EMPERORS OF THE EAST.

Constantine (Copronymus), 741-775. Leo IV, 775-780 Constantine VI (Porphyrogenitus), 780-797. Irene, 780-790

KING OF THE FRANKS. Charlemagne, 771-800

KING OF THE LOMBARDS Desiderius 756-774

Hadrian is important, not only in the Middle Ages, but also because of the momentous events that took place during it, and in which he took a very great share. In his reign, not only was the temporal power of the popes placed on a still firmer basis by the confirmation of Pippin's deed of gift by his son Charlemagne, but the power of its greatest enemies, the Lombards, was broken for ever. On the one side, too, in the East, the heresy of the Image-breakers was dealt such a blow by the Seventh General Council that it never regained its former strength; and on the other side, in the far West, a new heresy was so promptly attacked that it disappeared not long after the death of the Pope. And that Rome, their dwelling-place, might share in the immortality decreed by our Divine Lord for the popes themselves, might be indeed “eternal”, as early imperial coins proclaimed it to be, Hadrian practically rebuilt the city on the seven hills. Its churches he restored, its walls he re-erected, its aqueducts he again caused to flow. And last, but not least, he greatly contributed to the advance of European civilisation, by using the influence which he had with Charlemagne in helping that great prince (before whose time, as the old chronicler ingenuously remarks, no attention was paid to the liberal arts in Gaul), both by advice and by gifts of books and masters, in his efforts to light the torch of learning in his vast dominions. All this he did in despite of turbulent officials, both cleric and lay, whom it required all the power of Charlemagne to keep in check.

Early life of Hadrian and his character

The author of all these noble deeds, "one of the greatest Early life of popes of the eighth century", writes Hodgkin, was as is so frequently the case with the doers of great things, himself of noble birth. He was a Roman, and not unworthy of the name. His family, at once noble and powerful, belonging apparently to the new military aristocracy, had their home in the fifth ecclesiastical quarter, that known as the Via Lata. Left an orphan whilst still very young, by the death of both his parents, the little Hadrian was carefully trained by an uncle, one Theodotus, who had formerly held the title of consul and duke, and was then primicerius of the notaries. There is still extant a marble tablet, in the Church of St. Angela in Pescheria, which testifies to the piety of Theodotus. It records how, for the good of his soul, and the pardon of his sins, he restored the church whilst primicerius.

Under the care of such a tutor, we need not wonder that his biographer speaks of the hours which Hadrian spent, whilst still a young laic, in the Church of St. Mark, which was near the parental mansion. Not content with prayer, he strove to subdue his passions by fasting and the use of the hair-shirt. To the utmost of his ability also he gave alms to the poor. His good deeds were the talk of Rome. The knowledge of his virtues caused Pope Paul to order him to become a cleric. Paul then named him a regionary notary, and afterwards ordained him subdeacon. By Stephen (III) IV he was made a deacon. The reception of the diaconate made him work harder than ever at preaching the Gospel and the other duties of his office. Being such by birth and training, we can readily believe his biographer when he assures us that Hadrian was as polished and refined in his mind as he was shapely and handsome in body; that he was a firm upholder of his country and the faith, and that he was the father of the poor, and a most reverent observer of ecclesiastical traditions.

Before Pope Stephen was actually dead, the people came together to elect Hadrian, so great was their love for him, and no sooner had he passed away than Hadrian was elected to succeed him (February 3, 772) by the unanimous vote of clergy and people.2 The anonymous monk of Nonantula gives in full the decree of Hadrian's election, which, mutatis mutandis, is in the prescribed form which occurs in the Liber Diurnus. This document sets forth that in response to the prayer of all the clergy and people together assembled, the deacon Hadrian was, on account of his exceptional merits, unanimously elected, and that the decree of election was placed in the archives of the Vatican palace.

It would seem not at all unlikely that this prompt action of the Roman people in finding a successor for Stephen was to anticipate any measures on the part of Paul Afiarta to procure a pontiff who might be at the beck of the Lombard. The moment he was elected, Hadrian not only gave a striking proof of his determined character, but showed Paul who was to be master in Rome. The very hour he was elected, he commanded the recall of those whom Paul had banished during the illness of Stephen. Further, in accordance with was perhaps a custom, he set free those who were in prison for one crime or another. And certainly in accordance wit custom he drew up a profession of faith “ which he sent to his most reverends brethren and all the faithfull”

The deceitful action of Desiderius

No sooner was Hadrian consecrated (February 9) than he had to receive a depìtation from the king of the Lombards. That moarch had made up his mind that it was to be now or never  with him if he was to become lotd of all Italy. Charlemange, against whom he was personally enraged, because that pronce had repudiated his daughter, he thought he could afford to despise. He was young, was surrounded by enemies, especially the Saxons,  against whom he had to struggle for thirty three years(772-805), and had to fear the chances of a civil war. For when Carlomannn died, in December 771, his widow Gilberga, with her two sons and some of his chief nobles, had fled to the court of Desiderius, “for no reason whatever”, says Enghinard. And as these sons of Carlonnan were but children, the great bulk of his people had offered his kingdom to Charlemange, who had tus become sole king of the Franks.

Resolving, however, to try the fox’ skin before the lion’ s, Desiderius sent an embassy to Hadrian, hoping to induce him to place his trust in him, and assuring the Pope that he wished to live at peace with him. When in reply Hadrian urged the previous bad faith of their king towards Stephen in the affair of Christopher and Sergius, the envoys took an oath that Desiderius would restore to Hadrian the 'rights' he had failed to restore to Stephen, and that he would really live in peace with the Pope. Trusting to their oaths, Hadrian despatched Stephen, a regionary notary and saccellarius (paymaster), and Paul Afiarta to treat with the Lombard king. But they had not got beyond Perugia when they learnt that Desiderius, as usual without any better reason than his desire for the 'unification of Italy', had seized Faventia, the duchy of Ferrara (both of which he had given up in 757), and Commacchio (Comiaclum), had beset Ravenna itself, and was harrying the whole province. A deputation came from Archbishop Leo of Ravenna to implore help from the Pope. Hadrian thereupon ordered his envoys to proceed on their journey to Desiderius, with letters in which, as might be expected, the Pope upbraided the Lombard for his twofold breach of faith. Meanwhile Gilberga and her sons had arrived at the Lombard court, and their cause was at once espoused by the king. "And hence", says the papal biographer, in one of the rare passages in which, in set terms, he gives us any of the motives that prompted any of the acts he relates. "Desiderius used every art to try and induce the Pope to come and visit him, in order that he (the Pope) might anoint as kings the two sons of Carlomann. For the Lombard was very desirous of bringing about a division in the kingdom of the Franks, a coolness in the friendship between the Pope and Charlemagne, and the subjection of Rome and all Italy to his own sway". Although Desiderius promised the Pope that he would restore the cities if he would come to him, Hadrian firmly refused to go. When the Pope's determination became known, Paul Afiarta assured Desiderius that he would see to it that Hadrian complied with the king's wishes, for, if necessary, he would put a rope round the Pope's legs and drag him to the Lombard court by the heels. He set off by Arimini to fulfil his engagement. But there was already a rope round the boaster's own neck.

The punishment of Afiarta, 772

When Paul left Rome, men had the courage to let the Pope know that the unfortunate secundicerius Sergius had been dragged forth from his cell in the Lateran and strangled and stabbed in the via Merulana—a street as well known now as in the eighth century—by order of Afiarta. Hadrian made the most careful enquiries into the matter, had the accomplices of Paul arrested, and, in response to the wishes of all the people, handed them over to the 'prefect of the city' to be tried for murder. Death, or exile to Constantinople, was meted out to the culprits.

In accordance with secret instructions conveyed to him from the Pope, Leo, the archbishop of Ravenna, caused Paul to be seized as he passed through Arimini. And when he received from Rome the account of the trial of Paul's agents, the archbishop went beyond the Pope's orders. He not only handed Paul over to the secular arm, to the consular of Ravenna, but, despite the strict orders of the Pope to the contrary, and despite every effort the Pope could make to save him, as he only desired exile for the accused, the archbishop had the wretched man put to death. Some days after, however, troubled in mind at his disobedience, Leo wrote to the Pope and begged him to excuse the act, as, after all, the blood of the innocent had been avenged in the death of Paul. But this Hadrian would by no means do; he told the archbishop that he must bear the blame of Paul's death, for he himself had, on the contrary, wished to spare the man's life that he might have had an opportunity to do penance.

Whilst the affair of Paul was in progress, Desiderius was not idle. He marched southward with a large army; laying waste with fire and swords the whole country, from Sinigagila on the Adriatic to Blera on the borders of Tuscany. The inhabitants of the last-mentioned town, supposing that there was peace, were massacred by the Lombards whilst gathering in their harvest, and their town was reduced to ashes. And then, "after the manner of his ancestors", he proceeded to harry the duchy of Rome. Can anyone be astonished that the popes resisted such barbarians by every means in their power?

Before appealing to the Franks, Hadrian tried every expedient. Letter after letter, embassy after embassy, was sent from Rome to the Lombard to induce him to pause in his career of violence, and restore his ill-gotten goods. If Desiderius made any reply, it was only to the effect that the Pope must come and see him. To which request Hadrian always replied that he would certainly do so when Desiderius had restored the cities.

Desiderius marches on Rome, 773

Negotiation was clearly useless. The Lombard was on the march for Rome itself with his son Adalgis and the widow and two sons of Carlomann. But Hadrian was equal to the occasion. He not only, compelled by necessity, sent messengers by sea to Charlemagne to implore his aid, but he collected troops from all parts, even from the Pentapolis, and hurriedly strengthened the fortifications of the city. He then sent three cardinal-bishops to Desiderius to forbid him, under pain of excommunication, entering the Roman duchy. Whether he had faith enough to fear a papal sentence of excommunication, or policy enough to dread the power of the Franks, certain it is that he fell back in confusion from Viterbo.

Desiderius had not long withdrawn from the papal boundaries ere there arrived in Rome ambassadors from Charlemagne (among whom seems to have been our countryman Alcuin—Albuinus, deliciosus regis), who came to see for themselves whether Desiderius had really made restitution to the Pope, as he had assured the Franks that he had done. Of course they found that anything but restitution had been effected by the false Lombard. Nor could they, though they interviewed Desiderius on their return journey, obtain any concessions from him. In company with ambassadors from the Pope, they returned to their king and told him the state of the case. Urged by the papal envoys to act in behalf of their master, Charlemagne a first tried pacific measures. His envoys were commissioned to offer Desiderius no less than 14,000 gold solidi if he would give up the territory he had seized. But Desiderius was fanatically obstinate.

 

Expedition of Charlemagne into Italy, 773

Charlemagne now prepared for war. His troops appeared at the passes of the Alps. Whether favoured by treachery or not, he successfully accomplished the difficult task of conveying his forces over the Alps. Charlemagne's secretary and biographer, Eginhard, assures us that had he not been anxious to describe his master's character, rather than his wars, he would have told us "how great was the toil of the Franks in overcoming the trackless chain of mountains, with peaks towering to the skies, and sharp and perilous rocks". Desiderius fled to Pavia, and there prepared to stand a siege in that strong city. Adalgis, with the widow and sons of Carlomann, shut themselves up in Verona.

One of the immediate results of the appearance of Charlemagne in Italy was the defection of part of the subjects  of Desiderius, viz., the inhabitants of the duchy of Spoleto. Already, before the descent of the Frankish king into Italy, some of the chief men of the Lombard cities of Rieti and Spoleto placed themselves under the Pope, took an oath of fidelity to him, and cut their long hair in the Roman fashion. We have already seen evidences of a desire on the part of the duchy of Spoleto to attach its fortunes to those of Rome and the popes; and on the present occasion the entire people, but for dread of their sovereign, would have been glad to follow the example set them by their principal men. When, however, their countrymen came flying from the North and told them of the forcing of the passes of the Alps, the fear of Desiderius, which had up to this restrained them, disappeared, and they flocked to the Pope and besought him to accept them as his subjects. Hadrian could not but receive them. And in St. Peter's all swore to be the faithful subjects of the apostle, of his vicar, Pope Hadrian, and of all his successors. After the hair of all had been cut in the Roman style, Hadrian confirmed one Hildeprand, whom they had themselves chosen, as their duke. Certain cities of the exarchate (Fermo, Osimo and Ancona), which had either never been yielded up to the popes, or had again been seized by the Lombards, followed the example of Spoleto. Here, beyond all doubt, we have an example of one way in which temporal power was absolutely thrust into the hands of the popes by the people themselves.

The blockade of Pavia, 773.

Arrived before Pavia in the autumn (773), Charlemagne resolved to reduce it by starvation, and took measures accordingly by surrounding the city with lines of circumvallation. And that his purpose of staying there till the place was unconditionally surrendered might be clear, he sent for his wife and children. Whilst the blockade was still being maintained, detachments of the Franks were sent in all directions to bring about the reduction of the other cities. Verona surrendered on the mere approach of Charlemagne. After the siege of Pavia had lasted some six months, Charlemagne resolved to gratify his great desire of visiting the tombs of the Apostles, the more so as the festival of Easter was at hand. Taking with him a considerable number of his chief ecclesiastics and nobles (episcopi, duces, graphiones), and a large body of troops, he set out with his accustomed speed so as to be in Rome by  Holy Saturday (April 2). Astonished and yet delighted goes at the news of this sudden resolve of the Frankish monarch, Hadrian made haste to receive him with becoming honour.

Some twenty-four miles from Rome, at a place known as ad Novas, the ruins of which are to be seen near Lake Bracciano, Charlemagne was met by the “judges” with the military standards. Nearer the city he was received by the trained bands and all the school­children bearing palm and olive branches in their hands, and chanting the praises of the Frankish king. There were also sent forth in his honour  "the venerable crosses and the sacred banners", as was wont to be done when, under the old regime, the exarch came to Rome. We are told that when Charlemagne saw the sacred crosses, he descended from his horse, and with his nobles proceeded on foot to St. Peter's. Arrived there, the king mounted the steps, devoutly kissing each one of them as he ascended. After embracing one another, Hadrian and Charlemagne entered the basilica together, which rang with the antiphon: "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord". When all present had returned thanks to God at the confession of St. Peter for the victories He had granted to the arms of the Franks, through the intercession of His apostle, Charlemagne assured Hadrian that he and his Franks had undertaken this expedition not for gold or territory, but to secure 'the rights of St. Peter', the Pope's safety, and the exaltation of God's Holy Church. He then begged the Pope's permission to enter Rome that he might pray in the different churches. The fact that before Charlemagne entered the city oaths of mutual good faith were given and taken by Charlemagne and the Pope "is not less demonstrative of the fact that the Pope held the supreme power in Rome, and that his sovereignty over the city was entirely independent of the Frank kings, than it is of the perpetual apprehension of violence and stratagem, which, in those ages of barbarism and constantly-recurring invasion, kept men's minds on the alert, as in time of war."

That same Saturday, and until the following Wednesday, the minds and the time of the Pope and Charlemagne were taken up with the different religious services in the great basilicas. But on the last-mentioned day, Hadrian, with his chief clergy and nobility, had a conference with Charlemagne on secular affairs in St. Peter's. As what follows is of the first importance in connection with the temporal power of the Pope, we will closely adhere to the narrative in the Book of the Popes. Hadrian, we are there told, begged Charlemagne to fulfil in every particular the details of the donation which his father Pippin, as well as he himself and his brother Carlomann, had made to Blessed Peter and to his vicar Pope Stephen (II) III, on the occasion of that Pope's visit to the land of the Franks. This donation, continues the papal biographer, involved "the concession of various cities and territories in this province of Italy to Blessed Peter and to his successors, to be possessed by them for ever". When the said donation, which had been drawn up at Kiersey (or Quiercy-sur-Oise) had been read, Charlemagne ordered his chaplain and notary, Etherius, to draw up another donation, like the former. In it he granted the same cities and territories to Blessed Peter and the Pope, according to the description set forth in the donation.

Before proceeding further with the narrative in the Liber Pontificalis, it is worth pausing to note that Hadrian's biographer, who was perfectly familiar with the actual deed of donation, makes the gift of Charlemagne no more than a confirmation of the original donation of Pippin to Stephen III at Kiersey. Strictly speaking, therefore, Charlemagne did not augment his father's gift. But his donation was doubtless an increase of Aistulf’ s, with which the popes had hitherto been contented. There seems never to have been an attempt to enforce the “Kiersey treaty”. To judge of this document by the “donation of Charlemagne”, which is represented as nothing more than its renewal, it would seem that Pippin and his Franks had determined, if need be, to limit the Lombards to the territory first conquered and directly held by Alboin, their first king who ruled in Italy. The other parts of Italy, which the Lombards acquired later, or which were only imperfectly subject to the rule of their kings, such as the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum, were to have been handed over, by the terms of the Kiersey compact, to the Pope. This clipping of the Lombards' wings, by forming a powerful state under the Pope all round them, had not up to this time been put into effect. Aistuf’s donation of the exarchate had been temporarily accepted. Now that the Lombard kingdom was to be extinguished, it was only natural that there should be a reversion to the original deed of gift.

Charlemagne's diploma, signed by him and his chief men, both of Church and State, was placed in the confession of St. Peter. A copy of the same deed, which they had all sworn to observe, was taken away with them by the Franks.

Extent of the donations of Pippin and Charlemagne

By this donation of Charlemagne there were made over to the popes, besides the full exarchate of Ravenna, the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum, the provinces of Venetia and Istria, the island of Corsica, and, arguing from the towns mentioned, viz., Luna (Sarzana), Parma, Reggio, etc., what, in addition to the exarchate, would make the larger portion of modern Emilia. By the province of Venetia would be meant that part on the mainland which was subject to the Lombard sway. Later writers, such as Leo Ostiensis (eleventh century); Cardinal Deusdedit, in his collection of canons (eleventh century) ; and Cencius Camerarius,  thirteenth century, all, from earlier documents, e.g., the Book of the Popes, describe the donation in more or less the same terms.

The originals of these charters have unfortunately been lost. And there are not wanting modern historians who call in question, if not the fact that Charlemagne gave a donation at all, at least that it had the extent that the papal biographer gives it. These critics urge that it is not likely that the Frank monarch would give such extensive territory to the Holy See; and that, de facto, dominion over many of the districts mentioned in the donation was never held by the popes, nay, was not even in the hands of Charlemagne, much less of Pippin, when the donations were made.

That there are difficulties in the matter of these deeds should not surprise us, when only abridgments of them have come down to us. But the criterion for the authenticity of ancient documents is not what certain modern critics may or may not 'think likely.' Documents cannot be rejected because there are obscurities connected with them, or because their contents seem unlikely 'to this or that historian, but only on very solid grounds. And certainly, with regard to the passage in the life of Hadrian regarding the donation of Charlemagne, there is no more real reason to doubt its authenticity than there is to doubt of the passage in the life of Stephen (II) III concerning that of Charlemagne's father Pippin. And if to disprove the authenticity of the grant of Pippin it would be necessary to disprove the authenticity of a great many other accepted documents, notably of many of the letters of Pope Paul in the Caroline Code, so also to disprove the grant of Charlemagne it would be needful to show the unauthenticity of many of the letters of Hadrian (or Leo III) in the same Code which seem to support the text in the Liber Ponti ficalis.

The territory—nearly two-thirds of Italy—which, according to the text in the Book of the Popes, was made over to the popes by the donations of Pippin and Charlemagne, stretched as far to the south as did the boundaries of the duchy of Beneventum, and in the north to a line drawn from Sarzana (Luna, close to the Gulf of Spezzia) northwards along the river Magra, across the Apennines at the Cisa Pass, touching Berceto, Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and Monselice, and then turning so as to embrace Venetia and Istria. To this tract of country must be added the isle of Corsica.

Now, in the first place it is not denied that the popes never actually held possession of all the country included within the limits just named. But we shall proceed to show that after the donation of Charlemagne, the extant acknowledged authentic documents prove that the sovereign pontiffs passed into actual possession, or at least proved their right to so much of the territory marked out in the donation, as given in the Liber Pontificalis, as to make it only reasonable to suppose that that donation really represents the gift of Charlemagne. The evidence which will be adduced to establish this point will also go to furnish us with a reason why the donation was never actually carried out. The evidence will show us that the Frankish ruler was not powerful enough to bring much of the territory mentioned in the famous passage under his absolute sway

One extract from a letter of Hadrian to Charlemagne will suffice to make it plain that that king did make a donation to St. Peter, and that it was similar to that made by his father. "Deign," writes the Pope, "to accomplish what your father and you yourself promised to Blessed Peter, and what afterwards, on the occasion of your visit to the shrine of the Apostles, you yourself confirmed, making the same donation to the same Apostle in your own person and with your own hands."

And to establish the fact that the donation involved a grant of territory, and of regal jurisdiction over it, and not merely of patrimonies, i.e., revenues or estates, it will be enough to note that Hadrian often distinguishes in his letters to Charlemagne between the latter's gifts of patrimonies on the one hand and on the other of territory over which he (the Pope) was to exercise sovereign powers. And so on one occasion Hadrian had to complain to Charlemagne that, in connection with certain cities in the Beneventan territory the king's missi would only hand over to him "the bishops' houses, monasteries and the public buildings, along with the keys of the cities, but not the men. They are left free to come and go as they list. And how can we hold the cities without the men, if their inhabitants can plot against them? We desire, therefore, to have full power over them and to rule and govern them as we do in the case of the cities in Tuscany which you have given us". The difficulty of giving the exact sense of this passage, though its general drift is clear enough, makes one heartily wish that either Hadrian, his secretaries, or their copyists had written clearer and better Latin.

There is further, we hold, solid reason to believe not merely that Charlemagne made to Hadrian a donation, but that the text under discussion in the Lifer Pontificalis gives us the substance of that donation. To begin with, one might be tempted to think that it was not likely that the island of Corsica should be given to the popes. And yet a letter of Pope Leo III shows that the popes did actually possess Corsica, and that, too, by virtue of Charlemagne's donation. For that his 'donation might remain intact,' Leo III entrusts the affairs of Corsica  to the king.

Then, too, no matter how unlikely it may seem that the duchy of Spoleto should be granted to the bishops of Rome, there can be no doubt that it was included in the grant. For Hadrian could confidently write to his royal friend: "Moreover, you yourself in your own person, through our Insignificance, offered to Blessed Peter, your protector, the duchy of Spoleto for the welfare of your soul". Nor need we remind the reader that the Spoletans had already placed themselves under the Pope, and that, in testimony thereof, their duke, Hildeprand, who had sworn allegiance to the Pope, dated his documents "in the times of the thrice blessed and angelic lord, Hadrian, pontiff and universal Pope."

But what of Lombard Tuscany, i.e., the country between Luna and the boundary of the duchy of Rome? Well, again the letters of Hadrian to Charlemagne show that at least half of it was sooner or later in the hands of that pontiff. For not only does he mention as his the southern towns of Suana, Tuscana (Tuscanella), Viterbo and Balneoregis (Bagnorea), etc., but others as far as Rosellae, Populonium and Castrum Felicitatis; unless, indeed, in the case of Populonium and Rosellae there was not merely question of patrimonies.

However, whether or not Hadrian ever possessed the whole of Lombard Tuscany, it is certain, at any rate, that he never held the whole of the duchy of Beneventum. But that does not make it certain that it was never given to him. On the contrary, we know, on the one hand, that he actually did become the lord of a part of it; and, on the other hand, a fragment of a report of Charlemagne's missi (envoys), which has come down to us, shows that the authority of the Frankish monarch was not strong enough there to enable him to put Hadrian in possession of the duchy. Besides, it is the less wonderful that Beneventum should have been included in the donation, when it is remembered that the Beneventans had commended themselves to Pippin through Pope Stephen (II) III.

Finally, there is a passage in a letter of Stephen (III) IV (768-772) to John of Grado, which would seem to allude to the donation of Pippin (and hence to that of Charlemagne, which does but confirm that of his father), and to the conferring of power on the Pope over even Istria and Venetia. "In the general treaty which was drawn up between the Romans, Franks and Lombards," writes the Pope, "your province of Istria and that of Venetia were included. Hence let your holiness trust in God, that as the men (fideles) of Blessed Peter engaged on oath to be true to the interests of the Prince of the Apostles and to his vicars, who will sit in this See to the end of time, they also engaged in writing ever to defend your province from the oppression of enemies, just as this our province of the Romans and the exarchate of Ravenna." The import of the passage is certainly not too clear, nor do I know whether it refers to the marriage treaty of 770 arranged between Charlemagne and Desiderius by Bertrada, or to some other. But as Stephen IV quotes the example of his predecessor Stephen (II) III's interest in Istria, it would appear that rights over it conceded to Stephen III were asserted by Stephen IV.

In a period when the records of history are as scant as they are at the close of the eighth century, it would be difficult to find an historical text better supported by supplementary documents than is the donation passage in the biography of Hadrian I.

With evidence, then, such as this before us, we cannot doubt that Charlemagne, by a fresh donation, confirmed that of his father, and that both donations included other territories besides that of the exarchate, viz., those mentioned in the disputed text. On the other hand, it is also certain, as has been said, that those additional territories did not all come under the power of the popes immediately after they had been granted to them. And, in fact, dominion over some of them, such as Istria, etc., was never acquired by the popes at all. This is to be accounted for to some extent by the fact that both Pippin and Charlemagne promised to give that of which they were not actually possessed. And when Charlemagne afterwards obtained more or less complete control over the whole of the districts enumerated in his donation, one cause and another—perhaps a certain unwillingness to part with what he had won only with considerable cost; but certainly, still more, because his hold on some of the conquered provinces was not too firm—stood in the way of his fully carrying his donation to completion. And though it is no part of the duty of the defenders of the authenticity of the donation text to be able to state why a promise made was not kept, it may be suggested, with Duchesne, that Charlemagne's promise of 774 was, with the consent of the Pope, restricted as useless and incapable of fulfilment on the occasion of the king's visit to Rome in 781. And if the popes never had full jurisdiction over all the lands named in the donation, they certainly received fresh rights over them and additional revenues from them. And by the end of the year 787, Pope Hadrian was the actual ruler not only of the duchy of Rome and the exarchate, but also of various cities in Lombard Tuscany, as Suana (Sovana), Tuscana (Toscanella), Viterbo, etc., and in the duchy of Beneventum, as Sora, Arpinum, Aquino, Capua, etc.

Fantuzzi's Fragment.

Hitherto in connection with our account of the donations of Pippin and Charlemagne no mention has been made of the famous so-called Fantuzzian Fragment. In the year 1500 the Venetian Government made a collectionof some 270 of the more important documents which concerned their relations with various popes and princes. The original collection is now lost. Two faulty copies of it, however, still exist. From one of these Fantuzzi  published the 'fragment' which bears his name. The document purports to give a detailed account of the transactions between Pippin and Stephen (II) III, at Quiercy. It begins by asserting that, bitterly oppressed by the Lombards, Stephen asked and obtained leave of the Greek emperor to apply to the Franks for aid. It then states that, with the consent of all his chief men, Pippin undertook, if God should grant him to become conqueror of the Lombards, to bestow for the good of his soul on Blessed Peter, the keybearer of the heavenly kingdom, and on the Pope, his vicar, Corsica and the other territories, already mentioned from the Book of the Popes. To which, in this fragment, Naples seems to be added.

The writer of this document, from his mention of the emperor Leo IV, would seem to have lived at the close of the eighth century.

This document has had its authenticity as stoutly attacked as defended. Without going into the pros and cons of the matter, we may sum up the pros with Jungmann. "The style of the fragment, with its barbarous Latinity, points to its origin in Lombard times. The accuracy of various minute details given in the document, and the way in which it squares with the lives of Stephen III and Hadrian, as we know them in the Liber Pontificalis, are enough to show the fragment is really authentic". Were it so, it would, of course, afford a strong confirmation of what we have already said with regard to the extent of Charlemagne's donation.

But no great weight can be attached to a document concerning which there are cons not a few, and which is regarded as spurious by many distinguished scholars. In the first place, the Fragment, which is drawn up as though it proceeded from Pippin, is addressed to Pope Gregory! "Pippinus ... Gregorio apostolica sublimitate fulgenti." But both before and after that expression there is always question of Pope Stephen, so that the introduction of 'Gregory' cannot be said to tell seriously against the authenticity of the document. Then Stephen is represented as asking, not Constantine Copronymus, who was the emperor during his reign, but Leo (IV) to allow him to turn to the Franks for aid against the Lombards. Here again there is an answer. It is pointed out that, as early as the year 751, Leo was associated with his father in the Empire. And if, as is supposed by various authors, the fragment was composed during the sole reign of Leo IV (775-780), there is obvious reason why his was the name selected for mention. The greatest difficulty in the way of allowing the genuineness of the document seems to be that the emperor of Constantinople is represented as authorising the appeal of the Pope to the Franks for their support and patronage against the Lombards. But even this seems far from an insuperable objection. To play off one foe against another was a very common policy of the rulers of Constantinople, especially from the days of Justinian; and, it may well have been thought at this time in the capital of the Empire, that, if the Franks broke the power of the Lombards and gave most of their territory to the popes, the latter would prove a foe which could be much more easily overcome by the imperial troops than the fierce Lombard. Hence their ready consent to the Pope's request. As nothing depends upon the authenticity of this document of Fantuzzi, we may be pardoned for referring the reader elsewhere for further informationwith regard to it.

It would be neither possible nor desirable to discuss here all the different theories that have, on more or less strong grounds, been broached in connection to with this donation. But in concluding our remarks on this subject, it may be useful to call attention to the truth that the dominion of a sovereign prince over a country does not necessarily imply his personal ownership of it, nor, vice versa, does ownership of a district imply supreme rule over it, but that in practice the overlord will probably possess more or less of the land of which he is the suzerain. And so it would not result, as a matter of course, that the popes were the supreme rulers of the districts where the patrimonies of the Roman Church were situated; nor, on the other hand, because we find patrimonies in certain regions being given to them, would it follow that they were or were not already supreme rulers of those regions. The patrimonies were, so to speak, the State property, the “crown lands” of the Roman Church and the popes. They were the private property of the Roman See, and were situated both where the said See had supreme dominion and where it had not. Charlemagne then, it would seem, to all practical purposes increased both the private property of the Church, i.e., its patrimonies at least, by restoring in various districts its 'rights', which the Lombards had usurped, and its dominion, by rendering real a control which in some localities had, up to this date, existed only in a sealed parchment.

Fall of Pavia, 774

After he left Rome, Charlemagne returned to Pavia, which was forced to surrender unconditionally (June 774). Desiderius and his wife were taken by Charlemagne with him into France, where Desiderius is said to have died a holy death in the monastery of Corbie. And thus, in the words of an ancient writer  "Here was finished the kingdom of the Langobardi, and began the kingdom of Italy, by the most glorious Charles, king of the Franks, who, as helper and defender of lord Peter, the prince of the Apostles, had gone to demand justice for him from Italy. For no desire of gain caused him to wander". After he had, as king of the Lombards, received the homage of the chief men of the conquered country, and placed garrisons in Pavia and a few of the frontier cities, Charlemagne returned to France.

Except that he had an overlord of a different nationality, the Lombard was left by Charlemagne wellnigh as free as he found him. But, after an inglorious existence of over two hundred years, inglorious in peace, for it produced no great man, and in war, for it never subdued all Italy, the kingdom of the Lombard now passed away for ever from before the eyes of the popes—another of the many kingdoms which the undying line of the Roman pontiffs has seen born and die! In the South of Italy, however, the dukes of Beneventum, who from this time forth assumed the title of prince, and whose territory comprised perhaps most of what was afterwards the kingdom of Naples, preserved more or less of independence for their Lombard countrymen.

Usurpation of the Archbishop of Ravenna, 774

No sooner had Charlemagne left Italy than Hadrian was beset by political difficulties of all kinds. Difficulties incidental to the establishment of a new order of things; difficulties from within and difficulties from without. Hadrian's first trouble after the departure of Charlemagne was from those 'of his own household.' We have seen Leo of Ravenna acting independently of the Pope in the affair of Paul Afiarta. Power must have proved sweet to him. No sooner had Charlemagne crossed the Alps than the archbishop seized various cities of Emilia, expelled the papal officials and appointed his own, and tempted the loyalty of the citizens of the Pentapolis. But these latter remained firm in their allegiance to Hadrian, as they had done to Stephen (II) III, "to whom," writes the Pope to Charlemagne, "your father and yourself gave the exarchate ... And so the enemies of both of us are now striving to take away from us the power we exercised even in Lombard times". To gain over the Frank monarch to his side, Leo betook himself to France. He, however, obtained no satisfaction from Charlemagne, who assured the Pope that he would see that his donation was carried into effect. But, convinced that the Frankish king was too occupied with the Saxons (against whom Charlemagne had to be in arms off and on from 773-804) to be able to interfere with him, Leo, on his return from France, gave out that the cities of Imola and Bologna had been given to him and not to the Pope, and continued to act as before.

So that, for instance, when the Pope sent his treasurer Gregory to the aforesaid cities to bring thence to him their magistrates, and to receive the oaths of fidelity from all the people, Leo would not suffer the Pope's functionary to approach the cities. In like manner, when, by a formal official document, Hadrian had appointed a certain Dominicus count of the little city of Gabellum, the rebellious archbishop sent a body of troops to seize the new count. This they did, and at the time (November 775) when the Pope wrote the letter which furnishes us with all these particulars, Dominicus was a prisoner at Ravenna.

Disloyal to the Pope, Leo, not unnaturally, seems to have been disloyal to Charlemagne also. He doubtless realised that when the Frankish king had a free hand he would have to render him an account of his rebellious conduct towards the Pope. Accordingly he seems to have lent his support to those who were desirous of ousting the Franks from Italy. At any rate this is the conclusion that, in common with Hadrian, we draw from the action of Leo, narrated by the Pope to Charlemagne in a letter of October 27, 775. Hadrian had received a most important letter from John, the patriarch of Grado­so important that neither Hadrian himself nor his secretary ate or drank till they had sent it off to Charlemagne along with a letter from the Pope. This document of John, which, with great probability, has been supposed to have had reference to the rebellion of Rodgausus (Hrodgaud) of Friuli, which broke out a month or two after this, had been confiscated on its way through Ravenna by Leo. The archbishop broke the seals, made himself acquainted with the contents of the letter, and only then sent it on to Hadrian. Fully warranted by the circumstances seems the conclusion of the Pope—that Leo communicated the intelligence he had acquired by his arbitrary conduct "to Arichis, Duke of Beneventum, and to the rest of our and your enemies."

How many troubles would have been spared the popes if they could have made up their minds centuries earlier than they did to govern their dominions in a less paternal but more practical manner. If the people of our own century and country even require sometimes to be kept in order, how much more did the still semi-barbarian races which were in possession of Europe in the eighth century.

However, as after this Hadrian never again alludes to any difficulties with Leo, we may conclude that Charlemagne's ambassadors, whom the Pope was then expecting, restored his rule in the exarchate and Emilia.

These same ambassadors, Bishop Possessor and Abbot Radigaud, caused Hadrian no little anxiety, not merely because they did not arrive when he expected them, but because, "when they reached Perugia, instead of continuing their journey hither, as your excellency (Charlemagne) had ordered them, and as we gathered they would from your letters, setting us at naught, they directed their steps to Duke Hildeprand at Spoleto, and sent word to us by our missi that when they had had some converse with Hildeprand they would, according to their orders, join them (Hadrian's envoys) at our palace". Then, what was worse, despite the Pope's urgent request that they would come to him at least before they went to Beneventum, they again made no account of his wishes but went immediately from Spoleto to Beneventum, thereby, as Hadrian imagined, disgracing him and unduly elating the Spoletans. His apprehensions were, however, entirely groundless. The king's missi had not been unfaithful to their sovereign's directions: still less had Charles himself been unmindful of the Pope's interests. This Hadrian discovered when the missi, at the close of the year (775), had at length presented themselves to him: "We beg to inform your excellency concerning your most faithful missi, that (as we had already discovered and had by letter notified your royal power), when they had been presented to us, we found them true to your patron, St. Peter, as well as to us and to you. Hence we beg you receive them well."

Intriguesof Lombards

Next year (776) Hadrian had to ask Charlemagne  to remove from Tuscany Reginald, Duke of Clusium (Chiusi), for invading our city  Castellum Felicitatis, which is generally supposed to be the same as the ancient Tifernum, destroyed by Totila, and the modern Cittâ di Castello, close to the left bank of the Tiber near its sources.

In the early part of this same year (776) Hadrian was brought face to face with a serious danger. Arichis, duke or prince of Beneventum, naturally full of Lombard sympathies, put himself at the head of a movement, the aim of which was to restore the Lombard supremacy in Italy. A conspiracy was formed between himself, Hildeprand, Duke of Spoleto (who was anxious to escape from any real subjection to Pope or Frank), Rodgausus (Hrodgaud), Duke of Friuli, and Reginald of Clusium, to combine in the March of 776 or 777 with Adalgis or Athalgisis, the son of Desiderius, who was expected then to land in Italy with a Greek force from Constantinople (whither he had fled on the fall of the Lombard kingdom), and to restore the said kingdom. For the time being, the marvellous activity of Charlemagne dealt the conspiracy a serious blow. He swooped down upon Friuli, and Rodgausus had lost both his duchy and his life before the Easter of this very year (776).

Throughout the greater portion of his reign Hadrian had ever to be on the watch against the intrigues of the Lombards. As long as Arichis remained unsubdued, it was only to be expected that the Lombards would rally round him and strive to regain their supremacy in Italy. But in Hadrian they met their match. His untiring watchfulness frustrated their plans. Charlemagne was kept well informed of their doings, and before they were completely matured they were invariably crushed by that equally unwearied and strong sovereign. Again, another powerful combination was formed in Italy. What made these designs all the more formidable was the fact that they had the support of Tassilo, Duke of Bavaria, who, like Arichis, had married a daughter of Desiderius. The Beneventans formed an alliance with the Greeks of Terracina and Gaeta, where the patrician of Sicily was then residing, with the immediate object of subjecting certain of the papal cities of Campania to the Patricius (777). But a force sent by Hadrian checked their plots by the capture of Terracina. The effect of this was to make the Greeks at first wishful for peace;  but, backed up by Arichis, who was daily expecting Adalgis from Constantinople with a Greek army, and aided by the Neapolitans, they recovered Terracina (780). In informing Charlemagne of these occurrences, Hadrian assures him that he asks his aid not on account of the loss of Terracina, but lest the Beneventans should succeed in throwing off the Frankish yoke altogether.

Second coming to Rome of Charlemagne, 781

Convinced of the magnitude of the danger, Charlemagne again set out for Rome, taking with him his wife and two of his sons. One of these, Carlomann, the Pope baptised, giving him the name of Pippin. Both of them he anointed as kings. Pippin was named king of Italy, and Louis, king of Aquitaine. By the joint exertions of ambassadors from the Pope and Charlemagne, Tassilo submitted. The difficulty with the Greeks seemed to be put in a fair way to being finally settled, as, in consequence of a request from Irene, who was now ruling in the East, Charlemagne's daughter was espoused to the empress's young son (781). Trusting that a peace of permanent duration had now been secured, Charlemagne again set out for France, after having put the Pope in actual possession of the Sabine territory—viz., the territory about Rieti.3

Diplomatic minutes,785.

Apart from the letters between Hadrian and Charlemagne regarding the Sabine territory, very little of their correspondence between the years 781-6 has come down to us. A curious fragment, however, of the king's instructions to his missi, as to how they should behave towards the Pope, has escaped the destroying hand of time, and belongs to this interval.

The ambassadors are told to begin by offering to the Pope the respects of his son King Charles, of his daughter Fastrada, our queen, of all his family, and the whole nation of the Franks. The Pope is to be thanked for informing the king of his health. For the king is happy when he hears of the safety of the Pope or of your people.

Hadrian is also to be thanked for his holy prayers, for which the king would be glad to make a suitable return. Through these same prayers and the mercy of God, the king and all his are well.

When the king's letter is presented to the Pope, the missi are to ask his gracious reception of it, and of the presents—such as Charlemagne could get in Saxony—which they are to show to Hadrian at his good pleasure. More valuable presents will be sent as soon as procurable.

Fresh disturbances in S. Italy. 786

For some years, indeed, there was peace in S. Italy, but in  786 the restless Arichis, for some cause or other at war with the Greeks, received a defeat from the Neapolitans when attacking one of their cities (Amalfi). But mutual dread and dislike of Charlemagne once more united these enemies. The unfaithful Tassilo was again induced to join against the common foe, and he in turn endeavoured to secure the aid of the barbarian hordes on his frontier. The breaking off of the engagement between Rotruda and the young Constantine was followed by a hearty co-operation of the ambitious Irene in the alliance, against the Frank monarch (787).

Third visit of Charlemagne to Rome, 787

But, as before, Charlemagne was at Rome in the very centre of his enemies before their schemes were ripe. After careful deliberation with the Pope  and with the Frank leaders, it was decided to commence operations by crushing Arichis. When the duke heard that the dreaded Frank was already at Capua, he sent to offer his submission; and, as evidence of it, his sons as hostages, and money. Charlemagne, "having more regard for what was for the welfare of the people than for the man's obstinacy, granted his request, accepted the hostages he had sent; and for a large sum of money excused him from personal attendance. Only the younger son (Grimwald) was detained as a hostage. The elder (Romuald) was sent back to his father."

Charlemagne next turned his attention to Tassilo. That faithless prince, to gain time, sent ambassadors to induce the Pope to act as mediator between his offended suzerain and himself. Hadrian had no difficulty in soothing Charlemagne's anger against Tassilo. But when the Pope discovered that he was simply being made a tool of, he sent to let the Bavarian know that he would excommunicate him if, after all the promises he (Tassilo) had made, he did not submit; and that he would throw on him all the guilt of the spilling of Christian blood which obstinate perseverance in rebellion on his part would cause. This further introduction  of excommunication as a factor in politics is noteworthy. Tassilo, a Catholic prince, had been guilty of perjury and calling in to his aid pagan barbarians, a course of action most inimical to the welfare of Christendom. As the recognised Head of the Church, which all Christendom then believed that they were bound to hear, Hadrian had a right to judge of the public crimes of Christian princes. 'Excommunication' was the natural punishment to be inflicted on Catholics obstinately guilty of grave offences against the Church. But since, as yet, by the public law of Christendom, no tangible temporal penalties were attached to excommunication, the threat of it would have fallen to no purpose on the ears of Tassilo, had they not soon after heard the clang of the approach of Charlemagne's army. Then, again, he was all submission. And once again, on his giving hostages, was he pardoned by the magnanimous Frank (October 787).

Kindness was, however, thrown away on both Arichis and Tassilo. Both were soon again plotting against the rule of their generous enemy. The rapidity of Charlemagne's movements in 787 had anticipated the arrival of any assistance for them from Constantinople. But Adalgis had never ceased labouring to get a Greek force with which to make an attempt to recover his father's throne. At length word was sent to the allies that he had obtained his end and was setting sail with a considerable force from Constantinople (788). He landed in Calabria, as the toe of Italy was then called, to find that Arichis and his eldest son, Romuald, were dead. At the request of the Beneventans, but against the advice of Hadrian, whose advice was justified not by the immediate acts of Grimwald but by his later, Charlemagne had sent backs Grimwald to be the new duke of Beneventum. To begin with, Grimwald was faithful and co-operated with Charlemagne's generals. For on this occasion, though he struck in again before his opponents were ready, Charlemagne himself did not go into Italy, but turned his attention to the more formidable danger and summoned Tassilo to him. Not powerful enough to disobey, Tassilo came, was condemned, and confined to a monastery. His dukedom was divided among various Frank counts (788).

In Italy, supported by the dukes of Beneventum and Spoleto, Charlemagne's troops were completely victorious over the Greeks about the middle of 788; and Adalgis is said by some to have died on the field of battle. "Legend has enshrined the memory of this champion of Lombard independence." This conflict practically put an end to Hadrian's troubles and fears from Lombard intrigue, and enabled him to pass the remainder of his days in comparative quiet.

Negotiations concerning Capua and other Beneventan towns, 787-8.

 However, before leaving the subject of Italian intrigues, for the purpose of showing more at large into what details of Italian politics the letters of Hadrian give us a view, it may be worth while to draw out from that source the account therein given of the negotiations connected with the surrender of Capua to the Popes. That the story will be incomplete will only prove that it depends upon the Caroline Code.

Towards the close of the year 787 Charlemagne sent two embassies into Italy to arrange about the succession to the duchy of Beneventum and the surrender to Hadrian of certain cities in Deneventam territory. The deacon Atto, and Goteramnus, “the magnificent gate-Keeper”, belonged to the first embassy. The second was composed of Maginarius, abbot of St. Denis, Joseph, a deacon, and Count Liuderic—both embassies thus exemplifying the king's general custom of combining clerical and lay officials as his missi:

The second son of Arichis, viz., Grimwald, was in the hands of Charlemagne, and Hadrian used every effort to keep him there. "Know for certain," wrote the Pope to the Frankish monarch, "that if you send Grimwald to Beneventum, you will never be able to keep Italy free from disturbances". It was equally the aim, on the contrary, of the widowed Adelperga and the Beneventans to secure the succession of Grimwald to their dukedom.

Before his death Arichis had endeavoured to strengthen his position by forming an alliance with Constantine (V) VI and Adalgis (Adelchis), who was at his court. To arrange the terms of the alliance, two imperial envoys landed in Lucania and proceeded to Salerno, where they had an interview with Adelperga (January 20, 788), finding, of course, that Arichis was no more. As their negotiations for the return of Grimwald were still pending, the Beneventans advised the imperial agents to betake themselves in the interim to Naples. This they did, and were received with all honours—with banners and images —by the Neapolitans.

Not all the Beneventans, however, were anxious for the rule of Grimwald. A strong party in Capua were desirous of being governed by Hadrian, and a deputation had early in January waited upon the Pope to make their wishes known to him. Hadrian at once wrote  to Charlemagne's missi, who had left Rome for the Beneventan territory, to know what steps he had better take. He pointed out to the king's messengers that at least one benefit would result if he acceded to the wishes of the deputation, and that would be that two parties would in this way be formed among the Capuans. Thus divided, they would the easier be brought to fall in with his views and those of the king. Acting on the strength of this sound conclusion, he had caused the members of the deputation to swear fealty in the 'confession' of St. Peter to that apostle, to us, and to the king of the Franks.'

Meanwhile the missi of Charlemagne had experienced a variety of adventures after their departure from Rome for Beneventum about new-year's day (788). The lateness of the arrival of Count Liuderic caused the two embassies to get separated, though Hadrian had expressed his wish to them that they should keep together. Atto and Goteramnus, passing through Valva, in the duchy of Spoleto (Castro Valve, some ten miles east of Lago di Fucino), arrived at Beneventum a few days before Maginarius and his party, who were by arrangement following the course of the river Sangro. Of this embassy there is extant the report which Maginarius sent to his master, and which we have cited before. On account of its interest we will let the report speak for itself.

"When we (i.e., Maginarius and his two colleagues) learnt that the men of Beneventum were not disposed (towards you) as they ought to have been, we notified this to the other embassy, and asked them, if they judged it best, not to go on to Salerno before we arrived at Beneventum.

"When we reached the borders of the Beneventan duchy we found there was no sort of loyalty towards your excellency. Accordingly we despatched a second letter to Atto and party to await us at Beneventum, that, as the Apostolic lord (Hadrian) had advised, we might act together; and if on our arrival at Beneventum we were all convinced of the loyalty of its people, we might proceed to Salerno. But if not, we might there together discuss the Pope's interests and yours, as you had ordered.

"We had been informed that they (Atto, etc.) would await our coming ... But when, after journeying through a disloyal population—against whom may God be opposed—we reached Beneventum, we found that they had left for Salerno the day before.

"This distressed us very much, both because we had not our companions with us, and because those faithful to you assured us that, if we proceeded on our journey, the men of Salerno would detain us until they knew what you intended doing with Grimwald and their envoys. They, moreover, added that unless we could assure them at Salerno that you would let Grimwald be their duke, and give back to them the cities you had granted to St. Peter and the Pope, they would not fulfil your orders, but would keep us prisoners ...

"Thereupon I, Maginarius, feigned to be ill, and said that I could not possibly go on to Salerno. Then, with a view of getting our friends back, I wrote to Adelperga and others of the Beneventan nobility, to the effect that I wished to send on Joseph and Liuderic to them, but that they were unwilling to go without me. Hence that it would be well for them to send Atto and Goteramnus back to us, with twelve or so of the Beneventan nobility, to whom we might unfold our commission. And then, if my health permitted, I would go on to Salerno with the others; and if not, that my four companions at least would make their way thither.

"Adelperga would, however, only send back Goteramnus. And though, when we had discussed the disloyalty of the Beneventans, he wished to return to Salerno on account of Atto, we decided it was better for one to be kept a prisoner than two. And then, at cock-crow, we fled secretly, and with difficulty reached the territory of Spoleto (at Valva)."

To the information contained in this mutilated letter of Maginarius, further particulars may be added from the letters of Hadrian. The story went, says the Pope, that Atto, hearing of the flight of his companions, betook himself to a church for sanctuary. But the Beneventans soothed his fears and sent him off to you (Charlemagne), continues the Pope, with a feigned offer of submission. Hadrian also assured the Frankish king that he had it on the authority of the priest Gregory, who was one of the leaders of the party that wished for the surrender of Capua to the Pope, that his ambassadors were the more anxious to escape from the city of Beneventum, because it had come to their ears that they were to be treacherously murdered if they returned to Salerno.

Whether there was any solid foundation for this assertion of Gregory, the whole history of this embassy shows how weak was the hold of Charlemagne on the duchy of Beneventum. It may have been consciousness of this weakness which induced Charlemagne to yield to the violence of the Beneventans, and to let them have Grimwald to rule them, to the great chagrin of the Pope and the ultimate disadvantage of the Frankish supremacy.

About Gregory and his party at Capua, the extant documents of the time say no more. From the donation of Louis the Pious, however, it may be safely concluded that a slice, at any rate, of the duchy of Beneventum was made over to Hadrian, inclusive of Capua.

Hence it may be noted that, before his death, Hadrian was the ruler not only of the exarchate and the Pentapolis, but of the duchy of Rome, which we must now think of as stretching from Grosseto (Rosella) on the Ombrone to Capua on the Vulturno, and including Sora, Arpino, Arce, on the left bank of the Garigliano (Liris), and Aquino, Teano, Capua, which lay between the Vulturno and the Garigliano, and of the territories of Amelia, Todi and Perugia, which connected his Roman dominions with those on the Adriatic. Whether or not he had given up claims to them, he certainly was not the ruler of the duchies of Spoleto or Beneventum, of Venetia or Istria.

The Adoptioanist heresy

Even whilst engaged in these political struggles, Hadrian  had also to cope with religious difficulties of no mean order. He had to deal with a new heresy, or, rather, with a new phase of an old one, viz., Adoptionism, and with one which had for some sixty years been disturbing the peace of the Church, especially in the East, i.e., Iconoclasm.

The beginnings of Adoptionism are wrapped in some obscurity; but they are thought to have sprung from some controversies with the little-known doctrines of a certain Migetius. Among other rather wild doctrines, he taught that in the Blessed Trinity were three corporeal persons, that David was God the Father incarnate; Our Lord, born of the Blessed Virgin, was the second person, and that St. Paul was the third person of the Blessed Trinity. His errors were condemned in a council at Seville (782), and by the Pope. The heresy of Migetius would not demand our attention were it not the occasion of Adoptionism. The principal opponent in Spain of the doctrines of Migetius was Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo. In arguing against his errors on the subject of the corporeal persons of the Blessed Trinity, Elipandus went to the other extreme, and denied that the second person of the Blessed Trinity had a real human nature at all. He held that the human nature of God the Son was only an adopted nature; and hence that Jesus Christ wasnot the true Son of God, but only His adopted son. He thus practically revived the heresy of Nestorius. For the inference from the teaching of Nestorius, that was so fatal to that heresiarch in the eyes of the people of Ephesus, viz., that Our Lady was not the Mother of God, was equally applicable to the doctrine of Elipandus. It was further maintained, by at least some of the followers of Elipandus, that the second person adopted the man Christ at the time of the baptism in the Jordan, and that consequently from that moment Jesus Christ was the Son of God by adoption.

One of the first and ablest of the supporters of Elipandus was Felix, Bishop of Urgel in the Spanish March, i.e., in that part of the north-east of Spain which was under the power of Charlemagne. By the year 785 controversy on the subject ran high; and Spaniards in the far Asturias wrote in opposition to Elipandus. Speedily informed of what was going on, Hadrian wrote a long letter to all the orthodox bishops of Spain this same year (785). He reminds them that the Roman Church is the head of the Churches throughout the world, and that whoever severs himself from that Church is out of the Christian religion; and says he has heard that certain bishops in Spain, setting at naught the doctrine of the Apostolic See, have introduced various new heresies. They, however, must strive to keep intact the doctrine which their predecessors received from 'our holy Catholic and Apostolic See'; and hence must not allow to creep in among them the poisonous doctrines of Elipandus and his followers, "who do not blush to affirm that the Son of God is an adopted son, a blasphemy which no other heretic has dared to enunciate, except Nestorius, who made out that the Son of God was a mere man". The Pope next establishes the orthodox faith by proofs drawn from the New Testament and from the Fathers.

This letter produced no effect. The heresy continued to spread. By the command of Charlemagne a synod was assembled at Ratisbon in 792. Here the doctrine of the Adoptionists was condemned. Felix retracted and was sent to Rome to Pope Hadrian. In St. Peter's, in presence of the Pope, Felix again abjured his heresy. He solemnly placed one written profession of faith on the Sacred Species, and another on the tomb of St. Peter; and engaged on oath to believe and to teach that Jesus Christ was the true Son of God and not His adopted son.

Returned to Spain, he returned to his errors; and, that he might be free to propagate his views, he witfrew into a part of Spain that was under the sway of the moors. Charlemagne now began to take enertgetic measures to combat the advances made bu the new heresy. His first step was to recall his trusty counselor, Alcuin, from England: “Heresy is spreading in our lands; make haste you to help us”. Findinf all his effort to move Felix, to whom he was personally attached, quite unavailing, Alcuin advicsed Charlemagne to summon another council to discuss the affair. The Frankish king, who had been asked by certain of the spanich bishops, quite in the usual style of heretic who always appeal to the civil power, to decide the controversy himself, sent their communications to the pope, begged his advice and assembled a council at Francfurt in the beginning of the summer of 794, “by apostolic authority”. Bishops, how many is not exactly known, came from all parts of Charlemane’s dominions. Two came to represent the pope. Adoptionism was again condemned. Two refutations of it were drawn up and approved by the council.  Among the decrees drawn up by this council, as we shall have occasion to mention more in detail presently, there was one (the second) which conmended the seven general council of Nice for teachings in reference to holy images, which were never enuntatied for that council. Hadrian also condemned the Adoptionist documents, which Charlemagne had sent him, in a letter addressed to the bishop of Spain and Gaul. “As it is a question of the faith," writes the Pope, "we have been obliged to reply to the letter of the Spaniards in writing and with the authority of the Apostolic See". This letter of the Pope, and the two refutations of Adoptionism, drawn up by the Italian and Frankish bishops respectively, were sent by Charlemagne to Elipandus and the other bishops of Spain, along with a letter from himself. The king of the Franks opens his letter with ardent words in praise of the blessings of 'unity.' His warrior nature displays itself in the comparisons he uses. "As the ordered array of an army and the united bravery of the soldiers strikes terror into the enemy"—doubtless Charlemagne was thinking of the effect his disciplined forces produced on the unorganised courage of the Saxons —"so the peaceful union of the sons of our holy Mother the Church within the wall of the Catholic faith is terrible to the powers of darkness." He exhorts them to humbly search after the truth: "for it is better to be a learner of the truth than a teacher of falsehood." …"The faith of all Christians must be one." ... "That the Spaniards are under the yoke of the infidel is pitiful, but that they should fall under the sway of unbelief or schism would be more so." ... To bring them back to the unity of the faith, he had summoned a council, and "on this new invention had three or four times sent embassies to the most blessed pontiff of the Apostolic See, to learn what answer to these questions would be given by the Holy Roman Church, taught as it was by the traditions of the Apostles". As for himself, he unites himself to the great numbers and authority of the fathers of the council, to the Apostolic See, and to the ancient Catholic traditions that have come down from the early Church, rather than to the small number of Spaniards who have put forth a new doctrine. He entreats the Spaniards to do likewise, to remain with him firmly attached to the profession of the one Catholic faith, and not to consider themselves wiser than the Universal Church; and he reminds them that if they will not heed the apostolic authority and the unanimous voice of the synod, they must be accounted heretics, with whom he must not be in communion. Charlemagne concludes this letter, so full of the truest Catholic spirit, with a profession of faith drawn from the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.

This action on the part of the Frankish monarch did not, unfortunately, put an end to the heresy it was directed against. Even after the death of Hadrian, controversy on the subject was still brisk. Fresh apologies for his doctrine poured from the pen of Felix. These Charlemagne sent to Rome, and in response to the wishes of the king, Leo III held a council of 157 bishops in St. Peter's (799). Here the doctrines of the Adoptionists were once more condemned. More effective than this, however, in putting an end to the Adoptionist heresy, was a mission which Charlemagne sent into the province of Urgel, to explain the true faith to the people. Besides bringing back thousands to the faith, they induced Felix again to present himself before a council. In the autumn of 799, at a council convened by Charlemagne, overcome by the logic of Alcuin, Felix once again renounced his errors. A second mission sent by Charlemagne to Urgel, the death of Elipandus—and Adoptionism died the death.

Iconoclasm and the Seventh General Council.

Whilst combating a new heresy in the West, Hadrian  was helping to deal a severe blow at another in the East.

The life of one hundred and twenty years of the Iconoclast controversy may be conveniently divided into three periods. In the first, from the publication of Leo III's first decree against the images (726) to the death of his grandson Leo IV (780), the lonoclasts were masters of the situation. From that event (780) to the accession of Leo V, the Armenian (813), especially whilst power was in the hands of the Athenian Irene, the orthodox party were in the ascendant; but under Leo V, Michael II and Theophilus, Iconoclasm was again rampant, till it was finally suppressed under Theodore (842). In 755 died miserably the tyrant Constantine Copronymus, crying out, according to Theophanes, that he was already tasting of the fire which is never to be extinguished. His son Leo IV, whose attention was fully occupied by the Saracens, and whose reign was but short (775-780), only began to prove himself a persecutor a few months before his death (October 780). The supreme power now fell into the hands of Leo's wife, the beautiful but ambitious Irene, as regent for her young son Constantine VI, Porphyrogenitus. Under Irene the 'worship' of images was tolerated at once. And in compliance with the exhortations of Pope Hadrian, she decided to take measures for the restoration of the images and of communion with the West. Wars with the Saracens and Slavs prevented any active steps being taken for a few years, but at length matters were brought to a head, after a cessation of those wars, by the resignation of the patriarch Paul (August 784). On leaving his See he expressed his regret to the empress and her son that he had ever "sat in the sacerdotal throne of Constantinople, inasmuch as that Church was tyrannised over, and cut off by the other thrones from communion with them." And to the nobles he added: "Unless you assemble a general council and put an end to your errors, there is no hope of salvation for you." By the empress and people, Tarasius, a layman and imperial secretary, was selected to succeed Paul. Tarasius, however, after pointing out that the Church of Constantinople was anathematised as well by the other Churches of the East as by the West, and that there was need, in the Church of one faith, one baptism, and concord and agreement in other ecclesiastical matters, declared that he would only accept their choice of him if the rulers would bring about a general counci1. After some demur on the part of the partisans of Iconoclasm, the condition was agreed to, and Tarasius was consecrated on Christmas Day, 784. He at once wrote to the Oriental patriarchs and to the Pope, requesting them to send delegates to assist at a General Council. Irene also wrote to Hadrian a letter which is found prefixed to the Acts of the Seventh General Council (August 785), in the different collections of the Councils. Saluting Hadrian as the most holy head, who had received from Our Lord the highest dignity among the priests, as he has given us (viz., Constantine and Irene) the chief power in the State, she says that, with the advice of her priests and people, she has decreed the holding of an oecumenical council; and begs the Pope to come in person to it "as the trues first priest and the one who presides in the place and See of St. Peter's." If the Pope cannot come in person, he is entreated to send venerable and learned men with letters from him to represent him.

In his reply to the empress (October 785), which was read in the second session of the Seventh General Council, Hadrian rejoices in her intention to restore the ortho