ITALY AND HER INVADERS.
CHAPTER XII.
RAVENNA AND ROME.
Before we enter upon the memorable pontificate of Hadrian I, which
lasted twenty-three years and witnessed great changes in the political aspect
of Italy and the Papacy, it will be well to give a glance at the ecclesiastical
relations existing between Rome and the dethroned capital of Ravenna. Our
information on this subject is fragmentary, obscure and confusing; but, even in
its confusion, it evidently reflects the troubled and uncertain state of men's
minds whenever the relation of the two cities came under discussion.
If we consider their previous history we shall see that there was sure
to be some such trouble and uncertainty. Here was Rome on the one hand, which
had first obtained her high ecclesiastical position as the political capital of
the world, and had then languished for three centuries under the neglect of the
great Imperial absentee, but was now virtually throwing off the yoke of
Constantinople and winning for herself a new, a temporal, and an Italian
dominion by her opportune alliance with the great Austrasian house. Ravenna, on
the other hand, which had been the seat of the Imperial lieutenants for two
centuries, had now lost all the pomp and splendour which they had conferred
upon her. No more now would an Exarch fresh from Constantinople, surrounded by
his life-guards and followed by his obsequious eunuchs and chamberlains, ride
through the streets of Ravenna to hear mass sung in the basilica of St. Ursus
or St. Vitalis. The Exarch gone, the Archbishop of Ravenna felt his own
importance diminished and power slipping from his hands. Was Ravenna to be only
one of the many cities of the Lombard kingdom? Or, yet worse, was it to be
politically subject to the see of Rome; the Pope not merely an ecclesiastical
superior whose claims to the Universal Patriarchate of the West might be
decorously admitted in theory and on suitable occasions evaded in practice, but
an actual sovereign, with power of life and death, able to enforce his edicts,
and in the last resort judging all causes, civil as well as temporal, at Rome?
Even in the days of the great Gregory, when the see of Ravenna was held by his
own friend and disciple Marinianus, things had not always gone smoothly between
the two pontiffs. Since then, apparently, the estrangement had increased rather
than diminished; and now this claim on the part of the Roman Pope to rule
Ravenna as a subject city was as much as possible waived aside, and always
bitterly resented by the Archbishop and people of Ravenna.
It is this contention which gives sharpness to the tone of the
ecclesiastical historian of Ravenna whenever he has occasion to mention the see
of Rome. Long ago I ventured to bring before my readers some of the strange,
often puerile legends which Agnellus, abbot of St. Mary's and St.
Bartholomew's, told of the archbishops of Ravenna in that extraordinary book,
his Liber Pontificalis. We have now come to a
different portion of his history. Though still inaccurate and blundering, he
has no longer so much need to draw upon his imagination for facts. As we are
now within thirty-five years of his birth within seventy years of the
composition of his history, we may take his narrative as almost that of a
contemporary, vouched for as it is by such notes of time as ‘this man was my
predecessor at four removes in the government of my monastery' and ‘my
grandfather was concerned in that rebellion'. Above all, the dislike of the
Papal claims to sovereignty, which is shown in every page, is an important
symptom of the times. We shall certainly follow the counsel of the good
Benedictine Editor, who tells us that all these calumnies against the Holy See
are to be read with caution, but the existence of the antipathy which prompted
the calumnies is itself a fact of which we are bound to take notice.
It was an archbishop John, sixth of that name, who occupied the see of
Ravenna during the eventful reign of the Lombard Liutprand and for ten years
after his death. Agnellus mentions the siege of the city by Liutprand and the
act of treachery on the part of one of its citizens by which the Lombard king
effected its capture. But he says nothing expressly as to its subsequent
surrender to the Byzantines, though he implies it by his mention of the Exarch
as again ruling in the city. Nor (which is more extraordinary and in fact
inexcusable) does he make the slightest mention of the final capture of Ravenna
by the Lombards under their king Aistulf in the year 751. To atone for his
silence on these important events, he retails some of the ecclesiastical gossip
of the city. Archbishop John having become unpopular with the citizens was
banished to the Venetian territory for a year. Then Epiphanius the scriniarius, lamenting the widowed condition of the
Church of Ravenna, persuaded the Exarch to order his recall. On the
archbishop's return Epiphanius suggested that he should offer a handsome
present to the Exarch and prevail upon him to issue process against the enemies
who had procured his banishment. “If you will do this covertly”, said
Epiphanius, “I will conduct the suits, while you can preserve the pontifical
character and appear to have no desire for the punishment of your foes”. It was
done : the accusers were summoned before the judgment-seat, and to each one the scriniarius said with righteous indignation,
“What sort of a sheep was you who, when thy shepherd was leading thee through
grassy meads, didst strike him with thy horn and prepare a bill of indictment
against him?”. Thus by the terrors of the law large sums of money were
collected, the promised honorarium was paid to the Exarch; possibly something
remained over for the ingenious scriniarius,
and the archbishop was never again molested by his foes.
During the same pontificate, says Agnellus, an Imperial ministrategus came against Ravenna, thinking to
ravage it. And then follows the strange story about the battle in the
Coriander-field between the Greeks and the men of Ravenna which has been
briefly given in a previous volume. Have we in this wild and somewhat childish
legend a remembrance, however distorted, of some genuine engagement between the
men of Ravenna and the troops of the iconoclastic Emperor? Were Agnellus a more
trustworthy historian, we might question whether after all Ravenna was wrested
by the Lombards from the Empire, whether it had not succeeded in throwing off
the yoke of Byzantium and was a small but independent state when Aistulf conquered
it and annexed it to his kingdom.
On the death of John VI (in 752) Sergius was elected to the vacant see.
The cause of the election of this young man, whom Agnellus describes as ‘short
of stature, with a smiling face, grey eyes and comely figure, and sprung from
very noble ancestors', is an unsolved enigma. For Sergius was a layman, who by
reason of his youth can hardly have won the confidence of his fellow-citizens
as did Ambrose of Milan and Stephen of Naples when they were invited or
constrained to exchange high office in the State for high office in the Church.
Moreover, Sergius was married, and his wife Euphemia was still living, though
now consecrated as a deaconess by the husband from whom she was thus strangely
separated. The sole explanation that can be suggested for these irregular
proceedings is that Ravenna was still in the throes of a revolution, only just
annexed to the Lombard kingdom, suffering many vexations (as Agnellus tells us)
from the Lombards and Venetians—this incidental notice of war with the maritime
islanders is perhaps significant—and that there may have been some political
reasons for placing the representative of one of the noblest families in
Ravenna at the head of the Church, the only institution which seemed to have a
chance of maintaining Ravenna’s independence.
However, the expedient answered but poorly. Sergius had long disputes
with his clergy, most of whom refused to communicate with him, whereupon he
consecrated other priests in their places whose claims very nearly caused a
schism in his Church. This dispute, however, was healed by smooth words from
the young archbishop of the smiling countenance, and by some mutual concessions
in the important matter of vestments. Then, however, came a struggle with Rome.
Though Sergius had received consecration at the hands of the Pope he was
summoned to Rome by Stephen II on that pontiff's return from his memorable
journey across the Alps. We are told that he had trusted in the King (doubtless
King Aistulf), that he would lend him his aid, and being deceived by him was
fraudulently led to Rome by some of his own fellow-citizens. Probably the
meaning of all these obscure hints is that the semi independence of the see of
Ravenna was an obstacle to Pope Stephen's designs of obtaining temporal
dominion over the Exarchate and Pentapolis, and that the irregularity of the
election of Sergius, though condoned at the time, now furnished a useful pretext
for beating down a dangerous rival.
The enquiry into the cause thus cited to Rome seems to have lingered,
for Sergius is said to have been detained there for three years. At last a
synod was assembled which was ready to cast him down from his ‘pontifical rank’.
The Pope (whom Agnellus calls the Apostolicus) thus
addressed him : “Thou art a neophyte; thou didst not belong to the fold, nor
serve according to the canons in the Church of Ravenna, but didst creep in like
a thief into the episcopal chair, and hast repelled the priests who were worthy
to taste the honours of the Church, and by main force and the favour of secular
persons thou hast kept possession of the see”. To this Sergius answered : “It
was not by my presumption, but because the clergy and all the people elected
me. Thou didst thyself put to me all the canonical questions, and I disclosed
everything to thee; that I was a layman, that I had a wife, that I had
[suddenly] come into the clerical status. All this I made known to thee, and
thou saidst that there could be no obstacle [in the
way of my consecration]. After thou hadst heard all these things concerning me,
why then didst thou consecrate me?”
After this defence the assembly was divided, but all—says Agnellus,
probably untruly— asked with anxiety, “How can we who are disciples judge him
who [as archbishop] is our master?”. Then the Pope in anger declared that he
would on the morrow tear off the pallium from the neck of Sergius.
All that night the exiled archbishop passed in prayer, with floods of
tears, at the altar of St. Nicholas. In the morning all Rome knew that Pope
Stephen II had died suddenly and peacefully in his bed; ‘by the judgment of
God' says the apologist of the pontiffs of Ravenna. At dawn, Paul, the brother
of the deceased Pope and his destined successor, entered the cell of Sergius,
and said to him, “What wilt thou give me for leave to return in peace and with
augmented honour to thy home?”. Delighted at the prospect of being thus
liberated from captivity, the archbishop said, “No small rewards will I give
thee. Come to the archbishop's palace at Ravenna and examine the treasures
stored up there—gold, silver, vessels of price, hoards of money. All shall be
given thee; only whatsoever thou likest to leave me
as a benedictio, thou canst leave”. To this
compact they both swore. On that very day the late Pope's brother was raised to
the papacy, and celebrated his accession by releasing all captives [Sergius
among them] and pardoning all criminals. He sent for Sergius and received him
with all honour. When the archbishop of Ravenna fell prostrate on the ground
before him—it is a marvel to find Agnellus admitting even that confession of
inferiority—Paul raised him therefrom, fell on his neck and gave him the kiss
of peace, and ordered his seat to be placed next his in the hall of audience.
After receiving from the new Pope words of peace and comfort, Sergius
returned to his own see in the third year after he had quitted it. He was
received with moderate congratulations by his flock, and moderate peace reigned
in the City. Possibly this lukewarm reception was the cause why the returning
exile proceeded to the church of St. Mary in Cosmedin and after singing mass prostrated himself before the altar of his patron, St.
Nicholas, where he prayed for a very long time, and shed tears, “which,” says
Agnellus, “are preserved unto the present day,” that is to the eighty-fourth
year after their first effluxion.
In course of time the Pope appeared at Ravenna to claim the fulfilment
of the archbishop's compact. The ecclesiastics of the city, knowing that he was
coming to rifle their treasury, took counsel together. Some said, ‘Let us
suffocate him'. Leo the deacon, vice- dominus of the archbishop, said, ‘Not so;
let us beckon him away to yonder cistern, as if we were about to show him some
more treasures, and then push him in, so that he may appear no more among men'.
At this moment Wiliaris, archdeacon and abbot of St.
Bartholomew (Agnellus’ predecessor at the fourth remove), came up, saw their
plotting, and heard their diverse voices. Thereat he cried out, ‘O my brethren,
what are you planning? To slay the Pope? God forbid! Nay, but when night covers
the sky, and the Romans, weary of eating and drinking, are stretched in
slumber, then let us extinguish the lights, and stow away all the treasures of
the church, or as many as we may be able to hide, without the archbishop's
knowledge'. So said; so done; but ere they had finished their task, the Pope at
dead of night appeared upon the scene, ordered the keys to be brought him by
the vestiarii (vergers), and opened all the
doors of the church. He carried off the relics, which they had not been able to
hide, and many precious vessels of gold and silver to Rome. The citizens of
Ravenna, when they heard of the robbery of their church, set off in pursuit of
the waggon that bore the precious vessels, but the charioteers, alarmed, turned
into Rimini for shelter, whereupon the men of Ravenna returned home
disconsolate.
After his return to Rome the Pope sent letters couched in flattering
terms to the archbishop and nobles of Ravenna, praying for the surrender of the
men who had plotted against his life. This was granted; the men were all sent
to Rome (the grandfather of Agnellus being one of them), and remained there in
prison till they died.
‘Now Sergius', says Agnellus, ‘judged all the Pentapolis from Pertica as far as Tuscany and the table of Walanus just like an Exarch, and arranged all things as the
Romans of old had done. He made a league with the Venetians, because he
misliked the king of the Lombards and feared that evil might befall him from
that quarter. In order to carry through this negotiation he gave seven purses
of money apiece to each of the chief nobles among them.
On the death of Sergius, which occurred on the 23rd 01 August, 769,
there was a dispute as to the succession to the see of Ravenna, of which
Agnellus tells us nothing, but the Roman Liber Pontificalis makes it one of the articles of accusation against Desiderius and the Lombards.
There was apparently an attempt to turn the election of Sergius into a
precedent, and once more to seat a layman in the archi-episcopal
palace of Ravenna. Michael, a scriniarius or
registrar of the church, a man with no sacerdotal rank, obtained the help of
Maurice, the duke of Rimini, who in his turn leant upon the aid of Desiderius,
and this coalition succeeded by main force in installing Michael as archbishop
of Ravenna, instead of Leo the archdeacon of the church, upon whom the election
would otherwise have fallen. As Maurice, the duke of Rimini, by whom this
state-stroke was accomplished, is characterized by the papal biographer as
‘unspeakable', and as he acted in cooperation with Desiderius, he was probably
a Lombard; and in any case his attitude appears to have been one of entire
independence of Rome and even of actual opposition to the Holy See. Yet Rimini
was one of the places which thirteen years before had been solemnly surrendered
to Abbot Fulrad, and by him handed over to Stephen
II. Thus we have in this event one proof the more how precarious and shadowy
were the rights secured to the Pope by the great Donation of Pippin.
For a little time the intrusive archbishop seemed likely to establish
himself in the see. Leo was shut up in prison, and a deputation was sent from
Duke Maurice and the civil rulers of Ravenna to the Pope, praying him to
consecrate Michael archbishop, and offering costly gifts to secure his
compliance. Weak as he was, however, Stephen III utterly refused to take part
in a ceremony which would have entirely stultified his protest and that of his
brother ecclesiastics against the election of Constantine. The Church's
treasures went to the Lombard at Pavia instead of to Stephen at Rome, and for a
year the help of Desiderius thus purchased succeeded in keeping Michael on his
archiepiscopal throne. Then the stubborn refusal of the Pope to consecrate and
the terror inspired by a peremptory message from the Frankish king Charles, won
the day. There was a popular insurrection at Ravenna. Michael was sent bound to
Rome for judgment, Leo was liberated and elected archbishop. He hastened to
Rome with a long train of nobles and ecclesiastics, and was solemnly
consecrated archbishop towards the end of 770, a little more than a year before
the death of his champion Stephen III. Though he owed so much to Rome, his
attitude during the eight years of his pontificate was generally one of
stubborn opposition to the Papal claims.
The relations of the two Churches of Rome and Ravenna during the middle
of the eighth century, which have been here briefly reviewed, vividly exhibit
the uncertain nature of the Papal sovereignty over the Exarchate and the
Pentapolis. It was one thing to get a ‘page of donation', conferring
wide-spread territories on the vicar of St. Peter; it was quite another thing
to establish what modern diplomatists call ‘effective occupation' of those
territories. With such a royal or imperial mandate and with a full treasury, a
Pope of the fifteenth century would probably have had but little difficulty in
hiring a condottiere captain who would have made his claim effective. But
though she had within her abundant elements of disorder, Italy was not cursed
with condottieri in the eighth century.
