CHAPTER XIII

THE EMPEROR LOUIS II

 

POPE SERGIUS died on the 27th of January 847. He was interred in the desecrated basilica, and a friendly hand inscribed upon his tomb words more charitable, alas, than veracious. The Romans elected as his successor the priest Leo, of the title of the Four Crowned Martyrs, a man with a reputation for integrity and prudence. His election, for some reason or other, was carried through without any reference to the emperor, and a year and a half afterwards, on Easter Day (10th April) the consecration took place. They were, nevertheless, careful to justify themselves by the gravity of the circumstances, and formally to reserve the imperial right.

Lothaire seems to have accepted the explanations of the Romans quite placidly. Although he still maintained a mild interest in Italian affairs it was becoming increasingly difficult to prevail on him to leave his own country of Lorraine, and his residence of Aix-la-Chapelle. The Lombard kingdom was governed by his son Louis, who was made an associate of the empire, and, as such, consecrated by the Pope in April 850. From that time the pontiffs had to do with an Italian emperor, who, in virtue of his residence in the neighborhood, was the better able to intervene in the internal affairs of the Roman state.

The first question to be settled was how best to deal with their enemies, the Saracen pirates. Since 848 they had been working on the fortified enclosure near St. Peter’s. The new walls were continued as far as the castle of St. Angelo, so that the fortifications reached the town itself, communicating with it by means of the Porta S. Petri. The enclosed area comprised not only the basilica and its dependencies, but also the quarters, or scholae, of the foreign colonies of Saxons, Frisians, Franks, and Lombards. Out of compliment to the reigning Pope it received the name of the Leonine City. Part of the cost was covered by the afore-mentioned imperial tax, augmented by gifts from France and Germany. The Pope, for his part, exacted contributions from his people; the towns of the Roman state, the monasteries, the massae publicae or domus cultae, all provided materials, money, or workers. Even today, on the remains of this fortification, may be seen inscriptions referring to the part taken in the work by various papal militiae. The dedication was performed like that of a church on the 27th June 852.

As if to prove the need for this protection, the Saracens reappeared, from time to time, at the mouth of the Tiber. In 849 they were followed thither by the squadrons of Naples, Amalfi, and Gaeta, under command of Caesar, son of Sergius, Duke of Naples. The Pope was at first somewhat perturbed at this alliance, but his fears were soon dispelled, and he went down to the shore to speed them with his blessing. A naval battle took place off Ostia, and the Neapolitans had already gained the upper hand when a great storm arose and parted the combatants. Many of the Saracen vessels were wrecked on the Roman coast; their crews were taken captive, and made to work on the fortifications of the Leonine City.

The completion and solemn dedication of this great work (27th June 852) caused no abatement of Leo’s energy. At his instigation the walls of Rome were restored, a colony of Corsicans was established at Porto; and Centumcelae (Civita Vecchia), which had been devastated by the Saracens and abandoned by its inhabitants, was rebuilt at a short distance from the original site under the name of Leopolis. The pirates seem to have been impressed by the Pope’s capability and activity, for they did not obtrude themselves for several years.

The relations between Leo IV and the emperor were, apparently, irreproachable, but not genial. From the Pope’s letters we gather that two of the imperial missi, Peter and Hadrian, gave him considerable cause for complaint, so that he mistrusted their presence at Rome. With the help of George, Duke of Emilia, brother of the Archbishop of Ravenna, they assassinated a papal legate who had been dispatched to Lothaire. The pilgrims who resorted to Rome had also good reason for dreading Italian roads, for a certain Gratiano, a seeker after political power, ranged himself against them, and became distinguished for his outrages. All these personages appear to have been papal officials, more or less encouraged by the imperial government to ignore the authority of their sovereign.

 Having made his complaint Louis set off to Ravenna with the intention of assisting his ill-treated subjects. George, Peter, and Hadrian were taken to Rome, and, in accordance with the Roman law, tried before the imperial missi. They were condemned to death, but the execution was deferred on account of the Easter festival (853), and this gave Lothaire time to intervene. He complained that, by coming so far, the Pope had defied the Constitution of 824. There was also question of one Christopher, of whom very little is known. The Pope, while protesting on behalf of his right, and of the Roman law, demanded that an enquiry should be made into his conduct, stipulating that it should be entrusted to envoys of honorable character.

Our sole information on this subject is gained from fragments of letters, which were preserved from the disaster which destroyed the papal registers. The Liber Pontificalis relates the following story with more details.

A magister militum named Gratiano (perhaps the same as the afore-mentioned), and at that time (855) governor of the papal palace, was accused of taking part in secret intrigues in favor of a Byzantine restoration. “The Franks”, he said, “are not only of no use to us, but they actually entertain base designs upon our property. Why not call upon the Greeks to help us to expel them and their king from our midst?”

These revolutionary sentiments were reported to the emperor, Louis II, by Daniel, another magister militum. They were the more alarming, as Louis was at that time on bad terms with the eastern court, for, after having sought the hand of the daughter of the emperor, Michael III, he had altered his mind, and married the celebrated Engelberga instead. Suddenly, without any warning, Louis, full of rage, arrived at Rome. The Pope received him at St. Peter’s, and they arranged to have a formal enquiry made concerning Daniel’s representations. The affair was conducted in accordance with the Roman law, and Daniel was convicted of false testimony, and delivered up to his antagonist. But the emperor pleaded for him successfully, and even received him back into favor.

Whatever may have been the truth of this matter, the effect produced by it leads us to suppose that Rome, at that time, was the center, if not of an organized Byzantine party, at least of a certain element inimical to the Frankish protectorate, which might have been turned to profit, had the occasion offered, by the Greek empire. Just then the power of the latter in Italy was at a low ebb. The Sicilians and the Calabrians were having a hard struggle against the Saracens, as were also the practically autonomous cities of Gaeta, Naples, and Amalfi. Louis II had twice descended upon the Beneventine territory (847 and 852), and although, in his last campaign, he had not succeeded in capturing Bari, which was a stronghold of the infidels, he had nevertheless obtained considerable success. He might, indeed, be regarded as the defender of Christendom, and the virtual master of Italy. Under these circumstances it was futile to think of a Byzantine restoration.

As may be readily supposed, having been so often at variance with the Frankish emperors, Leo IV was not entirely a man after their own hearts. They could forgive the informalities connected with his accession, but they would have preferred a Pope more intent on carrying out the constitution of 824, and more faithful to his role of sovereign protégé. Louis II early began making plans for the election of Leo’s successor.

According to the constitution of 824, there were to be two missi charged with the affairs of the protectorate, kept in permanent residence at Rome. One was appointed by the Pope, the other by the emperor. Louis II’s first choice fell upon the deacon John, afterwards Bishop of Rieti; moreover, he selected for papal promotion one of his most devoted adherents, Arsenius, Bishop of Orta. This dignitary was a member of one of the most import ant families of Rome, and from the time of Leo IV his influence had been predominant. As he was already possessed of a bishopric, there could be no question of making a Pope of him, but he had two sons, Anastasius and Eleutherius, who were quite worth considering. The latter enjoyed the pleasures of a lay life, but Anastasius was destined for the priesthood, and had received an excellent education. Not only was his knowledge of Latin and ecclesiastical literature far in advance of his time, but he also boasted an acquaintance with the Greek language, probably acquired at the school of one of those Greek monks, who owned numerous and flourishing convents at Rome. His ecclesiastical career was sufficiently advanced at the beginning of Leo’s pontificate, for the latter, in compliance, probably, with weighty recommendations, decided to ordain him priest, and entrust him with the monastery of St. Marcellus (848).

As cardinal, Anastasius was eligible for the papacy, so why he did not await the ordinary course of events is not clear. But whatever may have been the reason, he vanished from Rome almost immediately after his ordination, and took refuge in Louis’ domains, spending most of his time in Aquileia. This conduct excited the most lively suspicions, and Pope Leo did his utmost to prevail upon him to return. Embassies, summonses, councils, ecclesiastical sentences of excommunication, anathema, and deposition, all were, in vain, directed against the deserter. Louis II, on being appealed to, promised to deliver him up, but never succeeded in finding him. Leo, in exasperation, determined to invest his sentences with a remarkable and pompous publicity. Over the principal entrance to St. Peter’s he erected a huge image of Christ and the Virgin, encircled by a series of inscriptions, reproducing the sentences successively pronounced against Anastasius, at Rome, 16th December 850; at Ravenna, 29th May 853; and again at Rome, 8th December, of the same year. These sentences as one of them expressly notes resulted from the defection of the culprit, but it is obvious that Leo regarded Anastasius as a successor to be avoided at any cost.

Both Anastasius and his father Arsenius had always maintained a warm friendship with Louis II, and were his chief political agents at Rome. Although they cannot be regarded as altogether desirable persons, they seem to have atoned to a certain extent for their lack of virtue by a kind of methodical reliability, often to be found in ambitious persons who are willing to restrain their natural tendencies, when, by so doing, they can further their own ends. If Leo IV could find another pretext for condemning Anastasius, he was not anxious to quote against him the third canon of the Council of Antioch, in reference to clerks who deserted.

Moreover, Anastasius was not a man to make light of the pontifical rights, at least as far as spiritual affairs were concerned. From the letters of Nicholas I, which he edited later, with a considerable amount of license, we gather that he had a high idea of the papacy, its relations to the rulers and its authority over the episcopate, even when the latter might be represented by a Photius or a Hincmar. Leo IV’s objection to him is, therefore, somewhat difficult to understand. One can only conjecture that he regarded the accession of Anastasius as the culminating political triumph of Louis II : the absorption of the Roman state into the kingdom of Italy. It was possible, too, that once having attained the papal throne, Anastasius might change his attitude, “scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend”. These revulsions are not uncommon accompaniments of satisfied ambition.

However this may be, Leo’s death, on 17th July 855, afforded the priest an opportunity of showing what weight he attached to the judgment passed against him.

Louis had made an arrangement with the emperors that the election of his successors should be juste et canonice. The Life of Benedict III in the Liber Pontificalis is our only source of information on the subject. The election, it seems, was held immediately after the Pope’s death. Two factions were present, the imperial party and the adherents of the deceased Pope, who were opposed to the aggravations of the protectorate. Anastasius was nominated by the imperial party, though, according to the Liber Pontificalis, he kept entirely in the background. The most popular candidate was Benedict, Cardinal of St. Cecilia, but the Romans, having elected him, postponed the coronation ceremony until, in accordance with the ancient custom, they had sent his decree of election, invested with much solemnity, to the emperors. The deputies, Nicholas, Bishop of Anagni, and Mercurius, the magister militum, encountered Arsenius at Gubbio on their way. Strange to say, he had been absent from Rome at the time of the election, and he now took the opportunity to try to prejudice these dignitaries in favor of his son.

The decree of election was not approved by the Emperor Louis, who, by means of letters and envoys, made known his intention of sending special missi to Rome. They were Adalbert, Count of Tuscany, and another, named Bernard. At Orta Anastasius joined them, and together they continued their way. As they approached the city, the leaders of the imperial party, among them Radoald, Bishop of Porto, and Agatho, Bishop of Todi, hastened to meet them. At St. Lucius, some distance beyond the Milvian bridge, they encountered some ambassadors from Benedict. These they caused to be arrested and ill-treated. A large number of Romans, who had been summoned to hear the emperor’s decision, were beguiled into the opposite faction, and it was at the head of a goodly procession that Anastasius made his way towards the basilica of St. Peter.

Arrived there, his first proceeding was to seize a hatchet and hurl it against the eikon erected by Leo IV as a protest against his usurpation. He then made his entry into Rome, and was escorted to the Lateran, where he lost no time in securing the person of Benedict. This was his day of triumph. The next day things did not go so smoothly. A large assembly, presided over by the Bishops of Ostia and Albano, met in the Basilica Emiliana (SS. Quattro), and the imperial missi presented themselves before the Roman clergy with the object of bringing them to terms. Both threats and cajolery were employed, but the clerks held out, entrenching themselves behind the ecclesiastical law, which forbade the promotion of deposed clerks. The missi were obliged to yield, and, in order to cover their retreat, agreed to a fresh election. Benedict was set at liberty; Anastasius departed from the pontifical palace; and a three days fast was proclaimed. As soon as this was over, an electoral assembly met at Sta. Maria Maggiore, and, with the full approbation of the imperial envoys, proclaimed Benedict Pope. Thus re-elected, he was once more installed at the Lateran, and on the following Sunday was consecrated at St. Peter’s, always with the approval of the missi. These latter seem to have been quite satisfied that the candidate of the Romans would answer the emperor’s purpose just as well as his own protégé, Anastasius, would have done.

Bishop Radoald of Porto was not allowed to take his customary part in the consecration ceremony. As for Anastasius himself, the Liber Pontificalis does not say what became of him; but from Hincmar, who was not well-disposed towards him, and was always careful to record anything to his disadvantage, we learn that he was brought before Benedict in the synod and degraded by laicization. It was undoubtedly at this juncture that he was provided with the Abbey of St. Mary in Trastevere.

In 855 Louis II’s policy had received a temporary check. Not content with the possession of the two missi of the Vatican, the papal missus et apocrisiarius, he maintained the right of superintending the actual choice of the Pope, and disclaimed any other foreign interference in the Italian policy of the Holy See. Anastasius, an excellent candidate as far as his personal qualifications went, was, as regards his antecedents, absolutely unsuitable. It is difficult, indeed, to understand how such a man could have presented himself in that capacity. But, whatever may be the solution of this obscure point, it is probable that from the emperor’s point of view the appointment of Anastasius was of less importance than the triumph of the principles of which he was the representative. Being unable to place him in the pontifical chair, and foreseeing that his future applications for candidateship would not be more successful than that of 855, Louis made up his mind to let him share his father’s role of confidential adviser and guardian to the Pope. But for this end it was absolutely necessary that he should live a life of celibacy. Anastasius, therefore, for three years retired into private life, devoting himself to religious exercises and literary pursuits. As for Benedict III, Arsenius, who still kept his office of missus, was there to keep an eye upon him.

The death of Lothaire was almost coincident with the accession of Benedict III. It caused but little change in Italian affairs, which for several years had been under the sole superintendence of Louis II.

In 858 Louis had come to Rome for the Easter celebrations; he had already begun his return journey, when he was greeted by the news of Pope Benedict’s demise (17th April). He immediately went back to Rome, and by his influence decided the election of the deacon Nicholas. The clergy were in favor of another candidate, but as the emperor’s choice had fallen on a man of worth, the election was confirmed without more ado. Louis took part in the coronation which was held on 24th April. From the papal biographer we get a lengthy account of the festivities, which appear to have been accompanied by many compliments and protestations of loyalty.

Nicholas just suited Louis II. He understood how to combine a nice respect for papal conventions, with an exalted idea of his duties as Pope and an intense enthusiasm for fulfilling them. As we shall shortly see, his occupation of the pontifical chair marked a season of greater activity than had been known since the days of Gregory the Great. Unlike Gregory IV, of whom he was the precursor, he contrived to live on friendly terms with his emperor. It is true that the latter had surrounded him with a well-selected circle of confidential advisers better qualified, perhaps, to help him in his political career, than to be the familiar friends of so upright a man. Besides Arsenius, who continued his functions as missus, and was occasionally charged with important errands, we may mention his son Anastasius, the intruder of 855. This latter, it is true, was not reinstated in his priestly functions, but he was established at the Lateran as the Pope’s secretary. Then there was Radoald, Bishop of Porto, one of the ringleaders of the Anastasius conspiracy, now the one of Nicholas’s confidential advisers whom he most readily dispatched on the pontifical business. Certainly the Pope had, later on, to rue the day when he took Radoald into favor, and, after having experienced his treachery several times, he was obliged to expel him from the episcopate. But this was only a last resource, after having borne with his faithless ways for many a long day. Arsenius did nothing worse than rob the Pope, and they seem to have lived together for a long time on friendly terms.

As far as Anastasius was concerned, no cloud seems ever to have darkened their relations, although it is beyond a doubt that the secretary, on more than one occasion, betrayed his master’s confidence, and, in the most important documents, attributed to him sentiments more in harmony with his own personal passions and prejudices than with the desires and tendencies of the pontiff himself. Fortunately for the latter, he was not only a man of letters, but a government official imbued with lofty conceptions of the papal authority.

From the standpoint of local politics, the papacy had become very dependent on the empire. Louis II held firmly to the constitution of 824, and taxed his people as well. After the death of Nicholas in 867, Hadrian, who seems to have been elected by an unanimous vote, did not receive consecration until the emperor had investigated the documents and circumstances of the election, and accorded his sanction. The fact that John VIII succeeded to the papacy on the very day of Hadrian s death, 14^th December 872, leads us to suppose that the emperor must have been in Rome at the time, for it is far from probable that any violation of the rule which required the imperial sanction of the papal election could have occurred. Moreover, we know that John VIII was a personal friend of Louis II, and as long as the latter lived, his favorite continued to fill the most exalted positions in the Holy See.

This system was continued until Louis death in 875, when, as he left no children, the empire ceased to be Italian, and the papal situation was changed. It had lasted for twenty years (855-875), since the time when Leo IV, somewhat displeased at the secular guardianship, had yielded the position to the official candidates.

It must not be supposed that this imperialist papacy was lacking in prestige. Nicholas I, the typical representative of the system, was undoubtedly one of the most influential Popes ever known in the history of the Church. Still, there was always reason to fear that the secular guardian might someday intrude upon the spiritual domain. This actually came to pass in 864. At the beginning of this year, the Emperor Louis appeared before Rome with hostile and not friendly intent. His object was to take the part of various priests who were under ecclesiastical censure. One of these was John, Archbishop of Ravenna, who, in conjunction with his brother Gregory, continued to oppress the Pope’s subjects in Emilia. These, and other misdeeds of an ecclesiastical nature, had drawn down upon him the papal displeasure. He was summoned to appear before a Roman synod, but refused to obey, with the intention of appealing to Louis II for support. But Nicholas was not to be foiled. In a synod held in 860 or 861, he issued a sentence of suspension and excommunication against the archbishop, proclaimed anew several points of dogma, on which he (the archbishop) was accused of holding heterodox views, and, finally, without regard to the emperor s feelings, renewed the decree of the Council of 769, which forbade the intervention of any foreigner in the papal elections. As we have seen, Nicholas himself had benefited by a certain infringement of this law. He probably had reason to fear that Louis II wished to transform the fact into a right, and to claim the power of electing, as well as confirming, the choice of the Pope. When he died, the imperial missi demanded a place among the electors, having evidently received instructions so to do. The Romans succeeded in eluding their claim, but the very fact of the questions having been raised, was enough to justify the fears of Pope Nicholas, and his demonstration of 861.

This demonstration was, as I have said, of a nature to cause ill-feeling between the Pope and the emperor. The Archbishop John, recognizing this, immediately betook himself to Pavia, hoping to profit by the prince’s annoyance. Louis indeed sent two missi back with him to Rome, but Nicholas was not to be alarmed. Entirely in his religious capacity, he rebuked the legates for consorting with one who had been excommunicated. He spoke kindly, but the missi were terrified. The archbishop was again summoned to appear before a council, convened for 1st November 861, and he afterwards returned to Ravenna. Nicholas there upon, in response to the invitation of a large number of the people of Emilia and Ravenna, who were antagonistic to the archbishop and his brother, followed him immediately. On hearing of his arrival, John fled to Pavia, and while he was again soliciting the emperor’s intervention, the Pope, in his capacity as sovereign, reorganized the Ravennese government, and made the necessary changes in the ministry. So strongly was he supported by public opinion that the emperor’s hopes of defending the archbishop were soon damped. Invited to make the best terms he could with the Pope, the primate of Ravenna appeared before the Roman council in the month of November. He vindicated himself from the imputation of heterodoxy, and otherwise complied with the papal exactions.

But a forced submission is not, as a rule, a satisfactory one. The archbishop, on his return home, lay low for a time, but his disposition had not changed, and it was evident that he meant to signalize the increasing animosity between the Pope and Louis by another outburst of insubordination.

An opportunity soon presented itself, in connection with the unfortunate divorce proceedings of Lothaire II. The divorce had been pronounced by the episcopate of Lorraine, in two or three synods, and afterwards sanctioned by the papal legates at the Council of Metz (June 863). In October of the same year, however, it was annulled by Pope Nicholas, who maintained that the discarded wife was so evidently in the right, that the divorce could not, in honesty, be confirmed. He therefore deposed the leaders of the Lorraine clergy, Theutgaud and Gunther, and the Archbishops of Treves and Cologne, and awaited his leisure to deal with his own legates.

This unexpected act caused a great sensation in the episcopacy. But the right, already expounded in the writings of Hincmar, was not to be denied. The prevaricators did not arouse much interest, and then finally compromised themselves by entering into alliance with the suspended Bishop of Ravenna, and Photius, the usurping patriarch of Constantinople. Not content with this, they sought out the Emperor Louis in the duchy of Beneventum, and excited his wrath against the Pope, with whom his relations had been somewhat strained ever since the Ravenna affairs. Gathering around him all the discontented bishops of Italy, they escorted him to the walls of Rome. The gates of the Leonine city, which were still fresh with inscriptions bearing the name of Lothaire, did not refuse to allow the entry of the emperor and his son.

At Rome there were not lacking people ready to uphold the emperor’s plans and to take part in an assault on the Pope’s person. But Nicholas was impervious to fear. Against his temporal enemies he fought with spiritual weapons, especially prayer. Fasts and litanies were organized, in order to invoke the aid of heaven and to subdue the imperial anger. One day, as a large procession was making its way through the Leonine city to St. Peter’s, it was attacked and dispersed by Louis followers, who ill-treated the pilgrims, and trampled underfoot the sacred banners. After these outrages there was indeed cause for alarm. One night the Pope emerged from the Lateran, and evading the sentineled gates, reached the banks of the Tiber. A boat took him across secretly and he succeeded in gaining an entrance to the basilica, where he remained for two days fasting and communing with the Unseen.

His prayers were heard. Already one of the soldiers who had thrown the processional cross into the mud had been suddenly struck down by the hand of death; and the emperor himself was attacked by fever. The Pope, in abandonment of soul, continued to pray, and only rose from his knees at the urgent entreaties of the Empress Engelberga, who begged him to accompany her to the bedside of her imperial husband. She was a proud woman, but the experiences of recent days had given her cause for reflection, and the interview which she had arranged between Nicholas and Louis ended favorably. The emperor agreed to abandon his protégés, and to leave the Pope full liberty in the ecclesiastical domain. In short, the latter returned to Rome with his position strengthened, and Louis, on his recovery, regained the north of Italy.

Henceforward the two powers continued on more or less amicable terms. At the council of 1^st November Radoald, Bishop of Porto, received his well-merited sentence of deposition from the Pope. Up to that time, through fear of the emperor, every excuse had been made for him, in spite of the fact that his guilt, in the affair of Photius, could not possibly be denied.

Old Arsenius was of opinion that the Pope took too much upon himself. Notwithstanding the favor which his son Anastasius continued to enjoy at the Lateran, and the profitable missions on which he himself was constantly being dispatched, fearing, perhaps, that he might sooner or later be called upon to give an account of his proceedings, he found himself, towards the end of the reign, somewhat in disfavor with Nicholas.

Hadrian II, in celebration of his accession, dispensed marks of favor to various compromised persons, in particular to Anastasius and Theutgaud. The former was even promoted to the position of librarian of the Holy See. In the early days of the new pontificate there was some difference of opinion between his father and himself. Arsenius encouraged the reaction against Nicholas, and even the rescinding of certain acts to which the Emperor Louis had taken exception. Summoning the Archbishops Gunther and Theutgaud to Rome, he made them promises of reinstatement, which, at first delayed, ended by coming to nothing. Anastasius opposed his father’s opinions. In the preceding pontificate he had been the advocate of strict measures, and he now saw no reason why they should be abated. Unlike Arsenius, who was a devout imperialist, he had a natural inclination towards the papacy, and if Louis II had succeeded in making a Pope of him, the emperor would undoubtedly have met his match. He probably found occasion more than once to thank the fates for having crushed this project. In the disagreement with his father, Anastasius ended by getting the upper hand, and the family reputation does not appear to have suffered by their difference. Arsenius retained his post as missus et apocrisiarius, i.e. the Pope’s secular guardian, and Anastasius continued to keep a highhanded supervision over the secretaryship and the affairs of the spiritual administration.

At this period nepotism was beginning to be in evidence, and alliances with the papal family were eagerly sought. Anastasius desired promotion for his brother Eleutherius, who had aims of another kind. The nieces of Benedict III and Nicholas I had contracted marriages with members of the lay nobility. These unions, conspicuous for a lack of sentiment, were the stepping-stones to worldly advancement, though the wives were far from enjoying unalloyed marital bliss. Before entering into major orders, Hadrian II had married, and his wife and daughter were still living. The latter, considering the age and position of her father, could not have been in the freshness of youth, but, in virtue of her parentage, she was looked upon as a desirable match. When Eleutherius appeared as her wooer, Hadrian had already promised her to another. Arsenius, like a prudent father, always did his utmost for the advancement of his children, realizing, too, that the desired marriage would have a decidedly beneficial effect upon his own position.

Hadrian, faithful to his promise, refused his consent. Eleutherius, nothing daunted, succeeded in circumventing the object of his desire, carrying her and her mother away by force. The scandal that resulted may more easily be imagined than described! But this was not yet the worst. Hadrian, sorely wounded, applied to the emperor for help in recovering his wife and daughter, and in avenging their insulting treatment. Arsenius departed with all speed to the south of Italy, where the court was at that time established. He took care to provide himself with plenty of money, well realizing the value of bribery in his present situation. No sooner, however, had he joined the princes at Acerenza than he was overtaken by serious illness. He had just time enough to confide his wishes and his treasure to the empress, and then died, before he could receive the last sacraments, thus giving rise to a report that the devil had taken possession of his soul. His servants undertook to convey his body to Rome or to Orta, but on their arrival in the neighborhood of Monte Cassino the rapid putrefaction of the corpse obliged them to resort to a hasty burial in a neighboring field.

But this was not the last of the tragedies. The Emperor Louis had sent his missi in pursuit of Eleutherius, and the latter, hard pressed, and in a dog-in-the-manger spirit, did not hesitate to assassinate the daughter, and even the wife of the Pope. Public opinion, reinforced by competent testimony, declared Anastasius to be the instigator of this double crime. Hadrian, infuriated, had him brought before an assembly of the Roman clergy at St. Praxedes, and renewed against him all the ecclesiastical censures which he had incurred under Leo IV and Benedict III, forbidding him to go beyond a radius of forty miles from Rome. As for Eleutherius, he was arrested and executed by order of the imperial legates.

Hadrian’s anger endured but for a season. It was on 4th October 868 that he had fulminated his condemnation of Anastasius, and before the end of 869 the latter was reinstated in his position of secretary and pontifical librarian. This leads us to suppose that he had proved himself innocent of any part in his brother’s crime.

In the winter of 869-870, he set out, in company with two imperial dignitaries, for Constantinople, charged to negotiate an alliance between the daughter of Louis II and a son of the Greek monarch, Basil the Macedonian. He arrived in time to be present at the last sitting of the eighth ecumenical council, and to witness the defeat of Photius, one of his most bitter adversaries. It is, indeed, thanks to him, that the Holy See was informed of the enactments of the council, for the copy confided to the papal legates was stolen from them on the way, and Photius contrived, later, to have the others burned. But Anastasius had taken the precaution of having one specially prepared for his own benefit, and he took good care not to let it be stolen. Not only did he bring it in safety to Rome, but he had it translated into Latin, in which form this important document is still preserved to us.

These disturbances did not greatly affect the pontifical organization, and had practically no influence on the personnel of the administration. Arsenius was replaced by the nomenclator George, a man as rapacious as his predecessor.

The alliance between the empire and the papacy was distinguished by a touching episode. After many struggles, Louis II had succeeded in taking possession of Bari, thus destroying the chief resort of the Mahometans in Southern Italy (2nd February 871). He was staying at Beneventum after his campaign, when he was betrayed and taken prisoner by the Duke Adelgis, who, after having robbed him, only released him on condition that he swore not to avenge himself. After thirty-five days of captivity, the unfortunate emperor was set free, and he returned to Ravenna by way of Spoleto, sadly humiliated by this attack on the representative of the imperial majesty. The following year he went to Rome, about the time of the Whitsuntide celebrations. Pope Hadrian welcomed him sympathetically, and, in order to reinvest him, to some extent, with his former dignity, he crowned him anew, and escorted him with great pomp from St. Peter’s to the Lateran. The oath which the duke had extorted from him was solemnly pronounced invalid, and Louis thereupon resumed his campaigns against the Mahometans, in the direction of Capua and Salerno. He died on 12th April 875, near Brescia, and was buried at Milan, in the basilica of St. Ambrose, where his tomb is still preserved.