“Long life and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned by God the great and pacific Emperor of the Romans!” (Winston 24).  Shouts filled St. Peter’s Basilica as “the whole Roman people” (Annales 4) acclaimed with these words Charles the Great, King of the Franks and Lombards, just crowned Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III.  After three hundred years of anarchy, the coronation of Charles the Great[1] revived the Roman Empire in Western Europe and may have determined the relative power of Church and State throughout medieval times.  In the spirit of compromise, the coronation of Charles as Emperor of the Romans was in the interests of both Charles and the Papacy; it forestalled the looming conflict over the division of power by means of an integration of Church and State in the Frankish Kingdom.

The Situation of the Papacy

            In the late eighth century, the Roman Church was in a very precarious position, with the foundation of its safety crumbling.  The Byzantine Empire,[2] its historical protector, was unwilling or unable to protect the Papacy from barbarians and Lombards who persisted in attacking Rome.[3]  Needing the long-term support of a secular power to replace the weakened Byzantines as the Byzantines had replaced the Romans centuries earlier, the Papacy now looked to the West for its guardian, causing a fundamental shift in the politics of Europe.  To this end, Leo III would compromise in the year 800, accepting some degree of subordination to the Frankish throne.

            Since the late sixth century, the Lombards had constituted a major threat to the Papacy.  Originally a pagan tribe, the Lombards invaded northern Italy in the 500s and wreaked havoc on the Roman Church.[4]  Though eventually Christianized, the Lombards did not end their attacks until the late eighth century, when the Church looked to the Franks for protection against them.

            The relationship between the Papacy and the Arnulfing dynasty[5] of the Franks started when Pope Zacharias lent support to Pepin, Charles the Great’s father, in his claim to the Frankish throne.[6]  By declaring Pepin the rightful king in 749, Zacharias created an alliance between the Papacy and the Frankish throne that was to last well beyond his time as Pope.[7]  His successor Pope Stephen II confirmed Pepin’s royal title several years later.  It was also Stephen II whom Charles, then eleven years old, escorted through the forests of Frankland so that the Pope could meet Pepin and beg for aid against the Lombards.[8]  The armies of the Lombard King Aistulf were threatening Rome, and at Stephen’s request Pepin sent armies to Italy and subdued the Lombards.

            When Pepin granted Stephen’s plea, the king became the guardian of the Church, a role that Charles was to fill to a greater degree after succeeding his father in 768.[9]  In 773, Charles responded to a plea of Pope Hadrian by sending armies against the attacking Lombards,[10] and after a campaign that ended in A.D. 781, he “reduced all Italy to his power, and set [his son] as king over it” (Einhard 29).[11]

            Charles continued to fight for the Church for the rest of his military career.  After Lombardy, Charles turned east to Saxony, where he combined the conquest of land with the forced conversion of its inhabitants to Christianity.  Conversion of the conquered increased their loyalty to the conquerors; rebellion against the Franks became synonymous with rebellion against God.[12]  When Charles sent armies against pagan enemies, he also sent bishops and priests to save the souls of the prisoners and the conquered.  His armies were extremely successful in a number of campaigns, and with lands stretching from the Pyrenees to the Danube in his possession, Charles the Great was undeniably the most powerful ruler in Western Europe by the end of the eighth century.[13]  The Papacy had found a strong protector in the Frankish king, and it no longer needed the Byzantine Empire.

            This movement of the Papacy towards the Frankish throne culminated during the reign of Pope Leo III, which began in 796.  Leo was quick to show support for Charles, as the Annales note:  “As soon as Leo had succeeded [to the Papacy] he sent envoys with presents to the king.  He also delivered to him the keys to the tomb of St. Peter and the banner of the city of Rome” (74).  It was obvious from the start that Leo would be willing to accept a greater degree of subordination to Charles than previous popes.  At this time, the rough outlines of a compromise were created:  in exchange for loyalty, support and a degree of subservience from the Pope, Charles would protect the Roman Church.

            The need for such protection was especially apparent in the year 799.

The Romans captured the pope [sic] at the Major Litanies, blinded him, and tore his tongue out.[14]  After being cast into prison, he escaped over the wall at night, went to the envoys of the Lord King . . . who were then at St. Peter’s basilica, and was taken to Spoleto.  (Annales 77)

The attack, conducted by a mob of Roman aristocrats, thrust the Pope from his throne.  At this time, the Byzantine Empire — the Papacy’s historical protector — was in a state of near-civil war over the veneration of icons.[15]  Irene, the pro-icon mother of the anti-icon Emperor Constantine V, had seized power in 797 and ordered her son blinded and forced into a monastery.  Most people in the West regarded her as a criminal for blinding her son and denied her recognition as Emperor because she was a woman.[16]  With the Eastern throne in turmoil and the Pope deposed, Charles, the supreme ruler in Western Europe, was the only strong power remaining.[17]

            Pope Leo turned to Charles for aid and met him at the city of Paderborn.  Charles agreed to help the Pope and sent a force to Rome to place Leo back on his throne.  Charles went to Rome himself the next year, and the circumstances in which he met the Pope should be noted:  “When he approached Rome, Pope Leo came to meet him with the Romans at Mentana, twelve miles from the city, and welcomed him with the greatest humility and respect” (Annales 80).  The Pope was dependent on Charles’ power and the protection only Charles could provide.

            Charles had obeyed the terms of his unwritten agreement with Leo:  he had sent his armies to the aid of the Roman Church.  The Church would not be long in fulfilling its side of the bargain, though in an unexpected way;  when he left Rome in a few months’ time, Charles the Great, King of the Franks and the Lombards, was also Emperor of the Romans.

The Coronation and the Conflict

            On Christmas Day of 800, shortly before Mass, Charles was rising from the Confession of St. Peter when Leo placed a crown upon his head.  Those in the basilica acclaimed the Frankish king three times in the ritual manner, and so he became Emperor of the Romans.  None could foretell what duties and rights this new creation, a Western Emperor, was to have; though the benefits of the coronation were known to both Leo and Charles, the coronation became a source of conflict between them.

            The overwhelming motive of Leo III was still the need for a protector.  Without a temporal power to back it, the Papacy was at the mercy of whichever Italian nobleman controlled Rome.  The imperial title made official the relationship between Charles and the Pope, and was deemed necessary at the time:

Upon what [Charles] had done already the imperial title must necessarily follow:  the attitude of protection and control which he held toward the Church and the Holy See belonged, according to the ideas of the time, especially and only to an Emperor. (Bryce 46)

            The other service which a strong protector could provide would be to unify the Church.  Continuous war among the decentralized fiefs of Europe fragmented the Church in the area, which an empire could serve to unify.[18]  The creation of a Western Empire allowed the Papacy to solidify control of the Church and so was in Leo’s interest.

            Charles also knew the benefits that the imperial title could bring.  The increased prestige that came with being Emperor would support his power,[19] as would the loyalty engendered by an increased connection with the Church.  Charles would no longer be a mere king, but the temporal representative of God.[20]

            The benefits that an imperial coronation could yield were not enough, however, to prevent conflict between Charles and Pope Leo.  Leo feared that the religious aspects of the imperial title would severely diminish Papal power.[21]  Charles had assumed more and more of the Church’s normal duties within his domains, establishing doctrines of religious belief and issuing regulations for bishops to follow.  In a letter to Leo shortly after his election as Pope, Charles declared:

 It is for us [here Charles used the royal plural] . . . outwardly to defend by force of arms the Holy Church of Christ in all places. . . . It is for you, most holy father, raising your hands to God with Moses, to aid our armies, to the end that with you as intercessors and with God as guide and giver our Christian people may in all places have the victory. . . . (118)

By this letter, Charles meant the Pope to become a sort of official chaplain, praying while the king acted.  Pope Leo was willing to endorse an Emperor to protect the Church, but he did not want to become a servant of the Frankish king.

            In order to maintain his power, the Pope needed to show some form of supremacy over Charles.  Leo did this by placing the crown on Charles’ head at the coronation, a symbolic gesture implying that the Pope had invested Charles with the imperial title and status.[22]  Charles did not like the impression that he owed his position to the Papacy;[23] “he declared that he would not have set foot in the Church the day [the titles of Emperor and Augustus] were conferred, although it was a great feast day, if he could have foreseen the design of the Pope” (Einhard 57). 

            Neither man was willing to become the other’s vassal.  In an effort to reduce the Pope’s power and increase his own, Charles had earlier proposed that the seat of the Papacy be moved from Rome to Aachen, the Frankish capital.[24]  Leo believed that this action would place him in a position similar to the patriarch of Constantinople — merely an honored guest of the Emperor’s court.  To prevent this, Leo made sure that the coronation was held at Rome, tying Charles to the Roman Empire.[25]

            Thus, a severe conflict had developed between the Papacy and the Frankish throne over the division of power.  Leo was willing to give Charles the loyalty and support due an Emperor, and Charles was willing to protect the Roman Church:  both Charles and Leo knew the benefits that an imperial coronation would bring.  However, the roles the Emperor and Pope were to play in the new world order were still undefined, and the conflict between them was yet to be resolved.

The Resolution - Imperium Christianum

            The most difficult issue facing the two rulers, Pope and Emperor, after the coronation was the amount of power each was to have, and to what extent that power was to be spiritual or temporal.[26]  The conflict over the division of power was resolved by a compromise between Charles and Leo: the integration of Church and State in the Frankish kingdom and the creation of a Christian Empire.

            According to the unwritten terms of the compromise, Charles remained the supreme temporal power in his realm.  At the same time, he assumed some previously Papal duties in Church administration and governance, ordering bishops to preach, setting regulations for the conduct of monks and nuns, and concerning himself with the spiritual welfare of his people.[27]  Charles was viewed as the elect of God, chosen to rule the Christian Empire.[28]  Christianity bound the Frank to the Emperor and assured Charles of his subjects’ loyalty.

            Pope Leo retained his position as the spiritual and liturgical head of the Church, with “overlordship of the whole ecclesiastical hierarchy and the right to be the sole judge in matters of faith” (Fichtenau 61).[29]  Charles could neither infringe on the Pope’s prerogative to determine Church doctrine nor assume the Pope’s duties of prayer.[30]  At the same time, though, the Church assumed a central role in the administration of the government.  The Church was still one of the few bastions of literacy, and so it became the imperial bureaucracy.[31]  It was a vital part of the government, as Southern comments:  “This was the bishop who emerged from the Carolingian reconstruction of society:  he was a man endlessly exercised in the care of temporal and spiritual things, a chief agent in the royal government of the kingdom” (175).

            Thus, Charles gained administrative power in Church affairs, and the Church gained administrative power in temporal affairs.  This integration of Church and State gave greater unity and strength to the whole.[32]  Charles became “lord and father, king and priest, the holder of a sacred office and the ruler of all Christians” (Burns 23).[33]  The concept of a “ruler of all Christians,” resulting from the integration of Church and State, led to the concept of a Christian Empire:  a realm governed by the Church and Church law and led by a pious king.  In the compromise between Charles and Leo, this concept of a Christian Empire — an imperium Christianum — was realized.

Conclusion

            The motto of Charles’ empire was “Renovatio romani imperii”:  a renewal of the Roman Empire.  In the late eighth century, when Charles the Great was the ruler of most of Western Europe, the time was ripe for the Roman Empire of old to be re-created.  The Papacy and the Frankish throne both received benefits from its renewal, each drawing strength from the other.  Between Charles and Pope Leo there was conflict, however, over the distribution of power.  In a compromise to resolve this dilemma, Church and State were combined in the new Roman Empire; the empire of Charles the Great was an integration of spiritual and temporal power into a new political structure — a “Christian Empire” — an imperium Christianum.

            The concepts of universal empire and the church-state embodied in Charles’ Christian Empire have retained their significance to the present day.  Charles’s position as pious Emperor (heralded in medieval romances) was emulated by the German King Otto in 962, whose coronation began nearly a thousand years of Holy Roman Empire.  Charles’s reputation as military commander was claimed by Napoleon, who invoked Charles’ legacy as he pursued European conquest.[34]  Charles’ conflict with the Papacy is re-enacted even today in the battle for supremacy between secular leaders and religious clerics in Algeria and Egypt, and his success in achieving a compromise, though sought after, remains elusive.

Annotated Bibliography

Primary Sources

Annales Regni Francorum (Royal Frankish Annals).  Trans. by Bernhard Walter Scholz in             Carolingian Chronicles.  Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan Press, 1970.

These official Royal Annals of the Frankish kingdom provides valuable information about Charles’ reign.

Chanson de Roland (The Song of Roland).  Trans. by D. D. R. Owen.  Wolfeboro, New             Hampshire:  Boydell Press, 1990

One of the most famous romances of Medieval times, this translation of the epic poem gives an impression as to how Charlemagne was viewed as defender of the Church by later peoples.

Charles the Great.  “Letter to Pope Leo III.”  796.  Loyn, H.R. and John Percival.  The             Reign of Charlemagne:  Documents on Carolingian Government and             Administration.  New York:  St. Martin’s Press, 1975.

This letter from Charles to Pope Leo shows how Charles viewed the Papacy relative to his own power.

Einhard.  Vita Karoli Magni (The Life of Charlemagne).  Trans. by Samuel Epes Turner.              Ann Arbor:  University of Michigan Press, 1960.

A biography of Charles by a close friend, this work describes that leader and his times in great detail.

Notker the Stammerer.  Charlemagne.  Trans. by Lewis Thorpe.  Baltimore:  Penguin             Books, 1969.

A friend of Charles the Great, the author of this book recorded the life and policies of the Frankish king.

Paul the Deacon.  History of the Lombards.  Trans. by William Dudley Foulke.  Edward             Peters, ed.  Philadelphia:  U. of Pennsylvania Press, 1974.

This work provides an account of the northern Italian people whom Charles conquered to protect the Pope.  It was written by a close friend of Charles who resided at his court.

Theophanes.  The Chronicle of Theophanes.  Trans. by Harry Turtledove, ed.              Philadelphia:  University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982.

This chronicle by the great Byzantine historian reports the affairs of the Imperial Court during the author’s time.

Secondary Sources

Boussard, Jacques.  The Civilization of Charlemagne.  Trans. by Frances Partridge.              Wallop, Hampshire, Great Britain:  BAS Printers Ltd., 1968.

The relationship between Charles and the Church is discussed in detail in this work.

Bryce, James.  “The Coronation as a Revival of the Roman Empire in the West.”  The            Coronation of Charlemagne:  What Did it Signify?  Richard Sullivan, ed.  Boston:            D.C. Heath and Co., 1959.

In this excerpt from one of his many books, Viscount Bryce supports his theory that Charles’s empire was the ideological ancestor of the Holy Roman Empire.

Burns, C. Delisle.  “The Play Emperor.”  The Coronation of Charlemagne:  What Did it             Signify?  Richard Sullivan, ed.  Boston:  D.C. Heath and Co., 1959.

This work provides a detailed background to the coronation and examined that event’s immediate effects.

Dawson, Christopher.  “The Coronation as Evidence of the Birth of a New Civilization.”              The Coronation of Charlemagne:  What Did it Signify?  Richard Sullivan, ed.              Boston:  D.C. Heath and Co., 1959.

This essay provides exceptional evidence to support Dawson’s theory that the Carolingian Empire was quite different in its form and ideology than any previous empire.

Fichtenau, Heinrich.  The Carolingian Empire.  Trans. by Peter Munz.  Oxford:  A. T.             Broome and Son, 1957.

A well-documented history of Charles’ reign, this work gives a great deal of information on Charles’ rule after he took the imperial title.

Folz, Robert.  The Coronation of Charlemagne.  Trans. by J.E. Anderson.  London:              Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974.

A history of Frankland, this work shows how the accession of the Arnulfings and Charles’ assumption of the imperial title affected the nation of the Franks.

Folz, Robert.  “Eighth Century Concepts about the Roman Empire.”  The Coronation of             Charlemagne:  What Did it Signify?  Richard Sullivan, ed.  Boston:  D.C. Heath             and Co., 1959.

In this essay, Folz explains how the Roman Empire was viewed by the peoples of Western Europe, the Pope, Charles, and the Byzantine Empire.

Ganshof, François Louis.  The Carolingians and the Frankish Monarchy.  Trans. by Janet             Sondheimer.  Ithaca, New York:  Cornell University Press, 1971.

This work by the French historian examines all aspects of Charles’ empire, especially his use of the oath, the structure of his government and his dealings with foreign powers.

Ganshof, François Louis.  Frankish Institutions Under Charlemagne.  Trans. by Bryce and             Mary Lyon.  New York:  W. W. Norton & Co., 1968.

With many details and examples, this book describes the structure of Charles’ imperial government.

Lamb, Harold.  Charlemagne.  Garden City, New York:  Doubleday, 1954.

A biography of Charles, this work shows in detail Charles’ personality and his personal history.

Southern, R. W.  Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages.  Baltimore: Penguin             Books, 1970.

This history of the Catholic Church shows in detail the relationships between temporal and spiritual powers in Charles’ day.

Ullman, Walter.  “The Coronation and Papal Concepts of Emperorship.”  The Coronation             of Charlemagne:  What Did it Signify?  Richard Sullivan, ed.  Boston:  D.C. Heath             and Co., 1959.

            In this essay, Ullman provides valuable insights on the relations between Leo and             Charles, and the ideal of the Emperor as viewed by the Roman Church.

Wallace-Hadrill, J.M.  The Barbarian West.  New York:  Harper & Row, 1962.

This book tells the histories of the many peoples in Western Europe at the time of Charles the Great.

Winston, Richard.  Charlemagne.  Indianapolis:  Bobbs-Merrill, 1954.

This biography of Charles the Great provides much information on his foreign diplomacy:  his dealings with the Pope and the Byzantine Empire.

[1] Charles will not be referred to as “Charlemagne” in this text, to avoid confusion with the myths of later medieval times surrounding that figure.

[2] Known in the West as the empire of “the Greeks.”

[3] In addition to his political role, the “Basileus,” the Byzantine Emperor, was the spiritual leader of his empire and so competed with the Pope for spiritual dominance.  The Pope was only considered the “Bishop of Rome” (Theophanes 105).  In this East-West rivalry, the Byzantines occasionally would attack Rome themselves, as recorded by Paul the Deacon:  “But the emperor Constans, when he found that he could accomplish nothing against [the Lombards], directed all the threats of his cruelty against his own followers, that is, the Romans.  He left Naples and proceeded to Rome . . . Remaining at Rome twelve days [the emperor] pulled down everything that in ancient times had been made of metal for the ornament of the city . . . He took away from there the bronze tiles and sent them with all the other ornaments to Constantinople” (223-4).  There is some doubt as to whether Byzantium would have been able to protect Rome, even had it so desired.  It was weak militarily and beset with internal problems, and so may not have been able to guard the Roman Church.

[4] In 577, “the Lombards swept through Italy, destroying all religious establishments.  One monastery only — St. Mark’s at Spoleto — is known to have survived in territory controlled by the Lombards” (Wallace-Hadrill 49).  One Lombard especially, King Grimuald, had attacked possessions of Rome with fury. Paul the Deacon describes that king’s destruction of the city “Forum Populi”:  “[Grimuald] rushed unexpectedly upon that city on the holy Sabbath of Easter itself in the hour when the baptism was occurring and made so great a carnage of men slain that he killed in the sacred font itself even those deacons who were baptizing little infants.  And he so overthrew the city that very few inhabitants remain in it up to the present time” (233).

[5] Later called the Carolingian dynasty, after Charles the Great.

[6] Pepin would displace Childeric III, the Merovingian king, who had been incompetent and powerless.  Although the Merovingian dynasty had possession of the throne, the office of the “mayor of the palace” (holding all of the executive power) had belonged to the Arnulfings for generations before Pepin.

[7] Folz notes in his work The Coronation of Charlemagne, “The intervention of Pope Zacharias in Frankish affairs at Pepin’s request, probably on the advice of St. Boniface, was the beginning of the alliance between the Carolingians and the Holy See, an alliance which proved to be one of the unchanging factors in the political and religious life of the eighth and ninth centuries” (29).

[8] It was on this visit that the first signs of the Papacy’s subordination to the Frankish throne appeared, as Stephen II fell on his knees as a suppliant before Pepin.

[9] Charles shared his throne with his brother Carloman until the latter died in 771.

[10] The Annales record in the year 773:  “[Pope] Hadrian could no longer bear the insolence of King Desiderius and the oppression of the Lombards.  He resolved to send an embassy to Charles, king of the Franks, and ask him to render aid to him and the Romans against the Lombards.  The pope’s emissary came by sea because the Lombards had closed the road to the Romans.” (49).

[11] By conquering Lombardy, Charles assured the protection of the Church, as Fichtenau observes:  “When Charles was crowned king of the Lombards in Pavia, all danger to the Papacy was removed” (21).  With the Frankish throne as a new guardian, the Papacy paid less respect to the Eastern Empire.  Before the conquest of Lombardy “all papal letters, even those addressed to the king of the Franks, were dated by the years of the reign of the [Byzantine] Emperor; but the last papal letter still existing, which was so dated, is Hadrian’s letter of A.D. 772.  The Papacy no longer looked to ‘the Greeks’” (Burns 20).

[12] This method, however, was not always successful:  the war with the Saxons “was waged for thirty-three successive years with great fury” (Einhard 31), and was not completed until four years after the imperial coronation.  The Saxon war lasted for so long that it became a fact of life; the Royal Frankish Annals note for the year 784, “The Saxons rebelled again as usual, and some Frisians along with them” (61).

[13] One of Charles’ greatest triumphs was his defeat of the Avars, or “Huns,” who lived along the Danube.  Charles “took it up with more spirit than any of his other wars, and made far greater preparations for it” (Einhard 38).  Strangely, Charles actually conducted very little of the war himself, leaving the command to his son Pepin and the officials of his eastern provinces.  After seven years of fighting, the Frankish armies destroyed the Avars.  The “ring” of the Avars — their palace and treasury — was captured in 796, and the wealth they had accumulated over centuries was sent to Charles’ palace at Aachen.

[14] The injuries of the Pope were exaggerated in the account; his eyes and tongue were observed a few months later to be intact.

[15] The small religious paintings or statuettes called icons were the focus of a major theological controversy in Byzantium.  The “iconoclasts” believed that the “veneration” of these icons was akin to the worship of graven images; supporters considered them holy representations of the Divinities and Saints that should be respected and honored in Church ceremonies.  This purely theological question soon developed into a political conflict both within Byzantium and between the Byzantine Empire and Rome.

[16]One of the stranger aspects of Irene’s rule was that she did not take the female title of “Baslissa,” but instead used the male “Basileus.”  It therefore seems natural to refer to her as “Emperor Irene.”  However, the Europeans of that time were unwilling to accept a woman as Emperor, believing that only men should hold political power.  For this reason, a number of clerics and priests urged Charles to become Emperor:  “Was not the imperial throne occupied by a criminal woman, vacant? “ (Ganshof, Carolingians 47)

[17] A letter to Charles written in June of 799 by his close friend and adviser Alcuin states, “Up till now, three persons have been at the head of the world’s hierarchy.  The representative of apostolic sublimity, Vicar of the Blessed Peter . . .; and the fate that has overtaken the present holder of that office Your Grace has been good enough to communicate to me.  Next comes the titular holder of the imperial dignity, who exercises temporal power in the Second Rome [Constantinople]; and the impious fashion in which the head of this empire was deposed . . . has been noised abroad throughout the world.  Then, third, there is the royal dignity which Our Saviour Jesus Christ has reserved for you, so that you may govern the Christian nation . . . Now it is upon you alone that the Churches of Christ rely, to you alone that they look for salvation, you who are the avenger of crimes, the guide of the erring, the consoler of the afflicted and the support of the godly” (Folz, Coronation 125).

[18] This is observed by Burns, who states:  “Although war between Christian nations may not theoretically affect the Christianity of either side, clearly the bishops of one area could not practically oppose the military policy of the king on whom they depended.  And because bishops and abbots as landowners had to supply military forces . . . the Churches were so closely associated with the military lordships of that day that continuous war naturally tended to divide the Churches of one area from those of another.  It was natural, therefore, for the Church in Rome, representing the unity of the Christian Churches, to desire to unite all Christian kings” (17).  This strengthening of spiritual unity through temporal unity was certainly one of the Pope’s motives in reviving the Roman Empire; Leo even tried to unite East and West through a marriage between Charles and Irene of Byzantium.  Irene favored this proposal, but  most Byzantines were unwilling to relinquish their empire, especially to one whom they viewed as a barbarian pretender to the imperial title.  Theophanes noted at the time: “The legates sent to the most pious Irene by Charles and pope Leo arrived, asking her to join Charles in marriage and unite East and West.  Had Aetios [a high-ranking Byzantine politician of the time] not put a stop to this by his frequent speeches, she would have done so . . .” (158)

[19] This was his major motivation for becoming Emperor, as Burns states:  “The title of Emperor and Augustus . . . undoubtedly added and was intended to add dignity and prestige to the barbarian king of the Franks” (24).

[20] Though fragmented, the Church was organized and had a central authority before the coronation.  However, no central authority could exercise control of churches in hostile territory.  By establishing an empire, Charles prevented wars between small fiefs, unifying the Church.  This unified spiritual body provided the majority of his power:  “And the bond, too, by which the Empire was held together was Roman in origin . . . The ecclesiastical body was already organized and centralized, and it was in his rule over the ecclesiastical body that the secret of Charles’ power lay.  Every Christian — Frank, Gaul or Italian — owed loyalty to the head and defender of his religion:  the unity of the Empire was a reflection of the unity of the Church” (Bryce 49).  Burns holds that this increased power was a major cause of the coronation:  “The Carolingian ‘Empire’ . . . was an attempt to use the prestige of Rome for the support of a military system.  The Frankish kings took advantage of the work of the Christian missionaries in Germany and of the Roman Church in Italy.  The coronation of an ‘Emperor’ was a kind of consecration, giving moral authority to military power by connecting it with Christian Rome — the Rome of the martyrs and apostles” (26).  Charles capitalized on this religious advantage by forcing his subjects to swear an oath to him on religious faith.

[21] In Pope Hadrian’s time, the icon controversy had spilled across the borders of Byzantium and into Frankland, where the vast majority were against the images.  When the Council of Frankfurt, a convention of Frankish churchmen organized by Charles (widely cited as an example of Charles’ usurpation of ecclesiastical and Papal duties), condemned the use of icons in 794, the Papacy had two equally distasteful choices:  it could either abandon its support of icons and accept the Frankish doctrines, or it could continue to support icons and alienate the protector of the Church.  “The position of Pope Hadrian was one of intense difficulty, and he was forced to temporize.  He found himself in agreement with the Byzantine Empire against the Frankish kingdom and the Western Church; and yet the Byzantines had robbed him of his patrimonies in the East and regarded him as no better than an alien.  In the event of a schism between East and West he would have been left isolated and powerless.  Politically he was entirely dependent on the Frankish power, and on the death of Hadrian in 795, his successor [Leo III] did homage to Charles as his overlord” (Dawson 53).  Hadrian was forced to yield to some of Charles’ demands, giving the Frankish king increased prestige and power.

[22] Ganshof believes this act to betray Leo’s weakness at the time:  “Like many weak characters, Leo III had played a crooked game.  Through his gesture . . . he had given the impression that it was he who had invested Charlemagne with the imperial dignity” (Carolingians 48).

[23] “[Charles] did not wish to seem as if he held his empire from the pope and especially not from a pope who owed him so much and had taken him now by a kind of treachery.  When in the palace church of Aachen, on 11 September 813, he himself crowned his son Louis . . . without any interference of either pope or clergy, he showed how to his liking things should have taken place on 25 December 800” (Ganshof, Carolingians 48).

[24] The proposal was first articulated to Leo when Charles met the deposed Pope at Paderborn in 799.

[25] The removal of the Papacy from Rome would have placed it in grave danger, as Ullmann observes:  “The Carolingian idea of a Second Rome at Aix . . . was one of the most severe challenges which the papal programme had to meet.  For if this scheme of things had gone through, the foundations of the papal theme would have been sapped.  European Christianity, drawing its life blood from Romanism and nurtured by the Church of Rome, would have been deprived of its strongest and most attractive foundations.  To have acquiesced in this plan of Charlemagne would have been a betrayal of all the Church of Rome stood for” (76).  For his part, Charles rejected many aspects of Roman life:  he never set foot in Rome after his coronation, and he never again put on the clothes of a Roman emperor.

[26] Spiritual powers — matters of doctrine and liturgy as well as powers to govern the Church and regulate the clergy — were contested by Charles and Leo, as were temporal powers dealing with the administration of the government and political system.

[27] Charles exercised his power over the bishops by ordering them to preach, as Notker records:  “The pious Emperor Charlemagne decreed that all bishops throughout the length and breadth of his empire should, before a certain day which he himself had chosen, deliver a sermon in the cathedral church of their diocese.  Anyone who failed to do so was to be dismissed from the honour of being a bishop” (111).  Monks and nuns, Charles declared, “shall avoid all pursuit of gain or desire of worldly things.  For avarice and concupiscence are to be avoided by all Christians in this world, but chiefly be those who have renounced the world and its desires. . . .” (Winston 286).  In addition to purifying the Church, Charles sought to cleanse his people from sin; his imperial missi [messenger officials] were once sent all over the realm bearing the words, “We have been sent here . . . for your eternal salvation, and we charge you to live virtuously according to the law of God, and justly according to the law of the world.”

[28]  Folz describes a popular view of Charles as a godlike figure:  “Rex christianissimus [most Christian king], Charlemagne was the representative of Christ on earth, the triumphant emperor placed under His protection . . .  [Chants of praise] expressed recognition of the excellence of the royal power and of the protection which he received from the celestial powers” (“Eighth” 12).

[29] The respective Church duties of Leo and Charles are illustrated by a mosaic that was displayed in the hall of the Lateran at Aachen:  it pictured St. Peter (representing the Roman Church) giving the pallium, a symbol of spiritual power, to Leo and a standard, symbolizing temporal power and government, to Charles.  In such a manner, Leo was the spiritual head of the Church and Charles its governor.  (See Figure 2 above.)

[30] On the letter from Charles to Leo previously quoted, Fichtenau comments: “The passage quoted does not mean that the papacy is simply pushed aside . . . There was a whole sphere of activity in which [Charles] could never replace the pope.  The pope’s function of praying could never be added to his own duties.  Assessed in terms of political power the function thus reserved to the pope was insignificant . . . But [the spiritual] sphere was his preserve, even according to Frankish opinion” (61).

[31]  Dawson points out the differences between Carolingian and Byzantine religious power:  “But the Carolingian theocracy differed from the Byzantine in that it was a theocracy inspired and controlled by the Church.  There was no lay bureaucracy such as existed in the Eastern Empire; its place was taken by the episcopate, from whose ranks the majority of the Emperor’s advisors and ministers were drawn.  Consequently, as soon as the strong hand of Charles the Great was removed, the theocratic ideal led to the exaltation of the spiritual power and the clericalization of the Empire rather than to the subordination of the Church to the secular power . . .” (55).

[32] Folz states of the integration:  “Thus the defence of the Church and order in the state tended to merge into a single spiritual preoccupation.  Nothing could better express this truth than a form of words . . . repeated by Charlemagne in two grants issued in 799.  It includes in a single category the ‘faithful followers of God and the king.’  This idea, treating believers as the vassals of God, likewise invests fealty to the king with a religious character, and unites in one single obligation the service of the Most High and the service of the sovereign . . ” (Folz, Coronation 84).

[33] The Byzantines were not regarded as “true Christians” by the Franks because of their refusal to grant special power to the Pope.  The Papacy was regarded in the Eastern Empire as merely the bishopric of Rome.  The only other Christian ruler, Charles was therefore seen as the “ruler of all Christians.”

[34] Inscribed on the rocks at the bottom of the painting “Napoleon Crossing the Alps” by J. L. David are three names:  Hannibal, Karolus (Charles), and Buonaparte.  Napoleon saw himself as the successor of the other two commanders as he marshaled his troops to conquer Italy, and like Charles he took the title of Emperor in Rome.