The roof of the church was made of gilded tiles, given by Pope Honorius (c. 625). Its façade was adorned with mosaics. Over the portal, says the Abbé Duchesne, were originally depicted the Saviour and St. Peter, to whom Constantine was pointing out (or offering a model of?) the church. In Raffael's Incendio one may observe faint traces of mosaics on the building. These later mosaics are said to have consisted of three zones: in the gable were Christ and the Virgin, between and beside the upper windows the four Evangelists, and between the lower windows figures of the four-and‑twenty Elders holding up their golden crowns towards the Saviour. The nave of the basilica was flanked on each side by two aisles. Ninety-six columns,7 many taken from ancient buildings, such as the amphitheatre of Nero, separated the aisles and supported the clerestory, which, as well as the apse, was adorned with mosaic work. Precious marbles, splendid curtains of brocade, golden and silver and bronzen candelabras and lamps and altars and statues enriched the whole of the interior.

Towards the west end the nave and the aisles were crossed by a short transept, beyond which rose an elevated presbytery—such as one knows in the Florentine S. Miniato, S. Giorgio at Rome, and other churches. To reach the presbytery one ascended, to the right or to the left of the high altar, seven steps of red porphyry. Immediately below the high altar was the crypt, containing the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the fenestella confessionis was below the altar,8 between the two flights of porphyry steps—as may be seen in Raffael's fresco in which Leo III (or rather Leo X!) is depicted taking his oath before Charles the Great. This 'window of the Confession' was a grating with an aperture by which one could look down a perpendicular

INSERT DRAWING
Presbytery Steps and 'Confession,'
S. Giorgio in Velabro

shaft and see the saint's tomb. St. Gregory of Tours relates what his deacon saw at St. Peter's basilica, and speaks of a 'parvula fenestella, the lattice of which having been opened, one could insert one's head [immisso introrsum capite] and thus give utterance to one's supplications.' The shaft and sepulchre at St. Peter's got choked up and buried in rubbish probably (says Duchesne) after the Saracen invasion of 846. Some seven and a half centuries later (1594), while foundations were being excavated, the original tomb seems to have come again to view, and a silver sarcophagus and a golden cross were, it is said, actually seen through an aperture by Pope Clement VIII; but he ordered all to be walled up again.

As those know who have visited the Grotte nuove in St. Peter's, the 'Confession' is now some ten feet under the pavement of the present cathedral, overhung by Michelangelo's mighty dome. The question of the genuineness of the relics and the sarcophagi of St. Peter and St. Paul (for also St. Paul's body is stated to have been brought here from the catacombs

INSERT DRAWING
'Confessio' in the Oratory of
S. Alessandro's Catacomb, Rome

of the Appian Way and the sarcophagus to have been seen in course of the reconstructions in the sixteenth century) need not here be discussed; but I may add that when the Saracens in 846 plundered S. Pietro and S. Paolo (both still outside the walls) they cast forth, says Anastasius, the writer of this part of the Pontifical Book, the contents of the great bronze (silver?) sarcophagus of St. Peter and 'devastated the sepulchre of St. Paul, which was in his basilica near the Appian Way.'

The 'Donations'

On the fifth day of his first visit to Rome, as we saw, Charles caused to be publicly read to him in St. Peter's basilica the Donation of Pipin; and this Donation, transcribed anew and enlarged in some particulars, was formally confirmed by him and furnished with his signature as well as the signatures of his chief nobles and ecclesiastical dignitaries.

But there existed—though Charles was apparently not informed of the fact—what purported to be a much older charter of similar character, namely the so‑called Donation of Constantine. The pious falsehood was perhaps first devised by Stephen II when he was on his famous visit to King Pipin at Paris in 754. If so, he doubtless urged the existence of the legend and the possible existence of the charter itself when entreating the Frank monarch for aid against the ravening 'Lombard tooth.' But the document itself—probably a fabrication imitating an antique manuscript—seems to have been concocted somewhat later, perhaps in Paul's pontificate, by some clever papal notary. Pope Hadrian doubtless knew of its existence, but, knowing also its origin, he did not venture to show it to Charles (who, by the way, probably could not read) when the Pipin Donation was recited to the king at Rome in 774. Three years later, however, finding it impossible to assert his authority in the 'donated' territories north of the Apennines, and being much harassed by the hostility of Ravenna, Spoleto, and Benevento, and by the rebellion of Tarracina and other towns, Hadrian was compelled once more to appeal to Charles for aid—and on this occasion (777) the Constantine Donation, which some centuries later achieved such notoriety,9 was for the first time openly and officially cited, Hadrian entreating Charles to 'become a new Constantine.' Its value as a historical document does not of course consist in the legends that it preserves, but in the fact that, as Bryce says, 'although a portentous falsehood, it is the most unimpeachable evidence of the thoughts and beliefs of the priesthood which framed it.'

Let us now look a little closer into the question of this fabulous Donation of Constantine before considering the more historical Pipin Donation and its confirmation by Charles.

(I) THE CONSTANTINE DONATION

According to an old tale which first appears in a Vita S. Silvestri of perhaps about the year 490, as well as in Greek and Syriac versions, and is briefly touched upon by the writer (about 510) of Silvester's life in the Liber Pontificalis, Constantine was attacked by leprosy and was advised by his physicians to bathe in children's blood. Three thousand little innocents were to be slaughtered for this purpose, but the lamentations and entreaties of the mothers so moved Constantine's pity that he renounced the prescribed cure. He was then visited in a vision of night by St. Peter and St. Paul, who praised him and said: 'Seek for Silvester, Bishop of Rome, who is in hiding in the mountains, and he shall show thee a fount in which when thrice washed thou shalt be cleansed.' And Constantine sent soldiers, who found Silvester hiding near the summit of Syraptim ('within Soracte,' says Dante, as also the Liber), and the saint baptized him and he came forth from the font cleansed of his leprosy. Then he decreed that Christ alone should be adored in all the Empire, and that the Bishop of Rome should be the chief over all the bishops of Christendom (ut in toto orve sacerdotes pontificem Romanum caput habeant). On the eighth day he visited the 'Confessio' of St. Peter's tomb and with his own hands dug out some hodfuls for the foundation of a new basilica and laid its first stone. The next day he founded his palace and a new basilica on the Lateran.

Whatever we may think of the rest of the story, the baptism of Constantine in the Lateran Baptistery, though it is depicted by Raffael in a celebrated fresco and described by Chaucer in his Confessio Amantis, and although a full description is given in the Liber of the splendid porphyry font presented by Constantine for the ceremony, is certainly legendary—for he was not baptized till shortly before his death; and although it is possible that he may have given over to Bishop Silvester the Lateran palace and a certain amount of land, and may have granted the Church and the Roman bishop various privileges and patrimonies, there is every reason to believe that uxu no sovran rights of any kind were conceded by Constantine — nor, indeed, as we shall see, by Charles the Great. And yet the forged document asserted — and still asserts, for versions of it still exist — that the regal edict contained the following passages:10 'We, together with our Satraps and the whole Senate and Nobles and People, deem it desirable that even as St. Peter was on earth the Vicar of God, so also the Pontiffs, his viceregents, should receive from us and from our Empire power and principality greater than belongs to us . . . . and we decree that higher than our terrestrial throne the most sacred seat of St. Peter shall be gloriously exalted. . .We hand over and relinquish to the most blessed Pontiff and universal Pope [a title not used till two centuries later!] Silvester our palace, the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy and the western regions, and we ordain that they shall be governed by him and his successors and shall remain under the authority of the holy Roman Church.'

It is scarcely credible that such a document could have ever been seriously put forward as a title-deed even by the most shameless claimant or advocated of the Temporal Power. One would have thought that its wild and impudent extravagance would have met with nothing but incredulous contempt. But among papal adherents the legend was long accepted. Dante himself did not doubt the genuineness of the Gift, though he bitterly lamented 'the evil fruit of what was done with good intention' 'Ah, Constantine,' he exclaimed,

Not thy conversion, but those rich domains
That the first wealthy Pope received of thee!11

Then passed he to a flowery mountain green,

Which once smelt sweet, now stinks as odiously;

This was that gift (if you the truth will have)

That Constantine to good Sylvestro gave.12

(2) THE DONATION OF PIPIN AND CHARLES

We have seen how Pipin, father of Charles the Great, in the year 751 assumed the royal title on the advice of Pope Zacharias, who commissioned St. Boniface, the English Apostle of Germany, to crown him, and how the successor of Zacharias, Pope Stephen II, finding his appeals to Astulf of no avail, crossed the Alps and during the first six months of 754 was the guest of the Frank king at the abbey of St. Denys, near Paris. We have also seen how Pipin made him the explicit promise 'to restore the cities of the Exarchate and the other places and rights' which had been appropriated by the Lombards; and this promise he is said to have solemnly renewed and ratified (perhaps in writing) in the presence of an assembly of his nobles held at Quierzy (called Carisiacus in the Liber), near Laon.13 Stephen then crowned Pipin in the church of St. Denys — this second coronation being probably the confirmation of his title as hereditary monarch — and a short time after the ceremony he accompanied the king and his army to Italy, where the recalcitrant Astulf was obliged to surrender, and promised restoration of all his robberies.

But as soon as Pipin had recrossed the Alps the wily Lombard refused to keep his word, and even (as happened later in the case of Desiderius and Hadrian) threatened Rome itself. Many letters are now exchanged between Pipin and Stephen — the appeals of the Pope becoming more and more pitiful, till at last the Frank king returns and exacts from Astulf the cession of all the territories in question. Hereupon the keys of all the ceded cities (some twenty in number) are given over to the Pope, together with a formal act of Donation 'to God's Apostle, to his Vicar, the most holy Pope, and to all his successors.' This Donation, together with the keys, was placed in the 'Confessio' of St. Peter's at Rome, and was, it is asserted, the same document which was read to and confirmed by Charles in 774. The original manuscript has not survived, nor has any one of the copies that Charles is said to have ordered to be made; but we need not doubt that it and they actually existed, for we have the testimony of the writer of Hadrian's life in the Liber, who was apparently present at the ceremony and saw the copy of the charter that was hung up in the 'Confessio' of St. Peter's tomb.14

It is, however, very difficult to feel any certainty as regards the contents of the newly confirmed Donation; and still more difficult is it to feel sure of the exact interpretation of what is cited from it by the biographer of Hadrian in the Pontifical Book. The new promise (alia promissio) of Charles was probably on the same lines as Pipin's Quierzy charter (ad instar anterioris, says the Liber); but that is not a question of so much importance, for in any case the promise of Charles was valid enough and needed no precedent. The really important matter is to feel sure about three other points. Firstly, is the Pontifical Book trustworthy as regards the cities and territories ceded, or does the writer only intimate what papal avarice and ambition claimed? Secondly, to whom was the territory ceded? Thirdly, were those cities and territories merely recognized as patrimonies, i.e. as containing buildings and estates which were admittedly Church property, and from which the ecclesiastical authorities might legally exact Church dues; or were they handed over with sovran rights, thus being alienated from the dominions of the Frank king (and the new Empire) and forming not so much an imperium in imperio as actually a separated and independent kingdom?

To these three questions I think we may answer that if the amount of territory ceded by Pipin and Charles was actually what the Liber states, it included Corsica, Lunigiana, Parma, Mantua, Reggio, universum Exarchatum Ravennatium, provincias Venetiarum et Istriae, necnon et cunctum ducatum Spoletinum et Beneventinum — in fact, much the same as 'all the provinces, places, and cities of Italy' that figure in the forged Constantine Donation. Now if all this was given over to the Church or the Pope with sovran rights, and if the Frank king really intended (as Constantine's Donation' phrases it) that the most sacred seat of St. Peter should be gloriously exalted above all terrestrial thrones, one may well ask what Charles meant to keep for himself south of the Alps! But that Charles — the rex Longobardorum — meant to keep all — or very nearly all — his new Italian dominions is clear enough, and that he merely undertook to defend the interests of the Church as regards its private property, its revenues and ecclesiastical privileges, in these 'donated' territories seems very likely indeed. Only a few years after his 'Donation' we find him acting as if he alone were the liege-lord of all Italy — except possibly Rome and the Roman duchy — and that this was allowed by the Pope himself is graphically illustrated by the fact that at the same time (c. 777) as Hadrian was quoting Constantine's Donation to prove his claims to vast domains in North Italy he was obliged to beg leave from Charles before he ventured to cut down in the Spoletan hills a few trees which he wanted in order to repair the roof of St. Peter's basilica. And if it be objected that on his later visits to Rome, in 781 and 787, Charles 'renewed his concessions,' it may be answered that on these occasions he did nothing to show that he conceded any sovran rights to the Pope, even allowing that he asked him to crown the young Pipin as King of Italy, a fact that was doubtless interpreted by Hadrian as an acknowledgment of his sovranty in Italy. The fact is that Charles had long ago judged Hadrian to be entirely incapable of asserting any temporal authority north of the Apennines. The 'renewed concessions' merely amounted to certain extensions of the Roman duchy, which was now allowed

to include the fractious little town of Tuscania — or Toscanella — of which we have spoken in another chapter.

As regards our second question — to whom was the territory ceded? — it is instructive, and somewhat amusing, to remark how Pope Stephen II in his letters to Pipin and to Astulf first writes as if these cities and territories were to be restored to the Empire; then we find that they are to be restored to 'Rome,' or the 'Roman Republic'; a little later the phrase has become 'restoration to St. Peter'; and finally we slide into the full acknowledgment that the whole of the Exarchate and Pentapolis and all these other territories and cities are claimed with sovran rights by 'Holy Church' and by her supreme pontiff and his successors to all eternity.


NOTE ON THE BYZANTINE EMPERORS
800‑1453

Since through the usurpation of the diadem by Irene and the coronation of Charles by the Pope Rome has once more become in Italy the generally acknowledged capital of the empire, there will be less reason than ever to divert our attention from Italy in order to follow closely the fortunes of the so‑called Byzantine Emperors. But there will still be occasions when we shall need to cast a glance in this direction, so that a few words on the subject of the later Eastern (Byzantine) Empire may prove useful.

Six hundred and fifty-three years elapsed between the revival of the Roman Empire in 800 and the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. During this interval some fifty-five so‑called Emperors of various dynasties reigned at Constantinople. For about four centuries after the days of Irene the obscure annals of this Byzantine Empire offer little of interest (though more than Gibbon thought), and nothing of much importance for the student of Italian history except that the influences of the Byzantine school on the art of Southern Italy is a subject that opens up some alluring vistas.

In 1202‑4 Constantinople was taken by the combined forces of the Western Crusaders and the Venetians, and after the city had been barbarously sacked the Count of Flanders, Baldwin, was set on the throne of the Eastern Emperors. Five other 'Latin' Emperors15 succeeded him. Meanwhile three little offshoots of the Byzantine Empire had struck root. There was an 'Emperor' at Thessalonica, another at Nicaea, in Asia Minor, and a third at Trapezus (Trebizond), on the distant eastern shores of the Euxine. One of the Nicaean
INSERT DRAWING

Coins of Michael Palaeologus
See p. xxvii.

'Emperors,' Vatatzes by name, conquered the 'Empire' of Thessalonica and possessed himself of Macedonia and Thrace, and in 1260‑1 one of his successors, Michael Palaeologus, captured Constantinople and expelled Baldwin II, the 'Latin' Emperor, and founded a dynasty which survived till the coming of the Turks, when the last Byzantine Emperor, Constantine Palaeologus, was slain. The accounts, as retold by Gibbon and others, of these 'Roman Empires' of Nicaea and Trebizond in the far East are exceedingly picturesque. At Trebizond an Emperor Alexius handed down to his successors the great imperial name of the Comneni. The court of Trebizond was famous for its wealth and semi-Oriental luxury, and for the beauty of the imperial princesses. From time to time this Trebizond Empire was subject to the Sultan of Rūm (Iconium), and to the Seljuks and Mongols and Turcomans, and finally it was vanquished by a general of Mohammed II, the conqueror of Constantinople.

The state of things at Constantinople itself — how after its devastation by the Latin Crusaders it again became the richest and most civilized city in Europe and the home of art and learning — is vividly described by Gibbon is some of the later chapters of his Decline and Fall.

❦

1 I take the main facts from the Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne), which gives the one authentic account. Gibbon, Gregorovius, Villari and others copy it closely.

❦

2 Dante, Par. vi, 94. The ali (wings) are those of the Imperial Eagle—in whose constellated form in the sixth heaven (that of the planet Jupiter) Constantine the Great's spirit, who is here speaking, is one of the five stars that composed the eye. Both Charles and his paladin Orlando are put by Dante into heaven (in the fiery cross of Mars) as being Warriors of the Cross.

❦

3 See p. 243 n.

❦

4 Perhaps the ruins near Trevignano, on the north side of Lago di  uxu Bracciano, may be relics of this place, called Ad novas (domus?). Probably it was a mutation (posting relay house) whence one struck the diverticulum (cross-road) between the Clodian and Cassian roads and thus reached the Via Flaminia. But I prefer to think that they kept to the Clodia, which passed south of Sabatinus and joined the Via Flaminia near the Milvian Bridge.

❦

5 Anciently called 'S. M. ad Nives,' because a fall of snow determined the exact limits of its site; or 'ad Praesepe,' because of its supposed possession of five boards of the Manger of Bethlehem.

❦

6 I refer to the fresco L'incendio del Borgo. The word is of Northern origin to denote the shingle-roofed inflammable quarters (scandalicia) of English, Saxons, and other Northmen who founded scholae in this part of the city. Hence in Italian it has come to mean a suburb. The Borgo was walled and fortified by Leo IV (c. 852) and was called the Civitas Leonina.

❦

7 Some of these details are given by St. Gregory of Tours (the patron of St. Martin) from the accounts brought home by a deacon of his who had visited Rome c. 590.

❦

8 See illustrations. In one Confessio is the (supposed) head of our English St. George. The catacomb altar (probably from about 320) has the grating and window in its front side, as the presbytery was not elevated.

❦

9 Fig. 29 shows how long the Popes fostered the lie. In this picture Constantine presents a figure symbolical of Rome.   

❦

10 See Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, vol. VIII, and Liber Pontificalis, splendidly edited by the Abbé Duchesne.

❦

11 Par. xx. 56, and Inf. xix, 115 (transl. by Milton).

❦

12 Orl. Fur. xxxiv, 80 (translated by Milton).

❦

13 The Liber says that the princes Charles and Carlmann joined their father in 'making this promise' at Carisiacus (i, 498).

❦

14 I fully accept Abbé Duchesne's conviction that this life of Hadrian is a contemporary document. For the fictitious Donation of Louis the Pious said to be a copy of Pipin's, see p. 314.

❦

15 Several of these so‑called Latin Emperors of Constantinople were Courtenays, about whose English descendants Gibbon gives a long 'Digression' (ch. lxi). Peter Courtenay was the only Eastern Emperor crowned by a Pope at Rome.