__________________________________________________________________

   Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume V: The Middle Ages. A.D.
   1049-1294.
   Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
   CCEL Subjects: All; History;
   LC Call no: BR145.S3
   LC Subjects:

   Christianity

   History
     __________________________________________________________________

   HISTORY

   of the

   CHRISTIAN CHURCH [1]

   by

   PHILIP SCHAFF

   Christianus sum. Christiani nihil a me alienum puto

   VOLUME V.

   THE MIDDLE AGES

   From Gregory VII., 1049, to BONIFACE VIII., 1294

   by

   DAVID S. SCHAFF, D.D.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA:
   Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. The material has been carefully
   compared and corrected according to the Eerdmans reproduction of the
   1907 edition by Charles Scribner's sons, with emendations by The
   Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.
     __________________________________________________________________

   preface.

   It was the constant hope of Dr. Philip Schaff, the author of the
   History of the Christian Church, that he might live to finish the
   treatment of the Middle Ages, to which he had devoted one volume,
   covering the years 600-1050. He frequently said, during the last years
   of his life, "If I am able to accomplish this, my History of the
   Christian Church will be measurably complete and I will be satisfied
   then to stop." He entered upon the task and had completed his studies
   on the pontificates of Gregory VII. and Alexander III., when his pen
   was laid aside and death overtook him, Oct. 20, 1893. The two volumes
   found lying open on his study table, as he had left them the day
   before, Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living and Holy Dying and a volume of
   Hurter's Life of Innocent III., showed the nature of his thoughts in
   his last hours.

   Dr. Schaff's distinction as a writer on Church History dated from the
   year 1851 when his History of the Apostolic Church appeared, first in
   its original German form, Mercersburg, Pa., pp. xvi, 576, and Leipzig,
   1853, and then in English translation, New York and Edinburgh, 1853,
   1854. Before that time, he had shown his taste for historical studies
   in his tract on What is Church History? translated by Dr. John W.
   Nevin, Phila., 1846, pp. 128, and the address on the Principle of
   Protestantism, which he delivered at his inauguration as professor in
   the theological seminary at Mercersburg, 1844. This address was
   published in its German form and in an English translation by Dr.
   Nevin, Chambersburg, 1845.

   Dr. Schaff continued his publications in this department with the issue
   of his History of the Christian Church 1-600, in 2 volumes, N. Y.,
   1858-1867. In the meantime, his attention had been called to the
   subjects of biblical literature and exegesis, and his labors resulted
   in the publication of the American edition of Lange's Commentary in 25
   volumes and other works. In 1887 he issued his Creeds of Christendom in
   3 volumes. Left free to devote himself to the continuation of his
   History, which he was inclined to regard as his chief literary work, he
   found it necessary, in order to keep abreast of the times and to
   present a fresh treatment, to begin his studies again at the very
   beginning and consequently the series, to which this volume belongs, is
   an independent work written afresh and differing in marked features
   from its predecessors. For example, the first volume, on the Apostolic
   age, devotes an extensive treatment to the authorship and dates of the
   Apostolic writings to which scarcely any space was given in the History
   of the Apostolic Church of 1851 and the History of the Apostolic Church
   of 1858-1867. The treatment was demanded by the new attitude of
   scholarship to the questions presented by the Apostolic age.

   Dr. Schaff lived to prepare six volumes of this new work, three on
   early Christianity, one on mediaeval Christianity, and two on the
   Protestant Reformation. It is of some interest that Dr. Schaff's last
   writing was a pamphlet on the Reunion of Christendom, pp. 71, a subject
   which he treated with warm practical sympathy and with materials
   furnished by the studies of the historian. The substance of the
   pamphlet had been used as a paper read before the Parliament of
   Religions at the Columbian Exposition, Chicago. It was a great
   satisfaction to him to have the Faculty of the Berlin
   University,--where he had spent part of his student life, 1840-1841,
   and which had conferred on him the doctorate of divinity in 1854,--bear
   testimony in their congratulatory letter on the semicentennial of his
   professorial career that his "History of the Christian Church is the
   most notable monument of universal historical learning produced by the
   school of Neander" (Life Of Philip Schaff, p. 467).

   The further treatment of the Middle Ages, Dr. Schaff left to his son,
   the author of this volume. It was deemed by him best to begin the work
   anew, using the materials Dr. Schaff had left as the basis of the first
   four chapters.

   The delay in the issue of the present volume is due chiefly to the
   requirements of study and in part to the difficulty in getting all the
   necessary literature. The author has felt unwilling to issue the volume
   without giving to it as thorough study as it was possible for him to
   give. This meant that he should familiarize himself not only with the
   mediaeval writings themselves but with the vast amount of research
   which has been devoted to the Middle Ages during the last quarter of a
   century and more. As for the literature, not a little of it has been,
   until recently, inaccessible to the student in this country. At Lane
   seminary, where the author was a professor, he found in the library an
   unusually well selected collection of works on the mediaeval period
   made fifty years ago by the wise judgment of two of its professors,
   Calvin E. Stowe and the late George E. Day, who made tours in Europe
   for the purpose of making purchases for its shelves. He also owes a
   debt to the Rev. Dr. Henry Goodwin Smith, for some time professor in
   the seminary and its librarian, for his liberal use of the library
   funds in supplementing the works in the mediaeval department. In
   passing, it may be also said that the Cincinnati Public Library, by
   reason of a large permanent fund given more than a half century ago for
   the purchase of theological works and by the wise selection of such men
   as Professor George E. Day, is unusually rich in works for the
   historical student, some of which may perhaps not be duplicated in this
   country.

   On removing to the Western Theological seminary, the author found its
   librarian, Professor James A. Kelso, most ready to fill up the shelves
   of the mediaeval department so that it now possesses all the more
   important works both original and secondary. To the librarians of the
   two Roman Catholic libraries of Cincinnati and to other librarians the
   author is indebted for the courtesy of the free use of their
   collections.

   An explanation is due for devoting an entire volume to the middle
   period of the Middle Ages, 1050-1294, when it was the intention of Dr.
   Philip Schaff to embrace it and the third period of the Middle Ages,
   1294-1517, in a single volume. It is doubtful whether Dr. Schaff, after
   proceeding with his studies, would have thought it wise to attempt to
   execute his original purpose. However this might have been, to have
   confined the treatment of 500 years to the limits of a single volume
   would have meant to do a relative injustice and, in the light of recent
   study, to have missed a proper proportion. To the first 600 years,
   1-590, the History devotes three volumes. Dr. Schaff intended to devote
   three volumes to the Protestant Reformation, two of which he lived to
   prepare. The intervening 900 years deserve an equal amount of space.
   The period covered by this volume is of great importance. Here belong
   the Crusades, the rejuvenation of monasticism by the mendicant orders,
   the development of the canon law, the rise of the universities, the
   determined struggles of the papacy with the empire, the development of
   the Inquisition, the settlement of the sacramental system, and some of
   the most notable characters the Christian Church has produced. No one
   can fully understand the spirit and doctrinal system of the Roman
   communion without knowing this period. Nor can any one, without such
   knowledge, fully understand the meaning of the Protestant Reformation,
   for the Reformation was a protest against the mediaeval theology and
   mediaeval practices. The best evidence for the truth of the latter
   statement is found in the work of the learned Dominican Denifle,
   entitled Luther und Lutherthum, and the Protestant rejoinders to its
   assaults.

   A partial list of the more modern works show the amount of study that
   has recently been spent upon this period. Among the great collections
   of mediaeval documents, besides the older ones by Mabillon, Muratori,
   and Migne, are the Monumenta Germaniae, intended to give an exhaustive
   collection of mediaeval German writers, the series of collections of
   the papal documents called the Regesta, edited by Jaffe, Potthast,
   Auvray, Berger, and others, the Chartularium universitatis Parisiensis,
   a collection of documents edited by Denifle and Chatelain of the
   highest importance for the study of the university system, the Recueil
   des Historiens des Croisades, the remarkable collection of mediaeval
   sacred poetry edited by Dreves and Blume filling about 15 volumes, the
   Boehmer-Friedberg edition of the Canon Law, and the Rolls Series,
   containing the writers of mediaeval England. To such works must be
   added the new editions of Schoolmen, Albertus Magnus by Borgnet,
   Bonaventura by Peltier, Duns Scotus and Thomas Aquinas, and the
   editions of such writers as Caesar of Heisterbach, De Voragine,
   Salimbene, and Etienne de Bourbon. Among the recent students who have
   made a specialty of this period are Giesebrecht, Gregorovius,
   Scheffer-Boichorst, Karl Mueller, Hauck, Deutsch, Lempp, and other
   Protestants of Germany, and among German Catholic scholars Doellinger,
   Father Denifle, Ehrle, Knoepfler, Schwane, Schulte, Funk, and Felder.
   In France we have Remusat, Haureau, Chevalier, Vacandard, Sabatier,
   Alphandery. In England and America, we have Dr. Henry Charles Lea, who
   deserves to be mentioned first, the late Bp. Stubbs, R. L. Poole,
   Rashdall, Bridges, the editors of the Rolls Series, such as Brewer and
   Luard, and Prof. D. C. Munro, O. T. Thatcher, and Shailer Mathews.

   Except in rare cases, the quotations are taken from the original works,
   whether they were written in the Middle Ages or are modern discussions.
   An exception is the History of the City of Rome by Gregorovius. It has
   required severe discipline to check the inclination to extend the notes
   to a far greater length than they have been carried, especially in such
   chapters as those on the sacramental system and the Schoolmen. In the
   tables of literature, the more important modern works have at times
   been indicated by a star, *.

   In the preparation of the volume for the press, efficient aid has been
   rendered by the Rev. David E. Culley, fellow and tutor in the Western
   Theological seminary, whose literary and historical tastes and sober
   judgment have been confirmed by studies abroad.

   The second part of this volume, carrying the history from Boniface
   VIII. to the Reformation, is in an advanced stage of preparation.

   In closing, the author indulges the hope that Dr. Philip Schaff's
   spirit of toleration may be found permeating this volume, and its
   general historic judgments to be such as Dr. Schaff himself would have
   expressed.

   DAVID S. SCHAFF.

   The Western Theological Seminary,

   Allegheny, Pa

   THE MIDDLE AGES.

   THE PAPAL THEOCRACY IN CONFLICT WITH

   THE SECULAR POWER.

   FROM GREGORY VII. TO BONIFACE VIII.

   A. D. 1049-1294.

   THE FIFTH PERIOD OF CHURCH HISTORY.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 1. General Literature.

   Sources: J. P. Migne: Patrologiae cursus completus, etc. The Latin
   series containing the writings of the "Fathers, Doctors, and Writers of
   the Latin Church from Tertullian to Innocent III.," 221 vols. Paris,
   1844-1864. Indispensable. The writers of the 11th century begin with
   vol. 139.--Philip Labbaeus, S. J., d. 1667: Sacrosancta concilia ad
   regiam editionem exacta, 18 vols. Paris, 1662 sqq. Labbaeus lived to
   see vol. IX. in print. Completed by Gabriel Cossart. This collection
   has been used in places in this volume. --John D. Mansi, abp. of Lucca,
   d. 1769: Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, 31 vols.,
   Florence and Venice, 1759-1798. Extends to the Council of Florence,
   1439. New facsimile ed. with continuation. Paris, 1901 sqq. Thus far 38
   vols., 0-37, reaching to 1735.--L. A. Muratori, d. 1750: Rerum
   Italicarum scriptores, 500-1600, 25 vols. Milan, 1723-1761, with
   supplemental vols., Florence, 1748, 1770, Venice, 1771, in all 31
   parts. Repub. and ed. by G. Carducci et V. Fiorini, Citta di Castello
   1902 sqq.--Monumenta Germaniae historica, ed. by G. H. Pertz, d. 1870,
   and his coeditors and successors, Wattenbach, Boehmer, etc. More than
   50 vols. Han., 1826 sqq. They cover the whole history of the empire and
   papacy.--Scriptores rerum Germanicarum for use in schools and drawn
   from the preceding, ed. by Pertz, 42 vols. Han., 1840-1894.--Die
   Geschichtschreiber der deutschen Vorzeit, ed. by Pertz, etc., in German
   trans, 92 vols. Berlin and Leipzig, 1849-1892.--The Rolls Series, Rerum
   Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, 97 vols., London, 1858-1891,
   contains splendid edd. of William of Malmesbury, Roger of Wendover,
   Ralph of Coggeshall, Richard of Hoveden, Matthew Paris (7 vols.),
   Grosseteste, and other English mediaeval writers.--Bohn's Antiq.
   Library, 41 vols. London, 1848-1864 sqq., gives translations of M.
   Paris, Richard of Hoveden, etc.--J. F. Boehmer: Regesta imperii,
   1198-1254. New ed. by J. Ficker and Winkelmann, Innsbruck, 1881-1894.
   Regesta pontificum romanorum from St. Peter to Innocent III., ed. by
   Jaffe, d. 1878, Berlin, 1851, pp. 951; 2d ed. by Wattenbach,
   Loewenthal, Kaltenbrunner, and Ewald, vol. I. Lips., 1885, from Peter
   to Innocent II., 64-1143; vol. II. Lips., 1888 from Coelestin II. to
   Innocent III., 1143-1198. --Continuation by Aug. Potthast, from
   Innocent III., to Benedict XI., 1198-1304, 2 vols. pp. 2157, Berlin,
   1873, 1875.--J. Von Pflugk Harttung: Acta pontificum rom. inedita, 3
   vols. Tuebing. 1881-1888. Carl Mirbt: Quellen zur Geschichte des
   Papsttums und des roem. Katholizismus, 2d ed. Tuebing. 1901, pp. 482.
   Very convenient and valuable, giving the original Latin
   documents.--Shailer Mathews: Select Mediaeval Docts. etc., illustr. the
   Hist. Of the Church and Empire, 754-1254, N. Y. 1892.--Heinrich
   Denifle, O. P., archivarius of the Vatican Library, d. 1905, and Franz
   Ehrle, S. J.: Archiv fuer Literaturund Kirchengeschichte des
   Mittelalters, Freib. im Br. 1885 sqq. Many important documents were
   published here for the first time.--Quellen und Forschungen aus
   italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken herausgegeben vom
   Koenigl-Preussichen Historischen Institut in Rom., thus far 8 vols.
   1897-1905.

   Secondary Works: Histoire Litteraire de la France, 1733 sqq. Dicty. of
   Natl. Biogr., ed. by Leslie Stephen, 63 vols. with Supplem., London,
   1885-1903,--Wetzer-Welte: Kirchen Lexikon, 2d ed. 12 vols. Freib. im
   Br. 1882-1901.--Herzog: Realencyklopaedia fuer protestantische
   Theologie und Kirche, ed. by A. Hauck, 3d ed. 1896 sqq. Thus far 18
   vols.--W. Giesebrecht: Gesch. der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 3 vols. 5th ed.
   Leipzig, 1890.--Doellinger-Friedrich: Das Papstthum, Munich, 1892. A
   revision of Doellinger's The Pope and the Council, which appeared in
   1869 under the pseudonym Janus, as a protest against the doctrine of
   Papal Infallibility about to be taken up at the Vatican
   Council.--Ferdinand Gregorovius: Geschichte der Stadt Rom. im
   Mittelalter, Engl. trans. from the 4th German, ed. 1886-1893, Stuttg.,
   by Annie Hamilton, 8 vols. (13 parts), London, 1894-1902. The most
   valuable general work of the Middle Ages.--James Bryce: The Holy Roman
   Empire, new ed. London, 1904, pp. 575. Thorough and lucid.--Carl J. von
   Hefele, Bishop of Rottenburg, d. 1893: Conciliengeschichte to 1536, 2d
   ed. 9 vols. Freib. im Br. 1873-1890. Vols. V.-VII. in 2d ed. by A.
   Knoepfler. Vols. VIII. IX. were prepared by Cardinal Hergenroether.--A.
   Hauck: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, 4 vols. Leipzig, 1887-1903;
   vols. I. II 4th ed. 1904.--Gibbon: Decline and Fall of Rome, ed. by J.
   B. Bury, 7 vols. London, 1897-1900.--Leopold Von Ranke: Weltgeschichte
   to 1453, 9 vols. Leipzig, 1883-1888.--The Church Histories of Neander,
   Gieseler, Baur, Die christl. Kirche des Mittelalters, 1861, Milman,
   Hagenbach, K. Hase, Rich. C. Trench: Med. Ch. History, 1877. The
   Manuals of Church History of Hefele-Knoepfler, 3d ed. 1902, F. X. Funk,
   4th ed. 1902, W. Moeller Engl. trans. 3 vols. 1898-1900, Karl Muller, 2
   vols. 1892-1902, Hergenroether, rev. by J. P. Kirsch, 4th ed. 1902 sqq.
   Loofs, 1901, Hans Von Schubert, 1904, Geo. P. Fisher, 1887, H. C.
   Sheldon, 5 vols. N. Y. 1890, A. C. Zenos, Phil. 1899, A. H. Newman, 2
   vols. 1900 sqq. The Histories of Christian Doctrine, of Harnack Engl.
   trans. from 3d Ger. ed. 7 vols. Boston, 1897-1900. Loofs, 3d ed. 1893,
   Geo. P. Fisher, 1896, Seeberg, 2 vols. 1895, H. C. Sheldon, 2 vols. 4th
   ed. 1905.--Hallam: Hist. of the Middle Ages.--Guizot: Hist. of
   Civilization from the Fall of the Rom. Emp. to the French
   Revolution.--Lecky: Hist. of Rationalism in Europe and European
   Morals.--H. Weingarten: Zeittafeln und Ueberblicke zur
   Kirchengeschichte, 6th ed. by Arnold, Leipzig, 1905.

   For Literature: A. Potthast: Bibliotheca Historica medii aevi,
   Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des europaeischen Mittelalters bis
   1500, 2 vols. Berlin, 1864-1868, 2d ed. Berlin, 1896. A work of great
   industry and value.--U. Chevalier: Repertoire des sources historiques
   du moyen age, Paris, 1877-1886, Supplem. 1888.--W. Wattenbach: Deutsche
   Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, to 1250, 2 vols. Berlin, 1858, 6th
   ed. 1893 sq.

   For other works relating to the whole period of the Middle Ages, see
   vol. IV. 1-4.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 2. Introductory Survey.

   The fifth period of general Church history, or the second period of
   mediaeval Church history, begins with the rise of Hildebrand, 1049, and
   ends with the elevation of Boniface VIII. to the papal dignity, 1294.

   In this period the Church and the papacy ascend from the lowest state
   of weakness and corruption to the highest power and influence over the
   nations of Europe. It is the classical age of Latin Christianity: the
   age of the papal theocracy, aiming to control the German Empire and the
   kingdoms of France, Spain, and England. It witnessed the rise of the
   great Mendicant orders and the religious revival which followed. It
   beheld the full flower of chivalry and the progress of the crusades,
   with the heroic conquest and loss of the Holy Land. It saw the
   foundations laid of the great universities of Bologna, Paris, Oxford.
   It was the age of scholastic philosophy and theology, and their
   gigantic efforts to solve all conceivable problems and by dialectical
   skill to prove every article of faith. During its progress Norman and
   Gothic architecture began to rear the cathedrals. All the arts were
   made the handmaids of religion; and legendary poetry and romance
   flourished. Then the Inquisition was established, involving the theory
   of the persecution of Jews and heretics as a divine right, and carrying
   it into execution in awful scenes of torture and blood. It was an age
   of bright light and deep shadows, of strong faith and stronger
   superstition, of sublime heroism and wild passions, of ascetic
   self-denial and sensual indulgence, of Christian devotion and barbarous
   cruelty. [2] hristianity and civilization in the thirteenth and the
   opening years of the fourteenth century, when the Roman Church was at
   the summit of its power, and yet, by the abuse--of that power and its
   worldliness, was calling forth loud protests, and demands for a
   thorough reformation from all parts of Western Christendom.

   A striking feature of the Middle Ages is the contrast and co-operation
   of the forces of extreme self-abnegation as represented in monasticism
   and extreme ambition for worldly dominion as represented in the papacy.
   [3]

   The papal theocracy in conflict with the secular powers and at the
   height of its power is the leading topic. The weak and degenerate popes
   who ruled from 900-1046 are now succeeded by a line of vigorous minds,
   men of moral as well as intellectual strength. The world has had few
   rulers equal to Gregory VII. 1073-1085, Alexander III. 1159-1181, and
   Innocent III. 1198-1216, not to speak of other pontiffs scarcely second
   to these masters in the art of government and aspiring aims. The papacy
   was a necessity and a blessing in a barbarous age, as a check upon
   brute force, and as a school of moral discipline. The popes stood on a
   much higher plane than the princes of their time. The spirit has a
   right to rule over the body; the intellectual and moral interests are
   superior to the material and political. But the papal theocracy carried
   in it the temptation to secularization. By the abuse of opportunity it
   became a hindrance to pure religion and morals. Christ gave to Peter
   the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but he also said, "My kingdom is not
   of this world." The pope coveted both kingdoms, and he got what he
   coveted. But he was not able to hold the power he claimed over the
   State, and aspiring after temporal authority lost spiritual power.
   Boniface VIII. marks the beginning of the decline and fall of the papal
   rule; and the seeds of this decline and fall were sown in the period
   when the hierarchy was in the pride of its worldly might and glory.

   In this period also, and chiefly as the result of the crusades, the
   schism between the churches of the East and the West was completed. All
   attempts made at reconciliation by pope and council only ended in wider
   alienation.

   The ruling nations during the Middle Ages were the Latin, who descended
   from the old Roman stock, but showed the mixture of barbaric blood and
   vigor, and the Teutonic. The Italians and French had the most learning
   and culture. Politically, the German nation, owing to its possession of
   the imperial crown and its connection with the papacy, was the most
   powerful, especially under the Hohenstaufen dynasty. England, favored
   by her insular isolation, developed the power of self-government and
   independent nationality, and begins to come into prominence in the
   papal administration. Western Europe is the scene of intellectual,
   ecclesiastical, and political activities of vast import, but its arms
   and devotion find their most conspicuous arena in Palestine and the
   East.

   Finally this period of two centuries and a half is a period of imposing
   personalities. The names of the greatest of the popes have been
   mentioned, Gregory VII., Alexander III., and Innocent III. Its more
   notable sovereigns were William the Conqueror, Frederick Barbarossa,
   Frederick II., and St. Louis of France. Dante the poet illumines its
   last years. St. Bernard, Francis d'Assisi, and Dominic, the Spaniard,
   rise above a long array of famous monks. In the front rank of its
   Schoolmen were Anselm, Abelard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas,
   Bonaventura, and Duns Scotus. Thomas `a Becket and Grosseteste are
   prominent representatives of the body of episcopal statesmen. This
   combination of great figures and of great movements gives to this
   period a variety of interest such as belongs to few periods of Church
   history or the history of mankind.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] Dean Stanley, Sermons and Addresses in America, p. 220, speaks of
   the "grace of the Middle Ages and their hideous atrocities."

   [3] The ideas are expressed by the German words Weltentsagung and
   Weltbeherrschung
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER I.

   THE HILDEBRANDIAN POPES. A.D. 1049-1073.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 3. Sources and Literature on Chapters I. and II.

   See the general literature on the papacy in vol. IV. 202 sqq.; and the
   list of mediaeval popes, 205 sqq.

   I. Sources For The Whole Period from 1049 to 1085:--

   Migne: Patrol. Lat., vols. 140-148.--Damiani Epistolae, in Migne, vol.
   144.--Bonizo or Bonitho (Bishop of Sutri, 1091; prisoner of Henry IV.,
   1082; a great admirer of Gregory VII.): Liber ad amicum, sive de
   persecutione ecclesiae (in Jaffe's Monum. Gregor., p. 628 sqq., where
   he is charged with falsehood; but see Giesebrecht and Hefele, IV. 707).
   Phil. Jaffe (d. 1870): Regesta Pontif. Rom., pp. 366-443, 2d ed. I.
   629-649.--Jaffe: Monumenta Gregoriana (see below).--K. Francke: Libelli
   de lite imperatorum et Pontificum Saeculi XI. et XII. conscripti, 3
   vols. Hannov. 1891-1897, contains the tractarian lit. of the
   Hildebrandian age. On other sources, see Wattenbach: Deutschlands
   Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter, II. 220 sqq. and Mirbt: Publizistik,
   6-95.

   II. Works on the Whole Period from 1049 to 1085: --

   Hoefler: Deutsche Paepste, Regensb., 1839 sqq., 3 vols.--C. Will:
   Anfaenge der Restauration der Kirche im 11ten, Jahrh., Marburg,
   1859-1862, 2 parts.--Ths. Greenwood: Cathedra Petri, books X. and XI.
   London, 1861.--Giesebrecht: Gesch. der deutschen Kaizerzeit, vols. II.
   and III. (Braunschweig, 5th ed. 1881).--Rud. Baxmann: Die Politik der
   Paepste von Gregor I. bis auf Gregor VII., Elberfeld, 1868, 1869. 2
   vols. vol. II. 186-434.--Wattenbach: Geschichte des roem. Papstthums,
   Berlin, 1876 (pp. 97-136).--Gregorovius: Hist. of the City Of
   Rome.--Hefele: Conciliengeschichte, IV. 716-900, and V. 1-185.--L. v.
   Ranke: Weltgeschichte, vol. VII.--Bryce: Holy Roman Empire.--Freeman:
   Hist. of Norman Conq. of England, vol. IV. Oxford, 1871, and Hist. of
   Sicily.--F. Neukirch: Das Leben des Petrus Damiani bis 1059, Goett.,
   1875.--J. Langen: Geschichte der roem. Kirche von Gregor VII. bis
   Innocent III., Bonn, 1893.--Hauck: Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands,
   vols. III. IV.--W. F. Barry: The Papal Monarchy from 590-1303, N. Y.
   1902.

   III. Special Sources and Works on Hildebrand:--

   His letters (359), the so-called Registrum, in Migne, vol. 148, Mansi,
   XX. 60-391, and best in Jaffe, Monumenta Gregoriana, Berol., 1865, 712
   pp. (in "Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum," vol. II.). The first critical
   edition. Jaffe gives the Registrum in eight books, with fifty-one
   additional letters collected from MSS., and Bonithonis episcopi Sutrini
   ad amicum. Gregory's biographies by Cardinal Petrus of Pisa, Bernried,
   Amalric, Lambert, etc., in Muratori: Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol.
   III.; and Watterich: Pontif. Boni. Vitae, Lips., 1862, I. 293 sqq.;
   Acta Sanct. Maii, die 25, VI. 102-159.

   Modern works: Joh. Voigt (Prof. of Hist. in Koenigsberg, d. 1863):
   Hildebrand als Papst Gregorius VII. und sein Zeitalter, 1815, 2d ed.
   Weimar, 1846, pp. 625. The first attempt at an impartial estimate of
   Gregory from the Protestant historical standpoint. The first edition
   was translated into French and Italian, and gave rise to a remarkable
   Latin correspondence with Clemens Villecourt, bishop of La Rochelle,
   which is printed in the preface to the second edition. The bishop tried
   to convert Voigt to the Catholic Church, but in vain.--Sir Roger
   Greisly: The Life and Pontificate of Gregory VII., London, 1832, pp.
   372. Impartial, but unimportant.--J. W. Bowden: The Life and
   Pontificate of Gregory VII. London, 1840, 2 Vols. pp. 374 and 411. ---
   Ard. Newman: Hist. Essays, II. 249-336.--Sir James Stephen: Hildebrand,
   in "Essays on Ecclesiastical Biography," 1849, 4th ed. London, 1860,
   pp. 1-58. He calls "Hildebrand the very impersonation of papal
   arrogance and of spiritual despotism."--Soeltl: Gregor VII., Leipzig,
   1847.--Floto: Kaiser Heinrich IV. und sein Zeitalter. Stuttg., 1865,
   1856, 2 vols. Sides with Henry IV.--Helfenstein: Gregor VII.
   Bestrebungen nach den Streitschriften seiner Zeit., Frankfurt,
   1856.--A. F. Gfroerer (first a rationalist, then a convert to 'Rome,
   1853; d. 1861): Papst Greg. VII. und sein Zeitalter. 7 vols.
   Schaffhausen, 1859-1861.--Giesebrecht: l.c., vol. III.--A. F.
   Villemain: Hist. de Gregoire VII. 2 vols. Paris, 1873. Engl. trans. by
   J. B. Brockley, 2 vols. London, 1874.--S. Baring-Gould, in "The Lives
   of the Saints" for May 25, London, 1873.--W. Martens: Die Besetzung des
   paepstlichen Stuhls unter den Kaisern Heinrich III und Heinrich IV.
   1887; *Gregor VII., sein Leben und Wirken, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1894.--W.
   R. W. Stephens: Hildebrand and his Times, London, 1888.--O. Delarc: S.
   Gregoire VII. et la reforme de l'eglise au XI. siecle, 3 vols. Paris,
   1889.--C. Mirbt (Prof. in Marburg): Die Stellung Augustins in der
   Publizistik des Gregorianischen Kirchenstreits, Leipzig, 1888. Shows
   the influence of St. Augustine on both parties in the Gregorian
   controversy over the relation of Church and State; Die Wahl Gregors
   VII., Marburg, 1892; *Die Publizistik im Zeitalter Gregors VII.,
   Leipzig, 1894, pp. 629. An exhaustive treatment of the copious
   tractarian Lit. of the Hildebrandian age and its attitude on the
   various objects of Gregory's policy; art. Gregor VII., in Herzog, VII.
   96-113.--Marvin R. Vincent: The Age of Hildebrand, N. Y. 1896.--Also J.
   Greving: Paul von Bernried's Vita Gregorii VII., Berlin, 1893, pp. 172.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 4. Hildebrand and his Training.

   The history of the period begins with a survey of the papacy as the
   controlling power of Western Christendom. It embraces six stages: 1.
   The Hildebrandian popes, 1049-1073. 2. Gregory VII., 1073-1085, or the
   assertion of the supreme authority of the papacy in human affairs. 3.
   From Gregory's death to the Concordat of Worms, 1122, or the settlement
   of the controversy over investiture. 4. From the Concordat of Worms to
   Innocent III., 1198. 5. The Pontificate of Innocent III., 1198-1216, or
   the papacy at its height. 6. From Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.,
   1216-1294, or the struggle of the papacy with Frederick II. and the
   restoration of peace between the papacy and the empire.

   The papacy had reached its lowest stage of weakness and degeneracy when
   at Sutri in 1046, under the influence of Henry III., two popes were
   deposed and a third was forced to abdicate. [4] ld overthrow the Jewish
   monarchy, or wicked emperors the Roman Empire. In the public opinion of
   Europe, the papacy was still a necessary institution established by
   Christ in the primacy of Peter for the government and administration of
   the church. There was nothing to take its place. It needed only a
   radical reformation in its head, which would be followed by a
   reformation of the members. Good men all over Europe anxiously desired
   and hoped that Providence would intervene and rescue the chair of Peter
   from the hands of thieves and robbers, and turn it once more into a
   blessing. The idea of abolishing the papacy did not occur to the mind
   of the Christians of that age as possible or desirable.

   At last the providential man for effecting this necessary reformation
   appeared in the person of Hildebrand, who controlled five successive
   papal administrations for twenty-four years, 1049-1073, then occupied
   the papal chair himself for twelve years, 1073-1085, and was followed
   by like-minded successors. He is one of the greatest, if not the
   greatest, of popes, and one of the most remarkable men in history. He
   excited in his age the highest admiration and the bitterest hatred.
   Opinions about his principles and policy are still divided; but it is
   impossible to deny his ability, energy, earnestness, and achievements.

   Hildebrand was of humble and obscure origin, but foreordained to be a
   prince of the Church. He was of small stature, and hence called
   "Hildebrandellus" by his enemies, but a giant in intellect and
   character. His figure was ungainly and his voice feeble; but his eyes
   were bright and piercing, bespeaking penetration, a fiery spirit, and
   restless activity. His early life is involved in obscurity. He only
   incidentally alludes to it in his later Epistles, and loved to connect
   it with the supernatural protection of St. Peter and the Holy Virgin.
   With a monkish disregard of earthly relations, he never mentions his
   family. The year of his birth is unknown. The veneration of friends and
   the malice of enemies surrounded his youth with legends and lies. He
   was the son of a peasant or goatherd, Bonizo, living near Soana, a
   village in the marshes of Tuscany, a few miles from Orbitello. The
   oft-repeated tradition that he was the son of a carpenter seems to have
   originated in the desire to draw a parallel between him and Jesus of
   Nazareth. Of his mother we know nothing. His name points to Lombard or
   German origin, and was explained by his contemporaries as hell-brand or
   fire-brand. [5] uing from his raiment, and predicted that, like John
   the Baptist, he would be "great in the sight of the Lord."

   He entered the Benedictine order in the convent of St. Mary on the
   Aventine at Rome, of which his maternal uncle was abbot. Here he had a
   magnificent view of the eternal city. [6] [7] discipline, and in
   austerity and rigor he remained a monk all his life. He cherished an
   enthusiastic veneration for the Virgin Mary. The personal contemplation
   of the scandalous contentions of the three rival popes and the fearful
   immorality in the capital of Christendom must have raised in his
   earnest soul a deep disgust. He associated himself with the party which
   prepared for a reformation of the hierarchy.

   His sympathies were with his teacher and friend, Gregory VI. This pope
   had himself bought the papal dignity from, the wretched Benedict IX.,
   but he did it for the benefit of the Church, and voluntarily abdicated
   on the arrival of Henry III. at the Synod of Sutri, 1046. It is strange
   that Hildebrand, who abhorred simony, should begin his public career in
   the service of a simonist; but he regarded Gregory as the only
   legitimate pope among the three rivals, and followed him, as his
   chaplain, to Germany into exile.


   "Victrix causa Deis placuit, sed victa Catoni." [8]

   He visited Worms, Spires, Cologne, Aix-la-Chapelle, the old seats of
   the empire, and spent much time at the court of Henry III., where he
   was very kindly treated. After the death of Gregory at Cologne, 1048,
   Hildebrand went to Cluny, the nursery of a moral reformation of
   monasticism. According to some reports, he had been there before. He
   zealously gave himself to ascetic exercises and ecclesiastical studies
   under the excellent abbot Hugo, and became prior of the convent. He
   often said afterwards that he wished to spend his life in prayer and
   contemplation within the walls of this sacred retreat.

   But the election of Bishop Bruno of Toul, the cousin of Emperor Henry
   III., to the papal chair, at the Diet of Worms, brought him on the
   stage of public action. "Reluctantly," he said, "I crossed the Alps;
   more reluctantly I returned to Rome." He advised Bruno (either at Cluny
   or at Besancon) not to accept the triple crown from the hands of the
   emperor, but to await canonical election by the clergy and people of
   Rome. He thus clearly asserted, for the first time, his principle of
   the supremacy of the Church over the State.

   Bruno, accompanied by Hildebrand, travelled to Rome as a pilgrim,
   entered the city barefoot, was received with acclamations, canonically
   elected, and ascended the papal chair on Feb. 12, 1049, as Leo IX.

   From this time on, Hildebrand was the reigning spirit of the papacy. He
   understood the art of ruling through others, and making them feel that
   they ruled themselves. He used as his aide-de-camp Peter Damiani, the
   severe monk and fearless censor of the immoralities of the age, who had
   conquered the world within and helped him to conquer it without, in the
   crusade against simony and concubinage, but died, 1072, a year before
   Hildebrand became pope. [9]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [4] Vol. IV. S: 66, pp. 299 sqq.

   [5] The contemporary spellings are: Yldibrandus, Heldebrandus,
   Ildebrandus, Oldeprandus. William of Malmesbury calls him homuncio
   exilis staturae.

   [6] Giesebrecht (III. 12 sq.): "Das Marienkloster auf dem Aventin,
   jetzt unter dem Namen des Priorats von Malta bekannt, bietet eine
   entzueckende Aussicht ... ein hochbegabter Knabe, der hier erwuchs,
   musste die verschiedensten und maechtigsten Eindruecke erhalten, die
   sich kaum in einem anderen Gedanken zusammenschliessen konnten, als in
   dem der unvergleichlichen Hoheit des ewigen Roms."

   [7] So Martens, etc. Gregory speaks of having been brought up from
   childhood a pueritia by the prince of the apostles and "in the Roman
   palace."

   [8] The German historian, Otto von Freisingen, aptly applies this verse
   of Luican to the relation of the two popes, thus comparing Hildebrand
   to Cato.-

   [9] See vol. IV. 787 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 5. Hildebrand and Leo IX. 1049-1054.

   The moral reformation of the papacy began with Hildebrand as leader.
   [10] he interest of the hierarchy. He was appointed cardinal-subdeacon,
   treasurer of the Roman Church, and abbot of St. Paul's. He was
   repeatedly sent as delegate to foreign countries, where he acquired an
   extensive knowledge of affairs. He replenished the empty treasury and
   became wealthy himself through the help of a baptized Jew, Benedictus
   Christianus, and his son Leo, who did a prosperous banking business.
   But money was to him only a means for exalting the Church. His great
   object was to reform the clergy by the destruction of two well-nigh
   universal evils: simony (Acts 8:18), that is. the traffic in
   ecclesiastical dignities, and Nicolaitism (Rev. 2:6, 15), or the
   concubinage of the priests. In both respects he had the full sympathy
   of the new pope, and was backed by the laws of the Church. The
   reformation was to be effected in the regular way of synodical
   legislation under the personal direction of the pope.

   Leo, accompanied by Hildebrand, held several synods in Italy, France,
   and Germany. He was almost omnipresent in the Church, and knew how to
   combine monastic simplicity with papal dignity and splendor. He was
   believed to work miracles wherever he went, and to possess magic powers
   over birds and beasts.

   In his first synod, held in Rome at Easter, 1049, simony was prohibited
   on pain of excommunication, including the guilty bishops and the
   priests ordained by them. But it was found that a strict prosecution
   would well-nigh deprive the churches, especially those of Rome, of
   their shepherds. A penance of forty days was, therefore, substituted
   for the deposition of priests. The same synod renewed the old
   prohibitions of sexual intercourse of the clergy, and made the
   concubines of the Roman priests servants of the Lateran palace. The
   almost forgotten duty of the tithe was enjoined upon all Christians.

   The reformatory synods of Pavia, Rheims, and Mainz, held in the same
   year, legislated against the same vices, as also against usury,
   marriage in forbidden degrees, the bearing of arms by the clergy. They
   likewise revealed a frightful amount of simony and clerical immorality.
   Several bishops were deposed. [11] y. On his return, Leo held synods in
   lower Italy and in Rome. He made a second tour across the Alps in 1052,
   visiting Burgundy, Lorraine, and Germany, and his friend the emperor.
   We find him at Regensburg, Bamberg, Mainz, and Worms. Returning to
   Rome, he held in April, 1053, his fourth Easter Synod. Besides the
   reform of the Church, the case of Berengar and the relation to the
   Greek Church were topics of discussion in several of these synods.
   Berengar was condemned, 1050, for denying the doctrine of
   transubstantiation. It is remarkable with what leniency Hildebrand
   treated Berengar and his eucharistic doctrine, in spite of the papal
   condemnation; but he was not a learned theologian. The negotiation with
   the Greek Church only ended in greater separation. [12]

   Leo surrounded himself with a council of cardinals who supported him in
   his reform. Towards the close of his pontificate, he acted
   inconsistently by taking up arms against the Normans in defense of
   Church property. He was defeated and taken prisoner at Benevento, but
   released again by granting them in the name of St. Peter their
   conquests in Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. The Normans kissed his toe,
   and asked his absolution and blessing. He incurred the censure of the
   strict reform party. Damiani maintained that a clergyman dare not bear
   arms even in defense of the property of the Church, but must oppose
   invincible patience to the fury of the world, according to the example
   of Christ.

   Leo spent his remaining days in grief over his defeat. He died at Rome,
   April 19, 1054, in his fifty-third year, after commending his soul to
   God in a German prayer of humble resignation, and was buried near the
   tomb of Gregory I. As he had begun the reformation of the Church, and
   miracles were reported, he was enrolled in the Calendar of Saints.
   Desiderius, afterwards Victor III., wrote, "All ecclesiastical
   interests were reformed by Leo and in him a new light arose in the
   world."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [10] See E. Martin, St. Leon IX., Paris, 1904, pp. 216; Mirbt art. in
   Herzog, XI. 379-386.

   [11] In deposing at the Synod of Rheims the abp. of St. Iago, who had
   assumed the title apostolicus, Leo asserted in the strongest terms the
   primacy of the Roman see, quod solus Romanae sedis pontifex
   universalis, ecclesiae primas esset et apostolicus, Mansi, XIX. 738.

   [12] The controversy of Berengar is treated in vol. IV. 554 sqq.; the
   Greek controversy, ibid. p. 318 sqq. On the synods during the
   pontificate of Leo IX., see Jaffe, Reg., 529-549, Hefele, IV. 716-777,
   and Mirbt, Quellen, 95 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 6. Victor II. and Stephen IX. (X.). 1055-1058.

   Hildebrand was absent in France when Leo died, and hurried to Rome. He
   could find no worthy successor in Italy, and was unwilling to assume
   the burden of the papacy himself. He cast his eye upon Gebhard, bishop
   of Eichstaedt, the ablest, richest, and most influential prelate of
   Germany, who was warmly devoted to the emperor. He proceeded at the
   head of a deputation, appointed by the clergy and people, to the German
   court, and begged the emperor to raise Gebhard to the papal chair.
   After long delay, Gebhard was elected at a council in Regensburg,
   March, 1055, and consecrated in St. Peter's at Rome, April 13, as
   Victor II. He continued the synodical war against simony, but died as
   early as July 28, 1057, at Arezzo, of a fever. He was the last of the
   German popes.

   The cardinal-abbot of Monte Cassino was elected and consecrated as
   Stephen IX. (X.), Aug. 3, 1057, by the clergy and people of Rome,
   without their consulting the German court; but he died in the following
   year, March 29, 1058.

   In the meantime a great change had taken place in Germany. Henry III.
   died in the prime of manhood, Oct. 5, 1056, and left a widow as regent
   and a son of six years, the ill-fated Henry IV. The long minority reign
   afforded a favorable opportunity for the reform party to make the
   papacy independent of the imperial power, which Henry III. had wisely
   exerted for the benefit of the Church, yet at the expense of her
   freedom.

   The Roman nobility, under the lead of the counts of Tusculum, took
   advantage of Hildebrand's absence in Germany to reassert its former
   control of the papacy by electing Benedict X. (1058-1060). But this was
   a brief intermezzo. On his return, Hildebrand, with the help of Duke
   Godfrey, expelled the usurping pope, and secured, with the consent of
   the empress, the election of Gerhard, bishop of Florence, a strong
   reformer, of ample learning and irreproachable character, who assumed
   the name of Nicolas II. at his consecration, Jan. 25, 1059. Benedict
   was deposed, submitted, and obtained absolution. He was assigned a
   lodging in the church of St. Agnes, where he lived for about twenty
   years.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 7. Nicolas II. and the Cardinals. 1059-1061.

   The pontificate of Nicolas II. was thoroughly under the control of
   Hildebrand, who became archdeacon and chancellor of the Roman Church in
   August or September, 1059. His enemies said that he kept Nicolas like
   an ass in the stable, feeding him to do his work. Peter Damiani calls
   him the lord of the pope, and said that he would rather obey the lord
   of the pope than the lord-pope himself. [13] [14] down his bishopric at
   Ostia and retire to a convent, but was not permitted to do so. He
   disliked the worldly splendor which Hildebrand began to assume in dress
   and mode of living, contrary to his own ascetic principles.

   Two important steps were made in the progress of the hierarchy,--a
   change in the election of the pope, and an alliance with the Normans
   for the temporal protection of the pope.

   Nicolas convened a Lateran Council in April, 1059, the largest held in
   Rome down to that time. It consisted of a hundred and thirteen bishops
   and a multitude of clergymen; but more than two-thirds of the prelates
   were Italians, the rest Burgundians and Frenchmen. Germany was not
   represented at all. Berengar was forced at this synod to submit to a
   formula of recantation (which he revoked on his return to France). He
   calls the bishops "wild beasts," who would not listen to his idea of a
   spiritual communion, and insisted on a Capernaitic manducation of the
   body of Christ. [15]

   A far-reaching act of this council was the transfer of the election of
   a pope to the "cardinal-bishops" and "cardinal-clergy." [16] e classes
   of functionaries they were to present the candidate to the Roman clergy
   and people for ratification. The stress thus laid upon the
   cardinal-bishops is a new thing, and it is evident that the body of
   cardinals was accorded a place of importance and authority such as it
   had not enjoyed before. Its corporate history may be said to begin with
   these canons. The election of the pope was made its prerogative. The
   synod further prescribed that the pope should be chosen from the body
   of Roman clergy, provided a suitable candidate could be found among
   their number. In usual cases, Rome was designated as the place of
   holding the election. The cardinals, however, were granted liberty to
   hold it otherwheres. As for the emperor, the language of the canons
   leaves it uncertain whether any part was accorded to him in the
   ratification of the elected pope. His name is mentioned with respect,
   but it would seem that all that was intended was that he should receive
   due notification of the election of the new pontiff. The matter was,
   therefore, taken entirely out of the emperor's hands and lodged in the
   college of cardinals. [17] control of the papal office for the Romans
   and the Roman clergy. With rare exceptions, as in the case of the
   period of the Avignon exile, the election of the pope has remained in
   the hands of the Romans ever since.

   The alliance which Nicolas entered into, 1059, with the Normans of
   Southern Italy, was the second act in the long and notable part which
   they played in the history of the papacy. Early in the eleventh century
   four brothers of the house of Hauteville, starting from Normandy, began
   their adventurous career in Italy and Sicily. They were welcomed as
   crusaders liberating the Christian population from the rule of the
   Saracens and its threatened extension. The kingdom their arms
   established was confirmed by the apostolic see, and under the original
   dynasty, and later under the house of Anjou, had a larger influence on
   the destinies of the papacy for three centuries than did Norman England
   and the successors of William the Conqueror. Robert Guiscard, who had
   defeated the army of Leo IX., and held him a prisoner for nine months,
   was confirmed by Nicolas as duke of Apulia and Calabria. The duchy
   became a fief of Rome by an obligation to pay yearly twelve dinars for
   every yoke of oxen and to defend the Holy See against attacks upon its
   authority. Robert's brother, Roger, d. 1101, began the conquest of
   Sicily in earnest in 1060 by the seizure of Messina, and followed it up
   by the capture of Palermo, 1071, and Syracuse, 1085. He was called
   Prince of Sicily and perpetual legate of the Holy See. One of his
   successors, Roger II., 1105-1154, was crowned king of Sicily at Palermo
   by the authority of the anti-pope Anacletus II. A half century later
   the blood of this house became mingled with the blood of the house of
   Hohenstaufen in the person of the great Frederick II. In the prominent
   part they took we shall find these Norman princes now supporting the
   plans of the papacy, now resisting them.

   About the same time the Hautevilles and other freebooting Normans were
   getting a foothold in Southern Italy, the Normans under William the
   Conqueror, in 1066, were conquering England. To them England owes her
   introduction into the family of European nations, and her national
   isolation ceases. [18]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [13] His epigrams on Hildebrand (Opera, II. 961, 967):-- "Vivere vis
   Romae, clara depromito voce: Plus domino Papae, quam domino parea
   Papae"
   "Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro: Tu facis hunc Dominum; te
   facit iste Deum."

   [14] Ep. 1:16.

   [15] See vol. IV. 557 sq.

   [16] The canons are given in Mirbt, Quellen, 97 sqq. The two classes of
   cardinals are called cardinales episcopi and cardinales clerici. Langen
   makes the attempt to identify the latter with "the clergy of Rome," but
   without sufficient reason. The clergy, clerus, as a special body, are
   distinctly mentioned in the canons.

   [17] The canons have come down to us in two forms. The second form,
   falsified in the interest of the emperors, was current at least thirty
   years after Nicolas's death. The fourth canon bearing on the emperor
   ran in its original form thus: salvo debito honore et reverentia
   dilecti filii nostri Henrici, qui inpresentiarum rex habetur et futurus
   imperator deo concedente speratur, sicut jam sibi concessimus et
   successoribus illius qui ab hac apostolica sede personaliter hoc jus
   impetraverint. See Scheffer-Boichorst, Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl
   durch Nikolas II., Strass., 1879, who made a thorough investigation of
   the subject, Hefele, IV. 800 sqq.; Hergenroether-Kirsch, Kirchengesch.,
   II. 342 sqq.; Mirbt, Nikolas II., in Herzog, XIV. 73 sq.; Hauck,
   Kirchengesch. III. 683 sqq. Hergenroether, p. 344 note, interprets the
   canon as conceding notification and nothing more, in the light of the
   words of the contemporary Anselm of Lucca (Alexander II.): ut obeunte
   Apost. pontifice successor eligeretur et electio ejus regi
   notificaretur, facta vero electione, etc., regi notificata, ita demum
   pontifex consecraretur. The imperial bishops of Germany fought against
   the limitation of the election to clerical circles in Rome. Under Henry
   III. and IV. the view prevailed among them that no one could be a
   legitimate pope without the consent of the emperor. See
   Scheffer-Boichorst, Zu den Anfaengen des Kirchenstreites unter Heinrich
   IV., Innsbruck, 1892, p. 122 sq.

   [18] Stubbs, ed. of Rich. de Hoveden, II. pp. lxxiii. sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 8. The War against Clerical Marriage.

   The same Lateran Council of 1059 passed severe laws against the two
   heresies of simony and Nicolaitism. It threatened all priests who were
   unwilling to give up their wives or concubines with the loss of their
   benefices and the right of reading mass, and warned the laity against
   attending their services. "No one," says the third of the thirteen
   canons, "shall hear mass from a priest who to his certain knowledge
   keeps a concubine or a subintroducta mulier."

   These severe measures led to serious disturbances in Northern Italy,
   especially in the diocese of Milan, where every ecclesiastical office
   from the lowest to the highest was for sale, and where marriage or
   concubinage was common among priests of all grades, not excluding the
   archbishop. [19] d by a fictitious decision of Ambrose, who, on the
   contrary, was an enthusiast for celibacy. Candidates for holy orders,
   if unmarried, were asked if they had strength to remain so; if not,
   they could be legally married; but second marriages were forbidden, and
   the Levitical law as to the virginity of the bride was observed. Those
   who remained single were objects of suspicion, while those who brought
   up their families in the fear of God were respected and eligible to the
   episcopate. Concubinage was regarded as a heinous offense and a bar to
   promotion. [20]

   But the Roman Church and the Hildebrandian party reversed the case, and
   denounced sacerdotal marriage as unlawful concubinage. The leader of
   this party in Lombardy was Anselm of Baggio (west of Milan), a zealous
   and eloquent young priest, who afterwards became bishop of Lucca and
   then pope (as Alexander II.). He attacked the immorality of the clergy,
   and was supported by the lowest populace, contemptuously called
   "Pataria" or "Patarines," i.e. "Ragbags." [21] ent and sanguinary
   tumults took place in the churches and streets. Peter Damiani, a
   sincere enthusiast for ascestic holiness, was sent as papal legate to
   Milan. He defended the Pataria at the risk of his life, proclaimed the
   supremacy of the Roman see, and exacted a repudiation of all heretical
   customs.

   This victory had great influence throughout Lombardy. But the strife
   was renewed under the following pope and under Gregory VII., and it was
   not till 1093 that Urban II. achieved a permanent triumph over
   Nicolaitism at a great council at Piacenza.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [19] Bonizo, a friend of Hildebrand, calls Wido, who was elected bishop
   of Milan in 1045, a "vir illiteratus et concubinarius et absque ulla
   verecundia Simoniacus." Migne, Tom. CL. 825; Jaffe, Mon. Greg., 639.
   But Hefele, IV. 793, doubts the charge of concubinage, and also Mirbt,
   Publizistik, 249.

   [20] Lea, l.c., p. 210.

   [21] Muratori and Du Cange (sub Pataria and Paterinus) derive pataria
   from pate, which in the Milanese dialect means a huckster or pedler. So
   also Hefele, IV. 796. Giesebrecht(III. 31) renders
   PatarinaLumpengesindel. The contemporary, Bonizo, interprets the term
   to mean "ragged,"patarinos id est pannosos vocabant. See Mirbt, art.
   Patara, in Herzog, XIV. 761 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 9. Alexander II. and the Schism of Cadalus. 1061-1073.

   Pope Nicolas II. died July 27, 1061. The cardinals elected, in some
   unknown place outside of Rome, Anselm, bishop of Lucca, Sept. 30, 1061.
   He was conducted to Rome in the following night by Norman soldiers, and
   consecrated, Oct. 1, as Alexander II. His first act was to administer
   the oath of fealty to Richard, the Norman leader.

   The anti-Hildebrandian party of the Roman nobles, headed by Count
   Girard of Galeria (an excommunicated robber), with the aid of the
   disaffected Lombard clergy, and the young emperor Henry IV., elected
   Cadalus (or Cadalous), bishop of Parma, anti-pope. He was consecrated
   Oct. 28, 1061, as Honorius II., and maintained a schism of ten years.
   He had been repeatedly charged with simony, and had the sympathy and
   support of the married or concubinary clergy and the simoniacal laity,
   who hoped that his success would lead to a modification of discipline
   and legalization of clerical marriage. The opposition thus became an
   organized party, and liable to the charge of heresy, which was
   considered worse than carnal sin. Damiani and Humbert defended the
   principle that a priest who is guilty of simony or concubinage, and
   believes himself innocent, is more criminal than he who knows himself
   to be guilty. Damiani hurled the fiercest denunciation of a Hebrew
   prophet against the anti-pope. Cadalus entered Rome with an armed
   force, and maintained himself in the castle of St. Angelo for two
   years; but at length he sought safety in flight without a single
   follower, and moved to Parma. He died in 1072. His party was broken up.

   Alexander held a council at Mantua, May 31, 1064, and was universally
   recognized as the legitimate pope; while Cadalus was anathematized and
   disappeared from history.

   During the pontificate of Alexander, the war against simony and
   Nicolaitism went on under the lead of Hildebrand and Damiani with
   varying success. The troubles in Lombardy were renewed. Archbishop Wido
   of Milan sided with Cadalus and was excommunicated; he apologized, did
   penance, and resumed office. After his death in 1071 the strife broke
   out again with disgraceful scenes of violence. The Patarine party,
   supported with gold by the pope, gained the ascendancy after the death
   of Cadalus. The Normans repelled the Mohammedan aggression and won
   Southern Italy and Sicily for the Church of Rome.

   This good service had some weight on the determination of Hildebrand to
   support the claim of William of Normandy to the crown of England, which
   was a master-stroke of his policy; for it brought that island into
   closer contact with Rome, and strengthened the papal pretension to
   dispose of temporal thrones. William fought under a banner blessed by
   the pope, and founded the Norman dynasty in England, 1066. The conquest
   was concluded at Winchester by a solemn coronation through three papal
   delegates, Easter, 1070.

   But in Germany there arose a powerful opposition, not indeed to the
   papacy, which was the common ground of all parties, but to the
   Hildebrandian policy. This led to the conflict between Gregory VII. and
   Henry IV. Alexander threatened Henry with excommunication in case he
   persisted in his purpose to divorce his queen Bertha.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER II.

   GREGORY VII, 1073-1085.

   See literature in S: 3.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 10. Hildebrand elected Pope. His Views on the Situation.

   Alexander II. died April 21, 1073, and was buried in the basilica of
   St. John in Lateran on the following day. The city, usually so
   turbulent after the death of a pope, was tranquil. Hildebrand ordered a
   three days' fast with litanies and prayers for the dead, after which
   the cardinals were to proceed to an election. Before the funeral
   service was closed, the people shouted, "Hildebrand shall be pope!" He
   attempted to ascend the pulpit and to quiet the crowd, but Cardinal
   Hugo Candidus anticipated him, and declared:, "Men and brethren, ye
   know how since the days of Leo IX. Hildebrand has exalted the holy
   Roman Church, and defended the freedom of our city. And as we cannot
   find for the papacy a better man, or even one that is his equal, let us
   elect him, a clergyman of our Church, well known and thoroughly
   approved amongst us." The cardinals and clergy exclaimed in the usual
   formula, "St. Peter elects Gregory (Hildebrand) pope." [22]

   This tumultuary election was at once legalized by the cardinals. He was
   carried by the people as in triumph to the church of S. Petrus ad
   Vincula, clothed with the purple robe and tiara, and declared elected,
   as "a man eminent in piety and learning, a lover of equity and justice,
   firm in adversity, temperate in prosperity, according to the apostolic
   precept (1 Tim. 3:2), 'without reproach ... temperate, soberminded,
   chaste, given to hospitality, ruling his house well' ... already well
   brought up and educated in the bosom of this mother Church, for his
   merits advanced to the office of archdeacon, whom now and henceforth we
   will to be called Gregory, Pope, and Apostolic Primate." [23]

   It was eminently proper that the man who for nearly a quarter of a
   century had been the power behind the throne, should at last be pope in
   name as well as in fact. He might have attained the dignity long
   before, if he had desired it. He was then about sixty years old, when
   busy men begin to long for rest. He chose the name Gregory in memory of
   his departed friend whom he had accompanied as chaplain into exile, and
   as a protest against the interference of the empire in the affairs of
   the Church. [24] s election, and delayed his consecration long enough
   to receive the consent of Henry IV., who in the meantime had become
   emperor. This was the last case of an imperial confirmation of a papal
   election. [25]

   Hildebrand was ordained priest, May 22, and consecrated pope, June 29,
   without any opposition. Bishop Gregory of Vercelli, the German
   chancellor of Italy, attended the consecration. The pope informed his
   friends, distinguished abbots, bishops, and princes of his election;
   gave expression to his feelings and views on his responsible position,
   and begged for their sympathy and prayers. [26]

   He was overwhelmed, as he wrote to Duke Godfrey of Lorraine (May 6,
   1073), by the prospect of the task before him; he would rather have
   died than live in the midst of such perils; nothing but trust in God
   and the prayers of good men could save him from despair; for the whole
   world was lying in wickedness; even the high officers of the Church, in
   their thirst for gain and glory, were the enemies rather than the
   friends of religion and justice. In the second year of his pontificate,
   he assured his friend Hugo of Cluny (Jan. 22, 1075) that he often
   prayed God either to release him from the present life, or to use him
   for the good of mother Church, and thus describes the lamentable
   condition of the times: --

   "The Eastern Church fallen from the faith, and attacked by the infidels
   from without. In the West, South, or North, scarcely any bishops who
   have obtained their office regularly, or whose life and conduct
   correspond to their calling, and who are actuated by the love of Christ
   instead of worldly ambition. Nowhere princes who prefer God's honor to
   their own, and justice to gain. The Romans, Longobards, and Normans
   among whom I live, as I often told them, are worse than Jews and
   heathens. And when I look to myself, I feel oppressed by such a burden
   of sin that no other hope of salvation is left me but in the mercy of
   Christ alone." [27]

   This picture is true, and we need not wonder that he often longed to
   retire to the quiet retreat of a convent. He adds in the same letter
   that, if it were not for his desire to serve the holy Church, he would
   not remain in Rome, where he had spent twenty years against his wish.
   He was thus suspended between sorrow and hope, seized by a thousand
   storms, living as a dying man. He compared himself to a sailor on the
   high seas surrounded by darkness. And he wrote to William the
   Conqueror, that unwillingly he had ascended into the ship which was
   tossed on a billowy sea, with the violence of the winds and the fury of
   storms with hidden rocks beneath and other dangers rising high in air
   in the distance. [28]

   The two features which distinguished Gregory's administration were the
   advocacy of papal absolutism and the promotion of moral reforms. In
   both these respects Gregory left an abiding impression upon the thought
   and practice of Latin Christendom. Even where we do not share his views
   we cannot help but admire his moral force and invincible courage.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [22] The earliest account is given by Gregory himself in two letters
   written April 24, 1073, and a third written April 26 to Wibert of
   Ravenna (Reg., I. 1-3). It is confirmed by Bonizo. Gregory frequently
   referred to his election as having been against his will. (See Mirbt,
   Wahl, etc., pp. 2, 42.) The anti-Gregorian party made the slanderous
   accusation that he secured his office by force and bribery, but not
   till the struggle between him and Henry IV. had begun. The subject is
   thoroughly discussed by Mirbt in his Wahl Gregors VII. p. 56. In his
   later work, Die Publizistik, p. 582, he again pronounces Gregory's own
   account as "the most credible."

   [23] The clauses, "the husband of one wife," as well as "having his
   children in subjection," are omitted in the quotation from Paul's
   letter to Timothy. They would be fatal to the papal theory of clerical
   celibacy. See the Latin text in the Acta Sanctorum for May 25, Tom. VI.
   117, from the "Acta Romae 10 Kalend. Maji." The cardinals concluded the
   declaration with the questions: "Placet vobis? Placet. Vultis eum?
   Volumus. Laudatis eum? Laudamus."

   [24] From Bonizo's account it would seem that the cardinals gave him
   that name; but they probably ascertained his wishes beforehand, or
   anticipated them. Wattenbach (p. 130) regards the assumption of the
   name Gregory as an open insult to the empire and the Synod of Sutri,
   where Henry III. had deposed three popes, including Gregory VI.

   [25] This is Mirbt's view. The anti-Gregorian writers, reflecting the
   policy of Henry IV., insisted that Gregory had not received the royal
   assent. The imperial theory was laid down at Brixen, 1080, that any one
   assuming to be pope without such assent, was an apostate, si quis sine
   assensu romani principis papari praesumeret, non papa sed apostata ab
   omnibus haberetur. See Mirbt, Die Wahl, etc., pp. 29-38.

   [26] Jaffe, Mon. Greg. (1885), pp. 9 sqq.

   [27] Abridged from Ep., II. 49; Jaffe, p. 163; Migne, 148, 400

   [28] Reg., I. 70.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 11. The Gregorian Theocracy.

   The Hildebrandian or Gregorian Church ideal is a theocracy based upon
   the Mosaic model and the canon law. It is the absolute sovereignty of
   the Church in this world, commanding respect and obedience by her moral
   purity and ascetic piety. By the Church is meant the Roman Catholic
   organization headed by the pope as the vicar of Christ; and this
   hierarchical organization is identified with the Kingdom of God, in
   which men are saved from sin and death, and outside of which there is
   no ordinary salvation. No distinction is made between the Church and
   the Kingdom, nor between the visible and invisible Church. The Holy,
   Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church has been to popes as visible and
   tangible as the German Empire, or the Kingdom of France, or the
   Republic of Venice. Besides this Church no other is recognized, not
   even the Greek, except as a schismatic branch of the Roman.

   This ideal is the growth of ages. It was prepared for by pseudo-Isidor
   in the ninth, and by St. Augustine in the fifth century.

   St. Augustine, the greatest theological authority of the Middle Ages,
   first identified the visible Catholic Church with the City or Kingdom
   of God. In his great apologetic work, De Civitate Dei, he traced the
   relation of this Kingdom to the changing and passing kingdoms of this
   world, and furnished, we may say, the programme of the mediaeval
   theocracy which, in theory, is adhered to by the Roman Church to this
   day. [29] s more interested in theology than Church policy; he had
   little to say about the papacy, and made a suggestive distinction
   between "the true body of Christ" and "the mixed body of Christ," which
   led the way to the Protestant distinction (first made by Zwingli)
   between the visible and invisible Church. [30] c theory of the
   apostolic right to depose temporal sovereigns.

   The pseudo-Isidorian Decretals went further: they identified the
   Catholic Church with the dominion of the papal hierarchy, and by a
   series of literary fictions carried this system back to the second
   century; notwithstanding the fact that the Oriental Church never
   recognized the claims of the bishops of Rome beyond that of a mere
   primacy of honor among equal patriarchs.

   Gregory VII. actualized this politico-ecclesiastical system more fully
   than any previous pope, and as far as human energy and prudence would
   admit. The glory of the Church was the all-controlling passion of his
   life. He held fast to it in the darkest hours, and he was greatest in
   adversity. Of earlier popes, Nicolas I. and Leo I. came nearest to him
   in lofty pretensions. But in him papal absolutism assumed flesh and
   blood. He was every inch a pope. He anticipated the Vatican system of
   1870; in one point he fell short of it, in another point he went beyond
   it. He did not claim infallibility in theory, though he assumed it in
   fact; but he did claim and exercise, as far as he could, an absolute
   authority over the temporal powers of Christendom, which the popes have
   long since lost, and can never regain.

   Hildebrand was convinced that, however unworthy personally, he was, in
   his official character, the successor of Peter, and as such the vicar
   of Christ in the militant Church. [31] e Kingdom of Heaven; but he
   forgot that in temporal affairs Peter was an humble subject under a
   hostile government, and exhorted the Christians to honor the king (1
   Pet. 2:17) at a time when a Nero sat on the throne. He constantly
   appealed to the famous words of Christ, Matt. 16:18, 19, as if they
   were said to himself. The pope inherits the lofty position of Peter. He
   is the Rock of the Church. He is the universal bishop, a title against
   which the first Gregory protested as an anti-Christian presumption. He
   is intrusted with the care of all Christendom (including the Greek
   Church, which never acknowledged him). He has absolute and final
   jurisdiction, and is responsible only to God, and to no earthly
   tribunal. He alone can depose and reinstate bishops, and his legates
   take precedence of all bishops. He is the supreme arbiter in questions
   of right and wrong in the whole Christian world. He is above all
   earthly sovereigns. He can wear the imperial insignia. He can depose
   kings and emperors, and absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance
   to unworthy sovereigns.

   These and similar claims are formulated in a document of twenty-seven
   brief propositions preserved among Gregory's letters, which are of
   doubtful genuineness, but correctly express his views, [32] famous
   letter to Hermann, bishop of Metz.

   Among his favorite Scripture quotations, besides the prophecy about
   Peter (Matt. 16:18, 19), are two passages from the Old Testament: the
   words of the prophet Samuel to Saul, which suited his attitude to
   rebellious kings (1 Sam. 15:23): "Rebellion is as the sin of
   witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim; because thou
   hast rejected the word of the Lord, he has also rejected thee from
   being king;" and the words of the prophet Jeremiah (48:10): "Cursed be
   he that doeth the work of the Lord negligently, and cursed be he that
   keepeth back his sword from blood." He meant the spiritual sword
   chiefly, but also the temporal, if necessary. He would have liked to
   lead an army of soldiers of St. Peter for the conquest of the Holy
   Land, and the subjection of all rebellious monarchs. He projected the
   first crusade, which his second successor carried out.

   We must consider more particularly his views on the relation of Church
   and State. Public opinion in the Middle Ages believed neither in
   co-ordination nor separation of the two powers, but in the
   subordination of one to the other on the basis of union. Church and
   State were inseparably interwoven from the days of Charlemagne and even
   of Constantine, and both together constituted the Christian
   commonwealth, respublica Christiana. There was also a general agreement
   that the Church was the spiritual, the State, the temporal power.

   But the parties divided on the question of the precise boundary line.
   [33] uperiority of the State, or at least the equality of the two
   powers. It was a conflict between priestcraft and statecraft, between
   sacerdotium and imperium, the clergy and the laity. The imperialists
   emphasized the divine origin and superior antiquity of the civil
   government, to which even Christ and the Apostles were subject; the
   hierarchical party disparaged the State, and put the Church above it
   even in temporal affairs, when they conflicted with the spiritual.
   Emperors like Otto I. and Henry III. deposed and elected popes; while
   popes like Gregory VII. and Innocent III. deposed and elected emperors.

   Gregory compares the Church to the sun, the State to the moon, which
   borrows her light from the sun. [34] dignity, as heaven is above the
   earth. He admits the necessity of the State for the temporal government
   of men; but in his conflict with the civil power he takes the
   pessimistic view that the State is the product of robbery, murder, and
   all sorts of crimes, and a disturbance of the original equality, which
   must be restored by the priestly power. He combined the highest view of
   the Church and the papacy with the lowest view of the State and the
   empire. [35]

   His theory of the papal power could not have been more explicitly
   stated than when, writing to Sancho, king of Aragon, he said that
   Jesus, the king of glory, had made Peter lord over the kingdoms of the
   world. This principle he consistently acted upon. [36] subjects from
   allegiance to him. He concluded his second excommunication of Henry
   IV., at the synod in Lent, March 7, 1080, with this startling
   peroration: --

   "And now, O ye princes and fathers, most holy Apostles Peter and Paul,
   deal ye with us in such wise that all the world may know and understand
   that, having the power to bind and to loose in heaven, you have the
   like power to take away empires, kingdoms, principalities, duchies,
   marquisates, earldoms, and all manner of human rights and properties
   .... Having such mighty power in spiritual things, what is there on
   earth that may transcend your authority in temporal things? And if ye
   judge the angels, who are high above the proudest of princes, what may
   ye not do unto those beneath them? Let the kings and princes of the
   earth know and feel how great ye are--how exalted your power! Let them
   tremble to despise the commands of your Church!

   "But upon the said Henry do judgment quickly, that all men may know
   that it is not by fortune or chance, but by your power, that he has
   fallen! May he thus be confounded unto repentance, that his soul may be
   saved in the day of the Lord!"

   This is the extreme of hierarchical arrogance and severity. Gregory
   always assumed the air of supreme authority over kings and nobles as
   well as bishops and abbots, and expects from them absolute obedience.

   Sardinia and Corsica he treated as fiefs. [37] er, and that it belonged
   to no mortal man but to the Apostolic see. For had not the Holy See
   made a grant of Spanish territory to a certain Evulus on condition of
   his conquering it from pagan hands? [38] at St. Paul had gone to Spain
   and that seven bishops, sent by Paul and Peter, had founded the
   Christian Church in Spain. [39] did not desist from simony, to place
   his realm under the interdict. [40] [41] ize the dependence of his
   kingdom upon Rome and to send his son to Rome that he might draw the
   sword against the enemies of God, promising the son a certain rich
   province in Italy for his services. [42] onies to the king of Russia,
   whose son, as we are informed in another letter, had come to Rome, to
   secure his throne from the pope. [43] ht to Rome, [44] ent of two
   hundred pieces of silver to himself and his papal successors. To
   Michael, Byzantine emperor, he wrote, expressing the hope that the
   Church of Constantinople as a true daughter might be reconciled to its
   mother, the Church of Rome. [45] munications to the emperor, Gregory
   made propositions concerning a crusade to rescue the Holy Land.

   For William the Conqueror, Gregory expressed great affection,
   addressing him as "best beloved," carissime, but solemnly reminded him
   that he owed his promotion to the throne of England to the favor of the
   Roman see and bidding him be prompt in the payment of Peter's Pence.
   [46] his predecessors had paid, but fealty he refused to pay as his
   predecessors had refused to pay it. [47]

   Unbiblical and intolerable as is Hildebrand's scheme of papal
   absolutism as a theory of abiding validity, for the Middle Ages it was
   better that the papacy should rule. It was, indeed, a spiritual
   despotism; but it checked a military despotism which was the only
   alternative, and would have been far worse. The Church, after all,
   represented the moral and intellectual interests over against rude
   force and passions. She could not discharge her full duty unless she
   was free and independent. The princes of the Middle Ages were mostly
   ignorant and licentious despots; while the popes, in their official
   character, advocated the cause of learning, the sanctity of marriage,
   and the rights of the people. It was a conflict of moral with physical
   power, of intelligence with ignorance, of religion with vice.

   The theocratic system made religion the ruling factor in mediaeval
   Europe, and gave the Catholic Church an opportunity to do her best. Her
   influence was, upon the whole, beneficial. The enthusiasm for religion
   inspired the crusades, carried Christianity to heathen savages, built
   the cathedrals and innumerable churches, founded the universities and
   scholastic theology, multiplied monastic orders and charitable
   institutions, checked wild passions, softened manners, stimulated
   discoveries and inventions, preserved ancient classical and Christian
   literature, and promoted civilization. The papacy struck its roots deep
   in the past, even as far back as the second century. But it was based
   in part on pious frauds, as the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the
   false Donation of Constantine.

   The mediaeval theocracy was at best a carnal anticipation of the
   millennial reign, when all the kingdoms of this world shall obey the
   peaceful sceptre of Christ. The papacy degenerated more and more into a
   worldly institution and an intolerable tyranny over the hearts and
   minds of men. Human nature is too noble to be ruled by despotism, and
   too weak to resist its temptations. The State has divine authority as
   well as the Church, and the laity have rights as well as the clergy.
   These rights came to the front as civilization advanced and as the
   hierarchy abused its power. It was the abuse of priestly authority for
   the enslavement of men, the worldliness of the Church, and the
   degradation and profanation of religion in the traffic of indulgences,
   which provoked the judgment of the Reformation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [29] Pope Leo XIII., in his encyclical concerning the Christian
   constitution of States (Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885), defends the
   mediaeval theory of Church and State, and refers to the authority of
   St. Augustine, as having in his De Civitate Dei clearly set forth the
   true principles on this subject for all time to come. See Schaff's
   edition of St. Augustine's Works, pref. to vol. II. (New York, 1887).
   Comp. also Reuter, Augustinische Studien (Gotha, 1887), pp. 106-152,
   and Mirbt., l.c., who has industriously collected the quotations from
   Augustine by the friends and opponents of Gregory VII.

   [30] The influence of Augustine's theory upon Wyclif, Hus, and the
   Reformers is shown in this Church History, vol. VI. 522 sqq.

   [31] Gregory again and again expressed his feeling of personal
   unworthiness in such expressions as cui licet indigni et nolentes
   praesidemus, Reg., I. 18, 70, etc.; Migne, 300, 344, etc.

   [32] Dictatus Papae, Migne, 148, 407 sq.; Mirbt, Quellen, p. 113. Comp:
   the note of Gieseler, II. B. 7 (Germ. ed.). I quote a few: 12. Quod
   illi liceat imperatores deponere. 22. Quod Romana Ecclesia numquam
   erravit, nec in perpetuum, Scriptura testante, errabit. 26. Quod
   catholicus non habeatur, qui non concordat Ecclesiae Romanae. 27. Quod
   a fidelitate iniquorum subjectos potest absolvere

   [33] See Mirbt, Publizistik, 572-579.

   [34] Letter of May 8, 1080, to William of England. Jaffe, 419 sq.;
   Migne, 148, 569. Gregory also compared the priesthood to gold and
   royalty to lead, Reg., IV. 2.

   [35] In a letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz, March 15, 1081 (Reg., VIII.
   21). "Quis nesciat reges et duces ab illis habuisse principium, qui,
   Deum ignorantes, superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo
   universis pene sceleribus, mundi principe Diabolo videlicet agitante,
   super pares scilicet homines, dominari caeca cupidine etintolerabili
   presumptione affectaverunt," St. Augustine likewise combines the two
   views of the origin of the State, and calls it both a divine ordinance
   and a "grande latrocinium," an enslavement of men in consequence of
   sin. See Reuter,August. Studien, l.c., 135 sq. The letter to Hermann is
   also given in Mirbt, Quellen, 105-112.

   [36] Petrum dominus Jesus Christus, rex gloriae, principem super regna
   mundi constituit, Reg., I. 63; Migne, 148, 339.

   [37] Reg., I. 29, VII. 10; Migne, 148, 312, 584.

   [38] Reg., I. 7; Migne, 289.

   [39] Reg., I. 64; Migne, 339.

   [40] Reg., II. 5, 18, 32.

   [41] Lupus rapax, etc.

   [42] Reg., II. 51, 75; Migne, 403, 426.

   [43] Reg., II. 73, 74; Migne, 423 sq.

   [44] Regnum Hungariae sanctae Romanae ecclesiae proprium est a rege
   Stephano beato Petri olim cum omni jure et potestate sua oblatum et
   devote traditum, Reg., II. 13; Migne, 373.

   [45] Reg., I. 18; Migne, 300.

   [46] Reg., I. 70, VII. 23; Migne, 345, 565 sqq., etc.

   [47] "Hubert, your legate in your behalf has bade me to do fealty to
   you and your successors, and to think better in the matter of the money
   which my predecessors were wont to send to the Roman Church. The one
   point I agreed to, the other I did not agree to. Fealty I refused to
   do, nor will I do it, nor do I find that my predecessors did it to your
   predecessors." The letter of William the Conqueror to Gregory, written
   after 1076, the date being uncertain. See Gee and Hardy, Documents of
   Eng. Ch. Hist., p. 57. The efforts of Gregory to secure William's
   support in his controversy with Henry IV. failed. Reg., VI. 30, VII. 1;
   Migne, 535, 545.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 12. Gregory VII. as a Moral Reformer. Simony and Clerical Marriage.

   Gregory VII. must be viewed not only as a papal absolutist, but also as
   a moral reformer. It is the close connection of these two characters
   that gives him such pre-eminence in history, and it is his zeal for
   moral reform that entitles him to real respect; while his pretension to
   absolute power he shares with the most worthless popes.

   His Church ideal formed a striking contrast to the actual condition of
   the Church, and he could not actualize it without raising the clergy
   from the deep slough of demoralization to a purer and higher plane.

   His reforms were directed against simony and Nicolaitism. What he had
   done as Hildebrand, by way of advice, he now carried out by official
   authority.

   In the war on simony he was altogether right from the standpoint of
   Protestant as well as Roman Catholic ethics. The traffic in
   ecclesiastical dignities was an unmitigated nuisance and scandal, and
   doubly criminal if exercised by bishops and popes.

   In his war on Nicolaitism, Gregory was sustained by ancient laws of the
   Roman Church, but not by the genuine spirit of Christianity. Enforced
   clerical celibacy has no foundation in the Bible, and is apt to defeat
   the sacerdotal ideal which it was intended to promote. The real power
   and usefulness of the clergy depend upon its moral purity, which is
   protected and promoted by lawful matrimony, the oldest institution of
   God, dating from the paradise of innocence.

   The motives of Gregory in his zeal for sacerdotal celibacy were partly
   monkish and partly hierarchical. Celibacy was an essential part of his
   ascetic ideal of a priest of God, who must be superior to carnal
   passions and frailties, wholly devoted to the interests of the Church,
   distracted by no earthly cares, separated from his fellow-men, and
   commanding their reverence by angelic purity. Celibacy, moreover, was
   an indispensable condition of the freedom of the hierarchy. He declared
   that he could not free the Church from the rule of the laity unless the
   priests were freed from their wives. A married clergy is connected with
   the world by social ties, and concerned for the support of the family;
   an unmarried clergy is independent, has no home and aim but the Church,
   and protects the pope like a standing army.

   Another motive for opposing clerical marriage was to prevent the danger
   of a hereditary caste which might appropriate ecclesiastical property
   to private uses and impoverish the Church. The ranks of the hierarchy,
   even the chair of St. Peter, were to be kept open to self-made men of
   the humblest classes, but closed against hereditary claimants. This was
   a practical recognition of the democratic principle in contrast with
   the aristocratic feudalism of the Middle Ages. Hildebrand himself, who
   rose from the lowest rank without patronage to the papal throne, was
   the best illustration of this clerical democracy.

   The power of the confessional, which is one of the pillars of the
   priesthood, came to the aid of celibacy. Women are reluctant to intrust
   their secrets to a priest who is a husband and father of a family.

   The married priests brought forward the example of the priests of the
   Old Testament. This argument Damiani answered by saying that the Hebrew
   priest was forbidden to eat before offering sacrifices at the altar.
   How much more unseemly it would be for a priest of the new order to
   soil himself carnally before offering the sacraments to God! The new
   order owed its whole time to the office and had none left for marriage
   and the family life (1 Cor. 7:32). Only an unmarried man who refuses to
   gratify carnal lusts can fulfil the injunction to be a temple of God
   and avoid quenching the Spirit (Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 5:19). [48]

   These motives controlled also the followers of Gregory and the whole
   hierarchy, and secured the ultimate triumph of sacerdotal celibacy. The
   question of abolishing it has from time to time been agitated, and in
   the exceptional cases of the Maronites and United Greeks the popes have
   allowed single marriage in deference to old custom and for prudential
   reasons. Pope Pius II., before he ascended the papal chair (1458-1464),
   said that good reasons required the prohibition of clerical marriage,
   but better reasons required its restoration. The hierarchical interest,
   however, has always overruled these better reasons. Whatever may have
   been the advantages of clerical celibacy, its evils were much greater.
   The sexual immorality of the clergy, more than anything else,
   undermined the respect of the people for their spiritual guides, and
   was one of the chief causes of the Reformation, which restored
   honorable clerical marriage, created a pastoral home with its
   blessings, and established the supremacy of conscience over
   hierarchical ambition.

   From the standpoint of a zealous reformer like Gregory, the morals of
   the clergy were certainly in a low condition. No practice did he
   condemn with such burning words as the open marriage of priests or
   their secret cohabitation with women who were to all intents and
   purposes their wives. Contemporary writers like Damiani, d. 1072, in
   his Gomorrhianus, give dark pictures of the lives of the priests. While
   descriptions of rigid ascetics are to be accepted with caution, the
   evidence abounds that in all parts of Latin Christendom the law of
   priestly celibacy was ignored. [49] [50] [51] , was thinking of taking
   a wife openly. [52] e supposed the very existence of the Church
   depended upon the enforcement of clerical celibacy. There were bishops
   even in Italy who openly permitted the marriage of priests, as was the
   case with Kunibert of Turin. [53] t conceal his quasi-marital relations
   which Gregory denounced as fornication, [54] "incontinent" or
   "concubinary priests." [55] [56]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [48] See Mirbt, p. 278.

   [49] Mirbt, Publizistik, 259, says that there was no such thing as a
   general observance of celibacy in Western Europe.

   [50] Kirchengesch., 339.

   [51] Kirchengesch., 271. It will be remembered that in Spain, in the
   eighth century, King Witiza formally abolished the law of clerical
   celibacy.

   [52] So Bonizo of Sutri ad amicum, lib. V.

   [53] So Damiani. See Mirbt, 248.

   [54] Gregory, Reg., II. 10.

   [55] Incontinentes sacerdotes et levitae ... sacerdotes concubinati.

   [56] Reg., II. 30.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 13. The Enforcement of Sacerdotal Celibacy.

   Literature, special works: Henry C. Lea: A Hist. Sketch of Sacerdotal
   Celibacy in the Christian Church, Phil. 1867, 2d ed. Boston, 1884.--A.
   Dresdner: Kultur und Sittengeschichte der italienischen Geistlichkeit
   im 10 und 11 Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1890.--Mirbt: Publizistik, pp.
   239-342; Hefele, V. 20 sqq. The chief contemporary sources are Damiani
   de coelibatu sacerdotum, addressed to Nicolas II. and Gomorrhianus,
   commended by Leo IX., and other writings,--Gregory VII.'s Letters.
   Mirbt gives a survey of this literature, pp. 274-342.

   Gregory completed, with increased energy and the weight of official
   authority, the moral reform of the clergy as a means for securing the
   freedom and power of the Church. He held synod after synod, which
   passed summary laws against simony and Nicolaitism, and denounced all
   carnal connection of priests with women, however legitimate, as sinful
   and shameful concubinage. Not contented with synodical legislation, he
   sent letters and legates into all countries with instructions to
   enforce the decrees. A synod in Rome, March, 1074, opened the war. It
   deposed the priests who had bought their dignity or benefices,
   prohibited all future sacerdotal marriage, required married priests to
   dismiss their wives or cease to read mass, and commanded the laity not
   to attend their services. The same decrees had been passed under
   Nicolas II. and Alexander II., but were not enforced. The forbidding of
   the laity to attend mass said by a married priest, was a most
   dangerous, despotic measure, which had no precedent in antiquity. In an
   encyclical of 1079 addressed to the whole realm of Italy and Germany,
   Gregory used these violent words, "If there are presbyters, deacons, or
   sub-deacons who are guilty of the crime of fornication (that is, living
   with women as their wives), we forbid them, in the name of God Almighty
   and by the authority of St. Peter, entrance into the churches,
   introitum ecclesiae, until they repent and rectify their conduct."

   These decrees caused a storm of opposition. Many clergymen in Germany,
   as Lambert of Hersfeld reports, denounced Gregory as a madman and
   heretic: he had forgotten the words of Christ, Matt. 19:11, and of the
   Apostle, 1 Cor. 7:9; he wanted to compel men to live like angels, and,
   by doing violence to the law of nature, he opened the door to
   indiscriminate licentiousness. They would rather give up their calling
   than their wives, and tauntingly asked him to look out for angels who
   might take their place. The bishops were placed in a most embarrassing
   position. Some, like Otto of Constance, sympathized with the married
   clergy; and he went so far as to bid his clergy marry. [57] [58] eed
   with the Hildebrandian principle, but deemed it impracticable or
   inopportune. When the bishops lacked in zeal, Gregory stirred up the
   laity against the simoniacal and concubinary priests. He exhorted a
   certain Count Albert (October, 1074) to persist in enforcing the papal
   orders, and commanded Duke Rudolf of Swabia and Duke Bertolf of
   Carinthia, January, 1075, to prevent by force, if necessary, the
   rebellious priests from officiating, no matter what the bishops might
   say who had taken no steps to punish the guilty. He thus openly
   encouraged rebellion of the laity against the clergy, contrary to his
   fundamental principle of the absolute rule of the hierarchy. He acted
   on the maxim that the end sanctifies the means. Bishop Theodoric of
   Verdun, who at first sided in the main with Gregory, but was afterwards
   forced into the ranks of his opponents, openly reproached him for these
   most extraordinary measures as dangerous to the peace of the Church, to
   the safety of the clerical order, and even to the Christian faith.
   Bishop Henry of Spires denounced him as having destroyed the episcopal
   authority, and subjected the Church to the madness of the people. When
   the bishops, at the Diet of Worms, deposed him, January, 1076, one of
   the reasons assigned was his surrender of the Church to the laity.

   But the princes who were opposed to Henry IV. and deposed him at Tribur
   (1076), professed great zeal for the Roman Church and moral reform.
   They were stigmatized with the Milanese name of Patarini. Even Henry
   IV., though he tacitly protected the simoniacal and concubinary clergy
   and received their aid, never ventured openly to defend them; and the
   anti-pope Clement III., whom he elected 1080, expressed with almost
   Hildebrandian severity his detestation of clerical concubinage,
   although he threatened with excommunication the presumptuous laymen who
   refused to take the sacrament from immoral priests. Bishop Benzo, the
   most bitter of imperialists, did not wish to be identified with the
   Nicolaitan heretics.

   A contemporary writer, probably a priest of Treves, gives a frightful
   picture of the immediate results of this reform, with which he
   sympathized in principle. Slaves betrayed masters and masters betrayed
   slaves, friends informed against friends, faith and truth were
   violated, the offices of religion were neglected, society was almost
   dissolved. The peccant priests were exposed to the scorn and contempt
   of the laity, reduced to extreme poverty, or even mutilated by the
   populace, tortured and driven into exile. Their wives, who had been
   legally married with ring and religious rites, were insulted as
   harlots, and their children branded as bastards. Many of these
   unfortunate women died from hunger or grief, or committed suicide in
   despair, and were buried in unconsecrated earth. Peasants burned the
   tithes on the field lest they should fall into the hands of disobedient
   priests, trampled the host under foot, and baptized their own children.
   [59]

   In England, St. Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury, d. 988, had
   anticipated the reforms of Hildebrand, but only with temporary success.
   William the Conqueror made no effort to enforce sacerdotal celibacy,
   except that the charge of concubinage was freely used as a pretext for
   removing Anglo-Saxon prelates to make room for Norman rivals. Lanfranc
   of Canterbury was a Hildebrandian, but could not prevent a reformatory
   council at Winchester in 1076 from allowing married priests to retain
   their wives, and it contented itself with the prohibition of future
   marriages. This prohibition was repeated at a council held in London,
   1102, when Anselm occupied the see of Canterbury. Married priests were
   required to dismiss their wives, and their children were forbidden to
   inherit their fathers' churches. A profession of chastity was to be
   exacted at ordination to the subdiaconate and the higher orders. But no
   punishment was prescribed for the violation of these canons. Anselm
   maintained them vigorously before and after his exile. A new council,
   called by King Henry at London, 1108, a year before Anselm's death,
   passed severe laws against sacerdotal marriage under penalties of
   deposition, expulsion from the Church, loss of property, and infamy.
   The temporal power was pledged to enforce this legislation. But Eadmer,
   the biographer of Anselm, sorrowfully intimates that the result was an
   increase of shocking crimes of priests with their relatives, and that
   few preserved that purity with which Anselm had labored to adorn his
   clergy.

   In Spain, which was as much isolated from the Continent by the Pyrenees
   as England by the sea, clerical celibacy was never enforced before this
   period. The Saracenic invasion and subsequent struggles of the
   Christians were unfavorable to discipline. A canon of Compostella,
   afterwards bishop of Mondonego, describes the contemporary
   ecclesiastics at the close of the eleventh century as reckless and
   violent men, ready for any crime, prompt to quarrel, and occasionally
   indulging in mutual slaughter. The lower priests were generally
   married; but bishops and monks were forbidden by a council of
   Compostella, in 1056, all intercourse with women, except with mothers,
   aunts, and sisters wearing the monastic habit. Gregory VII. sent a
   legate, a certain Bishop Amandus, to Spain to introduce his reforms,
   1077. A council at Girona, 1078, forbade the ordination of sons of
   priests and the hereditary transmission of ecclesiastical benefices. A
   council at Burgos, 1080, commanded married priests to put away their
   wives. But this order seems to have been a dead letter until the
   thirteenth century, when the code of laws drawn up by Alfonso the Wise,
   known as "Las Siete Partidas," punished sacerdotal marriage with
   deprivation of function and benefice, and authorized the prelates to
   command the assistance of the secular power in enforcing this
   punishment. "After this we hear little of regular marriage, which was
   replaced by promiscuous concubinage or by permanent irregular unions."
   [60]

   In France the efforts of reform made by the predecessors of Gregory had
   little effect. A Paris synod of 1074 declared Gregory's decrees
   unbearable and unreasonable. [61] ere unable to carry out the canon
   without the aid of the secular arm. The Norman clergy in 1072 drove the
   archbishop of Rouen from a council with a shower of stones. William the
   Conqueror came to his aid in 1080 at a synod of Lillebonne, which
   forbade ordained persons to keep women in their houses. But clerical
   marriages continued, the nuptials were made public, and male children
   succeeded to benefices by a recognized right of primogeniture. William
   the Conqueror, who assisted the hopeless reform in Normandy, prevented
   it in his subject province of Britanny, where the clergy, as described
   by Pascal II., in the early part of the twelfth century, were setting
   the canons at defiance and indulging in enormities hateful to God and
   man.

   At last, the Gregorian enforcement of sacerdotal celibacy triumphed in
   the whole Roman Church, but at the fearful sacrifice of sacerdotal
   chastity. The hierarchical aim was attained, but not the angelic purity
   of the priesthood. The private morals of the priest were sacrificed to
   hierarchical ambition. Concubinage and licentiousness took the place of
   holy matrimony. The acts of councils abound in complaints of clerical
   immorality and the vices of unchastity and drunkenness. "The records of
   the Middle Ages are full of the evidences that indiscriminate license
   of the worst kind prevailed throughout every rank of the hierarchy."
   [62] of the tenth and eleventh centuries.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [57] In a letter to Sicardus, abp. of Aquileja, Jan. 24, 1074, Gregory
   complained of princes who treated the Church as a servant-maid, quasi
   vilem ancillam, etc. Reg., I. 42; Migne, 148, 322.

   [58] Gregory, Reg., II. 29, III. 4, commanded him to root out "clerical
   fornication."

   [59] Hauck, III. 780 sq.; Mirbt, Publizistik, 269 sqq.; Hefele, V. 30
   sqq.

   [60] Lea, p. 309.

   [61] importabilia ideoque irrationabilia.

   [62] g Lea, p. 341.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 14. The War over Investiture.

   The other great reform-scheme of Gregory aimed at the complete
   emancipation of the Church from the bondage of the secular power. His
   conception of the freedom of the Church meant the slavery of the State.
   The State exercised control over the Church by selling ecclesiastical
   dignities, or the practice of simony, and by the investiture of bishops
   and abbots; that is, by the bestowal of the staff and ring. [63]

   The feudal system of the Middle Ages, as it developed itself among the
   new races of Europe from the time of Charlemagne, rested on land tenure
   and the mutual obligations of lord and vassal, whereby the lord, from
   the king down to the lowest landed proprietor, was bound to protect his
   vassal, and the vassal was bound to serve his lord. The Church in many
   countries owned nearly or fully one-half of the landed estate, with the
   right of customs, tolls, coinage of money, etc., and was in justice
   bound to bear part of the burden attached to land tenure. The secular
   lords regarded themselves as the patrons of the Church, and claimed the
   right of appointing and investing its officers, and of bestowing upon
   them, not only their temporalia, but also the insignia of their
   spiritual power. This was extremely offensive to churchmen. The bishop,
   invested by the lord, became his vassal, and had to swear an oath of
   obedience, which implied the duty of serving at court and furnishing
   troops for the defense of the country. Sometimes a bishop had hardly
   left the altar when his liege-lord commanded him to gird on the sword.
   After the death of the bishop, the king or prince used the income of
   the see till the election of a successor, and often unduly postponed
   the election for his pecuniary benefit, to the injury of the Church and
   the poor. In the appointments, the king was influenced by political,
   social, or pecuniary considerations, and often sold the dignity to the
   highest bidder, without any regard to intellectual or moral
   qualifications. The right of investiture was thus closely connected
   with the crying abuse of simony, and its chief source.

   No wonder that Gregory opposed this investiture by laymen with all his
   might. Cardinal Humbert had attacked it in a special book under Victor
   II. (1057), and declared it an infamous scandal that lay-hands, above
   all, female hands, should bestow the ring and crosier. He insisted that
   investiture was a purely spiritual function, and that secular princes
   have nothing to do with the performance of functions that have
   something sacramental about them. They even commit sacrilege by
   touching the garments of the priest. By the exercise of the right of
   investiture, princes, who are properly the defenders of the Church, had
   become its lords and rulers. Great evils had arisen out of this
   practice, especially in Italy, where ambitious priests lingered about
   the antechambers of courts and practised the vice of adulation, vitium
   adulationis. [64]

   The legislation against lay appointments was opened at the Synod of
   Rheims, 1049, under the influence of Leo IX. It declared that no priest
   should be promoted to office without the election of clergy and people.
   Ten years later, 1059, the Synod of Rome pronounced any appointment of
   cleric or presbyter to benefice invalid, which was made by a layman.
   [65]

   By abolishing this custom, Gregory hoped to emancipate the clergy from
   the vassalage of the State, and the property of the Church from the
   feudal supervision of the prince, as well as to make the bishops the
   obedient servants of the pope.

   The contest continued under the following popes, and was at last
   settled by the compromise of Worms (1122). The emperor yielded only in
   part; for to surrender the whole property of the Church to the absolute
   power of the pope, would have reduced civil government to a mere
   shadow. On the other hand, the partial triumph of the papacy
   contributed very much to the secularization of the Church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [63] investitura per baculum et annulum.

   [64] Humbert's work, adversus simoniacos, is giveninlibelli de lite and
   Migne, vol. 153. Wido of Arezzo and Damiani expressed the same views.
   See Mirbt, Publizistik, 463-471. Of those who received lay investiture
   it began to be said "that they entered not in by the door,"non per
   ostium intraverant.

   [65] ut per laicos nullo modo quilibet clericus aut presbyter obtineat
   ecclesiam nec gratis nec pretio, Mansi, XIX. 898.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 15. Gregory VII. and Henry IV.

   The conflict over investiture began at a Roman synod in Lent (Feb.
   24-28), 1075, and brought on the famous collision with Henry IV., in
   which priestcraft and kingcraft strove for mastery. The pope had the
   combined advantages of superior age, wisdom, and moral character over
   this unfortunate prince, who, when a mere boy of six years (1056), had
   lost his worthy father, Henry III., had been removed from the care of
   his pious but weak mother, Agnes, and was spoilt in his education.
   Henry had a lively mind and noble impulses, but was despotic and
   licentious. Prosperity made him proud and overbearing, while adversity
   cast him down. His life presents striking changes of fortune. He
   ascended and descended twice the scale of exaltation and humiliation.
   He first insulted the pope, then craved his pardon; he rebelled again
   against him, triumphed for a while, was twice excommunicated and
   deposed; at last, forsaken and persecuted by his own son, he died a
   miserable death, and was buried in unconsecrated earth. The better
   class of his own subjects sided against him in his controversy with the
   pope. The Saxons rose in open revolt against his tyranny on the very
   day that Hildebrand was consecrated (June 29, 1073).

   This synod of 1075 forbade the king and all laymen having anything to
   do with the appointment of bishops or assuming the right of
   investiture. [66] actising simony. [67]

   The king, hard pressed by the rebellious Saxons, at first yielded, and
   dismissed the five counsellors; but, as soon as he had subdued the
   rebellion (June 5, 1075), he recalled them, and continued to practice
   shameful simony. He paid his soldiers from the proceeds of Church
   property, and adorned his mistresses with the diamonds of sacred
   vessels. The pope exhorted him by letter and deputation to repent, and
   threatened him with excommunication. The king received his legates most
   ungraciously, and assumed the tone of open defiance. Probably with his
   knowledge, Cencius, a cousin of the imperial prefect in Rome,
   shamefully maltreated the pope, seized him at the altar the night
   before Christmas, 1075, and shut him up in a tower; but the people
   released him and put Cencius to flight.

   Henry called the bishops and abbots of the empire to a council at
   Worms, under the lead of Archbishop Siegfried of Mainz, Jan. 24, 1076.
   This council deposed Gregory without giving him even a hearing, on the
   ground of slanderous charges of treason, witchcraft, covenant with the
   devil, and impurity, which were brought against him by Hugo Blancus
   (Hugh Leblanc), a deposed cardinal. It was even asserted that he ruled
   the Church by a senate of women, Beatrix, Matilda of Tuscany, and
   Agnes, the emperor's mother. Only two bishops dared to protest against
   the illegal proceeding. The Ottos and Henry III. had deposed popes, but
   not in such a manner.

   Henry secured the signatures of the disaffected bishops of Upper Italy
   at a council in Piacenza. He informed Gregory of the decree of Worms in
   an insulting letter: --

   "Henry, king, not by usurpation, but by God's holy ordinance, to
   Hildebrand, not pope, but a false monk. How darest thou, who hast won
   thy power through craft, flattery, bribery, and force, stretch forth
   thy hand against the Lord's anointed, despising the precept of the true
   pope, St. Peter: 'Fear God, honor the king?' Thou who dost not fear
   God, dishonorest me whom He has appointed. Condemned by the voice of
   all our bishops, quit the apostolic chair, and let another take it, who
   will preach the sound doctrine of St. Peter, and not do violence under
   the cloak of religion. I, Henry, by the grace of God, king, with all my
   bishops, say unto thee, Come down, come down!" [68]

   At the same time Henry wrote to the cardinals and the Roman people to
   aid him in the election of a new pope. Roland, a priest of Parma,
   brought the letter to Rome at the end of February, as Gregory was just
   holding a synod of a hundred and ten bishops, and concluded his message
   with the words. "I tell you, brethren, that you must appear at
   Pentecost before the king to receive from his hands a pope and father;
   for this man here is not pope, but a ravening wolf." This produced a
   storm of indignation. The prelates drew swords and were ready to kill
   him on the spot; but Gregory remained calm, and protected him against
   violence.

   On the next day (February 22) the pope excommunicated and deposed Henry
   in the name of St. Peter, and absolved his subjects from their oath of
   obedience. He published the ban in a letter to all Christians. The
   sentence of deposition is as follows: --

   "Blessed Peter, prince of the Apostles, incline thine ear unto me, and
   hear me, thy servant, whom from childhood thou didst nurse and protect
   against the wicked to this day. Thou and my lady, the mother of God,
   and thy brother, St. Paul, are my witnesses that the holy Roman Church
   has drawn me to the helm against my will, and that I have not risen up
   like a robber to thy seat. Rather would I have been a pilgrim my whole
   life long than have snatched to myself thy chair on account of temporal
   glory and in a worldly spirit .... By thy intercession God has
   intrusted me with the power to bind and to loose on earth and in
   heaven.

   "Therefore, relying on this trust, for the honor and security of the
   Church, in the name of the Almighty Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I do
   prohibit Henry, king, son of Henry the emperor, from ruling the kingdom
   of the Teutons and of Italy, because with unheard-of pride he has
   lifted himself up against thy Church; and I release all Christians from
   the oath of allegiance to him which they have taken, or shall take, and
   I forbid that any shall serve him as king. For it is fitting that he
   who will touch the dignity of the Church should lose his own. And
   inasmuch as he has despised obedience by associating with the
   excommunicate, by many deeds of iniquity, and by spurning the warnings
   which I have given him for his good, I bind him in the bands of
   anathema; that all nations of the earth may know that thou art Peter,
   and that upon thy rock the Son of the living God hath built His Church,
   and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." [69]

   The empress-widow was present when the anathema was pronounced on her
   son. At the same time the pope excommunicated all the German and
   Italian bishops who had deposed him at Worms and Piacenza.

   This was a most critical moment, and the signal for a deadly struggle
   between the two greatest potentates in Christendom. Never before had
   such a tremendous sentence been pronounced upon a crowned head. The
   deposition of Childeric by Pope Zacharias was only the sanction of the
   actual rule of Pepin. Gregory threatened also King Philip of France
   with deposition, but did not execute it. Now the heir of the crown of
   Charlemagne was declared an outlaw by the successor of the Galilean
   fisherman, and Europe accepted the decision. There were not wanting,
   indeed, voices of discontent and misgivings about the validity of a
   sentence which justified the breaking of a solemn oath. All conceded
   the papal right of excommunication, but not the right of deposition. If
   Henry had commanded the respect and love of his subjects, he might have
   defied Gregory. But the religious sentiment of the age sustained the
   pope, and was far less shocked by the papal excommunication and
   deposition of the king than by the royal deposition of the pope. It was
   never forgotten that the pope had crowned Charlemagne, and it seemed
   natural that his power to bestow implied his power to withhold or to
   take away. [70]

   Gregory had not a moment's doubt as to the justice of his act. He
   invited the faithful to pray, and did not neglect the dictates of
   worldly prudence. He strengthened his military force in Rome, and
   reopened negotiations with Robert Guiscard and Roger. In Northern Italy
   he had a powerful ally in Countess Matilda, who, by the recent death of
   her husband and her mother, had come into full possession of vast
   dominions, and furnished a bulwark against the discontented clergy and
   nobility of Lombardy and an invading army from Germany. [71]

   When Henry received the tidings of the sentence of excommunication and
   deposition, he burst into a furious rage, abused Gregory as a
   hypocrite, heretic, murderer, perjurer, adulterer, and threatened to
   fling back the anathema upon his head. William, bishop of Utrecht, had
   no scruples in complying with the king's wishes, and from the pulpit of
   his cathedral anathematized Gregory as "a perjured monk who had dared
   to lift up his head against the Lord's anointed." Henry summoned a
   national council to Worms on Whitsunday (May 15) to protest against the
   attempt of Gregory to unite in one hand the two swords which God had
   separated. [72] the popes, who claimed that God had given both swords
   to the Church,--the spiritual sword, to be borne by her; the temporal,
   to be wielded by the State for the Church, that is, in subjection and
   obedience to the Church.

   The council at Worms was attended by few bishops, and proved a failure.
   A council in Mainz, June 29, turned out no better, and Henry found it
   necessary to negotiate. Saxony was lost; prelates and nobles deserted
   him. A diet at Tribur, an imperial castle near Mainz, held Oct. 16,
   1076, demanded that he should submit to the pope, seek absolution from
   him within twelve months from the date of excommunication, at the risk
   of forfeiting his crown. He should then appear at a diet to be held at
   Augsburg on Feb. 2, 1077, under the presidency of the pope. Meanwhile
   he was to abide at Spires in strict privacy, in the sole company of his
   wife, the bishop of Verdun, and a few servants chosen by the nobles.
   The legates of Gregory were treated with marked respect, and gave
   absolution to the excommunicated bishops, including Siegfried of Mainz,
   who submitted to the pope.

   Henry spent two dreary months in seclusion at Spires, shut out from the
   services of the Church and the affairs of the State. At last he made up
   his mind to seek absolution, as the only means of saving his crown.
   There was no time to be lost; only a few weeks remained till the Diet
   of Augsburg, which would decide his fate.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [66] This statement is based upon the authority of Arnulf of Milan. The
   decree itself is lost. See Mirbt, Publizistik, 492. Arnulf says, papa
   ... palam interdicit regi jus deinde habere aliquod in dandis
   episcopatibus omnesque laicas personas ab investituris ecclesiarum
   summovet.

   [67] "Si quis deinceps episcopatum vel abbatiam de manu alicujus laicae
   personae susceperit, nullatenus inter Episcopos vel Abbates habeatur
   ...Si quis Imperatorum, Regum, Ducum, Marchionum, Comitum, vel quilibet
   saecularium potestatum aut personarum investituram episcopatus vel
   alicujus ecclesiasticae dignitatis dare praesumserit, ejusdem
   sententiae vinculo se adstrictum sciat." Pagi, Crit. ad ann. 1075, No.
   2; Watterich, I. 365; Hefele, V. 47; Reg., VI. 5.

   [68] "Descende, descende." Bruno, De bello Saxonico, in Pertz, VII. 352
   sq. There are several variations of the letter of Henry, but the tone
   of imperious defiance and violence is the same.

   [69] Bernried, Vita Greg., c. 68 sq. (in Migne, 148, p. 74); Jaffe,
   223;Mirbt, Quellen, 100; Hefele, V. 70 sqq.

   [70] The papal sentence against Henry made a profound impression upon
   Western Europe. Bonizo says, universus noster romanus orbis contemruit,
   postquam de banno regis ad aures personuit vulgi. See Mirbt, 139.

   [71] The excommunication of Henry in 1076 and again in 1080 called
   forth a controversial literature of some proportions, Mirbt,
   Publizistik, 134-239, as did Gregory's attitude towards simony and
   clerical celibacy. The anti-Gregorians took the ground that the
   excommunication was unjust and even called in question the pope's right
   to excommunicate a king. Gregory's letters make reference to these
   objections. Writing to Hermann of Metz, Reg., IV. 2, Gregory said that
   there were some who openly declared that a king should not be
   excommunicated, regem non oportet excommunicari. Gregory justified his
   act on the ground of the king's companionship with excommunicated
   persons, his refusal to offer repentance for crimes, and the rupture of
   the unity of the Church which resulted from the king's course, Reg.,
   IV. 1, etc. The Council of Tribur, Oct. 16, 1076, discussed the
   questions whether a pope might excommunicate a king and whether Gregory
   had acted justly in excommunicating Henry. It answered both questions
   in the affirmative. A hundred years after the event, Otto of Freising,
   Gesta Friderici, I., speaks of the sentence as unheard of before, quo
   numquam ante haec tempora hujusmodi sententiam in principem romanum
   promulgatam cognoverat.

   [72] Reg IV. 2; Migne, 148, 455.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 16. Canossa. 1077.

   The winter of 1076-1077 was one of the coldest and longest within the
   memory of men--the Rhine being frozen to a solid mass from November
   till April--and one of the most memorable in history--being marked by
   an event of typical significance. The humiliation of the head of the
   German Empire at the feet of the bishop of Rome at Canossa means the
   subjection of the State to the Church and the triumph of the
   Hildebrandian policy.

   A few days before Christmas, Henry IV. left Spires on a journey across
   the Alps as a penitent, seeking absolution from the pope. He was
   accompanied by his wife with her infant son Conrad (born August, 1071)
   and one faithful servant. Bertha, daughter of the margrave Odo of Turin
   and Adelheid of Susa, was betrothed to Henry in 1055 at Zuerich, and
   married to him, July 13, 1066. She was young, beautiful, virtuous, and
   amiable; but he preferred to live with mistresses; and three years
   after the marriage he sought a divorce, with the aid of the
   unprincipled archbishop Siegfried of Mainz. The pope very properly
   refused his consent. The king gave up his wicked intention, and became
   attached to Bertha. She was born to love and to suffer, and accompanied
   him as a comforting angel through the bitter calamities of his life.

   The royal couple passed through Burgundy and Susa under the protection
   of Count William and the mother of Bertha, and crossed Mont Cenis. The
   queen and her child were carried up and lowered down the icy slopes in
   rough sledges of oxhide; some horses were killed, but no human lives
   lost. When Henry reached the plains of Lombardy, he was received with
   joy by the anti-Hildebrandian party; but he hurried on to meet the
   successor of Peter, who alone could give him absolution.

   He left his wife and child at Reggio, and, accompanied by his
   mother-in-law and a few friends, he climbed up the steep hill to
   Canossa, where Gregory was then stopping on his journey to the Diet at
   Augsburg, waiting for a safe-conduct across the Alps.

   Canossa, now in ruins, was an impregnable fortress of the Countess
   Matilda, south of Reggio, on the northern slope of the Apennines,
   surrounded by three, walls, and including a castle, a chapel, and a
   convent. [73]

   The pope had already received a number of excommunicated bishops and
   noblemen, and given or promised them absolution after the case of the
   chief sinner against the majesty of St. Peter should be decided.

   Henry arrived at the foot of the castle-steep, Jan. 21, 1077, when the
   cold was severe and the ground covered with snow. He had an interview
   with Matilda and Hugo, abbot of Cluny, his godfather, and declared his
   willingness to submit to the pope if he was released from the
   interdict. But Gregory would only absolve him on condition that he
   would surrender to him his crown and forever resign the royal dignity.
   The king made the last step to secure the mercy of the pope: he assumed
   the severest penances which the Church requires from a sinner, as a
   sure way to absolution. For three days, from the 25th to the 28th of
   January, he stood in the court between the inner walls, as a penitent
   suppliant, with bare head and feet, in a coarse woolen shirt, shivering
   in the cold, and knocked in vain for entrance at the gateway, which
   still perpetuates in its name. "Porta di penitenza," the memory of this
   event. [74]

   The stern old pope, as hard as a rock and as cold as the snow, refused
   admittance, notwithstanding the earnest entreaties of Matilda and Hugo,
   till he was satisfied that the cup of humiliation was drained to the
   dregs, or that further resistance would be impolitic. He first exacted
   from Henry, as a condition of absolution, the promise to submit to his
   decision at the approaching meeting of the German nobles under the
   presidency of the pope as arbiter, and to grant him and his deputies
   protection on their journey to the north. In the meantime he was to
   abstain from exercising the functions of royalty. [75]

   The king made the promise, and two bishops and several nobles, in his
   behalf, swore upon sacred relics that he would keep it. Hugo, being a
   monk, could not swear, but pledged his word before the all-seeing God.
   Hugo, the bishops, nobles, and the Countess Matilda and Adelheid signed
   the written agreement, which still exists.

   After these preliminaries, the inner gate was opened. The king, in the
   prime of life, the heir of many crowned monarchs, and a man of tall and
   noble presence, threw himself at the feet of the gray-haired pope, a
   man of low origin and of small and unimpressive stature, who by his
   word had disarmed an empire. He burst into tears, and cried "Spare me,
   holy father, spare me!" The company were moved to tears; even the iron
   pope showed signs of tender compassion. He heard the confession of
   Henry, raised him up, gave him absolution and his apostolic blessing,
   conducted him to the chapel, and sealed the reconciliation by the
   celebration of the sacrifice of the mass.

   Some chroniclers add the following incident, which has often been
   repeated, but is very improbable. Gregory, before partaking of the
   sacrament, called upon God to strike him dead if he were guilty of the
   crimes charged on him, and, after eating one-half of the consecrated
   wafer unharmed, he offered the other half to Henry, requesting him to
   submit to the same awful ordeal; but the king declined it, and referred
   the whole question to the decision of a general council. [76]

   After mass, the pope entertained the king courteously at dinner and
   dismissed him with some fatherly warnings and counsels, and with his
   renewed apostolic blessing.

   Henry gained his object, but at the sacrifice of his royal dignity. He
   confessed by his act of humiliation that the pope had a right to depose
   a king and heir of the imperial crown, and to absolve subjects from the
   oath of allegiance. The head of the State acknowledged the temporal
   supremacy of the Church. Canossa marks the deepest humiliation of the
   State and the highest exaltation of the Church,--we mean the political
   papal Church of Rome, not the spiritual Church of Christ, who wore a
   crown of thorns in this world and who prayed on the cross for his
   murderers.

   Gregory acted on the occasion in the sole interest of the hierarchy.
   His own friends, as we learn from his official account to the Germans,
   deemed his conduct to be "tyrannical cruelty, rather than apostolic
   severity." He saw in Henry the embodiment of the secular power in
   opposition to the ecclesiastical power, and he achieved a signal
   triumph, but only for a short time. He overshot his mark, and was at
   last expelled from Rome by the very man against whom he had closed the
   gate.

   His relation to Matilda was political and ecclesiastical. The charge of
   his enemies that he entertained carnal intimacy with her is monstrous
   and incredible, considering his advanced age and unrelenting war
   against priestly concubinage. [77] ern Italy, and afforded to the pope
   the best protection against a possible invasion of a Northern army. She
   was devoted to Hildebrand as the visible head of the Church, and felt
   proud and happy to aid him. In 1077 she made a reversionary grant of
   her dominions to the patrimony of Peter, and thus increased the fatal
   gift of Constantine, from which Dante derives the evils of the Church.
   She continued the war with Henry, and aided Conrad and Henry V. in the
   rebellion against their father. In the political interest of the papacy
   she contracted, in her fifty-fifth year, a second marriage with Guelph,
   a youth of eighteen, the son of the Duke of Bavaria, the most powerful
   enemy of Henry IV. (1089); but the marriage, it seems, was never
   consummated, and was dissolved a few years afterwards (1095). She died,
   1115. It is supposed by many that Dante's Matilda, who carried him over
   the river Lethe to Beatrice, is the famous countess; [78] eror.

   Canossa has become a proverbial name for the triumph of priestcraft
   over kingcraft. [79] he State of Prussia and the Vatican from 1870 to
   1887. At the beginning of the conflict, Prince Bismarck declared in the
   Prussian Chambers that "he would never go to Canossa"; but ten years
   afterwards he, found it politic to move in that direction, and to make
   a compromise with Leo XIII., who proved his equal as a master of
   diplomacy. The anti-papal May-laws were repealed, one by one, till
   nothing is left of them except the technical Anzeigepflicht, a modern
   term for investiture. The Roman Church gained new strength in Prussia
   and Germany from legal persecution, and enjoys now more freedom and
   independence than ever, and much more than the Protestant Church, which
   has innocently suffered from the operation of the May-laws.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [73] The castle was destroyed by the inhabitants of Reggio in 1255. The
   site affords a magnificent view of the Apennines towards the south, and
   of the plain of the Po towards the north, and the cities of Parma,
   Reggio, and Modena. An excursion from Reggio to Canossa and back can be
   made in eight hours. For Gregory's own account of the meeting, see
   Reg., IV. 2, in Migne, 148, 465, and Mirbt, Quellen, 101. See also
   Hauck, III. 792 sqq.

   [74] "Illic," says Berthold (Monum. Germ. SS., V. 289)."laneis indutus,
   nudis pedibus, frigorosus, usque in diem tertium foris extra castellum
   cum suis hospitabatur." During the night the king was under shelter.
   See Hefele, V. 94 sq.

   [75] The last point is omitted by Berthold, but expressly mentioned by
   Lambert of Hersfeld, and confirmed by Gregory, who says in his account
   of the Canossa event to the German prelates and princes, that he
   received Henry only into the communion of the Church, without
   reinstating him in his reign (losum ei communionem redidi, non tamen in
   regno ... instauravi), and without binding the faithful to their oath
   of allegiance, reserving this to future decision. Jaffe, p. 402;
   Hefele, V. 96. The same view he expresses in the sentence of the second
   excommunication. In view of these facts it is strange that Giesebrecht
   (III. 403) should discredit the report of Lambert, and hold that Henry
   regained with the absolution also the royal prerogatives.

   [76] This story, first told by Lambert of Hersfeld, who in the main
   sided with Gregory against Henry, is discredited by Giesebrecht, III.
   401; Ranke, VII. 284; Mirbt, 194-199; and the Catholic historians,
   Doellinger and Hefele(V. 98), reject it as a fable. The pope had no
   need to protest his innocence, and had referred the charges against the
   king to a German tribunal; the king had previously promised him to
   appear before this tribunal; his present purpose was simply to get rid
   of the interdict, so as to be free to act. By declining the ordeal he
   would have confessed his guilt and justified the pope, and superseded
   the action of the German tribunal. On the historical value of Lambert's
   Annales, see Giesebrecht, III. 1030-1032, and Wattenbach, Deutschlands,
   Geschichtsquellen, II. 87 sqq. Gregorovius repeats the story as
   authentic.

   [77] Lambert refutes this slander (M. G., V. 257), and the best modern
   historians. Protestant as well as Catholic, reject it. See Neander,
   Ranke. (VII. 280), and Hefele (V. 67 sq.). Ranke says: "Solche
   Verhaeltnisse giebt es ja zwischen Individuen beiderlei Geschlechtes,
   die sich nur auf geistigem Boden entwickeln, in welchen ohne sinnliche
   Annaeherung die tiefste innere Vereinigung der Gesinnungen und
   Ueberzeugungen besteht. Die Markgraefin glaubte an die Wahrhaftigkeit
   und den geistigen Beruf des Papstes, und der Papst andererseits
   bedurfte ihrer Huelfe."

   [78] Purg., XXVIII. 40, XXXII. 92; XXXII. 28, 82, XXXIII. 119, 121.

   [79] Mirbt,Publizistik, 181-200, seeks to make out that Henry's act at
   Canossa was regarded by his age as an act of humility and not of
   humiliation. The contemporary writers speak of it as an act of unheard
   of and wonderful humility, "mira inaudita humilitas, officium
   humilitatis." In view of the profound reverence for the Church which
   prevailed it may be taken as certain that the people looked upon it as
   an act of humble piety. But for Henry it was a different thing. As
   Mirbt agrees, the king was not moved by deep religious concern but by a
   desire to hold on to his crown. For him Canossa was a humiliation and
   before the bar of historic judgment the act wherein the State
   prostrated itself at the feet of the pope must be regarded as a
   humiliation. For other instances of princely submission to the pope,
   see Mirbt, p. 198, note.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 17. Renewal of the Conflict. Two Kings and Two Popes.

   The result of Canossa was civil war in Germany and Italy king against
   king, pope against pope, nobles against nobles, bishops against
   bishops, father against son, and son against father. It lasted several
   years. Gregory and Henry died in exile. Gregory was defeated by Henry,
   Henry by his own rebellious son. The long wars of the Guelphs and the
   Ghibellines originated in that period. The Duke Guelph IV. of Bavaria
   was present at Forchheim when Henry was deposed, and took up arms
   against him. The popes sided with the Guelphs against the Hohenstaufen
   emperors and the Ghibellines.

   The friends and supporters of Henry in Lombardy and Germany were
   dissatisfied, and regarded his humiliation as an act of cowardice, and
   the pope's conduct as an insult to the German nation and the royal
   crown. His enemies, a small number of Saxon and Swabian nobles and
   bishops, assembled at Forchheim, March 13, 1077, and, in the presence
   of two legates of the pope, but without his express authority, offered
   the crown of Germany to Rudolf, Duke of Swabia, Henry's brother-in-law,
   but on two important conditions (which may be traced to the influence
   of the pope's legates), namely, that he should denounce a hereditary
   claim to the throne, and guarantee the freedom of ecclesiastical
   appointments. He was crowned March 26, at Mainz, by Archbishop
   Siegfried, but under bad omens: the consecrated oil rail short, the
   Gospel was read by a simoniacal deacon, the citizens raised a tumult,
   and Rudolf had to make his escape by night with Siegfried, who never
   returned. He found little support in Southern Germany, and went to
   Henry's enemies in Saxony.

   Henry demanded from the pope the ban over the robber of his crown, but
   in vain. He refused him the promised safe-conduct to Germany, acted as
   king, crossed the Alps, and defeated Rudolf in a battle at Melrichstadt
   in Franconia, Aug. 7, 1078, but was defeated by him near Muehlheim in
   Thuringia, Jan. 27, 1080, in a decisive battle, which Rudolf regarded
   as a divine decision, and which inclined the pope in his favor.

   After long hesitation, Gregory, in a Synod of Rome, March 7, 1080,
   ventured upon the most extraordinary act even for a man in the highest
   position. Invoking the aid of St. Peter and St. Paul, he fulminated a
   second and severer ban against Henry and all his adherents, deprived
   him again of his kingdoms of Germany and Italy, forbade all the
   faithful to obey him, and bestowed the crown of Germany (not of Italy)
   on Rudolf. The address was at once a prayer, a narrative, and a
   judgment, and combined cool reflection with religious fervor. It rests
   on the conviction that the pope, as the representative of Peter and
   Paul, was clothed with supreme authority over the world as well as the
   Church. [80]

   Gregory hazarded a prophecy, which was falsified by history, that
   before the day of St. Peter and St. Paul (June 29), Henry would either
   lose his life or his throne. After the close of the synod, he sent to
   Rudolf (instead of the iron crown of Charlemagne, which was in
   possession of Henry) a diadem with the characteristic inscription: --


   "Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolpho." [81]

   A reconciliation was now impossible. Henry replied to the papal ban by
   the election of an anti-pope. A council of about thirty German and
   Italian bishops met at Brixen in the Tyrol, June 26, 1080, and deposed
   Gregory on the frivolous charges of ambition, avarice, simony, sorcery,
   and the Berengarian heresy. Cardinal Hugo Candidus and twenty-seven
   bishops (of Brixen, Bamberg, Coire, Freisingen, Lausanne, etc.) signed
   the document. At the same time they elected the excommunicated
   Archbishop Wibert of Ravenna pope, under the name of Clement III. He
   was a man of talent, dignity, and unblemished character, but fell into
   the hands of simonists and the enemies of reform. Henry acknowledged
   him by the usual genuflexion, and promised to visit Rome in the
   following spring, that he might receive from him the imperial crown.
   Wibert returned to Ravenna with the papal insignia and great pomp.

   This was the beginning of a double civil war between rival popes and
   rival kings, with all its horrors. Gregory counted on the Saxons in
   Germany, Countess Matilda in Northern Italy, and the Normans in
   Southern Italy.

   Henry was defeated Oct. 15, 1080, on the banks of the Elster, near
   Naumburg; but Rudolf was mortally wounded by Godfrey of Bouillon, the
   hero of Jerusalem, [82] same evening, exclaiming, as the story goes:
   "This is the hand with which I swore fidelity to my lord, King Henry."
   But, according to another report, he said, when he heard of the victory
   of his troops: "Now I suffer willingly what the Lord has decreed for
   me." His body with the severed hand was deposited in the cathedral at
   Merseburg. [83]

   Rudolf's death turned his victory into a defeat. It was regarded in
   that age as a judgment of God against him and the anti-pope. His
   friends could not agree upon a successor till the following summer,
   when they elected Count Hermann of Luxemburg, who proved incompetent.
   In the spring of 1081 Henry crossed the Alps with a small army to
   depose Gregory, whose absolution he had sought a few years before as a
   penitent at Canossa. He was welcomed in Lombardy, defeated the troops
   of Matilda, and appeared at the gates of Rome before Pentecost, May 21.
   Gregory, surrounded by danger, stood firm as a rock and refused every
   compromise. At his last Lenten synod (end of February, 1081) he had
   renewed his anathemas, and suspended those bishops who disobeyed the
   summons. Nothing else is known of this synod but sentences of
   punishment. In his letter of March 15, 1081, to Hermann, bishop of
   Metz, he justified his conduct towards Henry, and on April 8 he warned
   the Venetians against any communication with him and his adherents. "I
   am not afraid," he said, "of the threats of the wicked, and would
   rather sacrifice my life than consent to evil."

   Henry, not being permitted by the Romans to enter their city, as he had
   hoped, and not being prepared for a siege, spent the summer in Upper
   Italy, but returned to Rome in Lent, 1082, and again with a larger
   force at Easter, 1083, and conquered the city and the Church of St.
   Peter in June. Gregory was intrenched in the Castle of St. Angelo, and
   fulminated anew his anathema upon Henry and his followers (June 24).
   Henry answered by causing Wibert to be enthroned in St. Peter's (June
   28), but soon left Rome with Wibert (July 1), promising to return. He
   had probably come to a secret understanding with the Roman nobility to
   effect a peaceful compromise with Gregory; but the pope was inexorable.
   In the spring of 1084 Henry returned and called a synod, which deposed
   and excommunicated Gregory. Wibert was consecrated on Palm Sunday as
   Pope Clement III., in the Lateran, by two excommunicated bishops of
   Modena and Arezzo (instead of the bishops of Ostia, Albano, and Porto).
   Henry and his wife, Bertha, received from him the imperial crown in St.
   Peter's at Easter, March 31, 1084. He left Rome with Wibert (May 21),
   leaving the defense of the city in the hands of the Romans. He never
   returned.

   In the meantime Gregory called to his aid the Norman chief, Robert
   Guiscard, or Wiscard. This bold adventurer approached from the south
   with a motley force of Normans, Lombards, Apulians, and Saracens,
   amounting to thirty thousand foot and six thousand horse, arrived in
   Rome, May 27, 1084, liberated the pope, and entered with him the
   Lateran. He now began such a pillage and slaughter as even the
   barbarians had not committed. Half the city was reduced to ruins; many
   churches were demolished, others turned into forts; women and maidens,
   even nuns, were outraged, and several thousand citizens sold into
   slavery. The survivors cursed the pope and his deliverer. In the words
   of a contemporary, the cruelty of the Normans gained more hearts for
   the emperor than a hundred thousand pieces of gold. Rome was a ghost of
   her former self. When Hildebert of Tours visited her more than ten
   years later, he saw only ruins of her greatness. [84]

   Many confused reports were circulated about the fate of Gregory VII.
   His faithful friend, the Countess of Tuscany, assembled troops, sent
   emissaries in all directions, and stirred up distrust and hatred
   against Henry in Germany. The following letter remains as evidence of
   her zeal for Gregory: --

   "Matilda, such as she is by the grace of God, if she be anything, to
   all the faithful residing in the Teutonic kingdom, greeting.

   "We would have you know that Henry, the false king, has stolen the seal
   of the Lord Pope Gregory. Wherefore, if ye are told anything contrary
   to the words of our envoys, hold it false, and believe not Henry's
   lies. Further, he has carried away with him the Bishop of Porto,
   because that man was once familiar with the Lord Pope. If by his help
   he should attempt anything with you or against you, be sure this bishop
   is a false witness, and give no credit to those who shall tell you to
   the contrary. Know that the Lord Pope has already conquered Sutri and
   Nepi; Barabbas the robber, that is to say, Henry's pope, has fled like
   himself. Farewell. Beware of the snares of Henry."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [80] See the extract in S:11, p. 32, and Latin text of the address in
   Mansi, Harduin, Jaffe, and Shailer Mathews, 51-54.

   [81] The Rock gave the crown to Peter and Peter gives it to Rudolf.

   [82] This fact is reported by Albericus of Trois-Fontaines, but doubted
   by Sybel (Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzugs, p. 218) and Hefele (V. 150,
   note).

   [83] For a good description of the battle, see Giesebrecht, III. 516
   sqq.

   [84] Hildebert's poem, lamenting the ruins of Rome, is found in Migne,
   171, 1441 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 18. Death of Gregory VII.

   Gregory was again in possession of the Lateran, but he left the scene
   of melancholy desolation, accompanied by Guiscard and a few cardinals
   and Roman nobles. He went first to Monte Cassino and then to Salerno.
   The descent from Canossa to Salerno was truly a via dolorosa. But the
   old pope, broken in body, was unbroken in spirit.

   He renewed the ban against Henry and the anti-pope at the close of
   1084, and sent a letter to the faithful in Germany, stating that the
   words of the Psalmist, Quare fremuerunt gentes (Ps. 2:1, 2), were
   fulfilled, that the kings of the earth have rebelled against Christ and
   his apostle Peter to destroy the Christian religion, but could not
   seduce those who trusted in God. He called upon them to come to the
   rescue of the Church if they wished to gain the remission of sins and
   eternal salvation. This is his last written document.

   His mind remained clear and firm to the end. He recommended Cardinal
   Desiderius of Monte Cassino (Victor III.) as his successor, and next to
   him Otto, bishop of Ostia (Urban II.). He absolved all his enemies,
   except Henry and Wibert. "the usurper of the apostolic see." [85] d,
   May 25, 1085, with the words which best express the meaning of his
   public life and character: "I have loved righteousness and hated
   iniquity; therefore I die in exile." [86] Christ and his Apostles, hast
   received all the nations for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts
   of the earth for thy possession" (Ps. 2:8).

   Robert Guiscard, his protector, died a few weeks afterwards (July 17,
   1085).

   The body of Gregory, clad in the pontifical vestments, was buried in
   the church of St. Matthew at Salerno, which he had consecrated shortly
   before. A plain stone marked his grave till John of Procida--although a
   zealous Ghibelline--erected a sumptuous chapel over it. [87] mperor of
   Germany, the king of France, and other sovereigns opposed the
   celebration; but if ever a pope deserved canonization for devotion to
   the papal theocracy, it was Hildebrand. The eighth centenary of his
   death was celebrated in the Roman Church, May 25, 1885.

   Gregory was, in his own time, and has been since, the subject both of
   the highest praise and of the severest censure. Modern historians agree
   in giving him credit for the honesty and courage of his convictions,
   and concede the purity and loftiness of his motives and aims. He is the
   typical representative of papal absolutism in the Middle Ages in
   conflict with imperial absolutism. He combined personal integrity,
   consummate statesmanship, and monastic contempt of the world. He lived
   and moved in the idea of the Old Testament theocracy, and had no
   conception of the free spirit of the gospel. He was a man of blood and
   iron, an austere monk, inaccessible to feelings of tenderness, when
   acting in his official capacity as the head of the Roman hierarchy; yet
   he showed singular liberality in his treatment of Berengar, and
   protested against the use of torture. His piety was absorbed in
   devotion to the hierarchy, to St. Peter, and to the Virgin Mary. He was
   unscrupulous in the choice of means for his end, and approved of civil
   war for the triumph of the Roman Church.

   The lofty principles he espoused he was willing to stake his life upon.
   No pope has ever used the term "righteousness" more frequently than he
   used it. No pope has ever employed the figure of warfare to describe
   the conflict he was engaged in more frequently than he employed it.
   [88] gain and again, such as 1 Sam. 15:23, which is found quoted in his
   writings nineteen times. [89] Matt. 16: 18 the certain warrant for the
   papal supremacy and excepted no person from the jurisdiction of Peter's
   successors. [90] is views, we may admire the man of fearless courage
   and moral conviction.

   His spirit still moves in the curia, which adheres to the theocratic
   theory, without the ability of carrying it into practice. The papal
   Syllabus of 1864 denies that "the Roman pontiffs have exceeded the
   limits of their power" (S: V. 23), and asserts the superiority of the
   Church over the State "in litigated questions of jurisdiction" (S: VI.
   54). The politico-ecclesiastical encyclicals of Leo XIII. (Immortale
   Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, and Libertas praestantissimum naturae donum, June
   20, 1888) reasserted substantially, though moderately and cautiously,
   the Gregorian theory of Church and State.

   Ranke, in his last years, wrote of Gregory: [91] e the clergical order
   the basis of all human existence. This makes intelligible its two
   characteristic and fundamental principles, the command of celibacy and
   the prohibition of lay investiture. By the first it was intended to
   build up out of the lower clergy a body isolated from all the personal
   and family relationships of human society. By the second it was
   intended to insure the higher clergy against all interference from the
   civil power. The great hierarch thought out well the platform on which
   he placed himself. He met a demand of the age to see in the priest, as
   it were, a being belonging to a higher order. All that he says betrays
   dignity, force, and logical connection .... His activity, which left
   nothing untouched, was of a very human sort, while at the same time it
   embraced religious ideals. The hierarchical principle constituted his
   real life."

   Gregorovius, who carries on a sustained comparison between Gregory and
   Napoleon, praises Gregory's genius and moral vigor. He says: [92] of
   the ancient aims of the papacy. But his unexampled genius as ruler and
   statesman is his own, and no one either in ancient Rome or in modern
   times has ever reached to his revolutionary daring .... His dying words
   reveal the fundamental basis of his character, which was great and
   manly. To this grand spirit, a character almost without an equal,
   belongs a place among the rulers of the earth, men who have moved the
   world by a violent yet salutary influence. The religious element,
   however, raises him to a far higher sphere than that to which secular
   monarchs belong. Beside Gregory, Napoleon sinks to an utter poverty of
   ideas."

   Let us hope that Gregory felt in his heart some of that Christian love
   and meekness whose commendation closes one of his letters to Hermann,
   archbishop of Metz, [93] ve God and our neighbor as we ought, this
   presupposes the mercy of him who said, Learn of me, for I am meek and
   lowly of heart. Whosoever humbly follows him shall pass from the
   kingdom of submission which passes away, to the kingdom of true liberty
   which abides forever."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [85] "Praeter Henricum regem dictum omnes absolvo et benedico,
   quicumque me hanc habere specialem potestatem in vocem apostolorum
   Petri et Pauli credunt indubitanter." Paulus Bernriedensis, Vita Greg.,
   c. 12; Baronius, Ann. XVII. 566.

   [86] "Dilexi justitiam et odi iniquitatem; propterea morior in exilio."
   The first two sentences are from Ps. 46:8; the last is put instead of
   "propterea unxit te Deus." His enemies spread the false report that he
   repented of the controversy which he had excited. Mon. Germ. Script.,
   VIII. 470; Baxmann, II. 424 sqq.

   [87] His monument, erected in 1578 in the cathedral of Salerno, bears
   the Inscription: "Gregorius VII. Soanensis, P.O. M., Ecclesiae
   libertatis vindex acerrimus, assertor constantissimus, qui dum Romani
   Pontificis auctoritatem adversus Henrici perfidiam strenue tueretur,
   Salernae sancte decubuit. Anno Domini 1085, oct. Cal. Jun." Hefele, V.
   184; Gregorovius, Die Grabmaeler der Paepste, p. 49; Giesebrecht, III.
   578. Rome, which has so many papal monuments, has none for Gregory
   VII., except an inscription on a stone In S. Prudentiana, where he is
   called "Vir benedictus, moribus ecclesiam renovavit." See Gregorovius,
   IV. 246.

   [88] Hauck, III. 754 sqq.

   [89] In a single letter to Hermann of Metz, Reg., IV. 2, Gregory quotes
   at least nine passages of Scripture.

   [90] Ubi Deus Petro principaliter dedit potestatem ligandi et solvendi
   in terra et in caelo, nullum excepit, nihil ab ejus potestate
   subtraxit. Reg., IV. 2; Migne, 148, 456.

   [91] Weltgesch. VII. 34 sqq.

   [92] Hist. of City of Rome, IV. 256. Of Canossa this author had said,
   IV. 207: "The weaponless victory of the monk Gregory has more claim on
   the admiration of the world than all the victories of an Alexander, a
   Caesar, and a Napoleon." Like other Protestant German historians he has
   no sympathy with Gregory's papal scheme of papal absolutism, but most
   of the German Church historians, as Mirbt and Hauck, are inclined to
   magnify the courage and manly vigor of Henry, as well as the justice of
   his cause, and to underestimate or question the moral quality of
   Gregory in his conflict with the emperor, and the immediate results of
   the event at Canossa. Hauck, III. 805, omits a detailed description of
   that remarkable scene with the remark that it was so well known to
   Germans as not to need retelling. He pronounces the estimate usually
   put upon Gregory's intellectual gifts as too high, and declares that
   the title "Great" is properly associated with the name of the first
   Gregory and not with the seventh pope of that name. Hildebrand had
   convictions enough, but lacked in native force, p. 832 sq.

   [93] Dated March 15, 1081, Reg., VIII. 21; Mirbt, Quellen, 105-112;
   Migne, 148, 594-604.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER III.

   THE PAPACY FROM THE DEATH OF GREGORY VII. TO THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS.
   A.D. 1085-1122.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 19. Victor III. and Urban II. 1086-1099.

   Compare the chapter on the Crusades.

   At the death of Gregory, his imperial enemy was victorious in Germany,
   and had recovered part of Saxony; Lombardy remained loyal to the
   empire; Matilda was prostrated by grief and sickness; the anti-pope
   Wibert (Clement III., 1080-1100) continued to occupy a part of Rome
   (the Lateran palace and the castle of St. Angelo); Roger, the new duke
   of the Normans, spent his whole force in securing for himself the sole
   rule over Calabria and Apulia against his brother Bohemund. There was a
   papal interregnum of twelve months.

   At last the excellent Abbot Desiderius of Monte Cassino, who had raised
   that convent to the height of its prosperity, was elected to succeed
   his friend Gregory, May 24, 1086. He accepted after long delay, but
   ruled only eighteen months as Victor III. He loved monastic solitude,
   and died Sept. 16, 1087.

   He was followed by Otto (Odo), cardinal-bishop of Ostia, a Frenchman,
   formerly prior of Cluny, and one of the intimate counsellors of
   Hildebrand. He assumed the name Urban II., and ruled from March 12,
   1088, to July 29, 1099. He followed in the steps of Gregory, but with
   more caution and adaptation to circumstances. He spent his pontificate
   mostly outside of Rome, but with increasing moral influence. He
   identified himself with the rising enthusiasm for the holy war of the
   Cross against the Crescent. This was an immense gain for the papacy,
   which reaped all the credit and benefit of that extraordinary movement.

   He took a noble stand in favor of the sanctity of marriage against the
   licentious King Philip I. of France, who cast away his legitimate wife,
   Bertha, 1092, and held adulterous intercourse with Bertrada of
   Montfort, the runaway wife of the rude Count Fulco of Anjou. This
   public scandal led to several synods. The king was excommunicated by a
   synod at Autun in Burgundy, Oct. 16, 1094, and by the Synod of Clermont
   in 1095. He afterwards dismissed Bertrada, and was absolved by the
   pope.

   Urban continued the war with Henry IV. without scruple as to the means.
   He encouraged the rebellion of his eldest son, Conrad, a weak and
   amiable man, who fled for protection to the Countess Matilda, was
   crowned king of Italy at Monza, and paid the pope the homage of holding
   his stirrup (the officium stratoris) at Cremona (1095). Urban, who had
   been consecrated pope outside of Rome, was able, 1088, with the aid of
   the Normans, to enter the city and possess himself of all its parts
   except the castle of St. Angelo, which remained in the hands of the
   followers of Wibert. Wibert had been in possession of St. Peter's,
   which he held as a fortress against Victor III. The streets of the
   papal city resounded with the war-cries of the two papal armies, while
   pope and anti-pope anathematized one another. Urban died at Florence in
   1101.

   The pope arranged an unnatural matrimonial alliance between the widowed
   countess and the young Guelph of Bavaria, whose father was the most
   powerful of the emperor's enemies in Germany. It was a purely political
   match, which made neither party happy, and ended in a divorce (1095).
   But it gave the papal party a political organization, and opened the
   long-continued war between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, which
   distracted every city in Italy, and is said to have caused seventy-two
   hundred revolutions and more than seven hundred atrocious murders in
   that country. [94] rn to an inheritance of hatred and revenge, and
   could not help sharing in the conflict of factions headed by petty
   tyrants. The Guelphs defended the pope against the emperor, and also
   the democracy against the aristocracy in the city government. They were
   strong in pulling down, but were unable to create a new State. The
   Ghibellines maintained the divine origin and independent authority of
   the State in all things temporal against the encroachments of the
   papacy. The party strife continued in Italy long after the German
   emperor had lost his power. Dante was at first a Guelph, but in mature
   life joined the Ghibellines and became the most formidable opponent of
   Pope Boniface VIII.

   Urban was able to hold a synod at Piacenza in Lombardy, where Henry IV.
   had his chief support, during Lent, 1095. It was attended by four
   thousand priests and monks and over thirty thousand laymen, and the
   meeting had to be held in the open field. The pope permitted Praxedis
   (Adelheid), the second wife of Henry IV., to recite the filthy details
   of acts of impurity to which she had been subjected by her husband,
   endorsed her shameless story, absolved her from all uncleanness, and
   remitted every penitential observance, "because she had not blushed to
   make a public and voluntary confession of her involuntary
   transgression." [95] e true and essential presence of the body and
   blood of Christ in the eucharist was asserted against the heresy of
   Berengar.

   More important was the Synod of Clermont in France, Nov. 18-28, 1095,
   which inaugurated the first crusade. Here Urban preached the most
   effective sermon on record, and reached the height of his influence.

   He passed in triumphal procession, surrounded by princes and prelates,
   through France and Italy. He exhorted the people everywhere to repent
   of their sins and to prove the sincerity of their conversion by killing
   as many enemies of the cross as they could reach with their swords.
   When he reached Rome the anti-pope had been driven away by the
   Crusaders. He was enabled to celebrate the Christmas festival of 1096
   with unusual magnificence, and held two synods in the Lateran, January,
   1097, and April, 1099. He died, July 29, 1099, a fortnight after the
   capture of Jerusalem (July 15) by the Crusaders.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [94] Guelfi, Welfen, from Welf, Wolf, a family name of the dukes of
   Bavaria. Ghibellini, Ghibellinen, from Waiblingen, the patrimonial
   castle of Conrad of Hohenstaufen in Swabia. Comp. Ferrari, Histoire des
   revolutions d'Italie, ou Guelfes et Ghibellins, Paris, 1858, 4 vols.
   From the Guelphs descended the house of Brunswick and Hanover, and the
   royal family of England since George I., 1714.

   [95] Praxedis or Eupraxia, or (as the Germans called her) Adelheid was
   a Russian princess, who married Henry in 1089, two years after Bertha's
   death. She had preferred the same horrible charges before a synod at
   Constance in 1094. See Pertz, Tom. VII. 458, XVII. 14;
   Hefele-Knoepfler, V. 211 sq. and 216; Greenwood, IV. 561.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 20. Pascal II. and Henry V. 1099-1118.

   The letters of Paschalis II. in Migne, 163.--W. Schum: Die Politik
   Papst Paschalis II. gegen Kaiser Heinrich V. Erfurt, 1877. --- G.
   Peiser: Der deutsche Investiturstreit unter Heinrich V. bis 1111.
   Berlin, 1883.--Gregorovius Iv., Hauck Iii., Pflugk-Harttung: Die Bullen
   der Paepste. Gotha, 1901, pp. 234-263.--Mirbt, art. Paschalis II in
   Herzog, XIV. 717-725, and the literature there given.

   Pascal II., a monk of Cluny and disciple of Hildebrand, but less firm
   and consistent, was elected in July, 1099, and reigned till 1118.
   Clement III., the anti-pope, died in September, 1100, weary of the
   world, and left a reputation of integrity, gentleness, and dignity. The
   imperialist clergy of Rome elected another anti-pope, Sylvester IV.,
   who soon disappeared noiselessly from the stage.

   Pascal gained a complete victory over Henry IV. by supporting the
   wicked rebellion of his second son, Henry V., the last of the Salic or
   Franconian line of emperors, 1104-1126.

   The unfortunate father died under the anathema in misery at Liege
   (Luettich), Aug. 7, 1106. The people of the city which had remained
   faithful to him, lamented his death; but the papal agents commanded the
   bishop of Liege to remove his body from consecrated ground to an island
   in the Maas. Henry V. had not lost all feeling for his father, and
   complied with his dying request for burial in the imperial sepulchre at
   Spires. The clergy and the citizens accompanied the funeral procession
   to the cathedral of St. Mary, which the departed sovereign had himself
   built and richly endowed. He was buried with all honors. But when
   Bishop Gebhard, one of his fiercest persecutors, who was absent at the
   time, heard of it, he caused the body to be forthwith exhumed and
   removed, and interdicted all services in the church till it should be
   purified of all pollution. The people, however, could not be deterred
   from frequent visits to the unconsecrated chapel where the dishonored
   remains of their monarch and patron were deposited. At last the pope
   dissolved the ban, on the assurance of Henry V. that his father had
   professed sincere repentance, and his body was again deposited in the
   cathedral, Aug. 7, 1111. By his moral defects and his humiliation at
   Canossa, Henry IV. had promoted the power of the papal hierarchy, and
   yet, by his continued opposition after that act, he had prevented its
   complete triumph. Soon after his death an anonymous writer gave
   eloquent and touching expression to his grief over the imperial lord
   whom he calls his hope and comfort, the pride of Rome, the ornament of
   the empire, the lamp of the world, a benefactor of widows and orphans,
   and a father of the poor. [96]

   Pascal had to suffer for his unscrupulous policy. When Henry V. came
   into full possession of his power, he demanded the right of investiture
   over all the churches of the empire, and coronation at Rome. The pope
   was imprisoned and so hard pressed by Henry, that he resolved to buy
   the spiritual freedom of the Church by a sacrifice of its temporal
   possessions (except the patrimony of Peter). A compact to this effect
   between him and the emperor was signed provisionally, April, 1111.
   Henry was crowned emperor of the Romans in St. Peter's. But after his
   return to Germany, a Lateran synod rejected the compact, March, 1112.
   The pope represented to the synod that, while in the custody of the
   emperor, with many bishops and cardinals, he had conceded to him the
   right of investiture to avoid greater evils, and had promised him
   immunity from excommunication. He confessed that the concession was
   wrong, and left it with the synod to improve the situation. He made in
   the sixth session (March 23) a solemn profession of the Catholic faith
   in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, the Canons of the
   Apostles, the four Oecumenical Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople,
   Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the decrees of Gregory VII. and Urban II.
   against lay-investiture and all other crimes which they had condemned.
   Then the synod, while the pope kept silent, resolved to annul the
   treaty which he had been forced to make with King Henry. All exclaimed,
   "Amen, Amen, fiat, fiat." Twelve archbishops, a hundred and fourteen
   bishops, fifteen cardinal-priests, and eight cardinal-deacons signed
   the decree.

   The zealous Gregorians wished to go further and to declare
   lay-investiture a heresy (which would imply that Pope Pascal was a
   heretic). A French Synod of Vienne, Sept. 16, 1112, passed three
   decrees: 1) Investiture by a layman is a heresy; 2) the enforced
   compact of Pascal with Henry is null and void; 3) King Henry, who came
   to Rome under the pretext of peace, and betrayed the pope with a
   Judas-kiss, is cut off from holy Church until he gives complete
   satisfaction. The decisions were submitted to the pope, who approved
   them, October 20 of the same year, to avert a schism. Other provincial
   synods of France, held by papal legates, launched anathemas against the
   "tyrant of Germany."

   But Henry defied the pope, who had pledged himself never to
   excommunicate him on account of investiture. After the death of
   Countess Matilda, July 24, 1115, he hastened for a third time to Italy,
   and violently seized the rich possessions which she had bequeathed to
   the chair of St. Peter. Pascal fled to Benevento, and called the
   Normans to his aid, as Gregory VII. had done. Henry celebrated the
   Easter festival of 1117 in Rome with great pomp, caused the empress to
   be crowned, showed himself to the people in his imperial purple, and
   amused them with shows and processions; but in the summer he returned
   to Germany, after fruitless negotiations with the pope. He lived to
   conclude the Concordat of Worms. He was an energetic, but hard,
   despotic, and unpopular ruler.

   Pascal died, Jan. 21, 1118, in the castle of St. Angelo, and was buried
   in the church of St. John in Lateran. He barely escaped the charge of
   heresy and schism. He privately condemned, and yet officially
   supported, lay-investiture, and strove to satisfy both his own
   conscience and his official duty to the papacy. The extreme party
   charged him with the sin of Peter, and exhorted him to repent; milder
   judges, like Ivo of Chartres and Hildebert of Le Mans, while defending
   the Hildebrandian principle of the freedom of the Church, excused him
   on the ground that he had yielded for a moment in the hope of better
   times and from the praiseworthy desire to save the imprisoned cardinals
   and to avoid bloodshed; and they referred to the example of Paul, who
   circumcised Timothy, and complied with the wish of James in Jerusalem
   to please the Jewish Christians.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [96] The tract is more eloquent than accurate. It is ascribed by
   Goldast, Floto, and Gieseler to Bishop Otbert of Luettich (Liege); by
   Dr. Jaffe, to an unknown writer in Mainz (see the preface to his German
   translation, Das Leben Kaiser Heinrich des Vierten, Berlin, 1858); by
   Druffel and Giesebrecht, to Bishop Erlung of Wuerzburg, who was
   chancellor of the emperor from 1103 to 1105. For a good
   characterization of Henry IV. see Giesebrecht, III. 764-768, and on
   this biography, pp. 1050 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 21. The Concordat of Worms. 1122.

   Ekkehardus Uraugiensis: Chronica (best ed. by Waiz in Mon. Germ.
   Script., VI. 260).--Ul. Robert: Etude sur les actes du pape Calixte II.
   Paris, 1874.--E. Bernheim: Zur Geschichte des Wormser Concordats.
   Goettingen, 1878.--M. Maurer: Papst Calixt II. Muenchen,
   1886.--Giesebrecht, III. 931-959.--Ranke, VIII.
   111-126.--Hefele-Knoepfler, V. 311-384; Bullaire et histoire de Calixte
   II. Paris, 1891.--D. Schafer: Zur Beurtheilung des Wormser Konkordats.
   Berlin, 1905.

   The Gregorian party elected Gelasius a cardinal-deacon, far advanced in
   age. His short reign of a year and four days was a series of pitiable
   misfortunes. He had scarcely been elected when he was grossly insulted
   by a mob led by Cencius Frangipani and cast into a dungeon. Freed by
   the fickle Romans, he was thrown into a panic by the sudden appearance
   of Henry V. at the gates, and fled the city, attempting to escape by
   sea. The Normans came to his rescue and he was led back to Rome, where
   he found St. Peter's in the hands of the anti-pope. A wild riot again
   forced him to flee and when he was found he was sitting in a field near
   St. Paul's, with no companions but some women as his comforters. He
   then escaped to Pisa and by way of Genoa to France, where he died at
   Cluny, 1119. The imperialist party had elected an anti-pope, Gregory
   VIII., who was consecrated at Rome in the presence of Henry V., and
   ruled till 1121, but was taken captive by the Normans, mounted on a
   camel, paraded before Calixtus amid the insults and mockeries of the
   Roman mob, covered with dust and filth, and consigned to a dungeon. He
   died in an obscure monastery, in 1125, "still persevering in his
   rebellion." Such was the state of society in Rome.

   Calixtus II., the successor of Gelasius, 1119-1124, was elected at
   Cluny and consecrated at Vienne. He began his rule by renewing the
   sentence of excommunication against Henry; and in him the emperor found
   his match. After holding the Synod of Rheims, which ratified the
   prohibition of lay investiture, he reached Rome, 1120. Both parties,
   emperor and pope, were weary of the long struggle of fifty years, which
   had, like the Thirty Years' War five centuries later, kept Central
   Europe in a state of turmoil and war. At the Diet of Wuerzburg, 1121,
   the men of peace were in the majority and demanded a cessation of the
   conflict and the calling of a council.

   Calixtus found it best to comply, however reluctantly, with the
   resolution of the German Diet, and instructed his legates to convoke a
   general council of all the bishops of France and Germany at Mainz for
   the purpose of restoring concord between the holy see and the empire.
   The assembly adjourned from Mainz to Worms, the city which became
   afterwards so famous for the protest of Luther. An immense multitude
   crowded to the place to witness the restoration of peace. The sessions
   lasted more than a week, and closed with a solemn mass and the Te Deum
   by the cardinal-bishop of Ostia, who gave the kiss of peace to the
   emperor.

   The Concordat of Worms was signed, Sept. 23, 1122. It was a compromise
   between the contending parties. It is the first of the many concordats
   which the popes have since that time concluded with various sovereigns
   and governments, and in which they usually make some concession to the
   civil power. If they cannot carry out their principle, they agree to a
   modus vivendi.

   The pope gained the chief point, namely, the right of investiture by
   delivery of the ring and crosier (the symbols of the spiritual power)
   in all the churches of the empire, and also the restoration of the
   properties and temporalities of the blessed Peter which had passed out
   of the possession of the holy see during the late civil wars.

   On the other hand, the pope granted to the emperor that the elections
   to all bishoprics and abbeys of the empire should be made in the
   emperor's presence, without simony or any kind of corruption; that in
   cases of dispute the emperor should be at liberty to decide in favor of
   the person who, in his judgment, had the best claim; and that the
   candidate thus elected should receive from the emperor the
   temporalities of his see or abbey by the delivery of a rod or sceptre
   (the symbol of the temporal power), but without bargain or valuable
   consideration of any kind, and ever after render unto the sovereign all
   such duties and services as by law he was bound to render. But the
   temporalities belonging to the Roman see were exempt from these
   stipulations.

   There are some ambiguities and uncertainties in this treaty which
   opened the way for future contention. The emperor surrenders the right
   of investiture (with ring and crosier), and yet takes it back again in
   a milder form (with the sceptre). The question whether consecration is
   to precede or to follow investiture was left undecided, except outside
   of Germany, i.e. in Italy and Burgundy, where investiture with the
   regalia by the sceptre was to take place within six months after the
   consecration. Nothing is said about heirs and successors. Hence the
   concordat might be understood simply as a treaty between Calixtus and
   Henry, a temporary expedient, an armistice after half a century of
   discord between Church and State. After their deaths both the papal
   tiara and the imperial crown became again apples of discord.

   The Concordat of Worms was confirmed by the Ninth Oecumenical Synod
   (according to the Roman counting), or First Oecumenical Council of the
   West, held in the Lateran from March 18 to April 6, 1123. It is also
   called the First Lateran Council. Over three hundred bishops and abbots
   were present, or, according to other reports, five hundred or even nine
   hundred and ninety-seven. The documents of Worms were read, approved by
   all, and deposited in the archives of the Roman Church.

   NOTES.

   The text of the Concordatum Wormatiense or Pactum Calixtinum is
   preserved in the Vatican, and in the Chronicle of Ekkehard (abbot of
   Aura, near Kissingen, from 1108 to 1125). It has been repeatedly
   published by Baronius, Annales; Goldast, Constitutiones Imperiales;
   Leibnitz, Corpus juris diplomaticum; in Gieseler's Church History; in
   German translation, by Hefele-Knoepfler, Conciliengesch. V. 373; and
   also by Pertz, in the Monumenta Germaniae Legum, II. 75 sq. (who gives
   the various readings from seven MSS. of Ekkehard's Chronica), and
   Mirbt, Quellen, 115, 116. It is as follows:--

   "In nomine sanctae et individuae Trinitatis.

   "Ego Heinricus Dei gratia Romanorum Imperator Augustus pro amore Dei et
   s. Romanae Ecclesiae et domini P. Calixti, et pro remedio animae meae,
   dimitto Deo et ss. ejus Apostolis Petro et Paulo, sanctaeque catholicae
   Ecclesiae omnem investituram per annulum et baculum, et concedo, in
   omnibus Ecclesiis canonicam fieri electionem et liberam consecrationem.
   Possessiones et regalia b. Petri, quae a principio hujus discordiae
   usque ad hodiernam diem, sive patris mei tempore, sive etiam meo,
   ablata sunt, quae habeo, s. Romanae Ecclesiae restituo, quae autem non
   habeo, ut, restituantur, fideliter juvabo. Possessiones etiam omnium
   Ecclesiarum aliarum, et Principum, et aliorum tam clericorum quam
   laicorum, quae in guerra ista amissae sunt, consilio Principum, vel
   justitia, quas habeo, reddam, quas non habeo, ut reddantur, fideliter
   juvabo. Et do veram pacem domino Papae Calixto, sanctaeque Romanae
   Ecclesiae, et omnibus, qui in parte ipsius sunt vel fuerunt. Et in
   quibus s. Romana Ecclesia mihi auxilium postulaverit, fideliter juvabo;
   et de quibus mihi fecerit querimoniam, debitam sibi faciam justitiam.

   "Ego Calixtus Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, tibi dilecto filio
   Heinrico, Dei gratia Romanorum Imperatori Augusto, concedo, electiones
   Episcoporum et Abbatum Teutonici regni, qui ad regnum pertinent, in
   praesentia tua fieri absque simonia et aliqua violentia; ut si qua
   inter partes discordia emerserit, Metropolitani et Comprovincialum
   consilio vel judicio, saniori parti assensum et auxilium praebeas.
   Electus autem regalia per sceptrum a te recipiat, et quae ex his jure
   tibi debet, faciat. Ex aliis vero partibus Imperii consecratus infra
   sex menses regalia per sceptrum a te recipiat, et quae ex his jure tibi
   debet, faciat, exceptis omnibus, quae ad Romanam Ecclesiam pertinere
   noscuntur. De quibus vero querimoniam mihi feceris, secundum officii
   mei debitum auxilium tibi praestabo. Do tibi veram pacem et omnibus,
   qui in parte tua sunt, aut fuerunt tempore hujus discordiae. Data anno
   dominicae Incarnationis MCXXII. IX Kal. Octobr."

   Then follow the signatures.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 22. The Conflict of the Hierarchy in England. William the Conqueror
   and Lanfranc.

   The Domesday or Doomesday Book (Liber judicii; Book of judgment; Liber
   de Wintonia, because deposited in the cathedral at Winchester, now in
   the Charter House at Westminster, published in facsimile, 1783 and
   1861).

   It was prepared between 1080 and 1086 by the "justiciaries" of William
   the Conqueror for the purpose of ascertaining the taxable wealth and
   military strength of the conquered country and securing a full and fair
   assessment. It contains, among other things, a list of the bishops,
   churches, religious houses, great men, etc. See Freeman's Norman
   Conquest, V. 1-52 and 733-740. He says (Preface, viii.): "The stores of
   knowledge in Domesday are boundless" (for secular history, rather than
   church history).--The Gesta Wilhelmi by William of Poitiers, a chaplain
   and violent partisan of the Conqueror. Also the chronicles of William
   of Jumieges, Ordericus Vitalis, in Migne, 188, Eng. Trans. 4 vols.
   Bohn's Libr.

   Lanfranc (thirty-fourth archbishop of Canterbury, 1005-1089): Vita and
   (55) Epistolae, in his Opera, edited by D'Achery (Paris, 1648), Giles
   (Oxford, 1844, in 2 vols.), and Migne, 150.--H. Boehmer , Die
   Faelschungen Lanfranks von Cant. Leipzig, 1902.

   *Eadmer (monk of Canterbury, pupil and biographer of Anselm): Vita
   Sancti Anselmi, and Historia Novorum, both in Anselm's Opera (ed.
   Migne, 158, 159, and in Rolls Series, 1884).--The biographies of Anselm
   by Frank (Tuebingen, 1842), Hasse (Leipzig, 1843, vol. I. 235-455),
   Remusat (Paris, 1853; German translation by Wurzbach, 1854), Dean
   Church (London, 1875), Rule (London, 1883), Hook (in 2d vol. of Lives
   of the Archbishops of Canterbury, London, 1861-1874), Rigg, 1896,
   Welch, 1901.

   *William of Malmesbury (b.a. 1096, d. 1143, son of a Norman father and
   Saxon mother, monk and librarian in the abbey of Malmesbury): De Gestis
   Regum Anglorum (a history of England from the Anglo-Saxon Conquest to
   the end of the reign of Henry I., 1129); Historiae Novellae (a
   continuation till 1151); De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum (history of the
   English Church till 1123). Edited by Savile, in Rerum Anglicarum
   Scriptores, London, 1596; best ed. in Rolls Series, English translation
   by John Sharpe, edited by Giles, in Bohn's "Antiquarian Library,"
   London, 1847.

   The Works of Henry of Huntingdon, William of Newburgh, Gervaise of
   Canterbury, Ralph of Coggeshall, Richard of Hoveden, Matthew Paris,
   etc., as ed. in the Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores, called
   the Rolls Series, London, 1858 sqq. These works ed. by Stubbs, Luard,
   and other competent Eng. scholars are indispensable.

   J. N. Aug. Thierry (1795-1856): Histoire de la conquete de l'Angleterre
   par les Normands, de ses causes et de ses suites en Angleterre, en
   Ecosse, et en Irlande et sur le continent. 5e ed. entierement revue et
   augmentee. Paris, 1839, 4 vols. The first edition was published, 1825,
   in 3 vols., a 6th ed. in 1843, etc. English translation by Hazlitt,
   1847.

   Edw. A. Freeman (Professor of History in Oxford): History of the Norman
   Conquest. Oxford, 1867-1876 (vols. II., III., IV., and V. See Index,
   vol. VI.). And his Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry
   the First. Oxford, 1882, 2 vols. (see Index, sub Anselm). An exhaustive
   treatment of that period by a master in historic research and
   erudition, with model indexes.

   Bishop Stubbs furnishes authentic information in his Constitutional
   History of England, 6th ed. 3 vols. 1897; Select Charters and Other
   Illustrations of English Constitutional History to the Reign of Edward
   I. (1870); Memorials of St. Dunstan (1874).

   H. Gee and W. J. Hardy: Documents illustrative of Eng. Ch. Hist.,
   London, 1896.

   W. R. W. Stephens: The Eng. Ch. 1066-1272. London, 1891.

   Milman (bk. VIII. ch. VIII.) briefly touches upon this important
   chapter of the Church history of England. Hardwick (Church History of
   the Middle Ages) ignores it. Robertson notices the principal facts.
   Dean Hook gives the Lives of Lanfranc and Anselm (II. 73-168 and
   169-276).

   The conflict between the pope and the emperor for supremacy was
   repeated, on a smaller scale, in England, between the archbishop of
   Canterbury and the king, and was settled for a season in favor of the
   hierarchy, several years before the Concordat of Worms. The struggle
   for the freedom of the Church was indirectly also a struggle for the
   freedom of the State and the people from the tyranny of the crown.
   Priestcraft prevailed over kingcraft, then aristocracy over absolute
   monarchy in the Magna Charta, and at last the people over both.

   The Anglo-Saxon kings and nobles enriched the Church of England, their
   alma mater, by liberal grants of real estate amounting to about
   one-third of the land, and thus conferred upon it great political
   influence. The bishops ranked with the nobles, and the archbishops with
   princes, next to the king. The archbishop of Canterbury was usually
   intrusted with the regency during the absence of the sovereign on the
   Continent.

   But for this very reason the British sovereigns of the different
   dynasties tried to keep the Church in a state of dependence and
   subserviency, by the election of bishops and the exercise of the right
   of investiture. They filled the vacant bishoprics with their chaplains,
   so that the court became a nursery of prelates, and they occasionally
   arrogated to themselves such titles as "Shepherd of Shepherds," and
   even "Vicar of Christ." In one word, they aspired to be popes of
   England long before Henry VIII. blasphemously called himself, "Supreme
   Head of the Church of England."

   Under the later kings of the Saxon line the Church had degenerated, and
   was as much in need of reform as the churches on the Continent. The
   ascetic reforms of Dunstan took no deep root and soon passed away.
   Edward the Confessor (1042-1066) was a monastic saint, but a stranger
   and shadow in England, with his heart in Normandy, the home of his
   youth. The old Saxon literature was forgotten, and the clergy was sunk
   in ignorance. [97]

   The Norman Conquest aroused England to new life and activity. It marks
   the greatest change in English history since the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
   It left its impress upon the language, literature, architecture, laws
   and institutions of the country, without, however, breaking the
   continuity. The Normans, though a foreign, were yet a kindred race, of
   Teutonic stock, Romanized and Gallicanized in France. From savage
   pirates they had been changed into semi-civillized Christians, without
   losing their bravery and love of adventure, which they showed in the
   crusades and the conquest of England. They engrafted the French
   language and manners upon the Anglo-Saxon trunk, and superinduced an
   aristocratic element on the democratic base. It took a long time for
   the two nationalities and languages to melt into one.

   The amalgamation was an enrichment. The happy combination of Saxon
   strength and endurance with Norman enterprise and vivacity, in
   connection with the insular position and the capacity for
   self-government fostered thereby, prepared the English race for the
   dominion of the seas and the founding of successful colonies in all
   continents. [98]

   The Norman kings were as jealous of their rights and as much opposed to
   papal superiority as the German emperors. Their instincts and interests
   were caesaropapistic or Erastian. But the Church kept them in check.
   The Hildebrandian ideas of reform were advocated and carried out in
   part by two of the most eminent scholars and monks of the age, Lanfranc
   (1005-1089) and Anselm (1033-1109), who followed each other in the see
   of Canterbury. They were both of Italian birth,--one from the Lombard
   city of Pavia, the other from Aosta,--and successively abbots and
   teachers of the famous convent of Bee in the diocese of Rouen.

   William I. of Normandy, surnamed "the Conqueror," the natural son of,
   "Robert the Devil" and the daughter of a tanner, and the first king of
   the Norman dynasty (1066-1087), enforced his pretension to the English
   throne under the consecrated banner of Pope Alexander II. by the defeat
   of Harold in the battle on the hill of Senlac, near Hastings, Oct. 14,
   1066. Five years afterwards he made Lanfranc archbishop of Canterbury.
   He had formerly banished him from Normandy for opposing his marriage
   with Matilda of Flanders, as being within the forbidden degrees. He
   overtook the abbot as he was leaving the convent on a lame horse, and
   hurried him on. The abbot said, "Give me a better horse, and I shall go
   faster." This cool request turned the duke's wrath into laughter and
   good-will. He was reconciled, and employed him to obtain the pope's
   sanction of the marriage, and the removal of the interdict from his
   territories.

   Lanfranc was a moderate Hildebrandian. He had been the chief promoter
   of the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Berengarian controversy;
   while Hildebrand protected Berengar as long as he could. [99] retain
   their wives. He did not fully sustain the pope's claim to temporal
   authority, and disobeyed the frequent summons to appear at Rome. He
   lived, upon the whole, on good terms with the king, although he could
   not effect anything against his will. He aided him in his attempt to
   Normanize the English Church. He was intrusted with the regency when
   the duke was absent on the Continent. He favored the cause of learning,
   and rebuilt the cathedral of Canterbury, which had burnt down.

   William was a despot in Church and State, and rather grew harder and
   more reckless of human suffering in his later years. His will was the
   law of the land. Freeman places him both "among the greatest of men"
   and "among the worst of men." [100] ndoubted; but he was utterly
   unscrupulous in the choice of means. He had a strong sense of religion
   and reverence for the Church, and was liberal to her ministers; he did
   not, like his son, keep the benefices vacant and rob her revenues; he
   did not practise simony, and, so far, he fell in with the Hildebrandian
   reform. [101] hat he owed his crown only to God and to his own sword.
   He was willing to pay Peter's pence to the pope as alms, but not as
   tribute, and refused to swear allegiance to Gregory VII.

   He made full use of the right of a victor. He subjected the estates of
   the Church to the same feudal obligations as other lands. He plundered
   religious houses. He deposed Archbishop Stigand and other Saxon bishops
   to make room for Norman favorites, who did not even understand the
   language of the people. These changes were not begun till 1070, when
   Stigand was tried before the papal legates who had placed the crown on
   William's head. The main charges were simony and that he had received
   the pall from the usurping pope, Benedict X. William left only one
   Englishman, the simple-minded Wulfstan of Worcester, in possession of
   his see. He gradually extended the same system to abbacies and lower
   dignities. He allowed no synod to convene and legislate without his
   previous permission and subsequent confirmation of its decrees, no pope
   to be acknowledged in England without his will, no papal letters to be
   received and published without his consent. No ecclesiastic was to
   leave the kingdom without his permission, and bishops were forbidden to
   excommunicate a noble for adultery or any capital crime without the
   previous assent of the king. In these ways the power of the clergy was
   limited, and a check put upon the supremacy of Rome over the English
   Church. Lanfranc seems to have fully sympathized with these measures.
   For after the death of Alexander II., who had been his pupil at Bec, he
   seems to have treated the popes, especially Gregory VII., coolly.
   Gregory wrote him several letters threatening him with suspension and
   for his absence from the synods which were convening in Rome. [102]

   On the other hand, the law was passed in William's reign remanding
   ecclesiastical suits to separate tribunals, [103] ire courts. Another
   important movement in William's reign, sanctioned by synodal authority,
   [104] herborne, Chester of Lichfield, Lincoln of Dorchester, 1085, Bath
   of Wells, 1088, and Norwich of Thetford, 1094, which had taken the
   place of Elmham, 1078. Osmund, bishop of Salisbury, nephew of the
   Conqueror, prepared the liturgical service called the Sarum use, which
   was adopted in other dioceses than his own, and later became one of the
   chief sources of the Book of Common Prayer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [97] It is said of the later Anglo-Saxon clergy that they were scarcely
   able to stammer out the forms of divine service, and that any one who
   knew "grammar" was regarded as a prodigy.

   [98] On the effects of the Norman Conquest, see the fifth volume of
   Freeman's great work. Comp. also Schaff's essay on the cosmopolitan
   character and mission of the English language, in his Literature and
   Poetry, New York, 1890, pp. 1-62.

   [99] On Lanfranc's connection with the Berengar controversy, see
   Schaff, vol. IV. 556 and 567 sq.

   [100] Norman Conquest, II. 165.

   [101] Freeman, V. 169: "He was one of the few princes of that age whose
   hands were wholly clean from the guilt of simony. His ecclesiastical
   appointments for the most part do him honor; the patron of Lanfranc and
   Anselm can never be spoken of without respect."

   [102] Reg. Greg., VI. 30, IX. 20; Migne, 148, 621, 643.

   [103] Gee and Hardy, 57 sq.

   [104] The Synod of London, 1075. See Wilkins, I. 363; Gee and Hardy,
   54.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 23. William Rufus and Anselm.

   William II., commonly called William Rufus or the Red (for his red
   hair), the third son and first successor of the Conqueror, ruled from
   1087 to 1100. He bought Normandy from his brother Robert to enable him
   to make a crusade. This is the only good thing he did, besides
   appointing Anselm primate of England. He inherited all the vices and
   none of the virtues of his father. He despised and hated the clergy. It
   was said of him that, "he feared God but little, and man not at all."
   He was not a sceptic or infidel, as some represent him, but profane and
   blasphemous. He believed in God, like the demons, but did not tremble.
   He defied the Almighty. When he recovered from a severe sickness, he
   said: "God shall never see me a good man; I have suffered too much at
   his hands." He doubted his justice, and mocked at the ordeals. He
   declared publicly that neither St. Peter nor any other saint had any
   influence with God, and that he would not ask them for aid. He used to
   swear "by the holy face of Lucca." [105] n gross and shameless
   debaucheries. The people said of him that he rose a worse man every
   morning, and lay down a worse man every evening.

   He had promised Lanfranc at his coronation to exercise justice and
   mercy and to protect the freedom of the Church, but soon forgot his
   vow, and began systematically to plunder the Church and to oppress the
   clergy. He robbed the bishoprics and abbeys of their income by leaving
   them vacant or selling them to the highest bidders. Within four years
   he changed thirty cemeteries into royal parks to satisfy his passion
   for bunting, which at last cost him his life. He used to say: "The
   bread of Christ is rich; the kings have given to the Church one-half of
   its income: why should I not try to win it back?"

   He kept the see of Canterbury vacant for nearly four years (1089-1093).
   At last he yielded, under the influence of a severe sickness, to the
   pressure of the better class of bishops and noblemen, and elected
   Anselm, who was then in England, and well known as a profound
   theologian and saintly character. A greater contrast can scarcely be
   imagined. While William Rufus delighted in witnessing the tortures of
   innocent men and animals, Anselm was singularly tenderhearted: he saved
   the life of a hare which was chased by the hunters and had sought
   protection under his horse; he saw a worthy object for prayer in the
   sufferings of a bird tortured by a thoughtless child. [106]

   The primacy was forced upon Anselm in spite of his remonstrance. He
   foresaw a hard struggle. He compared himself to an old and feeble
   sheep, and the king to a young, wild bull. Thus yoked, he was to draw
   the plough of the Church of England, with the prospect of being torn to
   pieces by the ferocity of the bull. [107] inciples of Hildebrand,
   though with more moderation and gentleness.

   A short time elapsed before the relations between the king and the
   prelate became strained. Anselm supported Urban II.; William leaned to
   the anti-pope Clement III. The question of investiture with the pallium
   at once became a matter of dispute. The king at first insisted upon
   Anselm's receiving it from Clement and then claimed the right to confer
   it himself. Anselm refused to yield and received it, 1095, from Urban's
   legate, who brought the sacred vestment to England in a silver casket.
   The archbishop gave further offence to the king by the mean way, as was
   said, in which he performed his feudal obligations. [108] se, not
   submit. It was the old question whether an English ecclesiastic owed
   primary allegiance to the pope or to the crown. [109] elate by ordering
   Anselm's baggage searched at Dover. He seized the revenues of
   Canterbury, and Anselm's absence was equivalent to exile. Eadmer
   reports a remarkable scene before Anselm's departure. [110] the king's
   presence until he had given him his blessing. "As a spiritual father to
   his son, as Archbishop of Canterbury to the king of England," he said,
   "I would fain before I go give you God's blessing." To these words the
   king made reply that he did not decline the priestly blessing. It was
   the last time they met.

   Anselm was most honorably received by the pope, who threatened the king
   with excommunication, and pronounced an anathema on all laymen who
   exercised the right of investiture and on all clergymen who submitted
   to lay-investiture. [111]

   The Red King was shot dead by an arrow,--nobody knows whether by a
   hunter or by an assassin, Aug. 2, 1100, while hunting in the New
   Forest. "Cut off without shrift, without repentance, he found a tomb in
   the Old Minster of Winchester; but the voice of clergy and people, like
   the voice of one man, pronounced, by a common impulse, the sentence
   which Rome had feared to pronounce. He received the more unique brand
   of popular excommunication. No bell was tolled, no prayer was said, no
   alms were given for the soul of the one baptized and anointed ruler,
   whose eternal damnation was taken for granted by all men as a thing
   about which there could be no doubt." [112]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [105] Per sanctum vultum de Luca. A figure of the crucified Saviour in
   wood which was said to have been carved by Nicodemus, and was preserved
   in the cathedral at Lucca.

   [106] These rare traits of character are mentioned by Eadmer in his
   Vita Anselmi. Freeman, V. 25.

   [107] Eadmer (Hist. Nov., in Migne's edition of Anselm, II. 368):
   "Indomitum taurum et vetulam ac debilem ovem in aratro conjungere sub
   uno jugo," etc. Ranke, Weltgesch., VIII. 115, makes here a curious
   mistake by putting into Anselm's mouth the saying that England's plough
   must be drawn by "two noble and powerful bulls" (von zwei edlen und
   kraeftigen Stieren, dem Koenig und dem Primas).

   [108] Soon after he was made archbishop, Anselm sent the king -L-500, a
   sum far below what the king expected. On another occasion when the king
   was starting on a campaign against Wales, Anselm sent what the king
   regarded as a beggarly contingent of ill-trained knights.

   [109] The matters in dispute were discussed at Rockingham at a meeting
   of barons and bishops with Anselm at their head. See Freeman,W. Rufus,
   I. 476 sqq.

   [110] Hist. Nov., II., Migne's ed. 169, 402.

   [111] According to Eadmer, Hist. Nov., Migne's ed. 159, 414, it was due
   to Anselm's intercession that Urban withheld from William Rufus the
   anathema.

   [112] Freeman, Norm. Conq., V. 147.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 24. Anselm and Henry I.

   At the death of the Red King, one archbishopric, four bishoprics, and
   eleven abbeys were without pastors. Henry I., his younger brother,
   surnamed Beauclerc, ascended the throne (1100-1135). He connected the
   Norman blood with the imperial house of Germany by the marriage of his
   daughter Matilda to Henry V. After the emperor's death, Matilda was
   privately married to Geoffrey Plantagenet, count of Anjou (1128), and
   became the mother of Henry II., the founder of the Plantagenet dynasty.

   King Henry I. is favorably known by his strict administration of
   justice. He reconciled the clergy by recalling Anselm from exile, but
   soon renewed the investiture controversy. He instituted bishops and
   abbots, and summoned Anselm to consecrate them, which he steadfastly
   refused to do. He sent him into a second exile (1103-1106). [113]
   crifice of a little earthly power, reminding him that Paul circumcised
   Timothy, and went to the temple to conciliate the Jewish brethren.

   Pascal II. excommunicated the bishops who had accepted investiture from
   Henry. But the king was not inclined to maintain a hostile attitude to
   Anselm. They had an interview in Normandy and appealed to the pope, who
   confirmed the previous investitures of the king on condition of his
   surrendering the right of investiture in future to the Church. This
   decision was ratified at Bec, Aug. 26, 1106. The king promised to
   restore to Anselm the profits of the see during his absence, to abstain
   from the revenues of vacant bishoprics and abbeys, and to remit all
   fines to the clergy. He retained the right of sending to vacant sees a
   conge d'elire, or notice to elect, which carried with it the right of
   nomination. Anselm now proceeded to consecrate bishops, among them
   Roger of Salisbury, who was first preferred to Henry's notice because
   he "began prayers quickly and closed them speedily." [114]

   Anselm returned to England in triumph, and was received by the queen at
   the head of the monks and the clergy. At a council held at Westminster
   in 1107, [115] e the archbishop promised to tolerate the ceremony of
   homage (which Urban II. had condemned). The synodical canons against
   clerical marriage were renewed and made more rigorous (1102, 1107,
   1108); but the pope consented for a time that the sons of priests might
   be admitted to orders, for the remarkable reason, as Eadmer reports,
   that "almost the greater and the better part of the English clergy"
   were derived from this class. [116]

   During the remaining years of his life, Anselm enjoyed the friendship
   and respect of the king, and during the latter's absence on the
   Continent in 1108, he was intrusted with the regency and the care of
   the royal family. He was canonized by the voice of the English people
   long before the formal canonization by the pope. [117]

   After his death, in April, 1109, the primacy remained vacant till 1114,
   when it was conferred upon Ralph of Escures, bishop of Rochester, who
   had administered its affairs during the interval. He is described as a
   learned, cheerful, affable, good-humored, facetious prelate. He was
   called "nugax," but his jests and repartees have not been recorded. He
   and his two Norman successors, William of Corbeuil, 1123-1136. and
   Theobald, 1139-1161, lived on good terms with the king and his
   successor, Stephen. Thomas Becket, an English man, resumed, in 1162,
   the controversy between the mitre and the crown with greater energy,
   but less wisdom, than Anselm.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [113] While in England, Anselm had celebrated the marriage of Henry to
   Matilda, or Eadgyth (as her English name was), daughter of the Scotch
   king Malcolm. Her aunt, a nun at Romsey, had placed the veil upon
   Eadgyth when she was a child as a protection against violence. There
   was a difference of opinion as to whether this was to be construed as a
   vow. Anselm pronounced her free. Ladies at the time of the Norman
   Conquest had temporarily put on the veil as a protection to their
   virtue. Lanfranc afterwards declared them free to marry.

   [114] See Fuller,Ch. Hist. of Britain, I. 340.

   [115] A previous council had been held at Westminster in 1102. See
   Freeman, V. 221, 226, and Gee and Hardy, pp. 63 sq.

   [116] Freeman, V. 223: "The newly devised rigor only led to laxity of a
   worse kind, which it was intended to stop. But, at any rate, it was now
   that the rule of celibacy became for the first time the universal law
   of the English Church. Anselm's counsel at Westminster [that of 1102]
   thus marks an era in our ecclesiastical history."

   [117] The canonization by Alexander III. came to nothing, but was
   renewed by Alexander VI. Dean Church says that Anselm "suffered the
   indignity of a canonization at the hands of Borgia."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER IV.

   THE PAPACY FROM THE CONCORDAT OF WORMS TO INNOCENT III. A.D. 1122-1198.

   On the historical sources for this period down to the middle of the
   thirteenth century, see Wattenbach: Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im
   Mittelalter, II. 217-442.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 25. Innocent II., 1130-1143, and Eugene III., 1145-1153.

   Innocent II.: Epistolae et Privilegia, in Migne, Patrol., Tom. 179,
   fol. 54636; his biographies in Muratori (Rer. Ital., Tom. II. and III.)
   and Watterich (Pontif. Rom. Vitae, II. 174 sq.).--Anacletus (antipapa):
   Epistolae et Privil., in Migne, Tom. 179, fol. 687-732.--Eugenius III.:
   Epistolae, etc., in Migne, 180, 1013-1614.--The Works of St. Bernard,
   edited by Mabillon, and reprinted in Migne's Patrol. (Tom. 182-185,
   Paris, 1855); Ordericus Vitalis, Eccl. Hist., XII. 11, etc.; Bohn's
   Trans. IV.

   Jaffe: Geschichte des deutschen Reichs unter Lothar von Sachsen.
   Berlin, 1843.--Mirbt, art. Innocent II. in Herzog, IX. 108 sqq.--E.
   Muehlbacher: Die streitige Papstwahl d. J. 1130. Innsbruck, 1876.--W.
   Bernhardi: Konrad III. Leipzig, 1883, 2 vols.--Hefele-Knoepfler, Bd. V.
   385-532.--Giesebrecht, Bd. IV. 54 sqq.--Gregorovius, IV. 403 sqq.
   Hauck, IV. 130 sqq.--The Biographies of St. Bernard.

   Calixtus II. was followed by Honorius II., whose rule of six years,
   1124-1130, was an uneventful one. After his death a dangerous schism
   broke out between Innocent II., 1130-1143, and Anacletus II.,
   1130-1138, who represented two powerful Roman families, the Frangipani,
   or Breadmakers, [118]

   Innocent, formerly cardinal-legate of Urban II. and mediator of the
   Concordat of Worms, enjoyed the reputation of superior learning and
   piety, which even his opponents could not dispute. He had also the
   advantage of a prior election, but of doubtful legal validity, since it
   was effected only by a minority of cardinals, who met in great hurry in
   an unknown place to anticipate the rival candidate. [119]

   Anacletus was a son of Pierleone, Petrus Leonis, and a grandson of Leo,
   a baptized Jewish banker, who had acquired great financial, social, and
   political influence under the Hildebrandian popes. A Jewish community
   with a few hundred members were tolerated in Trastevere and around the
   island of the Tiber as a monumental proof of the truth of Christianity,
   and furnished some of the best physicians and richest bankers, who
   helped the nobility and the popes in their financial troubles.
   Anacletus betrayed his Semitic origin in his physiognomy, and was
   inferior to Innocent in moral character; but he secured an election by
   a majority of cardinals and the support of the principal noble families
   and the Roman community. With the help of the Normans, he took
   possession of Rome, banished his opponent, deposed the hostile
   cardinals, and filled the college with his friends.

   Innocent was obliged to flee to France, and received there the powerful
   support of Peter of Cluny and Bernard of Clairvaux, the greatest monks
   and oracles of their age. He was acknowledged as the legitimate pope by
   all the monastic orders and by the kings of France and England.

   Lothaire II. (III.) of Saxony, 1125-1137, to whom both parties
   appealed, decided for Innocent, led him and St. Bernard to Rome by
   armed force, and received in turn from the pope the imperial crown,
   June 4, 1133.

   But after Lothaire's departure, Anacletus regained possession of Rome,
   with the help of the Norman duke, Roger, and the party of the rival
   emperor, Conrad III. He made Roger II. king of Sicily, and thus helped
   to found a kingdom which lasted seven hundred and thirty years, till it
   was absorbed in the kingdom of Italy, 1860. Innocent retired to Pisa
   (1135). Lothaire made a second expedition to Italy and defeated Roger
   II. Bernard again appeared at Rome and succeeded in strengthening
   Innocent's position. At this juncture Anacletus died, 1138. The healing
   of the schism was solemnly announced at the Second Lateran Council,
   1139. War soon after broke out between Innocent and Roger, and Innocent
   was taken prisoner. On his release he confirmed Roger as king of
   Sicily. Lothaire had returned to Germany to die, 1137. Innocent had
   granted to him the territories of Matilda for an annual payment. On
   this transaction later popes based the claim that the emperor was a
   papal vassal.

   After the short pontificates of Coelestin II., 1143-1144, and Lucius
   II., 1144-1145, Eugene III., a pupil and friend of St. Bernard, was
   elected, Feb. 15, 1145, and ruled till July 8, 1153. He wore the rough
   shirt of the monks of Citeaux under the purple. He had to flee from
   Rome, owing to the disturbances of Arnold of Brescia, and spent most of
   his time in exile. During his pontificate, Edessa was lost and the
   second crusade undertaken. Eugene has his chief interest from his
   connection with St. Bernard, his wise and loyal counsellor, who
   addressed to him his famous treatise on the papacy, the de
   consideratione. [120]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [118] The name was derived by legend from the distribution of bread in
   time of famine by one of the ancestors of the family. Its coat of arms
   represented two lions rampant, holding a loaf of bread between them.
   Gregorovius. IV. 404.

   [119] The thorough investigation of Muehlbacher is unfavorable to the
   validity of the election of Gregory (Innocent II.), and Deutsch (note
   in his edition of Neander's St. Bernhard, I. 110 sq.) agrees with him,
   and bases his claim on purely moral grounds.

   [120] See the chapters on the Second Crusade and St. Bernard.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 26. Arnold of Brescia.

   Otto (Bishop of Freising, or Freisingen, d. 1158): De Gestis Friderici
   I. (lib. II. 20).--Gunther (Ligurinus): De Gestis Friderici I., an epos
   written 1187 (lib. III. vers. 262 sqq.).--Gerhoh (provost of
   Reichersberg, d. 1169): De investigatione Antichristi, edited by
   Scheibelberger. Lincii, 1875.--John of Salisbury: Historia Pontificalis
   (written c. 1162, recently discovered), in Mon. Germ. Script., XX. c.
   31, p. 537.--St. Bernard: Epist., Migne, 195, 196, 198.--Walter Map
   (archdeacon of Oxford, 1196): De Nugis Curialium, ed. Wright, pp. 41
   and 43. The sources are all hostile to Arnold and the Arnoldists.

   J. D. Koeler: De Arnoldo Brixiensi dissert. Goettingen,
   1742.--Guadagnini: Apologia di Arnaldo da Brescia. Pavia, 1790, 2
   vols.--K. Beck: A. v. Brescia. Basel, 1824.--H. Francke: Arnold von
   Brescia und seine Zeit. Zuerich, 1825 (eulogistic).--Bent: Essay sur
   a.d. Brescia. Geneve, 1856.--Federico Odorici: Arnaldo da Brescia.
   1861. Georges Guibal: Arnauld de Brescia et les Hohenstaufen ou la
   question du pouvoir temporel de la papaute du moyen age. Paris,
   1868.--*Giesebrecht: Arnold von Brescia. Muenchen, 1873 (in the Reports
   of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences). Comp. his Gesch. der d.
   Kaiserzeit, IV. 314 sqq.--A. Di Giovanni De Castro: Arnaldo da Brescia
   e la revoluzione romana dell XII. secolo. Livorno, 1875.--A. Hausrath:
   Arnold von Brescia. Leipzig, 1891.--Deutsch, A. von Brescia, in Herzog,
   II. 117-122;--Gregorovius, IV. 479 sqq. The Lives of St. Bernard,
   especially Vacandard and Neander-Deutsch.

   During the pontificates of Innocent II., Eugene III., and Adrian IV.
   occurred the interesting episode of Arnold of Brescia, an unsuccessful
   ecclesiastical and political agitator, who protested against the
   secularization of the Church, and tried to restore it to apostolic
   poverty and apostolic purity. These two ideas were closely connected in
   his mind. He proclaimed the principle that the Church and the clergy,
   as well as the monks, should be without any temporal possessions, like
   Christ and the Apostles, and live from the tithes and the voluntary
   offerings of the people. Their calling is purely spiritual. All the
   things of this earth belong to the laity and the civil government.

   He practised what he taught, and begged his daily bread from house to
   house. He was a monk of severe ascetic piety, enthusiastic temper,
   popular eloquence, well versed in the Scriptures, restless, radical,
   and fearless. [121] own. [122]

   With this ecclesiastical scheme he combined a political one. He
   identified himself with the movement of the Romans to emancipate
   themselves from the papal authority, and to restore the ancient
   republic. By giving all earthly power to the laity, he secured the
   favor of the laity, but lost the influence of the clergy. It was the
   political complication which caused his ruin.

   Arnold was a native of Brescia in Lombardy, and an ordained reader in
   the Church. He was a pupil of Abaelard, and called armor-bearer to this
   Goliath. [123] h him against St. Bernard, who became his bitter enemy.
   But with the exception of the common opposition to the hierarchy, they
   differed very widely. Abaelard was a philosopher, Arnold, a politician;
   Abaelard, a speculative thinker, Arnold, a practical preacher;
   Abaelard, a rationalist, Arnold, an enthusiast. The former undermined
   the traditional orthodoxy, the latter attacked the morals of the clergy
   and the temporal power of the Church. Arnold was far below Abaelard in
   intellectual endowment, but far more dangerous in the practical drift
   of his teaching, which tended to pauperize the Church and to
   revolutionize society. Baronius calls him "the father of political
   heresies."

   In his ascetic zeal for the moral reform of the clergy, Arnold was in
   sympathy with the Hildebrandian party, but in his views of the temporal
   power of the pope, he went to the opposite extreme. Hildebrand aimed at
   the theocratic supremacy of the Church over the State; Arnold sought
   the welfare of the Church in her complete separation from the State and
   of the clerical office from secular entanglements. Pascal II., we may
   say, had prepared the way for this theory when he was willing to
   sacrifice the investiture to the emperor. The Hildebrandian reform had
   nearly passed away, and the old corruptions reappeared. The temporal
   power of the Church promoted the worldliness of the clergy. The author
   of the Historia Pontificalis says that Arnold's doctrine agreed with
   the Gospel, but stood in crying contrast with the actual condition of
   things. St. Bernard, his opponent, was as much opposed as he to the
   splendor and luxury of bishops, the secular cares of the popes, and
   expressed a wish that he might see the day when "the Church, as in
   olden times, should cast her net for souls, and not for money." [124]
   All the monastic orders protested against the worldliness of the
   Church, and realized the principle of apostolic poverty within the wall
   of convents. But Arnold extended it to the secular clergy as well, and
   even went so far as to make poverty a condition of salvation for
   priests and monks. [125]

   Arnold's sermons gained great popular applause in Lombardy, and caused
   bitter disputes between the people and the bishop of Brescia. He was
   charged before the Lateran Synod of 1139 with inciting the laity
   against the clergy, was deposed as a schismatic (not as a heretic),
   commanded to be silent, and was expelled from Italy.

   He went again to France and was entangled in the controversy of
   Abaelard with Bernard. Pope Innocent condemned both Abaelard and Arnold
   to silence and seclusion in a convent, 1140. Abaelard, weary of strife
   and life, submitted and retired to the convent of Cluny, where two
   years later he died in peace. [126] f the clergy. He exposed especially
   the avarice of the bishops. He also charged St. Bernard with unholy
   ambition and envy against scholars. Bernard called him a man whose
   speech was honey, whose doctrine was poison. At his request the king
   expelled Arnold from France.

   Arnold fled to Zuerich and was kindly received and protected by the
   papal legate, Cardinal Guido, his former fellow-student in Paris. [127]

   After a few years of unknown exile, Arnold appeared in Rome as the
   leader of a political movement. Innocent II. had allowed him to return
   to Italy; Eugene III. had pardoned him on condition of his doing
   penance in the holy places of Rome. But after the flight of this pope
   to France, Arnold preached again the doctrine of apostolic poverty,
   called the popes and cardinals Pharisees and scribes, and their church
   a house of merchandise and den of robbers. He was protected by the
   Roman senate, and idolized by the people. The Romans had renounced the
   papal authority, expelled the pope, substituted a purely secular
   government after the ancient model, and invited Conrad III. to assume
   the role of Constantine I. or Justinian. They lost themselves in dreams
   of government. The tradition of the old Roman rule controlled the
   Middle Ages in various forms: it lived as a universal monarchy in the
   German Empire, as a universal theocracy in the papacy; as a short-lived
   republic in the Roman people. The modern Italians who oppose the
   temporal power of the pope are more sensible: they simply claim the
   natural right of the Italian people to govern themselves, and they
   confine the dominion of Rome to Italy.

   Arnold stepped out of the ecclesiastical into the political sphere, and
   surrounded the new republic with the halo of religion. He preached in
   his monastic gown, on the ruins of the Capitol, to the patres
   conscripti, and advised them to rebuild the Capitol, and to restore the
   old order of senators and knights. His emaciated face gave him a
   ghost-like appearance and deepened the effect of his eloquence.

   But the republican experiment failed. The people were at last forced
   into submission by the interdict of Pope Adrian IV. Arnold was banished
   from Rome, 1154, and soon afterwards hanged by order of Emperor
   Frederick I., who hated democracy and republicanism. His body was burnt
   and his ashes were thrown into the Tiber, 1155, lest his admirers
   should worship his bones. [128]

   Arnold's was a voice of protest against the secular aims of the papacy
   and the worldliness of the clergy which still has its hearers. "So
   obstinate is the ban of the Middle Ages under which Rome is still
   held," says Gregorovius, "that the soul of a heretic of the twelfth
   century has not yet found rest, but must still haunt Rome." The
   Catholic Bishop Hefele refused to class him among "real heretics."
   [129]

   The Arnoldists continued for some time to defend the doctrines of their
   master, and were declared heretics by a council of Verona, 1184, after
   which they disappeared.

   But the idea of apostolic poverty and the opposition to the temporal
   power of the papacy reappeared among the Spirituals of the Franciscan
   order. Arnold's political scheme of restoring the Roman republic was
   revived two hundred years later by Cola di Rienzi (1347), but with no
   better success; for Rienzi was murdered, his body burnt, and the ashes
   were scattered to the winds (1354).
     __________________________________________________________________

   [121] Otto von Freising calls him "singularitatis amator, novitatis
   cupidus, " and ranks him with those characters who are apt to produce
   heresies and to make schismatic disturbances. St. Bernard denounces him
   as the author of a schisma pessimum, but bears testimony to his ascetic
   piety, yet with the cruel charge of satanic thirst for the blood of
   souls: "Homo est neque manducans neque bibens, solo cum diabolo
   esuriens et sitiens sanguinem animarum."

   [122] Von Freising: "Praeter haec [his views on Church property]de
   sacramento altaris, et baptismo parvulorum non sane dicitur sensisse."
   Some Baptists claim him for his supposed rejection of infant baptism.
   The attempts to bring him into contact with the Waldenses (who are of
   later date) have no foundation.

   [123] Freising: "Arnaldus iste et Italia, civitate Brixia oriundus,
   ejusdemque ecclesiae clericus ac tantum lector ordinatus, Petrum
   Abailardum olim praeceptorem habuerat." St. Bernard seems to place the
   acquaintance at a later period: "Execratus a Petro apostolo, adhaeserat
   Petro Abailardo."

   [124] Epist., 238 ad Eugen. III.

   [125] Otto v. Freising, l.c.: "Dicebat, nec Clericos proprietatem, nec
   Episcopos regalia, nec monachos possessiones habentes aliqua ratione
   salvari posse. Cuncta haec Principis esse, ab ejusque beneficentia in
   usum tantum laicorum cedere opportere."

   [126] Tosti, in his Storia di Abelardo, Naples, 1851, says of Abaelard
   that he had the courage of thought, but not the courage of action (il
   coraggio del pensiero non quello dell'azione).

   [127] This Guido was formerly identified with Guido of Castello who
   became Pope Coelestin II., Sept. 26, 1143, and ruled five months. But
   Giesebrecht and Gregorovius (IV. 455) distinguish the two. Francke
   exaggerates Arnold's influence upon Swiss liberty while at Zuerich.
   Milman makes him a forerunner of Zwingli, who opposed the hierarchy;
   but Zwingli knew little or nothing of Arnold, and had no idea of
   pauperizing the Church, or of a separation of Church and State.

   [128] According to a Brescian poem, Arnold refused to recant and made
   only the single request for time for prayer before dying. Gregorovius,
   IV. 545.

   [129] Unter die eigentlichen Heretiker. Hefele denies the errors
   ascribed to Arnold by Otto of Freising. Kirchengesch. 407.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 27. The Popes and the Hohenstaufen.

   I. Principal Sources:

   (1) The Regesta of the popes from Anastasius IV. to Innocent III.
   (1153-1198) by Jaffe-Wattenbach (ed. 1886).--The Opera of these popes
   in Migne's Patrol. Lat.--The Vitae of the popes by Platina, Watterich,
   etc.

   (2) Otto (half-brother of King Conrad III. and uncle of Frederick
   Barbarossa, and partial to him, bishop of Freising, or Freisingen, in
   Upper Bavaria, d. 1158): De Gestis Friderici I., finished by his pupil
   Rahewin or Reguin. Best ed. by Waitz, 1884. Also his Chronicle (De
   duabus Civitatibus, after the model of Augustin's De Civitate Dei),
   continued by Otto of St. Blasien (in the Black Forest) till 1209. First
   critical ed. by R. Wilmans in Mon. Ger. Scr., XX. 83-493.--Gunther
   Ligurinus wrote in 1187 a Latin epic of 6576 verses on the deeds of the
   Emperor Frederick I. till 1160. See Wattenbach's Geschichtsquellen, II.
   241 sqq

   II. Works on the Hohenstaufen Period:

   Jaffe: Geschichte des deutschen Reichs unter Konrad III., Hanover,
   1845.--Fr. von Raumer: Geschichte der Hohenstaufen. Leipzig, 1823. 4th
   ed. 1871. --W. Zimmermann: Die Hohenstaufen oder der Kampf der
   Monarchie gegen den Papst und die republ. Freiheit. Stuttgart, 1838. 2d
   ed. 1865, 2 vols.--G. De Cherrier: Histoire de la lutte des papes et
   des empereurs de la maison de Souabe. Paris, 1841, 4 vols.--*Hermann
   Reuter (Professor of Church History in Goettingen, d. 1888): Alexander
   III. und die Kirche seiner Zeit. 1845. 2d ed. thoroughly rewritten,
   Leipzig, 1860-1864; 3 vols. (A work of fifteen years'
   study.)--Schirrmacher Kaiser Friedrich II. Goettingen, 1859-1864, 4
   vols.; Die letzten Hohenstaufen. Goettingen, 1871.--P.
   Scheffer-Boichorst: K. Friedrichs I. letzter Streit mit der Kurie.
   Berlin, 1866.--H. Prutz: K. Friedrich I. Danzig, 1871-1874, 3
   vols.--Del Guidice: Il guidizio e la condanna di Corradino. Naples,
   1876.--Ribbeck: Friedr. I. und die roemische Kurie. Leipzig, 1881.--Ugo
   Balzani: The Popes and the Hohenstaufen. London and New York, 1888 (pp.
   261).--Giesebrecht, Bryce, 167 sqq.; Gregorovius, IV. 424 sqq.; Hauck,
   IV.;-- Hefele-Knoepfler, V. 533 sqq.

   With Conrad III. the powerful family of the Hohenstaufen ascended the
   imperial throne and occupied it from 1138 till 1254. They derive the
   name from the family castle Hohenstaufen, on a hill in the Rough Alp
   near Goeppingen in Swabia. [130] Agnes in marriage. They were thus
   connected by blood with the antagonist of Pope Hildebrand, and
   identified with the cause of the Ghibellines against the Guelphs in
   their bloody feuds in Germany and Italy. Henry VI., 1190-1197, acquired
   by marriage the kingdom of Naples and Sicily. His son, Frederick II.,
   raised his house to the top of its prosperity, but was in his culture
   and taste more an Italian than German prince, and spent most of his
   time in Italy.

   The Hohenstaufen or Swabian emperors maintained the principle of
   imperialism, that is, the dignity and independence of the monarchy, as
   a divine institution, against papal sacerdotalism on the one hand, and
   against popular liberty on the other.

   They made common cause with the popes, and served their purposes in the
   crusades: three of them, Conrad III., Frederick I., and Frederick II.,
   undertook crusades against the Saracens; Conrad III. engaged in the
   second, which was a failure; Frederick I. perished in Syria; Frederick
   II. captured Jerusalem. The Hohenstaufen made also common cause with
   the popes against political and doctrinal dissent: Barbarossa
   sacrificed and punished by death Arnold of Brescia as a dangerous
   demagogue; and Frederick II., though probably himself an unbeliever,
   persecuted heretics.

   But on the question of supremacy of power, the Hohenstaufen were always
   in secret or open war with the popes, and in the end were defeated. The
   conflict broke out under Frederick Barbarossa, who after long years of
   contention died at peace with the Church. It was continued by his
   grandson Frederick II. who died excommunicated and deposed from his
   throne by the papacy. The dynasty went out in tragic weakness in
   Conradin, the last male representative, who was beheaded on the charge
   of high treason, 1268. This conflict of the imperial house of the
   Hohenstaufen was more imposing than the conflict waged by Henry IV.
   with Gregory and his successors because of the higher plane on which it
   was fought and the greater ability of the secular antagonists engaged.
   Lasting more than one hundred years, it forms one of the most august
   spectacles of the Middle Ages, and furnishes some of the most dramatic
   scenes in which kings have ever figured. The historian Gregorovius has
   felt justified in saying that "this Titanic war of the Middle Ages
   filled and connected the centuries and formed the greatest spectacle of
   all ages."

   After the fall of the Hohenstaufen, the German Empire maintained, till
   its death in 1806, a nominal connection with the papacy, but ceased to
   be the central political power of Europe, except in the period of the
   Reformation under Charles V., 1519-1558, when it was connected with the
   crowns of Austria, the Low Countries, and Spain, and the newly
   discovered lands of America, and when that mighty monarch, true to his
   Austrian and Spanish descent, retarded the Protestant movement for
   national independence and religious freedom. The new German Empire,
   founded on the ruins of the old and the defeat of France (1870), is
   ruled by a hereditary Protestant emperor.

   CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

   A.D.

   POPES

   THE HOHENSTAUFEN

   A.D.

   1130-1143

   Innocent II.

   Conrad III.

   1138-1152

   1143-1144

   Coelestine II.

   Crowned emperor at Aix la Chapelle by the papal legates.

   1144-1145

   Lucius II.

   1145-1153

   Eugene III.

   Frederick I. (Barbarossa).

   1152-1190

   1153-1154

   Anastasius IV.

   (Nephew of Conrad.)

   1154-1159

   Adrian IV.

   Crowned emperor by Adrian IV.

   1155

   1159-1181

   Alexander III.

   1181-1185

   Lucius III.

   1185-1187

   Urban III.

   1187

   Gregory VIII.

   1187-1191

   Clement III.

   Henry VI.

   1190-1197

   1191-1198

   Coelestine III.

   (Son of Barbarossa.)

   Crowned emperor by Coelestine III

   1191

   King of Sicily.

   1194

   1198-1216

   Innocent III.

   Otto IV

   1209-1215

   Crowned by Innocent III

   1209

   Deposed by the Lateran Council

   1215

   1216-1227

   Honorius III.

   Frederick II

   1227-1241

   Gregory IX.

   (Son of Henry VI and Constance of Sicily)

   1241

   Coelestine IV.

   Crowned emperor by Honorius III

   1220

   1241-1254

   Innocent IV.

   Conrad IV

   1250-1254

   (Second son of Frederick II)

   Crowned king of the Romans

   1237

   Excommunicated, 1252, and again 1254

   1254-1261

   Alexander IV.

   Interregnum

   1254-1273

   1261-1264

   Urban IV.

   Conradin

   1265-1268

   Clement IV.

   (Son of Conrad, the last of the Hohenstaufen, b. 1252)

   Beheaded.

   1268
     __________________________________________________________________

   [130] The castle was destroyed in the Peasants'War in 1525. At the foot
   of the hill is a village and an old church with a fresco picture of
   Barbarossa, bearing the inscription: "Hic transibat Caesar, amor
   bonorum, terror malorum.""Here Caesar passed away, beloved by the good,
   dreaded by the bad." Close by is the ancient seat of the Hohenzollern
   family. On the site of the old castle a splendid castle was erected by
   William I., the Emperor of Germany.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 28. Adrian IV. and Frederick Barbarossa.

   Lives of Hadrian in Muratori, Script. Rer. Ital. I. III.--Migne, vol.
   188.--Otto of Freising.--William of Newburgh, 2 vols. London, 1856.--R.
   Raby: Pope Hadrian IV. London, 1849.--Tarleton: Nicolas Breakspear,
   Englishman And Pope, 1896.--L. Ginnell: The Doubtful Grant of Ireland
   of Pope Adrian IV. to Henry II., 1899.--O. J. Thatcher: Studies conc.
   Adrian IV. Chicago, 1903. pp. 88.--Reuter: Alex. III., vol. I. 1-48,
   479-487.

   Eugene III. was followed by Anastasius IV., whose rule lasted only
   sixteen months.

   His successor was Nicolas Breakspear, the first and the only Englishman
   that has (thus far) worn the tiara. He was the son of a poor priest of
   St. Albans. He went to France in pursuit of bread and learning, became
   a monk, prior, and abbot of the convent of St. Rufus, between Arles and
   Avignon. He studied theology and canon law. Eugene III. made him
   cardinal-bishop of Albano, and sent him as legate to Norway and Sweden,
   where he organized the Church and brought it into closer contact with
   Rome.

   He occupied the papal chair as Adrian IV., from 1154 to 1159, with
   great ability and energy. A beggar raised to the highest dignity in
   Christendom! The extremes of fortune met in this Englishman. Yet he
   felt happier in his poverty than in his power. He declared soon after
   his consecration that "the papal chair was full of thorns and the papal
   mantle full of holes and so heavy as to load down the strongest man."
   And after some experience in that high office, he said: "Is there a man
   in the world so miserable as a pope? I have found so much trouble in
   St. Peter's chair that all the bitterness of my former life appears
   sweet in comparison." [131]

   The Romans, under the lead of Arnold, requested him to resign all claim
   to temporal rule; but he refused, and after a bloody attack made by an
   Arnoldist upon one of the cardinals in the open street, he laid--for
   the first time in history--the interdict on the city. By this unbloody,
   yet awful and most effective, weapon, he enforced the submission of the
   people. He abolished the republican government, expelled Arnold and his
   adherents, and took possession of the Lateran.

   At this time, Frederick I., called Barbarossa (Redbeard) by the
   Italians from the color of his beard, one of the bravest, strongest,
   and most despotic of German emperors,--the sleeper in Kyffhaeuser,
   [132] y to receive the iron crown of royalty from the Lombards and the
   golden crown of empire from the pope (1154).

   The pope demanded, as the first condition of his coronation, the
   surrender of Arnold. With this Barbarossa willingly complied and
   ordered the execution of the popular agitator. In his first interview
   with Adrian, he kissed the pope's toe, but neglected the ceremony of
   holding the stirrup on descending from his palfrey. Adrian felt
   indignant and refused to give him the kiss of peace. When informed that
   this was an old custom, Barbarossa on the following day complied with
   it, but in an ambiguous way by holding the left stirrup instead of the
   right. He took forcible possession of Trastevere, and was solemnly
   invested, anointed, and crowned, according to the prescribed ritual, in
   St. Peter's, amid the acclamations of the curia, the clergy, and the
   army (June 13, 1155). An insurrection of the Roman people was speedily
   suppressed, the emperor leading the charge into the rebel ranks. But on
   the next morning he retired with the pope to the Tiburtine hills. He
   was reluctantly compelled by the want of supplies and by rumors of
   rebellion in Lombardy to return with his army. The pope, shut out from
   Rome, without foreign or domestic ally, retired to Benevento, was
   besieged there by King William of Sicily (son and successor of Roger
   II.) and forced by desertion and famine to submit to the terms of the
   conqueror by investing him with the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of
   Apulia, and the principality of Capua. This involved him in a
   controversy with the emperor, who regarded Apulia and Capua as parts of
   the empire. He protested against the divorce from his first, and the
   marriage to his second, wife, 1156.

   To these occasions of offence Adrian added another which Frederick
   would not bear. It was evoked by the ill-treatment done by robbers to
   the archbishop of Lund on his way from Rome through Germany to his
   Scandinavian diocese. [133] f or a gift. In either case the implication
   was offensive to the Germans, and they chose to interpret it as a claim
   that the emperor held his empire as a fief of the apostolic see. Two
   legates, rent by Adrian, attempted to soften down the meaning of the
   imprudent expression.

   The pope was too much of a hierarch and Frederick too much of an
   emperor to live in peace. In 1158 Frederick led his army across the
   Alps to reduce Milan and other refractory Lombard cities to submission.
   Having accomplished this, he assembled a diet on the plain of
   Roncaglia, near Piacenza, which is memorable for the decision rendered
   by Bologna jurists, that the emperor held his empire by independent
   divine right and not by the will of the pope. This was the most
   decisive triumph the empire had won since the opening of the conflict
   with Henry IV. But the decision of professors of law did not change the
   policy of the papacy.

   Adrian again gave offence by denying the emperor's right to levy a tax
   for military purposes, fodrum, on estates claimed by the papacy and
   demanded that he should recognize the papal claim of feudal rights over
   the Matilda grant, Sardinia, Corsica, Ferrara, and the duchy of
   Spoleto. Frederick proudly retorted that instead of owing fealty to the
   pope, the popes owed fealty to the emperor, inasmuch as it was by the
   gift of the emperor Constantine that Pope Sylvester secured possession
   of Rome. A war of letters followed. Adrian was intending to punish his
   imperial foe with excommunication when he was struck down by death at
   Anagni. He was buried in St. Peter's in an antique sarcophagus of red
   granite which is still shown. So ended the career of a man who by his
   moral character and personal attractions had lifted himself up from the
   condition of a child of a poor cleric to the supreme dignity of
   Christendom, and ventured to face the proudest monarch as his superior
   and to call the imperial crown a papal beneficium. [134]

   This English pope, who laid the city of Rome under the interdict, which
   no Italian or German pope had dared to do, presented Ireland to the
   crown of England, on the ground that all the islands of the Christian
   world belong to the pope by virtue of Constantine's donation. The
   curious bull Laudabiliter, encouraging Henry II. to invade and
   subjugate the land and giving it to him and to his heirs for a
   possession, may not be genuine, but the authorization was certainly
   made by Adrian as John of Salisbury, writing about 1159, attests, and
   it was renewed by Alexander III. and carried out, 1171. [135] land will
   hardly want to have a second trial of an English pope.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [131] John of Salisbury, Polycraticus, VIII. 23; Migne, 199, 814.

   [132] See vol. IV. 258, and Rueckert's poem there quoted. Em. Geibel
   also wrote a beautiful poem on the German dream of sleep and revival of
   Barbarossa:-- "Tief im Schoosse des Kyffhaeusers Bei der Ampel rothem
   Schein Sitzt der alte Kaiser Friedrich An dem Tisch von
   Marmorstein,"etc.

   [133] Eskill of Lund seems to have had the loftiest ideas of prelatical
   prerogative, and boasted that he was accustomed to command kings, not
   obey them. It is quite possible the emperor took inward satisfaction at
   his custody. Hauck, IV. 210. Adrian's letter, Mirbt, Quellen, 119 sq.,
   speaks of the treatment of the archbishop as "that fearful and
   execrable deed and sacrilegious crime,"illud horrendum et execrabile
   facinus et piaculare flagitium.

   [134] Gregorovius, IV. 560, after praising his merits, says of Adrian.
   "He was shrewd, practical, and unyielding as Anglo-Saxons are wont to
   be." His "nature was as firm and strong as the granite of his tomb."

   [135] The subject has been thoroughly discussed by Professors Thatcher
   and Scheffer-Boichorst before him. John of Salisbury, Polycr. VI. 24;
   Migne, 199, 623, distinctly says that Adrian, "listening to his
   petitions, conceded and gave" Ireland to Henry and his heirs on the
   ground that all islands "by ancient law and Constantine's donation, are
   said to belong to the Church." The pope sent to the king through John a
   ring of gold set with a precious stone to be a seal of investiture.
   There is no good reason to doubt this statement. And we know from Roger
   de Wendover, Rolls Series, I. 11, that an English embassy was sent to
   Adrian to secure this permission. The bull Laudabiliter (Mansi, XXI.
   788), which formally confers the island upon the English crown and
   demands from it the payment of Peter's Pence, is found also in Roger de
   Wendover (Giles, Trans., I. 529) and Giraldus. Upon internal grounds
   its genuineness is considered doubtful or flatly denied, as by
   Thatcher. This author gives, p. 4, a list of review articles on the
   subject. Scholarship and patriotism have made it possible for Irish
   writers to use much argument to show that the bull is a forgery and the
   alleged fact a fancy, whether of a prophetic enemy of Ireland or by a
   historical bungler is not known. The Protestant has an easier way out
   of the difficulty in affirming that the pope may make mistakes.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 29. Alexander III. in Conflict with Barbarossa.

   See the literature in S: 27, especially Reuter's Alex. III.--Vita
   Alexandri auctore Bosone Card., in Watterich, II. 377 sqq.--Migne, Tom.
   200.--The Regesta of Alexander III. in Jaffe-Wattenbach's Reg. Pont.
   Rom., pp. 145-418; and of the anti-popes, Victor IV., Pascal III.,
   Calixtus III., and Innocent III., ibid., pp. 418-430.--Milman, bk.
   VIII. chs. VIII. and IX.--Greenwood, bk. XII. chs.
   III.-VII.--Gregorovius, IV. 525 sqq.; Hefele-Knoepfler, V.
   570-720.--Moritz Meyer: Die Wahl Alex. III. und Victors IV. Goettingen,
   1871.--Edw. A. Freeman: Frederick the First, King of Italy, in his
   "Historical Essays," London, 1871, pp. 252-282.--P. Scheffer-Boichorst;
   Friedrich I. letzte Streit mit der Kurie, 1866.--Wattenbach, 167 sqq.;
   Hauck, IV. 227-311.--Gietl: Die Sentenzen Rolands, nachmals Alexander
   III. Freib., 1891.

   With Alexander III. (1159-1181) the conflict between Caesarism and
   sacerdotalism, which had begun under Adrian, assumed a more serious
   character. It was not a war for destruction, but for supremacy on the
   one hand and submission on the other. "Who shall be the greater?" that
   was the question. It was the old contention between Church and State
   under a new phase. Caesar and pope were alike Catholic Christians as
   far as they had any religion at all. They were indispensable to each
   other. The emperor or king needed a pope, as a kind of chief chaplain
   and father confessor for the control of the consciences of his
   subjects; the pope needed the secular arm of an emperor for the
   protection of the property and rights of the Church and the prosecution
   of heretics. The emperors elected anti-popes, and the popes supported
   rival emperors. It was the ambition of the Hohenstaufen to keep Germany
   and Italy united; it was the interest of the popes to keep them
   separated, and to foment division in Germany and in Italy, according to
   the maxim. "Divide et impera."

   On the 7th of September, 1159, Cardinal Roland, the chancellor of the
   Roman curia and a distinguished canonist, ascended the papal chair as
   Alexander III. He had previously been professor at Bologna, and written
   the first work on the Decretum Gratiani. He had been created cardinal
   by Eugene III. He had once offended Barbarossa by the question: "From
   whom does the emperor receive his dignity if not from the pope?" He had
   also advised Adrian to excommunicate the emperor. He was a scholar, a
   statesman, and a vigorous champion of the Hildebrandian theocracy. He
   had an unusually long pontificate of twenty-one years, and is the most
   conspicuous pope between Gregory VII. and Innocent III. He had a
   checkered career of fortune and misfortune in a conflict with the
   emperor and four anti-popes; but he consistently adhered to his
   principles, and at last triumphed over his enemies by moral force and
   the material aid of the Normans in the south and the Lombards in the
   north.

   The election of Roland by fourteen cardinals was immediately followed
   by the election of Cardinal Octavian of St. Cecilia, the imperial
   anti-pope, who called himself Victor IV., and at once took possession
   of the Vatican. Roland was consecrated at Ninfa, Octavian in the
   convent of Farfa. They were quartered in the Campagna, a few miles
   distant from each other, and published contradictory reports with
   charges of disgraceful violence at the election. [136]

   The emperor, who was then besieging the city of Cremona, being appealed
   to by both parties (though with different feelings), and using a right
   exercised by Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Charlemagne, and Otto,
   summoned a council at Pavia to investigate and decide the case, 1160.
   [137] The rival popes were invited by messengers to appear in person.
   Octavian, who was always an imperialist, accepted the invitation.
   Roland distrusted the emperor, and protested against his right to call
   a council without his permission. He said that he honored him as a
   special defender of the Church above all other princes, but that God
   had placed the pope above kings.

   The partisan council, which consisted chiefly of bishops from Germany
   and North Italy, after a grave debate, unanimously decided in favor of
   Octavian, and excommunicated Roland, Feb. 11, 1160. The emperor paid
   the customary honors to Victor IV., held his stirrup and kissed his
   toe. Alexander issued from Anagni a counter-excommunication against the
   anti-pope and the emperor, March 24, 1160. He thereby encouraged revolt
   in Lombardy and division in Germany. Another schism rent the Church.

   The rival popes dispatched legates to all the courts of Europe. France,
   Spain, and England sided with Alexander. He took refuge in France for
   three years (1162-1165), and was received with enthusiasm. The kings of
   France and England, Louis VII. and Henry II., walked on either side of
   his horse, holding the bridle, and conducting him into the town of
   Courcy on the Loire. Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Norway, and Sweden
   supported Victor. Italy was divided: Rome and Tuscany were under the
   power of the emperor; Sicily favored the Gregorian pope; the
   flourishing commercial and manufacturing cities of Lombardy were
   discontented with the despotic rule of Barbarossa, who was called the
   destroyer of cities. He put down the revolt with an iron hand; he razed
   Milan to the ground after a long and atrocious siege, scattered the
   population, and sent the venerated relics of the Magi to the cathedral
   of Cologne, March, 1162.

   Victor IV. died in April, 1164. Pascal III. was elected his successor
   without regard to the canonical rules. At the request of the emperor,
   he canonized Charles the Great (1165).

   Alexander III. put himself at the head of the Lombard league against
   the emperor; city after city declared itself for him. In September,
   1165, he returned to Italy with the help of Sicily, and French and
   English gold, and took possession of Rome.

   In November, 1166, Frederick crossed the Alps a fourth time, with a
   strong army, marched to Rome, captured the Leonine city, put Pascal
   III. in possession of St. Peter's, and was crowned again, with
   Beatrice, Aug. 1, 1167. Alexander defended the city on the other side
   of the Tiber, but soon withdrew to Benevento. The emperor, victorious
   over armies, found a more formidable enemy in the Roman fever, which
   made fearful ravages among his bishops, noblemen, and soldiers. He lost
   in a few weeks his bravest knights and two thousand men by the plague.
   He broke up his camp in great haste, and marched to Pavia (September,
   1167). [138]

   The second anti-pope died, Sept. 20, 1168, and with him the power of
   the schism collapsed. Calixtus III. was elected his successor, but he
   was a mere shadow, 1168-1178. [139]

   Barbarossa undertook a fifth campaign to Italy in 1174. He destroyed
   Susa, and, descending through Piedmont, besieged the new city of
   Alessandria, which was named in honor of Alexander III., and strongly
   fortified. Here he found determined resistance. His forces were
   weakened by a severe winter. He was forsaken by his strongest ally, the
   Saxon duke, Henry the Lion. He fought a pitched battle against the
   Lombards, near Legnano, May 29, 1176. He rushed, as usual, into the
   thickest of the fight, but was defeated after terrible slaughter, and
   lost his shield, banner, cross, lance, and coffers of silver and gold.
   He retired with the remnant of his army to Pavia. He was left without a
   single ally, and threatened in Germany by the dangerous rivalry of
   Henry the Lion. He now took serious steps towards a reconciliation with
   Alexander, the spiritual head of his enemies.

   The emperor sent Archbishop Christian of Mainz (his chancellor, ablest
   general, and diplomat), Archbishop Wichmann of Magdeburg, Bishop Conrad
   of Worms, and Protonotary Wortwin to Anagni, with full powers to treat
   with the pope (October, 1176). Alexander received the commissioners
   with marked respect, and in private conferences, lasting over a
   fortnight, he arranged with them the preliminary terms of peace, which
   were to be ratified at Venice during a personal interview between him
   and the emperor.

   The pope, provided with a safe-conduct by the emperor, left Anagni on
   Christmas, 1176, in company with his cardinals and the two
   commissioners of the kingdom of Sicily, Archbishop Romuald of Salerno
   and Count Roger of Andria, and arrived at Venice, March 24, 1177. The
   emperor tarried at Chioggia, near Venice, till July 23. The peace
   negotiations between the pope and the imperial commissioners began in
   May and lasted till July. They were conducted on the basis of the
   previous negotiations in Anagni.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [136] Octavian, according to the report of his enemies, plucked the
   papal cope from the shoulders of Roland, and invested himself with such
   indecent haste that the cope was reversed, and the back of it appeared
   on his breast. The mistake created derisive laughter, and was construed
   as a divine judgment.

   [137] The document is given in Rahewin, Gesta Frid. IV. 64, and Mirbt,
   Quellen, 121.

   [138] Thomas `a Becket, in a letter congratulating Alexander, compared
   Frederick's discomfiture by pestilence to Sennacherib's defeat at
   Jerusalem. 2 Chron. xxxii:21.

   [139] His few acts are recorded in Jaffe-Wattenbach, Regesta, pp.
   429-430. He submitted to Alexander, and was made archbishop of
   Benevento. Of the fourth anti-pope, Lando Sitino, who called himself
   Innocent III (1179-1180), nothing is recorded but his election and
   imprisonment, ibid., p. 431.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 30. The Peace of Venice. 1177.

   The negotiations resulted in the Peace of Venice, which was embodied in
   twenty-eight articles. [140] ardinals were reduced to the positions
   they had occupied before their appointment to the curia. Beatrice was
   acknowledged as Frederick's legal wife, and his son Henry as king of
   the Romans. Rome and the patrimonium were restored to the pope, and
   Spoleto, the Romagna, and Ancona were recognized as a part of the
   empire.

   The peace was ratified by one of the most solemn congresses of the
   Middle Ages. Absolved from the ban, and after eighteen years of
   conflict, the emperor met the pope in front of St. Mark's, July 24,
   1177. A vast multitude filled the public square. The pope in his
   pontifical dress sitting upon a throne in front of the portal of the
   cathedral must have had mingled with his feelings of satisfaction
   reminiscences of his painful fortunes since the time he was elected to
   the tiara. Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and other dignitaries
   occupied lower seats according to their rank.

   The emperor, on arriving in the magnificent gondola of the doge, with a
   train of prelates and nobles, was received by a procession of priests
   with banners and crosses, and the shouts of the people. He slowly
   proceeded to the cathedral. Overcome with feelings of reverence for the
   venerable pope, he cast off his mantle, bowed, and fell at his feet.
   [141] d him up, [142] [143]

   Then the emperor, taking the hand of the pope, walked with him and the
   doge into the church, made rich offerings at the altar, bent his knees,
   and received again the apostolic benediction.

   On the next day (the 25th), being the feast of St. James, the pope, at
   the emperor's request, celebrated high mass, and preached a sermon
   which he ordered the patriarch of Aquileia to translate at once into
   German. The emperor accompanied him from the altar to the door, and
   paid him the customary homage of holding the stirrup. [144] e of a
   groom, taking the will for the deed, and gave him again his
   benediction.

   This is the authentic account of contemporary writers and
   eye-witnesses. They make no mention of the story that the emperor said
   to the pope, "I do this homage to Peter, not to thee," and that the
   pope quickly replied, "To Peter and to me."

   The hierarchical imagination has represented this interview as a second
   Canossa. In Venetian pictures the pope is seen seated on a throne, and
   planting his foot on the neck of the prostrate emperor, with the words
   of Ps. 91:13: --

   "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and the adder:

   The young lion and the serpent shalt thou trample under feet." [145]

   There is as much difference between the scenes of Venice and Canossa as
   there is between the characters of Barbarossa and Henry IV. Barbarossa
   was far superior, morally as well as intellectually, to his Salian
   predecessor, and commanded the respect of his enemies, even in his
   defeat. He maintained his dignity and honorably kept his word.

   Delegates and letters were sent to all parts of Christendom with the
   glad tidings of peace. The emperor left Venice toward the end of
   September for Germany by a roundabout way, and the pope for Anagni on
   the 15th of October. After an exile of ten years, Alexander made a
   triumphal entry into Rome, March 12, 1178.

   He convened, according to previous agreement with the emperor, a synod
   to ratify the pacification of Christendom, and to remove certain evils
   which had multiplied during the schism. The Third Lateran or the
   Eleventh Oecumenical Council was held in the Constantinian Basilica at
   Rome during Lent, 1179. It numbered about three hundred bishops,
   besides many abbots and other dignitaries, [146] oman hierarchy in its
   glory, though it was eclipsed afterwards by the Fourth Lateran Council
   of 1215. The details of the transactions are unknown, except
   twenty-seven chapters which were adopted in the third and last session.

   The council, in order to prevent rival elections, placed the election
   of popes exclusively in the hands of cardinals, to be decided by a
   majority of two-thirds, and threatened with excommunication and
   deposition any one who should dare to accept an election by a smaller
   number of votes. [147] journeys, the archbishops were limited to forty
   or fifty horses on those occasions, the cardinals to twenty-five, the
   bishops to twenty or thirty, the archdeacons to five or seven. Ordained
   clergymen must dismiss their concubines, or forfeit their benefices.
   Unnatural licentiousness was to be punished by expulsion from the
   priesthood and confinement in a convent. The council prepared the way
   for a crusade against the heretics in the South of France, and promised
   to those who should engage in it the same plenary indulgence for two
   years as had been granted to the crusaders against the Moslems.

   Soon after the synod, Alexander was again driven into exile by the
   Roman republic. He died at Civit`a Castellana, Aug. 30, 1181, having
   reigned longer than any pope before or after him, except Sylvester I.,
   314-385, Adrian I., 772-795, Pius VII., 1800-1823, Pius IX., 1846-1878,
   and Leo XIII., 1878-1903. When Alexander's remains were being carried
   to Rome for burial, the populace insulted his memory by pelting the
   coffin with stones and mud. [148] ecause of the refusal of its king,
   William, to acknowledge the canonical election of John to the see of
   St. Andrews. Upon Louis VII. of France he conferred the Red Rose for
   the support he had received from that sovereign in the days of his
   early exile. He presided over the Third Lateran Council and prepared
   the way for the crusade against the Cathari and Albigenses.

   His aged and feeble successor, Lucius III., was elected, Sept. 1, 1181,
   by the cardinals alone. The Romans, deprived of their former share in
   the election, treated him with barbarous cruelty; they captured twenty
   or twenty-six of his partisans at Tusculum, blinded them, except one,
   crowned them with paper mitres inscribed with the names of cardinals,
   mounted them on asses, and forced the priest whom they had spared to
   lead them in this condition to "Lucius, the wicked simoniac." He died
   in exile at Verona where he held an important synod.

   It is a remarkable fact that some of the greatest popes--as Gregory
   VII., Urban II., Innocent II., Eugene III., Adrian IV., Alexander III.,
   and three of his successors--could not secure the loyalty of their own
   subjects, and were besieged in Rome or compelled to flee. Adrian IV.
   said to his countryman and friend, John of Salisbury, "Rome is not the
   mother, but the stepmother of the Churches." The Romans were always
   fluctuating between memories of the old republic and memories of the
   empire; now setting up a consul, a senator, a tribune; now welcoming
   the German emperor as the true Augustus Caesar; now loyal to the pope,
   now driving him into exile, and ever selling themselves to the highest
   bidder. The papal court was very consistent in its principles and aims,
   but as to the choice of means for its end it was subject to the same
   charge of avarice and venality, whether at Rome or in exile. Even
   Thomas Becket, the staunchest adherent of Alexander III., indignantly
   rebuked the cardinals for their love of gold.

   Emperor Frederick survived his great rival nearly ten years, and died
   by drowning in a little river of Asia Minor, 1190, while marching on
   the third crusade.

   Barbarossa was a man of middle size, bright countenance, fair
   complexion, yellow hair and reddish beard, a kind friend and placable
   enemy, strictly just, though often too severe, liberal in almsgiving,
   attentive to his religious duties, happy in his second marriage, of the
   noblest type of mediaeval chivalry, the greatest sovereign of the
   twelfth century, a hero in fact and a hero in romance. [149] nian code
   in the other, but failed in subduing the political independence of the
   Lombard cities, and in his contest with the spiritual power of
   Alexander. The German imagination has cherished his memory in song and
   story, placing him next in rank to Charles the Great among the Roman
   emperors, exaggerating his virtues, condoning his faults, which were
   those of his age, and hoping for his return to restore the unity and
   power of Germany.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [140] For the text see Mirbt, Quellen, 121-124. The chief authorities
   for the Peace of Venice are Alexander's Letters to Roger, archbishop of
   York, in Migne, 200, 1160 sqq.; and Mansi, XXII. 180 sqq.; the
   Chronicon of Romuald., archbishop of Salerno and commissioner from
   Sicily, in Muratori, Scrip. Rer. Ital. VII. Mathews, pp. 99-105, also
   gives the text.

   [141] Vita Alex.: "prostravit se in terram."Chron. Romualdi
   (Muratori,VII. 231): "totum se extenso corpore prostravit."

   [142] Romuald. "quem Alexander papa cum lacrymis benigne elevans."

   [143] Romuald.: "moxque a Teutonicis Te Deum laudamus est excelsa voce
   cantatum." Vita Alex.: "Tunc repleti sunt omnes gaudio et prae nimia
   laetitia vox conclamantium in Te Deum laudamus insonuit usque ad
   sidera." Alexander writes to Roger of York: "innumera multitudine
   virorum et mulierum praesente, alta voce reddente gratias et laudes
   Altissimo."

   [144] Alexander ad Rogerum (Migne, 200, 1 1131): "Cum ascenderemus
   palafredum nostrum ibi paratum, stapham tenuit, et omnem honorem et
   reverentiam nobis exhibuit, quam praedecessores ejus nostris
   consueverunt antecessoribus." It is stated by Godfrey of Viterbo, an
   attendant of the emperor, that the old pope, through the pressure of
   the crowd, was thrown from his horse, and that the emperor assisted him
   to remount. Pertz, Archiv, IV. 363, quoted by Milman, bk. VIII. ch. IX.

   [145] "Super aspidem et basiliscum ambulabis," etc. This and other
   stories of the fourteenth century are irreconcilable with contemporary
   records and are given up by nearly all modern historians. They may have
   partly originated in the fresco paintings of Spinello described by Lord
   Lindsay, History of Christian Art, II. 315. Milman, IV. 435 (Am. ed.),
   says."As poetry has so often become, here painting for once became
   history." Comp. Reuter, III. 758.

   [146] The lists are defective, and the contemporary records vary
   between 287, 300, 396 bishops, and 1000 members in all. See Mansi,
   XXII. 213 sqq.; Hefele, V. 711; Reuter, III. 418 sqq.

   [147] "Ille Romanus Pontifex habeatur, qui a duabus partibus fuerit
   electus et receptus. Si quis autem de tertiae partis nominatione
   confisus ... sibi nomen Episcopi usurpaverit: tam ipse, quam qui eum
   recepuerint, excommunicationi subjaceant et totius sacri ordinis
   privatione mulctentur," etc. Mansi, XXII. 217.

   [148] Reuter, III. 495-499. A similar insult was offered by the Roman
   populace to Pius IX. when his coffin was transported in the night from
   the Vatican to its last resting-place in the basilica of S. Lorenzo.
   He, too, spent some time in exile after the proclamation of the Roman
   republic in 1849.

   [149] Rahewin, in his Gesta Friderici, IV. 86, gives an animated
   description of Frederick's appearance, habits, dress, achievements,
   etc. He calls him the best of emperors.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 31. Thomas Becket and Henry II of England.

   For the extensive Becket literature, see Robertson, in "The
   Contemporary Review," 1866, I. (Jan.) 270-278, and Ulysse Chevalier, in
   his Repertoire des sources historiques du Moyen Age (Paris, 1886), s.
   v. "Thomas," fol. 2207-2209.

   I. Sources: --

   *Materials for the History of Thomas `a Becket, Archbishop of
   Canterbury. Edited by James Craigie Robertson (Canon of Canterbury, d.
   1882) and J. Brigstocke Sheppard, LL. D. London, 1875-1885, 7 vols.
   This magnificent work is part of a series of Rerum Britannic. Medii
   Aevi Scriptores, or "Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and
   Ireland during the Middle Ages," published under direction of the
   Master of the Rolls and popularly known as the "Rolls Series." It
   embraces all the important contemporary materials for the history of
   Thomas. Vols. I.-IV. contain the contemporary Vitae (by William of
   Canterbury, Benedict of Peterborough, Edward Grim, Roger of Pontigny,
   William Fitz-Stephen, John of Salisbury, Alan of Tewkesbury, and
   Herbert of Bosham, etc.); vols. V.-VII., the Epistolae, i.e. the whole
   correspondence relating to Thomas.

   This collection is much more accurate, complete, and better arranged
   (especially in the Epistles) than the older collection of Dr. Giles
   (Sanctus Thomas Cantuariensis, London, 1845-1846, 8 vols., reprinted in
   Migne's Patrologia, Tom. 190), and the Quadrilogus or Historia
   Quadripartita (Lives by four contemporary writers, composed by order of
   Pope Gregory XI., first published, 1495, then by L. Christian Lupus or
   Wolf, Brussels, 1682, and Venice, 1728).

   Thomas Saga Erkibyskups. A Life of Archb. Th. Becket in Icelandic, with
   Engl. transl., notes, and glossary, ed. by Eirikr Magnusson. London,
   1875, and 1883, 2 vols. Part of the "Chronicles and Memorials," above
   quoted.

   Garnier of Pont Sainte-Maxence: La Vie de St. Thomas le martir. A
   metrical life, in old French, written between 1172 and 1174, published
   by Hippeau, and more recently by Professor Bekker, Berlin, 1844, and
   Paris, 1859.

   The Life And Martyrdom Of Thomas Becket by Robert of Gloucester. Ed. By
   W. H. Black. London, 1845 (p. 141). A Biography In Alexandrine verse,
   written in the thirteenth century.

   II. Modern Works: --

   Richard Hurrell Froude (one of the originators of the Oxford
   Anglo-Catholic movement, d. 1836): Remains. London, 1838, 4 vols. The
   second vol., part II., contains a history of the contest between Thomas
   `a Becket and Henry II., in vindication of the former. He was assisted
   by J. H. (late Cardinal) Newman.

   A. F. Ozanam: Deux Chanceliers d'Angleterre, Bacon de Verulam et Saint
   Thomas de Cantorbery. Paris, 1836.

   J. A. Giles: The Life And Letters Of Thomas `a Becket. London, 1846, 2
   vols.

   F. J. Buss (Rom. Cath.): Der heil. Thomas und sein Kampf fuer die
   Freiheit der Kirche. Mainz, 1856.

   John Morris (Rom. Cath. Canon of Northampton): The Life and Martyrdom
   of Saint Thomas Becket. London, 1859.

   *James Craigie Robertson: Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. London,
   1859. Accurate, but unfavorable to Becket.

   *Edw. A. Freeman: St. Thomas of Canterbury and his Biographers. A
   masterly article in the "National Review" for April, 1860, reprinted in
   his "Historical Essays," London, 1871, pp. 99-114. Comp. the summary in
   his History of the Norman Conquest, V. 660 sqq., and his articles
   against Froude, noticed below.

   *James Anthony Froude: Life and Times of Thomas Becket. First published
   in "The Nineteenth Century" for 1877, then in book form, London and New
   York, 1878 (pp. 160). Against the Roman and Anglo-Catholic overestimate
   of St. Thomas. This book is written in brilliant style, but takes a
   very unfavorable view of Becket (opposite to that of his elder brother,
   R. H. Froude), and led to a somewhat personal controversy with
   Professor Freeman, who charged Froude with habitual inaccuracy,
   unfairness, and hostility to the English Church, in, "The Contemporary
   Review" for 1878 (March, April, June, and September). Froude defended
   himself in "The Nineteenth Century" for April, 1879, pp. 618-637, to
   which Freeman replied in Last Words on Mr. Froude, in "The Contemporary
   Review" for May, 1879, pp. 214-236.

   *R. A. Thompson: Thomas Becket, Martyr, London, 1889.--A. S. Huillier:
   St. Thomas de Cantorbery, 2 vols., Paris, 1892.

   *Edwin A. Abbott: St. Thomas of Canterbury. His Death and Miracles, 2
   vols., London, 1888. This work grew out of studies in preparation of a
   critical commentary of the Four Gospels. It takes the early narratives
   of Thomas `a Becket, sets them side by side, and seeks to show which
   are to be accepted upon the basis of disagreements in regard to event
   or verbal expression. It also presents the details in which Dean
   Stanley and Tennyson are alleged to have been misled. The criticism is
   able, stimulating, and marked by self-confidence in determining what
   events really did occur, and how much is to be discarded as unhistoric.
   The discussion has all the merits and demerits of the strict critical
   method.

   III. Becket is more or less fully treated by Milman: Latin
   Christianity, bk. VIII. ch. VIII.--Dean Stanley: Historical Memorials
   of Canterbury, Am. ed., 1889.--Reuter: Alexander III., I. 237 sqq., 530
   sqq. Dean Hook: Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, II. 354-508.
   Greenwood: Cathedra Petri, bk. XII. ch. VII.--William Stubbs: The
   Constitutional Hist. of England, 6th ed., 3 vols., Oxford, 1897, and
   Select Charters and Other Illustrations of the English Constit. Hist.,
   8th ed., Oxford, 1900.--Gee and Hardy: Documents Illustrative of Engl.
   Ch. Hist., London, 1896.--F. W. Maitland: Rom. Canon Late in the Ch. of
   England, London, 1898, 134-147.--W. R. W. Stephens: The English Church
   (1066-1272), London, 1901, 157-190. The Histories of Lingard, Green,
   etc.

   Lord Tennyson has made Becket the subject of a historical drama, 1884.

   During the pontificate of Alexander III., the papal hierarchy achieved
   an earlier and greater triumph over the king of England than over the
   emperor of Germany.

   Thomas Becket, or Thomas `a Becket, or St. Thomas of Canterbury, is,
   next to Alexander and Barbarossa, the most prominent historical figure
   in the twelfth century, and fills a chapter of thrilling interest in
   the history of England. He resumed the conflict of Anselm with the
   crown, and by his martyrdom became the most popular saint of the later
   Middle Ages.

   The materials for his history, from his birth in London to his murder
   in his own cathedral by four knights of the royal household, are
   abundant. We have six or seven contemporary biographies, besides
   fragments, legends, and "Passions," state papers, private letters, and
   a correspondence extending over the whole Latin Church. But his life is
   surrounded by a mist of romantic legends and theological controversies.
   He had extravagant admirers, like Herbert of Bosham, and fierce
   opponents, like Gilbert Foliot, in his own day; and modern biographers
   still differ in the estimate of his character, according to their creed
   and their views on the question of Church and State, some regarding him
   as a hero and a saint, others as a hypocrite and a traitor. We must
   judge him from the standpoint of the twelfth century.

   Becket was born in London, Dec. 21, 1118, during the reign of Henry I.
   He was the son of Gilbert Becket, a merchant in Cheapside, originally
   from Rouen, and of Matilda or Rose, a native of Caen in Normandy. [150]

   In the later legend his father appears as a gallant crusader and his
   mother as a Saracen princess, who met in the East and fell in love with
   each other. Matilda helped Gilbert to escape from captivity, and then
   followed him alone to England. Knowing only two English words, "London"
   and "Gilbert," she wandered through the streets of the city, till at
   last she found her beloved in Cheapside as by a miracle, was baptized
   and married to him in St. Paul's with great splendor. She had dreams of
   the future greatness and elevation of her infant son to the see of
   Canterbury.

   Becket was educated at Merton Abbey in Surrey and in the schools of
   London. At a later period he attended the universities of Paris,
   Bologna, and Auxerre, and studied there chiefly civil and canon law,
   without attaining to special eminence in learning. He was not a
   scholar, but a statesman and an ecclesiastic.

   He made his mark in the world and the Church by the magnetism of his
   personality. He was very handsome, of tall, commanding presence,
   accomplished, brilliant, affable, cheerful in discourse, ready and
   eloquent in debate, fond of hunting and hawking, and a proficient in
   all the sports of a mediaeval cavalier. He could storm the strongest
   castle and unhorse the stoutest knight.

   Archbishop Theobald of Canterbury, 1139-1161, took him into his
   service, 1142; sent him to Bologna, where Gratian then taught canon
   law; employed him in delicate missions with the papal court; made him
   archdeacon (1154), and bestowed upon him other profitable benefices, as
   the provostship of Beverly, a number of churches, and several prebends.
   When charged, as archbishop, with ingratitude to the king, who had
   raised him from "poverty," he proudly referred to this accumulation of
   preferments, and made no attempt to abolish the crying evil of
   plurality, which continued till the Reformation. Many a prosperous
   ecclesiastic regarded his parishes simply as sources of income, and
   discharged the duties by proxy through ignorant and ill-paid priests.

   King Henry II., 1154-1189, in the second year of his reign, raised
   Becket, then only thirty-seven years of age, at Theobald's instance, to
   the chancellorship of England. The chancellor was the highest civil
   dignitary, and held the custody of nearly all the royal grants and
   favors, including vacant bishoprics, abbacies, chaplaincies, and other
   ecclesiastical benefices.

   Henry, the first of the proud Plantagenets, was an able, stirring, and
   energetic monarch. He kept on his feet from morning till evening, and
   rarely sat down. He introduced a reign of law and severe justice after
   the lawless violence and anarchy which had disturbed the reign of the
   unfortunate Stephen. [151] nental dominions were more extensive than
   those of the king of France, and embraced Maine and Normandy, Anjou and
   Aquitaine, reaching from Flanders to the foot of the Pyrenees. He
   afterwards (1171) added Ireland by conquest, with the authority of
   Popes Adrian IV. and Alexander III. His marriage to Queen Eleanor of
   Aquitaine, who had been divorced for infidelity from King Louis VII. of
   France, enriched his realm, but involved him in protracted wars with
   France and in domestic troubles. Eleanor was jealous of her rivals,
   [152] afterwards retired to the abbey of Fontevrault, and died about
   1203.

   Becket occupied the chancellorship for seven years (1155-1162). He
   aided the king in the restoration of order and peace. He improved the
   administration of justice. He was vigorous and impartial, and preferred
   the interests of the crown to those of the clergy, yet without being
   hostile to the Church. He was thoroughly loyal to the king, and served
   him as faithfully as he had served Theobald, and as he afterwards
   served the pope. Thorough devotion to official duty characterized him
   in all the stations of his career.

   He gave to his high office a prominence and splendor which it never had
   before. He was as magnificent and omnipotent as Wolsey under Henry
   VIII. He was king in fact, though not in name, and acted as regent
   during Henry's frequent absences on the Continent. He dressed after the
   best fashion, surrounded himself with a brilliant retinue of a hundred
   and forty knights, exercised a prodigal hospitality, and spent enormous
   sums upon his household and public festivities, using in part the
   income of his various ecclesiastical benefices, which he retained
   without a scruple. He presided at royal banquets in Westminster Hall.
   His tables were adorned with vessels of gold, with the most delicate
   and sumptuous food, and with wine of the choicest vintage. He
   superintended the training of English and foreign nobles, and of the
   young Prince Henry. He was the favorite of the king, the army, the
   nobility, the clergy, and the people.

   The chancellor negotiated in person a matrimonial alliance (three years
   before it was consummated) between the heir of the crown (then a boy of
   seven years) and a daughter of the king of France (a little lady of
   three). He took with him on that mission two hundred knights, priests,
   standard-bearers, all festively arrayed in new attire, twenty-four
   changes of raiment, all kinds of dogs and birds for field sports, eight
   wagons, each drawn by five horses, each horse in charge of a stout
   young man dressed in a new tunic. Coffers and chests contained the
   chancellor's money and presents. One horse, which preceded all the
   rest, carried the holy vessels of his chapel, the holy books, and the
   ornaments of the altar. The Frenchmen, seeing this train, exclaimed,
   "How wonderful must be the king of England, whose chancellor travels in
   such state!" In Paris he freely distributed his gold and silver plate
   and changes of raiment,--to one a robe, to another a furred cloak, to a
   third a pelisse, to a fourth a war-horse. He gained his object and
   universal popularity.

   When, notwithstanding his efforts to maintain peace, war broke out
   between France and England, the chancellor was the bravest warrior at
   the head of seven hundred knights, whom he had enlisted at his own
   expense, and he offered to lead the storming party at the siege of
   Toulouse, where King Louis was shut up; but the scruples of Henry
   prevented him from offering violence to the king of France. He
   afterwards took three castles which were deemed impregnable, and
   returned triumphant to England. One of his eulogists, Edward Grim,
   reports to his credit: "Who can recount the carnage, the desolation,
   which he made at the head of a strong body of soldiers? He attacked
   castles, razed towns and cities to the ground, burned down houses and
   farms without a touch of pity, and never showed the slightest mercy to
   any one who rose in insurrection against his master's authority." Such
   cruelty was quite compatible with mediaeval conceptions of piety and
   charity, as the history of the crusades shows.

   Becket was made for the court and the camp. Yet, though his life was
   purely secular, it was not immoral. He joined the king in his
   diversions, but not in his debaucheries. Being in deacon's orders, he
   was debarred from marriage, but preserved his chastity at a profligate
   court. This point is especially mentioned to his credit; for chastity
   was a rare virtue in the Middle Ages.

   All together, his public life as chancellor was honorable and
   brilliant, and secures him a place among the distinguished statesmen of
   England. But a still more important career awaited him. [153]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [150] The Norman descent of Becket rests on contemporary testimony, and
   is accepted by Giles, Lingard, Robertson, Milman, Hook, Freeman,
   Reuter, Hefele. The commercial advantages of London attracted emigrants
   from Normandy. Lord Lyttleton, Thierry, Campbell, and J. A. Froude make
   Becket a Saxon, but without authority. Becket is a surname, and may be
   Norman as well as Saxon. The prefix `a seems to be of later date, and
   to have its origin (according to Robertson and Hook) in vulgar
   colloquial usage.

   [151] Tennyson describes Stephen's reign as-- "A reign which was no
   reign, when none could sit By his own hearth in peace; when murder
   common As nature'death, like Egypt's plague, had filled All things with
   blood."

   [152] The tradition ran that she poisoned his favorite concubine,
   Rosamund de Clifford, who, with her labyrinthine bower, figures largely
   in the literature of romance, also in Tennyson's Becket. On her tomb
   were inscribed the lines:-- "Hic jacet in tumba Rosa Mundi, non Rosa
   Munda, Non redolet, sed olet, quae redolere solet." "Here Rose the
   graced, not Rose the chaste, reposes; The smell that rises is no smell
   of roses."

   [153] Freeman, who exalts him as chancellor, thinks that he failed as
   archbishop; but his martyrdom was his greatest triumph.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 32. The Archbishop and the King.

   Compare S:S: 22-24 (pp. 80 sqq.).

   A year after the death of Theobald, April 18, 1161, Becket was
   appointed by the king archbishop of Canterbury. He accepted
   reluctantly, and warned the king, with a smile, that he would lose a
   servant and a friend. [154] t of Hereford (afterwards of London)
   remarked sarcastically, perhaps from disappointed ambition, that "the
   king had wrought a miracle in turning a layman into an archbishop, and
   a soldier into a saint."

   Becket was ordained priest on the Saturday after Pentecost, and
   consecrated archbishop on the following day with great magnificence in
   Westminster Abbey, June 3, 1162. His first act was to appoint the
   Sunday after Whitsunday as a festival of the Holy Trinity in the Church
   of England. He acknowledged Alexander III. as the rightful pope, and
   received from him the pallium through his friend, John of Salisbury.

   He was the first native Englishman who occupied the seat of the primate
   since the Norman Conquest; for Lanfranc and Anselm were Italians; Ralph
   of Escures, William Of Corbeuil, and Theobald of Bec were Normans or
   Frenchmen. There is, however, no ground for the misleading theory of
   Thierry that Becket asserted the cause of the Saxon against the Norman.
   His contest with the king was not a contest between two nationalities,
   but between Church and State. He took the same position on this
   question as his Norman predecessors, only with more zeal and energy. He
   was a thorough Englishman. The two nations had at that time, by
   intermarriage, social and commercial intercourse, pretty well
   coalesced, at least among the middle classes, to which he belonged.
   [155]

   With the change of office, Becket underwent a radical and almost sudden
   transformation. The foremost champion of kingcraft became the foremost
   champion of priestcraft; the most devoted friend of the king, his most
   dangerous rival and enemy; the brilliant chancellor, an austere and
   squalid monk. He exchanged the showy court dress for haircloth infested
   with vermin, fed on roots, and drank nauseous water. He daily washed,
   with proud humility and ostentatious charity, the feet of thirteen
   dirty beggars, and gave each of them four pieces of silver. He doubled
   the charities of Theobald, as Theobald had doubled the charities of his
   predecessor. He wandered alone in his cloister, shedding tears of
   repentance for past sins, frequently inflicted stripes on his naked
   back, and spent much time in prayer and reading of the Scriptures. He
   successfully strove to realize the ideal of a mediaeval bishop, which
   combines the loftiest ecclesiastical pretensions with personal
   humility, profuse charity, and ascetic self-mortification. He was no
   hypocrite, but his sanctity, viewed from the biblical and Protestant
   standpoint, was artificial and unnatural.

   His relation to the king was that of the pope to the emperor. Yea, we
   may say, as he had outkinged the king as chancellor, so he outpoped the
   pope as archbishop. He censured the pope for his temporizing policy. He
   wielded the spiritual sword against Henry with the same gallantry with
   which he had wielded the temporal sword for him. He took up the cause
   of Anselm against William Rufus, and of Gregory VII. against Henry IV.,
   but with this great difference, that he was not zealous for a moral
   reformation of the Church and the clergy, like Hildebrand and Anselm,
   but only for the temporal power of the Church and the rights and
   immunities of the clergy. He made no attempt to remove the scandal of
   pluralities of which he had himself been guilty as archdeacon and
   chancellor, and did not rebuke Henry for his many sins against God, but
   only for his sins against the supremacy of the hierarchy.

   The new archbishop was summoned by Pope Alexander III. to a council at
   Tours in France, and was received with unusual distinction (May, 1163).
   The council consisted of seventeen cardinals, a hundred and twenty-four
   bishops, four hundred and fourteen abbots; the pope presided in person;
   Becket sat at his right, Roger of York at his left. Arnolf of Lisieux
   in Normandy preached the opening sermon on the unity and freedom of the
   Church, which were the burning questions of the day. The council
   unanimously acknowledged the claims of Alexander, asserted the rights
   and privileges of the clergy, and severely condemned all encroachments
   on the property of the Church.

   This was the point which kindled the controversy between the sceptre
   and the crozier in England. The dignity of the crown was the sole aim
   of the king; the dignity of the Church was the sole aim of the
   archbishop. The first rupture occurred over the question of secular
   taxation.

   Henry determined to transfer the customary payment of two shillings on
   every hide of land to his own exchequer. Becket opposed the enrolment
   of the decree on the ground that the tax was voluntary, not of right.
   Henry protested, in a fit of passion, "By the eyes of God, it shall be
   enrolled!" Becket replied, "By the eyes of God, by which you swear, it
   shall never be levied on my lands while I live!"

   Another cause of dispute was the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical
   courts. The king demanded that all clerics accused of gross
   misdemeanors be tried by the civil court. A certain clerk, Philip of
   Broi, had been acquitted of murder in the bishop's court. The king was
   indignant, but Philip refused to plead in the civil court. The matter
   was taken up by the archbishop, but a light sentence imposed.

   The king summoned a Parliament at Westminster, and demanded in the name
   of equal justice, and in accordance with "ancient customs" (of the
   Norman kings), that all clerks accused of heinous crimes should be
   immediately degraded, and be dealt with according to law, instead of
   being shielded by their office. This was contrary to the right of the
   priest to be tried only in the court of his bishop, where flagellation,
   imprisonment, and degradation might be awarded, but not capital
   punishment.

   Becket and the bishops agreed that the king's demand was an
   infringement of the canon law and argued the case from Scripture. Joab,
   and Abiathar the priest, were guilty of putting Adonijah to death. Joab
   was punished, but the priest suffered no other punishment than
   deposition from office. Nahum 1:9 was quoted as against a double
   tribunal for clerks. According to the Septuagint version, this passage
   declares that God does not give two judgments in the same case.

   The king hastily broke up the Parliament, deprived Becket of the
   custody of the royal castles, and of the education of his son. The
   bishops advised the archbishop to yield; at first he refused, though an
   angel from heaven should counsel such weakness; but at last he made a
   concession to the king at Woodstock, and promised to obey in good faith
   the customs of the realm. He yielded at the persuasion of the pope's
   almoner, Philip de Eleeomosyna, who was bribed by English gold. [156]

   The king summoned a great council of the realm to Clarendon, a royal
   palace a few miles from Salisbury, for the ratification of the
   concession (Jan. 25, 1164). The two archbishops, twelve bishops, and
   thirty-nine lay-barons were present. Sixteen famous statutes were
   enacted, under the name of The Clarendon Constitutions, as laws of
   England. They are as follows: [157]

   THE CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.

   I. Of the advowson and presentation (de advocatione et presentatione)
   to churches: if any dispute shall arise between laics, or between
   clerks and laics, or between clerks, let it be tried and decided in the
   court of our lord the king.

   II. Churches in the king's fee (de feudo domini Regis) shall not be
   given in perpetuity without his consent and license.

   III. Clerks accused of any crime shall be summoned by the king's
   justiciaries into the king's court to answer there for whatever the
   king's court shall determine they ought to answer there; and in the
   ecclesiastical court, for whatever it shall be determined that they
   ought to answer there; yet so that the king's justiciaries shall send
   into the court of holy Church to see in what way the matter shall there
   be handled; and if the clerk shall confess or be convicted, the Church
   for the future shall not protect him. [158]

   IV. No archbishop, bishop, or other exalted person shall leave the
   kingdom without the king's license; and if they wish to leave it, the
   king shall be empowered, if he pleases, to take security from them,
   that they will do no harm to the king or kingdom, either in going or
   remaining, or in returning.

   V. Persons excommunicated are not to give bail, ad remanentiam, nor to
   make oath, but only to give bail and pledge that they will stand by the
   judgment of the Church where they are absolved.

   VI. Laics shall not be accused, save by certain and legal accusers and
   witnesses in presence of the bishop, so that the archdeacon may not
   lose his rights, or anything which accrues to him therefrom. And if
   those who are arraigned are such that no one is willing or dares to
   accuse them, the sheriff, on demand from the bishop, shall cause twelve
   loyal men of the village to swear before the bishop that they will
   declare the truth in that matter according to their conscience.

   VII. No one who holds of the king in chief, nor any of his domestic
   servants, shall be excommunicated, nor his lands be put under an
   interdict, until the king shall be consulted, if he is in the kingdom;
   or, if he is abroad, his justiciary, that he may do what is right in
   that matter, and so that whatever belongs to the king's court may
   therein be settled, and the same on the other hand of the
   ecclesiastical court.

   VIII. Appeals, if they arise, must be made from the archdeacon to the
   bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop; and if the archbishop
   shall fail in administering justice, the parties shall come before our
   lord the king, that by his precept the controversy may be terminated in
   the archbishop's court, so that it may not proceed further without the
   consent of our lord the king.

   IX. If a dispute shall arise between a clerk and a laic, or between a
   laic and a clerk, about a tenement, which the clerk wishes to claim as
   eleemosynary, but the laic claims as lay fee, it shall be settled by
   the declaration of twelve qualified men, through the agency of the
   king's capital judiciary, whether the tenement is eleemosynary or lay
   fee, in presence of the king's judiciaries. And if it shall be declared
   that it is eleemosynary, it shall be pleaded in the ecclesiastical
   court; but, if a lay fee, unless both shall claim the tenement of the
   same bishop or baron, it shall be pleaded in the king's court; but if
   both shall claim of that fee from the same bishop or baron, it shall be
   pleaded in his court, yet so that the same declaration above-named
   shall not deprive of seizing him who before was seized, until he shall
   be divested by the pleadings.

   X. If any man belonging to a city, castle, borough, or king's royal
   manor shall be summoned by the archdeacon or bishop to answer for a
   crime, and shall not comply with the summons, it shall be lawful to
   place him under an interdict, but not to excommunicate him, until the
   king's principal officer of that place be informed thereof, that he may
   justify his appearing to the summons; and if the king's officer shall
   fail in that matter, he shall be at the king's mercy, and the bishop
   shall forthwith coerce the party accused with ecclesiastical
   discipline.

   XI. The archbishops, bishops, and all other persons of the kingdom, who
   hold of the king in chief, shall hold their possessions of the king as
   barony, and answer for the same to the king's justiciaries and
   officers, and follow and observe all the king's customs and rectitudes;
   and be bound to be present, in the judgment of the king's court with
   the barons, like other barons, until the judgment proceeds to
   mutilation or death.

   XII. When an archbishopric, bishopric, abbacy, or priory on the king's
   domain shall be vacant, it shall be in his hand, and he shall receive
   from it all the revenues and proceeds, as of his domains. And when the
   time shall come for providing for that church, our lord the king shall
   recommend the best persons to that church, and the election shall be
   made in the king's chapel, with the king's consent, and the advice of
   the persons of the kingdom whom he shall have summoned for that
   purpose. And the person elected shall there do homage and fealty to our
   lord the king, as to his liege lord, of life and limb, and of his
   earthly honors saving his orders, before he is consecrated.

   XIII. If any of the king's nobles shall have refused to render justice
   to an archbishop or bishop or archdeacon, for himself or any of his
   men, our lord the king shall justice them. And if by chance any one
   shall have deforced our lord the king of his rights, the archbishops,
   bishops, and archdeacons shall justice him that he may render
   satisfaction to the king.

   XIV. The chattels of those who are in forfeiture to the king shall not
   be detained by the Church or the cemetery, in opposition to the king's
   justice, for they belong to the king, whether they are found in the
   Church or without.

   XV. Pleas for debts which are due, whether with the interposition of a
   pledge of faith or not, belong to the king's court.

   XVI. The sons of rustics shall not be ordained without the consent of
   the lord, in whose land they are known to have been born.

   These Constitutions were drawn up in the spirit and language of
   feudalism, under the inspiration of the king, by Archbishop Roger of
   York, Bishop Foliot of London (the chief enemies of Becket), Bishop
   Joceline of Salisbury, Richard de Luci (the king's chief judiciary),
   and Joceline of Baliol. They are restrictions on the immunities of the
   clergy; the last is an invasion of the rights of the people, but is
   based on the canonical exclusion of slaves from the clerical order
   without the consent of their masters. They subject the clergy equally
   with the laity to the crown and the laws of the land. They reduce the
   Church to an imperium in imperio, instead of recognizing her as a
   distinct and independent imperium. They formulate in the shape of legal
   enactments certain "ancient customs" (consuetudines) which date from
   the time of William the Conqueror, and were conceded by Lanfranc; but
   they infringe at many points on the ancient privileges of the Church,
   and are inconsistent with the hierarchical principle of the exemption
   of the clergy from temporal jurisdiction. And this was the chief point
   of the quarrel between the king and the archbishop.

   In the present state of civilization there can be no doubt that the
   clergy should obey the same laws and be subject to the same penalties
   as the laity. But we must not overlook the fact that in the Middle Ages
   the clerical exemption had a humanitarian as well as a hierarchical
   feature, and involved a protest against barbarous punishments by
   mutilation of the human body, man being made in the image of God. It
   prepared the way for a mitigation of the criminal code for the benefit
   of the whole people, the laity as well as the clergy. This explains the
   large amount of popular sympathy with the cause of Becket.

   Becket gave a qualified assent. On his return to Canterbury he changed
   his mind and imposed upon himself severe penances, and sought and
   obtained the pope's absolution from his oath. But Alexander, hard
   pressed by Barbarossa and the anti-pope, and anxious to keep the good
   will of Henry, tried to please both parties. He granted, at the request
   of Henry, legatine commission over all England to Archbishop Roger of
   York, the rival of the primate of Canterbury. He also afterwards
   authorized the coronation of Henry's eldest son by the archbishop of
   York in the Abbey of Westminster (June 18, 1170), although such
   coronation was the exclusive privilege of the archbishop of Canterbury.
   This aggravated the difficulty with the king, and brought on the final
   crisis.

   In the meantime the Clarendon Constitutions were carried out. Clergymen
   convicted of crime in the king's court were condemned and punished like
   laymen.

   Becket attempted to flee to the pope, and sailed for the Continent, but
   was brought back by the sailors on account of adverse winds. This was a
   violation of the law which forbade bishops to leave the country without
   royal permission.

   He was summoned before a great council of bishops and nobles at the
   royal castle of Northampton in the autumn of 1164, and charged with
   misconduct in secular affairs while chancellor and archbishop. But his
   courage rose with the danger. He refused to answer, and appealed to the
   pope. The council ordered him cited to Rome on the charges of perjury
   at Clarendon and of commanding his suffragans to disregard the
   Constitutions. The bishops he met with a haughty refusal when they
   advised him to resign. He was to be arrested, but he threatened the
   peers with excommunication if they pronounced the sentence. He took the
   bold course of making his escape to the Continent in the disguise of a
   monk, at midnight, accompanied by two monks and a servant, and provided
   with his episcopal pall and seal.

   The king seized the revenues of the archbishop, forbade public prayers
   for him, and banished him from the kingdom, ordered the banishment of
   all his kinsmen and friends, including four hundred persons of both
   sexes, and suspended the payment of Peter's pence to the pope.

   Becket spent fully six years in exile, from October, 1164, to December,
   1170. King Louis of France, an enemy of Henry and admirer of Becket,
   received him with distinction and recommended him to the pope, who,
   himself in exile, resided at Sens. Becket met Alexander, laid before
   him the Constitutions of Clarendon, and tendered his resignation. The
   pope condemned ten as a violation of ecclesiastical privileges, and
   tolerated six as less evil than the rest. He tenderly rebuked Becket
   for his weakness in swearing to them, but consoled him with the
   assurance that he had atoned for it by his sufferings. He restored to
   him the archiepiscopal ring, thus ratifying his primacy, promised him
   his protection, and committed him to the hospitable care of the abbot
   of Pontigny, a Cistercian monastery about twelve leagues distant from
   Sens. Here Becket lived till 1166, like a stern monk, on pulse and
   gruel, slept on a bed of straw, and submitted at midnight to the
   flagellation of his chaplain, but occasionally indulged in better diet,
   and retained some of his former magnificence in his surroundings. His
   sober friend, John of Salisbury, remonstrated against the profuse
   expenditure.

   Becket proceeded to the last extremity of pronouncing, in the church of
   Vezelay, on Whitsuntide, 1166, the sentence of excommunication on all
   the authors and defenders of the Constitutions of Clarendon. He spared
   the king, who then was dangerously ill, but in a lower tone, half
   choked with tears, he threatened him with the vengeance of God, and his
   realm with the interdict. He announced the sentence to the pope and all
   the clergy of England, saying to the latter, "Who presumes to doubt
   that the priests of God are the fathers and masters of kings, princes,
   and all the faithful?"

   The wrath of Henry knew no bounds. He closed the ports of England
   against the bearers of the instrument of excommunication, threatening
   them with shameful mutilation, hanging, and burning. He procured the
   expulsion of Becket from Pontigny, who withdrew to a monastery near the
   archiepiscopal city of Sens. He secured through his ambassadors several
   concessions from Alexander, who was then in exile at Benevento. The
   pope was anxious to retain the support of the king, and yet he wrote
   soothing letters to Becket, assuring him that the concessions were to
   be only temporary. Becket answered with indignation, and denounced the
   papal court for its venality and rapacity. "Your gold and silver," he
   wrote to the cardinals, "will not deliver you in the day of the wrath
   of the Lord."

   The king now determined to use the permission received from the pope
   several years before, but afterwards revoked, [159] tion. Like Gregory
   VII., he applied the words, "Cursed is he that refraineth his sword
   from blood," to the spiritual weapon. He even commanded the bishops of
   England to lay the whole kingdom under interdict and to suspend the
   offices of religion (except baptism, penance, and extreme unction),
   unless the king should give full satisfaction before the feast of
   purification, Nov. 2, 1170. [160]

   These extreme measures were not without effect. Several bishops began
   to waver and change from the king's cause to that of the archbishop.
   The king himself was alarmed at the menace of the interdict. The pope
   pursued his temporizing policy, and counselled concessions by both
   parties.

   The king and the archbishop suddenly made peace in a respectful
   personal interview at Fretteville (Freteval), a castle between Tours
   and Chartres, July 22, 1170. Henry said nothing about the Clarendon
   Constitutions, but made the offer that Becket should crown his
   daughter-in-law (the daughter of the king of France), and should on
   that occasion repeat the coronation of his son. Becket laid the blame
   on the shoulders of Henry's counsellors, and showed moderation and
   prudence. The king did not offer the kiss of peace, nor did the
   archbishop demand it.

   But while Becket was willing to pardon the king, he meant to exercise
   his spiritual authority over his evil counsellors, and especially over
   the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury. These
   prelates had recently officiated at the coronation of Henry's son. And
   it was this coronation, even more than the original and more important
   dispute about the immunity of the clergy, that led to the catastrophe.

   After prolonged negotiations with the papal court and the king, Becket
   returned to his long-neglected flock, Dec. 1, 1170. On landing at
   Sandwich (instead of Dover, where he was expected), he was surprised by
   enemies, who searched his baggage, and demanded that he should withdraw
   his excommunication of the bishops who were then at Dover. He refused.
   On his way to Canterbury the country clergy and people met him, cast
   down their garments, chanting, "Blessed is he that cometh in the name
   of the Lord." He rode to the cathedral with a vast procession, amid the
   ringing of the bells, and preached on the text, "Here we have no
   abiding city."

   The excommunicated prelates of York, London, and Salisbury sought the
   protection of the king, who was then at a castle near Bayeux in
   Normandy. He said: "If all are to be excommunicated who officiated at
   my son's coronation, by the eyes of God, I am equally guilty." One of
   the prelates (perhaps Roger of York) remarked, "As long as Thomas
   lives, you will never be at peace." Henry broke out into one of his
   constitutional fits of passion, and dropped the fatal words: "A fellow
   that has eaten my bread, has lifted up his heel against me; a fellow
   that I loaded with benefits, dares insult the king; a fellow that came
   to court on a lame horse, with a cloak for a saddle, sits without
   hindrance on the throne itself. By the eyes of God, is there none of my
   thankless and cowardly courtiers who will deliver me from the insults
   of this low-born and turbulent priest?" With these words he rushed out
   of the room.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [154] Tennyson ingeniously introduces his drama with a game of chess
   between Henry and Becket, during which the king informs the chancellor
   of the fatal illness of Theobald, and speaks of the need of a mightier
   successor, who would punish guilty clerks; while the chancellor quietly
   moves his bishop and checkmates the king; whereupon Henry kicks over
   the board, saying-- "Why, there then--down go bishop and king
   together."

   [155] "Though of Norman blood, his whole feeling, his whole character
   is English, and it is clear that no man looked on him as a stranger."
   Freeman (l.c., pp. 101 sq.).

   [156] Tennyson makes Becket say:-- "This Almoner hath tasted Henry's
   gold. The cardinals have fingered Henry's gold. And Rome is venal even
   to rottenness."

   [157] They are found in Matthew Paris, ad ann. 1164; Mansi, XXI. 1187;
   Wilkins, Concilia M. Britanniae, vol. I. Gieseler, II. 89 sqq. (Am. ed.
   II. 289 sq.); Reuter, I. 371-375, 573-577; Hefele-Knoepfler, V. 623-628
   (in German); Stubbs, 135-140 (in Latin); Gee and Hardy, 68-73.

   [158] Maitland, p. 135 sqq., has thrown light upon this article, and
   interprets it to mean that a clerk is first to be accused and plead in
   the temporal court, then to be taken to the ecclesiastical court, and
   if found guilty and degraded he is to be returned to the temporal court
   and receive sentence to the layman's punishment. This procedure was for
   civil crimes, such as robbery, rape, murder.

   [159] See the pope's letter to the archbishop of York in the
   "Materials," vol. VI. 206 sq., and Robertson's note; also Reuter, II.
   683 sq. The letter is not in the Vatican, but in other MSS., and is
   admitted as genuine by Jaffe. It was probably written in the beginning
   of 1170, when Alexander was hard pressed by Barbarossa in the siege of
   Rome. See the other letters on the subject in "Materials," VII. 257,
   305 sqq., 399.

   [160] In 1169 Henry proposed to marry one of his daughters to the young
   king of Sicily, and to give a sum of money to the cities of the Lombard
   League for the erection of fortifications, provided they would
   influence Alexander to depose or transfer Becket. See Stubbs, ed. of
   Hoveden, II. xci sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 33. The Martyrdom of Thomas Becket. Dec. 29, 1170.

   On the murder of Becket we have the reports of five eye-witnesses,
   Edward Grim (a Saxon monk of Cambridge), William Fitz-Stephen (Becket's
   chaplain), John of Salisbury (his faithful friend), William of
   Canterbury, and the anonymous author of a Lambeth MS. Two other
   biographers, Herbert of Bosham and Roger of Pontigny, though absent
   from England at that time, were on intimate terms with Becket, and took
   great pains to ascertain the facts to the minutest details.

   Four warlike knights of high birth and large estate, chamberlains to
   the king, [161] royal blood), Hugh de Moreville (judiciary of
   Northumberland and Cumberland), and Sir Richard le Bret or Breton
   (commonly known as Brito [162] ir own risk, as best they could, by
   imprisonment, or exile, or, if necessary, by murder. They seem to have
   had no premeditated plan except that of signal vengeance. Without
   waiting for instructions, they at once departed on separate routes for
   England, and met at the castle of Saltwood, which belonged to the see
   of Canterbury, but was then occupied by Randulf of Broc. They collected
   a band of about a dozen armed men, and reached St. Augustine's abbey
   outside of the walls of Canterbury, early on the 29th of December,
   which was a Tuesday.

   On the morning of that fatal day, Becket had forebodings of his death,
   and advised the clergy to escape to Sandwich before daylight. He
   attended mass in the cathedral, confessed to two monks, and received
   three scourgings, as was his custom. At the banquet he drank more
   freely than usual, and said to the cupbearer, "He who has much blood to
   shed, must drink much." After dinner he retired to his private room and
   sat on his bed, talking to his friends, John of Salisbury, William
   Fitz-Stephen, and Edward Grim. He was then still in full vigor, being
   in the fifty-third year of his age, retaining his dignified aspect and
   the lustre of his large eyes.

   At about four that afternoon, the knights went to the archbishop's
   palace, leaving their weapons behind, and concealing their coats of
   mail by the ordinary cloak and gown. They demanded from him, in the
   name of the king, the absolution of the excommunicated bishops and
   courtiers. He refused, and referred them to the pope, who alone could
   absolve them. He declared: "I will never spare a man who violates the
   canons of Rome or the rights of the Church. My spirituals I hold from
   God and the pope; my temporals, from the king. Render unto Caesar the
   things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The
   knights said, "You speak in peril of your life." Becket replied: "Come
   ye to murder me in my own house? You cannot be more ready to kill me
   than I am to die. You threaten me in vain; were all the swords in
   England hanging over my head, you could not terrify me from my
   obedience to God and my lord the pope. I defy you, and will meet you
   foot to foot in the battle of the Lord." During the altercation, Becket
   lost command over his fiery temper. His friend, John of Salisbury,
   gently censured him for his exasperating tone. The knights quitted the
   room and called their men to arms.

   A few minutes before five the bell tolled for vespers. Urged by his
   friends, the archbishop, with his cross carried before him, went
   through the cloisters to the cathedral. The service had begun, the
   monks were chanting the psalms in the choir, the church was filled with
   people, when two boys rushed up the nave and created a panic by
   announcing that armed men were breaking into the cloister. The
   attendants of Becket, who had entered the church, shut the door and
   urged him to move into the choir for safety. "Away, you cowards!" he
   said, "by virtue of your obedience, I command you not to shut the door;
   the church must not be turned into a fortress." He was evidently
   prepared and eager for martyrdom. He himself reopened the door, and
   dragged the excluded monks into the building, exclaiming, "Come in,
   come in--faster, faster!" The monks and priests were terror-stricken
   and fled in every direction, to the recesses and side-chapels, to the
   roof above, and the crypt below. Three only remained faithful,--Canon
   Robert of Merton, Chaplain William Fitz-Stephen, and the clerk Edward
   Grim. [163] t would carry him.

   Becket proceeded to the high altar and archiepiscopal chair, in which
   he and all his predecessors from time immemorial had been enthroned.
   There, no doubt, he wished to gain the crown of martyrdom. It was now
   about five in the winter evening; the shades of night were gathering,
   and the lamps on the altars shed only a dim light in the dark
   cathedral. The tragedy which followed was finished in a few minutes.

   In the meantime the knights, clad in mail which covered their faces up
   to their eyes, and with drawn swords, followed by a motley group of
   ruffians, provided with hatchets, rushed into the cathedral and
   shouted: "Where is the traitor? Where is the archbishop?" [164] Behold
   me, no traitor, but a priest of God!" They again demanded the
   absolution of the bishops and his surrender to the king's justice. "I
   cannot do otherwise than I have done," he said, and turning to
   Fitz-Urse, who was armed with a sword and an axe, he added; "Reginald,
   you have received many favors at my hands: come you to me and into my
   church armed!" The knights tried to drag him out of the sanctuary, not
   intending to kill him there; but he braced himself against the pillar
   between the altars of the Virgin, his special patroness, and St.
   Benedict, whose rule he followed, and said: "I am ready to die. May the
   Church through my blood obtain peace and liberty! I charge you in the
   name of God Almighty that you hurt no one here but me." In the
   struggle, he grappled with De Tracy and threw him to the pavement. He
   called Fitz-Urse (who had seized him by the collar of his long cloak) a
   miserable wretch, and wrenched the cloak from his grasp, saying, "Off,
   thou pander, thou!" [165] epithet, waving the sword over his head,
   struck the first blow, and dashed off his cap. Tracy, rising from the
   pavement, aimed at his head; but Edward Grim, standing by, interposed
   his arm, which was almost severed, and then he sank back against the
   wall. Becket received blow after blow in an attitude of prayer. As he
   felt the blood trickling down his face, he bowed his neck for the
   death-blow, clasped his hands, and said in a low voice: "I commend my
   cause and the cause of the Church to God, to St. Denis, the martyr of
   France, to St. Alfege, and to the saints of the Church. [166]

   These were his last words. The next blow felled him to his knees, the
   last laid him on the floor at the foot of the altar of St. Benedict.
   His hands were still joined as if in prayer. Richard the Breton cut off
   the upper part of his skull, which had received the sacred oil. Hugh of
   Horsea, the subdeacon, trampled upon his neck, thrust his sword into
   the ghastly wound, and scattered the blood and the brains over the
   pavement. [167]

   The murderers rushed from the church through the cloisters into the
   palace for plunder; while a violent thunder-storm broke over the
   cathedral. They stole about two thousand marks in gold and silver, and
   rode off on Becket's fine horses in the thick darkness of the night.

   The body of Thomas was buried in the crypt. The remains of his blood
   and brains were sacredly kept. His monkish admirers discovered, to
   their amazement and delight, that the martyr, who had once been arrayed
   in purple and fine linen, wore on his skin under his many garments the
   coarsest haircloth abounding with vermin. This seemed to betray the
   perfection of ascetic sanctity according to mediaeval notions. [168]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [161] Cubicularii, gentlemen of the bed-chamber.

   [162] The biographers say he was more fit to be called "the Brute."

   [163] Modern writers are in the habit of calling him a monk, and so he
   may have been. In the contemporary narratives he is called simply
   "clerk." Abbott, I. 42 sq.

   [164] See Abbott, I. 89 sqq., on the words used, and Becket's reply.

   [165] "Lenonem appellans." Becket was wont to use violent language. He
   called Geoffrey Riddell, the archdeacon of Canterbury, "archdevil."
   Three years after Becket's death, Riddell was made bishop of Ely.

   [166] Abbott, I. 147, holds that these words must have been spoken
   before the blow was struck which dislodged the cap from Becket's head.
   The blow cut off a piece of the prelate's skull.

   [167] All the authorities relate this brutal sacrilege.

   [168] Grim, with whom the other original authorities agree, says that
   those who saw this haircloth suit, covering the upper and lower parts
   of Becket's body, put aside all their doubts and acknowledged him as a
   martyr.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 34. The Effects of Becket's Murder.

   The atrocious murder sent a thrill of horror throughout the Christian
   world. The moment of Becket's death was his triumph. His exalted
   station, his personal virtues, the sacrilege,--all contributed to
   deepen the impression. At first opinion was divided, as he had strong
   enemies, even at Canterbury. A monk declared that Becket paid a just
   penalty for his obstinacy others said, "He wished to be king and more
   than king; the archbishop of York dared to preach that Becket
   "perished, like Pharaoh, in his pride."

   But the torrent of public admiration soon silenced all opposition.
   Miracles took place at his tomb, and sealed his claim to the worship of
   a saint and martyr. "The blind see, the deaf hear, the dumb speak, the
   lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the devils are cast out, even the
   dead are raised to life." Thus wrote John of Salisbury, his friend.
   [169] ew years after the murder, two collections of his miracles were
   published, one by Benedict, prior of Canterbury (afterwards abbot of
   Peterborough), and one by William, monk of Canterbury. [170] night of
   the archbishop's death. His blood had miraculous efficacy for those who
   drank it. [171]

   Two years after his death, Feb. 21, 1173, Becket was solemnly canonized
   by Alexander III., who had given him only a lukewarm support in his
   contest with the king. There is scarcely another example of such an
   early recognition of saintship; but public sentiment had anticipated
   it. At a council in Westminster the papal letters of canonization were
   read. All the bishops who had opposed Becket were present, begged
   pardon for their offence, and acquiesced in the pope's decision. The
   29th of December was set apart as the feast of "St. Thomas of
   Canterbury."

   King Henry II., as the supposed author of the monstrous crime, was
   branded with a popular excommunication. On the first news, he shut
   himself up for three days in his chamber, rolled himself in sackcloth
   and ashes, and obstinately refused food and comfort. He lived secluded
   for five weeks, exclaiming again and again, "Alas, alas that it ever
   happened!" He issued orders for the apprehension of the murderers, and
   despatched envoys to the pope to exculpate, himself and to avert the
   calamity of excommunication and, an interdict. After long delay a
   reconciliation took place in the cathedral of Avranches in Normandy,
   before the papal legates, the archbishop of Rouen, and many bishops and
   noblemen, May 22, 1172. [172] r, and that he was ready to make full
   satisfaction. He pledged himself to abrogate the Statutes of Clarendon;
   to restore the church of Canterbury to all its rights and possessions;
   to undertake, if the pope should require it, a three years' crusade to
   Jerusalem or Spain, and to support two hundred knights in the Holy
   Land. After these pledges he said aloud: "Behold, my lord legates, my
   body is in your hands; be assured that whatever you order, whether to
   go to Jerusalem or to Rome or to St. James [at Compostella in Spain], I
   am ready to obey." He was led by the bishops into the church and
   reconciled. His son, who was present, promised Cardinal Albert to make
   good his father's pledges. This penance was followed by a deepest
   humiliation at Canterbury.

   Two years later, July 12, 1174, the king, depressed by disasters and
   the rebellion of his wife and his sons, even made a pilgrimage to the
   tomb of Becket. He dismounted from his horse as he came in sight of the
   towers of Canterbury, walked as a penitent pilgrim in a woollen shirt,
   with bare and bleeding feet, through the streets, knelt in the porch of
   the cathedral, kissed the sacred stone on which the archbishop had
   fallen, threw himself prostrate before the tomb in the crypt, and
   confessed to the bishops with groans and tears his deep remorse for the
   hasty words which had led to the murder. Gilbert Foliot, bishop of
   London, once Becket's rival and enemy, announced to the monks and
   bystanders the king's penitence and intention to restore the rights and
   property of the Church, and to bestow forty marks yearly on the
   monastery to keep lamps burning at the martyr's tomb. The king, placing
   his head and shoulders on the tomb, submitted to the degrading
   punishment of scourging, and received five stripes from each bishop and
   abbot, and three stripes from each of the eighty monks. Fully absolved,
   he spent the whole night on the bare ground of the crypt in tears and
   prayers, imploring the forgiveness of the canonized saint in heaven
   whom he had persecuted on earth.

   No deeper humiliation of king before priest is recorded in history. It
   throws into the shade the submission of Theodosius to Ambrose, of Edgar
   to Dunstan, of Barbarossa to Alexander, and even the scene at Canossa.

   Fifty years after the martyrdom, Becket's relics were translated with
   extraordinary solemnity from the tomb in the crypt to the costly shrine
   of Becket, which blazed with gold and jewels, in the reconstructed
   Canterbury cathedral (1220). And now began on the largest scale that
   long succession of pilgrimages, which for more than three hundred years
   made Canterbury the greatest sacred resort of Western Christendom, next
   to Jerusalem and Rome. It was more frequented than Loreto in Italy and
   Einsiedeln in Switzerland. No less than a hundred thousand pilgrims
   were registered at Canterbury in 1420. From all parts of England,
   Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, from France and the far north, men and
   women flocked to the shrine: priests, monks, princes, knights,
   scholars, lawyers, merchants, mechanics, peasants. There was scarcely
   an English king, from Henry II. to Henry VIII., who did not from
   motives of piety or policy pay homage to the memory of the saint. Among
   the last distinguished visitors were John Colet, dean of St. Paul's,
   and Erasmus, who visited the shrine together between the years 1511 and
   1513, and King Henry VIII. and Emperor Charles V., who attended the
   last jubilee in 1520. Plenary indulgences were granted to the pilgrims.
   Some went in December, the month of his martyrdom; a larger number in
   July, the month of the translation of his relics. Every fiftieth year a
   jubilee lasting fifteen days was celebrated in his honor. Six such
   jubilees were celebrated,--1270, 1320, 1370, 1420, 1470, 1520. The
   offerings to St. Thomas exceeded those given to any other saint, even
   to the holy Virgin.

   Geoffrey Chaucer, the father of English poetry, who lived two centuries
   after Becket' martyrdom, has immortalized these pilgrimages in his
   Canterbury Tales, and given us the best description of English society
   at that time.

   The pilgrimages promoted piety, social intercourse, superstition,
   idleness, levity, and immorality, and aroused moral indignation among
   many serious and spiritually minded men.

   The superstitious idolatry of St. Thomas was continued down to the time
   of the Reformation, when it was rudely but forever crushed out. Henry
   VIII. cited Becket to appear in court to answer to the charges of
   treason and rebellion. The case was formally argued at Westminster. His
   guilt was proved, and on the 10th of June, 1538, St. Thomas was
   condemned as a "rebel and a traitor to his prince." The rich shrine at
   Canterbury was pillaged; the gold and jewels were carried off in two
   strong coffers, and the rest of the treasure in twenty-six carts. The
   jewels went into the hands of Henry VIII., who wore the most precious
   of them, a diamond, the "Regale of France," in the ring on his thumb;
   afterwards it glittered in the golden, "collar" of his daughter, the
   bigoted Queen Mary. A royal proclamation explained the cause and mode
   of Becket's death, and the reasons for his degradation. All festivals,
   offices, and prayers in his name were forbidden. The site of his shrine
   has remained vacant to this day.

   The Reformation prepared the way for a more spiritual worship of God
   and a more just appreciation of the virtues and faults of Thomas Becket
   than was possible in the age in which he lived and died,--a hero and a
   martyr of the papal hierarchy, but not of pure Christianity, as
   recorded in the New Testament. To the most of his countrymen, as to the
   English-speaking people at large, his name has remained the synonym for
   priestly pride and pretension, for an arrogant invasion of the rights
   of the civil estate. To a certain class of English High Churchmen he
   remains, like Laud of a later age, the martyr of sacerdotal privilege,
   the unselfish champion of the dowered rights of the Church. The
   atrocity of his taking-off no one will choose to deny. But the haughty
   assumption of the high prelate had afforded pretext enough for vehement
   indignation and severe treatment. Priestly robes may for a time conceal
   and even protect pride from violence, but sooner or later it meets its
   just reward. The prelate's superiority involved in Becket's favorite
   expression, "saving the honor of my order," was more than a king of
   free blood could be expected to bear.

   This dramatic chapter of English history may be fitly closed with a
   scene from Lord Tennyson's tragedy which presents the personal quality
   that brought about Thomas `a Becket's fall. [173]

   John of Salisbury.


   Thomas, I would thou hadst returned to England

   Like some wise prince of this world from his wars,

   With more of olive-branch and amnesty

   For foes at home--thou hast raised the world against thee.

   Becket.


   Why, John, my kingdom is not of this world.

   John of Salisbury.


   If it were more of this world it might be

   More of the next. A policy of wise pardon

   Wins here as well as there. To bless thine enemies --

   Becket.


   Ay, mine, not Heaven's.

   John of Salisbury.


   And may there not be something

   Of this world's leaven in thee too, when crying

   On Holy Church to thunder out her rights

   And thine own wrong so piteously. Ah, Thomas,

   The lightnings that we think are only Heaven's

   Flash sometimes out of earth against the heavens.

   The soldier, when he lets his whole self go

   Lost in the common good, the common wrong,

   Strikes truest ev'n for his own self. I crave

   Thy pardon--I have still thy leave to speak.

   Thou hast waged God's war against the King; and yet

   We are self-uncertain creatures, and we may,

   Yea, even when we know not, mix our spites

   And private hates with our defence of Heaven.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [169] See his Vita S.Th. in the "Materials," etc., II. 322: In loco
   passionis eius ...paralytici curantur, caeci vident, surdi audiunt,
   loquuntur muti, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur ...et quod a diebus
   patrum nostrorum non est auditum, mortui resurgunt.

   [170] William's long Vita et Passio S. Th. is printed in the
   "Materials," vol. I. 173-546. The credulous Alban Butler, in his Lives
   of the Saints, quotes from an old English MS. of a pretended
   eye-witness, who records two hundred and sixty-three miracles wrought
   by the intercession of St. Thomas,--many more than are found in the
   whole Bible.

   [171] Dr. Abbott devotes the main part of his work, I: 224 sqq., II. to
   a detailed description and discussion of the miracles. His closing
   chapter, II. 307-314, draws a parallel between these miracles and the
   miraculous works of Christ. He makes a distinction between mighty works
   wrought on human nature, such as the cure of diseases and the mighty
   works wrought on "nonhuman nature," as on bread, water, trees. The
   reality of the former he accepts, though he denies their supernatural
   character. The latter "are not to be accepted as historical, but as
   legends explicable from poetry taken as prose or from linguistic error
   or from these two combined." He goes on to say the distinction between
   Christ and Thomas is that "the spirit of St. Thomas had no power to
   pass into the hearts of men with a permanent vivifying message of its
   own. The Spirit of him whom we worship has both that power and that
   message." This is not the place to make an argument for the miracles of
   the New Testament, but two considerations place them and the miracles
   of Thomas of Canterbury in different categories. Christ's miracles had
   the purpose and worth of attesting his mission as the Saviour of the
   world, and they were original. It was quite easy for the mediaeval mind
   in its fear and love of the wonderful to associate miracles with its
   saints, Christ's example being before them; but where it was original,
   the miracles it believed were for the most part grotesque.

   [172] A granite pillar in the Norman cathedral at Avranches bears an
   inscription in memory of the event. It is given by Stanley, p. 136.

   [173] Sir Henry Irving, the distinguished English actor, died Oct. 20,
   1905, seven days after a performance of this drama, the last time he
   appeared on the stage.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER V.

   INNOCENT III. AND HIS AGE. A.D. 1198-1216.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 35. Literature.

   Sources: Innocentii III. Opp. omnia, in Migne, 4 vols. 214-217; three
   vols. contain Innocent's official letters; a 4th, his sermons, the de
   contemptu mundi, and other works.--S. Baluzius: Epistolarum Inn. III.
   libri undecim, 2 vols. Paris, 1682.--Boehmer: Regesta imperii
   1198-1254, new ed. by J. Ficker, Innsbruck, 1881.--Potthast: Regesta,
   pp. 1-467, 2041-2056--Gesta Innoc. III. auctore anonymo sed coaevo (a
   contemporary Life, about 1220), in Migne, 214, pp. xvii-ccxxviii, and
   Baluzius.--Mansi, XXII.--Mirbt: Quellen, 125-136, gives some of the
   characteristic passages. For the older edd. of Inn.'s letters and other
   works, see Potthast, Bibliotheca med. aevi, I. 520, 650.

   Modern Works: Friedrich von Hurter (1787-1886): Geschichte Papst
   Innocenz des Dritten und seiner Zeitgenossen, 2 vols. Hamburg,
   1833-1835; 3d ed. 4 vols. 1841-1844 (trans. into French and Italian).
   The last two volumes are devoted to the monastic orders and the Eccles.
   and social conditions of the thirteenth century. An exhaustive work
   full of enthusiastic admiration for Innocent and his age. Hurter wrote
   it while antistes or pastor of the Reformed Church in Schaffhausen,
   Switzerland, and was led by his studies to enter, with his family, the
   Roman Catholic communion in 1844 and became imperial counsellor and
   historiographer of Austria. Gfroerer, likewise a Protestant, dazzled by
   the splendor of the Gregorian papacy in the preparation of his Life of
   Gregory VII., was also led to join the Roman communion.--Jorry: Hist.
   du pape Inn. III.; Paris, 1853.--F. F. Reinlein: Papst Inn. III. und
   seine Schrift de contemptu mundi, Erlangen, 1871; also Inn. III nach s.
   Beziehung zur Unfehlbarkeitsfrage, Erlangen, 1872.--H. Elkan: Die Gesta
   Inn. III. im Verhaeltniss zu d. Regesten desselben Papstes, Heidelberg,
   1876.--Fr. Deutsch: Papst Inn. III. und s. Einfluss auf d. Kirche,
   Bresl., 1876.--Leop. Delisle: Memoire sur les actes d'Inn. III, suivi
   de l'itineraire de ce pontife, Paris, 1877.--J. N. Brischar, Roman
   Catholic: Papst Inn. III. und s. Zeit, Freib. im Br. 1883.--J. Langen:
   Gesch. d. roem. Kirche von Gregor. VII. bis Inn. III., Bonn, 1893; also
   Hefele-Knoepfler, vol. V.--the Works on the Hohenstaufen and the
   Crusades.--Ranke: Weltgesch., VIII. 274 sqq.--the Histories of Rome by
   Reumont, Bryce, and Gregorovius,--Hauck: Kirchengeschichte
   Deutschlands, IV. 658-745.--T. F. Tout: The Empire and the Papacy,
   918-1272, N. Y. 1898.--H. Fisher: The Med. Empire, 2 vols. London,
   1898.--For fuller lit., see Chevalier; Repertoire, pp. 1114 sq. and
   Suppl. 2659, and art. Inn. III., by Zoepffel-Mirbt, in Herzog, IX.
   112-122.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 36. Innocent's Training and Election.

   The brilliant pontificate of Innocent III., 1198-1216, lasted as long
   as the combined and uneventful reigns of his five predecessors: Lucius
   III., 1181-1185; Urban III., 1185-1187; Gregory VIII. less than two
   months, 1187; Clement III., 1187-1191; Coelestin III., 1191-1198. It
   marks the golden age of the mediaeval papacy and one of the most
   important eras in the history of the Catholic Church. No other mortal
   has before or since wielded such extensive power. As the spiritual
   sovereign of Latin Christendom, he had no rival. At the same time he
   was the acknowledged arbiter of the political destinies of Europe from
   Constantinople to Scotland. He successfully carried into execution the
   highest theory of the papal theocracy and anticipated the Vatican
   dogmas of papal absolutism and infallibility. To the papal title "vicar
   of Christ," Innocent added for the first time the title "vicar of God."
   He set aside the decisions of bishops and provincial councils, and
   lifted up and cast down kings. He summoned and guided one of the most
   important of the councils of the Western Church, the Fourth Lateran,
   1215, whose acts established the Inquisition and fixed
   transubstantiation as a dogma. He set on foot the Fourth Crusade, and
   died making preparation for another. On the other hand he set Christian
   against Christian, and by undertaking to extirpate religious dissent by
   force drenched parts of Europe in Christian blood.

   Lothario, Innocent's baptismal name, was born about 1160 at Anagni, a
   favorite summer resort of the popes. He was the son of Count Trasmondo
   of the house of the Conti de Segni, one of the ruling families of the
   Latium. [174] dinals, he was rapidly promoted, and in 1190, at the age
   of twenty-nine, was appointed cardinal-deacon by one of them, Pope
   Clement III. Though the youngest member of the curia, he was at once
   assigned a place of responsibility.

   During the pontificate of Coelestin III., a member of the house of the
   Orsini which was unfriendly to the Conti, Lothario withdrew into
   retirement and devoted himself to literature. The chief fruit of this
   seclusion is the work entitled The Contempt of the World or the Misery
   of the Mortal Estate. [175] [176] t composed an Exposition of the Seven
   Penitential Psalms. While pope he preached often both in Rome and on
   his journeys. His sermons abound in mystical and allegorical figures.
   Of his letters more than five hundred are preserved.

   The Contempt of the World is an ascetic plaint over the sinfulness and
   woes of this present life. It proceeds upon the basis of Augustine's
   theory of total depravity. The misery of man is described from the
   helplessness of infancy to the decrepitude of age and the sufferings of
   the future estate. Pessimistic passages are quoted from Jeremiah,
   Ecclesiastes, and Job, and also from Horace, Ovid, and Juvenal. Three
   master passions are constantly tormenting man,--avarice, lust, and
   ambition,--to which are added the innumerable ailments of the body and
   troubles of the soul. The author deplores the fate of masters and
   servants, of the married and the unmarried, of the good and the bad,
   the rich and the poor. "It is just and natural that the wicked should
   suffer; but are the righteous one whit better off? Here below is their
   prison, not their home or their final destiny. As soon as a man rises
   to a station of dignity, cares and trouble increase, fasting is
   abridged, night watches are prolonged, nature's constitution is
   undermined, sleep and appetite flee, the vigor of the body gives way to
   weakness, and a sorrowful end is the close of a sorrowful life." [177]
   e reader of the solemn cadences of the Dies Irae of Thomas of Celano
   and Dante's Inferno. [178]

   Called forth from retirement to the chief office in Christendom,
   Innocent had an opportunity to show his contempt of the world by ruling
   it with a strong and iron hand. The careers of the best of the popes of
   the Middle Ages, as well as of ecclesiastics like Bernard of Clairvaux
   and Thomas of Canterbury, reveal the intimate connection between the
   hierarchical and ascetic tendencies. Innocent likewise displayed these
   two tendencies. In his treatise on the mass he anticipated the haughty
   assumption of the papacy, based on the rock-foundation of Peter's
   primacy, which as pope he afterwards displayed.

   On the very day of Coelestin's burial, the college of cardinals
   unanimously chose Lothario pope. Like Gregory I., Gregory VII.,
   Alexander III., and other popes, he made a show of yielding reluctantly
   to the election. He was ordained priest, and the next day, February 22,
   was consecrated bishop and formally ascended the throne in St. Peter's.

   The coronation ceremonies were on a splendid scale. But the size of
   Rome, whose population at this time may not have exceeded thirty-five
   thousand, must be taken into account when we compare them with the
   pageants of the ancient city. [179] At the enthronization in St.
   Peter's, the tiara was used which Constantine is said to have presented
   to Sylvester, and the words were said, "Take the tiara and know that
   thou art the father of princes and kings, the ruler of the world, the
   vicar on earth of our Saviour Jesus Christ, whose honor and glory shall
   endure throughout all eternity." Then followed the procession through
   the city to the Lateran. The pope sat on a white palfrey and was
   accompanied by the prefect of the city, the senators and other
   municipal officials, the nobility, the cardinals, archbishops, and
   other church dignitaries, the lesser clergy and the popular throng--all
   amidst the ringing of bells, the chanting of psalms, and the
   acclamations of the people. Along the route a singular scene was
   presented at the Ghetto by a group of Jews, the rabbi at their head
   carrying a roll of the Pentateuch, who bowed low as they saluted their
   new ruler upon whose favor or frown depended their protection from the
   populace, yea, their very life. Arrived at the Lateran, the pope threw
   out handfuls of copper coins among the people with the words, "Silver
   and gold have I none, but such as I have give I thee." The silver key
   of the palace and the golden key of the basilica were then put into his
   hands, and the senate did him homage. A banquet followed, the pope
   sitting at a table alone. [180] chief personality in the Christian
   world.

   When he ascended the fisherman's throne, Innocent was only thirty-seven
   years old, the youngest in the line of popes up to that time. Walter
   von der Vogelweide gave expression to the fear which his youth awakened
   when he wrote, O we der babest ist ze june, hilf herre diner
   kristenheit. "Alas! the pope is so young. Help, Lord, thy Christian
   world." The new pontiff was well formed, medium in stature, [181] nd
   fearless in action. He was a born ruler of men, a keen judge of human
   nature, demanding unconditional submission to his will, yet considerate
   in the use of power after submission was once given,--an imperial
   personality towering high above the contemporary sovereigns in moral
   force and in magnificent aims of world-wide dominion.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [174] Like Hildebrand, Innocent may have combined Germanic with Italian
   blood. Upon the basis of such family names among the Conti as Lothaire
   and Richard, Gregorovius finds evidence of Lombard origin.

   [175] The de contemptu mundi sive de miseria conditionis humanae was
   first printed at Ulm, 1448, then at Lyons, 1473, Nuernberg, 1477, etc.
   See Migne's ed. 217, 701-746.

   [176] Mysterium evangelicae legis et sacramentum eucharistiae or de
   missarum mysteriis.

   [177] II. 29.

   [178] The Dies Irae has been ascribed to Innocent. Here are the
   concluding words of this famous treatise. "Ibi erit fletus et stridor
   dentium (Matthew xiii.),gemitus et ululatus, luctus et cruciatus,
   stridor et clamor, timor et tremor, dolor et labor, ardor et faetor,
   obscuritas et anxietas, acerbitas et asperitas, calamitas et egestas,
   angustia et tristitia, oblivio et confusio, torsiones et punctiones,
   amaritudines et terrores, fames et sitis, frigus et cauma, sulphur et
   ignis ardens in saecula saeculorum. Unde liberet nos Deus, qui est
   benedictus in saecula saeculorum. Amen." III. 17; Migne, 217, 746.

   [179] See Gregorovius, V. 7.

   [180] Elaborate descriptions of the ceremonies are given by Hurter, I.
   92 sqq.,and Gregorovius, V. 7-15.

   [181] Statura mediocris, etc. See Gesta, Migne, 214, XVII. The portrait
   prefixed in Hurter has no historic value. For Innocent's personal
   habits and methods of conducting business, see Hurter, II 743 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 37. Innocent's Theory of the Papacy.

   The pope with whom Innocent is naturally brought into comparison is
   Hildebrand. They were equally distinguished for moral force,
   intellectual energy, and proud assertion of prelatic prerogative.
   Innocent was Hildebrand's superior in learning, diplomatic tact, and
   success of administration, but in creative genius and heroic character
   he was below his predecessor. He stands related to his great
   predecessor as Augustus to Julius. He was heir to the astounding
   programme of Hildebrand's scheme and enjoyed the fruits of his
   struggles. Their personal fortunes were widely different. Gregory was
   driven from Rome and died in exile. To Innocent's good fortune there
   seemed to be no end, and he closed his pontificate in undisputed
   possession of authority.

   Innocent no sooner ascended the papal chair than he began to give
   expression to his conception of the papal dignity. Throughout his
   pontificate he forcibly and clearly expounded it in a tone of mingled
   official pride and personal humility. At his coronation he preached on
   the faithful and wise servant. "Ye see," he said, "what manner of
   servant it is whom the Lord hath set over his people, no other than the
   viceregent of Christ, the successor of Peter. He stands in the midst
   between God and man; below God, above man; less than God, more than
   man. He judges all and is judged by none. But he, whom the pre-eminence
   of dignity exalts, is humbled by his vocation as a servant, that so
   humility may be exalted and pride be cast down; for God is against the
   high-minded, and to the lowly He shows mercy; and whoso exalteth
   himself shall be abased."

   Indeed, the papal theocracy was Innocent's all-absorbing idea. He was
   fully convinced that it was established of God for the good of the
   Church and the salvation of the world. As God gave to Christ all power
   in heaven and on earth, so Christ delegated to Peter and his successors
   the same authority. Not man but God founded the Apostolic see. [182]
   [183] and had been given, "Feed my sheep." On him alone it had been
   declared, "I will build my church." The pope is the vicar of Christ,
   yea of God himself. [184] ike Melchizedek, he is at once king and
   priest. All things in heaven and earth and in hell are subject to
   Christ. So are they also to his vicar. He can depose princes and
   absolve subjects from the oath of allegiance. He may enforce submission
   by placing whole nations under the interdict. Peter alone went to Jesus
   on the water and by so doing he gave illustration of the unique
   privilege of the papacy to govern the whole earth. For the other
   disciples stayed in the ship and so to them was given rule only over
   single provinces. And as the waters were many on which Peter walked, so
   over the many congregations and nations, which the waters represent,
   was Peter given authority--yea over all nations whatsoever (universos
   populos). [185] eaches papal infallibility and declares that Peter's
   successor can never in any way depart from the Catholic faith.

   Gregory VII.'s illustration, likening the priestly estate (sacerdotium)
   to the sun, and the civil estate (regnum or imperium) to the moon,
   Innocent amplified and emphasized. Two great lights, Innocent said,
   were placed by God in the firmament of heaven, and to these correspond
   the "pontifical authority and the regal authority," the one to rule
   over souls as the sun rules over the day, the other to rule over the
   bodies of men as the moon rules over the night. And as the moon gets
   its light from the sun, and as it is also less than the sun both in
   quality and in size, and in the effect produced, so the regal power
   gets its dignity and splendor from the pontifical authority which has
   in it more inherent virtue. [186] [187] ood came by divine creation;
   the kingly power by man's manipulation and violence. [188] of the pope,
   are lodged the terrible power of destruction and the genial mildness of
   grace." Innocent reminded John that if he did not lift his foot from
   off the Church, nothing would check his punishment and fall. [189]
   Innocent's exposition and obeyed. His correspondence abounds with
   letters to the emperor, the kings of Hungary, Bohemia, Sicily, France,
   England, the Danes, Aragon, and to other princes, teaching them their
   duty and demanding their submission.

   Under Innocent's rule, the subjection of the entire Christian world to
   the Roman pontiff seemed to be near realization. But the measures of
   force which were employed in the Latin conquest of Constantinople,
   1204, had the opposite effect from what was intended. The overthrow of
   the Byzantine empire and the establishment of a Latin empire in its
   stead and the creation of a new hierarchy of Constantinople only
   completed the final alienation of the Greek and Latin churches. To
   Innocent III. may not be denied deep concern in the extension of
   Christendom. But the rigorous system of the Inquisition which he set on
   foot begat bitterness and war of churchman against Christian dissenter
   and of Christian against Mohammedan. More blood was shed at the hand of
   the Church during the pontificate of Innocent, and under his immediate
   successors carrying out his policy, than in any other age except during
   the papal counter-Reformation in the sixteenth and seventeenth
   centuries. The audacious papal claim to imperialism corrected itself by
   the policy employed by Innocent and his successors to establish the
   claim over the souls and bodies of men and the governments of the
   earth. [190]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [182] Apostolicae sedis primatus quem non homo sed Deus, imo verius
   Deus homo constituit.

   [183] Reg. II. 209; Migne, 214, 758-765.

   [184] Cum non humana sed divina fiat auctoritate quod in hac parte per
   summum pontificem adimpletur, qui non hominis puri sed veri Dei vere
   vicarius appellatur. I. 326; Migne, 214, 292.

   [185] Nam cum aquae multae sint, populi multi, congregationesque
   aquarum sunt maria, per hoc quod Petrus super aquas maris incessit,
   super universos populos se potestatem accepisse monstravit. II. 209;
   Migne, 214, 760; Potthast, 82. In this letter Innocent quotes no less
   than twenty-five passages of Scripture.

   [186] Sicut luna lumen suum a sole sortitur, quae re vera minor est
   isto quantitate simul et qualitate, situ pariter et effectu, sic
   regalis potestas ab auctoritate pontificali suae sortitur dignitatis
   splendorem, etc. See Mirbt, Quellen, 130.

   [187] Minor est qui unguitur quam qui ungit, et dignior est unguens
   quam unctus. Migne, 216, 1012, 1179; Potthast, 98.

   [188] Sacerdotium per ordinationem divinam, regnum autem per
   extorsionem humanam. He also speaks of the unity of the Church as the
   product of grace and the divisions of the empire as the product of or
   judgment of sin. Ecclesia per Dei gratiam in unitate consistit, et
   imperium peccatis exigentibus est divisum. Migne, 216, 1179; Potthast,
   98.

   [189] Migne, 217, 922. Gregorovius pronounces this "probably the most
   imperious document of the papal power." V. 104.

   [190] Hauck, IV. 743, acknowledging the genius of Innocent, expresses
   the somewhat disparaging judgment that "he was more of a rhetorician
   than a theologian, and more of a jurist and administrator than a
   statesman." Many Protestant writers of Germany show their national
   feeling by a disposition to disparage Gregory VII. and Innocent III.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 38. Innocent and the German Empire.

   Additional Literature.--Ed. Winkelmann: Philip von Schwaben und Otto
   IV. von Braunschweig, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1873-1878.--R. Schwemer:
   Innocent III. und d. deutsche Kirche waehrend des Thronstreites von
   1198-1208, Strassburg, 1882.

   The political condition of Europe was favorable to Innocent's assertion
   of power. With the sudden death of Henry VI., Sept. 28, 1197, at the
   early age of thirty-two, the German empire was left without a ruler.
   Frederick, the Emperor's only son, was a helpless child. Throughout
   Italy a reaction set in against Henry's hard and oppressive rule. The
   spirit of national freedom was showing itself, and a general effort was
   begun to expel the German princes and counts from Italian soil.

   Innocent III. has been called by Ranke Henry's real successor. [191] e
   began his reign by abolishing the last vestiges of the authority of the
   empire in the city of Rome. The city prefect, who had represented the
   emperor, took the oath of allegiance to the pope, and Innocent invested
   him with a mantle and silver cup. The senator likewise acknowledged
   Innocent's authority and swore to protect the Roman see and the regalia
   of St. Peter.

   The pope quickly pushed his authority beyond the walls of Rome.
   Spoleto, which for six centuries had been ruled by a line of German
   dukes, Assisi, Perugia, and other cities, submitted. Mark of Anweiler,
   the fierce soldier of Henry VI., could not withstand the fortunate
   diplomacy and arms of Innocent, and the Romagna, with Ravenna as its
   centre, yielded. A Tuscan league was formed which was favorably
   disposed to the papal authority. Florence, Siena, Pisa, and other
   cities, while refusing to renounce their civic freedom, granted
   privileges to the pope. Everywhere Innocent had his legates. Such full
   exercise of papal power over the State of the Church had not before
   been known.

   To confirm her son Frederick's title to the crown of Sicily, his mother
   delivered the kingdom over to the pope as a papal fief. She survived
   her imperial consort only a year, and left a will appointing Innocent
   the guardian of her child. The intellectual training and political
   destinies of the heir of the Hohenstaufen were thus intrusted to the
   hereditary foe of that august house. Innocent was left a free hand to
   prosecute his trust as he chose. [192]

   In Germany, Innocent became the umpire of the imperial election. The
   electors were divided between two aspirants to the throne, Philip of
   Swabia, the brother of Henry VI., who was crowned at Mainz, and Otto,
   the son of Henry the Lion, who was crowned at Aachen by Adolf,
   archbishop of Cologne. Otto was the nephew of Richard Coeur de Lion and
   John of England, who supported his claims with their gold and
   diplomacy. Both parties made their appeal to Rome, and it is not a
   matter of surprise that Innocent's sympathies were with the Guelf,
   Otto, rather than with the Hohenstaufen. Moreover, Philip had given
   offence by occupying, as duke of Tuscany, the estates of Matilda.

   Innocent made the high claim that the German throne depended for its
   occupant "from the beginning and ultimately" upon the decision of the
   papal see. Had not the Church transferred the empire from the East to
   the West? And had not the Church itself conferred the imperial crown,
   [193] n 1201 in favor of Otto, "his dearest son in Christ who was
   himself devoted to the Church and on both sides was descended from
   devout stock." The decision inured to Rome's advantage. By the
   stipulation of Neuss, subsequently repeated at Spires, 1209, Otto
   promised obedience to the pope and renounced all claim to dominion in
   the State of the Church and also to Naples and Sicily. This written
   document was a dangerous ratification of the real or pretended
   territorial rights and privileges of the papacy from Constantine and
   Pepin down.

   Civil war broke out, and when the tide of success turned in Philip's
   favor, the pope released him from the sentence of excommunication and
   was about to acknowledge him as emperor [194] in 1208, brought Philip's
   career to a tragic end. The year following Otto was crowned in St.
   Peter's, but he forgot his promises and proceeded to act out the
   independent policy of the rival house of the Hohenstaufen. [195] ly,
   distributing rich estates and provinces among his vassals and
   sequestrating the revenues of the clergy. He then marched to Southern
   Italy, the territory of Frederick, and received the surrender of
   Naples.

   All that Innocent had gained seemed in danger of being lost. Prompt
   measures showed him equal to the emergency. He wrote that the stone he
   had erected to be the head of the corner had become a rock of offence.
   Like Rachel he mourned over his son whom he lamented to have made king.
   Otto was excommunicated and a meeting of magnates at Nuernberg, 1211,
   declared him deposed, and, pronouncing in favor of Frederick, sent
   envoys to Palermo to convey to him the intelligence. Otto crossed the
   Alps to reclaim his power, but it was too late. Frederick started
   north, stopping at Rome, where Innocent saw him for the first and last
   time, April, 1212. He was elected and crowned king at Frankfurt,
   December, 1212, and was recognized by nearly all the princes at Eger
   the year following. Before setting out from Italy he had again
   recognized Sicily as a fief of Rome. At Eger he disavowed all imperial
   right to the State of the Church. [196]

   Otto joined in league with John of England and the Flemish princes
   against Philip Augustus of France; but his hopes were dashed to the
   ground on the battlefield of Bouvines, Belgium, 1415. His authority was
   thenceforth confined to his ancestral estate. He died 1218. Innocent
   had gained the day. His successors were to be defied by the young king,
   Frederick, for nearly half a century.

   With equal spirit and decision, Innocent mingled in the affairs of the
   other states of Europe. In France, the controversy was over the
   sanctity of the marriage vow. Philip Augustus put away his second wife,
   [197] e, and took the fair Agnes of Meran in her stead. The French
   bishops, on the plea of remote consanguinity, justified the divorce.
   But Innocent, listening to the appeals of Ingeborg, and placing France
   under the interdict, forced the king to take her back. [198]

   The Christian states of the Spanish peninsula felt the pontiff's strong
   hand. The kingdom of Leon was kept under the interdict five years till
   Alfonso IX. consented to dismiss his wife on account of blood
   relationship. Pedro, king of Aragon, a model of Spanish chivalry,
   received his crown at Rome in 1204 and made his realm a fief of the
   Apostolic see. Sancho, king of the newly risen kingdom of Portugal, was
   defeated in his effort to break away from the pope's suzerainty.

   In the North, Sweden accepted Innocent's decision in favor of the house
   of Schwerker, and the Danish king, who was attempting to reduce the
   tribes along the Baltic to Christianity, was protected by the pope's
   threat of interdict upon all molesting his realm. The king of England
   was humbled to the dust by Innocent's word. To the king of Scotland a
   legate was sent and a valuable sword. Even Iceland is said to have been
   the subject of Innocent's thought and action.

   In the Southeast, Johannitius of Bulgaria received from Innocent his
   crown after bowing before his rebuke for having ventured to accept it
   from Philip of Swabia. Ottoker, prince of Bohemia, was anointed by the
   papal legate, and Emmeric of Hungary made a vow to lead a crusade,
   which his brother Andrew executed. Thus all the states of Europe west
   of Russia were made to feel the supremacy of the papal power. The
   conquest of Constantinople and the Holy Land, as we shall see, occupied
   an equal share of attention from this tireless and masterful ruler, and
   the establishment of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1205, was
   regarded as a signal triumph for the papal policy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [191] Weltgeschichte, VIII. 274. Matthews, 105 sq. gives Henry VI.'s
   Testament.

   [192] One of Frederick's first acts was to release a portion of his
   patrimony to the pope's brother, Count Richard. At a later period,
   under Honorius, Frederick recalled his gift.

   [193] Imperium principaliter et finaliter dignoscitur pertinere,
   principaliter quia ipsa transtulit imperium ab Oriente ad Occidentem;
   finaliter quia ipsa concedit coronam imperii. Migne, 216, 1182;
   Potthast, 98; also Migne, 216, 1048; Potthast, 119.

   [194] The very archbishop of Cologne who had crowned Otto now put the
   crown on Philip's head.

   [195] Otto had sought to join the fortunes of the two houses by
   marrying Philip's daughter, Beatrice, who died soon after the nuptials.

   [196] This was the so-called Golden Bull of Eger, July 12, 1213.
   Frederick calls himself in it, "King of the Romans and of Sicily." He
   promised to defend Sicily for the Roman Church as a "devoted son and
   Catholic prince,"devotus filius et Catholicus princeps. Mirbt, Quellen,
   131 sqq.; Matthews, 115 sqq.

   [197] Migne, 215, 1493, etc.

   [198] The pope legitimatized the children of Agnes, who died in 1201.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 39. Innocent and King John of England.


   "This royal throne of kings, this sceptr'd isle,

   This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

   This other Eden, demi-paradise;

   This fortress, built by nature for herself,

   Against infection, and the hand of war;

   This happy breed of men, this little world,

   This precious stone set in the silver sea,

   Which serves it in the office of a wall,

   Or as a moat defensive to a house,

   Against the envy of less happier lands;

   This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

   This nurse, this teeming womb of royal kings,

   Fear'd by their breed, and famous by their birth."

   --Shakespeare, Richard II., Act II. Sc. 1.

   Additional Literature.--The Chronicle of Roger of Wendover (the first
   of the St. Alban annalists) and the revision and continuation of the
   same by Matthew Paris (a monk of St. Alban's, the last and greatest of
   the monastic historians of England), ed. by H. R. Luard in Rolls
   Series, 7 vols. London, 1872-1883, vol. II. Engl. vol. II. trans. of
   Wendover by J. A. Giles, Bohn's Lib. 2 vols. London, 1849; of M. Paris
   by Giles, 3 vols. London, 1852-1854.--Memorials of Walter of Coventry,
   ed. by Stubbs, 2 vols. 1872 sq.--Radulph of Coggeshall: Chronicon
   Anglicanum, ed. by J. Stevenson, 1875. The Annals of Waverley,
   Dunstable, and Burton, all in the Rolls Series.--W. Stubbs: The
   Constitutional Hist. of England, 6th ed. 3 vols. Oxford, 1897, and
   Select Charters, etc., 8th ed. Oxford, 1900, pp. 270-306.--Gee and
   Hardy: Documents, London, 1896.--R. Gneist: Hist. of the Engl. Court,
   Engl. trans. 2 vols. London, 1886, vol. I. 294-332.--E. Guetschow:
   Innocent III. und England, Munich, 1904, pp. 198.--The Histories of
   Lingard (R. C.), Green, Milman, Freeman (Norman Conquest, vol.
   V.).--For Stephen Langton, Dean Hook: Lives of the Abp. of Canterbury,
   and art. Langton, in Dict. of Natl. Biog.--Also W. Hunt, art. John, in
   Dict. of Natl. Biog. XXIX. 402-417.--Sir James H. Ramsey: The Angevin
   Empire, 1154-1216, London, 1903. He calls John a brutal tyrant,
   hopelessly depraved, without ability in war or politics.

   Under Innocent, England comes, if possible, into greater prominence in
   the history of the papacy than during the controversy in the reign of
   Alexander III., a generation before. Then the English actors were Henry
   II. and Thomas `a Becket. Now they are Henry's son John and Becket's
   successor Stephen Langton. The pope was victorious, inflicting the
   deepest humiliation upon the English king; but he afterwards lost the
   advantage he had gained by supporting John against his barons and
   denouncing the Magna Charta of English popular rights. The controversy
   forms one of the most interesting episodes of English history.

   John, surnamed Sansterre or Lackland, 1167-1216, succeeded his brother
   Richard I. on the throne, 1199. A man of decided ability and rapid in
   action but of ignoble spirit, low morals, and despotic temper, he
   brought upon his realm such disgrace as England before or since has not
   suffered. His reign was a succession of wrongs and insults to the
   English people and the English church.

   John had joined Richard in a revolt against their father, sought to
   displace his brother on the throne during his captivity after the Third
   Crusade, and was generally believed by contemporaries to have put to
   death his brother Geoffrey's son, Arthur of Brittany, who would have
   been Richard's successor if the law of primogeniture had been followed.
   He lost Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Aquitaine to the English. Perjury
   was no barrier to the accomplishment of his plans. He set aside one
   wife and was faithless to another. No woman was too well born to be
   safe against his advances. He plundered churches and convents to pay
   his debts and satisfy his avarice, and yet he never undertook a journey
   without hanging charms around his neck. [199]

   Innocent came into collision with John over the selection of a
   successor to Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury, who died 1205. [200] The
   monks of Canterbury, exercising an ancient privilege, chose Reginald
   one of their number. With the king's support, a minority proceeded to
   another election and chose the king's nominee, John de Grey, bishop of
   Norwich. John was recognized by the suffragan-bishops and put into
   possession by the king.

   An appeal was made by both parties to Rome, Reginald appearing there in
   person. After a delay of a year, Innocent set aside both elections and
   ordered the Canterbury monks, present in Rome, to proceed to the choice
   of another candidate. The choice fell upon Stephen Langton, cardinal of
   Chrysogonus. Born on English soil, Stephen was a man of indisputable
   learning and moral worth. He had studied in Paris and won by his merits
   prebends in the cathedral churches of Paris and York. The metropolitan
   dignity could have been intrusted to no shoulders more worthy of
   wearing it. [201] most of England's primates as a faithful
   administrator and the advocate of English popular liberties.

   The new archbishop received consecration at the pope's own hand, June
   17, 1207, and held his office till his death, 1228. [202] fication with
   fierce resistance, confiscated the property of the Canterbury chapter,
   and expelled the monks as guilty of treason. Innocent replied with the
   threat of the interdict. The king swore by God's teeth [203] the
   mutilation of every Italian in the realm appointed by Innocent, and the
   expulsion of all the prelates and clergy. The sentence was published by
   the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester, March 22, 1208. [204]

   The interdict at once took effect, casting a deep gloom over the
   nation. The church bells remained unrung. The church buildings were
   closed. The usual ministrations of the priesthood remained unperformed.
   The great doors of the monasteries were left unopened, and worshippers
   were only admitted by secret passages. Penance was inflicted upon the
   innocent as well as the erring. Women, after childbirth, presented
   themselves for purification outside the church walls. The dead were
   refused burial in consecrated ground, and the service of the priest was
   withheld.

   John, although he had seen Philip Augustus bend under a similar
   censure, affected unconcern, and retaliated by confiscating the
   property of the higher clergy and convents and turning the inmates out
   of doors with little more than the clothes on their backs. The
   concubines of the priests were forcibly removed and purchased their
   ransom at heavy expense. A Welshman accused of murdering a priest was
   ordered by the king dismissed with the words, "Let him go, he has
   killed my enemy." The relatives of the fugitive bishops were thrown
   into prison.

   In 1209 Innocent added to the interdict the solemn sentence of the
   personal anathema against the king. [205] dogs not daring to bark."
   [206] rwich, who had been in his service and now felt he could no
   longer so remain, was thrown into prison and there allowed to languish
   to death, covered from shoulders to feet with a cope of lead. [207]

   One more weapon lay in the pope's power. In 1212 John was declared
   unworthy of his throne, and deposed. His subjects were absolved from
   the obligation of allegiance, and Christian princes were summoned to
   execute the sentence and take the crown. Gregory VII. had resorted to
   the same precarious measure with Henry IV. and been defeated. The bull
   was published at Soissons by Langton and the exiled bishops. Philip of
   France was quick to respond to the summons and collected an army. But
   the success of the English fleet checked the fear of an immediate
   invasion of the realm.

   The nation's suspense, however, was taxed almost beyond the point of
   endurance. The king's arbitrary taxes and his amours with the wives and
   daughters of the barons aroused their determined hatred. Pressed from
   different sides, John suddenly had a meeting at Dover with the pope's
   special envoy, the subdeacon Pandulf. [208] checkmate the plans of the
   French monarch, John gave in his submission, and on May 15, 1213, on
   bended knee, delivered up to Pandulf his kingdom and consented to
   receive it back again as a papal fief. Five months later the act was
   renewed in the presence of Nicolas, cardinal-archbishop of Tusculum,
   who had been sent to England with legatine authority. In the document
   which John signed and swore to keep, he blasphemously represented
   himself as imitating him "who humbled himself for us even unto death."
   This notorious paper ran as follows: --

   "We do freely offer and grant to God and the holy Apostles Peter and
   Paul and the holy Roman Church, our mother, and to our Lord the pope
   Innocent and his Catholic successors, the whole realm of England and
   the whole realm of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances for
   the remission of our sins and those of all our race, as well quick as
   dead; and from now receiving back and holding these, as a feudal
   dependent, from God and the Roman Church, do and swear fealty for them
   to our Lord the pope Innocent and his Catholic successors and the Roman
   Church." [209]

   John bound himself and England for all time to pay, in addition to the
   usual Peter's pence, 1000 marks annually to the Apostolic see, 700 for
   England and 300 for Ireland. The king's signature was witnessed by the
   archbishop of Dublin, the bishop of Norwich, and eleven noblemen. John
   also promised to reimburse the outlawed bishops, the amount finally
   settled upon being 40,000 marks.

   Rightly does Matthew Paris call this the "detestable and lamentable
   charter." [210] [211] As a political measure it succeeded, bringing as
   it did keen disappointment to the warlike king of France. The interdict
   was revoked in 1214, after having been in force more than six years.

   The victory of Innocent was complete. But in after years the
   remembrance of the dishonorable transaction encouraged steadfast
   resistance to the papal rule in England. The voice of Robert
   Grosseteste was lifted up against it, and Wyclif became champion of the
   king who refused to be bound by John's pledge. Writing to one of John's
   successors, the emperor Frederick II. called upon him to remember the
   humiliation of his predecessor John and with other Christian princes
   resist the intolerable encroachments of the Apostolic see.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [199] The contemporary annalists know no words too black to describe
   John's character. Lingard says, "John stands before us polluted with
   meanness, cruelty, perjury, murder, and unbridled licentiousness."
   Green, after quoting the words "foul as hell is, hell itself is defiled
   with the foul presence of John," says, "In his inner soul John was the
   worst outcome of the Angevins ... . But with the wickedness of his race
   he inherited its profound abilities." III. chap. I. Hunt, in Dict. of
   Nat'l. Biog., XXIX. 406, uses these words, "He was mean, false,
   vindictive, abominably cruel, and scandalously immoral."

   [200] He had before come into collision with John over the harsh
   treatment of the archbishop of Dublin. Works of Innocent III., Reg.,
   VI. 63; Migne, 215, 61; Potthast, 167.

   [201] His scholarly tastes are attested by his sermons, poems, and
   comments on books of the Bible which still exist in manuscript in the
   libraries of Oxford, Cambridge, Lambeth, and of France. He is falsely
   credited by some with having been the first to divide the entire Bible
   into chapters. See Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, II. 678.

   [202] Innocent, in his letter to John of May 26, 1207, declared he
   would turn neither to the right nor to the left in confirming the
   election. Potthast, 264.

   [203] This and the expression "by God's feet" were John's favorite
   forms of objurgation.

   [204] See Migne, 217, 190; Potthast, 286.

   [205] Potthast, 316.

   [206] A favorite expression of Matthew Paris.

   [207] Another example of John's unspeakable cruelty was his treatment
   of a rich Jew of Bristol upon whom he had made a demand for 10,000
   marks. On his refusing, John ordered ten teeth to be taken out, one
   each day. The executioner dentist began with the molars. The sufferer
   held out till he had been served this way seven times. He then yielded,
   giving up the money, which, as Matthew Paris says, he might have done
   seven days before, thus saving himself all his agony. Luard's ed., II.
   528.

   [208] Shakespeare is responsible for the popular mistake which makes
   Pandulf a cardinal. King John, Act III. Sc. 1. He served as legate in
   England, 1217-1221. The official documents call him "subdeacon and
   familiar to our lord the pope Innocent."

   [209] Potthast, 416. The Latin in Matthew Paris, Luard's ed. II.
   541-546; a translation is given by Gee and Hardy, 75-79.

   [210] IV. 479, carta detestabilis quam lacrimabilis memoriae Johannes
   infeliciter confecit

   [211] Henry II. had become the feudatory of Alexander III., and Richard
   I., after resigning his crown to the emperor, had held it for the
   payment of a yearly rent. Lingard offers extenuating considerations for
   John's surrender, which, however, he denominates "certainly a
   disgraceful act."
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 40. Innocent and Magna Charta.

   An original manuscript of the Magna Charta, shrivelled with age and
   fire, but still showing the royal seal, is preserved in the British
   Museum. A facsimile is given in the official edition of the Statutes of
   the Realm. Stubbs gives the Latin text in Select Charters, etc.,
   296-306.

   In his treatment of the Great Charter, the venerable instrument of
   English popular rights, Innocent, with monarchical instinct, turned to
   the side of John and against the cause of popular liberty. Stephen
   Langton, who had released John from the ban of excommunication,
   espoused the popular cause, thereby incurring the condemnation of the
   pope. The agreement into which the barons entered to resist the king's
   despotism was treated by him with delay and subterfuge. Rebellion and
   civil war followed. As he had before been unscrupulous in his treatment
   of the Church, so now to win support he made fulsome religious promises
   he probably had no intention of keeping. To the clergy he granted
   freedom of election in the case of all prelates, greater and less. He
   also made a vow to lead a crusade. After the battle of Bouvines, John
   found himself forced to return to England, and was compelled by the
   organized strength of the barons to meet them at Runnymede, an island
   in the Thames near Windsor, where he signed and swore to keep the Magna
   Charta, June 15, 1215.

   This document, with the Declaration of Independence, the most important
   contract in the civil history of the English-speaking peoples, meant
   defined law as against uncertain tradition and the arbitrary will of
   the monarch. It was the first act of the people, nobles, and Church in
   combination, a compact of Englishmen with the king. By it the sovereign
   agreed that justice should be denied or delayed to no one, and that
   trial should be by the peers of the accused. No taxes were to be levied
   without the vote of the common council of the realm, whose meetings
   were fixed by rule. The single clause bearing directly upon the Church
   confirmed the freedom of ecclesiastical elections.

   After his first paroxysms of rage, when he gnawed sticks and straw like
   a madman, [212] e barons with no intention of keeping his oath. The
   pope made the fatal mistake of taking sides with perjured royalty
   against the reasonable demands of the nation. In two bulls [213] man
   race had, by his crafty arts, excited the barons against him." He
   asserted that the "wicked audacity of the barons tended to the contempt
   of the Apostolic see, the detriment of kingly prerogative, the disgrace
   of the English nation, and the endangering of the cross." He praised
   John for his Christian submission to the will of the supreme head of
   Christendom, and the pledge of annual tribute, and for his vow to lead
   a crusade. As for the document itself, he "utterly reprobated and
   condemned it" as "a low and base instrument, yea, truly wicked and
   deserving to be reprobated by all, especially because the king's assent
   was secured by force." [214] " [215]

   The sentence of excommunication which Innocent fulminated against the
   refractory barons, Langton refused to publish. For his disobedience the
   pope suspended him from his office, Nov. 4, 1215, and he was not
   allowed to resume it till 1219, when Innocent had been in his grave
   three years. London, which supported the popular cause, was placed
   under the interdict, and the prelates of England who took the popular
   side Innocent denounced, as worse than Saracens, worse than those open
   enemies of the cross." [216]

   The barons, in self-defence, called upon the Dauphin of France to
   accept the crown. He landed in England, but was met by the papal ban.
   [217] , John died at Newark, after suffering the loss of his goods in
   crossing the Wash. He was thrown into a fever, but the probable cause
   of his death was excess in eating and drinking. [218] ments he received
   the sacrament and commended his children to the protection of the pope,
   who had stood by him in his last conflict.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [212] M. Paris, Luard's ed. II. 611.

   [213] Aug. 24, 1215, Potthast, 435.

   [214] Compositionen hujusmodi reprobamus penitus et damnamus compositio
   non solum sit vilis et turpis, verum etiam illicita et iniqua ut merito
   sit abomnibus reprobanda. M. Paris, Luard's ed., II. 619 sq. Another
   ground given by Innocent for annulling the document was that he as
   England's overlord had not been consulted before the king's signature
   was attached.

   [215] The language is the strongest: tam cartam quam obligationes
   irritantes penitus et cassantes, ut nullo unquam tempore aliquam
   habeant firmitatem. M. Paris, Luard's ed. II. 619. See Hurter, II. 656
   sq. Some excuse has been found by advocates of papal infallibility for
   this fierce sentence upon the ground that Innocent was condemning the
   mode by which the king's consent was obtained. Innocent adduces three
   considerations, the conspiracy of the barons to force the king, their
   disregard of his Crusading vow, and the neglect of all parties to
   consult the pope as overlord. He condemns, it is true, the document as
   a document, and it has been said the contents were not aimed at
   Innocent's mistake and official offence were that, passing by entirely,
   the merits of the Charter, he should have espoused the despotism of the
   iniquitous king.

   [216] Potthast, 437; M. Paris, in Luard, II. 627. About the same time
   at John's request, Innocent annulled the election of Simon Langton,
   Stephen's brother, to the see of York.

   [217] Thomas Fuller remarks that "the commonness of these curses caused
   them to be contemned, so that they were a fright to few, a mock to
   many, and a hurt to none."

   [218] Roger of Wendover says he surfeited himself with peaches and new
   cider. M. Paris, Luard's ed., II. 667. Shakespeare, following a later
   tradition, represents him as dying of poison administered by a monk:--
   "The king, I fear is poisoned by a monk, * * * * * * * * It is too
   late; the life of all his blood Is touched corruptibly; and his pure
   brain Which some suppose the soul's frail dwelling-house) Doth, by the
   idle comments that it makes, Foretell the ending of mortality." --King
   John, Act V. Sc. 6 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 41. The Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.

   Literature.--Works of Innocent, Migne, 217.--Mansi, xxii.--Labbaeus,
   xi.--Potthast, Regesta, I. 437 sqq., gives a summary of the canons of
   the council.--Hefele-Knoepfler, V. 872 sqq.--Hurter, II. 538 sqq.--Lea:
   Hist. of the Inquisition, passim.

   The Fourth Lateran, otherwise known as the Twelfth Oecumenical Council,
   was the closing act of Innocent's pontificate, and marks the zenith of
   the papal theocracy. In his letter of convocation, [219] and the
   betterment of the Church. The council was held in the Lateran and had
   three sittings, Nov. 11, 20, 30, 1215. It was the most largely attended
   of the synods held up to that time in the west. The attendance included
   412 bishops, 800 abbots and priors, and a large number of delegates
   representing absent prelates. There were also present representatives
   of the emperor Frederick II., the emperor Henry of Constantinople, and
   the kings of England, France, Aragon, Hungary, Jerusalem, and other
   crowned heads. [220]

   The sessions were opened with a sermon by the pope on Luke 22:15, "With
   desire have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer."
   It was a fanciful interpretation of the word "Passover," to which a
   threefold sense was given: a physical sense referring to the passage of
   Jerusalem from a state of captivity to a state of liberty, a spiritual
   sense referring to the passage of the Church from one state to a better
   one, and a heavenly sense referring to the transition from the present
   life to the eternal glory. The deliverances are grouped under seventy
   beads, and a special decree bearing upon the recovery of Jerusalem. The
   headings concern matters of doctrine and ecclesiastical and moral
   practice. The council's two most notable acts were the definition of
   the dogma of transubstantiation and the establishment of the
   institution of the Inquisition against heretics.

   The doctrinal decisions, contained in the first two chapters, give a
   comprehensive statement of the orthodox faith as it concerns the nature
   of God, the Incarnation, the unity of the Church, and the two greater
   sacraments. Here transubstantiation is defined as the doctrine of the
   eucharist in the universal Church, "outside of which there is no
   possibility of salvation." [221]

   The council expressly condemned the doctrine of Joachim of Flore, that
   the substance of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not a real entity, but
   a collective entity in the sense that a collection of men is called one
   people, and a collection of believers one Church. It approved the view
   of Peter the Lombard whom Joachim had opposed on the ground that his
   definition would substitute a quaternity for the trinity in the
   Godhead. [222]

   Amaury of Bena, a teacher in Paris accused of pantheistic teachings,
   was also condemned by name. He had been accused and appeared before the
   pope at Rome in 1204, and recalled his alleged heresy. [223] and cannot
   sin.

   The treatment of heretics received elaborate consideration in the
   important third decree. [224] place. [225] monastic rules, the
   establishment of monastic orders was thenceforth forbidden. [226]

   The clergy are warned against intemperance and incontinence and
   forbidden the chase, hunting dogs and falcons, attendance upon
   theatrical entertainments, and executions, duelling, and frequenting
   inns. Prescriptions are given for their dress. Confession is made
   compulsory at least once a year, and imprisonment fixed as the
   punishment of priests revealing the secrets of the confessional. The
   tenure of more than one benefice is forbidden except by the pope's
   dispensation. New relics are forbidden as objects of worship, except as
   they might receive the approbation of the pope. Physicians are bidden,
   upon threat of excommunication, to urge their patients first of all to
   summon a priest, as the well-being of the soul is of more value than
   the health of the body. Jews and Saracens are enjoined to wear a
   different dress from the Christians, lest unawares carnal intercourse
   be had between them. The Jews are bidden to keep within doors during
   passion week and excluded from holding civil office. [227]

   The appointment of a new crusade was the council's last act, and it was
   set to start in 1217. Christians were commanded to refrain from all
   commercial dealings with the Saracens for four years. To all
   contributing to the crusade, as well as to those participating in it,
   full indulgence was promised, and added eternal bliss. [228] , count of
   Toulouse, for redress from the rapacity of Simon de Montfort, the
   fierce leader of the crusade against the Albigenses in Southern France.

   The doctrinal statements and ecclesiastical rules bear witness to the
   new conditions upon which the Church had entered, the Latin patriarchs
   being in possession in the East, and heresy threatening its unity in
   Southern France and other parts of the West.

   Innocent III. survived the great council only a few months and died
   scarcely fifty-six years old, without having outlived his authority or
   his fame. He had been fortunate in all his undertakings. The acts of
   statecraft, which brought Europe to his feet, were crowned in the last
   scene at the Lateran Council by the pious concern of the priest. To his
   successors he bequeathed a continent united in allegiance to the Holy
   See and a Church strengthened in its doctrinal unity. Notwithstanding
   his great achievements combining mental force and moral purpose, the
   Church has found no place for Innocent among its canonized saints.

   The following are a few testimonies to his greatness:--

   Gregorovius declares [229]

   "Not a creative genius like Gregory I. and Gregory VII., he was one of
   the most important figures of the Middle Ages, a man of earnest,
   sterling, austere intellect, a consummate ruler, a statesman of
   penetrating judgment, a high-minded priest filled with religious
   fervor, and at the same time with an unbounded ambition and appalling
   force of will, a true idealist on the papal throne, yet an entirely
   practical monarch and a cool-headed lawyer .... No pope has ever had so
   lofty and yet so real consciousness of his power as Innocent III., the
   creator and destroyer of emperors and kings."

   Ranke says: [230]

   "A superstitious reverence such as Friedrich Hurter renders to him in
   his remarkable book I am not at all able to accord. Thus much, however,
   is certain. He stands in the foremost rank of popes, having world-wide
   significance. The task which he placed before himself he was thoroughly
   equal to. Leaving out a few dialectic subtleties, one will not find in
   him anything that is really small. In him was fulfilled the transition
   of the times."

   Baur gives this opinion: [231]

   "With Innocent III. the papacy reached its height and in no other
   period of its long history did it enjoy such an undisturbed peace and
   such a glorious development of its power and splendor. He was
   distinguished as no other in this high place not only by all the
   qualities of the ruler but by personal virtues, by high birth and also
   by mind, culture, and learning." [232]

   Hagenbach: [233]

   "Measured by the standard of the papacy, Innocent is beyond controversy
   the greatest of all the popes. Measured by the eternal law of the
   Gospel of Jesus Christ, that which here seems great and mighty in the
   eyes of the world, seems little in the kingdom of heaven, and amongst
   those things which call forth wonder and admiration, only that will
   stand which the Spirit of God, who never wholly withdraws from the
   Church, wrought in his soul. How far such operation went on, and with
   what result, who but God can know? He alone is judge."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [219] April 19, 1213.

   [220] The invitation included the prelates of the East and West,
   Christian emperors and kings, the grand-masters of the Military Orders,
   and the heads of monastic establishments.

   [221] In qua idem ipse sacerdos et sacrificium Jesus Christus, cujus
   corpus et sanguis in sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis et vini
   veraciter continentur, transubstantiatis pane in corpus, et vino in
   sanguinem, etc. Mansi, XXII. 982; Mirbt, Quellen. 133.

   [222] The Lombard had defined the substance of the three persons as a
   real entity, quaedam summa res.

   [223] See Hauck, art. Amalrich, in Herzog, I. 432 sq.

   [224] See chapters on the Inquisition and the Cathari.

   [225] The patriarchs of Jerusalem and Constantinople, of the Latin
   succession, were conspicuous at the council, and also Antioch by a
   representative, the Melchisite patriarch of Alexandria, and the
   Maronite patriarch.

   [226] Chapter XIII.

   [227] A repetition of the decrees of the synod of Toledo, 681.

   [228] Plenam suorum peccaminum de quibus fuerint corde contriti et ore
   confessi veniam indulgemus et in retributione justorum salutis eternae
   pollicemur augmentum.

   [229] V: 102 sq. Gibbon, ch. LIX, after acknowledging Innocent's
   talents and virtues, has this criticism of two of the most far-reaching
   acts of his reign: "Innocent may boast of the two most signal triumphs
   over sense and humanity, the establishment of transubstantiation, and
   the origin of the Inquisition."

   [230] Weltgeschichte, viii: 334.

   [231] Geschichte des Mittelalters, p. 220.

   [232] For judgments of mediaeval authors, see Potthast, Regesta, 461.
   The contemporaneous author of the Gesta Innocentii, Migne, 214, p.
   xviii., thus describes Innocent: "Fuit vir perspicacis ingenii et
   tenacis memoriae, in divinis et humanis litteris eruditus, sermone tam
   vulgari quam litterali disertus, exercitatus in cantilena et psalmodia,
   statura mediocris et decorus aspectu, medius inter prodigalitatem et
   avaritiam, sed in eleemosynis et victualibus magis largus, et in aliis
   magis parcus, nisi cum necessitatis articulus exigebat severus contra
   rebelles et contumaces, sed benignus erga humiles et devotos; fortis et
   stabilis, magnanimus et astutus; fidei defensor, et haeresis
   expugnator; in justitia rigidus, sed in misericordia pius; humilis in
   prosperis, et patiens in adversis; naturae tamen aliquantulum
   indignantis, sed facile ignoscentis."

   [233] Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, ch. XIX.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER VI.

   THE PAPACY FROM THE DEATH OF INNOCENT III. TO BONIFACE VIII. 1216-1294.

   Literature: The Chronicles of this period, e.g. M. Paris, ed. by Luard
   the Franciscan Salimbene, ed. by A. Bertani, Parma, 1857; Engl. trans.
   by Coulton, Lond., 1906.--Richard a St. Germano: chronicon rerum per
   orbem gestarum, 1189-1243; the chronicon Placentinum and Chron. de
   rebus in Italia gestis, ed. by Huillard-Breholles, Paris, 1856. For
   Honorius III., Opera omnia, ed. by Horay in Medii aevi bibliotheca
   patristica, I.-V., Paris, 1879-1883, and Regesta, ed. by the order of
   Leo XIII., by P. Presutti, Rome, 1888, 1 vol. For Gregory IX., Opera
   omnia, Antwerp, 1572. Fifteen volumes of Gregory's letters are in MS.
   in the Vatican: Les Registres de Gregoire IX., 1227-1235, Recueil des
   bulles publiees d'apres les MSS. originaux du Vatican par L. Auvray,
   Paris, 1896. For Innocent IV., Registres d'Innocent IV., ed. by E.
   Berger, 3 vols. Paris, 1884-1897.--The Regesta of Potthast and
   Boehmer.--Lives of the Popes, in Muratori (two), and by
   Platina.--Mansi: Councils, XXIII.

   C. Hoefler: Kaiser Friedrich II., Munich, 1844.--Ed. Winkelmann: Gesch.
   Kaisers Friedrichs II., etc., 2 vols., Berlin and Reval, 1863-1865.--T.
   L. Kington: Hist. of Fred. II., Emp. of the Romans, 2 vols., London,
   1862.--F. W. Schirrmacher: Kaiser Fried. II., 3 vols. Goetting.,
   1859-1865.--Huillard-Breholles: Historia diplomatica Friderici II,
   etc., 6 vols., two parts each, Paris, 1852-1861. A great work. Vol. I.
   gives the life of Frederick, the other volumes
   documents.--Huillard-Breholles: Vie et correspondance de la Vigne,
   ministre de l'empereur Fred. II., Paris, 1866.--E. Winkelmann: Kaiser
   Friedrich II., 2 vols. Leipzig, 1896 sq.--P. Balan: Storia di Gregorio
   IX. e di suoi tempi, 3 vols., Modena, 1872 sq.--Chambrier: Die letzten
   Hohenstaufen u. das Papstthum, Basel, 1876.--Raumer: Gesch. der
   Hohenstaufen, 5th ed., Leipzig, 1878. Vol. V.--J. Zeller: L'emp. Fred.
   II. et la chute de l'emp. Germ. du moyen age, Paris, 1885.--J. Felten:
   Papst Gregor IX., Freib. im Br., 1886.--Ugo Balzani: The Popes and the
   Hohenstaufen, London, 1888.--C. Koehler: D. Verhaeltniss Fried. II. zu
   den Paepsten seiner Zeit., Breslau, 1888.--J. Clausen: Papst Honorius
   III., Bonn, 1895.--H. Fisher: The Mediaeval Empire, 2 vols. London,
   1898.--F. Fehling: Fried. II. und die roemischen Kardinaele, Berlin,
   1901.--H. Krabbo: Die Besetzung der deutschen Bisthuemer unter der
   Regierung Kaiser Fried. II., 1212-1250, Berlin, 1901.--Th. Franz: Der
   grosse Kampf zwischen Kaiserthum und Papstthum zur Zeit des
   Hohenstaufen, Fried. II., Berlin, 1903. Not important.--W. Knebel:
   Kaiser Fried. II. und Papst Honorius III., 1220-1227, Muenster, 1905,
   pp. 151.--Hefele, V.--Wattenbach, 196-211.--Gregorovius, V.--Ranke,
   VIII.--Freeman: The Emp. Fred. II. in his Hist. Essays, 1st series, pp.
   283-313, London, 1871.--Art. Fred. II., by Funk, in Wetzer-Welte, IV.
   2029-2035, and arts. in Herzog, Gregory IX., by Mirbt, and Honorius
   III., and Innocent IV., by Schulz, with the copious Lit. there given.
   Also, Das Briefbuch des Thomas von Gasta, Justitiars Fried. II. in
   Quellen u. Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,
   Rome, 1895.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 42. The Papal Conflict with Frederick II Begun.

   Between the death of Innocent III. and the election of Boniface VIII.,
   a period of eighty years, sixteen popes sat on the throne, several of
   whom were worthy successors of the greatest of the pontiffs. The
   earlier half of the period, 1216-1250, was filled with the gigantic
   struggle between the papacy and Frederick II., emperor of Germany and
   king of Sicily. The latter half, 1250-1294, was marked by the
   establishment of peace between the papacy and empire, and the dominance
   of the French, or Norman, influence over the papacy.

   Scarcely was Innocent in his grave when Frederick II. began to play his
   distinguished role, and to engage the papacy in its last great struggle
   with the empire--a desperate struggle, as it proved to be, in which the
   empire was at last completely humbled. The struggle kept Europe in
   turmoil for nearly forty years, and was waged with three
   popes,--Honorius III., Gregory IX., and Innocent IV., the last two, men
   of notable ability. During all this time Frederick was the most
   conspicuous figure in Christendom. The struggle was carried on not only
   in the usual ways of diplomacy and arms, but by written appeals to the
   court of European opinion.

   Frederick II., the grandson of Frederick Barbarossa, was born near
   Ancona, 1194. His father, Henry VI., had joined Sicily to the empire by
   his marriage with the Norman princess Constance, through whom Frederick
   inherited the warm blood of the south. By preference and training, as
   well as birth, he was a thorough Italian. He tarried on German soil
   only long enough to insure his crown and to put down the rebellion of
   his son. [234] child of Apulia," as Frederick was called, a boy then in
   his fourth year, passed under the guardian care of Innocent III. After
   Otto's star had set, he was crowned king at Frankfurt, 1212, and at
   Aachen, 1215. Frederick was not twenty when Innocent's career came to
   an end.

   Honorius III., 1216-1227, was without the ambition or genius of his
   predecessor Innocent III. He confirmed the rules and witnessed the
   extraordinary growth of the two great mendicant orders of St. Francis
   and St. Dominic. He crowned Peter of Courtenay, emperor of Byzantium,
   the only Byzantine emperor to receive his crown in Rome. [235]
   coronation, in 1215, to lead a crusade, was the main effort of his
   pontificate. The year 1217, the date set for the crusade to start,
   passed by. Honorius fixed date after date with Frederick, but the
   emperor had other plans and found excuses for delay. In 1220 he and his
   wife Constantia received the imperial crown at the hands of the pope in
   Rome. [236] suppress heresy, and exempting all churches and clerics
   from taxation. In the meantime his son Henry had been elected king of
   the Romans, and by that act and the pope's subsequent ratification the
   very thing was accomplished which it had been Innocent's shrewd policy
   to prevent; namely, the renewal of the union of the empire and the
   kingdom of Sicily in one hand. Frederick was pursuing his own course,
   but to appease Honorius he renewed the pledge whereby Sicily was to
   remain a fief of the papal see.

   The fall of Damietta, [237] ng his zeal and hastening the departure of
   the crusade, Honorius encouraged the emperor's marriage with Iolanthe,
   daughter of John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem, and heiress of the
   crown. [238] title of king of Jerusalem; but he continued to show no
   sign of making haste. His aggravating delays were enough to wear out a
   more amiable disposition than even Honorius possessed. A final
   agreement was made between them in 1225, which gave the emperor a
   respite of two years more, and he swore upon penalty of excommunication
   to set forth October, 1227. Four months before the date appointed for
   the crusade Honorius died.

   The last year of Honorius's reign, Frederick entered openly upon the
   policy which involved him in repeated wars with the papacy and the
   towns of Northern Italy. He renewed the imperial claims to the Lombard
   cities. Upon these claims the Apostolic see could not look with
   complacency, for, if realized, they would have made Frederick the
   sovereign of Italy and cramped the temporal power of the papacy within
   a limited and at best an uncertain area.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [234] Ranke, VIII. 337, calls him a foreigner on German soil.

   [235] The coronation took place outside the walls of the city. Peter
   died in prison on his way to Constantinople.

   [236] The coronation ceremonies passed off amidst the general good will
   of the Roman populace and were interrupted by a single disturbance, a
   dispute over a dog between the ambassadors of Florence and Pisa which
   ultimately involved the cities in war. Villani, VI. 2.

   [237] Damietta, an important harbor in Egypt, had been chosen by the
   crusaders as their base of operations against Jerusalem and the point
   from which Jerusalem was to be reached.

   [238] On the ground that Iolanthe was immediate heir to the crown
   through her mother.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 43. Gregory IX. and Frederick II. 1227-1241.

   An antagonist of different metal was Gregory IX., 1227-1241. Innocent
   III., whose nephew he was, seemed to have risen again from the grave in
   him. Although in years he was more than twice as old as the emperor,
   [239] untless bravery, and greatly his superior in moral purpose. In
   asserting the exorbitant claims of the papacy he was not excelled by
   any of the popes. He was famed for eloquence and was an expert in the
   canon law.

   Setting aside Frederick's spurious pretexts for delaying the crusade,
   Gregory in the first days of his pontificate insisted upon his
   fulfilling his double pledge made at his coronation in 1215 and his
   coronation as emperor in Rome, 1220. [240] sembled at Brindisi, and
   Frederick actually set off to sea accompanied by the pope's prayers.
   Within three days of leaving port the expedition returned, driven back
   by an epidemic, as Frederick asserted, or by Frederick's love of
   pleasure, as Gregory maintained.

   The pope's disappointment knew no bounds. He pronounced against
   Frederick the excommunication threatened by Honorius. [241] ror's going
   out into darkness. Gregory justified his action in a letter to the
   Christian princes, and spoke of Frederick as "one whom the Holy See had
   educated with much care, suckled at its breast, carried on its
   shoulders, and whom it has frequently rescued from the hands of those
   seeking his life, whom it has brought up to perfect manhood at much
   trouble and expense, exalted to the honors of kingly dignity, and
   finally advanced to the summit of the imperial station, trusting to
   have him as a wand of defence and the staff of our old age." He
   declared the plea of the epidemic a frivolous pretence and charged
   Frederick with evading his promises, casting aside all fear of God,
   having no respect for Jesus Christ. Heedless of the censures of the
   Church, and enticed away to the usual pleasures of his kingdom, he had
   abandoned the Christian army and left the Holy Land exposed to the
   infidels. [242]

   In a vigorous counter appeal to Christendom, Frederick made a bold
   protest against the unbearable assumption of the papacy, and pointed to
   the case of John of England as a warning to princes of what they might
   expect. "She who calls herself my mother," he wrote, "treats me like a
   stepmother." He denounced the secularization of the Church, and called
   upon the bishops and clergy to cultivate the self-denial of the
   Apostles.

   In 1228 the excommunication was repeated and places put under the
   interdict where the emperor might be. Gregory was not without his own
   troubles at Rome, from which he was compelled to flee and seek refuse
   at Perugia.

   The same year, as if to show his independence of papal dictation and at
   the same time the sincerity of his crusading purpose, the emperor
   actually started upon a crusade, usually called the Fifth Crusade. On
   being informed of the expedition, the pope excommunicated, him for the
   third time and inhibited the patriarch of Jerusalem and the Military
   Orders from giving him aid. The expedition was successful in spite of
   the papal malediction, and entering Jerusalem Frederick crowned himself
   king in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. Thus we have the singular
   spectacle of the chief monarch of Christendom conducting a crusade in
   fulfillment of a vow to two popes while resting under the solemn ban of
   a third. Yea, the second crusader who entered the Holy City as a
   conqueror, and the last one to do so, was at the time not only resting
   under a triple ban, but was excommunicated a fourth time on his return
   from his expedition to Europe. He was excommunicated for not going, he
   was excommunicated for going, and he was excommunicated on coming back,
   though it was not in disgrace but in triumph.

   The emperor's troops bearing the cross were met on their return to
   Europe by the papal army whose banners were inscribed with the keys.
   Frederick's army was victorious. Diplomacy, however, prevailed, and
   emperor and pope dined together at Anagni (Sept. 1, 1230) and arranged
   a treaty.

   The truce lasted four years, Gregory in the meantime composing, with
   the emperor's help, his difficulties with the municipality of Rome.
   Again he addressed Frederick as "his beloved son in Christ." But formal
   terms of endearment did not prevent the renewal of the conflict, this
   time over Frederick's resolution to force his authority upon the
   Lombard cities. This struggle engaged him in war with the papacy from
   this time forward to his death, 1235-1250. After crushing the rebellion
   of his son Henry in the North, and seeing his second son Conrad
   crowned, the emperor hastened south to subdue Lombardy. [243] ests,
   1236, "Italy is my heritage, as all the world well knows." His arms
   seemed to be completely successful by the battle of Cortenuova, 1237.
   But Gregory abated none of his opposition. "Priests are fathers and
   masters of kings and princes," he wrote, "and to them is given
   authority over men's bodies as well as over their souls." It was his
   policy to thwart at all hazards Frederick's designs upon upper Italy,
   which he wanted to keep independent of Sicily as a protection to the
   papal state. The accession of the emperor's favorite son Enzio to the
   throne of Sardinia, through his marriage with the princess Adelasia,
   was a new cause of offence to Gregory. [244] ng to the marriage. And so
   for the fifth time, in 1239, Gregory pronounced upon the emperor the
   anathema. [245] he Ghibelline and Guelf parties, with seizing territory
   belonging to the Holy See, and with violence towards prelates and
   benefices. [246]

   A conflict with the pen followed which has a unique place in the
   history of the papacy. Both parties made appeal to public opinion, a
   thing which was novel up to that time. The pope compared [247] other
   parts, opens its mouth in blasphemies against God's name, his dwelling
   place, and the saints in heaven. This beast strives to grind everything
   to pieces with his claws and teeth of iron and to trample with his feet
   on the universal world." He accused Frederick of lies and perjuries,
   and called him "the son of lies, heaping falsehood on falsehood,
   robber, blasphemer, a wolf in sheep's clothing, the dragon emitting
   waters of persecution from his mouth like a river." He made the famous
   declaration that "as the king of pestilence, Frederick had openly
   asserted that the world had been deceived by three impostors, [248]
   ibility of God's becoming incarnate of a virgin." [249]

   This extensive document is, no doubt, one of the most vehement personal
   fulminations which has ever proceeded from Rome. Epithets could go no
   further. It is a proof of the great influence of Frederick's
   personality and the growing spirit of democracy in the Italian cities
   that the emperor was not wholly shunned by all men and crushed under
   the dead weight of such fearful condemnations.

   In his retort, [250] nd his antagonist in Scripture quotations,
   Frederick compared Gregory to the rider on the red horse who destroyed
   peace on the earth. As the pope had called him a beast, bestia, so he
   would call him a wild beast, belua, antichrist, a second Balaam, who
   used the prerogative of blessing and cursing for money. He declared
   that, as God had placed the greater and lesser lights in the heavens,
   so he had placed the priesthood, sacerdotium, and the empire, imperium,
   on the earth. But the pope had sought to put the second light into
   eclipse by denying the purity of Frederick's faith and comparing him to
   the beast rising out of the sea. Indignantly denying the accusation of
   the three impostors, he declared his faith in the "only Son of God as
   coequal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, begotten from the
   beginning of all worlds. Mohammed's body is suspended in the air, but
   his soul is given over to the torments of hell."

   Gregory went further than words and offered to the count of Artois the
   imperial crown, which at the instance of his brother, Louis IX. of
   France, the count declined. The German bishops espoused Frederick's
   cause. On the other hand, the mendicant friars proved true allies of
   the pope. The emperor drove the papal army behind the walls of Rome. In
   spite of enemies within the city, the aged pontiff went forth from the
   Lateran in solemn procession, supplicating deliverance and accompanied
   by all the clergy, carrying the heads of the Apostles Peter and Paul.
   [251] y had been delivered by a miracle. However untenable we may
   regard the assumptions of the Apostolic see, we cannot withhold
   admiration from the brave old pope.

   Only one source of possible relief was left to Gregory, a council of
   the whole Church, and this he summoned to meet in Rome in 1241.
   Frederick was equal to the emergency, and with the aid of his son Enzio
   checkmated the pope by a manoeuvre which, serious as it was for
   Gregory, cannot fail to appeal to the sense of the ludicrous. The
   Genoese fleet conveying the prelates to Rome, most of them from France,
   Northern Italy, and Spain, was captured by Enzio, and the would-be
   councillors, numbering nearly one hundred and including Cardinal Otto,
   a papal legate, were taken to Naples and held in prison. [252] his
   letter of condolence to the imprisoned dignitaries the pope represents
   them as awaiting their sentence from the new Pharaoh. [253] upon the
   prelates was at a later time made a chief charge against him.

   Gregory died in the summer of 1241, at an age greater than the age of
   Leo XIII. at that pope's death. But he died, as it were, with his armor
   on and with his face turned towards his imperial antagonist, whose army
   at the time lay within a few hours of the city. He had fought one of
   the most strenuous conflicts of the Middle Ages. To the last moment his
   intrepid courage remained unabated. A few weeks before his death he
   wrote, in sublime confidence in the papal prerogative: "Ye faithful,
   have trust in God and hear his dispensations with patience. The ship of
   Peter will for a while be driven through storms and between rocks, but
   soon, and at a time unexpected, it will rise again above the foaming
   billows and sail on unharmed, over the placid surface."

   The Roman communion owes to Gregory IX. the collection of decretals
   which became a part of its statute book. [254] f Rome. He accorded the
   honors of canonization to the founders of the mendicant orders, St.
   Francis of Assisi and Dominic of Spain.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [239] His exact age is not known. M. Paris, Luard's ed., IV. 162;
   Giles's trans., I. 383, says that at the time of his death he was
   almost a centenarian (fere centenarius).

   [240] Frederick had received the cross at his coronation in Rome from
   the hand of Gregory, then Cardinal Ugolino.

   [241] "The English chronicler," speaking of the pope's act, uses his
   favorite expression, "that he might not be like a dog unable to bark"
   (ne canis videretur non valens latrare). Luard's ed., M. Paris, III.
   145; Giles's trans. of Roger of Wendover, II. 499.

   [242] Luard's ed., M. Paris, III. 145 sq. See Registres, p. 107.

   [243] Henry died in an Italian prison. Conrad, whose mother was
   Iolanthe, was nine years old at the time of his coronation. In 1235
   Frederick married for the third time Isabella, sister of Henry III. of
   England. This marriage explains Frederick's repeated appeals to the
   clergy and people of England.

   [244] Potthast, p. 952; Huillard-Breholles, VI. 1, 136.

   [245] In view of these repeated fulminations it is no wonder that the
   papal legate, Albert of Bohemia., wrote from Bavaria that the clergy
   did not care a bean (faba) for the sentence of excommunication.
   Huillard-Breholles, V. 1032; Potthast, 908.

   [246] The document is given in full in M. Paris, Luard's ed., III. 553
   sq.

   [247] Breholles, V. 327-340; Paris, III. 590-608.

   [248] The charge is made in an encyclical of Gregory sent forth between
   May 21 and July 1, 1239.

   [249] Iste rex pestilentiae a tribus barotoribus, ut ejus verbis
   utamur, scilicet Christo Jesu, Moyse et Mohameto totum mundum fuisse
   deceptum, et duobus eorum in gloria mortuis, ipsum Jesum in ligno
   suspensum manifeste proponens, etc.

   [250] Breholles, V. 348 sqq.

   [251] Breholles, V. 777 sqq.

   [252] M. Paris with his usual vivacity says, "They were heaped together
   like pigs."

   [253] Breholles, V. 1120-1138; G. C. Macaulay gives a lively account of
   the proceeding in art. Capture of a General Council, Engl. Hist. Rev.,
   1891, pp. l-17

   [254] See section on The Canon Law.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 44. The First Council of Lyons and the Close of Frederick's Career.
   1241-1250.

   Additional Literature.--Mansi, XXIII. 605 sqq.; Hefele, V. 105 sqq.--
   C. Rodenberg: Inn. IV. und das Koenigreich Sicilien, Halle, 1892.--H.
   Weber: Der Kampf zwischen Inn. IV. und Fried. II. Berlin, 1900.--P.
   Aldinger: Die Neubesetzung der deutschen Bisthuemer unter Papst Inn.
   IV., Leipzig, 1900.--J. Maulbach: Die Kardinaele und ihre Politikum die
   Mitte des XIII. Jahrhunderts, 1243-1268, Bonn, 1902.

   Gregory's successor, Coelestin IV., survived his election less than
   three weeks. A papal vacancy followed, lasting the unprecedented period
   of twenty months. The next pope, Innocent IV., a Genoese, was an expert
   in the canon law and proved himself to be more than the equal of
   Frederick in shrewdness and quickness of action. At his election the
   emperor is reported to have exclaimed that among the cardinals he had
   lost a friend and in the pope gained an enemy. Frederick refused to
   enter into negotiations looking to an agreement of peace until he
   should be released from the ban. Innocent was prepared to take up
   Gregory's conflict with great energy. All the weapons at the command of
   the papacy were brought into requisition: excommunication, the decree
   of a general council, deposition, the election of a rival emperor, and
   the active fomenting of rebellion in Frederick's dominions. Under this
   accumulation of burdens Frederick, like a giant, attempted to bear up,
   but in vain. [255] cent's first move was to out-general his antagonist
   by secretly leaving Rome. Alexander III. had set the precedent of
   delivering himself by flight. In the garb of a knight he reached Civita
   Vecchia, and there met by a Genoese galley proceeded to Genoa, where he
   was received with the ringing of bells and the acclamation, "Our soul
   is escaped like a bird out of the snare of the fowler." Joined by
   cardinals, he continued his journey to Lyons, which, though nominally a
   city of the empire, was by reason of its proximity to France a place of
   safe retreat.

   The pope's policy proved to be a master stroke. A deep impression in
   his favor was made upon the Christian world by the sight of the supreme
   pontiff in exile. [256] method which a priest of Paris resorted to in
   publishing Innocent's sentence of excommunication against the emperor.
   "I am not ignorant," he said, "of the serious controversy and
   unquenchable hatred that has arisen between the emperor and the pope. I
   also know that one has done harm to the other, but which is the
   offender I do not know. Him, however, as far as my authority goes, I
   denounce and excommunicate, that is, the one who harms the other,
   whichever of the two it be, and I absolve the one which suffers under
   the injury which is so hurtful to the cause of Christendom."

   Innocent was now free to convoke again the council which Frederick's
   forcible measures had prevented from assembling in Rome. It is known as
   the First Council of Lyons, or the Thirteenth Oecumenical Council, and
   met in Lyons, 1245. The measures the papal letter mentioned as calling
   for action were the provision of relief for the Holy Land and of
   resistance to the Mongols whose ravages had extended to Hungary, and
   the settlement of matters in dispute between the Apostolic see and the
   emperor. One hundred and forty prelates were present. With the
   exception of a few representatives from England and one or two bishops
   from Germany, the attendance was confined to ecclesiastics from
   Southern Europe. [257]

   Thaddeus promised for his master to restore Greece to the Roman
   communion and proceed to the Holy Land in person. Innocent rejected the
   promises as intended to deceive and to break up the council. The axe,
   he said, was laid at the root, and the stroke was not to be delayed.
   When Thaddeus offered the kings of England and France as sureties that
   the emperor would keep his promise, the pope sagaciously replied that
   in that case he would be in danger of having three princes to
   antagonize. Innocent was plainly master of the situation. The council
   was in sympathy with him. Many of its members had a grudge against
   Frederick for having been subjected to the outrage of capture and
   imprisonment by him.

   At one of the first sessions the pope delivered a sermon from the text,
   "See, ye who pass this way, was ever sorrow like unto my sorrow?" He
   dwelt upon five sorrows of the Church corresponding to the five wounds
   of Christ: the savage cruelty of the Mongols or Tartars, the schism of
   the Greeks, the growth of heresy, the desolation of Jerusalem, and the
   active persecution of the Church by the emperor. The charges against
   Frederick were sacrilege and heresy. As for the charge of heresy,
   Thaddeus maintained that it could be answered only by Frederick in
   person, and a delay of two weeks was granted that he might have time to
   appear. When he failed to appear, Innocent pronounced upon him the ban
   and declared him deposed from his throne. The deliverance set forth
   four grave offences; namely, the violation of his oath to keep peace
   with the Church, sacrilege in seizing the prelates on their way to the
   council, heresy, and withholding the tribute due from Sicily, a papal
   fief. Among the grounds for the charge of heresy were Frederick's
   contempt of the pope's prerogative of the keys, his treaty with the
   Sultan on his crusade, allowing the name of Mohammed to be publicly
   proclaimed day and night in the temple, having intercourse with
   Saracens, keeping eunuchs over his women, and giving his daughter in
   marriage to Battacius, an excommunicated prince. The words of the fell
   sentence ran as follows: --

   "Seeing that we, unworthy as we are, hold on earth the authority of our
   Lord Jesus Christ, who said to us in the person of St. Peter,
   'whatsoever ye shall bind on earth,' etc., do hereby declare Frederick,
   who has rendered himself unworthy of the honors of sovereignty and for
   his crimes has been deposed from his throne by God, to be bound by his
   sins and cast off by the Lord and we do hereby sentence and depose him;
   and all who are in any way bound to him by an oath of allegiance we
   forever release and absolve from that oath; and by our apostolic
   authority, we strictly forbid any one obeying him. We decree that any
   who gives aid to him as emperor or king shall be excommunicated; and
   those in the empire on whom the selection of an emperor devolves, have
   full liberty to elect a successor in his place." [258]

   Thaddeus appealed from the decision to another council. [259] ake a
   plea for the emperor, finding, as the English chronicler said, "but
   very little of that humility which he had hoped for in that servant of
   the servants of God." Frederick's manifesto in reply to the council's
   act was addressed to the king of England and other princes, and
   reminded them of the low birth of the prelates who set themselves up
   against lawful sovereigns, and denied the pope's temporal authority. He
   warned them that his fate was likely to be theirs and announced it as
   his purpose to fight against his oppressors. It had been his aim to
   recall the clergy from lives of luxury and the use of arms to apostolic
   simplicity of manners. When this summons was heeded, the world might
   expect again to see miracles as of old. True as these principles were,
   and bold and powerful as was their advocate, the time had not yet come
   for Europe to espouse them, and the character of Frederick was
   altogether too vulnerable to give moral weight to his words. [260]

   The council's discussions of measures looking to a new crusade did not
   have any immediate result. The clergy, besides being called upon to
   give a twentieth for three years, were instructed to see to it that
   wills contained bequests for the holy enterprise.

   One of the interesting figures at the council was Robert Grosseteste,
   bishop of Lincoln, who protected against ecclesiastical abuses in
   England, such as the appointment of unworthy foreigners to benefices,
   and the exorbitant exactions for the papal exchequer. The pope gave no
   relief, and the English bishops were commanded to affix their seals
   confirming King John's charter of tribute. [261] ssertion of the most
   extravagant claims. The bishop of Rome was intrusted with authority to
   judge kings. If, in the Old Testament, priests deposed unworthy
   monarchs, how much more right had the vicar of Christ so to do.
   Innocent stirred up the flames of rebellion in Sicily and through the
   mendicant orders fanned the fires of discontent in Germany. Papal
   legates practically usurped the government of the German Church from
   1246 to 1254. In the conflict over the election of bishops to German
   dioceses, Innocent usually gained his point, and in the year 1247-1248
   thirteen of his nominees were elected. [262] .

   In Italy civil war broke out. Here the mendicant orders were also
   against him. He met the elements of revolt in the South and subdued
   them. Turning to the North, success was at first on his side but soon
   left him. One fatality followed another. Thaddeus of Suessa fell, 1248.
   Peter de Vinea, another shrewd counsellor, had abandoned his master.
   Enzio, the emperor's favorite son, was in prison. [263] s enough,
   Innocent, in 1247, had once more launched the anathema against him.
   Frederick's career was at an end. He retired to Southern Italy, a
   broken man, and died near Lucera, an old Samnite town, Dec. 13, 1250.
   His tomb is at the side of the tomb of his parents in the cathedral of
   Palermo. He died absolved by the archbishop of Palermo and clothed in
   the garb of the Cistercians. [264]

   Stupor mundi, the Wonder of the World--this is the title which Matthew
   Paris applies to Frederick II. [265] is equal as a ruler since the days
   of Charlemagne. For his wide outlook, the diversity of his gifts, and
   the vigor and versatility of his statecraft he is justly compared to
   the great rulers. [266] k surpassed him in intellectual breadth and
   culture. He is the most conspicuous political figure of his own age and
   the most cosmopolitan of the Middle Ages. He was warrior, legislator,
   statesman, man of letters. He won concessions in the East and was the
   last Christian king of Jerusalem to enter his realm. He brought order
   out of confusion in Sicily and Southern Italy and substituted the
   uniform legislation of the Sicilian Constitutions for the irresponsible
   jurisdiction of ecclesiastical court and baron. It has been said he
   founded the system of centralized government [267] and Mohammedan.

   In his conflict with the pope, he was governed, not by animosity to the
   spiritual power, but by the determination to keep it within its own
   realm. In genuine ideal opposition to the hierarchy he went farther
   than any of his predecessors. [268] Doellinger pronounced him the
   greatest and most dangerous foe the papacy ever had. [269] n anti-pope.
   [270]

   It has been surmised that Frederick was not a Christian. Gregory
   charged him specifically with blasphemy. But Frederick as specifically
   disavowed the charge of making Christ an impostor, and swore fealty to
   the orthodox faith. [271] [272] losser withholds from him all religious
   and moral faith. Ranke and Freeman leave the question of his religious
   faith an open one. Hergenroether makes the distinction that as a man he
   was an unbeliever, as a monarch a strict Catholic. Gregorovius holds
   that he cherished convictions as sincerely catholic as those professed
   by the Ghibelline Dante. Fisher emphasizes his singular detachment from
   the current superstitious of his day. [273] to usurp the sovereign
   pontificate and found a lay papacy and to combine in himself royalty
   and papal functions.

   Frederick was highly educated, a friend of art and learning. He was
   familiar with Greek, Latin, German, French, and Arabic, as well as
   Italian. He founded the University of Naples. He was a precursor of the
   Renaissance and was himself given to rhyming. He wrote a book on
   falconry. [274] concerning his forests and household concerns, thus
   reminding us of Napoleon and his care for his capital while on his
   Russian and other campaigns. Like other men of the age, he cultivated
   astrology. Michael Scott was his favorite astrologer. To these worthy
   traits, Frederick added the luxurious habits and apparently the cruelty
   of an Oriental despot. Inheriting the island of which the Saracens had
   once been masters, he showed them favor and did not hesitate to
   appropriate some of their customs. He surrounded himself with a
   Saracenic bodyguard [275] [276]

   Freeman's judgment must be regarded as extravagant when he says that
   "in mere genius, in mere accomplishments, Frederick was surely the
   greatest prince that ever wore a crown." [277] es him "one of the
   greatest personages in history." [278] . When the news of his death
   reached Innocent IV., that pontiff wrote to the Sicilians that heaven
   and hell rejoiced at it. A juster feeling was expressed by the
   Freiburger Chronicle when it said, "If he had loved his soul, who would
   have been his equal?" [279]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [255] M. Paris says he had never heard of such bitter hatred as the
   hatred between Innocent IV. and Frederick. Luard's ed., V. 193

   [256] M. Paris, heretofore inclining to the side of Frederick, at this
   point distinctly changes his tone. See, for example, Luard's ed., IV.
   478.

   [257] Two German bishops seem to have been present. Hefele, V. 982 sq.
   Catholic historians have been concerned to increase the number of
   attending prelates from the north.

   [258] Mansi, XXIII. 612 sqq., 638; Luard's ed. of M. Paris, IV.
   445-456. Gregorovius calls this decree "one of the most ominous events
   in universal history," V. 244.

   [259] Breholles, VI. 318.

   [260] Too much credit must not be given to Frederick for a far-seeing
   policy based upon a love of truth or a perception of permanent
   principles. The rights of conscience he nowhere hints at, and probably
   did not dream of.

   [261] M. Paris, Luard's ed., IV. 478.

   [262] See Aldinger.

   [263] The tragic career of this gifted man and consummate flower of
   chivalry is deeply engraven in the romance and architecture of Bologna.

   [264] This is the, more credible narrative. Villani, an. 1250, tells
   the story that Manfred bribed Frederick's chamberlain, and stifled the
   dying man with a wet cloth.

   [265] Principum mundi maximus, stupor quoque mundi et immutator
   mirabilis, "greatest of the princes of the earth, the wonder of the
   world and the marvellous regulating genius [innovator] in its affairs."
   Luard's M. Paris, V. 190, 196. In his letters Frederick styled himself
   Fredericus Dei gratia Romanorum imperator et semper augustus, Jerusalem
   et Siciliae rex.

   [266] Kington, I. 475 sqq.

   [267] Gregorovius, V. 271. This view is not discredited by the
   decentralizing charters Frederick gave to German cities on which
   Fisher, Mediaeval Empire, lays so much stress. See his good chapter on
   "Imperial Legislation in Italy" (XI).

   [268] Ranke, VIII. 369 sqq.

   [269] Akademische Vortraege, III. 213.

   [270] Cardinal Rainer's letter as given by M. Paris, Luard's ed., V.
   61-67; Giles's trans., II. 298 sqq. Peter the Lombard, writing to one
   of his presbyters, says ecclesia Romana totis viribus contra
   imperatorem et ad ejus destructionem, Breholles, V. 1226.

   [271] For the charge, that he denied the incarnation by the Virgin Mary
   and other charges, see above and Breholles, V. 459 sq.; M. Paris,
   Luard's ed., III. 521.

   [272] The statement was floating about in the air. It is traced to
   Simon Tornacensis, a professor of theology in Paris, d. 1201, as well
   as to Frederick. A book under the title De tribus impostoribus can be
   traced into the sixteenth century. It produced the extermination of the
   Canaanites and other arguments against the revealed character of the
   Bible and relegated the incarnation to the category of the myths of the
   gods. See Herzog, Enc. IX. 72-75; and F. W. Genthe,De impostura
   religionum, etc., Leipzig, 1833; Benrath's art. in Herzog, IX. 72-75;
   Reuter. Gesch. der Aufklaerung im M. A., II. 275 sqq.

   [273] Med. Emp., II. 163.

   [274] Ranke calls it one of the best treatments of the Middle Ages on
   the subject. For Frederick's influence on culture and literature, see
   Breholles, I. ch. 9. Also Fisher's Med. Emp., II. ch. 14, "The Empire
   and Culture."

   [275] This bodyguard was with him on his last campaign and before
   Parma.

   [276] Of his cruelty and unrestrained morals, priestly chroniclers
   could not say enough. See Kington, II. 474 sqq. He was legally married
   four times; Amari, in his History of the Mohammedans in Sicily, calls
   him a "baptized sultan." For Frederick's relation to the Mohammedans,
   see Breholles, I. 325-375.

   [277] Hist. Essays, I. 286. He says again, p. 283, "It is probable
   there never lived a human being endowed with greater natural gifts." We
   may agree with Freeman's statement that in Frederick's career "are
   found some of the most wonderful chapters in European history," p. 313.

   [278] Holy Rom. Emp., ch. XIII.

   [279] Herbert Fisher says, "Of all the mediaeval emperors, Frederick
   II. alone seems to have the true temper of the legislator."Med. Emp.,
   II. 167. Equal to his best generalizations is Gibbon's characterization
   of Frederick's career, as "successively the pupil, the enemy, and the
   victim of the Church," ch. LIX.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 45. The Last of the Hohenstaufen.

   Additional Literature.--Letters of Urban IV. in Mansi, vol. XXIII.
   Potthast: Regesta, 1161-1650.--Les Registres of Alexander IV., Recueil
   des bulles de ce pape d'apres les MSS. originaux des archives du
   Vatican, Paris, 1886, of Urban IV., Paris, 1892, of Clement IV., Paris,
   1893-1904.--*Doellinger: Der Uebergang des Papstthums an die Franzosen,
   in Akademische Vortraege, III. pp. 212-222, Munich, 1891. Lives of the
   popes in Muratori and Platina.

   The death of Frederick did not satisfy the papacy. It had decreed the
   ruin of the house of the Hohenstaufen. The popes denounced its
   surviving representatives as "the viperous brood" and, "the poisonous
   brood of a dragon of poisonous race."

   In his will, Frederick bade his son Conrad accord to the Church her
   just rights and to restore any he himself might have unjustly seized
   but on condition that she, as a merciful and pious mother, acknowledge
   the rights of the empire. His illegitimate son, the brilliant and
   princely Manfred, he appointed his representative in Italy during
   Conrad's absence.

   Innocent broke up from Lyons in 1251, little dreaming that, a half
   century later, the papacy would remove there to pass an exile of
   seventy years. [280] ad descended to Italy and entered Naples, making
   good his claim to his ancestral crown. But the pope met him with the
   sentence of excommunication. Death, which seemed to be in league with
   the papacy against the ill-fated German house, claimed Conrad in 1254
   at the age of 26. He left an only son, Conradin, then two years old.
   [281]

   Conrad was soon followed by Innocent to the grave, 1254. Innocent lies
   buried in Naples. He was the last of the great popes of an era that was
   hastening to its end. During the reign, perhaps, of no other pope had
   the exactions of Rome upon England been so exorbitant and brazen.
   Matthew Paris charged him with making the Church a slave and turning
   the papal court into a money changer's table. To his relatives, weeping
   around his death-bed, he is reported to have exclaimed. "Why do you
   weep, wretched creatures? Do I not leave you all rich?"

   Under the mild reign of Alexander IV., 1254-1261, Manfred made himself
   master of Sicily and was crowned king at Palermo, 1258.

   Urban IV., 1261-1264, was consecrated at Viterbo and did not enter Rome
   during his pontificate. He was a shoemaker's son and the first
   Frenchman for one hundred and sixty years to occupy the papal throne.
   With him the papacy came under French control, where it remained, with
   brief intervals, for more than a century. Urban displayed his strong
   national partisanship by his appointment of seven French cardinals in a
   conclave of seventeen. The French influence was greatly strengthened by
   his invitation to Charles of Anjou, youngest brother of Louis IX. of
   France, to occupy the Sicilian throne, claiming the right to do so on
   the basis of the inherent authority of the papacy and on the ground
   that Sicily was a papal fief. For centuries the house of Anjou, with
   Naples as its capital, was destined to be a disturbing element in the
   affairs, not only of Italy, but of all Europe. [282] apacy, Charles of
   Anjou became dictator of its policy and master of the political
   situation in Italy.

   Clement IV., 1265-1268, one of the French cardinals appointed by Urban,
   had a family before he entered a Carthusian convent and upon a clerical
   career. He preached a crusade against Manfred, who had dared to usurp
   the Sicilian throne, and crowned Charles of Anjou in Rome, 1266.
   Charles promised to pay yearly tribute to the Apostolic see. A month
   later, Feb. 26, 1266, the possession of the crown of Sicily was decided
   by the arbitrament of arms on the battlefield of Benevento, where
   Manfred fell.

   On the youthful Conradin, grandson of Frederick II., the hopes of the
   proud German house now hung. His title to the imperial throne was
   contested from the first. William of Holland had been succeeded, by the
   rival emperors, the rich Duke Richard of Cornwall, brother of Henry
   III., elected in 1257 by four of the electors, and Alfonso of Castile,
   elected by the remaining three. [283] rights, 1267, was met by the
   papal ban, and, although received by popular enthusiasm even in Rome,
   he was no match for the tried skill of Charles of Anjou. His fortunes
   were shattered on the battlefield of Tagliacozzo, Aug. 23, 1268. Taken
   prisoner, he was given a mock trial. The Bolognese lawyer, Guido of
   Suzarra, made an ineffective plea that the young prince had come to
   Italy, not as a robber but to claim his inheritance. The majority of
   the judges were against the death penalty, but the spirit of Charles
   knew no clemency, and at his instance Conradin was executed at Naples,
   Oct. 29, 1268. The last words that fell from his lips, as he kneeled
   for the fatal stroke, were words of attachment to his mother, "O
   mother, what pain of heart do I make for you!"

   With Conradin the male line of the Hohenstaufen became extinct. Its
   tragic end was enacted on the soil which had always been so fatal to
   the German rulers. Barbarossa again and again met defeat there; and in
   Southern Italy Henry VI., Frederick II., Conrad, Manfred, and Conradin
   were all laid in premature graves.

   At Conradin's burial Charles accorded military honors, but not
   religious rites. The Roman crozier had triumphed over the German eagle.
   The Swabian hill, on which the proud castle of the Hohenstaufen once
   stood, looks down in solemn silence upon the peaceful fields of
   Wuerttemberg and preaches the eloquent sermon that "all flesh is as
   grass and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass." The colossal
   claims of the papacy survived the blows struck again and again by this
   imperial family, through a century. Italy had been exposed for three
   generations and more to the sword, rapine, and urban strife. Europe was
   weary of the conflict. The German minnesingers and the chroniclers of
   England and the Continent were giving expression to the deep unrest.
   Partly as a result of the distraction bordering on anarchy, the Mongols
   were threatening to burst through the gates of Eastern Germany. It was
   an eventful time. Antioch, one of the last relics of the Crusaders in
   Asia Minor, fell back to the Mohammedans in 1268. Seven years earlier
   the Latin empire of Constantinople finally reverted to its rightful
   owners, the Greeks.

   In the mighty duel which has been called by the last great Roman
   historian [284] tacle of the ages, the empire had been humbled to the
   dust. But ideas survive, and the principle of the sovereign right of
   the civil power within its own sphere has won its way in one form or
   another among European peoples and their descendants. And the fate of
   young Conradin was not forgotten. Three centuries later it played its
   part in the memories of the German nation, and through the pictures of
   his execution distributed in Martin Luther's writings contributed to
   strengthen the hand of the Protestant Reformer in his struggle with the
   papacy, which did not fail.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [280] M. Paris reports that a cardinal, after delivering a farewell
   sermon in Innocent's name, said, "Since our arrival in the city, we
   have done much good and bestowed alms. On our arrival we found three or
   four brothels, but now, at our departure, we leave only one behind, but
   that extends from the eastern to the western gate of the city." Luard's
   ed., V. 237.

   [281] A few months before, Henry, Frederick's son by Isabella of
   England, had died. His son Enzio languished to his death in a Bologna
   prison, 1272.

   [282] See the pages on the last popes of this period and of the last
   period of the Middle Ages, especially under Alexander VI. and Julius
   II.

   [283] Alfonso never visited Germany. Richard spent part of his time
   there, but was destitute of political power. The threat of
   excommunication deterred the electors from electing Conradin. For the
   imperial electoral college, see Fisher, Med. Emp., I. 225 sq., and for
   Richard, see Richard v. Cornwall seit sr. Wahl z. deutschen Koenig.,
   1905.

   [284] Gregorovius.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 46. The Empire and Papacy at Peace. 1271-1294.

   Popes.--Gregory X., 1271-1276; Innocent V., Jan. 21-June 22, 1276;
   Adrian V., July 12-Aug. 16, 1276; John XXI., 1276-1277; Nicolas III.,
   1277-1280; Martin IV., 1281-1285; Honorius IV., 1285-1287; Nicolas IV.,
   1288-1292; Coelestin V., July 5-Dec. 13, 1294.

   Literature.--Potthast: Regest., pp. 1651-1922. Les Registres de
   Gregoire X. et Jean XXI., 3 vols., Paris, 1892-1898, de Nicolas III.,
   Paris, 1904, d'Honorius IV., Paris, 1886, de Nicolas IV., Paris, 1880.
   Lives of the above popes in Muratori: Rer. Ital. scr., vol.
   III.--Mansi: Councils, XXIV.--Hefele, VI. 125 sqq.--Turinaaz, La patrie
   et la famille de Pierre de Tarantaise, pape sous le nom d'Innocent V.,
   Nancy, 1882.--H. Otto: Die Beziehungen Rudolfs von Hapsburg zu Papst
   Gregor X., Innsbruck, 1895.--A. Demski: Papst Nicolas III., Muenster,
   1903, pp. 364.--R. Sternfeld: Der Kardinal Johann Gaetan Orsini, Papst
   Nic. III., 1244-1277, Berlin, 1905, pp. 376. Reviewed at length by
   Haller in "Theol. Literaturzeitung," 1906, pp. 173-178.--H. Finke:
   Concilienstudien zur Gesch. des 13ten Jahrhunderts, Muenster,
   1891.--For Coelestin V., Finke: Aus den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., Muenster,
   1902; H. Schulz, Peter von Murrhone, 1894; and Celidonio, Vita di S.
   Pietro del Morrone, 1896.--The articles on the above popes in
   Wetzer-Welte and Herzog (Gregory X, by Mirbt, Coelestin V., Innocent
   V., Honorius IV., etc., by Hans Schulz).--The Histories of Gregorovius,
   Ranke, etc.

   The death of Clement IV. was followed by the longest interregnum the
   papacy has known, lasting thirty-three months, Nov. 29, 1268, to Sept.
   1, 1271. It was due largely to the conflict between the French and
   Italian parties in the conclave and was prolonged in spite of the stern
   measures taken by the municipality of Viterbo, where the election
   occurred. Cardinals were even imprisoned. The new pope, Gregory X.,
   archdeacon of Liege, was not an ordained priest. The news reached him
   at Acre while he was engaged in a pilgrimage. A man of peaceful and
   conciliatory spirit, he is one of the two popes of the thirteenth
   century who have received canonization. Pursuing the policy of keeping
   the empire and the kingdom of Southern Italy apart, and setting aside
   the pretensions of Alfonso of Castile, [285]

   The elevation of Rudolf inaugurated a period of peace in the relations
   of the papacy and the empire. Gregory X. had gained a brilliant
   victory. The emperor was crowned at Aachen, Oct. 24, 1273. The place of
   the Hohenstaufen was thus taken by the Austrian house of Hapsburg,
   which has continued to this day to be a reigning dynasty and loyal to
   the Catholic hierarchy. In the present century its power has been
   eclipsed by the Hohenzollern, whose original birth seat in Wuerttemberg
   is a short distance from that of the Hohenstaufen. [286] ction is
   celebrated by Schiller in the famous lines: [287]


   "Then was ended the long, the direful strife,

   That time of terror, with no imperial lord."

   Rudolf was a man of decided religious temper, was not ambitious to
   extend his power, and became a just and safe ruler. He satisfied the
   claims of the papacy by granting freedom to the chapters in the choice
   of bishops, by promising to protect the Church in her rights, and by
   renouncing all claim to Sicily and the State of the Church. In a tone
   of moderation Gregory wrote: "It is incumbent on princes to protect the
   liberties and rights of the Church and not to deprive her of her
   temporal property. It is also the duty of the spiritual ruler to
   maintain kings in the full integrity of their authority."

   The emperor remained on good terms with Gregory's successors, Innocent
   V., a Frenchman, Adrian V., a Genoese, who did not live to be
   consecrated, and John XXI., the only priest from Portugal who has worn
   the tiara. Their combined reigns lasted only eighteen months. John died
   from the falling of a ceiling in his palace in Viterbo.

   The second Council of Lyons, known also as the Fourteenth Oecumenical
   Council, was called by Gregory and opened by him with a sermon. It is
   famous for the attempt made to unite the Greek and Western Churches and
   the presence of Greek delegates, among them Germanus, formerly
   patriarch of Constantinople. His successor had temporarily been placed
   in confinement for expressing himself as opposed to ecclesiastical
   union. A termination of the schism seemed to be at hand. The delegates
   announced the Greek emperor's full acceptance of the Latin creed,
   including the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son and the
   primacy of the bishop of Rome. The Apostles' Creed was sung in Greek
   and Latin. Papal delegates were sent to Constantinople to consummate
   the union; but the agreement was rejected by the Greek clergy. It is
   more than surmised that the Greek emperor, Michael Palaeologus, was
   more concerned for the permanency of the Greek occupation of
   Constantinople than for the ecclesiastical union of the East and the
   West upon which the hearts of popes had been set so long.

   Other important matters before the council were the rule for electing a
   pope, and the reception of a delegation of Mongols who sought to effect
   a union against the Mohammedans. Several members of the delegation
   received baptism. The decree of the Fourth Lateran, prohibiting new
   religious orders, was reaffirmed.

   The firm and statesmanlike administration of Nicolas III. checked the
   ambition of Charles of Anjou, who was plotting for the Greek crown. He
   was obliged to abjure the senatorship of Rome, which he had held for
   ten years, and to renounce the vicariate of Tuscany. Bologna for the
   first time acknowledged the papal supremacy. Nicolas has been called
   the father of papal nepotism, [288] [289]


   "To enrich my whelps, I laid my schemes aside

   My wealth I've stowed,--my person here."

   Again, in 1281, the tiara passed to a Frenchman, a man of humble birth,
   Martin IV. Charles was present at Viterbo when the election took place
   and was active in securing it. [290] igns of the Angevin house and
   Charles was once more elected to the Roman senatorship. Seldom had a
   pope been so fully the tool of a monarch. [291] e a memorable rebuke.

   In resentment at the hated French regime, the Sicilians rose up, during
   Easter week, 1282, and enacted the bloody massacre known as the
   Sicilian Vespers. All the Normans on the island, together with the
   Sicilian wives of Normans, were victims of the merciless vengeance. The
   number that fell is estimated at from eight to twenty thousand. The
   tragedy gets its name from the tradition that the Sicilians fell to
   their work at the ringing of the vesper bell. [292] rd at an end on the
   Panormic isle. Peter of Aragon, who married Constance, the daughter of
   Manfred and the granddaughter of Frederick II., was crowned king. For
   nearly two hundred years thereafter the crowns of Sicily and Naples
   were kept distinct.

   Not to be untrue to Charles, Martin hurled the anathema at the rebels,
   placed Aragon and Sicily under the interdict, and laid Christendom
   under a tribute of one-tenth for a crusade against Peter. The measures
   were in vain, and Charles's galleys met with defeat off the coast of
   Calabria. Charles and Martin died the same year, 1285, the latter, like
   Gregory X., at Perugia.

   After an interregnum of ten months, Nicolas IV. ascended the papal
   throne, the first Franciscan to be elevated to the office. His reign
   witnessed the evacuation of Ptolemais or Acre, the last possession of
   the Crusaders in Syria. Nicolas died in the midst of futile plans to
   recover the Holy Places.

   Another interregnum of twenty-seven months followed, April 4, 1292 to
   July 5, 1294, when the hermit Peter de Murrhone, Coelestin V., was
   raised to the papal throne, largely at the dictation of Charles II. of
   Naples. His short reign forms a curious episode in the annals of the
   papacy. His career shows the extremes of station from the solitude of
   the mountain cell to the chief dignity of Europe. He enjoyed the fame
   of sanctity and founded the order of St. Damian, which subsequently
   honored him by taking the name of Coelestines. The story ran that he
   had accomplished the unprecedented feat of hanging his cowl on a
   sunbeam. At the time of his elevation to the papal throne Coelestin was
   seventy-nine.

   An eye-witness, Stefaneschi, has described the journey to the hermit's
   retreat by three bishops who were appointed to notify him of his
   election. They found him in a rude hut in the mountains, furnished with
   a single barred window, his hair unkempt, his face pale, and his body
   infirm. After announcing their errand they bent low and kissed his
   sandals. Had Peter been able to go forth from his anchoret solitude,
   like Anthony of old, on his visits to Alexandria, and preach repentance
   and humility, he would have presented an exhilarating spectacle to
   after generations. As it is, his career arouses pity for his frail and
   unsophisticated incompetency to meet the demands which his high office
   involved.

   Clad in his monkish habit and riding on an ass, the bridle held by
   Charles II. and his son, Peter proceeded to Aquila, where he was
   crowned, only three cardinals being present. Completely under the
   dominance of the king, Coelestin took up his residence in Naples.
   Little was he able to battle with the world, to cope with the intrigues
   of factions, and to resist the greedy scramble for office which besets
   the path of those high in position. In simple confidence Coelestin gave
   his ear to this counsellor and to that, and yielded easily to all
   applicants for favors. His complaisancy to Charles is seen in his
   appointment of cardinals. Out of twelve whom he created, seven were
   Frenchmen, and three Neapolitans. It would seem as if he fell into
   despair at the self-seeking and worldliness of the papal court, and he
   exclaimed, "O God, while I rule over other men's souls, I am losing the
   salvation of my own." He was clearly not equal to the duties of the
   tiara. In vain did the Neapolitans seek by processions to dissuade him
   from resigning. Clement I. had abjured his office, as had also Gregory
   VI. though at the mandate of an, emperor. Peter issued a bull declaring
   it to be the pope's right to abdicate. His own abdication he placed on
   the ground "of his humbleness, the quest of a better life and an easy
   conscience, on account of his frailty of body and want of knowledge,
   the badness of men, and a desire to return to the quietness of his
   former state." The real reason for his resigning is obscure. The story
   went that the ambitious Cardinal Gaetani, soon to become Coelestin's
   successor, was responsible for it. He played upon the hermit's
   credulity by speaking through a reed, inserted through the wall of the
   hermit's chamber, and declared it to be heaven's will that his reign
   should come to an end. [293]

   In abandoning the papacy the departing pontiff forfeited all freedom of
   movement. He attempted to flee across the Adriatic, but in vain. He was
   kept in confinement by Boniface VIII. in the castle of Fumone, near
   Anagni, until his death, May 19, 1296. What a world-wide contrast the
   simplicity of the hermit's reign presents to the violent assertion and
   ambitious designs of Boniface, the first pope of a new period!

   Coelestin's sixth centenary was observed by pious admirers in Italy.
   [294] owardice, the one who made the great renunciation.


   "Behold! that abject one appeared in view

   Who, mean of soul, the great refusal made." [295]


   Vidi e cenobbi la ombra di colui

   Che fece per viltate il gran rifuto.

   A new era for the papacy was at hand.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [285] Richard, duke of Cornwall, had died April 2, 1272.

   [286] The ancient seat of the Hapsburgs was in Aarpu, Switzerland,
   scarcely one hundred miles away from Zollern.

   [287] "Dann geendigt nach langem verderblichen Streit, War die
   kaiserlose, die schreckliche Zeit." --Der Graf von Hapsburg.

   [288] See the elaborate art. Nepotismus in Wetzer-Welte, IX. 109 sqq.;
   and Haller in Literaturzeitung, see above.

   [289] Inferno, XIX. 72 sqq. The term "whelps" refers to the Orsini or
   bear clan, to which Nicolas belonged.

   [290] See the art. Martin by Knoepfler in Wetzer-Welte, VIII. 919 sq.

   [291] "He was led about by the nose by Charles," Muratori, XI. 492. So
   Hergenroether, Kirchengesch., II. 310.

   [292] See Ranke, VIII. 531 sqq.

   [293] The author of the suggestion that Coelestin should abdicate has
   given rise to a good deal of controversy in recent years. Was Benedict
   Gaetani (Boniface VIII.) the author, or did the suggestion come from
   the senile old pope himself. Hans Schulz, a Protestant, has recently
   called in question the old view that laid the blame on Benedict, and
   regards it as probable that Coelestin was the first to propose
   abdication, and that Benedict being called in gave the plan his
   sanction. He says, however, that in the whole matter "Benedict's eye
   was directed to the papal crown as his own prize." See Herzog's Enc.,
   IV. 203. Hergenroether-Kirsch, Kirchengesch., II. 312, and Finke, Aus
   den Tagen Bonifaz VIII., p. 39 sqq., both Roman Catholic historians,
   have adopted the same position, as does also Scholz, Publizistik zur
   Zeit Philipp IV. und Bonifaz VIII., p. 3. The contemporary historians
   differ about the matter, but upon the whole are against the cardinal.
   The charge that he was at the bottom of the abdication and the main
   promoter of it was one of the chief charges brought against him by his
   enemy, Philip the Fair of France. One of the measures for humiliating
   Boniface proposed by the king was the canonization of Coelestin as one
   whom Boniface had abused. See Document of the year 1305, printed for
   the first time by Finke, p, xcviii. A tract issued by one of Boniface's
   party attempted to parry this suggestion by declaring that Boniface,
   who was then dead, had merits which entitled him to canonization above
   Coelestin. The author said, "si canonizatio Celestini petitur, multo
   magis canonizacio sanctissimi patris domini Bonifacii, postulari debet
   et approbari." He continues, "Coelestin's canonization is asked because
   he profited himself and died in sua simplicitate; Boniface's ought to
   be asked for because he profited others and died for the freedom of the
   Church." See the document printed for the first time in Finke, p.
   lxxxv, and which Finke puts in 1308. Coelestin was canonized 1313 by
   Clement V.

   [294] A memorial volume was published under the title Celestin V ed il
   vi Centenario della sua incoronazione, Aquila, 1894.

   [295] Inferno, III. 58 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER VII.

   THE CRUSADES.


   "No idle fancy was it when of yore
   Pilgrims in countless numbers braved the seas,
   And legions battled on the farthest shore,


   Only to pray at Thy sepulchral bed,
   Only in pious gratitude to kiss
   The sacred earth on which Thy feet did tread."

   Uhland, An den Unsichtbaren.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 47. Literature on the Crusades as a Whole.

   Sources.--First printed collection of writers on the Crusades by Jac.
   Bongars: Gesta Dei (and it might be added, et diaboli) per Francos,
   sive orientalium expeditionum, etc., 2 vols. Hanover, 1611. Mostly
   reports of the First Crusade and superseded.--The most complete
   collection, edited at great expense and in magnificent style, Recueil
   des Historiens des Croisades publie par l'Academie des Inscriptions et
   Belles-Lettres, viz. Historiens Occidentaux, 5 vols. Paris, 1841-1895;
   Histt. Orientaux, 4 vols. 1872-1898; Histt. Grecs, 2 vols. 1875-1881;
   Documents Armeniens, 1869. The first series contains, in vols. I., II.,
   the Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum of William of Tyre
   and the free reproduction in French entitled L'Estoire de Eracles
   Empereur et la Conqueste de la terre d' Outremer. Vol. III. contains
   the Gesta Francorum; the Historia de Hierolosymitano itinere of Peter
   Tudebodus, Hist. Francorum qui ceperunt Jherusalem of Raymund of
   Aguilers or Argiles; Hist. Jherusolymitana or Gesta Francorum
   Jherusalem perigrinantium 1095-1127, of Fulcher of Chartres; Hist.
   Jherusol. of Robert the Monk, etc. Vol. IV. contains Hist. Jherusolem.
   of Baldric of Dol (Ranke, VIII 82, speaks highly of Baldric as an
   authority); Gesta Del per Francos of Guibert of Nogent; Hist. Hier. of
   Albert of Aachen, etc. Vol. V. contains Ekkehardi Hierosolymita and a
   number of other documents. Migne's Latin Patrology gives a number of
   these authors, e.g., Fulcher and Petrus Tudebodus, vol. 155; Guibert,
   vol. 156; Albert of Aachen and Baldric, vol. 166; William of Tyre, vol.
   201.--Contemporary Chronicles of Ordericus Vitalis, Roger of Hoveden,
   Roger of Wendover, M. Paris, etc.--Reports of Pilgrimages, e.g., Count
   Riant: Expeditions et pelerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte au
   temps des Croisades, Paris, 1865, 1867; R. Roehricht: Die Pilgerfahrten
   nach d. heil. Lande vor den Kreuzzuegen, 1875; Deutsche Pilgerreisen
   nach dem heil. Lande, new ed. Innsbruck, 1900; H. Schrader: D.
   Pilgerfahrten nach. d. heil. Lande im Zeitalter vor den Kreuzzuegen,
   Merzig, 1897. Jaffe: Regesta.--Mansi: Concilia.--For criticism of the
   contemporary writers see Sybel, Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzugs, 2d ed.
   1881, pp. 1-143.--H. Prutz (Prof. in Nancy, France): Quellenbeitraege
   zur Gesch. der Kreuzzuege, Danzig, 1876.--R. Roehricht: Regesta regni
   Hierosolymitani 1097-1291, Innsbruck, 1904, an analysis of 900
   documents.

   Modern Works.--*Friedrich Wilken (Libr. and Prof. in Berlin, d. 1840):
   Gesch. der Kreuzzuege, 7 vols. Leipzig, 1807-1832.--J. F. Michaud:
   Hist. des croisades, 3 vols. Paris, 1812, 7th ed. 4 vols. 1862. Engl.
   trans. by W. Robson, 3 vols., London, 1854, New York, 1880.--*Roehricht
   (teacher in one of the Gymnasia of Berlin, d. 1905; he published eight
   larger works on the Crusades): Beitaege zur Gesch. der Kreuzzuege, 2
   vols. Berlin, 1874-1878; D. Deutschen im heil. lande, Innsbruck, 1894;
   Gesch. d. Kreuzzuege, Innsbruck, 1898.--B. Kugler (Prof. in Tuebingen):
   Gesch. der Kreuzzuege, illustrated, Berlin, 1880, 2d ed. 1891.--A. De
   Laporte: Les croisades et le pays latin de Jerusalem, Paris,
   1881.--*Prutz: Kulturgesch. der Kreuzzuege, Berlin, 1883.--Ed. Heyck:
   Die Kreuzzuege und das heilige Land, Leipzig, 1900.--Histories in
   English by Mills, London, 1822, 4th ed. 2 vols. 1828; Keightley,
   London. 1847; Proctor, London, 1858; Edgar, London, 1860; W. E. Dutton,
   London, 1877; G. W. Cox, London, 1878; J. I. Mombert, New York, 1891;
   *Archer and Kingsford: Story of the Crus., New York, 1895; J. M.
   Ludlow: Age of the Crusades, New York, 1896; Art. Kreuzzuege by Funk in
   Wetzer-Welte, VII. 1142-1177.--Ph. Schaff in "Ref. Quarterly Rev."
   1893, pp. 438-459.--J. L. Hahn: Ursachen und Folgen der Kreuzzuege,
   Greifswald, 1859.--Chalandon: Essai sur le regne d'Alexis Comnene,
   Paris, 1900.--*A. Gottlob: D. paepstlichen Kreuzzugs-Steuren des 13.
   Jahrhunderts, Heiligenstadt, 1892, pp. 278; Kreuzablass und
   Almosenablass, Stuttgart, 1906, pp. 314.--Essays on the Crusades by
   Munro, Prutz, Diehl, Burlington, 1903.--H. C. Lea: Hist. of Auric.
   Confession and Indulgences, vol. III.--See also *Gibbon, LVIII-LIX;
   Milman; Giesebrecht: Gesch. d. deutschen Kaiserzeit; Ranke: Weltgesch.,
   VIII. pp. 88-111, 150-161, 223-262, 280-307; IX. 93-98; Finlay: Hist.
   of the Byznt. and Gr. Empires, 1057-1453; Hopf: Gesch. Griechenlands
   vom Beginn des Mittelalters, etc., Leipzig, 1868; Besant And Palmer:
   Hist. of Jerusalem, London, 1890; Guy Le Strange: Palestine under the
   Moslems, London, 1890.

   The Poetry of the Crusades is represented chiefly by Raoul De Caen in
   Gestes de Tancrede; Torquato Tasso, the Homer of the Crusades, in La
   Jerusalemme liberata; Walter Scott: Tales of the Crusades, Talisman,
   Quentin Durward, etc. The older literature is given in full by Michaud;
   Bibliographie des Croisades, 2 vols. Paris, 1822, which form vols. VI.,
   VII, of his Histoire des Croisades.

   The First Crusade.

   Sources.--See Literature above. Gesta Francorum et aliorum
   Hierosolymitorum by an anonymous writer who took part in the First
   Crusade, in Bongars and Recueil des Croisades. See above. Also
   Hagenmeyer's critical edition, Anonymi Gesta Francorum, Heidelberg,
   1890.--Robertus, a monk of Rheims: Hist. Hierosolymitana, in Bongars,
   Rec., and Migne, vol. 155.--Baldrich, abp. of Dol: Hist. Hierosol., in
   Bongars, and Rec.--Raymund de Aguilers, chaplain to the count of
   Toulouse: Hist. Francorum, 1095-1099, in Bongars, Rec., and Migne, vol.
   155. See Clem. Klein: Raimund von Aguilers, Berlin, 1892.--Fulcher,
   chaplain to the count of Chartres and then to Baldwin, second king of
   Jerusalem: Gesta Francorum Jerusalem perigrinantium to 1125, in
   Bongars, Rec., and Migne, vol. 155.--Guibert, abbot of Nogent: Gesta
   Dei per Francos, to 1110, in Bongars, Rec., Migne, vol. 156.--Albertus
   of Aachen (Aquensis): Hist. Hierosol. expeditionis, to 1121, in
   Bongars, Rec., Migne, vol. 166. See B. Kugler: Albert von Aachen,
   Stuttgart, 1885.--William of Tyre, abp. of Tyre, d. after 1184: Hist.
   rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, Basel, 1549, under the title
   of belli sacri historia, in Bongars, Rec., Migne, vol. 201, Engl.
   trans. by Wm. Caxton, ed. by Mary N. Colvin, London, 1893.--Anna
   Comnena (1083-1148): Alexias, a biogr. of her father, the Greek
   emperor, Alexis I., in Rec., Migne, Pat. Graeca, vol. 131; also 2 vols.
   Leipzig, 1884, ed. by Reifferscheid; also in part in Hagenmeyer, Peter
   der Eremite, pp. 303-314.--Ekkehard of Urach: Hierosolymita seu
   libellus de oppressione, liberatione ac restauratione sanctae
   Hierosol., 1095-1187, in Rec., and Migne, vol. 154, and Hagenmeyer:
   Ekkehard's Hierosolymita, Tuebingen, 1877, also Das Verhaeltniss der
   Gesta Francorum zu der Hiersol. Ekkehards in "Forschungen zur deutschen
   Gesch.," Goettingen, 1876, pp. 21-42.--Petrus Tudebodus, of the diocese
   of Poitiers: Hist. de Hierosolymitano itinere, 1095-1099, largely
   copied from the Gesta Francorum, in Migne, vol. 155, and
   Recueil.--Radulphus Cadomensis (Raoul of Caen): Gesta Tancredi,
   1099-1108, Migne, vol. 155, and Recueil.--Riant: Inventaire critique
   des lettres Hist. des croisades, I., II., Paris, 1880.--H. Hagenmeyer:
   Epistulae et chartae ad historiam primi belli sacri spectantes quae
   supersunt, etc., 1088-1100, Innsbruck, 1901. See the translation of
   contemporary documents in Trans. and Reprints, etc., published by
   Department of History of Univ. of Penn., 1894.

   The Poetry of the First Crusade: La Chanson d'Antioche, ed. by Paulin
   Paris, 2 vols. Paris, 1848. He dates the poem 1125-1138, and Nouvelle
   Etude sur la Chanson d'Antioche, Paris, 1878.--La Conquete de
   Jerusalem, ed. by C. Hippeau, Paris, 1868. -- Roman du Chevalier au
   Cygne et Godefroi de Bouillon.

   Modern Works.--*H. Von Sybel: Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzugs, Duesseldorf,
   1841, 3d ed. Leipzig, 1900. The Introduction contains a valuable
   critical estimate of the contemporary accounts. Engl. trans. of the
   Introd. and four lectures by Sybel in 1858, under the title, The Hist.
   and Lit. of Crusades, by Lady Duff Gordon, London, 1861.--J. F. A.
   Peyre: Hist. de la premiere croisade, Paris, 1859.--*Hagenmeyer: Peter
   der Eremite, Leipzig, 1879; Chron. de la premiere croisade, 1094-1100,
   Paris, 1901.--Roehricht: Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzuges, Innsbruck,
   1901.--F. Chalandon: Essai sur le regne d'Alexis I. Comnene, 1081-1118,
   Paris, 1900.--Paulot: Un pape Franc,ais, Urbain II., Paris, 1902.--D.
   C. Munro: The Speech of Urban at Clermont. "Am. Hist. Rev." 1906, pp.
   231-242.--Art. in Wetzer-Welte, by Funk, Petrus von Amiens, Vol. IX.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 48. Character and Causes of the Crusades.


   "'O, holy Palmer!' she began, --

   For sure he must be sainted man

   Whose blessed feet have trod the ground

   Where the Redeemer's tomb is found."

   Marmion, V. 21.

   The Crusades were armed pilgrimages to Jerusalem under the banner of
   the cross. They form one of the most characteristic chapters of the
   Middle Ages and have a romantic and sentimental, as well as a religious
   and military, interest. They were a sublime product of the Christian
   imagination, and constitute a chapter of rare interest in the history
   of humanity. They exhibit the muscular Christianity of the new nations
   of the West which were just emerging from barbarism and heathenism.
   They made religion subservient to war and war subservient to religion.
   They were a succession of tournaments between two continents and two
   religions, struggling for supremacy,--Europe and Asia, Christianity and
   Mohammedanism. Such a spectacle the world has never seen before nor
   since, and may never see again. [296]

   These expeditions occupied the attention of Europe for more than two
   centuries, beginning with 1095. Yea, they continued to be the concern
   of the popes until the beginning of the sixteenth century. Columbus
   signed an agreement April 17, 1492, to devote the proceeds of his
   undertaking beyond the Western seas to the recovery of the holy
   sepulchre. Before his fourth and last journey to America he wrote to
   Alexander VI., renewing his vow to furnish troops for the rescue of
   that sacred locality. [297] ns, and of these not the least worthy of
   attention were the tragic Crusades of the children.

   The most famous men of their age were identified with these movements.
   Emperors and kings went at the head of the armies,--Konrad III.,
   Frederick Barbarossa, Frederick II., Richard I. of England, Louis VII.,
   Philip Augustus and Louis IX. of France, Andrew of Hungary. Fair women
   of high station accompanied their husbands or went alone to the seats
   of war, such as Alice of Antioch, Queen Eleanor of France, Ida of
   Austria, Berengaria, wife of Richard, and Margaret, queen of Louis IX.
   Kings' sons shared the same risks, as Frederick of Swabia, Sigurd, and
   Edward, son of Henry III., accompanied by Eleanor, his wife. Priests,
   abbots, and higher ecclesiastics fought manfully in the ranks and at
   the head of troops. [298] Hermit, St. Bernard, and Fulke of Neuilly,
   stirred the flames of enthusiasm by their eloquence. But if some of the
   best men of Europe and those most eminent in station went on the
   Crusades, so also did the lowest elements of European
   society,--thieves, murderers, perjurers, vagabonds, and scoundrels of
   all sorts, as Bernard bears witness. [299]

   The crusading armies were designated by such titles as the army "of the
   cross," "of Christ," "of the Lord," "of the faith." [300] the badge of
   the Crusaders and gave to them their favorite name. The Crusaders were
   called the soldiers of Christ [301] cross" or, "taking the sign of the
   cross." [302]

   Contemporaries had no doubt of the Crusades being a holy undertaking,
   and Guibert's account of the First Crusade is called, "The Deeds of
   God, accomplished through the Franks," Gesta Dei per Francos.

   Those who fell under Eastern skies or on their way to the East received
   the benefits of special indulgence for sins committed and were esteemed
   in the popular judgment as martyrs. John VIII., 872-882, pressed by the
   Saracens who were devastating Italy, had promised to soldiers fighting
   bravely against the pagans the rest of eternal life and, as far as it
   belonged to him to give it, absolution from sins. [303] y should be
   counted as a substitute for penance. [304] ry indulgence those who
   built ships and contributed in any way, and promised to them "increase
   of eternal life." God, said the abbot Guibert, chronicler of the First
   Crusade, invented the Crusades as a new way for the laity to atone for
   their sins, and to merit salvation. [305]

   The rewards were not confined to spiritual privileges. Eugenius III.,
   in his exhortations to the Second Crusade, placed the Crusaders in the
   same category with clerics before the courts in the case of most
   offences. [306] ce, from 1188 to 1270 joined with the Holy See in
   granting to them temporal advantages, exemption from debt, freedom from
   taxation and the payment of interest. Complaint was frequently made by
   the kings of France that the Crusaders committed the most offensive
   crimes under cover of ecclesiastical protection. These complaints
   called forth from Innocent IV., 1246, and Alexander IV., 1260,
   instructions to the bishops not to protect such offenders. William of
   Tyre, in his account of the First Crusade, and probably reading into it
   some of the experiences of a later date, says (bk. I. 16), "Many took
   the cross to elude their creditors." [307]

   If it is hard for us to unite the idea of war and bloodshed with the
   achievement of a purely religious purpose, it must be remembered that
   no such feeling prevailed in the Middle Ages. The wars of the period of
   Joshua and the Judges still formed a stimulating example. Chrysostom,
   Augustine, and other Church Fathers of the fifth century lifted up
   their voices against the violent destruction of heathen temples which
   went on in Egypt and Gaul; but whatever compunction might have been
   felt for the wanton slaying of Saracens by Christian armies in an
   attitude of aggression, the compunction was not felt when the Saracens
   placed themselves in the position of holding the sacred sites of
   Palestine.

   Bernard of Clairvaux said, pagans must not be slain if they may by
   other means be prevented from oppressing the faithful. However, it is
   better they should be put to death than that the rod of the wicked
   should rest on the lot of the righteous. The righteous fear no sin in
   killing the enemy of Christ. Christ's soldier can securely kill and
   more safely die. When he dies, it profits him; when he slays, it
   profits Christ. The Christian exults in the death of the pagan because
   Christ is glorified thereby. But when he himself is killed, he has
   reached his goal. [308] f the preaching of the Apostles in that country
   and its conquest by the Roman empire. [309]

   In answer to the question whether clerics might go to war, Thomas
   Aquinas replied in the affirmative when the prize was not worldly gain,
   but the defence of the Church or the poor and oppressed. [310]

   To other testimonies to the esteem in which the Crusaders were held may
   be added the testimony of Matthew Paris. Summing up the events of the
   half-century ending with 1250, he says: [311] country to fight
   faithfully for Christ. All of these were manifest martyrs, and their
   names are inscribed in indelible characters in the book of life." Women
   forced their husbands to take the cross. [312] ffered evil consequences
   for it. [313] find its last earthly resting-place in Jerusalem.

   The Crusades began and ended in France. The French element was the
   ruling factor, from Urban II., who was a native of Chatillon, near
   Rheims, and Peter of Amiens, to St. Louis. [314] of the Crusades are
   for the most part written by Frenchmen. Guibert of Nogent and other
   chroniclers regard them as especially the work of their countrymen. The
   French expression, outre-mer, was used for the goal of the Crusades.
   [315] ough all Europe from Hungary to Scotland. Spain alone forms an
   exception. She was engaged in a crusade of her own against the Moors;
   and the crusades against the Saracens in the Holy Land and the Moors in
   Spain were equally commended by an oecumenical council, the First
   Lateran (can. 13). The Moors were finally expelled from Granada under
   Ferdinand and Isabella, and then, unwearied, Spain entered upon a new
   crusade against Jews and heretics at home and the pagan Indians of
   Mexico and Peru. In Italy and Rome, where might have been expected the
   most zeal in the holy cause, there was but little enthusiasm. [316]

   The aim of the Crusades was the conquest of the Holy Land and the
   defeat of Islam. Enthusiasm for Christ was the moving impulse, with
   which, however, were joined the lower motives of ambition, avarice,
   love of adventure, hope of earthly and heavenly reward. The whole
   chivalry of Europe, aroused by a pale-faced monk and encouraged by a
   Hildebrandian pope, threw itself steel-clad upon the Orient to execute
   the vengeance of heaven upon the insults and barbarities of Moslems
   heaped upon Christian pilgrims, and to rescue the grave of the Redeemer
   of mankind from the grasp of the followers of the False Prophet. The
   miraculous aid of heaven frequently intervened to help the Christians
   and confound the Saracens. [317]

   The Crusaders sought the living among the dead. They mistook the
   visible for the invisible, confused the terrestrial and the celestial
   Jerusalem, and returned disillusioned. [318] r after ages have learned
   through them, that Christ is not there, that He is risen, and ascended
   into heaven, where He sits at the head of a spiritual kingdom. They
   conquered Jerusalem, 1099, and lost it, 1187; they reconquered, 1229,
   and lost again, 1244, the city in which Christ was crucified. False
   religions are not to be converted by violence, they can only be
   converted by the slow but sure process of moral persuasion. Hatred
   kindles hatred, and those who take the sword shall perish by the sword.
   St. Bernard learned from the failure of the Second Crusade that the
   struggle is a better one which is waged against the sinful lusts of the
   heart than was the struggle to conquer Jerusalem.

   The immediate causes of the Crusades were the ill treatment of pilgrims
   visiting Jerusalem and the appeal of the Greek emperor, who was hard
   pressed by the Turks. Nor may we forget the feeling of revenge for the
   Mohammedans begotten in the resistance offered to their invasions of
   Italy and Gaul. [319] 's, and in 846 threatened Rome for the second
   time, and a third time under John VIII. The Normans wrested a part of
   Sicily from the Saracens at the battle of Cerame, 1063, took Palermo,
   1072, Syracuse, 1085, and the rest of Sicily ten years later. A burning
   desire took hold of the Christian world to be in possession of --


   "those holy fields

   Over whose acres walked those blessed feet

   Which fourteen hundred years ago were nail'd

   For our advantage on the bitter cross."

   Shakespeare.

   From an early day Jerusalem was the goal of Christian pilgrimage. The
   mother of Constantine, Helena, according to the legend, found the cross
   and certainly built the church over the supposed site of the tomb in
   which the Lord lay. Jerome spent the last period of his life in
   Bethlehem, translating the Scriptures and preparing for eternity. The
   effect of such examples was equal to the station and fame of the pious
   empress and the Christian scholar. In vain did such Fathers as Gregory
   of Nyssa, [320] mphasize the nearness of God to believers wherever they
   may be and the failure of those whose hearts are not imbued with His
   spirit to find Him even at Jerusalem.

   The movement steadily grew. The Holy Land became to the imagination a
   land of wonders, filled with the divine presence of Christ. To have
   visited it, to have seen Jerusalem, to have bathed in the Jordan, was
   for a man to have about him a halo of sanctity. The accounts of
   returning pilgrims were listened to in convent and on the street with
   open-mouthed curiosity. To surmount the dangers of such a journey in a
   pious frame of mind was a means of expiation for sins. [321] e main
   route and in Jerusalem.

   Other circumstances gave additional impulse to the movement, such as
   the hope of securing relics of which Palestine and Constantinople were
   the chief storehouses; and the opportunity of starting a profitable
   trade in silk, paper, spices, and other products of the East.

   These pilgrimages were not seriously interrupted by the Mohammedans
   after their conquest of Jerusalem by Omar in 637, until Syria and
   Palestine passed into the hands of the sultans of Egypt three centuries
   later. Under Hakim, 1010, a fierce persecution broke out against the
   Christian residents of Palestine and the pilgrims. It was, however, of
   short duration and was followed by a larger stream of pilgrims than
   before. The favorite route was through Rome and by the sea, a dangerous
   avenue, as it was infested by Saracen pirates. The conversion of the
   Hungarians in the tenth century opened up the route along the Danube.
   Barons, princes, bishops, monks followed one after the other, some of
   them leading large bodies of pious tourists. In 1035 Robert of Normandy
   went at the head of a great company of nobles. He found many waiting at
   the gates of Jerusalem, unable to pay the gold bezant demanded for
   admission, and paid it for them. In 1054 Luitbert, bishop of Cambray,
   is said to have led three thousand pilgrims. In 1064 Siegfried,
   archbishop of Mainz, was accompanied by the bishops of Utrecht,
   Bamberg, and Regensburg and twelve thousand pilgrims. [322] journey. A
   sudden check was put upon the pilgrimages by the Seljukian Turks, who
   conquered the Holy Land in 1076. A rude and savage tribe, they heaped,
   with the intense fanaticism of new converts, all manner of insults and
   injuries upon the Christians. Many were imprisoned or sold into
   slavery. Those who returned to Europe carried with them a tale of woe
   which aroused the religious feelings of all classes.

   The other appeal, coming from the Greek emperors, was of less weight.
   [323] fast losing its hold on its Asiatic possessions. Romanus Diogenes
   was defeated in battle with the Turks and taken prisoner, 1071. During
   the rule of his successor, an emir established himself in Nicaea, the
   seat of the council called by the first Constantine, and extended his
   rule as far as the shores of the sea of Marmora. Alexius Comnenus,
   coming to the throne 1081, was less able to resist the advance of Islam
   and lost Antioch and Edessa in 1086. Thus pressed by his Asiatic foes,
   and seeing the very existence of his throne threatened, he applied for
   help to the west. He dwelt, it is true, on the desolations of
   Jerusalem; but it is in accordance with his imperial character to
   surmise that he was more concerned for the defence of his own empire
   than for the honor of religion.

   This dual appeal met a response, not only in the religious spirit of
   Europe, but in the warlike instincts of chivalry; and when the time
   came for the chief figure in Christendom, Urban II., to lift up his
   voice, his words acted upon the sensitive emotions as sparks upon dry
   leaves. [324]

   Three routes were chosen by the Crusaders to reach the Holy Land. The
   first was the overland route by way of the Danube, Constantinople, and
   Asia Minor. The second, adopted by Philip and Richard in the Third
   Crusade, was by the Mediterranean to Acre. The route of the last two
   Crusades, under Louis IX., was across the Mediterranean to Egypt, which
   was to be made the base of operations from which to reach Jerusalem.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [296] Gibbon, who treats with scorn the Crusades as a useless
   exhibition of religious fanaticism, calls them the "world's debate,"
   Ch. LIX.

   [297] John Fiske, Discovery of America, I. 318, 419, 505.

   [298] The Itinerary of Richard I., giving an account of the Third
   Crusade, lays stress upon the good fighting qualities of the prelates
   and clergy. It speaks of one priest who was incessantly active against
   the enemy, hurling darts from a sling with indefatigable toil, I. 42.
   The archbishop of Besanc,on superintended the construction of a great
   machine for battering down the walls of Acre and met its expense, I.
   60. Two hundred knights and three hundred followers served under
   archbishop Baldwin of Canterbury, old man as he was, and "abbots and
   bishops led their own troops, fighting manfully for the faith," I. 62.

   [299] De militibus templi, V., Migne, 182, 928.

   [300] Roger of Wendover, Luard's ed., M. Paris, III: 35.

   [301] Milites Christi, Robert the Monk, VII., Rec., III. 867; Christi
   Militia, Guibert, VII., II., Rec., IV. 229. The army was also called
   crucifer exercitus, Ekkehard, Rec. V. 16.

   [302] The French terms were se croiser, prendre la croix, prendre le
   signe de la croix. See, for example, Villehardouin, 2, 8, 18, Wailly's
   ed. pp. 3, 7, 13. This historian of the Fourth Crusade also calls the
   Crusaders les croises, 38, Wailly's ed. p. 24.

   [303] Quoniam illi, qui cum pietate catholicae religionis in belli
   certamine cadunt, requies eos aeternae vitae suscipiet contra paganos
   atque infideles strenue dimicantes, etc., Gottlob, Kreuzablass, 25.

   [304] Quicumque pro sola devotione ...ad liberandam ecclesiam Dei
   Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni paenitentia reputetur,
   Gottlob, 72 sqq.; Mirbt. Quellen, 114.

   [305] Gesta, I. 1; Rec., IV. 124.

   [306] Lea, Hist. of Inquis., I. 44, says. "Crusaders were released from
   earthly as well as heavenly justice by being classed with clerks and
   subjected only to spiritual justice."

   [307] See Origin of the Temporal Privileges of Crusaders, by Edith C.
   Bramball, "Am Jour. of Theol." 1901, pp. 279-292, and Gottlob,
   Kreuzablass, pp. 140 sqq.

   [308] De militibus templi, II., III., Migne, 182, 923 sq.

   [309] This is what Fulcher meant, Rec., III. 323, when he put into
   Urban's mouth the words nunc jure contra barbaros pugnent qui olim
   fratres dimicabant. Two hundred years later Alvarus Pelagius made the
   same argument: quamvis Saraceni Palestinam possident, juste tamen
   exinde depelluntur, etc. See Schwab, Joh. Gerson, 26.

   [310] Summa, II. (2), 188, 3; Migne, III., 1366 sq.: militare propter
   aliquid mundanum est omni religioni contrarium, non autem militare
   propter obsequium Dei, etc: He adds that clerics going to war must act
   under the command of princes or of the Church, and not at their own
   suggestion.

   [311] Luard's ed., V. 196.

   [312] Baldric of Dol, Hist. Jerus., I. 8; Rec., IV. 17: gaudebant
   uxores abeuntibus maritis dilectissimis, etc.

   [313] Caesar of Heisterbach, Dial., X. 22, speaks of a woman suffering
   with severe pains in childbirth who was delivered with ease, so soon as
   she consented to her husband's going on a crusade.

   [314] The name Franks became the current designation for Europeans in
   the East, and remains so to this day. The crusading enthusiasm did not
   fully take hold of Germany till the twelfth century. Hauck,
   Kirchengesch. Deutschlands, IV. 80.

   [315] The expression was a translation of the Latin ultra mare, used
   for the East, and, so far as I know, for the first time by Gregory
   VII., Reg. II. 37; Migne, 148, 390.

   [316] Gregorovius, IV. 288, says no traces of enthusiasm can be found
   in Rome. "Senate and people would probably have laughed in derision had
   Urban summoned them to rise in religious enthusiasm to forsake the
   ruins of Rome and advance to the rescue of Jerusalem." The Crusades
   were a financial detriment to Rome by diverting pilgrimages from the
   tombs of the Apostles to the tomb of the Saviour.

   [317] Here is one such miracle. At the battle of Ramleh, 1177, there
   was a miraculous extension of the cross borne by the bishop of
   Bethlehem. It reached to heaven and extended its arms across the whole
   horizon. The pagans saw it, were confused, and fled. Hoveden, II. 133
   sq.

   [318] Hegel, Philosophie der Gesch., 3d ed. 1848, p. 476, brings out
   this idea most impressively.

   [319] Roehricht, Gesch. d. ersten Kreuzzuges, p. 6, says that in these
   struggles "the crusading enthusiasm was born."

   [320] See the beautiful testimony of Gregory, who advised a Cappadocian
   abbot against going with his monks to Jerusalem, Schaff, Ch. Hist. III.
   906.

   [321] Fulke the Black, count of Anjou (987-1040), made three journeys
   to Jerusalem in penance for sacrilege and other crimes. He had burned
   his young wife at the stake dressed in her gayest attire, and caused
   his son to crouch at his feet harnessed as an ass. At Jerusalem he
   showed his devotion by going about with a halter about his neck. He bit
   off a piece of the Lord's tombstone with his teeth and carried back to
   Europe objects most sacred and priceless, such as the fingers of
   Apostles and the lamp in which the holy fire was lit. Odolric, bishop
   of Orleans, gave a pound of gold for the lamp and hung it up in the
   church at Orleans, where its virtue cured multitudes of sick people.

   [322] Hauck, IV. 79.

   [323] Ekkehard, 5, Rec., V. 14, may exaggerate when he speaks of very
   frequent letters and embassies from the Greek emperors to the West, per
   legationes frequentissimas et epistolas etiam a nobis visas ...
   lugubriter inclamanter, etc. The letter of Alexius to Robert of
   Flanders, 1088, has been the subject of much inquiry. Hagenmeyer
   pronounces it genuine, after a most careful investigation, Epistulae,
   etc., 10-44.

   [324] Diehl, in Essays on the Crusades, 92, seems even to deny that an
   appeal was ever made by the Byzantine emperor Alexius for aid to the
   West, and speaks of it as an invention of a later time. Certainly no
   criticism could be more unwarranted unless all the testimonies of the
   contemporary writers are to be ruthlessly set aside.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 49. The Call to the Crusades.


   "the romance

   Of many colored Life that Fortune pours

   Round the Crusaders."

   Wordsworth, Ecclesiastical Sonnets.

   The call which resulted in the first expedition for the recovery of
   Jerusalem was made by Pope Urban II. at the Council of Clermont, 1095.
   Its chief popular advocate was Peter the Hermit.

   The idea of such a movement was not born at the close of the eleventh
   century. Gregory VII., appealed to by Michael VII. of Constantinople,
   had, in two encyclicals, 1074, [325] ren like cattle. [326] was able to
   announce to Henry IV. that fifty thousand Christian soldiers stood
   ready to take up arms and follow him to the East, but Gregory was
   prevented from executing his design by his quarrel with the emperor.

   There is some evidence that more than half a century earlier Sergius
   IV., d. 1012, suggested the idea of an armed expedition against the
   Mohammedans who had "defiled Jerusalem and destroyed the church of the
   Holy Sepulchre." Earlier still, Sylvester II., d. 1003, may have urged
   the same project. [327]

   Peter the Hermit, an otherwise unknown monk of Amiens, France, on
   returning from a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, spread its tale of woes and
   horrors. [328] nst the indignities to which the Christians were
   subjected. While asleep in the church of the Holy Sepulchre and after
   prayer and fasting, Peter had a dream in which Christ appeared to him
   and bade him go and quickly spread the appeal that the holy place might
   be purged. [329] sade, and it is altogether likely that many a pilgrim,
   looking upon the desolation of Jerusalem, heard within himself the same
   call which Peter in imagination or in a real dream heard the Lord
   making to him.

   Urban listened to Peter's account as he had listened to the accounts of
   other returning pilgrims. He had seen citizens of Jerusalem itself with
   his own eyes, and exiles from Antioch, bewailing the plight of those
   places and begging for alms. [330] [331] proclaimed the same message.
   The time for action had come.

   At the Council of Piacenza, in the spring of 1095, envoys were present
   from the emperor Alexius Comnenus and made addresses, invoking aid
   against the advancing Turks. [332] the famous Council of Clermont,
   Southern France, was held, which decreed the First Crusade. [333]
   ounted fourteen archbishops, two hundred and fifty bishops, and four
   hundred abbots. Thousands of tents were pitched outside the walls. On
   the ninth day, the pope addressed the multitude from a platform erected
   in the open air. It was a fortunate moment for Urban, and has been
   compared to Christmas Day, 800, when Charlemagne was crowned. [334]
   ope. [335]

   At Clermont, Urban was on his native soil and probably spoke in the
   Provenc,al tongue, though we have only Latin reports. When we recall
   the general character of the age and the listening throng, with its
   mingled feelings of love of adventure and credulous faith, we cannot
   wonder at the response made to the impassioned appeals of the head of
   Christendom. Urban reminded his hearers that they, as the elect of God,
   must carry to their brethren in the East the succor for which they had
   so often cried out. The Turks, a "Persian people, an accursed race,"
   [336] ke. As the knights loved their souls, so they should fight
   against the barbarians who had fought against their brothers and
   kindred. [337] land fruitful above all others, a paradise of delights,
   awaited them. [338] [339]

   A Frenchman himself, Urban appealed to his hearers as Frenchmen,
   distinguished above all other nations by remarkable glory in arms,
   courage, and bodily prowess. He appealed to the deeds of Charlemagne
   and his son Lewis, who had destroyed pagan kingdoms and extended the
   territory of the Church.

   To this moving appeal the answer came back from the whole throng, "God
   will sit, God will sit." [340] en that His help will never fail you, as
   the pledge of a vow never to be recalled." [341] n to go, and was
   appointed papal legate. The next day envoys came announcing that
   Raymund of Toulouse had taken the vow. The spring of 1096 was set for
   the expedition to start. Urban discreetly declined to lead the army in
   person. [342]

   The example set at Clermont was followed by thousands throughout
   Europe. Fiery preachers carried Urban's message. The foremost among
   them, Peter the Hermit, traversed Southern France to the confines of
   Spain and Lorraine and went along the Rhine. Judged by results, he was
   one of the most successful of evangelists. His appearance was well
   suited to strike the popular imagination. He rode on an ass, his face
   emaciated and haggard, his feet bare, a slouched cowl on his head,
   [343] a great cross. In stature he was short. [344] [345] [346] [347]
   [348] y hairs from his ass' tail to be preserved as relics. A more
   potent effect was wrought than mere temporary wonder. Reconciliations
   between husbands and wives and persons living out of wedlock were
   effected, and peace and concord established where there were feud and
   litigation. Large gifts were made to the preacher. None of the other
   preachers of the Crusade, Volkmar, Gottschalk, and Emich, [349] esteem
   than prelates and abbots. [350] [351]

   In a few months large companies were ready to march against the enemies
   of the cross.

   A new era in European history was begun. [352] ew passion had taken
   hold of its people. A new arena of conquest was opened for the warlike
   feudal lord, a tempting field of adventure and release for knight and
   debtor, an opportunity of freedom for serf and villein. All classes,
   lay and clerical, saw in the expedition to the cradle of their faith a
   solace for sin, a satisfaction of Christian fancy, a heaven appointed
   mission. The struggle of states with the papacy was for the moment at
   an end. All Europe was suddenly united in a common and holy cause, of
   which the supreme pontiff was beyond dispute the appointed leader.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [325] Reg., I. 49; II. 37, Migne, 148, 329, 390.

   [326] multa millia Christianorum quasi pecudes occidisse, Reg., I. 49

   [327] See Jules Lair, Etudes crit. sur divers textes des Xeet
   XIesiecles. Bulle du pape Sergius IV., etc., Paris, 1899. Lair, in
   opposition to Riant, Pflugk-Harttung, etc., gives reasons for accepting
   as genuine Sergius's letter, found 1857. For Sylvester's letter see
   Havet, Lettres de Gerbert, Paris, 1889. Roehricht, Gesch. d. ersten
   Kreuzzuges, 8, pronounces Sylvester's letter a forgery, dating from
   1095. Lair tries to prove it was written by Sergius IV.

   [328] The date of the pilgrimage is not given, but may be accepted as
   having fallen between 1092-1094. Peter is called "the Hermit" by all
   the accounts, begining with the earliest, the Gesta Francorum. There is
   no good ground for doubting that he was from Amiens, as Albert of
   Aachen distinctly states. William of Tyre says from the "bishopric of
   Amiens." Hagenmeyer, p. 39, accepts the latter as within the truth.

   [329] William of Tyre, Bk. I. 12, Rec., I. 35, gives only a few lines
   to the visions and the words spoken by the Lord. His account of the
   meeting with Urban is equally simple and scarcely less brief. Peter
   found, so he writes, "the Lord Pope Urban in the vicinity of Rome and
   presented the letters from the patriarch and Christians of Jerusalem
   and showed their misery and the abominations which the unclean races
   wrought in the holy places. Thus prudently and faithfully he performed
   the commission intrusted to him."

   [330] At the Council of Clermont Urban made reference to the "very many
   reports" which had come of the desolation of Jerusalem, Fulcher, Rec.,
   III. 324. Robert the Monk, I. 1, Rec., III. 727, says relatio gravis
   saepissime jam ad aures nostras pervenit. According to Baldric he
   appealed to the many among his hearers who could vouch for the desolate
   condition of the holy places from their own experience, Rec., IV. 14.
   See Hagenmeyer, 74-77.

   [331] So William of Tyre, Bk. I. 13. Later writers extend the journey
   of Peter inordinately.

   [332] William of Tyre does not mention this embassy. It may be because
   of the low opinion he had of Alexius, whom (II. 5) he pronounces
   scheming and perfidious.

   [333] There is no statement that the council formally decreed the
   Crusade. For the acts we are dependent upon scattered statements of
   chroniclers and several other unofficial documents.

   [334] Ranke, Weltgeschichte. According to William of Tyre, Peter the
   Hermit was present at Clermont. The contemporary writers do not mention
   his presence.

   [335] Gregorovius, IV. 287, is right when he says, "the Importance of
   Urban's speech in universal history outweighs the orations of
   Demosthenes and Cicero."

   [336] Robert the Monk, I. 1, Rec., III. 727. The contemporary writers,
   giving an account of Urban's speech, are Baldric, Guibert, Fulcher, and
   Robert the Monk. All of them were present at Clermont. William of Tyre
   greatly elaborates the address, and Roehricht calls William's account
   an invention which is a masterpiece of its kind,--eine Erdichtung die
   ein Meisterstueck seiner Art, etc., Gesch. des ersten Kreuzzuges, p.
   20. Roehricht, pp. 235-239, and Munro, "Am. Hist. Rev.," 1906, pp.
   231-243, make interesting attempts to reconstruct Urban's address. The
   different accounts are not to be regarded as contradictory, but as
   supplementary one of the other. Roehricht, p. 20, expresses the opinion
   that none of the accounts of the address is "accurate." No doubt the
   spirit and essential contents are preserved. Urban made prominent the
   appeals for aid from the East, the desolations of Jerusalem, and the
   sufferings of Christians in the East. See Munro.

   [337] Fulcher, Rec., III. 324. I follow chiefly the accounts of Fulcher
   and Robert. Robert represents the appeals for aid as coming from
   Jerusalem and Constantinople.

   [338] Robert the Monk, I. 2 Rec., III. 729. The expression "navel of
   the earth,"umbilicus terrarum, used by Robert, was a common one for
   Jerusalem.

   [339] Baldric, Rec., IV. 15, via brevis est, labor permodicus est qui
   tamen immarcescibilem vobis rependet coronam. Gregory VII., Reg., II.
   37, Migne, 148, 390, had made the same promise, quoting 2 Cor. iv. 17,
   that for the toils of a moment the Crusaders would secure an eternal
   reward.

   [340] Deus vult, Deos lo volt, Diex el volt. These are the different
   forms in which the response is reported. For this response in its Latin
   form, Robert the Monk is our earliest authority, I. 2, Rec., III. 729.
   He says una vociferatio "Deus vult, Deus vult."

   [341] In the First Crusade all the crosses were red. Afterwards green
   and white colors came into use. Urban himself distributed crosses.
   Guibert, II. 5, Rec., IV. 140, and Fulcher, I. 4, state that Urban had
   the Crusaders wear the cross as a badge.

   [342] Urban's letters, following up his speech at Clermont, are given
   by Hagenmeyer, Epistulae, p. 136 sqq.

   [343] Petrum more heremi vilissima cappa tegebat, Radulf of Caen. The
   above description is taken from strictly contemporary accounts.

   [344] The statura brevis of Radulf becomes in William of Tyre's account
   pusillus, persona contemptibilis.

   [345] I have thus translated Radulf's spiritus acer.

   [346] Albert of Aachen: neminem invenerunt qui tam ferocissimo et
   superbo loqui auderet quousque Petrus.

   [347] So Guibert speaks of the crowds listening to him as tanta
   populorum multitudo. Hagenmeyer, p. 114, accepting Guibert's statement,
   refers to immense throngs, ungeheure Zahl.

   [348] Guibert: quidquid agebat namque seu loquebatur quasi quiddam
   subdivinum videbatur.

   [349] So Ekkehard, XII., Rec., V. 20 sq. who has something derogatory
   to say of all of these preachers and also of Peter's subsequent career.
   Quem postea multi hypocritam esse dicebant.

   [350] Robert the Monk, I. 5, Rec., III. 731. Super ipsos praesules et
   abbates apice religionis efferebatur.

   [351] Guibert: neminem meminerim similem honore haberi. Baldric speaks
   of him as Petrus quidam magnus heremita, or as we would say, "that
   great hermit, Peter."

   [352] Hegel, Philosophie der Gesch., p. 444, calls the Crusades "the
   culminating point of the Middle Ages." Contemporaries like Guibert of
   Nogent, 123, could think of no movement equal in glory with the
   Crusades. Ordericus Vitalis, III. 458, praised the union of peoples of
   different tongues in a project so praiseworthy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   S: 50. The First Crusade and the Capture of Jerusalem.


   "And what if my feet may not tread where He stood,

   Nor my ears hear the dashing of Galilee's flood,

   Nor my eyes see the cross which He bowed Him to bear,

   Nor my knees press Gethsemane's garden of prayer,


   Yet, Loved of the Father, Thy Spirit is near

   To the meek and the lowly and penitent here;

   And the voice of Thy Love is the same even now,

   As at Bethany's tomb or on Olivet's brow."

   Whittier.

   The 15th of August, 1096, the Feast of the Assumption, fixed by the
   Council of Clermont for the departure of the Crusaders, was slow in
   coming. The excitement was too intense for the people to wait. As early
   as March throngs of both sexes and all ages began to gather in Lorraine
   and at Treves, and to demand of Peter the Hermit and other leaders to
   lead them immediately to Jerusalem. [353] ent forth to make the journey
   and to fight the Turk. At the villages along the route the children
   cried out, "Is this Jerusalem, is this Jerusalem?" William of
   Malmesbury wrote (IV. 2), "The Welshman left his hunting, the Scot his
   fellowship with lice, the Dane his drinking party, the Norwegian his
   raw fish. Fields were deserted of their husbandmen; whole cities
   migrated .... God alone was placed before their eyes."

   The unwieldy bands, or swarms, were held together loosely under
   enthusiastic but incompetent leaders. The first swarm, comprising from
   twelve thousand to twenty thousand under Walter the Penniless, [354]
   glers were all that reached Constantinople.

   The second swarm, comprising more than forty thousand, was led by the
   Hermit himself. There were knights not a few, and among the
   ecclesiastics were the archbishop of Salzburg and the bishops of Chur
   and Strassburg. On their march through Hungary they were protected by
   the Hungarian king; but when they reached the Bulgarian frontier, they
   found one continuous track of blood and fire, robbery and massacre,
   marking the route of their predecessors. Only a remnant of seven
   thousand reached Constantinople, and they in the most pitiful
   condition, July, 1096. Here they were well treated by the Emperor
   Alexius, who transported them across the Bosphorus to Asia, where they
   were to await the arrival of the regular army. But they preferred to
   rove, marauding and plundering, through the rich provinces. Finally, a
   false rumor that the vanguard had captured Nicaea, the capital of the
   Turks in Asia Minor, allured the main body into the plain of Nicaea,
   where large numbers were surrounded and massacred by the Turkish
   cavalry. Their bones were piled into a ghastly pyramid, the first
   monument of the Crusade. Walter fell in the battle; Peter the Hermit
   had fled back to Constantinople before the battle began, unable to
   control his followers. The defeat of Nicaea no doubt largely destroyed
   Peter's reputation. [355]

   A third swarm, comprising fifteen thousand, mostly Germans under the
   lead of the monk Gottschalk, was massacred by the Hungarians.

   Another band, under count Emich of Leiningen, began its career, May,
   1096, by massacring and robbing the Jews in Mainz and other cities
   along the Rhine. Albert of Aachan, [356] on in Hungary. This band was
   probably a part of the swarm, estimated at the incredible number of two
   hundred thousand, [357] [358] rsemen, headed by some noblemen, attended
   them, and shared the spoils taken from the Jews. [359]

   These preliminary expeditions of the first Crusade may have cost three
   hundred thousand lives.

   The regular army consisted, according to the lowest statements, of more
   than three hundred thousand. It proceeded through Europe in sections
   which met at Constantinople and Nicaea. Godfrey, starting from lower
   Lorraine, had under him thirty thousand men on foot and ten thousand
   horse. He proceeded along the Danube and by way of Sofia and
   Philipoppolis, Hugh of Vermandois went by way of Rome, where he
   received the golden banner, and then, taking ship from Bari to Durazzo,
   made a junction with Godfrey in November, 1096, under the walls of
   Constantinople. Bohemund, with a splendid following of one hundred
   thousand horse and thirty thousand on foot, [360] e Adriatic. Raymund
   of Toulouse, accompanied by his countess, Elvira, and the papal legate,
   bishop Adhemar, [361] crossed the Alps, received the pope's blessing at
   Lucca, and, passing through Rome, transported their men across the
   Adriatic from Bari and Brindisi.

   Godfrey of Bouillon [362] as a brother of Philip I. of France. Robert
   of Normandy was the eldest son of William the Conqueror, and had made
   provision for his expedition by pledging Normandy to his brother,
   William Rufus, for ten thousand marks silver. Raymund, count of
   Toulouse, was a veteran warrior, who had a hundred thousand horse and
   foot at his command, and enjoyed a mingled reputation for wealth,
   wisdom, pride, and greed. Bohemund, prince of Tarentum, was the son of
   Robert Guiscard. His cousin, Tancred, was the model cavalier. Robert,
   count of Flanders, was surnamed, "the Sword and Lance of the
   Christians." Stephen, count of Chartres, Troyes, and Blois, was the
   owner of three hundred and sixty-five castles. These and many other
   noblemen constituted the flower of the French, Norman, and Italian
   nobility.

   The moral hero of the First Crusade is Godfrey of Bouillon, a
   descendant of Charlemagne in the female line, but he had no definite
   command. He had fought in the war of emperor Henry IV. against the
   rebel king, Rudolf of Swabia, whom he slew in the battle of Moelsen,
   1080. He had prodigious physical strength. With one blow of his sword
   he clove asunder a horseman from head to saddle. He was as pious as he
   was brave, and took the cross for the single purpose of rescuing
   Jerusalem from the hands of the infidel. He used his prowess and bent
   his ancestral pride to the general aim. Contemporary historians call
   him a holy monk in military armor and ducal ornament. His purity and
   disinterestedness were acknowledged by his rivals.

   Tancred, his intimate friend, likewise engaged in the enterprise from
   pure motives. He is the poetic hero of the First Crusade, and nearly
   approached the standard of "the parfite gentil knyght" of Chaucer. He
   distinguished himself at Nicaea, Dorylaeum, Antioch, and was one of the
   first to climb the walls of Jerusalem. He died in Antioch, 1112. His
   deeds were celebrated by Raoul de Caen and Torquato Tasso. [363]

   The emperor Alexius, who had so urgently solicited the aid of Western
   Europe, became alarmed when he saw the hosts arriving in his city. They
   threatened to bring famine into the land and to disturb the order of
   his realm. He had wished to reap the benefit of the Crusade, but now
   was alarmed lest he should be overwhelmed by it. His subtle policy and
   precautions were felt as an insult by the Western chieftains. In
   diplomacy he was more than their match. They expected fair dealing and
   they were met by duplicity. He held Hugh of Vermandois in easy custody
   till he promised him fealty. Even Godfrey and Tancred, the latter after
   delay, made the same pledge. Godfrey declined to receive the emperor's
   presents for fear of receiving poison with his munificence.

   The Crusaders had their successes. Nicaea was taken June 19, 1097, and
   the Turks were routed a few weeks later in a disastrous action at
   Dorylaeum in Phrygia, which turned into a more disastrous flight. But a
   long year elapsed till they could master Antioch, and still another
   year came to an end before Jerusalem yielded to their arms. The success
   of the enterprise was retarded and its glory diminished by the selfish
   jealousies and alienation of the leaders which culminated in
   disgraceful conflicts at Antioch. The hardships and privations of the
   way were terrible, almost beyond description. The Crusaders were forced
   to eat horse flesh, camels, dogs, and mice, and even worse. [364] [365]

   During the siege of Antioch, which had fallen to the Seljuks, 1084, the
   ranks were decimated by famine, pestilence, and desertion, among the
   deserters being Stephen of Chartres and his followers. Peter the Hermit
   and William of Carpentarius were among those who attempted flight, but
   were caught in the act of fleeing and severely reprimanded by Bohemund.
   [366] usand under Kerboga of Mosul. Their languishing energies were
   revived by the miraculous discovery of the holy lance, which pierced
   the Saviour's side. This famous instrument was hidden under the altar
   of St. Peter's church. The hiding place was revealed in a dream to
   Peter Barthelemy, the chaplain of Raymund of Toulouse. [367] he
   Crusaders' hands, June 28, 1098. [368] and went on independent
   expeditions of conquest. Of those who died at Antioch was Adhemar.

   The culmination of the First Crusade was the fall of Jerusalem, July
   15, 1099. It was not till the spring following the capture of Antioch,
   that the leaders were able to compose their quarrels and the main army
   was able again to begin the march. The route was along the coast to
   Caesarea and thence southeastward to Ramleh. Jerusalem was reached
   early in June. The army was then reduced to twenty thousand fighting
   men. [369] In one of his frescos in the museum at Berlin, representing
   the six chief epochs in human history, Kaulbach has depicted with great
   effect the moment when the Crusaders first caught sight of the Holy
   City from the western hills. For the religious imagination it was among
   the most picturesque moments in history as it was indeed one of the
   most solemn in the history of the Middle Ages. The later narratives may
   well have the essence of truth in them, which represent the warriors
   falling upon their knees and kissing the sacred earth. Laying aside
   their armor, in bare feet and amid tears, penitential prayers, and
   chants, they approached the sacred precincts. [370]

   A desperate but futile assault was made on the fifth day. Boiling pitch
   and oil were used, with showers of stones and other missiles, to keep
   the Crusaders at bay. The siege then took the usual course in such
   cases. Ladders, scaling towers, and other engines of war were
   constructed, but the wood had to be procured at a distance, from
   Shechem. The trees around Jerusalem, cut down by Titus twelve centuries
   before, had never been replaced. The city was invested on three sides
   by Raymund of Toulouse, Godfrey, Tancred, Robert of Normandy, and other
   chiefs. The suffering due to the summer heat and the lack of water was
   intense. The valley and the hills were strewn with dead horses, whose
   putrefying carcasses made life in the camp almost unbearable. In vain
   did the Crusaders with bare feet, the priests at their head, march in
   procession around the walls, hoping to see them fall as the walls of
   Jericho had fallen before Joshua. [371]

   Friday, the day of the crucifixion, was chosen for the final assault. A
   great tower surmounted by a golden cross was dragged alongside of the
   walls and the drawbridge let down. At a critical moment, as the later
   story went, a soldier of brilliant aspect [372] n on the Mount of
   Olives, and Godfrey, encouraging the besiegers, exclaimed: "It is St.
   George the martyr. He has come to our help." According to most of the
   accounts, Letold of Tournay [373] this crowning feat was three o'clock,
   the hour of the Saviour's death.

   The scenes of carnage which followed belong to the many dark pages of
   Jerusalem's history and showed how, in the quality of mercy, the
   crusading knight was far below the ideal of Christian perfection. The
   streets were choked with the bodies of the slain. The Jews were burnt
   with their synagogues. The greatest slaughter was in the temple
   enclosure. With an exaggeration which can hardly be credited, but
   without a twinge of regret or a syllable of excuse, it is related that
   the blood of the massacred in the temple area reached to the very knees
   and bridles of the horses. [374] [375]

   Penitential devotions followed easily upon the gory butchery of the
   sword. Headed by Godfrey, clad in a suit of white lined, the Crusaders
   proceeded to the church of the Holy Sepulchre and offered up prayers
   and thanksgivings. William of Tyre relates that Adhemar and others, who
   had fallen by the way, were seen showing the path to the holy places.
   The devotions over, the work of massacre was renewed. Neither the tears
   of women, nor the cries of children, nor the protests of Tancred, who
   for the honor of chivalry was concerned to save three hundred, to whom
   he had promised protection--none of these availed to soften the
   ferocity of the conquerors.

   As if to enhance the spectacle of pitiless barbarity, Saracen prisoners
   were forced to clear the streets of the dead bodies and blood to save
   the city from pestilence. "They wept and transported the dead bodies
   out of Jerusalem," is the heartless statement of Robert the Monk. [376]

   Such was the piety of the Crusaders. The religion of the Middle Ages
   combined self-denying asceticism with heartless cruelty to infidels,
   Jews, and heretics. "They cut down with the sword," said William of
   Tyre, "every one whom they found in Jerusalem, and spared no one. The
   victors were covered with blood from head to foot." In the next breath,
   speaking of the devotion of the Crusaders, the archbishop adds, "It was
   a most affecting sight which filled the heart with holy joy to see the
   people tread the holy places in the fervor of an excellent devotion."
   The Crusaders had won the tomb of the Saviour and gazed upon a fragment
   of the true cross, which some of the inhabitants were fortunate enough
   to have kept concealed during the siege.

   Before returning to Europe, Peter the Hermit received the homage of the
   Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem, who remembered his visit as a
   pilgrim and his services in their behalf. This was the closing scene of
   his connection with the Crusades. [377] une 29, 1854. He is represented
   in the garb of a monk, a rosary at his waist, a cross in his right
   hand, preaching the First Crusade.

   Urban II. died two weeks after the fall of Jerusalem and before the
   tidings of the event had time to reach his ears.

   No more favorable moment could have been chosen for the Crusade. The
   Seljukian power, which was at its height in the eleventh century, was
   broken up into rival dynasties and factions by the death of Molik Shah,
   1092. The Crusaders entered as a wedge before the new era of Moslem
   conquest and union opened.

   Note on the Relation of Peter the Hermit to the First Crusade.

   The view of Peter the Hermit, presented in this work, does not accord
   with the position taken by most of the modern writers on the Crusades.
   It is based on the testimony of Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre,
   historians of the First Crusade, and is, that Peter visited Jerusalem
   as a pilgrim, conversed with the patriarch Simeon over the desolations
   of the city, had a dream in the church of the Holy Sepulchre, returned
   to Europe with letters from Simeon which he presented to the pope, and
   then preached through Italy and beyond the Alps, and perhaps attended
   the Council of Clermont, where, however, he took no prominent part.

   The new view is that there occurrences were fictions. It was first set
   forth by von Sybel in his work on the First Crusade, in 1841. Sybel's
   work, which marks an epoch in the treatment of the Crusades, was
   suggested by the lectures of Ranke, 1837. [378] omparison of the
   earliest accounts, announced that there is no reliable evidence that
   Peter was the immediate instigator of the First Crusade, and that not
   to him but to Urban II. alone belongs the honor of having originated
   the movement. Peter did not make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, meet Urban,
   or preach about the woes of the Holy City prior to the assembling of
   the Synod of Clermont.

   These views, with some modification, have been advocated by Hagenmeyer
   in his careful and scholarly work on Peter the Hermit and in other
   writings on the First Crusade. [379] [380] is pilgrimage to Jerusalem,
   his visions there, his journey to the pope at Rome, his successful
   appeals to Urban to preach a crusade, and Peter's commanding position
   as one of the great preachers and leaders of the Crusade, all are found
   to be without the least foundation in fact." Dr. Dana C. Munro has
   recently declared that the belief that Peter was the instigator of the
   First Crusade has long since been abandoned. [381]

   It is proper that the reasons should be given in brief which have led
   to the retention of the old view in this volume. The author's view
   agrees with the judgment expressed by Archer, Story of the Crusades, p.
   27, that the account of Albert of Aachen "is no doubt true in the
   main."

   Albert of Aachen wrote his History of Jerusalem about 1120-1125, [382]
   ll read in the Bible, as his quotations show, and travelled in Europe.
   He is one of the ablest of the mediaeval historians, and his work is
   the monumental history of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. He was by his
   residence thoroughly acquainted with Palestine. It is not unworthy of
   mention that William's History represents the "office of the historian
   to be not to write what pleases him, but the material which the time
   offers," bk. XXIII. From the sixteenth to the twenty-third book he
   writes from personal observation. William stands between the credulous
   enthusiasm of the first writers on the Crusades and the cold scepticism
   of some modern historians.

   The new view, setting aside these two witnesses, bases its conclusion
   on the strictly contemporary accounts. These are silent about any part
   Peter took in the movement leading to the First Crusade prior to the
   Council of Clermont. They are: (1) the Gesta Francorum, written by an
   unknown writer, who reached Jerusalem with the Crusaders, wrote his
   account about 1099, and left the original, or a copy of it, in
   Jerusalem. (2) Robert the Monk, who was in Jerusalem, saw a copy of the
   Gesta, and copied from it. His work extends to 1099. He was present at
   the Council of Clermont. (3) Raymund, canon of Agiles, who accompanied
   the Crusaders to Jerusalem. (4) Fulcher of Chartres, who was present at
   Clermont, continued the history to 1125, accompanied the Crusaders to
   Jerusalem, and had much to do with the discovery of the holy lance. (5)
   The priest Tudebodus, who copied from the Gesta before 1111 and added
   very little of importance. (6) Ekkehard of Urach, who made a pilgrimage
   to Jerusalem, 1101. (7) Radulph of Caen, who in 1107 joined Tancred and
   related what he heard from him. (8) Guibert of Nogent, who was present
   at Clermont and wrote about 1110. (9) Baldric of Dol, who was at
   Clermont and copied from the Gesta in Jerusalem.

   Another contemporary, Anna Comnena, b. 1083, is an exception and
   reports the activity of Peter prior to the Council of Clermont, and
   says he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but was not permitted by the
   Turks to enter. He then hastened to Europe and preached about the woes
   of the city in order to provide a way to visit it again. Hagenmeyer is
   constrained by Anna's testimony to concede that Peter actually set
   forth on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but did not reach the city.

   The silence of nine contemporary writers is certainly very noticeable.
   They had the means of knowing the facts. Why, then, do we accept the
   later statements of Albert of Aachen and William of Tyre? These are the
   considerations.

   1. The silence of contemporary writers is not a final argument against
   events. Eusebius, the chief historian of the ancient Church, utterly
   ignores the Catacombs. Silence, said Dr. Philip Schaff, referring to
   the Crusades, "is certainly not conclusive," "Reformed Ch. Rev." 1893,
   p. 449. There is nothing in the earlier accounts contradictory to
   Peter's activity prior to the Clermont synod. One and another of the
   writers omit important events of the First Crusade, but that is not a
   sufficient reason for our setting those events aside as fictitious. The
   Gesta has no account of Urban's speech at Clermont or reference to it.
   Guibert and Fulcher leave out in their reports of Urban's speech all
   reference to the appeal from Constantinople. Why does the Gesta pass
   over with the slightest notice Peter's breaking away from Germany on
   his march to Constantinople? This author's example is followed by
   Baldric, Tudebod, Fulcher, and Raymund of Agiles. These writers have
   not a word to say about Gottschalk, Volkmar, and Emich. As Hagenmeyer
   says, pp. 129, 157, no reason can be assigned for these silences, and
   yet the fact of these expeditions and the calamities in Hungary are not
   doubted.

   2. The accounts of Albert of Aachen and of William of Tyre are simply
   told and not at all unreasonable in their essential content. William
   definitely makes Peter the precursor of Urban. He was, he said, "of
   essential service to our lord the pope, who determined to follow him
   without delay across the mountains. He did him the service of a
   forerunner and prepared the minds of men in advance so that he might
   easily win them for himself." There is no indication in the
   archbishop's words of any purpose to disparage Urban's part in
   preparing for the Crusade. Urban followed after John the Baptist.
   William makes Urban the centre of the assemblage at Clermont and gives
   to his address great space, many times the space given to the
   experiences of Peter, and all honor is accorded to the pope for the way
   in which he did his part, bk. I. 16.

   3. Serious difficulties are presented in the theory of the growth of
   the legend of Peter's activity. They are these: (1) Albert of Aachen
   lived close to the events, and at the most twenty-five years elapsed
   between the capture of Jerusalem and his writing. (2) There is nothing
   in Peter's conduct during the progress of the Crusade to justify the
   growth of an heroic legend around him. The very contrary was the case.
   Moreover, neither Albert nor William know anything about Peter before
   his pilgrimage. Hagenmeyer has put the case in the proper light when he
   says, "Not a single authority suggests that Peter enjoyed any
   extraordinary repute before his connection with the Crusade. On the
   contrary, every one that mentions his name connects it with the
   Crusade," p. 120. (3) It is difficult to understand how the disposition
   could arise on the part of any narrator to transfer the credit of being
   the author of the Crusade from a pope to a monk, especially such a monk
   as Peter turned out to be. In reference to this consideration, Archer,
   p. 26, has well said, "There is little in the legend of Peter the
   Hermit which may not very well be true, and the story, as it stands, is
   more plausible than if we had to assume that tradition had transferred
   the credit from a pope to a simple hermit." (4) We may very well
   account for Anna Comnena's story of Peter's being turned back by the
   Turks by her desire to parry the force of his conversation with the
   Greek patriarch Simeon. It was her purpose to disparage the Crusade.
   Had she admitted the message of Simeon through Peter to the pope, she
   would have conceded a strong argument for the divine approval upon the
   movement. As for Anna, she makes mistakes, confusing Peter once with
   Adhemar and once with Peter Barthelemy.

   (5) All the accounts mention Peter. He is altogether the most prominent
   man in stirring up interest in the Crusade subsequent to the council.
   Hagenmeyer goes even so far as to account for his success by the
   assumption that Peter made telling use of his abortive pilgrimage,
   missglueckte Pilgerfahrt. As already stated, Peter was listened to by
   "in immense throngs;" no one in the memory of the abbot of Nogent had
   enjoyed so much honor. "He was held in higher esteem than prelates and
   abbots," says Robert the Monk. As if to counteract the impression upon
   the reader, these writers emphasize that Peter's influence was over the
   rude and lawless masses, and, as Guibert says, that the bands which
   followed him were the dregs of France. Now it is difficult to
   understand how a monk, before unknown, who had never been in Jerusalem,
   and was not at the Council of Clermont, could at once work into his
   imagination such vivid pictures of the woe and wails of the Christians
   of the East as to attain a foremost pre-eminence as a preacher of the
   Crusade.

   (6) Good reasons can be given for the omission of Peter's conduct prior
   to the Council of Clermont by the earliest writers. The Crusade was a
   holy and heroic movement. The writers were interested in magnifying the
   part taken by the chivalry of Europe. Some of them were with Peter in
   the camp, and they found him heady, fanatical, impracticable, and
   worse. He probably was spurned by the counts and princes. Many of the
   writers were chaplains of these chieftains, -Raymund, Baldwin, Tancred,
   Bohemund. The lawlessness of Peter's bands has been referred to. The
   defeat at Nicaea robbed Peter of all glory and position he might
   otherwise have had with the main army when it reached Asia. [383] ting
   flight, being caught in the act by Tancred and Bohemund. The Gesta
   gives a detailed account of this treachery, and Guibert [384]
   ypocrite." [385] [386] was held by the princes, after his inglorious
   campaign to Constantinople and Nicaea, the early writers had not the
   heart to mention his services prior to the council. Far better for the
   glory of the cause that those experiences should pass into eternal
   forgetfulness.

   Why should legend then come to be attached to his memory? Why should
   not Adhemar have been chosen for the honor which was put upon this
   unknown monk who made so many mistakes