1 the Translation That Follows Is of an Appendix to the Third Controversy I

Home , Pope Leo III, Pope Zachary

The translation that follows is of an appendix to the third controversy in the first volume of St. Robert Bellarmine’s famous Disputations about Controversies of the Christian Faith against the Heretics of this Age, first published at Ingolstadt in 1581- 1593 and republished several times thereafter. The translation is in progress. The Latin text can be downloaded from Google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=vqJaa8h_teQC&pg=PP22&dq=bellarmini+contro versiae&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5ZGvUcO9HtS44APBqoHgAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAjgU

The third controversy itself in the first volume, about the Papacy, is not translated here. A translation has however been published by the Liberty Fund https://catalog.libertyfund.org/natural-law/on-temporal-and-spiritual-authority- paperback-detail.html and also by Mediatrix Press http://mediatrixpress.com/?s=bellarmine

Peter L P Simpson July 2016

Appendix to Volume One: On the Transfer of the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans In Three Books

Contents:

Book One: The Roman Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Franks by Authority of the Roman Pontiff

Preface: Argument and Division of this Book Chapter One: Twelve Contradictions in Illyricus are Uncovered.

[Chapter Two: The Lies of Illyricus Chapter Three: The Prolegomena of Illyricus are Refuted]

Chapter Four: That the Roman Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Franks by authority of the Supreme Pontiffs is demonstrated by the testimonies of Historians

Robert Bellarmine’s Controversies

Appendix to Volume One: On the Transfer of the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans In Three Books

Book One: The Roman Empire was Transferred from the Greeks to the Franks by Authority of the Roman Pontiff

Preface: Argument and Division of this Book As I am about to write of the transfer of the Roman Empire from the Greeks to the Germans against a most lying book, which Matthias Flaccius Illyricus produced a few years ago on the same topic, I thought it would be worth my while if, just as he himself stated some prolegomena by way of preface, so I too should, in place of prolegomena, state a few things by way of preface both about the contradiction and about the manifest and most crass lies of the same Illyricus. For in this way I hope that, once the instability and impudence of the man have been laid open, a way for the truth will made open also at the same time in the ears and minds of those whom falsity has perhaps already seized upon and whom he has overwhelmed with darkness by his arts and by the much confusion and varying of his histories. Next I will enter upon the matter in the following order. For since Illyricus, being inconstant and varying, teaches in one place that the Roman Empire was not transferred by the authority of the Roman Pontiff from the Greeks to the Franks or Germans, and in another place confesses the fact indeed but affirms it was done unjustly and impiously, and that this transfer was an especial miracle of Antichrist, I will for this reason first try to demonstrate that the transfer was truly done by authority of the Supreme Pontiff, and I will take up arguments from the consensus of all the historians, from the consensus of the Emperors and other Princes, from the testimonies of the old Roman Pontiffs, and lastly from refutation of all the rights or titles that the adversaries put forward. For I will show with most certain reasons that Charlemagne, who neither Illyricus nor anyone else denies was Roman Emperor, did not reach this dignity by right of war and arms, or by immediate call from God, or by hereditary succession, or by gift of the Greeks, or lastly by election of the Senate and People of Rome; that therefore either Charlemagne had the Empire from the Pontiff or he did not have it at all. Then I will make it plain that what the Supreme Pontiff did in this transfer of the Empire was done correctly and by right. Lastly, so that as not to seem to have passed over any of the things Illyricus treats of, I will add something about the transfer (if however if should be called a transfer) of the Empire from the family of Charlemagne to the Saxons, and about the institution of the Seven Imperial Electors.

Chapter One: Twelve Contradictions are uncovered in Illyricus Our Illyricus, then (to begin from what was proposed first), is accustomed, for his weight and constancy in asserting opinions, to consider not so much what is the case in reality as what may most serve his purpose. Therefore, if affirming something is useful for the cause he defends, he confidently affirms it; if again he thinks denying that very thing conduces to his business, he boldly denies it. He bothers all too little whether his writings cohere with themselves or fight with themselves, and whether one remark gives support to another or whether instead, as in civil war, one is overthrown by another.

I. In the book he recently published about the transfer of the Empire, he everywhere calls figments and fables what is generally believed, that the Roman Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Germans by authority of the Supreme Pontiff. And, to note one particular place, the title of the second part of the first chapter is, ‘That the transfer of the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans was not done by the Popes’. But astonishingly, when he was writing this, he had forgotten what he had written a little before. For when explaining the marks of the Antichrist in the book against the primacy of the Pope, almost at the end, he puts in the fifth place this mark about the transfer of the Empire, and indeed in these words, “Antichrist will appear when the Roman Kingdom will be failing, and he will give the Romans freedom, but under his own name. This happened before the year 700 when the Roman Empire was falling and something was begun by the Pope, not as Caesar, Dictator, Consul, or Senator, but as Roman Pope; for then the Pope propagated his power and empire. So Revelation 13, ‘The wounded beast was honored by another beast, similar to a lamb’.” Illyricus affirms this not only in this book but also in his Centuries. For thus does he write, Century 8.10 col.751, “And so (Leo III) transferred the Roman Empire to Charles and the Franks, and yet he reserved for himself the right of ruling the Franks, and so it happened from then on that whoever received the scepter of Empire was installed by the Pope, and this transfer is preeminent among the miracles of Antichrist, Revelation 13 & 17.” What here will you choose, Illyricus? If the Roman Pontiff transferred the Empire to the Franks, your whole book about the transfer of the Empire collapses; if he did not transfer it, no small part collapses, both from your book against the Primacy and from the Centuries of your History. Indeed rather, whether the Roman Pope transferred the Empire to the Franks or did not, your book about the transfer of the Empire collapses. For indeed you think, in the places above cited, that you have proved by a most effective argument drawn from the word of God that the Pope is Antichrist, because namely the Pope, when he inaugurated the Western Empire, cured the wound of the beast (as you interpret it), which is a miracle and preeminent mark of Antichrist, Revelation 13 & 17. Therefore when, in the book about the transfer of the Empire, you contend so sharply that the Pope is not the author of the Western Empire, what else do you contend for than to cause us to believe false that demonstration of yours by which you wanted to prove, from the word of God, that the Pope is Antichrist? And yet in this very book you repeat, for the third time as well, that the Pope is Antichrist – the book in which you yourself 5 make totter the chief demonstration that you believe establishes the Pope to be Antichrist. But let us proceed to other things.

II. In this very book about the transfer of the Empire, in the dedicatory epistle, Illyricus affirms that the Germans acquired the right to the Roman Empire 1500 years ago, namely when, under the leadership of Arminius, they seized two Eagles from the Romans, and that as sign of this thing the Germans carry forward on their insignia a two-headed Eagle. “To this,” he says, “you can refer the fact that under Augustus, not long after Julius, the Germans carried off two Eagles from the Romans in a most just war.” And later, “Whenever therefore the Roman sacrificing priest and others jealous of empire wish to know the origin and right of the monarchy of the Germans, let them only gaze on and contemplate its glorious insignia displaying the two-headed Eagle, and these insignia will soon abundantly teach them about their origin and right and convince them even against their will.” His words. But these dreams, which we will refute below in chapter 6, are refuted even by the same Illyricus himself when in Centuries 9.16 col.621 he speaks as follows, “The Roman Eagle at the beginning of this century (the century from 800 to 900) was divided into two heads. For by the Pontiff Leo, with the consent of the Senate and people of Rome, Charlemagne, in a solemn rite, was installed as Emperor of the West in the year 801.” How, I ask, do these things cohere, that 1500 years ago the two-headed Eagle and right and origin of the German Empire began, and yet that the Roman Eagle was first divided 700 years ago in the year 801 when Charlemagne was first installed as Emperor of the West by the Pontiff Leo?

III. Again in his book on the transfer of the Empire chapter 1 page 9 Illyricus says, “Pope Gelasius in a letter written to the Emperor Anastasius, question 15 canon 6 ‘Alius’, dares to affirm that Pope Zachary had deposed Hilderic the King of the Franks and transferred his kingdom to Pippin, the father of Charles.” And later, “Such a lie did the Pope dare to fabricate and Gratian to insert in his rhapsody of Decrees.” His words there. But it was far otherwise in his History. For thus does he write in Centuries 8.10 col.706, “Pope Zachary gave the Kingdom of the Franks to Pippin and, after Pippin had been deposed and consecrated a monk, he presented it safe to Carloman, Pippin’s brother, and to Hilderic the previous king.” Could Illyricus fight more clearly with himself, and destroy in one place what he affirmed in another?

IV. In the book about the transfer of Empire chapter 1 page 12 Illyricus affirms that the Supreme Pontiffs were servants and slaves of Charles, and that now on the contrary the Caesars are driven by the Supreme Pontiffs to most disgraceful kissing of their feet. “How disgusting is this vanity – that the Papists imagine that those servants and slaves of Charles transferred the Roman Empire to Charles and obliged him to themselves by treaty as a vassal, so that now they bind the Caesars to themselves with the strictest oaths and even drive them to most disgraceful kissing of feet.” But again hear the words of the same Illyricus from Centuries 8.10 col.714. “Pippin,” he says, “and his son Charles, prostrate on the ground, kissed Pope Stephen’s feet and held his stirrup, and taking the reins of his horse performed for 6 him the office of equerry.” What do you say here, Illyricus? If the Pope was the slave of Charles, how did it happen that not the Pope but Charles held the other’s stirrup and performed for him the office of equerry? And if the Popes first now began to drive Princes to kiss their feet, how did Pippin and Charles, almost 800 years earlier, prostrate on the ground kiss the Pontiff’s feet, with nothing compelling them – save the fear of God and the reverence due to God’s vicar?

V. In his book on the transfer of the Empire Illyricus says the same things as follows, “All the historians too, even those most beholden to the Popes, witness that Pope Leo, as soon as he was elected Pope, sent to Charlemagne a legation along with the keys of St. Peter, which is the Papal insignia with the banners of Rome and eagles; and he asked Charlemagne for confirmation, in accordance with the Synod of Adrian, and that someone be sent who would bind the Romans to Charles again with an oath; which was an indication of complete subjection.” His words there. In the Centuries we read the opposite, namely that Leo asked for people to be sent by Charles who would bind the Romans with an oath, not to Charles, but to the Pope himself. For thus do we read in Centuries 8.10 col.750, “He sends, therefore, without the knowledge of the Senate, legates and gifts to Charles and commends to him, for his faith, the sacred keys, the insignia of Papal dignity, the banner of the City of Rome, and requests that Charles send his men away to Rome so that they may bind the People of Rome with an oath to faith and subjection to the Pope, according to the annals of the Franks.” These words some understand (that is, the same Illyricus in the other place) to mean that he ordered the Romans to swear faith to the Franks; but that would not be so easily established. Wherefore it is more likely that he sought thereby to force the Romans to swear an oath to the Pontiff. So Engelbert, or Agilbert, Abbot of St. Richard, on Charles’ order, compelled the Roman people to swear fidelity to the Pontiff.

VI. On page 22 Illyricus asserts that Italy was occupied by Odoacer when Leo the Bessian was Emperor. But in Centuries 5.16 col.15.26 he writes that this happened under Zeno, who succeeded to the older Leo, that is, the Bessian, after the younger Leo.

VII. On page 26f. he teaches at length that the Ostrogoth Theodoric, Emperor of the Romans, and Augustus, was adorned with the Purple of the Caesars, and confirms it with many testimonies. But in Centuries 6.16.840 he says in eloquent words that the same Theodoric never had either the name or the insignia of the Roman Emperors.

VIII. On page 49 he writes that the Empire of the West was given to Charlemagne by Irene before the same Charles was crowned by (Pope) Leo. But in Centuries 9.16 col.621 he writes that the Greeks in some way consented to the Empire of Charles, because they could not change what Leo had done at Rome when he called Charles Emperor.

IX. Neither is there less dissension in Illyricus about the Electors of the Empire than about the transfer of the Empire; for in his book about the transfer of the Empire 7 chapter 5 p.89 are contained these words, “Here too, as everywhere else, the lies of the parasite Pontiffs loiter about, for they say that Gregory V, a German badly treated by the Romans and driven from his See when Otho III was Emperor, passed a decree that seven German Princes in place of the People and Senate of Rome should elect the Emperors to power for life, and this figment of theirs, with God’s help, we will soon clearly refute.” But in his history of the Church, Centuries 10.10 col.546, there are these words from the same Illyricus, which whether they fight or not with the preceding words let Illyricus himself be the judge, “Gregory XI, in the month of his exile, having been restored by the Emperor to his former dignity, and intending to decorate his fatherland with some signal dignity, decreed that to the Germans alone should belong the right and power of electing the King, who, after having received the crown from the Roman Pontiffs, should be called Emperor and Augustus. And the Electors constituted are the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne, and Trier, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke of Saxony, the King of Bohemia, the Margrave of Brandenburg, whereby, since the votes of the Electors were equal, he might remove strife from between them.” But lest the book about the transfer of the Empire seem to conflict only with other writings of the same author and not also he himself with himself, we will note in addition one or two contradictions.

X. So in the very book about the transfer of the Empire chapter 1 page 5 Illyricus speaks as follows, “To God alone belongs this title, ‘All things are mine; I give them to whom I will, I transfer Kingdoms and Monarchies from nation to nation by my own decision’. An horrendous blasphemy is it, then, that as Antichrist equates himself with God in all other things, nay even exalts himself above God, so he glories also in this, that it is his to transfer Empires and Kingdoms to whomever he will, that he transferred the Empire from the Greeks to the Franks and, further, from the Franks to the Germans.” His words there. But later in chapter 2 page 21 he does not wish that to God alone belongs the transfer of Empire but also to men. For he teaches that the Empire was not just transferred from the Greeks to the Germans. He says, “The Romans, or rather the Emperor at Constantinople, rather often handed the right of the Western Empire to the Germans.” And next on page 22 he says, “The first transfer, then, was made under Leo the Bessian, Emperor at Constantinople, about the year 360 [460] to Othocar or Odoacer.” And later he sets down a second transfer made by the Emperor Zeno to Theodoric, a third by Anastasius to Clodoveus, and a fourth by Irene to Charles. But if it is an horrendous blasphemy that the Pope asserts he has transferred the Empire to the Germans, since transferring Empires belongs only to God, how is what Illyricus asserts not an horrendous blasphemy, that the Empire was transferred by Leo the Bessian or by his soldiers to Odacer, by Zeno to Theodoric, by Anastasius to Clodoveus, by Irene to Charles?

XI. And if one who dares to transfer kingdoms, which is proper only to God, is Antichrist and makes himself equal with God or extols himself above him, certainly Leo’s soldiers were Antichrists, and the Emperors Zeno, Anastasius, and Irene, who did in fact (as Illyricus says) transfer the Empire and usurped the power of God. But the Pope is not only not Antichrist but even altogether opposed to Antichrist, since 8 he not only did not transfer the Empire or make himself equal to God but even (as Illyricus says on page 12) subjected himself as a servant and slave to the Emperor. Does not Illyricus therefore manifestly fight with himself when everywhere in his book he calls the Pope Antichrist and an extoller of himself above God, and yet in the same book he makes the same Pope to be so humble as to confess himself a slave and sworn servant of the Emperor?

XII. Again, in the same book chapter 1 page 12 Illyricus says, “The term ‘transfer’ most evidently convicts them of lying, for if the Popes transferred the Empire from the Greeks to the Franks, it follows that they plainly deprived the Greeks of imperial dignity.” His words there. But a little later on page 22f. Illyricus counts four transfers done by the Greeks to the Germans, while nevertheless the Greeks retained the imperial dignity, namely because not the whole Empire but only one of the two parts of it, which is called the Western Empire, was transferred. Either then this term ‘transfer’ convicts Illyricus most evidently of lying when he says on page 22 that the Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Germans by soldiers, by Zeno, by Anastasius, and by Irene; or what he wrote on page 12 is false, for both cannot by any reason be defended at the same time.

XIII. But a striking contradiction, and insulting to the Roman Empire, is contained near the end of Illyricus’ dedicatory epistle, where he says of himself, “I testify that I shrink from all sects and errors condemned by the Roman Empire and the Augsburg Confession.” For these words contain a manifest contradiction unless Illyricus makes the Roman Empire a patron or follower of the Augsburg Confession. But he certainly cannot do this unless he wishes to fight against manifest reason. For it is clear that the Augsburg Confession was only adhered and subscribed to by one Elector, six Princes, and two free Cities of the Roman Empire. But the same confession was in the same meeting at Augsburg publicly rejected and condemned by the Roman Emperor himself, Charles, the fifth of that name, by five Electors, by 107 Princes of the Empire, some Ecclesiastics some Seculars, and finally by 39 free imperial Cities, for so many were the Catholic Princes and States of the Empire who subscribed to the condemnation of the Confession, and reinforced their subscription with their seals, as was witnessed by John Cochleus who was present at the meeting, in the Acts of Luther 1530 and 1531. When therefore the Roman Emperor, with the greater part of the Imperial Princes and States, condemned the Augsburg Confession, it must rightly be reckoned to have been condemned by them. For if the Emperor, the head of the Empire, represents the whole Empire, how much more so and more certainly will a meeting of almost all the Princes and States along with Caesar himself represent it? Therefore rightly did Philip Melanchthon in his letter to John Obernburger write, “I do not delight in remembering the voting assemblies at Augsburg where we were condemned in a sad and terrible sentence.” Let Illyricus then choose which he wants: either he follows the sentence of the Roman Empire and lies when he says he adheres to the Augsburg Confession, or he follows the Augsburg Confession and lies when he says he shrinks from the errors condemned by the Roman Empire. Certainly both cannot in any way be true at the same time.

[Chapter Two: The Lies of Illyricus Chapter Three: The Prolegomena of Illyricus are Refuted]

Chapter Four: That the Roman Empire was transferred from the Greeks to the Franks by authority of the Supreme Pontiffs is demonstrated by the testimonies of Historians It is now time to approach more nearly to the cause itself; and, so as to proceed in order, we will, to begin with, briefly expound what it is that is being asked, or what the state of the question is. The Roman Empire, then, even before the time of Constantine, was ruled sometimes by one sometimes by several Augusti with equal power; yet it was considered to be one and undivided. But then, after Constantine the Great had built Constantinople as a sort of second Rome and therewith gave it a second Consul, a second Senate, and all the privileges of the City of Rome, the Empire was divided into two parts, of which one began to be called the Empire of the East, the other the Empire of the West. And, just as before the Princeps Constantine, several Augusti sometimes administered the undivided Empire and more often a single one alone ruled it, so after Constantine two Caesars for the most part held the now divided Empire, and rarely a single Princeps governed it alone. When Constantine completed his life in the year of the Lord 341, he ceded the Western Empire to the younger Constantine and Constans, and the Eastern Empire to Constantius. But after the death of Constantine and Constans in the year 353, Constantius was alone over the whole Empire. To Constantius Julian succeeded, and to Julian Jovinian. But after the death of Jovinian Valentinian, who had succeeded Jovinian, being content with the Empire of the West, gave the Eastern Empire to his brother Valens in the year of the Lord 368, and from that time up to the year of the Lord 476, that is, up to Augustulus, diverse Emperors held a divided Empire. But when Augustulus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer the Herulian, and the Western Empire was taken over by the barbarians, only the Emperors of the East ruled, and only in the East, up to Justinian. But when Justinian, thanks to the very strong leaders Belisarius and Narses had recovered Africa and Italy by driving out the Vandals from the first and the Goths from the second, then at length, in the year of the Lord 566, the East and the West began to be administered by one Emperor. But since Justinian was a Greek and ruled Italy through Exarchs, he was no longer able to protect it from the hostilities of the Lombards. At the beginning of the year 801, on the very day of the birth of the Lord, a new Emperor was created in the city of Rome, Charlemagne, King of the Franks, and thereby was the Western Empire transferred from the power of the Greeks to the authority of the Franks. The Roman Republic again returned to the state in which Constantine the Great had established it and in which it had remained from Valentinian the Elder up to Augustulus. Although it cannot be denied but that the division of the Empire was a little greater from the time of Charlemagne than previously, for from Constantine to Augustulus, while the provinces of the Roman Empire were divided between two Emperors, there was yet, as far as rule and administration were concerned, so common a command that laws were issued to 10 the whole Empire in the name of both Emperors; and if one of them died without children, the governance and care of the whole Empire belonged to the other. Therefore Paul Orosius book 7 writes that, when Arcadius was governing the provinces of the East and Honorius those of the West, there was a common command, though the seats were divided. But after the times of Charlemagne neither were laws passed in common by the Latin and Greek Emperors nor ever again did a Latin govern the East or a Greek the West. There is a question, then, about who was the author of this transfer, or who bestowed on Charlemagne and his successors the name, dignity, and power of Emperor of the Romans and of Caesar Augustus in the West. We reply what the agreement of all nations cries out, that the Supreme Pontiff Leo III was either the sole, or chief, or primary author of this transfer, and that to him should the German nation refer the reception of Empire. Illyricus denies it and, by hatred of the Pontiffs, invents I don’t know what other authors, and so turns himself about to every side that he tries to obscure altogether a history otherwise most clear and confirmed already for so many centuries by the belief of the whole world. Let, therefore, all the historians, both old and more recent approach and, by the weight of their authority, suppress the levity and impudence of one man.

I. First, John Zonaras, a Greek author, who was not known to flatter the Roman Pontiff, in Annals of the Lives of Constantine and Irene vol.3, where he speaks of this transfer, makes no mention of the Senate or the People or the army but ascribes the whole thing to Leo. “The Franks,” he says, “got complete possession of Rome, Charles being crowned by Leo and called Emperor of the Romans.” And later, “Under Constantine and Irene Pope Leo admitted the Franks even into Rome, and thus they got possession of all Italy and Rome itself.” And later, “But Charles, leader of the Franks, called Emperor of the Romans by Pope Leo, as was said, having sent legates to Irene, entreated marriage with her, since neither was she shrinking from that marriage.”

II. Gregory Cedrenus in his Compendium of the Histories of the Life of Constantine and Irene reports almost the same as Zonaras, but more briefly, “From Charles also,” he says, “there came legates to Irene entreating her for wife to Charles.”

III. Paul the Deacon, who flourished in the time of Charlemagne and was known to Charles, in his Roman Affairs 23, after having narrated that Pope Leo III was restored to his See by Charles, King of the Franks, added, “Moreover Leo, recompensing Charles in turn, crowned him Emperor in the temple of St. Peter the Apostle, anointing him with oil from head to feet, and clothing him with Imperial robes and a crown; January 9 indictment 9.” In these words of Paul the Deacon there are two things to note. First is that no mention is made in his words of the Senate or People of Rome, which certainly a faithful historian ought not to have omitted if the transfer of the Empire from the Greeks to the Franks was the favor of the Senate and People of Rome rather than of Pope Leo. Second is that this transfer, which was done in the coronation itself of Charlemagne, is acknowledged to be and called by Paul the Deacon a gift conferred on Charles by Leo. For the words, “Moreover Leo, 11 recompensing Charles in turn…,” make it sufficiently plain that the coronation of the Emperor was a gift of the Pontiff bestowed on the King, as previously his restitution to his See had been a gift of the King bestowed on the Pontiff.

IV. Eginarthus, a contemporary of Paul the Deacon and not less known than Paul to Charlemagne and of his household (for he was Charles’ chancellor as Trithemius attests), in his life of the same Charles describes this transfer in such a way that he attributes the whole thing to the Pontiff Leo alone. “The name of Augustus,” he writes, “Charles first shunned, so that he affirmed that on that day, although it was an important feast, he would not have entered the Church if he had been able to learn the Pontiff’s plan in advance.” Note, reader, the words, “if he had been able to learn the Pontiff’s plan in advance.” For why does he not say, “if he had been able to learn the plan of the Senate and People of Rome in advance,” save because he understood that the whole thing hung on the Pontiff’s will and authority?

V. The Annals of the Franks, of uncertain author but, by universal consent, of a very faithful one, who lived at the time of Charles, has, in narrating the things done in the year 800, these words, “Now when, on the most holy day of the birth of the Lord, he had entered the Basilica of Blessed Peter the Apostle for the solemnities of the mass and was pausing a little at the altar where he had bowed to pray, Pope Leo imposed a crown on his head, with all the People of Rome acclaiming ‘To Charles Augustus, crowned by God, great and peacemaking Emperor of the Romans, life and victory’.” First here is mention made of the People of Rome, but as acclaiming him after the coronation and not calling him Emperor before the coronation.

VI. Aimoinus or (as others call him) Ammonius or Annonius lived at the time of Louis the Pious [778-840], as he himself indicates in Exploits of the Franks 5.17. So he in 4.10 describes the beginning of the Empire of Charlemagne in almost the same words as those of the Annals of the Franks above cited, and attributes nothing to the People of Rome besides an acclamation of Charles crowned by the Pontiff.

VII. Ado, bishop of Vienna, who flourished at the time of Charlemagne’s grandson, writes in his Chronicle for the sixth year, “On the holy day of the Lord’s Nativity, before the confession of Blessed Peter the Apostle, when the glorious King Charles had risen from prayer, the Pontiff Leo placed a crown on his head, and thus was acclamation made by all the people ‘to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, great and peacemaking Emperor of the Romans, life and victory’.” Here too the author makes no mention of the Senate and People save after the coronation had been completed.

VIII. Rhegino, Abbott of Prüm, who flourished 600 years ago, in book 2 of his Chronicle describes the coronation of Charlemagne in the same words that Ado of Vienna used, which I have not thought needed to be repeated lest they cause annoyance. But so that we may understand that in Rhegino there was not simply a crowning of the Emperor by the Supreme Pontiff but plainly a creating and ordaining of him, I will report his words about the coronation of Arnulph and Otho I. “In the year,” he says, “of the Incarnation of the Lord 896, Arnulph, having entered 12 the city and been received with great honor by Formosus, prelate of the Apostolic See, and having been crowned before the confession of St. Peter, he was created Emperor.” And later, “In the year 962 the King (Otho 1), having been favorably received in Rome by the acclamation of the whole People and clergy of Rome, was called and ordained Emperor and Augustus by the Apostolic John.” Here you plainly see that the King is received with festive acclamation by the People; yet he is not appointed and ordained Emperor by the people but by the Apostolic John.

IX. Witikind, monk of Corbie, a contemporary of Rhegino, in his Kingdom of the Saxons 3 near the end, speaks as follows about the Emperor Otho II, “Although he had already formerly been anointed King, he was also designated Emperor by the Blessed Apostle.” Here you see the kingdom of Germany openly distinguished from the Roman Empire, and the kingdom indeed was given by the chief nobles of Germany but the Roman Empire by the Pontiff, for the designation of a magistrate or prince belongs to him who so creates him, otherwise he would designate in vain who cannot complete it.

X. The Deacon Liutprand of Pavia wrote, during the lifetime of Otho I, a history of things done Europe in his time, as he himself indicates bk.1.7. About Otho he speaks thus in bk.6.6, “From hence he went to Rome to do something similar, and being received in wonderful ornaments and apparel, he received the unction of Empire from the same Supreme and Universal Pontiff John.” Further, the same author openly declares that Otho did not receive from the Pontiff a simple ceremony of anointing but also the name and dignity of Emperor, for he speaks thus in the same chapter, “To the most pious Otho, then King now Augustus Caesar.” This phrasing is accustomed to be followed both by himself and by other ancient writers, so that they speak of Kings before the Pontifical coronation and Emperors and Augusti after it.

XI. Hermann Contractus, son of a most noble Count and a monk of St. Gall, who flourished 500 years ago in the time of the Emperor St. Henry speaks in his Chronicle as follows, “In the year 801. Charles, raised up with imperial blessing, was called in the Roman manner Augustus and Caesar.” And later, “In the year 816 Pope Leo died and Ludovic was made Emperor by Pope Stephen.” And later, “In the year 963 King Otho was ordained Emperor by Pope John VII.” And later, “In the year 1026 King Conrad made his son Henry King, and he, proceeding to Rome, was made Emperor.” His words. Certainly this author could not more clearly express that an Emperor is truly made through coronation itself by the Pontiff.

XII. Marianus Scotus, who was born in the year 1028, as he himself noted in his Chronicle, and was a contemporary of Hermann Contractus, touches, in book 3 of this Chronicle, very briefly on the promotion of Charlemagne to the Empire in these words, “Charles was at this time called Augustus by the Romans.” In order for these words not to be in conflict with the testimonies of older historians, already cited, and with the ensuing words of the same Marianus, they must be taken in such a way that we understand that Charles was called Augustus by all the Romans, that is, by 13 the Pontiff, clergy, Senate, and People, but in a certain order, the Pontiff surely preceding and the rest following; for as we have learnt from the previous historians, the Pontiff Leo crowned and at the same time anointed Charles as Emperor, and the rest approved it by acclamation. But let us set forth some words of Marianus himself, “In the year 875 Charles the Bald, upon reaching Rome, having given great gifts to Pope John, was made Emperor. In the year 896 Arnulph entered the City with great honor, was received by Pope Formosus, and, before the confession of St. Peter, was made Emperor.” From these sentences, then, and others like them, Marianus sufficiently clearly testifies that an Emperor is made at Rome by the Roman Pontiff.

XIII. Dodechinus, the continuator of Marianus, when writing about Lothar, successor of the Emperor Henry, says, “Legates for confirming the King were sent to Rome.” And later he says, “The Lord Pope invited King Lothar to Rome, offering him, as was fitting, the plenitude of Empire in the same city of Rome. Frederick was made Emperor by Pope Adrian.” See then that he is confirmed the elect King of the Romans by the Roman Pontiff, and then he receives from the same Pontiff the plenitude of Empire and thus at length is made Emperor.

XIV Lambert of Aschaffenburg, who flourished about 1070, adds, in his German History, nothing to the words of Marianus about Charlemagne, so that either Lambert seems to have taken from Marianus or Marianus from Lambert. However, when Lambert is speaking of Otho I and III he more clearly explains his opinion. For thus does he write about Otho I, “King Otho reached Rome and Pope John, receiving him gladly, set him with honor on the chair of the Augusti, with his blessing and consecration and made him Emperor.”

XV. Otho, Bishop of Freising, flourished 400 years ago, most noble in family and learning, and (on the witness of Rahevic in his Deeds of Frederick 2.11) was so related to four Emperors that he was grandson of Henry IV, sister’s nephew to Henry V, half-brother of Conrad III, uncle of Frederick I, and he rather happily put together a history from the founding of the world in 8 books. In book 5.31 he writes in this way, “In the year from the Incarnation of the Lord 801, from the founding of Rome 1552, King Charles in the 33rd year of his reign was crowned by the Supreme Pontiff, the name of patrician having been taken away, and with all the people then acclaiming ‘to Charles Augustus, crowned by God, great and peacemaking Emperor, life and victory,’ he was called Emperor and Augustus, the 69th from Augustus. From that time on the kingdom of the Romans, which from Constantine up to that time was in the royal city, namely Constantinople, was diverted to the Franks.” I see in these words of Otho three things attributed to the Supreme Pontiff: the taking away of lesser dignity, which was called patrician dignity, coronation, and the appellation of Emperor and Augustus, with only acclamation belonging to the People of Rome. The same Otho also in History 7.11 does not fear to call Henry IV, his uncle, not a true Roman Emperor, because he had received the Empire from a schismatic Pope. “The Princes,” he says, “fearing a sedition of the crowd, hasten to meet him at Ingelheim, and admonishing him there in many ways or, according to others, 14 surrounding and coercing him, they persuade him to resign the insignia of the kingdom and send them to his son, in the 43rd year of his Kingship after the death of his father, in the 5th of his Emperorship (to which however he had been raised, when he took the city, rather through force than justice by Guibert).” Observe, reader, in this place about Henry IV that, for Otho of Freising, Henry was not Emperor but King only until he was raised to the Empire by Guibert, who is called Clement, and again that he was raised to the Empire through force, not justly, because he was made Emperor by Guibert, who held the Roman See in schism against Gregory VII, the true Pontiff. Guibert was as unable to make a true Emperor as he was not true Pope. But what else, I ask, is it for someone to be raised to the Empire by the Pontiff than for him to be made Emperor by the Pontiff? And why is someone raised by an Antipope not reckoned to have been legitimately made Emperor save because it belongs only to the true and legitimate Pontiff to confer the name and dignity?

XVI. Godfrey of Viterbo, who was a little later than Otho, in his Universal Chronicle, which he called Pantheon, describes in almost the same words as Otho the beginning of the Empire of the Franks. “In the year,” he says, “from the Incarnation of the Lord 801, Charlemagne in the 33rd year of his reign was crowned by the Supreme Pontiff Leo III, with all the People of Rome than acclaiming and singing the imperial praises.”

XVII. Conrad, Abbott of Ursperg, almost contemporary with Godfrey, in his Chronicle where he most diligently treats of German affairs, says, “In the year 790 Leo was ordained 96th Pope. He occupied the See for 20 years. He made Charles Emperor.” And later he says, “In the year of the Lord’s Incarnation 801, from the foundation of City 1552, Charlemagne King of the Franks, son of King Pippin, was consecrated in 73rd place from the Roman Emperor Augustus, in the 33rd year of his reign. He was Emperor for 14 years. For when, for the calumny inflicted on Pope Leo, he came to Rome and was celebrating the Lord’s Nativity there, on that very most holy day coming to the solemnity of the mass and while rising from prayer before the Confession of Blessed Peter, Pope Leo placed a crown on him, who was expecting nothing, and pronounced him Emperor.” His words, who, just as he attributes the transfer of Empire and creation of Charles solely to the Pontiff, so also in the rest of his Chronicle he speaks always in like way about the creation of other Emperors. We will add here two of them for example’s sake. “In the year 875,” he writes, “Charles the Bald went to Rome and was made Emperor by Pope John.” And later, “In the year 962 Otho, at the request of the Pope and on the complaint raised by many about Berengar and his son, went to Rome, and having been made by the same Pope Emperor there, captured Berengar.”

XVIII. Ludolph of Bamberg in the preface to his book about the Rights of the Empire says, “I am, according to the smallness of my ability, about to deal with the strength of the sacred Kingdom and Empire of the Romans from and after the time of the transfer of the Empire, made by the holy Church of Rome, from the Greek Emperors to the person of Charlemagne, to the Kings of the Franks, and to the Germans etc.” And later in chapter 1 he says, “On the most holy day of the Lord’s nativity in the 15 year 801 of the same Lord, while Charles was rising from prayer, Pope Leo placed a crown on his head, and was acclaimed by the whole People, ‘To Charles Augustus…’ etc.”

XIX. Matthew Palmer in his Chronicle for the year 801 says, “Charles was called Augustus by the Pontiff Leo, and took up the Roman Empire now almost obliterated in Italy, and was first after Augustulus to rule among the Romans, ruling for 14 years.”

XX. Flavio Biondo in his Decades 2.1 says, “The Pontifex Leo, by a decree and the prayers of the People of Rome, crowned Charles Emperor of the Romans, making it manifest by a diadem, anciently carried on the head of Emperors.”

XXI & XXII. Aeneas Sylvius in his abbreviation of Biondi and Baptiste Platina in his life of Pope Leo III declare the same thing in almost the same words. And here first we find a decree of the Roman People named in the creation of Charles as Emperor. But it hinders not our cause, both because we can rightly prefer the most ancient and more numerous authors to these two authors who flourished 100 years ago; and because the decree of the Roman People, of which mention is made here, does not pertain to the creation of Charles as Emperor but to asking for that creation from the Supreme Pontiff. For this is what the added words ‘by the prayers’ signifies. For why prayers to the Roman Priest that he should declare Charles Emperor if an Emperor could be created by a decree, that is, by the authority, of the People? If then the People of Rome decreed anything, certainly they only decreed this, that request should be made of the Roman Pontiff that he, who alone could do it, should transfer the Empire from the Greeks to the Franks.

XXIII. John Trithemius in his Catal. Script. Says, “Pope Leo III, by nation a Roman, occupied the see after the Pontiff Adrian for 20 years. A man very erudite in writings both divine and secular, most noted for the sanctity of his life and morals, anointed Charles, by name and deeds Great, to the Empire of the Romans, and transferred this dignity from the Greeks to the Franks.”

XXIV. Antonius in his Histories p.2 tit.14 ch.4 says, “Charlemagne was the first of the Franks to receive the Roman Empire, Pope Leo conferring or confirming it on him.” In these words the ‘confirming’ seems added for this reason that a large part of the provinces of the Western Empire were already held by Charles by title of King of the Franks and Lombards; for the Pontiff wanted not only to give to the new Emperor what he had not yet acquired but also to confirm what he already had.

XXV. John Naukler in his general Chronology 27 says, “On that day (the Nativity of the Lord) the Roman Empire was in the person of Charlemagne transferred from the Greeks to the Romans.” And later, “Thus the monarchy of the world, which stood with the Greeks for almost five hundred years, resides with the Germans, not without the happy auspices of the Roman Church.”

XXVI. Robert Ganguin in his Compendium of Deeds of the Franks 4 says, “Charles restored the Pontiff; and Leo III, wanting to show thanks to his restorer and after holding a council of priests, on the 8th of January, when Charles had administered the Kingdom of the Franks for 33 years, called him Augustus, a name pleasing to the Romans.”

XXVI. Philip Bergomensis Supplement 2 says, “The Pontiff, free of disgrace, being about to confer some thanks on Charles, when he saw the Emperors of Constantinople scarcely guarded the name, on the Ides of December in the year of salvation 800, at the request of the prayers of the People of Rome, declared Charles Roman Emperor in the Basilica of St. Peter after the sacred liturgy and adorned him with a diadem, as the People made acclamation ‘Life and victory to Charles Augustus, great and peacemaking Emperor, crowned by God’.” In these words this fact alone is to be noted, that Philip reports Charles’ coronation for the year 800, not 801, as all the earlier historians did, because the ancients began the year on the Nativity of the Lord, but this author began it, in our fashion, from the Kalends of January. So there is no disagreement between them about the year. But why Philip wrote that the coronation of Charles took place on the Ides of December, contrary to the opinion of all the ancients, I do not certainly know; nor is the thing of such weight that we should sweat over investigating it more carefully.

XXVIII. John Cuspian, whom Illyricus is accustomed to rate most highly, in his life of Charlemagne says, “When on that great birthday of our Savior Charles was entering the temple to pray, expecting nothing, the Pontiff Leo placed a crown on his head and pronounced him Roman Emperor, to whom acclamation was made by the whole people, ‘to the most pious Charles Augustus, crowned by God etc.’” Again in his life of Charles the Bald he says, “Meanwhile Charles entered Italy and the Supreme Pontiff John VIII received him most kindly with the imperial diadem, and adorned him with the name of Augustus; but he received from Charles many and great gifts.”

XXIX. Jacab Uvympselingius, in his Epitome of German Affairs ch.9, says, “The Pontifex, being about to confer some thanks on Charles, since he saw that the Emperors of Constantinople scarcely guarded the name and that for this reason the City and Italy itself suffered great calamities, in the Basilica of Peter after the solemn liturgy and by the decree and prayers of the People of Rome, declared with a loud voice Charles to be Emperor and gave him a diadem.”

XXX. Polydore Vergil in book 4 of his Beginnings and Discoveries chapter 7, elsewhere chapter 10, says, “For this cause Leo III made Charlemagne Emperor.”

XXXI. Raphael Volaterranus Geography 3 says, “The Pontiff Leo III was expelled from Rome and implored Charles’ help by legates without delay. Then coming himself for the third time to Italy Charles put down the sedition, expelled the enemy, and restored the Pontiff. For these merits was he first by the Pontiff greeted as Emperor, and restored to the West a name that had ceased almost 300 years before.”

XXXII. Donatus Acciaiolus in his Life of Charlemagne says, “As soon as Charles arrived, all disturbance was calmed, the guilty were punished, and the Roman Pontiff was restored with great glory to the City. By the Pontiff was Charles called Augustus and received the Imperial name and dignity for his outstanding merits and singular faith toward the freedom of all Christians, the People of Rome not only assenting but even applauding.”

XXXIII. Albert Kranz, author, German, diligent, and among others familiar with Illyricus, finally closes this crown of worthy men and witnesses. In his book, therefore, on Saxony 8.18 he says, “Then indeed, on the first birthday of the Savior after 800, when the year was beginning, when Charles was thinking of nothing such and would rather refuse to enter upon the foreign honor of Emperor, as he rose from prayer before the Confession of the Apostle Peter after the solemnities of mass, the Pope placed a crown on him and pronounced him Roman Emperor.” Again in Metropolis 1.14 he says, “Having formerly suffered the Pontiffs to live, the Emperors began taking them off to punishment, and the Greeks, after the stock of Constantine and then of Theodosius the Great had become extinct, held none as Pontiffs save those whom they themselves had confirmed. Things are changed, so that none is held to be Emperor save whom the Roman Pontiff has confirmed and consecrated. The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof; he transfers Kingdoms and Empires, and has most worthily delegated this sacred ministry to his own Vicar on earth.”

We have it therefore from a continuous series of historians, that the transfer of the Roman Empire from the Greeks to the Franks, and as done by the Roman Pontiff as author, is not invented or a fable, as Illyricus says in his lies, but is certain and investigated, so that it cannot now be called into doubt save by Illyricus, a most impudent man or even someone barely sane.