Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 128)

The extinguishment of the authority of the Eastern emperors at Rome and in Italy began with the revolt provoked by the attempts of the iconoclastic Leo, the Isaurian, to abolish image-worship in the Christian churches (see ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY). The Pope, Gregory II., remonstrated vehemently, but in vain. At his signal all central Italy rose in revolt. "The exarch was compelled to shut himself up in Ravenna; for the cities of Italy, instead of obeying the imperial officers, elected magistrates of their own, on whom they conferred, in some cases, the title of duke. Assemblies were held, and the project of electing an emperor of the West was adopted." But another danger showed itself at this juncture which alarmed Rome and Italy more than the iconoclastic persecutions of the Byzantine emperor. The king of the Lombards took advantage of the insurrection to extend his own domains. He invaded the exarchate and got actual possession of Ravenna; whereat Pope Gregory turned his influence to the Byzantine side, with such effect that the Lombards were beaten back and Ravenna recovered. {2424} In 731 Gregory II. died and was succeeded by Pope Gregory III. "The election of Gregory III. to the papal chair was confirmed by the Emperor Leo in the usual form; nor was that pope consecrated until the mandate from Constantinople reached Rome. This was the last time the emperors of the East were solicited to confirm the election of a pope." Leo continued to press his severe measures against image-worship, and the pope boldly convened at Rome a synod of ninety-three bishops which excommunicated the whole body of the Iconoclasts, emperor and all. The latter now dispatched a strong expedition to Italy to suppress the threatening papal power; but it came to naught, and the Byzantine authority was practically at an end, already, within the range of papal leadership. "From this time, A. D. 733, the city of Rome enjoyed political independence under the guidance and protection of the popes; but the officers of the Byzantine emperors were allowed to reside in the city, justice was publicly administered by Byzantine judges, and the supremacy of the Eastern Empire was still recognised. So completely, however, had Gregory III. thrown off his allegiance, that he entered into negotiations with Charles Martel, in order to induce that powerful prince to take an active part in the affairs of Italy. The pope was now a much more powerful personage than the Exarch of Ravenna, for the cities of central Italy, which had assumed the control of their local government, intrusted the conduct of their external political relations to the care of Gregory, who thus held the balance of power between the Eastern emperor and the Lombard king. In the year 742, while Constantine V., the son of Leo, was engaged with a civil war, the Lombards were on the eve of conquering Ravenna, but Pope Zacharias threw the whole of the Latin influence into the Byzantine scale, and enabled the exarch to maintain his position until the year 751, when Astolph, king of the Lombards, captured Ravenna. The exarch retired to Naples, and the authority of the Byzantine emperors in central Italy ended."

G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, book 1, chapter 1, section 2.

The Lombards, having obtained Ravenna and overturned the throne of the Byzantine exarchs, were now bent on extending their sovereignty over Rome. But the popes found an ally beyond the Alps whose interests coincided with their own. Pepin, the first Carolingian king of the Franks, went twice to their rescue and broke the Lombard power; his son Charlemagne finished the work, and by the acts of both these kings the bishops of Rome were established in a temporal no less than a spiritual principality.

See LOMBARDS: A. D. 754-774.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 49.

ALSO IN: P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 15.

See, also, FRANKS: A. D. 768-814.

PAPACY: A. D. 731-816. The succession of Popes.

Gregory III., A. D. 731-741; Zacharias, 741-752; Stephen I. (or II.), 752; Stephen II. (or III.), 752-757; Paul I., 757-767; Stephen III. (or IV.), 768-772; Hadrian I., 772-795; Leo III., 795-816.

PAPACY: A. D. 755-774. Origin of the Papal States. The Donations of Pepin and Charlemagne.

As the result of Pepin's second expedition to Italy (A. D. 755), "the Lombard king sued for quarter, promised to fulfil the terms of the treaty made in the preceding year, and to give up all the places mentioned in it. Pepin made them all over to the Holy See, by a solemn deed, which was placed in the archives of the Roman Church. … Pepin took such steps as should insure the execution of the Lombard's oath. Ravenna, Rimini, Resaro, Fano, Cesena, Sinigaglia, Jesi, Forlimpopoli, Forli, Castrocaro, Montefeltro, Acerragio, Montelucari, supposed to be the present Nocera, Serravalle, San Marigni, Bobio, Urbino, Caglio, Luccoli, Eugubio, Comacchio and Narni were evacuated by the Lombard troops; and the keys of the 22 cities were laid, with King Pepin's deed of gift, upon the Confession of St. Peter. The independence of the Holy See was established."

J; E. Darras, General History of the Catholic Church, period 3, chapter 10.

"An embassy from the Byzantine emperor asserted, during the negotiation of the treaty, the claims of that sovereign to a restoration of the exarchate; but their petitions and demands failed of effect on 'the steadfast heart of Pippin' [or Pepin], who declared that he had fought alone in behalf of St. Peter, on whose Church he would bestow all the fruits of victory. Fulrad, his abbot, was commissioned to receive the keys of the twenty-two towns his arms had won, and to deposit them as a donation on the grave of the apostle at Rome. Thus the Pope was made the temporal head of that large district … which, with some few changes, has been held by his successors."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 15.

"When on Pipin's death the restless Lombards again took up arms and menaced the possessions of the Church, Pipin's son Charles or Charlemagne swept down like a whirlwind from the Alps at the call of Pope Hadrian [774], seized king Desiderius in his capital, assumed himself the Lombard crown, and made northern Italy thenceforward an integral part of the Frankish empire. … Whether out of policy or from that sentiment of reverence to which his ambitious mind did not refuse to bow, he was moderate in claims of jurisdiction, he yielded to the pontiff the place of honour in processions, and renewed, although in the guise of a lord and conqueror, the gift of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pipin had made to the Roman Church twenty years before."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 4.

"It is reported, also, … that, jealous of the honor of endowing the Holy See in his own name, he [Charlemagne] amplified the gifts of Pippin by annexing to them the island of Corsica, with the provinces of Parma, Mantua, Venice, and Istria, and the duchies of Spoleto and Beneventum. … This rests wholly upon the assertion of Anastasius; but Karl could not give away what he did not possess, and we know that Corsica, Venice and Beneventum were not held by the Franks till several years later. … Of the nature and extent of these gifts nothing is determined: that they did not carry the right of eminent domain is clear from the subsequent exercise of acts of sovereignty within them by the Frankish monarchs; and the probability is, according to the habits of the times, that the properties were granted only under some form of feudal vassalage."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 16.

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 49.

{2425}

"Indefinite in their terms, these grants were never meant by the donors to convey full dominion over the districts—that belonged to the head of the Empire—but only as in the case of other church estates, a perpetual usufruct or 'dominium utile.' They were, in fact, mere endowments. Nor had the gifts been ever actually reduced into possession."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 10.

PAPACY: A. D. 774 (?). Forgery of the "Donation of Constantine."

"Before the end of the 8th century some apostolical scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the decretals and the donation of Constantine, the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.

See PAPACY: A. D. 829-847.

This memorable donation was introduced to the world by an epistle of Adrian I., who exhorts Charlemagne to imitate the liberality and revive the name of the great Constantine. According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors was healed of the leprosy, and purified in the waters of baptism, by St. Silvester, the Roman bishop; and never was physician more gloriously recompensed. His royal proselyte withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter, declared his resolution of founding a new capital in the East; and resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West. This fiction was productive of the most beneficial effects. The Greek princes were convicted of the guilt of usurpation: and the revolt of Gregory was the claim of his lawful inheritance. The popes were delivered from their debt of gratitude; and the nominal gifts of the Carlovingians were no more than the just and irrevocable restitution of a scanty portion of the ecclesiastical State."

E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 49.

"But this is not all, although this is what historians, in admiration of its splendid audacity, have chiefly dwelt upon. The edict proceeds to grant to the Roman pontiff and his clergy a series of dignities and privileges, all of them enjoyed by the emperor and his senate, all of them shewing the same desire to make the pontifical a copy of the imperial office. The Pope is to inhabit the Lateran palace, to wear the diadem, the collar, the purple cloak, to carry the sceptre, and to be attended by a body of chamberlains. … The practice of kissing the Pope's foot was adopted in imitation of the old imperial court. It was afterwards revived by the German Emperors."

J. Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire, chapter 7, and foot-note.

ALSO IN: M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, volume 1, page 817.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 8, number 8.

PAPACY: A. D. 800. The giving of the Roman imperial crown to Charlemagne.

See GERMANY: A. D. 687-800; and 800.

PAPACY: A. D. 816-1073.

The succession of Popes. Stephen IV. (or V.), A. D. 816-817; Paschal I., 817-:824; Eugene II., 824-827; Valentine, 827; Gregory IV., 827-844; Sergius II., 844-847; Leo IV., 847-855; Benedict III.; 855-858: Nicholas I., 858-867; Hadrian II., 867-872; John VIII., 872-882; Marinus: 882-884; Hadrian III., 884-885; Stephen V. (or VI.), 885-891; Formosus, 891-896; Boniface VI., 896; Stephen VI. (or VII.), 896-897; Romanus, 897-898; Theodore II., 898; John IX., 898-900; Benedict IV., 900-908; Leo V., 908; Sergius III., 904-911; Anastasius III., 911-918; Lando, 913-914; John X., 914-928; Leo VI., 928-929; Stephen VII. (or VIII.), 929-981; John XI., 981-986; Leo VII., 936-989; Stephen VIII. (or IX.). 989-942: Marinus II.,942-946; Agapetus II., 946-956; John XII., 956-964; Leo VIII., antipope, 963-965; Benedict V., 964-965; John XIII., 965-972; Benedict VI., 972-974; Donus II., 974-975; Benedict VII., 975-984; John XIV., 984-985; John XV., 985-996; Gregory V., 996-999; John XVI., antipope, 997-998; Sylvester II., 999-1003; John XVII., 1003; John XVIII., 1003-1009; Sergius IV., 1009-1012: Benedict VIII., 1012-1024; John XIX., 1024-1033; Benedict IX., 1033-1044; Sylvester III., antipope, 1044; Gregory VI., 1044-1046; Clement II., 1046-1047; Benedict IX., 1047-1048; Damasus II., 1048; Leo IX., 1049-1054; Victor II., 1055-1057; Stephen IX. (or X.), 1057-1058: Benedict X., antipope, 1058-1059; Nicholas II., 1058-1061; Alexander II., 1061-1073.

PAPACY: A. D. 829-847. The False Decretals.

"There existed in each of the national churches, a collection of ecclesiastical laws, or canons, which were made use of as circumstances required. One of these collections was in use in Spain as early as the sixth century, and was subsequently attributed to Isidore, Bishop of Seville. Towards the middle of the ninth century, a new recension of these canons appeared in France, based upon the so–called Isidorian collection, but into which many spurious fragments, borrowed from private collections and bearing upon their face incontestable evidence of the ignorance of their authors, had been introduced. This recension contained also a number of forged documents. There were, altogether, above a hundred spurious decrees of popes, from Clement to Damasus (A. D. 384), not to mention some of other popes, and many false canons of councils. It also contained the forged Deed of Donation ascribed to Constantine [see above: A. D. 774?]. However, these decretals, which, as they stand, are now proved, both by intrinsic and extrinsic arguments, to be impudent forgeries, are nevertheless, in matter of fact, the real utterances of popes, though not of those to whom they are ascribed, and hence the forgery is, on the whole, one of chronological location, and does not affect their essential character."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, volume 2, page 195.

"Various opinions exist as to the time at which this collection was made, and the precise date of its publication. Mabillon supposes the compilation to have been made about A. D. 785; and in this opinion he is followed by others. But the collection did not appear until after the death of Charlemagne. Some think that these Decretals cannot be of an earlier date than 829, and Blondel supposed that he discovered in them traces of the acts of a council at Paris held in that year. All that can be determined is that most probably the Decretals were first published in France, perhaps at Mayence, about the middle of the ninth century; but it is impossible to discover their real author. The spuriousness of these Decretals was first exposed by the Magdeburg Centuriators, with a degree of historical and critical acumen beyond the age in which they lived. The Jesuit Turrianus endeavoured, but in vain, to defend the spurious documents against this attack. … Of these Epistles none (except two, which appear on other grounds to be spurious) were ever heard of before the ninth century. They contain a vast number of anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. {2426} Passages are quoted from more recent writings, including the Vulgate, according to the version of Jerome; and, although the several Epistles profess to have been written by different pontiffs, the style is manifestly uniform, and often very barbarous, such as could not have proceeded from Roman writers of the first century. … The success of this forgery would appear incredible, did we not take into account the weak and confused government of the successors of Charlemagne, in whose time it was promulgated; the want of critical acumen and resources in that age; the skill with which the pontiffs made use of the Decretals only by degrees; and the great authority and power possessed by the Roman pontiffs in these times. The name of Isidore also served to recommend these documents, many persons being ready to believe that they were in fact only a completion of the genuine collection of Isidore, which was highly esteemed. … The unknown compiler was subsequently called Pseudo-Isidorus."

J. E. Riddle, History of the Papacy, volume 1, pages 405-407.

ALSO IN: A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, volume 6 (Bohn's edition), pages 2-8.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 5, chapter 4.

M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope, volume 1, page 317.

J. N. Murphy, The Chair of Peter, chapter 9.

H. C. Lea, Studies in Christian History, pp. 43-76.

P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 4, chapter 4, section 60.

PAPACY: A. D. 887-1046. Demoralization of the Church. Degradation of the Holy See. Reforms of the Emperor, Henry III.

"No exaggeration is possible of the demoralized state into which the Christian world, and especially the Church of Rome, had fallen in the years that followed the extinction of the Carlovingian line (A. D. 887). The tenth century is even known among Protestants 'par excellence' as the sæculum obscurum, and Baronius expresses its portentous corruption in the vivid remark that Christ was as if asleep in the vessel of the Church. 'The infamies prevalent among the clergy of the time,' says Mr. Bowden [Life of Hildebrand], 'as denounced by Damiani and others, are to be alluded to, not detailed.' … When Hildebrand was appointed to the monastery of St. Paul at Rome, he found the offices of devotion systematically neglected, the house of prayer defiled by the sheep and cattle who found their way in and out through its broken doors, and the monks, contrary to all monastic rule, attended in their refectory by women. The excuse for these irregularities was the destitution to which the holy house was reduced by the predatory bands of Campagna; but when the monastic bodies were rich, as was the case in Germany, matters were worse instead of better. … At the close of the ninth century, Stephen VI. dragged the body of an obnoxious predecessor from the grave, and, after subjecting it to a mock trial, cut off its head and three fingers, and threw it into the Tiber. He himself was subsequently deposed, and strangled in prison. In the years that followed, the power of electing to the popedom fell into the hands of the intriguing and licentious Theodora, and her equally unprincipled daughters, Theodora and Marozia.

See ROME: A. D. 903-964].

These women, members of a patrician family, by their arts and beauty, obtained an unbounded influence over the aristocratic tyrants of the city. One of the Theodoras advanced a lover, and Marozia a son, to the popedom. The grandson of the latter, Octavian, succeeding to her power, as well as to the civil government of the city, elevated himself, on the death of the then Pope, to the apostolic chair, at the age of eighteen, under the title of John XII. (A. D. 956). His career was in keeping with such a commencement. 'The Lateran Palace,' says Mr. Bowden, 'was disgraced by becoming a receptacle for courtezans: and decent females were terrified from pilgrimages to the threshold of the Apostles by the reports which were spread abroad of the lawless impurity and violence of their representative and successor.' … At length he was carried off by a rapid illness, or by the consequences of a blow received in the prosecution of his intrigues. Boniface VII. (A. D. 974), in the space of a few weeks after his elevation, plundered the treasury and basilica of St. Peter of all he could conveniently carry off, and fled to Constantinople. John XVIII. (A. D. 1003) expressed his readiness, for a sum of money from the Emperor Basil, to recognize the right of the Greek Patriarch to the title of ecumenical or universal bishop, and the consequent degradation of his own see; and was only prevented by the general indignation excited by the report of his intention. Benedict IX. (A. D. 1033) was consecrated Pope, according to some authorities, at the age of ten or twelve years, and became notorious for adulteries and murders. At length he resolved on marrying his first cousin; and, when her father would not assent except on the condition of his resigning the popedom, he sold it for a large sum, and consecrated the purchaser as his successor. Such are a few of the most prominent features of the ecclesiastical history of these dreadful times, when, in the words of St. Bruno, 'the world lay in wickedness, holiness had disappeared, justice had perished, and truth had been buried; Simon Magus lording it over the Church, whose bishops and priests were given to luxury and fornication.' Had we lived in such deplorable times as have been above described … we should have felt for certain, that if it was possible to retrieve the Church, it must be by some external power; she was helpless and resourceless; and the civil power must interfere, or there was no hope. So thought the young and zealous emperor, Henry III. (A. D. 1039), who, though unhappily far from a perfect character, yet deeply felt the shame to which the Immaculate Bride was exposed, and determined with his own right hand to work her deliverance. … This well-meaning prince did begin that reformation which ended in the purification and monarchical estate of the Church. He held a Council of his Bishops in 1047; in it he passed a decree that 'Whosoever should make any office or station in the Church a subject of purchase or sale, should suffer deprivation and be visited with excommunication;' at the same time, with regard to his own future conduct, he solemnly pledged himself as follows:—'As God has freely of His mere mercy bestowed upon me the crown of the empire, so will I give freely and without price all things that pertain unto His religion.' This was his first act; but he was aware that the work of reform, to be thoroughly executed, must proceed from Rome, as the centre of the ecclesiastical commonwealth, and he determined, upon those imperial precedents and feudal principles which Charlemagne had introduced, himself to appoint a Pope, who should be the instrument of his general reformation. {2427} The reigning Pope at this time was Gregory VI., and he introduces us to so curious a history that we shall devote some sentences to it. Gregory was the identical personage who had bought the papal office of the profligate Benedict IX. for a large sum, and was consecrated by him, and yet he was far from a bad sort of man after all. … He had been known in the world as John Gratianus; and at the time of his promotion was arch-priest of Rome. 'He was considered,' says Mr. Bowden, 'in those bad times more than ordinarily religious; he had lived free from the gross vices by which the clergy were too generally disgraced.' … He could not be quite said to have come into actual possession of his purchase; for Benedict, his predecessor, who sold it to him, being disappointed in his intended bride, returned to Rome after an absence of three months, and resumed his pontifical station, while the party of his intended father-in-law had had sufficient influence to create a Pope of their own, John, Bishop of Sabina, who paid a high price for his elevation, and took the title of Sylvester III. And thus there were three self-styled Popes at once in the Holy City, Benedict performing his sacred functions at the Lateran, Gregory at St. Peter's, and Sylvester at Santa Maria Maggiore. Gregory, however, after a time, seemed to preponderate over his antagonists; he maintained a body of troops, and with these he suppressed the suburban robbers who molested the pilgrims. Expelling them from the sacred limits of St. Peter's, he carried his arms further, till he had cleared the neighbouring towns and roads of these marauders. … This was the point of time at which the Imperial Reformer made his visitation of the Church and See of the Apostles. He came into Italy in the autumn of 1046, and held a Council at Sutri, a town about thirty miles to the north of Rome. Gregory was allowed to preside; and, when under his auspices the abdication of Benedict had been recorded, and Sylvester had been stripped of his sacerdotal rank and shut up in a monastery for life, Gregory's own turn came" and he was persuaded to pronounce a sentence of condemnation upon himself and to vacate the pontifical chair. "The new Pope whom the Emperor gave to the Church instead of Gregory VI., Clement II., a man of excellent character, died within the year. Damasus II. also, who was his second nomination, died in three or four weeks after his formal assumption of his pontifical duties. Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was his third choice. … And now we are arrived at the moment when the State reformer struck his foot against the hidden rock. … He had chosen a Pope, but 'quis custodiat ipsos custodes'? What was to keep fast that Pope in that very view of the relation of the State to the Church, that plausible Erastianism, as it has since been called, which he adopted himself? What is to secure the Pope from the influences of some Hildebrand at his elbow, who, a young man himself, shall rehearse, in the person of his superior, that part which he is one day to play in his own, as Gregory VII.? Such was the very fact; Hildebrand was with Leo, and thus commences the ecclesiastical career of that wonderful man."

J. H. Newman, Essays Critical and Historical, volume 2, pages 255-265.

See, also, ROME: A. D. 962-1057; and GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122.

PAPACY: A. D. 1053. Naples and Sicily granted as fiefs of the Church to the sons of Tancred—the Normans.

See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1000-1090.

PAPACY: A. D. 1054. The Filioque Controversy. Separation of the Orthodox (Greek) Church.

See FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY; also, CHRISTIANITY: A. D. 330-1054.

PAPACY: A. D. 1056-1122. Hildebrand and Henry IV. The imperious pontifical reign of Gregory VII. Empire and Papacy in conflict. The War of Investitures.

"Son of a Tuscan carpenter, but, as his name shows, of German origin, Hildebrand had been from childhood a monk in the monastery of Sta Maria, on Mount Aventine, at Rome, where his uncle was abbot, and where he became the pupil of a learned Benedictine archbishop, the famous Laurentius of Amalfi, and formed a tender friendship with St. Odilon of Cluny [or Clugny]. Having early attached himself to the virtuous Pope Gregory VI., it was with indignation that he saw him confounded with two unworthy competitors, and deposed together with them by the arbitrary influence of the emperor at Sutri. He followed the exiled pontiff to France, and, after his death, went to enrol himself among the monks of Cluny, where he had previously resided, and where, according to several writers, he held the office of prior. During a part of his youth, however, he must have lived at the German Court, where he made a great impression on the Emperor Henry III., and on the best bishops of the country, by the eloquence of his preaching. … It was at Cluny that Hildebrand met, in 1049, the new Pope, Bruno, Bishop of Toul. … Bruno himself had been a monk: his cousin, the Emperor Henry III., had, by his own authority, caused him to be elected at Worms, December 1048, and proclaimed under the name of Leo IX. Hildebrand, seeing him already clothed with the pontifical purple, reproached him for having accepted the government of the Church, and advised him to guard ecclesiastical liberty by being canonically elected at Rome. Bruno yielded to this salutary remonstrance; laying aside the purple and the pontifical ornaments, he caused Hildebrand to accompany him to Rome, where his election was solemnly renewed by the Roman clergy and people. This was the first blow given to the usurped authority of the emperor. From that moment Hildebrand was withdrawn from Cluny by the Pope, in spite of the strong resistance of the Abbot St. Hugh. Created Cardinal Subdeacon of the Roman Church, and Abbot of San Paolo fuori le Mura, he went on steadily towards the end he had in view. Guided by his advice, Leo IX., after having renewed his courage at Monte Cassino, prepared several decrees of formal condemnation against the sale of benefices and against the marriage of priests; and these decrees were fulminated in a series of councils on both sides the Alps, at Rome, Verceil, Mayence, and Reims. The enemy, till then calm in the midst of his usurped rule, felt himself sharply wounded. Nevertheless, the simoniacal bishops, accomplices or authors of all the evils the Pope wished to cure, pretended as well as they could not to understand the nature and drift of the pontiff's act. They hoped time would be their friend; but they were soon undeceived. {2428} Among the many assemblies convoked and presided over by Pope Leo IX., the Council of Reims, held in 1094, was the most important. … Henry I., King of France, opposed the holding of this Council with all his might. … The Pope stood his ground: he was only able to gather round him twenty bishops; but, on the other hand, there came fifty Benedictine abbots. Thanks to their support, energetic canons were promulgated against the two great scandals of the time, and several guilty prelates were deposed. They went still further: a decree pronounced by this Council vindicated, for the first time in many years, the freedom of ecclesiastical elections, by declaring that no promotion to the episcopate should be valid without the choice of the clergy and people. This was the first signal of the struggle for the enfranchisement of the Church, and the first token of the preponderating influence of Hildebrand. From that time all was changed. A new spirit breathed on the Church —a new life thrilled the heart of the papacy. … Vanquished and made prisoner by the Normans—not yet, as under St. Gregory VII., transformed into devoted champions of the Church —Leo IX. vanquished them, in turn, by force of courage and holiness, and wrested from them their first oath of fidelity to the Holy See while granting to them a first investiture of their conquests. Death claimed the pontiff when he had reigned five years. … At the moment when the struggle between the papacy and the Western empire became open and terrible, the East, by a mysterious decree of Providence, finally separated itself from Catholic unity. … The schism was completed by Michael Cerularius, whom the Emperor Constantine Monomachius had placed, in 1043, on the patriarchal throne. The separation took place under the vain pretext of Greek and Latin observances on the subject of unleavened bread, of strangled meats, and of the singing of the Alleluia. … Leo IX. being dead, the Romans wished to elect Hildebrand, and only renounced their project at his most earnest entreaties. He then hastened to cross the Alps, and directed his steps to Germany [1054], provided with full authority from the Roman clergy and people to choose, under the eyes of the Emperor Henry III., whoever, among the prelates of the empire, that prince should judge most worthy of the tiara. … Hildebrand selected Gebhard, Bishop of Eichstadt; and in spite of the emperor, who desired to keep near him a bishop who enjoyed his entire confidence—in spite even of Gebhard himself—he carried him off to Rome, where, according to the ancient custom, the clergy proceeded to his election under the name of Victor II. The new Pope, at the risk of his life, adhered to the counsels of Hildebrand, and continued the war made by his predecessor on simoniacal bishops and married priests. … At this crisis [October, 1056] the Emperor Henry III. died in the flower of his age, leaving the throne of Germany to his only son, a child of six years old, but already elected and crowned—the regent being his mother, the Empress Agnes. … Victor II. had scarcely followed the emperor to the tomb [July, 1057] when the Roman clergy hastened, for the first time, to elect a Pope without any imperial intervention. In the absence of Hildebrand, the unanimous choice of the electors fixed on the former chancellor and legate at Constantinople of Leo IX., on Frederic, monk and abbot of Monte Cassino," raised to the throne by the name of Stephen, sometimes numbered as the ninth, but generally as the tenth Pope of that name.

Count de Montalambert, The Monks of the West, book 19, chapter 2 (volume 6).

Stephen X. died in the year following his election, and again the papal chair was filled during the absence of Hildebrand from Rome. The new Pope, who took the name of Benedict X., was obnoxious to the reforming party, of which Hildebrand was the head, and the validity of his election was denied. With the support of the imperial court in Germany, Gerard, Bishop of Florence, was raised to the throne, as Nicholas II., and his rival gave way to him. Nicholas II., dying in 1061, was succeeded by Alexander II. elected equally under Hildebrand's influence. On the death of Alexander in 1073, Hildebrand himself was forced against his will, to accept the papal tiara. He "knew well the difficulties that would beset one who should endeavour to govern the Church as became an upright and conscientious Pope. Hence, dreading the responsibility, he protested, but to no purpose, against his own elevation to the papal throne. … Shrinking from its onerous duties, Gregory thought he saw one way still open by which he might escape the burden. The last decree on papal elections contained an article requiring that the Pope-elect should receive the approval of the Emperor of Germany. Gregory, who still assumed only the title of 'Bishop-elect of Rome,' notified Henry IV., King of Germany and Emperor–elect, of what had taken place, and begged him not to approve the action or confirm the choice of the Romans. 'But should you,' he went on to say, 'deny my prayer, I beg to assure you that I shall most certainly not allow your scandalous and notorious excesses to go unpunished.' Several historians, putting this bold declaration beside the decree of Nicholas II. (A. D. 1059), which went on the assumption that the King of Germany did not enjoy the right of approving the Pope-elect until after he had been crowned Emperor, and then, only by a concession made to himself personally, have pronounced it suppositious. But when it is recollected that its authenticity rests upon the combined testimony of Bonizo, Bishop of Sutri, the friend of Hildebrand, and of William, abbot of Metz, as well as on the authority of the Acta Vaticana, it is difficult to see how the objection can be sustained. … Henry IV., on receiving news of Hildebrand's election, sent Count Eberhard, of Nellenburg, as his plenipotentiary to Rome to protest against the proceeding. The politic Hildebrand was careful not to be taken at a disadvantage. 'I have indeed' said he, 'been elected by the people, but against my own will. I would not, however, allow myself to be forced to take priest's orders until my election should have been ratified by the king and the princes of Germany.' Lambert of Hersfeld informs us that Henry was so pleased with this manner of speech that he gave orders to allow the consecration to go on, and the ceremony was accordingly performed on the Feast of the Purification in the following year (A. D. 1074). This is the last instance of a papal election being ratified by an emperor. … Out of respect to the memory of Gregory VI., his former friend and master, Hildebrand, on ascending the papal throne, took the ever–illustrious name of Gregory VII."

J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, volume 2, page 347-348.

{2429}

"From the most remote Christian antiquity, the marriage of clergymen had been regarded with the dislike, and their celibacy rewarded by the commendation, of the people. … This prevailing sentiment had ripened into a customary law, and the observance of that custom had been enforced by edicts and menaces, by rewards and penalties. But nature had triumphed over tradition, and had proved too strong for Councils and for Popes. When Hildebrand ascended the chair first occupied by a married Apostle, his spirit burned within him to see that marriage held in her impure and unhallowed bonds a large proportion of those who ministered at the altar, and who handled there the very substance of the incarnate Deity. It was a profanation well adapted to arouse the jealousy, not less than to wound the conscience, of the Pontiff. Secular cares suited ill with the stern duties of a theocratic ministry. Domestic affections would choke or enervate in them that corporate passion which might otherwise be directed with unmitigated ardour towards their chief and centre. Clerical celibacy would exhibit to those who trod the outer courts of the great Christian temple, the impressive and subjugating image of a transcendental perfection, too pure not only for the coarser delights of sense, but even for the alloy of conjugal or parental love. It would fill the world with adherents of Rome, in whom every feeling would be quenched which could rival that sacred allegiance. … With such anticipations, Gregory, within a few weeks from his accession, convened a council at the Lateran, and proposed a law, not, as formerly, forbidding merely the marriage of priests, but commanding every priest to put away his wife, and requiring all laymen to abstain from any sacred office which any wedded priest might presume to celebrate. Never was legislative foresight so verified by the result. What the great Council of Nicæa had attempted in vain, the Bishops assembled in the presence of Hildebrand accomplished, at his instance, at once, effectually, and for ever. Lamentable indeed were the complaints, bitter the reproaches, of the sufferers. Were the most sacred ties thus to be torn asunder at the ruthless bidding of an Italian priest? Were men to become angels, or were angels to be brought down from heaven to minister among men? Eloquence was never more pathetic, more just, or more unavailing. Prelate after prelate silenced these complaints by austere rebukes. Legate after legate arrived with papal menaces to the remonstrants. Monks and abbots preached the continency they at least professed. Kings and barons laughed over their cups at many a merry tale of compulsory divorce. Mobs pelted, hooted, and besmeared with profane and filthy baptisms the unhappy victims of pontifical rigour. It was a struggle not to be prolonged —broken hearts pined and died away in silence. Expostulations subsided into murmurs, and murmurs were drowned in the general shout of victory. Eight hundred years have since passed away. Amidst the wreck of laws, opinions, and institutions, this decree of Hildebrand's still rules the Latin Church, in every land where sacrifices are offered on her altars. … With this Spartan rigour towards his adherents, Gregory combined a more than Athenian address and audacity towards his rivals and antagonists. So long as the monarchs of the West might freely bestow on the objects of their choice the sees and abbeys of their states, papal dominion could be but a passing dream, and papal independency an empty boast. Corrupt motives usually determined that choice; and the objects of it were but seldom worthy. Ecclesiastical dignities were often sold to the highest bidder, and then the purchaser indemnified himself by a use no less mercenary of his own patronage; or they were given as a reward to some martial retainer, and the new churchman could not forget that he had once been a soldier. The cope and the coat-of-mail were worn alternately. The same hand bore the crucifix in the holy festival, and the sword in the day of battle. … In the hands of the newly consecrated Bishop was placed a staff, and on his finger a ring, which, received as they were from his temporal sovereign, proclaimed that homage and fealty were due to him alone. And thus the sacerdotal Proconsuls of Rome became, in sentiment at least, and by the powerful obligation of honour, the vicegerents, not of the Pontifex Maximus, but of the Imperator. To dissolve this 'trinoda necessitas' of simoniacal preferments, military service, and feudal vassalage, a feebler spirit would have exhorted, negotiated, and compromised. To Gregory it belonged to subdue men by courage, and to rule them by reverence. Addressing the world in the language of his generation, he proclaimed to every potentate, from the Baltic to the Straits of Calpé, that all human authority being holden of the divine, and God himself having delegated his own sovereignty over men to the Prince of the Sacred College, a divine right to universal obedience was the inalienable attribute of the Roman Pontiffs. … In turning ever the collection of the epistles of Hildebrand, we are every where met by this doctrine asserted in a tone of the calmest dignity and the most serene conviction. Thus he informs the French monarch that every house in his kingdom owed to Peter, as their father and pastor, an annual tribute of a penny, and he commands his legates to collect it in token of the subjection of France to the Holy See. He assures Solomon the King of Hungary, that his territories are the property of the Holy Roman Church. Solomon being incredulous and refractory, was dethroned by his competitor for the Hungarian crown. His more prudent successor, Ladislaus, acknowledged himself the vassal of the Pope, and paid him tribute. … From every part of the European continent, Bishops are summoned by these imperial missives to Rome, and there are either condemned and deposed, or absolved and confirmed in their sees. In France, in Spain, and in Germany, we find his legates exercising the same power; and the correspondence records many a stern rebuke, sometimes for their undue remissness, sometimes for their misapplied severity. The rescripts of Trajan scarcely exhibit a firmer assurance both of the right and the power to control every other authority, whether secular or sacerdotal, throughout the civilized world."

Sir J. Stephen, Hildebrand (Edinburgh Review, April, 1845).

{2430}

"At first Gregory appeared to desire to direct his weapons against King Philip of France, 'the worst of, the tyrants who enslaved the Church.' … But with a more correct estimate of the circumstances of Germany and the dangers which threatened from Lombardy, he let this conflict drop and turned against Henry IV. The latter had so alienated Saxony and Thuringia by harsh proceedings, that they desired to accuse him to the Pope of oppression and simony. Gregory immediately demanded the dismissal of the councillors who had been excommunicated by his predecessor. His mother, who was devoted to the Pope, sought to mediate, and the Saxon revolt which now broke out (still in 1073) still further induced him to give way. He wrote a submissive letter to the Pope, rendered a repentant confession at Nuremberg in 1074 in the presence of his mother and two Roman cardinals, and, along with the excommunicated councillors, who had promised on oath to surrender all church properties obtained by simony, was received into the communion of the Church. … But … Henry, after overthrowing his enemies, soon returned to his old manner, and the German clergy resisted the interference of the Pope. At the Roman Synod (February, 1075) Gregory then decreed numerous ecclesiastical penalties against resistant German and Lombard bishops, and five councillors of the King were once more laid under the ban on account of simony. But in addition, at a Roman synod of the same year, he carried through the bold law of investiture, which prohibited bishops and abbots from receiving a bishopric or abbacy from the hands of a layman, and prohibited the rulers from conferring investiture on penalty of excommunication. Before the publication of the law Gregory caused confidential overtures to be made to the King, in order, as it seems, to give the King an opportunity of taking measures to obviate the threatening dangers which were involved in this extreme step. At the same time he himself was threatened and entangled on all hands; Robert Guiscard, whom he had previously excommunicated, he once more laid under the ban. … Henry, who in the summer of 1075 still negotiated directly with the Pope through ambassadors, after completely overthrowing the Saxons now ceased to pay any attention. … At Worms (24th January 1076) he caused a great portion of the German bishops to declare the deposition of the Pope who, as was said, was shattering the Empire and degrading the bishops. The Lombard bishops subscribed the decree of deposition at Piacenza and Pavia. Its bearers aroused a fearful storm against themselves at the Lenten Synod of Rome (1076), and Gregory now declared the excommunication and deposition of Henry, and released his subjects from their oath. Serious voices did indeed deny the Pope's right to the latter course; but a portion of the German bishops at once humbled themselves before the Pope, others began to waver, and the German princes, angered over Henry's government, demanded at Tribur in October, 1076, that the King should give satisfaction to the Pope, and the Pope hold judgment on Henry in Germany itself; if by his own fault Henry should remain under the ban for a year's time, another King was to be elected. Henry then resolved to make his peace with the Pope in order to take their weapon out of the hands of the German princes. Before the Pope came to Germany, he hastened in the winter with his wife and child from Besançon, over Mont Cenis, and found a friendly reception in Lombardy, so that the Pope, already on the way to Germany, betook himself to the Castle of Canossa to the Margravine Matilda of Tuscany, fearing an evil turn of affairs from Henry and the Lombards who were hostile to the Pope. But Henry was driven by his threatened position in Germany to seek release from the ban above every thing. This brought him as a penitent into the courtyard of Canossa (January 1077), where Gregory saw him stand from morning till evening during three days before he released him from the ban at the intercession of Matilda."

W. Moeller, History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages, pages 256-258.

"It was on the 25th of January, 1077, that the scene took place, which, as is natural, has seized so strongly upon the popular imagination, and has so often supplied a theme for the brush of the painter, the periods of the historian, the verse of the poet. … The king was bent upon escaping at any sacrifice from the bond of excommunication and from his engagement to appear before the Pontiff, at the Diet summoned at Augsburg for the Feast of the Purification. The character in which he presented himself before Gregory was that of a penitent, throwing himself in deep contrition upon the Apostolic clemency, and desirous of reconciliation with the Church. The Pope, after so long experience of his duplicity, disbelieved in his sincerity, while, as a mere matter of policy, it was in the highest degree expedient to keep him to his pact with the German princes and prelates. … On three successive days did he appear barefooted in the snowy court-yard of the castle, clad in the white garb of a penitent, suing for relief from ecclesiastical censure. It was difficult for Gregory to resist the appeal thus made to his fatherly compassion, the more especially as Hugh, Abbot of Cluny, and the Countess Matilda besought him 'not to break the bruised reed.' Against his better judgment, and in despite of the warnings of secular prudence, the Pope consented on the fourth day to admit to his presence the royal suppliant. … The conditions of absolution imposed upon the king were mainly four: that he should present himself upon a day and at a place, to be named by the Pontiff, to receive the judgment of the Apostolic See, upon the charges preferred by the princes and prelates of Germany, and that he should abide the Pontifical sentence—his subjects meanwhile remaining released from their oath of fealty; that he should respect the rights of the Church and carry out the papal decrees; and that breach of this engagement should entitle the Teutonic magnates to proceed to the election of another king. Such were the terms to which Henry solemnly pledged himself, and on the faith of that pledge the Pontiff, assuming the vestments of religion, proceeded to absolve him with the appointed rites. … So ends the first act in this great tragedy. Gregory's misgivings as to the king's sincerity soon receive too ample justification. 'Fear not,' the Pontiff is reported to have said, with half contemptuous sadness to the Saxon envoys who complained of his lenity to the monarch: 'Fear not, I send him back to you more guilty than he came.' Henry's words to the Pope had been softer than butter; but he had departed with war in his heart. … Soon he lays a plot for seizing Gregory at Mantua, whither the Pontiff is invited for the purpose of presiding over a Council. But the vigilance of the Great Countess foils the proposed treachery. {2431} Shortly the ill-advised monarch again assumes an attitude of open hostility to the Pope. … The Teutonic princes, glad to throw off an authority which they loathe and despise—not heeding the advice to pause given by the Roman legates—proceed at the Diet of Forchein to the election of another king. Their choice falls upon Rudolph of Swabia, who is crowned at Metz on the 20th of March, 1077. The situation is now complicated by the strife between the two rival sovereigns. … At last, in Lent, 1080, Gregory, no longer able to tolerate the continual violation by Henry of the pledges given at Canossa, and greatly moved by tidings of his new and manifold sacrileges and cruelties, pronounces again the sentence of excommunication against him, releasing his subjects from their obedience, and recognizing Rudolph as king. Henry thereupon calls together some thirty simoniacal and incontinent prelates at Brixen, and causes them to go through the form of electing an anti-pope in the person of Guibert, Archbishop of Ravenna, an ecclesiastic some time previously excommunicated by Gregory for grave offences. Then the tide turns in Henry's favour. At the battle of the Elster (15th October, 1080), Rudolph is defeated and mortally wounded, and on the same day the army of the Great Countess is overthrown and dispersed at La Volta in the Mantuan territory. Next year, in the early spring, Henry crosses the Alps and advances towards Rome. … A little before Pentecost Henry appears under the walls of the Papal city, expecting that his party within it will throw open the gates to him; but his expectation is disappointed. … In 1082, the monarch again advances upon Rome and ineffectually assaults it. In the next year he makes a third and more successful attempt, and captures the Leonine city. … On the 21st of March, 1084, the Lateran Gate is opened to Henry by the treacherous Romans, and the excommunicated monarch, with the anti-pope by his side, rides in triumph through the streets. The next day, Guibert solemnly takes possession of St. John Lateran, and bestows the Imperial Crown upon Henry in the Vatican Basilica. Meanwhile Gregory is shut up in the Castle of St. Angelo. Thence, after six weeks, he is delivered by Guiscard, Duke of Calabria, the faithful vassal of the Holy See. But the burning of the city by Guiscard's troops, upon the uprising of the Romans, turns the joy of his rescue into mourning. Eight days afterwards he quits 'the smoking ruins of his once beautiful Rome,' and after pausing for a few days, at Monte Casino, reaches Salerno, where his life pilgrimage is to end."

W. S. Lilly, The Turning-Point of the Middle Ages (Contemporary Review, August, 1882).

Gregory died at Salerno on the 25th of May, 1085, leaving Henry apparently triumphant; but he had inspired the Papacy with his will and mind, and the battle went on. At the end of another generation—in A. D. 1122—the question of investitures was settled by a compromise called the Concordat of Worms. "Both of the contending parties gave up something, but one much more than the other; the Church shadows, the State substance. The more important elections should be henceforth made in the presence of the Emperor, he engaging not to interfere with them, but to leave to the Chapter or other electing body the free exercise of their choice. This was in fact to give over in most instances the election to the Pope; who gradually managed to exclude the Emperor from all share in Episcopal appointments. The temporalities of the See or Abbey were still to be made over to the Bishop or Abbot elect, not, however, any longer by the delivering to him of the ring and crozier, but by a touch of the sceptre, he having done homage for them, and taken the oath of obedience. All this was in Germany to find place before consecration, being the same arrangement that seven years earlier had brought the conflict between Anselm and our Henry I. to an end."

R. C. Trench, Lectures on Medieval Church History, lecture 9.

ALSO IN: A. F. Villemain, Life of Gregory VII., book 2.

W. R. W. Stephens. Hildebrand and His Times.

H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, books 6-8.

E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4.

See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 973-1122; CANOSSA; ROME: A. D. 1081-1084.

PAPACY: A. D. 1059. Institution of the procedure of Papal Election.

"According to the primitive custom of the church, an episcopal vacancy was filled up by election of the clergy and people belonging to the city or diocese. … It is probable that, in almost every case, the clergy took a leading part in the selection of their bishops; but the consent of the laity was absolutely necessary to render it valid. They were, however, by degrees excluded from any real participation, first in the Greek, and finally in the western church. … It does not appear that the early Christian emperors interfered with the freedom of choice any further than to make their own confirmation necessary in the great patriarchal sees, such as Rome and Constantinople, which were frequently the objects of violent competition, and to decide in controverted elections. … The bishops of Rome, like those of inferior sees, were regularly elected by the citizens, laymen as well as ecclesiastics. But their consecration was deferred until the popular choice had received the sovereign's sanction. The Romans regularly despatched letters to Constantinople or to the exarchs of Ravenna, praying that their election of a pope might be confirmed. Exceptions, if any, are infrequent while Rome was subject to the eastern empire. This, among other imperial prerogatives, Charlemagne might consider as his own. … Otho the Great, in receiving the imperial crown, took upon him the prerogatives of Charlemagne. There is even extant a decree of Leo VIII., which grants to him and his successors the right of naming future popes. But the authenticity of this instrument is denied by the Italians. It does not appear that the Saxon emperors went to such a length as nomination, except in one instance (that of Gregory V. in 990); but they sometimes, not uniformly, confirmed the election of a pope, according to ancient custom. An explicit right of nomination was, however, conceded to the emperor Henry III. in 1047, as the only means of rescuing the Roman church from the disgrace and depravity into which it had fallen. Henry appointed two or three very good popes. … This high prerogative was perhaps not designed to extend beyond Henry himself. But even if it had been transmissible to his successors, the infancy of his son Henry IV., and the factions of that minority, precluded the possibility of its exercise. Nicolas II., in 1059, published a decree which restored the right of election to the Romans, but with a remarkable variation from the original form. {2432} The cardinal bishops (seven in number, holding sees in the neighbourhood of Rome, and consequently suffragans of the pope as patriarch or metropolitan) were to choose the supreme pontiff, with the concurrence first of the cardinal priests and deacons (or ministers of the parish churches of Rome), and afterwards of the laity. Thus elected, the new pope was to be presented for confirmation to Henry, 'now king, and hereafter to become emperor,' and to such of his successors as should personally obtain that privilege. This decree is the foundation of that celebrated mode of election in a conclave of cardinals which has ever since determined the headship of the church. … The real author of this decree, and of all other vigorous measures adopted by the popes of that age, whether for the assertion of their independence or the restoration of discipline, was Hildebrand"—afterwards Pope Gregory VII.

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 7, part 1 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages, book 4, number 1.

PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102. Donation of the Countess Matilda.

"The Countess Matilda, born in 1040, was daughter of Boniface, Marquis of Tuscany, and Beatrice, sister of the Emperor Henry III. On the death of her only brother, without issue, she succeeded to all his dominions, of Tuscany, Parma, Lucca, Mantua and Reggio. Rather late in life, she married Guelpho, son of the Duke of Bavaria—no issue resulting from their union. This princess displayed great energy and administrative ability in the troubled times in which she lived, occasionally appearing at the head of her own troops. Ever a devoted daughter of the Church, she specially venerated Pope Gregory VII., to whom she afforded much material support, in the difficulties by which he was constantly beset. To this Pontiff, she made a donation of a considerable portion of her dominions, for the benefit of the Holy See, A. D. 1077, confirming the same in a deed to Pope Pascal II., in 1102, entituled 'Cartula donationis Comitissæ Mathildis facta S. Gregorio PP. VII., et innovata Paschali PP. II.'; apud Theiner 'Codex Diplomaticus,' etc., tom. 1, p. 10. As the original deed to Gregory VII. is not extant, and the deed of confirmation or renewal does not recite the territories conveyed, there is some uncertainty about their exact limits. However, it is generally thought that they comprised the district formerly known as the Patrimony of Saint Peter, lying on the right bank of the Tiber, and extending from Aquapendente to Ostia. The Countess Matilda died in 1115, aged 75."

J. N. Murphy, The Chair of Peter, page 235, foot-note.

See PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250.

PAPACY: A. D. 1086-1154. The succession of Popes.

Victor III., A. D. 1086-1087; Urban II., 1088-1099; Pascal 11., 1099-1118; Gelasius 11., 1118-1119; Callistus II., 1119-1124; Honorius II., 1124-1130; Innocent II., 1130-1143; Celestine II., 1143-1144; Lucius II., 1144-1145; Eugene III., 1145-1153; Anastasius IV., 1153-1154.

PAPACY: A. D. 1094. Pope Urban II. and the first Crusade. The Council of Clermont.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1094.

PAPACY: A. D. 1122-1250. Continued conflict with the Empire. The Popes and the Hohenstaufen Emperors.

"The struggle about investiture ended, as was to be expected, in a compromise; but it was a compromise in which all the glory went to the Papacy. Men saw that the Papal claims had been excessive, even impossible; but the object at which they aimed, the freedom of the Church from the secularising tendencies of feudalism, was in the main obtained. … But the contest with the Empire still went on. One of the firmest supporters of Gregory VII. had been Matilda, Countess of Tuscany, over whose fervent piety Gregory had thrown the spell of his powerful mind. At her death, she bequeathed her possessions, which embraced nearly a quarter of Italy, to the Holy See [see PAPACY: A. D. 1077-1102]. Some of the lands which she had held were allodial, some were fiefs of the Empire; and the inheritance of Matilda was a fruitful source of contention to two powers already jealous of one another. The constant struggle that lasted for two centuries gave full scope for the development of the Italian towns. … The old Italian notion of establishing municipal freedom by an equilibrium of two contending powers was stamped still more deeply on Italian politics by the wars of Guelfs and Ghibellins. The union between the Papacy and the Lombard Republics was strong enough to humble the mightiest of the Emperors. Frederic Barbarossa, who held the strongest views of the Imperial prerogative, had to confess himself vanquished by Pope Alexander III. [see ITALY: A. D. 1154-1162, to 1174-1183], and the meeting of Pope and Emperor at Venice was a memorable ending to the long struggle; that the great Emperor should kiss the feet of the Pope whom he had so long refused to acknowledge, was an act which stamped itself with dramatic effect on the imagination of men, and gave rise to fables of a still more lowly submission [see VENICE: A. D. 1177]. The length of the strife, the renown of Frederic, the unswerving tenacity of purpose with which Alexander had maintained his cause, all lent lustre to this triumph of the Papacy. The consistent policy of Alexander III., even in adverse circumstances, the calm dignity with, which he asserted the Papal claims, and the wisdom with which he used his opportunities, made him a worthy successor of Gregory VII. at a great crisis in the fortunes of the Papacy. It was reserved, however, for Innocent III. to realise most fully the ideas of Hildebrand. If Hildebrand was the Julius, Innocent was the Augustus, of the Papal Empire. He had not the creative genius nor the fiery energy of his great forerunner; but his clear intellect never missed an opportunity, and his calculating spirit rarely erred from its mark. … On all sides Innocent III. enjoyed successes beyond his hopes. In the East, the crusading zeal of Europe was turned by Venice to the conquest of Constantinople [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203], and Innocent could rejoice for a brief space in the subjection of the Eastern Church. In the West, Innocent turned the crusading impulse to the interest of the Papal power, by diverting it against heretical sects which, in Northern Italy and the South of France, attacked the system of the Church [see ALBIGENSES]. … Moreover Innocent saw the beginning, though he did not perceive the full importance, of a movement which the reaction against heresy produced within the Church. The Crusades had quickened men's activity, and the heretical sects had aimed at kindling greater fervour of spiritual life. … {2433} By the side of the monastic aim of averting, by the prayers and penitence of a few, God's anger from a wicked world, there grew up a desire for self-devotion to missionary labour. Innocent III. was wise enough not to repulse this new enthusiasm, but find a place for it within the ecclesiastical system. Francis of Assisi gathered round him a body of followers who bound themselves to a literal following of the Apostles, to a life of poverty and labour, amongst the poor and outcast; Dominic of Castile formed a society which aimed at the suppression of heresy by assiduous teaching of the truth. The Franciscan and Dominican orders grew almost at once into power and importance, and their foundation marks a great reformation within the Church [see MENDICANT ORDERS]. The reformation movement of the eleventh century, under the skilful guidance of Hildebrand, laid the foundations of the Papal monarchy in the belief of Europe. The reformation of the thirteenth century found full scope for its energy under the protection of the Papal power; for the Papacy was still in sympathy with the conscience of Europe, which it could quicken and direct. These mendicant orders were directly connected with the Papacy, and were free from all episcopal control. Their zeal awakened popular enthusiasm; they rapidly increased in number and spread into every land. The Friars became the popular preachers and confessors, and threatened to supersede the old ecclesiastical order. Not only amongst the common people, but in the universities as well, did their influence become supreme. They were a vast army devoted to the service of the Pope, and overran Europe in his name. They preached Papal indulgences, they stirred up men to crusades in behalf of the Papacy, they gathered money for the Papal use. … The Emperor Frederic II., who had been brought up under Innocent's guardianship, proved the greatest enemy of the newly-won sovereignty of the Pope. King of Sicily and Naples, Frederic was resolved to assert again the Imperial pretensions of North Italy, and then win back the Papal acquisitions in the centre; if his plan had succeeded, the Pope would have lost his independence and sunk to be the instrument of the house of Hohenstaufen. Two Popes of inflexible determination and consummate political ability were the opponents of Frederic. Gregory IX. and Innocent IV. flung themselves with ardour into the struggle, and strained every nerve till the whole Papal policy was absorbed by the necessities of the strife. …

See ITALY: A. D. 1183-1250; and GERMANY: A. D. 1138-1268.

Frederic II. died [1250], but the Popes pursued with their hostility his remotest descendants, and were resolved to sweep the very remembrance of him out of Italy. To accomplish their purpose, they did not hesitate to summon the aid of the stranger. Charles of Anjou appeared as their champion, and in the Pope's name took possession of the Sicilian kingdom.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268].

By his help the last remnants of the Hohenstaufen house were crushed, and the claims of the Empire to rule over Italy were destroyed for ever. But the Papacy got rid of an open enemy only to introduce a covert and more deadly foe. The Angevin influence became superior to that of the Papacy, and French popes were elected that they might carry out the wishes of the Sicilian king. By its resolute efforts to escape from the power of the Empire, the Papacy only paved the way for a connexion that ended in its enslavement to the influence of France."

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, volume 1, pages 18-23.

ALSO IN: T. L. Kington, History of Frederick II. Emperor of the Romans.

PAPACY: A. D. 1154-1198. The succession of Popes.

Hadrian IV., A. D. 1154-1159; Alexander III., 1159-1181; Lucius III., 1181-1185; Urban III., 1185-1187; Gregory VIII., 1187; Clement III., 1187-1191; Celestine III., 1191-1198.

PAPACY: A. D. 1162-1170. Conflict of Church and State in England. Becket and Henry II.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1216. The establishing of Papal Sovereignty in the States of the Church.

"Innocent III. may be called the founder of the States of the Church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested the Popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the Carolingian Empire the neighbouring nobles, calling themselves Papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were ousted in the Pope's name by the Normans, the Pope did not gain by the change of neighbours. Innocent III. was the first Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince. He exacted from the Imperial Prefect in Rome the oath of allegiance to himself; he drove the Imperial vassals from the Matildan domain [see TUSCANY: A. D. 685-1115], and compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognise the Papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained from the Emperor Otto IV. (1201) the cession of all the lands which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first time an undisputed title to the Papal States."

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, volume 1. page 21.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1294. The succession of Pores. Innocent III., A. D. 1198-1216; Honorius II., 1216-1227; Gregory IX., 1227-1241; Celestine IV., 1241; Innocent IV., 1243-1204; Alexander IV., 1254-1261; Urban IV., 1261-1264; Clement IV., 1265-1268; Gregory X., 1271-1276; Innocent V., 1276; Hadrian V., 1276; John XXI., 1276-1277; Nicholas III., 1277-1280; Martin IV., 1281-1285; Honorius IV., 1285-1287; Nicholas IV., 1288-1292; Celestine V., 1294.

PAPACY: A. D. 1198-1303. The acme of Papal power. The pontificates from Innocent III. to Boniface VIII.

"The epoch when the spirit of papal usurpation was most strikingly displayed was the pontificate of Innocent III. In each of the three leading objects which Rome had pursued, independent sovereignty, supremacy over the Christian church, control over the princes of the earth, it was the fortune of this pontiff to conquer. He realized … that fond hope of so many of his predecessors, a dominion over Rome and the central parts of Italy. During his pontificate Constantinople was taken by the Latins; and however he might seem to regret a diversion of the crusaders, which impeded the recovery of the Holy Land, he exulted in the obedience of the new patriarch and the reunion of the Greek church. Never, perhaps, either before or since, was the great eastern schism in so fair a way of being healed; even the kings of Bulgaria and Armenia acknowledged the supremacy of Innocent, and permitted his interference with their ecclesiastical institutions. {2434} The maxims of Gregory VII. were now matured by more than a hundred years, and the right of trampling upon the necks of kings had been received, at least among churchmen, as an inherent attribute of the papacy. 'As the sun and the moon are placed in the firmament' (such is the language of Innocent), 'the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of the night, thus are there two powers in the church—the pontifical, which, as having the charge of souls, is the greater; and the royal, which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only are intrusted.' Intoxicated with these conceptions (if we may apply such a word to successful ambition), he thought no quarrel of princes beyond the sphere of his jurisdiction. 'Though I cannot judge of the right to a fief,' said Innocent to the kings of France and England, 'yet it is my province to judge where sin is committed, and my duty to prevent all public scandals.' … Though I am not aware that any pope before Innocent III. had thus announced himself as the general arbiter of differences and conservator of the peace throughout Christendom, yet the scheme had been already formed, and the public mind was in some degree prepared to admit it. … The noonday of papal dominion extends from the pontificate of Innocent III. inclusively to that of Boniface VIII.; or, in other words, through the 13th century. Rome inspired during this age all the terror of her ancient name. She was once more the mistress of the world, and kings were her vassals."

H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 7, parts 1-2 (volume 2).

ALSO IN: J. Miley, History of the Papal States, volume 3, book 1, chapter 3.

M. Gosselin, The Power of the Pope in the Middle Ages, part 2, chapter 3.

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Reformation, introduction, chapter 1 (volume 1).

PAPACY: A. D. 1203. The planting of the germs of the Papal Inquisition.

See INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

PAPACY: A. D. 1205-1213. Subjugation of the English King John.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1205-1213.

PAPACY: A. D. 1215. The beginning, in Italy, of the Wars of the Guelfs and Ghibellines.

See ITALY: A. D. 1215.

PAPACY: A. D. 1266. Transfer of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies to Charles of Anjou.

See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1268. The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis, affirming the rights of the Gallican Church.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1268.

PAPACY: A. D. 1275. Ratification of the Donation of Charlemagne and the Capitulation of Otho IV. by Rodolph of Hapsburg.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1273-1308.

PAPACY: A. D. 1279. The English Statute of Mortmain.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1279.

PAPACY: A. D. 1294-1348. The stormy pontificate of Boniface VIII. His conflict with Philip IV. of France. The "Babylonish Captivity." Purchase of Avignon, which becomes the Papal Seat.

Boniface VIII., who came to the Papal throne in 1294, "was a man of so much learning that Petrarch extols him as the wonder of the world. His craft and cruelty, however, were shown in his treatment of Celestine V. [his predecessor], whom he first persuaded to resign the pontificate, five months after his election, on account of his inexperience in politics; and then, having succeeded to the chair, instead of letting the good man return to the cloister for which he panted, he kept him in confinement to the day of his death. His resentment of the opposition of the two cardinals Colonna to his election was so bitter, that not content with degrading them, he decreed the whole family—one of the most illustrious in Rome—to be for ever infamous, and incapable of ecclesiastical dignities. He pulled down their town of Præneste, and ordered the site to be sown with salt to extinguish it, like Carthage, for ever. This pontificate is famous for the institution of the Jubilee, though, according to some accounts, it was established a century before by Innocent III. By a bull dated 22nd February 1300, Boniface granted a plenary remission of sins to all who, before Christmas, in that and every subsequent hundredth year, should visit the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul daily, for 30 days if inhabitants of Rome, and for half that time if strangers. His private enemies, the Colonnas, Frederic of Sicily, who had neglected to pay his tribute, and the abettors of the Saracens, were the only persons excluded. The city was crowded with strangers, who flocked to gain the indulgence; enormous sums were offered at the holy tombs; and the solemnity became so profitable that Clement VI. reduced the period for its observance from 100 years to 50, and later popes have brought it down to 25. Boniface appeared at the jubilee with the spiritual and temporal swords carried before him, the bearers of which proclaimed the text,—'Behold, here are two swords.' … The pope had the pleasure of receiving a … respectful recognition from the barons of Scotland. Finding themselves hard pressed by the arms of Edward I., they resolved to accept a distant, in preference to a neighbouring, master; accordingly, they tendered the kingdom to the pope, pretending that, from the most ancient times, Scotland had been a fief of the holy Roman See. Boniface, eagerly embracing the offer, commanded the archbishop of Canterbury to require the king to withdraw his troops, and submit his pretensions to the apostolic tribunal. … Boniface got no other satisfaction than to be told that the laws of England did not permit the king to subject the rights of his crown to any foreign tribunal. His conflict with the king of France was still more unfortunate. Philip the Fair, like our own Edward I., thought fit to compel the clergy to contribute towards the expenses of his repeated campaigns. The pope thereupon issued a bull entitled 'Clericis laicos' (A. D. 1296), charging the laity with inveterate hostility to the clergy, and prohibiting, under pain of excommunication, any payment out of ecclesiastical revenues without his consent. The king retorted by prohibiting the export of coin or treasure from his dominions, without license from the crown. This was cutting off the pope's revenue at a blow, and so modified his anger that he allowed the clergy to grant a 'free benevolence' to the king, when in urgent need. A few years after (1301), Philip imprisoned a bishop on charge of sedition, when Boniface thundered out his bulls 'Salvator mundi,' and 'Ausculta fili,' the first of which suspended all privileges accorded by the Holy See to the French king and people, and the second, asserting the papal power in the now familiar text from Jeremiah [Jeremiah i. 10], summoned the superior clergy to Rome. Philip burned the bull, and prohibited the clergy from obeying the summons. {2435} The peers and people of France stood by the crown, treating the exhortations of the clergy with defiance. The pope, incensed at this resistance, published the Decretal called 'Unam sanctam,' which affirms the unity of the Church, without which there is no salvation, and hence the unity of its head in the successor of St. Peter. Under the pope are two swords, the spiritual and the material—the one to be used by the church, the other for the church. … The temporal sword is … subject to the spiritual, and the spiritual to God only. The conclusion is, 'that it is absolutely essential to the salvation of every human being that he be subject unto the Roman pontiff.' The king, who showed great moderation, appealed to a general council, and forbad his subjects to obey any orders of Boniface till it should be assembled. The pope resorted to the usual weapons. He drew up a bull for the excommunication of the king; offered France to Albert of Austria, king of the Romans, and wrote to the king of England to incite him to prosecute his war. Meantime, Philip having sent William de Nogaret on an embassy to the pope, this daring envoy conceived the design of making him prisoner. Entering Anagni [the pope's native town and frequent residence, 40 miles from Rome] at the head of a small force, privately raised in the neighbourhood, the conspirators, aided by some of the papal household, gained possession of the palace and burst into the pope's presence. Boniface, deeming himself a dead man, had put on his pontifical robes and crown, but these had little effect on the irreverent intruders. De Nogaret was one of the Albigenses; his companion, a Colonna, was so inflamed at the sight of his persecutor that he struck him on the face with his mailed hand, and would have killed him but for the intervention of the other. The captors unaccountably delaying to carry off their prize, the people of the place rose and rescued the Holy Father. He hastened back to Rome, but died of the shock a month after, leaving a dangerous feud between the Church and her eldest son."

G. Trevor, Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire, chapter 9.

"Boniface has been consigned to infamy by contemporary poets and historians, for the exhibition of some of the most revolting features of the human character. Many of the charges, such as that he did not believe in eternal life; that he was guilty of monstrous heresy; that he was a wizard; and that he asserted that it is no sin to indulge in the most criminal pleasures—are certainly untrue. They are due chiefly to his cruelty to Celestine and the Celestinians, and his severity to the Colonnas, which led the two latter to go everywhere blackening his character. They have been exaggerated by Dante; and they may be ascribed generally to his pride and violence, and to the obstinate determination, formed by a man who 'was born an age too late,' to advance claims then generally becoming unpopular, far surpassing in arrogance those maintained by the most arbitrary of his predecessors. … This victory of Philip over Boniface was, in fact, the commencement of a wide-spread reaction on the part of the laity against ecclesiastical predominance. The Papacy had first shown its power by a great dramatic act, and its decline was shown in the same manner. The drama of Anagni is to be set against the drama of Canossa."

A. R. Pennington. The Church in Italy, chapter 6.

"The next pope, Benedict XI., endeavoured to heal the breach by annulling the decrees of Boniface against the French king, and reinstating the Colonnas; but he was cut off by death in ten months from his election [1304], and it was generally suspected that his removal was effected by poison. … On the death of Benedict, many of the cardinals were for closing the breach with France by electing a French pope; the others insisted that an Italian was essential to the independence of the Holy See. The difference was compromised by the election of the archbishop of Bordeaux, a Frenchman by birth, but owing his preferments to Boniface, and an active supporter of his quarrel against Philip. The archbishop, however, had secretly come to terms with the king, and his first act, as Clement V., was to summon the cardinals to attend him at Lyons, where he resolved to celebrate his coronation. The Sacred College crossed the Alps with undissembled repugnance, and two-and-seventy years elapsed before the Papal court returned to Rome. This period of humiliation and corruption the Italian writers not inaptly stigmatise as the 'Babylonish captivity.' Clement began his pontificate by honourably fulfilling his engagements with the French. He absolved the king and his subjects. … If it be true that the king claimed … the condemnation of Boniface as a heretic, Clement had the manliness to refuse. He ventured to inflict a further disappointment by supporting the claim of Henry of Luxembourg to the empire in preference to the French king's brother. To escape the further importunities of his too powerful ally, the pope removed into the dominions of his own vicar, the king of Naples (A. D. 1309). The place selected was Avignon, belonging to Charles the Lame as count of Provence. … In the 9th century, it [Avignon] passed to the kings of Aries, or Burgundy, but afterwards became a free republic, governed by its own consuls, under the suzerainty of the count of Provence. … The Neapolitan dynasty, though of French origin, was independent of the French crown, when the pope took up his residence at Avignon. Charles the Lame was soon after succeeded by his third son Robert, who, dying in 1343, left his crown to his granddaughter Joanna, the young and beautiful wife of Andrew, prince of Hungary. … In one of her frequent exiles Clement took advantage of her necessities to purchase her rights in Avignon for 80,000 gold florins, but this inadequate price was never paid. The pope placed it to the account of the tribute due to himself from the Neapolitan crown, and having procured a renunciation of the paramount suzerainty of the emperor, he took possession of the city and territory as absolute sovereign (A. D. 1348)."

G. Trevor, Rome: from the Fall of the Western Empire, chapters 9-10.

ALSO IN: H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity, book 12 (volume 5).

J. E. Darras. History of the Catholic Church, period 6, chapter 1 (volume 3).

PAPACY: A. D. 1305-1377. The Popes of "the Babylonish Captivity" at Avignon.

The following is the succession of the Popes during the Avignon period: Boniface VIII., A. D. 1294-1303; Benedict XI., 1303-1304; Clement V., 1305-1314; John XXII., 1316-1334; Benedict XII., 1334-1342; Clement VI., 1342-1352; Innocent VI., 1352-1362; Urban V., 1362-1370; Gregory XI., 1371-1378.

{2436}

"The Avignon Popes, without exception, were all more or less dependent upon France. Frenchmen themselves, and surrounded by a College of Cardinals in which the French element predominated, they gave a French character to the government of the Church. This character was at variance with the principle of universality inherent in it and in the Papacy. … The migration to France, the creation of a preponderance of French Cardinals, and the consequent election of seven French Popes in succession, necessarily compromised the position of the Papacy in the eyes of the world, creating a suspicion that the highest spiritual power had become the tool of France. This suspicion, though in many cases unfounded, weakened the general confidence in the Head of the Church, and awakened in the other nations a feeling of antagonism to the ecclesiastical authority which had become French. The bonds which united the States of the Church to the Apostolic See were gradually loosened. … The dark points of the Avignon period have certainly been greatly exaggerated. The assertion that the Government of the Avignon Popes was wholly ruled by the 'will and pleasure of the Kings of France,' is, in this general sense, unjust. The Popes of those days were not all so weak as Clement V., who submitted the draft of the Bull, by which he called on the Princes of Europe to imprison the Templars, to the French King. Moreover, even this Pope, the least independent of the 14th century Pontiffs, for many years offered a passive resistance to the wishes of France, and a writer [Wenck], who has thoroughly studied the period, emphatically asserts that only for a few years of the Pontificate of Clement V. was the idea so long associated with the 'Babylonian Captivity' of the Popes fully realized. The extension of this epithet to the whole of the Avignon sojourn is an unfair exaggeration."

L. Pastor, History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, volume 1, pages 58-60.

PAPACY: A. D. 1306-1393. Resistance to Papal encroachments in England.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1306-1393.

PAPACY: A. D. 1314-1347. Pretension to settle the disputed election of Emperor. The long conflict with Louis of Bavaria in Germany and Italy.

See GERMANY: A. D. 1314-1347.

PAPACY: A. D. 1347-1354. Rienzi's revolution at Rome.

See ROME: A. D. 1347-1354.

PAPACY: A. D. 1352-1378. Subjugation of the States of the Church and the return from Avignon to Rome. Revolt and war in the Papal States, supported by Florence.

"Under the pontificate of Innocent VI. the advantages reaped by the Papal See from its sojourn at Avignon seemed to have come to an end. The disturbed condition of France no longer offered them security and repose. … Moreover, the state of affairs in Italy called loudly for the Pope's intervention. … The desperate condition of the States of the Church, which had fallen into the hands of small princes, called for energetic measures, unless the Popes were prepared to see them entirely lost to their authority. Innocent VI. sent into Italy a Spanish Cardinal, Gil Albornoz, who had already shown his military skill in fighting against the Moors. The fiery energy of Albornoz was crowned with success, and the smaller nobles were subdued in a series of hard fought battles. In 1367 Urban V. saw the States of the Church once more reduced into obedience to the Pope." Several motives, accordingly, combined "to urge Urban V., in 1367, to return to Rome amid the cries of his agonised Cardinals, who shuddered to leave the luxury of Avignon for a land which they held to be barbarous. A brief stay in Rome was sufficient to convince Urban V. that the fears of his Cardinals were not unfounded. … After a visit of three years Urban returned to Avignon; his death, which happened three months after his return, was regarded by many as a judgment of God upon his desertion of Rome. Urban V. had returned to Rome because the States of the Church were reduced to obedience; his successor, Gregory XI., was driven to return through dread of losing entirely all hold upon Italy. The French Popes awakened a strong feeling of natural antipathy among their Italian subjects, and their policy was not associated with any of the elements of state life existing in Italy. Their desire to bring the States of the Church immediately under their power involved the destruction of the small dynasties of princes, and the suppression of the democratic liberties of the people. Albornoz had been wise enough to leave the popular governments untouched, and to content himself with bringing the towns under the Papal obedience. But Urban V. and Gregory XI. set up French governors, whose rule was galling and oppressive; and a revolt against them was organised by Florence [1376], who, true to her old traditions, unfurled a banner inscribed only with the word 'Liberty.' The movement spread through all the towns in the Papal States, and in a few months the conquests of Albornoz had been lost. The temporal dominion of the Papacy might have been swept away if Florence could have brought about the Italian league which she desired. But Rome hung back from the alliance, and listened to Gregory XI., who promised to return if Rome would remain faithful. The Papal excommunication handed over the Florentines to be the slaves of their captors in every land, and the Kings of England and France did not scruple to use the opportunity offered to their cupidity. Gregory XI. felt that only the Pope's presence could save Rome for the Papacy. In spite of evil omens—for his horse refused to let him mount when he set out on his journey—Gregory XI. left Avignon; in spite of the entreaties of the Florentines Rome again joyfully welcomed the entry of its Pope in 1377. But the Pope found his position in Italy to be surrounded with difficulties. His troops met with some small successes, but he was practically powerless, and aimed only at settling terms of peace with the Florentines. A congress was called for this purpose, and Gregory XI. was anxiously awaiting its termination that he might return to Avignon, when death seized him, and his last hours were embittered by the thoughts of the crisis that was now inevitable."

M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation, introduction, chapter 2 (volume 1).

ALSO IN: H. E. Napier, Florentine History, book 1, chapter 26 (volume 2).

See, also, FLORENCE; A. D. 1375-1378.

PAPACY: A. D. 1369-1378. Dealings with the Free Company of Sir John Hawkwood. Wars with Milan, Florence and other states.

See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1393.

{2437}

PAPACY: A. D. 1377-1417. Election of Urban VI. and Clement VII. The Great Western Schism. Battle in Rome and siege and partial destruction of Castle St. Angelo. The Council of Pisa. Forty years of Popes and Anti-Popes.

"For 23 years after Rienzi's death, the seat of the Papal Court remained at Avignon; and during this period Rome and the States of the Church were harried to death by contending factions. … At last Gregory XI. returned, in January, 1377. The keys of the Castle St. Angelo were sent to him at Corneto; the papal Court was re-established in Rome; but he survived only about a year, and died in March, 1378. Then came the election of a new Pope, which was held in the Castle St. Angelo. While the conclave was sitting, a crowd gathered round the place, crying out, 'Romano lo volemo'—we will have a Roman for Pope. Yet, notwithstanding this clamour, Cardinal Prignani, Archbishop of Bari, and a Neapolitan by birth, was finally chosen, under the title of Urban VI.—[this being an intended compromise between the Italian party and the French party in the college of Cardinals]. When Cardinal Orsini presented himself at the window to announce that a new Pope had been elected, the mob below cried out, 'His name, his name!' 'Go to St. Peter's and you will learn,' answered the Cardinal. The people, misunderstanding his answer, supposed him to announce the election of Cardinal Tebaldeschi, who was arch-priest of St. Peter's, and a Roman by birth. This news was received with great joy and acclamation," which turned to rage when the fact was known. Then "the people … broke in to still fiercer cries, rushed to arms, and gathering round the conclave, threatened them with death unless a Roman was elected. But the conclave was strong in its position, and finally the people were pacified, and accepted Urban VI. Such, however, was the fear of the Cardinals, that they were with difficulty persuaded to proceed to the Vatican and perform the ceremonies necessary for the installation of the new Pope. This, however, finally was done, and the Castle was placed in the charge of Pietro Guntellino, a Frenchman, and garrisoned by a Gallic guard, the French Cardinals remaining also within its walls for safety. On the 20th of September they withdrew to Fondi, and in conjunction with other schismatics they afterwards [September 20, 1378] elected an anti-Pope [Robert of Geneva] under the title of Clement VII. Guntellino, who took part with them, on being summoned by Urban to surrender the Castle, refused to do so without the order of his compatriots, the French Cardinals at Avignon. Meantime the papal and anti-papal party assaulted each other, first with citations, censures, and angry words, and then with armed force. The anti-papal party, having with them the Breton and Gascon soldiery, and the Savoyards of the Count of Mountjoy, the anti-Pope's nephew, marched upon the city, overcame the undisciplined party of the Pope, reinforced the Castle St. Angelo, and fortified themselves in the Vatican, ravaging the Campagna on their way. The papal party now besieged the Castle, attacking it with machines and artillery, but for a year's space it held out. Finally, on the 28th of April, 1379, the anti-papal party were utterly routed by Alberico, Count of Palliano and Galeazzo, at the head of the papal, Italian, and imperial forces. Terrible was the bloodshed of this great battle, at which, according to Baronius, 5,000 of the anti-papal army fell. But the Castle still refused to surrender," until famine forced a capitulation. "The damage done to it during this siege must have been very great. In some parts it had been utterly demolished, and of all its marbles not a trace now remained. … After the surrender of the Castle to Urban, such was the rage of the people against it for the injury it had caused them during the siege, that they passed a public decree ordering it to be utterly destroyed and razed to the earth. … In consequence of this decree, an attempt was made to demolish it. It was stripped of everything by which it was adorned, and its outer casing was torn off; but the solid interior of peperino defied all their efforts, and the attempt was given up."

W. W. Story, Castle St. Angelo, chapter 5.

"Urban was a learned, pious, and austere man; but, in his zeal for the reformation of manners, the correction of abuses, and the retrenchment of extravagant expenditure, he appears to have been wanting in discretion; for immediately after his election he began to act with harshness to the members of the Sacred College, and he also offended several of the secular princes. Towards the end of June, 12 of the cardinals—11 Frenchmen and one Spaniard—obtained permission to leave Rome, owing to the summer heats, and withdrew to Anagni. Here, in a written instrument, dated 9th August, 1378, they protested against the election, as not having been free, and they called on Urban to resign. A few days later, they removed to Fondi, in the kingdom of Naples, where they were joined by three of the Italians whom they had gained over to their views; and, on the 19th of September, the 15 elected an antipope, the French Cardinal Robert of Cevennes [more frequently called Robert of Geneva], who took the name of Clement VII. and reigned at Avignon 16 years, dying September 16, 1394. Thus there were two claimants of the Papal throne—Urban holding his court at Rome, and Clement residing with his followers at Avignon. The latter was strong in the support of the sovereigns of France, Scotland, Naples, Aragon, Castile, and Savoy; while the remainder of Christendom adhered to Urban. Clement was succeeded by Peter de Luna, the Cardinal of Aragon, who, on his election, assumed the name of Benedict XIII., and reigned at Avignon 23 years—A. D. 1394-1417. This lamentable state of affairs lasted altogether 40 years. Urban's successors at Rome, duly elected by the Italian cardinals and those of other nations acting with them, were: Boniface IX., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1389-1404; Innocent VII., a native of Sulmona, A. D. 1404-1406; Gregory XII., a Venetian, A. D. 1406-1409; Alexander V., a native of Candia, who reigned ten months, A. D. 1409-1410; and John XXIII., a Neapolitan, A. D. 1410-1417. … Although the Popes above enumerated, as having reigned at Rome, are now regarded as the legitimate pontiffs, and, as such, are inscribed in the Catalogues of Popes, while Clement and Benedict are classed as anti-popes, there prevailed at the time much uncertainty on the subject. … In February, 1395, Charles VI. of France convoked an assembly of the clergy of his dominions, under the presidency of Simon Cramandus, Patriarch of Alexandria, in order, if possible, to terminate the schism. The assembly advised that the rival Pontiffs, Boniface IX. and Benedict XIII., should abdicate. {2438} The same view was taken by most of the universities of Europe," but the persons chiefly concerned would not accept it. Nor was it found possible in 1408 to bring about a conference of the two popes. The cardinals, then, of both parties, withdrew support from the factious pontiffs and held a general meeting at Leghorn. There they agreed that Gregory XII. and Benedict XIII. had equally lost all claim to obedience, and they resolved to convoke, on their own authority "a General Council, to meet at Pisa, on the 25th of March, 1409. Gregory and Benedict were duly informed thereof, and were requested to attend the council. … The Council of Pisa sat from March 25th to August 7th, 1409. There were present 24 cardinals of both 'obediences,' 4 patriarchs, 12 archbishops, 80 bishops, 87 abbots; the procurators of 102 absent archbishops and bishops, and of 200 absent abbots; the generals of 4 mendicant orders; the deputies of 13 Universities …; the representatives of over 100 cathedral and collegiate chapters, 282 doctors and licentiates of canon and civil law; and the ambassadors of the Kings of England, France, Poland, Bohemia, Portugal, Sicily, and Cyprus." Both claimants of the Papacy were declared unworthy to preside over the Church, and forbidden to act as Pope. In June, the conclave of cardinals assembled and elected a third Pope—one Peter Filargo, a Friar Minor, who took the name of Alexander V., but who died ten months afterwards. The cardinals then elected as his successor Cardinal Cossa, "a politic worldly man, who assumed the name of John XXIII." But, meantime, Germany, Naples and some of the other Italian States still adhered to Gregory, and Benedict kept the support of Scotland, Spain and Portugal. The Church was as much divided as ever. "The Council of Pisa … only aggravated the evil which it laboured to cure. Instead of two, there were now three claimants of the Papal Chair. It was reserved for the General Council of Constance to restore union and peace to the Church."