STEPHEN II, (752), and STEPHEN (II) III,

752-757

 

Emperor. Constantine V. (Copronymus), 741-775.

Kings. Aistulf, 749-756. DesIderius, 756-774

Exarch. Eutychius, 727-752- (apparently the last of the exarchs).

 

IMMEDIATELY after the death of Pope Zachary, “the whole people” elected a certain priest Stephen as his successor. But after being formally conducted into the Lateran Palace, he was, on the morning of the third day after his election, stricken with apoplexy whilst in his chair transacting some of his domestic affairs. Death ensued on the following day. One consequence of the premature death of this Stephen before his consecration as bishop has been to cause great disorder in the numbers assigned to the different Stephens that have followed him. Thus a great many historians call the immediate successor of this unconsecrated Stephen, Stephen II, but as many more Stephen III. For ourselves we shall call the second Stephen, who succeeded Zachary, Stephen III, for two reasons. First, because we hold that election on the one hand and consent on the other are enough to make a Pope. From the time, at least, of St. Benedict II, the popes elect have exercised full jurisdiction in the Church, and hence were acting as Heads of the Church, as popes. And secondly, in the official list of the popes published yearly in Rome in the “Diario” (Almanac), the number II is affixed to the Stephen whose name is omitted by many in their lists of the popes; and as still further showing the tradition of the Roman Church, the portrait of the Stephen who reigned but for three days appears among the mosaic medallions of the Popes which adorn the basilica of St. Paul outside-the-walls.

In this same month of March, “the whole people of God” assembled in the venerable basilica of St. Mary Major, and there, after pouring forth ardent prayers to God and Our Lady, unanimously elected another Stephen, a deacon. Amidst the greatest rejoicings, the newly-elected Pope was conveyed, first to the Lateran basilica, and then, “according to custom”, to the adjoining palace. He was consecrated on March 26; for we are told in the Life of Zachary, in the Liber Pontificalis, that the bishopric of Rome was vacant twelve days; and, as Stephen II was never a bishop, we arrive at this date for the consecration of Stephen III.

From a very early age Stephen was brought up in the Lateran Palace. On the death of his father, he was entrusted to the care of the popes, and thoroughly imbued with the doctrine and spirit of the apostles by the great pontiffs Gregory III and Zachary. Hence, in his pontifi­cate he showed himself a lover of God’s Church, a firm upholder of ecclesiastical tradition, a ready supporter of the poor of Christ, a constant preacher of God’s word, and a bold defender of his flock. His love for the poor Stephen showed in a most practical manner. Four hospitals within the city walls, which by the ravages of time had fallen into decay, he completely restored, enriched with presents and protected by a bull of interdict. Another he reestablished for daily supplying food to a hundred poor; and outside the city walls, on the Vatican hill, near St. Peter’s, he built two new hospitals, and attached them to the already existing deaconries of Our Lady and St Sylvester. That glorious title, “lover of the poor”, the special appanage of the good Christian, was not given to Stephen in vain.

Under Pope Stephen there began in real earnest the last desperate attempt on the part of the Lombards to bring all Italy, the duchy of Rome included, under their barbaric sway. A contest which, after some twenty-two years’ duration, was to end in the destruction of the Lombard kingdom, and leave the popes in peaceful rule over central Italy, was now begun between the popes, naturally and justly anxious to preserve the independence of the Roman duchy, and the Lombard kings bent on aggrandizement. Aistulf, whom even Muratori, with his Lombard leanings, allows to have been a man of little conscience, and less judgment, attacked the territories still under the exarch with great vigor. His victorious troops overran Istria and the Pentapolis. Either in this year (752), or in the preceding, Ravenna fell into his hands, and thus, after some 180 years’ duration, the power of the exarchs was broken for ever! Stephen heard with alarm that preparations were being made by Aistulf for the conquest of the Roman duchy. Whilst “his enemy was still afar off”, the Pope, “in the third month after his consecration” (June 752), sent with presents to the king his brother the deacon Paul (afterwards Pope), and Ambrose, the primicerius of the notaries, to arrange for a peace. Soothed with gold, the Lombard agreed to a peace of forty years. But in four months all thoughts of peace had left the breast of the ambitious Lombard. He made no secret of his intention of subjecting to his rule Rome and its dependencies; and, to bring matters to a head, calmly demanded an annual tribute of a golden solidus (12s. 6d.) from every inhabitant of Rome. Again Stephen made another effort to preserve the peace. And in the autumn the abbots of the two great monasteries of St. Vincent’s, on the Vulturnus, and Monte Cassino were sent to the Lombard king. To their words Aistulf paid not the slightest heed but sent them off to their monasteries, forbidding them to return to the Pope.

Whilst, on the news of this rebuff, the Pope, according to his wont, was engaged in recommending his cause “and that of the people committed to him " to God, there arrived in Rome from Constantinople, John, the Silentiary, with, not an army, but imperial rescripts for the Pope and Aistulf, demanding from the latter the restoration of the exarchate. Stephen at once dispatched John, along with the deacon Paul, “to the said most wicked king” at Ravenna. But John was sent off by the cunning Aistulf, with words and a companion, in the shape of an envoy from himself to the emperor. The Pope took good care to send ambassadors of his own also to Constantinople along with John; and through them he begged the emperor to send an army for the defence of Rome, and the liberation of the rest of Italy, from “the jaws of the son of iniquity”, as he had “so often asked him to do in writing”.

In describing the sequel of events at this epoch, we cannot do better than continue to keep as close as possible to the very words of the Book of the Popes. Meanwhile Aistulf continued his preparations, and his threats. He would put every Roman to the sword if they did not submit to his rule. But Stephen called the people together; and exhorted them to implore God’s pardon for their sins, assuring them that He would yet free them from the hands of their foes. Accordingly a great procession was formed to go to the Church of St. Mary Major. Litanies were chanted and images of Our Lady and Our Lord carried by the priests. The Pope himself, walking with bare feet, bore on his shoulders a famous picture of Our Lord, thought to have been miraculously painted while, fastened to the “adorable cross” was also borne along the “treaty” which Aistulf had violated. With ashes on their heads, most fervently did the people beg help from God. The Pope improved the occasion by doing all he could to advance both clergy and people in virtue. The former he collected in his palace at the Lateran, and exhorted to devote themselves to the study of the Scriptures and sacred learning with the greatest earnestness; and he was indefatigable in preaching to the people to keep from evil and lead holy lives. And for the safety of the country and of all Christians, he ordered the litany to be said every Saturday alternately at St. Mary Major’s, St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s. Well may we ask with Mark Antony  : “Was this ambition?” .... Ambition should be made of sterner stuff”. But Stephen knew that if “we ought to pray as though our affairs were wholly God’s, we ought to act as though they solely rested with ourselves”. And so, realizing that his efforts for peace, and his treasures, which he had freely scattered “for the flock divinely entrusted to his care and for all the province of Italy”, were all thrown away, and “especially because he saw that there was no hope of help from the emperor, then, as his predecessors of blessed memory, the two Gregorys and Zachary, had done to Charles (Martel), he (Stephen) sent secretly, by a pilgrim, letters to Pippin, king of the Franks, unfolding to him the wretched state in which the Roman duchy was, owing to the hostile action of Aistulf, and imploring him to send ambassadors to Rome, who might ensure him (the Pope) safe conduct to their master”. It is not often that any of the papal biographers in the Liber Pontificalis assign any motives for any action whatsoever which they relate. In this instance, however, it is most positively affirmed that the reasons why Stephen III had recourse to Pippin were that diplomacy had failed to avert the invasion of the duchy, and that no help could be looked for from the East. Historians, then, of today, who set forth other motives for Stephen’s action than the two just given, may be set down as rather following conjecture, if not prejudice, than the records of history. And writers who blame the popes for appealing to the king of the Franks must be strangely forgetful that the yoke of foreigners is ever hateful; and foreigners to the Romans of the eighth century were certainly the Lombards, aliens to them in blood, language and customs. And surely they cannot call in question the right of one who is unjustly attacked in his goods, person, or liberty, to call anybody to his assistance.

In answer to Stephen’s letter, there came first Abbot Droctegang (Spring 753), and then another messenger from Pippin, to assure the Pope that their master would do all that the Pope wished. By the hands of the abbot the Pope sent off two letters, one of thanks to Pippin, telling him he had given Droctegang a verbal answer to his (Pippin’s) communication, and begging him not to fail in the work he had begun. The other was addressed “to all our glorious sons and dukes of the Franks”. There was the more reason for this that some of the Prankish leaders were opposed to war. Eginhard assures us that Pippin was much hampered, “because some of the chief men of the Franks, his councilors, had been much opposed to his wishes, and had gone so far as to declare that they would desert the king and return home”.  “We have full confidence”, writes the Pope to them, “that you fear God and love your protector Blessed Peter, the Prince of the Apostles; and that for his interests you will, at our request, with all earnestness, come to our aid. And you may take it as certain that in return for your efforts in behalf of your spiritual mother, his holy Church, your sins will be forgiven you by the Prince of the Apostles, and that for your toil you will receive a hundredfold from God”. In conclusion he begs them to support the petition he is addressing by Droctegang to their king.

Meanwhile the Lombards were pushing on, and had just taken possession of a place occupied by the serfs of the Church, when there returned from Constantinople the Silentiary John, and those who had gone with him from the Pope and Aistulf. John brought nothing but another rescript, bidding the Pope go in person to the Lombard king and try and win from him the restoration of the lost provinces. A safe conduct for the Pope and his suite was obtained from Aistulf; and Stephen was on the point of setting out for the North when some new ambassadors arrived in Rome from Pippin. These were Chrodegang, Bishop of Metz, one of the most distinguished ecclesiastics of this age, and Duke Autchar, who had come to escort the Pope into France (i.e., Frankland), in accordance with his wishes. With these various ambassadors, and a number of the Roman clergy, nobility, and military leaders, the Pope, though out of health, left Rome (October 14, 753), amidst the greatest signs of grief on the part of the people not only of Rome itself, but of the other cities of the duchy. When Stephen drew near to Pavia, he was met by envoys from Aistulf, who bade the Pope on no account to dare to speak to their master in behalf of Ravenna, or of any other conquest made by him or any of his predecessors. Sending word that no threats would make him keep silence on this matter, Stephen entered Pavia; and at once, after presenting the king with numerous presents, begged him to restore “their own to each party”. But neither could the Pope nor the Imperial ambassador obtain anything from Aistulf. It required the strongest representations  on the part of Pippin’s envoys before Aistulf would give the Pope permission to continue his journey towards France. He fretted and fumed, and used every means to prevent the Pope from fulfilling his intention of going to France. He evidently instinctively feared what would be the result to his ambitious schemes. His opposition was vain. As soon as his verbal consent was passed, Stephen, with his clergy, among whom are names that are not here mentioned for the first the archdeacon Theophylact, a candidate for the papacy; the deacon Gemmulus, a correspondent of St. Boniface, etc.), set out (November 15, 753) with the greatest haste. But only did he feel at ease when they had reached those passes of the Alps that were in the hands of the Franks. Stephen made his first considerable halt at the monastery of St. Maurice at Agaune in Valais, on the Rhone, above Lake Geneva. Here, to escort Stephen to their king, came the Abbot Fulrad and Duke Rothard. And here the poor Pope had need of rest. In the weak state of his health, he tells us himself how the long and arduous journey affected him. The distance, the snow and the cold, the heat, the floods and the rushing rivers, the atrocious mountains, caused his weak frame absolutely to wear away.

Meeting of Pippin and the Pope at Ponthion, January 6, 754

When Pippin heard of Stephen’s approach, he sent forward his son Charles to meet the Pope; and himself, his wife, and a large number of his nobles advanced some three miles from the royal residence of Ponthion to welcome the Pontiff. As soon as Pippin saw the Pope, he dismounted, prostrated himself to the ground, and for some distance walked by the Pope’s side as his groom. Arrived at the palace (January 6, 754), Stephen, with tears in his eyes, implored Pippin to take up the cause of “Blessed Peter and the republic of the Romans”. Pippin at once engaged himself on oath, after making a solemn treaty with him to fulfill the Pope’s wishes with regard to the exarchate and the republic to the very best of his abilities.

After the interview at Ponthion, the Pope went to the famous monastery of St. Denis to pass the winter; and here he soon afterwards anointed Pippin and his two sons as kings of the Franks (754), and declared them “patricians of the Romans”. Furthermore, we have it on the authority of the author of the Clausula, already referred to, that he forbade, under pain of excommunication, any to presume for the future to elect as their king one who was not of the blood of Pippin. Thus did a Pope in person confirm what had been already done by the direction of his predecessor. A little later, according to the annals in March, at the earnest prayer of the Pope, Pippin caused to be confirmed at a general assembly of the nobility at Kiersey (or Quiercy), on the Oise, what he had already undertaken to do for Blessed Peter and his successors. We shall hear of the “Kiersey treaty” again.

At present we refrain from any comment on these interesting and important transactions, that the simple narrative of the events themselves may make their due impression on the mind of the reader. It shall merely be added that subsequent testimony of various kinds, which will be noticed in the sequel, make it certain that a deed of gift (donatio) of the exarchate, etc., was at this great assembly presented to the Pope by Pippin.

One or two events occurred just at this juncture, and prevented the immediate putting of this resolution into effect. In the first place the Pope fell ill, but at length suddenly recovered. So rapid, however, was the recovery, that it was soon given out that it was not without the miraculous intervention of SS. Peter and Paul, and St. Dionysius (or Denis), as the Pope himself was made to proclaim in a document on the subject, which gratitude was said to have impelled him to put forth. It is interesting to note, in this curious forgery, that the title of “most Christian”, which the Book of the Popes has now begun to prefix to the name of King Pippin, is here also assigned to the same sovereign.

The next event was the arrival in France of the monk Carlomann. Aistulf, finding that Pippin was evidently determined to go to extremities with him, tried to put pressure on him to make him hang back, in a rather unexpected manner. The wily Lombard gave the abbot of Monte Cassino to understand that it would go hard with him and his monastery if Carlomann was not at once sent to his brother to induce him to stay in France. Thither, then, went the unwilling monk; but he was doubtless not much distressed when he found that Pippin was not to be turned aside from his purpose. To avoid complications, the Pope and Pippin decided that Carlomann must retire to the monastery of Vienne. Thither the humble monk accordingly went, and there he died in peace in the following year (August 17, 755).

After no less than three embassies, which the wish of the Pope for peace had caused Pippin to send to Aistulf, had failed, even with offers of money, to induce the Lombard king to surrender what he had seized, Pippin at length set his forces in motion. Even at this eleventh hour, nothing would content the peace-loving Pope but that Pippin should send yet another embassy to Aistulf; and Stephen himself wrote to him, begging him by the thought of the day of judgment to restore, without causing a loss of Christian life, their rights to the Church and the Republic of the Romans. For sole answer came insolent threats. But Aistulf’s arm was not so powerful as his tongue. The Frankish forces moved forward. Commending himself to his prayers. Pippin parted from the Pope at Maurienna, in sight of Italy’s mountain rampart. The passes of the Alps were triumphantly forced by the Franks, and the month of September or October saw Aistulf besieged in his own capital of Pavia. A few days’ fighting and Aistulf’s resistance was at an end. Once again, at the suggestion of the Pope, terms of peace were proposed, and this time they were accepted by Aistulf. The Lombard gave hostages to Pippin, and swore to restore Ravenna and the other cities that he had captured.

No sooner had Pippin returned to France, and the Pope to Rome, when the false Lombard was in arms again. To ensure victory he aroused the whole nation; and, as appears from the Pope’s letters, contrived meanwhile to throw dust into the eyes of Pippin. But Stephen was not slow to make known the situation to the Frankish king. Two letters were dispatched to him, one after the other (755?), pretty much to the same effect, but sent to let Pippin see that affairs were becoming daily more critical. They were both written at the close of the year 754 or the beginning of 755. Both were addressed to the Pope’s “Most excellent sons, Pippin, Charles and Carlomann, kings and patricians of the Romans”. The Frank is exhorted not to let his reverence and devotion to St. Peter remain inoperative, but to see that he withdraw not his hand from the plough now that he has begun to help the Church. “From the day on which we separated, Aistulf has endeavored to afflict us, and to reduce the Church of God to such a depth of ignominy that the tongue of man cannot describe it ... Not an inch of land has he returned to St. Peter, the church and the republic of the Romans ... Haste to restore to St. Peter what, under your hand and seal, you promised for the good of your soul ... To you have we committed the care of the cause of Holy Church, and you will have an account to render to God at the last day of how you have striven for that cause, of how you have labored to bring about the restoration of his (St. Peter’s) lands and cities ... For you know that the Prince of the Apostles holds your deed of gift as it were handwriting against you”. This deed of gift (donatio), so frequently mentioned in these two letters, refers, of course, to the gift by Pippin at Kiersey to “Blessed Peter”, i.e., of course to his vicar the Pope, of Ravenna and the Pentapolis. They were Pippin’s to give by the right of conquest. Unable or unwilling to defend them, the Greeks had left them to fall into the hands of the Lombards. Taken from them by the Frankish king, they were of his free will given to the Pope. These States are always said in the documents of the time to be “restored”, because they were snatched from the hands of plunderers and were “given back”, if not to the same men who ruled them before (viz., the Greek emperors), at least to the same people who lived in them before, and to a ruler of their own nationality, a ruler of their own religion, and a ruler of their own choice, whom they loved, and for whom they had taken up arms. The “image-breaking” emperors of Constantinople were nothing to Pippin; but the popes were his benefactors, and to him, as successors of St. Peter, the earthly representatives of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

At length, laying waste everything with fire and sword, and carrying off many of the bodies of the saints from the catacombs, Aistulf encamped before the walls of Rome in the beginning of January, and began the siege with considerable vigor. The attack was met with equal vigor by the besieged, who were animated by the valor of the abbot Werner, one of Pippin’s envoys who accompanied the Pope on his return to Rome, and by the Franks who had formed his escort. News of all this was not long in reaching Pippin. But the siege pressed, and Pippin did not appear, so that, about the close of February, the Pope managed to get some letters sent off to Pippin by the abbot Werner and others, who went by sea.

The first of these letters was addressed to Pippin and to all the clergy, nobles and army of the Franks, by the Pope, clergy, nobles, people and army of Rome, all in affliction. It opens by describing the arrival of the different divisions of the Lombard forces in the beginning of January, the different portions of the walls that they severally attacked, and Aistulf’s demand on his first approach : “Give up to me your bishop, open the Salarian gate, and I will be merciful to you; otherwise I will overthrow your walls, and put you all to the edge of the sword, and I would like to know who will then snatch you out of my hands”. Then follows a narration of their doings, which proves, up to the hilt, that the Lombards were but little less barbarous than they were when they first darkened the soil of Italy; that they were indeed the worst of the hordes that devastated that unhappy country on the break-up of the Roman empire in the West, and that those not subject to their sway might well resist them by every means in their power. And this, too, even if we allow that the picture drawn was as highly colored as possible for the benefit of Pippin.

“Houses and churches they burnt to the ground, images of the saints they broke in pieces or cast into the flames, and the sacred gifts, the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, they put into certain of their polluted vessels which they called “folles”; and after they had sated themselves with other food, they eat these same sacred gifts; the sacred vestments they applied to their private uses; monks they put to the sword, and nuns they violated and then treated in the same way. All the domus cultae of the Church they burnt ... the vines and crops they rooted up…All the serfs of the Church and of all the Romans they killed or led captive. They inflicted greater evils on the Roman province than were ever done to it by pagan nations”. Next is set forth the vigor of the attack, the various engines that day and night were directed against the walls, and the taunts flung at them by the Lombards, who cry out to them : “Let the Franks come now and pluck you from our grasp”. The letter concludes with an earnest appeal for help, as the Franks hope for help from God.

Another letter, conceived in similar terms, was addressed by the Pope in his own name to Pippin alone. In it Stephen asks for help because to the king of the Franks has he entrusted “God’s holy Church and our people of the Roman republic to be protected”. Still the troops of Pippin did not appear, and still the Lombard assaults continued, and so the Pope, to use the absurdly melodramatic language of certain authors, “took the impious step of writing a letter, as from St. Peter himself” —“ventured on the awful assumption of the person of the apostle”, etc., etc. That the Pope should write in the person of St. Peter is not in the least extraordinary, when it is considered, on the one hand, that Pippin had always before his mind that the Pope did occupy the place of St. Peter, for he ever spoke of helping “St. Peter” and giving the exarchate to “St. Peter”; and on the other, that the Pope himself believed, as most Christians have at all times believed, that he was the successor of St. Peter; was, as such, the Rock on which the Church of Christ was founded, and consequently had a supreme right to speak in St. Peter’s name. Nor is there, in the domain of fact, the least reason for believing that either Pippin or the Pope regarded this impersonation of St. Peter as anything more than a specially earnest and solemn mode of writing. To such as look at this letter with the eyes neither of Pippin nor the Pope, but with non-Catholic and nineteenth century ideas, not modified by a few grains of common sense, it may doubtless appear sufficiently awful.

The superscription of the letter is as follows: “Peter, called to apostleship by Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; .... and, through me, the whole Catholic and of St. Apostolic Roman Church of God .... and Stephen the head of that same Church .... to the most excellent men Pippin, Charles and Carlomann, and to all the clergy and people of the Franks”.

After this the letter begins : “I, Peter the apostle, have been set by the power of Christ, the son of the living God, to be a light to the whole world ... To this apostolic Roman Church of God, entrusted to me, your hope of future reward is attached. And so I, who have adopted you as sons, call on you to defend this Roman state from the hands of its enemies. ... Our Lady also in like manner and all the saints exhort you to have compassion on this city ... Give help to my people of Rome now, that I may be able to help you hereafter at the day of judgment ... Of all peoples, your nation of the Franks has shown itself most well disposed towards me; and so, by the hands of my vicar, I have entrusted to you, to be delivered, from its enemies, the Church, which the Lord has given into my keeping ... If you come quickly to my aid, then, helped by my prayers, you will, after overcoming your enemies in this life, and being happy here, enjoy the gifts of eternal life; but if, as I trust you will not, you delay your assistance, know that you are cut off from eternal life”.

The siege of Rome

Whilst this letter is on its way to the Frankish monarch, for the sake of those who love to read of “war and war’s alarms”, we would be glad to give a description of this first sustained siege of Rome that we have yet had to chronicle. But few details of it have come down to us. The Pope’s letters to Pippin describe the approach of the Lombard forces in three great divisions. The army of Tuscany blockaded the entire west front of the city; that is to say, they were encamped along the length of the Tiber, which runs pretty well north and south through the city, from the gate of St. Peter and that of St. Pancratius (the old Aurelian gate) to that known as the Porta Portuensis. The royal standard was planted opposite the Salarian; and so the king’s division would blockade the north and part of the east of the city; the rest of the east wall and the south of the city, to the gates of St. John and St. Paul, were watched by the army of Beneventum. The command of the waterway to the sea, however, seems to have remained with the besieged, as it was by sea that the Pope’s envoys contrived to get to Pippin. It should be noted in passing that the fact that the Lombards never became a naval power in any sense of the term is one of the many proofs of the barbaric condition in which their nation ever remained. Nor had they even such knowledge of engineering as is necessary to subdue walled cities. So that, though the Pope speaks of the various engines and contrivances with which they assaulted the city, it held out month after month. Distinguished in the defence of the city was the abbot Werner, whom the Pope describes as ever on the walls in his cuirass. We can well imagine this bold Teuton warrior-monk and his body of Franks doing yeoman service against the Lombards. It would be doubtless on account of his brave martial spirit that the Pope entrusted to him the conveyance of his first two letters to Pippin, after the siege had lasted some fifty-five days.

The letters of the Pope must have had a prompt effect on Pippin. For as we are told by the Liber Pontificalis that the siege of Rome lasted three months, and that Aistulf broke it up to resist Pippin in the north, we may conclude that the Frankish monarch forced the passes of the Alps for a second time about the month of April 756. Whilst Pippin was thus engaged, there again arrived in Rome, with more words, the imperial envoy John, the Silentiary, accompanied by George, the Chief Secretary of State. Scarcely would they believe the Pope when he told them that Pippin was again on his way to free the Roman duchy from the Lombards. They resolved to see for themselves. However, when, along with a papal envoy, they reached Marseilles, they had the mortification to find that what the Pope had told them was only too true. Their one object was then to get at Pippin by themselves, and before the envoy of the Pope could obtain access to him. Accordingly they used all the artifices in their power, and put as much pressure on him as they could, to keep the Pope ‘s ambassador at Marseilles. Finding that he was bent on going forward, George hurried into Italy by himself, and overtook Pippin as he was drawing near to Pavia. Offering him presents from the emperor, and promising him more, the imperial secretary implored Pippin to hand over the exarchate again into his master’s hands. In vain. Pippin declared stoutly that he would not on any account alienate it from the power of Blessed Peter and the jurisdiction of the Roman Church and the Apostolic See. Then on his oath he added : “It is not to please man that I have so often engaged in battle. It is only for love of Blessed Peter, and to obtain pardon of my sins. No amount of treasure can move me to take back what I have once offered to Blessed Peter”.

Pippin then pushed on to Pavia, and began the siege of it at once. In the autumn Aistulf was again at Pippin’s feet. This time he did not escape so easily. He had to pay a war indemnity, become tributary to the Frankish king, acknowledging his dependence by an annual payment, and fulfill with regard to the Pope what he had promised in the former treaty; and, as a further punish­ment for his perfidy, he had to surrender to the Pope the city of Comiaclum (Comacchio) in addition.

As what follows is of considerable importance in connection with the temporal power of the Holy See, we will give it almost “verbatim” in the words of the Book of the Popes. “He (i.e., Aistulf, as is clear from the position in which the word—misit or emisit—occurs) drew up in writing a donation of all the cities (which he had to surrender) to be kept for ever by Blessed Peter, the Holy Roman Church and the Pontiffs of the Apostolic See, which deed is still preserved in the archives of our Holy Church. To take possession of the said cities, the most Christian king of the Franks sent his counselor, the venerable abbot and priest Fulrad, and himself returned to France. In company with envoys from Aistulf, Fulrad went through the Pentapolis and Emilia, took formal possession of the various cities, and with the keys and hostages from each place, reached Rome. There, on the confession of St. Peter, he deposited the keys of Ravenna and the other cities of the exarchate, along with Aistulf’s donation. And to the same apostle and his vicar, and all his successors to be for ever possessed and ordered by them, he handed over the following cities : —Ravenna, Ariminum (Rimini), Pisaurum (Pesaro), Conca (La Cattolica?, on the coast below Rimini), Fanum (Fano), Cesenae (Cesena), Senogallia (Sinigaglia), Aesium (Jesi), Forum Pompilii (Forumpopuli), Forum Livii (Forli), with the castle of Sassubium (Castro Caro?), Monteferetri (Montefeltro), Acerragio (not yet identified), Montem Lucati (Monte Luco), Serra (among the mountains that separate Umbria from the March of Ancona), the castle of San Marini (between Rimini and Pesaro), Bobium (not Bobbio in Liguria, but Sarsina, in the Pentapolis), Urbino, Callis (Cagli), Lucioli (Luceoli on the Flaminian Way; the modern Cantiano), Eugubio (Gubbio), Comiaclum (Comacchio), and Civitas Nariensis or Narni, which, though belonging to the duchy of Rome, had been for some years in the possession of the dukes of Spoleto”. These cities, with the exception, of course, of Narni, meant practically the exarchate of Ravenna, considered as including the two Pentapolises, i.e., the territory bounded on the north by the Po, on the west by the Panaro and the Apennines, on the south by the Miseo (Musone), and on the east by the Adriatic.

The Pope was now undisputed sovereign not only of the “duchy of Rome”, over which he had ruled with rapidly-increasing power from the Iconoclast disturbances in the times of Gregory II, but also of the “exarchate”. The authority, which the voluntary action of its inhabitants, in the first days of the” image-breaking” troubles, had given to the Pope in the exarchate, and which supplies us with the reason why all the deeds and histories of this period speak of the “donations” of Pippin and Aistulf as “restitutions”, had now, by the valor and generosity of Pippin, and the “indifference of New Rome”, developed into full sovereignty. The subsequent course of this history will, it is hoped, afford further evidence of the truth of this proposition—anent the extent of the Pope’s temporal power.

Stephen at once took possession of the exarchate. Sergius, the archbishop of Ravenna, was naturally named the Pope’s representative in the exarchate, as the most important and powerful resident in that locality. But the inferior officers, or at least many of them, were sent out from Rome. There cannot, therefore, be any doubt that henceforth the Pope is the real lord of the exarchate.

As, however, some authors have imagined that by bestowing the dignity of “patrician of the Romans” on Pippin and his sons, Pope Stephen thereby limited his own power in the papal states, it will be to the point here to inquire into what was connoted by that title. According to Gibbon, it was Constantine who “revived the title of patricians, but he revived it as a personal, not as an hereditary distinction (as it used to be in the palmy days of old Rome). They yielded only to the transient superiority of the annual consuls. But they enjoyed the preeminence over all the great officers of State, with the most familiar access to the person of the prince. This honorable rank was bestowed on them for life; and as they were usually favorites, and ministers who had grown old in the imperial court, the true etymology of the word was perverted by ignorance and flattery; and the patricians of Constantine were reverenced as the adopted Fathers of the emperor and the republic. They, i.e., the patricians, were thus the highest class in the empire; from their ranks came the exarchs and the other higher officers of the State; and the name “patrician” itself was often used to denote some high office for which there was another more distinctive or peculiar name. Thus we often read of the “patricians of Italy, Africa”, etc., instead of “exarchs” of Italy, etc. And so it came to be thought that the title of “patrician' implied the duty of protecting and defending those provinces”. Hence Pippin spoke of himself as “defender” of the Holy Roman Church; and so was he spoken of by the Pope. Whatever, then, may have been the social position of a patrician, or whatever the power he possessed, it is certain that the emperor, in creating one, neither created a superior nor an independent ruler. Even if the patrician represented the sovereign, he still remained second and subject to the emperor. Any power he exercised in the provinces he administered in his master’s name, and it was but delegated power. And when the popes named the Frankish kings “patricians of the Romans”, they did not create officials who were to exercise power over the Romans independent of themselves. The patriciate, whatever else it implied, at least argued dependence. In appointing Pippin “patrician of the Romans”, Stephen III appointed him to be his defender and helper. It is true that history has often shown that there is danger in calling in “defenders”. Powerful protectors often become the lords and masters of those whom they “protect”. People with the best of intentions often find it hard to discriminate between the end of protection and the beginning of interference. We need not then be sur­prised if the Frankish rulers sometimes acted as if they were kings, and not simply patricians of the Romans.

Death of Aistulf, 756

Towards the close of the year 756, the treacherous and cruel Aistulf, whilst meditating how he might most conveniently break his oaths to Pippin, lost his life while hunting. Desiderius, Duke of Istria, forthwith proclaimed himself king, but, to his astonishment, met with a rival in Ratchis. Whether it was that he had grown tired of the cloister, and once more sighed after the bustle of the world, or whether it was that he so far despised Desiderius that he thought that such a man could never be allowed to succeed his brother, sure it is that Ratchis suddenly left his monastery and took up arms to oppose the pretensions of Desiderius. The latter turned to the Pope, and promised, on condition of obtaining his help, “to restore the cities which still remained in the hands of the Lombards (i.e., of course, certain cities in the exarchate), and, moreover, to present the Pope with a large sum of money”. Acting on the advice of Fulrad, Stephen sent to Desiderius, his brother, the deacon Paul, one of his counselors Christopher, and the abbot Fulrad himself. Desiderius renewed in writing the previous pro­mises he had made by word of mouth. The Pope, accordingly, heartily embraced his cause, sending a certain “venerable priest Stephen” to Ratchis, to point out to him his duty of returning to his monastery, and the abbot Fulrad with his Franks to the aid of Desiderius. The result of these measures was that the whole difficulty was settled without bloodshed. Ratchis again withdrew to his monastery, and Desiderius was recognized as king about March 757. Before Stephen died, there had been surrendered to him the cities of Faventia (Faenza), along with the castle (castellum, a fortified place) of Tiberiacum (Bagnacavallo), Cavello, and the entire duchy of Ferrara.

Much of all this is confirmed by the last extant letter of the Pope to the king of the Franks. This letter was written in the beginning of the year 757. After thank­ing Pippin very effusively, Stephen begs him to see that the rest of the cities, etc., of the exarchate be restored to the Church, because it stood to reason and was in accordance with the express declaration of the abbot Fulrad, “who had inspected everything, that the people in their neighborhood could not live in security with­out the possession of those cities which had always been joined with them under one government”.

Then, in language stronger than, as events go, we should expect to hear in these days, but which the recollection of the treachery and fearful barbarity of Aistulf caused to flow spontaneously from the Pope’s pen, Stephen went on: “That tyrant, follower of the devil, devourer of Christian blood, and destroyer of God’s churches, Aistulf, has, by the judgment of God, been struck dead and buried in hell”. By his own influence and that of the abbot Fulrad, the Pope continued, Desiderius, “a most mild man”, had been declared king, and had undertaken, on oath, “in the presence of Fulrad, to restore to Blessed Peter the remaining cities (of the exarchate), viz., Faventia, Imola and Ferrara, with their territories, as well as Ausimus (Osimo), Ancona, Humanum; and afterwards through Duke Garinodus, and Grimoald, he promised, that Bononia (Bologna), with its territories, should be restored to us; and he promised ever to remain at peace with that same Church of God and our people. He (Desiderius) likewise asked us to beg you to promise peace and concord with himself and the whole Lombard nation”. Hence the Pope begs Pippin to grant his request in behalf of Desiderius, “if, as he (Desiderius) has promised, he render full justice to the Church, the republic of the Romans and Blessed Peter, and with his nation continue in peace with the Church and our people, as is set forth in the treaties which you (Pippin) have confirmed”. Meanwhile Pippin is asked to apply quiet pressure, so that Desiderius will not fail to make the required restorations; and, in his negotiations with the Greeks, so to act “that the holy Catholic and Apostolic faith may through you remain inviolate for ever, and that the Holy Church of God may be rendered free and secure from their pestiferous malice, and may recover its property; so that the service of the lamps in the churches may not diminish, and that there may be food in abundance for the poor and the pilgrim”.

As we have remarked, Stephen lived to see the “restoration” of some of the cities mentioned in this letter, but not all. Desiderius was too much of a Lombard to be faithful to his word. Stephen’s suc­cessor had to continue the struggle for the complete restitution of the exarchate.

The Pope and the Greeks

Like his predecessors, Stephen did not fail, soon after his accession, to remind Constantine that it was his duty to restore the sacred images. His efforts were, however, no more successful than those which had been already made from Rome. Occupied for many years with the rebellion of Artavasdus, plagues, and wars with the Saracens, Constantine at length found time to make serious efforts to put down image worship. In the same year that he received the Pope’s letter in behalf of the sacred images, Constantine caused a number of delibera­tive assemblies (silentia) to be held in the different cities, with the object of deluding the people into embracing his views. And then, after the death of Anastasius, patriarch of Constantinople, the emperor summoned (754) a council to meet in the Hieria Palace near Chalcedon. Though none of the patriarchal Sees were represented in the council, no less than 338 bishops were ready at the bidding of an emperor to pass one decree after another against the worship of images, “sanctioning their private opinions by their private authority”. While denouncing “the evil art of painting”, the council found it also necessary to denounce those who rob churches “under the presence of destroying images”, a method of proceeding by no means unknown to religious reformers who have appeared in England during the last three centuries. The immediate result of this base truckling of the Byzantine bishop to the emperor was a wholesale destruction of beautiful monuments and a general flight from the neighborhood of Constantinople of the monks, who were staunch opponents of the despotic decrees of Constantine. Thus (interfering in the domain of conscience, and decreeing deposition to those of the secular clergy who would not conform to his will, and ordering that recalcitrant monks and laymen should be handed over to the arm of the State) was Constantine occupied when the whole undivided energies of himself and the empire should have been devoted to combating the Saracens and Bulgarians.

St. Boniface

After following the history of St. Boniface through the three successive pontificates, we have now only to speak of the closing year of his life (755). In the beginning of that year he wrote to Pope Stephen to beg him to act towards him (Boniface) as his predecessors had done. For they had helped and encouraged him by the authority of their letters. Any good he may have done for the past thirty-six years (since 719) for the Roman Church he desires to continue; and he promises with all readiness and humility to amend anything that that Church may find wanting in his conduct. In conclusion he begs the Pope not to be annoyed that he has not written to him before, because he has had on his hands the restoration of no less than thirty churches, burnt in one of the inroads of the pagans (Saxons).

Soon after this first letter Boniface dispatched another to the Pope. It appears that Hildebert, Bishop of Cologne, claimed jurisdiction over Utrecht (a place that the saint himself had formerly furnished with a bishop, in succession to St. Willibrord, or Clement, the apostle of the Frisians), and did not wish it to remain “an episcopal See, subject to the apostolic See, with a special mission for the conversion of the Frisians”. But St. Boniface gave Hildebert to understand that the regulations of Pope Sergius in the matter must be adhered to, and wrote to Stephen to ask him to confirm his (Boniface’s) decision if it seemed good to his Holiness. As Utrecht remained an episcopal See, the Pope must have confirmed the saint's action.

And now, feeling that his end must be drawing nigh—for had he not passed the allotted threescore years and ten?—Boniface, sighing for the martyr’s crown, wished to end his missionary labors where he had begun them, viz., in Frisia. For in that country a considerable number of the people were still savage pagans. Accordingly, to provide for his flock, with the consent of Pippin and the clergy and nobility of his diocese, he consecrated his friend, countryman, and fellow-laborer, Lull, as his successor, in accordance with permission previously obtained from Rome, as Otho is careful to add. Then after commending those who had worked so well with him to the care of King Pippin, he took boat for Frisia, and, with a large number of devoted followers, received the crown of martyrdom (June 5, 755) on the plains of Dockum, near the stream of Bordue (Bordau). Thus, laying down his life for the truth he had so long preached, did Boniface gloriously terminate a useful and noble career, a career which elicits, indeed, the praise of God himself—“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, and that preacheth peace: of him that sheweth forth good, that preacheth salvation!”—but a career which many men think of little account. “The good man dieth, and no one taketh any heed”. But it is men such as Boniface that are the truly great. Many unreflectingly bestow the title of Great upon those who have really been their scourges, who have deluged the world in blood, and have but degraded and brutalized our race. The reflecting will, however, see that it is those who have devoted their strength and energy to raising men from the level of the brute creation, and inspiring them with high and noble thoughts, who have the strongest claim on our gratitude, and whose memory we can never hold in honor enough.

Before, however, we take our final leave of Boniface and his letters, which shed so much light on the history of his times, we may be permitted another word or two in connection with this great Englishman. With pardonable patriotism Bishop Healy endeavors to claim him as a countryman. “There is very good reason to believe”, he says, “that Boniface, though born in England, was himself of Irish origin”. What that reason is we do not know; but there are two passages to be found among his letters which seem to show that he himself acknowledged that he was English not merely by birth but by descent. Asking the English to pray for the conversion of their continental brethren (the Saxons), he writes “Pity those who are wont to say, We are of the same flesh and blood” And, on the other hand, Torthelm, writing to him from England, says : “Who would not exult and rejoice in your good works that our race (gens nostra) may believe in Christ, the Omnipotent God?” In the first case Winfrid undoubtedly seems to identify himself with the English to whom he is writing, and with the Saxons about whom he is speaking, and in the second case Torthelm would certainly seem to class Winfrid himself and the English as men of one race with the Saxons.

The other word we would say is this. Winfrid’s letters are so full of grave matters in connection with Church or State, that it is exceptional to find in them remarks of a lighter kind. When, however, they are found, they must not be passed by unnoticed, as they are of the first importance in throwing light on his character, and do no little to increase the warmth of our feelings towards him. In writing to Egbert of York, “In place of a kiss”, he says, “I have sent you a little wine, and I beg you by the bond of love between us, spend in consequence a happy day with your brethren!”

Church restoration

Stephen, too, did his share in the matter of the preservation of the ancient buildings of Rome. Among his other restorations is mentioned that of the basilica of St. Lawrence, “super S. Clementem” in the third region. This we take to be the third ecclesiastical region, which is thought to have included the third (Isis and Serapis) and the fifth (Esquiline) civil regions; and hence it may be supposed that the particular basilica mentioned is St. Lawrence’s  “in Formoso”, or “in Panisperna” as it is variously called. This basilica was built on the highest point of the Viminal hill, and on the spot where the saint was martyred.

Before Stephen died he had to face trouble from within as well as from without in the matter of his sovereign rights in the exarchate. It would seem that he had named Sergius, the archbishop of Ravenna (c. 752-770), his deputy-governor over the exarchate. Sergius, however, had not long tasted power, ere he thought he would like it for himself. He, accordingly, began to rule the exarchate as though he were its independent ruler. Naturally displeased at this, Stephen had him promptly conveyed to Rome—in what year cannot be ascertained—and there he had to remain during the rest of Stephen’s life. On this and on other counts he was examined at Rome; and, from a letter of Pope Paul I to Pippin, it is clear that, though that Pope was pushing on Sergius’ cause, he had not then (757) been restored to his See. By the year 761, however, Sergius was again in possession of his See, and acting as a true and loyal subject of the Pope. Men easily find imitators of their evil deeds; the disloyalty of Sergius found an imitator in Archbishop Leo (770-777) in the time of Pope Hadrian.

In case the spiteful gossip, Agnellus of Ravenna, may have preserved for us any true details concerning Sergius amidst much that is certainly false, we will give the story of the archbishop of Ravenna as it appears in the pages of the silly abbot of St. Mary’s and St. Bartholomew’s. Considering that Archbishop Sergius only died some thirty-five years before the birth of Agnellus, it is clear that that worthy could not have taken the slightest pains to find out the truth of what he relates. For he confuses Stephen (II) III with Zachary, and what was done by Stephen III he assigns to Pope Paul, and vice versa. He plays equally fast and loose with the Lombard kings, and makes Aistulf change places with Liutprand, and in his three-page biography gives frequent occasion to his learned modern editor (Holder-Egger) to note “this is false”, “this fabulous”, and “this is very doubtful and fabulous”.

A layman and married, Sergius, while still young, was elected to the See of Ravenna, probably by the influence of the Lombard king Aistulf. This, indeed, is not stated by Agnellus, but he tells us later that when Sergius came into collision with Rome, he was relying on the support of the Lombard king. His wife became a deaconess and retired to a convent. Succeeding in satisfying or hoodwinking the Pope in the matter of his election, he was consecrated at Rome. Supported by the papal authority, and helped by his own bland words, he got the better of a schismatical opposition to him on the part of his clergy. According to Agnellus, Sergius lost favor at Rome because he did not go to meet the Pope (Stephen III) on the occasion of his journey to Francia. The real cause was doubtless as stated above, and hence, no doubt, he was not brought to Rome till after the cession (756) of Ravenna to Pope Stephen. Hence there can be no difficulty in believing that he failed to obtain the support of Aistulf at such a juncture. And even according to Agnellus he was brought to Rome by his own citizens. The abbot continues: Arrived in Rome, he was brought before a synod to be deprived of his episcopal rank. And thus was he addressed by the Apostolicus (the Pope): “You are a neophyte; you did not belong to the (clerical) fold, nor had you served in the church of Ravenna, as the canons require. You took possession of the See like a robber, and, driving away those who were worthy of the Church’s honors, you obtained possession of the See by secular favor and force”. To this Sergius replied : “I obtained the See not by my ambition, but by the unanimous election of the clergy and people. By the canonical questions you put to me yourself, you learnt all about me—that I had a wife, and had been elected while still a layman; and yet you said there was no impediment, and consecrated me yourself”. It seems certain, however, that he was consecrated by Pope Zachary. On hearing this defence, opinions were divided, and at length the bishops declared they could not judge a superior. Thereupon the Pope angrily declared that on the following day he would himself tear the pallium from the neck of Sergius. But, says Agnellus, “by the judgment of God” he died during the night. At dawn Paul, the brother of the deceased pontiff, came to Sergius, who had passed the whole night in prayer, and asked the archbishop what he would give him if allowed to return home in peace and with increased honor. The captive at once promised Paul the treasures of the church of Ravenna. Whether this compact be­came known or not, Sergius, even according to Agnellus, got but a poor welcome on his return to Ravenna when released. Paul, however, was very nearly getting a much rougher one when he came to claim the treasures. Some of the clergy proposed to “suffocate” the Pope, others to throw him down a cistern when he was looking for the treasures. Wiser counsels, however, prevailed; and in order, as one of them put it, that the Pope might depart with honor, their hands be kept unstained, the word of their pastor preserved, and yet their treasure for the most part maintained intact, it was resolved to hide as much of it as they could without the knowledge of the archbishop. Paul, however, arrived on the scene in time to get a considerable quantity of gold and precious vessels. Moreover, evidently becoming acquainted with the designs against his life, he managed to bring it about that the conspirators were sent to Rome, among them being the grandfather of Agnellus himself. They were there imprisoned for life. Though most of this narrative of Agnellus is unworthy of the slightest credence, there may lurk some grain of truth beneath it all. At any rate, it is not without its value as a specimen of the style of the worthy abbot of Ravenna, and as showing his weight as an historian. His imagination is quite suggestive of that of Matthew of Paris.

In the midst of his struggles against enemies from Stephen, within and without, Stephen fell ill. Tenderly was he nursed by his brother and successor Paul and by his friends. But to no purpose. Death found him out; and he was buried with great pomp in St. Peter’s, April 26, 757. “His”, writes Dr. Hodgkin, “is certainly one of the great epoch-making names in the list of bishops of Rome. As Leo the First had turned aside the terrible Hun, and had triumphed over the Eastern theologians, as Gregory the Great had consolidated his spiritual dominion over Western Europe, and rescued for it a great province from heathendom, so Stephen II won for himself and his successors the sovereignty over some of the fairest regions of Italy, gave a deadly blow to the hereditary Lombard enemy, and in fact, if not in name, began that long line of Pope-kings which ended in our own day in the person of the ninth Pius”.

The one-line epitaph of Peter Mallius,

             Subjacet hic Stephanus Romanus Papa Secundus,

is thought to be only the first line of a fuller production.