Pope Leo IX writes to Venetian and Istrian bishops, directing them to acknowledge the metropolitan rights of the Patriarch of Grado, whose primacy and metropolitan jurisdictions were confirmed by the recently convened Synod of Rome and the Apostolic See.
Leo episcopus, servus servorum Dei, omnibus episcopisa Venetię et Istrię salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.
Noverat vestra karissimab nobis in Christo fraternitas hac inc presenti indictione VIta/d karissimume confratremf nostrum Dominicum Gradensem, immo Novę Aquilegięg patriarchamh, ad synodumi nostram Romę habitam venisse, et querimoniamj de sua et Foroiuliensi ecclesia, quam credimus vos non ignorare, lacrimabiliterk coram fecisse.
Cuius tandem, relectis privilegiis a sancta Romana et Apostolica Sede sibi concessis, iudicio totius sanctęl synodi hoc definitum fuit, ut Nova Aquilegia totius Venetię et Istrięm caput et metropolis perpetuo haberetur secundum quod evidentissiman predecessorum nostrorumo astruebant privilegia.
Foroiuliensis vero antistes, tantummodo finibus Langobardorum esset contentus iuxta privilegium Gregorii secundi1 et retractationemp tertii2. Et hoc quidem extra patientiam canonum ei pro magno concessimus, quia quater iam vocatus a nobis nec venitq nec se excusavit, cumr Gradensis, id est Novę Aquilegięs patriarcha, quinquies nostręt synodo, etiamu non vocatus, interfueritv.
Unde monendo mandamus et pręcipimus vobis ex parte Dei et sancti Petri et nostra, ut pręfatow Gradensi patriarchę successoribusque eius in omnibus secundum iura canonica obedientesx sitisy, sicutz primati vestro et patriarchę esse debetisa' et sicut antecessoribus eius nostri perpetuo confirmaruntb'.
Et si quid sui iuris in urbibus vestris vel parochiisc' continetur, quod suid' dominatui merito debeat subdi, nullus vestrum sibi contradicere pręsumate'. Si quis vero vestrum quicquamf' iustę querimonięg' adversus eum videturh' habere aut coram vobis confratribus et conprovincialibus causam suam proferat et cum eo, si potuerit, pacifice diffiniati' aut in pręsentiam nostram utraque pars examinanda veniat, salvaj' sibi interim per omnia et patriarchali reverentia et proprietate sua. Quod si extra feceritisk', sententia canonica super vos vigilabit.l'
a) Leo episcopus—omnibus episcopis] litteris capitalibus B. b) carissima L; charissima T. c) om. LT. d) sexta LT. e) carissimum LT. f) confratrum L. g) Aquileię et undique Aquileia loco Aquilegia T. h) patriarcam et undique patriarca loco patriarcha L; immo novę Aquileię patriarcham subsignavit T. i) sinodum et undique sic L. j) quęrimoniam T. k) lachrymabiliter T. l) LT; om. B. m) Histrię T. n) evidentissime T. o) praedecessorum nostrorum] inv. LT. p) retractatione L. q) quater iam—nec venit] subsignavit T. r) quum T. s) ecclesię LT. t) ex nostro corr. L; in T. u) et T. v) interfuit LT. w) prefato L. x) LT; obędientes B. y) om. LT. z) sicuti T. a') debeatis LT. b') confirmaverant LT. c') LT; parrochiis B. d') sic BLT; suo ed. Jasper. e') presumat L. f') quidquam T. g') quęrimonię L. h') videretetur ex videatur corr. T. i') difiniat T. j') salvo LT. k') ex fecetis al. man. corr. L. l') seq. Datum Romę anno Dominicę incarnationis MoLIIIo, indictione VIa, pontificatus domini Leonis papę IXi anno tercio add. L; seq. Datum Romę anno Dominicę incarnationis MLIIII [ex MCLIII corr.] indictione 6, pontificatus domini Leonis pappę noni anno tertio add. T.
1) Reference to doc. 723_GS.
2) Reference to doc. 731_SR.
“[ad annum 1053:] Domnus papa [Leo IX], habita Romae post pascha synodo, contra Nordmannos, ut proposuerat, exercitum movit.” – Hermann of Reichenau, Chronicle, ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz, Annales et chronica aevi Salici, MGH SS 5 (Hannover 1844), p. 132.
“Leo papa in sinodo Dominico patriarche pallium tribuit et ut crucem ante se deferrat concessit, patriarchalemque sedem suam aprobavit.” – Andrea Dandolo, Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. Ester Pastorello, RIS, ser. 2, 12/1 (Bologna 1958), p. 212.
The constitutio (this document) and privilegii pagina (nowadays lost) of Leo IX issued regarding the Patriarch of Grado are referenced in all the subsequent papal conferrals of pallium to the patriarchs of Grado, up to, at least according to present-day knowledge, Pope Innocent III in 1213.
The datum-line featured in LT is most certainly a later addition that was not part of the original letter, added to the copy from which both L and T derive. While the location (Rome), the year according to Christ’s incarnation (only in L), and the indiction all point correctly to the Roman Synod of 1053, the year of the pope’s pontificate (third in both L and T) is erroneous.
The 1053 Synod of Rome is dated by way of Hermann of Reichenau’s Chronicle (cited above under Medieval Recollections). As Jasper argues, the pope had the custom of holding the synods on the second Sunday after Easter, and this would point to April 25 as the date of the 1053 Synod of Rome. The hereby-edited letter was issued very shortly thereafter and is customarily dated to April 1053.
The 1053 Synod of Rome and the accompanying letter to the Venetian and Istrian bishops, known as “constitutio papae Leonis IX” is truly the Magna Charta of the Patriarchate of Grado, as Kehr (cited above, p. 97) aptly dubs it. It marked the highest point for Grado in its centuries-long conflict against the patriarchs of Aquileia, but the victory was merely symbolic. Namely, just as the decrees of the Synod of Mantua of 827 (doc. 827_SM) proved to be impossible to implement, so too did Leo IX’s constitution subjecting all the bishoprics of Istria to the metropolitan jurisdiction of the patriarch of Grado ended up being unenforceable. The patriarchs of Aquileia continued to exercise their metropolitan jurisdictions in Istria and the imperial support, both of Henry III and Henry IV (see doc. 1062_PAG) effectively neutralized the decrees of the 1053 Synod of Rome.
Much ink has been spilled over the exact year in which the “theory of Grado as New Aquileia” was formulated in Grado and Venice. For Cessi (cited above), the theory was perfected only in 1053 when the forged acts of the 731 Synod of Rome (doc. 731_SR) were interpolated and presented to Pope Leo IX, who issued his constitutio based primarily on this forgery. However, it may very well be that the acts of the 731 Synod were forged in their final form already for the 1024 Synod of Rome and presented to Pope John XIX (doc. 1024_SR), who was merely more cautious than his successors, Pope Benedict IX, who included the term “Nove Aquilegie patriarcha” for the patriarchs of Grado in the 1044 Synod of Rome, and Pope Leo IX who based his constitutio on this forgery (see more in the editor’s comments section in doc. 1044_PG).
It is often argued that the policies of Patriarch Domenico Marango and Pope Leo IX, who aimed to drastically expand the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Grado at the expense of the imperial-backed Patriarchate of Aquileia, did not enjoy the support of the Venetian Doge Domenico Contarini, who preferred amicable relations with the Empire that was at the time embroiled in the conflict with their common enemy, the Kingdom of Hungary. Yet, as Rando (cited above) argues, simply because there is no mention of the doge in the hereby-edited Leo IX’s constitutio, does not ipso facto mean that the doge was opposed to such a turn of events. In the end, the victory of the Patriarchate of Grado at the 1053 Synod of Rome was primarily symbolic, and as such it benefited both the Church of Grado as well as the Duchy of Venice.
Finally, what were the reasons for the papal support of Grado against Aquileia in 1053? Primarily, Patriarch Domenico Marango enjoyed close personal relations with Leo IX and his close circle of advisors, as revealed by the hereby-edited constitutio in which the pope recalls how the patriarch of Grado participated in his synods, whereas the patriarch of Aquileia ignored his summons. Moreover, the Empire was at the time busy waging wars on the Reich’s eastern front, battling the Hungarians; the papacy, however, had other enemies (the Normans in the southern Italy) and other diplomatic priorities (the relations with the Orthodox churches of the Byzantine Empire) – Venice was at this point a better ally than the Empire.
In the end, nothing concretely changed. Based on this Leo IX’s constitutio Domenico Marango could adorn the pompous title of “Dei gratia Gradensis et Aquileiensis ecclesiae patriarcha” in his letter directed to the patriarch of Antioch (see Cornelius Will (ed.), Acta et scripta quae de controversiis ecclesiae Graecae et Latinae saeculo undecimo composita extant (Leipzig–Marburg 1861), doc. 16, p. 205), but that was about the maximum that the Church of Grado managed to squeeze out of the 1053 Synod of Rome. The Empire responded to this constitutio in 1062 when the new king, Henry IV, confirmed the possession of the “parish of Grado” to Aquileian Patriarch Gotebold (doc. 1062_PAG); the papacy responded swiftly by confirming the metropolitan status of the Patriarchate of Grado (see Medieval Recollections in doc. 1062_PAG) and the battle for supremacy between the two patriarchs continued unabated.
As far as Istrian bishoprics are concerned, the imperial protection of the Patriarchate of Aquileia coupled with the fact that Istria was a margraviate of the Holy Roman Empire completely neutralized Grado’s claims, despite all the papal support. During King Henry IV’s era, the rights to elect and consecrate the bishops of Istria, together with all the other regalian rights over Istrian bishoprics, would be conferred upon the patriarchs of Aquileia, who would thus cement their metropolitan jurisdictions over Istria (see doc. 1081_PAP, doc. 1081_PAT, doc. 1093_PAP).
The controversy between the patriarchates of Grado and Aquileia formally and finally ended only in 1180, when the incumbent patriarchs signed a definitive compromise ending the controversy, sanctioned by Pope Alexander III (doc. 1180_GA).
The publication of the facsimile of B (Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Bongarsiana / Codices, Cod. 292, fol. 17r–v) is granted free of charge by Burgerbibliothek Bern. We wholeheartedly thank our dear friends and colleagues for their support of open access scholarship.
Photo by the Burgerbibliothek Bern.
The digital facsimile remains under the exclusive copyright of Burgerbibliothek Bern.