ST. PAUL I

757-767

 

Emperor of the East. Constantine (V) Copronymus, 741-775.        

King of the Lombards. Desiderius, 756-774.          

King of the Franks. Pippin the Short,752-768.

 

                     

To write the history of Paul I is far from an easy task. The letters in the Codex are practically all undated. The answers to them are not forthcoming. And as it is from the Caroline Code that most of the details of the life of Paul have to be gathered, it will be readily understood that the view of the character of this Pope presented by an historian may largely depend on the chronological order in which he decides to arrange Paul’s letters. And each succeeding editor of them has arranged them differently! The order adopted by Cenni, the most widely known editor of the Caroline Codex, is often considerably different from that given by Jaffé and Gundlach.

Another reason that makes the biography of Paul hard to deal with is that we have to treat rather of the fleeting shadows of great events than of actual transactions; the events of his life were, so to speak, more negative than positive. His reign was more distinguished by what might have happened than by what really did take place; i.e., by unceasing diplomatic effort, Paul prevented the Lombards on the one hand, and the Greeks on the other, from effecting anything of any moment against the newly-acquired increased temporal power of the sovereign pontiff; he caused great events never to get beyond the eve of happening.

The exertions of Paul in the matter of the states of the Church have furnished an occasion to certain historians to sneer at him, as though he had no thought nor time for anything else but to look after temporal affairs. No doubt, to the reader who judges of things as they look at first sight, these sneers may seem to be justified by what they may read in this very biography. But one must ever remember, in the words of the homely proverb, that “the coat must always be cut in accordance with the cloth”. And in the life of Paul, the historian has nothing else to write about except his endeavors in behalf of the temporalities of his See, because chance has preserved the record of his doings in that direction, while the documents that would have enlightened us as to his other deeds have perished.

Besides, it is only natural to suppose that the establishment in the exarchate of a new authority, such as the papal, would cause a great deal of trouble in any case, even if there was peace without. And, after all, thirty-one letters on one subject in the course of ten years is not much, even if they were wholly occupied with the one subject, which they are not.

It may be useful at the outset to give a short sketch of the principal occurrences of Paul’s pontificate, which may serve as a guide through the details. The interests of Desiderius and Constantine V would naturally lead them to work to increase their power in Italy. Accordingly, throughout the whole of his reign, Paul had to face attacks or threatened attacks on his temporal authority either from the Lombards, Greeks, or both. Paul’s correspondence proves that to keep their independence for his people was just as much as he was able to effect. For, as may be well imagined, it took no little exhortation and asking to induce Pippin to take sufficient interest in the welfare of a distant people, when there were no immediate and tangible advantages to be gained for himself by his exertions. The more so that he had his own difficulties in Bavaria, and especially in Aquitaine. It was only the untiring watchfulness of Paul, and his ceaseless efforts in sustaining the goodwill of Pippin, that saved Rome from the truly ‘unspeakable’ misfortune of falling into the hands of the Greeks or Lombards. It was the latter of these two powers that gave the most trouble at the beginning of Paul’s reign. Then, from fear of Pippin, Desiderius toned down in his dreams of aggrandizement, and we shall find the Pope writing to Pippin to direct Desiderius to protect him (the Pope) against the Greeks. The trouble with Desiderius was not smoothed over before the difficulties with the Greeks began. In a word, the political situation in the time of Paul I may be thus summarized. On the one hand, on the defensive, was the Pope relying on Pippin; and, on the other, on the offensive, were the Lombards and the Empire. Desiderius was striving for territory; Constantine for both territory and heresy (Iconoclasm). Whether from mutual jealousy or mistrust, or because the Bulgarians and Saracens gave the Greeks enough to fully occupy their thoughts, there was not any practical cooperation between the Lombards and the Greeks. But so irate were the latter against the Pope for his opposition to them, that they affected to consider him as a tool in the hands of the primicerius Christopher, whom we shall see playing a very important part, at least under Stephen IV.

April, 757

Stephen III was still lying ill in the Lateran Palace, when certain eager partisans began to make preparations for the election of their own candidate. A number of them, to be ready, gathered together in the house of the archdeacon Theophylactus. But a still larger number both of the magistracy (judices) and the people made known their adhesion to Paul. However, as the papal biographer observes, Paul himself did not move in the matter, but continued his devoted attention to his dying brother. After the death of Stephen, the party in favor of Paul, which was much the stronger, elected him as Pope (April 757), and the opposition broke up.

On this election the reflections of Dr. Hodgkin may well be quoted. “We have already, in the case of Silverius, seen the son of a pope chosen for the papacy, though not in immediate succession to his father. Now brother follows close upon brother as wearer of the Roman mitre, almost the only instance of the kind that has occurred in the long annals of the papacy [Benedict VIII and John XIX.— 1012-1033—were brothers]. The choice in this instance seems to have been a good one, but it might have been a dangerous precedent. Considering the immense power which the popes have wielded, it must be considered on the whole an evidence of statesmanship and courage on the part of the electors that mere family claims have so seldom determined the succession to the papal throne”.

To the candidate thus elected a most charming character is given by the contemporary author in the Book of the Popes. Paul is there described as a man of exceptional kindness and mercy. The testimony of ‘many’ is adduced to prove that during the night he was in the habit of going about among the abodes of the poor and the sick and administering to them every comfort both for soul and body. Still under the cover of night, that his right hand might not know what his left was doing, he visited the various prisons, and oft set free those who were under sentence of death; and, by himself paying their debts, he redeemed the poor debtors “from the yoke of slavery”. Widows, orphans, all who were in need of help, found in him a strong and willing support. He was careful to prevent, as far as he could, oppression on the part of his subordinates; and never did he render evil for evil. There is, however, reason to believe that Paul was not always too firm in checking at once acts of oppression perpetrated by his subordinates. “If for a short time”, writes his biographer, “any were oppressed by his wicked satellites, it was not long before the Pope in his compassion administered the balm of comfort to the injured”. It is easy to see that this weakness of the Pope must have earned him a certain amount of unpopularity. No doubt he would never hear of many who had been wronged, and many who have once been maltreated are not soothed by subsequent kindness.

John, the Neapolitan deacon, has preserved for us a pleasing little anecdote of Pope Paul, during the time when he was a deacon. A Neapolitan deacon, of the same name as the Pope, who was in the habit of often coming to Rome on public business, formed a close friendship with the Roman deacon. On one occasion when they were enjoying a chat, the Neapolitan said, “God grant I may live to see you Pope”. “May I see you Bishop of Naples”, was the prompt rejoinder. And so it fell out. But, adds John, owing “to the detestable image controversy which was at that time going on between the apostolic authority and the abominable madness of Constantine Caballinus, nine months passed, and still the Neapolitan Paul could not be consecrated. For the Neapolitan people favored the power of the Greeks”. Thereupon the bishop elect betook himself secretly to his friend, who was now Pope. He was at once consecrated by his old friend and sent back to Naples. “But, on account of the Greek connection, his fellow-citizens would not receive him”, although they recognized him as their lawful bishop and allowed him to administer the revenue of his See. They relegated him to the Church of St. Januarius, which was not far from the city. This extraordinary state of things lasted nearly two years. At length, however, the chief men of the city, perceiving that the people were yearning for their bishop, with one accord installed him in his episcopal palace within the city. He died 766 or 767.

Paul’s first act, as “deacon and in the name of God elect of the holy Apostolic See”, was to address a letter to Pippin, “king of the Franks and patrician of the Romans”, in which he informed that monarch of the death of his brother and his own election by “the whole body of the people”. With “the approval of our nobility, we have decided to retain your envoy Immo, the letter went on, until after our consecration. Then, with our own messengers, he shall return to you .... our helper and defender. Meanwhile know that we are true to that fidelity, love and treaty which our brother offered to and made with you, and, with people, we will ever remain in the same alliance”.

After his consecration, which took place on May 29, 757, inasmuch as he was “a stout defender of the orthodox faith”, Paul commenced sending a series of envoys and letters to the emperor, exhorting him in strong terms to restore the sacred images. But apparently all without any other effect than to increase the bitterness of Constantine against the worshippers of images generally —the Pope included. With the exception of a list of his labors in the way of church restoration, this is practically the last fact of Paul’s life that his biographer has recorded of him. We must therefore turn to other sources. Before entering on his relations with Pippin, as made known to us by the Codex Carolinus, a word or two on Paul’s building operations may not be unacceptable.

Finding that from age, and the vandalism of Goth and Lombard, the catacombs were, many of them, falling into decay, Paul with great ceremony conveyed thence to the city, from the more ruinous among them, the bodies of the saints, and placed them in the various churches. Among the other catacombs to which Paul turned his attention was the catacomb of SS. Nereus and Achilleus, or of Domitilla, as it was sometimes called, on the Via Ardeatina, about a mile from the Appian Gate (now Porta S. Sebastiano). From this catacomb, in accordance with the wishes of his deceased brother, and along with the clergy and people of Rome, he transported (probably October 8, 757) the body of St. Petronilla, believed to have been the daughter of St. Peter, to the mausoleum of Honorius on the Vatican hill, near St. Peter’s. This circular structure had already been made into a chapel by Stephen III in preparation for the reception of the saint’s body. The honor of this foundation was assigned by the Pope to Pippin. It came to be known as the “chapel of the kings of France”.

In the fourteenth century there was still in existence a church which Paul built or rebuilt in honor of the apostles SS. Peter and Paul (760), “by the Via Sacra, near the temple of Rome (or Romulus)”. There were there seen, by the author of Paul’s life the impressions said to have been made by St. Peter’s knees on the stones where he knelt in prayer asking God to humble the diabolical efforts which Simon Magus was making to fly and thus to seduce the people. These identical stones are now preserved in the neighboring Church of Sta. Francesca Romana (Sta. Maria Nuova).

As a last example of Paul’s work in this direction, we will mention the fact that he built an oratory in St. Peter’s in honor of Our Lady, and there placed a silver statue of the Blessed Virgin, and made himself a sepulcher. In imitation of St. Gregory I, and other popes, he turned his paternal mansion into a monastery in honor of popes Stephen I (Martyr) and Silvester; and entirely rebuilt, decorated and endowed the old church that stood by it. This church, now known as San Silvestro in Capite, is doubly interesting to us, as it was in it that St. Gregory I preached many of his homilies, and as it was given by the present Pope (Leo XIII) to the English Catholics. Into the renovated church the Book of the Popes tells us that Paul brought the remains of St. Silvester; and an inscription, still to be read at the end of the nave, near the Sanctuary, on the right hand side, after setting forth that fact, adds that Clement VIII in his turn, some eight centuries later, renewed the church, and, finding the body of the saint under the high altar, there left it. In his new monastery Paul placed a number of Greek monks, doubtless some of those whom the violence of the Iconoclast Constantine had driven into exile.

England and Rome in the eighth century

In the first year of his reign, Paul had occasion to write to Eadbert, King of Northumberland. Though the brother of Egbert, Archbishop of York, Eadbert did not hesitate to give an early example of a style of conduct that has found imitators in those who have since ruled in this country. He rewarded his courtiers with property that was not his to give—with monasteries. The result was that an abbot Forthred appealed to Rome with regard to three of such monasteries. Paul wrote to the king, and exhorted him as an obedient son and out of love for St. Peter to restore the monasteries to their owner, the abbot Forthred. From the fact that Eadbert resigned his crown in this same year to end his days in the cloister, we may fairly conclude that the Pope’s letter was successful in its object.

Here it may be observed that it would be a great mistake to judge of a pope’s relations with a country from such few facts with which the actual name of an individual pope is connected as have escaped the ravages of time. So with regard to our own country, though the loss of the papal registers has prevented us from getting to know much of the personal relations of the different popes of this century with England, we have records enough to let us see that they must have been very numerous. For in the eighth century there was a perfect furore in England for Rome and its bishops. Of this enthusiasm for Rome, St. Boniface was not, as some imagine, the cause; he was only an instance. The See of Rome was to our eighth century countrymen “the glorious See”. In Rome they established a special quarter, called after their own language the (burgh). There, they declared, they found “the rest of life” they had long sought. Thither they went for the forgiveness of their sins. There our archbishops met the great churchmen of other lands and formed friendships with them. Thither there journeyed on pilgrimage—kings and “noble and simple, men and women, soldiers and private persons, moved by the instinct of divine love”. Those who could not go yearned to go. So many, indeed, went that, as might have been expected, not a few scandals arose in consequence. Many of those who in this century set out for Rome were women—those who had been consecrated to God (nuns) and those who had not. And, of course, many of them had not properly calculated the difficulties of the journey—its length, its dangers, and its expense. Beautiful, but in want of money and protection, many of them fell a prey to the passions of the foreigner. Hence St. Boniface, whilst begging the ecclesiastical authorities in England to dis­courage women from going on the Roman pilgrimage, declared that there was scarce a city in Lombardy, Frankland (Francia), or Gaul, where there were not Englishwomen leading a notoriously bad life. But this ugly fact tells the story of the love of the English in the eighth century for Rome and the popes even more eloquently than the others which edify. So phenomenal was this devotion of our race to the Apostolic See, that in speaking of the English, a Frankish monk of this age could find no more suitable description of them than to call them the people “who were ever on the most friendly terms with the Apostolic See”. No wonder, then, that an archbishop of Canterbury declared that with those sacred doctrines with which the Roman and Apostolic See was in accord, all his countrymen were in full harmony.

Turning our attention now to the Caroline Codex, we find that, in reply to the letter which the Pope sent him, Pippin returned (757) a kind letter, asking Paul to stand godfather to his daughter Gisela. The white garment given to the little princess when baptized was sent to the Pope. In acknowledging (757 or 758) the receipt of this mark of Pippin’s goodwill, Paul did not fail to point out that the Lombards had not manifested any intention of completing the restoration of territory which they had promised. For Pippin had requested the Pope to keep him informed as to the course of events. This letter Paul followed up (757 or 758) with another to the whole nation of the Franks, in which he thanked them for what they had done for the Church, and hoped that in return God would render them victorious over all their enemies, to the great gain of the faith and the Church.

Very likely at the same time when he acknowledged the receipt of Paul’s letter, in which the Pope had notified his election to him, and at the same time asked him to be godfather to his little daughter (who was born in 757), Pippin, knowing their unsteadiness of character, addressed a letter to the Roman people, in which he exhorted them to be loyal to the Pope. To this the “whole senate—i.e., the nobility—and people of Rome returned an answer”. After thanking God for giving them in the Frankish monarch such a “defender of His holy Church”; and declaring that in accordance with Pippin’s letters they will ever remain faithful to Blessed Peter, and to “our lord Paul, the chief bishop and universal Pope, because he is our father and good shepherd, and never ceases toiling for our welfare, like his brother, Stephen of blessed memory”, they beg Pippin, “their defender after God”, to continue to exert himself for the exaltation of the faith and their protection. And “by the living God, Who caused you, by the hands of His blessed apostle Peter, to be anointed king, we entreat you to order the completion of the enlargement of this province”. That is, they requested Pippin to see that the whole of the exarchate was surrendered by the Lombards. “The Romans, evidently recognized Paul as their ruler, and the king as his defender”.

A last letter of this year (757)—if, indeed, it does not belong to a later date—of the Pope to the Frankish king, in reply to two received from him, is especially interesting, as it is generally credited with containing the notice of the first appointment, at the intercession of a prince, to what was afterwards known as a cardinalate, viz., to the possession of one of the titular churches of Rome. And so we find Paul granting to the priest Marinus the title of St. Chrysogonus, “with all the lands and property belonging to it, whether in town or country”. Along with this letter, the Pope sent Pippin, in addition to a ‘night-clock’ and an antiphonary, the dialectics of Aristotle, the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, and various other works by different Greek authors.

758.  Desiderius takes the field against the Duke of Spoleto   

On the death of Aistulf, and during the disputed succession to the Lombard crown, the dukes of Spoleto and of  Beneventum, who had been always striving for independence, placed themselves under the suzerainty of Pippin. They were rightly convinced that the further away their overlord was, the greater would be their practical independence. Gregorovius, indeed, states that “Stephen had incited them to revolt against their lawful sovereign”. But for this he adduces no proof. The letter he cites in connection with his assertion affirms the fact that the dukes did place themselves “under the power” of Pippin, but it is quite silent as to any share the Pope had in their act.

Taking advantage, probably, of Pippin being at war with the Saxons, Desiderius resolved to bring back the dukes to his own obedience. On his way south he laid waste the Pentapolis, and was soon master of Spoleto and Beneventum. Alboin of Spoleto and his chief nobles, “who had taken oaths of fidelity to St. Peter and to you”, were taken prisoners. But Liutprand, the Duke of Beneventum, managed to escape to the ends of his kingdom, and established himself in Otranto on the Ionian Sea. Infuriated at the escape of Liutprand, Desiderius nominated a new duke of Beneventum (Arichis), and entered into communications with the Imperial envoy, George, who was then at Naples, and endeavored to form a treaty with the emperor. He proposed that Ravenna should be attacked by the combined Greek and Lombard forces, and that, on its capture, the emperor was to be free to work his will in every particular. With the aid of the emperor’s Sicilian squadron, Otranto was also to be besieged by the allied forces. Provided that Liutprand was given up to Desiderius, the emperor might have the city. When he had started this plan, the would-be wily Lombard king made a peaceful visit to the Pope to see if he could over-reach him. Before Desiderius could well openly break with Pippin, it was most desirable that he should get back the Lombard hostages still in the hands of the Frankish monarch. Accordingly he promised Paul that, if the hostages were sent back to him, he would restore Imola, the ancient Forum Cornelii, and the other places still in his hands. But the Pope was not to be deceived in that matter. However, to blind Desiderius, he dispatched a letter to Pippin (758), by Bishop George and the priest Stephen, afterwards Stephen (III) IV, in which he asked him (Pippin) to restore the hostages and keep at peace with the Lombards. However, Paul furnished his envoys with another letter, in which he unfolded to Pippin the ravages of Desiderius, as well as his perjury in not fulfilling his engagements. The Frank is warned not to attach any importance to the first letter, which was simply written that the Pope’s messengers might have something to show that would save them from being detained by the Lombards. In conclusion, Paul begs Pippin to see to it that Desiderius completes the promised restitution, and sends him, as a present, a jeweled sword, a ring and cloak, and rings for his sons Charles and Carlomann.

The result of the Pope’s appeal was an important embassy from Pippin to the Lombard king, consisting of Remedius (or Remigius), brother of Pippin and Archbishop of Rouen, and Duke Auchar. They met Desiderius in the month of March (760 or 759), and he promised, before the end of the following month, “to restore to the Pope all the rightful claims of Blessed Peter, to wit, all the patrimonies, rights, localities, and territories of the different cities belonging to the republic of the Romans”. This promise Desiderius kept in part. But giving up territory was to the Lombard like giving up his heart’s blood, and his promise was not wholly fulfilled. However, soon after this, more cordial relations began to spring up between Desiderius and the Pope. For, as we shall see presently, Paul had no difficulty in asking Pippin to request the Lombards to aid him against the Greeks. But that time had not yet come.

Pippin about this time became involved in a war with Duke Waifar, or Waiffer, of Aquitaine. It may have been knowledge of that which emboldened Desiderius still to withhold the restitution he had so solemnly promised, and which induced the emperor to begin to turn his attention to the affairs of Italy. It would seem that he made no attempt to join in the alliance already proposed by the Lombard king to the imperial envoy at Naples. Why, we do not know. Perhaps on account of his difficulties with the Bulgarians. With them he was at war, generally successfully, from 753-775. Though he had sustained a severe defeat at their hands in the Balkans (759), he so far recovered from its effects that he became free (761) to turn his attention to the image question. He at once began a fierce persecution of the image worshippers; and, about the same time, commenced to interest himself in Western affairs. He intrigued in Rome, and gained over to his views, as we have seen, the priest Marinus. He made lavish promises to the Frank. He seems also to have intended to accompany his words with a display of force. At any rate, it appears to have been about this time that the Pope wrote to Pippin to tell him that “most trustworthy subjects of your spiritual mother, our Holy Church, have sent us word that six patricians, with three hundred ships, and the Sicilian fleet have left Constantinople and are sailing for Rome. With what object this is being done, we know not. All we do know is that they are to call here first and then proceed to your Excellency in Frankland (Francia)”. Paul had good reason to fear the diplomatic wiles of the Greeks. Just before his death, Stephen (II) III had had to warn Pippin against them. Constantine’s envoy, the Silentiary John, was at the Frankish court, and Constantine’s presents were interesting all the Franks. The Silentiary John was succeeded by the imperial missus, George, whom we find in Francia, in Naples, and in communication with Desiderius. Paul had to repeat to Pippin the exhortation of Stephen against “the impious arguments and empty promises” of the “enemies of the orthodox faith”.

If, however, at this time the Greeks came not, Desiderius did. Not only did he not keep his promises, made in presence of the envoys of the Pope and of Pippin, with regard to coming to terms on the basis of a mutual concession of claims, but he renewed his depredations in the papal territories and dispatched threatening letters to Paul himself. The ravages the Pope complained of were committed in the neighborhood of “our city of” Sinigaglia, and in the Campagna. Paul accordingly begged Pippin for help, and asked him to send envoys both to Rome and Pavia. Desiderius also sent to Pippin and calmly denied having committed any acts of violence at all. The Frankish monarch accordingly confined himself to promising aid when it was required and to sending missi. These envoys soon found out the truth.

Still help came not, only firm assurances from Pippin that he would stand by the promises he had made to Pope Stephen (II) III to do all he could “for the defence of the Holy Church of God, the Roman people, and the whole province”. Paul therefore reminded him that now was the day and now the hour when he should bring speedy help to the Church and “this province by you set free”. In his euphuistic style he wrote: “Accordingly I beg and beseech you, my most excellent son and spiritual fellow-father, and, by Almighty God and the body of Blessed Peter, whose most faithful servant you are, I entreat you, nay, with the most earnest supplications implore you, to keep that carefully stored up in your holy, God-inspired and mellifluous heart, which the most blessed lord Pope Stephen, of holy memory, my brother, by divine inspiration, admonished and besought you to accomplish”.

Pippin’s difficulties. 763

But at this juncture Pippin could only help the Pope, by promises and by diplomacy. He was in the midst of his struggle with Waifar of Aquitaine, and his cause had been rendered well-nigh desperate by the sudden desertion (763) of the young Duke of Bavaria, Tassilo (III) II (748-788). In the light of subsequent events, viz., the duke’s marriage soon after this date with Liutperga, the daughter of Desiderius, and his long alliance with his father-in-law against the Frankish monarchs, there is considerable likelihood in the supposition that this defection was brought about by the machinations of Desiderius himself. The consternation of the Pope can be easily imagined. It manifested itself in a letter which he wrote to Pippin, begging him to let him know how the war was progressing, as a long time had elapsed since he had heard from him, and the enemies of both of them were spreading alarming rumors. The combina­tions of Desiderius, however, were destined not to succeed. The Greek emperor, either because he mistrusted him, or because, with the Bulgarian war and the persecution of the image-worshippers, he had more than enough on his hands, had up to this shown no disposition to cooperate with the grasping Lombard. And when, to the Pope’s great joy, Pippin extricated himself for the time from the Aquitaine campaign, Tassilo lost courage and repeatedly begged the Pope to intercede for him with his out­raged sovereign. To this request Paul acquiesced, and dispatched two envoys, the priest Philip and his chamberlain Ursus, to negotiate a reconciliation between Pippin and the Bavarian duke. That they should be reconciled, however, did not coincide with the schemes of Desiderius. He detained the Pope’s envoys and would not allow them to proceed beyond Pavia. Of this high­handed conduct, Paul duly informed Pippin. But with Waifar still unsubdued, the king of the Franks did not feel prepared just then to take warlike action against the Lombard. Although the day did come when the Franks exacted retribution from both Desiderius and Tassilo, Pippin confined himself for the present to diplomatic measures.

His envoys and those of the Pope were in communication not only with Desiderius but with Constantine. Paul informs Pippin that owing to the severity of the winter—numerous Frankish chroniclers tell of the hard winter of 763-4—he has no word to give him in connection with their ambassadors at Constantinople. These different embassies were not all undertaken to no purpose. Some kind of an understanding, more or less amicable, must have been arrived at about this time between Desiderius and the Pope. For when at Rome fear of Greek interference became acute, we shall see Paul begging Pippin to bid the Lombards help him if any attempt were made from Constantinople on Italy. And so when at last there arrived in Rome a messenger from some of the Pope’s officials in Ravenna, “who were wont to supply him with reliable intelligence”, to report that “the most unspeakable Greeks, enemies of God’s Holy Church and foes of the orthodox faith, were forming plans for a descent upon Rome and Ravenna”, Paul in three letters begged Pippin to induce the Lombards, their dukes as well as their king, to hold themselves in readiness to help him against any hostile movement of the Greeks, and to send him a missus who might take up his residence in Rome and so be ever ready to summon aid. “For as your Excellency knows right well, it is for no other reason that we are annoyed by the Greeks than because we hold to the holy and orthodox faith and the tradition of the fathers, which they are eager to destroy”. On this occasion there seems to have been general alarm all along the coast of the Adriatic. The Venetians, the Archbishop of Ravenna, the maritime cities of the Pentapolis, all were in anxious expectation.

Frankish envoys were accordingly dispatched to Italy. As usual at this time, the embassy was composed of both clerics and laymen. It consisted of two abbots, Widmar of St. Riquier and Gerbert, and a vir illustris, Hugbald. They had to assure the Pope that their master would exert himself for the exaltation of the Church and the orthodox faith, and would stand by the promises he had made to Pope Stephen. They had also to try and adjust matters between the Lombards and the Pope, and to be a comfort to the Pope.

The missi had no difficulty in arranging the prelimi­naries of peace. In presence of the Pope they met the envoys of the Lombards, and from the Pentapolis and “the rest of our cities”, and a mutual restoration of plunder was agreed upon. No territory was, however, restored by the Lombards; hence, in relating these transactions to Pippin, Paul urged him to insist on the full restitution of both territories and patrimonies “in accordance with the terms of the treaty”. For, as he very sensibly pointed out, if the Lombards were not made to give up every­thing to which they had no right, they would soon strive to recover what they had already (760) surrendered.

Free to try and adjust the differences between the Pope and Desiderius were the Frankish envoys. They had not to trouble themselves about armaments from the East. Constantine had enough to do at home. A terrible storm in the Euxine wrecked the whole of a transport fleet destined for the Bulgarian war. The greater part of 3000 ships and their crews were lost (766). He had also to deal in the same year with a real or pretended conspiracy, one result of which was the cruel torture and execution of the patriarch of Constantinople (Constantine), whose Iconoclastic beliefs were thought by the emperor to be on the wane. Copronymus had no other alternative but to fall back upon diplomacy. He accordingly sent envoys to Pippin, in the hope of winning him over to his Iconoclastic views. If he could make Pippin a heretic, the cause of the Pope was lost.

The imperial envoys, Authi, a Spatharius, or one of the emperor’s personal bodyguard, and Sinesius, a eunuch, were bearers of both letters and verbal instructions for Pippin.

They were, if possible, to shake his orthodoxy, his devotion to the Holy See, or both. To gain time, or to conceal their master’s real views, they were to pretend that the Western envoys, notably Christopher, the papal primicerius and consiliarius, had not made their reports to the emperor in accordance with the instructions they had received. But Pippin was not to be easily gained over to either the political or religious ideas of Constantine. He was convinced that it was politically advantageous for him to side with the Pope against the Greek and the Lombard, and he was steadfast in his adherence to the Catholic faith. For the Pope had taken care to keep him informed of the belief of the Catholic world on the image question. About this time the patriarchs of Jerusalem (Theodore), Antioch (Theodore), and Alexandria (Cosmas) anathematized Cosmas, Bishop of Epiphania in Syria, because he had gone over to the emperor’s heresy; and Theodore of Jerusalem, in a synodal letter to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, undertook the defence of images; and they, after signing it, sent it to Rome (to Pope Paul) as their confession of faith in this matter. A letter of this Cosmas of Alexandria to the Pope was by him duly forwarded to Pippin, “that you may learn what is addressed to us concerning the integrity of the faith by the Oriental prelates and the rest of the nations”. The synodal letter just alluded to, which was also signed by “very many Oriental metropolitans”, reached Rome after Paul’s death, but was forwarded to Pippin by the antipope Constantine. Pippin, then, had no difficulty in knowing what was the faith of the Catholic world on the image question. With regard to the political situation, he once again assured the Pope that no specious arguments or promises would ever induce him to be false to the engagements he had entered into with Pope Stephen. He further informed the Pope that he had sent Authi, along with missi of his own, back to Constantinople, but was detaining Sinesius till an assembly of his bishops and nobles might be held, to discuss the religious questions raised.

In the early part of the year 767 there was held at the royal villa of Gentilly, near Paris, where Pippin spent a 767. great deal of his time, a synod of Frankish bishops. It is the general belief that this was the gathering which Pippin informed the Pope that he intended to bring together. All we know of this diet is, that there were discussed at it the doctrines of the Blessed Trinity and sacred images. With regard to the former subject, there can be little doubt that it was “the Procession of the Holy Ghost” which was discussed. It may be that the Greeks brought up this abstruse question to cover the little they had to say on such a clear point of Catholic doctrine as the image question. Whether any good resulted from this great synod is not known. Paul himself does not speak of it. He died (in June) not many months after it was held.

As far as the chronological uncertainty attending the order of Paul’s letter will enable us to speak, it seems that tension between the Lombards and the Pope continued to decrease with his declining years. And so, in a letter which may belong to the close of the last complete year (766) of Paul’s reign, and which has just been quoted, we find Paul writing: “Your Excellency made known to us that you had directed Desiderius to restore to us our runaway slave Saxulus. But your Excellency should know, nay, we believe does know, that last autumn Desiderius himself came ad apostolorum limina to pray, and brought the slave with him and handed him over to us. Moreover, after a discussion with him on the question of settlement of claims, it was agreed that missi of both of us should go through the different cities and there arrange all differences. By the mercy of God things have been settled in the Beneventum and the Tuscan territories. In the duchy of Spoleto some matters are settled, and every effort is being made to bring the rest to a conclusion, in a postscript your Excellency informed us that you had instructed Desiderius to bring pressure upon the people of Naples and Gaeta to restore to your protector, Blessed Peter, the Neapolitan patrimonies, and to allow their bishops-elect to come to this apostolic See for consecration as usual. For this and all else we return your Excellency most hearty thanks”.

At all this Pippin manifested his pleasure, and expressed a hope that the Pope “would endeavor to remain at peace with the Lombard king”. “If that most excellent man” replied the Pope, “will stand by the promises he has made to your Excellency and to the Roman Church, we will remain in peace with him”. So friendly had the Pope and Desiderius become, that, in this same letter, Paul tells the Frankish monarch that he has agreed to go with the Lombard king to Ravenna, that together they may devise means of protection against the Greeks, who are daily threatening a descent on that city. It would appear that Paul died in the peace which his skillful diplomacy had brought about with that most excellent man Desiderius, king of the Lombards.

Though most of Pau’s letters to the Franks and their rulers were taken up with the “Lombards or the Greeks”, friendship it must not be concluded that every part and all of them the Pope were so. In two of them we see first the Pope giving pippin, the monastery of St. Silvester on Mount Soracte, where Carlomann had lived as a monk, to Pippin, and then Pippin giving it back to the Pope. Another letter shows us the Frankish clergy eager to become perfect in the Roman chant; and the Pope entrusting a number of Frankish monks to the head of his school of cantors to be thoroughly trained in church music. It was still in Rome that the arts of civilization were preserved. In return for the various presents which Paul made to Pippin, the latter sent the Pope an altar. This Paul had erected in the “confession” of St Peter; and after he had consecrated it, he offered Mass on it for Pippin’s spiritual and temporal welfare. Finally, another letter gives us a glimpse of the work of the Pope for the interests of others besides his own, a branch of Paul’s work which the poverty of historical material that has come down to us enables some historians to call in question. We refer to the letter which treats of the efforts made by Paul to bring about the reconciliation between Pippin and Tassilo of Bavaria, of which we have already spoken.

Here we must confess we are not sorry to leave the letters of Paul. Their monotony, with their opening of thanks to Pippin and their closing with prayers for his welfare, is anything but cheerful. It was doubtless as necessary for Paul to write them as it was for Ovid to write his “letters from Pontus”. The effect on the reader is the same in both cases. Melancholy he can scarcely escape from. To their sameness, as one source of weariness in the student, must be added, as another such source, the uncertainty as to their year of issue. The student has only the grim satisfaction of feeling that his presentation of the events of Paul’s reign may be all wrong!

However, before taking our final leave of the letters of Paul I, it will be useful to listen to what they have to say in general as to the character of their writer and his relations to Pippin. They may indeed weary the reader from their verbosity and sameness, but they certainly impress him with the conviction that Paul’s presentation of his case is the true one. They show him constantly sending to Pippin the documents which he has received from Desiderius and others, constantly asking him to send his missi to examine into matters in dispute on the spot, and constantly reminding him that his envoys have convinced themselves that the truth is with the Pope, the falsehood with the Lombard. They make it obvious that the Pope is the real ruler of the duchy of Rome, of Ravenna and of the Pentapolis. His are the cities. His are the nobles and the people. They, on the other hand, proclaim themselves his subjects. Pippin, on the contrary, in every, variety of phrase, is spoken of as the Pope’s helper, protector, and guardian. He after God is Paul’s security, under his protection is the Pope’s province which must not be withdrawn from his (Paul's) power and jurisdiction.  The letters of Paul exhibit him not only as pursuing a straightforward policy in a truthful way, but as possessed of a forgiving character. He pleads for Tassilo, who, as the foe of Pippin, was his enemy also; and, at the prayers of a blind mother, he punishes the traitor Marinus by getting him made a bishop. Finally, they prove that the Kiersey treaty, by which both the Pope and Pippin expressed their determination to stand, was to be set for the ruin and the resurrection of many!

Death of Pope Paul

To avoid the great heat of the summer in Rome, Paul had retired to St. Paul’s outside the walls. He was, however, stricken down there with a mortal sickness; and though, when others abandoned him, probably in fear on account of the stormy events to be related in the life of Stephen (III) IV, he was as carefully nursed by his successor Stephen as he himself (Paul) had attended his brother, he died June 28, 767.

Here for three months was left the body of Paul. At the end of that period, however, “all the Roman citizens and the other nations”, who lived in special quarters in Rome, and were spoken of as scholae, transported the said body by water to St. Peter’s, whilst singing the Psalms for the dead. The body was then placed in the oratory, in which Paul had himself prepared his tomb. Over his sepulcher were written the simple words : “Hic requiescit Paulus Papa”. In the Roman martyrology he is honored as a saint on June 28.

 

 

STEPHEN (III) IV. AD 768-772