The Online Library of Liberty

A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

• The Works of Edward Gibbon
• List of Illustrations
• The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
• Chapter Xlv
• Chapter Xlvi
• Chapter Xlvii
• Chapter Xlviii
• Chapter Xlix
• Appendix Additional Notes By the Editor
• 1.: Authorities — ( Ch. Xlv . Sqq. and Vol. IX. Ch. L . Sqq. )
• Greek (and Other) Sources
• Latin Sources
• Oriental Sources
• I.: For the Life of Mohammad
• II.: For the Saracen Conquests
• 2.: The Avar Conquest — ( P. 9 )
• 3.: Geography of Italy In the Lombard Period, and Chronology of the Lombard Conquest — ( P. 14 )
• 4.: The Armeniac Provinces of Justinian and Maurice — ( P. 66 )
• 5.: The Race of Heraclius and Nicetas — ( P. 85 , 86 )
• 6.: Persian Kings From Chosroes I. To Yezdegerd III. — ( P. 11 )
• 7.: The Inscription of Si-ngan-fu — ( P. 190 )
• 8.: The Letter of Nicetius to Justinian — (p. 177)
• 9.: Periods of the Later Empire, 610 to 1204 — ( Ch. Xlviii .)
• 10.: A Chronological Question of the Eighth Century — ( P. 234 , 236 )
• 11.: GrÆco-roman Law — ( P. 261 )
• 12.: The Land Question — ( P. 265 )
• 13.: Interest, Credit, and Commerce — (the Rhodian Code)
• 14.: The Letters of Gregory II. To the Emperor Leo — ( P. 326 )
• 15.: The Iconoclastic Edicts of Leo III. — ( P. 319 , 320 )
• 16.: Some Questions Connected With the Rise of the Papal Power In the Eighth Century — ( P. 337 , 338 , 342 , 343, &c .)

16.

SOME QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH THE RISE OF THE PAPAL POWER IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY — (P. 337, 338, 342, 343, &c.)

An enormous literature has grown up in connection 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 Italy, which led to the elevation of tyrants under his pontificate, was not due to the iconoclastic decrees, but to the heavy taxation which the Emperor imposed.1 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 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 till 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 753 had not set a seal on the iconoclastic heresy. It was when the news of this Council 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. 429) places this visit in a new light. But even now the Pope did not intend to sever Italy from the Empire; the formal authority 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 restitution — 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.3

The attempts to derive the territorial dominion of the Church from the patrimonies of St. Peter have been unsuccessful.4 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 Romae 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 754, in which Pippin undertook to restore certain territories to Peter,5 and (2) that Pippin did not promise the whole Exarchate and Pentapolis, but only a number of cities and districts, enumerated in the deed.

The fictitious constitution of Constantine the Great, making the Bishop of Rome secular lord of Rome and the west, was drawn up under Pope Paul I. not long after the donation of Pippin. But it is not certain that it was drawn up with the deep design of serving those ends which it was afterwards used to serve; it may have been intended merely to formulate a pious legend.6

In regard to the sending of the keys of St. Peter to Charles Martel in 739 and to Charles the Great in 796 there can be no question that Sickel is right in denying that this was a “pledge or symbol of sovereignty,” as Gibbon says, or of a protectorate. If it were a symbol transferring to the Frank king any rights of sovereignty it would have involved the transference of that which the keys opened. Thus the presentation of the keys of Rome would have made the king lord of the city. And if the presentation of the keys of the tomb of St. Peter had any secular meaning, it could only be that the Pope alienated the tomb from his own possession and made the king its proprietor. The act must have had a purely religious import — the mere bestowal of a relic, intended to augment the interests of the kings in the Holy See. Gregory I. had long ago given a key of the famous sepulchre as a sort of relic (Mansi, Conc. 13, p. 804). See Sickel, op. cit. p. 851-3.

[Some recent literature: Friedrich, die Constantinische Schenkung, 1889; Kehr, op. cit., and art. in Sybel’s Hist., Zeitsch., 1893, 70, p. 388 sqq.; Schaube, ib., 1894, 72, p. 193 sqq.; Schnürer, Die Entstehung des Kirchenstaates, 1894; Sickel, op. cit., and article in Deutsche Zeitsch. für Geschichtswissenschaft, 11, 12, 1894; Sackur, in the Mitteilungen des Inst. für oesterreichische Geschichtsforschung, 16, 1896; T. Lindner, Die sog. Schenkungen Pippins, Karls des grossen und Ottos I. an die Päpste, 1896. See also Oelsner’s Jahrbücher des fränkischen Reiches unter K. Pippin, and Simson’s Jahrb. d. fr. R. unter Karl dem grossen; Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. tr., vol. ii.; the notes in Duchesne’s Liber Pontificalis; Duchesne, Les premiers temps de l’Etat pontifical in the Rev. d’hist. et de litt. religieuses, i. (in three parts), 1896; Döllinger, Die Pabstfabeln des Mittelalters (Gregory II. und Leo III., p. 151 sqq.; Die Schenkung Constantius, p. 61 sqq.).]

Since this was written I have received from M. H. Hubert an important study: Etude sur la formation des états de l’église; les papes Grégoire II., Grégoire III., Zacharie et Etienne II., et leurs relations avec les empereurs iconoclastes (726-757). Published in the Revue historique, lxix., 1899.

[1 ]The discontent with the taxation 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.

[2 ]Kehr, Gött. 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, Gött. Gel. Anz., 1897, 11, p. 842-3.

[4 ]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 755 (Cod. Car. p. 493), civitates et loca vel omnia quae ipsa donatio continet.

[6 ]Cp. Sickel, op. cit. p. 845.