Page:Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire vol 5 (1897).djvu/559

 I APPENDIX 537 16. SOME QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE RISE OF THE PAPAL POWER IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY— (P. 266, 270, 271, &c.) An enormous literature has grown up in connexion with the policy of the bishops of Rome and the rise of the papal power in the 8th century, especially concerning (1) the secession of Italy from the Empire, (2) the relations of the Popes to the Frank monarchy, (3) the donations of Pippin and Charles, and the growth of the papal territory. It can hardly be said that any final or generally accepted conclusions have been attained ; and here it must be enough to call attention to one or two points which may be regarded as certain. The attitude of Gregory II. is misrepresented by Gibbon. Gregory, though he stoutly opposed Leo's iconoclastic policy, did not arm against the Empire ; and the disaffection in Ital}', which led to the elevation of tj-rants under his pontificate, was not due to the iconoclastic decrees, but to the heavj- taxation which the Emperor imposed. ^ Gregory, so far from approving of the disaffection, saw that division in Imperial Italy would result in the extension of Lombard dominion, and discouraged the rebellion. 2 This is quite clear from the Liber Pontificalis, V. Greg. II. It was because there was no prospect of help from Constantinople that Gregory III. appealed to Charles Martel in a.d. 739 to protect the Duchy of Rome against Lombard attacks. But the final breach (not indeed intended at the time to be a final breach) with the Empire did not come tiU fifteen years later. The exarchate had fallen, and Rome was girt about by the Lombard power ; but Pope Stephen would hardly have decided to throw himself entirely into the hands of the Frank king if the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 753 had not set a seal on the iconoclastic heresy. It was when the news of this Coimcil reached Rome that the Pope went forth on his memorable visit to King Pippin. The revision of the chronology of the 8th century (see above, p. 524) places this visit in a new light. But even now the Pope did not intend to sever Italy from the Empire ; the formal authoritj' of the Emperor was still recognised. Pippin made over to the Church the lands which the Lombard king, Aistulf, was forced to surrender, but this bestowal was designated as a restitik- tion — not to the Church, for the Church never possessed them, but to the Empire. This of course was only the formal aspect. Practically the Pope was independent of the Emperor ; his position was guaranteed by the Franks. ^ The attempts to derive the territorial dominion of the Church from the patrimonies of St. Peter have been unsuccessful.* The Church as a territorial proprietor is an entirely different thing from the Church as a territorial sovereign. The possession of large estates, in Corsica for instance, might be urged as a reason for the acquisition of the rights of sovereignty ; but there was a distinct and a long step from one position to the other. In the ducatus Rornm the Pope possessed the powers of political sovereignty in the 8th century ; we have no clear record how this position was won ; but it was certainly not the result of the patrimony of St. Peter. In regard to the donation of Pippin it may be regarded as certain that (1) a document was drawn up at Ponthion or Quiersy in a.d. 754, in which Pippin undertook to restore certain territories to Peter,' and (2) that Pippin did not promise the whole Exarchate and Pentapolis, but only a number of cities and districts, enumerated in the deed. 1 The discontent with the ta.xation and the dissatisfaction at the iconoclastic decrees must be kept quite distinct. Cp. Dahmen, das Pontifikat Gregors II., p. 69 sqq. (1888); Schenk, B. Z., 5, 260 sqq.; Duchesne, L. P., i., 412. ••i Kehr, Giitt. Nachrichten, 1896, p. 109, has brought out the point that owing to the Lombard danger the Pope represented the interests of Byzantine Italy. 3 Cp. Sickel, GiJtt. Gel. Anz., 1897, 11, p. 842-3. * Sickel, ib., 839. 5 The Lib. Pont, makes no mention of a document, but the deed {donatio) is distinctly mentioned in a letter of Pope Stephen of a.d. 755 (Cod. Car., p. 493), civitates et loca vel omnia qu£e ipsa donatio continet.