewards the Frankish protec— t 01‘s would receive from St. Peter for fulfilling papal de- % ires.“ It was only when the pope's letters to the Franks b3? ought two Frankish envoys to Rome with instructions to ac— Q Ompany the pope to Francia, and when his requests for sup- bort from Constantinople only provoked a directive that he \ §uas et ipsi in hac Romanorum provincia a nefanda Langobar— Q~0rum gente perpessi sunt, ita et modo et ipse venerabilis hater, divina gratia inspirante, clam per quendam peregrinum i§has misit litteras Pippino, regi Francorum, nimio dolore ‘uic provinciae inherenti conscriptas. 10Ibid., c. 16, p. 444: Et dum valide ab eodum Lango- ardorum rege civitates et provincia ista Romanorum oppri- erentur, subito coniunxit missus iamfati regis Francorum, omine Trottigangus abbas, per quem misit in responsis omnem oluntatem ac petitionem praedicti sanctissimi papae adimplere. The “QM Carolinus a and 5, MGH 1322. III, 487-488. eforms of Boniface had created a situation where religious On the subject ewards had become important to the Franks. f the reforms of Boniface see T. Schieffer, Winfrid- s und die christliche Grundleggng Europas (Frei- Q 9 renew his efforts to negotiate with Aistulf, that Pope Ste- phen II decided to rely on the Franks for protection. Both the Frankish and Byzantine envoys must have arrived in Rome at approximately the same time and the differences in their answers to the same request could not have been lost on a pope determined to secure the territorial position of the papacy in Italy.12 Only then did the policy emerge which was to be followed until the end of the eighth century. The Church of Rome would attempt to create a dominion in public law, ruled by the popes as sovereigns and defended by the Frankish king, who would occupy a position secondary to that of the pope.13 However, it is unlikely that Stephen II C O‘ul'd have foreseen the consequences of his decision to turn The involvement of the Franks in an already t O the Franks. Q omplex situation in Italy, the bitter disputes between landed aristocrats and papal officials in the Papal States, ‘he legal foundation of papal rule in Byzantine possessions, Qam the danger that the Frankish protector could become a “aster were all problems barely discernible in the autumn of 7 53 as Stephen made preparations to travel to Ravenna and w‘rancia. As the pope approached Ravenna, accompanied by the two hankish envoys and the Byzantine official, he was undoubtedly \ 1201'. Pauli Gesta Episcoporum Mettensium, MGH §§ II, 268. 13Walter Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government in the , , 3rd ed. (London, 1975f, pp. 51-52. Ullmann's _ ' deas, useful in this instance, must be viewed with a great fieal of caution due to his tendency to overestimate the con- VEisgtency of what he terms the papal "blueprint. " 10 certain that this last attempt to negotiate with Aistulf would be no more successful than the previous efforts.1u In the virtual certainty that Aistulf would refuse papal demands, Stephen was determined to seek his protection from the Franks and Aistulf was powerless to prevent the continuation of the pope's journey to Francia. While some scholars have correc- tly pointed out that Stephen's journey tO'Francia did not mean an open break with Constantinople, one cannot conclude from this that the pope turned to the Franks following ins- tructions from the Byzantines. The whole idea of Stephen acting in Francia on imperial instructions and enlisting the aid of the Franks in a Byzantine cause is simply not sup- ~hearted by the evidence.15 This view is based upon the fact that the Byzantine official lodged no protest about the con- ‘ inuation of Stephen's journey and that he quietly journeyed Back to Rome. Without exploring the issue in detail, it is Q3_ea.r that these views of the pope acting in an imperial §llarge in Francia do not take into account the possibility Qt revolutionary action on the part of Stephen II. On the § ontrary, it is clear that, as the pope arrived in Gaul, he \as acting, legally or otherwise, as the representative of \the "chosen people." \ 1%. Duchesne, Les remier temps _d_e l'Etat pontifical (153—1022) (Paris, 1'89'8 , p. 20. 15The theories of the pope acting in an imperial charge Ne expressed by C. Bayet, "Remarques sur la caractére et ‘98 consequences du voyage d'Etienne III en France," fl, XX ‘1882), 89-94, and H. Dannenbauer, "Das rfimische Reich und Nd ‘der Westen vom Tode Justinian bis zum Tode Karls des Gros- V,” W d_eg mittelalterlichen Welt (Stuttgart, 1958). 11 After the failure of negotiations with Aistulf, Stephen continued on to Francia, where he was greeted upon his arri- val by Pepin's elder son, Charles, who was sent to conduct the pope to Ponthion.16 Stephen's meeting with Pepin in early 754 initiated a series of negotiations which culmin— ated in the creation of a papal-Frankish union, two campaigns in Italy by the Franks, and donations to the Roman Church. Yet, what actually transpired during the pope's stay in Francia and the nature of the agreements between the pope and the Frankish king have been issues in a scholarly dis- Plate which has endured for generations. While the exact nature of the donations will form an essential part of a later section of this work, it is important to establish Q attain facts about the nature of this initial Frankish- bapal union. One group of Frankish sources merely report the pre— § ence of the pope in Francia. He is portrayed as coming to ‘. epin to seek aid against the Lombards, the oppressors of ‘he Roman Church.17 The Royal Annals are particularly terse, \ 160hronicarum guae dicuntur Fredegarii scholastici libri Q m contlnuationibus, m _S_§ Merov., II, 1 3: Haec aud- ens rex, cum gaudio et laetitia et ingente cura recipere eum ‘raecipit et filio suo Carlo ei obviuo ire praecepit, qui us- ‘ue ad Ponteugone villam publicam ad eius praesentiam adducere eberet. - Similar reports on Stephen's arrival and his recep- ‘ion by Charles are in Chronicon Moissiacense, M SS I, 292; Vita s e ani II c 25—71»— 3' __ . , p. 7; Annalee Mettenses riores, wa'fit‘rs ’ —zrz.—— rer. Germ. g usum schol., p. . -__S 17 s Fuldenses, a. 753, m g rer. Germ. Q usum w” p. I Stephanus papa Romanus aumium contra Hais- ‘nlfum regem Langobardorum petens ad Pippinum in Franciam Venit;.... cr. Annalee Alamannici, L4G_H s_s I, 26-26; flales ‘ b1: 1. H.151: 2?. 29- ‘ 12 mentioning only that the pope came to Francia requesting aid and defense.18 Even the most ardent scholars have been un- able to uncover oaths, gifts, or conspiracies in these ac— counts. Such, however, is not the case with other, more de- tailed, reports of the meetings. The major difficulty has arisen from sharply contrasting narratives. In the words of the papal biography, Stephen II was met a few miles outside Ponthion by Pepin, who descended from his horse and prostrated himself before the pope. Pepin then walked alongside the pope's horse, performing the " strator" service, which was to become a sharp issue in later meetings between popes and emperors in the Middle Ages.19 J:08.ter, in their discussions at Ponthion, Stephen pleaded that Pepin should intervene in a pact of peace to "arrange the cause of St. Peter and the republic of the Romans." bepin then swore to satisfy the pope's wishes and to restore ‘he Exarchate of Ravenna and the other places and rights of ‘11s republic.2o If one was forced to rely solely on this \ 18Annales regni Francorum, a. 753, MGH fi rer. Germ. E k schol., p. 10. See also Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, sum a. 753, Ibid., p. 11. 19Vita Stephani II, c. 25, p. 447: Ipseque in palatio auo, in loco qui vocatur Ponticone, ad fere trium milium spa- tlum, descendens de equo suo, cum magna humilitate terrae hrostratus, una cum sua coniuge, filiis et optimatibus, ean- ._‘;§§pgtgr_Partner, The Lands of St. Peter. pp- 19-20- 15 For these scholars, however, a presupposition to Pepin's pledge was a formal commendation by the pope into the Fran— kish royal protection.26 In addition to describing a rela- tionship where the pope would be in a distinctly inferior position to the Frankish king from the beginning, certainly not the pope's intention, once again a logical analysis has been complicated by the inclusion of the idea that a Roman pope would involve himself in a strictly Frankish legal rela- tionship. Further, it remains doubtful that the pope, sear- ching for a protector of his independent territorial posi— tion in Italy, would avail himself of such a constricting relationship. Another group of scholars has come closer to reality by partially ignoring a complicated legal interpretation. Here he promises are postulated: a bond of affection between hope and king and an obligation on the part of the Frankish king to protect the Roman Church.27 This certainly seems t-‘-1oser to what Stephen was attempting to accomplish, but the idea of a firm protection obligation undertaken by the \ 26Wilhelm Gundlach, D_i£ Entstghung ge_s Kirchenst ates E Q? c i e B iff 3L3 publica Romanorum (Aalen, 19 9 , p. ? . as also 5. Rodenberg, Pippin, Kglomarm m Papst fig- ;Jsgggg II (Berlin, 1923); L. Saltet, La lecture d'un texte et la criti ue contemporaine, les prétendues promesses de Qui- Qrzy (7 ) et de Home (774) dans la Liber Pontificales," LLB, 1940. pp. 176-206. 27W. Sickel, "Die Vertr'ége der Papste mit den Karolingern \md das neue Kaiserthum," Deutsche e’tschrif if; Gesghichts- , XI (1894). 301-351; XII (189575;, 4+3, 0. to , _gmg di fronte Bisanzio g g Longebardi (Rome, 1941), pp. 529-5159.; Gustav Schnurer, E Entstghung 9&8. W (Koln. 1894. p. #3. --., 16 Frankish king does not take into account the fact that Pepin s involvement in Italy was confined to two campaigns. Indeed, the threats to the papacy certainly continued beyong the Perhaps the time of the direct Frankish interventlons. whole problem, which will have a direct bearIng on the ponti- floate of Hadrian, will become clearer by a br1ef considera- tion of the events. On the basis of both Frankish and papal sources, 1t V'cmrld not be unreasonable to postulate that Pepin did pro- Inlse to come to the defense of the Church of Rome and to re- <=€stween pope and king. ::.=‘1E obligation to the Church of Rome for its approval of his He may even have had firm ‘j‘ilssurpation of the Frankish throne. :lEitilitical reasons for a show of force In Italy,28 but neither Jblis religious veneration nor his sense of obligat1on were to “‘nake him the pliant tool of the pope.29 In thls sense, :Eitephen has succeeded in obtaining his protector, but he was ‘soon to experience that his protector had a Will of h1s own. 28Cf. Albert Hauck, Kirchenggschichte Dgutschlgnds (Ber- ' ol' tik :lin, 1954), II, 19-20; Robert Holtzmann, D1 1g wi 33_ des Kfini g Pippins (Darmstadt, 19 2 , pp. ’1’. to Ajzglartin Lintzel, "Der Codex Carolinus und die Motive typing Italienpolitik," HZ, CLXI (1940), 38. ._ l.\ 'h T____f 20 treaty was signed among Romans, Hanks and Lombards.39 By the close of the year 756, a firm relationship had been est- ablished between the Frankish king and the pope. But, the nature of the relationship. still not completely clear to either side, already seemed far from what Stephen had initi- ally desired. Throughout this entire succession of events, Stephen had been acting in the political interests of the Roman Church. Aistulf had represented no real threat to the fab- ric of the Christian religion, but Stephen's desire for in- dependence had led him to extraordinary measures. He had succeeded by political actions, if not totally legal ones, in bringing about the creation of the Papal States.”0 But, several other things are equally clear in all this. Stephen had presided over a true revolution within the Church. With— out pressing such terms as sancta Dei ecclesia rei publice Mam too far for precise legal meanings, it is clear that the political interests of the pope had become closely associated with his religious authority. The pope was Claiming political sovereignty over an essentially religious g 39F'I‘edeggii scholastici libri fl cum continuationibus, Do 185: s Mettenses priores, pp._45-49; Vita Stephani i3» c- 4 , p. 53. Once again, the problem of the territor- al restitutions will be considered later in this work. “001‘. W. Sickel, "Kirchenstaat und Karolinger," fl, WW (1900), 393. One scholar has recently demonstrated 3"“ the Lombard kings were actively involved in religious mm‘,ili.1:.’n.ons and not the true enemies of religion as they ggizigftenportrayed in papal correspondence. Cf. Karl ,. "Zur Abl'ésung der Langobardenherrschaft durch die fiflmr'sm. LII (1972). 1-36. a ev0~ .- 0..o. . l .. §.‘ 5.. .' u I .- ‘1 x . \1 a k. ,. . . “.4 a f 21 entity. In so doing, he made the Church of Rome even more vulnerable to the uncertainties of political life. More specirfically, the creation of the Papal States had made the office of pope more attractive for political reasons and the rule of those "lands of St. Peter" would become the object of strife within the city of Rome.41 Further, the introduction of the Franks into the poli- tical scene of Italy brought another complication to an al— ready complex legal situation. The Frankish king was now the determining factor not only in the continued existence of the Papal States,.but also in the affairs of the Lombard kingdom. Pepin's attitude after 756 demonstrated that he had no intention of remaining the compliant tool of the pope. The events of 754 and 756 had clearly shown that, rather than creating a removed protector, Stephen had actually en- Sineered a situation where he was totally dependent on the Power of the Frankish king for the furtherance of his poli- tical designs. The relationship created by Stephen's actions, therefore, was by no means an equal one.“2 For his Part, even though he revered St. Peter and his vicar, Pepin clearly intended to head the Frankish Church and to involve himself in Italy as little as possible.)+3 What was undoubt- edly at issue after 756 were differing ideas on the duties “— lcf. Peter Partner, The Lands p__f St. Peter, pp. 20- 21; 55°11 Home. 3m haciiéial C's—(Paris. 19347? p FE he gAbfil-Simson. 1,62- r y ‘5' :714 clear exposition of Pepin' 8 ideas and actions is gubert Hauck.K ir ireep pgeschichte Deutschlands, II, 1-70. ‘ fi— 22 of the protector. The papal idea, to create a protector to serve at the behest of the Church, was opposed by a Frankish idea of an autonomous protector, acting on his own initiative. As one scholar has expressed it, "The former conception de- notes control of the protector; the latter denotes control of the protected."w+ All of these things, political factions within a religious institution, continued difficulties with the Lombards, increased papal dependence on a Frankish pro- tector, and the fragility of the entire situation, were to become painfully obvious in the years following Pepin's second Italian campaign. Almost immediately, Stephen made it clear that he con- sidered Pepin's work incomplete. In a letter of March 757. the Pope pleaded for the Frankish king to persevere in the liberation of the "people of God" and in the acquisition of the full justice of St. Peter. In addition, a transfer of the "remaining cities" was requested, indicating that Ste- phen did not regard Pepin's transfer of twenty-two cities in the Exarchate of Ravenna to St. Peter to be a complete fulfillment of the territorial agreements between pope and Frankish king.l'"5 After 756 the constant reference to 71 7:541alter Ullmann. Tge Growth 9; Papg Government, pp. 45 Cepolipus 11, Mg}; Epp. III, 505: ..., ut iubeas finite}: in hoc bono opere, sicut certe confidimus, usque in 9" Permanere pro sancte Dei ecclaesiae perfecta exulta— 51°39 8t eius populi liberatione et integra securitate et Plenariam iustitiam eidem Dei ecclaesiae tribuere digneris 3%G Gptimm et velocem finem in causa fautoris tui beati . e i"adhibere iubeas: ut civitates reliquas, quae sub us dominii ditione erant connexe atque constitutas, fines, ed... ’1 ’0-.. c an a I‘m. _ I ~.,.. .na - Na: ,1 5.‘ 0‘. ~.. “l . \‘ '1 u I. " s .. . u . u ‘9 _u?\ .‘ ‘ fi— 23 mi; iuspitiae and to the civitates guae remanserant be- came the cornerstones of papal demands on the Franks. However, at the same time, an accident created another means for the Church of Rome to realize its objectives. In the same letter, Stephen informed Pepin that the divine judg— ment had been exercised on King Aistulf, the "destroyer of the churches of God."l"'6 Aistulf had been killed in a hunting mishap in late 756 and the ensuing scramble for power demon- strated the predominant influence of the Frankish king in Italy. Two candidates for the Lombard throne quickly emer- ged: Ratchis, the brother of Aistulf who had previously re- linquished the Lombard throne to take monastic vows, and Desiderius, identified in one source as the duke of Tus- cany.""7 Despite the fact that Ratchis, as the weaker of the W0. may have been preferred by factions within the Lombard kingdom, Desiderius became the new king of the Lombards.l+8 territoria, etiam loca et saltora in integro matri tuae Spiri— . Sanctae ecclesiae, restituaere praecipiatis; ut populus 1, queen a manibus inimicorum redemisti, in magna securi- tate et delectatione tuo auxilio adiutis vivere valeat. 'u6lh133. Pp. 505—506: Etenim tirannus ille, sequax dia— POllv Haistulfus, devorator sanguinum christianorum, eccles— larum Dei destructor, divino ictu percussus est et in in- ferni voraginem demersus: in ipsis quippe diebus, quibus 8110 Romanam urbem devastandum profectus est, post anni spa- tii circulum ita divino mucrone percussus est, ut profecto in 80 tempore, quo, fidem suam temptans, diversa piaculi scelera perpetratus est, in eo suam impiam finiret vitam. The hunting moidentds mentioned in Chronicarum guae dicpptur Frede arii senileatipiriibgi II ppp epntinuetigpibus. c. 122, BT'IEET"' '7 zgu;ifegptippatio Lombarda, MGH §§ pepg.. p. 217. , 91". AL Gasquet, "Le royaume Lombard, ses relations avec 1 enpir _ .(je grec et avec les Francs," pg, xxxin (1887). 86. . 9:53 De". ,' " ‘ 0-... a 1.4- 5., l ..‘H I‘g. u“. " I ,‘I I1 1"! \ v" \_. . . \. \ .I .\ a . . u o ‘ 24 Desiderius was supported by Stephen and was the apparent can— didate of the Franks. He had turned to Rome for support and, in return for certain promises from him, Stephen had persua- ded Pepin, through the Frankish king's envoy, Fulrad, to ap- prove of Desiderius as King of the Lombards.49 The motives of Stephen in this episode are rather trans— parent. The pope had extracted from Desiderius a promise to transfer certain cities to St. Peter in return for papal aid against Ratchis. Desiderius swore to give these cities to Rome in the presence of the deacon Paul, who was Stephen's brother and successor, the consiliarius Christopherus, and F‘ulrad.50 Stephen's goal was to extend papal holdings in Italy and, to do so, he required the support of the Frankish king. This Frankish help was crucial since the Lombard dukes of Spoleto and Benevento had seized the opportunity provided by the succession struggle to attempt to free themselves from Lombard royal authority. The pope tried to combine the transfer of the cities, the pact of peace with Desiderius, and the independence of the two duchies from Lombard control under the general protection of Pepin. In his appeal the Pope attempted to persuade Pepin to guarantee the entire ar- tenement.-51 __ 159% epicarum 93g dicuntur Fredegarii, c. 122, p. 186: Wanda nna cum consensu praedicto rege Pippino et consi- flzom‘ocerum iuoium Desiderio6in sedem regni ingtituunt. Cf. . 3 ob ns 3, a. 75 , MGH §_S_XIII, 22 3 Vita Ste- WEQLI s.¢- $49.51, 1» 455. _ — —' 5”filteStepheni g, c. 49-50, p. 455. 0 :ggolgus 11, MGH Epp. III, 506: Atque fidelem O ,. eetum regnum vestrum esse testatus est et petiit 9 -. .. OCA~ U . ‘ a \ .th ' :no .- ‘n. I I w; . . . .- ‘I h. v . . . II" . \,‘ .- .._ v I‘_. ‘. .1 ' ‘\ ‘ s 25 By now Pepin's influence was most important in Italy even in his absence. It soon became apparent, however, that Pepin had no intention of undertaking any further Italian campaigns. Emboldened by the Frankish king's apparent re— fusal to accept the Lombard duchies in his royal protection, Desiderius quickly subdued their rebellions.52 If papal de- signs in Italy were to be realized, it was now clear to Rome and to the new Lombard king that papal territorial demands Fur— W<~'.=:1:'e totally dependent on the actions of the Franks. ther, by the time of his death in 757, it was obvious to s‘hephen and to his brother and successor, Pope Paul I, that their Frankish protector did not intend to comply with all their demands. In many ways the pontificate of Paul I can be viewed as a continuation of Stephen's years. Indeed. since Paul was S‘l:ephen's brother and chief aide, it would be surprising had it been otherwise. Paul had often acted as Stephen's envoy a31d had probably contributed to the shaping of the Frankish- ~:STaagpal union.53 In the years after 757 it was Paul's chief \ hos, quatenus bonitatem tuam deprecaremur, ut cum eo et cuncta fiente Langobardorum magnam pacis concordiam confirmare iubeas. an et Spolaetini ducatus generalitas per manus beati Petri et um fortisshum brachium constituerunt sibi ducem. Et tam jillsi Spolitini quamque etiam Beneventani omnes se commendare .er nos a Dec servate excellentiae tuae cupiant.... 52 i Salernitanum. c. 9, MGH _S_S III, 475-476: initio sui regni Spolitini et Beneventani rebelles tantum 2E"Iterunts qui hiemis tempore cum suo exercitu pergens, per pug- ‘la. ad suum reduxit servitium. Cf. also Cogex Carolinus 17, m 112-, III. 515. 53Madmirable summary of Paul's pontificate is David er, ”Papal-Lombard relations during the Pontificate of m I." Malia Historical Review, Lv (1968-69), 358—376. ‘- 7 x ‘ \ .N' It'- u Ou-Q ‘ ”to. U . ”n; s 9-- . v ~.. ~.. 26 concern to consolidate his brother's territorial gains, but this involved a recognition of the fact that both Franks and Lombards had to be guarantors of the status guo in Italy.5l+ Yet, in addition to requests for continued Frankish aid, another fear appeared in Paul's letters. Early in 758, Desi- derius had struck a temporary union with the Byzantines in Naples, vowing to help a Greek army recapture the city of Ra.venna.55 Throughout the remainder of the eighth century the fear of a Greek invasion of Italy, real or imagined, be— came a factor in papal policy. Consequently, Paul's task of consolidation became even more difficult. To forestall the possibility of a Greek-Lombard alliance in Italy, which Would have been disastrous for papal territorial designs, Paul turned to Pepin. The pope hoped that through negotia- tions Pepin could persuade Desiderius to aid the Church of R(Jule in the event of a Greek invasion.56 This again indi- Qaflzes the influence of the Frankish king in Italy and even more vividly illustrates that without the protection of the Fin- :E‘l‘ankish king, the papacy was relatively defenseless. a~11y, in 760, Frankish diplomatic pressures effected a \ 5“Ipid., p. 367. 55% cigoim' us 17, mg}; 322. III, 515. Et ipse Desi— derius cum un verso Langobardorum populo professus est, Deo . ibi contrario, auxilium prelatis imperialibus exercitibus impartire, quatenus--ex una parte ipse imperiatoris exercitus Q“f: ex alia isdem Desiderius cum universo Langobardorum populo-- ‘trique dimicantes Ravennantium civitatem conprehendere queant, N no imperator, quod Dominus non permittat, adimplere val- t ,quodcumque voluerit voluntatem. '"1‘L-15cr. nggx Carolinus 30. m 222- III: 536- 0.”. ‘I‘.- a... ,‘ '3. n n. u" . n I 1 a r "‘I 2? recognition of the status guo by both pope and Lombard king.57 Apparently the pope renounced his claims to the territories not yet delivered by Desiderius as part of his In return, the Lombard initial agreement with Rome in 756. 58 king vowed to recognize the existence of the Papal States. But this did not mean that Desiderius was to be a passive Partner of the papacy in Italy. Since his accession in 757 Desiderius had been care— fully solidifying his position. He had replaced the rebel- .1 ions dukes of Spoleto and Benevento with his own candidates 311d had attached Duke Arichis of Benevento to himself through a marriage of his daughter to Arichis.59 He certainly had not given up the Lombard plans for bringing all of the penin- s111a under Lombard royal control, but it is fair to say that Desiderius was considerably more cautious than had been Ais- ‘t‘ulf. He probably never had any intention of fulfilling the promises he had made to Stephen II, but he was also very <3arezt‘ul to avoid an open break with the Franks.60 His pol— icy was to continue pressure on Home and to wait for his op- :Dormnity, which was to appear initially with the death of bani I in 767. \ 57Cf. Codex Carolinus 19, MGH gm. III, 520. 580:. Lu. Hartmann, Geschichte Italians in; Mittelalter (leipxig. 1900). II, 2. lam—"6215-21 . 7f sggimgnigon Salernitanum, c. 9, gig}; _S§ III, 476. ‘ “ 'éoPe'ter5CIassen, Karl _d_e; Grosse, ga_s Papsttum und n.’io o *‘poy v-.. .. .‘p.__ a u.‘ t ‘ \ a u | \ . u a § 28 By the time of Paul's death, it could well have become Obvious in Rome that the papacy's achievement of a territor- ial position in Italy was similar to the act of opening Pan— dora's box. In addition to continued difficulties between Romans, Greeks and Lombards, the attempts of the Church to control the areas of the Papal States were creating animo- si‘l:ies in the countryside. Two centuries of Byzantine rule in these areas had brought about a situation where military aJA‘thority had been combined with local land ownership to create a relatively powerful and autonomous landed aristo- c>I‘a.cy. The outlines of this process are not very clear, but this landed aristocracy became increasingly independent as Byzantine power in Italy declined.61 Only within the city of Rome was the change from a Byzantine bureaucracy to 3- papal one easily accomplished. The growing power of papal government in Rome in the e:‘Lghth century had made it clear to noble families in the city that their sole opportunity for a realization of talent and ambition lay within the ranks of the clergy.62 Conse- quently, offices in the papal bureaucracy became the private Preserve of a select number of Roman families and, eventu- ally, noble aspirations centered on the papal throne itself. It wasno coincidence that all the popes in the eighth 6104?. L. M. Hartmann, "Grundherrschaft und Bureaukratie in Kirchenstaate vom 8. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert," fl; ngial-ugd Wirtschaftsggschichte, VIIr11909), Q'. . Q; a??§f. {Peter Llewellyn, Rom m__§ teh k Ages , p. 109. "cattrvaz. 1.. . unra- 0-..- o. "h a -s._ ‘e.' r. u an ‘- ' I ,v'n, 29 century devoted to the idea of papal territorial expansion calne from this Roman nobility. In addition, the eighth- century popes rose through the ranks of a papal bureaucracy which was becoming an increasingly closed familia.63 This was already evident in the pontificates of two brothers, s‘bephen II and Paul I, and would be continued in the nepo— tism practiced by Hadrian I. The nepotism extended beyond 11Fle eighth century until one family produced three popes, Stephen IV, Sergius II and Hadrian 11.64 This familial and r1C>'ble nature of the papal bureaucracy was a primary reason VVIIy the Church of Rome began formulating territorial designs 34r1 the eighth century. It is also an explanation of the re— nFIEL‘rkable consistency of papal policy in territorial questions ELiFter the removal of the Exarohate of Ravenna in 751. But, as a result, conflict between this closed bureaucracy and 'tlle landed aristocracy in the Papal States was inevitable. As Paul I lay dying, a group of these landed nobles 13turst into the city of Rome to usurp the papal throne. The leader of the group, Duke Toto of Nepi, a city in Tuscany, eriggineered the election of his brother, Constantine, as the new pope.65 As has been demonstrated by Peter Classen, Toto ¥ 63Ibid. 6h . C. Bayet, "Les elections pontificales sous les carol- Ingiens." 3g, XXIV (188“), 61. 65Vita Stephani Ill. 0. 3, p. #68: At vero nondum adhuc spiritum exalaverat, ilico Toto quidam dux, Nepesinae civi- tatis dudum habitator, cum suis germanis Constantino, Pass- ibo et Paschale, aggregantes tam ex eadem Nepesina quamque ex aliis Tusciae civitatibus multitudinem exercitus atque catervam rusticorum, ingredientesque per portam Beati ‘I. ’ I s.‘ . o.- ‘d u... I "V 0 -v-'.. \ ~.‘ ~. A... u v... . ..- ' "u. o.-. - ~,\“ .' ‘F . 1| . ~. \: u I D‘- . ’- a I 30 and his brothers realized that whoever wished to exercise authority in the Roman duchy had to control the throne of S13. Peter. With that accomplished, all other offices and Positions of power would automatically fall into his hands.66 FWDI? the first time, the simmering dispute between landed EEIE‘flstocrats and papal bureaucrats had boiled over into open c=<>Jnflict. As a direct outgrowth of the papal policy to €1<>lfleve territorial power, the prize in the struggle had be- c><>Ine the papal throne. The Church of Rome and those Roman r1Cfbles who had gained a monopoly of power within the Church Were confronted in the most direct fashion with the fact that those living within the boundaries of the Papal States demanded a voice in the direction of affairs.67 For the ulornent, as can be seen in the testimony of the primicerius c3hristopherus before the Lateran synod of 769, the papal bureaucracy had been surprised and overwhelmed.68 Constantine managed to remain pope for only one year. Despite the irregularities of his election, he apparently intended to continue in the Frankish-papal union, since both of his letters to Pepin requested continuation of the Fran- kish friendship and fulfillment of the Frankish promises to ‘ Pancratii in hanc Romanam urbem, adque in domo antedicti Totonis armati adsistentes, elegerunt ibidem subito Cons- tantinum fratrem eiusdem Totonis, laicum existentem. 66Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz, pp. 8-9. . 67C. Bayet, "Les elections pontificales sous les carol- lngiens," pp. 5h-55. 68Cf. Concilium Romanum a. 769, MGH Conc. II, 8h. 0"v we... Iii. ~ DUI- . ‘v.. ‘0. II... I . g... . 31 St- Peter. 9 However, it is unnecessary to see in this any- thing more than an attempt by Constantine to legitimize his Position in the face of certain opposition from the papal bureaucrats. Further, it is erroneous to state that Pepin's acceptance of the situation forced the chief opponents of Constantine, the primicerius Christopherus and his son, Ser- gius, to turn to the Lombards for military assistance:70 The fact remains that Pepin's response, if any, to this sit- uation is not known. When Christopherus and Sergius eventu- a—:Lly turned to Desiderius, it was because they needed armed assistance to expel Duke Toto and his puppet pope from Rome. The experience of the last ten years had demonstrated to C311::‘istopherus that diplomatic support might be expected from the Franks, but not the needed military force. With the assistance of Duke Theodicus of Spoleto and the Lombard king, Christopherus and Sergius were successful in overthrowing Constantine and eliminating his Tuscan sup- Porters.71 Desiderius undoubtedly felt that this confusion in Rome had produced his awaited opportunity to bring the Papal States directly under his own control. Therefore. after Constantine was captured, the Lombard Waldipertus at— tempted to force the election of a certain priest named Philip as the new pope.72 But the ease with which 692mg; garages. 98 and 99. £911 322. III. 649-653. 70 As does A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, II, 74. “Iii-e fireman; III. o. 5-9. pp. 469470. 721bid.. pp. 47o-u71. 32 Chr istopherus frustrated this attempt and brought about the election of his own candidate as Stephen III demonstrates that the primicerius had probably anticipated a forced sei- zure by the Lombards and was prepared to deal with it. Desiderius had been duped and he was forced to await another oPportunity, and to nurse his hatred of Christopherus. How- ever, like Toto, the Lombard king now realized the importance of controlling the occupant of the papal throne. For their part, Christopherus and Stephen III moved quickly to legiti- mize their own positions through the convocation of a coun- cil to pass sentence on the usurper Constantine. The seizure of the papal throne by the layman Constan— tine had violated long-standing custom, which had stipulated the election of the pope by the Roman clergy in consultation With the citizenry of Rome, but until 769 there was no text which gave that custom the force of law.73 Thus, the coun- cil convened in the Lateran in April of 769 was summoned for the purpose of remedying this lack of election decrees, in addition to dealing with Constantine. By the decisions Of the council, no one could be elected henceforth to the See of St. Peter who was not a deacon or a cardinal priest?“ In addition, the direct involvement of the individuals 72E. Amann, L'époque carolingienne, Vol. VI of Histoire fig l'E lise, ed. A. Fliche and V. Martin (Paris, 19575, p. 2. 7”Concilium Romanum, a. 769, MGH Conc. II, 86: Oporte- bat, ut sacrosancta domina nostra Romana ecclesia, iuxta quod a beato Petro et eius successoribus institutum est, rite ordinaretur et in apostolatus culmen unus de cardinal- Ibus aut diaconibus consecraretur. cl.- 4 Inns— O5. ...v I u.- 0.; Q.. I '1 I I" V '» ~.l.‘ [I- . I «...,...Uln, i. y 33 (urtsside of the Church administration was limited to an ac- clamnation of the election as decided by the clergy, who had the exclusive right to vote in the elections.75 That these decxisions were the product of the papacy's new territorial sitnlation is quite clear. Combined with noble control of the: church offices, the limitation of participation in papal elecrtions to those within the ranks of the clergy insured a certain continuity in papal policies. The destiny of the Papal States was thus to be determined by the papal bureau- cracy'and not the aristocrats of the countryside. The limi- ted stability, therefore, which had characterized the ponti- ficate of Paul I, could have been continued had not events in the Frankish kingdom drastically altered the effectiveness 0f the Frankish protector and further emboldened Desiderius. The envoys sent to Francia by Stephen III and Christo- Pherus to invite the participation of Frankish bishops in the Lateran council found King Pepin dead and his two sons ruling as kings of the Franks. This fact alone should not have altered the basic union between the papacy and the Franks, since both sons had been included in the bonds cre- aflied during Stephen II's trip to Francia in 75“. Soon, hoWever, animosities between the two brothers, Carloman and Charles, threatened to plunge the Frankish kingdom into a \_ 751bid.: Sed et hoc sub anathematis interdictionibus ecernimus ut nulli unquam laicorum sive ex manu armata vel e¥ aliis ordinibus praesumant inveniri in elections ponti- flcis, sed a cunctis sacerdotibus atque proceribus ec- Qlesiae et cuncto clero ipsa pontificalis electio proven- lat, 34 renewal of the civil wars so characteristic of the old Mero— vingian monarchy. The danger of civil war motivated Pepin's widow, Bertrada, to work for the reconciliation of her two sorus. Her method was a system of marriages which would not onlgr bring peace between her two sons, but also create a lasrbing equilibrium between Franks, Lombards and Bavarians. Bertrada's motives in manufacturing the equilibrium based upon marriage ties have been debated at great length. To see no political motivation to her actions is rather pointless, since one is then left without reasonable expla- nations for her actions.76 Further, to see her actions motivated solely by a fear of a Lombard-Bavarian alliance is to underestimate the vision of Pepin's widow.77 To be sure, as part of his plans to secure his own position, Desi- derius had married another of his daughters to Duke Tassilo of Bavaria and the danger of combined Lombard-Bavarian action 'WaS doubtlessly in Bertrada's mind. But, the Frankish QUGen was more interested in establishing a general stabi— ‘lity, one which would heal the split between her sons, bind the Lombards and the Franks closer together, and bring Tas- Silo of Bavaria closer to the entire arrangement.78 \ P‘ ?6As does Wilhelm Martens, Die rfimische Frage unter .‘lppgn und Karl dem Grossen, p. 25. 252 77L-“- Hartmann. was Iialiehs. II. 2. pp. 251- 78E. Delaruelle, "Charlemagne, Carloman, Didier et la gglitique du mariage franco-lombard," EH, CLXX (1932), e ..., A ...,-g. \D. i h " ... L. . A: a. \ q .l 'a e ". . I a V 1 J u 'A n“\- . \ .fl ' ‘ I~:. K. «3" 35 To implement her designs, Bertrada first met with Car- loman in the cause of reconciliation.79 Subsequently, on her way to Italy, the queen travelled through Bavaria and probably met with Tassilo to insure peace and to obtain the duke's agreement to the plans.80 Finally, Bertrada con- ‘tinued to Pavia and Rome, completed negotiations with Desi- derius, and brought back another of the Lombard king's daughters as a bride for her elder son, Charles.81 During her pause in Rome, Bertrada tried to assure Pope Stephen III that the marriage was not intended to be a threat to Rome. She probably felt that marriages binding Franks, Lombards and Bavarians together would act as a pacifying force, thus removing any direct threats to the Papal States.82 As proof of her intentions, Bertrada apparently convinced Desiderius, as part of the general agreement, to make restitution of Several cities to St. Peter.83 However, the pope's 79Agnalg§ gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 771, p. 31: Berh- trada vero, mater regum, cum Carlomanno minore filio apud Salusiam locuta pacis causa.... See also Annales Mettenses Erlores, a. 770, p. 57. 80Annales pegni Francorum, a. 770, p. 30: Et in eodem anno perrexit domna Berta regina per Baioariam partibus Italiae. Cf. Abel-Simeon, I, 65, 79. Here the journey through Bavaria is portrayed as an attempt to make a lasting Peace with Tassilo. message sui gleam Masai. a. 770. p. 31: Annales Fulldenses, a. 770, p. 8. , BZW- Mohr, Studien zur Chagakteristik des karolingischen ..Kbnigtums 1m 8. Jahrhundert, p. 59. 83Annales Laureshamenses, a. 770, MGH §§ I, 30: Fuit Berta regina in Langobardia ad placitum contra Desiderio rege, et reddite sunt civitates plurime ad partem sancti x was. ‘Qz. ‘.. “b $ ‘o v a ‘\ l'h A. I .§ n n ‘ v. .e 36 subsequent reaction to the marriage arrangements shows that he did not share Bertrada's optimism. The pope probably re— COgrlized that this Frankish policy was really one of aban- donment. The marriage between Charles and the Lombard prin- cess created a situation where the older Frankish king re- nounced any influence in Rome and left Desiderius in total control of Italian affairs.8u Stephen reacted violently against the proposed marriage in a letter famous for its Vituperative characterizations of the Lombards.85 That all the caustic criticism of the marriage by Pope Stephen III was to no avail is shown by the fact that the marriage took place in early 770. Of even greater impor- tance, however, the marriage gave Desiderius a golden oppor— tlinity to enjoy his revenge on Christopherus and to enforce his authority in Rome. Despite the consistency of papal POIicy and the monopoly of papal offices by the Roman nobi- lity, it would indeed be surprising to find the papal bureaucracy free of factions. This is not to say that there Was a clash between military and clerical interests in Rome; the two had become too closely intertwined for that.86 But, just as Christopherus himself had once used Lombards to make \ PGtri“... Cf. Annales Mosellani, MGH SS XVI, #96, Annales _aximiniani, MGH SS XIII, 21, Chronicon— Moissiacenses, p. 1g5: Ann___a_l__es Lobienses, p. 228, Annales Petaviani, MG____H §_S I, 8“F. L. Ganshof, "Charlemagne," Spec., XXIV (1948), 520. Cf. also J. A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse und die Kirche, p. 20. 85Codex Cgolinus n5, MGH ppp. III, 560-563. 86Cf. Peter Partner, The Lands pf St. Peter, pp. 25-26. .‘Q U . ... . . nv-n- O ...,. q n I) I I u ..., I Q .‘~I 4", At! ‘2 . b i K 37 his position supreme in Rome, others could follow the same precedent. For his part, Desiderius realized that this time his intervention had to be more direct and personal. With the aid of a papal bureaucrat, the cubicularius Paul Afiarta, Des iderius brought about the destruction of Christopherus amid! Sergius, thus momentarily making his power supreme in Rome. Two contradictory reports of the drama in Rome have sur- Vived and both demonstrate that fear of Frankish reaction was still paramount in the mind of Desiderius. According 'tC> the papal biography, the Lombard king approached Rome ‘uxider the guise of coming to pray. Christopherus and Ser- gius, apparently not convinced by the Lombard king's reli- gious motives, gathered troops in the city and shut the gates. Desiderius then requested the pope to meet with him Chatside the walls to discuss the problems posed by the res- 1zitutions to the Holy See as a part of the recent marriage aLgreement. When the pope re-entered the city, he began IiLotting with Paul Afiarta and, as a result, both Christo- Pherus and Sergius were blinded.87 The second report is contained in a papal letter to Bertrada and Charles, possibly dictated by Desiderius him- self. Here Stephen III complains that Christopherus and Sergius were plotting with Carloman's agent, Dodo, to kill the pope.88 Only the intervention of Desiderius, who had 87Vita Stephani III. c. 29—32. pp. #78-h80. 88993219 W 148. M93. 3122. III, 566: ...nefandissimus a... .4 '5. , u I... '-v. . ‘Vo, .1 . ‘ u. “. ‘1 ~ ~ I . II 1 I '1 ' v \ \ g- n. '« ul .‘ 38 come to implement the restitutions to the Holy See, saved the life of the pope.89 In the first report the responsi- bil ity remained with Desiderius; in the second the respon— sible ones were Dodo and the Franks. Based upon the events of the previous twenty years and the later occurrences in the pontificate of Hadrian, the papal biography is probably more reliable.90 Viewed from yet another perspective, Stephen III had very little choice. His Frankish protection had been crip- Pled by Bertrada's marriage arrangements and he was left to face Desiderius almost alone. The presence of Carloman's envoy in Rome indicates that he, at least, was willing to fulfill his obligations, but Carloman had problems more im— Portant to his own survival in Francia. As is shown in the Papal letter, Desiderius was hoping to use the activities of the Frankish envoy to drive a greater wedge between the tWo brothers. Stephen's choice was simple: submission or Probable destruction. Desiderius had made it clear that the price for Stephen's continuance as ruler in Rome was the elimination of the Lombard king's hated enemies, \ 9hristopherus et Sergius, nequissimus eius filius, consilium lnientes cum Dodone, misso germani tui, Carlomanni regis, nos interficere insidiabant. 89;p;g.: ...nos excellentissimus filius noster, Desi— fiierius Langobardorum rex, pro faoiendis nobis diversis lustitiis beati Petri existeret, 90L. Halphen, "La papauté et la complBt Lombard de 771," Originally published in 3H, CLXXXII (1938), 238-2er; re- printed and cited here in _A travers l'histoirg £12 Moyen Age (Paris, 1950), p. 55. on», .. \“ - A a w ’- tK ! v “ '\_ V ‘ Q ‘M ‘- —~‘.m __ 39 Ch]: istopherus and Sergius. Stephen did submit, but he did not have long to suffer with the consequences of his deci- sion as he died early in 772. Other factors, however, brought about a more radical Change in the hopes of Desiderius. Sometime in 771, Charles Sent his Lombard wife back to Desiderius, thus beginning the dismantling of Bertrada's carefully constructed system.91 The motives of Charles in this action, barely one year after his marriage. have been debated for years. His rejection of his Lombard wife was probably induced by his realization of the growing Lombard power.92 It would not be difficult for Charles to perceive the dangers to himself in a strong I-C>mba1:'d--Bavarian--papal alliance, nor could he have failed to see how Desiderius was hoping to create a wider breach between the two Frankish kings. His first reaction to those dangers was to disentangle himself from an alliance which Prevented his pursuit of any active policy. Further, his Situation was made much easier by the fact that Carloman died in December of 771, preceding Pope Stephen III in death by only two months. In some ways, the situation in February of 772 was more Simple. Carloman's widow and her two sons had fled to the ‘ 91Contrary to the hypothesis of Walter Mohr that Charles 0nly repudiated his Lombard wife following the death of Car- loman, it is probable that he divorced her before the death 01? his brother. Cf. Walter Mohr, Studien zur Charakteristik @ karolingischen K'énigtums g 8. Lahrhundert, pp. 65—71. 92A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Qeutschlands, II, 78; J.A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse und die Kirche, p. 25. .vc. (at. A On» ...,, Coco.‘ u. 1+0 protection of Desiderius, probably from fear of Charles, al- though Einhard used the word "scorn."93 The Frankish—Lombard union had been shattered, but few of the other difficulties facing the Church of Rome had been solved. Despite the ac- tixristies of these twenty years, the papacy was still threa— tened by the Lombard king and dukes. Little had been done tc> Ixrotect the Papal States from almost continual Lombard incursions. Further, within the Papal States themselves, the: relationship of the pope as temporal ruler of the nobi- lity and the other churches had not been clarified. Granted th£e papacy had achieved a territorial position, but it was 'by' no means secure. The threat of future Greek intervention irl Italy remained to haunt the minds of those interested in freeing the church territories from Byzantine control. In addition, the religious issue of Iconoclasm threatened to InaLke impossible any accomodation with the Greeks. Finally, arhd most important, in its search for a protector the papacy had demonstrated its almost total dependence on the Franks. 'A-Vnay had to be found to make the Frankish protector less thana master and to create a legal foundation for papal 't€rrritorial claims. All of these problems demanded solutions alhi this was the situation facing the new pope, Hadrian I, “”10 was consecrated on 9 February 772. \_ 93Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, c. 3. p. 6: Sed in hoc ‘9 us suspecti quam fuisse ipse rerum exitus ad probavit, cum efuncto Karlomanno uxor eius et filii cum quibusdam, qui ex 0Dtimatum eius numero primores erant, Italiam fuga petiit et nullis existentibus causis, spreto mariti fratre, sub Desi- erii regis Langobardorum patrocinium se cum liberis suis Contulit. - .. ...,—5 ___ CHAPTER TWO ROMANS, FRANKS AND LOMBARDS. 772-77# Although the papal biographies never supply an abun- dance of information about the early lives of the popes, it is Iclear that Hadrian was born to a family belonging to the ROmanaristocracy.1 For several generations this Roman aris- tcuaracy had been monopolizing the offices of the papal buI‘eaucracy and Hadrian's family is a good example of this pr<>cess. After the deaths of his parents Hadrian was raised arhd educated by his uncle, Theodotus. His uncle was once \consul _ej; 9335 and later mimicerius, or first minister of tlhe papal bureaucracy.2 Thus, Theodotus was an aristocrat ““10 also occupied one of the highest offices of the Church. F"l-tr'ther, by the eighth century, the consul gt dug had be- ° the Lombard policies of his predecessor. In order to demonstrate the validity of his thesis, Mohr was forced to reshuffle the order of the early chapters in Hadrian's bio- graphy.16 Mohr's ideas have been criticized and it has \ luCodex Cagolinus 98, MGH Epp. III, 6#9. 15g§ 2376. Cf. Vita Stephani III, c. 16-17, p. #73. . 16Walter Mohr, Studien g3; Charakteristik ggg karolin- &}schen K'énigtums _i_m _8. Jahrhundert, pp. 7236. The most dlsturbing element of Mohr's hypothesis is the methodology ‘thch.dictates that if the sources will not support a cer- ain theory, the historian is justified in altering the na- e of the sources until they do support the hypothesis. This is not to imply that one should blindly accept the papal .1ographies as written, but I am not convinced by Mohr's Justifications for the new order in the Vita Hadriani. A Plausible explanation of the election emerges without such Sleight-of-hand. v clap I. u. v” » v 0.. D U nanl § '9‘ 9 s... b . ”0'. L. . .v~.. .‘V I, n .. ‘vuv . o.‘. "-~ “.. v ‘ k.‘ .. ~ I h C d 1 ' 'vu 'I 1 #7 been suggested that after his election Hadrian acted within the boundaries of papal policy, as it had been shaped during the previous twenty years.17 The pope's initial actions to- waurti Afiarta and Desiderius were only indications of his de- sire to live in peace with Lombards and Franks. Mohr has responded to the criticism by stating that Hadrian's persis- 'termce in attempting to negotiate with the Lombards indicated his; desire to pursue a "pro-Lombard" policy.18 It would Seem that Mohr's response did little to support his own hypothesis. It is clear that a reordering of the sections of Had- 3ridan's biography is not necessary to explain the fact that Hadrian pursued a policy of negotiation with Desiderius. Tfile most plausible way to explain Hadrian's election is to draw attention to the fact that the new pope intended to Fntrsue the ideal of papal territorial independence. He ini- 1zieflly'intended to rule free of faction, as evidenced by his recall of exiles and his retention of Afiarta.19 Exam- illing his pre-papal career one can see that his election did not provoke a split in Rome, as long as one does not CTVerestimate the rigidity of Frankish and Lombard parties. \— #9 17Heinz L'o'we, "Zur Vita Hadriani," D_A, XII (1956), ugh- 5- 18Walter Mohr, "Ein weiteres Wort zum Vita Hadriani," \Al‘chivum latinitatis Medii Aevi, XXVI (1956), 252. 19Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und _§Xzanz, pp. 11-13. See also Johannes Hialler, Das w, 9 3250 48 Hadrian stemmed from the circle of aristocratic Roman fami- lies, but he was also close to Pope Stephen 111.20 Immedia- tely after his election, the only thing Hadrian demonstrated was a dogged determination to pursue the cause of papal in- dependence. While the accuracy of this view will be borne out in an examination of Hadrian's actions subsequent to 772, there is one piece of immediate evidence which supports the hypo— thesis. Barely three weeks after his election, Hadrian is— Sued a charter to the monastery of S. Maria in Farfa, giving iUJ?isdiction over that foundation to Miccio, "the notarius \ng ionarius and first vestiarius of the Holy Church and to aJJL his successors, first vestiarii of the Apostolic See."21 SeVeral things are striking about this charter. To begin ‘"ifth, Hadrian was clearly claiming temporal jurisdiction and so‘vereignty over a monastery situated within the boundaries 01? the duchy of Spoleto. Secondly, the charter is dated by inlljperial years. not either by Spoletan ducal years or by :pEupal years. This could indicate that Hadrian, in his quest for independence, had still not eliminated the Byzantines 3&3 potential sources of aid. However, despite the impor- tHMnce of this charter, the dangers of basing a theory on the \ 20Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und 43 zanz. p. 11. 21gg 2395. Cf. P.F. Kehr, Italia Pontificia (Berlin, 1906), I, 19. A copy of the charter is contained in 9hronioon Farfense, ed. Ugo Balzani, FSI XXXIII, 156-158. . agree with Ewald that the proper dating on the charter 18 "X. kal. Mart.," or 20 February 772. 49 one surviving charter from this period have been recently 22 pointed out. Therefore, the best way to demonstrate Had- rian's desire to rule independently in Italy is to examine his actions during the first two years of his pontificate. Hardly had Hadrian been consecrated pope when he was confronted with the Roman Church's most pressing problem: King Desiderius of the Lombards. The Lombard king's connec- tion with Stephen III had solidified his position in Italy and Desiderius was anxious to continue the relationship with the new pope. He immediately dispatched three envoys to Rome, including Duke Theodicus of Spoleto, offering to renew the "bond of affection" between himself and the pope."23 H‘étdrian's response revealed several things about the atti- tudes of the new pope. He told Desiderius that he wished to live in peace with all Christians and that he would strive to continue the pact of peace which had been completed be- tWeen Romans, Franks and Lombards?“ This obvious reference \ . 22H. Fichtenau, "'Politische' Datierungen des frfihen Ml‘litelaltersfl' in Intitulatio _I_I, ed. H. Wolfram, MIOG Ergbd. XXIV (wien-K'o'in-Graz, 1973). p. #89. Fichtenau is m98t concerned with the transfer of certain imperial privi- hlges from the hands of the Byzantine emperors to other ands, a problem which will be considered later in this work. 23Vita Hadriani, c. 5, p. #87: Itaque in ipso exordio consecrationis eius direxit ad eius beatitudinem suos missos 1)?'siderius Langobardorum rex, id est Theodicum, ducem Spo- ¥ltinum, Tunnonem, ducem Eburegias, et Prandulum, vestarar- 111m suum, suasionis per eos mittens verba, sese quasi cum 90 in vinculo caritatis velle collegandum. Again, virtually 1‘ e sole source for these negotiations is the papal biography. 2l"Ibid.: Ego quidem cum omnibus christianis pacem cupio habere, etiam et cum eodem Desiderio rege vestro; in ea foed- eI‘is pace quae inter Romanos Francos et Langobardos confir- IKata est studebo permanendum. (I. 0-" I ..oo .4, .D ‘ .D l 50 to the agreements of 751+ and 756 indicated that Hadrian was interested in pursuing the policies of Pope Stephen II; that is, relying on the agreements as the cornerstones for papal territorial independence. But, the agreements of 751+ and 756 were not the only foundations for that papal policy. Hadrian continued in his response to the Lombard king by making reference to the fact that Desiderius had not ful- filled the promises he had made to Stephen III. In addition to revealing that he had been close to Stephen III, Hadrian also mentioned that Desiderius had promised restitutions to St. Peter during the Lombard king's visit to Rome in 771.25 It will be recalled that this visit had resulted in the de- S‘tr‘uction of Christopherus and Sergius and it is tempting to See in this an agreement of restitution between Stephen III and Desiderius in exchange for the destruction of the “'0 papal officials. In any event, Hadrian's position was that he would discuss Lombard-papal friendship as soon as DeSiderius made good the promises he had given to Stephen III. \ t‘ 25Ibid.x Sed et hoc isdem meus predecessor, pro dilec- dlone quam erga me suum pusillum habuit, mihi retulit, quia um ad eum postmodum suos missos direxisset, videlicet inastasium primum defensorem et Gemmulum subdiaconum, ador- s eum ut ea quae praesentaliter beato Petro pollicitus est adimpletet, taliter ei per eosdem missos direxit in res- ponsis: "Sufficit apostolico Stephano quia tuli Christo- Phorum et Sergium de medio, qui illi dominabantur, et non 3:11'1 sit necesse iustitias requirendum. Nam certe si ego lpsum apostolicum non adiuvavero, magna perditio super eum eVeniet. Quoniam Carulomannus, rex Francorum, amicus exis- e133 praedictorum ChristOpheri et Sergii, paratus est cum suis exercitibus, ad vindicandum eorum mortem, Roma pro- DeI‘andum ipsumque capiendum pontificem."---Ecce qualis est fides Desiderii regis vestri et qua fiducia ille cre- CleI‘e possim. 51 .If; as one scholar suggested, Desiderius had been trying to substitute himself for the Frankish king as the guarantor of' 1bhe papal position, his attempt had failed.26 Hadrian haxi already indicated that the territorial question in Italy was; paramount in his own mind and that he was unwilling to atNBELCh the resolution of that question solely to the good will of the Lombard king. Nonetheless, the pope was still not willing to abandon hijs attempts to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Lcnnlaards. He dispatched an embassy to Desiderius, which included Afiarta, believing the Lombard king was sincere in hiJS "oaths" and his intent to negotiate. Yet, even before the papal envoys reached Pavia, Desiderius seized the cities of Faenza and Commachio, and the duchy of Ferrara, all sit- uated within the boundaries of the old Exarchate of Ravenna arm: all specifically mentioned in the transfer of territory frOm the Lombards to Rome in 756.27 In an obvious attempt tc>‘pressure Hadrian into compliance with his own wishes, DeSiderius continued his attacks, forcing Archbishop Leo of -~_l 13‘ 26Karl Lamprecht, Die r'omische Frage von K'dni Pippin Q auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen (Leipzig, 13395, pp. 7-8. 27Vita Hadriani, c. 6, pp. h87-h88: Quorum iuramentis credens eius beatitudo, direxit ad eundem Desiderium regem 31103 missos pro his omnibus perficiendis, scilicet Stephanum, n(gtarium regionarum et sacellarium, atque Paulum cubicula- 13111!!! et tunc superistam. Quibus egredientibus ab hac Romana Erbe et Perusiam coniungentibus, coniunxit mandatum quod J-amfatus Desiderius abstulisset civitatem Faventinam et ucatum Ferrariae seu Comiacclum de exarchato Ravennate, quae sanctae memoriae Pipinus rex et eius filii Carulus et arulomannus, excellentissimi regis Francorum et patricii ROmanorum, beato Petro concedentes offeruerunt. H .1 1‘ -c. ..., a On- ..- 'u. 52 Ravenna to appeal to the pope for relief. Three messengers came to Rome from Ravenna stating that if the areas were not returned, Ravenna would not survive.28 Consequently, Had- rian directed his own two envoys to continue to Pavia, de- manding from Desiderius the fulfillment of his previous pro- mises and the restoration of the recently seized areas. The reply from the Lombard king revealed part of his plans: he refused to return the areas unless the pope came to Speak with him in person.29 Desiderius had a good reason for wanting Hadrian in his own grasp. To clarify fully the plan of Desiderius, it must be re— <'38-].1ed that the Lombard king did possess a potentially power- ful weapon. Upon the death of Carloman, his widow and two Sons had fled to the protection of Desiderius.30 Even though Charles had taken over the kingdom of his dead bro- 1flier with apparent ease, Carloman's two sons remained a ZBIbido, Co 7'8. p. “'88. 29Ibid.: Tunc ipse almificus pontifex dum adhuc prae- l.101'tlinati eius missi, Stephanus sacellarius et Paulus super- lsta, ad prenominatum pergerent regem, direxit eidem regi §uas deprecatorias litteras ut easdem redderet civitates, increpans ei fortiter per sua scripta, cur de promissione 1a quam per suos missos pollicendo, direxerat mutatus Bisset, etiam quia iustitias beati Petri iuxta ut repro- lserat non reddidit, insuper et civitates illas quas ante- tzessores eius beatissimi pontifices domnus Stephanus, Paulus 9‘3: idem Stephanus detenuerunt abstulisset. Dum vero talia eldem protervo Desiderius antefatus sanctissimus pontifex eprecando, ammonendo et coniurando direxisset, ita illi I‘§misit in responsis, quod nisi prius secum eo ipse almi- 1cus praesul coniungeret pariter loquendum, minime easdem I‘edderet civitates. Cf. Pauli continuatio tertia, c. 1&8, 1% _sg Lang., p. 212. 3°.Ei_nhaacii lite Klara; Masai. c. 3. p. 6. or. Annales W, a. 771, MGH g XIII, p. 228. as. \ uni .~ ' a‘ ll. 53 source of potential strife in the Frankish kingdom. The danger for Charles could have become particularly acute if Des iderius had succeeded in his plan of forcing Hadrian to crown the young sons as Kings of the Franks. The papal bio- graphy makes it clear that Desiderius, with his refusals to negotiate unless Hadrian should come to him, was hoping to intimidate the pope into compliance with his wishes, as he had once done with Stephen 111.31 Apparently aware of the Lombard king's intentions, Hadrian refused to comply, brin- ging about a stalemate. Desiderius refused to negotiate unless it was personally with Hadrian, and the pope refused t<3 go to the Lombard king. At this point, the new pope was beginning to realize that his hopes of peaceful negotiations with the Lombards were simply not going to be realized. It was within the context of the pope's growing reali- zation that negotiations with the Lombards were not going to succeed that the destruction of Paul Afiarta must be \ 31Vita Hadriani, c. 9. p. #88: In ipsis vero diebus ct>l'ltigit uxorem et filios quondam Carulomanni regis Fran- corum ad eundem regem Langobardorum fugam arripuisse cum Autcario: et nitebar ipse Desiderius atque inianter decer- a:bat quatenus ipsi filii eiusdem Carulomanni regnum Fran- corum adsumpsissent; et ob hoc ipsum sanctissimum praesulem se properandum seduoere conabatur ut ipsos antefati quon- Elam Carulomanni filios reges ungueret, cupiens divisionem 11:1 regno Francorum inmittere ipsumque beatissimum ponti- flcem a caritate et dilectione excellentissimi Caruli regis Francorum et patricii Romanorum separare, et Romanum urbem a'tque cuncta Italia sub sui regni Langobardorum potestate Sleiugare. Sed, favente Deo, hoc nullo modo potuit inpet- ére: quoniam sicut lapis adamans ita firmus atque fortis- sImus in suo corde antefatus beatissimus Hadrianus extitit Pontifex. See also E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. ggé All this must have happened during March and April of . ona . ..a: A , ..o aha a n' I n.— II! V ‘1. a 0 °‘ A .. H - p n \ 51+ placed. According to the papal biography, once Afiarta was away from Rome certain individuals came forward to accuse him of complicity in the murder of Sergius, who had been kept in a Roman prison after his blinding. Apparently afraid that word of the ensuing investigation might reach the ears of Afiarta, the pOpe sent secret instructions to Archbishop Leo of Ravenna to detain Afiarta upon his return from Pavia.32 The subsequent investigation reveals several important factors in the whole Italian situation, but a word must be said about this sudden accusation of Afiarta. If one were to accept the papal biographer's notions, the idea that Afiarta might have been involved in the murder of Sergius was completely new to Hadrian. This is a little difficult to believe in the light of Hadrian's position Prior to his election.33 Another explanation suggests it- Self, Afiarta had now become excess baggage for Hadrian. If it is true that Hadrian honestly pursued a policy of nego- tia'tion with the Lombards to bring about papal territorial Se(.‘Jurity, Afiarta would have been an important tool for the Pope. As the policy of negotiation obviously began to fail, AI'Z'I.arta's usefulness was at an end and the p0pe could take s"‘Toeps to remove a potentially dangerous foe. Hadrian un- doubtedly knew about Afiarta's complicity before this, but \ 321553; H driani, c. 9, p. 489. 33As he often did, H.K. Mann blindly accepted the ex- Planation of the Vita Hadriani. Cf. H.K. Mann, The Lives 01' the Popgs i_n the Middle Ages (London, 1925), I, 2, pp. EB2IE63. "” " “‘ Q. n... _ s. . a... . tau,“ ll. W. ., . v § L1 r- N 'u . M.‘: ‘.l ‘ a” ‘ , . 1'. ~.‘ I §‘; ‘5 _ 55 he could not afford to eliminate him. Yet, removing Afiarta proved to be far from a simple matter. The pope's investigation into the murder of Sergius found that a number of people, including Afiarta, were in- volved in the crime. One group, nobles from the city of Anagni, actually murdered Sergius at the behest of Afiarta, his supporters, and Duke John, the brother of Stephen III)” Obviously the animosities between the inhabitants of the countryside and papal bureaucrats had not subsided after the removal of the usurper Constantine and Duke Toto. It will be recalled that Sergius had been a prime mover in the ex- PLIlsion of Constantine and his supporters. It is also clear from this short passage in the papal biography that nepotism Was becoming even more prominent in papal affairs, as is illustrated by the mention of the pope's brother occupying the office of duke. But most revealing was the punishment and the manner in which it was administered to some of the murderers, initially including Paul Afiarta. \ 3“Vita Hadriani, c. 10, p. 489: Tune isdem beatissimus Pontifex cepit curiose antefati Sergii secundicerii mortem llhluirere. Convocansque cunctos cellararios subtilius eos Perscrutavit quomodo ipse Sergius ab eodem cellario abs- tractus fuisset. Qui respondentes dixerunt "quia prima 3n°¢1fis hora veniens Calventzulus cubicularius cum Lunissone Presbitero et Leonatio tribuno, habitatoribus Anagnine, ipse e“fidem Sergium abstulit, vivente domno Stephano papa, ante 9°§o dies quod de hac luce migrasset, et praefatis Campan- }nls illum tradidit." Confestimque deductus est ad medium lsdem cubicularius: et inquisitus quis illi praecepisset eu{Idem Sergium a praefato abstrahendi cellario et praenomin- atls Campaninis tradendum, respondit a Paulo cubiculario, Cognomento Afiarta, seu Gregorio defensori regionario et IGhanne duce, germano domni Stephani pape, adque Calvulo cL’t‘biculario sibi hoc fuisse praeceptum, quoram eisdem Cam- Paninis. 56 Upon conviction the accused were turned over to the prefect of the city, an officer long unmentioned in the sources for the city of Rome.35 Some were subsequently exe- cuted, but, more importantly, the rest were to be exiled to Constantinople. Exile to Constantinople was also the sen— tence for Paul Afiarta, who was by this time in the hands Of Archbishop Leo of Ravenna. Hadrian apparently wrote to the emperor, informing him of the murder of Sergius and the results of the investigation. He also requested that Paul Afiarta be held in exile in the lands of the Greek Empire ..36 "for the correction of all his deeds. Accordingly, the Pope directed Leo of Ravenna to send Afiarta to Constanti- nople, but Leo refused to obey. The archbishop's reasons, as stated in the papal biography, were that Desiderius was l'IOlding captive the son of Duke Mauricius of Venice and the duke hoped to use Afiarta in a prisoner exchange. For reasons not completely clear, Leo was unwilling to see this Prisoner exchange completed and began steps to eliminate Afiarta.37 Alarmed at Leo's refusal, Hadrian directed the x . 35Ibid., 0. 9. p. #90. The prefect was undoubtedly a algdicial official, but the office appears here for the first 1rune in centuries. Despite the efforts of Theodor Hirsch- feld, we know practically nothing about civil and criminal shrisdiction in eighth-century Rome. Cf. Theodor Hirschfeld, Das Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom vom 8. bis 12. Jahrhundert We'sentlich nach stadtr'dmischen Urkunden," _Agchiv fiir Urkun- Llenforsohung, Iv (1912), 1119-562. 36JE 2398. Unfortunately the letter is not extant. Cf. new. c. 15. p. #90. 371.133 Hadriani, c. 15, p. 491: Ipse vero archiepis- Copus, insidians vehementer eidem Paulo, adhibuit impiam 0.. v '9 II p -. .4 0,09. «...~ ‘vo. .- fin.~ . ‘Ao. .". . ‘3 I. ‘5 57 archbishop to insure Afiarta's safety, but Leo had Paul Afieurta executed in Ravenna.38 In addition to the problem of Leo of Ravenna's disobe- dierice, Hadrian's actions in the prosecution of Afiarta re— veaCLed.another portion of the pope's plans. Like the char- ter' dating in February of 772, the attempt to send criminals in exile to Constantinople illustrates that Hadrian had not totnally broken relations with the Byzantines. He was still interested in help from wherever he could obtain it and his a01xions demonstrate that he cannot be placed in a role of being either consistently pro-Lombard, pro-Frankish or pro- Greek. Similar in some ways to Stephen II and Paul, Hadrian was pursuing papal independence and to do so required that aVenues to a number of alternatives remained open. This is fan? from stipulating that Hadrian was acting in the tradi- tion of popes during the Byzantine period, totally recog- nizing the sovereignty of the Byzantine emperor and exer- cissing the functions of a Byzantine official.39 It merely \ aOccasionem, dirigens eidem praecipuo pontifici in respon— sis expedibile minime esse eundem Paulum illuc dirigi: in 90 quod Desiderius Langobardorum rex filium Mauricii ducis enetiarum apud se captum detineret, ne ipse Mauricius ilium suum cupiens ab eodem rege recipere, eundem Paulum ille vicaneum traderet. See also Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte g2; Stadt 39p, I, 397. 38Vita Hadriani, 0. 16-17, p. #91. 39Wilhelm Gundlach, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates und der curiale Begpiff Res publica Romanorum, p. 110: "Aus_ diesem Verhalten Hadrians ergiebt sich unzweideutig, dass er in dem beregten Falle fur den Strafvollzug nicht Sich, sondern den Kaiser als zustandig erachtete, aber doch allch fur das Strafurtheil, da der Kaiser nur der Scherge 58 illustrates that the possibility of Byzantine influence in Italy had not been ruled out as a potential source of support for the papacy. As for Archbishop Leo, Hadrian refused his request for absolution in the death of Afiarta and the prob- lem of relations between the archbishop of Ravenna and the pope in Rome would continue to afflict Hadrian in future years.“0 Of more immediate urgency for the pope were the actions of Desiderius after the execution of Afiarta. Afiarta had also been useful for Desiderius, but he had not been essen- tial for the continuance of the Lombard king's plan to force Hadrian to crown the sons of Carloman. Continuing the pressure on Hadrian, Desiderius seized numerous cities in the old Exarchate, including Senigallia, Iesi, Montefel- tro, Urbino and Gubbio, all of which, the biography points out, belonged to the Romans. From there the Lombard armies moved into Tuscany and into the duchy of Rome, "devastating the regions by the sword and fire.”1 Repeatedly Hadrian des Papstes gewesen ware, wenn er das Erkenntnis Hadrians nicht hatte genehmigen, abwandeln oder verwerfen dfirfen: es bekundet sich also hier nicht bloss die Souveranetat des Kaisers, sondern zugleich auch in dem Vorbehalt der Strafsgerichtsbarkeit fur denselben die unter byzantini— §Cher Hoheit ausgefibte Immunitatsherrschaft des Papstes uber den RBmischen Ducat." roita Hadriani, c. 17, p. #91. ullbid., c. 18, pp. #91-h92: Siquidem praenominatus Desiderius Langobardorum rex, superbiae iactantia elevatus, qua hora praefatas civitates exarchatus Ravennantium abs- it, confestim direxit multitudinem exercitum et occupare it fines civitatum, id est Synogaliensis, Esis, Monte- etre, Orbino, Egubio, et ceterarum civitatum Romanorum, fer a 0" 0‘. ’I. I... 0" i... 59 tried to stop the raids through envoys to Desiderius, but the Lombard king was interested only in negotiating with Had- rian in person.)+2 Finally, in response to one of the papal messengers Desiderius threatened that he would besiege the pope in Rome to force compliance with his wishes. Conse- quently, Hadrian prepared the city and the surrounding areas for defense. In addition, compelled by necessity, he called on Charles for help.43 That Hadrian finally turned to the Franks only when compelled by necessity is clear not only from the words of the papal biography, but also from the pope's actions in this entire sequence of events. The communication with the plura homicidia et depraedationes atque incendia in ipsis finibus perpetrantes. Nam et civitates Blerana dirigens generalem exercitum partium Tusciae, dum ipsi Blerani in fiducia pacis ad recolligendas proprias segetes generaliter cum mulieribus et filiis atque familiis egrederentur, irru- erunt repente super eos ipsi Langobardi, et cunctos primatos, quanti utiles in eadem civitate erant, interfecerunt: et praedum multam tam de hominibus quamque de peculiis abstul- erunt, ferro et igne cuncta in circuitu devastantes. Sed et in finibus Romane urbis seu ceterarum civitatum multa mala ac depraedationes isdem Desiderius perpetrare iussit. Etiam et castrum Utriculum occupare fecit. uzThe several attempts are briefly sketched in the Vita Hadriani, c. 19-21, pp. #92-993. One embassy included the abbot Probatus and twenty of his monks from the monastery of S. Maria in Farfa. Again, this was a strange relationship t? a Spoletan abbot and monastery. The raids and the nego- tlations occurred during the last months of 772. Cf. E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. 53. u3Vita Hadriani, c. 22, p. #93: Et dum in magna angustia 5“3 tribulatione consisteret, necessitate compulsus, direxit $1lcs missos marino itinere cum apostolicis litteris ad ex- 0EEllentissimum Carolum, a Deo protectum regem Francorum et atricium Romanorum, deprecans eius excellentiam ut sicut Suns pater sanctae memoriae Pippinus, et ipse succurreret (aue subveniret sanctae Dei ecclesiae ad adflictae Romanorum 60 Franks, the pope's first since his consecration, occurred nearly one year after he became the bishop of Rome. During that time Hadrian had attempted to steer an independent course, relying exclusively on no one and attempting to keep a number of alternatives open. Gradually it became evident that something more persuasive than negotiation was needed to remedy the problem with Desiderius and the only remaining course of action was to turn to Charles. This again illus- trates that papal plans for territorial independence would only remain plans unless a forceful means was found to bring them to fruition. It also brought to the surface the danger that the papal protector, even if he cooperated with the pope's wishes, could possibly become the master of Rome. However, for the moment it appeared as if Hadrian might have waited too long to summon assistance. Due to the previous Lombard raids all the land routes from Rome across the Alps to Francia were blocked by the forces of Desiderius. Consequently, the papal envoys were forced to proceed by sea on their journey to Charles. Also, almost immediately, Desiderius began to implement his threats by gathering an army and marching on Rome. Accom— Panying the Lombard king were the widow and sons of Carlo- man, since Desiderius still hoped to create difficulties within the Frankish kingdom by forcing the pope to crown \ Sen exarchatus Ravennantium provinciae, atque plenarias beati Petri iustitias et abstultas civitates ab eodem Desi- erio rege exigeret. See also Pauli continuatio tertia, c. “9, _MQ'! _S_§ Lang-g p0 2120 0 no. u}, a. (I, n - ‘A‘ ..- ‘v.} y s‘VI - ’l N‘ K.“ " I: .5 . 61 Hadrian's reaction was immediate: gathering the boys.uu within the walls of Rome people from Tuscany, Campagna, Per— ugia and the cities of the Pentapolis, he fortified the city and armed the populace to defend the city and the churches of Rome. In addition, he sent a final message to Desiderius, threatening him with anathema should he and his army continue their attacks on the Roman duchy. Undoubtedly to Hadrian's surprise, Desiderius retreated.u5 It is difficult to concur with the papal biography that Desiderius retreated from Rome due to fear of reverence, al- though it is true that this was the first time a threat of anathema had been employed in the papal pursuit of temporal power.“6 There are indications of more tangible reasons for the Lombard king's hesitation. To begin with, although it is not explicitly mentioned in the biography, as soon as the pope was sure his envoy was safely enroute to Francia, he probably announced in unmistakable terms what he had done to Desiderius. That is the only way to explain the fact that upon his arrival in Francia, probably in February of 773, the papal envoy was joined at the Frankish court by a Lombard messenger, whose purpose it was to deny all the Papal charges.“7 It is plausible that Desiderius was wary ‘— 4uVita Hadriani, c. 23, p. 493. h3l2l$.' c. 29-25, pp. h93-U9h. See also Pauli continu- éag tertia, c. 50, MGH §§ Lang., p. 212. ‘_ """"'" I) :6LéeDuchesne, LEE 2E2fli2£.i§fl2§.fl§.li§tat pontigical, I). 7- . “70f. Vita Hadriani, c. 26, p. #99; Abel-Simson, I, 136. I 9-. I o,.‘ O. ._ u Alla. ; ‘4.” a: ,1 I: «(p I 62 of immediately provoking Charles to action. In addition, there are indication that Lombard opponents of Desiderius were also trying to involve the Franks against the Lombard king and that Desiderius was well aware of these attempts.)+8 All these things probably convinced Desiderius that the de- ciding power was now in the hands of Charles and that his plans to have the sons of Carloman crowned kings of the Franks had failed. He probably felt that he would not be able to force Hadrian to comply with his wishes before help from the Franks arrived. The primary task of the Lombard king now seemed to be to deal with the renewed Frankish threat. Hadrian's envoy, Peter by name, was received by Charles at the king's winter residence in Thionville (now Dieden— hofen). According to papal sources, Charles immediately dispatched piggi to ascertain the truth about the situation in Italy, since a Lombard agent was also with the Frankish king, contradicting papal claims that Desiderius was not ueChroni on Salernitanum, c. 9, MGH §§ III, #76: Set dum in1qua cupiditate Langobardi inter se consurgerent, qui- dam enim e proceribus Langobardis clam legationem mittunt Karolo, Francorum regi, quatenus veniret cum valido exercitu et regnum Italiae sub sua ditione optineret, asserentes, qyia istum Desiderium tyrannum sub potestate eius traderent vlnctum, et opes multas cum variis indumentis auro argento- que intextis in suum committerent dominum. That some of these attempts were not very secret is verified by a charter Of'll November 772 of Adelgis, the son of Desiderius, by Yniich he had the confiscated possessions of one "Augino, qui 111 Francia fuga lapsus erat" and other "vel de alii consen- 'tEUneis eorum, quam ipsi pro sua.perdiderunt infidelitate" gransferred to the monastery of S. Salvatore in Brescia. 1?. L. Bethmann and 0. Holder-Egger, "Langobardische Reges- ten," EA- III (1878), no. 492, p. 313. 63 observing the rights of St. Peter.“9 Some Frankish sources provide additional detail on the nature of the pope's re- quest for aid. In one, Desiderius is labelled the Lombard king by the permission of King Pepin. Assistance was re- quested from Charles, since he was the legitimate defender of the Roman people. Consequently, he should hasten to ful- fill the wishes of the pope.50 However, both the Royal An— nals and the so-called annals of Einhard infer that the ini- tial papal envoy left Francia without a clear decision from Charles. The Frankish king, aware of the things which were always going on between the Romans and the Lombards, first deliberated with his nobles about the proper action.51 “9.111s aeolian c. 26, p. 1.91., SOChronicon Moissiacense, MGH §§ I, 295: Adrianus, papa urbis Romae, legatos suos ob defensionem Romanae ecclesiae ad Karolum, regem Francorum, misit, quia valde affligebatur a rege Langobardorum Desiderio, qui Haistulfo successerat, ac per donationem Pippini regis Francorum regnum tenebat Langobardorum. Eratque tunc Karolus rex in loco qui dicitur Teudonis-villa. Veniens ibi domni apostolici missus Adriani, nomine Petrus, precibus apostolici id ipsum ad defendendam sanctam ecclesiam postulavit, ut ipsum Romanum populum super- bi regis Desiderii liberaret, adiungens quod ipse legitimus tutor et defensor esset illius plebis, quoniam illum prae- decessor suus, beatae memoriae Stephanus papa, unctione sacra liniens, tunc regem ac patricium Romanorum ordinarat. Karo- lus igitur rex per consilium optimatum suorum, voluntatem domni apostolici se adimpleturum esse cum Deo auxilio, devota mente spopondit. See also Annales Mettenses priores, a. 773, pp. 59"60 o slépnalggqgggpi Francorum, a. 773, p. 3#: Tune domnus l 4&0 praecelsus aro us rex consiliavit una cum Francis, quid Perageret: et sumpto consilio, ut ita, sicut missus aposto- ldici per verbum domni Adriani apostoloci, ita fieret,.... 1;. ales pp; dicuntur Einhardi, a. 773, p. 35: Rex vero re-_ 11$, quae 1nter Romanos ac Langobardos gerebantur, d1l1gent1 cl~_J.ra pertractatis bellum sibi contra Langobardos pro defen- S{Lone Romanorum suscipiendum ratus cum toto Francorum exer- c:Ltu Genuam Burgundiae civitatem iuxta Rhodanum sitam venit. ’9‘ A ...,;— lol- I".- n — .‘.. "“7 IaA |nn ‘Y'l .... . ‘5 Fe ‘1... I. h '. 6# Charles conceivably did send an embassy to ascertain the truth and, upon discovering that the papal accusations were true, began plans to intervene. It is highly doubtful, how- ever, that Charles hesitated at any great length to inter- vene.52 It has been correctly argued that Charles did not have a great deal of choice whether or not to intervene in Italy. The threat of the pope's being forced to crown Carloman's sons was a very real one for Charles and one which directly affected his own position within the Frankish kingdom.53 Therefore, Charles probably quickly decided to undertake a campaign in Italy, as much in his own interest as that of St. Peter. Additionally, it must be mentioned that Charles was quite different from his father. Once the campaign was undertaken, it is clear that Charles would be content with nothing less than the conquest of the Lombard kingdom.5)+ Here was the greatest danger for the aspirations of Hadrian. 52Abe1-Simson, I, 1uo, note 3. 53Peter Classen, Karl gpp Grosse, das Papsttum und szanz, p. 13. Classen's most recent pronouncement on the problem precisely summarizes his argument: "Mit dem Verlan- gen an Papst Hadrian, die beiden Sbhne des gesalbten Karl- mann gleichfalls zu Frankenkbnigen zu salben, brachte Desi- derius Karls Herrschaft in die grBsste Gefahr. Karl hat nicht wie sein Vater vor der freien Entscheidung gestanden, 0b er dem heiligen Petrus zu Hilfe kommen wollte, sondern um des eigenen ungeteilten Erbes am Frankenreich willen war er gezwungen, dem Hilfsgesuch des Papstes nachzukommen." Peter .lassen, "Karl der Grosse und die Thronfolge im Frankenreich," liestschrift ffip H. Heimpel (Gottingen, 1972), III, pp. 130- 1C31. See also Engelbert Mfihlbacher, Deutsche Geschichte Enter g_e_r; Karolin ern, pp. 96-97. 5qu. Louis Halphen, Charlemagpe pp l'empire carolingien (JParis, 19#7), p. 97: J. Calmette, Charlema ne, pp. 6#—65. .. p. ' O". 0 1 ADP Us... ”I 3" _g‘ \Q I) ~ 65 The interests of a Frankish king determined to conquer the Lombards were bound to collide with those of an ambitious pope, who was equally determined to control as much of Italy as possible, despite the religious proclivities of the for- mer and the defensive needs of the latter. The final result of Hadrian's requests for aid was the gathering of an army by Charles and the beginning of a march toward Italy. Undoubtedly aware that a Frankish campaign was imminent after Hadrian's pleas, Desiderius moved immed- iately to fortify the passes leading into Italy. Dividing his forces into two parts, one led by himself and the second by his uncle, Bernhard, Charles overcame the forces of Desi- derius after a hazardous crossing of the Alps.55 Aware that their cause was practically hopeless, Desiderius and Adelgis both fled, the Lombard king fortifying himself in Pavia and his son taking refuge with Carloman's widow and sons in Verona.56 As Desiderius had undoubtedly had the time to strengthen the fortifications of Pavia before the appear- ance of the Franks, the siege of the Lombard city proved 55For reasons which escape me, there has been a differ- ence of opinion over which pass was utilized by Charles to enter Italy. Cf. W.A.B. Coolidge, "Charles the Great's Passage of the Alps in 773," _EIfi, XXI (1906), #93-505, and Georglne Tangl, ”Karls des Grossen Weg fiber die Alpen im Jahre 773," QFIAB, XXXVII (1957), 1-15. 56Cf. Annales regni Frapcorum, a. 773, p. 36. The only real.difference in the narratives of the Royal Annals and inlat of the papal biography is that the papal source gives credit for the successful crossing of the Alpine passes <3 the intervention of God, and not to the forces of Uncle Bernhard. or. Vita Hadriani, c. 31, p. 1:95. 66 to be a difficult undertaking, consuming the whole winter. 57 It is significant to note that, unlike the events of twenty years before, there were no papal pleas for peace and the avoidance of bloodshed. If Charles was intent on conquering the Lombard kingdom, he seemingly had an enthusiastic sup- porter in Pope Hadrian. While all of this was transpiring in the north of Italy, Hadrian was by no means inactive in Rome. Just as the Lombard defense of the Alpine passes collapsed, an event of major importance occurred in Rome. Taking advantage of the fact that Desiderius and Duke Theodicus were otherwise occupied, a number of nobles from Spoleto came to Rome, re- questing that Hadrian accept them into the service of St. Peter and that the pope should name their new duke. The pope was more than happy to comply. The Spoletans were ton— sured in the style of the Romans, which could have signalled their acceptance into the ranks of the chosen people, and all of them took oaths to remain faithfully in the service of St. Peter and his vicar. Hadrian then gave them the duke which they had chosen for themselves, Hildebrand. The Spoletans were quickly joined by inhabitants of the duchy 0f Fermo, Humana and Ancona, as well as those of Citta di 58 Castello, all of whom submitted to the same oaths of service. ‘ 57Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 773: P. 37. 58Vita Hadriani, c. 32-33, pp. #95-#96: Nam Spolitini Grt Reatini, aliquanti eorum utiles personae, antequam Desi- ,1erius seu Langobardorum eius exercitus ad clusas pergerent, 3¥Lli ad beatum Petrum confugium facientes praedicto ['1' 67 These areas were all situated outside the boundaries of the duchy of Rome and the entire procedure was done without the knowledge of Charles, who was still involved in the siege of Pavia. In many ways the submission of Spoleto was the reali- zation of papal aspirations stretching back to the pontifi- cate of Gregory III in the third decade of the eighth cen- tury. Both Gregory and Paul had made concerted efforts to detach both the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento from sanctissimo Adriano papae se tradiderunt et in fide ipsius principis apostolorum atque praedicto sanctissimi pontificis iurantes, more Romanorum tonsorati sunt. Etiam et reliqui omnes ex eodem ducatu Spolitino inianter desiderabant se tradendum in servitio beati Petri sanctaeque Romanae ecclae- siae. Sed metuentes suum regem hoc nequaquam ausi sunt per- petrare. Unde dum a clusis fugam arripuissent omnes qui ex— inde de diversis civitatibus ducati Spolitini reversi sunt, confestim generaliter ad praefatum almificum pontificem con- fluentes advenerunt, eiusque provoluti pedibus, obnixe sanc- tam ipsius ter beatitudinem deprecati sunt ut eos in servitio beati Petri sanctaque Romanae ecclesiae susciperet et more Romanorum tonsorari faceret. Quos suscipiens profectus est cum eis in ecclesia beati Petri, et omnes unianimiter a magno usque ad parvum sub indiculo sacramenti iureiurando promis- erunt eidem Dei apostolo in servitio eius atque antedicti vicarii ipsius sanctissimi Adriani papae atque omnibus suc- cessorum eius pontificum fideliter permansuros cum filiis et cuncta eorum generatione. Tunc post prastitutum sacramentum omnes more Romanorum tonsorati sunt, et confestim ipse ter beatissimus bonus pastor at pater cum omnibus exultans con- stituit eis ducem quem ipsi propria voluntate sibi elegerunt, scilicet Hildiprandum nobilissimum, qui prius cum reliquis ad apostolicam sedem refugium fecerat. Et ita, Deo annuente, praedictum ducatum Spolitinum generaliter suo certamine is- dem praecipuus pontifex sub iure et pptestate beati Petri subiugavit. Sed et omnes habitatores tam ducatus Firmani, Auximani et Anconitani simulque et de castello Felicitatis, et ipsi dum a cluses Langobardorum fugientes reversi sunt, ad praefatum sanctissimum pontificem concurrentes, eius se ter beatitudini tradiderunt, praestitoque sacramento in fide et servitio beati Petri atque eius vicarii antefati almifici Adriani papae successorumque eius pontificum fideliter per- mansuros, more Romanorum tonsorati sunt. r— Hv—d 68 Pavia.59 Rome had finally been successful, but the fact re- mains that Hadrian was attempting to regulate affairs in central and southern Italy without taking into account the possible wishes of Charles. In this regard, the p0pe was acting as a sovereign.60 Certainly the new duke of Spoleto initially conducted himself as if he recognized the supre- macy of Rome. One of Hildebrand's charters for the monas- tery in Farfa carried the pOpe's name as if Hadrian was the 61 duke's true overlord. However, by this time the inten- tions of Charles to conquer the Lombard kingdom were quite clear to everyone. It remained to be seen how the Frankish king would react to a substantial portion of his new conquest transferring its allegiance to another overlord. The Frankish siege of Pavia was continuing to close the circle around Desiderius in the first months of 77#. Char- les demonstrated the urgency of his major concern by leaving Pavia with a force of men, besieging Verona, and taking the 62 widow and sons of his dead brother captive. Adelgis, 590f. E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. 55. 60E. Dupré-Theseider, "Sur les origines de l' Etat de l'Eglise," Agtes du collo ue international sur les ori ines des Etaps européens aux IX -XIé si§cles (Warsaw, 19 8 , p. 98. 61The charter is undoubtedly from 773 and it begins "In nomine domini....Temporibus ter beatissimi et coangelici domini Adriani pontificis et universalis papae. Ego in dei nomine Hildeprandus gloriosus dux." While the charter is still not dated by pontifical years, it is clear that Hilde- brand considered himself a vassal of the pope. Cf. H. Fich- tenfig, "'Politische' Datierungen des fruhen Mittelalters, " Po 0. 62% ___Hadriani! Co 31‘": P. “'96. 4w"..- '— _flvq 69 however, managed to escape and took refuge in Constanti- nople.63 With the approach of Easter the siege of Pavia was undoubtedly secure enough to allow Charles to travel to Rome. Quickly gathering a number of his churchmen and nobles, the Frankish king began his journey south through Tuscany. Apparently he neglected to keep the pope informed of his plans and Hadrian was quite surprised by the news of the Frankish king's arrival. Hadrian organized his own re- ception and sent the leaders of the twelve military regions 64 of Rome and their banners to greet Charles. The reception 63Aggelli liber pontificalis, c. 160, Egg §§ Lang., p. 381. This is the only source which provides any detail on the escape of Adelgis. From later events it is certain that Adelgis took refuge in Constantinople, but Agnellus is often confused and never totally trustworthy. See also Einhardi Vita Karoli Maggi, c. 6, p. 8. 6""Vita Hadriani, c. 35-36, pp. h96-h97: Et dum per sex mensuum spatium ipse Francorum rex Papiam demoraretur in ob- sessione ipsius civitatis, magnum desiderium habens ad lim- ina apostolorum properandum, considerans quod et sacratissima paschalis festivitus adpropinquasset, tunc abstollens secum diversos episcopos, abbates etiam et iudices, duces nempe et grafiones cum plurimis exercitibus, hic Romam per Tusciae partes properavit. Ita enim festinenter adveniens ut in ipso sabbato sancto se liminibus praesentaret apostolicis. Cuius adventum audiens antedictus beatissimus Adrianus papa quod sic repente ipse Francorum advenisset rex, in magno stupore et extasi deductus, direxit in eius occursum univer- sos iudices ad fere XXX milia ab hac Romana urbe, in loco qui vocatur Nobas: ibi eum cum bandora susceperunt. Et dum adpropinquasset fere unius miliario a Romana urbe, direxit universas scolas militiae una cum patronis simulque et pueris qui ad didicendas litteras pergebant, deportantes omnes ramos Imlmarum adque olivarum, laudesque illi omnes canentes, cum adclamationem earundem laudium vocibus ipsum Francorum sus- ceperunt regem; obviam illi eius sanctitas dirigens vener- apdas cruces, id est signa, sicut mos est exarchum aut pat- rlcium suscipiendum, eum cum ingenti honore suscepi fecit. See also L. Duchesne, "Les regions de Rome au Moyen-Age," ELK. x (1890), 130-131. lw—“m . “‘4 —‘W ’—'\ 7O afforded Charles by the pope was similar, but not identical to that given to the old Exarch.65 It has been suggested that Charles journeyed to Rome before the capture of Pavia because word had reached him of what had transpired between Spoleto and the papacy.66 How- ever, it is doubtful that the Spoletan affair was the Fran- kish king's only reason for travelling to Rome. If he con- sidered the submission of the Lombard duchy to the papacy an illegal act, the illegality of it would not be changed by the capture of Pavia. In fact, the capture of Pavia would necessarily increase the illegality of the submission in Frankish eyes. Yet, it is plausible that Hadrian's sur- prise on receiving the news of the Frankish king's arrival was due to his fear about the reaction to the Spoletan af- fair.67 After all, Charles did gather a substantial force and was advancing toward Rome in some haste. In any event, Charles was approaching Rome and the events of Easter week in 774 must be examined in great detail. 65Cf. Josef Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom," Sohw 12 r Beitrége‘gg; allgemeinen Geschichte, XV (195?), . Deer illustrates the differences between the Exarch's traditional reception and the one given to Charles. Rather than viewing it as the Exarch's reception, one should view 1t as the reception afforded to a foreign pgtricius. 66$. Abel, "Papst Hadrian I. und die weltliche Herr- Schaft des romischen Stuhls," FdG, I (1860), #57. I 6ZThis_has been stated several times. Cf. Abel-Simson, . 15 155: W. Martens, Die romische Frags unter Pippin und EEEQBdemuGrossen, pp. 1uE—1u5; A. Kle1nclausz, Charlema e, pp. 23-2 0 CHAPTER THREE THE DONATION OF 774 As King Charles arrived in Rome shortly before Easter in 774, it was evident that he had come for other reasons than just to pray at the tomb of St. Peter. At this point, the fall of Pavia was only a matter of time and several is- sues had to be settled between pope and Frankish king. What actually transpired between the two during the Frankish king's stay in Home has been hotly debated for generations, parti- cularly in reference to the territorial settlement of 77h. Despite the detailed explanations of numerous scholars a clear explanation of the negotiations has not appeared. Yet, a solution to the puzzle of the donation of 774 is crucial to an understanding of relations between Charles and Hadrian, since the territorial question was uppermost in the pope's mind during his entire pontificate. There- fore, the effort must be made to explain what did happen in Rome during the first weeks in April. Upon his arrival Charles, along with his nobles, dis- mOunted from their horses and approached St. Peter's on foot. There, as a mark of reverence and piety, he climbed the steps of St. Peter's on his knees, kissing each step. 71 72 At the entrance of the church he was met by Pope Hadrian and 1 the two entered St. Peter's together. It is significant to note that this time, despite the display of piety by Charles as he climbed the steps of St. Peter's, the Frankish king did not prostrate himself before the pope. Without pressing the point too far, it would seem that, on this oc- casion, Frankish reverence was reserved for St. Peter, and not necessarily for his vicar. Further, by his actions, it would seem that Hadrian was not greeting the successor to the Exarch of Ravenna, since the pope met Charles at St. Peter's and not in the palace on the Aventine.2 In any event, after the completion of their prayers, Charles requested the permission of the pope to enter Rome to offer prayers in the various churches. Of even greater importance, the pope and the Frankish king then, in the 1Vit§ H driani, c. 37—38, p. #97: Ipse vero a Deo institutus benignissimus Carolus magnus Francorum rex et patricius Romanorum, qua hora easdem sacratissimas cruces ac signa sibi obviam advenisse conspexit, descendens de eo quo sedebat equo, ita cum suis iudicibus ad beatum Petrum pedestris properare studuit. Quod quidem antedictus almi- ficus pontifex diluculo surgens in eodem sabbato sancto cum universo clero et pOpulo Romano ad beatum Petrum properavit ad suscipiendum eundem Francorum regem, et in gradibus ip- sius apostolicae aulae eum cum suo clero prestolavit. Con- iungente vero eodem excellentissimo ac benignissimo Carulo rege, omnes grados singillatim eiudem sacratissimae beati Petri aecclesiae deosculatus est et ita usque ad praenomi- natum pervenit pontificem, ubi in atrio super grados, iuxta fores ecclesiae adsistebat. quue suscepto, mutuo se amp- lectentes, tenuit isdem christianissimus Carulus rex deteram manum antedicti pontificis et ita in eandem venerandam aulam beati Petri principis apostolorum ingressi sunt, laudem Deo et eius excellentiae decantantes universus clerus et cuncti religiosi Dei famuli, extense voce adclamantes: 'Benedictus QUi venit in nomine Domini' et cetera. 20f. Josef Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom," p. nu. 73 presence of the Frankish and Roman nobles, "secured them- selves by mutual oaths."3 The nature and meaning of these oaths is not completely clear from the papal biography. Nonetheless, attempts have been made to define the nature of these oaths in clear and unmistakable legal terminolo- gies. The most recent effort is that of Wolfgang Fritze, who tried to explain the legal relationship of the Frankish kings to the popes during the most active segment of Carol- ingian history.“ The thrust of Fritze's argument, drawing on materials in the papal biographies as well as passages from papal letters, is that the entire range of papal- Frankish relations can be explained in the context of a Frankish "Schwurfreundschaft.”s This arrangement was an element of Frankish private law, having its origins in the 3Vita Hadriani, c. 39. p. #97: Expleta vero eadem ora- tione, obnixe deprecatus est isdem Francorum rex antedictum almificum pontif1cem illi licentiam tribui Romam ingrediendi sua orationum vota per diversas Dei ecclesias presolvendu. Et descendentes pariter ad corpus beati Petri tam ipse sanctissimus papa quamque antefatus excellentissimus Fran- corum rex cum iudicibus Romanorum et Francorum, seseque mutuo per sacramentum munientes, ingressus est continuo Romam cum eodem pontifice ipse Francorum rex cum suis iudi- cibus et populo. fiWolfgang Fritze, Papst und Frankenkonig. Studien.zg den papstlich—frankischen Rechtsbeziehungen von 25E bis 82“ T§igmar1ngen, 1973 . 5Lhid., p. 625 "Begrfindet wurde es durch wechselsei— tige, eidlich bekraftige, auf fides gt caritas lautende omissionem, wie wir als Begrundungsakte der frankischen Sghwurfreundschaft kennen. Der Bund zwischen Papst und Kbgig von 77h ist mithin nunmehr als Schwurfreundschaft frankischen.Rechts zu bezeichnen--so anstBssig diese Fest- Stellung auch dem modernen Betrachter erscheinen mag." . out 0.. - I. ‘e- \‘l f. 0 0.) .. () 4r) 74 Merovingian period. It was an artifical, as opposed to a kin-based, relationship founded on mutually sworn promises of love and fidelity, which bound the parties in peace. The bond stipulated that each party was of an equal rank in terms of Frankish law and it secured the help of one party when the other was in distress. There are several difficulties with Fritze's thesis which must be mentioned. For substantiation of his ideas Fritze drew on specific references in Hadrian's letters to Charles in 775, after the Frankish king had left Italy. Fritze placed great importance on the pope's usage of the word caritas to describe the bond which existed between pope and Frankish king.6 This emphasis on such words as dilectus, figgg and caritas as clear descriptive terms is misleading. The idea that a Roman pope would be sufficiently familiar with Frankish legal terminology, much less enter into such an exclusively Frankish relationship, is difficult to ac- cept. Usages of the words appeared in papal correspondence to the Franks before any personal meetings between Stephen II 6Codex Carolinus 51, MGH Epp. III, 571: Sed cognoscit omnipotens Deus noster,..., neque nulla nos posse huius mun- di transitorii ac labentibus opibus vel humani suasioni blandimentis ab amore et dilectione vestrae inclytae sub- .limitatis vel ab ea, quae vobis polliciti sumus, declinari. dum hic advixerimus, sed firmi et stabiles in vestra per- lnanemus caritate. Absit namque a nobis, carissime et nobis dnlcissime filii, ut ea, quae inter nos mutuo coram sacra- ‘tissimi corpus fautoris tui, beati apostolorum principis Petri, confirmavimus atque stabilivimus, per quovis modum :irritum facere adtemptemus, quoniam et nos satisfacti sumus, taui et vos in nostra caritate firmiter esse permansuros. (3f. Wolfgang Fritze, Papst Egg Frankenkbni , pp. 52-53. 75 and Pepin.7 Since the relationship, according to Fritze, was founded upon a personal and mutual exchange of oaths, it would seem that such a rigorous interpretation of the usages in_papal letters is not justified. Further, accor- ding to the same papal sources, Desiderius used caritas to describe the friendship bond which had existed between him- self and Stephen III.8 It certainly cannot be thought that a pope and a Lombard king had entered into a private, Fran- kish legal relationship. Fritze began his investigation with a valid theory: to investigate the actual meanings of the words used to describe the relations in the belief that the problems involved might have been those of different interpretations of the words by popes and Franks. It would seem that by his rigorous emphasis on the words as part of Frankish law and by his insistence that the pOpes understood the intricacies of that Frankish law, Fritze fell into the very trap he was attempting to avoid. But, the fact remains that oaths were exchanged and their meaning is not yet clear. Others have also attempted to explain the initial oaths of 774 by analyzing the legal terminologies involved and by binding the oaths of 754 with those of 774. Erich Caspar 7Codex Carolinus 5, Egg Epp. III, 488. 8Vita Hadriani, c. 5, p. 487: Itaque in ipso exordio consecrationis eius direxit ad eius beatitudinem suos missos IDesiderius Langobardorum rex, id est Theodicium, ducem Spo- litinum, Tunnonem, ducem Eburegias, et Prandulum, vestar- arium suum, suasionis per eos mittens verba, sese quasi cum so in vinculo caritatis velle colligandum. 76 also reached into the realm of Frankish law, determining that the entire range of oaths in 754 and 774 can best be described under the name of fides facta.9 This was a sec- urity arrangement which could be applied to any king of obligation, including the restoration of lost goods. Des- pite the emphasis on Frankish law, Caspar was correct in emphasizing the flexibility of the oaths involved. The bond sworn between Charles and Hadrian on Easter Sunday in 774 was a general one of security, stipulating mutual guar- antees against violence in Rome during the Frankish king's visit. Undoubtedly included in it was a continuation of the friendship pact between the papacy and the Carolingians.10 This was most appropriate for a situation not yet solidified in terms of fixed territorial arrangements and obligations. Those territorial questions were to be discussed three days after Easter Sunday and any attempt to state that the Fran- kish king had already assumed the position and responsi- bilities of the old Exarch or the Byzantine emperor is, to say the least, premature.11 ‘ 9Erich Caspar, Pippin und die rbmische Kirche (Berlin, 1914). pp. 150-152. 101n the papal letters immediately after the events in Rome, both amore and caritas are used to describe the bond. At least in papal eyes, the bond was more than a strictly Frankish agreement and it established a relationship based upon mutual esteem and affection. Cf. Codex Carolinus 50, ‘MQE'EEE. III, 570, line 10; no. 51, p. 571, line 35: no. 52, p. 57211 line 17; no. 56, p. 580, line 20; no. 56, p. 580, 1ne . 11As does Walter Mohr, Studien zur Charakteristik des karolingiscpgn Kbnigtums ip E. Jahrhundert, p. 88. 77 The territorial discussions were the event of greatest importance during the Frankish king's first visit to Rome. However, territorial restitutions were not new for the See of St. Peter in 774. As early as the first decade of the eighth century, the Lombard King Aripert restored some of the Roman Church's possessions in Liguria, in northwestern Italy, as a sign of his friendship. According to Duchesne, the restitutions made in these districts to John VII and Gregory II were in the area of Genoa and only concerned the Church's patrimonial possessions.12 Further, in the reign of the Lombard King Liutprand, the papacy made significant gains in terms of territorial restitutions. In the course of his expansionist drives in 728, Liutprand had seized the castle of Sutri, which was scarcely thirty miles from the city of Rome. Significantly, when Liutprand gave back this castle in return for gold, he did so to the pope and not to the Exarch.13 Also, during the pontificate of Zachary, the papal policy of negotiation resulted in the return of Narni, Osimo, Ancona, Humana, and other districts in Sabina.1u lch. Vipa Johannes Ell, p. 387, note 8, and Vita Q52- gorii II, c. p. 398. See also Karl Lamprecht, Die rom1— sche Fra e von Konig Pippin bis auf Kaiser Ludwig den From— men, pp. 89- -90, LM. Hartmann, Geschichte Ital1ens, pp. 75- 7 . This is not to say that restitutions to the Roman Church only began in the eighth century. Donations by pri- vate individuals had been going on for generations, but these were all patrimonial in natue Cf. E. Dupré- Theseider, "Sur les origines de 1"gtat de l' Eglise," pp. 94ff. 96 13Of. L. M. Hartmann, Geschiphte Italiens. 11:2 PP° ~97- wlila ___Zach_ar..ias. c. 9. p. 428. 78 Some of these "donations" seemed to go beyond the priniciple of patrimonial restitutions, but the question of sovereignty was not yet clear. It was with the donation of Charles that the issue of sovereignty became crucial. Unfortunately for the historian, only papal sources provide any substantive information on the negotiations be- tween Charles and Hadrian after Easter. Hadrian's biography states that on the fourth day of the Frankish king's stay in Rome, Hadrian met with Charles and begged him to fulfill in total the promise which Pepin, Carloman and Charles made to St. Peter and Stephen II during that pope's stay in Fran- cia. The purpose of Stephen II's journey to Francia was for the transfer of the cities and territories of that province of Italy to St. Peter and his vicars to be possessed in per- petuity. Charles then caused the charter, which had been prepared in Kierzy, to be read aloud and he agreed to fulfill everything it contained. The Frankish king then had another promise of donation prepared where he ceded cities and terri- tories to St. Peter; namely from Luna with the island of Corsica to Sarzana, from there to Monte Bardone, to Verceto, from there to Parma, to Reggio, to Mantua and Monselice. Included with this was the entire Exarchate of Ravenna, as well as the provinces of Venetia and Istria, and also the entire.duchies of Spoleto and Benevento.15 15Vita Hadriani, c. 91-43, p. 498: At vero quarta feria, egressus praenominatus pontifex cum suis iudicibus tam cleri quamque militiae in ecclesia beati Petri apostoli, pariter-' que cum eodem rege se loquendum coniungens, constanter eum 'fl-n' . A. a. '0 . Mb ,. I!“ ..~ us». '9. . w- k I FFI I I. nfl‘ Q 4 A. t Ab! 79 The problem would be a simple one if other contemporary sources verified the existence of such a charter of donation. However, the Royal Annals and the so-called annals of Ein- hard only state that the Frankish king celebrated Easter in 16 Rome and then returned to his army in Pavia. Einhard deprecatus est atque ammonuit et paterno affectu adhortare studuit ut promissionem liiam, quam eius sanctae memoriae genitor Pippinus quondam rex et ipse praecellentissimus Caru- lus cum suo germano Carulomanno atque omnibus iudicibus Fran- corum fecerant beato Petro et eius vicario sanctae memoriae domno Stephano iuniori papae, quando Franciam perrexit, pro concedendis diversis civitatibus ac territoriis istius Ital- iae provinciae et contradendis beato Petro eiusque omnibus vicariis in perpetuum possidendis, adimpleret in omnibus. Cumque ipsam promissionem, quae Francia in loco qui vocatur Carisiaco facta est, sibi relegi fecisset, conplacuerunt illi et eius iudicibus omnia quae ibidem erant adnexa. Et propria voluntate, bono ac libenti animo, aliam donationis promissionem ad instar anterioris ipse antedictus praecel- lentissimus et revera christianissimus Carulus Francorum rex adscribi iussit per Etherium, religiosum ac prudentissimum capellanum et notarium suum; ubi concessit easdem civitates et territoria beato Petro easque praefato pontifici contradi spopondit per designatum confinium, sicut in eadem donationem continere monstratur, id est: a Lunis cum insula Corsica, deinde in Suriano, deinde in monte Bardone, id est in Veceto, deinde in Parma, deinde in Regio; ex exinde in Mantua atque Monte Silicis, simulque et universum exarchatum Ravennantium, sicut antiquitus erat, atque provincias Venetiarum et Istria; necnon et cunctum ducatum Spolitinum seu Beneventanum. Facta- que eadem donatione et propria sua manu eam ipse christianis- simus Francorum rex eam conroborans, universos episcopos, ab- bates, duces etiam et grafiones in ea adscribi fecet; quam prius super altare beati Petri et postmodum intus in sancta eius confessione ponentes, tam ipse Francorum rex quamque eius iudices, beato Petro et eius vicario sanctissimo Adriano papae sub terrible sacramento sese omnia conservaturos qui in eadem donatione continentur promittentes tradiderunt. Apparem vero ipsius donationis eundem Etherium adscribi fac- iens ipse christianissimus Francorum rex, intus super corpus beati Petri, subtus evangelia quae ibidem osculantur, pro firmissima cantela et aeterna nominis sui ac regni Francorum memoria propriis suis manibus posuit. Aliaque eiusdem dona- tionis exempla per scrinium huius sanctae nostrae Romanae ec- clesiae adscriptam eius excellentia secum deportavit. 16m regni Fr corum. a. 773. p- 36: Annales gui Mil-1.1; __Einh__ardi. a. 77 . p- 39. nos. . a ..-- .l 0"? on“ .10!- i- '- IV. on s u’, nu. .ip - lug, '\ '~ ‘ q 80 states that after the capture of the Lombard kingdom, every- thing which had been stolen from Hadrian by the Lombard kings was returned. Unfortunately, Einhard provided no additional detail.17 One minor Frankish annal states that Charles joy- fully surrendered to St. Peter the "cities which he owed."18 Again the details necessary either to support or to refute the account of the papal biography are missing. Therefore, the historian is left with the papal account and must come to a decision based almost exclusively on one source. The first step in making any such decision must be to establish the value of the biographer as a contemporary wit- ness. For some historians, the great amount of minute de- tail supplied by Hadrian's biographer concerning the first two years of his pontificate has led them to doubt the value of the narrative as a contemporary witness. These suspicions are based on the assumption that papal lives were always composed after the pope's death. Therefore, the writer of the biography was separated from the events of 77# by "at 17% ardi Vita Karoli Magi, c. 6, p. 9: Finis tamen huius belli fuit subacta Italia et rex Desiderius perpetuo exilio deportatus et filius eius Adalgisus Italia pulsus et res a Langobardorum regibus ereptae Hadriano Romanae ecclesiae rectori restitutae. Another source mentions the inclusion of Spoleto and Benevento, but, as the chronicle is largely a compilation of papal lives, it should be used with a great deal of caution. Cf. Pauli historia L obar- MWM. 0. 57. wagging” p. 213. 18Annales P taviani, a. 771», Egg §_S_ I, 16: Hoc anno reddita est civitas Papia Francis, et Desiderius rex . directus est in Franciam, et domnus rex Karolus, m1ss1s. comitibus per omnem Italiam, laetus sancto Petro reddidit civitates quas debuit, dipositisque omnibus, alacer ven1t in FI‘anCiaIngoooo .A u! I \1 ID ‘,' 53p "4- P}; ”A E": v. ‘ 81 least a generation."19 If this were the only reason for doubting the contemporary value of the biography, one could argue that the detail itself, substantiated in several ins- tances by other materials, would lead one to believe the biographer was actually a witness to the events he described. However, in a later section of the work, reference is made to the domus cultae of St. Edistus "as it is named to the present day."20 This usage seems to imply clearly that the author was writing about things which had occurred in the past. But, even if the later portion of the biography was written after Hadrian's death, that does not lead to the conclusion that the entire work was composed only after 795. Those who have doubted the worth of the papal biographer as a witness to the events described have correctly main- tained that the latest possible date for the completion of the work is the first decade of the ninth century. A copy of the biography is found in the C_<_3_c_1_e_x_ Lucensis, written in an uncial style which subsequently disappeared from use.‘21 Yet, this does not rule out the possibility that the bio- graphy was written in sections, some of which were done while Hadrian was still alive. In fact, a brief glance at the entire biography seems to indicate that two or more 19Heinrich von Sybel, "Die Schenkung der Karolinger an die P'apste," 1;, XLIV (1880), 66. 2011133 M, p. 505: Quae et domocultam sancti Edisti vocatur usque in odiernum diem. 21H. von Sybel, "Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an die P'a'pste," pp. 66-67. 82 authors worked on the life, writing at different times. 22 Consequently, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the biographer was a witness to the events of 772-779. IFar Duchesne, the editor of the Liber Pontificalis, there ‘was no doubt: only a contemporary could have supplied the great amount of detail on the negotiations with Desiderius, the prosecution of Afiarta, the political correspondence ‘with Constantinople, the submission of the Spoletans to the 'pope, and the journey of the Frankish king to Rome.23 With these things in mind and without any judgment yet on whether the biographer lied, it must be assumed that he was a wit- .ness to the events he reported in 77U. Therefore, one must deal with the narrative in the biography on that basis. One of the first problems relating to the Donation of 77a is its relation to prior donations, particularly the one at Kierzy in 754. According to Hadrian's biography, Charles caused to be read aloud that promise which had been 22The last section dealing with the visit of Charles, c. M, ends with the statement that Desiderius and his wife were taken by Charles to Francia. The very next sentence begins a list of Hadrian's gifts and restorations of the churches of Rome. The break is sharp and unmistakable. Cf. Vita Hadriani, c. hit-1+5, p. #99. 23Cf. L. Duchesne, Lg Liber Pontificalis, p. ccxxxvi. See also L. Duchesne, ”L'historiographie pontificale au Inuitieme siécle," MAE, IV (188%), 232-273. Another scholar has drawn attention to the fact that the biographer men- 'tioned Charles was received "sicut mos est ad exarchum aut patricium suscipiendum." Since the last Exarch was received ;in_Rome prior to 751, the year 77# was probably the latest 'time one who had seen the reception of the Exarch could have been still alive. Cf. P. Scheffer-Boichorst. "Pipins und Karls des Grossen Schenkungsversprechen," MIOG, V (1881+), 200. See also Abel-Simson, I, 161-162. 83 made at Kierzy. He then caused another promise of donation 21+ to be written 3g instar to the prior one. The words _ag instar have led several to stipulate that Charles merely re- newed the promise which had been made twenty years previously in Francia.25 So the donations of Kierzy and Rome were iden- tical and both stipulated the transfer of easdem civitates gt territoria to St. Peter, as described by the Luna- Monselice line, the Exarchate of Ravenna, the provinces of Venetia and Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. Needless to say, this interpretation presents a range of difficulties, since the donation of Kierzy occurred before Pepin and the Franks ever entered Italy. Substantiation for the idea that the donations of Kierzy and Rome were identical necessitates a glance back- ward to the events of 752-751).. In his negotiations with Aistulf, Stephen II had made demands on the Lombard king quitg Hadriani, p. 498: Cumque ipsam promissionem, quae Francia in loco qui vocatur Carisiaco facta est, sibi relegi fecisset, conplacuerunt illi et eius iudicibus omnia quae ibidem erant adnexa. Et propria voluntate, bono ac libenti animo, aliam donationis promissionem ad instar an- terioris ipse antedictus praecellentissimus et revera chri- stianissimus Carulus Francorum rex adscribi iussit per Etherium, . . . . 251.".‘15'nst Sackur, "Die Promissio Pippins . om Jahre 751+ und ihre Erneuerung durch Karl den Grossen," MI G, XVI (1895), 409-410; Ernst Sackur, "Die Promissio von Kiersy," MICG, XIX (1898), 55-74; H.K. Mann, fllg Lives 3; the Popes i_n 311; Middle Ages, I, 2, pp. 410-411; P. Scheffer-Boichorst, ”Pipins und Karls des Grossen Schenkungsversprechen," pp. 194-195; Walter Mohr, Studien _z_u_r_ Charakteristik gigs karol- ingischen K'onigtums ill; _8. Jahrhundert, pp. 132-53: Karl Lamp- recht, gig romische Frggeugo_r51 Kcsmig Pippi; _Igg fig; Kaiser Ludwig _d_e}; Frommen, pp. 2 -2 3 . Abel, " apst adrian . und die weltliche Herrschaft des r'omischen Stuhls," p. z+60. 81; Egg universo exarchato Ravennae atque cunctae istius Italia 6 ;Q;2xig§;gg popul .2 It would seem that Stephen II was making a differentiation between the Exarchate and the rest of the "Italian province." When combined with the later statement of Aistulf that the pOpe should say no more about the return of the city of Ravenna and the Exarchate as well as the remaining "places of the republic," it seems clear that papal demands surpassed merely the restoration of the recently-conquered Exarchate.27 These papal claims have led some to equate the demands made on Aistulf with the "diverse cities and territories of this Italian province" mentioned in the Xitg Hadriani. Therefore, the pope had been deman- 11en II's and Hadrian's biographies, Wilhelm Martens con- <=C3Luded that Stephen was not present at Kierzy and that his 'EJIfiiography made no mention of a written document.3u There- 213W<3re, Martens concluded, among other things, that the report 51.11 the lip; Hadriani referred to a document which never exis- ‘tztsd. Looking beyond the biographies, however, there is one :EDCiece of evidence, which Martens overlooked, which does indi- cate the presence of Pope Stephen II at Kierzy.35 But, this neither proves nor disproves the identity of the documents (Df’Kierzy and Rome. Consequently, before an examination of the actual con- 1:ents of the pact of 779 can proceed, the investigator is (zonfronted with a complex problem about the relationship of 1the grants of Kierzy and Rome. Despite the elaborate argu- nnents indicated above, the issue actually hinges on the 33121; M II. c. 29. p. we. aim ilhelm Martens, Die ramische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen, p. 285. See also L.M. Hartmann, Geschi- chte Itgliens, II, 2, pp. 183-185; H. von Sybel, "Die Schgflkungen der Karolinger an die Papste," fig, XLIV (1880), 53- . 35In the introduction to a number of questions concer- ning dogma and discipline is found the following statement: Responsa Stephani papae II quae cum in Francia esset in Carisiaco villa Brittanico monasterio dedit ad varia con- sulta, de quibus fuerat interrogatus, anno Christi DCCLIV. Mansi, XII, 558. 8? interpretation of the words 3g instar anterioris. It is Clear that the words can mean either "identical to the prior charter" or "similar to the prior charter." The first inter— pretation would force one to conclude that Charles merely renewed the document of Kierzy, but this would bring with it an almost insurmountable number of problems when one pro- ceeded to the contents of the charter. The second alterna- tive would allow one to conclude that the pact of 7711' was fashioned on the model of the earlier agreement. This would permit an examination of the pertinent sections in the Vita ‘Hadriani, which could lead to an analysis of the agreement of 771} in the light of the prior agreement, but which would not directly tie the earlier agreement to the later one. Aside from the fact that the second alternative is the more attractive of the two, one can safely argue that the “two agreements were not identical. In supporting this view the key element is the inclusion of Spoleto. If one were to insist that the documents were identical, one would prob- ably have to insist that Spoleto was included in 754. Yet, in a letter from 757, Stephen related that the Spoletans wished to commend themselves into the protection of Pepin.36 From his subsequent actions it would seem that Pepin refused and all of this would hardly have been necessary if Spoleto had been a part of the Kierzy agreement. On the other hand, it is just as easy to argue that, in papal eyes, Spoleto was included in the agreement of 779. Scarcely a year after 36Codex Carolinus 11, MGH Epp. III, 506. 88 '1311e Frankish king had left Italy, Hadrian reminded him that irate had offered Spoleto to St. Peter.37 Therefore, it would Seem that Kierzy and Rome were not identical and the best explanation of £1 instar anterioris is "similar to the prior <32harter."38 But the only way to unravel the problem comple- ‘tzely is to examine the contents of the agreement itself. The contents of the pertinent chapters of the Vita Hadriani fall into two large areas of consideration. The :ffirst is the way in which the contents of the donation are (filescribed before the donation is actually delineated.39 {JEhe second is the actual delineation of the donation. Each iIDart has been subjected to careful scrutiny and both parts ‘ 379_od_ezs m 56. MGH E22. III. 581. 38Cf. Louis Halphen, Charlemagne pp l'empire carolingien, 1;. 100; A. Funk, "Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an die ro- Inische Kirche," Theologische Quartalschrif , LKIV (1882), (530-635; Theodor Lindner, Die sogenannten Schenkun en Pippins, IKarls des Grossen und Ottos I. an die Papste Stuttgart, 1395) . u p. 76: B. Nighues, "Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an (iie Papste, eine Replik gegen H. von Sybel," HJb, II (1881), 1230. 39Vita Hadriani, c. #1-#1, p. #98: ...beato Petro et eius vicario sanctae memoriae domno Stephano iuniori papae, <1uando Franciam perrexit, ppp concedendis diversis civita- ‘tibus gp territoriis istius Italiae provinciae et contraden- dis beato Petro eiusque omnibus vicariis in perpetuum possi- dendis, adimpleret in omnibus. Cumque ipsam promissionem, quae Francia in loco qui vocatur Carisiaco facta est, sibi relegi fecisset, conplacuerunt illi et eius iudicibus omnia quae ibidem erant adnexa. Et propria voluntate, bono ac libenti animo, aliam donationis promissionem ad instar anter— ioris ipse antedictus praecellentissimus et revera christia- nissimus Carulus Francorum rex adscribi iussit per Etherium, religiosum ac prudentissimum capellanum et notarium suum; ubi concessit easdem civitates gp territoria beato Petro ggg— gpg praefgto pontifici contradi spopondit pg; designatum 99p- finium, sicut ip eadem donationem continere monstratur, id est:.... most troublesome phrases. 89 IIIIJEBt be considered in any judgment on the validity of the report. Particularly troublesome has been the phrase that Stephen II had come to Francia pro concedendis diversis civi- ‘tzaatibus ac territoriis istius Italiae provinciae. This can 1t><3pes is evidenced by the continuous claims both after 75# zaLJnd 77# that the promises of restitution had not been ful- If?;illed. Further, the agreements of 754 and 77# were not .fiLAdentical in content. Therefore, it is not justifiable to ¢il.ismiss the delineation of the areas in 77# as a forgery based on limited interpretations of ista Italia Lrovincia Eaund res publica Romanorum. At least in the Roman perspec- ‘tzive, all the delineated areas could conceivably have been égathered under the heading of either of the two terms. Another serious problem is posed by the statement that C3harles had another charter prepared ubi concessit easdem <2 ivitates pp territoria beato Petro easgue praefato ponti- fifici contradi spopondi . For some, this is even further Igroof that the charters of 75A and 77# were identical and ‘that both related only to the Exarchate and the duchy of liome. 3 Actually two answers can be supplied to this inter- jpretation. First, it has been suggested that easdem can either be translated as "the same" or merely as a definite article. Examinations of other contemporary usages yield both interpretations.uu Secondly, if it cannot be maintained “BErich Caspar, Pippin und die erische Kirche, p. 102; P. Scheffer-Boichorst, "Pippins und Karls des Grossen Schen- kungsversprechen,” pp. 203-20h. nuAbel-Simson, I, 158. 91 that the cities and territories involved relate only to for- mer Byzantine possessions, the whole phrase is open to con- fl icting interpretations. This becomes even clearer when the WOrds following spopondit are included: per designatum con- !lifigigg,.§igpp.ip eadem donationem continere monstratur. By n(Twit is simply not clear whether these boundaries are 'tllose contained in Pepin's charter or in the one of Charles.”5 351: is quite possible that the lack of clarity on the part of 'tflle biographer was deliberate, but more will be said about that later. Before examining the delineation of the donation itself, 'the explanation of the first part can be summarized. Des- jpite the initial appearance of the passage, the donations of 754 and 77# were not identical. Also, the phrases igpg Italia provincia and res publica Romanorum did not refer only to Byzantine possessions in Italy and they seem to lack any precise definition. Further, the usages easdem pix;- tgpgg pp territoria and pggpm donationem continere monstra- 32; are not completely clear in the passage and are open to conflicting interpretations. Finally, the fact that all of the first portion is a little muddled may have been delib- erate. Possibly the only way to clear away some of the con- fusion is to examine the delineations to which the first part of the passage makes reference. On first glance, this second portion of the passage, beginning with id est, seems to be an extract from the 45Abel-Simson, I, 159. 92 charter of 774 itself.46 The vast extent of the areas in- volved has led some historians to dismiss the entire thing as a forgery}+7 Yet, it would seem that the claims of for- gery only cause more problems than they actually solve. One must then create imaginative explanations for the terri- torial restitutions which were made subsequent to 77#. Of greatest importance, no one who subscribes to the theory of forgery has ever been able to explain adequately the time the forgery was composed and its purpose. It must have been done prior to the first decade of the ninth century, due to the manuscript in the gpgpx Lucenses, and therefore it had to have been composed while Charles was still alive. One example will suffice to demonstrate the difficulties involved in explaining the forgery. Since it was unlikely “6Vita Hadriani, c. #2, p. 498: ...ubi concessit easdem civitates et territoria beato Petro easque praefato ponti- fici contradi spopondit per designatum confinium, sicut in eadem donationem continere monstratur, id est: a Lunis cum insula Corsica, deinde in Suriano, deinde in monte Bardone, id est in Veceto, deinde in Parma, deinde in Regio; ex exinde in Mantua atque Monte Silicis, simulque et universum exarchatum Ravennantium, sicut antiquitus erat, atque pro- vincias Venetiarum et Istria; necnon et cunctum ducatum Spo- litinum seu Beneventanum. n7The strongest claims of forgery were voiced by Wilhelm Martens, gig rbmische Frgge unter Pippin Egg Karl gpm Gros- ggp; Neue Erbrterun en uber gig rbmische Frage unter Pippin ppg Karl gpm Grossen (Stuttgart, 18825; "Die drei unachten Kapitel der Vita Hadrians I.," Theologische Quartalschrift, LXVIII (1886), 601—620. Similar cla1ms were vo1ced by L. Saltet, "La lecture d'un texte et la critique contem- poraine. Les prétendues promesses de Quierzy (75h) et de Rome (77#) dans le Liber Pontificalis," BLQ, 1980, pp. 176- 206: 1941, pp. 61-85: E. Griffe, "Aux origines de l'Etat pontifical: Charlemagne et Hadrien Ier (772-795), BEE, 195h, pp. 65-89, among others. 93 the forgery occurred between 774 and the first decade of the ninth century, one scholar has theorized that the forging was actually done on the agreement of Kierzy sometime be- tween 772 and 774. Upon his arrival in Rome, Charles re- newed this interpolated document because he "forgot," or someone failed to remind him, what had happened twenty years 48 before. Aside from the views arguing for the authenticity of the passage in the Vita Hadriani and despite the diffi- culties in explaining it, there are no convincing grounds to dismiss it as a forgery, especially in the light of this type of explanation. The first problem in explaining the extent of the dona- tion is the mysterious line extending from Luna to Monselice. Since this line involved territories possessed neither by Charles nor by Hadrian, it could denote the boundary be— tween papal and Frankish "spheres of interest" in Italy};9 The difficulty with this idea is not related to the fact that Charles was ceding something to Rome which he did not possess, since the fate of Desiderius was practically sealed. In the light of the Frankish king's actions immediately upon his departure from Rome, however, he could not have so partitioned the Lombard kingdom. A search for the usAdolf Schaube, "Zur Verstandigung fiber das Schenkungs- vegsprechen von Kiersy und Rom," fig, LKXII (1894), 203— 20 . “9G. Schnfirer, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates, pp. 45-47; Louis Halphen, Charlemagne pp l'empire carolingien, Pp. 101-102. 94 origins of the Luna-Monselice line has led to the conclusion that it was the boundary between Byzantines and Lombards af— ter the latter's first conquests in Italy.50 But the evi- dence necessary to support such a theory is quite vague. No more persuasive is the idea that the line represented the boundary of the church province of Ravenna. Since the pope exercised the immediate metropolitan authority in Ravenna, the line represented the papal attempt to transform metro- politan authority into sovereign rights.51 Yet, founding claims of sovereignty on all of the territorial details in the passage is reading into it more than it will bear. Several syntactical explanations of the passage have demonstrated that the places mentioned in the Luna-Monselice line are all in the locative ablative case: thus, it clearly denotes a boundary of some sort.52 The problem then is to distinguish the grammatical antecedent of the phrase. Kehr insisted on pgp desigpatum confinium, thereby differentiating between the Luna-Monselice line and areas like Spoleto and Benevento. The latter areas, all in the accusative case, grammatically depend on contradi spopondit.53 This led him 50E. Sackur, "Die Promissio Pippins vom Jahre 754 und ihre Erneuerung durch Karl den Grossen," pp. 401- 402. 51Wilhelm Gundlach, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates pug der curiale Begpiff Res publica Romanorum, pp. 53-30. 52P. Kehr, "Die so enannte karolingische Schenkung von 774, " HZ, LKX (1893), 12- 415; E. Caspar, Pippin.ppg Lie ro- mische Kirche, pp. 100- 102, Karl Lamprecht, 21g romische Frgge von Konig Pippm bis auf Kaiser Ludwig Len Fermen, p. 105. 53F. Kehr, "Die sogenannte karolingische Schenkung von 774, " pp. 413-414. 95 to conclude that two different types of lands were involved: certain areas within the Luna-Monselice boundary and the entire areas of Spoleto, Benevento, the Exarchate, and the provinces of Venetia and Istria.5l+ Erich Caspar disagreed on the grounds that the passage does not explicitly refer to areas south of the Luna-Monselice line. For him, if such areas were to be included, it is striking that they are not mentioned. He also introduced the idea that the biographer might have been engaging in some deliberate deception.55 It would seem that Kehr was close to the truth in making a differentiation in the parts of the donation. The LunaFMonselice line did indicate a boundary, south of which 56 the papacy was making patrimonial claims. In addition, it would seem that the passage involved two types of claims, patrimonial and sovereign. All those areas not marked by universum or cunctum seem to indicate claims for patrimonial restitutions: specifically, the areas south of the Luna- Monselice line, including Corsica and the provinces of Vene- tia and Istriar's7 The other areas, the Exarchate of Ravenna and the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento, were claimed as 5"Ibid., p. 413 55Erich Caspar, Pippin und die r8mische Kirche, pp. 105- 111. 56Karl Lamprecht, Die ramische Frage von Kbnig Pippin §;_ auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen, pp. 105-107. 57Cf. the detailed explanation of T. Sicke1,Das Privi- %2gigp Ottos I. fur die romische Kirche vom Jahre 252— I msbruck, 18835, pp. 133-137. 96 the rightful possessions of St. Peter in their entirety. This hypothesis can be supported from other evidence. The Roman Church certainly possessed patrimonies in the Tuscan areas south of the Luna-Monselice line, as Hadrian would later complain.58 Further, there are indications that the papacy was already concerned about its possessions in Vene- tia and Istria during the pontificate of Stephen III.59 Finally, papal rights to the Exarchate of Ravenna were based on Carolingian and Lombard donations during the 7505. Claims to Spoleto were doubtlessly founded on the submission of 773 and Hadrian could have been advancing a claim to Benevento on the basis of an earlier Beneventan submission to Stephen 11.60 This, then, is a plausible explanation of the passage in the XLpa Hadriani, but the intentions of Charles are still another matter. One still cannot be sure that the passage reported the actual contents of the agreement, but the passage relating to the donation has an even larger meaning. After piecing the puzzle together, one is confronted with a clear state- ment of papal aspirations. Hadrian was putting forth claims to large extents of the Italian peninsula and he also hoped to receive back all the confiscated patrimonies in Lombard and Byzantine Italy. These hopes were pursued in the years 58Cf. Codex Carolinus 87, MGH gpp. III, 623. 59See the letter from Stephen III to the Patriarch John of Grado, MGH Epp. III, 715. 6on. supra, p. 87, note 36. 97 following 774 and a clear statement of them is just as valu- able as the question of the donation itself. It can only be conjectured with a relatively high degree of certainty that Hadrian's biography actually reflects the contents of the agreement. The simple fact remains that the document has not survived. However, based on the analysis of the papal biography and the events following 774, it would seem that, in the papal view, Charles promised things which, in large part, he never fulfilled.61 Several eXplanations have been forwarded to avoid the conclusion that the Frankish king broke his promises to the Roman Church. To some, the agreement of 774 was only a pro- gram to be followed in future years which bound neither party to strict fulfillment.62 Another explanation was to create artificial distinctions between promises and dona— tions. Charles could well have promised everything in the papal biography, but this did not bind him to donate all of it if certain conditions were not fulfilled.63 All of these arguments needlessly complicate the issue without really explaining it. Yet the problem remains that, according to papal sources, Charles prepared a document of donation for 61Peter Classen, K 1 der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzagz z. pp. 15-16. 62W. Mohr, StuLien er Charakteristik Les kgpolingischen Konigtums Lm 8. Jahrhundert, p. 89. 63Karl Lamprecht, Die romischg Frage von Konig Pippin bis aLf KaLser Ludwig Len Frommen, pp. 24-25, T. Sickel, Das Privilegium Ottos I. gpp‘ng romische Kirche 22E Jahre E. pp. 115-116?“— " ' " 98 the Roman Church and then he and the rest of the Franks 6h swore oaths to fulfill the agreement. This second oath undoubtedly also included a continuance of the Frankish obli- gation to protect the Roman Church.65 Once again the problem stems from the fact that all the materials relating to the agreement come from papal sources. As has been illustrated, the answer is certainly not to be found in the idea of a forgery. However, the words of Erich Caspar should be kept in mind that even though Hadrian's biographer did not lie, he might not have revealed the whole truth.66 Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the biographer, as a contemporary witness to the events he described, faithfully recorded what Hadrian felt were the rightful possessions of the Roman Church. However, as the years following 774 would demonstrate, those views were not shared by Charles. It is entirely plausible that the Frankish king had already made the limitation on those claims which he was later to follow. 69!;3; Hadri i, c. 42, p. #98: Factaque eadem dona- tione et propria sua manu eam ipse christianissimus Fran- corum rex eam conroborans, universos episcopos, abbates, duces, etiam et grafiones postmodum intuo in sancta eius confessione ponentes, tam ipse Francorum rex quamque eius iudices, beato Petro et eius vicario sanctissimo Adriano papae sub terrible sacramento sese omnia conservaturos qui in eadem donatione continentur promittentes tradiderunt. 65This protection obligation was later expressed by Hadrian when he referred to Charles as the defensor and protector of the Roman Church. Cf. Codex Carolinus 52, ,MQH,§pp. III, 574, line 7, and no. 55. p. 577, line 9, among others. 1 fiErich Caspar, Pippin und die r8mische Eiggggo PP- 09" 1 o 99 Charles would restore the rightful possessions of St. Peter, so long as the Church could prove its rights to the areas.67 One must conclude, then, that the XLpa Hadriani portrayed accurately papal claims in Italy and the way in which Had- rian hoped those claims would be implemented in the donation of 77#. One must also conclude, however, that the biogra- pher deliberately left out the Frankish stipulation that the Roman claims must be proven before any such transfers would take place. Therefore, the problem can best be described as one of conflicting interpretations, not only for modern researchers, but also for the parties involved. Hadrian certainly felt the papacy was the rightful ruler of the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. In addition, the Church could claim the patrimonies illegally seized either by Lombards or Byzantines. For his part, Charles was willing to restore all the real possessions of the Church, if the papal claims could be proven. This does not make the report in the Vita Hadriani either a forgery or a bold deception. It merely means that the agreement of 77# did not mark the end of a process which had begun with the journey of Stephen II north of the Alps. This conflict of ideas about the nature of the agreement actually marked 67Cf. Theodor Lindner, gig sogenannte Schenkungen Pip- ins, Karls ggs Grossen ppg Ottos l. éfl.§l§ Papste, pp. 7 - 6. See also Abel-Simson, I, 2113 "Karl verstand es ganz anders als Hadrian, brachte es wenigstens nicht in der Weise zur Ausffihrung wie Hadrian erwartete." 100 the beginning of a long and sometimes bitter dispute be- tween the Frankish king and Hadrian. The resolution of this conflict, hopefully in favor of Rome, would consume most of the energies of the pOpe in the remainder of his pontificate. CHAPTER FOUR THE FIRST SETTLEMENT, 77#-778 The conflict between Hadrian and the Frankish king over the meaning of the agreement of 77# commenced almost as soon as the agreement itself was concluded, but the entire arran- gement was soon to take on an added dimension with the col- lapse of the Lombard kingdom. During the stay of Charles in Rome the Frankish army continued the siege of Pavia, slowly wearing down the forces of Desiderius. As soon as the celebration of Easter ended and the negotiations with the pope were concluded, the Frankish king left Rome and rejoined his army. By this time the city of Pavia had been under siege for at least five months and the supporters of Desiderius were gradually abandoning him.1 Finally, in June of 77#, Desiderius surrendered Pavia and himself to the Franks.2 Charles apparently distributed the treasure found 1We have already seen the actions of the Spoletans, who were joined by the inhabitants of Fermo, Osimo, Ancona and Citta di Castello. Cf. Vita Hadriani, c. 32-33, pp. 2The fall of Pavia is dated June 77# by one annal. Cf. Annales Laureshamenses, a. 774, mpg §§ I, 30. See also Vita Hadriani, c. 55, p. 599; Annales regni Francorum, a. 77#, p. 38; Annales pp; dicuntur Einhardi, a. 775. P. 39: Einhardi Vita Karoli Maggi, c. 3, p. 8. Notation of the Lombard 101 102 in the Lombard city to his army and Desiderius was taken captive back to Francia. Although several possibilities are mentioned as places of exile for the defeated Lombard king, one cannot be certain where he lived out the remainder of his life.3 In any event, Hadrian's most dangerous enemy had been removed. No revolutionary measures were initiated in 77# by the new king of the Lombards to change the ruling structure of his conquest. There is evidence that Charles did receive L, the submission of most Lombard cities. However, the notion that Charles immediately established Frankish counts through- out the Lombard kingdom is highly suspect. It would seem that most Lombard dukes were initially left in their offices with few arrangements made to control them.5 Of even city's fall ends the portion of the Vita Hadriani which has supplied detailed information on the political developments of Hadrian's first years as pope. The papal biography now shifts abruptly into a long description of Hadrian's work in restoring churches within the city of Rome. 30f. Annales Laurissenses minores, a. 775, MQH‘§§ I, 117; Annales Fuldenses, a. 775, p. 9. One source mentions Lfittich as the place where Desiderius was sent in Francia and another mentions Corbey. However, neither is reliable. Cf. Annales Lobienses, a. 77#, Egg §§ XIII, 229; Annales Sangallenses maiores, a. 774,,MQH §§_I, 75. “Annales regni Francorum, a. 774, p. 38: Ibique veni- entes omnes Langobardi de cunctis civitatibus Italiae, sub- diderunt se in dominio domni gloriosi Caroli regis et Fran- corum o 50n1y one annal mentions an immediate dispatch of Fran- kish counts throughout Italy. Cf. Annales Petaviani, a. 77#, Egg §§ I, 16. It would seem that Rodgaud of Friuli, Stabi- linus of Treviso, Gaidus of Vicenza, Gudibrand of Florence, Reginbald of Chiusi, Hildebrand of Spoleto and Arichis of Benevento were all initially left in possession of their 103 greater importance, the direct heir to the Lombard throne, Adelgis, escaped from Italy and made his way to Constanti- nople, where he was made a patricius.6 What arrangements Charles did make for his new kingdom were only temporary, the most strategic one being the establishment of a Frankish garrison in Pavia, and the Frankish king was soon to regret the fragility of the Frankish presence in Italy.7 Ultimately, pressed by the urgency of the Saxon wars, Charles quickly left Italy with his army and his captives, making his way back to Francia. However, this is not to say that the conquest of 77# took place with no discernible effects in Italy. Almost im- mediately, Charles displayed a new title: Carolus gratia fig; 33; Francorum gt Langobardorum.8 Also, if it is true that Charles took no immediate actions toward the Lombard dukes, the same is not true for other forces in Lombard Italy. There are indications that Charles placed heavy re- liance on Lombard abbots to counterbalance the continuing ducal offices. See E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, B ern und Burgunder in Oberitalien, 223-232 (Freiburg i. B., 19%05, p. 23. 6Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 77#, pp. 39, 41. “o7ggig. See also Annales regni Francorum, a. 77#, p. o aggz 165:,MQEIQE I, no. 80, pp. 11h-115. However, there is no direct evidence that Charles was formally crowned king of the Lombards. The report from the chron- icle of Farfa, Carolus rex Francorum et Romanorum imper- ator filius Pipini regis Francorum coronatus 774, stems from the eleventh century and is not trustworthy. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 192-193. 104 power of the Lombard dukes.9 A primary example of this re- liance was Anselm of Nonantola, a dangerous enemy to Desi- derius, whom Charles recalled from exile, reestablished in his abbatial office, and then proceeded to favor with numer- 10 ous privileges. The same reliance can be seen in grants to the monasteries of Farfa and Bobbio.11 Further, it could be argued that Charles tried to tie Lombard monastic foundations to monasteries in Francia in order to cement his control over this section of the Lombard ruling structure. Grants of Italian possessions to Frankish monasteries exist, some dating from the period before the Frankish king's de- 12 Consequently, even if measures to- parture for Francia. ward Lombard dukes were only made p33 tempore, the new Lom- bard king was taking steps to lay a solid foundation for rule in his conquest. It may be that Charles hesitated to institute drastic measures toward the Lombard dukes in fear of a violent reaction which would necessitate his continued presence in Italy. 9K. Schmid, "Anselm von Nonantola. 011m dux militum- nunc dux monachorum," QFIAB, XLVII (1967), 11h-116. 10Vit§ Anselmi abbatis Nonantulani. MGH SS LL_E" PP° 566ff. Charles issued at least four 2privileges for Nonan- tola, beginning in July 776. Cf. 8M2 203, MGH DK I, no. 113, p. 159. See also K. Schmid, "Anselm von Nonantola. Olim dux militum-nunc dux monachorum," p. 104; Abel-Simson, I, 186. 11For Farfa see 8M2 187 and 188; Chronicon Farfense, pp. 161- 163. For Bobbio_ see 3M2 165, Mon DK r,'"ho. 80, p. 11a. 123M2 181, MGH UK I, no. 9a, p. 135. See also BM2167 and E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 30- 31. 105 Other parts of Lombard Italy were also affected by the conquest, although not directly by Charles. The two Lombard dukes of Spoleto and Benevento, already the heirs of a tradi- tion of independence toward the royal authority in Pavia, were drastically affected by the events of 77#. As we have seen, the Frankish invasion had given the Spoletans the op- portunity to turn toward Rome and Pope Hadrian for protec- tion. But, the conquest of Pavia was soon to bring another change for Duke Hildebrand. As for Duke Arichis of Bene- vento, the elimination of Desiderius and the flight of Adel- gis to Constantinople made Arichis the heir of continued Lombard prospects.13 It has been argued that the status of Hildebrand, holder of a ducal office under papal suzerainty, motivated Arichis to find a new title to express his own standing. Since the assumption of a royal title was not possible, due to the Beneventan duke's loyalty toward his brother-in-law, Adelgis, Arichis settled for the title of in To the discomfort of both pope and Frankish princeps. king the Beneventan problem was to remain unsolved for a number of years after 77#. Finally, and of greatest impor- tance, it is clear from the analysis above that Charles was taking steps in Italy, albeit temporarily, without 13E. 1“E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Ffirstentitel (77#-1077)," Intitul tio 1;, pp. 368-369. See also R. Poupardin, Etude sur les institutions politigues g3 adminisgrative de rinci autés lombardes.gg l'Italie meridionale, gxeexge si§cles (Paris, 1909), pp. 7-9. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, pp. 58-59. 106 considering the possible desires of Hadrian in Rome. The following years would show clearly that Charles intended to be master in Italy. ‘For his part, Hadrian immediately faced a problem with Archbishop Leo of Ravenna which not only revealed the tenu- ous nature of papal control over the districts Rome claimed, but also demonstrated Hadrian's total reliance on Charles to fulfill papal plans. Problems between Rome and Ravenna had a rather long history by the time of Hadrian's disagree- ment with Archbishop Leo. Archbishop Sergius of Ravenna had had a lengthy dispute with Rome prior to 769, stemming in part from the archbishop's having been a layman when elected to his office.15 Since Rome possessed the metropol- itan authority over the church of Ravenna, Pope Paul refused for a time to consecrate Sergius as archbishop, although the pope eventually did perform the consecration.16 0f greater import for the papacy's hopes to control lands in Italy was the fact that in the confusion following the collapse of the Byzantine Exarchate, Sergius might actually have ruled a large part of the Exarchate and all of the Pentapolis.17 15Agnelli liber ontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, MQH §_ 1am” pp- 377-37 - 16Ibid., pp. 378-379. Agnellus was quite confused about the dispute, laying blame both on the archbishop's enemies in Ravenna and on the jealousy of the pope. That Sergius was eventually recognized as archbishop is evidenced by the statement in Codex Carolinus 14,,MQH'Epp. III, 512: Sergium vero archiepiscopum iuxta id quod vestrae innotuit excellen- tiae, indesinenter inminemus, ut suae restituatur ecclesie. ”small—i liber W ___ecclesiae _R_a_ve._nnatis. p. 380: 107 The chronology for this seizure of areas in the Exarchate by Sergius is never clear, nor is it apparent what happened in consequence of Pepin's intervention in Italy. Nonethe- less, the actions of Sergius did reveal a source of strife between Ravenna and Rome and undoubtedly had a direct bear- ing on the later claims of Archbishop Leo. The problems were only further complicated by the fact that, following the death of Sergius, a disputed archiepis- copal election brought the scriniarius Michael to power, quite probably with the aid of Duke Mauricius of Venetia and King Desiderius. The archdeacon Leo, having been canonically elected, was temporarily held captive by Mau- ricius.18 Yet, when Michael appealed to Rome for consecra- tion, Pope Stephen III refused, probably as much in fear of the influence of Desiderius as he was alarmed about the vio- lent seizure of the see of Ravenna by Michael.19 Despite the refusal of Stephen, the usurper was able to control Ravenna for over a year, again illustrating the helplessness of Rome to enforce its wishes without external support. It is highly significant that Michael was forced out of Ravenna Igitur iudicavit iste a finibus Persiceti totum Pentapolim et usque ad Tusciam et usque ad mensam Walani, veluti exar- chus, sic omnia disponebat, ut soliti sunt modo Romani facere. See also Abel-Simson, I, 212. 180:. Vita Stephani III, o. 25. p. 477. 19Ibid. See also Aggelli liber pontificalis ecclesiae R vennatis, p. 381. Despite the confusion apparent in both papal and Ravennan sources, this episode probably took place in 769. 108 only when Frankish missi intervened.20 Although it is men- tioned that Leo was again elected archbishop, the question of whether Frankish pigs; took an active role in the election is not clear. Pope Hadrian was later to react quite violent- ly against a Frankish suggestion that Frankish misgi did intervene in the archiepiscopal election.21 In any event, Leo became archbishop, due as much to Frankish force as to favor from Rome. Consequently, it was only inevitable that when trouble arose between Leo of Ravenna and Pope Hadrian, the Franks again would be involved. The very first words of Hadrian's initial letter to Charles after the conquest of Pavia state that Leo has sent envoys to the Frankish king with lies against the pOpe.22 The pope implied that, as a result of the conversations between Leo's messengers and Charles, the archbishop had seized Faenza, Forumpopuli, Forli, Cesena, Bobbio, Comacchio, the duchy of Ferrara, Imola and Bologna as soon as the Frankish king had left Italy. Further, 2°v1ta Stephani 11;, o. 26, p. 478. See also H.J. Schmidt, "Die Kirche von Ravenna im Frfihmittelalter," 3gp, XXXIV (1913), 751-75#. It has been suggested that the deposition of Michael was a demand of Pope Stephen's which the Franks fulfilled in order to obtain papal approval for Bertrada's marriage project in 770. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 85-86. However, from Stephen's subsequent reaction to the marriage, such an agreement is highly doubtful. 2101. Codex Carolinus 85, MGH gpp. III, 621. 22Codex Carolinus 49, Egg Epp. III, 568: Pervenit ad nos. eo quod protervus et nimis arrogans Leo archiepiscopus Ravennantium civitatis suos ad vestram excellentissimam benignitatem ad contrarietatem nostram, falsa suggerendo, direxit missos. 109 Hadrian complained that Leo claimed to do this with the per- mission of Charles, since the Frankish king gave those areas to Ravenna.23 It is striking to note that Hadrian's claims to the areas were not founded clearly on the agreement of 774. When the pope made reference to the areas being given to St. Peter by the Franks, his reference was to an agreement between the Franks and Pope Stephen 11.24 In fact, Hadrian mentioned Frankish promises on three occasions in this letter and in all three places the reference was clearly to an agreement between Pepin and Stephen II. The second reference to Pepin was when the pope lamented that the ene- mies of himself and Charles were taunting, "What has it pro- fited you that the nation of the Lombards was abolished and subjugated to the kingdom of the Franks? Behold how nothing of that, which they had promised, has been fulfilled: and 23Ibid.: Etenim, praecellentissimae, magne rex, post- quam vestra excellentia a civitate Papia in partes Frantiae remeavit, ex tunc tyrannico atque procacissimo intuitu re- bellis beato Petro et nobis extitit. Et in sua potestate diversas civitates Emiliae detinere videtur, scilicet Faven- tias, Forumpopuli, Forolivi, Cesinas, Bobio, Comiaclum, ducatum Ferrariae seu Imolas atque Bononias, asserens, quod a vestra excellentia ipse civitates una cum universos Pen- Eapoli illi fuissent concessae,.... See also Abel-Simson, , 212. 2L'Codex Carolinus #9, MGH Epp. III, 568: Sed ipsi nullo modo sese illi humiliare inclinati sunt nec a servi- tio beati Petri et nostro recedere maluerunt, magis autem firmi in nostris apostolicis mandatis, quemadmodum extit- erunt sub nostro predecessore, domno Stephano papa, cui sanctae recordationis genitor tuus simulque et praeclara excellentia tua ipsum exarchatum sub iure beati Petri per- manendum tradidutum est, in omnibus firmiter permanere noscuntur. 110 moreover, that which was conceded previously to St. Peter by the lord King Pepin of holy memory is now known to be taken away."25 The final mention also included that the agreement had taken place when Stephen II was in Francia.26 The initial mystery about why Hadrian did not make clear reference to the "donation" of 774 is solved if it is re- called that the agreement of 77# was probably founded on the principle that Charles would restore everything to St. Peter where the papacy could prove its rights. On first glance, the status of the cities seized by Leo was quite confused. Five of the cities, Forumpopuli, Forli, Cesena, Bobbio and Comacchio, were mentioned in the transfer of cities to Rome in 756.27 The remaining areas were apparently donated to St. Peter by Desiderius in 757.28 However, the transfer of Imola and Bologna was probably never completed. Consequen- tly, Charles was not presented with a clear issue regarding all the cities and the only way to settle the question would seem to be a Frankish examination of the conflicting claims. 251bid.: "Quid vobis profuit, quod Langobardorum gens est abolita et regno Francorum subiugata? Et ecce iam nihil de his, quae promissa sunt, adinpletum est; insuper et ea. quae antea beato Petro concessa sunt a sanctae recordationis domno Pippino rege, nunc ablata esse noscuntur." 26Ibid.: ...nos, excellentissimae fili, quemadmodum tempore domni Stephani papae, qui illuc Franciam profectus est, cui et ipsum exarchatum traditum est, ita et nostris temporibus eum sub nostra potestate disponere atque ordinare volumus. 270:. Vita Stephani II, c. #7, p. 458. 28Cf. Codex C olinus 11, MGH Epp. III, 506; Vita MIL c. 51. p. 1:55. 111 At this point in the dispute there is no evidence to indi- cate that an agreement was reached between Charles and Leo to transfer the disputed cities to Ravenna.29 0n the contrary, there are indications that both Roman and Ravennaten envoys, possibly even Archbishop Leo himself, travelled to Francia in 775 for a judgment in the dispute.30 The decision of the Frankish king can be inferred from the subsequent events. Yet, Hadrian was not content merely to await the Frankish king's judgment; he also tried to dis- credit Leo in the eyes of Charles. The pope complained to Charles that a letter sent from the Patriarch John of Grado to Rome had been opened and read by Archbishop Leo. Even more serious, Hadrian accused Leo of revealing the contents of the letter to Arichis of Benevento "as well as to the other enemies of yours and ours."31 The contents of the letter are not known, but Hadrian was clearly attempting to implicate Leo in some treasonous plot against Charles. The pope now revealed that his method of dealing with opponents 29Cf. S. Abel, "Papst Hadrian I. und die weltliche Herr- schaft des ramischen Stuhls," pp. ABC-#89. Equally un- founded is the assertion that Charles favored Leo by doing nothing to satisfy Hadrian's demands, cf. H.J. Schmidt, "Die Kirche von Ravenna," pp. 755-756. 30Codex Carolinus 53, Egg Epp. III, 575: De eo vero, quod innotuistis: ad vos properasse Leonem archiepiscopum, nos quippe testatur veritas, libentissimae acceptamus eos, qui ad vestra regalia accelerant vestigia, quoniam una di- lectio, una caritas eademque puritatis affectio inter nos consistit. Et si praefatus archiepiscopus nobis direxisset, ad vestri se praesentiam velle proficisci, gratuito animo nostrum missum cum eo direxissemus. Blcodex Carolinus 54. M £22. III, 576-577. 112 was to accuse them of treason against Charles. Had Leo been removed by an involvement in such a plot, it could have been easier for the pope to achieve his goal in regard to the disputed cities.32 As for those cities, it would seem that Charles decided Hadrian did have a valid claim to most of them, except for Imola and Bologna. When the pope next complained about the situation in a letter from October 775, Leo seemed to be forwarding claims only to Imola and Bologna. Even more il- luminating is the fact that Hadrian now clearly connected those two cities to a promise from Charles, even though Leo also claimed the cities from a donation by the Frankish king.33 The pope did not have as clear a claim to those two cities as he had possessed in relation to the other areas. 321t has been suggested that Leo did open the letter be- cause of his enmity toward Hadrian, but the thought that Leo revealed its contents to Arichis was only conjecture on the part of the pope. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 239-2h0. Actually, whether or not the archbishop revealed the contents of the letter to anyone is of no great consequence. The important fact is the beginning of Hadrian's plan to deal with his op- ponents by accusing them of treachery. 33Codex Carolinus 5a,.MQH Epp. III, 577: ...: at vero de civitatibus Imulense seu Bononiense ita profanizat dicens, quod vestra excellentia ipsas civitates minime beato Petro et nobis concessit, sed sibi ipse archiepiscopus a vobis fuisse concessas ac traditas asserit sub sua potestate per- manendas. Unde nullum hominem ex eisdem civitatibus ad nos venire permisit, sed ipse ibidem actores quos voluit sine nostra auctoritate ordinavit et in sua eas detinet potestate. Et non itbi placeat. excellentissimae fili, ut tanto despectui hanc apostolicam habeat fidem, non reputans de sua promissione, quam beato Petro et eius vicariis iurieurando adibuit, sed sicut transgressor mandarotum Dei in periurii reatus incidit. Etenim nos firmiter credimus et magnam habemus fiduciam, quod omnia, quae beato Petro per vestram donationem offerenda promisistis, adinplere pro magna regni vestri stabilitate et aeterna vobis conferenda retributione studeatis. 113 His only option was to refer to the Frankish king's promise to restore to St. Peter all those areas to which the papacy had a valid claim. Rome did have a claim to Imola and Bolo- gna, stemming from the confused donation of Desiderius, and Hadrian probably felt that Charles was now obligated to re- store the cities to St. Peter. The cessation of papal demands over the other cities, except for Imola and Bologna, strongly suggests that Charles did order the seven other cities transferred to Rome. It would also seem that the Frankish king did not issue a clear judgment about Imola and Bologna, since Hadrian now made the effort to connect those two cities with a promise from Char- les. This interpretation is borne out by the fact that when Hadrian complained about the actions of Leo for the last time, he stated that the archbishop continued to hold Imola and Bologna illegally, but papal complaints about the other cities only centered on the fact that Leo continued to deny entry to papal officials into those cities and not that Leo was claiming the cities for himself.3u 0n the basis of an analysis of this first issue con- cerning problems in Italy, it must be concluded that Charles sided with the pope, even though it took him some time to do so. After the letter of November 775, the pope did not con- tinue his complaints about the actions of Leo of Ravenna. Judging from Hadrian's actions in other disputes, it is 3M'Codex Carolinus 55, MQH'Epp. III, 579-580. 114 clear that he would not have ceased his complaints had he not been satisfied.35 Eventually, even Imola and Bologna were transferred to Rome, although it is true that the time 36 when this transfer took place is not known. Since Leo died in February 777, it is not unlikely that the final satis- faction of papal wishes took place shortly after that date. The whole episode between Rome and Ravenna is quite re- vealing about the powers of the Frankish king, as well as about the nature of the agreement of 774. Charles clearly intended to rule as sovereign in Italy. even in regard to some of the areas claimed by Rome. He had not made Hadrian a sovereign ruler by any of his actions and he apparently had no intention of doing so.37 As for the nature of the agreement of 774, the episode is the first indication that Charles would only transfer to Rome the areas to which the pope had a valid claim. Therefore, the Rome-Ravenna dispute further demonstrated that the agreement of 774 marked the beginning of a long process of claims and judgments in Italy. In that light it is not possible to dismiss the agreement of 774 as an invention of the papal biographer's imagination, since then to explain the Rome-Ravenna dispute necessitates a long series of renunciations and new agreements between 35T. Lindner, Die sogenannte Schenkungen Pi ins, Karls des Grossen, und Ottos I. 3g die Papste, pp. 47-28; J.A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse und die Kirche, pp. 47-49. 36Abel-Simson, I, 264-265. 37A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, II, 88; H.J. Schmidt, "Die Kirche von Ravenna," pp. 754-755. 115 774 and 781.38 Nor is it necessary to postulate that Char- les either broke his promise or changed his mind, since his actions in the dispute were in line with his demands for proof before any transfer would take place.39 Yet, if Hadrian thought that all such claims would be decided in favor of the papacy, he was to be abruptly dis- illusioned. On two separate occasions in 775 the Frankish king apparently announced to the pOpe his plans to come to Italy later in the same year. For Hadrian the intent of the visits was clear: Charles was to travel again to Italy to fulfill the promises he had made to St. Peter.’+0 However, probably due to the continuing pressures of the Saxon wars, Charles was unable to realize his plans and resolved to send gigs; instead of going to Italy himself. Again, it was Hadrian's understanding that the missi would fulfill the . 38Which is precisely the method of Wilhelm Martens, Die romische Frgge unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen, pp. 172- 181. _——-—'— . 398ee Ernst Sackur, "Die Promissio Pippins von Jahre 754 und ihre Erneuerung durch Karl den Grossen," pp. 419-411; H.K. Mann, The Lives 2; thg Popes 1Q Egg early Middle A es, I, 2, pp. ammo—r s. Abel, "Papst Hadrian I. und die welt- liche Herrschaft des r3mischen Stuhls," p. 465. uoCodex Carolinus 51, Mgfiqup. III, 572: Interea con- tinebatur serles vestrae excellentiae, quod, accedente prox- imo mense Octobrio dum Deo favente in partibus Italiae ad- veneritis. omnia, quae beato Petro regni celeorum clavigero et nobis pollicit estis, ad effectum perducere maturatae;.... Codex Carolinus 52, Egg Epp. III, 574: Continebatur quippe in ipsis vestris regalis seriem apicibus, quod, Domino pro- tegente, remeante vos a Saxonia, mox et de presenti Italiam vel ad limina protectoris vestri, beati apostolorum prin- cipis Petri, ad implendis quae ei polliciti estis, propere desideraretis. 116 promise made by Charles to St. Peter.41 One must question whether all of the papal concern about either the Frankish king or Frankish miggi coming to Italy before any fulfill- ment of the promise of 774 could take place would have been necessary unless Charles had clearly reserved for himself the right to judge the papal claims before making any trans- fer of territory to Rome. Under the circumstances it was not at all surprising that Hadrian became alarmed when the promised Frankish miggi did not appear. After vainly waiting until November, the pope sent an inquiry about the pigs; to the Frankish nobles in Pavia, only to receive a reply that they knew nothing about the arrival of any such Frankish envoys in Italy.42 Now undoubtedly thoroughly alarmed, Hadrian immediately sent two messengers north to Francia. Their mission was to urge Charles to fulfill the promises which he and his father had made to St. Peter.”3 It would seem that the pope was ”1Codex Carolinus 55, Egg Epp. III, 578: Itaque, prae- cellentissime fili, recordare credimus, a Deo protectam christianitatem vestram nobis direxisse in responsis per Andream reverentissimum et sanctissimum fratrem nostrum, episcopum, quod hoc autumno tempore vestros ad nostri prae- sentiam studuissetis dirigendum missos, qui nobis omnia secundum vestram promissionem contradere deberent. “Zlbid. u31bid., p. 579: Eosque benignae atque hilari vultu a vobis suscipi petimus, eorumque sermonibus, quos nostra vice protulerint, credere et aurem benignitatis vestrae adcommo— dare cunctaque perficere et adimplere dignemini, quae sanctae memoriae genitor vester, domnus Pippinus rex, beato Petro una vobiscum pollicitus est et postmodum tu ipse, a Deo ins- titutae, magnae rex, dum ad limina apostolorum profectus es, ea ipsa spopondens confirmasti eidemque Dei apostolo 117 uneasy not only over the problem with Ravenna, but also over the relationship between Spoleto and Rome. If so, Hadrian's inquietude was well-founded. The papal desires for the appearance of Frankish miggi finally materialized when the bishop Possessor and the abbot Rabigaudus came to Italy late in 775. Yet, much to Hadrian's horror, the miggi went directly to Spoleto to deal with Hil- debrand, bypassing the roads to Rome and ignoring papal de- mands to proceed immediately to Rome. To make matters even worse, upon completion of their business with Duke Hildebrand, Possessor and Rabigaudus then travelled to Benevento, again 44 ignoring papal demands that they go to Rome. Even though praesentaliter manibus tuis eandem offeruisti promissionem. As for the urging by the pope for Charles to receive the papal envoys benignly, it appears to be merely a stylistic formality which was used frequently in papal correspondence. Cf. Wilhelm Gundlach, "Ueber den Codex Carolinus," NA, XVII (1892): 536'538- uuCodex Carolinus 56, MQH‘Epp. III, 581: Illi nempe, dum Perusiam coniunxissent, relaxsantes recto itinere ad nos doniungendum--secundum qualiter a vestro a Deo protecto culmine directi fuerunt et ut vestros honorandos apices re- legentes invenimus--, nos despicientes apud Hildibrandum in Spoletium perrexerunt, dirigentes nobis per nostros missos: "eo quod tantummodo cum Hildibrandum loquimur: et deinde, ut directi sumus, una vobiscum apud domnum apostolicum con— iungemus." Postmodum enim, dum cum praedictum Hildebrandum locuti fuissent et apud cum diucius norarentur, nostris apostolicis eis adiurantes direximus syllabas: "Per Deum omnipotentem et vitam excellentissimi filii nostri, domni Caroli, magni regis, ut directi estis, apud nos coniungere satagite, ut unanimiter pertractantes, quod ad exaltationem sanctae Dei ecclesiae pertinuerit et ad laudem regni nostri praecellentissimi filii, agere studeamus; et tunc per dis- positum, ut eius praecellentiae decet missos, apud Beneven- tum vos proficiscere disponimus." Sed illi, nescimus quid pertractantes, statim a Spolecio in Beneventum perrexerunt, nos in magnam derelinquentes ignominium, et Spolitinos ampliaverunt in protervia. 118 we do not know what was discussed between the Frankish missi and the Lombard dukes, the meaning of the embassy to the two duchies was evident to Hadrian: Charles did not recog- nize the validity of papal claims to the areas. Initially Hadrian felt that the missi were acting in disobedience of the Frankish king's orders, but such independent action by Frankish royal messengers was hardly possible.“5 Hadrian certainly believed, on the basis of the Spole- tan submission of 773, that he possessed a valid claim to the duchy. Yet, the pope was also well aware that his claim was practically worthless unless it was recognized by Char- les. Consequently, a letter sent to the Frankish court from the pope contained an unmistakable reference that Spoleto had been given by Charles to St. Peter in the agreement of 77“.46 papal claims would be individually examined and judged by If the agreement of 774 did contain the proviso that the Frankish king, the pope's attempt to combine the uSAbel-Simson, I, 240-241. We know virtually nothing about Possessor and Rabigaudus, but Hadrian learned to dread the appearance of the former in Italy as he often acted against papal wishes in consequence of the Frankish king's commands. uéCodex ngolinus 56, Egg Epp. III, 581: Sed, tamquam presentaliter coram vestris mellifluis regalis optutibus assistentes, obsecrantes petimus vestram a Deo fundatam regalem potentiam, ut de tanta et talia tribulatione, in qua nos ipsi vestri dereliquereunt missi, velociter per fidelissimos et benignissimos vestros missos nos consolari et laetificare iubeatis, quia et ipsum Spoletinum ducatum vos praesentaliter offeruistis protectori vestro beato Petro principi apostolorum per nostram mediocritatem per animae vestrae mercaede. Et ita obnixe quaesumus, praecellentissime fili, ut nostram deprecationem de predicta afflictione et prenominatum Spoletinum ducatum celerius effectui mancipetis,.... 119 Spoletan submission of 773 with the agreement of 774 was only logical. Only through confirmation of the papal claims could Hadrian hope to have his authority over the duchy recognized by the new king of the Lombards. The events that followed demonstrated decisiverly, how- ever, that Charles did not recognize the validity of the papal claims to the duchy of Spoleto. Undoubtedly in con- sequence of the Frankish migsi's discussions with Hildebrand, the Lombard duke submitted to the sovereignty of the new Lombard king.)"7 The rights of Charles were also demonstrated in two charters for the monastery of Farfa. The second of these charters granted an immunity to Farfa which was expli- citly equated with immunities granted to several Frankish “8 This again illustrates the attempts of Char- monasteries. les to use monastic foundations to counterbalance the con- tinuing power of the Lombard dukes. Also, the dispatch of Frankish missi to deal directly with Hildebrand meant that, in the eyes of the new Lombard king, the submission of Spo- leto to Rome in 773 was a purely political act which did not impart any rights of possession to the pope.“9 If Charles meant to rule as king of the Lombards, he had no other choice u7Abel-Simson, I, 242. Hildebrand's charters, beginning in early 776, bore the name of Charles instead of Hadrian's. Cf. H. Fichtenau, "'Politische' Datierung des frfihen Mittel— alters,” Intitulatio II, pp. 491ff. uBBMz 188, 201: MGH UK I, nos. 99 and 111. See also Chronigon Fagfense, pp. 161-163. 49T. Lindner, Die gogenapnte Schenkungen Pi ins, Karls des Grossen und Ottos I. an die Pa ste, pp. 40- 1. ‘_—*— 120 but to enforce his own rights to the duchy at the expense of those of the pope. Consequently, Hadrian lost the duchy of Spoleto. It is tempting to see in the problems with Ravenna and Spoleto an attempt by Charles to force the pOpe into renouncing papal claims to Spoleto by favoring Leo of Ravenna in the archbishop's dispute with Rome.50 In fact, some scholars have postulated a formal renunciation of Spoletan claims by Hadrian in return for a written confirmation of papal rights 1 The to the Exarchate and the Pentapolis from Charles.5 problems with such ideas of renunciation and confirmation result from a rigid insistence that the passage in the lipa Hadriapi relating to the agreement of 774 was a complete forgery. As the result of such an interpretation, one is forced to create, without the slightest shred of evidence, two other formal agreements between 774 and 781 to eXplain the problems with Ravenna and Spoleto. If, however, it is kept in mind that the agreement of 774 was only the beginning of a long investigation, predicated upon individual exami- nations of papal claims, the need for additional agreements to explain what happened disappears. In the dispute be- tween Rome and Ravenna Charles decided in favor of the papacy, but with Spoleto the decision was in favor of the 50w. Gundlach, "Ueber den Codex Carolinus,” pp. 559-560. 51W. Martens, Dig erische Fragg unter Pippin ppd Karl der Grosse, p. 160; E. Griffe, "Aux origlnes de l'Etat pon- tifical," BLE, 1954, p. 74; W. Martens, "Die drei unachten Kapitel def-Vita Hadrians 1.." pp. 605-606. 121 Frankish king. Hadrian was left with no alternative but to comply with the wishes of the Frankish king, a clear indica— tion of the dominance of Charles in Italian affairs. For Charles, one problem with the Lombard dukes had been solved. Several years later, Hildebrand travelled north to Francia and met with the Frankish king, although the pur- pose of the visit is not clear.52 It may be that Hildebrand felt the need to cement his relationship with Charles by a personal visit, due to the enmity of Hadrian. Yet, Frankish difficulties with the other Lombard dukes were not so easily eliminated and the fragility of arrangements in Italy became apparent after 775. As an aftermath of the Frankish piggi's attempts to detach Spoleto from Rome and then to mollify the enmity between Hildebrand and Hadrian, the pope informed Charles of a plot to overthrow Frankish rule in Italy and to reestablish Adelgis as king of the Lombards, with the aid of Greek forces. Hadrian named Hildebrand of Spoleto, Arichis of Benevento, Rodgaud of Friuli, and Reginbald of Chiusi as conspirators and announced that the rebellion would begin in March 776, when Adelgis would arrive in Italy with a Greek army.53 52Annales regpi Francorum, a. 779. Pp. 52, 54: Tune domnus Carolus rex iter peragens partibus Niustriae et per- venit usque in villa, quae dicitur Conpendio, et tunc iterum revertendo partibus Austriae, obtulit se Hildebrandus dux Spolitinus cum multa munera in praesentiam supradicti magni regis in villa, quae vocatur Viriciniacum. See also Annales pp; dicuntur Einh di, a. 779. pp. 53, 55; Annales Mettenses riores, a. 779, p. 7; Appales Fuldenseg, a. 779, p. 10. 53§2Q2£,Qé£2l122§ 57:.MQH.ERB. III, 582: Reminiscere consideramus a Deo protectam excellentiam vestram: sepius 122 It has been suggested, in the light of the limited ex- tent of the rebellion in 776, that Hadrian simply invented the list of conspirators in order to implicate his enemies in a plot against Charles.5u Yet, how the pope obtained this information is not important and it is evident that the plot was not just a figment of the papal imagination. His information was partially correct, although it is true that the list of conspirators coincided suspiciously with the names of Hadrian's most bitter foes. One could, however, also postulate other reasons for the limited extent of the vobis innotuendum direxissemus de Hildebrandum Spoletinum ducem seu Arighisidem Beneventanun ducem atque Rodcausum Foroiulianum de sevissimum consilium, quod erga nos atque vos gerendum non differunt. Nunc vero dum fidelissimi vestri missi, re vera sanctissimus frater noster Possessor episcopus atque Rabigaudus relgiosus abbas, a Benevento repedantes, per praedictum Hildibrandum apud nos properati sunt, nimis nos obsecrantes pro prenominati Hildebrandi noxa, ut ei veniam tribuissemus, adserentes, ut apud eum nostrum indi- culum et obsides pro sua dubitatione (mitteremus) et Hildi- brandis nostris se praesentasset optutibus: nos quippe se- cundum fidelissimi missi vestri dictum illus usque Spoletio direximus Stephanum nostrum fidelissimum dudum saccellarium, qui cum eum affatus fuisset et tunc nostros ibidem destinas- semus obsides. Ipse nempe noster missus, cum apud eum con- iunxisset, in magna eum invenit protervia, eo quod missi Arigisi Beneventani ducis seu Rodcausi Foroiulani nec non et Reginbaldi Clusinae civitatis ducum in Spoletio cum prae- fatum repereit Hildibrandum, adibeutes adversus nos pernici- osum concilium: qualiter, Deo eis contrario, proximo Martio mensae adveniente utrosque se in unum conglobent cum caterva Grecorum et Athalghis Desiderii filium et terrae marique ad dimicandum super nos irruant, cupientes hanc nostram Romanam invadere civitatem et cunctas Dei ecclesias denudare atque ciborium fautoris vestri, beati Petri, abstollere vel nosmet ipsos, quod avertat divinitas, captivos deducere nec non Langobardorum regem redintegrare et vestrae regali potentiae resistere. SuAbel-Simson, I, 244; F. Hirsch, "Papst Hadrian I. und das Ffirstenthum Benevent," FdG, XIII (1873), 42. 123 rebellion when it did take place. It has been suggested that Possessor and Rabigaudus managed to detach the dukes of Spoleto and Benevento from the revolt centered in Friuli.55 0f greater interest is the idea that several of the conspi- rators abandoned the rebellion upon receiving news of the Byzantine emperor's death.56 Finally, the notion that the pope knew of the plot but only imperfectly perceived its extent cannot be dismissed, since several individuals not named by Hadrian did take part in the revolt. The problem will never be solved, but the fact remains that rebellion did break out in early 776. Despite his preoccupations north of the Alps, which had led to the initial dispatch of piggi to Italy instead of another personal visit, Charles was forced to march into Italy again to suppress the revolt. Most Frankish sources state that the rebellion was led by Rodgaud of Friuli, whom Charles had personally confirmed as duke.57 The Friulian duke was killed in battle by Charles and the only other military action in this short campaign was the Frankish seizure of Treviso, held by Rodgaud's father-in-law, 55E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. 59. It has been recently postulated that the rebellion was the last mani- festation of Lombard strength, which traditionally had been centered in Friuli. Cf. K. Schmid, "Zur Ablasung der ganggbardenherrschaft durch die Franken," QFIA , LII (1972), 56.9293. W 58. 19.11 322. III. 583. See also L. Duchesne, Lg Liber Pontificalis, p. ccxxxix. 57Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 776, pp. 43, 45; Annales Mettenses riores, a. 775, p. 64. 124 58 The only other participant in the revolt Stabilinus. named by any of the narratives was Duke Gaidus of Vicenza, who, along with Stabilinus, also lost his office as a result.59 As soon as the revolt was crushed Charles hastened north and made no attempt to meet with Pope Hadrian. Although it was brief in duration, the Frankish king's campaign to crush the Friulian rebellion had extensive con- sequences for the future of Carolingian rule in Italy. All the rebel cities were given over to Frankish counts and the rebellion in 776 marked a distinct shift in Frankish poli- cies.60 The rebel Lombard dukes were immediately replaced by Frankish counts and, after 776, as Lombard dukes died 61 they were almost all replaced by Frankish officials. This is not to say, however, that all Lombard officials were replaced; one finds Lombard counts named next to Frankish 62 counts as late as the 780's. Yet, clearly, permanent 58Afl£§l2§ Petaviani, a. 776, MGH §§ I, 16; Annales re ni Francorum, a. 776. p. 44; Annales Laureshamenses, a. 77 , LGE __33 I: 30- 59Andreae Bergomatis Historia, c. 4, MGH §§ Lang., p. 224; of. E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemapnen, p. 182. 69Appalg§,gpi dicuntur Einhardi, a. 776, p. 45; Annales regpi Francorum, a. 776, p. . 61K. Schmid, "Zur AblBsung der Langobardenherrschaft durch die Franken," pp. 3-4; K.F. Drew, "The Carolingian military frontier in Italy," Trad., XX (1964), 441; A. Hof- meister, "Markgrafen und Markgrafschaften im italischen Kbnigreich in der Zeit von Karl des Grossen bis auf Otto dem Grossen," MIOG, Ergbd. VII (1907), 247, although Hofmeister explained this increase in Frankish counts first from 774. 62MGH Cap. I, no. 91, p. 191; of. E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 24; Gerd Tellenbach, "Der grossfrankische Adel 125 Frankish arrangements to rule Italy can be dated from 776. Although the point has been disputed, it is probable that the first Frankish capitulary for Italy was issued in 776.63 But the steps taken by Charles to bring a semblance of order to Italy should not be viewed as a type of foreign occupa- tion. Throughout the years from 774 to 781, the Frankish king tried to preserve Lombard law. By renewing prior Lom— bard royal privileges much in the same way he did prior Frankish ones, Charles tried to present himself as the suc- cessor of previous Lombard kings. There was no attempt forcibly to assimilate the Lombard kingdom into the Frankish realm, as was demonstrated in the title Carolus gratia dei 6# Had Charles wished merely pp; Francorum pp Langobardorum. to absorb his new conquest into the Frankish kingdom there would have been no need for the addition "King of the Lom- bards" to his title. Unfortunately, an explanation of the Frankish king's relations with the pope and the papal territories in Italy is not so easily found. Less than a month after the capture of Pavia, Charles displayed yet another new title: Carolus gpatia dei rex Francorum pp Langobarggrum atque patricius und die Regierung Italiens in der Blfitezeit des Karolinger- reiches," Studien und Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte des oss- frankischen und fruhdeutschen Adels (Freiburg i. B., 1957). pp. 48-51. 63MGH Cap. I, no. 88, pp. 187-188; Abel-Simson, I, 255. 6“Herwig Wolfram, Intitulatio I: Lateinische Konigs- und Furstentitel bis zum Ende des 8. Jahrhunderts, MIOG Ergbd. XXI (Graz-Wien-Koln, 1967), pp. 219- 220. 126 Romanorum.65 For the first time a Carolingian king began regularly to use the title of patricius Romanorum, originally conferred on Pepin and his two sons in 75a by Pope Stephen II. To see in this sudden assumption of a long-neglected title an attempt by Charles to place himself in the position of the Byzantine emperor is quite unfounded.66 Nor is it com- pletely accurate to argue that the Frankish king's avoidance of the title prior to 774 was a result of his ties with Desiderius, since that union had been shattered in 771.67 On the contrary, it is evident that the assumption of the patricius title possessed a close connection to the conquest of the Lombard kingdom by the Franks. The title had a meaning both for Charles and for Hadrian, but their ideas were not in accord. To discern plainly the differing ideas about the pat- ricius title for both pope and Frankish king is not an easy task, particularly since neither individual made pronounce- ments about his own power and position. Hadrian's notions 65MQE‘Q5 I, no. 81, pp. 115-117. After June of 77# both forms of the title were used interchangeably and there is no logical reason why the patricius title was either inclu- ded or left out in the subsequent charters. Cf. H. Wolfram, Intitulatio I, p. 218. 66As do W. Ohnsorge, "Der Patricius-Titel Karls des Grossen," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, L111 (1960), 310-311; J. Haller, "Die Karolinger und das Papsttum," pp. 46-h7; and Walter Mohr, Studien zur Charakteristik des karolingischen Kbnigtums gm 8. Jahrhundert, p.88. 67As does Josef Deer, "Zum Patricius-Romanorum—Titel Karls des Grossen," Archivum Historiae Pontificae, III (1965), 50. 127 can be gleaned from an examination of the papal letters, in which the pope occasionally made reference to the responsi- bilities of the Frankish king. The earlier identification of the patricius as the "strong arm" of the church had largely disappeared by Hadrian's time.68 On the one hand, Hadrian made constant references to the promise made by Char- les in 77# and to the oaths sworn between them, but even in most of the references to the promises, a clear indication of the Frankish king's responsibilities is not to be found.69 Those responsibilities are suggested by the pope's constant use of the phrase sancta Dei ecclesia Romaga, spiritalis 70 In addition to the notion that the Church of mater tua. Rome was the Frankish king's "spiritual mother," other papal usages emphasized to Charles that St. Peter was his Special 71 benefactor. Obviously, in the papal conception, the patricius had certain obligations toward both his "spiritual mother" and his "benefactor." 68Cf. Codex Carolinus 6, MQH‘Epp. III, #89: no. 7, p. #93: no. 13, p. 510. The only time Hadrian used the eXpres- sion was in Codex Carolinus 58, p. 58h. Walter Ullmann im- plies that brachium was the consistent reference of the popes about the patricius title, but his idea is not borne out by an examination of all the papal letters. Cf. W. Ullmann, "The Ori ins of the Ottonianum," Cambridge Historical Journal, XI (1953 , 115- 562Cf. Codex Carolinus 51, MQE‘EQB. III, 571; no. 53, p. 7 . 7O§2Q2§.9§£21122§ #9. p- 569: no. 51. p. 572; no. 52, p- 573; no. 59. p. 585. 71Generally fautoris tui or protectoris tui. Cf. Codex Carolinus 51, p. 571 and 572; no. 52, p. 573 and 57h; no. 55, p. 578. 128 The papal view of those obligations was clearly arti- culated in two of the letters, as Charles was named the "defender and protector" of the Holy Church of God.72 As the defender and protector of the Church it was the function of the Frankish patricius to struggle endlessly for the jus— tice of St. Peter, for the security of the pope, and for the exaltation of the Holy Church of God.73 In other words, Charles was to be the long-sought champion of the papacy. Obviously, the papal ideal of a malleable protector, respon- sive to the wishes and needs of Rome, had not changed a great deal since the days of Stephen II. This is far from stating that the papal notion of the 7a pliable defender was one shared by Charles. It has been suggested several times that the obligation of defensio 7ZCodex Carolinus 5n, Egg Epp. III, 577: Tu enim, dul- cissimae, magnae, a Deo inlustratae rex, noster cum Deo defensor et protector existis, quia per te sancta Dei ec- clesia, spiritalis mater tua, exaltata magno exultat gaudio, confidentes, cuncta a vobis beato Petro promissa velociter effectui mancipanda. 73Codex Carolinus 56, Egg Egg. III, 581: Sed recordare te credimus, dulcissimae atque amantissime fili, qualiter nobis benignissimo vestrum ore affati estis, dum ad limina beatorum principum apostolorum Petri et Pauli properati estis: quia, non aurum neque gemmas aut argentum vel lit~ teras et homines conquirentes, tantum fatigium cum universo a Deo protecto vestro Francorum exercitu sustinuissetis nisi pro iustitiis beati Petri exigendis et exaltatione sanctae Dei ecclaesiae perficienda et nostram securitatem ampliare certantes. 74Walter Ullmann, The Growth 2; Papal Government, pp. 88-93. Ullmann brilliantly sketched the derivation of the papal ideal of a defender, but he then stated, with no supportive evidence, that this ideal was one shared and put into practice by Charles. 129 was one which Charles indeed undertook.75 Yet, the Frankish king's ideas about the role of the defender were vastly different from those of the pope. It is even more diffi- cult, actually impossible, to glean the Frankish king's con- ceptions about his role in the lands of St. Peter and to- ward the pope from his own pronouncements, at least for the period prior to 781. Yet, contained in the papal letters are descriptions of several steps taken by Charles which raise grave suspicions about his susceptibility to papal demands. It has already been shown that Charles was not willing to confirm immediately all the papal territorial demands in Italy. Further, the papal protector actually imprisoned Anastasius, a messenger from Hadrian, when Anas- tasius apparently elaborated upon demands in a papal letter to a degree which Charles found offensive. This seizure of the papal envoy caused Hadrian to object indignantly that no nation, great or small, had ever detained the miggi of St. Peter.76 It is not difficult to deduce the reason 75F.L. Ganshof, "Charlemagne," Spec., XXIV (19u8). 520- 521; J. Deer, "Zum Patricius-Romanorum-Titel Karls des Grossen," pp. 61-63; Herwig Wolfram, Intitulatio I, pp. 225-232. 76Codex Carolinus 51,.MQE,§22. III, 572: Illud vero, quod de Anastasium missum nostrum nobis indicastis, quod aliqua inportabilia verba, que non expediaebat, vobis lo- cutus fuisset, unde valde tristi effecti fuistis et pro hoc adhuc apud vos eum detinetis, nimis noster fraglat animus; dum Langobardi et Raviniani fatentur inquientes, quia nullo modo rex in apostolico permanet caritate, dum eius missum apud se detinet. Sed neque ab ipsis mundi exordiis cognos- citur evenisse, ut missum protectoris tui, beati Petri, magnus vel parvus a quacumque gente detentus fuisset; sed iubeat nobis eum vestra sollicitudo dirigere, et, 130 for the hostility of Anastasius, as the dispute with Ravenna was being decided at a more leisurely pace than Rome would have desired. If the seizure of the papal envoy had been the only action taken by Charles, one could not conclude that he was exercising sovereign rights in papal areas, since Anastasius was later released. Yet, Hadrian also complained that Char- les had received two "criminals," who had fled from Rome to avoid the papal wrath. The pope implied that he had re- turned similar Frankish expatriates to Charles and he re- quested the Frankish king to send the men back to Rome.77 It would seem that Charles felt he had the right to inter- vene in Roman jurisdictional matters, a problem which would emerge periodically throughout the remainder of Hadrian's pontificate.78 This was a clear indication that the Fran- kish king's conception of his own role in the areas of St. Peter far surpassed the papacy's notions. Transcending even the issue of criminal jurisdiction, Hadrian revealed in a letter from 776 that he had been in- formed by Charles of the Frankish king's concern over slave traffic in the Papal States. Hadrian vehemently denied that severissimae eos sciscitantes, iuxta noxam ei repertam eum corripiemus. 77Ihid., p. 573. 78G. Tellenbach, "Der grossfrankische Adel und die Regierung Italiens," p. #7; F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Rom, I, 401-402; A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, II, 89-90. 131 Romans were involved in any slave trade and placed the blame on the Greeks, who were taking advantage of a famine to gather many Lombard slaves.79 Of most serious consequence for the pope, however, was the fact that Charles apparently instructed Hadrian to remove the corruption in the ranks of the Roman clergy which had come to the Frankish king's at- tention.80 Despite Hadrian's angry protestations about the matter, it would seem that the Frankish patricius felt his competency also extended to disciplinary matters within the ranks of the Roman clergy. Yet, even from all these actions it is difficult to deduce that Charles was conducting himself as the sovereign lord over all Italy. As has been suggested, he was cer- tainly exercising his functions as king of the Lombards to the fullest degree.81 Further, it was evident that he was exercising a degree of control over the papal areas in Italy, in terms of criminal jurisdiction as well as clerical dis— cipline. Quite possibly the Frankish king's conceptions of defensio included ideas of more control than defense. But even this control did not make Charles a rex Romanorum, as 79Codex Carolinus 59, MQHIgpp. III, 585. The Frankish king's concern over the slave traffic was also shown in his first capitulary for Italy in 776 in which most of the slave agreeggnts were declared void. Cf. MGH 9gp. I, no. 88, pp. 7‘1 0 80.922222 W 59. M911 £22- III. 585. 81Abel-Simson, I, 174; W. Gundlach, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates und der curiale Begriff Res publica Romgnorum, pp. 98-100; A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne, pp. 118-119. ._:- 132 has been suggested.82 It is just as illuminating to consider what Charles did not do in regard to the papal territories. There is no evi- dence to suggest that any Frankish attempts were made to collect taxes or tolls in the areas claimed by Rome, nor are there indications that those areas were ever to contri- bute levies to the Frankish army. Aside from the later dis- pute over the election of the archbishop of Ravenna, there is nothing to indicate that the Franks had the right to intervene in episcopal elections in the papal territories. Also, prior to the ninth century, there was never a clearly articulated intent on the part of the Frankish king to take any active role in the election of the pope. Finally, Had- rian apparently did have the right to appoint judicial of- ficials for those cities where his claims were recognized by Charles.83 Consequently, from the analysis above one must conclude that the lines of authority and responsibility between Charles and Hadrian were by no means plainly marked. The Frankish king did seem to be intent on jealously guarding his rights as king of the Lombards, but he also exercised an authority over the papal lands, undoubtedly based upon the patricius title, which was not yet clearly articulated. 82H. Wolfram, Intitulatio I, pp. 232-236. 8329221; W #9. m ERE- III. 568: no. 51». p. 577. See 2180 J.A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse und die Kirche, pp. 9ff. 133 Painfully obvious to the pope, however, was the fact that Charles would not be the submissive tool of Rome. For his part, Hadrian did possess certain rights in the papal lands, including the receipt of oaths of fidelity fidelity from some of the inhabitants of the Exarchate, but even those oaths seemed to be connected to a fidelity toward Charles.8u Thus, the issue of sovereignty within the papal territories was still an open one, despite the papal claims. Above all, it was clear that in order to achieve his goals, Hadrian would have to find a new method, a new program of action, for his relations with Charles. 8“Codex Carolinus 55, MGH gpp. III, 579: Unde dirigentes ibidem nostrum missum, id est Gregorium saccellarium, qui iudices earundem civitatum ad nos deferre deberet et sacra- menta in fide beati Petri et nostra atque excellentiae vestrae a cuncto earum populo susciperet;.... The nature of these oaths is not clear and it would seem certain that papal sovereignty was not implied. Cf. E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 38. CHAPTER FIVE THE NEW PROGRAM, 778-785 Following the intensive correspondence between the pope and the Frankish king over the Ravennaten and Spoletan prob— lems during the years 77#—776 there is a gap in the papal letters which extends for almost two years. Although it is tempting to see in this lacuna evidence of deterioration in papal—Frankish relations, the reasons for Pope Hadrian's silence are not that clear. Granted the pope had been frus- trated in his designs on the duchy of Spoleto, still it would have indeed been foolhardy for Hadrian to turn his back on the only person who could fulfill his desires, espe- cially in the light of the continued existence of forces in Italy hostile to papal plans. On the one hand, Hadrian could have been disappointed in the attitudes of his Fran- kish protector, but there is no evidence to suggest that the pope refused to communicate with Charles for two years because of that disappointment. Ultimately, the reasons for the papal silence must remain a mystery. When Hadrian broke the silence in early 778, it was to inform Charles of his sorrow that the Frankish king had not followed his initial idea to come to Rome for Easter 778 to 134 135 have his youngest son baptized by the pope.1 Hadrian had been informed of the plan of Charles by returning papal en— voys, an indication that contacts were maintained between Francia and Rome during the years from 776 to 778 despite the lack of letters. The pope's disappointment was quite genuine, since it seemed that only the presence of Charles in Italy would bring about the territorial transfers desired by the pope. In the same letter, Hadrian continued to exhort Charles to fulfill his promises to St. Peter, but now coupled with the pope's encouragements was a statement indicating the direction of Hadrian's new program to convince Charles to conform to papal wishes. The pope compared himself and Charles to Pope Sylvester and the emperor Constantine the Great, making reference to the largesse of Constantine in bestowing power in the West on the Church of St. Peter. He urged Charles to follow the example of Constantine and labelled the Frankish king the "new Constantine."2 The 1Codex Carolinus 60, MGH gpp. III, 586: De vero illud, unde vestrae eximiatetati per iam dictos nostros missos, scilicet reverentissimum fratrem nostrum Philippum, episcopum, et dilectissimum nostrum Megistum, archdiaconum, dignati estis nobis repromittere, ut in sanctum diem Pascae ad limina beati apostolorum principis Petri una cum spiritale filia nostra, regina, Domino auxiliantae properare debuissetis, ut filium, qui nunc vobis procreatus est, a sacro baptisma in ulnis nostris suscipere debuissemus: sicut terra sitiens imbrem, ita et nos exspectabiles fuimus mellifluam excellentiam vestram; et dum adpropinquasset ipsum diem sanctum Pascae et nullum mandatum de adventum vestrum suscaepissemus aut de missis vestris secundum placitum, quod inter nos extiterat, valde tristes effecti sumus. 2Ibid., p. 5872 Rt sicut temporibus beati Silvestri Romani pontificis a sanctae recordiationis piisimo Constantino, 136 pope then outlined the contents of his new program: Further and all that, which was granted to the apos- tle St. Peter and to the Holy and Apostolic Roman Church of God in the lands of Tuscany, Spoleto, Benevento and Corsica, likewise in the patrimonies of Sabina, by diverse emperors, patricians, and others, fearing God, for the reward of their souls and the indulgence of affection, and which were stolen through the years by the abominable nation of the Lombards, should be restored in your times. Whence we have many donations stored in our sacred scrinium of the Lateran. We sent these to be shown to you for the satisfaction of your most Christian majesty by the men already mentioned. On that ac- count we beg your most noble excellency that you should command to restore those patrimonies in total to St. Peter and to us.3 Therefore, in 778 Hadrian shifted his pleas to the Franks magno imperatore, per eius largitatem sancta Dei catholica et apostolica Romana ecclesiae elevata atque exaltata est et potestatem in his Hesperiae partibus largiri dignatus, ita et in his vestris felicissimis temporibus atque nostris sancta Dei ecclesia id est beati Petri apostoli, germinet atque ex- ultet et amplius quam amplius exaltata permaneat, ut omnes gentes, quae hec audierint, edicere valeant: "Domine, salvum fac regem, et exaudi nos in die, in qua invocaverimus te; quia ecce novus christianissimus Dei Constantinus imperator his temporibus surrexit, per quem omnia Deus sanctae suae ecclesiae beati apostolorum principis Petri largiri dignita- tus est." 3Ibid.x Sed et cuncta alia, quae per diversos impera- tores, patricios etima et alios Deum timentes pro eorum anime mercedae et venia delictorum in partibus Tusciae, Spoleto seu Benevento atque Corsica simul et Saviensae patrimonio beato Petro apostolo sanctaeque Dei et apostolicae Romanae eccle- siae concessa sunt et per nefandam gentem Langobardorum per annorum spatia abstulta atque ablata sunt, vestris temporibus restituantur; unde et plures donationes in sacro nostro scri- nio Lateranensae reconditas habemus. Tamen et pro satisfac- tione christianissimi regni vestri per iam fatos viros ad de- monstrandum eas vobis direximus. Et pro hoc petimus eximaim praecellentiam vestram, ut in integro ipsa patrimonia beato Petro et nobis restituere iubeatis. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 317-318. In the light of this evidence, Ullmann's statement, that Charles repeatedly demanded to be shown the documents in the papal archives and that Hadrian refused to comply, is somewhat mystifying and completely without foundation. Cf. W. Ullmann, A Short History 2; thg Papacy in thg Middle Ages (London, 1972), p. 79. “In cc." 0r .4 U: (D 137 from the transfer of sovereign areas, like the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento, to patrimonial demands, which were substantiated by documents. Yet, in addition to proclaiming the new papal program, this important letter is of great interest for several other reasons. To begin with, the comparisons of Charles with Constantine and the references to the largesse of the first Christian emperor seem to be clear indications of Hadrian's knowledge of the forged Donation of Constantine, or more ap- propriately, the Constitutum Constantini. Yet, if the letter made reference to the Constitutum Constantini, the pope's emphasis on patrimonial restitutions would seem to be a con- tradiction with the universalist claims in the Constitutum L, Constantini. To understand clearly the meaning of this letter, such issues must be discussed in some detail. It will not be our task here to probe in detail the vexing question of when the 99 was composed.5 In the light of previous discussions of the problem, it would seem certain that the 99 was composed sometime during the second-half of 6 the eighth century in Rome. Within that fifty-year period, “Horst Fuhrmann's edition of the Constitutum Constan- tini will be used in this discussion, abbreviated as QQ. Das Constitutum Constantini Text, Fonteg iuris Germ. Ant. in usum schol., ed. H. Fuhrmann (Hannover, 19687. SSee the excellent and detailed bibliographic discussion of this problem by Wolfgang Gericke, "Wann entstand die Konstantinische Schenkung?" ZRG, EA, XLIII (1957), 1-88. 6Despite the efforts of Grauert, Brunner, Lamprecht, Ohnsorge and others who argue for a ninth-century compo- sition. 138 several possibilities suggest themselves. The forgery may have been done before the journey of Stephen II to Francia in order to provide justification to Pepin for the papal territorial claims in Italy.7 On the other hand, a compari- son of some of the usages in the QC with papal correspon- dence yielded the theory that the forgery was done during the pontificate of Paul.8 Finally, the similarity of Had— rian's statement, that Constantine gave to the Roman Church 9 potestatem.;n his Hesperiae partibus, and the statement in the 99, that Constantine gave to Sylvester and all his suc- cessors the potestas and dicio in Romae urbis gt omnes Italiae seu occidentalium regionum provincias, loca gt 10 civitates, has led some to postulate that Hadrian either 11 composed or certainly knew of the QC. Obviously, none of 7Cf. A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, II, 23- 26; H.v. Schubert, Geschichte der christlichen Kirche gm Frfihmittelalter (Tfibingen, 192ITT pp. 320ff.; w. Ullmann, The Growth 9; Papal Government, pp. 58-59: L. Halphen, Charlemagne gt_l'empire carolingien, pp. 34-35: and others. 8See especially P. Scheffer-Boichorst, "Neuere Forsch- ungen fiber die Konstantinische Schenkung," MIOG, X (1889), 302-325: XI (1890), 128-106; E. Mayer, "Die Schenkungen Konstantins des Grossen und Pippins," Deutsche Zeitschrift ffir Kirchenrecht, XIV (1904), 1-69; L.M. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II, 2, pp. 223-22“; E. Caspar, Das Pa sttum unter frankisgher Herrschaft (Darmstadt, 1965), pp. 2 -33: and others. 9Codex ngolinus 60, MGH.§pp. III, 587. 1°99. c. 17. p. 93. 11Cf. Peter Classen, Karl g2; Grosse, ggg Papsttum Eng Byzanz, pp. 7-8; Peter Llewellyn, Rome in thg Dark Ages, p. 210; J. Langen, "Entstehung und Tendenz der Konstantini- schen Schenkungsurkunde," Hg, L (1883), #13-G3 ; E. Loening, "Die Konstantinische Schenkung," Hg, LXV (1890 , 193-239; 139 these theories excludes the possibility that Hadrian was making reference to the CE in his letter of 778. However, all of these theories run aground on the same problem. No one seems to have been able to relate all the claims in.the 9Q to a definite set of historical circum- stances within the eighth century. In confronting this problem, Wolfgang Gericke argued persuasively that the 99 was composed in stages between 759 and 796.12 To be sure, one need not agree with Gericke's divisions in the composi- tion of the 99, but it would seem most probable that the forgery was not done at one time and that it may well have gone through several revisions prompted by the changing needs of the papacy in the eighth century. One can argue with some degree of security, then, that Hadrian did know of the CC, or of an early version of the forgery, when he wrote to Charles in 778.13 L. Duchesne, Les premier temps gg l'Etat ontifical, p. 90; and others. 12W. Gericke, "Wann entstand die Konstantinische Schen- kung?" gag, 5g, XLIII (1957), 1-88. The criticisms of Horst Fuhrmann, "Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvester- legende in neuer Sicht," 2A, XV (1959), 523-5h0, were founded mainly on Gericke's idea of the changing use of the first-person pronoun as the basis for delineating the different versions of the 99. Fuhrmann did little, however, to discourage the fundamental notion that the QC might have been composed in stages. 13Cf. Peter Classen, Karl ggp Grosse, gpp Papsttum ppd Byzanz, p. 21. The flat denial of Griffé that Hadrian had no knowledge of the 99 serves no purpose, since one then must resort to fantastic explanations to clarify the refer- ences in Hadrian's letter about Constantine. Cf. E. Griffe, "Aux origines de l'Etat pontifical," QLE, 1954, p. 82. ’71 r) n\. 1&0 Hadrian's use of the fig and his reference to Constan- tine were part of the new program which the pope hoped would persuade Charles to conform to the papal demands. But this new program had little to do with a Roman "imperial ideal" in the eighth century. It has been suggested that Hadrian's only alternative, when faced with the Frankish king's re- luctance to act as the submissive papal protector, was to convince Charles to assume the imperial dignity in the West, in This would have been following the model of Constantine. a complete reversal of the plans of a pope intent upon being master in his own house.15 As it will become clear from his subsequent actions, the pope's new program and the QC seemed to be designed to substantiate the assumption of sovereign powers by the Roman bishop in certain provinces of Italy. 16 The plan of the pope far surpassed the hope that Char- les, acting as the "new Constantine," would spiritually exalt the Roman Church.17 Clearly the pope intended Charles 14 Helmut Beumann, "Das Paderborner Epos und die Kaiser- idee Karls des Grossen," reprinted in gpp Kaisertum Karls ggg Grossen, ed. G. Wolf (Darmstadt, 1972), pp. 375-380. See also W. Mohr, Studien pp; Charakteristik ggg karolin- gischen KBnigtums gm g. Jahrhundert, p. 91. u 15E. Ewig, "Das Bild Constantins des Grossen im abend- landischen Mittelalter," HJb, LXXV (1956), 30-3h. 16Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und B zanz, pp. 7—8; Peter Partner, The Lands 3; Sp. Peter, pp. 23-2E. 17Cf. Josef Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom, 772- 800," Schweizer Beitrége pp; allgemeinen Geschichte, XV (1957), 38-39. Deer was correct in pointing out that Had- rian's comparison of Irene and Constantine VI to Helena and 141 to follow the precedent of Constantine in bestowing largesse on the church and this is directly related to patrimonial claims in diverse areas of Italy. It is significant to note that the Exarchate and the Pentapolis were not included in the pope's demands, a further indication that papal wishes had been satisfied in those areas. Also, among the patri— monies claimed were those in the Sabina. Since this area was located within the boundaries of the duchy of Spoleto, it would seem that Hadrian had abandoned his attempt to control the entire Spoletan duchy. Most importantly, the patrimonies were claimed gp integpo, on the basis of docu- ments forwarded to Charles. The papal program, then, was to demand patrimonies rightfully belonging to the church and to incorporate those patrimonies into a sovereign Church State.18 Yet, it still remains to reconcile these patrimonial claims and the image of Constantine with the universal claims to dominion in the Q9. Most troublesome is Hadrian's phrase that the emperor Constantine had given to the church potestatem ip pig Hesperiae partibus.19 It is clear, within the context of Hadrian's prior claims, that this could only Constantine the Great concerned only the exaltation of the Roman Church, yet the comparison in Hadrian's letter to Charles had a far different intent. Cf. g; 2448, Mansi XII, 1057. 18Cf. T. Lindner, Die §ogenannte Schenkgggen Pippins, Karls des Grossen, und Ottos I. pp die Papste, p. 49. 19Codex Carolinus 60, MGH Epp. III, 587. 142 have meant Italy. But the whole text of the 99 eXplicitly stated that Constantine gave power to the church in all the provinces, places and cities of Rome, Italy and the western regions.20 Despite the efforts of several scholars, there is a contradiction between these two phrases. If one follows the hypothesis of Gericke, however, the contradiction dis- appears. According to his argument, the version of the Q9 known in the pontificate of Hadrian only stated that Con- stantine gave to the church the potestas in omnes Itapiae 21 If Gericke is correct, and provintiae lppg pp civitates. his argument is most persuasive, Hadrian could well have used a version of the 99 as part of his documentary proof for the patrimonial claims. Thus, in sum, the new program of the pope, exhibited in his letter to Charles in 778, was a claim on the rightful patrimonies of the church, the restoration of which was an obligation of the Frankish king. The program was a partial retreat from the earlier claims based upon the promise of 774, since the pope announced his intentions to conform to the wishes of Charles for proof before any transfers of territory could take place. Stated simply: Charles had been demanding proof from the pope about the territorial claims of the papacy and Hadrian supplied that proof in the form of documents, possibly even including a version of the 20%: C. 17: P0 930 21W. Gericke, "Wann entstand die Konstantinische Schen- kung?" pp. 30-33. 143 22 In papal eyes, it was now the obligation of Charles 99. to transfer these patrimonial areas gp integpo to the sover- eign rule of the pope. Indeed this was a retreat from the earlier posture of the papacy, but not a total abandonment of Hadrian's desire to create a secure territorial founda- tion for the Roman Church. The pope now conformed to the stipulations of Charles, which the Frankish king made in regard to the original agreement of 774. Yet, it was still evident in Home that only the per- sonal presence of Charles in Italy could bring about the desired restitutions. Hadrian had been disappointed that Charles had not come to Rome for Easter 778 as planned, but the pope was informed that the necessities of the Spanish campaign had forced Charles to change his plans.23 In the meantime, Hadrian was still confronted by hostile forces in Italy. He complained to Charles in late 778 that the Bene- ventans, in league with the Neapolitans and the Greek pat- rician of Sicily, had seized several cities in the Campagna. The pope's initial impulse was to force his enemies to send delegations to the Frankish king for arbitration of the dispute. When that was refused by the Beneventans, Hadrian sent forces to seize the city of Terracina, one of the first instances of the papacy using armed force in pursuit of 22E. Caspar, Das Papsttum unter irankischer Herrschaft, pp. 45-46; E. Amann, L'épogue carolipgienne, p. 1. 2392422; M 61. _MG__H 3.22- III. 588. 144 temporal desires.2u The papal success in Terracina was short-lived, however, as the Neapolitans and the patrician of Sicily combined to throw the papal forces out of the city. Prior to that, Had- rian had attempted to negotiate with his enemies, offering to take fifteen hostages and the patrimonies of the church in the Neapolitan lands in return for the release of Terra- cina.25 Apparently apprehensive of the Frankish king's re- action to this independent papal activity, Hadrian assured Charles that he would have done nothing without the Frankish king's consent. What followed was an obvious attempt by the pope to connect the restitution of papal patrimonies with the best interests of the Frankish king. The attempts to negotiate with the Neapolitans failed because of the ac- tivities of one man: Duke Arichis of Benevento, the last real threat to the Italian holdings of the king of the Franks and Lombards.26 It was the pope's hope that Charles 29;p;g.. pp. 588-589. or. Abel-Simson, I, 320; J. Gay, "L'Etat pontifical, les Byzantins et les Lombards sur le littoral Campanien," MAH, 1901, pp. 495-496. 25Codex Carolinus 64, @ ppp. III, 591: Placitum qui— dem cum ipsi fallaces Neapolitani per missum eorum nomine Petrum in istum sanctum Pasche habuimus--patrimonium nos beati Petri apostoli, quod ibidem in Neapoli ponitur, exqui- rentes et in vestro servitio eos subiugare desiderantes--: ut, quindecim obsides ex nobilissimis eorum filiis nobis dantes, ipsam civitatem Terracinensem illi colligerent, sub ea videlicet ratione, ut issent ad patricium eorum in Sici- lia et, si nostrum patrimonium reddere voluissent, ipsam civitatem et obsides reciperent. 26Ibid., pp. 591-592: Sed nos sine vestro consilio ne- que obsides neque ipsam civitatem reddere habuimus, eo quod Vestro servitio ipsos obsides apprehendere cupiebamus, quia 145 would take action against the Frankish king's Beneventan enemy and thereby insure the southern patrimonies of the church.27 The southern boundaries of the papal lands were not the only areas, however, where threats to papal authority emerged. Hadrian also complained to Charles that the bishop Mauricius in Istria had been blinded and expelled from his see by the Greeks. The apparent cause of the action was the bishop's collection of revenues which the pope claimed were the rightful possessions of St. Peter. Hadrian pleaded with Charles that he should direct Duke Marcarius of Friuli, the successor of the rebel Rodgaud, to restore the bishop to his see.28 Thus, both in the north and south, Hadrian was faced with problems which he could not solve alone. The fact that Rome was virtually helpless without the aid eorum malignum concilium aliud non est, nisi una cum infi- delissimo Arighis duce Beneventano tractantes. Et cotidie missos nefandissimi patricii Silicie ipso Arighis suscipi- ente, impedimentum iam fatus Arighis solus fecit, ut minime nos obsides a iam.dictis Neapolitanis reciperemus, quia cotidie ad istam perditionem filium nefandissimi Desiderii, dudum necdicendi regi Langobardorum, expectat, ut una cum ipsum pro vobis nos expugnent. Cf. E. Caspar, gag Papsttum unter frankischer Herrschaft, pp. 47-48. 27Codex Carolinus 64, MGH Epp. III, 591. The pope re- quested the dispatch of Tuscan and Spoletan troops, under the command of Vulfuinus, to retake Terracina and conquer Gaeta and Naples. According to Hlawitschka, Vulfuinus was the first Frankish count of Verona. See E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 292-293; I Placiti ggl Regnum Italiae, ed. 0. Manaresi, E§l XCII (Rome, 1955), no. 18, Po 5?- 28Codex Carolinus 63, mp ppp. III, 590. See also E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 235. 146 of the Frankish protector was being impressed ever more clearly on the pope's mind. Under the circumstances, it is scarcely surprising that Hadrian placed so much importance on the personal presence of Charles in Italy. To the great delight of the pope, Charles again made pl ans to travel to Rome. Freed from the Spanish campaign, which had not exactly been a successful Frankish venture, Charles set out for Rome in 780, accompanied by his wife and two younger sons. As Frankish sources reflect, Charles cer tainly had good reasons to make this third trip to Italy. Undoubtedly he was following his desire to pray in Rome and Celebrate Easter in the Holy City.29 Yet, events in Italy Since his suppression of the Friulian rebellion also made it clear to the Frankish king that his presence in Italy was necessary. So, in addition to prayer, one annal mentions that Charles traveled to Italy to deal with the Roman ques- t-‘i-CDI’I.30 Finally, Frankish actions in Rome would indicate that the issues of negotiation with the Byzantines and the cor Onations of his two younger sons were also among the rea-S<>ns for the Italian journey. Charles arrived in Italy in late 780, celebrating Christmas in Pavia. After spending the remainder of the Winter in the Lombard capital, he proceeded on to Rome Where he was received with great honors by the pope and -\ me 29;An_aal_e_s. 2289.1 W. a. 780. p. 56; Annales M p__rio__res. a. 780, p. 68. ‘— 30Annales gui dicuntup Einhardi, a. 780, p. 57. 147 Information about what transpired in Rome the clergy.31 during the Frankish king's visit is far more scanty than was the case for the meeting in 774. The papal biography does not provide any information about the negotiations and one is forced to rely on gleanings from the Frankish sources and the papal letters. It is certain, however, that more serious arrangements were made during 781 than had been done during the hurried visit of 774. Undoubtedly paramount in Hadrian's mind was the question of territorial restitutions to the Roman Church. Even though, in consequence of the pope's new program, those restitutions only concerned patrimonies, the consent of Charles was necessary for the transfer of any lands to the papacy. Accordingly, one could conjecture that the pope did receive satisfaction concerning the Neapolitan patri- monies which had triggered the papal disaster in Terracina.32 More certain, despite the lack of a contemporary document, was the transfer of the Sabine patrimony to the pOpe. A written donation of the Sabine patrimony is expressly men- tioned in the agreement between Louis the Pious and the papacy either in 816 or 817.33 Yet, as the pope was soon ”Annales 228$ W. a. 781. p. 56: Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 780 p. 57: Annales Mettenses priores, a. 780, 781, pp. 68-69. , 32J. Gay, "L'Etat pontifical, les Byzantins et les Lom- bards sur le littoral Campanien," p. 495. 33Pactum Hludowici Pii (Ludovicianum), MGH Cap. I, 353: Eodem modo territorium Sabinense, sicut a genitore nostro Karolo imperatore beato Petro apostolo per donationis 148 to :realize, there was a vast difference between the agree- meITt to give certain lands to the papacy and the actual trans- fer'of those lands. That the negotiations of 781 bore a relationship to the promises of 774 is quite clear. Nevertheless, the nature of that relationship to the events of 774 is not so evident. It will be recalled that in 774 Charles made a promise to transfer to St. Peter the lands in Italy where the papacy could prove its claims. Further, it must be kept in mind that a wide divergence had existed between the Frankish and papal conceptions of the extent of those lands. In 774 the papacy had forwarded claims to most of central Italy, but Charles had insisted on proof of the claims before any trans- fers of land could take place. As was demonstrated in the examination of the original agreement of 774, a great deal of confusion has existed among scholars who have analyzed the problems concerning this initial Frankish promise. The confusion and complications stem, in large part, from the insistence that the document of 774 is a forgery. Not sur- prisingly, an equal amount of confusion exists in the treat- ments of the arrangements of 781. In fact, one scholar, as a result of his insistence that parts of the papal biographer's report of 774 were forgeries, has postulated the existence scriptum concessum est sub integritate, quemadmodum ab Itherio et Magenario abbatibus, missis issius, inter idem territorium Sabinense atque Reatinum definitum est. Cf. Codex Carolinus 68-72,,MQH Epp. III, 597-603. See also T. Sickel, Egg Privilegium Ottos I, pp; gig erische Kirche, P- 175. 149 CH? two promises, three donations, five pacts, four forgeries :n1d.two renunciations between 754 and 824 in an effort to find his way out of this labyrinth)” It is clear that such gymnastics are not necessary to explain the agreements be- ‘Uween the Franks and the papacy. It cannot be doubted that a separate charter of donation concerning the Sabine patrimony was issued during the Fran- kish king's sojourn in Rome.35 The pope himself later made a veiled reference to such a charter in a letter giving thanks to Charles for his many gifts to the See of St. Peter.36 Yet, it is not so certain that this charter was granted in return for a formal renunciation by Hadrian of papal claims on Tuscany, Spoleto and Benevento.37 Clearly Charles had never recognized papal claims to those areas and one could argue, therefore, that the areas were never a part of the agreement of 774 in the eyes of the Franks. It would hardly seem likely that Charles would have de- manded a formal renunciation of claims by the papacy, 31+Karl Lamprecht, Die rbmische Fragg von Konig Pippin bis auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen, pp. 133-135. 35Cf. supra, p. 147, note 33. 36Codex Carolinus 68, MQH‘Epp. III, 597: ...quas, de- tera Dei cooperante et protegent, multis documentis de ves- tris allatis muneribus ecclesia beati Petri enituit, tam de civitatibus quam de diversis territoris sub integritate eidem Dei apostolo a vobis offertis. 37Cf. the arguments for a formal renunciation in L. Duchesne, ng premier temps g; ILEtat pontifical. PP- 76-77: L.M. Hartmann, stchichte Italiens, II, 2, pp. 290-291; G. Schnfirer, Dig Entstehung gpg Kirchenstaates, pp. 100-109: J. Haller, gap Papsttum, I, 333. 150 jparticularly since the Spoletan claim had not been mentioned in.papal letters since 775. Further, claims to Tuscany, Spoleto and Benevento as the sovereign lands of the papacy \Nere not part of the papal program expressed in the letter of 778. It would seem more likely that Charles simply re- fused to recognize the papal demands on those areas and that put an end to the issue. In any event, the agreement of 781 amounted to a com- promise for the papacy, even in the light of the new pro- gram.38 Certainly the papacy received far less than it had expected. The relationship established in 774 now conformed to the Frankish idea, concerning the restitutions of land, much to the detriment of Hadrian's territorial designs.39 Even though the pope ruled, under Frankish protection, the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, the duchy of Rome, the Sabine lands, and scattered patrimonies, this was still far from the original papal designs on most of Italy. Once again, Hadrian had no alternative but to agree. Moreover, the territorial restitutions were not the only issue of importance in 781. The Frankish king's son, Carloman, was baptized by Hadrian and the boy's name was changed to Pepin. Further, both Pepin and his brother, Louis, were anointed and crowned kings by the pope. Pepin 38H. Beumann, "Das Paderborner Epos und die Kaiseridee Karls des Grossen," p. 373. 39Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 22; J. Lavigne, "Les origines de l'Etat pontifical," Revue ecclesiastigue gg Liege, 1953, pp. 372-373. 151 was made king of the Lombards, a title which Charles also continued to bear, and Louis was made king of Aquitaine.“O This is not to say that Charles relinquished rule over those areas in favor of his sons, nor did it mean that the two boys became kings of specific areas through the papal coronation.ul The creation of Pepin and Louis as kings of the Lombards and of Aquitaine was an act of Charles alone. Charles plainly had several good reasons for initiating this action, particularly in regard to the Italian kingdom. The anointing and coronation of Pepin as king of the Lombards could well have been motivated by the fact that Arichis of Benevento had taken the same steps in regard his own son, Romuald.”2 The Beneventans still remained a threat to Fran- kish interests in Italy, one which had not yet been elimin- ated. Even more importantly, one can see in the raising of Pepin as king a clear act of statesmanship on the part of Charles. The Lombard kingdom possessed a long tradition of qunnales regni Francorum, a. 781, p. 56; Annales Mettenses riores, a. 781, p. 68; Annales Laurpssenses minores, a. 782, p. 118: Chronicon Moigsacense, p. 297: Annales Fuldenses, a. 781, p. 10. Although it is only men- tioned in two sources, the coronations certainly did take place. Cf. Annales qpi dicuntur Einhardi, a. 781, p. 57: Vita.Hludowici Pii pp Aponypo, c. 4,‘M§fl‘§§ II, 608. 41 rex divisit sua regna inter filios suos, is only to be under- stood in the light of an eventual partition which reserved the regpum Francorum exclusively for the king's eldest son, Charles. Cf. P. Classen, "Karl der Grosse und die Thron- folge im Frankenreich," pp. 109-134. 1+20f. Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttpm und B zan , p. 21: E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Furstentitel (774-1077)," Intitulatip II, pp. 361-362. 152 independence and Charles may have hoped to reconcile the Lombards to Frankish rule by giving them their own king, even though their new king was still a Carolingian.u3 One final fact is discernible in the coronation of the young Pepin. It could be argued that the events of 781 marked the beginnings of a serious Frankish interest in Italy, one which surpassed the Frankish obligation to the Roman Church.uu It goes without saying that such a Frankish interest, as represented by Pepin's kingdom of the Lombards, only further damaged the territorial designs of the papacy. The pope had not been very successful in persuading Charles as patri- cian of the Romans and king of the Lombards to fulfill papal desires. It would seem that he would have even less success with King Pepin, since the sons of Charles never displayed the patricius title. 0f even greater importance, Pepin had never been a participant in the promises given by his father, Charles, to the papacy. Therefore, Hadrian could not make claims on Pepin as a patricius, nor could the pope complain that Pepin refused to fulfill any promises. Yet, very little is known about Pepin's actions as king of the Lombards. It would seem that his kingdom only encom- passed the northern Lombard provinces, Tuscany and Spoleto, ”3H. Wolfram, Inpitulatio I, p. 222; A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne. PP. 113-11 : G. Eiten, Das Unteranigtum im Reiche dar Marowinger und Karolinger (Heidelberg, 1907): PP. 20'230 haCf. L. Halphen, Charlemagne ap l'empire carolingien, pp. 104-105: L. Duchesne, Les premier temps a; l'Etat on- tifical, p. 77. 153 without any relationship either to the papal lands or to the duchy of Benevento.n5 From the evidence of private charters, it would seem that Pepin began to rule in April of 781.46 But practically nothing is known of the way in which he ruled his kingdom. The report of one source, that so many people went from Francia to Italy in 781 that the Frankish palace was empty, is scarcely to be taken seriously.1+7 The ele- vation of Pepin as king seems not to have materially affected the gradual replacement of Lombard dukes by Frankish counts, even though Lombards continued to occupy positions of impor- 48 But certainly evident to tance in the Lombard kingdom. Hadrian was the fact that Pepin's Lombard kingdom formed a northern barrier to any future papal territorial demands in that direction. In addition to the territorial arrangements and the coronations of the Frankish king's sons, another event of crucial importance took place in Rome during the same time. “5H. Wolfram, Intitulatio I, pp. 220-221: G. Eiten, Das Unterkonigtum, pp. 19-20. ‘ u6Codice di lomatico Lon obardico, ed. E. Schia erelli, FSI LXII (Rome, 195 , no. 57. P. 12 3 no. 76, p. 1 6: no. 79, p. 150. h7Arevaldi Floriacensis miraculis SanctI BenegictI, c. 18, MGH §§_XV, 486. The statement in the Vita Adalhardi, c. 137% aa II, 525, that Adalhard was left behind as regent for the young king in 781 is not reliable. Cf. Abel- Simson, II, 436. Further, Alcuin's reference, in MQH‘Epp. IV. no. 11, p. 37, to Angilbert as rimicerius alatii regis is highly suspect. See Abel-Simson, II, 435, note and note 1, p. 37 of Dfimmler's edition of Alcuin's letters. ”8E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 25. 154 Byzantine envoys appeared to negotiate a marriage alliance with the Franks, founded on the marriage of Charles's daugh- ter, Rotrud, to Constantine VI, the young son of Irene.”9 For Charles, part of the motivation for agreeing to the al- liance was that it was a way to prevent a Lombard resurgence in Italy, led by the son of Desiderius, Adelgis, with Greek help. As is evidenced by his later actions, Charles was cognizant of the threat posed to the Frankish hold on Italy by Adelgis, who finally did return to Italy with a Greek army.5O For Hadrian, the alliance opened the way for the eventual healing of the Iconoclastic schism. Intricately combined with the healing of that schism, in the papal view, was the return of southern Italian patrimonies once seized by the Byzantines. Finally, it is quite possible that part of the alliance was a Byzantine renunciation of any future claims on Italy.51 But, of even greater importance was an indication of a change in Hadrian's relationships to temporal authority. 49The initiative for this alliance apparently came from the Byzantines, cf. Theophapis apponographIa, a. 6274, pg CVIII, 918-919. Several Frankish sources also mention the marriage project, of. Annales Laureshamensea, a. 781, p. 32: Annales Mosellani, a. 781, p. 497: Gesta abbatum Fontanell- ensium, c. 16,,MQH‘SS rer. Germ. in usum schol., ed. S. Loewenfeld (Hannover, T886), p. 46? Einhardi Vita Karoli MagpI, c. 19, p. 24. 5001‘. Codex Carolinus 80, MGH app. III, 612. 51Cf. among others W. Gundlach, Die Entstehung des Kirchepstaates apa gap curiale Begpiff flag publica Romanorum, pp. 111-112: E. Amann, L'épogue carolin ienne, pp. 2- 3; A. Kleinclausz, Charlem ne, p. 125. 155 First visible in 781, at the latest, was a change in the dating of papal charters. The traditional dating form, uuentioning Byzantine imperial years, was last exhibited in '7'?2.52 The new form, first discernible in a document con- ferring privileges on the monastery of St. Denis, was dated according to Hadrian's pontifical years, with no mention of the Byzantines.53 Of equal significance is the fact that the papacy also began minting coins, which only carried the names of the pope and St. Peter.54 The meaning of both the change in charter dating and the assumption of minting rights by the papacy is clear. Both belong under the heading of imperial prerogatives and, prior to 772, both charters and coins expressed Byzantine sovereignty in Rome. Now Hadrian was clearly claiming those prerogatives for himself.55 The pope obviously considered 5?gp 2395; Chronicon Farfense, p. 158: Data X. Kalendas Martii, imperantibus domno nostro piisimo augusto Constan- tino a Deo coronato magno imperatore anno XIII, et post con- sulatum eius anno XXXIII, sed et Leone magno imperatore eius filio XXI, indictione X. SJIE 2435: Data Kal. Decembris, regnante domino et sal- vatore nostro Iesu Christo, qui vivit et regnat cum Deo patre omnipotente et spiritu sancto per immortalia saecula, anno pontificatus nostri in sacratissima beati apostoli Petri sede sub die Deo propitio decimo, indictione quinta. Cf. H. Fichtenau, "'Politische' Datierungen," p. 492. 5nR. Gaettens, "Mfinzen Karls des Grossen sowie der Papste Hadrian I. und Leo III. von historischer, staatsrechtlicher und wahrungsgeschichtlicher Bedeutung," Jahrbuch IQ; Numis- matik BEE GeIdgeschichte, II (1950-51), 60-67. 55J. Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom," pp. 8-11. There is no evidence to support Schramm's argument that these prerogatives were transferred to Charles prior to 800. Cf. P.E. Schramm, "Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als 156 himself the sovereign ruler of the papal lands, but the paucity of papal charters presents a problem. The time when Hadrian began to consider himself a sovereign is not comple- tely clear. No charters have survived for the years between the 772 document for Farfa, which exhibited traditional dating forms, and the privilege for St. Denis, which con- tained the new form. Looking for reflections of the new dating form in private charters has not provided any addi- tional information, since the first Tuscan charters contai- ning papal dating came only after 787.56 It has been argued that the change to papal dating came as a result of an agreement with the Byzantines in 781 whereby the Greeks renounced all claims on Italy and Hadrian assumed sovereign rights over the erstwhile Byzantine parts of Italy.57 But it would seem strange for the p0pe, not totally mindful of Byzantine rights prior to 781, to require a special agreement to assume such sovereign rights. Much more logical would be the notion that the pope began to take on sovereign rights shortly after 774.58 This assumption Kaiser," pa, CLXXII (1951), 449-515. 56Heldmann cautiously dated the private charters between 774 and 796, of. K. Heldmann, Qaa Kaisertum Karls gag Grossen (Weimar, 1928), p. 165, note 2. Yet it would seem certain that all the extant charters are dated after 787, of. H. Fichtenau, "'Politische' Datierungen," p. 489. 57Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 23. 58J. Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom," p. 10. H. Fichtenau stated only that the change came sometime between 772 and 781 and probably did not require Byzantine 157 of sovereign rights by the pOpe in 774 would certainly be in line with the sovereign claims voiced by the papacy in the papal-Frankish agreement of that same year. Beyond doubt, however, the pope's actions revealed a temporal independence from the Byzantine empire, an action which was also directed against Frankish Italy.59 Even though his territorial designs had been severely limited, the pope considered him- self the sovereign ruler of the Papal States throughout the remainder of his pontificate. It remained to be seen how much the new program of 778, the events of 781, and the assumption of sovereign rights by the pope would materially affect the position of the papacy in Italy after 781. After Charles left Rome in 781, it must have seemed to the pOpe that his new program was not working any better than had the old one. To be sure, it would seem that the personal bonds between the pOpe and the Frankish king had been strengthened by Hadrian's sponsoring of the young Pepin at his baptism. Nevertheless, to see in this personal bond a unique relationship is to overestimate the singularity of Hadrian's actions for the son of Charles. On his return approval, of. H. Fichtenau, "'Politische' Datierungen," pp. #88-14'93 o 590hnsorge insists, without a convincing argument, that Hadrian remained loyal to the Byzantines throughout his pontificate, cf. "Der Patricius-Titel Karls des Grossen," szantinische gaitschrift, LIII (1960), 318-319. One must ask, then, why the change in charter dating? As Deer points out, an "imperial vacancy" theory is untenable, since Irene only became sole ruler after 797. Cf. J. Deer, "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom," p. 10. 158 journey to Francia, Charles had his daughter Gisela baptized by Archbishop Thomas of Milan and it would seem that Thomas was also the sponsor of the girl.60 Further, there are indi- cations that Hadrian also baptized the son of Duke Tassilo of Bavaria, and if this act created some sort of special bond between Hadrian and Tassilo, it will become evident that the bond did little to benefit the Bavarian duke, since Hadrian later threatened Tassilo with anathema.61 Furthermore, the new program did little to expedite the transfer of lands to the papacy. Even though Charles agreed to transfer the Sabine lands to Rome, the execution of that transfer took quite some time, much to the discomfort of Hadrian. Almost as soon as Charles left Rome, Hadrian made a plea that the Frankish king should hasten to transfer the Sabine patrimonies Ia integpo to Rome.62 But rather than proceeding with haste, Charles dispatched pIaaI, the abbots Itherius and Maginarius, to investigate the papal claims. The subsequent events allow a rare glimpse into the process probably followed by the Franks in most cases involving trans- fers of land to St. Peter. The Frankish envoys, along with 6OAQpales regni Francorum, a. 781, p. 56: Et inde re- vertente domno Carolo regi, Mediolanis civitate pervenit, et ibi baptizata est filia eius domna Gisola ab archiepis- copo nomine Thomas qui et ipse eam a sacro baptismo manibus suscepit. Cf. Annales an dicuntur Einhardi, a. 781, p. 57: AnnaIes Maptenses priores, a. 781, p. 69; Annales Lauris- senses m nores, a. 7 2, p. 118. 61Annalgs‘agpapp., MGH SS IX, 572: Annales §. Rudberti Salisburgenses, MGH §§ IX, 769. 6ggpga§ Carolinus 68, MGH Epp. III, 598. 159 papal agents, travelled to Sabina where they heard the sworn statements of some of the residents about the past history of the area. According to the pope, those sworn statements verified the papal claims and the transfer should have taken place without further delay.63 That the delay in the transfer of Sabina was the occasion for despair on the part of the pope is shown by his lament to Charles that he was making no unreasonable demands on the Frankish king, but only wished the restoration of the right- 64 ful patrimony of the church in its old extent. Hadrian continued his pleas with Charles for the Sabine patrimony, once blaming the failure to complete the promised donation on the actions of evil men.65 There must have been some difficulty in effecting the transfer, since the Frankish 63Codex Carolinus 69, m app. III, 599: Dumque vero nostri vestrique illuc peregerent missi, inventi sunt ibidem fidelissimi atque seniores testes annorum plus minus centum, qui testificantes super altere intus ecclaesiam sanctae Dei genetricis Mariae, in loco quidem Forobono, coram sancta Christi evangelia in praesentia fidelissimis ac nobilissimis vestris missis, scilicet Itherium et Magnarium--tantummodo vestri missi, absque praesentia nostris missis--adfirmantes dixerunt, quod et ipsi vestri missi vobis subpliciter, sicut testes illi iurate patefecerunt, referre possunt, quomodo antiquitus ipse beatus Petrus sancatque nostra Romana eccle- sia eundem detinuit patrimonium. Et minime ipsum suscepimus in integro patrimonium vel nostris missis contraditus est, sicut iste testes adfirmantes, coram sancta Christi evangelia testificantes, dixerunt. 6L’Ibidu Testem enim invoco Deum, quia nullorum fines inrationabiliter indigeo; sed, sicut ex antiquitus fuit ipse iam fatus patrimonius, cum in integro beato Petro apostolo concessistis ita suscipere optamus. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 406-407. 6592Q§§ QagpIIpaa 71, MGH Epp. III, 601-602. 160 envoys returned to Francia without satisfying the papal wishes. Finally, Hadrian hinted at the problem in stating that the Sabine patrimonies had once been seized by Desiderius. On some unknown occasion, possibly in consequence of the Lombard-Frankish marriage alliance of 771, Desiderius agreed to restore the area to Rome, but apparently only did so in 66 pieces. This may have been the cause for the hesitation of the Frankish pIaaI, although the pope again ascribed it to the actions of evil men. The papal wishes about Sabina were finally satisfied, most probably sometime in 783, but the actual transfer had taken almost two years. For Hadrian, this was not a vast improvement on what had taken place in the years prior to 778. Several other occurrences in the years immediately fol- lowing 781 reveal the pope's growing subjugation to the Frankish king, despite the papal claims to sovereignty. A dispute within the monastery of St. Vincent on the Volturno particularly revealed Hadrian's dependence on Charles. The 66Codex Carolinus 72, MQHIEpp. III, 603: Qualiter vero ei praecepit vestra a Deo promota triumphatorissima excel- lentia pro Savinense territorio, ut nobis sub integritate contraderet, sicut beato Petro clavigero regni caelorum tri- buistis, minime propter malignos ac perversos homines potuit. Totam enim iustitiam, quam beatus Petrus apostolus, protec- tor vester, ex ipso territoria habet, presentaliter iam fatus Maginarius missus vester vidit tam per donationes imperiales quam per ipsorum protervoruniregem Langobardorum, ipsum territorium cum masis sibi pertinentibus enucleatius desig- nantes. Si vero perfidus Desiderius dudum rex non sub integritate, sed tantumodo masas nobis, quantum reperiri potuit, quas ex antiquitus sancta Romana ecclesia tenuit, ut nullus ex illis partibus Langobardorum ausus est resis- tere: quanto magis, vestrae a Deo protectae regali poten- tiae in omnibus oboedientes existentes, iussa vestra adim- plere debuerant. 161 dispute was a dual problem, concerning a conflict between the one-time abbot Autpert, apparently a Frank, and the current abbot Potho, who had also been accused of infidelity toward Charles. Potho had been removed from his abbatial office, probably on the orders of Charles. In response, Hadrian appealed to the Frankish king for justice, defending Potho against the charges of infidelity.67 The resolution of the problem in Volturno is most re- vealing for a number of reasons. To begin with, the monas- tery was situated within the boundaries of the duchy of Benevento, but it could have been part of the disputed Bene- ventan patrimonies. In either case, the fact that part of the dispute concerned accusations of infidelity would seem to indicate that oaths of fidelity to the Frankish king were taken by individuals not living within the boundaries of the Lombard kingdom. Also, the problem indicates that the Fran- kish king's conception of his own authority extended to intervention in a monastic dispute. Further, it would seem that Hadrian could only follow the orders of Charles in un- raveling the problem. An investigation of the dispute was 67Codex Carolinus 67, Mgfiqup. III, 594. See also Chronicon Vulturnense, ed. V. Federici, §§I LVIII (Rome, 1925), I, 125ff., 178ff. The date of this dispute and investigation has been a matter of some disagreement. The editor of the Codex Carolinus argued that the dispute took place in 781, while Charles was still in Italy, of. W. Gundlach, "Ueber den Codex Carolinus," Na, XVII (1892), 561- 562. However, it would seem that the affair occurred in 783. See the arguments of J. Winandy, "Les dates de l'abbatiat et de la mort d'Ambroise Autpert," RBén, LIX (1949), 206-210: Abel-Simson, I, 465-468. 162 cxrdered by Charles and one can follow the progress of that investigation in papal letters. Hadrian, following Frankish instructions, called both lwutpert and Potho to Rome to face a commission of inquiry, laut Autpert died on the journey to Rome.68 The major issue “then became the accusation of infidelity against Potho. IHadrian described the investigation in some detail to the IFrankish king, including in his report a list of those who jparticipated in the judgment about the alleged infidelity. It is interesting to note that the list included, in addi- tion to various abbots and papal officials, Duke Hildebrand of Spoleto.69 Ultimately, the accusations against Potho ‘were based on the testimony of one monk, who apparently harbored a grudge against his abbot, and Potho was exoner- ated of all blame after taking an oath that he had never ‘been unfaithful to Charles.70 Several conclusions emerge from this episode. In the Ientire investigation the pope played a secondary role to 6BCodex Carolinus 67, Egg app. III, 595: Et quoniam ad :nostrum iudicium canonice simulque regulariter contentiones inter monachos venerabilis monasterii sancti Vincentii et abbatibus eiusdem monasterii, scilicet Autbertum et Pothonem, discuti atque examinari vestra direxit precelsa regalis ex- cellentia, ipse quippe prefatus Autbertus dudum abba, calle itineris peragratus, repetina morte occupatus, minime nostris apostolicis valuit se manifestare presentiis. The Voltur- nen chronicle mistakenly placed Autpert's death in 778, cf. Chronipon Vulturpense, I, 201. See also J. Winandy, "Les gages de l'abbatiat et de la mort d'Ambroise Autpert," pp. 0 -210 o 69Codex Carolinus 67, MQHIEpp. III, 595. 701219.. pp. 595-597. 163 that of the Frankish king. The affair also demonstrated that the enmity between Hadrian and the Spoletan duke had in no way disappeared, since Hildebrand took the side of those ac- cusing Potho, in opposition to Hadrian's defense of the abbot. Finally, the authority of the Frankish king now seemed to extend to matters of discipline within monasteries which lay outside the Lombard kingdom. Clearly Charles was the dominant force in Italy and there was little the pope could do in the face of Frankish authority.71 While it might be an overstatement to view the bishop of Rome as merely a Frankish metropolitan,72 it cannot be denied that the papal authority was being increasingly subjugated to the Franks. The final episode following the announcement of the pope's new program was a problem by now familiar to Hadrian. It will be recalled that the pope had earlier complained to the Frankish king about the reception by Charles of indivi- duals fleeing north to escape papal prosecution for criminal activities. Once again Hadrian had occasion to complain that criminals were fleeing to the Frankish court to avoid the papal wrath. This time the culprits were two officials of Ravenna, Eleutherius and Gregory, who were accused by the pope of selling people into slavery and perpetrating 71C£. Abel-Simson, I, 467-468: A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deupschlands, II, 92-93; A. Kleinclausz, Charlema ne, p. 120. 72As does W. Gundlach, Die Entstehung des Kirchensta tes und er curiale Begpiff Res publica Romanorum, pp. 115-116. 164 murders within the papal lands.73 It is not clear whether the men were initially papal officials, but the Frankish king's continued intervention in the affairs of the papal lands was evident. Even when demanding the return of the fugitives Hadrian offered to examine their crimes in the presence of Frankish pIaaI. Nothing could more vividly illustrate the increase of Frankish power even within the sovereign papal areas. Thus, the result of the pope's new program was a series of minor victories and major setbacks. The papal territor- ial design had been drastically reduced in scope, the Fran- kish king was still slow to make the desired restitutions to Rome, and the Frankish intervention in both the juris- dictional and disciplinary affairs of Rome continued un- abated. To be sure, Hadrian considered himself the sover- eign ruler of certain lands in Italy, but the Frankish interest in the peninsula continued to limit the papal power. Only in the realm of patrimonial restitutions could the pope achieve any results from his exhortations to the Frankish king and Hadrian was still confronted by one major enemy in Italy, Duke Arichis of Benevento. By the end of 785 negotiations over the implementation of the new program assumed a secondary role to the threat posed both to Charles and Hadrian by the Beneventan duke. Beginning in 786 both Frankish and papal interests turned toward the south. 73Codex Carolinus 75. M911. app. III, 606-607. CHAPTER SIX THE FINAL ORDER. 786-795 By the year 785 Hadrian's efforts to secure his long- desired territorial foundation for the papacy had achieved some minor successes. However, the extent of those successes fell far short of his initial plans. In the north, he con- sidered himself the sovereign ruler of the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, but the actions of Charles in raising his son Pepin as king of the Lombards had seemingly prevented further papal territorial gains in northern Italy. In the areas around Rome, Hadrian was the ruler of the city itself and of the duchy of Rome, but his claims to the duchies of Tuscany and Spoleto had been denied by the Frankish king. Perhaps only in the south could the pope have hoped to gain additional territory, as was demonstrated by his efforts to control the Beneventan patrimonies and by his ill-fated seizure of the city of Terracina. Yet, south of Rome was Hadrian's most powerful enemy, Duke Arichis of Benevento. If papal designs were to be realized regarding the Beneven- tan patrimonies, a confrontation with Arichis was unavoidable. Papal interest in the duchy of Benevento was by no means a new phenomenon in the pontificate of Hadrian. Ever 165 166 since the beginning of independent papal action in the early eighth century, control of Spoleto and Benevento had formed important parts of papal policy. Both Gregory III and Zachary had used the two duchies to achieve far different results, but papal interest in the areas was particularly evident after the initial Frankish intervention in the mid- eighth century. In 757 Stephen II had attempted to detach the two duchies from the control of the Lombard government in Pavia. He had hoped that by persuading Pepin to take the two duchies under his protection the southern papal boundary would be more secure.1 To the pope's great dis- appointment, Pepin refused to be drawn more deeply into Italian affairs and the duchies returned to Lombard control. Certainly the most successful papal action regarding the two duchies had occurred in 773, when the Spoletans sub- mitted to Hadrian.2 Claims on both Spoleto and Benevento had formed part of papal wishes as expressed in the agree- ment of 774, but Charles had made it clear after 774 that he had no intention of honoring papal claims. Yet, for over ten years nothing had been done by either pope or Frankish king about the continued independence of the duchy of Bene- vento. Spoleto had become a Frankish duchy after 774, but there is no evidence to indicate that Benevento had ever belonged to Rome or to the Franks. 1Codex Carolinus 11, MGH Epp. III, 506. 2Vita Hadriani, c. 32-33, pp. 495-496. 167 On the contrary, after 774 Benevento had become the center of continued Lombard aspirations to control all of Italy. Duke Arichis was clearly the focus of Lombard power and aspirations following the fall of Pavia.3 Arichis had been made duke by Desiderius in 758 and the Lombard king had hoped to cement his control over the duchy by marrying one of his daughters to the new duke. Yet, even before 774 Arichis had been steering an independent course, modeling his court on Byzantine practices and resisting the efforts of Desiderius to make Benevento a true royal duchy.“ With the collapse of the Lombard kingdom, the indepen- dent actions of Arichis became even more manifest. Almost immediately he began to display a new title, princeps, which could have been motivated by the fact that the old ducal title, as used by the Spoletans, implied subjection either to the papacy or to the Franks.5 Further, it is certain that Arichis had himself anointed and crowned prince, an action apparently distressing to Charles, since the title was an expression of Beneventan independence from the Franks.6 3H. Belting, "Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," Dumbarton Oaks Pa ers, XVI (1962), 143, E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Furstentitel (774-1077)," lfliliflléilfl II: PP- 355-357. “H. Belting, "Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," pp. 144-145. 5E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Furstentitel," pp. 361- 362. 6Chronicon Saler itanum, c. 12, MGH SS III, 478, Chron- igon nCasinense, c. 8, MGH SS VII, 5867 H. Belting, "Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," pp. 154-155. 168 It is possible that Charles may have concluded a type of "non-aggression" pact with Arichis after 774, but in fear of a future Frankish attack, the Beneventan duke continued to solidify his ties to Byzantium.7 Thus, the Frankish- Byzantine accord of 781 posed a grave threat to Arichis in that he was then somewhat isolated in the face of the Franks. In response, the Beneventan duke attempted to cement his own position in southern Italy by attacking the duchy of Naples.8 The acquisition of Naples would have given Arichis a.much more powerful position, but by 786 his efforts had been largely unsuccessful. In 786 Charles began preparations for yet another jour- ney to Italy, only this time it was clear that he intended on "putting in order the Italian affairs."9 This could only have referred to the duchy of Benevento, the last remaining Lombard stronghold independent of Frankish control. It has been suggested that Charles undertook this Beneventan cam- paign on the urging of Pope Hadrian, who harbored a deep 10 hatred for Arichis. It is beyond doubt that the pope 7E. Garms-Cornides, ”Die langobardischen Ffirstentitel (774-1077)," p. 371: H. Belting, "Studien zum beneventani- schen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," p. 147. 8Hadrian complained of the attacks of Arichis in the Neapolitan lands sometime between 783 and 786, cf. Codex Carglipps 78, MGH Epp. III, 610. 9Annales regni Fr corum, a. 786, p. 72: Annales Mettenses riores, a. 786, pp. 73-74; 0. Bertolini, "Carlom o e Benevento," in Karl der Grosse, ed. H. Beumann Dfisseldorf, 1965), I, 6323633. 10F. Hirsch, "Papst Hadrian I. und das Ffirstenthum 169 wished the Beneventan independence destroyed, since his chances of obtaining the desired Beneventan patrimonies were infinitely greater if Charles ruled the duchy. Yet, the thought that Charles undertook the campaign solely on the urging of the pope is difficult to accept. During the pre- vious fourteen years, Hadrian had not been particularly successful in urging Charles to act in any situation. It would seem doubtful that papal exhortations would have been any more effective in the Beneventan problem than they had been in other Italian territorial questions. The Frankish king clearly had reasons of his own for advancing on Benevento in late 786. As is evidenced by his later actions, Charles had not forgotten that the son of Desiderius, Adelgis, was still in Constantinople awaiting his opportunity to return as king of the Lombards. Even the Frankish-Byzantine marriage alliance had not completely re- moved that danger. Further, Arichis was married to a daugh- ter of Desiderius, thus making the Beneventan duke the brother-in-law of Adelgis. In the eyes of the Franks this continued Lombard center of power in southern Italy could no longer be ignored. One Frankish annal mentions that Charles felt it appropriate to subjugate this southern part of Italy.11 After all, in the eyes of Charles as king of Benevent," FdG, XIII (1873), 37-38: L.M. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II, 2, p. 303. “analgesia 11121121222 EM. a. 786. p. 73: Rex pace undique parte statuit Romam proficisci et partem Italiae, quae nunc Beneventus vocatur, adgredi conveniens 170 the Lombards, the duchy of Benevento was still a part of the Lombard kingdom. Finally, and possibly of greatest im- portance, Charles was freed temporarily from his Saxon wars in 786 and may have decided to seize the opportunity to undertake a protracted campaign in Italy.12 In any event, moving south with his army, Charles cele- brated Christmas 786 in Florence and then hastened on to Rome.13 It is mentioned in the Frankish annals that Hadrian also urged Charles to attack Benevento during their dis- 14 cussions in Rome. Indeed, it would have been surprising if Hadrian had not urged action against Benevento. The pope had never been reluctant to suggest such campaigns to Char- les in the past, even though he had never been totally suc- cessful in provoking the Frankish king to take action. Clearly the pope preferred to take his chances with his Frankish protector rather than with his Lombard enemies. As for the Beneventan duke, Arichis immediately concluded esse arbitratus, ut illius regni residuam portionem suae potestati subiceret, cuius caput in capto Desiderio rege maioremque partem in Langobardia iam subacta tenebat. See also Abel-Simson, I, 543, note 2. lizpig. Cf. AppaIaa regni Fr corum, a. 786, p. 72; AppaIaa Maptapaas riores, a. 7 . p. 7 . 13 . . . . gu1 dacungap E1nhard1 a. 786 p. 73: Annales Mgttgnses r or s, a. 7 7. p. 74: Annales regni Francorum, a. 7 79 P0 72- 1"'AnnaIes regpi Francorum, a. 787. P. 74: Sed hoc minime apostolicus credebat neque obtimates Francorum, et consilium fecerunt cum supramoninato domno Carolo rege, ut partibus Beneventanis causas firmando advenisset: quod ita factum est. See also AppaIaa Mattenses priores, a. 787, p. 74. 171 a pact of peace with the Neapolitans and began to fortify the city of Salerno.15 Further, the Beneventan duke, un- doubtedly convinced that he could not resist the Franks with- out aid, sent his son Romuald to Charles as a hostage in the hope of persuading the Frankish king not to invade the duchy.16 The pleas of Arichis went unheeded as the Franks marched south, arriving in Capua in early 787. Unable to resist the Franks by force of arms, Arichis retreated and closed him- self up inside the city of Salerno.17 The Beneventan duke then repeated his attempts to negotiate with Charles and sent his younger son, Grimoald, to Capua with gifts and hostages. According to the Royal Annals, Charles accepted the submission, on the advice of his priests and nobles, since he had no wish to devastate the countryside.18 After 1'SErchempapti Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum, Mpg §§ Lang., pp. 235-236: H. Belting, "Studien zum beneven- tanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," p. 145: L.M. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens, II, 2, pp. 285ff. 16AnnaIes regpi Francorum, a. 787, p. 74: Et Arighis dux Beneventanus misit Romaldum filium suum cum magnis muneribus, postolare de adventu iamdicti domni regis, ut in Benevento non introisset, et omnes voluntates praefati domni regis adim- plere cupiebat. Cf. AnnaIas gaI dicuntur E'nhardi, a. 786, p. 75: AppaIaa Metpensas priores, a. 787, p. 74. 17Annales regni Francorum, a. 787. p. 74: Annales gpI dicuntur Einhardi, a. 786, p. 75: Annales Mettenses priores, a. 757. p. 74: Appales Fuldenses, a. 787, p. 11. It is prob- able that the Frankish king made a brief stop at Monte Cassino on his way to Capua, cf. Annales Laureshamenses, a. 786, p. 33: Pauli continuatio Romana, MQH SS Lang., p. 202. See also the gharteg for Monte Cassino, §M2_§85:7M§H.QK I, no. 158, PP- 3-21 - ”Annalee Essa ___Francorum. a. 787. p. 78. 172 forcing Arichis and the Beneventans to take oaths of fidelity and after exacting tribute from the duchy, Charles returned to Rome, taking Grimoald and twelve other hostages with him.19 As will become evident, the Frankish king had good reason for not destroying the Beneventan duchy. Undoubtedly he felt satisfied with the submission, since he thought this placed Benevento on the same footing as the duchy of Spoleto. Whether or not it satisfied the pope is another matter. Of primary importance with the return of Charles to Rome was the question of territorial restitutions to the papacy. The pope had claims on patrimonies in the Beneven- tan lands, claims which had led him to take matters into his own hands in 779 with the seizure of Terracina. That a territorial settlement was made in 787 is evidenced indir- ectly in several places. According to the later pact of Louis the Pious with the papacy, Charles promised to trans- fer several Tuscan and Beneventan cities to the See of St. Peter.20 Further, in the dealings with the Beneventans subsequent to 787, the Frankish missus Maginarius made 19Einhargi Vita Karoli i, c. 10, pp. 13-14; Annales pa; dicuntur Ei ardi, a. 7 . p. 75: Annales Laureshamenses, a. 786, p. 33: Pauli coptinuatio tertia, MGH §§,Iaag., p. 214: Cppopicop Salernitapum, c. 10, 11, pT‘E77. 20The cities included, among others, Citta di Castello, Urbieto, Bagnorea, Viterbo, Toscanella, Populonia and Rosella in Tuscany: Sora, Arce, Aquino, Arpino, Teano and Capua in the Campagna and in Benevento. Cf. Pactum Hludo- wici III (Ladovicianum),,!§fl gap. I, 353. See also L.M. _ Hartmann, Gaschiphte Italiens, II, 2, p. 304: A. Kleinclausz, Charlem ne, pp. 125-126: 0. Bertolini, "Carlomago e Benevento," p. 635. 173 reference to transfers of unspecified Beneventan cities to 21 Hadrian himself men- Rome in a letter written to Charles. tioned receiving the submissions of the Capuans,22 but as had happened so often in the past, the pope was again to realize that there was a difference between the Frankish promise to transfer certain areas and the actual deliverance of those areas into the hands of the pope. Moreover, al- though Hadrian was not aware of it at the time, these piece- meal restitutions formed the end of Carolingian bequests of land to Rome during his pontificate. In addition to the territorial restitutions, another problem occupied the attentions of pope and Frankish king. Two envoys from Duke Tassilo of Bavaria, bishop Arn of Salz- burg and the abbot Hunricus, appeared in Rome to beg the pope to intercede in the dispute between Charles and the Bavarian duke.23 Bavaria had once been an area of active papal interest and it will be recalled that Hadrian had ap- parently baptized the son of Tassilo.24 Yet, during the earlier visit of Charles to Rome in 781 the Frankish king and the pope had sent a joint embassy to Tassilo to remind him to observe the oaths he had once made to Pepin and then 2192223.9a£21182§ App- 2. MQE.§EE- III. 656: Abel- Simson, I, 570-572. 2?gggg§ CargIInus 83, MGH Epp. III, 617. 23AEEales regni Francorum. a. 787. p. 74: Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 787, p. 75: Annales Mettenses priores, a. 787. p. 74. “ ‘"“"“‘ zqu. supra, p. 158, note 61. 174 to Charles.25 Thus, already in 781 Hadrian was conforming to the wishes of the Frankish king in rendering support with Frankish political problems. In 787, however, the actions of the pope were much more threatening to Tassilo. According to the Royal Annals, Hadrian responded to the pleas of Arn and Hunricus by plea- ding with Charles for peace. The Frankish king responded that peace had always been his goal, but he had never been able to obtain it from Tassilo, despite the Frankish-papal embassy of 781. Hadrian then turned to the two Bavarian envoys, apparently expecting them to secure the peace with Charles immediately. When they hesitated, the pope threat- ened Tassilo with anathema if he did not immediately fulfill the oaths he had made to the Franks. Further, if Tassilo should continue in his obstinance, necessitating a campaign by the Franks, the pope decreed that all blame for any bloodshed would be on the head of Tassilo.26 This Bavarian episode illustrates most vividly that after fifteen years as pope, Hadrian was almost completely dependent on Charles in virtually any situation. The pope must have known, based upon his own experience with Frankish missi, that the Bavarian envoys would not be able to conclude “Appraise magi. W. a. 781. p. 58: Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 781, p. 59; Annales Mettenses priores, a. 781, p. 69: Annales Fuldenses, a. 781, p. 10. 26% _g_re ni ___Franc_orum... a. 787. p. 76: Annales gui di untur Einhardi, a. 787, p. 77: Annales Mettenses priores, E18787, p. 75: Appales Laurissenses minores, a. 787, p. 175 peace with the Franks during their visit in Rome. Their only purpose was to obtain the intercession of the pope in the dispute and further action would undoubtedly have gone beyond their instructions. Nevertheless, Hadrian demanded that they immediately secure the peace and then threatened the Bavarians with anathema, even though the duchy of Bavaria represented no real threat to the peace of Christendom. Tassilo had been quite active in promoting church reform in Bavaria, and, thus, scarcely deserved the threat of papal anathema. In the light of this episode, it is quite diffi- cult to view the initiative firmly in papal hands.27 0n the contrary, the papal will was now clearly subjugated to the monarchical power of the Frankish king.28 For his part, Tassilo submitted to Charles after the Frankish king returned north of the Alps and gave hostages, including his own son, to Charles.29 This action was stri- kingly similar to the steps taken by Charles toward Duke Arichis of Benevento. Both dukes had been forced to take oaths, both had surrendered their own sons as hostages, and both continued to rule as dukes.30 The Frankish king may 27As does Walter Ullmann, The Growth pi PapaI Government, p. 51. 28Erich Caspar, Das Pa sttum unter frankischer Herrschaft, pp. 74-75: Abel-Simson, I, 602-603. 29 . . Appales regnl Francorum a. 787 p. 78: Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 787, p.’79: Annales Maximiniani, a. 787, MGH §§ XIII, 21. 30E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Ffirstentitel," PP- 371-372- 176 have been satisfied to allow both dukes to continue their rule as Frankish vassals, even though that had been the status of Tassilo in Frankish law. Unclear, however, is whether the oaths taken by Arichis and the Beneventans in 787 were oaths of vassalage similar to the ones apparently taken by the duke of Spoleto.31 If it was the Frankish king's plan to treat Benevento and Spoleto in the same fashion, allowing each duke to continue his rule under Fran- kish suzerainty, then Charles badly mistook the nature of the situation in southern Italy. During this same period, there occurred an event of great importance not only for the Frankish king but for the entire Italian situation. Although the exact time and place are not completely clear, it is certain that sometime in 787 or 788 the Frankish-Byzantine marriage project broke down. Frankish annals mention that Charles held discussions about the future marriage with Byzantine envoys during his stay in Italy.32 Yet, the reasons for the collapse of the marriage alliance are not completely clear. It is probable that Charles, and not the Byzantines, broke off the intended marriage between the Frankish princess and the Byzantine emperor, but his reasons for doing so will probably always remain a mystery.33 Completely clear, however, were the 310. Bertolini, "Carlomagno e Benevento," pp. 623-624. 32% regni Francorum, a. 786, p. 72: Annales gui my; ___Einhard.i. a. 733. p. 75. “"'— 33Ar.m_al_e_§ 921 _d_igarm ___Einhardi. a. 788. p. 83. It is 177 effects of the alliance's collapse. Almost immediately, the Byzantines began negotiating with Arichis, promising to supply the Beneventan duke with the support he desperately needed against Charles. This potential Beneventan-Byzantine alliance was to pose a grave threat to Charles and was to determine, in large part, his future actions toward the duchy of Benevento. Charles began his return journey to Francia shortly after Easter 787, taking his Beneventan hostages, including Grimoald, with him and probably making a stop in Ravenna.3u Yet, almost immediately negotiations between the Byzantines and Arichis commenced. Hadrian found out about the "con- spiracies" in southern Italy from the Capuans and wrote to Charles in 788. Apparently Arichis offered to support Byz- antine efforts to retake Italy, led by the Greek patrician of Sicily and Adelgis, in return for the award of patrician rank from the Byzantines and their surrender to him of the duchy of Naples.35 From their subsequent actions, it would suggested elsewhere, with no apparent justification, that Irene ended the alliance, of. Theo hanis chronogpaphia, a. 6281, 2Q CVIII, 931: Abel-Simson, I, 56 . 3I"'Cf. Annales Laureshamenses, p. 33. The visit to Rav- enna is mentioned in Agnelli liber ontificalis egclesiae Ravennatis, MGH,§§,Lapg., pp. 383-38 , but, as usual, it is laced with fantastic tales. 35Codex Carolinus 83, MQHWEpp. III, 617: ...et dum a nobis enucleatis sciscitatus fuisset, retulit nobis dicens: "Quia dum domnus Carolus, magnus rex, preterito anno a Capuana urbe reversus fuisset, Arichis dux suus aput imper- atorem, Deo sibi contrario, emisit missos, petens auxilium et honorem patriciatus una cum ducatu Neapolitano sub inte- gritate, simul et suum cognatum Athalgisum cum manu valida 178 seem that the Byzantines were more than happy to make Arichis a patricius, but that they had no intention of giving the duchy of Naples to the Beneventan duke.36 It is possible that the Beneventan duke might have been satisfied with just the patrician dignity, but the Byzantine envoys sent to Benevento to make him a patricius found both Arichis and his son, Romuald, dead. Romuald had died in July 787 and Arichis followed his son in August of the same year.37 Nevertheless, this was not the end of the danger for Hadrian and Charles. The Frankish king apparently had asked the pope if it was true that Adelgis was in Italy and Hadrian confirmed the report, revealing that Adelgis was near the duchy of Benevento.38 Yet, even in the face of the long-feared Byzantine invasion of Italy, Charles held a supreme advantage: the heir to the Beneventan duchy, Grimoald, was a hostage at the Frankish court. That Charles was aware of his advantage is demonstrated by his initial refusal to release Grimoald to become the in adiutorium dirigendi, promittens ei, tam in tonsura quam in vestibus usu Grecorum perfrui sub eiusdem imperatoris dicione. Haec audiens autem imperator, emisit illi suos legatos, scilicet spatarios duos cum diucitin Siciliae, ferentes secum vestes auro textas, simul et spatam vel pectinae et forcipes patricium eum constituendi, sicut illi predictus Arichisus indui et tondi pollicitus fuerat, pe- tentes Romualdum eiusdem Arichigisi filium in obsidiatum. Cf.2£eter Classen, Karl gap Grosse, gag Papsttum.apa Byzana, p. . 36 0. Bertolini, "Carlomagno e Benevento," p. 644. 372mm Mnitanum. 0. 17. p- 481. 38920.19; mm 80. MGH. Epp. III. 612. 179 duke of Benevento, deSpite the pleas of a Beneventan em- bassy.39 What followed this initial refusal was a series of complicated intrigues, involving Charles, Hadrian, the Byzantines, and the widow of Arichis, Adelperga. Not sur- prisingly, the pope urged Charles not to release Grimoald, stating that the Beneventan heir would only follow in the footsteps of his father in creating a dangerous Beneventan- Byzantine alliance. For the pope, the real force behind the Beneventan negotiations was Adelperga, whom Hadrian 40 In scarcely could forget was a daughter of Desiderius. the pope's view, the problem was quite simple. Charles should retain Grimoald and give the Beneventans until May 788 to conform to the wishes of the Franks. If they still refused, Charles should gather an army and march again on Benevento, disposing of Adelgis at the same time.“1 Nevertheless, the problem was not so straightforward for the Frankish king. It must be recalled that Charles was ”mm W. o. 21. p. #83. “Oopdex Carolinus 80, M app. III, 613: Quapropter nimis poscentes quaesumus vestram prerectissimam excellen- tiam, ut nullo modo pro causa Grimualdi filii Arichisi cre- dere plus cuiquam iubeatis quam nobis: nam pro certo sciatis, quia si ipsum Grimualdum in Benevento miseritis, Italiam sine conturbatione habere minime potestis, eo quod Leo episcopus secreta nobis sic fatus est: quia Adalperga relicta Arighis tale habet concilium, ut, dum ipse Grimualdus filius eius Beneventanis finibus introierit, ingeniose cupit duas filias suas secum deferri et quasi orationis causa in Sanctum An- gelum in Gargario pergere et deinde in Tarantu, ubi et the- sauros suos reconditos habet, quia tantum octoginta milia distat a Sancto Angelo usque Taranto. 6 661lbid. See also E. Amann..LL§EQQE§ carolin ienne, pp. 5" o 180 involved in his dealings with Tassilo of Bavaria at the time when Arichis died. An immediate campaign, which would have no guarantees of success, was out of the question for Char- les. Moreover, he may have had suspicions that the pope was again raising the spectre of Byzantine invasion in order to convince Charles to conform to the papal notion of the right 42 order in Italy. In order to ascertain the truth and to begin negotiations with the Beneventans, the Frankish king sent a group of five pIaaI to Italy and it is possible to follow the fates of the Frankish messengers in the papal letters.“3 For some reason, the five Frankish pIaaI, Atto, Goter- amnus, Maginarius, Joseph and Liudericus, arrived in Home at different times. Atto and Goteramnus arrived first, and despite Hadrian's urging that they await the arrival of the other three missi, the two proceeded on to Benevento.uu Beyond doubt, Hadrian was apprehensive about the attempts to negotiate with the Beneventans, yet he still hoped to be quadrian twice denied that he was complaining about Byzantine intrigues in order to hasten the transfer of Bene- ventan cities to Rome, cf. Codex Carolinus 80 and 84, mpg Epp. III, 613, 619-620. The question must arise, then, of whether the pope had been accused by Charles of doing so. Cf. Abel-Simson, I, 616‘620. “BUnlike most occasions, the papal reports receive con- firmation from another source, a fragmentary letter sent from one of the missi, Maginarius, to Charles. Cf. Codex Carolinus App. 2, MQH app. III, 655-657. ““Codex Carolinus 82, Mgfiugpp. III, 615-616. This is confirmed in a fragment of a letter sent from Hadrian to the Frankish missi, cf. Codex Carolinus App. 1, MGH Epp. III , 654-655. 181 the dominant force in the Beneventan-Frankish discussions. 45 The following events were to show that the pope's fears of a Beneventan-Byzantine alliance were well-founded. When Atto and Goteramnus arrived in Salerno to treat with Adal- perga they caused the Beneventans some discomfort. Byzan- tine envoys were also within the duchy at the same time and the Beneventans tried to keep the Frankish pIaaI in Salerno while they negotiated with the Byzantines in Naples.“6 The other three pIaaI, Maginarius, Joseph and Liuderi- cus, remained one day behind the other two in their travels. Ultimately joining the others, Maginarius led three of the missi with him in a flight back to the duchy of Spoleto, with Atto left behind in Salerno. According to Hadrian, the four fled because of a Beneventan plot to kill them.u7 Ac- cording to the account of Maginarius, however, the four fled because the Beneventans were planning on holding all five 'pIaaI hostage until the Frankish king fulfilled their wishes. Above all, the Beneventans wanted Charles to release Grimo- ald and allow him to assume the Beneventan ducal dignity. Further, it would seem that the Beneventans were unhappy with the Frankish plan to transfer several Beneventan cities “5Cf. J. Gay, "L'Etat pontifical, les Byzantins et les Lombards sur 1e littoral Campanien," MAH, 1901, pp. 499-500. “6Codex Carolipus 83, Egg Epp. III, 618. Hirsch, who maintained that the Byzantine threat was a figment of the papal imagination, seemed to overlook the clear evidence of Byzantine envoys in Benevento, of. F. Hirsch, "Papst Hadrian I. und das Ffirstenthum Benevent," pp. 64-65. 47c9_dex Carolinus 83, MGH Epp. III, 618. 182 to the jurisdiction of Rome. Thus, in addition to Grimoald, 48 Al- they wanted the return of those Beneventan cities. though the papal account was correct in most details concer- ning this Frankish embassy, it would have been foolish for the Beneventans to kill the mIaaI. Consequently, the ac- count of Maginarius is the more plausible of the two, since Adelperga may well have decided to hold the pIaaI hostage to force Charles to release Grimoald. At this point, the activities of the Frankish pIaaI are again enshrouded in darkness. However, the outcome of the negotiations is not difficult to discern. In a letter from late 788, Hadrian complained bitterly that the pIaaI sent to complete the transfer of the Beneventan cities to Rome only gave over to Rome the bishoprics, monasteries and assor- ted revenues, retaining jurisdiction over the inhabitants for the Franks.)+9 It would seem that a compromise had taken place, since the cities were certainly not transferred to the pope Ia integpo. Realizing that papal desires had been sacrificed in the face of political necessities and that once again he had received less than he had been promised, Hadrian was moved to admonish Charles that he should not treat Grimo- O ald better than he did St. Peter.5 Although it could be uaCodex Carolinus App. 2, MGH Epp. III, 655. ugCodex Carolinus 84, MQH‘Epp. III, 620. See also J. Gay, "L'Etat pontifical, les Byzantins et les Lombards sur le littoral Campanien," p. 500: 0. Bertolini, "Carlomagno e Benevento," p. 651. 50§2Q§§ QQLQIIpaa 84, MGH Epp. III, 620: Unde petimus 183 argued that this refusal to complete the transfer of Bene- ventan cities strained relations between the pope and the Frankish king almost to the breaking point, it must be remem- bered that for a number of years the pope had had no alter- native but to agree when faced with such Frankish actions. Despite his complaints, Hadrian apparently again complied. To make matters even worse for Hadrian, Charles decided to release Grimoald to become the duke of Benevento, despite the papal urgings to the contrary. Before allowing him to leave Francia, Charles exacted an oath of fidelity from Grimoald and stipulated that Beneventan charters were to carry the name of Charles and his regnal dates in their protocols, Beneventan coins were to be minted with the name of Charles, and tribute was to be paid yearly to the Franks.51 In Frankish eyes, then, Grimoald would be just another gag, much in the same tradition as the duke of Spoleto. Undoubt- edly, the release of Grimoald was, as one scholar stated, "a calculated risk."52 Yet, Charles must have had reason to believe that Grimoald would not just follow the policy vestram excellentiam, ut nullus hominum sit, qui vestra sacra vota inpediri valeat, et ne meliorem faciatis Grimualdum filium Aragisi quam fautori vestro, beato Petro clavigero regni celorum,.... 510hronicon Salernitanum, c. 28-29, pp. 485-486: Erchemperti Hist. Lang. Epp., p. 236: H. Belting, "Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahrhundert," p. 147: E. Garms-Cornides, "Die langobardischen Ffirstentitel", pp. 375- 376. In the light of this, the statement in Erchempert, that Grimoald was given "ius regendi principatus," must be attributed to the enthusiasm of Erchempert. 52O. Bertolini, "Carlomagno e Benevento," p. 653. 184 of his father in regard the Byzantines. Neither the adventures of the Frankish pIaaI nor the release of Grimoald had removed the danger from the Byzan- tines, especially since Adelgis remained in Italy. But when the fighting started in southern Italy, it was Duke Hilde- brand of Spoleto and Duke Grimoald of Benevento who led the forces which crushed the Byzantine invaders.53 It is quite possible that Charles knew Grimoald would not conclude a Byzantine alliance and that he would resist the Byzantines as much in his own interest as in that of the Franks.5u As a result, the hopes of Adelgis to be his father's heir as king of the Lombards disappeared forever. He returned to Constantinople where he died as a dependent of the Byzantine government. But Grimoald soon made it evident that he had no inten- tion of remaining a Frankish duke. By 791 he had begun to steer a course independent of both Franks and Byzantines, despite a possible marriage to a Byzantine princess.55 In reality, Grimoald resumed the political direction first pointed out by his father. Carolingian regnal dates dis- appeared from Beneventan charters almost as soon as they 53Annales regpi Francorum, a. 788, p. 82: Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi, a. 788, p. 83: Annales Mettenses priores, a. 783, p. 773 males mldenseS, a. 788’ p. 110 5“One Byzantine source clearly labels Grimoald a rebel, cf. Theophanis chronogpaphia, a. 6281, fig CVIII, 931. See alsouPeter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byaanz, p. 2 . 55Erchemperti Hist. Lang. Ben., c. 5. p. 236. 185 first appeared and Grimoald began to build on to the princi- pate of Arichis. There are hazy references in later Frankish annals of renewed campaigns in southern Italy, but all re- mained without result. Charles had solved his immediate roblems caused by the Byzantine invasion, but, like his Lombard predecessors, he was forced to live henceforth with an independent Beneventan principate to the south. Once again, Hadrian's advice had been ignored and his attempts to manipulate his Frankish protector along lines decided by Rome had been frustrated. To be sure, through his efforts, the Church State had achieved the boundaries which it was to maintain for over a thousand years and Rome was no longer plagued with Lombard armies encamped outside the walls of the city.56 But the pope was learning that his Frankish protector had no intention of awaiting a papal call to action. In fact, Charles had demonstrated in the past an alarming tendency to involve himself in the internal affairs of the papal lands and, sadly for Hadrian, that Fran- kish tendency increased during the last years of Hadrian's pontificate. In early 788 or 789 the archbishop of Ravenna, Gratiosus, died, necessitating a new election. As a result, Charles apparently mentioned to Hadrian that there was a precedent for the intervention of Frankish pIaaI in archepiscopal elec- tions in Ravenna. It must be recalled that Frankish missi 56E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, pp. 66-67. 186 had taken part in the confusion surrounding the removal of the usurper Michael and the installation of the canonically- elected Leo in 770.57 Hadrian carefully pointed out to the Frankish king that the actions of the Frankish pIaaI had been confined to removing the usurper and that they had had nothing to do with the election of Leo.58 The pope contin- ued to state that no one, including the Frankish king, had the right to intervene in any archepiscopal election. Arch- bishops were elected in conformance with church law and then sent to Rome for examination and confirmation.59 Yet, that Charles even suggested such a precedent is a clear indica- tion of his growing conception of his own authority in the lands of the papacy.60 Even though the pOpe's reply was couched in the usual polite superlatives, his heated denial of such Frankish precedents and his alarm about the Frankish king's suggestions cannot be mistaken. Moreover, the interventions of Charles in the internal affairs of the papal lands were not confined solely to the 57Cf. supra, p. 108, note 20. See Agnelli liber ponti- ficalis ecplesiae Ravennatis, p. 386, for the possible dates of this second dispute in 788. 58Codex CargIInus 85, MGH Epp. III, 621. 59Ibid.: Nam nos nullo modo meminimus: neque a prede- cessoribus nobis, sanctis pontificibus, neque a sanctae recordationis precellentissimi genitoris vestri, domni Pippini, magni regis, neque a vestra in triumphis regalis victoria missum ad electionem Ravenne directum esse tam in electione Iohannus archiepiscopi quam in electione Gratiosi archiepiscopi eiusdem. I 520E. Amann, L'éEogue carOlin ienne, P. 69; Abel‘SimSOn! , 1. 187 issue of elections in Ravenna. Sometime between 787 and 791, the Frankish king informed the pope that Venetian merchants trading in the Exarchate and in the Pentapolis were to be expelled immediately. Hadrian wrote to Charles that he had complied with the royal orders and that the archbishop of Ravenna had been instructed by the pope to seize Venetian possessions in the papal lands.61 The issue provoking the Frankish king to insist on the expulsion of the merchants is not completely clear, but one could conjecture that it concerned the earlier problems with slave traffic. In any event, it is striking to note that Charles had again direc- tly interfered in a matter within the papal areas and that Hadrian could only comply. By now, the interference of the Frankish king in Italian matters was nothing new for the pope, nor was another prob- lem he faced following the visit of Charles to Italy in 787. Hadrian had cause to complain, in the same letter in which he mentioned his compliance with Frankish instructions about the Venetian merchants, that one Garamannus had seized church possessions in the area around Ravenna. Charles was asked to correct the matter, not so much because the posses- sions seized belonged to the church, but because they were situated within what the pope termed his own lands.62 Even “0.9.19.8 saunas 86. _MGH Epp. III. 622. 62Ibid.: Quid autem contigit Garamanno duci? Subito inruit super predia et possessiones sanctae Ravennatae ecclesiae nostris territoriis sitae et non solum eas occu- pavit, sed et omnes fruges a predicta abstulit ecclesia seu 188 though one cannot find evidence of large numbers of Frankish officials within the boundaries of the papal lands, the sup- remacy of Charles in both Lombard and papal Italy cannot be denied. When faced with seizures of lands by either Franks or Lombards,63 Hadrian was helpless unless he received the assistance of the Frankish king. Probably the cause of greatest papal anxiety was the continued intervention by Charles in strictly disciplinary matters within the Roman Church. In a letter written some- time after 787 Hadrian revealed that he had been instructed by Charles to take back the monk John, who had fled to the Frankish court bearing tales of serious corruptions within the ranks of the Roman clergy.64 Significantly, the pope was instructed not to punish the monk for violating his monastic vows by leaving his monastery without permission to go to Francia.65 It must have been difficult for the et de aliis piis locis. Nos quippe statim eum adhortari studuimus, ut, si fideles vester exstitisset, ipsas posses- siones piorum locorum reddere prosus non omitteret, quia et iure ecclesiae Ravennantium seu et aliorum piorum locorum esse videntur et nostris territoriis sitae existunt:.... See also E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 38-39. 63Hadrian complained of a similar seizure of land by the Lombard Duke Gudibrandus of Florence. Cf. Codex Capolinus 87, MQHIEpp. III, 623: E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, pp. 23-25. 64Later Hadrian vehemently denied an accusation of simony in Italian episcopal elections which could well have been brought to the attention of the Frankish king by the fugi- tive monk. Cf. Codex Capolinus 94, MGH.Epp. III, 633-634. 65Codex Carolinus 88, MGH Epp. III, 625. See also S. Abel, "Papst Hadrian I. und die weltliche Herrschaft des romischen Stuhls," FdG, I (1860), 509ff. 189 pope to accept the instructions that he was not to punish a.Roman monk in a matter which exclusively concerned monas- tic discipline. Nevertheless, the pope agreed and the monk was allowed to return to his monastery in peace. In the light of these repeated interventions, it is not at all surprising that Hadrian might have given credence to the rumors that Charles was planning to depose him and re- place him with a Frank. In a strange letter, Hadrian told Charles that he had heard of the deposition plan from several sources and that he had been assured that no such plan had 66 Yet, Charles ever been discussed by the Frankish king. had been quite active in placing Frankish bishops in his Lombard kingdom and that activity may have provided the impetus for the rumor that Charles had the same thing in mind for the bishOpric of Rome.67 In any event, it was an indication of the Frankish king's influence in both the Lom- bard kingdom and the papal areas that the pope mentioned the deposition rumors at all. Finally, by the end of his pontificate, Hadrian realized that all his pleas to the Frankish king about individuals fleeing to the Frankish court to avoid papal judgment had 66Codex Capolipus 92, app Epp. III, 629-630. 67E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, p. 32. The sug- gestion that Hadrian did not deny the right of Charles to depose him is rather pointless, since the only right Charles could have had for such an act was the strength of his own right arm. Cf. R. Weyl, QIa Baaiehungen gag Papstthums app frankis hen Staats-und Kirgpenrepht unter den Karollngern (Bresslau, 1892), p. 61. 190 gone unheard. Ever since the conquest of the Lombard kingdom in 774, Charles had received fugitives from papal justice, often intervening directly with the pope in the cases. On one occasion, involving two officials of Ravenna,68 Hadrian had even offered to hear the cases in the presence of Fran- kish pIaaI. Nonetheless, the pope had continually demon- strated that he was quite concerned about this violation of sovereign papal rights and it was evident to him that his previous references to promises and donations had not had effect on the Frankish king. In the closing years of his pontificate, Hadrian again returned to the problem of fugitives from papal justice in a letter which probably concerned the two Ravennaten offi- cials, who remained unpunished at the Frankish court. Des- pite the fact that Charles had informed the pope that he had found no guilt in the two men, Hadrian insisted on their return, since the Frankish king had apparently returned such fugitives to the duke of Benevento.69 Unstated but clearly implied was a repetition of the papal complaint that Charles should not treat the Beneventan duke better than he did the 680f. supra, p. 128, note 73. 69Codex Carolinus 94, MQHIEpp. III, 635: Interea rep- perimus in ipsis regales apicibus vestris exaratum, sicut preterito anno vobis direximus, pro hominibus Ravinianis et Pentapolenses, de quos scripsimus, ut eos nobis dirigi, sicut Beneventano duci fecistis: et, ut fertis, de parte apostolatus nostri nihil mali, sed magis quae bona sunt re- tulerunt: sed neque eis neque quolibet homino nullatenus in nostra adversitate praeberemini consensum, sed statim, si tales repperissetis, et hominem et causam ad nostrum iudi- cium mitteremini. 191 vicar of St. Peter. Clearly apparent to the pOpe, by now, was the fact that the Frankish king intended to assume a political role in all of Italy which allowed little room for sovereign aspirations on the part of the papacy. To combat the Frankish tendency to ignore papal claims, the pope coined a new phrase to express his own rights to the papal lands. Hadrian stated that he had always honored the patriciate of the Frankish king, particularly in retur- ning to Francia individuals who had sought refuge within the papal lands to avoid Frankish prosecution. The pope then claimed that St. Peter also possessed a "patriciate" which had been conferred originally on Rome by Pepin and subsequently confirmed by Charles and which should be res- pected by the Franks.70 The pope's meaning is rather trans- parent. For at least ten years he had been expressing his sovereign rights to certain lands in Italy through charter dating and the minting of coins. Now in an attempt to per- suade the Frankish king to honor those sovereign rights, the pope used the phrase of a patriciate of St. Peter to express temporal rights to the Exarchate and the Pentapolis. 7OIbid.: Sed quaesumus vestram regalem potentiam: nullam novitatem in holocaustum, quod beato Petro sanctae recordationis genitor vester optulit et vestra excellentia amplius confirmavit, inponere satagat, quia, ut fati estis, honor patriciatus vestri a nobis inrefragabiliter conser- vatur etiam et plus amplius honorificae honoratur, simili modo ipsum patriciatum beati Petri fautoris vestri tam a sanctae recordationis domni Pippini, magni regis, genitoris vestri, in scriptis in integro concessum et a vobis amplius confirmatum inrefragabili iure permaneat. See also Abel- Simson, I, 174. 192 Obviously, in his own eyes, Hadrian felt he had achieved his independent position in Italy. The pOpe's problem, how- ever, was that the Frankish king did not completely recog- nize that position. Moreover, it is striking to observe the changes in papal demands since Hadrian became pope in 772. In the early years of his pontificate, Hadrian had advanced claims to substantial portions of Italy. During the years of his re- lations with the Frankish king, the pope had been repeatedly frustrated in realizing those claims and had been forced to reduce his claims in substantive fashion. By the year of the letter referring to the patriciate of St. Peter, either 790 or 791, those papal claims had been reduced to defending papal rights to the Exarchate and the Pentapolis. Gone for- ever were the hopes of ruling the duchies of Tuscany, Spo- leto and Benevento, gone also were the notions that the Frankish protector would immediately fulfill papal demands on territories throughout Italy. Hadrian had been made a petitioner of the Frankish king for most of his desires and his exercise of independent action in virtually every aspect of his rule had been reduced in the face of a growing Fran- kish monarchical ideal. Only in one remaining area of activity had the pope been able to take steps independent of the Franks. The papal-Byzantine negotiations about the healing of the Icono- clastic schism, to which we must now turn, had been going on since 785. The Byzantine rulers, Irene and Constantine VI, 193 had initiated the discussions about the restoration of the images in the eastern church and Hadrian had proved most receptive to their suggestions. Yet, that the Frankish king did nothing about these discussions prior to 787 was probably due to the fact that he did not, as yet, know about them.71 After 787, the inaction of the Frankish king in regard to the images was to change in ways which were fundamentally destructive to the principles of the papacy. 71E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. 64: Erich gaspar, Das Papsttum unter Irfinkischer HerrschaIp, pp. 83- P. 1‘ . CHAPTER SEVEN HADRIAN, CHARLES AND THE IMAGES In all of his dealings with Charles concerning the res- titutions of land to the papacy, the relations of the papacy with the other powers in Italy, and the papal jurisdiction over the lands of the Papal States, Hadrian repeatedly had been forced to retreat. Yet, one would suppose that there was still one area in which the pope's authority would remain unchallenged. That area was the determination of orthodox doctrine in the church. Even while he had been suffering political and jurisdictional reversals at the hands of the Franks, Hadrian had continually insisted on the primal posi- tion of the Roman See and the papal obligation to maintain right order in the doctrines of the church. 0n numerous occasions the pope told Charles that the Roman Church was 1 and that the Roman the Frankish king's "spiritual mother" Church was the head of all the churches of God.2 However, during the closing years of Hadrian's pontificate even this 1Cf. for example Codex Carolinus 49:.MQE Epp. III, 568: nO- 52. p- 573: no. 55. P- 578. BZCf. Codex Carolinus 53, MGH Epp. III, 575; no. 60, p. 5 7. 194 195 Roman supremacy concerning orthodox teaching was put to the test by the Frankish king. The occasion for the struggle of wills on doctrinal issues between the pope and the Fran- kish king was the question of the veneration of images. The initial dispute over the proper place of holy images within the church did not, of course, originate during the pontificate of Hadrian. Ever since the early decades of the eighth century a schism between eastern and western churches had continued because of the image-breaking policies of the Byzantine emperors. Both Gregory II and Gregory III had reacted violently against the attempts of the emperors Leo III and Constantine V to enforce their iconoclastic decrees in Byzantine Italy.3 The papal resistance to the decrees and to the Byzantine attempt to tax papal patrimonies had provoked Leo III in 732 to seize the southern Italian patrimonies of the Roman Church and to transfer the metro- politan authority over dioceses in Calabria, Sicily and Illyricum from Rome to Constantinople.u As a result of both 3See the letters of Gregory II to Leo in Mansi XII, 960-981. Cf. also Erich Caspar, "Papst Gregor II. und der Bilderstreit," IIQ, LII (1933), 29-89. ”Theophanis chronographia, a. 6224, pg CVIII, 827. See also M.V. Anastos, "The transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constan- tinople in 732-33," Silloge BizantIpa Ia onore di §.a. Mercati, vol IX: Studi BiaantIpI a neoellenicI—(Rome, 1957), pp. 14-31: H. Hubert, "Etude sur la formation des états de l'église," RH, LXIX (1899), 21-22: G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarcpate (London, 1962), pp. 88-89: L. Bréhier, Ia querelle des images (Paris, 1904), p. 17. There is no evi- dence to support Gay's hypothesis that no action was taken by the Byzantines prior to 753-4, of. J. Gay, L'Italie meridionale a; l'empire byzantin (Paris, 1904), pp. 11-12. 196 the iconoclastic decrees and the Byzantine seizure of papal lands, Gregory III convened a council in 732, attended by the archbishop of Ravenna, the patriarch of Grado and ninety- three bishops, which condemned those who destroyed the sacred images against the ancient traditions of the Apos- tolic Church.5 Undoubtedly the iconoclast posture of the Byzantines contributed to the gradual turning of the papacy from the East to the West and little was done for almost fifty years to heal the split in the church. Yet, to view the entire question of image veneration as merely a part of Byzantine politics is to underestimate the importance of the issue within the Byzantine church. The traditional view of the iconoclastic troubles has been to juxtapose oriental iconoclasts with Hellenic iconodules in a struggle for supremacy within the empire.6 Scholars have recently recognized, however, that the disputes invol- ved with the veneration of images had their roots in the Christological debates of the fourth, fifth, and sixth cen- turies.7 The arguments of the iconoclasts, clearly stated in the council of Hiereia in 754, condemned the manufacture and veneration of holy images.8 The iconoclasts protested 5Vipa Gregorii III, e. 3. p. 416. 6Most recently by G. Every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, pp. 75-76. 7Peter Brown, "A Dark-Age Crisis: aspects of the Icono- clastic controversy." EEK: LXXXVIII (1973), 1-34: Karl Morrison, Trad'tion apa Authority Ia ppa Western Church (Princeton, 1969), pp. 168-170. 8The acts of the council have been lost, but long sections 197 especially against the images of Christ, since they felt that Christ is not only man, but God, and as such cannot be represented. According to the iconoclasts, Christ has two natures, divine and human. Whoever should attempt to por- tray only His human nature would violate the doctrine of the inseparability of His two natures and thus fall into the Nestorian heresy, which emphasized the human nature of Christ at the expense of the divine. On the other hand, if one attempted to portray both natures, he would violate the doctrine that Christ's two natures are not confused and thus would espouse Monophysitism, which stressed the divine nature of Christ.9 Therefore, the iconoclasts argued that representations of Christ in images were not possible since they would conflict with fundamental Christian beliefs. The position of those in favor of image veneration is no less intricate.) The "orthodox" view of the images care- fully differentiated between veneration and adoration. The first is due to the images, but the second is reserved for God alone. Further, if the Son of God really became man, then he could be portrayed in images. Whoever would dispute the idea that images of Christ could be made would deny the of them were quoted during the synod of Nicaea (Nicaea II) in 787, cf. Mansi XIII, 208-356. 9H-L, III, 2, pp. 697-703: G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," Seminarium Kondakovianum, VI (1933), 81-82: M. Anastos, "The argument fgfi Iconoclasm presented by the Iconoclastic Council of 7 ," Lata Classical and MedievaI Studies Ia Honor of Albart :4. Friend, g3. (Princeton, 1955), pp. 177-1887 198 reality of Christ's humanity and thereby undermine the foun- 10 One participant of Nicaea II dation of Christian belief. stated that the iconoclasts were worse than all heretics, since, by rejecting the holy images, they denied the "in- carnate dispensations" of Christ.11 Obviously, then, the question of the images was one which deeply concerned the eastern church. Yet, as will become evident, the issue was not so critical in the West. Little or nothing was done in Rome concerning the icono- clastic measures after Gregory III's condemnation of the image-breakers. Finally, late in 784 a letter bearing the names of Constantine VI and his mother Irene arrived in Rome, inviting the participation of Pope Hadrian in a coun- cil to restore the veneration of images in the eastern church.12 Neither this letter, nor the one which followed from the new patriarch, Tarasius, announcing his election, has survived intact.13 The council was initially to be convened in Constantinople in 786 and Hadrian was invited to preside over the meetings. In response, Hadrian sent letters both to Irene and Constantine VI and to Tarasius, 10G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," p. 81. 11Mansi XIII, 167. 120f. Theo hanis chronographia, a. 6277, fig CVIII, 927: E. Amann, L'Zpogue carolin ienne, p. 114: L. Bréhier, Ia guerelle des ima es, p. 24. 13Fragments of the letters are reproduced in the acts oi Nicaea II, of. Mansi XII, 984: H-L, III, 2, pp. 743- 7 7- 199 announcing his joy that the images were to be restored and promising the dispatch of learned papal legates to partici- pate in the council.14 However, it is significant to note that Hadrian made no attempt to inform his Frankish protec- tor about the convocation of the council, nor was Charles invited to send Frankish bishops to participate. Part of Hadrian's reasons for not informing Charles stemmed from the demands he was to make on the Greeks for the restitution of lands in Italy. Clearly the pope was interested in ex- panding papal holdings and he may well have felt that the Frankish king would not approve of the papal plan to obtain the southern Italian patrimonies. But, as one scholar has pointed out, the neglect to inform Charles was to result, in the years following 787, in an impossible situation for the pope.15 Hadrian's response to the Byzantine invitation illus- trates the western position concerning the veneration of images. In addition to joyful exclamations about the restor- ation of the images, the pope's letter reveals that he ap- parently had no knowledge of the Christological import of the image question. His justification of image veneration relied on the doctrine accepted in the West since the ponti- 16 ficate of Gregory the Great. Gregory's ideas, expressed anE 2448, 2449: Mansi XII, 1055-1076, 1077-1084. 15E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, p. 64. 16JE 2448, Mansi XII, 1060. 200 in letters to biShOp Serenus of Marseille at the turn of the seventh century, condemned both the adoration and the destruction of images. The images served the purpose of being the alphabet of Holy Scripture for the illiterate and, thus, had a place within the church.17 To be sure, Hadrian was aware of the danger of idolatry in the western position and he carefully pointed out to Irene and Constantine that 18 Yet, for the he in no way wished to deify the images. eastern church in 787 the question no longer concerned idol- atry but the humanity of Christ. Hadrian's response did not address this fundamental problem for the eastern church in any substantive fashion. This is not to say necessarily that Hadrian was back- wards or ignorant concerning the intricate theological argu- ments on the images. Hadrian's response simply indicates that the union of the image question with Christological doctrine was somewhat alien to the Roman Church.19 The pope IZMQH Epp. II, 195: Et quidem zelum vos, ne quid manu- factum adorari possit, habuisse laudamus, sed frangere eas- dem imagines non debuisse iudicamus. Idcirco enim pictura in ecclesia adhibetur, ut hi qui litteras nesciunt saltem in parietibus videndo legant, quae legere in codicibus non valeant. Tua ergo fraternitas et illa servare et ab eorum adoratu populum prohibere debuit.... 18Mansi XII, 1061: Nam absit a nobis, ut ipsas imagines (sicut quidam garriunt) deificemus: sed affectum et dilec- tionem nostram, quam in Dei amorem et sanctorum ejus habemus, omni modo praeferimus. Et sicut divinae scripturae libros, ipsas imagines ob memoriam venerationes habemus, nostrae fidei puritatem servantes. 19G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," pp. 82-83: Peter Classen, Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 25: Karl F. Morrison, Tradition v.1» 201 was clearly in accord with western emphasis on the images as didactic devices. But his response was so far from the eastern position on the veneration of images that additions were made to Hadrian's letter before it was read during the second session of Nicaea II. A comparison of the Greek and Latin versions of the papal letter yields the fact that the Byzantines added a phrase about the humanity of Christ to 20 This phrase Hadrian's citation of Gregory the Great. about Christ's humanity is not found in Pope Gregory's ori- ginal pronouncements. Thus, in effect, the papal pronounce- ments on the question of the images had to be supplemented by the Byzantines in order to bring it closer to the eastern orthodox position. Moreover, image veneration was not the only question dealt with in Hadrian's letter to Irene and Constantine. which displeased the Byzantines. After his justification of image veneration the pope turned to the non-doctrinal matters which had also contributed to the split in the church. He informed Irene and Constantine that if they should truly desire to return to the orthodox faith they should immediately give back the patrimonies once seized by Leo III. Additionally, the southern Italian dioceses should be restored to the jurisdiction of Rome "so that no and Authority. pp. 169-170. 20G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," pp. 78-80. 202 schism would be able to survive."21 To reinforce this idea of restitution the pope mentioned the triumphs and rewards bestowed by St. Peter on the pope's son Charles, king of the Franks and Lombards and patrician of the Romans. According to the pope, Charles had restored to St. Peter provinces, cities and territories, as well as the patrimonies once 22 Obviously, this was a practice seized by the Lombards. the pope hoped the Byzantines would emulate. Seen in the light of his actions during his entire pon- tificate, it is not surprising that Hadrian seized the oppor- tunity presented by a healing of the church schism to make ZIIE 2448, Mansi XII, 1073: Porro et hoc vestrum a Deo coronatum ac piissimum poscimus imperium: ut si veram et orthodoxam sanctae catholicae ecclesiae Romanae nitimini amplecti fidem, sicut antiquitus ab orthodoxis imperatoribus, seu a ceteris Christianis fidelibus oblata atque concessa sunt patrimonia beati Petri apostolorum principis, fautoris vestri, in integrum nobis restituere pro luminariorum con- cinnatoribus eidem Dei ecclesiae, atque alimoniis pauperum. Imo et consecrationes archiepiscoporum, seu episcoporum, sicut olitana constat traditio, nostrae diocesis existentes penitus canonice sanctae Romane nostrae restituantur eccle- siae, ut nequaquam schisma inter concordiam perseverare valeat sacerdotum, sicut in vestra serenissima jussione exaratum est:.... See also G. Every, Ipa Byzantine Patriarchate, p. 1023 H‘L. III, 2' p. 751. 22Mansi XII, 1075-76: ...sicut filius et spiritualis compater noster dominus Carolus rex Francorum et Langobar- dorum, ac patricius Romanorum, nostris obtemperans monitis, atque adimplens in omnibus voluntates, omnis Hesperie occidue- que partis barbaras nationes suo suis prosternens conculcavit pedibus, omnipotentatum illarum domans, et suo subjiciens regno adunavit. Unde per sua laboriosa certamina eidem Dei apostoli ecclesie ob nimium amorem plura dona perpetuo ob- tulit possidenda, tam provincias, quam civitates, seu castra et cetera territoria, imo et patrimonia que a perfida Lango- bardorum gente detinebantur, brachio forti eidem Dei apos- tolo restituit, cujus et jure esse dignoscebantur. See also Paul J. Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus pi Constantinople (Oxford, 1958). p. ICE. 203 demands for territorial restitutions on the Byzantines. Indeed, there is a striking similarity between the wording of this request to the Byzantines and the ones made to Char- les, especially the reference to St. Peter as the "protector." Yet, if the pope eXpected a complete restoration of the status guo ante for his cooperation in restoring the images, he was again to be disillusioned. The Byzantines simply ignored his requests, since even Irene and Constantine were not ready to surrender the southern Italian patrimonies to Rome.23 But it should be borne in mind that Hadrian consi- dered both the image question and the seized patrimonies as parts of the schism. Equally irritating to the Byzantines must have been Hadrian's insistence on the doctrine of the Roman primacy. The pope stated that he had been surprised to find Tarasius named the "universal" patriarch, and Hadrian responded with a clear statement of the primacy of Rome: Because if he is universal, then he is recognized to hold the first see of our church, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: since in all the lands the principate and power were given by that Redeemer of the world to the apostle St. Peter: and through that apostle, whose place we bear unmerited, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the principate and the auth- ority of power continuously from then to eter- nity: since (which we do not believe) if any- one pronounced him universal, or gave assent, he should know himself to be alien to the orth- odox faith, and a rebel to our Holy Catholic and 23G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," pp. 75-76: G. Ostrogorsky, Histor pI the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1957), p. 163. 204 Apostolic Church.2u Even though Hadrian may have conformed to Byzantine direc- tions in the restoration of the images, it is clear that he was intent on preserving the rights of St. Peter with the Byzantines. It is scarcely surprising, then, that passages referring both to territorial restitutions and to the Roman primacy were suppressed at Nicaea 11.25 Despite his claims, the pope dispatched his two legates, the archpresbyter Peter and the abbot Peter of S. Saba, to Constantinople in early 786. The Byzantines hoped to con- vene the council in the spring of 786, but the council's first meeting was disrupted by angry soldiers who were still 26 predominantly iconoclast. The attacks forced a recess 24 Mansi XII, 1074: Quia si universalis est, etiam eccle- siae nostrae sedes primatum habere dignoscitur, quod ridicu- lum omnibus fidelibus Christianis apparet: quia in toto orbe terrarum ab ipso redemptore mundi beato Petro apostolo prin- cipatus ac potestas data est: et per eumdem apostolum, cuius vel immeriti vices gerimus, sancta catholica et apostolica Romana ecclesia usque hactenus et in aevum tenet principatum, ac potestatis auctoritatem: quatenus (quod non credimus) si quispiam eum universalem nuncupaverit, vel assensum tribuerit, sciat se orthodoxae fidei esse alienum, et nostrae sanctae catholicae et apostolicae ecclesiae rebellem. 25F. Dvornik, gyzaptium.apglppa Romap Primacy (New York, 1966), p. 96: L. Serraz. "Les lettres du pape Hadrien Ier lues au IIe concile de Nicée," Echos d'Orient, XXIX (1926), 407-418. Whether the offensive passages were actually omit- ted in the Greek translations of the letter or not is not important here. Of. L. Wallach, "The Greek and Latin ver- sions of II Nicaea and the Synodica of Hadrian I (JE 2448)," Trad., XXII (1966), 103-125. It is certain that the irri- tating issues raised by Hadrian were ignored during the eight sessions of Nicaea II. 26Theophanis chronogpaphia, a. 6278-6279, 2Q CVIII, 929- 930: Mansi XII, 989-992: E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne, pp. 116-1170 ’ 205 until late in 787 and, during the interim, Irene took steps to remove the troublesome soldiers and to transfer the coun- cil to Nicaea.27 Ultimately, the first session of Nicaea was held on 24 September 787, attended by Byzantine bishops, representatives of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch, and the two papal legates. It is significant to note that the two papal legates were apparently the only participants in the council from the West. It is not our task here to describe in detail what oc- curred during the eight sessions of Nicaea II.28 Nonethe- less, it must be emphasized that, according to the Byzantines, the council had been summoned to re-establish the "ancient tradition concerning the venerable images."29 In the eyes of the bishops at Nicaea II, the iconoclastic council of 754 had introduced novelties concerning the destruction of images into the doctrines of the church. The iconoclastic position on the images was not in accord with the teachings of the church and, further, iconoclasm had been repudiated by the bishop of Rome, whose legates had not been in atten- dance in 754. Therefore, it was the task of Nicaea II to 30 establish and follow the patristic teachings on the images. 272hgpppapi§ chronogpaphia, a. 6279, pg CVIII, 930; H’L: III: 2: PP- 758‘759- 28See H-L, III, 2, pp. 760-775. 29Mansi XII, 985: ...ascendat huc in stabilitatem et firmitatem antiquae traditionis super venerabilis imagini- bus: debitum enim illi est hoc facere:.... 3°;pig., 1004. See especially the masterful study by 206 Certainly there was nothing objectionable in these intentions for the papacy. Of more immediate concern for the papal legates at Nicaea II, however, was the condemnation of the council of 754. In his letters both to Irene and Constantine and to Tarasius Hadrian had insisted that one of the conditions for papal participation in the council was anathematizing the iconoclastic decrees in the presence of the papal leg- ates.31 As a result, all the acts of 754 were anathematized. Indeed, the fifth and sixth sessions of Nicaea II were oc- cupied with detailed refutations of the decrees of 754 and discussions of patristic literature cited by the iconoclasts in defense of their own position.32 In all these proceedings the papal legates played a secondary role, occasionally being called upon to approve what they had heard. Finally, in the seventh session the council made its profession of faith and articulated the eastern orthodox position on the veneration of images. After carefully stating a differentiation between veneration of the images and actual worship, which was given to God alone, the Nicene position affirmed that images could be venerated in the same Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority, pp. 177-180. 31Mansi XII, 1073: ...in primis pseudosyllogum illud, quod sine apostolica sede enormiter et irrationabiliter, nequiterque contra sanctorum venerabilium patrum traditionem de sacris imaginibus est, anathematizetur praesentibus missis nostris:.... See also a similar demand made by the pope to Tarasius, Mansi XII, 1081. 32Mansi XIII, 158-363. 207 fashion as other symbols, like the Cross and the Gospels. As was stated in the seventh session, "He who venerates an image venerates the substance depicted in it."33 All those who did not conform to the Nicene decrees were to be ana- thematized and the papal legates were called upon to sub- scribe the decrees, which they did in the name of Hadrian.34 For the moment it seemed that the schism between the eastern and western churches was ended and, after a reading of the conciliar decrees in the presence of Irene and Constantine VI, the council was closed. After the adjournment of the council of Nicaea II the papal legates returned to Rome with a copy of the council's acts written in Greek. According to Hadrian's biography, the pope had the acts translated into Latin and placed in the archives.35 Unfortunately for the pope, the Latin 33Ibid.. 378-379: Non tamen ad veram latriam, quae secundum fidem est, quae que solam divinam naturam decet, impartiendam: ita ut istis, sicuti figurae praetiosae ac vivificae crucis, et sanctis evangeliis, et reliquis sacris monumentis, incensorum et luminum oblatio ad harum honorem efficiendum exhibeatur, quemadmodum et antiquis piae conseu- tudinis erat. Imaginis enim honor ad primitivum transit: et qui adorat imaginem adorat in ea depicti subsistentiam. Sic enim robur obtinet sanctorum patrum nostrorum doctrina, id est traditio sanctae catholicae ecclesiae, quae a finibus usque ad fines terrae suscepit evangelium. See also H-L, III, E, pp. 772-774: G. Every, Ipa Byzantine Patriarchate, pp. 9 -9 o BuMapsi XIII, 379. 35Vita Hadriani, c. 88, p. 512: Quam synodum iamdicti missi in greco sermone secum deferentes una cum imperialibus sacris manibus propriis subscriptis, praedictus egregius antistes in latino eam translatari iussit, et in sacra bib- liotheca puriter recondi, dignam sibi orthodoxe fidei memor- iam aeternam faciens. 208 translation was virtually incomprehensible. The translator made no differentiation between adoration and veneration and adhered strictly to the Greek word order.36 As a result, the original Latin translation of the Nicene acts, now lost, differed in essential places with the Greek version. To make matters even worse, the pope only sent the Latin ver- sion to Charles, who never saw the Nicene acts in Greek.37 The arrival of the Nicene decrees in Francia was prob- ably the first notification Charles had received about the convocation of a council in the East. Frankish bishops had not been invited to participate in the council and there is no evidence that Hadrian informed Charles of the meetings prior to 787. In fact, it could be argued that the pope tried to steer a politically independent course between the Franks and the Greeks, hoping to regain the papal patri- monies in southern Italy in addition to ending the schism.38 As his disappointment over Frankish restitutions of land 36See the preface to the ninth-century translation of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Mansi XII, 981-984. As Anas- tasius pointed out, part of the problem stemmed from the fact that Hadrian could neither read nor write Greek. 37The theory of Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutsch- lands, II, 282, that Charles received the faulty translation from iconoclasts in Constantinople, was based on a confused Northumbrian annal and has not been generally accepted. Cf. W. von den Steinen, "Entstehungsgeschichte der Libri Caro- lini." QFIAB. XXI (1929-1930). 11-18. 380f. Erich Caspar,.2aa Papsttum untap frankischer Herrschaft, p. 76: H. Barion, "Der kirchenrechtliche Char- akter des Konzils von Frankfurt 794," ZBQ:.§A: XIX (1930), 141: H. Bastgen, "Kapitulare fiber der Bilderstreit oder der sogenannte Libri Carolini," EA: XXXVI (1911), 631-634. 209 increased, the pope may have hoped to secure promises of restitutions from the Greeks. Therefore, as we have seen, Hadrian carefully combined the solution of the image ques- tion with the return of the lands once seized by Leo III in the early eighth century. However, as will become evident, rather than steering an independent course between the Franks and the Greeks, the pope found himself trapped in an almost impossible situation. However, before proceeding to an explanation of the exchange between the Franks and the pope, it is important to establish the chronology of the documents involved in the exchange. In a masterful study, Wolfram von den Steinen demonstrated that Hadrian sent the Nicene decrees to Charles in 789. The initial Frankish objections, now lost, were immediately sent to Rome, probably arriving in the same year. Hadrian's long letter defending the decrees was then written and sent to Francia in 790. But the formal Frankish refu- tations of the Nicene decrees, the LappI Carolini, were al- ready complete and the pope's letter had little effect on Frankish attitudes.39 Therefore, the initial Frankish res- ponse and the IIppI Carolini were not identical, as was once 40 thought. Thus, the issue was debated in four documents: 39W. von den Steinen, "Entstehungsgeschichte der Libri Carolini,” pp. 87-93. See also A. Freeman, "Theodulf of gzleans and the Libri Carolini," Spec., XXXII (1957), 666- 8. uOH. Bastgen, "Kapitulare fiber der Bilderstreit oder der sogenannte Libri Carolini," HA: XXXVII (1912), 475ff. 210 the Nicene decrees, the Frankish objections, the papal de- fense, and the Lipr CaroIIpI. If Hadrian eXpected joyful agreement from Charles on the victory of orthodox tradition at Nicaea II, he must have been horrified by the Frankish response. Upon receipt of the translated Nicene decrees the Frankish king submitted them to the court theologians. The Franks apparently found the decrees so unacceptable that a series of objections were #1 The initial Fran- written and immediately sent to Rome. kish response to the Nicene decrees, usually termed the capitulare adversus synodum, was couched in a series of eighty-five specific objections to ideas expressed at Nicaea II. The Frankish objections focused on specific statements and decrees from Nicaea II, probably in the form of a cita- tion from the translated Nicene acts. The Franks apparently posed their objections in order to obtain further expla- nation of the decrees from the pope. If the papal expla- nation proved unsatisfactory, the Frankish king apparently did not feel bound to accept the Nicene decrees as part of the orthodox teachings of the church. That Charles perceived it as his duty to intervene in the doctrinal issue is clearly articulated in the preface to the LippI Carolini. The Frankish king had been charged by God with the defense of the church and the orthodox faith.“2 hiH—L, III, 2, p . 1061-1062: Jules Maréchal, Les livres carolins (Lyon, 1906 , pp. 35-39. ugLipgi QQEQIIQI, mpg Conc. II Supp., p. 2. See also 211 Moreover, to see in the Frankish reaction only the expres- sion of political hostility toward Byzantium is to disregard totally the Frankish king's concern with maintaining right order in the church.“3 To be sure, Charles had good reason for hostility toward the Byzantines, since in 788 they had supported the attempts of Adelgis to regain his father's Lombard kingdom. Yet, the Frankish king's reaction against Nicaea II, both in the capitulare and the Libri Carolini, revealed his alarm that the eastern councils were introducing heresy into the orthodox teaching of the church.uu Of greatest interest here, however, is the pope's reac- tion to the Frankish criticisms of the Nicene decrees. In his long reply the pope acknowledged that he had received the capitulare adversus synodum from Charles. Hadrian was sending his answer, as he said, "not defending the men in any way, far from it, but holding to the revealed tradition of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, we follow 45 the ancient doctrines of our predecessors the holy pontiffs." J. Maréchal, Les livres carolins, pp. 35-39: H-L, III, 2, pp. 1065-1068. n3Political reasons for the Frankish response are expres- sed by A. Hauck, Kirchen eschichte Deutschlands, II, 326, and J. Haller, Qaa Pa sttum, II, IO. EfiFther, the issue was more complex than just a refusal to recognize Nicaea II as an ecumenical council, of. H. Barion, "Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter des Konzils von Frankfurt 794," p. 155. ““Cf. E. Delaruelle, "Charlemagne et l'Eglise," RHEF, xxx1x (1953), 188-189. “SMGH Epp. V, 7: Inter quibus edidit nobis capitulare adversus synodum, quae pro sacris imaginibus erectione in Nicea acta est. Unde pro vestra melliflua regali dilectione 212 This emphasis on the teachings of earlier popes revealed a difference between the papal and Frankish conceptions. As has been illustrated by Karl Morrison, even though thquIppI Carolini acknowledged the primacy of the Roman See, the Frankish author placed more emphasis on tradition than on papal pronouncements in determining the orthodox doctrine of the church.’+6 Thus, in Frankish eyes, as Morrison sum- marized, "the interpretation of the writings of the Fathers was subject to the judgment of the entire Church, not to the approval of one see."l+7 Obviously, the papal emphasis on its own discretionary authority and the Frankish stress on the judgment of the entire Church were heading for a most serious collision. This emphasis on tradition was further reflected in Frankish attacks on the ecumenical claims of Nicaea II. For Hadrian the decrees of Nicaea II should belong to the body of church doctrine not only because the decrees re- established what the pope considered the orthodox position on the images, but also simply because he accepted them.“8 per unumquemque capitulum responsum reddidimus, non qualibet, ut absit, hominem defendentes, sed olitana traditione sanctae catholicae et apostolicae Romanae ecclesiae tenentes, pris- cam predecessorum nostrorum sanctorum pontificum sequemur doctrina, recte fidei traditione modis omnibus vidi- cantes. uéLibri Carolini, I, 6, pp. 20-21: Karl Morrison, Tradition.apg Authority, pp. 180-185. u7Karl Morrison, Tradition and Authority. pp. 160-161. “BMGH‘Epp. V, 56: Et ideo ipsam suscepimus synodum. 213 For the Franks, however, acceptance of Nicaea II was placed on an entirely different basis. Ecumenical status for Nicaea II did not depend on the acceptance of its decrees by any part of the church, nor did it stem from the numbers of bishops present in Nicaea. Much more important was the fact that Nicaea's teaching was not universal and was not in accord with the universal faith.u9 Therefore, on the basis of the conflict between the Nicene acts and the ortho- dox tradition of the church, the Franks refused to accept Nicaea II as the seventh ecumenical council. Finally, from a comparison of the Nicene decrees, Had- rian's defense of the conciliar decrees, and the LappI Capp- IIaI, it would seem that Hadrian did not understand the issues involved in either the eastern position or the Fran- kish reactionr‘sO One example will suffice to illustrate the pope's lack of comprehension. A part of the Nicene acts particularly irritating to the Franks, since it was mentioned both in the capitulare adversus synodum and in the IIQQI Carolini, was a statement from one bishop in the third session of Nicaea II. The bishop proclaimed that the images u9Libri Carolini, IV, 28, p. 227: Inter cetera delera- menta, quae in eadem synodo vel gesta vel scripta dicuntur, hoc quoque non omnibus eorum deleramentis minus est, quod eandem synodum universalem nuncupant, cum neque universalis fidei inconculsam habeat puritatem neque per universarum ecclesiarum gesta constet auctoritatem. See also H. Barion, "Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter des Konzils von Frankfurt 794." pp- 155-156- Son. G. Ostrogorsky, "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderverehrung," pp. 83-84: A. Freeman, "Theodulf of Or- leans and the Libri Carolini," pp. 663-664. 214 should receive the same adoration as the Holy Trinity.51 .To the initial Frankish criticism of this statement Hadrian could only restate the conciliar decree, which stipulated that the images were to be venerated in the same fashion as the Cross and the Gospels.52 In contrast, the Lippi QappIipI attacked the Nicene identification of the images and the Holy Trinity with numerous Scriptural passages and a de- tailed argument which dismissed the Nicene statement as "insane babbling."53 In the Frankish view the images were neither to be venerated nor adored nor broken. They were ornamental and mnemonic devices: only as such did they have a place in the church.5u In reaction, the pope offered little defense of the Nicene decrees and it is probable that his letter had minimal effect on the final formulation of the Libri Carolini.55 51Mapsi XII, 1148: ...suscipiens et amplectens honora- biliter sanctas et venerabiles imagines: atque adorationem quae per latriam, id est, Deo debitam servitutem efficitur, soli supersubstantiali et vivificae Trinitati impendo. See also L. Wallach, "The unknown author of the Libri Carolini," Didascaliae. Studies ip Honor pi Anselm M. Albapeda (New York, 1961). PP. 472-473: W. von den Steinen, "Entstehungs- geschichte der Libri Carolini," pp. 84ff. 52MCH app. v, 17-18. 53.111221 Carolini III. 17. pp. 138-140. 5“Cf. Libri Carolini Praef., p. 5; III, 27, p. 161: L. Bréhier, La guerelle ppa images, p. 59: H-L, III, 2, pp. 1078-1080: C. Haendler, Epochen karolingischer Theologie (Berlin, 1958). PP. 68-72. 55W. von den Steinen, "Entstehungsgeschichte der Libri Carolini," pp. 50-59: A. Freeman, "Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini," pp. 666-668. 215 Yet, it could be argued in Hadrian's defense that he was trapped in an impossible situation. He had sent legates to Nicaea II in the hope of healing the church schism and regaining the rightful papal possessions. Expecting joyful approval from the Franks for his actions, the pope had actu- ally received a detailed criticism of the Nicene decrees, to which the papal legates had affixed their signatures. Subsequently involved in a theological debate with the Franks, the meaning of which he only dimly perceived, Hadrian faced a difficult choice. One alternative was to support completely the Nicene decrees against the Franks, thereby running the risk of alienating the papal protector. The other clear choice was to abandon the acts of Nicaea II al- together, which not only involved the danger of renewed schism with the Byzantines, but also had serious implications for the position of the papacy as the font of church author- ity. Obviously, Hadrian could follow neither of these paths. Caught in this dilemma, the pope actually found a third alternative. At the close of his long letter defending Nicaea II, Hadrian mentioned to the Frankish king that he had not yet sent his response about the council to the Byz- antines, fearing that they might return to their error. But, according to the pope, if the Greeks had returned from one error in the re-establishment of the images, they persisted in two others. Hadrian had warned Irene and Constantine VI that if they wished to return to the true faith, they should endeavor to restore the seized patrimonies to the pope and 216 return the bishoprics in Sicily, Calabria and Illyricum to the jurisdiction of Rome.56 As we have seen, the Greeks ig- nored these papal demands, even though Hadrian had made the seizure of the papal lands a part of the schism separating East and West. Therefore, the p0pe informed Charles that, if the Frankish king would agree, he would declare the emp- eror a heretic for his persistent refusal to restore the pqmllwm&57 The traditional view of Hadrian's offer to excommunicate the Byzantine emperor is one of total defeat for the papacy. Even the learned Albert Hauck lamented the fact that Hadrian had submerged the critical theological issues of the problem 56Cf. supra, p. 200, note 19. 57M§H Epp. V, 57: Nos vero adhuc pro eadem synodo nullum responsum usque actenus eidem imperatori reddidimus, metu- entes, ne ad eorum reverterentur errorem. Dudum quippe, quando eos pro sacris imaginibus erectione adortavimus, si- mili modo et de diocesi tam archiepiscopum, quam et episco- porum sanctae catholice et apostolice Romane ecclesiae, quae tunc cum patrimoniis nostris abstulerunt, quando sacris imagines deposuerunt, commonentes, restituere eidem sanctae catholicae et apostolicae Romane ecclesiae quaesivimus, et hec responsum qualibet exinde dederunt. Et in hoc nimis palam ostenditur, quia ex uno capitulo ab errore reversi sunt, ex aliis duobus in eodem permanent errore. Si enim ubique Christianorum ecclesiae canonice intactas suas pos- sident dioceses, quanto amplius sancta catholica et aposto- lica Romana ecclesia, que est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, sua diocesi, videlicet archiepiscoporum et episcoporum, immo et patrimonia pro luminariorum concinnantione atque alimoniis pauperum inrefragibili iure et tenere et possidere modis omnibus debetur! Unde si vestra annuerit a Deo protecta regalis excellentia, eodem adortamur imperatore, pro sacris imaginibus in pristino statu erectione gratiam agentes et de diocesi sanctae nostre Romane ecclesie tam archiepisco- porum, quam episcoporum seu de patrimoniis iterum inerepantes commonemus, ut, si noluerit ea sanctae Romane ecclesiae restituere, hereticum eum pro huiusmodi erroris perseveran- tia esse decernimus. 217 in the pursuit of temporal gain.58 For others the problem did not even concern theology: the pope simply surrendered.59 Yet, these notions of surrender contain two misconceptions. To begin with, they make an artifical differentiation between papal theology and papal politics, postulating that the pope made a political decision which conflicted with his doctrinal position. Secondly, traditional scholarship has overlooked the fact that Hadrian had carefully combined the restoration of the images with the restitution of the patrimonies as conditions for healing the schism. The pope had not suddenly invented this union in his letter to Charles, since he had stated his conditions to the Byzantines as early as 785. In papal eyes, the Byzantines had actually remedied only one of their three errors. On the other hand, even if it is a misconception to view Hadrian's offer of excommunication as a capitulation, it is difficult to deny that Hadrian did retreat in the face of Frankish opposition. To be sure, in the optimum situation the pope would have been successful in restoring the images in the eastern church, in regaining his lost patrimonies and jurisdictions, and in obtaining Frankish approval for his actions. Since that had not transpired, Hadrian was 58A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, II, 341-343. 59J. Haller, pap Papsttum, II, 15: G. Ostrogorsky, History pi pap Byzantine State, pp. 163-164. Other treat- ments attempt to find traces of a compromise, of. Erich Caspar, pap Papsttum untpp frfinkischpp Herrschaft, pp. 23-85: G. Haendler, Epochen karolingischer Theologie, p. 3. 218 forced to find a middle road. In this light, Hadrian's offer to excommunicate the Byzantines for not returning his patri- monies was the "cautious diplomatic enterprise" of one faced with an almost insoluble problem.60 Lending credence to this view is the fact that the political situation had chan- ged between the initial reception in Rome of the Byzantine announcement of the council in 784 and Hadrian's letter to Charles in 790 or 791. By the year 790 the Franks and the Byzantines had assumed hostile postures toward each other in southern Italy and Hadrian had, as always, sided with the Franks. The change in the political situation in Italy could well have contributed to Hadrian's decision to retreat diplomatically in the face of Frankish opposition to Nicaea 11.61 Unfortunately for the historian, however, it is pre- cisely at this point that the relationship between Charles. Hadrian and the Greeks is again enveloped in darkness. The Frankish king ordered the collection of the papal letters 62 It is virtually certain into the Codex Carolinus in 791. that letters were exchanged between pope and Frankish king after this date, but none survive from the remainder of 6OKarl F. Morrison, Tradition.app Authoripy, pp. 190- 191: Karl Hampe, "Hadrians I. Vertheidigung der zweiten niceanischen Synode gegen die Angriffe Karls des Grossen," EA. XXI (1895). 93-9 . 61Peter Classen, K 1 der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz, p. 27. 62 6 Cf. the preface to the Codex Carolinus, MGH Epp. III, 47 . 219 Hadrian's pontificate. Even worse, the record of the Fran- kish council convened in Frankfurt in 794 is not extant. It is probable that the Nicene decrees and Hadrian's defense of them were discussed at Frankfurt in some detail.63 The historian is left with only pieces, which themselves are somewhat contradictory. According to Frankish annals, Charles summoned a coun- cil to Frankfurt in 794 which was attended by the bishops of "Gaul, Germania and Italy." Also in attendance were the legates of Pope Hadrian, the bishops The0phylactus and Ste- phen.6u The annals leave no doubt as to the outcome of the council's deliberations. The Royal Annals explicitly state that the Greek pseudo-synod, falsely called the seventh, was rejected by the popes, while the so-called annals of Einhard relate that the Greek synod was rejected by everyone 63Another issue, the Adoptionist heresy in Spain, was also discussed during the meetings of the council of Frank- furt. While it is true that Hadrian directed letters of admonition to the Spanish bishops, the pope's role in the struggle against the Adoptionist heresy was completely secondary to that of Charles. Cf. Codex Carolinus 95-97, MQH‘Epp. III, 636-648;,MQH Conc. II, 110-165. Even when bishop Felix of Urgel was compelled to abjure his adop- tionist teachings, he did so in the presence of Frankish bishops first and only then was he sent to Rome to repeat the renunciation before the pope, cf. Annales regni Francorum, a. 792, p. 90: Annales ppi dicuntur Einhardi, a. 792, p. 91: and others. For a most recent treatment of the adoptionist heresy, see Knut Schfiferdiek, "Der adoptianische Streit im Rahmen der spanischen Kirchen- gzschichte." £59. LXXX (1969), 291-311: LXXXI (1970), 1- 1 O 6“Annales regpi Francorum, a. 794, p. 94: Annales Mettenses priores, a. 795. p. 80: Annales Fuldenses, a. 794, pp. 12-13, and others. 220 as "totally unnecessary."65 If one were forced to rely on this evidence alone, the conclusion would be obvious: Had- rian completely reversed his position on the images between 787 and 794. A slightly different picture, however, is presented in another place. Even though the record of Frankfurt does not survive, the capitulary issued after the conclusion of the council does. No mention is made in this capitulary of a condemnation of everything connected with Nicaea II. Speci- fically condemned at Frankfurt, according to the capitulary, was the Nicene identification of the images with the Holy Trinity and the Nicene anathema against all who refused to 66 "adore" the images. Obviously a contradiction exists be- tween the terse reports of the annals and the explanation in the Frankfurt capitulary. It is tempting to see traces of a compromise between Charles and Hadrian in the wording of the Frankfurt capitulary. 65Annales regni Francorum, a. 794, p. 94: Pseudosynodus Grecorum, quam falso septimam vocabant, pro adorandis imagi- nibus fecerunt, reiecta est a pontificibus. Annales pp; dicuntur Einhardi, a. 794, p. 95: Synodus autem quae ante paucos annos in Constantinopoli sub Herena et Constantino filio eius congregata et ab ipsis non solum septima, verum etiam est appellata, ut nec septima nec universalis habere- tur dicereturve, quasi supervacua in totum ab omnibus ab- dicata est. 66Capitulare Francofurtense, MQH Conc. II, 165: Allata est in medio questio de nova Grecorum synodo, quam de ador- andis imaginibus Constantinopolom fecerunt, in qua scriptum habebatur, ut qui imagines sanctorum ita ut deificam trini- tatem servitio aut adorationem non inpenderent, anathema iudicaverunt: qui supra sanctissimi patres nostri omni- modis adorationem et servitutem rennuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condempnaverunt. 221 Had the pope stubbornly maintained his position that the Nicene decrees belonged with the orthodox teachings of the church simply because they had been accepted by the bishop of Rome, a catastrophic schism in the western church could well have developed. It could be argued that both Hadrian and Charles realized that, if they adhered to their initial positions concerning the acceptance of the Nicene decrees, such a western schism would have been unavoidable. There- fore, a compromise solution, acceptable to both, but which still condemned some of the teachings of Nicaea II, was probably created during the council of Frankfurt. It would seem, then, on the basis of the Frankfurt capi- tulary, that the idea of Hadrian's capitulation to the Franks on the question of the images should be slightly modified. Beyond any doubt, statements to the effect that the Frankish king's "victory" over the pope was so complete that Hadrian never again opposed the will of Charles in doctrinal matters seem a little silly and more than a little misleading.67 The fact remains that we simply do not know what Hadrian's reaction to the decrees of Frankfurt was after 794. Further, the pope was dead within a year and, therefore, his time for renewed opposition to Charles in doctrinal matters was some- what limited. 67H. Barion, "Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter des Kon- zils von Frankfurt 794," p. 142: H. Barion, Das frankisch- deutsche Synodalrecht pap Frfihmittelalters (KEIn, 1931), __pp. 282-283. 222 Yet, despite the compromise at Frankfurt, it must be maintained that the pope had indeed retreated. We know of no further communication between Hadrian and Constantinople, and Nicaea II was not actually recognized in Rome as the seventh ecumenical council until late in the ninth century.68 As had been the case in the continual territorial adjust- ments in Italy, Hadrian had indeed conformed to Frankish wishes on the image question. The fact that those Frankish wishes might not have involved a total repudiation of Nicaea II cannot vitiate the conclusion that Hadrian was increasingly being drawn into the orbit of the Frankish king, even in the realm of determining the orthodox teachings of the Church. Once again it would seem that the pope had been frustrated. 68Paul Alexander, The Patriarch Nicephorus pi Constan- tinople. PP. 104-105. CONCLUSION On Christmas Day in the year 795 Hadrian died after serving as the vicar of St. Peter for more than twenty- three years.1 He had been the leading spirit in the drive to create an independent territorial foundation for the papacy in Italy. In an absolute sense, Hadrian's efforts had been crowned with success. The papacy seemed to be in control of the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, the duchy of Rome and scattered patrimonies in Tuscany and Sabina. For the moment a semblance of peace reigned in the Italian peninsula which had been plagued by conflict throughout most of the eighth century. In that light, Hadrian, along with Stephen II, deserves to be called the creator of the Papal States. The pope had also been successful in finally eliminating the political threat to the papacy posed by King Desiderius of the Lombards. After his efforts to deal independently with Desiderius had failed, Hadrian had been able to per- suade King Charles of the Franks to undertake a campaign in Italy. This campaign had ended in 774 with the total des- truction of the Lombard monarchy and the creation of a Frankish kingdom in northern Italy. In 774 it appeared as 1Vita Hadriani, c. 97. p. 514. 223 224 if the struggles of those popes drawn from the Roman nobility to create a sovereign state in Italy for the church had finally succeeded. Yet, after 774 Hadrian had experienced a series of re- versals, primarily at the hands of Charles. If it had been Hadrian's plan to harness Charles, the papal protector, to the papacy's plans for independent rule, it is clear that his plan had totally failed. From the Frankish victory over the Lombards in 774 to the end of Hadrian's life in 795 Charles demonstrated repeatedly that he had no intention of meekly following papal dictates. Therefore, Hadrian's activities must also be judged in the light of his original intentions. As expressed in the papal biographer's report of the 774 agreement between Char- les and Hadrian, the pope had wanted to control almost all of central Italy, including the duchies of Spoleto and Bene- vento, as a sovereign ruler. This was expressed in terms of what the pope felt were the rightful possessions of the Roman Church, which the papal protector was obliged to re- store to St. Peter and his vicars. Yet, Charles, equally determined to exercise power in Italy, probably agreed only to restore those lands to which the papacy had a valid claim. Since the arbiter of those claims was to be the Frankish king, the years following 774 witnessed a series of conflicts between Hadrian and Charles over the extent of the lands belonging to St. Peter. It was Hadrian's misfortune to lose virtually all of the battles with Charles over the meaning of the 774 agreement. 225 After obtaining the Frankish king's approval for the papal claim to the Exarchate and the Pentapolis, Hadrian saw his designs on the duchy of Spoleto shattered by the Frankish king's assumption of the Lombard monarchy's traditional right to rule the duchy. By 776 Duke Hildebrand of Spoleto recog- nized Charles as his overlord and not the pope. Ultimately, in 788-89, the Frank Winigis became the duke of Spoleto. Even Hadrian's "new program" based on the quatitutum Constantini, which shifted papal claims to patrimonial res- titutions, failed to have the desired effects on the Frankish king. Granted the pope obtained patrimonies in Sabina, but most of his claims to patrimonies in Tuscany, Spoleto, Bene- vento and Corsica were ignored by Charles. The Sabine pat- rimonies themselves were only given to Rome after a lengthy process of investigation, which caused Hadrian to doubt whether the lands would ever be restored to the papacy. By 781, the year in which the pope crowned the son of Charles as king of the Lombards, it was clear that the relationship between the pope and the Frankish king was an unequal one. Within the sphere of territorial restitutions, Hadrian's greatest defeat had concerned the duchy of Benevento. Since 774 Duke Arichis had been able to avoid total submission to Charles, despite the constant enmity of the p0pe. Beginning in 786, however, the position of Arichis as duke was ser- iously threatened by a Frankish campaign in southern Italy. When Arichis died, Hadrian tried to convince Charles not to release the Beneventan duke's son, Grimoald, to become the new duke, undoubtedly in the hope of gaining more land for 226 the papacy. Once again Hadrian's wishes were ignored and it is probable that some of the promises to restore Beneven- tan patrimonies to Rome were withdrawn by Charles in 788. It was an indication of Hadrian's frustration during the years 774-788 that he was moved to admonish Charles that the Frankish king should not treat the Beneventan duke better than he did St. Peter. But territorial restitutions were not the only areas in which the pope experienced the growing power of the Frankish king. Hadrian had hoped to heal the Iconoclastic schism with the Byzantines and to receive back lands in Italy once seized by the Greeks. But not only were his demands for restitutions ignored in Constantinople, the eastern council of Nicaea II was severely criticized in Francia. While Had- rian did manage to find a compromise solution with the Franks on the issue of the images, which preserved the pri- matial position of the See of St. Peter, it was clear by the time of Hadrian's death that the pope had been almost completely subjected to the will of the Frankish king. Yet, the pontificate of Hadrian I has an even larger significance. Throughout his pontificate Hadrian had been confronted by the growing power of Charles. The Frankish king's conceptions of his own authority, never clearly arti- culated during Hadrian's lifetime, were plainly stated in 796 to Hadrian's successor, Leo III. Charles told Leo that it was the task of the Frankish king "to defend with arms the Holy Church of Christ from without in every respect from the incursion of pagans and from the devastation of infidels, 227 and within to protect the knowledge of the Catholic faith." The pope's function was equally clear: "It is yours, most Holy Father, with hands raised like Moses to God, to support our struggle."2 Nothing could more clearly indicate the change in the papacy's position during these twenty-five years. Instead of the sovereign lord of most of Italy, the pope was now just the prayerful auxiliary of the Frankish king. Further, it must be stated that, in part, Hadrian had contributed to the Frankish king's ideas of his own compe- tence. When Hadrian turned to Charles for aid against the Lombards in 774, the Frankish king's victory over the Lom- bards not only removed a serious threat to the papacy, but it also brought about a unique relationship between the pope and Charles. After 774 Hadrian was forced to turn to Charles for assistance in virtually every situation. The papal letters are full of characterizations of the Frankish king as the "protector and defender of the Church of God," "the beloved of St. Peter," and the "strong right arm" of the Church, all of which were used by Hadrian to persuade the Frankish king to follow papal dictates. It could be argued that Charles believed the blandishments in those letters. As a result, where Hadrian had sought a pliable protector, he actually 2MGH Epp. IV, 137: Nostrum est: secundum auxilium divinae pietatis sanctam undique Christi ecclesiam ab in- cursu paganorum et ab infidelium devestatione armis defen- dere foris, et intus catholicae fidei agnitione munire. Vestrum est, sanctissime pater: elevatis ad Deum cum Moyse manibus nostram adiuvare militiam,.... 228 created a master. By the end of his life, Hadrian realized that he could no longer control his creation. In the larger scope of papal history, Hadrian's ponti- ficate was, to use the well-worn phrase, a turning point. During his years the papacy had completed its turn toward the West. From the uncertainties of the mid-eighth century the papacy moved toward more solid relations with the Fran- kish kingdom. Yet, those relations carried with them the seeds of the discontent between the papacy and the western empire which were to characterize so much of papal history in the Middle Ages. A large number of the issues which were to divide the popes and the emperors are discernible in Had- rian's pontificate, including traces of the major issue: the wielding of ultimate authority in Christendom. In that light, it must be recalled that exactly five years after Hadrian's death, Charles became the emperor. In the more limited context of papal history during the Carolingian era, Hadrian's pontificate witnessed the subju- gation of the papacy to the will of the Frankish king. In many respects, the difficulties encountered by his successor, Pope Leo III, were the bitter fruits of Hadrian's efforts. Leo faced the power of the Frankish king in its full extent. As a result, it could be argued that the papacy's role in the elevation of Charles to the imperial dignity in 800 was a last attempt by Rome to control its creation. Of course, by 800 the Frankish king certainly had his own ideas about the imperial dignity, but the papal attempt to control Char- les by its participation in the act of 800 is clear. If 229 the papacy regained part of its lost authority during the ninth century, that later success speaks more to the fate of the Frankish kingdom after the death of Charles than it does to the new papal victories. In the middle of the eighth century the papacy had had the Opportunity to become the tem- poral ruler of Italy. At least for the Carolingian era, that opportunity died with Hadrian. All this is not to say, however, that Hadrian was either weak or ineffectual. Despite the setbacks, one never reads of surrender in Hadrian's letters to Charles. Despite the reversals, it would be a grave error to dismiss Hadrian as a mere Frankish bishop. His coins and charter datings gave expression to his strivings for independence. The only prob- lem was that Charles exercised power where the pope demanded rights. As a forceful and energetic personality, it was Hadrian's lot to be the contemporary of an even more force- ful and energetic one. Finally, we are told by Einhard that, on receiving the news of Hadrian's death, Charles wept as if he had lost a brother or a beloved son.3 Even with the continued disagree- ments between them, it would not be surprising that Charles did have a genuine affection for the pope. They met three times and, on the second of these occasions, Hadrian had been the sponsor of the Frankish king's son at his baptism. There is no better way to describe the relationship between 3Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni, c. 19, p. 24. 230 the two, despite their sometimes stormy conflicts, than to refer to a part of the epitaph sent by Charles for the tomb of Pope Hadrian I: "I join our names in this inscription: Hadrian and Charles. I the king, you the Holy Father."u “Vita Hadriani, p. 523. BIBLI OGRAPHI CAL ESSAY BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY The sources for the study of eighth-century papal his- tory are both a blessing and a curse. In contrast to earlier periods, the student of papal history in the eighth century is blessed with a relative abundance of sources, primarily letters and biographies. The richness of the material allows the historian to piece together a narrative with few gaping holes. On the other hand, one must constantly be aware that the largest portion of these sources come from the popes themselves and the papal curia. Such is the curse for the historian: he can never be sure if the sources accurately reflect the attitudes and problems of the papacy or if they merely present the picture desired by Rome. Fortunately, for the pontificate Of Hadrian sufficient materials are available from other sources so that the historian can con- trol his papal sources in most instances. By far the most important material for the pontificate of Hadrian comes from the forty-eight letters of the pope to the Frankish king, which Charles caused to be gathered in 791 into the Qpppi Carolinus. The best edition of the Qpppi Carolinus is that of Wilhelm Gundlach, done in 1891 for the app. While one can argue with Gundlach's ordering of the letters for some of the earlier pontificates, it would seem 231 232 that his chronology of the letters for Hadrian's pontificate was completely accurate. Additional letters from Hadrian to Frankish piaai, Spanish bishops, the Byzantine emperors and Charles were also used to obtain valuable information for this study. Presenting a more "official" version of the pontificate is the biography of the pope, the Iiia Hadriani, completed shortly after Hadrian's death in 795. The most detailed information on the first two years of Hadrian's pontificate is to be found in his biography, which probably was compiled by an eye-witness to the events described. The editor of the series of papal lives, entitled the Iaber Pontificalis (Paris, 1886), was Abbe Louis Duchesne. Thanks to his pene- trating analyses, both in the preface to the Iipar Pontifi- paIia and in numerous journal articles, there are few solid reasons to distrust the accuracy of Hadrian's biography, despite the attempts of several scholars to rearrange it. For many aspects of Hadrian's pontificate, particularly his relationships with powers outside of Rome, the papal sources are supplemented by annals and chronicles. A care- ful scrutiny of Frankish annals, particularly the Royal Annals and the so-called annals of Einhard, yielded impor- tant information on the Frankish campaigns in Italy. Yet, the same caution with which one approaches the Frankish annals must also be exercised when examining local Italian chronicles. The history of the Ravennaten church by Agnellus, for instance, is permeated by fantastic tales and a definite bias in favor of the Ravennaten archbishops in their struggles 233 against the popes. Local monastic histories of Farfa and Volturno and the chronicles concerning Salerno and Benevento were used cautiously to supplement the more detailed papal accounts. Secondary surveys of the period are numerous, but of uneven value. Benefit can still be derived from reading the old study by Engelbert Mfihlbacher, Deutsche Geschichte unter pap Karolingern (Stuttgart, 1896), but the best survey of the entire period is Louis Halphen, Charlemagne pi l'empire carolingien (Paris, 1947). No other surveys can compare with the ones of Mfihlbacher and Halphen, although it should be mentioned that the greatest amount of detail on the reign of Charles is still to be found in the two volumes of Sigurd Abel and Bernhard Simson, Japrbficher des frankischen Reiches papa; gapI pap Grossen (Leipzig, 1888). When combined with the registers of Jaffé, BOhmer-Mfihlbacher, and Bethmann- Holder-Egger, the Jahrbficher present a detailed guide to source material, which contains important interpretations of the material involved. There are several good surveys devoted to the general history of the papacy. Johannes Haller, pap Papsttum. Ippp ‘ppa Wirklichkeit (Basel, 1951), provides a solid narrative of papal history, even though several of Haller's interpre- tations have been discredited. Probably the best survey of. papal history would have been that of Erich Caspar, had he lived to complete it. After finishing two volumes, which brought his narrative into the eighth century, CaSpar died and his notes for a third volume were published originally 234 in the Zeitschrift ffir Kirchengeschichte. The work later appeared as a book entitled pap Papsttum pater frapiischer Herrschaft (Darmstadt, 1965), but it is obviously incomplete, lacking most of Caspar's critical apparatus. Recently, how- ever, a study of fundamental importance was done by Peter Classen. Classen's work appeared originally in the four volume commemorative collection entitled IapI app Grosse. Lebenswerk app Nachleben (Dfisseldorf, 1965), and was later revised and published under separate cover with the title IapI pap Grosse, pap Papsttum und Byzanz (Dfisseldorf, 1968). It is clear from the title that Classen's study was not in- tended to be a survey of papal history, but for the pontifi- cate of Hadrian Classen's work is critical. Additionally, the work of Walter Ullmann has provided important insights, albeit one-sided, into papal developments. Regrettably, Ullmann's obsession with the papal "blueprint" caused him to take considerable license with his evidence. Finally, the development of papal institutions has been studied by aga (Paris, 1909). Despite the paucity of source materials, Halphen's study and articles by Hartmann and Hirschfeld pre- sent as complete a study of papal institutions as possible. General histories of the church also touch in great detail on papal developments. Still very readable and highly valuable is Albert Hauck, Kirchengeschichte DeutscpIands (Berlin, 1954), 5 volumes. H. von Schubert, Geschichte pap christliche Kirche ip Frfihmittelalter (Tfibingen, 1921) is usable and good overviews of church history in the eighth 235 century are contained in the articles collected by Hubert Jedin in the Handbuch app Kirchen eschichte, vol III (Freiburg- Basel-Wien, 1966). It is to be lamented that the articles in Jedin's collection are lacking in detail, but such is the nature of Handbficher. The work of E. Amann, L'épogue carolingienne (Paris, 1947), is still unsurpassed in several respects. Supplementing papal and church histories are several good studies of Italy and Rome. Still valuable is L.M. Hart- mann, Geschichte Italiens ip Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1900), 3 volumes, as is Ferdinand Gregorovius, Geschichte pap Siapi Rpp‘ip Mittelalter (Basel-Stuttgart, 1953), also 3 volumes. Longobardi (Rome, 1941), is thorough but incredibly verbose. Little detail is to be found in Leon Homo, fippa médiévale (Paris, 1934), and the recent work by Peter Llewellyn, Rppp 22.322.2§£E.A£§§ (London, 1971), is highly disappointing in its superficial treatment of many important problems. Of all the assorted aspects of Hadrian's pontificate, by far the creation of the Papal States and the Carolingian donations to the papacy have received the most attention. The journal literature on the topic is immense. The most valuable articles are those by Paul Scheffer-Boichorst and P. Kehr. Among the books on the subject probably the most balanced is that of Louis Duchesne, Ipa premier ipppa pp l'Etat pontifical (Paris, 1898). Although most of these works have received comment during the course of this study, several must be mentioned here. Theodor Lindner, Die 236 sogenannte Schenkungen Pippins, Karls des Grossen und Ottos l-.§Q.Ql§ Papste (Stuttgart, 1896), makes an admirable at- tempt to clear away the wreckage of overly-legalistic inter- pretations of the pertinent documents. The thrust of Lindner's argument is to view the agreements of 754 and 774 as the beginning of a long series of conflicts between popes and Frankish kings. Wilhelm Martens, Dip rfimische‘ipagp ppipp Pippin app IapI pap Grossen (Stuttgart, 1881), is intent on finding evidence of forgeries in the documents, but the argu- ments of Martens are not completely persuasive. Perhaps the most blatant example of searching for non-existent forgeries is Karl Lamprecht, pip rfimische Fragp ypp‘gppig Pippin pip api Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen (Leipzig, 1889). Lamprecht's intention was to compare all the extant reports of agreements between the Carolingians and the papacy in order to discern what was added with each new agreement. However, Lamprecht only succeeded in leading the reader on a merry chase through a series of pacts, agreements, forgeries and renunciations, which arrived at no solid conclusions. Finally, the ambi- tious study of Peter Partner, Ipp‘Iapaa'pi7§i..Epipp (London, 1972), promised much but delivered little. Although Partner's intent was to examine the history of the Papal States from the Middle Ages to the Early Renaissance, his study is heavily weighted in the direction of the later period. As a conse- quence, he ignored many crucial problems concerning the origins of the Papal States in the second-half of the eighth century. 237 Not surprisingly, the development of Carolingian-papal relations has received a great deal of attention. The topic is treated in some detail in the numerous biographies of Charles, of which probably the best is A. Kleinclausz, Charlemagne (Paris, 1934). Of the more specialized studies, the articles by F.L. Ganshof and E. Delaruelle are always precise in their analyses and interpretations. The studies of Josef Deer on the assumption of the patricius title by Charles and the problem of the imperial prerogatives in late eighth-century Rome are extremely valuable, despite Deer's tendency to view everything in eighth-century history as a reaction to events in Byzantium. This preoccupation with Byzantine history has made the works of Werner Ohnsorge on Carolingian-papal relations and the patricius title of little real value. Also, the works of G. Tellenbach and of his student, E. Hlawitschka, Franken, Alemannen, Bayern.ppp Burgpndern Ia Oberitalien (Freiburg i. B., 1960), have pro- vided critical information on the penetration of Frankish‘ officials and institutions into Lombard Italy after 774. The work of Hlawitschka especially is fundamental to the study of Frankish Italy. Although the pontificate of Hadrian has never been the subject of a complete analysis, several aspects of the pon- tificate have been examined. The pope's relations with the Lombard duchies have been studies by Ferdinand Hirsch and H. Pabst in lengthy articles which are quite outdated. Other studies, particularly those of J. Gay and R. Poupardin, are more balanced and still useful. Hadrian's relations with 238 the elements geographically closer to Rome have never re- ceived adequate attention, despite the efforts of O. Vehse in examining papal rule in the Sabine districts. The article by H.J. Schmidt is the only satisfactory treatment of rela- tions between Rome and Ravenna. Recently, however, two ex- cellent articles have appeared from the pen of Karl Schmid on the problems involved with the collapse of the Lombard kingdom and Hadrian's role in its destruction. Further, the recent work of David Miller has shed some light on relation- ships between the papacy and the Lombard monarchy. It is to be hoped that more attention will be devoted in the future to the relationships of the eighth-century papacy with other forces in Italy. As should be evident from the analysis in this study, the problem of the fabrication of the Constitutum Constantini has probably received more attention than it really deserves. Despite the efforts of generations of scholars and the con- tinuing contemporary efforts, the creation of the Constitutum Constantini remains an unsolved problem, and one which pro- bably has no solution. The articles of Wolfgang Gericke contain admirable summaries of past literature on the subject and also offer some interesting notions on the actual fabri- cation of the forgery, although Gericke's theories have not been benignly received. Hadrian's involvement in the first phase of the icono- clastic problem has been the subject of several examinations. The study of Louis Bréhier, Ia guerelle app 'pages (Paris, 1904), is still useful as an overview of the whole iconoclastic 239 issue. But the old study of Jules Maréchal, Les livres carolins (Lyon, 1906), has been significantly corrected by the more recent articles of L. Wallach and A. Freeman. The debate between Wallach and Freeman on the authorship of the Lippi Carolini is still not settled. Although it contains errors in several places, the survey by C.J. Hefele and H. Leclercq, Histoire app conciles (Paris, 1910), is still very valuable. Finally, the masterful study by Karl Morrison, Tradition app Authoriiy'Ip the Western Church (Princeton, 1969), has brought the whole issue of iconoclasm back into the realm of theology. Along the same lines, the very recent article by Peter Brown hints that there was a critical dia- logue between the Franks and the Byzantines on theological matters, in which Hadrian took very little part. Finally, it must be mentioned that in recent years at- tempts have been made to examine some of the problems of papal history from new perspectives. Even though it is one- sided and based on some suspect evidence, the study of W. Fritze, Zapai app Frankenkfinig. Studien pp app papstlich- frankischen Rechtsbeziehungen ypp,254 pip app (Sigmaringen, 1973), does approach the problem of papal-Frankish relations from a new vantage point. Further, the two works of Herwig Wolfram entitled Intitulatio, both of which appeared in the series of supplemental volumes to the Mitteilungen pp§_ Instituts ifip fisterreichische Geschichtsforschung (1967 and 1973), are extremely stimulating. The first volume, exclu- sively the work of Wolfram, examines the development of charter titles until the end of the eighth century. The 240 second volume, a collection of essays to which Wolfram also contributed, extends the examination into the tenth century. Both volumes include critical analyses of papal charter titles, which, in some respects, overtake the work of Percy Ernst Schramm. Above all, the works of Fritze and Wolfram demon- strate conclusively that the history of the eighth-century papacy is still a field for fruitful investigation. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY I. Primary Sources Agpelli gui pi Andreas Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis. ed. 0. Holder-Egger. MGH §§ Lang. Hannover, 1878. Alcuini sive Albini Epistolae. ed. E. Dfimmler. MGH Epp. V. Berlin, 1895. apdreae Bergomatis Historia. ed. 0. Holder-Egger. MGH §§ Lang. Hannover, 1878. Annales Alamannici. ed. G.H. Pertz. MG _§ I. Hannover, 182 . Annales Beneventani. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ III. Hannover, 1839. Annales Fuldenses. ed. F. Kurze. MGH §_ rer. Germ. I_ usum schol. Hannover, 1891. Annales Guelferbytani. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §_ I. Hannover, 182 . Annales Laureshamenses. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ I. Hannover, 1 2 . Annales Laurissenses minores. ed. G.H. Pertz. MG S I. Hannover, 1826. _— Annales Lobienses. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§ XIII. Hannover, 1881. AnnalesBMaximiniani. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§ XIII. Hannover, 1 1. Annales Mettenses priores. ed. B. Simson. MG §§ rer. Germ. Ia usum schol. Hannover, 1905. Annales Mosellani. ed. V.Cl.I.M. Lappenberg. MGH §§ XVI. Hannover, 1858. Annales Nazariani. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ I. Hannover, 1826. 241 242 Annales Petaviani. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §_ I. Hannover, 182 . Annales gui dicuntur Einhardi. ed. F. Kurze. MGH §§ rer. Germ. ip usum schol. Hannover, 1895. Annales re ni Francorum. ed. F. Kurze. MGH SS rer. Germ. ._____T_.__£__._________ ___.__ ___. ____ ip_usum schol. Hannover, 1895. Annales sancti Amandi. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ I. Hannover, 182 . Annales pancti Rudberti Salisbapgenses. ed. W. Wattenbach. MGH §§ IX. Hannover, 1851. Annales Sangallenses maiores. ed. G.H. Pertz. MG §_ I. annover, 1 2 . Annales Sithienses. ed. G. Waitz. M H‘§§ XIII. Hannover, 1881. Arevaldi Floriacensis miraculis Sancti Benedicti. ed. 0. Holder-Egger. MGH §§ XV. Hannover, 1887. Benedicti sancti Andreae monachi Chronicon. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ III. Hannover, 1839. Capitulare Francofurtense. ed. A. Werminghoff. MGH Conc. II. Hannover and Leipzig, 1906. Chronicarum guae dicuntur Fredegarii scholastici libri I! cum continuationibus. ed. B. Krusch. MGH §§ Merov. II. Hannover, 1 . Chronicon Farfense. ed. U. Balzani. FSI XXXIII. Rome, 1903. Chronicon Moissiacense. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ I. Hannover, 182 . Chronicon Salernitanum. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ III. Hannover, 1 39. Chropicon Vulturnense. ed. V. Federici. FSI LVIII. Rome, 1925. Codex Carolinus. ed. W. Gundlach. MGH Epp. III. Berlin, 1892. - Codice diplomapico Longobardico. ed. E. Schiaperelli. FSI LXII. Rome, 1956. Concilium Francofurtense. ed. A. Werminghoff. MGH ConC. II. Hannover, 1906. 243 Concilium Nicaenum II. ed. J.D. Mansi. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova pi amplissima collectip XII and XIII. repr. Graz, 1965. Concilium Romanum a. 269. ed. A. Werminghoff. MGH Conc. II. Hannover, 1906. Constitutum Constapiini. ed. H. Fuhrmann. Fontes iuris Germanici antiqui Ip usum scholarum pi Monumentis Germaniae Historiois separatim editi X. Hannover, 1968. Einhardi Vita Karoli Magni. ed. G. Waitz and O. Holder-Egger. MGH §§ rer. Germ. Ip usum schol. Hannover, 1911. Epistolae selectae pontiiicum Romanorum Carolo Magno pi Ludowico Pio regnantibus scriptae. ed. K. Hampe. MGH Epp. V. Berlin, 1899. Erchemperti Historia Langobardorum Beneventanorum. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§ Lang. Hannover, 1878. Gesta abbatum Fontanellensium. ed. S. Loewenfeld. M H S rer. Germ. ip usum schpI. Hannover, 1886. Gesta episcoporum Neapolitanorum. ed. G. Waitz. M H‘§_ L g. Hannover, 1878. l.£l§2l£l.é§l 'fipgpap Italiae.‘ ed. 0. Manaresi. FSI XCII. Rome, 1955. Karoli Magni pi Pippini Filii Capitularia Italica. ed. A. Boretius. MGH Cap. I. Hannover, 1883. Casinensis. ed. W. Wattenbach. MGH §§ VII. Hannover, 1 . Lipri Carolini sive Caroli Magni capitulare pp imaginibus. ed. H. Bastgen. MGH Conc. II Supp. Hannover and Leipzig, 1924. Pactum Hludowici Pii (Ludovicianum). ed. A. Boretius. MGH Cap. I. Hannover, 1883. Pauli gesta episcoporum Mettensium. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH §§ II. Hannover, 1829. Pauli Historia Langobardorum continuatio Lombarda. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§,Lang. Hannover, 1878. Pauli Historia Lan obardorum continuatio Romapa. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§,L g. Hannover, 1878. Pauli Historia Langobardorum continuatio tertia. ed. G. Waitz. MGH §§‘Lapg. Hannover, 1878. 244 Pi ini, Carlomanni, Caroli Magni Diplomata. ed. E. Muhlbacher. MGngg I. Hannover, 1906. Theophanis chronographia. ed. J.P. Migne. 12p CVIII. Paris, 1861. Vita Adalhardi. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH SS II. Hannover, 1 29. Vita Anselpi abbatis Nonantulani. ed. G. Waitz. MGH SS Lang. Hannover, 1878. Vita Gregorii III. ed. L. Duchesne. Liber Pontificalis I. Paris, 1886. Vita Hadriani. ed. L. Duchesne. Liber Pontificalis I. Paris, 1886. Vita Hludowici Pii a‘p Anonypo. ed. G.H. Pertz. MGH SS II. Hannover, 1829. Vita Stephani II. ed. L. Duchesne. Liber Pontificalis I. Paris, 1886. Vita Stephani III. ed. L. Duchesne. Liber Pontificalis I. Paris, 18867 Vita Zacharias. ed. L. Duchesne. Liber Pontificalis I. Paris, 1886. II. Registers Bethmann, L. and Holder-Egger, O. "Langobardische Regesten." Bfihmer, J.F., Mfihlbacher, Eo.2$.§l- Regesta Imperii I: Die Resesten des Kaiserrelches unter den arolln ern, 251-2; . Second edition. Hildesheim, 19 . Jaffé P. pi aI. Ragesta Pontificum Romanorum. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1885. Kehr, P.F. Regesta Pontificum Romanorum: ItaIia pontificia. 9 vols. Berlin, 190 . III. Secondary Literature Abel, S. and Simson B. Jahrbficher des frankischen Reiches unter Karl dem Grossen. 2 vols. Leipzig, 188 . 245 Abel, S. "Papst Hadrian I. und die weltliche Herrschaft des rfimischen Stuhls, " FdG, I (1860), 427-495. Alexander, Paul J. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship ip the Byzantine Empire. Oxford, 1958. "Church councils and patristic authority. The Iconoclastic councils of Hiereia (754) and St. Sophia (815)," Harvard Studies Ip Classical Philology, LXIII (1958): E93‘5050 Allgeier, A. "Psalmenzitate und die Fra e nach der Herkunft der Libri Carolini," HJb, XLVI (192 ), 333-353. Amann, Emi e. L'épogue carolingienne. Vol. VI of Histoire pp 1' glise. Edited by A. Fliche and V. Martin. Paris, 1947. Anastos, M. "The argument for Iconoclasm as presented by the Iconoclastic council of 754," Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. Princeton, 1955. Pp. 177-188. "The transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople Vol. EX of Studi Biaantani p neoellenici. Rome, 1957. PP. 1 “‘31. Barion, H. "Der kirchenrechtliche Charakter des Konzils von Frankfurt," ZRG, EA: XIX (1930), 139-170. . Das frankischzdeutsch Synodalrecht des Frfih- mittelalters. Bonn-Koln, 1931. Barry, William. The Papal Monarchy from Si. Gregory the Great ip Boniface VIII. London, 1902. Bastgen, H. "Kapitulare fiber der Bilderstreit oder der sogenannte Libri Carolini," EA: XXXVI (1911), 629-666: XXXVII (1912), 13-51, 453-533. Bayet, C. "Remar ue sur la caractére et les consequences du voyage d' tienne III en France," 3H, XX (1882), 88‘1050 . La fausse donation de Constantin. Paris, 1884. . "Les elections pontificales sous les carolin- giens au VIIIe et au IX siécle," SH (1884), 49-91. Belting, H. "Studien zum beneventanischen Hof im 8. Jahr- hundert," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XVI (1962), 141-193. 246 Bertolini, O. Roma pi fronte a Bisanzio p,aI Longobardi. Rome, 1941. . "La caduta del primercerio Christophoro nelle versioni dei contemporanei, e le correnti antilongobarde e filiolongobarde in Rome all fine del pontificato de Stefano III," Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, I (1947). 227-252. 359-378. _ "Il problema della origini del poteri temporale dei Papi," Miscellanea Pio Paschini. Rome, 1948. Vol. I, pp. 103—171. . "Carlomagno e Benevento," Karl der Grosse. Lebenswerk und Nachleben. Ed. H. Beumann. Dusseldorf, 1965. 'VBI.'I{ pp. 609-671. Beumann, H. "Nomen imperatoris. Studien zur Kaiseridee Karls des Grossen," Si, CLXXXV (1958), 515-549. . "Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa. Ein Paderborner Epos vom Jahre 799," Studien.ppp Quellen.ppp westfalischen Geschichte, VIII (1966), 1-54. Reprinted in gap Kaisertum Karls app Grossen. Ed. G. Wolf. Darmstadt, 1972. Bork, Ruth. "Zu einer neuen These fiber die kinstantinische Schenkun ," Festschrift Adolf Hofmeister. Halle, 1955. PP- 39-5 . Bouisson, Chanoine. "Deux compéres: conclusions d'un acte d'amitié entre la royauté et la papauté au VIIIe siécle," Memoires de l'Academie de Nimes, 1926-27, pp. 173-190. Boumann, C. Sacring and Crowning. Groningen, 1957. Brackmann, Albert. Gesammelte Aufsfitae. Weimar, 1941. Bréhier, Louis. ‘La querelle des images. Paris, 1904. Brown Peter. "A Dark-Age Crisis: Aspects of the Iconoclastic Controversy," EHR, LXXXVIII (1973), 1-34. Brfihl, Carlrichard. "Frankischer Kronungsbrauch und das Prgblem der 'Festkrfinungen'," HI, CXCIV (1962), 265- 32 . . Studien pp den lapgobardischen Kfinigsurkunden. Tubingen, 1970. . "Chronologie und Urkunden der Herzfi e von Spoleto im 8. Jahrhundert," QFIAB, LI (1971 , 1-92. Bruyne, D. de. "La composition des Libri Carolini," RBén, XLIV (1932), 227-234. 247 Buchner, M. "Rom oder Reims. Die Heimat des Constitutum Constantinis," HJb, LIII (1933), 137-168. Bullough, D. "The dating of Codex Carolinus nos. 95, 96, 97, Wilchar, and the beginnings of the Archbishopric of Sens." DA. XVIII (19 2). 39-54- . "'Baiuli' in the Carolingian regnum Langobar- dorum and the career of Abbot Waldo (d. 813)," EHR, LXXVII (1962), 625-637. . "Europae Pater: Charlemagne and his achievement in the light of recent scholarship," EHR, LXXXV (1970), 59-105- Cabaniss, A. "The Heresiarch Felix," Catholic Hisporical Review, XXXIX (1953), 129-141. Calmettfi Joseph. Chaplemagne. Sa vie pp son oeuvre. Paris, 19 5. Carolsfeld, M. Schnorr von. "Das Chronicon Laurissenses breve," Na, XXXVI (1911), 15-39. Caspar, Erich. "Echte und geffilschte Karolingerurkunden ffir Monte Cassino," Na, XXXIII (1908), 53-73. . Pippin und die rfimische Kirche. Berlin, 1914. "Papst Gregor II und der Bilderstreit," ZKG, LII (1933). 29-39- . Das Pa sttum unter frapaischer Herrschaft. Darmstadt, 9 5. Classen, Peter. Karl der Grosse, das Papsttum und Byzanz. Die Be findun des karolingischen Kaisertums. Dussel- dorf, 1968. . "Karl der Grosse und die Thronfolge im Franken- reich," Festschrift ffir H. Heimpel. Gottingen, 1972. V01. III. pp. 109-1350 de Clercq, C. Ia 1e islation reli ieuse frangue pp Clovis .é Chaplemagn . arls- ouvain, I936. Coebergh, C. "Notes sur le sacramentaire d'Hadrien," Studia patristica, V (1962), 17-24. Coolidge, W.A.B. "Charles the Great's Passage of the Alps in 773." EEK: XXI (1906). 493-505- Dannenbauer, H. "Das rfimische Reich und der Westen vom Tode Justinians bis zum Tode Karls des Grossen," Grundlagen der mittelalterlichen Welt. Stuttgart, 1958. 248 Deér, J. "Zum Patricius-Romanorum-Titel Karls des Grossen," Archivum Historiae Pontificae, III (1965), 32-86. .__________ "Die Vorrechte des Kaisers in Rom 772-800," Schwei er Beitrfi e pap allgemeinen Geschichte, XV (1957). 5- 3. "—————-—- "Zur Praxis der Verleihung des auswartigen Patriziats durch den byzantinischen Kaiser," Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, VIII (1970), 7-30. Delaruelle E. "Charlemagne et l'Eglise," RHEF, XXXIX (19535. 165-199. "_— "L'église romain et ses relations avec l'église franque jusqu'en 800," Ia Chiese ppi regni dell'Europa occidentale p.i loro rapporti ppp Roma sino all'800. Vol VII of Setpimane pi Studio ppI Centro Italiano pi Sipdi sull'alto Medioevo. Spoleto, 1960. Pp. 143-184. "Charlemagne, Carloman, Didier et la politique du mariage franco-lombard," RH, CLXX (1932), 213-224. Diehl, Charles. Etudes sur l'administration byzantine dans l'exarchate pp Ravenne. Paris, 1888. Dfilger, F. Byzanz und die europaische Staatenwelt. Ettal, 1953- Drew, K.F. "The Immunity in Carolingian Italy," Spec., XXXVII (1962), 182-197. ___________. "The Carolingian military frontier in Italy," Trad.. XX (1964), 437-447, "The Italian monasteries of Nonantola, San Salvatore, and Santa Maria Teodota in the eighth and ninth centuries," Manuscripta, IX (1965), 131-154. Duchesne, Louis, "L'historiographie pontificale au huitiéme siécle," MAH, IV (1884), 232-273. . Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis. Paris, 1887. . "Les regions de Rome au Moyen Age," MAH, X (I890), 126-149. . "Les circonscriptions de Rome pendant le moyen age," Revue des Questions histori ues, XXIV (1878), 21 7-225 0 . "La date et les recensions du Liber Pontificalis." 3mg 91% all—em ___historILQues. XXVI (1879). 493- 30. so 249 Duchesne, Louis. Les premier temps pp l'Etat pontifical (1511-1073) . Paris, 1898. Dupré-Theseider, Eugenio. "Sur les origines de l'Etat de de l'Eglise," Collogue internationale sur les origines des l' Etats européens aux Ixé-XIe sigcles, Acts. Warsaw, 1968. Pp. 93-103. Dvornik, F. Byzantium and the Roman Primacy. New York, 1966. Eichmann, E. "Die Adoption des deutschen KOnigs durch den Papst," ZRG, GA, XXXVII (1916), 291- 312. . Weihe und Krfinung des Papstes ip Mittelalter. Mfihohen, 1951. Eiten G. Das Unterkonigtum im Reiche der Merowinger und Karolinger. Heidelberg, 1907. Every, George. The Byzantine Patriarchate. London, 1962. Ewig, Eugen, "Das Bild Constantins des Grossen in den ersten Jahrhunderten des abendlandischen Mittelalters," HJb, LXXV (1956), 1- 46. Fichtenau, H. "Karl der Grosse und das Kaisertum," MIOG, LXI (1953). 257- ~33“- Ficker, J. Forschun en zur Reichs-und Rechts eschichte Italiens. 4 vols. Repr. Aalen, 1961. Fischer, B. "Die Entwicklung des Instituts der Defensor in der rfimischen Kirche," Ephemerides Litur icae, XLVIII (1934). 443-454. Freeman, A. "Theodulf of Orleans and the Libri Carolini," Spec., XXXII (1957), 663-7050 . "Further Studies in the Libri Carolini I and 11,“ Spec., XL (1965), 203-2890 . "Further Studies in the Libri Carolini III," 8290., XLVI (1971), 597-6120 Fritze , Wolfgang E. Papst und Frankenkonig. Studienz Md a stlich-frankischen Rechtsbeziehungen von 254 bi S884. Slgmaringen, 1973. Fuhrmann, H. "Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvesterlegende in neuer Sicht," DA, XV (1959), 523-540. . "Konstantinische Schenkung und abendlandisches Kaisertum," pa, XXII (1966), 63-178. 250 Funk, A. "Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an die rbmische Efirche," Theologische Quartalschrift, LXIV (1882), 603- 3. Gaettens, Richard. "Mfinzen Karls des Grossen sowie der Papste Hadrian I. und Leo III. von historischer, staats- rechtlicher und wahrungsgeschichtlicher Bedeutung," Jghgbuch6£fig Numismatik und Geldgeschichte, II (1950- 51 9 7' 7- Ganshof, F.L. "Une crise dans le régne de Charlemagne, les années 778 et 779," Mélanges d'histoirg gt gg littérature .g Charles Gilliard. Lausanne, 1944. Pp. 133-145. . "Observations dur le synode de Francfort de 794," Miscellanea A. g; Meyer. Louvain, 1946. Vol. I, pp. 308‘3130 . "Charlemagne," Spec., XXIV (1948), 520-527. "Notes sur les origines byzantines du titre Patricius Romanorum," Mélagges H. Gregoire. Bruxelles, 1950. V01. II, pp. 261-2820 . "L'Eglise et le pouvoir royal dans la monarchie franque sous Pepin III et Charlemagne," Lg Chieselggi regni dell'Europa occidentale g,i loro rapporti 29g Roma sino all'800. Vol VII of Settimane 9; Studio g2; centro Pgali%£$4%i studi sull'alto medioevo. Spoleto, 1960. o 9 - o Gasquet, A. "Le royaume lombard, ses relations avec l'empire grec et avec le France," EH, XXXIII (1887), 59-92. . L'em ire byzantin.gt lg monarchie frangu . Paris, 1888. Gay, J. "L'état pontifical, les byzantins et les lombards sur le littoral campanien," MAH, 1901, pp. 487-508. Gericke, W. "Wann entstand die Konstantinische Schenkung?" ZRG, I_(_A, XLIII (1957). 1-88. . "Das Constitutum Constantini und die Silvester- Legende," ZRG' EA. XLVIII (1958), 3u3-3500 . "Das Glaubensbekenntnis der 'konstantinischen Schenkung‘," ZRG, EA, LXXVII (1961), 1-76. "Konstantinische Schenkun und Silvesterlegende in neuer Sicht," ZRG, EA, LXXVII %1961), 293-304. Grauert, H. "Die konstantinische Schenkung,"‘flgb, III (1882), 3-30: IV (1883), 45-95, 525-617, 674- 80; V (1884), 117- 120. q 251 Green, V.H.H. "The Donation of Constantine," The Church Quarterly Review, CXXXV (1942), 39-63. Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Geschichtg der Stadt Rom gm Mittelalter vom V. bis XVI. Jghrhundert. 3 vols. Basel7Stuttgart,—1953. Griffe, E. "Aux origines de l'Etat pontifical. A propos de la Donation de Constantin et la Donation de Quierzy (753-755)." 2L2: 1952. pp- 216-231- . "Aux origines de l'Etat pontifical. Charlemagne et Hadrien Ier," BLE, 1954, pp. 65-89. . "A propos de la 'Donatio Constantini'," BLE, 1957. Pp. 238-241. "Aux origines de l'Etat pontifical. Le couronnement imperial de l'an 800 et la Donatio Con- stantini," BLE, 1959, pp. 193-211. Gundlach, Wilhelm. "Ueber den Codex Carolinus," EA, XVII (1892). 527-566- . Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates und der curiale Beggiff Res publica Romanorum. Breslau, 1899. Haendleré Gert. Epochen karolingischer Theologie. Berlin, 195 . Haller, Johannes. "Die Karolinger und das Papsttum," Hg, CVIII (1912). 38-76. . Das Papsttu . Idee und Wirklichkeit. 5 vols. Basel, 1951. Hallenbeck, Jan. "The Election of Pope Hadrian I," Church History, XXXVII (1968), 261-270. Halphen, Louis. "Note sur les consuls et ducs de Rome du VIIIe au x1119 siécle," MAH, XXVI (1906), 67-77. . Etudes sur l'administration‘gg Rome 33 Moyen Agg (Iii-1252). Paris, 1907. "Les origines du pouvoir temporel de la Papauté," Revue gg France, 1922. . "L'idée d'Etat sous les carolingiens," RH, CLXXXV (1939). 59-70- . "La papauté et le complat lombard de 771," BE. CLXXXII (1938), 238-244. . Charlemagne gt_1'empire carolingien. Paris, 1947. ' ~LH .-..-_ ...,... .. - 252 Halphen, Louis. A travers l'histoire g3 Moyen Age. Paris, 1950. Hammer, W. "The New or Second Rome in the Middle Ages," Spec., XIX (19uu), 50-670 Hampe, Karl. "Hadrians I. Vertheidigung der zweiten niceanischen Synode gegen die Angriffe Karls des Grossen," EA. XXI (1895). 83—125. "Zur Erklarung eines Briefes Papst Hadrians I. an den Abt von St. Denis (JE 2491)," EA, XXII (1897), 7u8-754. Hartmann, L.M. Geschichte Italiens gm Mittelalter. 3 vols. Leipzig, 1900. "Grundherrschaft und Bureaukratie im Kirchen- staate von 8. bis zum 10. Jahrhundert," Viertel'ahr- VII ( schrift fur Sozial-und Wirtschaftgeschichte, 909), 152-1580 Hauck, Albert. Kirc en eschichte Deutschlands. 5 vols. Berlin, 195 . Healy, P.J. "Lives of the Early Popes. A Study in Papal Biography down to Pope Gregory VII," Ecclesiastical RBVieW, LI, pp. 1-130 . "Justinian and Charlemagne," Catholic University Bulletin, XVIII (1912), 698-7120 Hefele, C.J. and Leclercq, H. Histoire des conciles. Paris, 1910. Heldmann, K. "Kommendation and KBni sschutz im Vertrag von Ponthion (754)," MIOG, XXXVIII %1921), 541-570. . Das Kaisertum Karls des Grossen. Weimar, 1928. Hirsch, F. "Papst Hadrian I. und das Ffirstenthum Benevent," FdG, XIII (1873), 35-68. Hirschfeld, T. "Das Gerichtswesen der Stadt Rom von 8. bis 12. Jahrhundert," Archiv fur Urkundenforschung, IV (1912), 419-562. """""‘ Hlawitschka, E. Franken, Alemannen Bayern und Bur der in Oberitalien (224-9625. Freiburg 1. fi., 1960. Hofmeister, J. "Markgrafen und Markgrafschaften im italischen Kbnigreich in der Zeit von Karl dem Grossen bis auf gtgo dem Grossen," MIOG Ergbd. VII (1907), 215- 2 . 253 Holtzmann, Robert. Die Italienpolitik der Merowinger und des Kbnigs Pippins. Darmstadt, 1932. Homo, Léon. Rome Médiévale. Paris, 1934. Hubert, Henri. "Etude sur la formation des états de l'église," RH, LXIX (1899), 1-h0, 201-272. . "Observations sur la chronologie de Théophane et de quelques lettres des papes, 726-77h," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, VI (1897), #91-505. Hfiffer, G. "Die Echtheit der Schenkung Karls des Grossen von 774," HJb, II (1881), 242-253. Jedin, Hubert (ed.). Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte I: Vom kirchlichen Frfihmlttelalter zur ggegorianischgg Reform. Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1955. Jung, J. agie Stadt Luna und ihre Gebiet," M100, XXII (1901), 193-2 0 . "Bobbio, Veleia, Bardi," M100, xx (1899), 521- 566. Kampers, Franz. "Roma aeterna und Sancta Dei ecclesia rei publice Romanorum," HJb, XLIV (1924), 2&0-209. . "Rex et sacerdos," HJb, XLV (1925), 495-515. Kehr, P. "Die sogenannte karolingische Schenkung von 77#," 5%. LXX (1893). 385-“41- Keller, Hagen. "Zur Struktur der Kbnigsherrschaft im karol- ingischen und nachkarolingischen Italien," QFIAB, XLVII (1967), 123-223. Kempf, F. "Die papstliche Gewalt in der mittelalterlichen Welt,2 Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, XXI (1959), 117']. 90 Ketterer, J.A. Karl der Grosse und die Kirche. Mfinchen, 1898. Kleinclausz, A. Chgglemagne. Paris, 193#. Kottje, R. "Einheit und Vielfalt des kirchlichen Lebens in der Karolingerzeit," ZKG, LXXVI (1965), 323-302. Lamprecht, Karl. Die rbmische Frgge von KBnig Pi in bis auf Kaiser Ludwig den Frommen. Leipzig, 1 9. Langen, Joseph. "Entstehung und Tendenz der konstantinischen Schenkungsurkunde," Hg, L (1883), 413-h35. 2 5n Lavigne, J. "Les origines de l'Etat pontifical," Revue ecclésiastigueigg Lie e, 1953, pp. 368-373. Leicht, P.S. "Dal 'Regnum Langobardorum' a1 'Regnum Levillain, L. "L'avénement de la dynastie carolingienne et les origines de l'état pontifical," Bibliotheque g; l'école des Chartes, XCIV (1933), 225-295. Levison, W. "Konstantinische Schenkung und Silvesterlegende," Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle. Rome, 1929. Vol. II, pp 0 159-2“? 0 . Aus Rheinischer und Frankischer Frfihgeit. Dusseldorf, 19#8. Lindner, T. Die sogenannte Schenkungen Pippins, Karls des Grossen und Ottos I. pp die Papste. Stuttgart, 1896. Lintzel, Martin. "Karl der Grosse und Karlmann," pg, CXL (1929), 1-22. . "Der Codex Carolinus und die Motive von Pippins Llewellyn, P. Rome ip the Dark Age . London, 1971. wae, Heinz. "Zur Vita Hadriani," DA, XII (1956), 493-498. Mann, H.K. The Lives pi the Popes ip the Early Middle Age . London, 1925. Maréchal, J. Les livres carolins. Lyon, 1906. Martens, Wilhelm. Die rbmische Frage unter Pippin und K 1 dem Grossen. Stuttgart, 1881. . "Die drei unachten Kapitel der Vita Hadrianis I.," Theologische Quartalschrif , 1886, pp. 601-620. . Neue Erbrterungen fiber die rbmische Frage unter Pippin und Karl dem Grossen. Stuttgart, 1882. Mayer, E. "Die Schenkungen Konstantins des Grossen und Pippins," Deutsche Zeitscprift fur Kirchenrecht, XIV (190“): 1'69- . Italienische Verfassungsgeschichte. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1909. Menzer, A. "Die Jahresmerkmale in den Datierungen der Papst- urkunden bis zum Ausgang des 11. Jahrhunderts," Rbmische Quartalschrift, XL (1932), 27-103. 255 Miller, David. "Papal-Lombard relations during the Pontifi- cate of Pope Paul I," Catholic Historical Review, LV (1968). 358-376- . "The Roman Revolution of the Eighth Century: A Study of the Ideological Background of the Papal sepa- ration from Byzantium and Alliance with the Franks," Mediaeval Studies, XXXVI (197a), 79-133. . "Byzantine-Papal Relations during the Pontifi- cate of Paul I: Confirmation and Completion of the Roman Revolution of the Eighth Century," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LXVIII (1975), #7-62. Mohr, Walter. Studien zur Charakteristik des karolingischen Konigtums gm 8. Jahrhundert. Saarlouis, 1955. . "Ein weiteres Wort zur Vita Hadriani," Archivum latinitatis Medii Aevi, XXVI (1956), 2n9-262. Mordek, Hubert. "Dionysio-Hadriana und Vetus Gallica: historisch geordnetes und systematisches Kirchenrecht am gofe Karls des Grossen," ZRG, 5g, LXXXVI (1969), 39- 3- Morrison, Karl. Tradition and Authority ip the Western Church, 300-1150. Princeton, 1969. Mfihlbacher, E. Deutsche Geschichte unter den Karolingern. Second edition. Stuttgart, 1896. Niehues, B. Geschichte des Verhaltnisses zwischen Kaisertum und Papsttum gm Mittelalter. 2 vols. Munster, 187?. . "Die Schenkungen der Karolinger an die Papste," HJb, II (1881), 76-91. 201-2&1. Ohnsorge, W." "Die Constantinische Schenkung Leos III. und die Anfange der kurialen rbmischen Reichsidee," ZRG, GA, LXVIII (1951), 78-109. "Der Patricius-Titel Karls des Grossen," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, LIII (1960), 300-321. . "Das Constitutum Constantini und seine Entste- hung," in Konstantino el ung der 0kgident. Darmstadt, 196 . Pp. 93-182. ‘— . "Zur Dispositio des Constitutum Constantini in den Codd. Vat. Graec. 81 und 1115," Byzantinische Zeitschrift. LXI (1968), 277-280. Ostrogorsky, G. "Rom und Byzanz im Kampfe um die Bilderver- ehrung," Seminarium Kondakovianum, VI (1933), 73-87. 256 Ostrogorsky, G. History pf the Byzantine State. Trans. J. Hussey. New Brunswick, 1957. Pabst, H. "Geschichte des langobardischen Herzogstums," FdG, II (1862). “05-5180 Pargoire, J. L'Eglise byzantine g; 522 g 8&2. Paris, 1905. Partner, Peter. The Lands pi Sp. Peter: The Papal States ip the Middle Ages and the Early Rengissapce. London, 1972. Pflugk-Harttung, J.v. "Das Hoheitsrecht fiber Rom auf Mfinzen und Urkunden bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts," HJb, XXV (190“), Bu-610 Poole, Reginald L. "Imperial influences on the forms of Papal Documents," Proceedin s p; the British Apademy, VIII (1917), 237-259. Poupardin, R. "Etudes sur l'histoire des principautés lombardes de l'Italie meridionale et de leurs rapports avec l'empire franc," Lg Moyen Agg, X (1906), 1-26, 245-274; XI (1907), 1-25. . Etude sur les institutions politigues pp administrative des rinci autés lombardes g; l'Italie meridionale, IX5-XIE siEcles. Paris, 1909. Rassow, Peter. "Pippin und Stephan II," ZKG, XXXVI (1916), 494-502. Rodenberg, C. Pi in, Karlmann und Papst Stephan ll. Berlin,. 1923- Ross, J.B. "Two Neglected Paladins of Charlemagne: Erich of Friuli and Gerold of Bavaria," Spec., XX (19u5), 212-235. de Rossi, J.B. "L'inscription du tombeau d'Hadrien I, composée et gravée en France par ordre de Charlemagne," MAH, VIII (1888), “78-5010 Sackur, E. "Die Promissio Pippins von Jahre 754 und ihre Erneuerung durch Karl der Grosse," MIOG, XVI (1895), 385-424. . "Die Promissio von Kiersy," MIDG, XIX (1898), 55-7h- Saltet, L. "La lecture d'un texte et la critique contempo- raine. Les prétendues promesses de Quierzy (75h) et de Rome (77“) dans le Liber Pontificalis," BLE, 19h0, pp. 176-206: 1941. PP. 61-85. 257 Santifaller, Leo. "Die Verwendung des Liber Diurnus in den Privilegien der Pfipste von den Anfangen bis zum Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts," MIOG, XLIX (1935), 225-366. Schfiferdiek, K. "Der adoptianische Streit im Rahmen der Spanischen Kirchengeschichte," ZKG, LXXX (1969), 291- 311: LXXXI (1970), 1-16. Schaube, A. "Zur Verstfindigung fiber das Schenkungsversprechen von Kiersy und Rom," Hg, LXXII (1894), 193-212. Scheffer-Boichorst, P. "Pippins und Karls des Grossen Schenkungsversprechen. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik der Vita Hadriani," MIOG, V (1884), 193—212. . "Neuere Forschungen fiber die konstantinische Sfigenkung," MICG, X (1889). 301-325; XI (1890), 128- 1 . Schieffer, T. Winfrid-Bonifatius und die christliche Grundlegpng EurOpas. Freiburg i. B., 195 . Schild, Herta. Der piper Pontificalis und die frankisch- deutschen Beziehungen der Pa ste von Gregor III- Calixtus III. Wurzburg, 193E. Schmid, K. "Anselm von Nonantola. Olim dux militum-nunc dux monachorum," QFIAB, XLVII (1967), 1-122. . "Zur Ablfisung der Langobardenherrschaft durch die Franken," QFIA , LII (1972), 1-36. Schmidt, H.J. "Die Kirche von Ravenna ins frfihmittelalter (540-967). Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Verhaltnisses von Staat und Kirche," HJb, XXXIV (1913), 729-780. Schneider, F. Rom und Romgedanke gm Mittelalter. Kfiln, 1959- Schnfirgrh G. Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates. Kfiln, 9 . . Church and Culture i_ the Middle Ages, 250-814. Trans. G.J. Undreiner. Paterson, 1956. Schrader, C.E. "The Historical Development of the Papal Monarghy,” Catholic Historical Review, XXII (1936), Schramm, P.E. “"Das Versprechen Pippins und Karls des Grossen fur die romische Kirche," ZRG, 5g. XXVII (1938), 180-217. "Die Anerkennung Karls des Grossen als Kaiser," ___‘égg, ixxn (1951), 449-515. 258 von Schubert, H. Geschichte der christlichen Kirche im Frfihmittelalter. Tfibingen, 1921. Schwarzlose, K. Der Bilderstreip. Gotha, 1890. "Die Verwaltung und finanzielle Bedeutung der Patrimonien der romischen Kirche bis zur Grfindung des Kirchenstaats," ZKG, XI (1890), 62- 100. Seppelt, F.X. Geschichte der Papste von den Anffin en bis zur Mitte des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. 5 vols. Munchen, 1954-59. Serraz. L. "Les lettres d'Hadrien Ier au deuxiéme Concile de Nicée," Echos d'Orient, XXIX (1926), 407-420. Sickel, T. Das Privilegium Ottos I. ffir die rfimisghe Kirche. Innsbruck, I882. v. Sickel, T.R. "Die Vita Hadriani Nonantoli und der Diurnus Handschrift," NA, XVIII (1891), 107-133. Sickel, W. "Die Vertrage der Papste mit den Karolingern und das neue Kaiserthum," Deutsche Zeitschrift ffir Geschichtswissenschaft, XI (1894), 301-351; XII (1894/5), 1.53- "Kirchenstaat und Karolinger," Hg, LXXXIV (1900), 3S‘E690 von den Steinen, W. "Entstehun sgeschichte der Libri Caro- lini," QFIA , XXI (1929-30, 1- 93. "Karl der Grosse und die Libri Carolini," NA, XLIX (1931), 207-2 280. Stfirner, W. "Die Quellen der Fides Konstantins im Consti- gfitum6Constantini (chs. 3-5)," ZKG, KA, LXXXVI (1969), -20 von Sybel, H. "Die Schenkung der Karolinger an die Papste," HZ, XLIV (1880), 47- 85. Tangl, G. "Karls des Grossen Weg fiber die Alpen im Jahre 773." 922.. XXXVII (1957). 1- -15 "Die Passvorschrift des Konigs Ratchis und ihre Beziehung zu dem Verhaltniss zwischen Franken und Langobarde26vom VI-VIII Jahrhundert," QFIAB, XXXVIII 1958 g 1- o Tellenbach, G. "Der grossfrankische Adel und die Regierung Italiens in der Blfitezeit des Karolingerreiches," Studien und Vorarbeiten zur Geschichte des ossfrankischen und fruhdeutschen Adels. Freiburg i. —B., 1957. Pp. -70. 259 Thompson, J.W. "Papal registers," The Church Quarterlx Review, CXXVII (1938). 37-75- ‘Uleann, W. "Ori ins of the Ottonianum," ambridge Historical . The Carolingian Renaissance and the Idea 22 Kingship. London, 1969. . The Growth 2: Papal Government 1 the Middle Ages. Third edition. London, 1970. . ‘A Short History 9: the Papacy $3 the Middle Ages. London, 1972. Van den Ven, P. "La patristique et l'hagiographie du concile d2 Nicée de 787," Byzantion, XXV-XXVII (1955-57), 325- 3 2. Vasiliev, A.A. Histor g: the Byzantine Empire. 2 vols. Madison, 19 . Vehse, 0. "Die papstliche Herrschaft in der Sabina bis zum Mitte des 12. Jahrhunderts," QFIA , XXI (1929), 120- 175. VVallach, L. "Amicus amicis, inimicus inimicis," ZKG, LII (1933). 614-615. "The Unknown Author of the Libri Carolini: Patristic Exegesis, Mozarabic Antiphons and the Vetus Latina," Didascaliae. Studies in Honor 2; Anselm M. Albareda. New York, 1981‘. 571369-515. g_. "The Greek and Latin Versions of II Nicaea and the Synodica of Hadrian I (JE 2&48): A Diplomatic Study," Trad., XXII (1966), 103-125. . "The Libri Carolini and Patristics, Latin and Greek: Prolegomena to a Critical Edition," The Classical Tradition: Literary and Historical Studies in Honor g; Harrx Caplan. Ithaca, 19 . "Ambrosiaster und die Libri Carolini,"‘QA, ‘77): '(1973). 197-206. Weyl, R. Die Beziehungen des Papsttums zum frankischen W §§§§E§f§£§ K1rche echt unter deg Karolingern. Bresslau, 1 92. Williams, S. "The Oldest Text of the 'Constitutum Constan- tini'," Trad., XX (196h), 448-h61. Winandy, J. "Les dates de l'abbatiat et de la mort d'Ambroise Autpert," RBén, LIX (19h9), 206-210. 260 Wdlfram, H. Intitulatio I: Lateinische Kfigigg—und Fursten- titel bis zum Ende des Q. Jahrhunderts. MICG Ergbd. XXI. Graz-Wien-Koln, 1967. . Intitulatio ll: Lateinische Herrscher-und Eugstentitel gm neunten und zehnten Jahrhundert. MIOG Ergbd. XXIV. Wien-Koln—Graz, 1973. Woods, J.M. "The Rise of the Papal States up to the time of Charlemagne's Coronation," Catholic Historical Review, VII (1921), h4—54. Zimmerman, H. Papstabsetzungen des Mittelalters. Kbln, 1968. 9 4| 6 5 4 7 1 3 0 3 9 2 1 3 mll I" III " I" u " Ill U" Em ". u N“ all