THE CHURCH UNIVERSALVolume IV

THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE

THE CHURCH UNIVERSALBrief Histories of Her Continuous Life

A series of eight volumes dealing with the history of the ChristianChurch from the beginning of the present day. 

_Edited by_The Rev. W. H. Hutton, B. D. Fellow and Tutor of S. John's College, Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Bishop of Rochester

THE CHURCH OF THE APOSTLES. The Rev. Lonsdale Ragg, M. A. , Vicar of the Tickencote, Rutlandshire, and Prebendary of Lincoln Cathedral. 

"Mr. Ragg has produced something far better than a mere text-book: theearlier chapters especially are particularly interesting reading. Thewhole book is well proportioned and scholarly, and gives the readerthe benefit of wide reading of the latest authorities. The contrastedgrowth and fortunes of the Judaic Church of Jerusalem and the Churchof the Gentiles are particularly clearly brought out. "--_ChurchTimes_. 

"Written in a clear and interesting style, and summaries the earlyrecords of the growth of the Christian community during the firstcentury. "--_Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette. _

"A careful piece of work, which may be read with pleasure andprofit. "--_Spectator_. 

THE CHURCH OF THE FATHERS. The Rev. Leighton Pullan, M. A. , Fellow of St. John's College, andTheological Lecturer of St. John's and Oriel Colleges, Oxford. 

"If we may forecast the merits of the series by Pullan's volume, weare prepared to give it an unhesitating welcome. We shall be surprisedif this book does not supersede of the less interesting Churchhistories which have served as text-books for several generations oftheological students. "--_Guardian_. 

"The student of this important period of Church history--the formativeperiod--has here a clear narrative, packed with information drawn fromauthentic sources and elucidated with the most recent results ofinvestigation. We do not know of any other work on Church history inwhich so much learned and accurate instruction is condensed into acomparative small space, but at the same time presented in the form ofan interesting narrative. Alike the beginner and the advanced studentwill find Mr. Pullan a useful guide and companion. "--_ChurchTimes_. 

THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS. The Editor. _3s. 6d. Net. _

"In so accomplished hands as Mr. Hutton's the result is an instructiveand suggestive survey of the course of the Church's developmentthroughout five hundred years, and almost as many countries andpeoples, in Constantinople as well as among the Wends and Prussians, in Central Asia as well as in the Western Isles. " _Review ofTheology and Philosophy. _

"The volume will be of great value as giving a bird's-eye view of thefascinating struggle of the Church with heathenism during thosespacious centuries. "--_Church Times. _

THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE. 1003-1304. By D. J. Medley, M. A. , Professor of History in the Universityof Glasgow. _4s. 6d. Net. _

THE AGE OF SCHISM. 1304-1503. By Herbert Bruce, M. A. , Professor of History in theUniversity College, Cardiff. 

"We commend the book as being fair in its judicial criticism, a greatpoint where so thorny a subject as the Great Schism and its issues arediscussed. The art of reading the times, whether ancient or modern, has descended from Mr. W. H. Hutton to his pupil. " _Pall MallGazette. _

"It is a great period for so small a book, but a master of his subjectknows always what to leave out, and this volume covers the period incomfort. "--_Expository Times. _

"Usually such an 'outline' is a bald and bloodless summary, but Mr. Bruce has written a narrative which is both readable andwell-informed. We have pleasure in commending his interesting andscholarly work. "--_Glasgow Herald. _

THE REFORMATION. 1503-1648. 

By the Rev. J. P. Whitney, B. D. , Professor of EcclesiasticalHistory at King's College, London. _5s. Net. _

"A book on the Reformation as a whole, not only in England, but inEurope, has long been needed.... This present volume fills, therefore, a real want, for in it the Reformation is treated as awhole.... The value of the book is quite out of proportion to itssize, and its importance will be appreciated by all those whose dutyor inclination calls to study the Reformation. "--_Guardian_. 

"It is certainly a very full and excellent outline. There is scarcelya point in this momentous time in regard to which the student, and, indeed, the ordinary reader, will not find here very considerablehelp, as well as suggestive hints for further study. "--_Church UnionGazette_. 

THE AGE OF REVOLUTION. 1648-1815. 

By the Editor. _4s. 6d. Net_. 

"The period is a long one for so small a book, but Mr. Hutton has thegift not of condensing, which is not required, but of selecting theessential events and vividly characterizing them. "--_ExpositoryTimes_. 

"Mr. Hutton's past studies in Ecclesiastical History are sure tosecure him a welcome in this new venture. There is a breadth oftreatment, an accurate perspective, and a charitable spirit in allthat he writes which make him a worthy associate of Creighton andStubbs in the great field of history. "--_Aberdeen Journal_. 

THE CHURCH OF MODERN DAYS. 1815-1900. 

By the Rev. Leighton Pullan, M. A. [_In preparation. _]

London: Rivingtons

THE CHURCHAND THE EMPIRE

Being an outline ofthe history of the churchfrom A. D. 1003 to A. D. 1304

By

D. J. Medley, M. A. Professor of History in the University of Glasgow

EDITORIAL NOTE

While there is a general agreement among the writers as to principles, the greatest freedom as to treatment is allowed to writers in thisseries. The volumes, for example, are not of the same length. VolumeII, which deals with the formative period of the Church, is, notunnaturally, longer in proportion than the others. To Volume VI, whichdeals with the Reformation, has been allotted a similar extension. Theauthors, again, use their own discretion in such matters as footnotesand lists of authorities. But the aim of the series, which each writersets before him, is to tell, clearly and accurately, the story of theChurch, as a divine institution with a continuous life. 

W. H. Hutton

PREFACE

The late appearance of this volume of the series needs someexplanation. Portions of the book have been written at intervals; butit is only the enforced idleness of a long convalescence after illnesswhich has given me the requisite leisure to finish it. 

I have tried to avoid overloading my pages with details of politicalhistory; but in no period is it so easy to miss the whole lesson ofevents by an attempt to isolate the special influences which affectedthe organised society of the Church. The interpretation which I haveadopted of the important events at Canossa is not, of course, universally accepted; but the fact that it has seldom found expressionin any English work may serve as my excuse. 

The Editor of the series, The Rev. W. H. Hutton, has laid me under adeep obligation, first, by his long forbearance, and more lately, byhis frequent and careful suggestions over the whole book. It isdangerous for laymen to meddle with questions of technical theology. Itrust that, guided by his expert hand, I have not fallen into anyrecognisable heresy!

Mears Ashby, _October_, 1910. 

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY

CHAPTER ITHE BEGINNINGS OF CHURCH REFORM

CHAPTER IIGREGORY VII AND LAY INVESTITURE

CHAPTER IIITHE END OF THE QUARREL

CHAPTER IVTHE SECULAR CLERGY

CHAPTER VCANONS AND MONKS

CHAPTER VIST. BERNARD

CHAPTER VIITHE SCHOOLMEN AND THEOLOGY

CHAPTER VIIIGUELF AND GHIBELLINE (I)

CHAPTER IXINNOCENT III

CHAPTER XTHE PAPAL POWER IN THE CHURCH

CHAPTER XIDOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH

CHAPTER XIIHERESIES

CHAPTER XIIITHE MENDICANT ORDERS

CHAPTER XIVTHE CHURCH AND THE HEATHEN

CHAPTER XVGUELF AND GHIBELLINE (II)

CHAPTER XVITHE FALL OF THE EMPIRE AND OF THE PAPACY

CHAPTER XVIITHE CHURCHES OF THE EAST

The Church and the Empire

Introductory

[Sidenote: Political thought in Middle Ages. ]

The period of three centuries which forms our theme is the centralperiod of the Middle Ages. Its interests are manifold; but they almostall centre round the great struggle between Empire and Papacy, whichgives to mediaeval history an unity conspicuously lacking in moremodern times. The history of the Church during these three hundredyears is more political than at any other period. In order tounderstand the reason for this it will be well at the outset to sketchin brief outline the political theories propounded in the Middle Ageson the relations of Church and State. So only can we avoid theinevitable confusion of mind which must result from the use of termsfamiliar in modern life. 

[Sidenote: Unity of world. ]

Medieval thought, then, drawing its materials from Roman, Germanic andChristian sources, conceived the Universe as _Civitas Dei_, theState of God, embracing both heaven and earth, with God as at once thesource, the guide and the ultimate goal. Now this Universe containsnumerous parts, one of which is composed of mankind; and the destinyof mankind is identified with that of Christendom. Hence it followsthat mankind may be described as the Commonwealth of the Human Race;and unity under one law and one government is essential to theattainment of the divine purpose. 

[Sidenote: Duality of organisation. ]

But this very unity of the whole Universe gives a double aspect to thelife of mankind, which has to be spent in this world with a view toits continuation in the next. Thus God has appointed two separateOrders, each complete in its own sphere, the one concerned with thearrangement of affairs for this life, the other charged with thepreparation of mankind for the life to come. 

[Sidenote: Relations of Church and State. ]

But this dualism of allegiance was in direct conflict with the idea ofunity. The two separate Orders were distinguished as_Sacerdotium_ and _Regnum_ or _Imperium_; and the needfelt by mediaeval thinkers for reconciling these two in the higherunity of the _Civitas Dei_ began speculations on the relationbetween the ecclesiastical and the secular spheres. 

[Sidenote: Theory of Church party. ]

The champions of the former found a reconciliation of the two spheresto consist in the absorption of the secular by the ecclesiastical. Theone community into which, by the admission of all, united mankind wasgathered, must needs be the Church of God. Of this Christ is the Head. But in order to realise this unity on earth Christ has appointed arepresentative, the Pope, who is therefore the head of both spheres inthis world. But along with this unity it must be allowed that God hassanctioned the separate existence of the secular no less than that ofthe ecclesiastical dominion. This separation, however, according tothe advocates of papal power, did not affect the deposit of authority, but affected merely the manner of its exercise. Spiritual and temporalpower in this world alike belonged to the representative of Christ. 

[Sidenote: Sinful origin of State. ]

But the bolder advocates of ecclesiastical power were ready to explainaway the divine sanction of temporal authority. Actually existingstates have often originated in violence. Thus the State in itsearthly origin may be regarded as the work of human nature as affectedby the Fall of Man: like sin itself, it is permitted by God. Consequently it needs the sanction of the Church in order to removethe taint. Hence, at best, the temporal power is subject to theecclesiastical: it is merely a means for working out the higherpurpose entrusted to the Church. Pope Gregory VII goes farther stillin depreciation of the temporal power. He declares roundly that it isthe work of sin and the devil. "Who does not know, " he writes, "thatkings and dukes have derived their power from those who, ignoring God, in their blind desire and intolerable presumption have aspired to ruleover their equals, that is, men, by pride, plunder, perfidy, murder, in short by every kind of wickedness, at the instigation of the princeof this world, namely, the devil?" But in this he is only re-echoingthe teaching of St. Augustine; and he is followed, among otherrepresentative writers, by John of Salisbury, the secretary andchampion of Thomas Becket, and by Pope Innocent III. To all threethere is an instructive contrast between a power divinely conferredand one that has at the best been wrested from God by humanimportunity. 

[Sidenote: Illustration of relations. ]

There are two illustrations of the relation between the spiritual andsecular powers very common among papal writers. Gregory VII, at thebeginning of his reign, compares them to the two eyes in a man's head. But he soon substitutes for this symbol of theoretical equality acomparison to the sun and moon, or to the soul and body, whereby heclaims for the spiritual authority, as represented by the soul or thesun, the operative and illuminating power in the world, without andapart from which the temporal authority has no efficacy and scarcelyany existence. An illustration equally common, but susceptible of morediverse interpretation, was drawn from the two swords offered to ourLord by His disciples just before the betrayal. It was St. Bernardwho, taking up the idea of previous writers that these represented thesword of the flesh and the sword of the spirit respectively, firstclaimed that they both belonged to the Church, but that, while thelatter was wielded immediately by St. Peter's successor, theinjunction to the Apostle to put up in its sheath the sword of theflesh which he had drawn in defence of Christ, merely indicated thathe was not to handle it himself. Consequently he had entrusted to layhands this sword which denotes the temporal power. Both swords, however, still belonged to the Pope and typified his universalcontrol. By virtue of his possession of the spiritual sword he can usespiritual means for supervising or correcting all secular acts. Butalthough he should render to Caesar what is Caesar's, yet his materialpower over the temporal sword also justifies the Pope in interveningin temporal matters when necessity demands. This is the explanation ofthe much debated _Translatio Imperii, _ the transference of theimperial authority in 800 A. D. From the Greeks to the Franks. It isthe Emperor to whom, in the first instance, the Pope has entrusted thesecular sword; he is, in feudal phraseology, merely the chief vassalof the Pope. It is the unction and coronation of the Emperor by thePope which confer the imperial power upon the Emperor Elect. Thechoice by the German nobles is a papal concession which may berecalled at any time. Hence, if the imperial throne is vacant, ifthere is a disputed election, or if the reigning Emperor is neglectfulof his duties, it is for the Pope to act as guardian or as judge; and, of course, the powers which he can exercise in connection with theEmpire he is still more justified in using against any lesser temporalprince. 

[Sidenote: Theory of Imperial party. ]

To this very thorough presentation of the claims of the ecclesiasticalpower the partisans of secular authority had only a half-hearteddoctrine to oppose. Ever since the days of Pope Gelasius I (492-6), the Church herself had accepted the view of a strict dualism in theorganisation of society and, therefore, of the theoretical equalitybetween the ecclesiastical and the secular organs of government. According to this doctrine Sacerdotium and Imperium are independentspheres, each wielding the one of the two swords appropriate toitself, and thus the Emperor no less than the Pope is _VicariusDei_. It is this doctrine behind which the champions of the Empireentrench themselves in their contest with the Papacy. It was assertedby the Emperors themselves, notably by Frederick I and Frederick II, and it has been enshrined in the writings of Dante. 

[Sidenote: Its weakness. ]

The weak point of this theory was that it was rather a thesis foracademic debate than a rallying cry for the field of battle. Popularcontests are for victory, not for delimitation of territory. And itsweakness was apparent in this, that while the thorough-going partisansof the Church allowed to the Emperor practically no power except suchas he obtained by concession of or delegation from the Church, theimperial theory granted to the ecclesiastical representative at leastan authority and independence equal to those claimed for itself, andreadily admitted that of the two powers the Church could claim thegreater respect as being entrusted with the conduct of matters thatwere of more permanent importance. 

Moreover, historical facts contradicted this idea of equality ofpowers. The Church through her representatives often interfered withdecisive effect in the election and the rejection of secularpotentates up to the Emperor himself: she claimed that princes were asmuch subject to her jurisdiction as other laymen, and she did nothesitate to make good that claim even to the excommunication of arefractory ruler and--its corollary--the release of his subjects fromtheir oath of allegiance. Finally, the Church awoke a responsive echoin the hearts of all those liable to oppression or injustice, when sheasserted a right of interposing in purely secular matters for the sakeof shielding them from wrong; while she met a real need of the age inher exaltation of the papal power as the general referee in all casesof difficult or doubtful jurisdiction. 

Thus the claims of each power as against the other were not at allcommensurate. For while the imperialists would agree that there was awide sphere of ecclesiastical rule with which the Emperor had noconcern at all, it was held by the papalists that there was nothingdone by the Emperor in any capacity which it was not within thecompetence of the Pope to supervise. 

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHURCH REFORM

Previous to the eleventh century there had been quarrels betweenEmperor and Pope. Occasional Popes, such as Nicholas I (858-67), hadasserted high prerogatives for the successor of St. Peter, but we haveseen that the Church herself taught the co-ordinate and the mutualdependence of the ecclesiastical and secular powers. It was thecircumstances of the tenth century which caused the Church to assume aless complacent attitude and, in her efforts to prevent her absorptionby the State, to attempt the reduction of the State to a meredepartment of the Church. 

[Sidenote: Lay investiture of ecclesiastics. ]

With the acceptance of Christianity as the official religion of theEmpire the organisation of the Church tended to follow thearrangements for purposes of civil government. And when at a laterperiod civil society was gradually organising itself on thathierarchical model which we know as feudalism, the Church, in thepersons of its officers, was tending to become not so much thecounterpart of the State as an integral part of it. For the clergy, asbeing the only educated class, were used by the Kings as civiladministrators, and on the great officials of the Church were bestowedextensive estates which should make them a counterpoise to the secularnobles. In theory the clergy and people of the diocese still electedtheir bishop, but in reality he came to be nominated by the King, atwhose hands he received investiture of his office by the symbolicgifts of the ring and the pastoral staff, and to whom he did homagefor the lands of the see, since by virtue of them he was a baron ofthe realm. Thus for all practical purposes the great ecclesiastic wasa secular noble, a layman. He had often obtained his highecclesiastical office as a reward for temporal service, and had notinfrequently paid a large sum of money as an earnest of loyal conductand for the privilege of recouping himself tenfold by unscrupulous useof the local patronage which was his. 

[Sidenote: Clerical marriage. ]

Furthermore, in contravention of the canons of the Church, the secularclergy, whether bishops or priests, were very frequently married. TheChurch, it is true, did not consecrate these marriages; but, it issaid, they were so entirely recognised that the wife of a bishop wascalled Episcopissa. There was an imminent danger that theecclesiastical order would shortly lapse into an hereditary socialcaste, and that the sons of priests inheriting their fathers'benefices would merely become another order of landowners. 

[Sidenote: Church reform. ]

Thus the two evils of traffic in ecclesiastical offices, shortlystigmatised as simony and concubinage--for the laws of the Churchforbade any more decent description of the relationship--threatened toabsorb the Church within the State. Professional interests andconsiderations of morality alike demanded that these evils should bedealt with. Ecclesiastical reformers perceived that the only lastingreformation was one which should proceed from the Church herself. Itwas among the secular clergy, the parish priests, that these evilswere most rife. The monasteries had also gone far away from theiroriginal ideals; but the tenth century had witnessed the establishmentof a reformed Benedictine rule in the Congregation of Cluny, and, inany case, it was in monastic life alone that the conditions seemedsuitable for working out any scheme of spiritual improvement. TheCongregation of Cluny was based upon the idea of centralisation;unlike the Abbot of the ordinary Benedictine monastery, who wasconcerned with the affairs of a single house, the Abbot of Clunypresided over a number of monasteries, each of which was entrustedonly to a Prior. Moreover, the Congregation of Cluny was free from thevisitation of the local bishops and was immediately under the papaljurisdiction. What more natural than that the monks of Cluny shouldadvocate the application to the Church at large of those principles oforganisation which had formed so successful a departure from previousarrangements in the smaller sphere of Cluny? Thus the advocates ofChurch reform evolved both a negative and a positive policy: theabolition of lay investiture and the utter extirpation of the practiceof clerical marriages were to shake the Church free from the numbingcontrol of secular interests, and these were to be accomplished by acentralisation of the ecclesiastical organisation in the hands of thePope, which would make him more than a match for the greatest secularpotentate, the successor of Caesar himself. 

[Sidenote: Chances of reform. ]

It is true that at the beginning of the eleventh century there seemedlittle chance of the accomplishment of these reforms. If the greatsecular potentates were likely to cling to the practice of investiturein order to keep a hold over a body of landowners which, whatevertheir other obligations, controlled perhaps one-third of the lands inWestern Christendom; yet the Kings of the time were not unsympatheticto ecclesiastical reform as interpreted by Cluny. In France both HughCapet (987-96) and Robert (996-1031) appealed to the Abbot of Clunyfor help in the improvement of their monasteries, and this example wasfollowed by some of their great nobles. In Germany reigned Henry II(1002-24), the last of the Saxon line, who was canonised a centuryafter his death by a Church penetrated by the influences of Cluny. Itwas the condition of the Papacy which for nearly half a centurypostponed any attempt at a comprehensive scheme of reform. Twicealready in the course of the tenth century had the intervention of theGerman King, acting as Emperor, rescued the see of Rome fromunspeakable degradation. But for nearly 150 years (904-1046), with afew short interludes, the Papacy was the sport of local factions. Atthe beginning of the eleventh century the leaders of these factionswere descended from the two daughters of the notorious Theodora; theCrescentines who were responsible for three Popes between 1004 and1012, owing their influence to the younger Theodora, while the Countsof Tusculum were the descendants of the first of the four husbands whogot such power as they possessed from the infamous Marozia. The firstTusculan Pope, Benedict VIII (1012-24), by simulating an interest inreform, won the support of Henry II of Germany, whom he crownedEmperor; but in 1033 the same faction set up the son of the Count ofTusculum, a child of twelve, as Benedict IX. It suited the Emperor, Conrad II, to use him and therefore to acknowledge him; but twice thescandalised Romans drove out the youthful debauchee and murderer, andon the second occasion they elected another Pope in his place. But theTusculan influence was not to be gainsaid. Benedict, however, sold thePapacy to John Gratian, who was reputed a man of piety, and whoseaccession as Gregory VI, even though it was a simoniacal transaction, was welcomed by the party of reform. But Benedict changed his mind andattempted to resume his power. Thus there were three persons in Romewho had been consecrated to the papal office. The Archdeacon of Romeappealed to the Emperor Conrad's successor, Henry III, who caused PopeGregory to summon a Council to Sutri. Here, or shortly afterwards atRome, all three Popes were deposed, and although Benedict IX madeanother attempt on the papal throne, and even as late as 1058 hisparty set up an anti-pope, the influence of the local factions wassuperseded by that of a stronger power. 

[Sidenote: Imperial influence. ]

But the alternative offered by the German Kings was no more favourablein itself to the schemes of the reformers than the purely localinfluences of the last 150 years. As Otto I in 963, so Henry III in1046 obtained from the Romans the recognition of his right, aspatrician or princeps, to nominate a candidate who should be formallyelected as their bishop by the Roman people; and as Otto III in 996, so Henry III now used his office to nominate a succession of men, suitable indeed and distinguished, but of German birth. This was notthat freedom of the Church from lay control nor the exaltation of thepapal office through which that freedom was to be maintained. Indeed, so long as fear of the Tusculan influence remained, deference to thewishes of the German King, who was also Emperor, was indispensable, and when that King was as powerful as Henry III it was unwise tochallenge unnecessarily and directly the exercise of his powers. 

[Sidenote: Leo IX (1048-54). ]

But Henry, although, like St. Henry at the beginning of the century, he kept a strong hand on his own clergy, was yet thoroughly insympathy with what may be distinguished as the moral objects of thereformers; and, indeed, the men whom he promoted to the Papacy weredrawn from the class of higher ecclesiastics who were touched by theCluniac spirit. Henry's first two nominees were short-lived. His thirdchoice was his own cousin, Bruno, Bishop of Toul, who accepted withreluctance and only on condition that he should go through thecanonical form of election by the clergy and people of Rome. On hisway to Rome, which he entered as a pilgrim, he was joined by the latechaplain of Pope Gregory VI, Hildebrand, who had been in retirement atCluny since his master's death. Not only did the new Pope, Leo IX, take this inflexible advocate of the Church's claims as his chiefadviser, but he surrounded himself with reforming ecclesiastics frombeyond the Alps. Thus fortified he issued edicts against simoniacaland married clergy; but finding that their literal fulfilment wouldhave emptied all existing offices, he was obliged to tone down hisoriginal threats and to allow clergy guilty of simony to atone theirfault by an ample penance. But Leo's contribution to the building upof the papal power was his personal appearance, not as a suppliant butas a judge, beyond the Alps. Three times in his six years' rule hepassed the confines of Rome and Italy. On the first occasion he evenheld a Council at Rheims, despite the unfriendly attitude of Henry Iof France, whose efforts, moreover, to keep the French bishops fromattendance at the Council met with signal failure. Here and elsewherePope Leo exercised all kinds of powers, forcing bishops and abbots toclear themselves by oath from charges of simony and other faults, andexcommunicating and degrading those who had offended. And while hereduced the hierarchy to recognise the papal authority, he overawedthe people by assuming the central part in stately ceremonies such asthe consecration of new churches and the exaltation of relics ofmartyrs. All this was possible because the Emperor Henry III supportedhim and welcomed him to a Council at Mainz. Nor was it a matter ofless importance that these visits taught the people of Western Europeto regard the Papacy as the embodiment of justice and therepresentative of a higher morality than that maintained by the localChurch. 

[Sidenote: Effect of Henry III's death. ]

Quite unwittingly Henry III's encouragement of Pope Leo's rovingpropensities began the difficulties for his descendants. It is true henominated Leo's successor at the request of the clergy and people ofRome; but Henry's death in 1056 left the German throne to a child ofsix under the regency of a woman and a foreigner who found herselffaced by all the hostile forces hitherto kept under by the Emperor'spowerful arm. And when Henry's last Pope, Victor II, followed theEmperor to the grave in less than a year, the removal of Germaninfluence was complete. The effect was instantaneous. The first Popeelected directly by the Romans was a German indeed by birth, but hewas the brother of Duke Godfrey of Lorraine, who, driven from Germanyby Henry, had married the widowed Marchioness of Tuscany. And wasregarded by a small party as a possible King of Italy and Emperor. Whatever danger there was in the schemes of the Lotharingian brotherswas nipped in the bud by the death of Pope Stephen IX seven monthsafter his election. Then it became apparent that the removal of theEmperor's strong hand had freed not only the upholders ofecclesiastical reform but also the old Roman factions. The attempt waseasily crushed, but it became clear to the reformers that the papalelection must be secured beyond all possibility of outsideinterference. At Hildebrand's suggestion and with the approval of theGerman Court, a Burgundian, who was Bishop of Florence, was elected asNicholas II. The very name was a challenge, for the first Nicholas(858-67) was perhaps the Pope who up to that time had asserted thehighest claims for the See of Rome. 

[Sidenote: Provision for papal election. ]

The short pontificate of the new Nicholas was devoted largely tomeasures for securing the freedom of papal elections from secularinterference. By a decree passed in a numerously attended Council atthe Pope's Lateran palace, a College or Corporation was formed of theseven bishops of the sees in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome, together with the priests of the various Roman parish churches and thedeacons attendant on them. To the members of this body was nowspecially arrogated the term Cardinal, a name hitherto applicable toall clergy ordained and appointed to a definite church. To all Romanclergy outside this body and to the people there remained merely theright of assent, and even this was destined to disappear. Moreimportant historically was the merely verbal reservation of theimperial right of confirmation, which was further made a matter ofindividual grant to each Emperor who might seek it from the Pope. Inview of the revived influence of the local factions it was also laiddown that, although Rome and the Roman clergy had the first claim, yetthe election might lawfully take place anywhere and any one otherwiseeligible might be chosen; while the Pope so elected might exercise hisauthority even before he had been enthroned. 

[Sidenote: Papacy and Normans. ]

But in the presence of a strong Emperor or an unscrupulous factioneven these elaborate provisions Papacy might be useless. The Papacyneeded a champion in the flesh, who should have nothing to gain andeverything to lose by attempting to become its master. Such aprotector was ready to hand in the Normans, who, recently settled inSouthern Italy, felt themselves insecure in the title by which theyheld their possessions. Southern Italy was divided between the threeLombard duchies of Benevento, Capua and Salerno, and the districts ofCalabria and Apulia, which acknowledged the Viceroy or Katapan of theEastern Emperor in his seat at Bari. The Saracens, only recentlyexpelled from the mainland, still held Sicily. Norman pilgrimsreturning from Palestine became, at the instigation of local factions, Norman adventurers, and their leaders obtaining lands from the localPrinces in return for help, sought confirmation of their title fromsome legitimate authority. The Western Empire had never claimed theselands, but none the less Conrad II and Henry III, in return for theacceptance of their suzerainty, acknowledged the titles which theNorman leaders had already gained from Greek or Lombard. Rome waslikely to be their next victim, and Leo IX took the opportunity of adispute over the city of Benevento to try conclusions with them. Ahumiliating defeat was followed by a mock submission of the conqueror. The danger was in no sense removed. Pope Stephen's schemes for drivingthem out of Italy were cut short by his death, and meanwhile theNorman power increased. Thus there could be no question of expulsion, nor could the Papacy risk a repetition of the humiliation of Leo IX. It was Hildebrand who conceived the idea of turning a dangerousneighbour into a friend and protector. A meeting was arranged at Melfibetween Pope Nicholas and the Norman princes, and there, while on theone side canons were issued against clerical marriage, which was rifein the south of Italy, on the other side Robert Guiscard, the Normanleader, recognised the Pope as his suzerain, and obtained in returnthe title of Duke of Apulia and Calabria and of Sicily when he shouldhave conquered it. Pope Leo's agreement, six years before, had beenmade by a defeated and humiliated ecclesiastic with a band ofunscrupulous adventurers. Pope Nicholas was dealing with an actualruler who merely sought legitimate recognition of his title from anywhose hostility would make his hold precarious. Thus resting on theshadowy basis of the donation of Constantine the Pope substitutedhimself for the Emperor, whether of West or of East, over the whole ofSouthern Italy. Truly the movement for the emancipation of the Churchfrom the State was already shaping itself into an attempt at theformation of a rival power. 

[Sidenote: Alexander II (1061-73) and Milan. ]

The value of this new alliance to the Papacy was put to the testalmost immediately. On the death of Pope Nicholas (1061) the papal andimperial parties proceeded to measure their strength against eachother. The reformers, acting under the leadership of Hildebrand, choseas his successor a noble Milanese, Anselm of Baggio, Bishop of Lucca, who now became Alexander II. He was elected in accordance with theprovisions of the recent Lateran decree, and no imperial ratificationwas asked. On the purely ecclesiastical side this choice was a strongmanifesto against clerical marriage. The city of Milan as the capitalof the Lombard kingdom of Italy had for many centuries held itself inrivalry with Rome. Moreover, it was the stronghold of an aristocraticand a married clergy, which based its practice on a supposed privilegegranted by its Apostle St. Ambrose. But this produced a reformingdemocracy which, perhaps from the quarter whence it gained its chiefsupport, was contemptuously named by its opponents the Patarins orRag-pickers. The first leader of this democratic party had been Anselmof Baggio. Nicholas II sent thither the fanatical Peter Damiani aspapal legate, and a fierce struggle ended in the abject submission ofthe Archbishop of Milan, who attended a synod at Rome and promisedobedience to the Pope. 

[Sidenote: German opposition. ]

The weak point in the decree of Nicholas II had been that the Germanclergy were not represented at the Council which issued it, and it wasconstrued in Germany as a manifest attempt of the reforming party tosecure the Papacy for Italy as against the German influence maintainedby Henry III. The Roman nobles also had seen in the decree the designof excluding them from any share in the election. It was only by theintroduction of Norman troops into Rome that the new Pope could beinstalled at the Lateran. A few weeks later a synod met at Basle inthe presence of the Empress-Regent and the young Henry IV. The latterwas invested with the title of Patrician, and the election ofAlexander having been pronounced invalid, a new Pope was chosen in theperson of another Lombard, Cadalus Bishop of Parma, who had led theopposition to the Patarins in the province of Milan. The Normans wererecalled to their dominions, and the imperialist Pope, Honorius II, was installed in Rome. The struggle between the rival Popes lasted forthree years (1061-4), and fluctuated with the fluctuations of power atthe German court. Here the young King had fallen under the influenceof Archbishop Hanno of Köln, who, surrounded by enemies in Germany, hoped to gain a party by the betrayal of imperial interests in therecognition of the decree of Nicholas II and of the claims ofAlexander. Again by the help of a Norman force Alexander was installedin Rome, where he remained even when Hanno's influence at the Germancourt gave way to that of Archbishop Adalbert of Bremen. Honorius, however, despite the desertion by the imperialist party, foundsupporters until his death in 1072, and it was only by the arms ofDuke Godfrey of Tuscany acting for the imperialists and those of hisown Norman allies that Alexander held Rome until his death. 

[Sidenote: Steps towards reformation. ]

Meanwhile the ecclesiastical reformation went steadily on under thedirection of Hildebrand. The young King Henry endeavoured to freehimself from the great German ecclesiastics who held him in thrall, byrepudiating the wife whom they had forced upon him. He was checked bythe austere and resolute papal legate, Peter Damiani, and was obligedto accept Bertha of Savoy, to whom subsequently he became muchattached. Peter Darniani's visit, however, brought him relief inanother way, for the legate took back such a report of the prevalenceof simony that the archbishops of Mainz and Köln were summoned toRome, whence they returned so humiliated that their politicalinfluence was gone. It is almost equally remarkable that the twoEnglish Archbishops also appeared at Rome during this Pontificate, Lanfranc of Canterbury in order that he might obtain the pall withoutwhich he could not exercise his functions as Archbishop, and Thomas ofYork, who referred to the Pope his contention that the primacy ofEngland should alternate between Canterbury and York. In France, too, we are told that the envoys of Alexander interfered in the smallestdetails of the ecclesiastical administration and punished withoutmercy all clergy guilty of simony or of matrimony. Almost the lastpublic act of Pope Alexander was to excommunicate five counsellors ofthe young King of Germany, to whom were attributed responsibility forhis acts, and to summon Henry himself to answer charges of simony andother evil deeds. 

CHAPTER II

GREGORY VII AND LAY INVESTITURE

[Sidenote: Gregory VII (1073-85). ]

The crowd which attended the funeral of Alexander II acclaimedHildebrand as his successor. The Cardinals formally ratified thechoice of the people and contrary to the wish of the German bishopsthe young King Henry acquiesced. 

[Sidenote: His rise to power. ]

The new Pope was born a Tuscan peasant and educated in the monasteryof St. Mary's on the Aventine in Rome. His uncle was the Abbot, andthe monastery was Roman lodging of the Abbot of Cluny. Hildebrandentered the service of Gregory VI, whom he followed into exile. On hismaster's death in 1048 Hildebrand retired to Cluny. Hence he was drawnonce more back to Rome by Pope Leo IX. From this moment his rise wascontinuous. Leo made him a Cardinal and gave him the charge of thepapal finances. In 1054 he sent him as legate to France in order todeal with the heresy of Berengar of Tours. Hildebrand was notheologian, and he accepted a very vague explanation of Berengar'sviews upon the disputed question of the change of the elements in theSacrament. On Leo's death Hildebrand headed the deputation which wassent by the clergy and people of Rome to ask Henry III to nominate hissuccessor; and again, on the death of Victor II, although Hildebrandtook no part in the choice of Stephen IX, it was he who went toGermany to obtain a confirmation of the election from theEmpress-Regent. On Stephen's death Hildebrand's prompt action obtainedthe election of Nicholas II. It was probably Hildebrand who worded thedecree regulating the mode of papal elections, and whose policy turnedthe Normans from troublesome neighbours into faithful allies anduseful instruments of the papal aims. Nicholas rewarded him with theoffice of Archdeacon of Rome, which made him the chief administrativeofficer of the Roman see and, next to the Pope, the most importantperson in the Western Church. Hildebrand was the chief agent in theelection of Alexander II; and the ultimate triumph of Alexander meantthe reinstatement of Hildebrand at head-quarters. Thus it had longbeen a question of how soon the maker of Popes would himself assumethe papal title, and this was settled for him by the acclamations ofthe people. In memory of his old master he took the title of GregoryVII. As yet he was only in deacon's orders. Within a month he wasordained priest; but another month or more elapsed before he wasconsecrated bishop. 

[Sidenote: Opportunity of reform. ]

At last the individual who was most identified in men's minds with theforward movement in the Church was the acknowledged head of theecclesiastical organisation in the West. For more than twenty years hehad been at headquarters intimately knowing and ultimately directingthe course of policy. It was mainly by his exertions that the Churchwas now officially committed to the views of the Cluniac reformers. Yet so much opposition had been called forth as to show that thesuccess of the party hitherto had depended merely on the circumstancesof the moment. The time seemed to have arrived when matters should bebrought to an issue. The continued existence of the Roman factions andthe power of Henry III had made compromise necessary, and the generalresult of the reformers' efforts upon the Church had beeninappreciable. But the lapse of time had done at least two things--ithad cleared the issue and it had brought the opportunity. 

[Sidenote: Direction in which reform should move. ]

The Church was so entirely enmeshed in the feudal notions of the agethat at first it was not very clear to the reformers where it would bemost effective to begin in the process or cutting her free. But bythis time it was seen that the real link which bound the Church to theState was the custom by which princes took it on themselves to give tothe new bishop, in return for his oath of homage, investiture of hisoffice and lands by the presentation of the ring which symbolicallymarried him to his Church, and of the pastoral staff which committedto him the spiritual oversight of his diocese. Probably there was nota single prince in Western Europe who pretended to confer on the newbishop any of his spiritual powers; but the two spheres of theepiscopal work had become inextricably confused, and in the decay ofecclesiastical authority the lay power had treated the chiefecclesiastics as mainly great officers of State and a special class offeudal baron. In the eyes of the reformers the entire dealing of theKing with the bishops was an act of usurpation, nay, of sacrilege. Ecclesiastics owed to the sovereign of the country the oath of fealtydemanded of all subjects. But for the rest, neither bishop, abbot, norparish priest could be a feudal vassal. The land which anyecclesiastic held by virtue of his office had been given to theChurch; the utmost claim that any layman could make regarding it wasto a right or rather duty of protection. If the Church was to berestored to freedom, investiture with ring and staff, and the controlof the lands during vacancy of an ecclesiastical office must all beclaimed back for the Church herself. The oath of homage would thennaturally disappear, and there would no longer be that confusion ofspheres which had resulted in the laicisation and the degradation ofthe Church. 

[Sidenote: Henry IV and the German clergy. ]

Moreover, the moment was propitious for asserting these views to thefullest extent. The chief represenative of lay authority was no longera powerful Emperor nor even a minor in the tutelage of others. He wasa King of full age whose wayward, not to say vicious, courses hadalienated large numbers of his people. It is true that Henry IV neverhad much chance of becoming a successful ruler. Taken from his motherat the age of twelve, for the next ten years (1062-72) he had beencontrolled alternately by two guardians, of whom one, Adalbert, Archbishop of Bremen, allowed him every indulgence, while the other, Hanno, Archbishop of Koln, hardly suffered him to have a mind of hisown. Since he had become his own master he had plunged into war withhis Saxon subjects. Henry, entangled in this war, answered Gregory'sfirst admonitions in a conciliatory tone; but in 1075 he decisivelydefeated the Saxons and was in no mood to listen to a suggestion forthe diminution of the authority of the German King in his own land, which he had just so triumphantly vindicated. For Henry imitated hispredecessors in practising investiture of bishops both in Germany andin Italy; and he realised that the summons of the Pope to the temporalprinces that they should give up such investiture would mean thetransference to the Papacy of the disposal of the temporal fiefs. Thiswould involve the loss at one blow of half the dominions of the GermanKing. Moreover, he was encouraged in an attitude of resistance by thefeeling of the German Church. At the first Lenten Synod held in theLateran palace after Gregory's accession canons were issued forbiddingall married or simoniacal ecclesiastics to perform ministerialfunctions and all laity to attend their ministrations. Immediateopposition was raised; the German clergy were especially violent: theydeclared that this prohibition of marriage was contrary to theteaching of Christ and St. Paul, that it attempted to make men livelike angels but would only encourage licence, and that, if it werenecessary to choose, they would abandon the priesthood rather thantheir wives. Gregory, however, sent legates into various districtsarmed with full powers, and succeeded in rousing the populace againstthe married clergy. 

[Sidenote: Gregory's decree against investiture. ]

It was under these circumstances that Gregory determined to bring toan issue the chief question in dispute between Church and State. Hitherto he had said nothing against the practice of lay investiture. Now, however, at the Lenten Synod in 1075, a decree was issued whichcondemned both the ecclesiastic, high or low, who should takeinvestiture from a layman, and also the layman, however exalted inrank, who should dare to give investiture. The decree had no immediateeffect, and at the end of the year Gregory followed it up with aletter to the King, in which he threatened excommunication if beforethe meeting of the next usual Lenten Synod Henry had not amended hislife and got rid of his councillors, who had never freed themselvesfrom the papal ban. 

[Sidenote: Henry's Answer. ]

Henry's answer was given at a Synod of German ecclesiastics at Worms. Cardinal Hugh the White, who for personal reasons had turned againstGregory, accused him of the most incredible crimes, and a letter wasdespatched in which the bishops renounced their obedience. Henry alsoaddressed a letter to the Pope, which quite surpassed that of thebishops in violence of expression. "Henry, King not by usurpation butby the holy ordination of God, to Hildebrand now no apostolic rulerbut a false monk. " It accused him of daring to threaten to take awaythe royal power, as if Henry owed it to the Pontiff and not to God:and it concluded by a summons to him to descend from his position infavour of some one "who shall not cloak his violence with religion, but shall teach the sound doctrine of St. Peter. " It was nothing newfor a Pope to be deposed by a Council presided over by the Emperor. And it is true that the same resolution, transmitted by delegates fromWorms, was adopted at Piacenza by a Synod of Italian bishops. But onthis occasion the sentence was uttered by an assembly of exclusivelyGerman bishops, presided over by a King who was not yet crownedEmperor. If such a sentence was to be effective, Henry should havefollowed it up by a march to Rome with an adequate army. He merelycourted defeat when he gave the Pope the opportunity for a retort inkind. Anathema was the papal weapon, and while the King's declarationmight even be resented by other rulers as an attempt to dictate tothem in a matter of common concern to all, the papal sentence on theKing was regarded by all as influencing the fate, not of the Kingonly, but of all who remained in communication with him, if not inthis world, at any rate in the world to come. Moreover, in thisparticular case, while no one believed the monstrous charges againstGregory, there was sufficient in Henry's past conduct to givecredibility to anything that might be urged against him. 

[Sidenote: Gregory deposes Henry. ]

Gregory's rejoinder was delivered at the Lenten Synod of 1076. Asagainst the twenty-six German bishops assembled at Worms, this Councilcontained over a hundred bishops drawn from all parts of Christendom, while among the laity present was Henry's own mother, the EmpressAgnes. Gregory used his opportunity to the full. In the most solemnstrain he appealed to St. Peter, to the Virgin Mary, to St. Paul andall the saints, to bear witness that he himself had unwillingly takenthe Papacy. To him, as representative of the Apostle, God hadentrusted the Christian people, and in reliance on this he nowwithdrew from Henry, as a rebel against the Church, the rule over thekingdoms of the Teutons and of Italy, and released all Christians fromany present or future oath made to him. Finally, for his omissions andcommissions alike, Henry is bound in the bonds of anathema "in orderthat people may know and acknowledge that thou art Peter, and upon thyrock the Son of the living God has built His Church, and the gates ofhell shall not prevail against it. "

The rhetorical flourish of the King's pronouncement against the Popewithers before the tremendous appeal of the Pope to his divinelydelegated power to judge the King. Gregory's procedure was little lessrevolutionary than that of the King, but the claim to depose mightappear as only a concomitant to the power already wielded by Popes inbestowing crowns, while for Gregory it had by this time become thecopingstone in the fabric of those relations between Church and Statewhich he and his party were building up. 

[Sidenote: Gregory's allies: Countess Matilda. ]

Gregory's position was not devoid of difficulties. Numerous protestswere raised against this assertion of papal power. But eventsconcurred to justify Gregory's bold action. At the beginning of hispontificate the Normans were quarrelling among themselves; but inTuscany the Countess Matilda had just become complete mistress of thegreat inheritance which included a large part of Central Italy. Shewas an enthusiastic supporter of the Papacy, and secured North Italyby a revival of the Patarine party against the Italian bishops who hadrepudiated Gregory at Piacenza. 

[Sidenote: Rebellious German Nobles. ]

But Gregory's most effective allies were Henry's rebellious subjects. The Saxons broke out again into rebellion in the north, while thenobles of Southern Germany with the concurrence of the Pope met atTribur, near Mainz, in October, 1076. Henry was forced to accept themost abject terms. He was to submit to the Pope, and the noblesfurther agreed among themselves that the Pope should be invited topronounce the decisive judgment at a diet to be held at Augsburg ayear later. If by that time Henry had not obtained the papalabsolution, the kingdom would be considered forfeit, and they wouldproceed to the election of a new King without waiting for permissionof the Pope. The nobles were hampered by the rivalry of those whohoped each to be Henry's successor, and they did not wish to found theelection of the new King on the acknowledgment of the papal power ofdeposition. They acted, therefore, as if so far, apart from theexcommunication, the papal sentence of deposition had been onlyprovisional. 

[Sidenote: Henry's Action. ]

Henry saw that to be reinstated by the Pope in an assembly of hisrebellious subjects would be even more damaging for his prestige thanthe original deposition, and, knowing nothing of the agreement of thenobles for a new election, he determined to go and get his absolutionfrom the Pope at Rome. He treated the points in dispute betweenhimself and his opponents as practically settled by his promise ofsubmission, whereas the Pope desired to pose as arbiter between thecontending parties in Germany; while the nobles aimed at electing anew King. Quite unconsciously Henry was forcing the hands of bothparties of his opponents, whose obvious interests were in favour ofdelay. It was necessary that he should drink the cup of humiliation tothe dregs; but the astute King preferred that it should be at his owntime and place--at once and in Italy, instead of a year hence inGermany. 

[Sidenote: Canossa. ]

Henry carried out his design, even though it was in the middle ofwinter; and neglecting the welcome of the imperialists of North Italy, he ultimately tracked the Pope to the Countess Matilda's fortress ofCanossa, in the Apennines, above Modena. But Gregory would listen tono mediation, and demanded absolute submission to his judgment. SoHenry again took the method of procedure into his own hands andappeared at intervals during three successive days before the castlein the garb of a penitent, barefooted and clad in a coarse woollenshirt. The picturesque account of this world-famous scene, which weowe to Lambert of Hersfeld, must be regarded as the monastic versioncurrent among the papal partisans. Gregory himself, who was scarcelylikely to minimise his own triumph, in his letter to the German noblessays nothing of these details. He only relates that even his ownfollowers exclaimed that "tyrannical ferocity" rather than "apostolicseverity" was the characteristic of his act. 

[Sidenote: Result Of Canossa. ]

Thus Henry forced the hand of the Pope, who as a priest could notrefuse his absolution to one who showed himself ready to submit to theseverest possible penance for his sins. The only course open toGregory was to accept the situation on which he had lost the hold, andto try to get some political concessions in the negotiations whichmust follow. The terms did not differ much from those arranged atTribur: Henry should accept the decision of the diet of the Germannobles, presided over by the Pope, as to his continued right to thecrown, while if the judgment was favourable, he should implicitly obeythe Pope for the future in all that concerned the Church. But, on theother hand, the papal excommunication and absolute sentence ofdeposition were removed, and the whole excuse for continued rebellionwas thus withdrawn from his German opponents. Henry had undoubtedlybeen humiliated and had acknowledged the papal arbitration in Germany:but modern feelings probably exaggerate the humiliation of thepenitential system, and Henry had at least divided his enemies. ThePope had undertaken to see fair play between Henry and his Germansubjects: the German nobles had based their action on Henry's pastconduct, for which he had now done penance. Henry had obtained anacknowledgment from the Pope that his right to the kingship was at anyrate an open question. 

[Sidenote: Election of an anti-king. ]

The German nobles had been betrayed by the Pope, but they could notafford to quarrel with him. They had been outwitted by Henry, andagainst him they proceeded as having violated the Agreement of Tribur. A Diet met at Forchheim, in Franconia, in March, 1077. It was chieflycomposed of lay nobles, but papal legates were present, whom Gregoryinstructed to work for a postponement until he himself could come. Butthe nobles were determined, and Henry's brother-in-law, Duke Rudolf ofSuabia, was chosen King. Gregory, however, did not intend to have hishand forced again, and for three years (1077-80) he refused toacknowledge Rudolf and tried to pose as arbiter between him and Henry. Five times Rudolf's supporters wrote remonstrating indignantly againstthis neutrality. Gregory excused himself on the ground that hislegates had been deceived and had acted under compulsion inacquiescing in the action of the diet at Forchheim. He had goodreasons for his delay. He was determined to secure recognition of theright which he claimed for the Papacy as the real determining force inthe dispute, an act which the nobles had deliberately prevented. Moreover, he was a little afraid of a trial of strength with Henry atthe moment. For while Henry's promptness had caused the Pope to breakfaith with his allies, Gregory's severity had gathered round Henry aparty which made the King more powerful than he yet had been. Thus inLombardy the Countess Matilda was faced by a revived imperialist partywhich seriously threatened her dominions, while in Germany the clergy, the lesser nobles and the cities rallied round the King. 

[Sidenote: Gregory accepts him. ]

So long, then, as the contest seemed doubtful Gregory withheld hisdecision. At length, in 1080, when, despite two victories, Rudolf wasgaining no advantage, Gregory felt that further delay might make Henrytoo strong to be affected by the papal judgment. Accordingly, at theusual Lenten Synod he renewed the excommunication and deposition ofHenry, recognised Rudolf as King of Germany, and even prophesied forthe excommunicated monarch a speedy death. One papal partisanafterwards explained this as referring to Henry's spiritual death!Gregory is further said to have sent a crown to Rudolf, bearing thelegend "Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolpho, " but the story isdoubtful. The answer of Henry's party was given in successive synodsof German or Italian bishops, who declared Gregory deposed, andelected as his substitute Henry's Chancellor, Guibert, Archbishop ofRavenna, who took the title of Clement III. 

[Sidenote: Death of anti-King. ]

Gregory's decisive move was a failure. There were now two Kings andtwo Popes, and all hope of a peaceful settlement was gone. None of thenations of Europe responded to Gregory's appeal. Robert Guiscard, theNorman leader, was busy with his designs on the Eastern Empire. Gregory's only chance was a victory in Germany and the fulfilment ofhis rash prophecy. In October, 1080, Henry was defeated in the heartof Saxony on the Elster, but it was Gregory's accepted King, Rudolf, who was killed. One chronicler reports Rudolf as acknowledging in hisdying moments the iniquity of his conduct. Saxony remained in revolt;but until a new King could be agreed upon Henry was practically safeand could turn to deal with the situation in Italy. There could be nothought of peace. Gregory's supporters were upheld by the enthusiasmof fanaticism, while by acts and words he had driven his enemies toexasperation, and what had begun as a war of principles had now sunkto a personal struggle between Henry and Hildebrand. 

[Sidenote: Death of Gregory. ]

The renewal of the sentence against Henry had caused a reaction in hisfavour in Northern Italy. Soon after the episode of Canossa, theCountess Matilda, having no heir, had bequeathed her entirepossessions to the Roman see and become a papal vassal for the term ofher own life. But most of the Tuscan cities declared for Henry andthus entirely neutralised her power. Robert Guiscard was not to betempted back from his projects against the Eastern Empire, even if itbe true that Gregory offered him the Empire of the West. Thus Henryentered Italy unhindered early in 1081, and even the news that hisopponents had found a successor to Rudolf in the person of Herman ofLuxemburg did not stop his march. The siege of Rome lasted for nearlythree years (1081-4), but ultimately he obtained possession of all thecity except the castle of St. Angelo. Henry's Pope, Clement III, wasconsecrated, and on Easter Day Henry, together with his wife, atlength obtained the imperial crown. But meanwhile he had made a fatalmove. The Eastern Emperor Alexius persuaded him to make mischief inApulia. Henry fell into the trap. Robert Guiscard rushed back todefend his own territories, and now determined to carry out hisobligations as a papal vassal. Henry was taken unawares and had toretire before the Normans, who forced their way into Rome and cruellysacked and burnt it. Gregory was rescued, but life for him in Rome wasno longer possible. The Romans had betrayed him to Henry, and now hisallies had destroyed the city. He retired with the Normans to Salerno, where, a year later, he died (May, 1085), bitterly attributing hisfailure to his love of righteousness and hatred of iniquity. 

[Sidenote: His reasons for his failure. ]

But we cannot ratify Gregory's own judgment on the reasons for hisfailure. Rather the blame is to be laid upon his lack ofstatesmanship. His egotism and his fanaticism worked together to makehim believe that the supremacy of the spiritual power which he aimedat might be attained by very secular devices. In action he showedhimself a pure opportunist, approving at one time what he condemned atanother. And yet he had so little of an eye for the line whichseparates the practicable from the ideal that at Canossa he humiliatedHenry beyond all hope of reconciliation, and he died in exile becausehe would not listen to any compromise which might be an acknowledgmentthat he had exaggerated his own claims. Thus, despite the undoubtedpurity of his life and the ultimate loftiness of his ideals, he is tobe regarded rather as a man of immense force of character than as agreat ecclesiastical statesman, rather as the stirrer-up of divinediscontent than as a creative mind which gives a new turn to thedesires and impulses of the human race. 

[Sidenote: His activity in Europe. ]

All this is borne out by his dealings outside Germany and Italy. Heconducted a very extensive correspondence with princes as well asecclesiastics all over Europe. Indeed this, as much as the despatch oflegates and the annual attendance of bishops at the Lenten Synod, wasone of the means by which the Papacy strove to make itself the centralpower of Christendom. These letters deal with all kinds of subjectsand bear ample witness to his personal piety and high moral aims. Butalongside of these come arrogant assertions of papal authority. Heclaims as fiefs of St. Peter on various grounds Hungary, Spain, Denmark, Corsica, Sardinia; he gives the title of King to the Duke ofDalmatia; he even offers to princes who belong to the Eastern Church abetter title to their possessions as held from St. Peter. 

[Sidenote: His policy in France. ]

Gregory's great contest with the Empire has been described withoutinterruption, as if it were the only struggle of his time, instead ofbeing merely the most important episode in a very busy life. And if weask in conclusion why it was fought out in the imperial dominionsrather than elsewhere, the answer will be instructive of his characterand methods of action. At the beginning of his pontificate hisharshest phrases were directed against Philip I of France, who addedto the crimes of lay investiture and shameless simony a scandalouspersonal immorality. Ultimately Gregory threatened him withexcommunication and deposition. But he never passed beyond threats. The reason is to be found in the fact that Gregory was soon in pursuitof larger game. The French King only shared with his great nobles theinvestiture of the bishops in the kingdom. Moreover, the Frenchbishops were not as a body great secular potentates like the Germanbishops. The opposition to reform in France was passive, not active. Crown, nobles, and Church stood together in opposition: there was nopapal party. Not enough was to be gained by a victory, and there wasgreat chance of a defeat. The result was that Philip continued hissimoniacal transactions and never entirely gave up investiture, whileGregory allowed himself to be satisfied with occasional promises ofbetter things. His dealings with the French bishops are equallyinconclusive. For six years (1076-82) two of the papal legates dividedFrance between them, practically superseded the local ecclesiasticaljurisdiction, and acted with the utmost severity against all, ecclesiastics or laymen, who practised the methods now undercondemnation. Great opposition was aroused and the legates went inperil of their lives. They were only carrying out strenuously theprinciples laid down under Gregory's guidance in many acts of synodsand inculcated by Gregory in numberless private letters. And yetGregory is found frequently undoing their acts, restoring bishops whomthey have deposed, accepting excuses or explanations which cannotpossibly have deceived him. 

[Sidenote: In England. ]

His policy towards England affords another instructive contrast. Bothin Normandy and in England William the Conqueror practised investitureof his bishops and abbots and held his ecclesiastics in an iron grip. He refused the papal demand for homage for his English kingdom and hewould allow no papal interference with his clergy without the King'spermission. Archbishop Lanfranc also only consented to accept thedecree against married clergy with a serious limitation--while marriedcanons were to dismiss their wives at once, parish priests alreadymarried were not interfered with; but marriage was forbidden to clergyin the future, and bishops were warned not to ordain married men. ButWilliam's expedition to England had been undertaken with the approvalof Hildebrand, he did not practise simony, and he acknowledged theprinciple of a celibate clergy, while he promised the payment of thetribute of Peter's Pence from England. Moreover, William was not a manto be trifled with: he was a valuable friend and would certainly be adangerous enemy. Consequently no question of the lawfulness ofinvestiture was mooted during his lifetime. Gregory contented himselfwith threats against Lanfranc. But the English Archbishop owed agrudge to Gregory, who had treated with a culpable indulgence thegreat heresiarch Berengar after Lanfranc had vanquished him andconvicted him of heresy; and Lanfranc knew that under William'ssheltering favour he was safe from the papal ban. 

Thus, while in France Gregory would have to face an united people, inEngland he shrank before the personality of the King. In Germany, onthe other hand, he found a blameworthy King and a discontented people. All the elements were present for the successful interference of anexternal power. Moreover, the peculiar relations in which thisexternal power--the Papacy--stood towards the German King, theprospective Emperor, gave every excuse, if any were needed, for suchinterference. Finally and most especially, since these imperialprospects made the German King the first among the monarchs of WesternEurope, a victory over him would carry a prestige which lesserpotentates would be bound to acknowledge. 

CHAPTER III

THE END OF THE QUARREL

[Sidenote: A momentary peace. ]

It remained to be seen whether Gregory's failure implied Henry'ssuccess. The Emperor returned to Germany, where a strong desire forpeace had grown up and was taking practical shape. In some diocesesthe Truce of God was proclaimed, which, under heavy ecclesiasticalpenalties, forbade hostilities during certain days of the week andcertain seasons of the year. Henry took up this idea, which as yet wastoo partial to be effective, and in 1085, in a Synod at Mainz underhis presidency, it was proclaimed for the whole kingdom. Theunfortunate anti-King Herman found himself deserted, and died, afugitive, in 1088. Henry's moderation concluded what the desire forpeace had begun, and even Saxony seemed to be reconciled to his rule. 

[Sidenote: Urban II (1088-99). ]

But his triumph was short-lived. Between him and any lasting peacestood the anti-Pope Clement III; for all who had received consecrationat Clement's hands were bound at all hazards to maintain thelawfulness of his election. Moreover, Clement's opponent now was a manto be reckoned with. The first choice of the Gregorian party, Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino, could not be consecrated for ayear after his election, and four months later he was dead (September, 1087). The partisans of Clement were too strong in Rome, and the nextelection was carried out with total disregard of the decree ofNicholas II. It took place at Terracina in March, 1088, and was madeby a large number of clergy in addition to the Cardinals. The choicefell upon Otto, Bishop of Ostia, a Frenchman of noble family and amonk of Cluny; but it was some years before Urban II could regard Romeas his headquarters. 

[Sidenote: His policy against Henry. ]

In some ways Urban was more uncompromising than his master Gregory. Heupheld the papal legates in their strict treatment of the Frenchbishops; he actually launched against Philip I of France theexcommunication which Gregory had only threatened; to the prohibitionof lay investiture he added an explicit command that bishops andclergy should not do homage to any layman. But while he showed himselfthus in thorough sympathy with his predecessor, in his power ofdealing with circumstances he proved himself by far the superior. Asuccession of clever if thoroughly unscrupulous measures restored thefortunes of the papal party. Henry had succeeded for the moment individing and isolating his enemies. Urban set himself to unite thechief opponents of Henry on both sides of the Alps. He planned amarriage between the middle-aged widow, the Countess Matilda ofTuscany, and the eighteen-year-old son of Welf, Duke of Bavaria(1089). Matilda was ready to sacrifice herself for the good of thecause. The Welfs, ignorant of Matilda's gift of her lands to thePapacy, eagerly accepted the bait; but soon discovering that they werebeing used as tools, they ceased to give any help, and in fact becamereconciled to the Emperor. But meanwhile the Pope had discovered othermore deadly weapons with which to wound the Emperor. The deaths of theanti-Kings had left the papal party without a leader in Germany. Events had shown the firm hold of the hereditary claim and the SalianHouse upon a large portion of the Empire. The only acceptable leaderwould be a member of Henry's own house. Henry's actions played intotheir hands. His eldest son, Conrad, had been crowned at Aachen in1087 and sent into Italy to act as his father's representative. He isdescribed as a young man of studious and dreamy character, unpracticaland easily influenced. In 1087 Henry lost his faithful wife Bertha, and a year later he married a Russian Princess, Praxedis, who was thewidow of the Count of the Northern March. The marriage was unhappy;each accused the other of misconduct; and Henry, suspecting therelations of Conrad with his stepmother, put them both in prison. Perhaps Conrad had already been worked upon by the papal party. Heescaped, took refuge with the Countess Matilda, and was crowned Kingof Italy (1093). But he was only the tool of others. Far moreimmediately dangerous was the escape of Praxedis (1094), who laidbefore the Pope the foulest charges against Henry. To her lastingshame the Countess Matilda was the chief agent in these familyrevolts. The effect on Henry's position in Italy was disastrous. PopeUrban finally recovered Rome, and Conrad, having won the cities ofLombardy, took an oath of fealty to the Papacy in return for a promiseof the Empire. 

[Sidenote: Beginning of the Crusades. ]

And just as if the success of these diabolical schemes was not asufficient triumph, fortune at this moment gave the Pope a chance ofsuperseding the Emperor in the eyes of all Europe, by inaugurating agreat popular movement of which under different circumstances theEmperor would have been the natural leader. In 1085 the EasternEmperor Alexius had appealed to Henry against the Normans, but nowHenry was a negligible quantity--excommunicated, crowned Emperor by ananti-pope, not likely to undertake a distant expedition. In 1095, therefore, when Alexius needed aid against the Seljuk Turks, it was tothe Pope that he sent his envoys, who appeared at the Synod ofPiacenza. Those late converts to Mohammedanism had established theirkingdom of Roum over the greater part of Asia Minor with its capitalat the venerable city of Nicæa, and had captured Jerusalem, which thuspassed out of the hands of the tolerant Caliphs of Cairo into those ofthe most fanatical section of Mohammedans. Pilgrims returning fromJerusalem spread through Europe tales of the harsh treatment to whichthey were subjected. Then in 1087 a new tribe of Saracens, theAlmoravides, crossed from Africa to Spain and inflicted a severedefeat upon a Christian army. It seemed almost as if a combinedmovement of the Mohammedan world had begun for the final extinction ofChristendom. If Gregory had been free he would have wished to promotethe reunion of the Churches by sending help to the Eastern Empire; sothat it was no novel idea that was suggested to the assembled magnatesat Piacenza. Urban II no doubt saw the opportunity offered forasserting the leadership of the western world. Alexius' envoys wereheard with sympathy; but Urban felt the need of appeal to a largerpublic, and summoned a great Council to Clermont-Ferrand in Auvergne, where he would be among his own countrymen. Here in November, 1095, hedelivered before a vast concourse of persons assembled in the open airan impassioned appeal on behalf of the suffering Christians of theeast. The result answered his utmost expectation, and the cry of theassembled multitude, "God wills it, " was the ratification of the papalleadership. All methods were taken to stir the feelings of the west. The vast ecclesiastical organisation was used in order to transmitinvitations to possible crusaders; the penitential system of theChurch was brought to bear on those already conscious of a sinfullife; popular preachers, such as Peter the Hermit, were employed torouse the interest of the masses; the Pope himself spent thesucceeding months in a tour through Southern France; and arrangementswere made for the start of the first expedition from the Italian portsat the end of the summer of 1096, under the leadership of a legateappointed by the Pope. 

[Sidenote: The first Crusade. ]

It is not possible here to follow the fortunes of the Crusaders. Several unauthorised expeditions, which bore witness to the popularenthusiasm, made their way through Southern Germany; but thedisorderly crowds which composed them perished either at the hands ofthe inhabitants of the Eastern Empire, whom they treated asschismatics, or among the Turks in Asia Minor. The real expeditionpassed partly by land, partly by sea from the Italian ports toConstantinople, whence the Crusaders set out across Asia Minor. Nicæawas taken in June, 1097; the Sultan of Roum was overthrown in battleat Dorylæum in July; Antioch detained the Crusaders from October, 1097, to June, 1098; and it was only in July, 1099, that after a siegeof forty days Jerusalem was captured from the Saracens of Egypt, whohad recently recovered it from the Turks. 

[Sidenote: Its effect on the quarrel. ]

But whatever may have been Urban's success in his own land of Franceand elsewhere, in Germany, at any rate, his efforts to turn thecurrent against the Emperor had entirely failed. Of German landsLorraine alone sent warriors to the First Crusade. The movement didnot penetrate to the east of the Rhine, and the number of Germans whohelped to swell the multitude of crusaders who marched throughSouthern Germany was inappreciable. At the same time the settlement ofthe questions at issue between Papacy and Empire were indefinitelypostponed; for it would have been treason to the crusading cause topress the papal claims against Henry at this moment. It was Henry'sturn to experience some good fortune. The proclamation of the Truce ofGod under his auspices, the manifest interest of the Germanecclesiastics, and his own policy of favouring the rising citiescombined to strengthen his position. Thus in 1098 he was able toobtain from the German nobles the deposition of his rebellious sonConrad and the election of his younger son Henry as King, who was madeto promise that during his father's lifetime he would not actpolitically against him. Then in 1099 Pope Urban died, and wasfollowed in 1100 by the anti-Pope Clement III, and in 1101 by Conrad. All the personal causes of disunion were being removed. Moreover, thesuccess of the crusading policy made it impossible that Henry orGermany should stand apart from it altogether. Although Jerusalem wasthe capital of a Christian kingdom and other principalities centredround Tripoli, Antioch, and the more distant Edessa, powerfulMohammedan Princes lay close beside them at Damascus, Aleppo, andMossul, as well as to the south in Egypt. There was need of constantreinforcement, for the fighting was continual. Under these inducementsGermany began to contribute crusaders to the cause. Duke Welf ofBavaria led an army eastwards in 1101. In 1103 Henry's efforts infavour of peace culminated in the proclamation at the Diet of Mainz ofthe first imperial land peace sworn between King and nobles, whichbound the parties to it for four years to maintain the peace towardsall communities in the land. This was intended as a preliminary toHenry's participation in an expedition to the east. 

[Sidenote: Death of Henry IV. ]

But this was the very last thing desired by Henry's enemies, and therebegan a most unscrupulous attack which ended only with his death. PopeUrban's successor, Pascal II, strengthened by the death of theanti-Pope Clement and the failure of his party to maintain asuccessor, renewed the excommunication against Henry, and dideverything deliberately to stir up strife in Germany. The nobles wereangry at the cessation of private war and at the favour shown by Henryto the towns. But again they lacked a leader, and with diabolicalcraft the papal party worked upon the young King Henry by threateningto set up against him an anti-King who should rob him of the eventualsuccession. The result was that the young King broke his solemnpromise, set up the standard of revolt, and was joined by nobles, ecclesiastical as well as lay, and by the restless Saxon rebels. By atrick he got his father into his power and forced him formally toabdicate, while he himself was crowned King by the papal legate. Butthe Emperor escaped, and with marvellous energy gathered adherents;but a renewal of the struggle was staved off by his own death after afew days' illness on August 6th, 1106. 

[Sidenote: His justification. ]

Henry never shook himself free from the difficulties of his own earlymisdeeds; but the rights upon which he took his stand were thoseexercised by his predecessors. The uncompromising attitude of hisopponents and their humiliation of him made it a life-long strugglebetween them. Henry was no saint; but his opponents' tactics wereindefensible. Under less adverse circumstances he might have proved asuccessful ruler. But he was the victim of a party which deliberatelysubordinated means to ends in pursuit of an ideal which Henry couldscarcely be expected to understand or appreciate. 

[Sidenote: Henry V. ]

The papal party in its malice had overreached itself in selectingHenry V as its champion. True, he had destroyed the most stubbornenemy of the Papacy; but his own interests caused him to adopt hisfather's policy. His one object was to recover the prestige which theGerman King had lost in the struggles of the last twenty years. He wasundisputed King in Germany; he showed an unscrupulous and overbearingdemeanour which aroused opposition on all sides. He was not likely tobe content with less power than his father had demanded over theGerman clergy, and at the first vacancies he invested the new bishops. 

[Sidenote: Growth of a party of compromise on investiture. ]

Henry's bold action was not altogether without reason. For some yearsthere had been growing up within the ranks of the advocates of reforma moderate party which, while opposed to simony and clerical marriage, saw in the continued and close union of Church and State anindispensable guarantee of social order. They aimed therefore atconserving the rights of the Crown no less than at recovering those ofthe Church. This party is found especially among the French clergy. One of its chief spokesmen, the Canonist Ivo, Bishop of Chartres, whohad suffered much for his enthusiasm for reform, insists in hiscorrespondence even with the Pope himself, that the prohibition passedupon lay investiture is not among the class of matters which have beensettled by a law for ever binding, but among those which have beenenjoined or forbidden, as the case might be, for the honour or profitof the Church, and he appropriately bids the papal legate beware lestthe Roman clergy should incur the charge of taking tithe of mint andrue while they omit the weightier precepts of the law. Moreover, bothhe and his friend Hugh of Fleury, in a treatise dealing with the"Royal Power and Priestly Office, " maintain that the King has thepower, "by the instigation of the Holy Spirit, " of nominating bishops, or at least of granting permission for their election; and that, whilethe royal investiture, however made by word or act, pretends to bestowno spiritual authority, but merely estates or other results of royalmunificence, it is for the archbishop to commit to a newly electedprelate the cure of souls. 

[Sidenote: Settlement in England. ]

This distinction, repugnant as it was to the extremists, soon foundpractical application. Lanfranc's successor in the See of Canterbury, Anselm, was, like his predecessor, an Italian, transferred fromNormandy to England. He had to contend with the typical King of anunrestrained feudalism in the person of William II. A succession ofquarrels ended in Anselm's retirement to Italy. Recalled by Henry I, he took back with him the maxims of the reformers about investiture, and refused to do the required homage to the new King. Henry was notan unreasonable man, and he sent Anselm to bring about somearrangement with the Pope. However, it was not until a rupture wasimminent that Pope Pascal was persuaded to acquiesce in an agreementon the lines advocated by Ivo of Chartres and his party. By thisConcordat (1107) Henry I agreed to give up his claim to invest withthe ring and staff, while Archbishop Anselm allowed that the electedbishop might do homage for his lands to the King. 

[Sidenote: Pascal II (1099-1118). ]

At present neither side in the Empire was sufficiently honest in itsintentions to be willing to accept so reasonable a settlement. But thefact that the Pope had felt himself obliged to allow it in one casesensibly weakened his position and correspondingly strengthened thatof the German King. It was typical of Pascal's position in general. Though strongly Gregorian in principle, he was neither clever norcourageous, and was inclined to take up a position which he could notmaintain. Intent on renewing the prohibition of lay investiture andafraid of Henry, Pascal determined to support himself upon France. Here, at any rate, Philip I had gradually dropped the practice ofinvestiture of bishops. The papal censures of his scandalous privateconduct uttered by Gregory and Urban had had no effect. Pascalaccepted professions of amendment and acts of humiliation, and ceasedto trouble himself further about Philip's private affairs. A Councilof French bishops was held at Troyes (1107), where the decrees againstlay investiture were renewed. The one gleam of hope for the futureappeared in Pascal's deliberate abstention from any pronouncementagainst the King in person. Henry, occupied on the eastern border, could not pay his first visit to Italy until the beginning of 1111, and it was not without significance that on the eve of setting out hebetrothed himself to the daughter of Henry I of England. He was morefortunate than his father had been in the moment of his visit. TheLombard cities quarrelling among themselves were quickly forced tosubmission; the Countess Matilda, grown old and tired of strife, senther envoys to do homage for the imperial fiefs; the Normans had justlost their Duke. Pope Pascal, finding himself isolated, did not dareto meet by a simple negative Henry's demand for the right ofinvestiture as well as for his coronation as Emperor. 

[Sidenote: His proposal. ]

By way of escaping from his difficulty he sent to the King anastonishing proposal. The King was to renounce the right ofinvestiture and all interference in the elections, in return for whichthe prelates should give up all imperial lands and rights with whichthey were endowed, retaining merely the right to tithes, offerings, and private gifts: the papal rights over the Patrimony of St. Peterand the Norman lands were specially excepted. It has been pointed outthat this was the policy which Count Cavour made famous as "a freeChurch in a free State. " It seems almost impossible that Pascal shouldhave thought that the German bishops would accept this solution: hemay have hoped that they could be coerced into it. But in contractinghimself out of the obligations to be imposed on all otherecclesiastical dignitaries, he practically renounced any claim to setthe policy of the Church. Henry may have aimed at digging animpassable ditch between the Pope and the German bishops. It was animpossible agreement; for neither bishops nor lay nobles would wish tosee so large an addition to the King's resources, while Henry himselfcould not afford to surrender the right of investiture, since it wouldstultify his claim to a voice in the election of the Pope. 

[Sidenote: Henry's success. ]

The publication of the agreement at Rome caused great tumults, Henrycontriving that all the odium should fall upon the Pope. Then, sincePascal could not fulfil the part of the agreement which he had made onbehalf of the Church, Henry forced him, the successor of Gregory, toacquiesce in the exercise by the German King of the right ofinvestiture with ring and staff. Henry was crowned Emperor, thoughwith very maimed ceremonial, and returned in triumph to Germany. 

[Sidenote: Pascal's withdrawal. ]

But his triumph was short, for he was immediately threatened withdanger from two quarters. On the one side the leaders of theUltramontane party were naturally most wrathful at this betrayal oftheir cause, and Pascal, threatened with deposition, placed himself intheir hands. At the Lenten Synod of 1112 he confirmed all the decreesof his predecessor against lay investiture, thus annulling his ownagreement with Henry. But he avoided issuing any sentence ofexcommunication against Henry in person. His own legates, however, hadno such scruples, and in France Cardinal Conon took advantage of thestrong feeling among the clergy to launch excommunications against theEmperor in several ecclesiastical Councils during 1114 and 1115. Guido, Archbishop of Vienne, presiding over a Council of Henry's ownsubjects at Vienne in 1112, had already condemned their sovereign andforced Pascal to acquiesce in the resolution. 

[Sidenote: Henry's difficulties. ]

Henry's right policy would no doubt have been to compel the Pope toobserve the agreement. But it was more than three years before hecould return to Italy. For revolt had broken out again in Germany. Thenobles had their own grievances; the Saxons were always ready to takearms; the Church was roused because Henry dealt with ecclesiasticalproperty as if the Pope's original proposal had been allowed to stand. The royal bailiffs acted in such a manner with the cathedrals that ofa house of prayer they made a den of thieves. 

Henry's forces were worsted in battle and he had recourse to hisfather's tactics, seeking in Italy, by personal dealings with thePope, to recover the moral prestige which he had lost in Germany. Hehad a pretext in the death of the Countess Matilda (1115); for thePapacy was claiming not only her allodial lands, which she might havea right to bequeath, but also her imperial fiefs, which were not hersto dispose of. Henry occupied the dominions of Matilda withoutopposition. His presence in Italy caused Pascal still to refrain frompersonal condemnation of the Emperor, and a year later a partyfriendly to Henry opened the gates of Rome to him. Pascal fled toAlbano, and only returned to Rome on Henry's departure, a dying man(January, 1118). His successor, Gelasius II, refused Henry's advances, and the Emperor resorted to the old and discredited policy of settingup an anti-Pope in the person of the Archbishop of Braga, in Portugal, who took the name of Gregory VIII. Gelasius excommunicated Henry andhis Pope; but finding himself threatened in Rome, fled to Burgundy, and died at Cluny a year after his election (January, 1119). So farHenry's attempts to deal with the Pope had failed, and the publicationof the new Pope's excommunication in Germany made the opposition sostrong that Henry found it advisable to return. 

[Sidenote: Calixtus II (1119-24)]

Gelasius' successor chosen at Cluny was Archbishop of Vienne, who tookthe title of Calixtus II. He was the first secular priest who hadoccupied the papal chair since Alexander II, and he was related to theroyal families of France and England. Thus he had a wider outlook thanthe monks who preceded him, and the nobles would be likely to listento a man of their own rank. He had been the most uncompromising of allHenry's opponents; but this was a guarantee to the Church that herposition and power would not again be placed in jeopardy, for eventswere at length tending towards a conclusion of the weary strife. Theviews of the reformers had gained general acceptance as the doctrineof the Church. The obligation of clerical celibacy was acknowledged:simony had much diminished; Henry was the only King in Western Europewho still claimed to invest his prelates. Although it was some timebefore all the great French feudatories yielded to the spirit ofreform, the French King himself had abandoned the practice ofinvestiture for those bishops who were under his control. He retained, however, certain of his rights. The election could not take placewithout his permission, the newly elected bishop took an oath offealty to the King, and during the vacancy of the see the revenueswere paid to the Crown. It was more important still that in Englandthe question of investiture had been settled by a compromise whichrecognised the twofold nature of the episcopal office, and that thiscompromise had received the sanction of the Pope. Henceforth it waspractically impossible for the Church to maintain the position of theextreme reformers. When Pope Pascal was forced to grant the right ofinvestiture to the Emperor, Henry I of England, as Anselm complainedto Pascal, threatened to resume the practice. Already William I ofEngland had defined the limits of papal power in his dominions withouta protest from Rome, and Urban II had actually found himself obligedto endow Roger of Sicily and his successors with the authority of apapal legate within their own dominions. It was clear that the papalauthority could do little against a really strong lay ruler. Moreover, the influence of the Church had greatly diminished. There was scarcelya see or abbey to which, during the last forty years, there had notbeen rival claimants: King and nobles alike had not only ceased toincrease the endowments of the Church, but had caught at almost everyopportunity of encroaching on them. 

[Sidenote: Concordat of Worms. ]

The accommodation was very gradual, for much suspicion of insincerityon both sides had to be overcome. The first step was taken in October, 1119. After the failure of direct negotiations between Pope andEmperor, a Council at Rheims, presided over by the Pope, renewed theanathema against Henry and his party, but only consented to a modifiedprohibition of investitures, since the office alone was mentioned andall reference to the property of bishop or abbot was omitted. It wastwo years before the next stage was reached, and meanwhile theanti-Pope had fallen into the hands of Calixtus, and Henry was stillin difficulties in Germany. Finally, in October, 1121, the Germannobles brought about a conference of envoys from both sides atWurzburg, where in addition to an universal peace it was arranged thatthe investiture question should be settled at a General Council to beheld in Germany under papal auspices. The Council met at Worms inSeptember, 1122, and the papal legates were armed with full powers toact. The result was a Concordat subsequently ratified at the firstCouncil of the Lateran in March, 1123, which is reckoned as the ninthGeneral Council by the Roman Church. By this agreement the Emperorgave up all claim to invest ecclesiastics with the ring and staff. Inreturn it was allowed by the Church that the election of prelatesshould take place in presence of the Emperor's representatives, andthat in case of any dispute the Emperor should confirm the decisionarrived at by the Metropolitan and his suffragans. The Emperor on hispart undertook that the prelate elect, whether bishop or abbot, shouldbe invested with the regalia or temporalities pertaining to his officeby the sceptre, in Germany the investiture preceding theecclesiastical consecration, whereas in Burgundy and the kingdom ofItaly the consecration should come first. 

[Sidenote: Results of struggle in Empire. ]

We are naturally tempted to enquire who was the gainer in this longstruggle? Writers on both sides have claimed the victory. It is clear, however, that neither side got all that it demanded. Considering theall-embracing character of the papal claim, the limitation of itspretensions might seem to carry a decided diminution of its position. Calixtus' advisers strongly urged that all over the imperial lands theconsecration of prelates should precede the investiture oftemporalities by the lay power. But the German nobles would not budge. In Burgundy and Italy conditions were different: in the former thepower of the Crown had been almost in abeyance; in Italy the bishopshad found themselves deserted by the Crown and had submitted to thePope. The Crown had therefore to acquiesce in a merely nominal controlover appointments in those lands. But in Germany the King perhapsgained rather than lost by the Concordat. His right of influence inthe choice was definitely acknowledged, and by refusing the regalia hecould practically prevent the consecration of any one obnoxious tohim. The prelates of Germany, therefore, remained vassals of theCrown. 

[Sidenote: on Papacy. ]

On the other hand, the Papacy had definitely shaken itself free fromimperial control. Henry III was the last Emperor who could impose hisnominee Papacy upon the Church as Pope; the protégés of his successorsare all classed among the anti-Popes. At the same time the papalprivilege of crowning the Emperor and the papal weapon ofexcommunication were very real checks upon the German King; while thesuccess of those principles for which the Cluniac party had strivenestablished the theoretical claim of the Pope to be the moral guide, and the part which he played in starting the Crusades put him in thepractical position of the leader of Christendom in any commonmovement. It was no slight loss to the Emperor that he had been thechief opponent of the Pope and the reformers, and that in the matterof the Crusades he and his whole nation had stood ostentatiouslyaloof. 

CHAPTER IV

THE SECULAR CLERGY

[Sidenote: The work of the Church reformers. ]

The great movement in favour of Church reform, which had emanated fromCluny, had worked itself out along certain definite lines. It isimportant to ask how far it had succeeded in achieving its objects. Wehave seen that it was a movement of essentially monastic conceptionaimed at the purification of the secular clergy. And we have seen thatthe evil to be remedied had arisen from the imminent danger that theChurch would be laicised and feudalised. From the highest to thelowest all ecclesiastical posts were at the disposition of laymen whotreated them as a species of feudal fief, so that the holders, even ifthey were in Holy Orders (which was not always the case), regardedtheir temporal rights and obligations as the first consideration and, like all feudal tenants, tried to establish the right of hereditarysuccession in their holdings. Thus the work of the reformers had beenof a double nature; it was not enough that they should aim atexorcising the feudal spirit from the Church, at banishing the feudalideal from the minds of ecclesiastics: it was necessary to effect whatwas indeed a revolution, and to shake the whole organisation of theChurch free from the trammels which close contact with the State hadlaid upon it. It began as a reformation of morals; it developed into aconstitutional revolution. There was involved in the movement both aninterference with what might be distinguished as private rights andalso a readjustment of public relations. The reformers headed by thePope ultimately decided to concentrate their efforts on the latter. Hence we may begin by enquiring how far they had succeeded in freeingepiscopal elections from lay control. 

[Sidenote: Episcopal appointments. ]

There were three several acts of the lay authority in connection withthe appointment of bishops to which the Church reformers tookexception. The King or, by usurpation from him, the great feudal lordhad acquired the right of nominating directly to the vacant see, tothe detriment, and even the exclusion, of the old electoral rights ofclergy and people; and while in some cases nobles nominated themselveswithout any thought of taking Holy Orders, frequently they treated thebishoprics under their control as appanages or endowments for theyounger members of their family. Then, before the consecration, thebishop-nominate obtained investiture from the lay authority by thesymbolic gifts of a ring and a pastoral staff or cross, not only ofthe lands and temporal possessions of the see, but also of thejurisdiction which emanated from the episcopal office. Finally, theprospective bishop took an oath to his lay lord, whether King orother, which was not only an oath of fealty such as any subject mightbe called upon to take, but was also an act of homage, and made him anactual feudal vassal and his church a kind of fief. 

[Sidenote: Right of election. ]

The result of the long struggle was that in the matter of episcopalappointments, speaking generally, the right of election was notrestored to clergy and people, in whom by primitive custom it had beenvested, but that the laity, with the possible exception of thefeudatories of the see, were banished altogether, the rural clergyceased to appear, and, after the analogy of the papal election by theCollege of Cardinals, the canonical election of the bishop in everydiocese tends to be concentrated in the hands of the clergy of thecathedral. It was a long time, however, before the rights of thecathedral chapters were universally recognised. Henry I of England inhis Concordat with Anselm (1107) and the Emperor Henry V in theConcordat of Worms (122) both promised freedom of election. Philip Iand Louis VI of France seem to have conceded the same right withoutany formal agreement. But many of the great French feudal lords clungto their power over the local bishoprics, and in Normandy, in Anjou, and in some parts of the south nearly a century elapsed before theduke or count surrendered his custom of nominating bishops directly. But the freedom of election by the Canons of the cathedral, even whenit was conceded, was little more than nominal. In England, France, andthe Christian kingdoms of Spain no cathedral body could exercise itsright without the King's leave to elect, nor was any election completewithout the royal confirmation. By the Concordat of Worms electionswere to take place in the presence of the King or his commissioners. By the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164) English bishops must beelected in the royal chapel. King John tried to bribe the Church overto his side in the quarrel with the barons which preceded Magna Carta, by conceding that elections should be free--that is, should takeplace in the chapter-house of the cathedral; but even he reserved theroyal permission for the election to be held, and the _congéd'élire_ in England and elsewhere was accompanied by the name ofthe individual on whom the choice of the electoral body should fall. It was not the rights of the electors but the all-pervading authorityof the Pope which was to prove the chief rival of royal influence inthe local Church. 

[Sidenote: Investiture. ]

The quarrel between Church and State had centred round the ceremony ofinvestiture, because in the eyes of the reformers the most scandalousresult of the feudalisation of the Church was the acceptance at thehands of a layman of the spiritual symbols of ring and crozier. But asHugh of Fleury had acknowledged in his tract on "Royal Power andPriestly Office, " investiture there must be so long as ecclesiasticsheld great temporal possessions. Here again some of the French noblesclung to the old anomalous form of investiture, but otherwise theexample of the imperial lands, of the royal domain of France and ofEngland was generally followed, the gifts of ring and staff wereconceded to the Metropolitan, and where no special form of investitureby the sceptre was retained it was confused with the ceremony ofhomage. But in Germany and England investiture with the lands of thesee preceded consecration, so that while on the one hand it was not abishop who was being invested by a layman, on the other hand therefusal of investiture would practically prevent the consecration ofany one obnoxious to the Crown. 

[Sidenote: Homage and fealty. ]

With regard to the feudal ceremony of homage a distinction came to bedrawn by writers on the Canon Law between homage and fealty, andecclesiastics were supposed to limit themselves to the obligations ofthe latter, which were those of every subject. The ceremony was notprecisely the same as in the case of a lay noble being invested with afief; but in France, at any rate, the Crown never really abandoned itsclaim to a feudal homage, and in any case ecclesiastics were expectedto fulfil their feudal obligations. Even Innocent III acknowledgedthis in a decree (§43) of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), and ininterceding with Philip II of France on behalf of two bishops who hadbeen deprived of their temporal possessions for some neglect ofmilitary duty, he argues that they were "ready to submit to thejudgment of your Court, as is customary in such matters. "

[Sidenote: Regale. ]

Arising out of these feudal relations certain rights over thepossessions of ecclesiastics and ecclesiastical bodies were claimed bythe Crown, which were the cause of serious oppression. According tothe Canon Law, the bishop was only the usufructuary of the lands andrevenues belonging to his see. The lands and revenues belonged to theChurch. But inasmuch as these had been originally in most cases thegift of the Crown, the King claimed to deal with them in the methodapplied to feudal holdings. By the right of _regale_, on thevacancy of a see through death, resignation, or deprivation of thebishop, the royal officers took possession of the temporalities, thatis, the land and revenues, and administered them for the profit of theCrown so long as the see was vacant. The Crown did not hesitate to usethe episcopal patronage and to fill up vacant canonries and beneficeswith its own followers, and it often took the opportunity to levy uponthe inhabitants of the diocese a special tax--_tallagium_, _tallage_, or _taille_--which a landlord had a right ofexacting from his unfree tenants. It was to the interest of the Crownto prolong a vacancy, and attempts to limit the exercise of the rightwere of little practical effect. 

[Sidenote: Right of spoils. ]

An even more extraordinary claim was to the right of spoils (_jusspolii_ or _exuviarium_). The canonical law forbidding thebishop to deal by will with the property attached to his see, wasinterpreted as applying to everything which he had not inherited. Thusthe furniture of his house and the money in his chest were claimed asof right by the canons of his cathedral, but were often plundered bythe crowd of the city or by the local nobles. These lawlessproceedings provoked the interference of the royal officers, whosucceeded in most cases in establishing the right of the Crown to allmovables that the bishop left. The earliest notice of this royal claimin Germany is found in the reign of Henry V. It was in full use underFrederick I. William II is probably responsible for introducing boththe _regale_ and the _jus spolii_ from Normandy intoEngland. In France these were claimed by the feudal nobles as well asby the King. Bitter were the complaints made by the Church against theexercise of both rights. Kings and nobles clung to the _regale_as long as they could, for it meant local influence as well asrevenue. In most cases, however, the right of spoils had beensurrendered before the thirteenth century. It is to be remembered thatecclesiastics themselves exercised this right, bishops, for example, claiming the possessions of the canons and the parish priests in theirdioceses. The Popes in relaxation of the Canon Law gave to certainbishops the right of leaving their personal property by will, and thecanons also are found encouraging their bishop to make a will. 

[Sidenote: Claims of the Clergy. ]

As a set-off against these claims of the Crown upon the Church, theclergy also advanced certain claims. These touched the two importantmatters of taxation and jurisdiction. The Church claimed for hermembers that they should not be liable to pay the taxes raised by thesecular authorities, nor should they have causes to which anyecclesiastic was a party tried in the secular courts. 

[Sidenote: Immunity from lay taxation. ]

In seeking freedom from lay taxation the Church did not ask that hermembers should escape their feudal obligations, nor even that theyshould contribute nothing to the exigencies of the State. The desirewas merely that the clergy should be free from oppression and that theChurch should be so far as possible self-governing. Thus Alexander IIIdecreed in the third Lateran Council (1179), that for relieving theneeds of the community, everything contributed by the Church tosupplement the contributions of the laity should be given withoutcompulsion on the recognition of its necessity or utility by thebishop and the clergy. Innocent III, in the fourth Lateran Council(1215), provided a further safeguard against lay impositions indemanding the permission of the Pope for any such levy. This does notmean that the clergy escaped taxation at the hands of the State; itmerely means that while the Popes themselves heavily taxed them forpurposes which it was often difficult to describe as religious, theprice paid by the Crown for leave to tax the clergy was that a largeportion of the money should find its way to Rome. 

[Sidenote: Tithes from the laity. ]

The clergy were not content with this merely negative position. Besides the right of self-taxation, they claimed that the laity shouldcontribute to the needs of the Church. The chief permanent source ofsuch contribution was the tithe, both the lesser tithes on smalleranimals, fruits, and vegetables, and the greater tithes on corn, wine, and the larger animals. The Church also claimed tithes of revenues ofevery kind, even from such divers classes as traders, soldiers, beggars, and abandoned women. Much of the regular tithe had falleninto the hands of laymen by gift from Kings to feudal tenants, or frombishops to nobles and others, in return for military protection. Thesealienated tithes Gregory VII tried to recover; but his need for thehelp of the nobles against the Emperor forced him to stay his hand. The third Lateran Council (1179) forbade, on pain of peril to thesoul, the transfer of tithes from one layman to another, and deprivedof Christian burial any one who, apparently having received such atransfer, should not have made it over to the Church. This was adefinite claim for tithes as a right of which the Church had only beendeprived by some wrongful act. But in the very next year (1180)Frederick I, at the Diet of Gelnhausen, declared that the alienationof tithes as feudal fiefs to defenders of the Church was perfectlylegitimate. Religious scruples, however, seem to have caused thesurrender of tithes by many lay impropriators, especially tomonasteries. 

[Sidenote: Bequests. ]

There were many other sources of wealth to the Church. An enormousquantity of property was bequeathed to pious uses by testators. Theattendance of the clergy at the death-bed gave them an opportunity ofwhich they were not slow to make use. The bodies of those who diedintestate, as of those unconfessed, were denied burial in consecratedground; all questions concerning wills were heard in theecclesiastical courts. The civil power attempted to check the freedomof death-bed bequest, especially in Germany, where it was held that avalid will could only be made by one who was still well enough to walkunsupported. Another common source of revenue came from purchases ormortgages or other arrangements made with crusaders, in whichadvantage was taken of the haste of the lay men to raise funds fortheir expedition. 

[Sidenote: Wealth of the Church. ]

From these and other sources the wealth which poured in upon theChurch was enormous. Individual gifts in money or in kind asthank-offerings on all sorts of occasions reached no small of thetotal; while no religious ceremony, from baptism to extreme unctionand burial, could be carried out apart from the payment of anappropriate fee. The clergy constantly complained of spoliation, andno doubt individuals suffered much. The very laymen who, with thetitle of advocates, undertook to defend a cathedral or a monasterywere often its worst robbers. But the endowments and revenues of theChurch were so extensive as to raise in the minds of many reformersthe question whether they were not largely responsible for hercorruptions. 

[Sidenote: Immunity from lay jurisdiction. ]

The clergy also sought freedom from the jurisdiction of the secularcourts; in other words, the Church claimed exclusive cognisance in herown tribunals of all matters concerning those in Holy Orders. The_Decretiun_ of Gratian--the text-book of Canon Law--laid it downthat in civil matters the clergy were to be brought before a civiljudge, but that a criminal charge against a clerk must be heard beforethe bishop. Urban II, however, declares that all clergy should besubject to the bishop alone, and the Synod of Nimes (1096), at whichhe presided, stigmatises it as sacrilege to hale clerks or monksbefore a secular court. Alexander III (1179) threatens toexcommunicate any layman guilty of this offence; while Innocent IIIpoints out that a clerk is not even at liberty to waive the right oftrial in an ecclesiastical court in a matter between him and a layman, because the spiritual jurisdiction is not a matter personal tohimself, but belongs to the whole clerical body. Finally Frederick II, on his coronation at Rome in 1220, forbade any one to dare to indictan ecclesiastic on either a civil or a criminal charge before asecular tribunal. But meanwhile the frequent perpetration of violentcrimes by those who wore the tonsure made it imperative in theinterests of social order that the Church should not be allowed todefend these criminals in order to save her own interests. 

The fiercest struggle took place in England. Henry II did not deny theright of the Church to jurisdiction over her members; but he demandedthat clerks found guilty of grave crime should be unfrocked by theecclesiastical court, and that then, being no longer clerks, theyshould be handed over to the royal officers, by whom they should bepunished according to their deserts. Archbishop Thomas Becket answeredthat it was contrary to justice and the Canon Law that a man should bepunished twice for the same offence; that the punishment by the Churchinvolved the offender's damnation and was therefore quite adequate;and that finally he himself was officially bound to defend theliberties of the Church even to the death. Henry II attempted to solvethe difficulty by issuing the Constitutions of Clarendon (1164), thethird clause of which decreed that the royal officer should determinewhether any matter in which a clerk was concerned should be tried inthe secular or the ecclesiastical court, and that even if it went tothe latter, the King's officer should be present at the hearing. Asthe price, however, of his reconciliation with the Papacy afterBecket's death, Henry was obliged to withdraw the Constitutions. 

The position of the Church on this question was clearly stated by PopeCelestine III in 1192. If a clerk had been lawfully convicted oftheft, homicide, perjury, or any capital crime, he should be degradedby the ecclesiastical judge; for the next offence he should bepunished by excommunication, and for the next by anathema; then, sincethe Church could do no more, for any subsequent offence he might behanded over to the secular power to be punished by exile or in anyother lawful manner. This, of course, was a direct licence to theill-disposed clergy to commit more crimes than were allowable for alayman; but the laity had to proceed cautiously in opposing it. In1219 Philip II of France demanded that a clerk who had been degradedshould not be protected by the Church from seizure outsideecclesiastical precincts by the royal officers with a view to histrial in a secular court. But here again, both at his coronation asEmperor in 1220 and again in the code of laws drawn up for his kingdomof Sicily in 1231, Frederick II confirmed the privileges of the Churchin the matter of jurisdiction. On the latter occasion, however, he didreserve cases of high treason for the royal court. Almost the onlyimmediate effect of these protests on the part of the State was thatPopes and Councils enjoined on the ecclesiastical courts greaterseverity of treatment of offenders, even to the extent of perpetualimprisonment in the case of those whom the lay tribunals would havecondemned to death. 

[Sidenote: Increase of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. ]

But this exclusive jurisdiction in all matters that concerned her ownmembers was only a part of the authority claimed and exercised by theChurch in the sphere of justice. Synods of the clergy did not hesitateto take part in the enforcement of civil law and order, and threatenedwith severe ecclesiastical penalties all who did not observe the Truceof God, or who were guilty of piracy, incendiarism, or false coining. At one time they attempted thus to suppress usury and trial by ordeal, which at other times they allowed. They even legislated againsttournaments and against the use of certain deadly weapons in battle byone Christian nation against another. But apart from the specialcircumstances which called out and so justified the legislation, theChurch claimed at all times jurisdiction over certain classes of laypersons and in certain categories of cases. Thus all persons needingprotection, such as widows, minors, and orphans, came under thecognisance of the ecclesiastical courts, and to these the Popes addedCrusaders. Furthermore, all cases which could be regarded as in anyway involving a possible breach of faith were also claimed asbelonging to the jurisdiction of the Church, and these includedeverything concerning oaths, marriages, and wills. Naturally theChurch had cognisance of all cases of sacrilege and heresy. Theseexcuses for interference in the transactions of daily life weresusceptible of almost indefinite extension, especially since theChurch asserted a right to hear cases of all sorts in her courts onappeal on a plea that civil justice had failed. Even so stout achampion of the Church as St. Bernard complains bitterly that all thisparticipation in worldly matters tends to stand between the clergy andtheir proper duties. The secular powers constantly protested. Evenwhen Alfonso X in his legal code allowed that all suits arising fromsins should go to ecclesiastical courts, the Cortes of Castileconstantly protested. The chief attempts to check the growth ofecclesiastical jurisdiction were made in France. Even under Louis IXthe barons combined to resist the encroachments of the Church, andresolved that "no clerk or layman should in future indict any onebefore an ecclesiastical judge except for heresy, marriage, or usury, on pain of loss of possessions and mutilation of a limb, in orderthat, " they add with a justifiable touch of malice, "our jurisdictionmay be revived, and they [the clergy] who have hitherto been enrichedby our pauperisation may be reduced to the condition of the primitiveChurch, and living the contemplative life they may, as is seemly, showto us who spend an active life miracles which for a long time havedisappeared from the world. "

[Sidenote: Simony. ]

The result, then, of the efforts of the Church reformers to free theChurch from the State had been an enormous increase in the power ofthe Church. But these efforts were in the beginning only a means to anend, and that end was the purification of the Church itself. We have, therefore, to ask how far the attempts to get rid of simony and toenforce the celibacy of the clergy had met with permanent success. Before the movement in favour of reform the traffic in churches andChurch property was indulged in by laity and clergy alike. Not onlyKings and nobles but bishops and abbots received payments from thosewho accepted ecclesiastical preferment at their hands, and were by nomeans always careful that ecclesiastical offices were acquired bythose in Holy Orders. Church property, in fact, was treated by thosewho represented the original donors as if it were the private propertyof the patron. The reform movement of the eleventh century, at anyrate, succeeded in making a distinction between the right of ownershipand the right of presentation, and in limiting the power of the patronto the latter. Beyond this nothing much was permanently effected inchecking the traffic in things ecclesiastical. Preferment continued tobe used as patronage: offices and dignities in the Church were givento children, and preferments were accumulated upon individuals untilpluralities became a standing grievance. Councils and Popes stillthundered against simony, but with the extending authority of Rome thestaff of the papal curia was increased, and the traffic in thingsecclesiastical at Rome was notorious. 

[Sidenote: Clerical marriage. ]

The efforts of the reformers in checking clerical marriage had notbeen much more successful. The law now stood as follows: the first twoLateran Councils (1123, 1139) prohibited matrimony to priests, deacons, and sub-deacons; but to those only in one of the three minororders of the Church it was still allowed, although Alexander IIIultimately decreed that marriage should cause them to forfeit theirbenefice. It was some time, however, before these decrees could beenforced, and even the Popes found themselves compelled to dealleniently with offending clergy. Thus Pascal II allowed to ArchbishopAnselm that a married priest not only might, but must, if applied to, minister to a dying person. Attempts were made to forbid ordination tothe sons of priests, at least as secular clergy, but such regulationswere constantly relaxed or ignored. Pascal II actually allowed that inSpain, where clerical marriage had been lawful, the children should beeligible for all secular and ecclesiastical preferment. In the remotercountries of Europe--the Scandinavian lands, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland--the decrees against clerical marriage were not accepted untilfar into the thirteenth century. Even in part of Germany, notably thediocese of Liege, the clergy continued openly to marry until the samecentury. But even in countries where the principle was nominallyaccepted it triumphed at the expense of morality. For example, inEngland the decree was published in Council after Council throughoutthe twelfth century and was undoubtedly accepted as the law. But in1129, after the death of Anselm, who had opposed the expedient, HenryI imprisoned the "house-keepers" of the clergy in London in order toobtain a sum of money by their release. Furthermore, both in Englandand elsewhere, bishops finding it impossible to enforce the decree, frankly licensed the breach of it by individual clergy in return foran annual payment. It is interesting to note that several importantwriters of the age speak with studied moderation on this question. Thegreat lawyer Gratian admits that in the earlier period of the Churchmarriage was allowed to the clergy. The Parisian theologian, PeterComestor, publicly taught that the enforcement of the vow of celibacyon the clergy was a deliberate snare of the devil. The Englishhistorians, Henry of Huntingdon, Matthew Paris, and Thomas ofWalsingham, speak with disapproval of the attempts to enforce it, andeven St. Thomas Aquinas holds that the celibacy of the secular clergywas a matter of merely human regulation. Thus the protest of thereformers of the eleventh century in favour of purity of life amongthe clergy had met with the smallest possible success, but like allsuch protests, it helped to keep alive the idea of a higher standardof personal and official life until such time as secular circumstanceswere more favourable. 

CHAPTER V

CANONS AND MONKS

[Sidenote: Secular canons. ]

So far, in speaking of the attempted purification of the Church in theeleventh century, we have dealt merely with the bishops and theparochial clergy. But a movement which emanated from the monasterieshad a message also for those ecclesiastics who were gathered intocorporate bodies, and whom we have learnt to distinguish respectivelyas canons and monks. Of these the canons were reckoned among thesecular clergy; for although they were supposed to live a common lifeaccording to a certain rule, their duties were parochial, and theywere not bound for life to the community of which they were members. The body of canons was called a chapter, and of chapters there weretwo kinds--the cathedral chapter, whose members served the MotherChurch of the diocese, and, as we have seen, ultimately obtained thenominal right of electing the bishop; and the collegiate chapter, generally, though not always, to be found in towns which had nocathedral, the members of which, like those of a modern clergy-house, served the church or churches of the town. In the eighth century thesecommunities were subjected to a rule drawn up by Chrodegang, Bishop ofMetz, in accordance with which they were required to sleep in a commondormitory, feed at a common table, and assimilate themselves as far aspossible to monks. But in the two succeeding centuries there was noclass of clergy which fell so far from the ideal as the capitularclergy. They were important and they were wealthy, for the cathedralchapters claimed to share with the bishop in the administration of thediocese, and both kinds of chapters owned extensive lands. In some ofthe more important chapters great feudal nobles had obtained forthemselves the titular offices; in nearly all such bodies some, if notmost or even all, of the canonries came to be reserved for youngermembers of the noble families. The common property was divided intoshares, between the bishop and the body of the canons and between theindividual canons: many of the canons employed vicars to do theirclerical duty, and some even lived on the estates of the capitularbody, leading the existence of a lay noble. Even those who remained onthe spot had houses of their own round the cloister, where they livedwith their wives and children, using the common refectory only for anoccasional festival. 

[Sidenote: Canons Regular. ]

Thus no body of ecclesiastics stood in need of thorough reform morethan the capitular clergy, and no class proved so hard to deal with. Attempts to substitute Cluniac monks for canons roused the oppositionof the whole body of secular clergy. More successful to a small degreewas the plan of Bishop Ivo of Chartres and others to revive among thecapitular bodies the rule of common life. But it was difficult to pournew wine into old bottles, and the reformers found it more profitableto leave the old capitular bodies severely alone, and to devote theirefforts to the foundation of new communities. To these were appliedfrom the very first a new rule for which its advocates claimed theauthority of St. Augustine. It laid upon the members vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, and placed them under an abbot elected by thecommunity of canons. Such was the origin of the Augustinian or AustinCanons, who came to be distinguished as Regular Canons, and are to bereckoned with monastic bodies, in comparison with the old cathedraland collegiate chapters, who were henceforth known as Secular Canons. These bodies of clergy, who combined parochial duties with what waspractically a monastic life, became exceedingly popular; and bydegrees not only were Secular Canons of collegiate churches, and evenof some cathedrals, transformed into Regular Canons, but even somemonastic houses were handed over to them. Instead of existing asisolated bodies, like the old Benedictines, they took the Cluniacmodel of organisation and formed congregations of houses grouped roundsome one or other of those which formed models for the rest. Of thesecongregations of Regular Canons the most celebrated were those of theVictorines and the Premonstratensians. 

[Sidenote: Victorines. ]

The abbey of St. Victor at Paris was founded in 1113 by William ofChampeaux, afterwards Bishop of Chalons. The Order came to consist ofabout forty houses, and its members strove to keep the Augustinianideal of a parochial and monastic life. But the chief fame of theabbey itself comes from its scholastic work, and it became known bothas the stronghold of a somewhat rigid orthodoxy and as the home of amystical theology which was developed among its own teachers. 

[Sidenote: Premonstratensians. ]

But by far the most important congregation of Canons Regular was thatof the Premonstratensians. Their founder, Norbert, a German of noblebirth, in response to a sudden conversion, gave up several canonriesof the older kind with which he was endowed; but finding that aprophet has no honour in his own country, he preached in France withastonishing success, and ultimately, under the patronage of the Bishopof Laon in 1120, he settled with a few companions in a waste place ina forest, where he established a community of Regular Canons and gaveto the spot the name of _Prémontré--pratum monstratum--_themeadow which had been pointed out to him by an angel. Almost from itsfoundation the Premonstratensian Order admitted women as well as men, and at first the two sexes lived in separate houses planted side byside. The Order also began the idea of affiliating to itself, underthe form of a third class, influential laymen who would help in itswork. The Premonstratensian houses assimilated themselves to monasticcommunities more than did the Victorines: their work was missionaryrather than parochial. The Order spread with great rapidity not onlyin Western Europe, but, even in its founder's lifetime, to Syria andPalestine, and for purposes of administration it came to be dividedinto thirty provinces. 

[Sidenote: St. Norbert in Germany. ]

Meanwhile Norbert had come under the notice of the Emperor Lothair II, who forced him into the archbishopric of Magdeburg. Here hesubstituted Premonstratensians in a collegiate chapter for canons ofthe older kind, and he eagerly backed up Lothair's policy of extendingGerman influence upon the north-eastern frontier by plantingPremonstratensian houses as missionary centres and by founding newbishoprics. Norbert, in fact became Lothair's chief adviser and was anEuropean influence second only to that of St. Bernard in all thequestions of the day. 

[Sidenote: Knights Templars. ]

It was upon the model of the Canons Regular that the great militaryOrders of the religious were organised. In the year 1118 a Burgundianknight, Hugh de Payens, with eight other knights, founded at Jerusaleman association for the protection of distressed pilgrims in Palestine. From their residence near Solomon's Temple they came to be known asthe Knights of the Temple. They remained a small and poor body untilSt. Bernard who was nephew to one of the knights, took them under hispatronage and drew up for them a code of regulations which obtainedthe sanction of Honorius II at the Council of Troyes in 1128. Fromthat moment the prosperity of the Templars was assured. Their numbersincreased, and lands and other endowments were showered upon them inall parts of Europe. As monks they were under the triple vow ofpoverty, chastity, and obedience, and the regulations of the Orderwhich governed their daily life were among the most severe. As knightsit was their duty to maintain war against the Saracens. Foradministrative purposes the possessions of the Order were grouped inten provinces, each province being further subdivided intopreceptories or commanderies, and each of these into still smallerunits. Each division and subdivision had its own periodical chapter ofmembers for settling its concerns, and at the head of the whole Orderstood the Grand Master with a staff of officers who formed the generalchapter and acted as a restraint upon the conduct of their head. Inaddition to the knights the Order contained chaplains for theecclesiastical duties, and serving brethren of humble birth to helpthe knights in warfare. Their possessions in Western Europe were usedas recruiting-grounds for their forces in the East; but it was only intowns of some importance that they erected churches on the model ofthe Holy Sepulchre in connection with their houses. 

[Sidenote: Knights Hospitallers. ]

The Knights Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem was a reorganisationof a hospital dedicated to St. John the Baptist. This had been erectedfor poor pilgrims by the merchants of Amalfi before the Crusadesbegan. But it remained merely a charitable brotherhood living under amonastic rule and attracting both men and endowments, until theexample of the Templars caused the then master, Raymond du Puy, toobtain papal sanction some time before 1130 for a rule which addedmilitary duties without superseding the original object of the Order. Their possessions were divided into eight provinces with subdivisionsof grand priories and commanderies, and the other administrativearrangements differed in little, except occasionally in name, fromthose of the Templars. 

[Sidenote: Privileges of the military Orders. ]

Both these Orders obtained not only extensive possessions from thepious, but wide privileges from the Pope. They were subject to thespiritual jurisdiction of the Pope alone; they could consecratechurches and cemeteries on their own lands without any interference ofthe local clergy; they could hold divine service everywhere. Interdicts and excommunications had no terrors or even inconveniencesfor them. They were free from payment of tithes and other impostslevied on the clergy. There is no doubt that but for these Orders theCrusaders would have fared far worse than they did. The Templars andHospitallers were the one really reliable element in the crusadingforces. This is no very high praise, and their effectiveness waslargely discounted by their bitter quarrels with each other and withthe local authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical, alike in theeast and the west. They scandalously abused the extensive privilegesaccorded to them, by such acts as the administration of the Sacramentto excommunicated persons, to whom they would also give Christianburial. In 1179, at the second Lateran Council, Alexander III wasmoved by the universal complaints to denounce their irresponsibledefiance of all ecclesiastical law, and subsequent Popes were obligedto speak with equal vigour. After the destruction of the Latin powerin Palestine (1291) the Hospitallers transferred their head-quartersto Cyprus till 1309, then to Rhodes, and finally to Malta. TheTemplars abandoned their _raison d'être_, retired to theirpossessions in the west, and placed their head-quarters at Paris, where they acted as the bankers of the French King. Their wealthprovoked jealousy: they were accused of numberless and namelesscrimes, and their enemies brought about their fall, first in France, then in England, and finally the abolition of the Order by papaldecree in 1313. Such of their wealth as escaped the hands of the layauthorities went to swell the possessions of the Hospitallers. 

[Sidenote: Teutonic Knights. ]

There were many other Orders of soldier-monks besides these two. Thebest known are the Teutonic Knights, who originated during the ThirdCrusade at the siege of Acre (1190) in an association of North GermanCrusaders for the care of the sick and wounded. The Knights of theGerman Hospital of St. Mary the Virgin at Jerusalem--for such wastheir full title--gained powerful influence in Palestine; their Orderwas confirmed by Pope Celestine III (1191-8), and in 1220 Honorius IIIgave them the same privileges as were enjoyed by the Hospitallers andTemplars. Their organisation was similar to that of the older Orders. Their prosperity was chiefly due to the third Grand Master, Herman vonSalza, the good genius of the Emperor Frederick II, and a great powerin Europe. Under him the Order transferred itself to the shores of theBaltic, where it carried on a crusade against the heathen Prussians, and here it united in 1237 with another knightly Order, the Brethrenof the Sword, which had been founded in 1202 by the Bishop of Livoniafor similar work against the heathen inhabitants of that country. 

[Sidenote: Other military Orders. ]

The Knights of the Hospital of St. Thomas of Acre was a small EnglishOrder named after Thomas Becket and founded in the thirteenth century. They, together with those already mentioned as founded for work inPalestine, belonged to the Canons Regular. For convenience, however, mention should be made here of the great Spanish Orders which wereaffiliated to the Cistercian monks. These were founded in imitation ofthe Templars and Hospitallers for similar work against the Saracens ofthe Peninsula. The Order of Calatrava, founded by a Cistercian abbotwhen that city was threatened by the Saracens in 1158, and the Orderof St. Julian, founded about the same time, which ultimately took itsname from the captured fortress of Alcantara, were amenable to thecomplete monastic rule; while the Portuguese Order of Evora or Avisa, founded a few years later, was assimilated rather to the lay brethrenof the Cistercians, and its members could marry and hold property. There was one of the Spanish Orders, however, which was not connectedwith the Cistercians. The Knights of St. James of Compostellaoriginated in 1161 for the protection of pilgrims to the shrine ofCompostella. Their rule was confirmed by Alexander III in 1175, andthe Order of Santiago became the most famous of the military Orders inthe Peninsula. 

[Sidenote: New Monastic Orders. ]

The revival and reorganisation of the common life among cathedral andcollegiate bodies roused the jealousy of the monastic houses. Theabsolute superiority of the monastic life over any other was anarticle of faith to which the obvious interests of the monks couldallow no qualification; and the close imitation of the monastic modeladopted by the Regular Canons was sufficient proof that the Churchgenerally acquiesced in this view. The great reform movement of theeleventh century had emanated from the monks of Cluny; but just as thedegradation of the monastic ideal by the Benedictines had called intoexistence the Order of Cluny with its reformed Benedictine rule, sonow the failure of the Cluniacs to live up to the expectations and tominister to the needs of the most fervent religious spirits caused thefoundation of a number of new Orders. In each such case the founderand his first followers strove, by the austerities of their personallives and by the severity of the rule which they enjoined, to embodyand to maintain at the highest level that ideal of contemplativeasceticism which was the object of the monastic life. Such was theorigin of the Order of Grammont (1074) and of Fontevraud (1094) and ofthe better known Orders of the Carthusians (1084) and the Cistercians(1098). 

[Sidenote: Grammont. ]

Thus Stephen, the founder of the Order of Grammont, was the son of anoble of Auvergne, who, in the course of a journey in Calabria, was soimpressed by the life or the hermits with which the mountainousdistricts abounded, that he resolved to reproduce it, and lived forfifty years near Limoges, subjecting himself to such rigorousdevotional exercises that his knees became quite hard and his nosepermanently bent! Gregory VII sanctioned the formation of an Order, but Stephen and his first followers called themselves simply _bonihomines_. After his death the monastery was removed to Grammontclose by, and a severe rule continued to be practised; but themanagement of the concerns of the house was in the hands, not of themonks, but of lay brethren, who began even to interfere in spiritualmatters, and the Order ceased to spread. 

[Sidenote: Carthusians. ]

The founder of the Carthusians, Bruno, a native of Koln, but master ofthe Cathedral school at Rheims, also took the eremitic life as hismodel for the individual. To this end he planted his monastery nearGrenoble, in the wild solitude of the Chartreuse, which gave its nameto the whole Order and to each individual house. In addition to a veryrigorous form of asceticism his rule imposed on the members an almostperpetual silence. The centre of the life of the Carthusian monk wasnot the cloister, but the cell which to each individual was, except onSundays and festivals, at the same time chapel, dormitory, refectory, and study. The Carthusian rule has been described as "Cenobitismreduced to its simplest expression"; but despite the growing wealth ofthe Order, the rigour of the life was well maintained, and of all themonastic bodies it was the least subjected to criticism and satire. 

[Sidenote: Fontevraud. ]

A different type of founder is represented by Robert of Arbrissel, inBrittany, who, although he attracted disciples by the severity of hislife as a hermit, was really a great popular preacher, whose wordssoon came to be attested by miracles. He was especially effective indealing with fallen women, and the monastery which he established atFontevraud, in the diocese of Poitiers, was a double house, men andwomen living in two adjacent cloisters; but the monks were little morethan the chaplains and the managers of the monastic revenues, and atthe head of the whole house and Order the founder placed an Abbess ashis successor. The rule of this Order imposed on the female membersabsolute silence except in the chapter-house. 

[Sidenote: Cluniac Congregation. ]

The foundation of these Orders, greater or less, did not exhaust theimpetus in favour of monasticism. Single houses and smaller Orderswere founded during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, of whichmany attained a merely local importance. The common feature of thegreat Orders was that each of them formed a Congregation, that is tosay, an aggregate of numerous houses scattered over many lands, butfollowing the same rule and acknowledging some sort of allegiance tothe original home of the Order. The invention of this model was due toCluny, although even among the Cluniacs the organisation of theCongregation, with its system of visiting inspectors who reported onthe condition of the monasteries to an annual Chapter-General meetingat Cluny, was not completed until the thirteenth century. From thefirst, however, the Abbot of Cluny was a despot; with the exception ofthe heads of some monasteries which became affiliated to the Order hewas the only abbot, the ruler of the Cluniac house being merely aprior. All the early abbots were men of mark, who were afterwardscanonised by the Church. The fourth abbot refused the Papacy; butGregory VII, Urban II, and Pascal II were all Cluniac monks. The realgreatness of the Order was due to its fifth and sixth abbots, Odilowho ruled from 994 to 1049, and Hugh who held the reins of office foran even longer period (1049-1109); while the fame of the Orderculminated under Peter the Venerable, the contemporary of St. Bernard. 

[Sidenote: Its decay. ]

But the history of the abbot who came between Hugh and Peter shows thestrange vicissitudes to which even the greatest monasteries might besubjected. Pontius was godson of Pope Pascal II, who sent to the newlyelected abbot his own dalmatic. Calixtus II visited Cluny, and whilereaffirming the privileges granted by his predecessors, such as thefreedom of Cluniac houses from visitation by the local bishop, he madethe Abbot of Cluny _ex officio_ a Cardinal of the Roman Church, and allowed that when the rest of the land was under an interdict themonks of Cluny might celebrate Mass within the closed doors of theirchapels. But as a consequence of these distinctions Pontius' conductbecame so unbearable as to cause loud complaints from ecclesiastics ofevery rank. Ultimately the Pope intervened and persuaded Pontius toresign the abbacy and to make a pilgrimage to Palestine. Meanwhileanother abbot was appointed. But Pontius returned, gathered an armedband, and got forcible possession of Cluny, which he proceeded todespoil. Again the Pope, Honorius II, interfered, and Pontius wasdisposed of. 

[Sidenote: Criticism of St. Bernard. ]

But such an episode was only too characteristic of the decay whichseemed inevitably to fall on each of the monastic Orders. The wealthand privileges of Cluny made its failure all the more conspicuous. Afew years after the expulsion of Pontius, St. Bernard wrote to theAbbot of the Cluniac house of St. Thierry a so-called apology, which, while professing a great regard for the Cluniacs Order and pretendingto criticise the deficiencies of his own Cistercians, is in reality ascathing attack upon the lapse of the former from the Benedictinerule. He attacks their neglect of manual work and of the rule ofsilence; their elaborate cookery and nice taste in wines; theirinterest in the cut and material of their clothes and the luxury oftheir bed coverlets: the extravagance of the furniture in theirchapels, and even the grotesque architecture of their buildings. Heespecially censures the magnificent state in which the abbots live andwith which they travel about, and he declares himself emphaticallyagainst that exemption of monasteries from episcopal control which wasone of the most prized privileges of the Cluniac Order. Something mayperhaps be allowed for exaggeration in this attack; but that there wasno serious overstatement is clear from the letters written some yearslater by Peter the Venerable to St. Bernard, in answer to theaccusations made by the Cistercians in general. He justifies thedeparture from the strict Benedictine rule partly on the ground of itsseverity, partly because of its unsuitability to the climate; but hisdefence clearly shows how far, even under so admirable a ruler, theCluniacs had fallen away from the monastic ideal. 

[Sidenote: Cistercians. ]

The Cistercian Order, no less than the Orders already mentioned, owedits origin to the desire to revive the primitive monastic rule fromwhich the Cluniacs had fallen away. The wonderful success which it metwith made it the chief rival of that Order. The parent monastery ofCiteaux, near Dijon, was founded by Robert of Molesme in 1098 underthe patronage of the Duke of Burgundy. But the monks kept the rule ofSt. Benedict in the strictest manner, and their numbers remainedsmall. In 1113, however, they were joined by the youthful Bernard, theson of a Burgundian knight, together with about thirty friends of likemind, whom he had already collected with a view to the cloister life. At once expansion became not only possible but necessary, and theabbot of the day, Stephen Harding, by birth an Englishman fromSherborne in Dorsetshire, sent out four colonies in succession, whichfounded the abbeys of La Ferte (1113), Pontigny (1114), Clairvaux andMorimond (1115). The first general chapter of the Order was held in1116: the scheme of organisation drawn up by Stephen Harding wasembodied in _Carta Caritatis_, the Charter of Love, and receivedthe papal sanction in 1119. By the middle of the century (1151) morethan five hundred monasteries were represented at the general chapter, and despite the resolution to admit no more houses, the numbercontinued to increase until the whole Order must have containedupwards of two thousand. 

[Sidenote: Mode of life. ]

The entire organisation of the Cistercian Order made it a strongcontrast to the Cluniacs, both in the mode of life of its members andin the method of government. The Cluniacs had become wealthy andluxurious: their black dress, the symbol of humility, had becomerather a mark of hypocrisy. In order to guard against these snares theCistercians, to the wrath of the other monastic Orders, adopted awhite habit indicative of the joy which should attend devotion toGod's service. Their monasteries, all dedicated to the Blessed VirginMary, were built in lonely places, where they would have noopportunity to engage in parochial work. This indeed was strictlyforbidden them as detracting from the contemplative life which shouldbe the ideal of the Cistercian. For the same reason they wereforbidden to accept gifts of churches or tithes. The monasticbuildings, including the chapel, were to be of the simplestdescription, without paintings, sculpture, or stained glass; and theritual used at the services was in keeping with this bareness. Thearrangements of the refectory and the dormitory were equally meagre. Hard manual work, strict silence, and one daily meal gave the inmatesevery opportunity of conquering their bodily appetites. 

[Sidenote: Organisation. ]

The method of government adopted for the Cistercian Order is also acontrast by imitation of the Cluniac arrangements. It was an essentialpoint that a Cistercian house should be subject to the bishop of thediocese in which it was situated. The episcopal leave was asked beforea house was founded, and a Cistercian abbot took an oath of obedienceto the local bishop. The actual organisation of the whole Order may bedescribed as aristocratic in contrast with the despotism of the Abbotof Cluny. The Abbot of Citeaux was subject to the visitation andcorrection of the abbots of the four daughter houses mentioned above, while he in turn visited them; and each of them kept a similarsurveillance over the houses which had sprung from their houses. Inaddition to this scheme of inspection, an annual general chapter metat Citeaux. The abbots of all the houses in France, Germany, and Italywere expected to appear every year; but from remoter lands attendancewas demanded only once in three, four, five, or even seven years. 

[Sidenote: Decay. ]

The Cistercians certainly wrested the lead of the monastic world fromCluny, and until the advent of the Friars no other Order rivalled themin popularity. But no more than any other Order were they exempt fromthe evils of popularity. The very deserts in which they placedthemselves for protection, and the agricultural work with which theyoccupied their hands, brought them the corrupting wealth; in Englandthey were the owners of the largest flocks of sheep which produced theraw material for the staple trade of the country. They acceptedecclesiastical dignities; they became luxurious and magnificent intheir manner of life; they strove for independence of theecclesiastical authorities, until in the middle of the thirteenthcentury one of their own abbots quotes against them the saying that"among the monks of the Cistercian Order whatever is pleasing islawful, whatever is lawful is possible, whatever is possible is done. "

[Sidenote: Grant of privileges. ]

This degeneracy of the monastic Orders was due in no small measure tothe policy of the Papacy. The monasteries, in their desire to shakethemselves free from the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese, appealed to Rome; and the Pope, in pursuit of his policy ofsuperseding the local authorities, encouraged the monks to regardthemselves as a kind of papal militia. Thus from the time of GregoryVII, at all events, all kinds of exemptions and privileges weregranted to the monastic communities in general and to the abbots ofthe greater houses in particular. Exemption from the visitation of thelocal bishop was one of the most frequent grants, until the greatOrders became too powerful to be afraid of any interference. Thiscarried with it the right of jurisdiction by the abbot and generalchapter over all churches to which the monastic body had the right ofpresentation. This was an increasingly serious matter, for piousdonors were constantly bequeathing churches and tithes to favouriteOrders and popular houses, and the abbot attempted with considerablesuccess to usurp the definitely episcopal authority by instituting theparish priest. Nor was this the only matter in which the abbotsubstituted himself for the bishop. The monastic community might builda church without any reference to the local ecclesiastical authority, and the abbot might consecrate it and any altar in it. It is true thatif any monk of the house or secular clergyman serving one of thechurches in the gift of the house desired ordination to any step inthe ecclesiastical hierarchy, the abbot was limited to choosing abishop who might be asked to perform the duty; but in the course ofthe thirteenth century, in some cases at least, the Popes gave tocertain abbots the privilege of advancing candidates to the minorOrders. Probably Gregory VII began the grants of insignia which markedthe episcopal office to abbots of important houses. The Abbot of St. Maximin in Trier certainly obtained from him permission to wear amitre and episcopal gloves. Urban II granted to the Abbot of Cluny theright to appear in a dalmatic with a mitre and episcopal sandals andgloves. 

[Sidenote: Forged claims. ]

What could be gained by favour could also be obtained by payment orclaimed by forgery. The expenses of the Roman Curia increased; themonastic Orders were wealthy. Moreover, the critical faculty wasslightly developed. Certain monasteries became notorious for themanufacture of documents in their own favour, St. Augustine's atCanterbury being especially bad offenders; and certain individualsfrom time to time supplied such material to all monasteries whichwould pay for them; while, finally, in return for well-bestowed gifts, the Roman Curia was often willing to recognise the authenticity of aspurious claim. 

CHAPTER VI

ST. BERNARD

[Sidenote: Honorius II. ]

Calixtus II died in December, 1124, and in a few months (May, 1125)Henry V followed him to the grave. The imperial party at Rome haddisappeared, but, on the other hand, Calixtus had established only atruce between the Roman factions. The Frangipani and Pierleonifamilies each nominated a successor to him, but the former forciblyplaced their candidate in the papal chair. The six years of thepontificate of Honorius II (1124-30) are unimportant. 

[Sidenote: Lothair II. ]

It was perhaps fortunate for the Papacy that the allegiance of Germanywas also divided. With Henry V expired the male line of the Salian orFranconian House. He had intended to secure the succession for hisnephew, Frederick the One-eyed, Duke of Suabia and head of the familyof Hohenstaufen. But the anti-Franconian party procured the electionof Lothair, Duke of Saxony, who had built up for himself a practicallyindependent territorial power on the north-eastern side of Germany, and had taken a prominent part in opposition to Henry V. 

[Sidenote: Lothair and the Concordat. ]

Lothair's election, then, was a triumph for the Papacy, and the Churchparty could not let pass so good an opportunity of revising therelations of State and Church in Germany. They had maintained from thefirst that the Concordat of Worms was a personal arrangement betweenCalixtus II and Henry V. But the exact nature of Lothair's promise onelection is a matter of great dispute. According to the account of ananonymous writer, he undertook that the Church should exercise entirefreedom in episcopal elections without being controlled, "as formerly"(an obvious reference to the Concordat of Worms), by the presence ofthe lay power or by a recommendation from it, and that after theconsecration (not before, according to the terms of the Concordat) theEmperor should, without any payment, invest the prelate with theregalia by the sceptre and should receive his oath of fealty "savinghis Order. " Lothair's actual conduct, however, in the matter ofappointments seems to have been guided by the terms of the Concordat. 

[Sidenote: Lothair and the Hohenstaufen. ]

Frederick of Hohenstaufen did homage with the rest of the nobles toLothair, but not unnaturally Lothair distrusted him. Frederick washeir to all the allodial possessions of the late Emperor; but Lothairpersuaded to a decision which would have deprived Frederick of a largeportion of these, and thus have rendered him and his house practicallyinnocuous. When Frederick refused to accept this decision he was putto the ban of the Empire. The Hohenstaufen party challenged Lothair'stitle to the throne, and put up as their candidate Frederick's youngerbrother Conrad, Duke of Franconia, who, having been absent inPalestine, had never done homage to Lothair. Conrad was crowned Kingin Italy, but he was excommunicated by Pope Honorius, and neither inGermany nor in Italy did the Hohenstaufen cause advance. 

[Sidenote: Schism in the Papacy. ]

Meanwhile a crisis at Rome quite overshadowed the German disputes. Honorius II died in February, 1130. Immediately the party of theFrangipani, who had stood around him, met and proclaimed a successoras Innocent II. This was irregular, and in any case the act was thatof a minority of the Cardinals. It must have been, therefore, withsome confidence in the justice of their cause that the oppositionparty met at a later hour, and by the votes of a majority of theCollege of Cardinals elected the Cardinal Peter Leonis, the grandsonof a converted Jew and formerly a monk of Cluny, as Anacletus II. There was no question of principle at stake; it was a mere struggle offactions. The partisans of Innocent charged Anacletus with the mostheinous crimes. Clearly he was ambitious and able, wealthy andunscrupulous. Moreover, for the moment he was successful. By whatevermeans, he gradually won the whole of Rome; and Innocent, deserted, made his way by Pisa and Genoa to Burgundy, and so to France. Hisreception by the Abbey of Cluny was a great strength to his cause, andhe there consecrated the new church, which had been forty years inbuilding and was larger than any church yet erected in France. Inorder that the schism in the Papacy should not be reproduced in everybishopric and abbey of his kingdom, Louis VI of France summoned aCouncil at Etampes, near Paris, which should decide between therespective merits of the rival Popes. 

[Sidenote: Bernard of Clairvaux. ]

To this Council a special invitation was sent to the great monk whofor the next twenty years dominates the Western Church and completelyover-shadows the contemporary Popes. We have of seen that it was theadvent of Bernard and his large party at the monastery of Citeaux in1113 that saved the newly founded Order from premature collapse. Although only twenty-four years of age, Bernard was entrusted with thethird of the parties sent forth in succession to seek new homes forthe Order, and he and his twelve companions settled in a gloomy valleyin the northernmost corner of Burgundy, which was henceforth to beknown as Clairvaux. Here the hardships suffered by the monks in theirmaintenance of the strict Benedictine rule and the entire mastery overhis bodily senses obtained by their young abbot built up a reputationwhich reacted on the whole body of the Cistercians, and soon made themthe most revered and widespread of all the monastic Orders. Bernardhimself became the unconscious worker of many miracles: he was thefriend and adviser of great potentates in Church and State, andwithout the least effort on his own part he was gradually acquiring aposition as the arbiter of Christendom. 

[Sidenote: Acceptance of Innocent II. ]

As yet he had confined his interferences in secular matters to thekingdom of France and some of its great fiefs; he had rebuked the Kingof France for persecution of two bishops; he had remonstrated with theCount of Champagne for cruelty to a vassal. Now he was called upon tointervene for the first time in a matter of European importance. Thewhole question of the papal election was submitted to his judgment, and his clear decision in favour of Innocent carried the allegiance ofFrance. Advocates of Innocent could not base his claims on legalright, and Bernard led the way in asserting his superiority inpersonal merit over his rival. At Chartres Innocent met Henry I ofEngland and Normandy, and again it was Bernard's eloquence which wonHenry's adhesion. A Synod of German clergy at Würzburg acknowledgedInnocent, and Lothair accepted the decision. But when Innocent met theGerman King at Liège in March, 1131, fortunately for the Pope Bernardwas still by his side. It is true that Lothair stooped to play thepart of papal groom, which had been played only by Conrad, therebellious son of Henry IV; that he and his wife were both crowned bythe Pope in the cathedral; and that he promised to lead the Pope backto Rome. But in return for his services Lothair tried to use hisopportunity for going back upon the Concordat and claiming therestoration of the right of investiture. Bernard, however, came to thehelp of the Pope, and, backed by the general indignation and alarm atthe meanness of Lothair's conduct, forced the Emperor to withdraw hisdemands. Innocent spent some time longer in France, among other placesvisiting Clairvaux, where the hard life of the inmates filled him andhis Italian followers with astonishment. 

Throughout these wanderings since the Council of Etampes Bernard hadbeen the constant companion of the Pope, and had ultimately become notmerely his most trusted but practically his only counsellor. As amatter of form questions were submitted to the Cardinals, but noaction was taken until Bernard's view had been ascertained. In April, 1132, Innocent once more appeared in Italy. Meanwhile Anacletus, having failed to obtain the support of any of the great monarchs ofthe West, turned to the Normans, and by the grant of the royal titlegained the allegiance of Roger, Duke of Apulia and Count of Sicily. Afew other parts of Europe still acknowledged Anacletus. Scotland wastoo distant to be troubled by Bernard's influence; but in Lombardy thegreat abbot worked indefatigably; and the Archbishop of Milan, who hadaccepted his pallium from Anacletus, was driven out by the citizens, who subsequently welcomed Bernard with enthusiasm and tried to keephim as their archbishop. Duke William X of Aquitaine also continued toacknowledge Anacletus, and when at length Bernard accompanied thelegate of Innocent to a conference at his court, the saint hadrecourse to all the methods of ecclesiastical terrorism at his commandbefore he gained the fearful acquiescence of the ruler. 

[Sidenote: Lothair at Rome. ]

At length Lothair felt himself sufficiently free to fulfil his promiseto Innocent. But the turbulent condition of Germany prevented him frombringing a force of any size, and, despite the vehement eloquence ofBernard, among the cities of Lombardy and Tuscany the friend ofInnocent was still the German King and was viewed with much suspicion. Fortunately, however, Roger of Sicily, the one strong supporter ofAnacletus, was engaged in a struggle with his nobles and could give nohelp. But Lothair desired to avoid bloodshed if possible. He made noattempt, therefore, to get possession of St. Peter's and the Leoninecity, which were in the hands of Anacletus and his followers, butcontented himself with the peaceful occupation of the rest of Rome. Heand his wife were crowned in the church of St. John Lateran byInnocent (June, 1133). Lothair seems again to have used hisopportunity to attempt a recovery of the right of investiture from thePope; but on this occasion the opponent of the Emperor was his ownfavourite counsellor, Archbishop Norbert of Magdeburg, the founder ofthe Premonstratensian Order. A few days later, however, Innocentpublished two bulls dealing with the questions at issue betweenhimself and the Emperor. The first merely confirms the arrangements ofthe Concordat, although it certainly omits all mention of the presenceof the King at the election. The second bull deals with theinheritance of the Countess Matilda. Henry V had never recognised thedonation of the Countess to the Papacy, and consequently, as a lapsedfief and part of the late Emperor's possessions, the lands could beclaimed by his Hohenstaufen heirs. This perhaps accounts for Lothair'sreadiness to accept the conditions imposed by the Pope. Innocentinvested him by a ring with the allodial or freehold lands of theCountess in return for an annual tribute and on the understanding thatat Lothair's death they should revert to the Papacy. Lothair took nooath of fealty for them, but such oath was exacted from hisson-in-law, Henry the Proud of Bavaria, to whom the inheritance wasmade over on the same conditions. Lothair had perhaps saved themuch-coveted lands from being lawfully claimed by the Hohenstaufen;but it was the Pope who had really gained by these transactions, forhe had obtained from a lawfully crowned Emperor the recognition of thepapal right to their possession. Indeed, the whole episode ofLothair's coronation was treated as a papal triumph, and by Innocent'sdirection a picture was placed in the Lateran palace in which Lothairwas represented as kneeling before the throned Pope to receive theimperial crown, while underneath as inscribed the following distich:--

 "Rex stetit ante fores, jurans prius urbis honores, Post homo fit papae, sumit quo dante coronam. "

Lothair, however, never saw this record of his visit. He returned toGermany, having secured, at any rate for himself, the right ofinvesting his ecclesiastics with their temporalities, the lands of theCountess Matilda, and, most important of all, the imperial crownbestowed at Rome by a Pope who was recognised practically throughoutthe West. So strengthened, he intended to crush the still opposingHohenstaufen. But the intercessions of his own Empress and the papallegates were backed up by the fiery eloquence of the all-powerfulBernard, who appeared at the Diet of Bamberg (March, 1135). Lothairwas overruled and terms were granted, which first Frederick of Suabiaand, later on, Conrad were induced to accept. Frederick confinedhimself to Suabia, but Conrad attached himself to Lothair's Court, andbecame one of the Emperor's most honoured followers. 

After Lothair's return to Germany, Roger of Sicily gradually recoveredhis authority in Southern Italy, and he even made use of hischampionship of Anacletus to annex unopposed some of the papal lands. Finally, to the scandal of Christendom, the abbey of Monte Cassino, the premier monastery of the West, declared for Anacletus. BothInnocent and the Norman foes of Roger appealed to Lothair, who crossedthe Alps, for a second time, in August, 1136, this time, accompaniedby a sufficient force. He did not delay long in Lombardy: he ignoredRome, which apart from Roger was powerless. One army, under Lothair, moved down the shores of the Adriatic; another, under Henry ofBavaria, along the west coast. The fleets of Genoa and Pisaco-operated, and Roger retired into Sicily. But both Emperor and Popeclaimed the conquered duchy of Apulia, and the dispute was onlysettled by both presenting to the new duke the banner by which theinvestiture was made. It did not help to soothe the quarrel when therecovered monastery of Monte Cassino was handed over to the Emperor'sChancellor. Lothair could remain no longer in Italy; but he fell illon his way back, and died in a Tyrolese village on December 3rd, 1138. 

[Sidenote: The end of the schism. ]

Lothair had done nothing to end the schism. Innocent was back in Rome, but Anacletus had never been ousted from it. Meanwhile, in the springof 1137, Bernard had also responded to the appeal of Innocent andreturned to Italy. While Lothair was overrunning Apulia Bernard waswinning over the adherents of Anacletus in Rome. When Lothair retiredRoger immediately began to recover his dominions; but when Bernardmade overtures to him on behalf of Innocent, he professed himselfquite ready to hear the arguments on both sides. A conference tookplace between a skilful supporter of Anacletus and this "rusticabbot"; but although Bernard convinced his rhetorical adversary, Rogerhad too much to lose in acknowledging Innocent, for he would beobliged to surrender the papal lands which he had occupied and, perhaps, the royal title, the gift of Anacletus. The end, however, wasat hand. Less than two months after Lothair's death Anacletus died(January 25, 1138). His few remaining followers elected a successor, but this was more with the desire of making good terms than ofprolonging the schism. Innocent bribed and Bernard persuaded, and theanti-Pope surrendered of his own accord. Bernard, to whom was rightlyascribed the merit of ending the scandal of disunion in Christendom, immediately escaped from his admirers and returned to the solitude ofClairvaux and his literary labours. These were not all self-imposed. Among his correspondents were persons in all ranks of life; and hisletters, no less than his formal treatises, prove his influence as oneof the most deeply spiritual teachers of the Middle Ages. 

[Sidenote Roger of Sicily. ]

Roger of Sicily alone had not accepted Innocent; but a foolish attemptto coerce him ended in the defeat and capture of the Pope. In returnfor the acknowledgment of papal suzerainty, which involved oblivion ofthe imperial claims, Innocent not only confirmed to Roger and hissuccessors both his conquests in Southern Italy and the royal title, but even, by the grant of the legatine power to the King himself, exempted his kingdom from the visits of papal legates. Roger wassupreme in Church and State. A cruel yet vigorous and able ruler, hebuilt up a centralised administrative system from which Henry II ofEngland did not disdain to take lessons. His possession of Sicilycarried him to Malta and thence to the north coast of Africa; andbefore his death in 1154 Tunis was added to his dominions. He was thusone of the greatest among the early Crusaders, and perhaps the mostnotable ruler of his time. 

[Sidenote: Conrad III. ]

Lothair hoped to leave in his son-in-law a successor with irresistibleclaims. But the very influence to which Lothair owed his own electionwas now to be cast into the scale against the representative of hisfamily; while the grounds of objection to the succession of Frederickof Hohenstaufen to Henry V now held good against Henry of Bavaria, Saxony, and Tuscany. The Pope and the German nobles were equallyafraid of a ruler whose insolent demeanour had already won him thetitle of "the Proud. " They took as their candidate the lately rejectedHohenstaufen Conrad, whose behaviour since his submission had gainedhim favour in proportion as the conduct of Henry of Bavaria hadalienated the other nobles. Conrad was crowned at Aachen by the papallegate, and Henry made his submission. But Conrad, like Lothair, felthimself insecure with so powerful a subject. Accordingly he took awayfrom him the duchy of Saxony, and gave it to the heir of the old dukesin the female line. When Henry refused to accept the decision Conradput him to the ban of the Empire and deprived him of Bavaria also, which he proceeded to confer upon a relative of his own. But Conrad'sobvious attempt to advance his own family offended the nobles, and thedeath of Henry the Proud in 1139 opened the way for a compromise. Saxony was made over to Henry's youthful son, known in history asHenry the Lion, while Bavaria was to be the wedding portion of Henrythe Proud's widow if she married Conrad's relative, who was alreadyMargrave of Austria. 

[Sidenote: Arnold of Brescia. ]

But despite this elimination of all rivals Conrad was so much occupiedelsewhere that he never managed to reach Italy. And yet his presencethere was eagerly desired. It was under the guidance of their bishopsthat the cities of Lombardy had freed themselves from subjection tothe feudal nobles. But with the growth of wealth they resented thepatronage of the bishops and were inclined to listen to those whodenounced the temporal possessions of the Church. The movement spreadto Rome. Here the municipality still existed in name, but it was quiteoverlaid by the papal prefect and the feudal nobles of the Campagna;and the Roman people had no means of increasing their wealth by theagriculture or the commerce which was open to the cities of Tuscany orLombardy. A leader was found in Arnold of Brescia (1138). He seems tohave been a pupil of Abailard, who devoted himself to practicalreforms. He began in his native Lombardy to advocate apostolic povertyas a remedy for the acknowledged evils of the Church. Condemned by thesecond Lateran Council (1139), he retired to France, and in 1140 stoodby the side of Abailard at the Council of Sens. After Abailard'scondemnation Arnold took refuge at Zurich, where, despite thedenunciations of Bernard, he found protection from the papal legate, who had been a fellow-pupil of Abailard. Arnold returned to Italy in1145, and was absolved by the Pope. 

[Sidenote: The Roman Republic. ]

The course of affairs in Rome brought him once more to the front. In1143 Innocent II had offended the Romans, who in revenge proclaimed arepublic with a popularly elected senate and a patrician in place ofthe papal prefect. Innocent died (September, 1143); his successorsurvived him by less than six months, and the next Pope, Lucius II, was killed in attempting to get possession of the Capitol, which wasthe seat of the new government. The choice of the Cardinals now fellupon the abbot of a small monastery in the neighbourhood of Rome, whotook the title of Eugenius III (1145-53). He was a pupil of Bernard, who feared for the appointment of a man of such simplicity andinexperience. But Eugenius developed an unexpected capacity, andforced the Romans to recognise for a time his prefect and hissuzerainty. But Arnold's presence in Rome was an obstacle to permanentpeace. Both Arnold and Bernard eagerly sought the same end--thepurification of the Church. But in Bernard's eyes Arnold's connectionwith Abailard convicted him of heresy, and his doctrine of apostolicpoverty was construed by the ascetic abbot of the strict CistercianOrder as an attack upon the influence under cover of the wealth of theChurch. Nor was Arnold a republican in the ordinary sense. He expelledthe Pope and organised, under the name of the Equestrian order, amilitia of the lesser nobles and the more substantial burgesses, suchas existed in the cities of Lombardy. But he did not desire torepudiate the Emperor; and at his instigation the Romans summonedConrad to their aid and to accept the imperial crown at their hands. Eugenius spent almost his whole pontificate in exile; his successor, Anastasius IV, during a short reign, accepted the republic, butHadrian IV (1154-9) took the first excuse for boldly placing the cityfor the first time under an interdict. The consequent cessation ofpilgrims during Holy Week and the loss of their offerings caused thefickle Romans to expel their champion, and Arnold wandered about untila few months later Frederick Barbarossa sacrificed him to the renewedalliance of Empire and Papacy (1154). 

[Sidenote: The second Crusade. ]

Conrad III, then, never was crowned Emperor. It was no fault of histhat he never visited Rome. Bernard's influence caused him to postponehis immediate duties for a work which every Christian of the timeregarded as of paramount importance. The first Crusade had met with ameasure of success only because the Mohammedan powers were divided. The Crusaders were organised into the kingdom of Jerusalem and theprincipalities of Tripoli, Antioch, and Edessa. But they quarrelledincessantly. Meanwhile Imad-ed-din Zangi, the Atabek or Sultan ofMosul on the Tigris, extended his arms over all Mesopotamia andNorthern Syria, and in 1144 he conquered the Latin principality ofEdessa. The whole of Europe was shocked at the disaster. Pope Eugeniusdelegated to Bernard the task of preaching a new crusade. The youngKing, Louis VII of France, had already taken the Crusader's vow, butso far the earnest entreaty of his minister, Suger, Abbot of St. Denys, had kept him from his purpose. But at the Council of Vezelai in1146 the eloquence of Bernard bore down all considerations ofprudence. Conrad III was much harder to persuade, for he felt the needof his presence at home. But Bernard was not to be denied, and byworking upon Conrad's feelings at the moment of the celebration of theMass he entirely overcame the better judgment of the German King. 

Events proved in every way the mischievous nature of Bernard'sinfluence. The Crusade was a total failure. Only a small remnant ofthe force which followed either King reached Palestine; and the onlyoffensive operation undertaken--an attack upon Damascus--had to beabandoned. Nothing had been done to break the growing power of Zangi'sson, Noureddin, the uncle and predecessor of the great Saladin. 

[Sidenote: The divorce of Louis VII. ]

The effects were scarcely less disastrous in Western Europe. Sugersupplied Louis with money and defended his throne against plots, andultimately persuaded him to return to France. But during the CrusadeLouis and his wife Eleanor, the daughter and heiress of William X ofAquitaine, had quarrelled bitterly. Louis had disgusted hishigh-spirited wife by behaving more like a pilgrim than a warrior;while Eleanor had attempted to divert the French troops to the aid ofher uncle, Raymond of Antioch. Suger alone preserved some sort ofharmony between the ill-assorted pair; but he died in 1151, andBernard, who had never approved of the marriage on canonical grounds, lent his support to Louis' desire for a declaration of its invalidity, though Louis and Eleanor had been married for thirteen years and therewere two daughters. The dissolution of the marriage was pronounced byan ecclesiastical Council in 1152, and in the same year Eleanor, taking with her all her extensive lands, married the young Henry ofAnjou and Normandy, who two years later became King of England. 

[Sidenote: Bernard as defender of the Faith. ]

Bernard and Suger were friends; but while the predominant work ofSuger's life had been the supremacy of the House of Capet, it is vainto attempt to trace in Bernard any prejudice in favour of a growingFrench nationality. He represents the cosmopolitan Church of theMiddle Ages; and his career is a supreme instance of the power whichresults from an absolutely single-minded devotion to a lofty cause. Inmasterful vehemence he challenges comparison with Hildebrand; butunlike the Pope, he never identified the Church with his owninterests. He steadfastly refused all offers of advancement forhimself, although he did not dissuade his own monks from acceptingpreferment. He would have preferred to live out his life as theobscure head of a poor and secluded community; and even if thepolitical condition of the time had not brought constant appeals forhelp to him, his duty to the Church would have made him a publiccharacter. For the work of his life which was perhaps most congenialto him was the defence of the doctrine of the Church against hereticalteachers. He has been called "the last of the Fathers, " and his wholeconception and methods were those of the great Christian writers ofthe early centuries. To the great saint self-discipline throughobedience to the ordinances of the Church was the cure for all evilsuggestions of the human heart; while as for the intellect, its dutywas to believe the revealed faith as propounded by the authorities ofthe Church. Like St. Augustine, Bernard did not despise learning; buthe would confine the term to the study of religion. Secular learningwas for the most part not only a waste of precious time, but an actualsnare of the devil. Thus Bernard stood for all that was mostuncompromising in the theological attitude of the time. Speculativediscussion was an abomination; for the end of conversation wasspiritual edification, not the advancement of knowledge; and what tostrong minds might be mental gymnastics, in the case of weakerbrethren caused the undermining of their faith. Against heretics ofthe commoner sort, such as the Petrobrusians, who impugned the wholesystem of the Church and appealed to the mere words of Scripture, there was only one line to be taken. But Bernard was no persecutor. During his preaching of the Crusade a monk perverted the popularexcitement to an attack upon the Jews in the cities of the Rhineland:Bernard peremptorily interfered and crushed the rival preacher. Similarly with heretics. He trusted to his preaching--attested, as itwas commonly supposed, by miracles--to convince the people; while theleaders when captured were subjected to monastic discipline. 

[Sidenote: Abailard. ]

But such popular forms of unbelief were merely the outcome of thespeculations of subtler minds, which it was necessary to stop at thefountain-head. The arch-heretic of the time was Peter Abailard, whorouted in succession two great teachers--William of Champeaux indialectic in the great cathedral school of Paris, and Anselm of Laon, a pupil of Anselm of Canterbury, in theology. He gathered round him onthe Mount of Ste. Geneviève, just outside Paris, a large band ofstudents, in whom he inculcated his rationalistic methods. For his wasa definite attempt to obtain by reason a basis for his faith. Howcould such teaching be allowed to continue unreproved by Bernard, whoheld that the sole office of the reason was to lead the mind astray?But in the height of his fame Abailard, still quite young, loved thebeautiful and erudite Heloise. He abused her trust, and when she inher infatuation for his genius refused to monopolise for herself bymarriage the talents which were for the service of the world, she andhe both entered the monastic life. Abailard passed through severalphases of this--a monk at St. Denys; a hermit gradually gathering aband of admirers round a church which they built and he dedicated tothe Third Person of the Trinity, the Paraclete; and finally the abbotof a poor monastery in his own native Brittany. While an inmate of St. Denys a work of his on the Trinity was condemned at a Council atSoissons presided over by the papal legate (1121). It was twenty yearsbefore he was again subjected to the censures of the Church. But, meanwhile, he had more than once fallen foul of Bernard, and had nothesitated to flout with his gibes the one man before whom the whole ofCatholic Europe bent in awestruck reverence. But the time came whenBernard, noting the spread of the Petrobrusian heresy, determined tostrike at the source of these errors. He appealed for assistance tothe friends of orthodoxy from the Pope downwards. Abailard determinedto anticipate attack and desired to be heard before an assembly to beheld at Sens (1140). Bernard reluctantly consented to take part in apublic controversy. But when they met, Abailard, probably feelinghimself surrounded by an unsympathetic audience, suddenly refused tospeak and appealed to the Pope. On his way to Rome he fell ill atCluny, where the saintly abbot, Peter the Venerable, received him as amonk. He made a confession which chiefly amounted to a regret that hehad used words open to misconstruction, and he died in 1142 the inmateof a Cluniac house. 

Bernard remained upon the alert, intent on checking any further spreadof the teaching of Abailard's followers. But he had pushed matters toan extreme, and there were many in high place who resented his effortsto dictate the doctrine of the Church. Thus Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poictiers, a pupil of Abailard, was accused at the Councilof Rheims (1148) of erroneous doctrines regarding the being of God andthe Sacraments. Bernard tried to use his influence over Pope Eugeniusin order to procure the bishop's condemnation, and stirred up theFrench clergy to assist him. The Cardinals addressed an indignantremonstrance to the Pope, pointing out that as he owed his elevationfrom a private position to the papacy to them, he belonged to themrather than to himself, that he was allowing private friendship tointerfere with public duty, and that "that abbot of yours" and theGallican Church were usurping the function of the See of Rome. Bernardhad to explain away the action of his party, and the Council contenteditself with exacting from the accused a general agreement with thefaith of the Roman Church, and this was represented by Gilbert'sfriends as a triumph. 

Bernard's death restored the leadership of Christendom to the officialhead, and the removal of several others of the chief actors of thetime opened the way not only for new men, but for the emergence of newquestions. In 1152 Conrad III ended his well-intentioned but somewhatineffectual reign. In 1153 Pope Eugenius died at Rome, to which he hadat length been restored a few months previously. Six weeks later St. Bernard followed him to the grave. It was not long before the papalact ratified the general opinion of Christendom, and in 1174 AlexanderIII placed his name among those which the Church desired to have ineverlasting remembrance. 

CHAPTER VII

THE SCHOOLMEN AND THEOLOGY

[Sidenote: Secular Studies. ]

Mediaeval learning, whether sacred or secular, was founded uponauthority. The Scholasticus, who took the place of the ancientGrammaticus, was not an investigator, but merely an interpreter. Onthe one side the books of the sacred Scriptures as interpreted by theFathers were the rule of faith; on the other side as the guide ofreason stood the works of the Philosopher, as Aristotle was called inthe Middle Ages. But until the thirteenth century few of his workswere known, and those only in Latin translations. Here were thematerials, slight enough, on which hung future development. Thesecular knowledge taught in the ordinary schools was that representedby the division of the Seven Arts into the elementary Trivium ofGrammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, followed by the Quadrivium of Music, Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy. The scope of the Trivium was muchwider than the terms denote. Thus Grammar included the study of theclassical Latin authors, which never entirely ceased; Rhetoriccomprised the practice of composition in prose and verse, and even aknowledge of the elements of Roman Law; Dialectic or Logic became thecentre of the whole secular education, because it was the onlyintellectual exercise which was supposed to be independent of paganwriters. In the Quadrivium--the scientific education of thetime--Arithmetic and Astronomy were taught for the purpose ofcalculating the times of the Christian festivals; Music consistedchiefly of the rules of plain-song. It was the subjects of theQuadrivium which were subsequently enlarged in scope by thediscoveries of the twelfth century. Apart from these subjects littleattempt was made at a systematic training in theology. In so far asany such existed it was purely doctrinal, and aimed merely at enablingthose in Holy Orders to read the Bible and the Fathers for themselvesand to expound them to others. 

[Sidenote: Scholasticism. ]

Now the speculative intellect trained in dialectic had no material towork upon save what could be got from the Scriptures, the Fathers, andthe dogmas of the Church; and Scholasticism is the name given to theattempt to apply the processes of logic to the systematisation and theinterpretation of the Catholic faith. The movement was one which, narrow as it seems to us, yet made for ultimate freedom of humanthought; for it meant the exercise of the intellect on matters whichfor long were regarded as beyond the reach of rationalisticexplanation. There was much difference of opinion among the thinkersas to the limits to be assigned to such freedom of speculation on themysteries of the faith, some starting from the standpoint of idealistsand endeavouring to avoid the logical consequences of theirspeculations; while others, adopting so far as possible a position ofpure empiricism, set tradition at defiance, and hoped by the aid ofreason to reach the conclusions of divine revelation. 

[Sidenote: Realists and Nominalists. ]

The philosophical problem to which the mediæval thinkers addressedthemselves is one that it is essential to the progress of humanthought to solve. Whence do we derive general notions (Universals, asthey were called), and do they correspond to anything which actuallyexists? Thus for the purpose of classifying our knowledge we usecertain terms, such as genera, species, and others more technical. Dothese in reality exist independently of particular individuals orsubstances? One school of philosophers, basing their reasoning uponPlato, maintained that such general ideas had a real existence oftheir own, and hence gained the name of Realists. But another school, who took Aristotle as their champion, held that reality can beasserted of the individual alone, that there is nothing real in thegeneral idea except the name by which it is designated; while some ofthese Nominalists, as they came to be called, even proclaimed that theparts of an individual whole were mere words, and could not beconsidered as having an existence of their own. With the applicationof these definitions to theological dogmas we reach the beginning ofScholastic Theology. Here both sides were soon landed in difficulties. Nominalism, in its denial of reality to general notions, underminedthe Catholic idea of the Church: in its recognition of none exceptindividuals it destroyed the whole conception of the solidarity oforiginal sin; while those of its professors who allowed no existenceof their own to the parts of an individual whole, resolved the Trinityinto three Gods. On the other hand, the danger of Realism was that, since individuals were regarded merely as forms or modes of somegeneral idea, these philosophers were inclined to make no distinctionbetween individuals and to fall into pantheism. As a result, thepersonality of man, and with it the immortality of the soul, disappeared, and even the personality of God threatened to lose itselfin the universe which He had created. These tendencies will be clearfrom a short account of the chief schoolmen or writers on ScholasticPhilosophy. 

[Sidenote: Roscelin and Anselm. ]

The first great names are those of Roscelin and Anselm of Canterbury. Roscelin (between 1050 and 1125), primarily a dialectician, rigidlyapplied his logic to theological dogmas. If we may judge from theaccounts of his opponents, Anselm and Abailard, he took up a positionof extreme individualism and denied reality alike to a whole and tothe parts of which any whole is commonly said to be composed. Theapplication of this principle to the doctrine of the Trinity landedhim in tritheism, and he did not shrink from the reproach. Roscelin, atheologian by accident, was answered by Anselm who was primarily atheologian, and a dialectician by accident. If Roscelin was thefounder of Nominalism Anselm identified Realism with the doctrine ofthe Church. But Anselm's Realism is not the result of independentthought. In his methods he has been rightly styled the "last of theFathers. " His keynote was Belief in the Christian faith as the road tounderstanding it. Thus his object was to give to the dogmas acceptedby the Church a philosophical demonstration. To him Realism was theorthodox philosophical doctrine because it was the one most in harmonywith Christian theology. He applied philosophical arguments to theexplanation of those tenets of the faith which later scholasticwriters placed among the mysteries to be accepted without question. 

[Sidenote: Abailard. ]

The reputed founder of definite Realism was William of Champeaux(1060-1121), a pupil of Roscelin himself, a teacher at Paris, andultimately Bishop of Chalons. By the account of his enemy Abailard, heheld an uncompromising Realism which maintained that the Universal wasa substance or thing which was present in its entirety in eachindividual. It was the presence of such crude Realism as this whichgave his opportunity to the greatest teacher of this early period ofScholasticism, Peter Abailard (1079-1142). A pupil of both Roscelinand William of Champeaux--the two extremes of Nominalism andRealism--he aimed in his teaching at arriving at a _via media_ towhich subsequent writers have given the name Conceptualism. Accordingto him the individual is the only true substance, and the genus isthat which is asserted of a number of individuals; it is therefore aname used as a sign--a concept, although he does not use the word. Thus he does not condemn the Realistic theory borrowed from Plato, ofUniversals as having an existence of their own; he regards them asideas or exemplars which existed in the divine mind before thecreation of things. But he opposes the tendency in Realism to treat asidentical the qualities which resemble each other in differentindividuals, since that abolishes the personality of the individualwhich to him is the only reality. Like Roscelin he did not hesitate toapply his dialectic to theology. Here, while repudiating the tritheismof his master, he practically reproduced the old heresy of Sabelliuswhich reduced the Trinity to three aspects or attributes of the DivineBeing--power, wisdom, and love. "A doctrine is to be believed, " heheld, "not because God has said it, but because we are convinced byreason that it is so. " His whole attitude was that of the free, ifreverent, enquirer. "By doubt, " he says, "we come to enquiry; byenquiry we reach the truth. " His book _Sic et Non_, a collectionof conflicting opinions of the Christian Fathers on the chief tenetsof the faith, was to be the first step towards arriving at the truth. 

[Sidenote: Mysticism. ]

He was condemned twice--his doctrine of the Trinity at Soissons in1121, his whole position at Sens in 1141. The leaders of orthodoxy methim not with argument but with a demand for recantation. St. Norbertduring the early part of his life, and St. Bernard both early andlate, pursued him with their enmity. Their objection was not to hisparticular views, but to his whole attitude towards divine revelation;and the conclusions in which the use of the scholastic method landedits advocates perhaps justified the rigid theologians in the generaldistrust of the exercise of reason on such subjects. St. Bernard didnot hesitate to attack even Gilbert de la Porrée, Bishop of Poictiers, an avowed Realist, who attempted to explain the Trinity. In fact, St. Bernard represents the reaction from Scholasticism, which took theform of Mysticism, that is, the purely contemplative attitude towardsthe verities of the Christian creed. In this he was followed with muchgreater extravagance by the school which found its home in the greatabbey of St. Victor--Hugh (1097-1143), who formulated the sentence"Knowledge is belief, and belief is love, " and Richard (died in 1173), who applied to the intuitive perception of spiritual things and to thelove of them the same dialectical and metaphysical methods as theSchoolmen applied to reason. 

[Sidenote: After Abailard. ]

The results of Abailard's work are seen in two directions. His _Sicet Non_ became the foundation of the work of the "Summists, " who, in the place of Abailard's purely critical work, occupied themselvesin systematising authorities with a view to the reconciliation oftheir conflicting opinions. The greatest of these was Peter theLombard (died 1160), who became Bishop of Paris, and whose_Sententiae_ was taken as the accredited text-book of theologyfor the next three hundred years. With the Summists theology returnedto its attitude of unquestioning obedience to the conclusions of theearly Fathers. But in the second place, Abailard was indirectlyresponsible for "the troubling of the Realistic waters, " whichresulted in many modifications of the original position. 

[Sidenote: Classical revival. ]

A justification for the attitude of the Church towards the followersof Abailard is to be found in the apparent exhaustion of thespeculative movement which had started at the end of the eleventhcentury, and the consequent degeneracy of logical studies. It was aresult of this that in the second half of the twelfth century many ofthe best minds were directing their energies into the channel ofclassical learning which was to prepare the way for the next phase ofScholasticism. Besides being a philosopher and a theologian, Abailardwas also a scholar well read in classical literature. The cathedralschool of Chartres, founded by Fulbert at the beginning of theeleventh century, was the centre of this classical Renaissance, and itrose to the height of its fame under Bernard Sylvester and his pupil, William of Conches; while the greatest representative of this learningwas a pupil of William of Conches, John of Salisbury, an historian ofphilosophy rather than himself a philosopher or theologian. 

[Sidenote: Origin of universities. ]

It was in the twelfth century and out of the cathedral schools thatthe medieval universities arose. The monastic schools had spent theirintellectual force, and during this century they almost ceased toeducate the secular clergy. St. Anselm, when Abbot of Bec in Normandy, was the last of the great monastic teachers. But it was not from theschool of Chartres but from that of Paris that the greatest Universityof the Middle Ages took its origin. Paris was identified with thescholastic studies of dialectic and theology, and it was the fame ofWilliam of Champeaux, and still more that of Abailard, which drewstudents in crowds to the cathedral school of Paris. But no universityimmediately resulted. Indeed, the Guild of Masters, from which itoriginated, is not traceable before 1170, and the four Nations and theRector did not exist until the following century. Its recognition as acorporation dates from a bull of Innocent III about 1210. Itsdevelopment starts from the close of its struggle with the Chancellorand cathedral school of Paris, in which contest it obtained the papalhelp. Before the middle of the thirteenth century the University hadacquired its full constitution. But its great fame as a place ofeducation dates from the teaching of the two great Dominicans, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas in the convent of their Order inParis during the middle years of the century. This new outburst ofphilosophical studies was due to the recovery of many hitherto unknownworks of Aristotle, and as a consequence classical studies werecompletely neglected and Chartres was deserted for Paris. 

[Sidenote: Aristotle in the East. ]

We have seen that the contemporaries of Abailard knew none butAristotle's logical works, and these only in part and in Latintranslations. So far nothing had interfered with the development ofthought along "purely Western, purely Latin, purely Christian" lines. Churchmen who did not disapprove of dialectic altogether, had acceptedand used Aristotle so far as they understood what they had of hisworks. Heretics there had been, but hitherto none had questioned theauthority of the Bible or the Church. Meanwhile in the east acompleter knowledge of Aristotle's works had been communicated by theNestorian Christians to their Mohammedan masters. Greek books weretranslated into Arabic, and Arabian philosophy, already monotheistic, became permeated with Aristotelian ideas. Moreover, the union ofphilosophical and medical studies among the Arabs caused them toattach a special value to Aristotle's treatises on natural science. InSpain the Arabs handed on their knowledge of Aristotle to the Jews, and it was from the Jews of Andalusia, Marseilles, and Montpellierthat the works of the Greek philosopher and his Arabian commentatorsbecame known in the west. 

[Sidenote: Revival in the west. ]

By the middle of the twelfth century the chief of these works--texts, paraphrases, commentaries--had, at the instance of Raymond, Archbishopof Toledo, been rendered into Latin by Archdeacon Dominic Gondisalvi, assisted by a band of translators. But the translations of Aristotle'sown works were not from the original Greek, but from the Arabic, whichlaid stress upon the most anti-Christian side of Aristotle's thought, such as the eternity of the world and the denial of immortality. Theresult was an outbreak of heretical speculation along pantheisticlines. Swift steps were taken: the heretics were hunted down, and in1209 the Council of Paris forbade the study of Aristotle's own worksor those of his commentators which dealt with natural philosophy;while in 1215 the statutes of the University renewed the prohibition. But such prohibition did not include any of the logical works; and in1231 a bull of Gregory IX only excepted any of Aristotle's works untilthey had been examined and purged of all heresy. Finally, in 1254, astatute of the University actually prescribed nearly all the works ofAristotle, including even the most suspected, as text-books for thelectures. Meanwhile fresh translations were made from the Arabic byMichael Scot and others at the instance of Frederick II, so that by1225 the whole body of his works was to be found in Latin form. Further still, the Latin conquest of Constantinople in 1204 hadbrought back to the west a knowledge of a large part of Aristotle'swritings in their original form. Translations were now made into Latinstraight from the Greek; and Thomas Aquinas, seconded by Pope UrbanIV, took especial pains to encourage such scholarship. 

[Sidenote: The later Scholasticism. ]

By this medium there was developed the great system of orthodoxAristotelianism which was the form taken by Scholasticism in the laterMiddle Ages. This was the work of the Friars, who, for the purpose ofgiving to their own students the best procurable training in theology, established houses of residence in Paris and elsewhere. The quarrelsbetween the University of Paris and the municipality in the first halfof the thirteenth century gave their opportunity to the Friars, andeven after the settlement of the quarrels they remained and becameformidable rivals to the teachers drawn from the secular clergy. Itwas only in 1255 that, after a severe struggle, the University wasforced by a bull of Alexander IV to admit the Friars to itsprivileges, although it succeeded in imposing upon them an oath ofobedience to its statutes. 

[Sidenote: The change of position. ]

It was the Franciscans who began this new intellectual movement in thepersons of the Englishman, Alexander of Hales (died 1245), who was thefirst to be able to use the whole of the Aristotelian writings, andhis pupil, the mystic Bonaventura (died 1274). But the scholasticphilosophy as it is taught to this day was the work of the two greatDominicans, Albert of Bollstädt, a Suabian, known as Albertus Magnus(1193-1280), and his even greater pupil, Thomas of Aquino, an Italian(1227-74). The endeavour of these writers was to take over into theservice of the Church the whole Aristotelian philosophy. It was aconsequence of this that the old question of the nature of Universalswas not so all-important, or that at any rate it ceased to be treatedfrom a purely logical standpoint. The great Dominicans were verymoderate Realists; but they treated Logic as only one among a numberof subjects. Albert wrote works which in print fill twenty-one foliovolumes (whence his name Magnus); but his fame has been somewhatobscured by the more methodical, if almost equally voluminous (inseventeen folio volumes) works of his successor. The result of theirlabours was a wonderfully complete harmonisation of philosophy andtheology as these subjects were understood by their respectivechampions. This was brought about by the use of two methods. In thefirst place, the works of Aristotle on the one side, and the Bible andthe writings of the Fathers on the other side, were treated as ofequal authority in their respective spheres The ingenuity of thetheologians was to be employed in harmonising them. It is, in fact, only from this period that "the Scholastic Philosophy becamedistinguished by that servile deference to authority" which weordinarily attribute to it. 

[Sidenote: Reason and faith. ]

But, in the second place, any such harmonisation could only be carriedout by some demarcation of territory. The earlier orthodox writerslike Anselm, as we have seen, did not hesitate to attempt aphilosophical explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. ButAristotle and his Arabian commentators were monotheistic, andconsequently the reconciliation between the Aristotelian philosophyand the Christian faith could only be effected by distinguishingbetween natural and revealed religion. The truths of the former weredemonstrable by reason, of which Aristotle was the supreme guide. Thetruths of the latter were mysteries to be accepted on an equally goodthough different authority. By such methods these later schoolmenexcepted and accepted the doctrines of the Trinity and theIncarnation, though they allowed the doctrine of the existence of Godto be susceptible of logical proof. But notwithstanding theseexceptions, the teaching of the Dominicans was a wonderful attempt toabolish the inevitable dualism between faith and reason. 

[Sidenote: Thomists and Scotists. ]

The history of Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas is largely occupiedby an account of the quarrel between the rival schools of Thomists andScotists. The great teacher of the generation after St. Thomas was aFranciscan, Duns Scotus, the "Subtle Doctor, " who taught at Oxford andParis and died in 1308. His teaching differed in two ways from that ofhis Dominican predecessor. In the first place he excepted a largernumber of theological doctrines as not being capable of philosophicproof, so that his teaching tended to bring back and to emphasise thedualism between faith and reason. It is for this reason that hissystem has been considered as the beginning of the decline ofScholasticism. In the second place, the real quarrel between Thomistsand Scotists centred round the question of the freedom of the will. The followers of St. Thomas maintained that although the will is tosome extent subordinate to the reason, yet it is free to determine itsown course of action after a process of rational comparison, bycontrast with the animals which act on the impulse of the moment. TheScotists, on the other hand, taught that what is called the will ismerely a name for the possibility of determining without motive ineither of two opposite directions. The importance of this differenceof view consisted in this--that whereas the Thomists held that Godsubjects His will to a rational determination and therefore commandswhat is good because it is good, the Scotist taught that good is sobecause God wills it; if He chose to will the exact opposite, thatwould be equally good--in other words, he attributed to God anentirely arbitrary will. The two greatest disciples of St. Thomas wereDante and the Franciscan Roger Bacon (1214-92), the latter of whomfell into disfavour with the superiors of his own Order in consequenceof his scientific studies, and spent many years at the end of his lifein prison. 

[Sidenote: Results of Scholasticism. ]

The Scholastic philosophy failed to justify the doctrines of theChurch to a rapidly expanding world. But it is unjust and ungratefulto stigmatise its results as barren. In the first place it gave a mostvaluable training in logical method to the keenest intellects of thetime. Moreover, the very attempt to establish the Christian faith byargument was an unconscious homage to the supremacy of reason as theultimate guide; while, finally, in the philosophy of St. Thomas, allnature was regarded as a fit subject for enquiry, and some of thegreatest Schoolmen, as we have just seen, were noted for theirinvestigations into natural phenomena. 

CHAPTER VIII

GUELF AND GHIBELLINE. (I)

[Sidenote: Hadrian IV. ]

Hadrian IV is interesting to us as the only Englishman who has eversat upon the throne of St. Peter. As Nicholas Brakespeare he had ledthe life of a wandering scholar, chiefly in France. He entered thehouse of Canons Regular of St. Rufus near Avignon, and when Abbot ofthis monastery attracted the attention of Eugenius III, who made himCardinal Bishop of Albano, and employed him as papal legate in freeingthe Church in Scandinavia from its dependence on the Bishops inGermany. The prestige which he acquired in this work marked him out asthe successor of the shortlived Anastasius. Hadrian was a much ablerman than either of his predecessors, and, while fully conscious of thedifficulties of his office, he did not let these deter him from thefulfilment of its obvious duties. We have seen how he drove Arnoldfrom Rome. He found, however, a new danger in Sicily. Roger's sonWilliam, known as "the Bad, " took up an attitude of hostility, andwhen the Pope asserted his overlordship, William's troops overran theCampagna. The Pope retorted by excommunicating his refractory vassalsand looking for help from the new German King. 

[Sidenote: The new contest. ]

With the accession of Frederick I the quarrel between Empire andPapacy enters on a new phase. On the death of Henry V the naturalcandidate of the papal party for the German throne was Henry the BlackDuke of Bavaria, the head of the family of Welf or Guelf. But he wasold, and related by marriage to the Hohenstaufen. He was, however, bribed to acquiesce in the election of Lothair by the offer ofLothair's daughter and heiress, Gertrude, as a wife for his son Henrythe Proud. This marriage determined the whole course of Germanhistory. Henry the Proud obtained the duchy of Bavaria from his fatherand the duchy of Saxony from his father-in-law. Thus, if theHohenstaufen family were the heirs of the Franconian Emperors, theGuelfs became the representatives of the opposition to that line whichhad centred in Saxony; and for the old contest between Papacy andEmpire, Saxon and Franconian, there was now substituted a dynasticstruggle between Weiblingen or Ghibelline and Guelf. The Guelfs werethe papal party only in the sense that, like the Saxons, they were inopposition to the dynasty which occupied the German throne and claimedthe imperial title. The name, however, was extended to Italy: it wasapplied to the collective opposition to the imperial power, andtherefore came to denote the friends of the Papacy. 

[Sidenote: Frederick I. ]

So far the contest had been confined to Germany; for Lothair hadsacrificed the claims of the empire to his own immediate interests, while Conrad had never set foot in Italy after his accession to theGerman throne. But as the attempt of Lothair to crush the acknowledgedGhibelline leaders had been thwarted, so Conrad had failed to renderthe Guelf harmless; and it was the pretensions of Henry the Lion, theson of Henry the Proud, which determined Conrad to waive the claims ofhis young son to the succession, and to recommend to the nobles thechoice of his nephew Frederick. But Conrad's nomination would havebeen of little account. Frederick's claims were largely personal. Already before he succeeded his father as Duke of Suabia he had showna combination of boldness in action with a conciliatory dispositionwhich marked him out as a leader and a statesman. To this was added, as with Conrad, the prestige of a crusader; while in view of thebitter rivalries of the last two reigns, it was a recommendation thatFrederick united in his person the two families whose strife haddivided the kingdom. Two years elapsed from his accession beforeFrederick was free to set out for Italy. As the heir of theFranconians his probable attitude was a matter of some anxiety at Romeand in Italy generally. He was no enemy of the Church. His first actafter his coronation at Aachen (March 9th, 1152) was to announce hisaccession to the Pope, who sent him a return message of goodwill. Butfrom the outset Frederick showed his intention of taking a high line, for, in a disputed election at Magdeburg he obtained a party for anominee of his own who was already a bishop, and therefore ineligible, and by virtue of the Concordat he decided for his own candidate indefiance of all ecclesiastical laws, and straightway invested him withthe regalia. 

[Sidenote: Imperial rights. ]

Moreover, he had a high idea of the imperial mission. It was seventeenyears since any emperor had crossed the Alps; and it is difficult tosay whether the selfish policy of Lothair or the non-appearance ofConrad must have been the more detrimental to the maintenance ofimperial interests. But during the first few months of his reignappeals poured in from the Pope against his various enemies, from somebarons of Apulia against the great Roger of Sicily, from the citizensof Lodi against the tyranny of Milan. These, together with theridiculous proffer of the imperial crown from the lately formedRepublic of Rome, seemed to open an opportunity for the successfulrecovery of imperial rights. And, much as the Italians resented thespasmodic interferences of the Emperor, they were proud of theirimperial connection. The commerce of the East, largely increased bythe Crusades, flowed into Western Europe chiefly through Italy. As aresult, the north and centre of the peninsula were studded with anumber of compact, self-governing communities inclined to resent anyoutside interference, however lawful in origin. But the larger citieswere ever trying to group the smaller round them as satellites; andthe constant quarrels which resulted, often produced a party which wasready to welcome the interposition of the Emperor. There was thiscommon ground, then, between these cities and the Papacy that, whereasthey found it equally necessary to invoke the aid of the Emperor as anoutside power against their foes, each was threatened by the assertionof those imperial rights which it was the sole object of Frederick'sjourney to Italy to assert. 

But the results of Frederick's first expedition to Italy were of avery doubtful kind. It is true that he was crowned at Rome, that heasserted his imperial rights both positively in a great assembly onthe plains of Roncaglia and, as it were, negatively by the destructionof three refractory towns, and that he got rid of Arnold of Brescia. But, on the other hand, his assertion of power provoked hatred insteadof fear; and although, despite some sharp differences, he partedamicably from the Pope, his return to Germany left Hadrian in animpossible position. The republican party in Rome remained untouched:William of Sicily was unsubdued. 

[Sidenote: Papal defiance. ]

Shortly after his accession Frederick had made an agreement with thethen Pope that neither should make peace with the Romans or theSicilian King without consent of the other. But now Hadrian, deserted, accepted the Commune as the civil authority in Rome, and even came toa treaty with William of Sicily, who engaged to hold all his lands asa vassal of the Pope. Frederick was naturally angry at the repudiationof the mutual obligation with regard to peace and of the imperialsuzerainty of William's duchy of Apulia. But he was too much occupiedin Germany to do more than protest. And before he was able to asserthis power in Italy again Pope Hadrian had, as it were, thrown down achallenge to him. At the Diet of Besançon in Burgundy in 1157 twopapal envoys appeared with a complaint of Frederick's conduct in someparticular. The letter which they bore spoke of the late coronation ofthe Emperor by the Pope and used the equivocal word _beneficia_to describe the papal act. When the assembled nobles resented theexpression as implying a feudal relation between Pope and Emperor, thepapal representative, the Chancellor Roland, boldly asked, "From whom, then, does the emperor hold the empire if not from the Pope?"Frederick's authority alone saved the envoys from violence, andHadrian found himself obliged to explain away the objectionableexpressions. 

[Sidenote: The breach. ]

But the papal position had been formulated, and that before a Germanassembly. The Pope was no longer a suppliant: he claimed to be morethan an equal. He had thrown down a challenge. Frederick proceeded topick it up. In fact, it was this second expedition of Frederick toItaly which opened the long contest between Ghibelline and Guelf, acontest only to be ended by the practical destruction of one or otherof the parties. It was the complaints of the other cities against theoppression of Milan, which were the immediate cause of Frederick'sappearance in Italy in 1158; and the reduction of the Milanese wasfollowed by the holding of an assembly on the plain of Roncaglia, towhich Frederick summoned the most famous lawyers of Italy. By theirdecision rights and powers were given to him, which placed all thecommunes at his mercy. Moreover, these were not compatible with therights asserted since the time of Gregory VII by the papal supporters:the regalia were given to the Emperor at the expense of ecclesiasticalas well as lay landowners and corporations. If the papal investitureof Apulia infringed the imperial rights, the investiture ofFrederick's uncle, Welf VI of Bavaria, with the inheritance of theCountess Matilda openly ignored the oft-repeated claim of the Papacy. Neither side seemed to take especial pains to avoid a breach. Theacrimonious correspondence which ensued centred round the relations ofthe Italian bishops to the Emperor, the respective claims of eachparty to Rome, and the restoration of the Tuscan inheritance and allthe other lands which it claimed, to the Papacy. The excommunicationof the Emperor--the open declaration of war--was prevented byHadrian's death on September 1, 1159. 

[Sidenote: The papal schism. ]

A schism was inevitable. The majority of the Cardinals elected thepapal Chancellor Roland who had defied Frederick at Besançon, and whowould be likely to maintain Hadrian's high claims: he was afterwardsconsecrated as Alexander III. The minority got possession of St. Peter's and proclaimed an imperialist Cardinal as Victor IV. NeitherPope could be consecrated or could remain in Rome: both appealed bylegates and letters for the recognition of Christendom. Frederick asEmperor summoned both candidates to submit their claims to thedecision of a Council at Pavia. Alexander entirely repudiated theEmperor's implied claim to be the arbiter of Christendom in aspiritual matter, and found support in the fact that only fiftybishops, almost entirely from Germany and Lombardy, assembled atPavia. The Council, of course, decided in favour of Victor IV. Alexander, however, excommunicated the Emperor, and bent all hisenergies to gain the adherence of France and England. Not only was hesuccessful in this, but he was also recognised by the Latins of theEast and the lessor Christian kingdoms. Victor IV's only supporter wasthe Emperor. 

Nor did Frederick gain anything by his successes in Lombardy. It costhim seven months to subdue the little town of Crema; while it wasthree years (1159-62) before Milan surrendered and was destroyed. Itis true, Alexander could no longer maintain himself in Italy, but in1162 sought refuge in France. Frederick's attempts to drive him fromhis new asylum failed. Alexander carried on skilful negotiations withLouis VII of France and Henry II of England; and at Whitsuntide, 1163, a Council assembled at Tours, composed of a large number of cardinals, bishops, and clergy, and acknowledged Alexander with the utmostsolemnity, while at the joint invitation of the two Kings the Popetook up his abode at the city of Sens. 

[Sidenote: Fredericks's chance. ]

The death of the anti-Pope was a further blow to Frederick's cause, for the action of his representative in Italy committed him torecognise a second anti-Pope and laid him open to the accusation ofdesiring to perpetuate the schism. It seemed, however, as if hischance had come when the quarrel between Henry II and Thomas Becketdrove the English Archbishop to take refuge with the Pope at Sens. Alexander was in a difficulty. Henry was perhaps the most powerfulmonarch in Europe, and his support was of the utmost importance to thePope. But the rights for which Thomas was contending were part of therights which Alexander himself was claiming against the Emperor--theright of the Church to manage her own concerns without layinterference. While, therefore, prudence forbade him to throw down adistinct challenge to the English King, it was impossible that heshould comply with Henry's demand for the condemnation of therefractory Archbishop. Frederick took advantage of Henry's ill-humourto propose a marriage alliance between the royal houses and to soundHenry on the question of a change of alliance. The marriage thusarranged--of Frederick's cousin, Henry the Lion, to Henry II'sdaughter--ultimately took place. But both clergy and people in Englandwere for the most part in sympathy with Becket and unwilling toprolong the schism. The altars used by Frederick's envoys in Englandwere purified after their departure; and although Henry'srepresentatives appeared at the Diet of Würzburg in May, 1165, andeven took an oath to acknowledge the anti-Pope, the English King didnot dare to ratify their action. 

[Sidenote: Frederick's momentary triumph. ]

Nor was this the only time when success seemed possible to Frederick. This failure to move the English allegiance and the defection of anumber even of the German clergy emboldened Alexander to assume theaggressive, and he ventured to leave France and to take up his abodeat Rome. (December, 1165. ) Again the discontents of Lombardy were theoccasion for the Emperor's visit. In the autumn of 1166 he crossed theAlps, and after spending some months in Lombardy he forced an entranceinto Rome, enthroned his own Pope in St. Peter's, and himself wore hisimperial crown. Frederick refused to treat with Alexander except onthe basis of the resignation of both existing Popes and the electionof a third. Alexander's position was unbearable and he fled toBenevento. The Romans accepted Frederick as their lord. The Emperor'striumph seemed complete: Charlemagne's successor had indeed arrived. But the triumph was short-lived. The summer pestilence, which so oftenattacked a German army in Italy, fell more fiercely than ever before. Frederick fled northwards before it, and found so much hostility inLombardy that it was only by bypaths and in disguise that he was ableto make his way out of Italy. 

[Sidenote: The Lombard League. ]

It was seven years (1167-74) before Frederick was able to return toItaly; and although by that time his position in Germany wasunquestioned and the mutual relations of Louis VII and Henry IIprecluded any likelihood of interference from France or England, theItalian foes of the Emperor had gathered strength and combined theirforces. Chief among these were the cities of Lombardy. Divided as theywere into imperialist and anti-imperialist, or, to use the termscoming into vogue, Ghibelline and Guelf, they at first followed nocommon policy. Milan had taken the lead of the anti-imperialists. After the destruction of Milan a league formed by the cities of theVeronese March helped to force Frederick for a time to abandon hisdesigns upon Italy (1164). During his expedition of 1166-7 a LombardLeague sprang up and coalesced with the Veronese League; a commonorganisation was set up, Milan was restored, many of the staunchestimperial towns were forced to become members, and the crowning work ofthe League was the foundation of a common stronghold which incompliment to the Pope was named Alessandria. 

[Sidenote: Alliance with the Pope. ]

The real danger to the Emperor came from alliance of this League withthe Pope. The Lombard cities were the Pope's natural enemies. Some ofthem were the rivals of Rome--Pavia as the capital of the kingdom ofItaly; Milan the quondam champion of the cause of the married clergy;Ravenna as the rival patriarchate in Italy. Strong local feeling madethem resent all outside interference, of Pope no less than of Emperor. 

It was among these free, self-governing communities that heresy foundits chief adherents. But for the moment the common danger from theEmperor overshadowed all other differences. The old imperial rightswhich Frederick designed to recover included the power of appointinglocal officers whether consuls or bishops. Alone, neither Pope norLombard cities could look for success. In 1162, when all the citiesfell before Frederick, Alexander remained practically untouched. Butalthough his position was immensely strengthened since then, experience had shown that the Pope could not hold his own in Italy orRome without the help of some secular power. At the same time, inEurope at large he had proved a most potent force, since he wieldedweapons which were independent of time and place for their action, andsuch as the most powerful secular prince had found it impossible toignore. It was under direct encouragement from Alexander that thecities concluded their League in 1167. Before the next imperialexpedition it had become all-powerful in Northern Italy; not only thechief Ghibelline cities, including Pavia itself, had joined, but eventhe remaining feudal nobles had found it impossible to stand outside. 

[Sidenote: Submission of Henry II. ]

Nor was this Alexander's only triumph. So long as Archbishop ThomasBecket remained unreconciled to Henry II, the English King had doneall in his power to influence Alexander. A marriage alliance wascarried out between the royal families of England and Sicily, solelywith the object on Henry's side of neutralising one of the chief papalsupporters, and Henry scattered his bribes among the Lombard citieswith the same intent. But the reconciliation to which the attitude ofhis own people forced Henry in 1170 robbed him of all excuse forharassing the Pope, and the murder of the Archbishop by four of theKing's knights in Canterbury Cathedral isolated Henry and forced himto a humiliating treaty with Alexander. 

[Sidenote: Final failure of Frederick. ]

Frederick entered Italy in 1174 with small chance of success, for hisarmy was composed of mercenaries, and many of the leading Germannobles, notably his cousin Henry the Lion, refused to accompany him. He exhausted all the resources of his military art in a vain attemptto take the new fortress of Alessandria. The jealousies within theLeague made negotiations possible, but these broke down becauseFrederick refused to recognise Alessandria as a member of the Leagueor to include Pope Alexander in any peace made with the cities. Butthe end was at hand. When at length the forces met at Legnano on May29, 1176, the militia of the League won a decisive victory. Allpossibility of direct coercion was gone, and Frederick was forced toconsider seriously a change of policy. His only chance of good termslay in dividing his enemies. He applied to Alexander, who refused toseparate his cause from that of his allies, though he allowed that theterms might be arranged in secret. This was done. Frederick undertookto recognise Alexander and to restore all the papal possessions. Forthe allies, peace would be made with Sicily for fifteen years; theLombards should have a truce for six years. After much negotiationVenice was agreed upon for a general congress of all the parties tothe contest, and Frederick was forced to promise that he would notenter the city without the Pope's consent. Up to the last he hopedthat mutual suspicion would divide his allies. But the terms of peacewere agreed upon among the allies on the bases already mentioned; thenFrederick was admitted into Venice, and a dramatic reconciliationbetween Pope and Emperor was enacted (July 25, 1177). Frederickreturned to Germany at the end of the year. 

[Sidenote: Triumph of Alexander. ]

The schism was over, the anti-Pope submitted, and Alexander'sconciliatory policy opened the way for his return to Rome. The Popesignalised the close of the long schism of eighteen years by gatheringin 1179 a General Council, distinguished as the Third Lateran Council, to which came nearly a thousand ecclesiastics from various parts ofChristendom. The chief canon promulgated placed the papal electionexclusively in the hands of the cardinals, and ordained that atwo-thirds majority of the whole College should suffice for a validelection. During the rest of his reign Alexander was occupied inmediating between Henry II and his sons, and between Henry and Louisof France. He died, again an exile from Rome, on August 30, 1181. Hislong pontificate is one of the most eventful in papal history. He wasmatched against an opponent who not only aimed at reviving theimperial claims, but was himself a man of imperial character. Thedifficulties of the situation might have seemed overwhelming. WhereGregory VII failed Alexander succeeded. Tact, not force, was thequality required. The infinite patience and long tenacity of Alexandermet their reward. The Emperor was forced to violate the solemn oath hehad sworn at Wurzburg in 1165, never to acknowledge Alexander or hissuccessors, and never to seek absolution from this oath. The Pope hadsuccessfully asserted his claim to the civil government of Rome and tomany other purely temporal possessions. 

[Sidenote: Frederick's new move. ]

Once more Frederick crossed the Alps. He had crushed his formidablecousin, Henry the Lion, and banished him from Germany; he had turnedthe truce with the Lombards into the Peace of Constance by acquiescingin the loss of the imperial rights for which he had fought. His eldestson, Henry, had been crowned King of Germany as long ago as 1168. Frederick was now anxious to secure for him the succession to theimperial title, and hoped to find the Pope willing to crown Henry ashis father's colleague in the Empire. But although Lucius III, Alexander's successor (1181-5), had been driven from Rome, and wasdependent on the Emperor's help, it was impossible for him or for anyPope to agree to Frederick's wish. Two emperors at once were amanifest absurdity, and Frederick was not likely to accept the Pope'ssuggestion that he should resign in favour of his son. Moreover, therelay between Pope and Emperor the still unsettled question of theinheritance of the Countess Matilda. It was clear that the quarrelmust shortly be renewed. By the nature of the respective claims therecould never be more than a temporary truce. Lucius died, but hissuccessor, Urban III, was yet more irreconcilable. Meanwhile Frederickhad resolved on an act which would make the breach between Papacy andEmpire irreparable. The King of Sicily was William II "the Good. " Hismarriage to a daughter of Henry II of England (1177) had provedchildless, and the succession seemed likely to fall to Constance, daughter of King Roger and aunt of the reigning King. She was overthirty years of age. Frederick's defeat in 1174 had been due to hisfailure to divide his enemies. Now, however, he had his chance. TheLombards, having got all that they wanted, were quite favourable tohim. He planned to win Sicily also by a marriage between his youthfulson Henry and the almost middle-aged heiress Constance. A party inSicily helped him; and the marriage and the coronation of the happypair as King and Queen of Italy took place at Milan in January, 1186. Not only had the Emperor knocked away the staff upon which the Papacyhad been disposed to lean its arm for more than a century; but he hadactually picked it up and proposed to use it in the future for thepurpose of belabouring the Popes. Moreover, he had really secured hisobject of a hereditary empire; for Henry, now King with his father inGermany and in Italy, must needs succeed to all the paternal honours. In vain Urban tried to raise up a party against the Emperor; and thesentence of excommunication, which at length he had determined topronounce, was stopped only by the death of the Pope on October 20, 1187. 

[Sidenote: Frederick's death. ]

It was, however, chance and not the policy of the Emperor that avertedthe inevitable conflict. On July 5 the Christians of Palestine hadsuffered a crushing defeat at the battle of Hittim or Tiberias at thehand of Saladin, and on October 3 the Mohammedan conqueror enteredJerusalem. The quarrel was necessarily suspended, and a new crusadewas preached with such success that in May, 1189, Frederick set outfor Palestine, to be followed a year later by the Kings of France andEngland. But the Emperor never reached the Holy Land. He made his wayby Constantinople and Iconium into Cilicia, and there not far fromTarsus he disappeared, apparently drowned while crossing or bathing ina river. 

[Sidenote: The new contest. ]

With the great Emperor's death the contest between Papacy and Empireenters on a new phase. It is typical of this phase that the oneoutstanding question between the two powers after the Peace of Venicewas the question of Tuscany. For the quarrel was now almost entirelypolitical, and was becoming more and more confined to Italianpolitics. The imperial attempt to subdue Italy to Germany had failed, and it remained for the Emperor to make it impossible for the Pope tolive at Rome except as a dependant of the German King. With Tuscany, Lombardy, and Sicily under the imperial control, there was no room forpapal action in Italy. In a contest of abstract principles the Emperorhad entirely failed to subdue the Pope; and the interest andimportance of the contest between Frederick and Alexander lay in thefact that each was the representative of an idea. This is no doubt thereason why Frederick's failure did not damage his prestige. But he hadlearnt that he could not set the abstract claims of the Empire againstthose of the Papacy. The former did not appeal to any one beyond thelimits of Germany; whereas the latter could count on sympathy in everycountry of Western Europe. Frederick, therefore, made no more appealsto Europe. His disputes with the Papacy were now individual matters:they were contests of policy, not of principle, and he would nothesitate to turn circumstances to his advantage. Perhaps, fortunatelyfor Frederick's reputation, he did nothing more than inaugurate thispolicy. But it was a policy which essentially suited the peculiargenius of his successor. 

[Sidenote: Henry VI. ]

As soon as Frederick had started for Palestine Henry was plunged indifficulties. Henry the Lion returned from banishment and raised adisturbance. A few months later William II of Sicily died, and PopeClement III (1187-91) immediately invested with the kingdom Tancred, Count of Lecce, an illegitimate member of the Hauteville family, whohad been elected by the party opposed to the German influence. On thetop of these difficulties came the news of Frederick's death. Therewas thus a double reason for an expedition to Italy--Henry must asserthis wife's claim to the throne of Sicily, and he must do this withoutquarrelling with the Pope, from whom he must obtain the imperialcrown. His first expedition was only a formal success. Pope CelestineIII (1191-8), who took office just after Henry entered Italy, darednot refuse to crown him emperor, nor could he prevent Henry fromeither courting the Roman Commune with success or prosecuting hisclaim to the Sicilian crown. But Henry failed before Naples: his armywas decimated by the plague, and his wife fell into Tancred's hands. 

[Sidenote: His success in Italy. ]

This ill-success revived the Guelf opposition in Germany, whose mostpowerful supporter was Henry the Lion's brother-in-law, Richard ofEngland. Richard on his way to Palestine had made an alliance withTancred against the common Hohenstaufen enemy. But returning fromcrusade Richard fell into the hands of Leopold of Austria. Leopold wasforced to hand him over to the Emperor, and the anti-Hohenstaufenalliance fell to pieces. For whatever reason, Henry kept the EnglishKing for more than a year, and turned a deaf ear to the papalremonstrances against his detention of a crusader. Fortified by thefailure of the threatened combination against him, and by the moneyfrom Richard's ransom, Henry returned to Italy. Fortune favoured himat every turn. Since he left Italy Tancred and his eldest son haddied, and Henry found no difficulty in getting hold of the youthfulson of Tancred, who had been placed upon the throne under his mother'sregency. Apulia and Sicily were overrun. The toils were closing roundthe Pope. Celestine had excommunicated all concerned in Richard'simprisonment until they should have restored his ransom. Thus byimplication Henry was excommunicate. The money had been spent insubduing the papal fief of Sicily; while Henry further made hisbrother Philip Marquis of Tuscany, and planted his followers about inthe lands of the Church. Yet Celestine did not dare to pronounce thefatal sentence against the Emperor directly. 

[Sidenote: His imperial schemes. ]

Henry meditated one more step which would have rendered the Popepowerless. Frederick, with the mere prospect of the Siciliansuccession for his son, desired to make the imperial title hereditary;much more was Henry, the active sovereign of Sicily, anxious toaccomplish this. The lay princes could have been bribed to consent bythe recognition of hereditary succession to their fiefs. But theGerman ecclesiastics, with the Pope at their back, had no desire toincrease the power of the Emperor, and the utmost that Henry couldsecure was the election as German King, and therefore King of theRomans, of his two-year-old son Frederick. 

[Sidenote: His death. ]

Henry's projects stretched out beyond the lands under his rule. Thedeath of Saladin encouraged the idea of a new crusade. Henry ascrusader might propitiate the Pope. But such an expedition oncestarted might have been diverted, as indeed happened a few yearslater, for an attack upon Constantinople, which should lead to theunion of both empires under the ambitious Hohenstaufen. Pretexts werenot wanting. Henry collected a number of German crusaders upon thecoast of Italy, and many of these had actually sailed for Palestinewhen everything was changed by Henry's sudden death on September 28, 1197. He had reigned eight years, and was only thirty-two years ofage. Despite his youthful age and his short reign he had raised theimperial power to a height which it had scarcely ever touched beforeand which it was never to reach again. Endowed with ability at leastequal to his father's, his very selfishness and ruthlessness gave hima success denied to his predecessor. All Henry's acts were associatedwith his own aggrandisement, and the result shows that the Papacy noless than the Empire was dependent for its influence chiefly upon thepersonality of the holder of the office. Henry had to deal at Romewith Popes of inferior capacity. Had Innocent III been elected a fewyears earlier, the tragedy of Anagni--the maltreatment of BonifaceVIII by the emissaries of the King of France--might have beenanticipated by a century. 

CHAPTER IX

INNOCENT III

[Sidenote: The new Pope. ]

Celestine III died less than four months after the Emperor Henry VI, and the centre of interest immediately shifted from the Empire to thePapacy. For, in their desire to shut out the Roman clergy and peoplefrom any share in the election, the Cardinals made haste to find asuccessor. As it happened, the object of their choice was also thefavourite of the Roman people. Lothair of Segni was the youngest ofthe Cardinals, being only thirty-seven years of age. He was sprungfrom a German family which had settled in the tenth century in theCampagna. He had studied in Paris and Bologna, and had been madeCardinal by his uncle, Clement III. Celestine was of the rival familyof Orsini, and during his reign the young Cardinal remained inretirement and consoled himself by writing a book on the _Despite ofthe World_. Thus he was young, noble, wealthy, and distinguished. He showed his power of self-control at once by doing nothing toshorten the canonical time before his consecration as priest andbishop; while the magnificence of the coronation ceremonies typifiedthe view which he took of the office and position. 

[Sidenote: The condition of Europe. ]

The work of Innocent III was European in importance, and he found hisopportunity in the disturbed condition of the time. The rivalry ofGhibelline and Guelf in Germany and Italy, and the rivalry of thehouses of Capet and Plantagenet in France, forbade any concertedaction on the part of Christendom, whether against pagans on theeastern frontier of Germany or against Mohammedans in Spain or Syria. Hungary and Poland were both in a state of ferment; in Spain theAlmohades from Morocco were making serious advances. Saladin's deathmight seem to offer a peculiarly favourable chance of recovering forChristendom what had been so recently lost. But the Empire wasdivided; England and France neutralised each other, the Eastern Empirewas weakened by the success of an usurper, the knightly orders werequarrelling with each other. And this state of disunion was not themost dangerous feature of the moment. The moral condition of Europewas seldom worse. Philip of France had repudiated his Danish wife, Ingebiorg, apparently for no more valid reason than that he liked someone better; Alfonso of Castile took his own half-sister to wife. Oriental manners, imported from Palestine or learnt from commercialintercourse in the Mediterranean, seemed to be invading the furthestregions of the West. Perhaps to the same influence may be attributedthe spread of religious heresies. Much of this was provoked by directantagonism to a powerful and corrupt Church; but the actual formassumed by the positive beliefs of those who organised themselvesapart from the Catholic Church were largely Oriental in character. 

Everything combined to encourage Innocent's interference, and it maybe pointed out at once that his success was largely due to the selfishambitions and desires of the lay princes, which enabled him to pose asthe undoubted representative of moral force organised in the Church. In all his most important acts he was the mouthpiece of popularopinion. Thus his contest with Philip of France in favour of therepudiated Ingebiorg commanded the sympathy of every right-thinkingperson in Europe; his desire for the separation of Italy and Germanyunder different rulers was popular in Italy; while to attempt an unionof the Churches of East and West, to crush out heresy in the south ofFrance and elsewhere, to promote a new crusade in the East, were allregarded as duties falling strictly within the papal sphere. 

[His claim for the Papacy. ]

The importance of this great activity lies in the fact that it wasbased upon the most advanced theories of papal power. It was thecontroversy over lay investiture which first caused the defenders ofthe Church to formulate their views of the sphere of ecclesiasticalinfluence as against the influence of the secular authority. But theextreme claims put forward for the Papacy as the head of the Church, by Gregory VII and his followers, had provoked the counter definitionsof the jurists of Bologna on behalf of the imperial power. But theclaim of universal dominion by the Emperor was contradicted by facts, and never rose above the dignity of an academic thesis; whereas in thecentury which elapsed from the days of Gregory VII to those ofInnocent III the papal power was becoming an increasing reality in theChurch. It is indeed a little difficult to see wherein it was possiblefor any successor of Gregory VII to make an advance upon the claimsput forward by that Pope. Gregory in fond of pointing out that thepower of binding and loosing given to St. Peter was absolutelycomprehensive, including all persons and secular as well as spiritualmatters. Innocent tells the Patriarch of Constantinople that the Lordleft to Peter not only the whole Church, but the whole world togovern. To the Karolingian age it was the Emperor who was the Vicar ofGod. The Church reformers, while attacking this title, do not seem tohave claimed in words for the Pope a higher title than Vicar of St. Peter. Innocent, however, more than once asserts that he is therepresentative "not of mere man, but of very God. " In fact, suchdevelopment as is to be found in the papal office during the twelfthcentury consists merely in making rather more explicit positions whichhave already been asserted. Gregory, in writing to William theConqueror, had used the figures of the sun and moon to illustrate therelations of Church and State. Innocent draws out the analogy in muchdetail: "As God, the builder of the universe, has set up two lights inthe firmament of heaven, the greater light to rule the day and thelesser light to rule the night, so for the firmament of the universalChurch, which is called by the name of heaven, He has set up two greatdignities, the greater to rule souls, as it were days, and the lesserto rule bodies, as it were nights; and these are priestly authorityand royal power. Further, as the moon obtains its light from the sun, seeing that it is really the lesser both in quantity and quality, andalso in position and influence, so royal power obtains the splendourof its dignity from priestly authority. " He points out on anotheroccasion that "individual kings have individual kingdoms, but Peter isover all, as in fulness so also in breadth, because he is the Vicar ofHim whose is the earth and the fulness thereof, the round world andthey that dwell therein. Further, as the priesthood excels in dignity, so it precedes in antiquity. Both kingdom and priesthood, " he allows, "were instituted among the people of God; but, " he adds, "while thepriesthood was instituted by divine ordinance, the kingdom came intoexistence through the importunity of man. " Hence it is not strangethat "not only in the Patrimony of the Church, but also in otherspheres, we occasionally exercise temporal jurisdiction, " for "he towhom God says in Peter, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. ', is His Vicar, who is priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek, ordained by God to be judge of the quick and the dead. "

[Sidenote: He secures power in Rome. ]

But while the Pope assumed this all-embracing position, a considerableshare of his energies was absorbed in a very small and purely selfishmatter--the extension of the temporal dominion of the Papacy; and theuse for this personal object of the great powers which men willinglyacknowledged in the Pope as the upholder of the standard of moralitygreatly prejudiced the success of Innocent's policy elsewhere. In itsorigin this was a policy of self-preservation. The civil government ofRome was in the hands of a prefect representing the Emperor and asenator who was the spokesman of the Commune. The Pope was either aprisoner or a nonentity in his own capital. The Empire being inabeyance, it was not difficult to transform the prefect into a papalofficer, but a greater triumph was the nomination of the senator, forit carried the ultimate control over the municipality, and thusundermined the power of the Commune, which had paralysed the papalinfluence in Rome for nearly sixty years. This signal victory was notgained without a struggle. The democratic party even drove the Popefrom the city for a time; but by 1205, Innocent, by apparentconcessions and the use of bribery, had won his end. 

[Sidenote: Central Italy. ]

Meanwhile an even more important movement had been accomplished. Thecentre of the peninsula outside the Patrimony of St. Peter was in thehands Of Henry VI's German followers. One was driven from Spoleto, another from Ravenna, and both these districts were added to the papaldominions. Tuscany had been made over to Henry VI's brother, Philip;but he went off to secure the German crown, and his subjects didhomage to the Pope. There existed, however, a League of Tuscan cities, and the Pope, leaving to them their independence, merely accepted theoffice of President of the League. It was the addition of thesesubstantial dominions to the lands of the Patrimony which, as betweenPope and Emperor, effectually solved the question of thelong-contested Matildan inheritance, and laid the foundation of thetemporal dominions of the Papacy as they remained until 1860. 

[Sidenote: South Italy. ]

The German influence also threatened to be paramount in the south ofthe peninsula. For Henry VI, while giving to Queen Constance thenominal regency during the minority of their son Frederick, took carethat the real authority should be in the hands of his Germanfollowers. Constance, however, had no desire for the continued unionof the German and Sicilian crowns; and here she found a staunchsupporter in the Pope. First with Celestine, and then with Innocent, she entered into close relations. Frederick took the old Norman oathof vassalage for his dominions; and when Innocent confirmed the title, he compelled Constance in return to surrender the ecclesiasticalprivileges connected with elections, legatine visits, appeals, andcouncils originally granted by Urban II to Count Roger of Sicily, andto promise an annual tribute. The Pope, however, aided her to clearher country of the Germans, many of whom he afterwards again huntedfrom Central Italy. It was natural, therefore, that on her death inNovember, 1198, Constance should commend her child to the guardianshipof Innocent. Innocent himself was far too much occupied to take thepersonal direction of affairs, and eight years of incessant warfare(1200-8) were necessary before the German influence could be finallygot rid of, and then Innocent secured his influence through a regencyof native nobles under the presidency of his own brother. 

[Sidenote: The contest in Germany. ]

Even on the German side there was little need to anticipate that thetwo crowns of Germany and Sicily would remain united. The nobles werescarcely likely to keep their promise of crowning Henry's young son. He was a mere child, three years of age; not yet baptised, perhapsbecause his father was excommunicate; brought up in Italy and in thehands of Italians; a protégé of the Pope. Thus his uncle Philip waseasily persuaded by the Hohenstaufen supporters in Germany to take theplace intended for his nephew, and was chosen and crowned as King ofGermany (March, 1198). But the enemies of the Hohenstaufen could notlet the opportunity go by, and three months later, at the suggestionof Richard of England, they elected and crowned his nephew, Otto ofBrunswick, a son of Henry the Lion of Saxony, whom Richard had madeCount of Poitou and York. Thus was revived the struggle betweenGhibelline and Guelf. 

[Sidenote: Innocent's decision. ]

Innocent undertook the decision of the question as a matter belongingto his sphere, "chiefly because it was the Apostolic See whichtransferred the Empire from the east to the west, and lastly becausethe same See grants the crown of the Empire. " In the divided conditionof Germany much depended on his attitude. It was scarcely likely thathe would accept a Hohenstaufen who was lord of Tuscany. But Philip wasthe nominee of the most numerous and important section of the Germannobles, while the death of Richard of England (1199) deprived Otto ofhis chief supporter. As Gregory VII on a similar occasion, so nowInnocent delayed his decision between the rivals until he could makeup his mind that Otto had some chance of success. Meanwhile he dideverything to prejudice the minds of the German people against Philip, who, as the holder of lands claimed by the Papacy, was alreadyexcommunicate. After three years of deliberation Innocent declaredhimself. Otto paid a heavy price for the decision in his favour. Bythe Capitulation of Neuss (June, 1201) he swore to protect to theutmost all the possessions, honours, and rights of the Roman Church, both those which it already held and those which he would help it torecover. The extent of land was defined as including not only thePatrimony of St. Peter (from Radicofani to Ceperano), but also theExarchate, the Pentapolis, the March of Ancona, the Duchy of Spoleto, and the territories of the Countess Matilda. 

[Sidenote: Innocent III and Philip Augustus of France. ]

But in the course of the next few years Innocent was obliged to takeup a totally different attitude in this struggle in consequence ofdisappointments elsewhere. There were two such which fell especiallyheavily upon him during the first half of his reign. He inherited fromhis predecessor a quarrel with Philip Augustus of France. Philip losthis first wife in 1190; in 1193 his designs against England caused himto marry Ingebiorg, a sister of the King of Denmark. Immediately afterthe marriage he took a dislike to her, refused to live with her, andobtained from an assembly of his own clergy a sentence of divorce, founded on an allegation of some very distant relationship between himand his new wife. Ingebiorg and her brother appealed to Pope CelestineIII, who declared the sentence of divorce illegal and null. Philip notonly paid no attention to the numerous letters and legates of thePope, but he tried to make the divorce irrevocable by taking a newwife. After several rebuffs he found in Agnes of Meran, the daughterof a Bavarian noble, one who was willing to accept the dubiousposition (1196). Innocent III at once took up an uncompromisingattitude, and instructed his legates that if Philip refused to sendaway Agnes and to restore Ingebiorg, they should put the kingdom underan interdict preparatory to a sentence of personal excommunicationagainst Philip and Agnes themselves. Those bishops who dared topublish the interdict were seriously maltreated by the King; but afternine months of resistance the distress of his people at the cessationof religious services caused him to submit; he pretended to take backIngebiorg, and the interdict was raised (1200). But he did not sendaway Agnes, and a renewal of the interdict was only averted by Agnes'death in 1201. Innocent, desiring to be conciliatory, actuallydeclared Agnes' two children legitimate. Philip still, however, pressed for a divorce from Ingebiorg, declaring that he was bewitchedby her. After his victory over John of England in 1204 he became morethan ever obdurate to papal remonstrances, and he even contemplated anew marriage. Innocent was not in a position to drive him to extremes, and was obliged to temporise for a time. Eventually, however, hereduced Philip to submission. 

[Sidenote: The Fourth Crusade. ]

But Innocent suffered more definite defeat in the matter of theCrusade. The crusading fervour had much diminished, and it has beenpointed out as characteristic of the age that a fourth crusade wasdetermined on at a tournament in Champagne in 1199. Celestine III hadvainly tried to rouse the interest of Europe, but the preaching ofFulk, the priest of Neuilly, recalled the efforts and the success ofPeter the Hermit and St. Bernard. Innocent III lent his wholeinfluence to the enterprise. But from the first everything seemed togo contrary to his wishes. The death of Theobald of Champagne (1201), who was the papal nominee for the leadership, placed at the head ofthe crusaders Boniface, Marquis of Montserrat, an Italian and kinsmanof Philip of France and a typical representative of the worst side offeudalism. From that moment Innocent lost all control over theexpedition. Instead of going directly to the Holy Land, the baronsdecided to attack the Mohammedan power in Egypt--perhaps the sounderpolicy. They made an agreement with the Venetians to find the shippingfor the host in return for a large sum of money. But the long delaycaused many crusaders to set off to the Holy Land; so that when themain force arrived at Venice it was so diminished in numbers that theleaders could not raise the sum for which they had pledged themselvesto Venice. Probably there was no deep-laid plot for the diversion ofthe crusading host from the first. But the Venetians suddenly foundthemselves with the practical direction of a formidable army; they hadenemies in the Adriatic against whom they had hitherto been powerless;they had old causes of rivalry and enmity with Constantinople. At thesame time King Philip of Germany was urging the cause of hisbrother-in-law, who had been deposed from the Byzantine throne. Thecrusaders, unwilling to disperse and unable to insist, allowedthemselves to be diverted, first to an attack upon Zara, a nest ofpirates in the Adriatic, although it belonged to the King of Hungary, who was himself a crusader; and then to Constantinople, which theyultimately captured (1204), and where they set up a Latin Empire. Innocent did everything to prevent this diversion of his cherishedscheme. He forbade the attack upon Zara, he excommunicated theVenetians for going to Constantinople, and threatened the whole hostwith the same penalty. But he was powerless. The few in the army whowere moved by some of the crusading spirit were overruled; and whenthe papal legates for the expedition to Palestine joined the army atConstantinople, all thought of going on to Palestine was abandoned. Innocent was forced to accept what was done and to console himselfwith the thought of the blow thus dealt to the Eastern Church. 

[Sidenote: Innocent's difficulty. ]

These rebuffs seriously diminished Innocent's influence in Europe fora time. Moreover, Innocent soon had reason to regret his championshipof Otto. Philip was wealthy and personally popular, while Otto'sbrusquerie and selfishness alienated many supporters. Consequentlyfrom 1203 Philip distinctly obtained the upper hand, and at length in1207 Innocent opened negotiations with him. But these were renderedfutile when Philip fell victim to the assassin's knife in June, 1208. Otto's acceptance now became inevitable, and he did everything toconciliate his opponents. He submitted himself to a fresh election bythe German nobles, and won the Hohenstaufen by marrying Beatrice, thedaughter of his late rival. He made new concessions to the Pope, whichpractically amounted to a renunciation of the powers confirmed to theEmperor in the matter of elections by the Concordat of Worms; heundertook to give up the right of spoils and to help in theeradication of heresy. And all this he promised because he was "Kingof the Romans by the grace of God and of the Pope. "

[Sidenote: Otto's designs. ]

But Otto's acceptance was only the beginning of the end. He knew thathe owed his position merely to the accident of Philip's death and tothe absence of any eligible Hohenstaufen candidate. He had thereforeno feelings of gratitude towards Innocent. Moreover, he was nowsurrounded by Ghibelline influences, and was anxious to be crownedemperor. Thus, despite his promises of 1201 and 1209, to recover tothe Papacy all the lands and rights which it claimed, he began torealise that the task to which he must give himself was therestoration of the connection between Italy and Germany, which hadbeen entirely broken since Henry VI's death. In fact, this Guelfprince took up the work of the Hohenstaufen. When, therefore, Otto andInnocent met in Italy a year later, Otto declined to give more than averbal promise that after his coronation he would do what was right. Innocent, in return, did not refuse the crown indeed, but made a newdeparture in naming Otto Emperor without consecrating him as such, andthus denied to him the divinity of the imperial office (October, 1209). 

[Sidenote: Otto's success. ]

Otto immediately set to work. He recovered for the Empire all thelands of Central Italy which Innocent had already annexed to the papaldominions, including, of course, the Matildan inheritance; he made theRoman Prefect an imperial officer again; and entering into alliancewith the German followers of Henry VI, who had never been entirelydislodged from the southern kingdom, he overran Apulia and prepared, by the aid of a fleet lent by Pisa, to pass over into Sicily. Innocentdid everything in his power to check the conqueror. He excommunicatedhim (August, 1210); in conjunction with Philip Augustus of France, theold ally of Henry VI, he roused disaffection against Otto among theGerman nobles. Innocent was somewhat taken aback when Otto's subjects, finding that the Pope in his anathema had absolved them from theirfealty to the King, held Otto as deposed, and proceeded to elect inhis place the young Frederick Roger, Henry VI's son and the papalward, who was already King of Sicily. This choice also threatened toproduce that very union of Germany and Italy which Otto was bent onaccomplishing. But the need of checking Otto forced Innocent toacquiesce, and Frederick did everything to allay the papal fears. 

[Sidenote: Innocent and Frederick. ]

Since Frederick could not stop Otto's progress in the south, it wasarranged that he should go north to Germany in the hope of drawingOtto away. Before he left, Frederick had his young child Henrycrowned, as an earnest that he did not intend to join the kingdom hewas going to seek with that which he already held. He passed throughRome on his way north, and Innocent obtained from him a repetition ofhis liege homage for Sicily and a promise that the two kingdoms shouldbe kept separate. In return Innocent gave him the title of "Emperorelect by the grace of God and of the Pope, " and supplied him withmoney. Innocent thus hoped that he had taken every precaution to avoidthe dangers which he feared, while Frederick, young and inexperienced, seems to have accepted the conditions willingly and to have intendedto keep them. His ambition and the unexpected prospects thus opened tohim led him on regardless of consequences. 

[Sidenote: Otto's failure. ]

Frederick's move was perfectly successful. Otto rushed back toGermany, and the death of his wife Beatrice did away with anyobligations of loyalty which the partisans of the Hohenstaufen mighthave felt towards him. Frederick was elected and crowned (December, 1212), and renewed the old Hohenstaufen league with France. Ottoturned for help to his uncle, John of England. John was excommunicate, but now made his peace with the Pope. Philip, at first encouraged byInnocent to attack England and then after John's submission forbiddento go, turned his arms against Flanders. A coalition was formedagainst him, and was joined by John and by Otto; but Philip's victoryat Bouvines (July, 1214) broke up the coalition and put an end toOtto's hopes. For the four years of life which remained to him hispower was confined to Brunswick. 

[Sidenote: Frederick's acceptance. ]

Meanwhile Frederick had, as it were, put the crown upon his work ofsubmission to the Papacy. By the Golden Bull (July, 1213), he repeatedthe promises which Otto had made at Neuss in 1201 with the additionsof 1209. In 1215 he went through a second and more formal coronationat Aachen, and took the cross in conjunction with a number of Germannobles. In 1216 he further promised, in a formal deed, that in returnfor the imperial crown his son Henry should become King of Sicily, entirely independently from himself and under the supremacy of theRoman Church. Thus Frederick in his eagerness put himself completelyin the hands of the Papacy. 

[Sidenote: Innocent and England. ]

Otto's cause had been linked with that of his uncle John, over whomInnocent won the greatest of his victories. On a vacancy in the see ofCanterbury (1206) the right of election was disputed, as usual, between the monks of the monastery of Christchurch at Canterbury andthe bishops of the province. King John thrust in his nominee. Innocentsettled the matter by making an appointment of his own. But Johnrefused to accept Stephen Langton; and Innocent proceeded to force hisconsent. In 1208 the country was laid under an interdict; and Johntreated the bishops who published it as Philip Augustus had treatedthe French bishops ten years before. In 1209 Innocent excommunicatedJohn, and in 1212 declared him deposed. Despite the continuedobstinacy of Philip of France in the matter of Ingebiorg, Innocentcalled upon him to execute the papal sentence; and Philip, thinkingthat the aid of Denmark would be useful, ended the twenty years'dispute and accorded to Ingebiorg the position of Queen for the restof his reign. It was certainly a measure of the growing strength ofthe royal power in France that it had been able to defy the Papacy forso long in a matter in which the King was so clearly in the wrong. Philip's threatened attack brought John to his knees; and in 1213 henot only accepted Stephen Langton, but even surrendered his kingdom tothe Papacy to receive it back as a papal fief, and undertook to pay anannual tribute. The sequel was not quite so satisfactory for Innocent. The surrender to the Pope and the defeat at Bouvines so enraged thebarons and clergy in England that they combined to force John to signMagna Carta (1215). But John was now under the protection of the Pope;and although Innocent's own archbishop took the lead in the movementagainst John, Innocent issued a bull in condemnation of the charter;but so long as John lived, even the interdict and excommunicationwhich followed failed to move the barons. Innocent's successors reapedthe benefit of his triumph in the influence which they were able toexert in England during the greater part of the reign of Henry III. 

[Sidenote: Innocent's successes in Europe. ]

Nor was John the only King who laid his crown at the feet of the Pope. Peter, King of Aragon, hoped to escape the claims of the King ofCastile and the tyranny of his own barons by making his kingdomtributary to the Papacy. Prince John of Bulgaria actually asked forand obtained a royal crown from Innocent. The struggles of Sancho, King of Portugal, to free himself from the submission made by apredecessor ended in failure. Leo, King of Armenia, sought the papalprotection against the crusaders. The King of Denmark appealed toInnocent on behalf of his much-wronged sister. The contending partiesin Hungary listened to his mediation. 

But we have already seen that Innocent was not always successful, andthat most of his successes were won only after a prolonged contest. Their matrimonial irregularities brought him into conflict with nearlyall the Christian Kings of Spain, and the kingdom of Leon was struckby an interdict which was not removed for five years. It was a moreserious matter for the future that the papal acts for the first timeroused the opposition of the people in more than one instance; whileit is right to notice that Innocent often got acknowledgment of hisclaim to adjudicate by accepting what had already been done. Butdespite some notable failures, he did meet with considerable success;and since he got so much, it is not surprising that he aimed at more. Perhaps the greatest disappointment of his life was the failure of theFourth Crusade. Innocent found some compensation in the great victorywon by the united chivalry of Spain and France over the Almohades onthe field of Las Navas de Tolosa in 1212. But he is responsible forinventing a new kind of crusade--that of Christians againstChristians--in the undoubtedly papal duty of dealing with theAlbigensian heretics; and it is, in modern eyes at least, a smallcondonation that he encouraged the founder of the Dominicans andreceived Francis of Assisi with sympathy. 

[Sidenote: The Fourth Lateran Council. ]

Innocent's pontificate ended in a blaze of glory. After the settlementof the strife in Germany he called together a Council which isdistinguished as the Fourth Lateran or the Twelfth OEcumenicalCouncil. It met in 1215, and was composed of more than two thousandpersons, including envoys from all the chief nations of Europe. Itsresolutions were embodied in seventy canons dealing with a vastvariety of subjects in the endeavour to bring about a drasticreformation of the Church. This is perhaps Innocent's most solid claimto the name of a great ruler. But it only serves to emphasise thewholly external nature of his rule. And subsequent ages haverecognised this limitation to his claims for honour in that, whilethey have freely accorded to him the name of a great man and a greatPope, if not the greatest of the pontiffs, the Church has never addedhis name to the rôle of Christian saints. 

CHAPTER X

THE PAPAL POWER IN THE CHURCH

[Sidenote: The basis of papal claims. ]

The interest of the period with which we are dealing is largelyconcerned with the attempted definition of the relations betweenChurch and State. The peculiar form of mediaeval thought resolved thisinto a struggle of the papal power to make itself supreme over alltemporal rulers. But scarcely less important or interesting is theconcomitant effort of the Papacy to gather up into itself the wholeimmediate authority of the Church. 

This effort was very materially helped by the fact that variousnational churches which had retained their own customs were graduallybrought into communion with Rome. William the Conqueror put an end tothe schism which had cut off the Anglo-Saxon Church from Rome, anddrew the Church in England into closer contact with Rome than she hadenjoyed since the days of Archbishop Theodore. Through Queen Margaret, the Anglo-Saxon wife of Malcolm Canmore, Roman customs supersededthose of the Celtic Church in Scotland. Gregory VII prevailed on theSpanish churches to accept the Roman for the Mozarabic liturgy. Alexander III attracted to Rome the long-isolated Church in Ireland, and Innocent II reconciled the Milanese at last to the papalsupremacy. The foundation for the high claims on the part of thePapacy rested on what are known as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. Decretals are answers to questions referred to the Bishop of Rome fromother churches. The earliest of these was of date 385. Compilations ofthe Canons of the Church, in which these answers were included, wereput out in the sixth and the seventh centuries, the latter under thename of Bishop Isidore of Seville. In the middle of the ninth centuryappeared a third compilation, also published under the name ofIsidore, and containing fifty-nine additional letters and decrees ofearlier date than 385. Inasmuch as the Latin edition of the Bible, which St. Jerome did not translate until about the year 400, is quotedin some of these, this compilation has not unnaturally been styled theFalse or Forged or Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. The object of thisforgery was the exaltation of the Papacy as "the supreme lord, lawgiver, and judge of the Church, " since all previous claims werebrought together and were referred back to the foundation ofChristianity. Two centuries later another document of doubtfulauthenticity, called _Dictatus Papae_, sets forth in asufficiently true spirit the principles proclaimed by Gregory VII. This states, among other things, that the Roman pontiff can alone becalled Universal, that his name is unique in the world, that he oughtto be judged by none; and it ascribes to him, without the interventionof any intermediary, the supreme and immediate power in all executive, legislative, and judicial matters. 

[Sidenote: The Pope: the sole authority in the Church. ]

The history of the Church during the two succeeding centuries ismerely an exemplification of these claims. It was in the spirit ofthis document that Innocent II, in the speech with which he opened theSecond Lateran Council in 1139, reminded his hearers that Rome was thehead of the world, and that the highest ecclesiastical offices werederived from the Roman pontiff as by a kind of feudal right, and couldnot he lawfully held without his permission. Innocent III, we haveseen, describes himself as the Vicar of God or of Jesus Christ. Thus, although the Pope is potentially present everywhere in the Church, hecannot exercise the great power belonging to the office personally, sothat he has called in his brethren, the co-bishops, to share in thecare of the burden entrusted to himself; but in doing so he hassubtracted in no whit from the fulness of power which enables him toenquire into individual cases and to assume the office of judge atwill. Others, then, may be admitted to a share in the care of theChurch (_pars solicitudinis_); but to the Pope has been given thefulness of power (_plenitudo potestatis_). Thomas Aquinas showshow bishop and archbishop equally derive their authority from thePope, and finds parallels to the relationship between the Pope and theother officers of the Church in the dependence of all things createdupon God and the subordination of the proconsul to the Emperor. Thisdeliberate policy on the part of the Papacy to absorb into itself thewhole spiritual authority of the Church may be traced in its attemptsto set itself up as supreme administrator, supreme lawgiver, andsupreme judge. 

Before the Pope could claim to be supreme administrator within theChurch it was necessary to deprive all other ecclesiastical officersof their independence. The custom of the gift of the pall toarchbishops who exercised the office of Metropolitans had already madethese highest officers of all into little more than delegates of thePapacy. Gregory VII failed in his attempt to force them to come inperson to Rome in order to receive the pall. He succeeded, however, inimposing upon them an oath which, founded upon the oath of fealty, made their position analogous to that of a feudal vassal. By this aMetropolitan swore to be faithful to St. Peter and the Pope and hissuccessors who should have been canonically elected; that he would beno party to violence against the Pope; that he would attend in personor by representatives at every synod to which the Pope summoned him;that, saving the rights of his Order, he would help to defend thePapacy and all its possessions and honours; that he would not betrayany trust reposed in him by the Pope; that he would honourably treatthe papal legate; that he would not knowingly communicate withexcommunicates; that when asked he would faithfully help the RomanChurch with a force of soldiers. To this was often added anundertaking that he would appear at Rome himself or by arepresentative at stated intervals; that he would cause his suffragansat their consecration to take an oath of obedience to the Romanpontiff; that he would not part with anything belonging to hisofficial position without the knowledge of the Roman See. 

[Sidenote: Claim over bishoprics. ]

Gregory's successors imposed this oath by degrees on all bishops, andthus gradually substituted the Pope for the Metropolitan. The_Dictatus Papae_ claimed for the Pope the right of deposing orreinstating bishops without reference to a synod; of transferring abishop from one see to another; of dividing a wealthy see or joiningtogether poor bishoprics. It was the papal policy to champion thesuffragans against the Metropolitans until the original metropoliticalpower of confirming the elections of their newly elected suffragansand consecrating them to the episcopal office was entirely supersededby the growing authority of the Pope. The right of confirmationimplied the power of quashing an election, and this could easily growinto a power of direct appointment. This last power was only exercisedhabitually in certain cases--after a vacancy had lasted for a certaintime; if the bishop had died at Rome; if the bishop had beentransferred from one see to another. From the end of the eleventhcentury cases are found of bishops designated to be such, not only, according to the ancient formula, "by the grace of God, " but also bythat "of the Apostolic See, " and such description becomes fairlycommon in the thirteenth century. 

[Sidenote: Claim over benefices. ]

And as the Popes passed over Metropolitans in order to obtain a directhold on the suffragans, so they went on in course of time to pass overthe bishop in every diocese by claiming the disposition of individualbenefices. Such a claim began in the first half of the twelfth centuryin letters of recommendation and petitions for the appointment ofpapal favourites to prebends or benefices. But so quickly did thissystem develop that where Hadrian IV recommended Alexander IIIcommanded, and the mandates of Innocent III were enforced by speciallyappointed officers. Clement IV lays it down that ancient custom hasspecially reserved to the Roman pontiff the collation of churches andoffices which become vacant through the death of the holder at Rome, but that this is only part of the greater right which is known tobelong to Rome and gives to the Pontiff the full disposal (_plenariadispositio_) of all offices and benefices both at the time ofvacancy and by provision beforehand. But so flagrant was the abuse ofthis power of appointment that it roused the indignant remonstrance ofthe most ardent supporters of the papal authority in the Church. England under Henry III was so much exploited by its papal guardian asto gain the name of the "Milch-cow of the Papacy"; but there were manyprotests. 

Robert Grossteste, Bishop of Lincoln, the most revered EnglishChurchman of the thirteenth century, was bidden by Innocent IV to finda canonry in his cathedral for a nominee of the Pope, who, moreover, was still a child. He answered in a rebuke of such severity anddignity as can have rarely been addressed to Rome by one devoted toits service. "Next to the sin of Lucifer, " he tells the Pope, "thereis not, there cannot be, any kind of sin so adverse and contrary tothe evangelical doctrine of the Apostles as the destruction of soulsby defrauding them of the duty and service of a pastor. " He adds thatthe most holy Apostolic See cannot command anything that tends to asin of such a kind except by some defect or abuse of its plenarypower: that no faithful servant of the Papacy would comply with acommand of that kind "even if it issued from the highest order ofangels"; and he therefore, _filialiter et obedienter_, flatlyrefuses to obey. Scarcely less severe were the strictures of LouisIX's ambassadors, who laid the grievances of the French bishops andbarons before the same Pope. They tell Innocent IV that the devotionwhich the French people have hitherto felt towards the Roman Church isnow not only extinguished, but is turned into vehement hate andrancour, and that the claim for subsidies and tribute for everynecessity of Rome--a claim which was enforced by the threat ofexcommunication--was unheard of in previous ages. 

[Sidenote: The Pope as supreme legislator. ]

The Pope also gradually established his authority as supreme and solelawgiver within the Church. The _Dictatus Papae_ asserts that forhim alone it is lawful to frame new laws to meet the needs of thetime. Meanwhile the Forged Decretals had found their place in thevarious collections of the Canons made in the eleventh and earlytwelfth centuries. In the middle of the twelfth century Gratian, aBenedictine monk of Bologna, put out his _Concordantia discordantiumCanonum_, commonly known as the _Decretum Gratiani_, whichcombined a theoretical disquisition with illustrations drawn from thedocuments which had appeared in previous collections. This became thestandard mediaeval treatise in ecclesiastical law, and its appearancemuch encouraged the systematic study of the Canon law. The Popes ofthe succeeding century and a half made great additions to the law ofthe Church, partly through the decrees issued by the General LateranCouncils, partly by their own edicts. Such new matter was embodiedfrom time to time. Thus in 1234 the Dominican Raymund de Pennafortegathered five books of Decretals at the command of Gregory IX;Boniface VIII was responsible for a sixth book in 1298, while otheradditions were made by Clement V (1308) and John XXII (1317). Allthese, together with the earlier compilations and some lateradditions, formed the _Corpus Juris Canonici_. This enormous bodyof law was full of contradictions and not devoid of falsification andforgery. The growing study of it caused the foundation of Chairs atthe universities, and the Popes found it a most convenient method topublish their new decrees through the lecture-rooms. The old Canon Lawwas entirely superseded by the later Papal Law. 

[Sidenote: Power over Councils. ]

The Popes made no pretence of hiding their claims to the legislativepower. Urban II strongly affirms that it has always been in the powerof the Roman Pontiff to frame new laws; and two centuries laterBoniface VIII embodies in his addition to the Canon Law the words ofan earlier writer, that the Roman Pontiff is considered to hold alllaws in the repository of his breast. There was no room in such atheory for any effective co-operation of ecclesiastical Councils, however representative. The _Dictatus Papae_ declares that noGeneral Council can be held without the papal command. Pascal IIpoints out that no Council can dictate the law of the Church, becauseevery Council comes into existence and receives its power by authorityof Rome, and in its statutes the authority of the Pope is clearly notinterfered with. But the Popes often found it convenient to obtain thesanction of a General Council for their legislation, and the fourLateran Councils (1123, 1139, 1179, 1215) were the occasions for greatand important additions to the Canon Law. But from the time of thethird Lateran Council, at all events, all ordinances of a GeneralCouncil were issued in the name of the Pope, although the approval orthe fact of the Council was likewise expressed. Thomas Aquinas merelyexpresses the recognised law of the Church when he says that the HolyFathers gathered together in Councils can make no laws except by theintervention of the authority of the Roman Pontiff, for without thatauthority a Council cannot even meet. 

[Sidenote: Popes above law. ]

It followed from this assumption of the supreme legislative powerthat, in the first place, the Pope himself claimed not to be bound bythe laws which he made. Thus in the thirteenth century papal writersdenied that the Roman Church could commit simony. Certain acts aresimoniacal because they have been prohibited as such by Canon Law; butinasmuch as it is the Pope who had forbidden them, the prohibitiondoes not bind him. And in virtue of this power, from the time ofInnocent IV the Popes added to their bulls a _non obstante_clause whereby they suspended in a particular instance all laws orrights which might otherwise stand in the way of their grant. 

[Sidenote: Papal dispensation. ]

It followed, further, that the Pope claimed also the power of grantingdispensations from existing laws and absolution for theirinfringement. Every papal bishop was armed with the power of grantingpardon in God's name for breaches of the law which had already beencommitted. The Pope, however, claimed not only this power concurrentlywith all other bishops, but he even developed a right of grantingdispensations beforehand, so that the tendency was to ignore thebishop of the diocese and to apply directly to the Pope or hisrepresentatives, who thus were willing to permit infractions of thelaw. Thomas Aquinas declares that any bishop can grant dispensation inthe case of a promise about which there is any doubt; but that to thePope alone, as having the care of the Church Universal, belongs thehigher power of giving unconditional relaxation from an oath ofperfectly clear meaning in the interests of the general good. 

But even papal writers sometimes complain of the irresponsibility ofthe papal acts, and Popes themselves had to allow that there werespheres outside their legislative interference. Thus Urban IIacknowledges that in matters on which our Lord, His Apostles, and theFathers have given definite decisions, the duty of the Pope is toconfirm the law. Thomas Aquinas, while holding that the Pope can alterthe decisions of the Fathers and even of the Apostles in so far asthey come under the head of positive law, yet excepts from thepossibility of papal interference all that concerns the law of nature, the Articles of Faith (which, he says elsewhere, have been determinedby Councils), or the sacraments of the new law. 

[Sidenote: The Pope as supreme judge. ]

The third wide sphere of action within the Church in which the Popeestablished his supremacy was that of justice. The _DictatusPapae_ asserts not only that the Pope should be judged by no one, but that the "greater causes" of every Church should be referred tohim, that none should dare to condemn any one who appealed to Rome, and that no one except the Pope himself can interfere with a papalsentence. Litigants of all kinds were only too ready to appeal againstthe local tribunal, and the Pope gave them every encouragement. St. Bernard indignantly pointed out to Innocent II that every evil-doerand cantankerous person, whether lay or cleric or even from themonasteries, when he is worsted runs to Home and boasts on his returnof the protection which he has obtained. It is true, Gregory VIII(1187) tried to check the practice of appeals; but his short reigngave no time for any real result. Bishops and archdeacons triedsometimes to stop appeals by excommunication, which prevented thevictim from appearing in an ecclesiastical court; but the thirdLateran Council (1179) forbade this method of defence. Alexander IIIdefinitely laid it down that appeals could be made to the Pope in thesmallest no less than in the greatest matters, and at every possiblestage, before and after trial, at the pronouncement of the sentenceand after it has been awarded; and this, he points out, is not thecase in civil law, where an appeal is only admitted after judgment. Indeed, the most serious matter with regard to papal appeals was thereservation by the Pope to his own decision of cases which wereregarded as too serious for the local courts. The bishops hadthemselves largely to thank for the development of this direct papaljurisdiction; for they began the custom of referring to Rome the casesof great criminals and of serious crimes. But these "greater causes, "claimed for the Pope as early as the time of Gregory VII, included notonly grave moral crimes such as murder, sacrilege, and grossimmorality, but also cases of dispensation beforehand, of absolutionafter excommunication for certain offences. Under the same head wouldcome the right of canonisation exercised by archbishops untilAlexander III claimed it exclusively for the Pope, and the right oftranslating a bishop from one see to another, which involved adissolution of the metaphorical marriage between the bishop and hissee and therefore needed a special dispensation. 

[Sidenote: The papal Curia. ]

These extensive powers could only be put in practice by an elaboratemachinery for their enforcement. In the first place the Pope wassurrounded by a numerous body of officials to whom is applied from themiddle of the eleventh century the title Curia. Gerhoh ofReichersberg, an ardent papal supporter writing about a century later, objects to the substitution for the word "Ecclesia" of this term"Curia, " which would not be found in any old letters of the Romanpontiffs. The rapacity of the officials became a byword throughoutChristendom. John of Salisbury told Hadrian IV, with whom he was onterms of intimacy, that many people said that the Roman Church, whichis the mother of all the churches, shows herself to the others not somuch a mother as a stepmother. "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in it, laying intolerable burdens on the shoulders of men, which they do nottouch with a finger.... They render justice not so much for truth'ssake as for a price.... The Roman pontiff himself becomes burdensometo all, and almost intolerable. " Honorius III in 1226 acknowledged tothe English bishops that this greed was a long-standing scandal anddisgrace, but he ascribed it to the poverty of Rome, and proposed thatin order to remove the difficulty two stalls should be given to himfor nomination in every cathedral and collegiate chapter. The magnatesconsidered the remedy, if possible, worse than the disease. Thepopular songs of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries contain manyreferences to the fact that nothing was to be had at Rome except formoney, and that success in a cause went to the richest suitor. And yetRome had many sources of wealth. She drew regular revenues fromestates which had been given to the papal see; from monasteries whichwere subject to visitation of papal officers alone; from kingdoms, such as England, whose kings had made themselves feudal vassals of thePope. Several nations, moreover, paid special taxes, such as Peter'sPence, a kind of hearth tax, which went from England. The Papacy alsoexacted a number of dues on various pretexts which increased with thegrowth of papal power. Such were the Annates or Firstfruits andanalogous payments, which amounted to the value of the first year'sincome, and were claimed from newly appointed bishops and abbots as anacknowledgment of the papal right of confirmation. Nor didMetropolitans get their pall, which was necessary for the exercise oftheir special authority, without the payment of considerable sums. Over and above these regular and occasional sources, the Popes exactedon especial occasions, such as the Crusades, a tax amounting to atenth on all ecclesiastical property, and even allowed kings to takeit with their leave. But these formed a small portion of the moneywhich found its way to Rome. When the papal legate found fault withIvo of Chartres because simony was still prevalent in his diocese, thebishop retorted that those who practised it excused their action fromthe example of Rome, where not even a pen and paper were to be hadfree. Dante addresses the shade of Pope Nicholas III in the_Inferno_ (xix. ):--

 "Your gods ye make of silver and of gold; And wherein differ from idolaters, Save that their God is one--yours manifold?"

And he ascribes the evil which he is condemning to the so-calledDonation of Constantine. 

[Sidenote: Papal Legates. ]

The most manifest agents and organs of papal authority throughoutChristendom were the legates. The Pope had appointed permanentrepresentatives called Apocrisiaries at Constantinople, and had sentemissaries to General Councils and for other special matters. But fromthe time of Leo IX legates began to be appointed with a generalcommission to visit the churches; and Gregory VII developed thismethod of interference with the local authorities into a regularsystem. In some cases local hostility was disarmed by the appointmentof the Metropolitan as ordinary legate, and the position was acceptedwith the object of retaining the chief authority upon the spot. Suchthe Archbishop of Canterbury became after 1135. But the existence ofthis official did not prevent the despatch from time to time oflegates _à latere_, as they were called. The ordinary legateexercised the concurrent jurisdiction claimed by the Pope, that is, the right of interference in every diocese; these legates coming fromthe side of the Pope were armed with the power of exercising most ofthe rights specially reserved for the personal authority of the Pope. The _Dictatus Papae_ asserts that the Pope's legates takeprecedence of all bishops in a council even though they may be ofinferior rank, and Gregory VII applies to their authority the text "Hethat heareth you heareth me. " In 1125 John of Crema, a legate sent toEngland, presided at a Council at Westminster, where were presentecclesiastics from the archbishops downwards and a number of nobility;and "on Easterday he celebrated the office of the day in the motherchurch in place of the supreme pontiff, and although he was not abishop, but merely a Cardinal Priest, he used pontifical insignia. " AMetropolitan in his oath of loyalty to the Pope was made to swear thathe would treat with all honour the Roman legates in their coming andgoing, and would help them in their needs; and the procuration ormaintenance from all countries which they not only visited, but merelypassed through, was arbitrarily assessed. Innocent III enforces it bydirecting against ecclesiastics who were contumacious a sentence ofdistraint of goods without any right of appeal. The burden was nolight one. Wichmann, Archbishop of Magdeburg, writing on behalf ofFrederick I, tells the Pope that the whole Church of the Empire issubject to such heavy exactions at the hands of the papal officials, that both churches and monasteries, which have not enough to supplytheir own daily wants, are yet compelled "beyond their utmostpossibility" to find money for the use of these legates, sustenancefor their train of attendants, and accommodation for their horses. Inmore picturesque language John of Salisbury describes the legates ofthe Apostolic See as "sometimes raging in the provinces as if Satanhad gone forth from the presence of the Lord in order to scourge theChurch. " It is true that Alexander IV commanded an enquiry into theamount which his legates had demanded under pretext of procuration, and which he heard they had enforced by the sacrilegious use of thepowers of excommunication, suspension, and interdict. But the parallelwhich Clement IV drew between the ordinary legates and the proconsulsand provincial presidents of the early Empire showed how littlelikelihood there was of redress being got from the Papacy itself. 

[Sidenote: Increase of papal ceremony. ]

The effect of this absorption of power by the Papacy is to be tracedin many directions. Here we may take notice of two of the mostremarkable. In the first place, he who had grown from the Vicar of St. Peter to be directly the Vicar of God naturally surrounded himselfwith an increasing amount of ceremony. The _Dictatus Papae_claims that the Pope alone can use imperial insignia, and that it ishis feet alone that all princes should kiss. We have noticed thedisputes which arose when the Pope demanded from Lothair and fromFrederick I that the Emperor should perform the office of groom to thePope--hold his stirrup as he mounted and walk by the side of the mule. St. Bernard rightly points out that in thus appearing in publicadorned in jewels and silks, covered with gold, riding a white horse, and surrounded with guards, the Pope was the successor not of Peter, but of Constantine. And if he required so much state outside theChurch, much more did he insist upon a special ceremony in theservices. Thus at the Mass the Pope received the elements not kneelingat the altar, but seated and on his throne; while the Host was carriedbefore him in procession whenever the Pope went outside his palace. 

[Sidenote: Papal infallibility. ]

A far more important result of the supreme position accorded to thePapacy was the gradual emergence of the doctrine of papalinfallibility. "The Church of Rome, " says Gregory VII, "through St. Peter, as it were by some privilege, is from the very beginnings ofthe faith reckoned by the Holy Fathers the Mother of all the Churchesand will so be considered to the very end; for in her no heretic isdiscerned to have had the rule, and we believe that none such willever be set over her according to the Lord's special promise. For theLord Jesus says, 'I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. '"And in accordance with this principle the _Dictatus Papae_ laysit down that "the Roman Church has never erred, nor, as Scripturetestifies, will it ever err. " Innocent III pertinently asks how hecould confirm others in the faith, which is recognised as a specialduty of his office, unless he himself were firm in the faith. But manywriters, including Innocent himself, believed that it was possible fora Pope to err in some individual point, and that it was the duty ofthe Church to convert him. Thomas Aquinas, while holding it certainthat the judgment of the Church Universal cannot err in these matterswhich belong to the faith, gives to the Pope alone, as the authorityby whom synods are summoned, the final determination of those thingswhich are of faith. Yet even he allows that in matters of fact, suchas questions of ownership and criminal charges, false witnesses maylead the judgment of the Church astray. 

[Sidenote: Kings and papal claims. ]

We have seen that the Papacy did not attain its supremacy withoutencountering much opposition. But the protests on the part of bishopswere unavailing, and they were themselves largely to blame for theheight to which the papal power had grown. Such effective remonstranceas there was came from the Kings, though even they were often ready toinvoke the papal aid to obtain an advantage against their ownecclesiastics or even their own subjects. Thus in England William IIagreed with Urban II that no legate should be sent to the countryunless the King was willing to receive him; while Henry II, in theConstitutions of Clarendon, lays it down that no one should appeal toRome without permission of the King. But Henry's submission afterBecket's murder nullified the Constitutions, and John's humiliatingsurrender made it difficult to object to the exercise of any papalpower in England. During the minority of Henry III the papal legatewas the most important member of the Council of Regency; and at alater stage, when Henry had quarrelled with his barons, he was glad toobtain the papal support against them. In Germany Hadrian IVcomplained that Frederick I used force in order to prevent any of hissubjects from carrying their causes to Rome; and Otto IV was obligedto swear in 1209 that no hindrance should be placed to ecclesiasticalappeals to Rome, a promise subsequently exacted also from FrederickII and from Rudolf. 

Not dissimilar was the submission of Alfonso X of Castile, who set hisseal to the papal encroachments; but his object was to obtain thesupport of Rome in his campaign against the local liberties in hiskingdom. In his code of law known as "Siete Partidas" power was givento the Pope to deal as he liked with bishops and with benefices and toreceive all appeals. On the other hand, St. Louis was not above abargain with Rome. He refused to the Pope the tithes of the FrenchChurch for three years for the object of carrying on the war againstFrederick II; but in 1267 he himself obtained the papal consent totake these tithes for the purpose of crusade. 

CHAPTER XI

DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH

[Sidenote: Number of the Sacraments. ]

It was during the period covered by this volume that some of the mostcharacteristic doctrines of the Roman Church were developed. In thisdevelopment the whole sacramental system of the Church comes underconsideration. The word "sacramentum" in the sense of a holy mark orsign (_sacrum signum_) was used with a very wide meaning asdenoting anything "by which under the cover of corporeal things thedivine wisdom secretly works salvation. " Hugh of St. Victor, writingin the first half of the twelfth century, distinguishes three kinds ofsacraments--those necessary for salvation, namely, baptism and thereception of the Body and Blood of Christ; those for sanctification, such as holy water, ashes, and such-like; and those instituted for thepurpose of preparing the means of the necessary sacraments, that is, holy orders and the dedication of churches. Elsewhere he chooses outrather more definitely seven remedies against original or actual sin, namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, marriage, and holy orders; and after the twelfth century the Churchgradually restricted the use of the word Sacrament to these seven. There was much disputing among the schoolmen on the need ofinstitution by Christ Himself. Peter Lombard, and after himBonaventura, denied this necessity; Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinasasserted it. But how account for extreme unction and confirmation?This is St. Thomas' explanation. "Some sacraments which are of greaterdifficulty for belief Christ himself made known; but others Hereserved to be made known by the Apostles. For sacraments belong tothe fundamentals of the law and so their institution belongs to thelaw-giver. Christ made known only such sacraments as He Himself couldpartake. But He could not receive either penance or extreme unctionbecause he was sinless. The institution of a new sacrament belongs tothe power of excellence which is competent for Christ alone: so thatit must be said that Christ instituted such a sacrament asconfirmation not by making it known, but by promising it. "

[Sidenote: The Eucharist. ]

Of these seven sacraments the one round which the whole doctrine anddiscipline of the Church increasingly centred was, of course, theSacrament of the Lord's Supper or the Eucharist. The view generallyheld in the Church was that of St. Augustine, which finds a place inthe homilies of Aelfric and in the controversial work of Ratramnus ofCorbie (died 868). According to this view, Christ is present in theconsecrated elements of the sacrament really but spiritually. "Thebody of Christ, " says Ratramnus, "which died and rose again and hasbecome immortal, does not now die: it is eternal and cannot suffer. "But the tendency of the Middle Ages was to materialise all conceptionshowever spiritual; and Ratramnus had written to controvert PaschasiusRadbertus, Abbot of New Corbie, who had applied these materialisticviews to the Eucharist. "Although, " he asserts, "the form of bread andwine may remain, yet after consecration it is nothing else but theflesh and blood of Christ, none other than the flesh which was born ofMary and suffered on the cross and rose from the sepulchre. " Duringthe two succeeding centuries this theory of the corporeal presencegained so much vogue in the Church that when Berengar of Tours taughtin the cathedral school of his native city the doctrine of Ratramnus, he was condemned unheard at a Synod at Rome in 1050. But he gained thefavour of Hildebrand, who was then at Tours in 1054 as papal legate, and was content with the admission "panem atque vinum altaris postconsecrationem esse corpus et sanguis Christi"; and relying on hisprotection Berengar went to Rome (1059). Here, however, his opponentsforced him to sign a confession in conformity with the materialisticview. His repudiation of this as soon as he got away from Rome began along controversy, the champion on the materialistic side beingLanfranc, then a monk of Bee in Normandy, to whom Berengar hadoriginally addressed himself. Lanfranc held the position that theconsecrated elements are "ineffably, incomprehensibly, wonderfully bythe operation of power from on high, turned into the essence of theLord's Body. " In 1075 the matter was discussed at the Synod ofPoictiers, and Berengar was in danger of his life. Again Pope Gregory, as he had now become, tried to stand his friend, and at a Synod atRome in 1078 to get from Berengar a confession of faith in generalterms. But the violence of Berengar's enemies made compromise orambiguity impossible. Again Berengar repudiated the forced confession;and Gregory only obtained peace for him until his death in 1088, bythreatening with anathema any who molested him. Berengar's objectionsto the doctrine of Paschasius were shared by all the mystics, who helda more spiritual belief. Thus, St. Bernard distinguishes between thevisible sign and the invisible grace which God attaches to the sign;and Rupert of Deutz declares that for him who has no faith there isnothing of the sacrifice, nothing except the visible form of the breadand wine. 

[Sidenote: Transubstantiation. ]

But apart from these writers the trend of opinion and inclination toldentirely in favour of the materialistic school of thought. To theordinary folk the miraculous aspect of the doctrine was a positiverecommendation to acceptance. And the word Transubstantiation, eventhough it did not necessarily imply a materialistic change, undoubtedly became associated in men's minds with that idea. As earlyas the middle of the ninth century Haimo of Halberstadt had said thatthe substance of the bread and wine (that is, the nature of bread andwine) is changed substantially into another substance (that is, intoflesh and blood). But the word "transubstantiate" is used first byStephen, Bishop of Autun (1113-29), who explains "This is My Body" as"The bread which I have received I have transubstantiated into MyBody. " Sanction was first given for the use of the word in the LateranCouncil of 1215. In the confession of faith drawn up by that Councilit is asserted that "there is one Universal Church of the Faithful, outside of which no one at all has salvation: in which Jesus Himselfis at once priest and sacrifice, whose Body and Blood are trulyreceived in the sacrament of the altar under the form of bread andwine, the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into theBody and the wine into the Blood, in order that for the accomplishmentof the mystery of the unity we may receive of His what He has receivedof ours. And this as being a sacrament no one can perform except apriest who shall have been duly ordained according to the Keys of theChurch, which Jesus Christ Himself granted to the Apostles and theirsuccessors. "

[Sidenote: Resulting Changes. ]

This "mystery of the unity" became, on the one side, the subject of along and intricate controversy on the method by which the change inthe elements was effected, while on the other side it lent itself tomuch mystical meditation. Of neither of these is there space to giveillustration; but the hymn of St. Thomas Aquinas, which is familiar toEnglish readers under the form of "Now, my tongue, the mysterytelling, " blends the two sides with astonishing success. It is amistake to describe the view of the sacrament thus sanctioned by theChurch as either more "advanced" or "higher" than the older view. Itwas merely more elaborate, and as being such it led on to certaindefinite results or changes in custom. 

Thus, in the first place, hitherto children had partaken of thesacrament. This had come partly from the teaching of the need of thesacrament for salvation, partly from the early custom of administeringcommunion directly after baptism. The fear of profanation now causedthe gradual discontinuance of children's communions, and in the middleof the thirteenth century they were definitely forbidden. 

[Sidenote: Refusal of cup to laity. ]

A far more important change, and for a similar reason, was the refusalof the cup to the laity. St. Anselm is responsible for the dictum(afterwards accepted by the whole Church) that "Christ is consumedentire in either element"; from this came the inference that there wasno need for the administration of both. The heaviness of a singlechalice made the danger of spilling its contents so great that severalchalices were used. This, however, only increased the chances, andvarious methods were adopted with a view to minimising the difficulty. Sometimes a reed was used; later on, bread dipped in wine wasadministered, as was already usual in the case of sick persons orchildren; or even unconsecrated wine was given. Some of these methodscame under papal condemnation; and the withdrawal of the cup foundpowerful apologists in Alexander of Hales and Thomas Aquinas. But theadministration of both elements continued to be fairly common untilfar on into the thirteenth century. 

[Sidenote: Adoration of the sacrament. ]

A third result of the new views is to be seen in the extension of thedoctrine and practice of adoration of the sacrament. The rite ofelevation existed in the Greek Church at least as early as the seventhcentury, but was not adopted by the Latins until four centuries later. In either case, however, it was only regarded as an act symbolical ofthe exaltation of Christ. But following on the sanction of thedoctrine of transubstantiation by the Lateran Council, Honorius III in1217 decreed that "every priest should frequently instruct his peoplethat when in the celebration of the Mass the saving Host is elevatedevery one should bend reverently, doing the same thing when the priestcarries it to the sick. " A logical outcome of this was the foundationof the festival of Corpus Christi for the special celebration of thesacramental mystery. This was first introduced in the bishopric ofLiège in response to the vision of a certain nun. Urban IV, who hadbeen a canon of Liège, adopted it for the whole Church in 1264, but itonly became general after Clement V had incorporated Urban's ordinanceas part of the Canon Law in the Clementines (1311). 

While there was a growing elaboration of the sacramental rite, thelaity in many parts of Europe came from slackness less frequently toreceive communion. As early as Bede, in England, though not in Rome, communions were very infrequent. English and French Synods tried toinsist on communion three times a year, but could not enforce therule. Innocent III, in the fourth Lateran Council, with a view tocompel confession, prescribes once a year. "Every one of thefaithful, " runs the canon of the Council, "of either sex, after he hascome to years of discretion, is to confess faithfully by himself allhis sins at least once a year to his own priest, and is to be carefulto fulfil according to his power the penance enjoined on him, receiving with reverence the sacrament of the Eucharist at least atEaster. "

Finally, the discussion of this theory of transubstantiation led tothe development of a special view of the doctrine of the EucharisticSacrifice. Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas call the sacrament arepresentation of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. But toAlbertus Magnus it is not merely a Representation, but a TrueSacrifice, that is, "an Oblation of the thing offered by the hands ofthe priests, " and St. Thomas elsewhere declares that the perfection ofthe sacrament consists not in its use by the faithful, but in theconsecration of the element, that is to say, that the main point wasthe act of the priest. The prevalence of this view appears to haveencouraged the idea in the laity that a mere attendance at the servicewas in itself so meritorious as almost to dispense with the need ofcommunion, except once a year and on the death-bed. Similarly, privateMasses for the dead were instituted, chantry chapels were founded forthe celebration of them, and priests were appointed for the solepurpose of serving the altar of the chapel. 

[Sidenote: Confession. ]

Nor was the development of this sacramental system the only method bywhich the importance of the priesthood became enhanced. The wholepenitential system of the Church was gradually perverted. Originallythose convicted of open sin who submitted to penance were publiclyreadmitted to the Church after confessing their sin and making someform of atonement. People were encouraged to confess their sins totheir bishop or priest even when their sins were not open andnotorious. This was especially enjoined in the case of mortal sin. Butit was for a long time a matter of discussion whether this confessionto a priest was an indispensable preliminary to forgiveness. PeterLombard marks another view. God alone remits or retains sins, but tothe priests he assigns the power, not of forgiveness, but of declaringmen to be bound or loosed from their sins. He adds that even thoughsinners have been forgiven by God, yet they must be loosed by thepriest's judgment in the face of the Church. In this ambiguousposition of the priest laymen were even entrusted with the power ofhearing a confession if no priest was available. But in the twelfthcentury, as we have seen, confession was often reckoned among thesacraments; and at the Lateran Council Innocent III enjoined an annualconfession to the parish priest. Before long the precatory form ofabsolution is replaced by the indicative form by which the priestdeclared the sinner absolved. Thomas Aquinas lays it down that "thegrace which is given in the sacraments descends from the head to themembers: and so he alone is minister of the sacraments in which graceis given who has a true ministry over Christ's body; and this belongsto the priest alone who can consecrate the Eucharist. And so whengrace is conferred in the sacrament of penance, the priest alone isthe minister of this sacrament; and so to him alone is to be made thesacramental confession which ought to be made to a minister of theChurch. " There was no room here for confession to laymen, althoughThomas himself allows that in cases of necessity such confession has akind of sacramental character which would be supplemented by ChristHimself as the high priest. 

[Sidenote: Indulgences. ]

The increasing stress laid upon private confession not only led to thedecay of the public procedure, but also brought about some dangerousdevelopments in the penitential system of the Church. This had alreadybecome very largely a matter of fixed pecuniary compensations formoral offences; so that the new system of compulsory confession wasable to recommend itself to the people through the adaptation of theold mechanical standards by the confessors to each individual case. Far more important was the extension given to the system ofindulgences. These had their origin in the remission of part of animposed penance on condition of attendance at particular churches oncertain anniversaries, it being understood that the penitent wouldpresent offerings to the Church. Abailard complains that on ceremonialoccasions when large offerings are expected, bishops issue suchindulgences for a third or fourth part of the penance as if they haddone it out of love instead of from the utmost greed. And they boastof it, claiming that it is done by the power of St. Peter and theApostles, when it is God who said to them "Whosesoever sins ye remit, "etc. Thus all bishops took it upon themselves to issue indulgences forthe furtherance of particular objects. But in its claim to subordinatethe episcopal power to its own, the Papacy began to grant indulgenceswhich were not limited to time or circumstance. Gregory VI in 1044made promises to all who helped in the restoration of Roman churches;but Gregory VII promised absolution to all who fought for Rudolf ofSuabia against Henry IV; while Urban II in the widest manner offeredplenary indulgence, that is, remission of all penances imposed, in thecase of any who would take part in the Crusade. This offer in whole orin part was constantly renewed in order to raise an army for the East. 

[Sidenote: Effect on populace. ]

It was of course presupposed by those in authority in the cases ofthese indulgences that, confession having been made, the temporalpenalties to be undergone either here or in purgatory were thusremitted. But preachers in their eagerness to raise troops assertedthat those guilty of the foulest crimes obtained pardon from themoment when they assumed the cross, and were assured of salvation inthe event of death. Consequently the people in their ignoranceoverlooked the conditions attached and regarded these indulgences aspromises of eternal pardon. It is not wonderful that men released fromsocial restraints of a more or less stable society should havedeveloped in their new abode the licence which made crusaders a bywordin the West. 

[Sidenote: Papal indulgences. ]

So far the Popes had endeavoured to supersede the bishops in the issueof indulgences by entering into rivalry with them. But the power wasused by the bishops in such detailed ways as perhaps seriously tointerfere with the offerings which should reach the Papacy or beapplied to important projects. Innocent III, therefore, at the greatLateran Council limited the episcopal power to the grant of anindulgence for one year at the consecration of a church and for fortydays at the anniversary. Unfortunately this did not mean thesuppression of trifling reasons for the multiplication of indulgence. The whole system was a convenient method of adding to the revenues ofRome, and no occasion seemed too small for the exercise of the papalpower of dispensation. Urban IV granted an indulgence to all whoshould listen to the same sermon as the King of France. The Crusadeswere the great occasion and excuse for the development of this system, and it certainly reached its nadir when Gregory IX showed himselfready in return for a pecuniary penance to absolve men from the vowswhich they had perhaps been unwillingly forced to take by his ownagents for going on crusade. Equally disgraceful was the establishmentof the year of Jubilee in 1300 by Boniface VIII, when plenaryindulgence of the most comprehensive kind was offered to all whowithin the year should in the proper spirit visit the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome. 

[Sidenote: Treasury of merits. ]

But how came the Pope to be in possession of this power of remittingthe penalties for sin? The schoolmen of the thirteenth century supplythe answer. Alexander of Hales and Albert the Great invented thetheory and Thomas Aquinas completed it. According to their teaching, the saints, by their works of penance and by their unmeritedsufferings patiently borne, have done in this world more than wasnecessary for their own salvation. These superabundant merits, together with those of Christ, which are infinite, are far more thanenough to fulfil all the penalties due for their evil deeds from theliving. The idea of unity in the mystical body enables theshortcomings of one man to be atoned for by the merits of another. Thesuperabundant merits of the saints are a treasury for use by the wholeChurch, and are distributed by the head of the Church, that is, thePope. Furthermore, to St. Thomas is due the idea that the contents ofthis treasury were equally available for the benefit of souls inpurgatory, for whom the Church was already accustomed to makeintercession. 

[Sidenote: Canonisation of saints. ]

It was to our Lord Himself that the theologians attributed all merit;but in the popular mind the merits of the saints took an ever moreimportant place, since the Church seemed to make the priesthood abarrier against, rather than a channel for, the flow of God's mercy toman; but popular feeling sought to find intercessors before the throneof grace in the holy men and women of the faith. For a long time itwas the bishops who decided the title to saintship. But in 993 PopeJohn XV, in a Council at Rome and in response to a request of theBishop of Augsburg, ordered that a former bishop of that see should bevenerated as a saint. This was the process afterwards calledCanonisation, which involved the insertion of a name in the Canon orlist, and gave it currency not merely in a single diocese, butthroughout western Christendom. In 1170 Alexander III claimed suchrecognition as the exclusive right of Rome. But despite thisassumption of authority, popular feeling very often dictated to thePope whom he should admit into the list. Death followed by miracles atthe tomb, and sometimes the building of an elaborate shrine with analtar, forced the Pope to grant the claims of a popular favourite. 

[Sidenote: Miracles and relics. ]

A rapid increase in the number of applications for such officialrecognition would be the result of any widely popular movement. Suchwas the effect of the Crusades in the twelfth century, and of thefoundation of the Mendicant Orders in the thirteenth. And themultiplication of saints meant an increase in the number of relics andan ever-growing belief in the miraculous. Miracles frequently tookplace in connection with living persons of saintly life. Abailardscornfully pointed out that some of the attempts made by Norbert orBernard to work miraculous cures were quite unsuccessful, while insuccessful cases medicine as well as prayers had been employed. Butsuch rationalism was beyond the grasp of an ignorant age, andcollections of stories of miracles, such as remain to us in the"Golden Legends" of Jacob de Voragine, a Dominican of the thirteenthcentury, fed the popular belief. Miracles so commemorated oftenoccurred in connection with relics; and the traffic in relics and sostyled "pious" frauds, not to say the forcible means used to procurereputed relics of authentic or supposititious saints, forms a curiousif a discreditable feature in mediæval history. An occasional protestwas uttered against the manner in which credit was often obtained forrelics of more than doubtful authenticity; but the manufacture of themwas easy and profitable, and pilgrims returning from Palestine couldpalm off anything upon the credulity of a willing and ignorantpopulace. The growth of a legend in connection with relics is fitlyillustrated by the history of the eleven thousand Virgins of Köln. Martyrologies of the ninth century celebrate the martyrdom of elevenvirgins in the city of Köln. Perhaps these were described as XI. M. Virgines, and the letter which denoted martyrs was mistaken for theRoman numeral for one thousand, and so the number of virgins wasultimately swollen to eleven thousand. A legend, possibly working onan old one, was invented by a writer of the twelfth century that thesevirgins were martyred by the Huns in the fifth century. In the middleof that century, when heresy was rife at Köln, a number of bones ofpersons of both sexes were found near Köln, and the authenticity ofthe relics was put beyond dispute by the revelations vouchsafed toSaint Elizabeth, Abbess of Schönau, to whom the matter was referred. Even though she did give a date for the event which was historicallyimpossible, the confirmatory evidence of the Premonstratensian AbbotRichard nearly thirty years later put the matter beyond the doubt ofany pious Christian. But the interest of these unsavoury remains ofanonymous men and women, however saintly, pales before certain relicsof our Lord's life on earth which gained currency. Of these the mostfamous were the Veronica, a cloth on which Christ, on His way toCalvary, was supposed to have left the impress of His face, and avessel of a green colour which was identified with the holy grail, thecup which our Lord used at the Last Supper. Of garments purporting tobe the seamless coat of Christ there were a considerable number shownin different places; but the most famous to this day remains the HolyCoat of Treves, which, in Dr. Robertson's caustic words, "the EmpressHelena (the mother of Constantine) was said to have presented to animaginary archbishop of her pretended birthplace, Treves. " During theFirst Crusade the army before Antioch was only spurred on to theefforts which resulted in the capture of the city, by the opportunediscovery of the Holy Lance with which the Roman soldier had piercedChrist's side while He hung upon the cross. 

[Sidenote: Adoration of the Virgin. ]

The great increase in the whole intercessory machinery of the Churchculminated in the adoration of the Virgin Mary. The extravagantexpression of this devotion was widespread. For the many it found ventin the language of popular hymns. Among the monks the Cistercians wereunder her special protection, and all their churches were dedicated toher. Of the learned men Peter Damiani in the eleventh century, St. Bernard and St. Bonaventura in the two succeeding centuriesrespectively, especially helped in various ways to crystallise herposition in the Church. As a result of the efforts of her devoteesSaturdays and the vigils of all feast days came to be kept in herhonour; the salutation "_Ave Maria gratia plena_" with certainadditions was prescribed to be taught to the people, together with theLord's Prayer and the Creed. In the thirteenth century its frequentrepetition resulted in the invention of the Rosary, a string of beadsby which the number of repetitions could be counted. The religion ofMary soon showed signs of development as a parallel religion to thatof Christ. She is styled the Queen of Heaven; her office, composed byPeter Damiani, was ordered by Urban II to be recited on Saturday; anda Marian Psalter and a Marian Bible were actually composed; while inplace of the _didia_ or reverence offered to the saints, therewas claimed for the Virgin a higher step, a _hyperdulia_, whichSt. Thomas places between _dulia_ and the latria or adorationpaid to Christ. 

[Sidenote: The immaculate conception. ]

A final stage in possible developments was reached in the twelfthcentury in the institution of a feast in honour of the conception ofthe Blessed Virgin. Hitherto it had been supposed by Christianwriters, notably by St. Anselm, that the Mother of the Lord had beenconceived as others. Towards the middle of the twelfth century someCanons of Lyons evolved the theory that she was conceived alreadysinless in her mother's womb. St. Bernard strenuously opposed thisnotion of her immaculate conception, pointing out that the suppositioninvolved in the theory could not logically stop with the Virginherself, but must be applied to her parents and so to each of theirancestors in turn in an endless series. Nor was St. Bernard alone inhis objection: indeed, nearly all the chief theologians of thethirteenth century, including Thomas Aquinas, declared that there wasno warrant of Scripture for the theory. But notwithstanding thiscriticism, the festival won its way to recognition. Those who kept it, however, declared that it was merely the conception which theycelebrated; and St. Thomas interpreting this to denote thesanctification, was of opinion that such a celebration was not to beentirely reprobated. It was Duns Scotus who first among the schoolmendefended the theory of the immaculate conception, but in moderatelanguage; and his Franciscan followers, who at a General Council ofthe Order in 1263 had admitted the festival among some other newoccasions to be observed, in the course of the fourteenth centuryadopted it as a distinctive doctrine. 

CHAPTER XII

HERESIES

[Sidenote: Cause of heresy. ]

It was not until the thirteenth century that the Church had to facethat spirit of scepticism or anti-religious feeling which is the chiefbug-bear of modern Christianity. Her elaborate organisation and thegradual development of her own dogmatic position enabled her to dealwith individual writers of a speculative turn like Berengar orAbailard. Nor were these in any sense anti-Christian. But they werethe inciters to heresy; and a real danger to the Church lay in thefiltering down of intellectual speculations to ignorant classes, bywhom they would be transformed into weapons against the fundamentaldoctrines of the Christian faith. Indeed, from the eleventh centuryonward the Church was constantly threatened by heresy of a popularkind, which tended to develop into schism. And for this she had tothank not only the growing materialisation of her doctrine, but evenmore the worldly life of her ministers. Unpalatable doctrines maycommend themselves by the pure lives which profess to be founded onthem; but evil doing carries no persuasion to others. 

[Sidenote: Two kinds of heretics. ]

It is a real difficulty that our sources of information of all theheretics of these centuries are chiefly the writings of theirsuccessful opponents--the defenders of the orthodox faith. But muchinformation remains to us from the admissions of her supporters as tothe depraved condition of the Church at this period; so that we neednot believe the allegations or their opponents that a chief inducementto join heretical sects lay in the greater scope for the indulgence ofsin. Charges of immorality against opponents were the stock-in-tradeof the controversialist, while the greatest authorities in the Churchallow that heresy lived upon the scandals and negligences of theChurch. Moreover, based as they were upon opposition to the existingorganisation, the doctrines of the various sects had much in common. The Church did not distinguish between them, but excommunicated themall alike. If, however, we would understand the developments ofopinion in the succeeding centuries, it is important to discriminate;and a clear distinction can be made between those opponents of theChurch whose views were aimed against the development of an extremesacerdotalism within the Church, and those who, going beyond thisnegative position, reproduced the Manichæan theories of an early ageand threatened to raise a rival organisation to that of the ChristianChurch. 

[Sidenote: Anti-sacerdotalists. ]

The object which those who belonged to the first of these divisionsset before themselves, was to get behind the elaborate organisationwhich the Church had built up and which, instead of being a help tolead man to God, had now become a hindrance by which the knowledge ofGod was actually obscured. They would therefore sweep away all thismachinery and return to the Christianity of apostolic times. Theirobjection was primarily moral, but it soon became doctrinal; and amongthe heretics of this class there was revived the Donatist theory thatthe sacraments depend for their efficacy on the moral condition ofthose who administer them. The campaign of the Church reformersagainst clerical marriage seemed directly to support this view; butthe canons which forbade any one to be present at a Mass performed bya married priest had to be explained away as a mere enforcement ofdiscipline; and in 1230 Gregory IX definitely laid it down that thesuspension of a priest living in mortal sin merely affects him as anindividual and does not invalidate his office as regards others. Butsuch declarations did nothing to meet the common feeling of the greatincompatibility between the awful powers with which the Church clothedher ministers and the sinful lives led by a large proportion of theexisting clerical body. 

[Sidenote: Extreme examples. ]

From an early period in the twelfth century sectaries of this classare found in several quarters. Two extreme instances are Tanchelm, whopreached in the Netherlands between 1115 and 1124, and Eon del'Etoile, who gathered round him a band of desperate characters inBrittany about 1148. They have been described as "two franticenthusiasts, " and Eon was almost certainly insane. Eon was imprisonedand his band dispersed. But Tanchelm found a large following when hetaught that the hierarchy was null and that tithes should not be paid. He came to an untimely end; but the influence of his doctrinescontinued so strong in Antwerp that St. Norbert came to the help ofthe local clergy and succeeded in obliterating all traces of theheresy. 

[Sidenote: Petrobrusians and Henricians. ]

It was in the south of France that this and all heresy assumed a moreformidable shape. The population was very mixed; the feudal tie, whether to France, England, or the Emperor, was slight; there was moreculture and luxury, the clergy were more careless of their duties, while Jews had greater privileges, than anywhere else in Europe. Moreover, the early teachers were men of education. Two such werePeter de Bruis (1106-26), a priest, and Henry of Lausanne (1116-48), an ex-monk of Cluny. Peter was burnt and Henry probably died inprison. Peter preached in the land known later as Dauphiné; and theviews of the Petrobrusians, as his followers were called, so continuedto spread after his death that Peter the Venerable, the Abbot ofCluny, thought it worth while to write a tract in refutation of them. Henry was more formidable. He preached over all the south of France, was condemned as a heretic at the Council of Pisa (1134), but wasreleased and resumed his preaching. As the bishops could not and thelay nobles would not do anything against him, the papal legateobtained the help of St. Bernard, who, although ill, preached at Albiand elsewhere with an effect which was much enhanced by the miracleswhich in popular belief accompanied his efforts. Henry declined adebate to which Bernard challenged him, and so became discredited, andshortly after he fell into the hands of his enemies. 

The tract of Peter the Venerable is practically the sole authority forthe tenets of the Petrobrusians. According to this they were franklyanti-sacerdotal. Infant baptism was held to be useless, since it wasperformed with vicarious promises. Churches were useless, for theChurch of God consists of the congregation of the faithful; the Cross, as being the instrument of Christ's torture, was a symbol to bedestroyed rather than invoked; there was no real presence and nosacrifice in the Mass, for Christ's body was made and given once forall at the Last Supper; all offerings and prayers for the dead wereuseless, since each man would be judged on his own merits. Henry withhis followers practically adopted these views and added attempts atsocial reform on Christian lines, especially in the matter ofmarriage, persuading courtesans to abandon their vicious life andpromoting their union to some of his adherents. 

[Sidenote: Waldenses. ]

By far the most important body of these anti-sacerdotal heretics werethe Waldenses. Their founder was Peter Waldo, whose name takes manyforms--Waldez, Waldus, Waldensis. He was a wealthy merchant of Lyonswho, moved with religious feelings and himself ignorant, caused twopriests to translate into the vernacular Romance the New Testament anda collection of extracts from the chief writers of the early Churchknown as Sentences. From a perusal of these he became convinced thatthe way to spiritual perfection lay through poverty. He divestedhimself of his wealth and, as a way of carrying out the gospelfurther, he began to preach (1170-80). He attracted men and women ofthe poorer classes, whom he used as missionaries; and the neglect ofthe pulpit by the clergy caused these lay preachers to find readylisteners in the streets and even in the churches of Lyons. Accordingto the custom of the day they adopted a special dress; and the sandals(_sabol_) which they wore in imitation of the Apostles gave themthe name of Insabbatati. They called themselves the Poor Men ofLyons--Pauperes de Lugduno; Li Poure de Lyod. The Archbishop of Lyonsexcommunicated them; but Alexander III, at the request of Peter, allowed them to preach with permission of the priests. Their disregardof this proviso caused their excommunication by the Pope in 1184 andagain in 1190; and from this time they began to repudiate the Churchwhich limited their freedom, and to set up conventicles and anorganisation of their own. The date of Peter's death is not known. 

[Sidenote: Their Views. ]

The strong missionary spirit of these sectaries spread their doctrineswith extraordinary rapidity. They consisted almost entirely of poorfolk scattered over an area extending from Aragon to Bohemia; and fromplace to place differences of organisation and doctrine are to beobserved. But they were not Protestants in the modern sense, and, despite persecution, many continued to consider themselves members ofthe Church. Thus on such doctrinal points as the Real Presence, purgatory, the invocation of saints, in many places they longcontinued to believe in them with their own explanations, and theirrepudiation of the teaching of the Church was a matter of gradualaccomplishment. It is true that in places they strove to set up theirown organisation. But the tendency of the Waldenses was much rathertowards a simplification of the existing organisation. The power ofbinding and loosing was entirely rejected: an apostolic life and notordination was the entrance to the priesthood. In fact, a layman wasqualified to perform all the priestly functions, not merely to baptiseand to preach, but even to hear confession and to consecrate theEucharist. Thus the whole penitential machinery of the Church was setaside. Their specially religious teaching was largely ethical, and bythe testimony of their enemies their life and conduct were singularlypure and simple. The stories of abominable practices among themperhaps arose from the extreme asceticism of a sect which professedvoluntary poverty; but they were no more true than the similar talestold of the early Christians. Nor shall we regard from the same pointof view as the Churchmen of the day the charge brought against them onthe ground of their intimate knowledge of the Scriptures. Of thesethey had their own vernacular translations, and large portions of themwere committed to memory. But such translations spread broadcast viewsunfettered by the traditional interpretation of the Church, and themissionary zeal of the Waldenses was proof against the horrors of theInquisition with its prison, torture-chamber, and stake. 

[Sidenote: Cathari. ]

The most formidable development of hostility to the Church came fromthe Manichæism of those who bore at various times and in differentplaces the names of Cathari, Patarius, or Albigenses. The attractionof the Manichæan theory lay in its apparent explanation of the problemof evil. There exist side by side in the world a good principle and anevil principle. The latter is identifiable with matter and is the workof Satan. Hence sin consists in care for the material creation. Itfollows that all action tending to the reproduction of animal life isto be avoided, so that marriage was strongly discouraged. To theearlier views was added the doctrine of metempsychosis, or thetransmigration of souls, which, acting as a means of reward andretribution, seemed fully to account for man's sufferings. These viewstogether explain the avoidance as food by the Cathari of everythingwhich was the result of animal propagation, and also the severity ofthe ascetic practices which were charged against them. 

[Sidenote: Their doctrines. ]

In the sphere of doctrine the division between the Cathari and theCatholic Church was absolute. According to these sectaries Satan isthe Jehovah of the Old Testament: hence all Scriptures before theGospels are rejected. They accepted the New Testament, but regardedChrist as a phantasm and not a man. Thus the doctrine of the RealPresence had no meaning for them, indeed, they rejected the sacramentsand all external and material manifestations of religion. Here, ofcourse, they had much in common with the Waldenses, whom the Churchconfounded with them; and there seems little doubt that the way forthe preaching of Catharism in the south of France was paved by theprevious work of Peter de Bruis and, even more, of Henry of Lausanne. But the reasons for opposition to the Church were not the same amongthe Waldenses and the Cathari; and the latter soon parted company withthe seekers after primitive Christianity by developing an organisationof their own. Thus as the Cathari grew in numbers and carried on avigorous missionary work, their devotees tended to form themselvesinto a Church. At least two distinct Orders were recognised. ThePerfected were a kind of spiritual aristocracy who renounced allproperty and were sworn to celibacy, while they submitted themselvesto penances of such rigour that their lives were often endangered, ifnot shortened. Below them were the mass of believers who were allowedto marry and to live in the world, assimilating themselves so far aspossible to the ideal set before them by the higher caste. From thePerfected were chosen officers with the names of bishop and deacon, the latter acting as assistants to the chief officers. The ritual wassimple but definite, and the most characteristic ceremony was theConsolamentum, the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by which the believerswere placed in communion with the Perfected and so became absolvedfrom all sin. It was performed by the imposition of hands togetherwith the blessing and kiss of peace given by any two of the Perfected. This was the process of "heretication, " the name given by theInquisitors to admission into the Catharist Church; and, except in thecase of the ministers, it was postponed until the believer lay uponhis death-bed. 

[Sidenote: Their effect. ]

The charges of evil practices against the Cathari were perhaps notruer than similar accusations against the Waldenses, and theirmissionary zeal was proof against even death at the stake. Nevertheless there is no doubt that the cause of progress andcivilisation lay with Catholicism rather than with its opponents. Theasceticism of the Cathari would have resulted, if not in theextinction of the race, at least in the destruction of the family:their identification of matter with the work of Satan would have beena bar to attempts at material improvement. Moreover, if ever theirshad become the conquering faith, they would have developed asacerdotal class as privileged as the Catholic priesthood. Themovement has been aptly described as "not a revolt against the Church, but a renunciation of man's dominion over nature. "

[Sidenote: Their origin and spread. ]

Whether the Catharist movement was spread westwards by the Paulicianswho in the tenth century were transplanted from Armenia to Thrace, orsprang spontaneously from teachers who saw in the dualistic philosophya condemnation, if not an explanation, of the materialisation ofChristianity by the Church, may not be very certain; but there is nodoubt that the Cathari of Western Europe always looked to the easternside of the Adriatic as to the headquarters of their faith. In theeleventh century we hear of Cathari in certain places in North Italy, in France, and even in Germany; but although in Italy the name ofPatarins came to be applied to the sect, we need trace no connectionin the popular rising at Milan, which was stirred up by the Churchreformers against the simony and clerical marriage practised by theChurch of St. Ambrose. In the twelfth century the movement is heard ofin an increasing number of places, in certain parts of Franceincluding Brittany, in Flanders among all classes, in the Rhine lands. Milan was supposed to be the headquarters in Italy. In England thirtypersons of humble birth, probably from Flanders, were condemned in1166, and an article was inserted in the Assize of Clarendon againstthem. 

[Sidenote: Albigenses. ]

But it was in the south of France that the Cathari, no less than theWaldenses, were chiefly to be found; with this difference, however--that, whereas the Waldenses confined themselves chiefly toProvence and the valley of the Rhone, the Cathari were scattered overa much larger area, although their chief strength lay in the valley ofthe Garonne. The town of Albi gave them their name of Albigenses, andToulouse was the chief centre of their influence. In 1119 Calixtus IIcondemned the heresy at its centre in Toulouse. In 1139, at the secondLateran Council, Innocent II called upon the secular power for thefirst time to assist in expelling from the Church those who professedheretical opinions. In 1163 Alexander III, at the great Council ofTours, demanded that secular princes should imprison them. But thefutility of these measures appeared from the colloquy held in 1165 atLombers, near Albi, between representatives of the Church and of theAlbigenses before mutually chosen judges, for it made plain theboldness of the heretics and their claim of equality with the Church. Indeed, in 1167 they actually held a council of their own at St. Felixde Caraman, near Toulouse, at which the chief Bishop of the Catharistswas brought from Constantinople to preside, while a number of bishopswere appointed, and all the business transacted was that of an equaland rival organisation to the Church of Rome. 

[Sidenote: Attempts at suppression. ]

During the next ten years (1167-77), while the religious allegiance ofEurope was divided by the schism in the Papacy, Catharism gained agreat hold over all classes in Languedoc and Gascony. Raymond V ofToulouse, the sovereign of Languedoc, finding himself powerless tocheck it, appealed for help; but the Kings of France and Englandagreed to a joint expedition only to abandon it, and the papal missionsent in 1178, composed of the papal legate, several bishops, and theAbbot of Clairvaux, only made heroes of the few heretics whom theyventured to excommunicate. In 1179, at the third Lateran Council, Alexander III proclaimed a crusade against all enemies of the Church, among whom were included, for the first time, professing Christians. The Abbot of Clairvaux, as papal legate, raised a force and reduced tosubmission Roger, Viscount of Béziers, who openly protected heretics;but the crusading army melted away at the end of the time ofenlistment, and the only result of the expedition was the exasperationproduced by the devastation of the land. After this failure no realattempt was made to stop the spread of heresy until the accession ofInnocent III, while the fall of Jerusalem in 1186 turned all crusadingardour in the direction of Palestine. 

[Sidenote: Raymond VI of Toulouse. ]

Meanwhile, in 1194 Raymond V had been succeeded by his son, RaymondVI, who, if he was not actually a heretic, was at least indifferent tothe interests of the Catholic faith. Most of his barons favouredCatharism. He himself was surrounded by a gay and cultured court, andwas popular with his subjects. At the same time the local clergyneglected their duties, the barons plundered the Church, and theheretics, without persecuting the Catholics, were graduallyextinguishing them in the dominions of Toulouse. Immediately on hisaccession in 1198 Innocent III appointed commissioners to visit theheretical district; but the local bishop, from jealousy, would nothelp. Some effect, however, was produced when, acting on thesuggestion of a Spanish prelate, Diego de Azevedo, Bishop of Osma, they dismissed their retinues and started on a preaching tour amongthe people. The Bishop was accompanied by the Canon Dominic, and thismission was the germ out of which shortly grew the great DominicanOrder. But the Bishop went back to Spain, and twice the papal legateexcommunicated Raymond VI because he would give no help. Once Raymondmade his peace with the Church, but the second pronouncement againsthim was shortly followed by the murder of the legate Peter ofCastelnau, who had made himself peculiarly obnoxious (1208). Raymond'scomplicity was never proved, but Innocent was getting impatient, andhis commissioners had made up their minds that it was easier andquicker to exterminate the heretics than to convert them. Raymond andall concerned in the murder were excommunicated, and a crusade wasproclaimed against them. Philip Augustus of France allowed his baronsto go, but excused himself on the ground of his relations with John ofEngland. Raymond hoped to avoid the threatening storm by anotherabject submission; but he was obliged to surrender his chieffortresses and to join in person the army which now assembled for theextirpation of heresy in his own lands. 

[Sidenote: The Crusade. ]

Although Raymond was thus forced to appear in the ranks of hisenemies, a leader in resistance was found in his nephew, RaymondRoger, Viscount of Béziers (1209). But his capital Béziers was stormedby the crusading army under the legate, who, when asked how thesoldiers could distinguish Catholics from heretics, is said to havereplied, "Slay them all: God will know His own. " Then Carcassonne, deemed impregnable, was besieged, and the young Viscount, decoyed intothe enemies' camp under pretence of negotiation, was kept a prisoner. He died, and the city was surrendered. The conquered territory waspractically forced by the legate on Simon de Montfort, younger son ofthe Count of Evreux, who, through his mother, was also Earl ofLeicester. 

[Sidenote: Simon de Montfort. ]

In 1211 the crusaders attacked Count Raymond's territories. He hadnever yet been tried for the murder of the legate, of which he wasaccused; and already Philip of France had warned the Pope that in anyquestion of Raymond's forfeiture, it was for the French King assuzerain and not for the Pope to proclaim it. By a visit to RomeRaymond hoped that he had gained permission to purge himself from theimpending charges; but at the last moment this was pronouncedimpossible, because in having failed to clear his lands of heresy, ashe had promised to do, he was forsworn. In a war of sieges DeMontfort's skill took from Raymond everything except Toulouse andMontauban. Raymond's brother-in-law, Pedro II of Aragon, nowintervened; but when Innocent III, misled by his legates, refused afurther offer of purgation on the part of Raymond, Pedro formallydeclared war against De Montfort. He invaded and laid siege to Muret;but his forces were defeated and he was killed (1213). So far InnocentIII had avoided the recognition of De Montfort's conquests inToulouse. But early in 1215 he ratified the act of the Council ofMontpellier which had elected Simon de Montfort as lord of the wholeconquered land. Raymond, although he had never yet been tried, wasdeclared deposed for heresy; and the fourth Lateran Council, whileconfirming this decision, left a small portion of the territory stillunconquered, for his son. It seems likely that Innocent would havebeen willing to deal fairly with the Count of Toulouse; but by thistime there were too many interested in the ruin of the House ofToulouse, and the Pope was deliberately misled by his legates. Henceit came that a judgment which might, as it was expected that it would, have righted a great wrong, proved only a signal for revolt. Raymondand his son were welcomed back by an united people, and finally in1218 Simon de Montfort was killed while besieging Toulouse. 

[Sidenote: A war of aggression. ]

De Montfort's son could make no headway against a people in arms. Butin 1222 Raymond VI and Philip of France vainly tried to promote apeaceful settlement between Amaury de Montfort and Raymond VII. Amaury, despairing of success, offered his claims to the French King, and in 1223 Philip's successor, Louis VIII, overpersuaded by the Pope, accepted them. The young Count Raymond vainly endeavoured to ward offthe threatened invasion and showed every desire to be reconciled withthe Church. There was scarcely any longer a pretence of religious war. From the first it had been largely a war of races, promoted bynorthern jealousy at the wealth and civilisation of the south and by adesire for the completion of the Frank conquest of Gaul. Thus from thebeginning of hostilities the whole population of the south, Catholicas well as heretic, had stood together in resistance to the crusadingarmy, and despite his tergiversations Raymond VI had never lost theiraffection and support. The war lasted for three years (1226-9); LouisVIII led an expedition southwards, which for some inexplicable reasonturned back before it had achieved complete success; and after hisdeath the Queen-Regent, Blanche of Castile, with the encouragement ofPope Gregory IX, came to terms with Raymond VII. By the Treaty ofMeaux (1229) Count Raymond agreed to hunt down all heretics, to assumethe cross as a penance, to give up at once about two-thirds of hislands, while the remainder was to go to his daughter, who was to bemarried to a French prince, with the ultimate reversion to the FrenchCrown. In 1237 Jeanne of Toulouse was married to Alfonso, brother ofLouis IX; in 1249, on the death of Raymond VII, they succeeded to hisdominions, and on their death in 1271 without children Philip IIIannexed all their possessions to the dominions of the French Crown. 

[Sidenote: Punishment for heresy. ]

The question of the acquisition of territory was thus shown to be farmore important than the suppression of heresy. But a university wasestablished at Toulouse for the teaching of true philosophy, and theInquisition was set up under the Dominicans for the suppression offalse doctrine. The time had definitely gone by when the Church wouldrely upon methods of persuasion in dealing with heretics. And yet fora long time there was much hesitation among Churchmen. Even as late as1145 St. Bernard pleads for reasoning rather than coercion. And theapplication of methods of coercion was equally tentative. At first theobstinate heretic was imprisoned or exiled and his property wasconfiscated. But the practice of burning a heretic alive was long thecustom before it was adopted anywhere as positive law. Pedro II ofAragon, the champion of Raymond VI, first definitely legalised it(1197). In 1238 by the Edict of Cremona this became the recognised lawof the Empire, and was afterwards embodied in the Sachsenspiegel andSchwabenspiegel, the municipal codes of Northern and Southern Germanyrespectively. The Etablissements of Louis IX (1270) recognised thepractice for France. It is a tribute to English orthodoxy that the Act"de haeretico comburendo" was not passed until 1401. 

[Sidenote: The secular arm. ]

Early usage forbade the clergy to be concerned in judgments involvingdeath or mutilation. This finds expression in the Constitutions ofClarendon (1164); and the fourth Lateran Council (1215) definitelyforbade clerks to utter a judgment of blood or to be present at anexecution. Thus the Church merely found a man a heretic and calledupon the secular authority to punish him. It was impressed upon allsecular potentates from highest to lowest that it was their businessto obey the behests of the Church in the extirpation of heresy. Indeed, it may almost be said that the validity of this command of theChurch was the principal point at issue in the Albigensian crusade;for Raymond's lands were declared forfeit merely because he would nottake an active part in the punishment of his heretical subjects. Thusby the thirteenth century all hesitation as to the attitude of theChurch towards heretics had entirely disappeared. As Innocent III laysit down, "faith is not to be kept with him who keeps not faith withGod, " and Councils of this century declared that any temporal rulerwho did not persecute heresy must be regarded as an accomplice and soas himself a heretic. 

We cannot apply modern standards to the mediaeval feelings aboutheresy. The noblest and most saintly among clergy and laity alike wereoften the fiercest persecutors. Church and State were closelyintermingled; heresy was a crime as well as a sin; the heretic was arebel; mild measures only made him bolder; and in fear of theoverthrow of the whole social system the rulers of State and Churchcombined to crush him. 

CHAPTER XIII

THE MENDICANT ORDERS

[Sidenote: Need for new kinds of Orders. ]

At the Lateran Council in 1215 Innocent III issued a decree whichpractically forbade the foundation of new monastic Orders. Theincrease of such Orders in the name of religious reform had not alwaystended to the promotion of orthodoxy. Moreover, the monastic ideal wasthe spiritual perfection of the individual, to be gained by separationfrom the world; but the growth of large urban populations with theaccompanying disease and misery called for a new kind of dedication toreligion. There was strength in membership of an Order, and during thetwelfth century there were founded alongside of the newer monasticOrders organisations devoted to social work of various kinds. Such wasthe origin of the Hospitallers and perhaps of the Templars also, andof a number of small Orders, most of them merely local in their workand following, which were founded all over Western Europe for care ofthe sick and pilgrims and for other charitable work. 

A point that demanded even more immediate attention was the almosttotal neglect of preaching by the parochial clergy and the consequentsuccess of the Waldensian and other heretical preachers. There wereisolated examples of missionary devotion among the clergy. Fulk ofNeuilly, a priest, obtained a licence from Innocent III to preach, andmet with marvellous success among the Cathari until he was turnedaside by Innocent's exhortation to preach a new crusade. But he diedbefore it set out (1202). Duran de Huesca, a Catalan, conceived theidea of fighting the heretics with their own weapons, and founded thePauperes Catholici as an Order professing poverty and engaged inmissionary work. But the outbreak of the Albigensian War supersededthe work of the Order by more summary methods of dealing withheretics. 

[Sidenote: Dominicans. ]

But these Poor Catholics were the precursors, if not the actual modelof the Preaching Friars of St. Dominic. The founder was a Spaniard, who had studied long in the University of Palencia, and had becomesub-prior of the cathedral of Osma. He accompanied his bishop to Rome, and thence on a mission among the Albigenses. He wandered as amendicant through the most heretical districts of Languedoc for threeyears (1205-8) before the outbreak of war, holding religiousdiscussions with leading heretics. But amid the clash of arms hisactivity took a different shape. Communities had been founded amongthe Albigenses for the reception of the daughters of dead or ruinednobles. For the protection of such and of any others of the gentle sexwho returned to Catholicism, Dominic founded the monastery of Prouille(1206). This was established on the lines of houses in other Orders;and although he led a life of extreme asceticism, he did not at firstcontemplate imposing a rule of collective poverty upon his Order. Indeed, he received for the use of Prouille gifts of all kinds in landand movables, and even increased the possessions by purchase. Towardsthe end of the war Dominic established a brotherhood which shoulddevote itself to preaching with a view to refuting heretics. In 1215he appeared at the Lateran Council, in order to obtain the papalapprobation of this new Order. Innocent III, while taking under hisprotection the monastery of Prouille, desired Dominic to choose analready existing rule for his new community. The Dominican legenddepicts Innocent as converted to the recognition of the Order by adream, in which he saw the Lateran Church tottering and upheld by thesupport of the Spanish saint. But Innocent died before Dominic haddecided with his followers that they would place themselves under therule of the Augustinian Canons; and it was from Honorius III that theFriars Preachers obtained the confirmation of their Order. A parallelstory is told of the papal approval of the Franciscans; but there isno proof that St. Francis was present at the Council, nor is it likelythat in the face of the decree against the foundation of new Ordersthe sanction of the Pope should have been given to his rule. But themeeting of the two great founders at Rome in 1216 is an historicalevent of great importance; for the example of the Franciscans causedthe adoption of the life of poverty by the Dominicans also. 

[Sidenote: Their spread. ]

Immediately after the papal confirmation the Order began its work. Thefirst followers of Dominic included natives of Spain, England, Normandy, and Lorraine, and the Friars Preachers are soon found inevery country of Western and Central Europe. The nature of the work towhich they set themselves made them from the beginning a congregationof intellectual men. Honorius III conferred on Dominic himself theMastership of the Sacred Palace, which gave to him, and even more tothose who succeeded him in the headship of the Order, not merely thereligious instruction of the households of popes and cardinals, butalso the censorship of books. Paris, the headquarters of thescholastic theology, and Bologna, the great law school of the MiddleAges, became at once the chief seats of training. The Dominicansspread so rapidly that at the death of their founder in 1221 theypossessed sixty houses, which had just been divided into eightprovinces. To these four were subsequently added. The death ofDominic, like his life, has been almost overwhelmed in the miraculous;but for whatever reason, it was not until thirteen years after hisdeath that he was enrolled among the recognised saints of the Church, although the honour of canonisation had been paid to St. Francis eightyears earlier and within two years of his death. 

[Sidenote: Popularity of the friars. ]

Jealousy between the conventual and the parochial clergy had been oflong standing: it had been based upon the exemption of monks from thejurisdiction of the local Church. The monks had, however, beendefinitely warned off themselves taking part in parochial work. Butthe friars began with a missionary purpose; and in 1227 Gregory IX, who as Cardinal Ugolino had been Protector of the Franciscans, conferred on both Orders the right not only of preaching, but also ofhearing confessions and granting absolution everywhere. The rules ofthe Orders forbade them to preach in a church without the leave of theparish priest; but they ignored this prohibition, set up their ownaltars, at which a papal privilege allowed them to celebrate Mass, andnot only superseded the lazy secular clergy in all the work of thecure of souls, but deprived them of the fees which were a chief sourceof their income. The secular clergy bitterly resented the presence ofthe intruders; but the Pope favoured the friars and heaped privilegesupon them, since they formed an international body easy to mobilisefor use against the hierarchy, and able to be used for transmittingand executing papal orders. The people also welcomed them, because, atfirst at any rate, they worked for their daily bread, and wereprevented by their vow of poverty from seeking endowments: while theperipatetic character of his life made the friar popular as aconfessor who could know nothing about his penitents. 

[Sidenote: Dominicans and University of Paris. ]

The characteristic work of the Dominicans as preachers and teachersrather determined the particular form which the struggle should assumebetween them and the seculars. The University of Paris welcomed theDominicans on their first arrival; the new-comers soon fixedthemselves in the Hospital of St. Jacques (the site of the JacobinClub of 1789), on University ground, and many members of theUniversity became affiliated to their Order. In 1229 the privileges ofthe University were violated by the municipality, and, since the Crownwould give no redress, the whole body of masters and studentsdispersed themselves among different provincial towns. In 1231 a bullof Gregory IX confirmed their privileges and brought them back toParis. But during their absence the Dominicans, with the approval ofthe Bishop, admitted scholars to their house of St. Jacques andappointed their own teachers; while several of the most famous secularteachers took the Dominican habit. Thus after 1231 there were in theUniversity several theological chairs occupied by Mendicants. Theprosperity and aggressiveness of the friars, and political anddoctrinal differences between them and the seculars, caused greattension. Not without reason the seculars complained that they werelikely to be deprived of all the theological teaching. Matters came toan issue in 1253, when, on the murder of a scholar by the municipalofficers, the University in accordance with its privileges proclaimeda cessation or suspension of the classes. In this act the Mendicantsrefused to join without the papal sanction. The University attemptedto expel them from the teaching body, and under the leadership ofWilliam of St. Amour it so far prevailed at Rome that Innocent IV, forwhatever reason, issued the "terrible" bull _Etsi Animarum_, bywhich the Mendicants were deprived at one blow of all the privilegeswhich had given them the power of interfering in parochial life. Butin the legend of the Order Innocent was prayed to death by therevengeful friars. Anyhow, his death (1254) saved the situation, sincehis successor, Alexander IV, declared unreservedly for them. TheUniversity was forced to receive them, and to acknowledge their rightsof preaching and hearing confessions. On the other hand, it wasarranged under Urban IV that the number of theological chairs to beheld by Mendicant teachers, whose representatives at the moment wereThomas Aquinas and Bonaventura, should be limited to three. But thewar against the Mendicants continued, and the bullying to which theUniversity was subjected, especially by Benedict Gaetani, the papallegate, in 1290, accounts perhaps for the support given by theUniversity to Philip IV in his quarrel with Boniface VIII, and for thepolitical action of the University at a later date. 

[Sidenote: Friars and Inquisition. ]

The spread of heresy and the feeble attempts of the bishops to use themachinery at their disposal for dealing with it, caused the gradualgrowth of the system known as the Papal Inquisition. This wasfeasible, partly because the civil government, led by Frederick II, were enacting severe laws against heresy, but chiefly because in thenew Mendicant Orders there were now to be found men of sufficientknowledge and training to cope with the difficulty of unmaskingheresy. But it is a mistake to suppose that the inquisitorial work wasa perquisite of the Dominicans. Both Orders alike were employed by thePapacy in the unsavoury duty, although ultimately the Dominicans tookthe larger share. For the service of the wretched, to which theFranciscans primarily devoted themselves, soon necessitated a study ofmedicine in order to cope with disease and a study of theology inorder to deal with heresy. If as a body they never came to representlearning like the Dominicans, the names of Bonaventura, Roger Bacon, and Duns Scotus sufficiently prove that there was no necessaryantagonism between learning and the Franciscan ideal. 

[Sidenote: St. Francis. ]

The modern and the Protestant world apparently finds the life of St. Francis as interesting and wonderful as his contemporaries found it. It seems no exaggeration to say that "no human creature since Christhas more fully incarnated the ideal of Christianity" than he. Even theextravagances of himself and some of his followers, scarcelyexaggerated by the mass of legends which has grown up around him andthe Order, cannot conceal the real beauty of his life; while they beareloquent witness not only to the impression which he made on his ownand succeeding generations, but also to the fact of his attempt torealise the standard set up by Christ for human imitation. Hisdevotion to the wretched and the outcast, especially the lepers; hisdeep humility; his childlike faith and absolute obedience, were theoutcome of a desire to attain to the simplicity of Christ and theApostles. But the essence of his system lay in the idealisation ofpoverty as good in itself and the best of all good things. Povertywas, indeed, the "corner-stone on which he founded the Order. " Butthis did not imply sadness, which St. Francis considered one of themost potent weapons of the devil. Sociability, cheerfulness, hopefulness were characteristics of himself and of the Order in itsearly days. Here it is impossible to tell the fascinating story of hisown life, to describe his own graphic preaching, or to illustrate hisinstinctive sympathy with animal life. But it must be noted that hispassionate love for Christ the Sufferer caused him to desire toreproduce in detail the last hours of the Saviour's life on earth, until the ecstasies may have ended in producing those physical marksof the crucifixion upon the body known as the Stigmata. The evidenceis conflicting and not above suspicion, and the Dominicans alwaystreated the claim with ridicule. Certainly the Franciscan Orderexalted their founder with an extravagance which ultimately (1385)ended in the production of a Book of Conformities, some forty innumber, in which, by implication, the simple friar becomes a second ifnot a rival Christ. 

It was in 1210 that Francis and the Brotherhood of Penitents which hehad founded at Assisi appeared in Rome, and obtained from Innocent IIIa verbal confirmation of their rule and authority to preach. This ruleseems to have comprised nothing more than certain passages ofScripture enjoining a life of poverty. The first disciples of Franciswere drawn from a variety of social classes, and a revelation from Godis said to have decided him and his little company to abandon theirfirst notion of a contemplative life in favour of one of activeservice along evangelical lines. The missionary work began at once, and they wandered in couples through Italy, finding their way quicklyinto France, England, Germany, and all other European lands. 

[Sidenote: Franciscan Rule. ]

The future organisation of the Order was determined by a definitiveRule sanctioned by Honorius III in 1223. Francis refused to alter anyof the clauses at the Pope's request, asserting that the Rule was nothis, but Christ's; whence it became a tradition of the Order that theRule had been divinely inspired. It was strictly enjoined that thebrethren should possess no property, should receive no money eventhrough a third person, and that all who were able to labour should doso in return not for money, but for necessaries for themselves andtheir brethren. And as if these plain directions were not enough, St. Francis in his will enjoins that the words of the Rule are to beunderstood "simply and absolutely, without gloss, " and to be observedto the end. 

[Sidenote: Organization]

The organisation aimed at being non-monastic; the houses, which shouldbe mere headquarters of the simplest kind, were placed under guardianswho had neither the title nor the powers of the monastic abbot, andwere grouped into provinces; while the provincial ministers wereresponsible to the General Minister stationed at Assisi, who washimself chosen by the General Chapter of the provincials and guardianscalled every three years, and could also be deposed by them. ACardinal watched the interests of the Order at Rome. The rapid spreadof the Franciscans is shown from the fact that the first GeneralChapter in 1221 is said to have been attended by several thousandmembers, while in 1260, when Bonaventura as General reorganised thearrangements, a division was made into 33 provinces and 3 vicariateswhich included in all 182 guardianships. England, for example, comprised 7 guardianships with 49 houses and 1242 friars. 

The Order included other branches than the fully professed friars. Some time before 1216 a sisterhood was added in the Order of St. Claire under a noble maiden of Assisi, who put herself under theguidance of Francis and received from Pope Innocent for herself andher sisters the "privilege of poverty. " They observed the FranciscanRule in all its strictness, and their founder was canonised in 1255, two years after her death. 

[Sidenote: Tertiaries. ]

A very distinctive feature of the Franciscans is the organisationofficially known as the Brothers and Sisters of Penitence, but morepopularly described as the Tertiaries of the Order. The affiliation oflaymen and women to religious Orders was no new thing. But the laityof both sexes who attached themselves by bonds of brotherhood and inassociations for prayer to the great monasteries were mostly well-bornand wealthy, prospective if not actual patrons. The FranciscanTertiaries were as democratic as the Order itself. The papal sanctionwas given in 1221. The members were required to live the ordinarydaily life in the world under certain restrictions. In addition to theobligations of religion and morality, they were required to dresssimply and to avoid certain ways of amusement, while they wereforbidden to carry weapons except for the defence of their Church andtheir land. The Dominicans possessed a similar organisation under thename of _Militia Jesu Christi_, the Soldiery of Christ. In thecase of both Orders this close contact with the laity irrespective ofclass was a source of great strength and influence. Many, from royalpersonages downwards, enrolled themselves among the Tertiaries orhoped to assure an entrance to heaven by assuming the garb of a friarupon the death-bed. 

[Sidenote: Friars as missionaries to the heathen. ]

Since both Orders were founded with a missionary purpose, it is notsurprising to find that at a very early date they extended theirefforts beyond Europe. No real distinction of sphere can be profitablymade; but perhaps the Dominican work lay chiefly among heretics, whilethe Franciscans devoted the greater attention to the heathen. Certainly St. Francis himself did not deal with heretics as such. Hedid, however, try to convert the Mohammedans and became for a while aprisoner in the hands of the Sultan of Egypt. Both Orders establishedhouses in Palestine and both Orders were employed in embassies to theMongols. The Dominicans brought back the Jacobite Church of the Eastinto communion with Rome, while the Franciscans won King Haiton ofArmenia, who entered their Order. Stories of martyrdom were frequent. At any rate, the friars were among the most enterprising of mediaevaltravellers, and were the first to bring large portions of the Easternworld into contact with the West. 

[Sidenote: Change from original principle. ]

The story of the Dominican Order in the thirteenth century is one ofcontinual progress. It was devoted to poverty no less than itscompanion Order. But circumstances soon showed that this was aprinciple which in its strictness made too great a demand upon humannature. Relaxation of the Rules was obtained from more than one pope;the popularity of the Orders brought them great wealth, and land andother property was held by municipalities and other third parties forthe use of the friars. Their houses and their churches became asmagnificent as those of the monks. But while this grave departure fromthe original ideal gave rise to no qualms among the more worldly andaccommodating Dominicans, it rent asunder the whole Franciscan Orderin a quarrel which forms perhaps the most interesting and importantepisode in the religious history of the Middle Ages. 

[Sidenote: Development of extreme views among Franciscans. ]

The conflict began at once after St. Francis' death. His successor asGeneral of the Order, Elias of Cortona, desired to supersede thedemocratic constitution of the Order in favour of a despotic rule, andobtained from Gregory IX a relaxation of the strict rule of poverty:while he raised over the remains of the founder at Assisi amagnificent church which the saint would have repudiated. The bittercomplaints of the Franciscans who wished to observe the Rule in thespirit of their founder obliged the Pope to depose Elias, who tookrefuge at the Court of Frederick II. But the tendency towardsrelaxation continued and was favoured by the Papacy. For theSpirituals--those who clung to the strict Rule and regarded it as adirect revelation to St. Francis--by the severity of their practicestended to isolate themselves from the life around them and so toescape the discipline of the Church. In addition to this they becameinvolved in heresy by identifying themselves with the propheciesattached to the name of Joachim de Flore. He was the Abbot of aCalabrian monastery, who founded an Order at the end of the twelfthcentury. He depicted the history of mankind as composed of threeperiods--the first under the dispensation of the Father ending at thebirth of Christ; the second under the Son, which by variouscalculations he determined would end in 1260; and the third ruled bythe Holy Ghost, in which the Eucharist, which had itself supersededthe paschal lamb, should give way to some new means of grace. Joachimalso foretold the rise of a new monastic order which should convertthe world, and this the Franciscans concluded to mean themselves. Curiously enough, the Church did not condemn Joachim for hisprophecies: popes even encouraged him to write. In 1254 there appearedin Paris a book entitled the _Introduction to the EverlastingGospel_, a name taken from a passage of the Revelation (xiv. 6). Weknow it only from the denunciations of its enemies; but it wasapparently intended to consist of three undoubted works of Joachimwith explanatory glosses and an introduction. These were the work ofFriar Gerard of Borgo-san-Donnino, who is represented as having gonebeyond the views of the Calabrian prophet. He asserted that about theyear 1200 the spirit of life had left the Old and New Testaments inorder to pass into the Everlasting Gospel, and that this newscripture, of which the text was composed of Joachim's three books, was a new revelation which did not, as Joachim held, contain themystical interpretation of the Bible, but actually replaced andeffaced the Law of Christ as that had effaced the Law of Moses. It isimpossible to tell how far the author represented the views of all theSpirituals. A share in the composition was ascribed to the FranciscanGeneral John of Parma (1248-57), who represented the purest Franciscantradition, and was chiefly responsible for the more extravagant formsof the Franciscan legend. He was a gentle mystic, and his belief inthe prophetical utterances of the age probably did not go beyond theactual works of Joachim. But his sympathy encouraged the extremeJoachites, who manufactured and passed from hand to hand a largenumber of spurious prophetical writings which were attributed toJoachim. 

[Sidenote: Popular manifestations. ]

Moreover, the extravagances of the Spirituals were no isolatedoutburst of religious liberty. In 1251 there appeared in France anelderly preacher, known as the Hungarian, who, professing a revelationfrom the Virgin Mary and preaching a social revolution, led a band ofpeasants and rioters through country, until the leader was killed in ascuffle and his followers were dispersed. In 1260 Italy was startledby processions of persons of all classes and ages, stripped to thewaist, who flogged themselves at intervals in penance for their sins. These movements of the Pasteauroux and the Flagellants were merely thebest known among many which bore witness to the restlessness andyearning of the age. 

[Sidenote: Papal action and its effect. ]

But despite the manifest danger of these movements the Papacy actedwith great caution. In 1255 a tribunal of three Cardinals at Anagniinvestigated the charges against Gerard's book. Joachim's orthodoxyremained unquestioned the _Everlasting Gospel_ was condemned, butthe Bishop of Paris was told not to annoy the Franciscans. The mostimportant result was that John of Parma was deposed by the GeneralChapter acting under the influence of the Conventual Franciscans, whowelcomed the relaxations of the severe Rule. For their new head wasBonaventura, himself a mystic; but the fact that he had taken theplace of their beau ideal, that he distrusted the rule of absolutepoverty as tending to weaken the social worth of the Franciscan body, and that he was a recognised leader in the Church--all increased thealienation of the Spirituals from the Church and suggested to theirminds the idea of schism. 

[Sidenote: Chances of separation. ]

On the other hand, the Conventuals met the austere intolerance of theextreme party by persecution. The most interesting victim of thisreligious rancour was Peter John, the son of Olive, a French friar, whose works were condemned more than once, although he died quietly in1298. He allowed to the Franciscans only the sustenance necessary fordaily life and the furniture for the celebration of divine service. Inhis view the Roman Church was Babylon, and the Rule of St. Francis wasthe law of the Gospel. For those who held such views there was noplace in the Roman Church. The Spirituals began to seek relief in areturn to the eremitic life. But the sudden elevation of a hermit ofSouth Italy to the Papacy in the person of Celestine V seemed topresent to these dreamers the chance of the accomplishment of the newGospel. His hopeless failure and abdication turned their thoughts morethan ever to separation from the Church. Celestine, who had gatheredsome of the extreme Franciscans into a community of his own, is saidto have released them from obedience to the Franciscan Order. In anycase, Boniface VIII not only secured the ex-Pope, but also attemptedto exterminate his followers. So far the question at issue had been adisciplinary question which concerned the Franciscan Order--whetherfor the Order absolute poverty was of the essence of the Rule. Thetime was at hand when the question would assume a doctrinal form, andthe Church at large would be called upon to decide whether absolutepoverty was an article of the Christian faith. 

CHAPTER XIV

THE CHURCH AND THE HEATHEN

[Sidenote: Hungary and Poland. ]

From the time of Otto I it was the policy of the German Kings toGermanise and Christianise the nations on their eastern border, as apreparatory step to including them in the Empire. Otto had exactedhomage from the rulers of Hungary, Poland, and Bohemia, but under hissuccessors they broke away; and although, meanwhile, Christianity wasaccepted by the rulers in all three countries, Hungary and Poland bothestablished their independence politically of the German King, andecclesiastically of the German Metropolitan of Mainz or Magdeburg. Henry III reasserted the political influence in Germany; but it was tothe interest of the Pope to encourage the independent attitude of theChurches in Hungary and Poland so long as they recognised the Romansupremacy. But even politically Gregory VII told Solomon, King ofHungary (1074), that his kingdom "belongs to the holy Roman Church, having been formerly offered by King Stephen to St. Peter, togetherwith every right and power belonging to him, and devoutly handedover. " A similar claim, of which the basis was much more doubtful, wasmade to Poland. 

[Sidenote: Bohemia. ]

The Czechs in Bohemia were less fortunate. Boleslas Chrobry, i. E. TheBrave, of Poland (992-1025), had aspired to rule over an unitedkingdom of the Northern Slavs, but had to be content with theindependence of his own Polish kingdom. Bretislas of Bohemia (1037-55)had a similar ambition; but he could not shake off the German yoke, and his bishopric of Prague remained a suffragan of the Metropolitanof Mainz. 

[Sidenote: Adalbert of Bremen. ]

North of Bohemia, in the country lying between the Baltic, the Elbe, and the Oder, Otto had established a series of marks or border-landsin which he had built towns, introduced German colonists, and foundedbishoprics which he had grouped round a new Metropolitan at Magdeburg. Here for nearly a century and a half the House of Billung did much tokeep under the surging tide of paganism. It was the ambitions ofAdalbert, Archbishop of Bremen (1043-72), which for a time caused aserious heathen reaction in this quarter. He was the rival of Hanno ofKoln for influence at the Court during Henry IV's minority. As themost northern German Metropolitan he aspired to set up a patriarchatein Northern Europe. He met with considerable success in Scandinavia. 

[Sidenote: Scandinavia. ]

The Christianisation of Denmark had been completed under Cnut, whoalso ruled over England (1014-35). Norway was also being rapidlyconverted; but the forcible methods of King Olaf, who afterwardsbecame the patron saint of his country, roused discontent. Cnut addedNorway to his dominions, and was anxious to make his realmecclesiastically independent. He established three bishoprics inDenmark, but did not get his own metropolitan, and his empire fellasunder at his death. Adalbert made a close alliance with Swein ofDenmark, and thus kept the Danish Church dependent. Harold Hardradastruggled against Adalbert's attempts to assert his power in Norway. Sweden had accepted Christianity under Olaf Stotkonung, i. E. TheLap-King, who died in 1024. But until towards the end of the eleventhcentury heathenism continued to maintain itself, and the difficultiesof the Christian party were considerably increased by the assertivepolicy of Bremen. Adalbert's schemes were wide-reaching. He sentbishops to the Orkneys, to Iceland, and even to Greenland, of whichthe last two lands had been converted by missionaries from Norway andultimately became subject to the Metropolitan of Norway. 

[Sidenote: Wends. ]

But the real mischief of Adalbert's ambitious schemes was apparenteast of the Elbe. He founded the bishopric of Hamburg, and held it inaddition to Bremen. He sent bishops to Ratzeburg and Mecklenburgacross the Elbe. He encouraged Henry IV's schemes against the Saxonsin order to diminish the power of the House of Billung, who were hisrivals in that quarter. The various tribes of the Wends--Wagrians, Obotrites, Wiltzes--had been drawn together into one kingdom underGottschalk (1047-66), himself a Christian, who founded churches andmonasteries, and has been likened to Oswald of Northumbria in that heinterpreted the missionaries' sermons to his heathen subjects. Thisdominion had been established under the protection of the Saxon dukes. But Henry IV's quarrels with Saxony distracted the attention of theBillungs and their followers; and Gottschalk's death was followed by aheathen reaction in which, together with the extirpation of othermarks of Christianity, the bishoprics were destroyed, and among themAdalbert's own foundation of Hamburg. This was the beginning of theend. Adalbert's successor had to be content with Bremen alone. Moreover, in the investiture struggle he was loyal to Henry IV; andsince Eric of Denmark declared for the Pope, Urban II made the Danishprelate of Lund the Metropolitan of the North (1103). This arrangementcaused discontent in the two other Scandinavian kingdoms, andultimately Eugenius III sent Cardinal Breakspear, the future HadrianIV, on a mission which resulted in the establishment of Nidaros orDrontheim as the see of a primate for Norway, and of Upsala in asimilar capacity for Sweden. It may be mentioned in connection withthis point that Finland owed its conversion to Sweden very shortlyafterwards, though the Swedish attempts in Esthonia failed. 

[Sidenote: Their final conversion. ]

Meanwhile among the Wends Gottschalk's son revived his father'sauthority and contact with German civilisation; but after 1131 theWendish kingdom fell to pieces, and from that moment we can mark thesteady advance of German power to the Oder. The Billung line of Saxondukes had become extinct in 1106, and Henry V had given the ducal nameto Lothair, who succeeded him as Emperor, and who as Duke aimed atbuilding up a strong dominion in north-eastern Germany. As Emperor hetook up the civilising rôle of Otto the Great and encouraged theGermanisation of the Slavs. The actual work was done by his chiefadviser Norbert, whom he had almost forced to become Archbishop ofMagdeburg. He acted in conjunction with Albert the Bear, a descendantin the female line of the Billung dukes and Margrave of the Northmark, who himself founded bishoprics among his immediate neighbours theWiltzes. Albert's soldiers prepared the way for Norbert'sPremonstratensian canons, and bishoprics were founded with so littleregard for division of territory, even in Poland and Pomerania, thatboth Gnesen and Lund found themselves for a time subordinated toMagdeburg. Two names are especially associated with the conversion ofthe Wends. In 1121, under the patronage of Lothair who was not yetEmperor, Vicelin began his work among the Wagrians, and in 1149 hebecame their Bishop with his see at Oldenburg. He died in 1154. It wasunder the auspices of Henry the Lion, now Duke of Saxony, that Bernopreached to the Obotrites, converting the Wendish Prince and becomingBishop of Mecklenburg. The gradual advance of German colonisation hadweakened the Wendish resistance and prepared the way for thisrestoration of Christianity. Henry the Lion finished the work. Inalliance with Waldemar II of Denmark he repeated with greatercompleteness the work of founding bishoprics, establishing houses ofPremonstratensians, whose missionary activity was now shared by theCistercians, building towns and introducing colonists, until the wholecountry between the Northmark and the Baltic was included in his Saxonduchy. 

[Sidenote: Pomerania. ]

The fall of Henry the Lion was not followed by any anti-Germanreaction; and meanwhile the work of conversion had been going forwardamong the Slavs beyond the Oder. The first attempts of the Poles toinfluence their troublesome Pomeranian neighbours failed. The ultimatesuccess of a mission was due to a German. Otto, a native of Suabia, began as a schoolmaster in Poland. From chaplain to the Polish Princethe Emperor Henry V made him Bishop of Bamberg (1102); and, whenBoleslas III had subdued part of Pomerania and found his bishopsunwilling to attempt its conversion, he offered the task to Otto ofBamberg who, although an old man, undertook it with the consent of thePope and the Emperor. He paid two visits--in 1124 and 1128--both toWestern Pomerania, and established the bishopric of Wollin. Theconversion was naturally imperfect, but the country never relapsed. The fierce islanders of Rgen could not then be touched, but ultimatelygave way in 1168 before the combined secular and spiritual weapons ofthe Danish rulers. 

[Sidenote: Livonia. ]

From the middle of the twelfth century the cities of Bremen andLübeck had established trading connections with Livonia. Following inthe wake of the traders (1186) an Augustinian canon, Meinhard by name, preached Christianity under permission from a neighbouring RussianPrince, and he was made Bishop of Yrkill, on the Düna, under theArchbishop of Bremen. His successors, however, impatient at failure, organised a crusade from Germany. The third Bishop, Albert, took therecently founded trading centre Riga as his bishopric, and organisedthe knightly Order of the Brethren of the Sword (1202), to be underthe control of the Bishop. He aimed at an united spiritual andtemporal power in his own land, and in 1207 he accepted Livonia as afief from King Philip of Suabia. But Albert's chief foes were those ofhis own household. The Knights of the Sword strove for independenceand tried to establish themselves in Esthonia. Albert appointed hisown nominee as Bishop there, who should act as a check upon theknights. Innocent III, however, gave the ecclesiastical supervision ofEsthonia to the Danish Archbishop of Lund. But when the Danish Kingattempted to follow this up by asserting a political authority hisforces were defeated by the Esthonians. German influences prevailed;Albert took Dorpat, made it the seat of a new bishopric, and organisedthe whole country ecclesiastically until his death in 1229; althoughit was not until 1255 that Riga became the Metropolitan of theLivonian and Prussian Churches. The Order of the Sword ceased toresist, and in 1237 it merged itself in the Teutonic Order in Prussia. The conversion of Livonia was followed by that of Semgallen in 1218, and finally the inhabitants of Courland, threatened on all sides, accepted baptism (1230) as the only alternative to slavery. 

[Sidenote: Prussia. ]

Between these lands and Pomerania lay the savage Prussians. Among themBishop Adalbert of Prague, the Apostle of Bohemia, had ended his lifeby martyrdom in 997: and subsequent efforts, whether of boldmissionaries or of victorious Polish Kings, equally failed. At lengthin 1207 some Cistercian monks from Poland obtained leave from InnocentIII to make another attempt on Prussia. They were well received, andChristian of Oliva was consecrated bishop. But the rulers ofneighbouring lands, notably Conrad, Duke of Masovia, which lay just tothe south, schemed to turn these converted Prussians into politicaldependents, and Christian welcomed their armies as a means ofhastening on the nominal change of religion. A crusade was set onfoot; but the natives resisted with success, and began to destroy themonasteries established in the country. Consequently, in 1226 DukeConrad invited some members of the Teutonic Order to help him. In 1230came a large number of the knights, and a devastating war which lastedfor more than fifty years (1230-83), ended in the nominal conversionof the remaining inhabitants. 

During the war German colonists were placed upon the conquered landsand towns were founded--Königsberg (1256) in honour of Ottocar ofBohemia, who lent his aid for a time; Marienburg (1270), which becamethe headquarters of the Teutonic Order. Indeed, it was the Order whichreaped the benefit of the conquest. In 1243 Innocent IV divided thecountry ecclesiastically into four bishoprics, which were placedafterwards under the Livonian Archbishop of Riga as theirMetropolitan. One of these four--Ermland--freed itself bothecclesiastically from Riga and politically from the Teutonic knights, and placed itself directly under the Pope. The others were lessfortunate, and the Order successfully resisted the joint efforts ofthe bishops and the Pope to place them in a similar position. 

[Sidenote: Missions in Asia. ]

The spread of Christianity among the tribes upon the Baltic coast, imperfect though it was, led to permanent results. In the second greatfield of missionary activity during this period the work of the RomanChurch was more interesting than effective. It is difficult now torealise that in the fourteenth century emissaries from Rome hadnominally organised large districts of Asia as part of the ChristianChurch. Nor was theirs the first announcement of the Gospel in thoseregions. Christians of the Nestorian or Chaldean faith could claimadherents from Persia across the Continent to the heart of China, andhad even converted several Turkish tribes. 

[Sidenote: Prester John. ]

About the middle of the twelfth century the report reached Europe ofthe conversion as early as the beginning of the eleventh century ofthe Khan of the Karaït, a Tartar tribe, lying south of Lake Baikal, with its headquarters at Karakorum. The Syrian Christians, throughwhom the report came, misinterpreted his Mongolian title Ung-Khan asdenoting a priest-king named John, and it was this distant Easternpotentate who came to be known in Europe as Presbyter Johannes orPrester John. It was the Syrian Christians who, in their desire tooutvie the boastful arrogance of their Latin neighbours, together withmany apochryphal tales invented a letter from this dignitary to someof the sovereigns of Europe, including the Pope. Equally fabulousseems to have been the report to Alexander III of a physician namedPhilip, that this shadowy personage desired reception into the Romancommunion; for Alexander's answer apparently met with no response. In1202 the tribe of the Karaïtes became the vassals of the greatconqueror Ghenghiz Khan, who is said to have added to his wives theChristian daughter of the last Ung-Khan of the tribe. The kingdom ofPrester John, however, lived on in fables, of which the best knownrelates how the Holy Grail, the cup consecrated by Christ at the LastSupper, had withdrawn from the sinful West and found refuge in thisdistant land. 

[Sidenote: The Mongols in Europe. ]

The conquests of Ghenghiz opened an entirely new chapter in therelations between Western Europe and the Mongols. Ghenghiz himselfbefore his death in 1227 overran China, Central Asia, Persia, andpenetrated as far west as the Dnieper. His successors entered Russiain 1237, conquered the Kipchaks about the Caspian Sea and pursuedtheir fugitives into Central Europe, defeated the Poles, ravagedSaxony and Silesia, and overran Hungary (1240). It was fortunate forEurope that the death of the Great Khan in 1242 caused the Mongolleaders to withdraw their forces back to the East. The chief result ofthis Mongolian raid was that 10, 000 Kharizmians fleeing before theTartars entered the Egyptian service, and in 1244 captured Jerusalemfor the Egyptian Sultan. At the time of the Tartar invasion the Papacywas vacant; but in 1243 Innocent IV was elected, and in 1245 at theCouncil of Lyons a crusade was mooted. But the renewal of the papalquarrel with Frederick II so far added to the general indifferencethat no crusade was possible. Louis IX of France alone forced hisnobles to take the vow and fulfil it. 

[Sidenote: Innocent IV's missions. ]

To Innocent, however, is due the credit of inaugurating a new methodof approaching Eastern nations. It was well known that Christians wereto be found in the Mongolian armies; and the tolerant treatmentaccorded to them was construed as a favourable feeling towardsChristianity itself. The truth was that for the purpose of reconcilingall nations to their rule the Mongols tolerated all religions amongtheir subjects. Already Mohammedanism and Buddhism competed with theChristianity of the Nestorians for the favour of the Tartar Princes. Their own religion has been characterised as a vague monotheism. Itslack of definiteness led the early missionaries in their enthusiasm tohope that its followers were in a state of mind to be easily persuadedof the superior claims of the Catholic faith. Anyhow there existed forsome time quite an expectation in the West that the whole of Asiawould one day acknowledge the spiritual rule of Rome. Pope Innocent, therefore, fully convinced of the friendly disposition of the Mongols, despatched two embassies to them. One was composed of John of PianoCarpini, a friend of St. Francis of Assisi, and three otherFranciscans. From the Khan of Kipchak at the Golden Horde on the Volgathey were passed on to the Great Khan, who ruled now from the oldcapital of the Karaïtes at Karakorum. Here they were received infriendly fashion by the newly elected Kuyuk, grandson of Ghenghiz. Theother embassy, composed of four Dominicans, visited Persia; but theyshowed so much want of tact that their lives were endangered, and theyreturned with letters written in the name of the Great Khan, in whichall princes of the earth were bidden to come and pay their homage. Immediately, then, these visits were without result; but they hadopened the way for further communications. 

[Sidenote: Louis IX's missions. ]

It was known in the East that Louis IX of France was preparing to setout on crusade; so that when he halted with his army in Cyprus he wasvisited by an envoy purporting to come from Kuyuk and seeking analliance against Mohammedans. Louis sent two Dominicans to a Christianmonarch, as he supposed, armed with suitable presents; but Kuyuk wasdead, and the presents were treated as tribute. Perhaps in consequenceof this failure Louis turned his army against Egypt instead of Syria;but the envoys returned to find him after the disastrous Egyptiancampaign in Palestine, where he spent four years. In consequence oftheir report he sent to Kuyuk's successor, Mangu, a Franciscan, William of Ruysbroek or Rubruquis. It was afterwards reported to thePope that Mangu and another Tartar Prince had been converted. Suchfabricated stories were only too common. Rubruquis has left us muchinformation about the Tartar Court; but his public discussions beforethe Khan with Nestorians, Mohammedans and Buddhists led to nopractical result. 

[Sidenote: Tartars and Mohammedans. ]

On the death of Mangu (1257) his dominions were divided between histwo brothers. Hulagu, who became Khan of Persia, overthrew theCaliphate of Bagdad; but the further progress of the Mongol armies wasstayed by the Mohammedan General, Bibars who, as a consequence of hissuccess, shortly became Sultan of Egypt. Henceforth the Mongols ofPersia constantly sought an alliance with the Christians of the Westagainst the Mohammedans as represented by Egypt, the one Mohammedanpower which as yet had opposed them with success. Thus in 1274, at thesecond Council of Lyons, two Persian envoys invited the cooperation ofChristendom, and, perhaps by way of raising the expectations of suchcontact, submitted to baptism; but the hostility of Greeks and Latinsand the selfish projects of Charles of Anjou prevented any response. The long anarchy in Egypt which followed the death of Bibars (1277)was too good an opportunity for the Mongols to lose; but Kelaunsecured the power in Egypt in time to repeat the exploits of Bibars. But the remaining Latin princes in Syria had veered between theMohammedans and Mongols, and Kelaun determined to complete thedestruction of such an alien element. By 1291 the kingdom of Jerusalemwas wiped out. Europe watched with comparative indifference the easytriumph of Mohammedanism. Not so the Mongols. Arghun, who became Khanof Persia in 1284, made three definite efforts towards an alliancewhich would mean a new crusade. In 1287 the Vicar of the NestorianPatriarch of China brought letters to the Pope and visited the Kingsof France and England; in 1289 a Genoese resident in Persia broughtthe news of Arghun's intended invasion of Syria and his professeddesire for baptism; in 1290, to a yet more pressing call the Popereturned a somewhat hopeful answer. But it was too late. Arghun diedin 1291, and although his eldest son, Ghazan, ultimately took up hisfather's projects and even decisively defeated the Egyptian army inSyria (1299), his losses forced him to return to Persia. It wasreported that he had died a Christian and in the Franciscan habit, butthere is no proof of this. 

[Sidenote: Chinese missions. ]

The more purely missionary efforts which were being madecontemporaneously with the events just related, were directed chieflyto China which, on the death of Mangu, had fallen to the lot of KublaiKhan. The opportunity for these was opened out by the relationsalready established with the Mongolians on other grounds. The firstmissionaries found Nestorian Christians who were subjects and otherswho were captives acting as clerks, artisans and merchants at theTartar Court. Besides these, others in search of fortune or adventureoccasionally found their way from the West. Such were two Venetians, Nicolo and Maffeo Polo, who, having traded with the Tartars of theGolden Horde (1260), were led by force of circumstances further intoAsia, until they reached China. Kublai sent them back to Europe with arequest to the Pope for at least a hundred well-instructed persons whoshould initiate his subjects in Western lore. They returnedpractically alone; but Nicolo's son Marco accompanied them. Theyremained for seventeen years in the service of the Khan (1275-93), andMarco Polo has left a very celebrated account of his travels. Thisestablishment of friendly feeling was followed by a definite missionof Franciscans, headed by John of Monte Corvino, who had alreadyorganised the missions in Persia. He was welcomed by Kublai'ssuccessor, and was allowed to preach. Despite the violent oppositionof the Nestorians he made converts and built churches. In 1307 hebecame the first Archbishop of Cambaluc or Peking, while subsequentlyno less than ten suffragans were grouped under him. Scarcely lessremarkable was the organisation in Persia of the archbishopric atSultanyeh and six subordinate sees. But this development belongsalmost entirely to the following period. 

CHAPTER XV

GUELF AND GHIBELLINE. (II)

[Sidenote: Honorius III (1216-27) and the Crusade. ]

The bull of summons to the Lateran Council of 1215 mentions as the twogreat desires of the Pope's heart the recovery of the Holy Land andthe reformation of the Church Universal; and it is made clear that thevarious measures of reform to be placed before the General Council areintended to bring Christian princes and peoples, both clergy andlaity, into the frame of mind for sending aid to Palestine. Moreover, at the Council it was agreed that an expedition should start fromBrindisi or Messina on June 1, 1216. In any case Innocent's deathwould probably have caused a delay. His successor, Honorius III, was anoble Roman of mild and gentle character, who, during Frederick'syouth, had been his tutor and the guardian of the kingdom of Sicily. No less than his predecessor was he bent on carrying out the projectof a crusade, and immediately on his accession he appealed to allChristians in the West to lay aside their enmities, and refused toallow any excuse for not setting out to those who had taken thecrusading vow. But the apathy was general, and since Frederick couldnot leave Europe so long as his rival Otto was alive, the expeditionwas robbed of its natural chief. A crusade, however, did go, and inaccordance with the plan agreed upon at the Council the attack wasdirected against Egypt. Damietta was taken (1219), but then a longpause was made in the expectation of Frederick's coming. In 1221arrived a German contingent under Frederick's friend Herman von Salza;but the crusaders were now defeated and could only secure theirretreat by the surrender of Damietta. 

[Sidenote: Frederick II. ]

For despite the death of Otto in 1218 Frederick had been detained inEurope. Before leaving he was anxious to secure the election of hisson Henry as King of Germany. This he did not accomplish until 1220, and then only by the surrender to the German princes of many importantroyal rights, especially the right of spoils. It was necessary also toreassure the Pope, who feared the continued union of Sicily andGermany. Honorius accepted Frederick's assurances and even crowned himEmperor in St. Peter's (November, 1220); and Frederick again took thecross. But he found that the royal rights in the kingdom of Sicily hadbeen much impoverished during his minority and his subsequent absence. His efforts to recover them caused a further delay in his promisedcrusade and brought him into conflict with papal claims. Honorius wasvery long-suffering. In 1223 he agreed to a postponement of two yearson condition that Frederick should affiance himself to Iolanthe, thedaughter and heiress of John of Brienne, who in right of his wife borethe title of King of Jerusalem. In 1225 Frederick not only marriedIolanthe but followed the example of his father-in-law by taking thetitle of King of Jerusalem in right of his wife, who since hermother's death was lawfully Queen. On the strength of this act ofself-committal he obtained another delay of two years until August, 1227, agreeing that if he did not then start he should be _ipsofacto_ excommunicate. 

But lapse of time did not make it any easier for him to leave hisdominions. In 1226 the Lombards, fearing that Frederick's success inthe recovery of royal rights in the South was merely a prelude to hisrenewal of imperial claims in North Italy, revived the old LombardLeague. Frederick put them to the ban of the Empire. But the Pope hadapproved the League; and when both parties agreed to refer the quarrelto him he naturally proposed an arrangement favourable to theLombards. A breach with Frederick was only averted by Honorius' death(March, 1227). 

[Sidenote: Gregory IX (1227-41). ]

His successor was Gregory IX, a relative of Innocent III who had madehim a Cardinal and employed him on important embassies. He has beendescribed as a man "of strong passions and an iron strength of will. "He is said to have been more than eighty years of age at hisaccession; but he was vigorous and alert in mind and body, a man ofblameless life and ardent faith, eloquent and learned, especially inlaw. Hitherto he had been friendly to Frederick. But he held viewseven more advanced than those of Innocent regarding the power of thePapacy. Hence, while to Honorius the Crusade was the end towards whichhis whole policy was directed, Gregory only desired to use thecrusading vow taken by temporal rulers as a weapon for the assertionof the papal power against them. It was Gregory who as CardinalUgolino had placed the cross in Frederick's hand at his imperialcoronation. As Pope he now demanded the immediate fulfilment ofFrederick's promise; and despite his reluctance to go and the outbreakof an epidemic in his army, Frederick embarked at Brindisi onSeptember 18th, 1227. But three days later under the plea of sicknesshe turned back. Gregory never hesitated. On September 29th in thecathedral of Anagni in fulfilment of the terms agreed to by Frederickhimself, he excommunicated the Emperor with the accompaniment of everykind of impressive ceremonial. There seems little doubt that the causeof Gregory's determination to exact from Frederick the utmost penaltyfor his failure to carry out the agreement lay in Frederick's Italianpolicy. Frederick had postponed the crusade in order to build up apower in Sicily, which he was now trying to extend to North Italy bycrushing the Lombard League. This was a fatal bar to the policy of apapal state in Central Italy, inaugurated by Innocent III. No lessimminent was the danger from the success of Frederick in baffling thepapal schemes for the separation of the Sicilian and German crowns. Itwas becoming apparent that only by the extinction of the Hohenstaufenline could the papal policy be carried out. 

[Sidenote: Frederick's crusade. ]

The age of the Crusades was indeed over. Frederick, in justifying hisaction to the princes of Europe, pointed to the conduct of the Papacyto Raymond of Toulouse and John of England as a warning to secularprinces, and attributed the papal hostility not to a desire for thepromotion of a crusade, but to greed. Gregory's conduct seemed to bearout this interpretation of his motives. Despite the excommunicationFrederick once more set sail in June, 1228. But an expedition undersuch circumstances was an independent act subversive of allecclesiastical discipline. Consequently, instead of his departurebeing the signal for the removal of his sentence, Frederick wasfollowed to Palestine by the anathema of the Church. The Pope havinggot Frederick into his power intended to keep him there. Thus whenFrederick reached Palestine the Templars and Hospitallers held aloof, while the Mendicant Orders preached against him; and when, inaccordance with his treaty with the Sultan, he entered Jerusalem, thecity and all the holy places were laid under an interdict. ButFrederick was not daunted. Since no ecclesiastic would crown him hetook the crown himself off the altar and placed it on his head. For asin the case of the Pope, so with Frederick, it was from no religiousmotives that he persisted in the crusade. It was a purely politicalexpedition. He put the Pope in the wrong in the eyes of Europeanprinces by refuting the charge of the Roman supporters that he neverseriously intended to go on crusade. But, more important still, hisown attitude and act were a manifesto on behalf of the Empire againstthe claim put forward by Innocent III for the Papacy as the head andleader of Christendom. But the very means of his success added to hisenormities. It was nothing that he had gained for Christendom withoutfighting more than had been won since the First Crusade. For he haddealt with the Sultan of Egypt as an equal, and in the treaty whichgave him Jerusalem and several other places he had undertaken toenforce certain articles favourable to the Sultan, even in the eventof opposition from Christian Princes. Thus it is not astonishing thatwhile Frederick was winning this success in Palestine Pope Gregory wasusing papal emissaries, in the shape of the lately founded Orders ofmendicant friars, to denounce the Emperor in every country of WesternEurope, and even let loose on Frederick's Sicilian territories an armyof so-called crusaders under John of Brienne, who resented theadoption of the title of King of Jerusalem by his imperial son-in-law. This monstrous attack upon a successful crusader turned the sentimentof Europe against the Pope. Frederick returned in June, 1229, and bythe help of his Saracen troops drove out the invaders. In return forpeace with the Church Frederick was willing to give to the Pope almostextravagantly generous terms, and a treaty was arranged at San Germanoin August, 1230, by which Frederick surrendered his claim over theSicilian clergy and obtained in return the removal of theexcommunication, which carried with it a tacit recognition of hiscrusade. 

[Sidenote: The Pope and Roman claims. ]

It was nine years before the struggle was openly renewed. There weremany causes of difference in the interval, but Pope and Emperor foundtwo occasions for common action. In the first place Gregory imitatedthe policy of his great relative in using every method for extendingthe immediate suzerainty of the Pope over the towns and barons withinthe Roman duchy. But despite Innocent's civic victory the RomanCommune desired to place themselves on a level with the other freecities of Italy such as Milan and Florence, and claimed jurisdictionover the whole district. Twice already had the Romans expelled Gregoryand recalled him before they demanded from him, in 1234, the surrenderof sovereign rights within the duchy. Gregory fled and appealed forhelp to Christendom; and Frederick supplied the troops which restoredthe Pope for the third time and forced the Romans to withdraw theirclaims. 

[Sidenote: Frederick and heresy. ]

Pope and Emperor also pursued a common policy against heretics. TheLateran Council of 1215 issued a series of ordinances againstheretics, making it the duty of the secular power to punish them underpain of excommunication. But each country and even each city issuedits own regulations for giving effect to the injunctions of theCouncil. Only gradually in the second quarter of the century was theold episcopal jurisdiction over heresy superseded by the establishmentof the papal Inquisition. Meanwhile, in 1220 at his imperialcoronation Frederick put out in his own name an edict for the secularsuppression of heresy, which had been dictated to him from Rome. In1231 this edict was enforced in Rome itself when Gregory IXestablished the Inquisition there and made it the business of theSenator, the head of the civic commune, to execute the sentences ofthe Inquisitor. The regulations now drawn up for the conduct of thesecular power in such cases, were sent over all Europe with orders fortheir enforcement. In the same year Frederick renewed his attack uponheretics in his Sicilian Constitutions, and in the course of the nexteight years he issued "a complete and pitiless code" of "fiendishlegislation, " placing the whole of the machinery of state at thedisposal of the Inquisitor. But Gregory was not deceived. Rather hecomplained that Frederick's orthodoxy took the form of the punishmentof his personal enemies, of whom many were good Catholics. CertainlyFrederick's anti-heretical edicts were not prompted by religious zeal. He was more detached than any ruler of the Middle Ages from thecurrent ideas of the time. He seems to have been, if it is possible, utterly non-religious. 

[Sidenote: Legislation of Emperor and Pope. ]

Moreover, his regulations against heresy were part of his general codeof law for the government of the diverse races in his kingdom ofSicily, and in this code issued in 1231, although their temporalitieswere secured to the clergy, as a class they were subjected to taxationand to the secular jurisdiction of the State. Pope Gregory'scounter-blast to this policy is contained in his addition to the CanonLaw known as his Decretals (1234). By these the clergy were declaredentirely exempt from secular taxation and jurisdiction, on the groundthat all secular law was subordinate to the law of the Church, andthat the duty of the secular power was to carry out the commands ofthe Church. 

[Sidenote: The second contest. ]

Thus each side was maintaining its pretensions until the opportunityshould come for asserting them. This was found for the second time inthe affairs of Lombardy. The Lombard cities still feared the designsof Frederick. In 1235 they renewed their League. Again the Pope wasaccepted as arbiter, and again Frederick complained with justice thathe was too favourable to the cities. In 1236 Frederick declared waragainst the League. His pretext of punishing heresy which was rife inLombardy, deceived no one; while his declaration, when Gregory desiredhim to turn his arms to Palestine, that "Italy is my heritage, andthis the whole world knows, " confirmed the worst apprehensions of thePope and the Lombards. Moreover, Frederick's first move was entirelysuccessful, and in 1237 he completely defeated the Lombards in battleat Corte Nuova, took the Milanese standard and sent it to be placed inthe Capitol at Rome. The subjugation of the Lombards would mean theunion of Italy under Frederick's rule, while, since the acquisition ofSicily by the Hohenstanfen, the Lombards remained the only allies ofthe Papacy in Italy. Gregory therefore declared himself, and in March, 1239, he excommunicated Frederick and released his subjects from theirallegiance. Frederick issued a manifesto addressed to all Princes, inwhich he appealed to a General Council. Gregory's counter-manifestowas couched in terms of the most unrestrained violence. Frederick wasdescribed as the beast in the Apocalypse (Rev. Xiii. 1), which hadupon its seven heads the name of blasphemy; and he is charged withsaying that the world had been deceived by three impostors, Christ, Moses and Mohammed, of whom two had died in glory, while the third hadbeen crucified. 

This is not the place to investigate the interesting question of thetruth of Gregory's charges against Frederick. The French sent amission to Frederick to enquire as to the accusation of infidelity, and he thanked them warmly and denied it. The Duke of Bavaria toldGregory in 1241 that most of the German princes and prelates wouldshortly go to Frederick's aid. In fact, the papal exactions had causedintense disgust over all Western Europe, and no prince would allowhimself to be set up as a rival to Frederick. Yet the papalcondemnation caused many to hold aloof from the Emperor who, moreover, did not venture to set up an antipope. He contented himself withpersecuting the friars who were the most active emissaries of Rome, and with confiscating the estates of the Church, until it was said atthe papal Court that he had sworn to reduce the Pope to beggary and tostable his horses in St. Peter's. 

[Sidenote: Innocent IV (1243-54). ]

Frederick had suggested the calling of a council, and Gregory summonedone to Rome. But Frederick had begun to reduce the Roman duchy and, anyhow, he did not want a council which would merely register thepapal decrees. So when a number of bishops ignored his prohibition andmet at Genoa in order to embark for Rome, the fleets of Pisa andSicily met them off the island of Meloria and captured nearly thewhole of the prospective Council. Frederick's attack upon Rome itselfwas only averted by the death of Gregory IX on August 21, 1241. Thenew Pope died seventeen days after his election, and then, for somereason, the Papacy was vacant for two years. The delay was attributedto Frederick; and the French actually declared to the Cardinals thatif a new Pope were not chosen quickly, the French nation, inaccordance with an ancient privilege given by Pope Clement to St. Denys, would set up a Pope of their own. At length, in June, 1243, Innocent IV was chosen; and Frederick, alluding to previous dealingswith him, remarked that by this election he had lost a friend amongthe Cardinals, since no Pope could be a Ghibelline. 

The truth of this was soon apparent. Innocent demanded the restorationof all Frederick's conquests in the States of the Church in return forpeace; and although nothing was said about the time of the removal ofthe excommunication, Frederick accepted the terms. But when Fredericksaw that there was no intention of absolving him, he refused tosurrender the papal cities and thereby technically broke the treaty. Innocent intended to get a treaty which would carry an acknowledgmentof the Emperor's failure, and then to reduce him to submission by acouncil held outside Italy. Negotiations continued until Innocent fledto Lyons, a practically independent city. France, England and Aragon, however, declined to receive him, and Innocent exclaimed that he mustcome to terms with the Emperor, "for when the dragon has been crushedor pacified, the little serpents will be quickly trodden underfoot. "

[Sidenote: First Council of Lyons. ]

At Lyons there met in 1245 the General Council to which Frederick hadappealed, and which is reckoned by the Romans as the thirteenth of theOEcumenical Assemblies of the Church; 140 archbishops and bishops, besides numerous lesser clergy, were present. Frederick wasrepresented by a celebrated jurist, Thaddeus of Suessa, who pleadedthe Emperor's cause. Several points were proposed for settlement; butall other matters were brushed aside, and Innocent hurried on thethird and last session of the Council in which Frederick was declareddeposed, his subjects were released from their allegiance, the Germanprinces told to elect another King, and Sicily kept for disposal bythe Pope in consultation with the Cardinals. All remonstrances wereunavailing; even Louis IX quite failed to move the Pope. Frederickrealised that it was a fight to a finish, and in a protest he calledupon the other princes of the West to help him in depriving the clergyof the wealth which had choked their spiritual power. But this wasinterpreted as a design for the destruction of the Church, and despitethe testimonies to Frederick's orthodoxy published by the Archbishopof Palermo, the papal charge of heresy against him gained wide belief. Innocent in his reply asserted among other things that the Pope wasthe Legate of Christ who had entrusted him with full powers to act asjudge over the earth, and that the Emperor should take an oath ofsubjection to the Pope who, as overlord, gave him his title and crown. Thus the claims now made on behalf of the Papacy left no room for abelief in the balance of spiritual and secular authority. 

[Sidenote: Death of Frederick. ]

Both sides resorted to every kind of expedient. Frederick, aimingespecially at the friars, ordered that any who spread or even receivedthe papal letters of condemnation against him should be burnt!Innocent declared an actual crusade against Frederick, stirred uprevolt in Sicily, and at length succeeded in raising a rival King inGermany. Henry Raspe, Landgrave of Thuringia, owed his election (1246)almost exclusively to the great prelates of the Rhine; but he died thenext year and, although another King was put forward in the person ofWilliam Count of Holland, a young man of twenty, he made no progressso long as Frederick lived. Moreover, in Italy Frederick's cause wasgaining ground, until the revolt of Parma and the failure of hisefforts to retake it ended in the complete rout of his forces (1248). In 1250 Frederick himself died directing by his will that all therights of the Church should be restored in so far as they did notconflict with the claims of the Empire, provided that the Churchherself should recognise the imperial rights. Almost to the lastFrederick had been quite willing to be reconciled to the Church, andhe died unsubdued. But the Papacy was fighting for that supremacywhich experience had shown to be the condition of its existence. Notthat any Emperor ever cherished the thought of destroying the Papacyany more than the Pope dreamed of annihilating the Empire. Manypassages have been cited to prove that Frederick contemplated theestablishment of a Church of his own in Sicily. Here perhaps he didnot aim at anything more than Henry VIII afterwards accomplished inEngland or the barons under Louis IX, as we have seen, threatened onone occasion in France. The language used by his followers wasextravagant, even blasphemous, and he did not discourage it. How farhe ever aimed as setting himself up as Pope is more doubtful. But inany case, and however much we may be inclined to sympathise with him, it must be allowed that there was abundant reason for the hostility ofthe Pope. 

[Sidenote: A papal candidate for Sicily. ]

And the reasons which caused the Papacy to hound Frederick to death, also determined it not to rest until it had exterminated the whole"viper's brood. " Innocent IV expressed the most indecent joy atFrederick's death, and refused all offers of peace from his son andsuccessor, Conrad IV. But being too weak to wrest Sicily from theHohenstaufen he sought for some prince who would accept it as a papalfief. It was refused on behalf of Louis IX's brother, Charles ofAnjou, and also by Henry III's brother, Richard Earl of Cornwall, whosaid that the Pope might as well offer him the moon. Henry III, however, accepted it for his second son Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, aboy of eight, promising to pay the expenses of the conquest. ThePope's action was utterly unscrupulous. In May, 1254, Conrad died inthe twenty-sixth year of his age, and the only legitimate Hohenstaufenrepresentative who remained, was his son, distinguished as Conradin, who was under the guardianship of Berthold Marquis of Hohenburg. Conrad's Regent in Italy had been his half-brother Manfred, the son ofFrederick by an Italian lady, and the most brilliant of allFrederick's children. Berthold, alarmed at the difficulties, made wayfor Manfred, who found Innocent ready to come to terms. To Manfred wasconfirmed the principality of Tarento originally the gift of hisfather, and he was recognised as Papal Vicar for the greater part ofthe Sicilian kingdom. But the grant of Sicily was confirmed to Edmundof Lancaster, and the Pope determined to take possession of thekingdom in person. Manfred, now a vassal of the Church, held thebridle of the Pope's horse as he entered his new dominions. ButManfred soon found that the Pope's object was to reduce him toharmlessness and then to get rid of him. He therefore raised thestandard of revolt and defeated the papal forces (December, 1254). 

[Sidenote: Alexander IV (1254-61). ]

At this juncture Innocent IV died at Naples. Matthew Paris relates thedream of a Cardinal who saw the Church accusing the Pope before thethrone of God because he had enslaved the Church, had made her a tableof money-changers and had shaken faith, abolished justice, andobscured truth. However necessary to the independence of the Papacywas this strenuous struggle, the utterly unscrupulous means employedand the almost complete identification of its spiritual power with itstemporal interests is impossible to justify or even to excuse. The newPope, Alexander IV, a nephew of Gregory IX, without Innocent's abilitytried to follow the policy of his predecessor. In 1255 he ratified thegrant of Sicily to the young English prince on severe conditions. Indeed, he surpassed his predecessors in the demands made on Henry IIIand the English Church; until in 1258 his claim for the repayment ofthe money which he alleged to have been expended in the prosecution ofEdmund's cause, brought on a grave constitutional crisis in Englandand reduced Henry III to impotence. 

[Sidenote: King Manfred. ]

Meanwhile Manfred had regained all the dominions of the Sicilian crownin the name of Conradin, but in 1258 he quietly set aside his nephewand accepted the throne for himself. However necessary such a stepmight be, it divided Sicily from Germany. This was what the papalparty desired: but Manfred, the son of an Italian mother, aimed, likehis father, at an Italian monarchy. Consequently Alexander declaredagainst him. In Italy, however, the cessation of supplies from Englandleft Alexander almost powerless, and Manfred was accepted as the headof the Ghibellines in the peninsula. 

[Sidenote: The rival Kings of the Romans. ]

But before his death in May, 1261, Alexander had gained a distinctsuccess in Germany. The young King, William of Holland, the destinedEmperor, had been killed in 1256. The Pope forbade the choice ofConradin, and the votes of the German princes were divided between theEnglishman, Richard Earl of Cornwall, and Alfonso the Wise, King ofCastile and grandson of Philip of Suabia. Richard, wealthy andattracted by the imperial title, was crowned Emperor at Aachen in 1257and bought himself a measure of support so long as he remained inGermany. Alfonso, on the other hand, did nothing to secure his newdominions. Alexander and his successors, by professing a judicialattitude, gradually established the impression in Germany that thedecision in these matters rested with the Papacy. 

CHAPTER XVI

THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE AND OF THE PAPACY

[Sidenote: Urban IV (1261-4). ]

The date of Alexander's death marks the beginning of a new episode inthe history of the mediæval Papacy. His successor, Urban IV, was aFrenchman. With more vigour than his predecessor he pursued the policyof the destruction of the Hohenstaufen. Since the English prince hadproved a useless tool and no more money could be wrung from theEnglish people, he obtained the renunciation of the claims of Edmundto the Sicilian crown and turned to his native country for acandidate. Louis IX refused the offer for a son, but it was acceptedby his brother, Charles of Anjou, whose wife, the daughter and heiressof Raymond Berengar of Provence, desired to be the equal of her threeelder sisters, the Queens, respectively, of France, England, andGermany. For the next twenty years the papal policy centres round thedoings of Charles as much as it had centred for thirty years round theaims of Frederick II. The Guelf party in Rome had already electedCharles as senator, or head of the civic commune, in opposition to theGhibelline Manfred. Thus the Pope and the Italian Guelfs once morecombined to betray Italy to the foreign conqueror. Urban was able toobtain a promise that Charles would not accept the senatorship forlife, although the need for Charles' presence in Italy as a check uponthe victorious Manfred enabled the new King to obtain better terms inregard to Sicily than the Pope had offered at first. 

[Sidenote: Clement IV (1265-8). ]

Fortune favoured Charles from the outset. Before he could reach ItalyUrban had died in Perugia (October, 1264), having never entered Romeduring his pontificate. His successor, Clement IV, a Provençal andtherefore a subject of Charles, had been overpersuaded to accept thetiara, and naturally continued his predecessor's work. Charles arrivedby sea, was welcomed in Rome where he assumed the office of senator, and was invested with the crown of Sicily (June, 1265). But from thevery first he showed the arbitrariness and violence which were tocharacterise his relations with Italy. He came destitute of money; hetook possession of the Lateran palace until the Pope's remonstrancesforced him to withdraw. His army marched through Italy to join him, plundering as it came. The Pope was helpless; he had not yet evenventured to come to Rome. Charles and his wife were crowned King andQueen of Sicily by a commission of Cardinals; and theirs was the firstcoronation of any sovereign other than an Emperor, which had takenplace in St. Peter's. 

[Sidenote: End of the Hohenstaufen. ]

Meanwhile Manfred was doing everything to meet the new attack. Butthere was no patriotism among the Italians of the south. Frederick IIin founding his strong monarchy had alienated nobles and the cities;the clergy, of course, were his bitter foes. All seemed to think thatCharles' advent would bring freedom and peace. They were soon to bedisabused. On Charles' march southwards Manfred, relying solely onGermans and Saracens, met him at Benevento, but was beaten and fell inthe fight (February 26, 1266). Charles entered Naples and the papalaims seemed attained. Charles was their vassal for Sicily, and was nowobliged to lay down his office of senator. The German influence inItaly was destroyed; the "German" Empire was a thing of the past. Butthe Romans still kept the Pope at arms' length. In 1252 they had forthe first time introduced a foreign senator in the BologneseBrancaleone who, before his death in 1258, was twice overthrown andrestored to power. Thus the election of Charles was no new departure. And as his successor was chosen Henry, brother of Alfonso the Wise ofCastile, titular King of the Romans. He maintained the interests ofthe commune against the Pope, and then, from hatred to Charles, theGhibelline cause against the papal party. The Ghibellines found arallying ground in Tuscany, and sent to Germany for Conradin. The boy, now fourteen years of age, was welcomed by the senator in Rome; buthis forces were utterly defeated by Charles at Tagliacozzo on August23, 1268. Conradin fled, but was captured and executed. 

[Sidenote: Schemes of Charles. ]

This time it was Charles, and not the Pope, whose success was theobvious fact. Whether the Pope interceded for the last of theHohenstaufens or approved his execution, is a matter of some doubt. But Charles was now elected senator of Rome for life, and Clementoffered no opposition to this violation of the original agreement. Moreover, on Clement's death (November, 1268), the divisions among theCardinals assembled at Viterbo prolonged the vacancy in the papalchair for nearly three years. During that time Charles developed themost ambitious schemes. With the Ghibelline position he took up theGhibelline aims. Thus the papal plans for reviving the Crusades werenothing to him, but he desired to obtain for himself the crown ofJerusalem; and since Constantinople had been recovered by the Greeksin 1261, while on the one side he make a treaty with the Latinex-Emperor, Baldwin II, whereby the reversion of the Byzantine throneshould go to the King of Sicily, on the other side the papal projectfor an union of the Greek and Latin Churches was an obstacle to hishostile design. Charles, in fact, began to equip an expedition againstConstantinople. Louis IX for the moment checked his brother's schemesand took him off on the crusade from which Louis himself was not toreturn. The diversion of the expedition from Palestine or Egypt toTunis is generally attributed to the influence of the King of Sicily, whose Norman predecessors had once held the north coast of Africa: butthis charge can scarcely be maintained, for the crusade thitherinterfered with his schemes against Constantinople, which were resumedimmediately on his return to Europe. 

[Sidenote: Gregory X (1272-6). ]

But again Charles was destined to meet with a serious check. When atlength the Church obtained a new Pope it was no servile henchman ofCharles who was elected. Gregory X, a Visconti of Piacenza, had spenthis life outside Italy, and was with Edward I of England in Palestinewhen he was chosen. He was the first Pope since Honorius III, who setbefore himself the promotion of a crusade as his primary object. As anindispensable prerequisite of this be desired to promote the union ofthe Latin and Greek Churches. It was these unselfish objects of hiswhich enabled him to check both Charles' power and his schemes. Therewas a still further point. The fall of the Hohenstaufen had destroyedthe imperial house, and had left the Papacy not only isolated but faceto face with one who was proving himself "a burdensome protector. " Theequilibrium of Europe had been seriously shaken. The election of tworival Kings of the Romans had not helped to restore it. But nowRichard of Cornwall, who had tried to assert his position, was dead, and Gregory refused to recognise the claims of Alfonso of Castile. ButLouis IX was dead also, and Charles would be likely to influence hisnephew the new King of France more than he had ever influenced hishigh-souled brother. It was necessary to find a new King of the Romanswho might be a counterpoise in Europe, and perhaps even in Italy, toCharles. Thus encouraged and almost coerced by the Pope, the Germanprinces elected Rudolf Count of Hapsburg (September 1273), a man of"popular qualities" who was not too powerful. 

[Sidenote: Second Council of Lyons. ]

The success of the papal policy was to be advertised to Europe in asecond Council of Lyons (May-July, 1274). This was attended by fivehundred bishops and innumerable other clergy. An opportunity was takento issue a canon, the object of which was to prevent the recurrence ofthe long vacancy in the papal see which had preceded Gregory'selection. It was decreed that ten days after the death of the Pope theCardinals should meet and should be confined in one conclave until achoice had been made. All intercourse with the outside world wasforbidden; the food was to be supplied through a window, the amount ofit being diminished after three days; while a further diminution wasto take place five days later. The duty of supervision was entrustedto the magistrates of the city in which the election might be held. Despite the stringent resistance of the Cardinals the canon was passedwith the aid of the bishops; and although it was more than oncesuspended, it has continued to direct the procedure at papal electionsto the present day. 

[Sidenote: Union of Eastern and Western Churches. ]

But the real object of the meeting of the Council was that it shouldwitness the reconciliation of the Eastern Church with the Western. More than two centuries earlier (1054) the long jealousy of Rome andConstantinople had ended in the rupture of communion between theChristians of West and East; and the Crusades and the Latin Empire ofConstantinople had prevented any real attempt at re-union. But justnow circumstances were favourable. Michael Palæologus, who hadreconquered Constantinople for the Greeks and made himself Emperor, was in difficulties at home with a section of the clergy, and, threatened by the designs of Charles of Sicily, he coerced the Greekclergy into accepting the union with the Western Church, which gavethe only chance of such help as would hold Charles in check. Anembassy of Greeks appeared at Lyons; and although Bonaventura andThomas Aquinas were present to argue the case for the Western Church, no persuasion was needed. The Greeks expressed a readiness to acceptthe primacy of Rome, the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeded fromboth Father and Son (whereas they had maintained His procession fromthe Father alone), and all the customs of the Western Church. Itseemed as if at length a crusade were really possible. The chiefsovereigns of Europe had taken the cross, and Gregory had evenpersuaded Charles of Sicily and the Greek Emperor to sign a truce. 

[Sidenote: Nicholas III (1277-80). ]

But it was not to be. Gregory's death (January 10, 1276) undid all hiswork. Charles of Sicily alone rejoiced at the vacancy, and madedesperate efforts to secure the nomination to the Papacy again. Buttwo nominees died in quick succession; and when on the death of JohnXXI after a similarly short reign, Charles again interfered, he wasmet by the election of Nicholas III of the family of Orsini, whoreturned to Rome and spent the three years of his pontificate inneutralising Charles' power. For this purpose he used the new King ofthe Romans. Charles was forced to resign the vicariate of Tuscany, which was made over to Rudolf. Charles also resigned the senatorshipof Rome which he had held for ten years. To this Nicholas got himselfelected, and issued a decree by which he hoped to make it impossiblefor any foreign prince to be elected, or for anyone to hold the postfor more than a year without the papal favour. 

[Sidenote: Revival of the Empire. ]

But Nicholas was only able to give a German prince once more a footingin Italy because Rudolf had been effectually barred from reviving theHohenstaufen claims. Already at the Council of Lyons the envoys ofRudolf had appeared and in his name had taken the oaths previouslyexacted from Otto IV and Frederick II. Rudolf had subsequently metPope Gregory at Lausanne in 1275, and had confirmed the act of hisrepresentatives. Thus Gregory obtained from a crowned German King anacknowledgment of all the claims advanced by the Papacy since the daysof Charles the Great. Rudolf was too busy ever to visit Rome; but innegotiations with regard to his coronation as Emperor, Nicholas IIIexacted the confirmation of all that was promised to Gregory, and thisincluded especially the lands of the old Exarchate and the district ofPentapolis, which had never yet been actually in the hands of papalofficers. 

[Sidenote: Martin IV (1281-5). ]

Dante has banned the memory of Nicholas as the simoniacal Pope. Hecertainly used his enormous patronage to enrich his own family. Buthis death (August, 1280) nearly proved fatal to the freedom of Europe;for Charles at length obtained his own nominee to the Papacy in theperson of a Frenchman, Martin IV, who proceeded to hand over to theKing for life the Roman senatorship conferred upon the Pope. All thework of the preceding Popes was undone. The temporary union of theChurches was dissolved by the excommunication of the Greek Emperor onthe pretext that he had not carried out his promises; and Charles, whohad obtained a footing in the Greek peninsula and made a league withVenice, prepared to start on his expedition against Constantinople. There seemed every prospect of his success. 

[Sidenote: Sicilian Vespers]

But Charles' brutality had been imitated by his French officials; andthe rising known as the "Sicilian Vespers" in March, 1282, cleared theFrench out of Sicily and finally overthrew all Charles' plans. Thefleet prepared for Constantinople had to be turned against the rebelislanders. The Pope, thinking to play the game of his royal master, refused to mediate; the Sicilians thereupon declared that from St. Peter they would turn for aid to another Peter, and offered the crownto Peter, King of Aragon, the husband of Manfred's daughter, Constance, who for some years had welcomed Sicilian refugees at hiscourt and had been ready for the summons. The Pope deprived Peter ofhis hereditary dominions and bestowed them on Charles' great nephewCharles of Valois, a son of Philip III of France; but the Aragonesefleet under Roger di Loria defeated Charles' fleet and captured hisson and heir Charles the Lame. On January 7, 1285, Charles himselfdied, and was followed to the grave very shortly by Pope Martin IV. The same year saw also the death of Philip III of France and of Peterof Aragon. Pope Honorius IV followed the policy of his predecessor, and to him succeeded Nicholas IV. It was during his pontificate thatthe Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, the result of the First Crusade, wasfinally wiped out by the capture of Acre (1291), and the little stirmade by this event affords a measure of the decay of the crusadingspirit. 

[Sidenote: Celestine V (1294). ]

On the death of Nicholas the division among the Cardinals reflectingthe jealousies of the Roman families of Orsini and Colonna, caused avacancy in the papal office for more than two years. Then by a suddenwhim, which in the event of a successful result would have been calledan inspiration, the name of a hermit, Peter, whose austerities in hiscell on Monte Murrone in the Abruzzi had won him great reverence, wassuggested apparently in all sincerity to the wearied and perplexedCardinals. He was elected and took the title of Celestine V. Inaccordance with the desire of Charles II of Naples, he took up hisabode at Naples. But he was utterly unfit for his high office, andafter a pontificate of less than four months (August to December, 1294) he resigned, thus perpetrating that "great refusal" which wonDante's immortal phrase of scorn. How far his act was due to themachinations of Cardinal Gaetani is uncertain. At any rate Gaetani hadevidently obtained Charles' sanction beforehand to his own elevation, which took place ten days later. But the new Pope did not intend thatanyone should be his master. For the moment he and Charles needed eachother, and it was agreed between them that Sicily should be recoveredfor Charles, while Celestine should be given into the keeping of hissuccessor lest he should become a centre for disaffection. 

[Sidenote: Boniface VIII (1294-1303). ]

Boniface VIII--such was the name of the new Pope--returned to Romeescorted by Charles II and his son, Charles Martel of Hungary; and hiscoronation surpassed that of all previous Popes in magnificence. Thelate Pope was soon secured and placed in a tower on the top of amountain, where he died in 1296. It was not so easy for Boniface tofulfil his part of the compact with regard to Sicily. James, the sonof Peter of Aragon, agreed to surrender Sicily on the understandingthat the new Pope would withdraw the award of Aragon made by Martin IVto a French prince, and confirm it him. But the Sicilians refused toreturn to their French ruler and found a champion in James' youngerbrother Frederick, who was their Governor. He was crowned King ofSicily at Palermo in 1296. Charles II was too feeble to make any realheadway against Frederick, and even the title of Standard-bearer ofthe Church conferred by the Pope on James of Aragon, did not keepFrederick's brother permanently on the papal side. In 1301 Bonifacefell back upon the French prince Charles of Valois, to whom PopeMartin had given Aragon, and sent for him to attack "the new Manfred"in Sicily. Charles having first failed in an attempt to appease theFlorentine factions, passed on to the south, and here Frederickultimately forced him to peace and a recognition of his title as Kingof Sicily (1302). At first Boniface would not ratify a peace fromwhich all reference to Pope or Church had been omitted; but in 1303circumstances caused him to accept it, though he exacted as acondition that Frederick should acknowledge himself a papal vassal. Frederick, however, never paid any tribute. 

[Sidenote: Quarrel with Colonnas. ]

Boniface held views of the papal power of the most exalted kind. Itwas in accordance with these that he once more made Rome theheadquarters of the papacy. But he soon found himself involved in aquarrel which, purely local in origin, assumed an European importance. The family of Colonna by favour of Pope Nicholas IV had become one ofthe most powerful in Rome and the neighbourhood. The centre of thefamily property was the city of Palestrina. Cardinal Jacopo Colonna, who as the eldest brother administered it, did not distribute itfairly to his brothers, but rather favoured his nephews, the sons ofhis dead brother John who had been Senator of Rome. One of these wasthe Cardinal Peter. Uncle and nephew were the most influential membersof the Roman Curia, and as Roman nobles they resented Boniface'sdesign of humbling the Roman aristocracy. They refused the papaladmonitions to deal justly with the other members of the family; theywithdrew from the papal Court, and having already turned fromGhibelline to Guelf, they once more became Ghibelline and made analliance with Frederick of Sicily. They published a manifesto in whichthey refused to recognise Boniface on the ground that Pope Celestine'sabdication had been unlawful. But Celestine was dead and the Colonnashad voted for his successor. Boniface deposed the Cardinals andexcommunicated them, even declaring a crusade against them! Thestruggle centred round Palestrina, and it is said that the Popefetched from a Franciscan cloister a once famous Ghibelline general, Guy of Montefeltro, by whose advice he decoyed the Colonnas out oftheir fortress by promises which he did not intend to keep. Palestrinawas levelled to the ground and the Colonnas fled (1298), findingrefuge among the enemies of Boniface and preparing the way for thefinal catastrophe. 

[Sidenote: Papal Jubilee. ]

Boniface, however, had become his own master at home to an extentattained by none of his predecessors since Innocent III. His reignreached what may be termed its high-water mark in the Papal Jubilee of1300. The cessation of the Crusades had largely increased the crowdsof pilgrims to Rome, until in 1299 there awoke an expectation ofspecial spiritual privileges in connection with the end of thecentury. Indulgences had been so freely scattered in attempts topromote the Crusades that a craving for them had been created. Boniface recognised the importance of exploiting the popular feeling, and after a mock enquiry he issued a bull promising generousindulgences to all who should visit the Churches of SS. Peter and Paulduring the year for so many successive days, and directing that asimilar pilgrimage should be proclaimed every hundredth year. Pilgrimsflocked to Rome; 30, 000 are reckoned to have entered and left daily, while 200, 000 were in Rome at any given moment. The amount of theofferings must have been enormous, and the Ghibellines naturallydeclared that the Jubilee had its origin in the papal need for money. But most of the pilgrims were poor; and even if the size of the crowdswere a just measure of the continued hold of the Roman Church upon thepeople of Western Europe, the absence of all the monarchs exceptCharles Martel, the claimant of Hungary, was significant. Indeed, Boniface had already experienced a foretaste of the independentattitude of the secular princes, which eventually proved fatal to him. Rudolf of Hapsburg died in 1291, and the German princes, rejecting theclaims of his son Albert, elected Adolf of Nassau as their King. ButAdolf proved less submissive than his electors had hoped to find him. He was deposed and fell in battle, and Albert was chosen and crownedwithout any reference to the Pope--the first occasion on which theGerman princes had acted without papal authority. Boniface had alreadybarred Albert's claims. He now refused to recognise him, declaringthat the Empire owed all its honour and dignity to the papal favour. Nevertheless, in 1303 circumstances forced him to accept Albert, especially since Albert was willing in return to confirm all that hisfather Rudolf had granted to the Papacy. 

[Sidenote: First quarrel with France and England. ]

But this quarrel with Germany sinks into insignificance before thegreat contest of Boniface with France, with which his English disputewas also closely connected. The Hohenstaufen had fallen before thePapacy because their German kingdom and the "German" Empire rested onno solid foundation. But in his attempts to coerce France and Englandinto obedience the Pope found himself face to face with two strongnational monarchies. Boniface failed to grasp the position. Edward Iof England and Philip IV of France were engaged in war. Each resortedto every available method of raising money for the conduct of the war, and among other ways laid heavy taxes on the clergy. Boniface havingfailed to make the Kings submit their quarrels to his judgment, issueda bull, _Clericis Laicos_ (February, 1296), by which he forbade, under pain of excommunication, that any prelate or ecclesiastical bodyshould pay or laymen should exact from the clergy any taxes under anypretext without papal leave. Edward I met this manifesto byconfiscating the lay fees of all ecclesiastics; while Philip forbadethe export of all money from France, thus depriving the Pope and allItalian ecclesiastics endowed with French benefices, of the usualsources of income from France. The English clergy, with the exceptionof the Archbishop of Canterbury, made their own arrangements with theKing. But in order to avoid a rupture with France Boniface issuedanother bull, _Ineffabilis_, in which he explained thatecclesiastics were not forbidden to contribute to the needs of theState; and by subsequent letters he allowed that they might pay taxesof their own free will, and even that in cases of necessity the Kingmight take taxes without waiting for the papal leave. He certainlytold his legates to excommunicate the King and his officials if theyshould prevent money coming from France; but in order to gain Philip'sfavour he granted him the tithe of the French clergy for three years, he placed Louis IX among the recognised saints of the Church, and hepromised that Philip's brother, Charles of Valois, should be madeGerman King and Emperor. 

Good relations having been established Philip and Edward now agreed tosubmit their differences to Boniface. Philip, however, stipulated thatBoniface should act in the matter not as Pope but in a personalcapacity, and the Pope issued his award "as a private person andMaster Benedict Gaetani" (June 30, 1298). But the judgment was in theform of a bull, and ordered that the lands to be surrendered on eitherside should be placed in the custody of the papal officers. Philipcould not reject the award; but he determined to prepare for aconflict which was clearly inevitable. He gave refuge to some membersof the Colonna family, and he made an alliance with Albert of Austria(1299). 

[Sidenote: Second quarrel with England. ]

Meanwhile Boniface began a second quarrel with England. Edward I hadrefused the papal offers of mediation on behalf of Scotland. But afterthe battle of Falkirk the national representatives of Scotlandappealed to Boniface as suzerain of the kingdom. The Pope wrote toEdward claiming that from ancient times the kingdom of Scotland hadbelonged by full right to the Roman Church, and demanding that Edwardshould submit all causes of difference between himself and the Scotsto the Papacy. The English answer was given in a Parliament called forthe purpose to Lincoln (1301), by which a document addressed to thePope asserted for the English Kings a right over Scotland from thefirst institution of the English kingdom, and denied that Scotland hadever depended in temporal matters on the Roman Pontiff. Any furtheraction was prevented by the beginning of the final quarrel betweenBoniface and Philip. 

[Sidenote: With France. ]

The Pope found it necessary to complain frequently of Philip's misuseof the royal right of regale, and in 1301 relations became so strainedthat he sent a legate, Bernard of Saisset, Bishop of Pamiers in thesouth of France. But Bernard was arrogant, and on being claimed byPhilip as a subject, he exclaimed that he owned no lord but the Pope. Since Boniface administered no reproof Philip procured thecondemnation of the Bishop for treason. The Pope in fury issued fourbulls in one day, the most important addressed to Philip and beginning_Ausculta fili_, in which he asserted that God had set up thePope over Kings and kingdoms in order to destroy, to scatter, to buildand to plant in His name and doctrine. Philip caused the bull to bepublicly burnt--"the first flame which consumed a papal bull"--andcalled an Assembly of the Estates of the Realm, in which for the firsttime the commons were included. The Cardinals, in answering theremonstrances sent by the nobles and commons, denied that the Pope hadever told the King that he should be subject in temporal matters toRome; and Boniface assured the French clergy that he merely claimedthat the King was subject to him "in respect of sin. "

[Sidenote: The final struggle. ]

But in July, 1302, the burghers of Flanders inflicted a severe defeaton the French forces in the battle of Courtray; and the Pope, takingadvantage of Philip's humiliation before Europe, immediately assumed amore defiant attitude. In a Council at Rome and before the Frenchenvoys, he declared that his predecessors had deposed three Kings ofFrance and, if necessary, he would depose the King "like a groom"(_garcio_). He followed this up by issuing the most famous of hisbulls, _Unam Sanctam_, in which he roundly asserted that thesubmission of every human creature to Rome was a condition ofsalvation. Finally, while on the one side he excommunicated Philip(April 13, 1303), he hastened to recognise Albert as King of Germany, and ratified the peace made between Frederick of Sicily and Charles ofValois. Philip on his side abandoned his Scots allies in order to makepeace with England (May 20, 1303), and called for a second time anAssembly of the Estates. Before its members the aged Pope was accusedof heresy, murder, and even lust; and the appeal to a General Councilwas now adopted by the representatives of the whole French nation. Butit was certain that the excommunication of Philip would be followed byhis deposition; and Philip and his councillors determined to forestallthis. Urged on by the Colonnas the French King conceived the plan ofseizing the person of the Pope and bringing him before a council to beheld at Lyons. Boniface was at his native Anagni, and Philip'semissaries, in conjunction with many Italian enemies of the Pope, forced their way into the town and seized the old man (September 3, 1303). He was rescued and taken back to Rome; but the shock of theattack unhinged his reason and hastened his end. He died on October 11at the age of eighty-six. His foes described his last days in luridcolours; but the violent behaviour of his enemies caused strongdisgust throughout Christendom. 

To a contemporary, Boniface was "magnanimus peccator, " thegreat-hearted sinner; while a modern historian describes him as"devoid of every spiritual virtue. " If Canossa was the humiliation forthe Empire which the ecclesiastical annalists describe, in thepettiness of the stage and the insignificance of the actors Anagni wasan ample revenge of the lay spirit. The Papacy which had worn down theEmpire had dashed itself in vain against the new phenomenon of astrong national spirit. 

CHAPTER XVII

THE CHURCHES OF THE EAST

[Sidenote: The Eastern Church. ]

A history of the Church Universal must needs take some notice of thoseChristian communities which never acknowledged the supremacy of Rome. Chief among these stands the Church of the Eastern Empire where thePatriarch of Constantinople strove to make himself at least the equalof the Bishop of Rome. This mutual jealousy of the old and the newRome was only one of the causes of quarrel between them, a quarrelwhich was fanned from time to time by the appeal of a defeated partyin some ecclesiastical dispute at Constantinople to the Pope. The mostfamous of these disputes was that begun by the deposition of thearistocratic Ignatius from the patriarchate in favour of the learnedPhotius. Both Emperor and Patriarch appealed from Constantinople toPope Nicholas I; but when that masterful bishop decided against thenew patriarch, Photius used his learning to summarise in eightarticles the differences between east and west. Of these, twoconcerned such important matters as the doctrine of the procession ofthe Holy Ghost and the practice of clerical celibacy. 

[Sidenote: Breach between East and West. ]

The schism made by this quarrel was healed for the moment, but for thefirst time the points of difference between the two Churches had beencrystallised. The Eastern Emperors, however, who still possessed landsin the Italian peninsula, felt it to their interest to remain friendlywith the pope, and in 1024 an attempt on the part of Basil II toadjust the question of dignity by the suggestion that both thePatriarch and the Pope should assume the title of Universal bishop, was only defeated by the inextinguishable jealousy of the WesternChurch. The presence of the Normans in Southern Italy should haveunited Pope and Eastern Emperor against the intruders; but the GreekChurch only saw in the Norman successes a danger lest Southern Italyshould pass from the Greek to the Latin communion, and the PatriarchMichael Caerularius joined with the Bulgarian Archbishop of Achrida inpublicly warning the inhabitants of Apulia against the errors of theLatin Church. The one especially noted was the use of unleavened breadat the Sacrament, with the addition of others of even less importance. The Emperor Constantine Monomachos strove hard in the interests ofpeace and even compelled a literary champion of the Greek Church, Nicetas Pectoratus, a monk of the monastery of Studium, to repudiatehis own arguments. But the violence of the papal envoys and theobstinacy of the Patriarch made agreement impossible. Finally thelegates laid upon the altar of St. Sophia's Church a document in whichMichael and all his party were anathematised; and the Patriarchresponded by summoning a Council, which in like manner banned theWestern Church (1054). Not only was Michael's action supported by theclergy and people of Constantinople, but it was ratified by theapproval of the Patriarchs of Bulgaria and Antioch. 

[Sidenote: Attempts at reconciliation. ]

Attempts to promote reunion between the Churches were made atintervals. The danger from the Mohammedans forced the Emperors of theEast to seek help in the West and encouraged the theologians of theWest in their maintenance of a perfectly rigid attitude. Theseapproaches began with the forced intercourse of the First Crusade, andin 1098 Urban II held a Council at Bari among the Greeks of SouthernItaly, at which Anselm of Canterbury, then in voluntary exile, was putforward to propound the Roman view. In 1112 Peter Grosolanus thedefeated candidate for the archbishopric of Milan, as an emissary ofPope Pascal II discussed the points at issue before the EmperorAlexius Comnenus and was answered by Eustratius Archbishop of Nicaea. Again in 1135 Lothair III had sent as ambassador to John Comnenus aPremonstratensian Canon Anselm afterwards Bishop of Havelberg, whoheld a debate with Nicetas Archbishop of Nicomedia. According to thereport which he subsequently drew up at the request of Eugenius III, the points discussed were the procession of the Holy Ghost, the use ofunleavened bread and the claims of Rome. A generation later theEmperor Manuel Comnenus held a conference at Constantinople (1170) forthe promotion of a union which he sincerely desired; while extantletters of Eugenius III and Hadrian IV to ecclesiastics of the EasternChurch show that the head of the Western Church did not ignore thequestion of Christian unity. But there were too many political causesof division. The success of the crusaders involved the establishmentof the Latin Church in lands claimed by the Eastern Empire. And thisaffected not only the principalities of Syria, but also Cyprus whichRichard Coeur de Lion conquered and handed over to Guy of Lusignan incompensation for his lost kingdom of Jerusalem; as a consequence ofwhich the Greek clergy and monks there were cruelly persecuted. Theaggression of the Latin Church was even more conspicuous when theNormans conquered Thessalonica in 1186 and treated the Greek churchesand services with contumely, and when Innocent III took advantage ofthe fact that the Bulgarian monarch had repudiated the suzerainty ofConstantinople, to reassert over the Bulgarian Church the supremacy ofRome. The Greeks did not suffer without protest and the massacre ofthe Latins of Constantinople under the usurper Andronicus (1183)showed the depth as well as the impotence of the Greek hatred. Theclimax of all previous acts of usurpation was reached in the captureof Constantinople and the organisation of a Latin Church beside theLatin empire. But the Greek Emperors who ruled at Nicaea found itpolitic to pretend a desire for union of the Churches, and in 1233 andagain in 1234 negotiations were carried on between the Greek PatriarchGermanus and some Dominican and Franciscan emissaries of Gregory IX. But the bargaining was one-sided; for while with Rome Christian unitynever rose above an object to be kept in view, to the Greeks of theEast it presented itself as the only condition on which they couldclaim the help which might save them from gradual extinction. And thisbecame even more apparent than hitherto after the reconquest ofConstantinople by the Greeks; for it seemed as if the prospect of apeaceful reunion of the Churches alone might remove the pretext nowgiven to the princes of the West for a new crusade directed againstConstantinople. This was no imaginary danger; for Charles of Anjou andNaples had made himself the champion of the dispossessed Latin Emperorand was preparing to attack. So Michael Palaeologus who had rewonConstantinople for the Greeks and himself, made overtures to PopeUrban IV; and negotiations were thus begun which ended in theappearance of Greek delegates at the second Council of Lyons in 1274. These accepted, on behalf of the Greek Church and empire, the primacyof Rome and the Latin Creed. In return, the Bulgarian Church was oncemore restored to its own Metropolitan at Achrida. But all Michael'scoercive efforts failed to make the union acceptable to his own clergyand people. It was so difficult to carry out the promised assimilationof the Greek to the Latin forms that the Popes became impatient; andwhen Nicholas III, the opponent of Charles of Sicily, was succeeded byMartin IV, the tool of that ambitious monarch, the excommunicationlaunched by the new Pope against the Eastern Emperor was merely apreliminary step to the general attack on the empire planned byCharles. Michael's son and successor Andronicus entirely repudiatedthe agreement made at Lyons; but the misfortunes of Charles in Sicilyremoved the serious danger of invasion from the West. Overtures forecclesiastical union were not renewed until the conquests of the Turksin the Balkan peninsula forced the Greeks to seek external aid. 

[Sidenote: Internal condition of Church. ]

The internal condition of the Eastern Church during these centuriesdoes not call for much detailed treatment. The end of the iconoclasticquarrel had been followed by the development of great elaboration ofceremonial in the services. It is true that learning was not dead andthat the Emperors of the Comnenan house distinctly encouraged it. Butthe literature of ancient Greece and the theological works of theFathers of the early Church appeared to the writers of these centuriesto have exhausted all earthly possibilities in their respectivespheres. The writings of learned Christians did not rescue theirreligion from pure formalism; while the study of the classics led themto the ancient philosophers and landed many of the students inpaganism. Under the circumstances it is not perhaps wonderful thatthere arose a sect called Gnosimachi who deprecated any attempt afterknowledge of the Scriptures on the ground that God demands good deedsdone in all simplicity. It is, however, among the monks, if anywhere, that personal piety should have been retained. But such as existed, was inclined to take fantastic forms; and we are told of those whowrapped themselves round with the odour of sanctity by self-inflictedtortures of a useless and meaningless kind. There was no foundation ofnew monastic Orders in the East such as during these centuries led tothe maintenance of the missionary spirit in the West. But it was fromthe monastic bodies alone that any opposition was offered to theactions of the Emperor. The most noteworthy case was that of the AbbotNicephorus Blemmydes whose attempts to promote an understandingbetween the Eastern and Western Churches (1245) were foiled, becausehe had the temerity to deal harshly with the mistress of the EmperorJohn Dukas. Indeed the imperial authority was an influence strongerthan any other, with the possible exception of hatred of the LatinChurch. Such dogmatic discussions as occasionally arose, wereconcerned with unimportant points: but the participation of theEmperor did not necessarily tend to either truth or peace. Manuel Inot only intervened in such disputes, but even started them himselfand enforced his view by punishing those who took the opposite side. 

[Sidenote: Heresies. ]

The Eastern Church, like that of the West, had to deal with hereticalsects. The Paulicians who in the ninth century had formed apolitico-religious community on the confines of the empire, weredeprived of their political power by Basil I in 872; while in 969 JohnTzimisces transferred a portion of them from their settlements in AsiaMinor to the district of Philippopolis in Thrace. Here they throve, until their desertion of the Emperor Alexius in his war against RobertGuiscard and the Normans ended the toleration hitherto extended to theexercise of their religion, and the "thirteenth apostle, " as hisliterary daughter Anna Comnena styles him, entered on a plan offorcible conversion. Alexius also dealt severely with another body ofheretics. The Bogomiles were perhaps a revival of the earlier sect ofthe Euchites or Messalians who are mentioned by writers of the fourthcentury. The origin of the name is obscure, but it is said to mean"Friends of God. " Their tenets resembled those of the Cathari withwhom they were most probably connected. Alexius by pretending sympathygot from their leader an avowal of his doctrines and then had himburnt (1116). But in neither of these cases did violent suppressionachieve its purpose. Despite the foundation of the orthodox city ofAlexiopolis in the neighbourhood, the Paulicians still continued aboutPhilippopolis, where they were secretly strengthened in theirparticularist attitude by the continued presence of the remnants ofthe Bogomiles. Even a century later the Patriarch Germanus (1230)attacks the latter on the plea that they are still secretly makingconverts. 

[Sidenote: Other Eastern Churches. ]

Of the other Christian Churches of the East we have seen that theNestorians were very active among the Tartars throughout Asia. Theyand their Syrian neighbours but dogmatic opponents, the Jacobites, amonophysite body, adopted a conciliatory disposition towards thecrusaders. In 1237 the prior of the Dominicans in Jerusalem reportedto Gregory IX that the Maphrian of the Jacobites, a kind of lesserpatriarch, had acknowledged the supremacy of Rome; but a submissiongiven from stress of circumstances carried no permanent weight; andsubsequent correspondence between Innocent IV and officials of bothchurches seems to have been wilfully misunderstood at Rome. There weretwo other Christian churches whose conduct was guided by proximity tothe Mohammedans. The small body of the Maronites on Mount Lebanon kepttheir ancient customs but attached themselves to the Roman Church in1182 and remained faithful to her. The more important Armenian Churchwavered between Rome and Constantinople. Manuel Comnenus madeovertures to the Patriarch or Catholicos, which were prevented fromcoming to any result by the emperor's death. Shortly afterwards Leothe Great of Armenia was recognised as King by the Emperor Henry VIand was crowned by the Archbishop of Mainz; and in return he and hisCatholicos recognised the supremacy of Rome. In 1240 the Greekpatriarch tried to win over the Catholicos to the Eastern Church. In1292 the Armenian King Haiton II, who became a Franciscan friar, persuaded his church to accept the Roman customs: but despite thisnominal subjection to Rome, the obstinacy of the people prevented anyreal change in either doctrine or organisation.