A SHORT time after the death of Sylvester II. a patrician, consuls,
twelve senators, a prefect, and popular assemblies, were seen to
re-appear at Rome. A second Crescentius, the son perhaps of the first,
filled the prefectorial office. As to the patrician, who was named John,
and who was the principal author of the reestablishment of this civil
magistracy, he is expressly designated to us as son of the first
Crescentius. But in 1013, Henry II. came to Rome: he received from Pope
Benedict VIII. the imperial crown: and the Romans, in spite of their
menaces, lost once more their independence. Baronius¹³⁴ relates a
diploma in which Henry confirms the donations of his predecessors: it is
added that Benedict, before receiving this emperor, made him swear that
he would be faithful to the pope, and regard himself only as the
defender and advocate of the Roman Church. Glaber,¹³⁵ a contemporary
historian, after having related this coronation, says, that it appears
very reasonable, and a thing well established, that no prince could take
the title of emperor, ‘save he whom the pope shall have chosen and
clothed with the insignia of this dignity:’ words which seem much less
to express in this place the sentiment of an individual than an opinion
generally established in his time.
¹³⁴ Ann. Eccles. ad ann. 1014. vol. 9, p. 48.
¹³⁵ Hiclor, 1. l, c. ult.
However Mabillon¹³⁶ and Muratori¹³⁷ deny the authenticity of the
diploma instanced by Baronius; and we see that in 1020, when Benedict
VIII. resorted to Henry in Germany, this prince confirmed the donations
of his predecessors with an express reservation of the imperial
sovereignty.
John XIX. the successor of Benedict, was banished by the Romans, and
restored by the Emperor Conrade, in 1033, whom he had crowned in 1027.
After John, who survived his re-establishment but a short time, his
nephew was elected pope, and took the name of Benedict IX. when he,
according to Glaber,¹³⁸ was but ten years of age.
¹³⁶ Annal. Bened. ann. 1014.
¹³⁷ Annals of Italy, year 1014, vol. 6, p. 45.
¹³⁸ Lib. 4, c. 6,1. 6, c. 6.
The elevation of an infant to the pontifical throne is not probable; but
all circumstances concur in proving that Benedict IX. was in 1033 but a
very young man: he bore to the chair of St. Peter the thoughtlessness
and irregularities of youth; and he was equally reproached for his
robberies and assassinations as for his gallantries. Behold how he is
pouryrayed to us by Victor III. one of his successors and
contemporaries¹³⁹ :
¹³⁹ J Dialo. 1: 3, In app. Chron. Cassin. vol. 1.
“I am horrified to state how shame−
“ful was the life which Benedict led, how dissolute, how
“detestable. Therefore I shall commence my rela−
“tion at the period when God took pity on his holy
“church. After Benedict IX. had wearied the Romans
“with his thefts, his murders, his abominations, the
“excess of his villainy became insupportable; he
“was expelled by the people: and to replace him
“they elected for a stipulated price, in contempt of
“the holy canons, John, Bishop of Sabine, who filled
“the Holy See for three months only, under the
“name of Sylvester in. Benedict IX. who was de−
“scended from the Consuls of Rome, and whom a
“powerful party recalled, wasted the environs of the
“city, and by the aid of his soldiers, compelled
“Sylvester to retire ignominiously to his bishoprick
“of Sabine. Benedict in resuming the tiara, did not
“leave behind him his manners, always hateful to the
“clergy, and to the people, whom his irregularities
“continued to disgust; terrified with the outcry
“raised against his crimes, given up besides to volup−
“tuous pleasures, and more disposed to live as an
“Epicurean than as a pontiff, he adopted the re−
“solution of selling the pontificate to the arch−
“priest John, who paid him a considerable sum
“for it. This John nevertheless passed in the city
“for one of the best of the ecclesiastics; and while
“Benedict took up his abode in houses of pleasure,
“John under the name of Gregory VI. governed the
“church two years and three months, till the arrival
“of Henry III., king of Germany.”
Such is the picture drawn for us by a pope, of the condition of the Holy
See, under three popes, his predecessors, from 1033 to 1046.
It may be proper to observe, that Benedict the VIII. his brother John
XIX. and their nephew, Benedict IX. were of the house of the Alberics
counts of Tusculum. This is one of the first examples of pontifical
nepotism, or of the efforts of a family to perpetuate itself in the Holy
See.
We have seen by the statement of Victor III. that in 1045, there existed
at the same moment three popes; to wit, Benedict IX. who had retired to
his castle; Sylvester III. exiled to his original bishopric; and Gregory
VI. seated at Rome, since 1044. This last pontiff, who had purchased his
place, wished to reap its fruits, and could not behold them without
grief considerably lessened from the loss of many domains, usurped by
seculars from the Holy See. He took up arms to reconquer them, without
neglecting, however, the excommunication of their possessors. These were
the principal acts of his pontifical court. He is represented to us, as
a very ignorant man, even for the age in which he fired; it is doubtful
whether he could read;¹⁴⁰ and history relates, that a coadjutor was
given him to perform the pastoral functions, while he was signalizing
himself by warlike exploits.
¹⁴⁰ Amolice Angerius de Viti Pontificum, p. 340.
At the moment of Henry’s arrival, at Rome, the three popes were there,
Benedict IX. at the palace of the Lateran, Sylvester III. at the
Vatican, and Gregory VI. or John his coadjutor, at Saint-Mary-Major.
Henry deposed the whole three without any difficulty, and caused a
fourth to be elected, Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, who took the name of
Clement II. To this Clement succeeded Damasius II.
Leo IX. and Victor II. all like himself, the creatures of Henry III. The
ten years of this emperor’s reign, are one of the epochs during which
the Romans and the popes have been most decidedly subject to the
imperial power.
Leo IX. the relative and subject of Henry, indemnified himself for that
obedience which he could not refuse to this emperor, by acts of
authority against other sovereigns. He held a council at Rheims in
defiance of the King of France, Henry I. proclaimed in it the pontifical
supremacy, and deposed and excommunicated prelates and seculars. In a
council at Rome, he decreed that the females whom the priests should
abuse in the bosom of this city, should remain slaves of the palace of
the Lateran.¹⁴¹ This pontiff, whom they have placed in the catalogue of
saints, should rather have obtained a place in the rank of warriors. He
led an army against the Normans, who defeated him, and kept him prisoner
at Beneventum. His ponticate is memorable from the completion of the
schism of the Greek church; but the religious discussions which belong
to the history of this schism, exceed the limits of our subject: the
principal political result of this division was, to extinguish the
already very feeble influence of the Emperors of the East over the
affairs of Italy.
¹⁴¹ Fleury’s Eccles. Hist 1. 59, n. 75.
’Tis under Leo IX. that Hildebrand begins to be distinguished, a man the
most celebrated of his age. Born in Tuscany, where his father, they say,
was a carpenter, he studied in France, embraced the monastic rule there,
and returned into Italy to give counsel to Leo IX. Nicholas II. and
Alexander II. and finally to succeed them in the pontifical throne. The
idea of a universal theocracy had assumed in his fiery and iron soul the
character of a passion; all his life was devoted to the undertaking. To
assure the empire of the priesthood over the rest of mankind, he saw the
necessity of reforming their manners and concentrating their relations,
to isolate them more strictly, and to form them into one great family,
the members of which should no longer recollect having belonged to a
secular one. Ecclesiastical celibacy was as yet but a general practice,
introduced into and renewed in almost every church, but in almost all,
nevertheless, modified by exceptions or transgressions. Hildebrand
resolved to reduce it to a rigorous law: at his instigation, Stephen IX.
in 1058 declared marriage incompatible with the priesthood; treated as
concubines all the priest’s wives; and excommunicated both them and
their husbands, if the union was not instantly divided. The clergy made
some resistance; the priests of Milan, especially, objected the
permission granted them by St. Ambrose to marry, but in first nuptials
only, and provided it was with a virgin.¹⁴² Hildebrand to cut these
remonstrances short, classed in the number of heretics the obstinate
gain-sayers.¹⁴³
¹⁴² Landolph Senior. Hist Mediol. 1. 3. et 4;—Rer. Italic. t. 4, p.
96, See.—Cocio. Hist, of Milan, pa. 1, b. 6, &C.
¹⁴³ Baron. Ann. Leoies. ad ann. 1069.
Under Nicholas II. Hildebrand changed the mode of electing the popes.
Until his time, all the Romans, clergy, nobles, and people, had assisted
in these elections. It was ruled that for the future they should be
selected by the cardinal bishops alone, to whom the cardinal clerks
should afterwards be united, and they were to close the matter by
demanding the approbation of the rest of the clergy, and even that of
the body of the faithful. The cardinal bishops are no others than the
seven bishops of the Roman territory: Nicholas, in the same decree calls
them his fellow countrymen, “comprovinciales episcopi.¹⁴⁴ With respect
to the cardinal priests or clerks, it was those who administered the
offices of the twenty-eight principal churches of the city of Rome. Long
before Nicholas, these twenty-eight priests and these bishops, had been
designated by the appellation of ‘cardinals’; but now for the first
time, behold them invested with the exclusive and determinate privilege
of nominating the new popes: the rest of the clergy and the people
preserve no more than the power of rejecting the proposed. Such was the
origin of the Electoral College of Cardinals; a college, however, which
received subsequently, and by degrees, its present organization. It had,
as we see, for its first founder, Nicholas II. or rather Hildebrand. Let
us not omit the clause which terminates this decree:¹⁴⁵
¹⁴⁴ Mabillon. Mus. Italic, v. 2. p. 114.—Fra. Pagi. Breviar. Pontif.
Roman, vol. 2, p. 374.—Thomassin. Dicipl. vet. et nor. 1.2, c.
lid, 116.—Muratori. de origine Cardinalatus. Ant Ital. v. 6. p.
156.
¹⁴⁵ Concilior. tom. 9. p. 11,36.—Fleury Hiat.Eccles. 1.60 n 31.
‘saving the honour and respect due to king Henry,
‘future emperor, to whom the Apostolic See has given
‘the personal privilege of concurring in the election
‘by consent.’
The rights of the emperor were as yet too firmly founded to permit being
silent on them: they satisfy themselves by misrepresenting them, and by
referring to them as a concession granted by the Holy See, as a personal
privilege with which it was pleased to gratify Henry.
In founding ecclesiastical benefices, kings and nobles had reserved to
themselves the right of appointing to them; none could possess them
until after they had been invested by the donor or his heirs. It was a
simple application of the feudal system to ecclesiastical domains; but
the Court of Rome complained of the bad selection to which this system
led, and especially of the bargains which were driven between the
patrons and the candidates. A vast number of benefices were disposed of
no doubt: but this traffic has subsisted under every regime; the
question never has been other than that of knowing for whose benefit it
should be earned on. Hildebrand armed himself with a sanctified zeal
against this abuse: to extinquish it, he ventured to dictate for
Nicholas II. a decree, which prohibited the acceptance of a benefice
from a layman, even gratuitously.¹⁴⁶ This decree, published in 1059, in
the same council which confined to the cardinals the election of the
popes, presented itself under the form of a special rule against simony.
Little attention was at first given to it, it was rarely carried into
effect; but we are bound to point it out here as the prelude to the
quarrels about investitures.
¹⁴⁶ Baronins. Ann. ecclea. ad. ann. 1069, 5,32,34.
For a long period, kings and nobles had invested prelates in presenting
them with a switch or branch, as is practised in the investiture of
counts and knights. But the clergy, from the tenth century, had more
than once thought to deprive the patrons of benefices of their
privileges, by proceeding without delay to the election and consecration
of the prelate. It seemed allowed on all sides, that the consecration
rendered the election irrevocable: and if the patron layman had been
advertised of neither one nor the other, he lost the opportunity of
bestowing or selling the dignity. To escape this stratagem, the
sovereigns decreed that, immediately after the death of a prelate, the
ring and crozier should be transferred to his successor only in
investing him. Adam de Breme¹⁴⁷ refers to the reign of Louis le
Débonnaire this form of investiture: but it is infinitely more probable,
that it was not introduced until under Otho the Great, after the middle
of the tenth century: it was almost universally established in the
eleventh.¹⁴⁸ Hildebrand promised to himself its abolition, firstly,
because it secured to laymen the right of nomination or of sale, and
further, as it caused two symbols of the ecclesiastical power to pass
through the hands of the profane.
¹⁴⁷ Hist, eccles. 1.1. n. 2.
¹⁴⁸ Humbert 1.3. contra Simonaicus c. 7 et 11.
Far from reconciling himself to the continuance of a ceremony, in which
the secular authority seemed to confer sacerdotal offices, he pretended,
on the contrary, to erect the head of the church into the supreme
dispenser of temporal crowns. From the year 1059, he made, in the name
of Nicholas II. the first essay of this system. Nicholas received the
homage of the Romans, and created one of their chiefs Duke of Apulia
Calabria and Sicily, on condition that as vassal of the Apostolic See,
this chief, named Robert Guiscard, should take to the Roman Church the
oath of fidelity, pledge himself in the same character to pay it an
annual tribute, and enter into the same engagement for his
successors.¹⁴⁹ Such was the origin of the kingdom of Naples; and this
strange concession stripped the emperors of Constantinople of every
remnant of sovereignty over Grecia Major. Nicholas II. died in 1063; and
to elect and instal his successor Alexander II. the imperial consent was
in no way sought for. The court of Henry IV. then a minor, was offended,
and caused another to be nominated pope, Cadaloo, who named himself
Honorous II. Cadaloo defeated the army of Alexander, and succeeded in
fixing himself in the Vatican; but the duke of Tuscany drove him thence:
Alexander was recognised as the true pontiff, and Hildebrand continued
to reign.
¹⁴⁹ Baronins. Ann. eccles. ad ann. 1060.—Muratori’s Annals of Italy
vol. 6. p. 106.
Hildebrand did not sit in person in St. Peter’s chair until 1073. We may
be surprised he did not sooner occupy it; some authors think the pride
and inflexibility of his character indisposed the electors towards him:
to us it appears more than probable that he in fact did not aspire to
become pope, provided the pope became the sovereign of kings; for were
he ambitious of the tiara, if he had desired, as he was capable of
desiring it, how easily had he triumphed, since the year 1061, or even
previously, over some feeble resistance. It was to the unlimited
aggrandizement of the pontifical power, much rather than to his personal
elevation, his opinions and character impelled him. We perceive in his
conduct none of the manœuvering which private interest suggests: it
evinces all the outlines of an inflexible system, the integrity of which
is never permitted to be compromised by concession or compliance. His
zeal, which was not merely active but daring, obstinate and
inconsiderate, proceeded from an incurable persuasion. Hildebrand would
have been the martyr of theocracy, if circumstances had called for it;
and they were little short of it. Like all rigid enthusiasts, he
considered himself disinterested, and became without remorse, the
scourge of the world. Without doubt, interest is the spring of human
actions: but the success of an opinion is an interest too; and to
sacrifice thereto every other, has been in all ages the destiny of some.
There are those who, cautious of troubling their neighbours, compromise
only their own happiness; these are the more excusable, as it is perhaps
to truth they offer so pure and so modest a sacrifice. Others, like
Hildebrand, think to acquire by the privations they impose upon
themselves, the privilege of terrifying and tormenting nations: and
their melancholy errors cost the world a train of misfortunes.
There are attributed to Gregory VII. the papal name of Hildebrand,
twenty seven maxims which compose a complete declaration of the temporal
and spiritual supremacy of the Roman Pontiff,¹⁵⁰ comprising in it the
right of dethroning princes, disposing of crowns, and reforming all
laws. It is not very certain whether or not he really drew up or
dictated these articles; but the substance of them and their
developement will be found in his authenticated letters: they may be
entitled “The Spirit of Hildebrand;” they were the rule of his conduct,
the creed which he professed, and would have wished to impose on
Christendom. In them it is expressly stated that the pope has never
erred, and that he never can fall into any error; that he alone can
nominate bishops, convoke councils, preside over them, dissolve them;
that princes should stoop and kiss his feet; that by him subjects may be
loosed from their oaths of fidelity; and in a word that there is no name
upon earth but that of the pope.
¹⁵⁰ Dictalus Papæ. Concilior vol. 10 p. 110—Baron. Ann. eccles. ad
ann. 1076, sec. 24. De Marca. 1.7, c. 26.8. 9.
With reason has it been remarked how very much circumstances favoured
the designs of Hildebrand. Since the death of Otho the Great, the German
Empire had done nothing but weaken itself; Italy was divided into petty
states; a young king governed France; the Moors ravaged Spain; the
Normans had just conquered England; the northern kingdoms, newly
converted, were ignorant of the bounds of the pontifical authority, and
were to set the example of docility.
When Gregory VII. saw William the Conqueror established in England, he
did not hesitate prescribing to him to render homage for his kingdom to
the Apostolic See.¹⁵¹ This strange proposition had for its pretext, the
alms which the English had paid for about two centuries to the Roman
Church, and which was called Peter’s pence. The Conqueror, replied that
perhaps the alms would be continued, but it therefore did not follow,
that homage should be demanded of those from whom he received charity.
William at the same time forbad the English from going to Rome, and
prohibited them acknowledging any other pope than him whom he should
approve. This trifling affair had no other consequence; and we only
mention it in this place as it evinces better than any other, that
Gregory knew not how to fix any bounds to the pretensions of the Holy
See. Perhaps he imagined that the newness of William’s power in England
might incline him to wish for the protection of Rome, and make him
willing to purchase it by an act of vassalage: but it was evincing a
very false idea of the state of this conqueror’s affairs, his power, his
character, and his ascendancy over his new subjects. The least
reflection would have diverted Gregory from so ridiculous a step,
shameful because useless.
¹⁵¹ Fleury Hist. Ecclea. 1. 62, n. 63.
Sardinia, Dalmatia, Russia, were in Gregory’s eyes but fiefs which
ornamented the tiara. “On behalf of St. Peter,” thus he writes to
Demetrius the Russian prince, “we have given your crown to your son, who
receives it from our hands in taking the oath of fidelity to us.” We
must mention the names of all the princes who reigned in this pope’s
time, in order to fill up the catalogue of those whom he threatened or
struck with his excommunications: Nicephoros Bonotiate, the Greek
emperor, whom he enjoined to abdicate his crown¹⁵² ; Boleslaus, king of
Poland, whom he declared deprived of his authority, and added that
Poland should be no longer a king-dom¹⁵³ ; Solomon, king of Hungary,
whom he sent to learn from the old men of his country, that it belonged
to the Roman church¹⁵⁴ ; the Princes of Spain, to whom he stated that
St. Peter was supreme and sovereign lord of their states and domains,
and that it would be preferable that Spain should fall into the hands of
the Saracens, than cease to render homage to the vicar of Jesus
Christ¹⁵⁵ ; Robert Guiscard, his vassal, whose slightest neglect he
punished with anathemas¹⁵⁶ ; the Duke of Bohemia, of whom he exacted a
tribute of a hundred marks of silver: Philip I. king of France, whom he
affected to subject to similar exactions, and whom he denounced to the
French bishops as a tyrant plunged into infamy and crime, who deserved
not the name of a monarch, and of whom they would render themselves the
accomplices, if they did not rigorously resist him.
¹⁵² Concil. Rom. ann. 1078.
¹⁵³ Dngloss. Hist. Polon. 1. 3. 295.
¹⁵⁴ Gregor. Epist 1. 2, ep. 13, 23.—Fleury Hist. Ecoles* L62,n. 9.
¹⁵⁵ Fleury Hist eccles. 1. 62. a 9.
¹⁵⁶ Greg. Epist 1. 1, 26, 26, 62, 67.—Fleury, 1. 62. n. 9.
“Imitate, says he to them, the Roman Church your mother; sepa−
“rate yourselves from the service and communion of
“Philip, if he remain obstinate; let the celebration of
“the holy offices be interdicted throughout all France;
“and know that, by God’s assistance, we shall deliver
“this kingdom from such an oppressor.”
But of all the sovereigns of Europe, the emperor Henry IV. who had the
principal influence in Italian affairs, was, on this account, the most
exposed to the thunderbolts of Hildebrand.¹⁵⁷
¹⁵⁷ Greg. Epist. 1. 2. ep. 6.—Fleury 1. 62. n. 16.
Against so many potentates, and especially against Henry IV. Gregory had
no other support, no other ally, than an Italian princess, with little
talent, but much devotion, this was Matilda, countess of Tuscany. She
possessed for him a generous and tender friendship; he addressed to her
also, as a spiritual director, extremely affectionate letters; she lived
unhappily with Godfrey-le-Bossu, her first husband: from this
circumstance, and others, rash inductions have been drawn not supported
by any positive fact.¹⁵⁸ It is not the tender passions we can reproach
Hildebrand with; and the ascertained consequences of the connexion with
Matilda, belong only to the history of the pontifical ambition.
This princess gave all her possessions to the Holy See, and three
distinct monuments have been cited of this famous liberality. The first
act, subscribed by her in 1077, has not been found. The second, which
she signed twenty-five years later, when Hildebrand no longer lived, is
preserved at Rome;¹⁵⁹ and a will is also spoken of, which is not
forthcoming, but which they say, confirms the two preceding donations.
There exist indeed some difficulties, respecting these three acts: why
has the first been allowed to go astray? wherefore do historians say, it
was signed at Canossa, while it is referred to in the second, as having
been subscribed at Rome? And this second deed itself, which so
completely divests the giver, which reserves to her only some life
enjoyments, how reconcile it with the extensive domains with which she
continued to enrich monks and canons, from the year 1102, to 1115? Why
not publish her will, which had, perhaps, explained these apparent
contradictions? To all these questions we shall reply, that the act of
1102 subsists; that it expressly renews that of 1077; and that of all
the donations of which the Holy See hath availed itself, that of Matilda
is undoubtedly the best authenticated as well as the richest.
¹⁵⁸ Apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clarius con-stabat falsa
esse quae dicebantur. Nam et papa tam ésimié tamqne apostolicè
vitam instituebat, ut nec minimum sinistri rumoris maculum
conversations ejus sublimitas admitteret; et illâ in urbe
celiberrimâ atque in tantâ obsequentium fire-quentiâ, obscœnum
aliquid perpetrans, latere nequaquam potu-isset. Signa etiam et
prodigia quae per orationes papœ frequen-tiùs fiebant, et zelus
ejus ferventissimus linguas communie bant.—Lambert Schafur. ad
ann. 1177. This chronicler attributes, as we see, to Gregory, the
gift of miracles, and concludes from it that his commerce with
Matilda was irreproachable. “Nevertheless, says the Jesuit
Maimbourg, as the world, from a certain malignity attached to it,
has a greater ’penchant’ for believing the evil than the good,
especially with persons of some reputation for virtue, this
commerce failed not to be of bad effect, and tended to blacken his
character of Gregory at this period.”
¹⁵⁹ Diss. of St Marc. p. 1231. 1316 of v. 4. of Ab. Hist, of Italy.
In truth, the emperor Henry V. the heir of this Countess, made himself
master of all she had been possessed of, and which reverted at a later
period to the Court of Rome; but, with time, the popes have secured a
part of this inheritance, and have termed it the Patrimony of St. Peter:
they are indebted for it to the cares of Gregory VII.
Heniy IV. had obtained a victory over the Saxons, when he was addressed
by two legates, who communicated to him the order, to appear at Rome, in
order to reply to the accusations brought against him: it related to
investitures granted by him, ‘by the cross and ring;’ it was requisite
to obtain pardon, or submit to an excommunication¹⁶⁰ Henry, although he
despised the menace, thought proper to give the pope some trouble in the
city of Rome: a tumult took place, and Gregory was seized, struck,
imprisoned, and ransomed. The effect of this ill-treatment was to cast
an interest on the person of the pontiff, and to prepare him against a
more serious vengeance. The emperor in a council at Worms, deposed
Gregory, who, too confident of the inefficacy of such a decree, replied
to it by the following:¹⁶¹
“On the part of the Almighty God, and of my full
“authority, I forbid Henry, the son of Henry, to
“govern the kingdom of the Teutons and Italy:
“I absolve all Christians from the oaths they have
“taken, or shall hereafter take to him; and all per−
“sons are forbidden to render him services as a “king.”
¹⁶⁰ Lamb. Schaf. ad ann. 1074.—Life of Gregory VII. ap. Bell. t. 17.
p. 148.
¹⁶¹ Concilior. vol. 10. p. 366. Here is, according to Otho of
Freisingen, the first example of the deposition of a king by a
pope. Lego et relego Roma norum regum et imperatorum gestu, èt
nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hune à Romano pontifice
excommunicatum vel regno privatum. Otho. Fies. Chron. 1. 6, c.
35.— Quanta autem mala, quotbella, bellorumque discriminia, inde
subsecuta sunt? Quoties misere Eoma obscessa, capta rastata? Ibid.
c. 36.
We would willingly discredit it, but it is proved that these extravagant
words, snatched from the monarch the fruit of all his victories. The
civil war was again kindled in the centre of Germany; an army of
confederates was assembled near Spires, surrounded Henry, opposed to him
the sentence of the pope, and made him pledge himself to forbear the
exercise of his power, until the decision, to be pronounced at
Augsburgh, between him and the pope, in a council over which the latter
was to preside.
To prevent this last decision, Henry determined to seek pardon of
Hildebrand; he found him in the fortress of Canossa, where the pontiff
was shut up with his countess Matilda. The prince presented himself
without guard, and without retinue: stopped in the second enclosure, he
suffered himself to be stripped of his vestments and clothed in
sackcloth. With naked feet, in the month of January 1077, he awaited in
the midst of the court the Holy Father’s reply. This reply was, that he
should fast three days before he could be permitted to kiss Hildebrand’s
feet; and at the end of three days, they would be willing to absolve and
receive him, under the promise of a perfect submission to the
forthcoming decision of Augsburgh. Gregory might have foreseen that this
excess of pride and tyranny would disgust the Italians, by whom he was
already detested. His power had this disadvantage in their eyed, that it
was not beheld at a sufficient distance. Lombardy armed itself in behalf
of Henry, whom the Germans deserted; and while Germany elected another
emperor Italy chose another pope.¹⁶²
Rodolphus duke of Swabia having been nominated emperor, Gregory
excommunicated Henry once more. “I take the crown from him he said, and
give the Teutonic kingdom to Rodolph.” He even made a present to the
latter of a crown, round which was to be seen an indifferent latin
verse, of which here follows a translation. “La Pierre a donne a Pierre,
et Pierre donne a Rodolphe le diademe.”¹⁶³ Peter, a stone, has given to
Peter, and Peter gives to Rodolph a diadem. At the same time Henry
elevated to the papacy Guibert the archbishop of Ravenna, and assembled
an army against Rodolph. In vain Gregory prophesied that Heniy would be
vanquished, would be exterminated before St. Peter: it was Rodolph who
fell; he was killed in a skirmish by Godfrey of Bouillon, nephew of
Matilda. Henry marched down on Rome: after a long seige, he took it by
assault; and Gregory shut up in the mole of Adrian, continued to
excommunicate the conqueror.
¹⁶² Henry’s Eccles. Hist. 1074, 1080, 1. 62 and 63.
¹⁶³ Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rodolpho.
It will be perceived that the pun is perfect only in the French, the
English is wholly incapable of it.
The commotions which were prolonged in Germany, compelled Henry to make
frequent journies. During the siege of Rome, and after his entrance into
this capital, he quitted it more than once. Robert Guiscard took
advantage of one of these occasions to deliver Gregory, but still more
to ravage and pillage the city: he burned one quarter, which has since
remained almost deserted, that between St. John de Lateran and the
Coliseum, and reduced to slavery a great number of the inhabitants. This
was the most memorable result to the Romans, and the most lasting to
this pontificate¹⁶⁴
Hildebrand, borne away by the Normans to Salerno, terminated his career
there the 24th of May, 1085, excommunicating Henry to the last, with the
antipope Guibert, and their adherents¹⁶⁵ So lived and so died Gregory
VII., whose name, under Gregory XIII., was inscribed in the Roman
martyrology, to whom Paul V. decreed the honours of an annual
festival¹⁶⁶ and for whom Benedict XIII. in the 18th century, challenged
the homage of all Christendom: but we shall see the parliaments of
France oppose this design with an efficacious resistance.
¹⁶⁴ Vita Greg. 7, édita à Card. Arrag. p. 313.—Landulph Sen. I. 3, c.
3, p. 120.—Rer. Jtal. vol. 5, p. 587.
¹⁶⁵ Pauli. Beruried. Vit. Greg. VII. c. 110, p. 348.—Sigeb. Chron.
ann. 1085.
¹⁶⁶ Fleury’s Eccles. Hist. 1. 63, a. 25.—Act. Sonet. Bell. 25. maii.
It is deserving of greater reprehension than Gregory himself merited,
the canonization, after five hundred years of study and experience, of
his deplorable wanderings. For the excuse cannot be alleged in favour of
his panegyrists that his enterprises may find in his enthusiasm, his
ignorance, and the thick darkness of his age. Pasquier,¹⁶⁷ with too
much reason describes him as:
“one of the boldest
“combatants for the Roman See, who forgot nothing,
“whether of arms, of the pen, or by censures, of what
“he conceived to tend to the advantage of the Papacy
“or disadvantage of Sovereigns.”
The audacious Gregory VII. had a timid successor in Victor III. It is
from him we have borrowed the words at the commencement of this chapter,
to depict some of the preceding popes. Victor III. filled scarcely for a
year the pontifical chair. He confirmed, however, in a council at
Beneventum, the decrees passed against investitures.
¹⁶⁷ Researches on France, 1. 3. c. 7.
Urban II. who succeeded him, was during ten years a more worthy
successor of Hildebrand: he instigated against Henry, Conrade, the
eldest son of this emperor, encouraged this ungrateful son to calumniate
his father, and recompensed him by crowning him king of Italy.
Christendom was then divided between Urban II. and Guibert, who had
taken the name of Clement III. and whom Henry IV. re-established in Rome
in 1091. Urban till 1096 travelled in France and Northern Italy. Philip,
king of France, repudiating his Queen Bertha, had married Bertrade:
Philip was excommunicated in his own States by Urban, his born subject,
to whom he had given an asylum¹⁶⁸ But these journies of the pontiff are
especially celebrated by the preaching up of the first crusade.
Hildebrand had conceived¹⁶⁹ the earliest idea of these distant
expeditions, which were, in aggrandizing the church, to diminish the
power of the Greek emperors, or compel them to return under the
domination of the Holy See. He beheld in them an opportunity of
regulating at once all the movements of the Christian princes, of
establishing himself judge of all the quarrels which might arise among
them, to divert them from the Government of their States, and to augment
by their absence the habitual influence of the clergy over all kinds of
affairs. The pilgrimages to the Holy Land became under Gregory VII. more
frequent than they had previously been: the recitals of the pilgrims
were one day to provoke a general movement. This day did not arrive till
Urban’s time: a man named Cucupietre, called Peter the Hermit, made to
the pope a lamentable recital of the vexations which the Christians
experienced in Palestine; he implored on their behalf powerful succours
against the Musselmans. Urban dispatched Peter to all the princes and
churches of Italy, France, and Germany; and after leaving the preacher
time sufficient to spread his enthusiasm among the people of these
countries, the crusade was finally proposed in a council or assembly at
which the pope presided, in an open plain not far from Placentia. There
were collected upwards of thirty thousand laics alone, independent of
prelates and priests: the expedition projected was universally
applauded, but it was applauded alone; no one as yet assumed the cross.
Urban had better success in France; the crusade was resolved on at
Clermont, in an assembly at which he presided and harangued. They
exclaimed “’Tis the will of God;” and these words became the device of
the crusaders, the number of whom encreased beyond measure. The military
history of this expedition does not concern us: we have only to observe,
that the first act of this army was to re-establish ‘en-passant’ pope
Urban, in the city of Rome, at the end of the year 1096. Henry, driven
from Italy by the troops of the Countess Matilda, retired to Germany.
Urban did not die till 1099; and the pontificate of his successor Pascal
II. belongs principally to the twelfth century.
¹⁶⁸ Velly’s Hist, of France, v. 2, p. 493.
¹⁶⁹ Fleury. Hist. Eccles. 1. 62. n. 14.
The age which we have passed over, ought to remain for ever famous in
the history of the popes. If they are not yet recognized as sovereigns,
if their temporal power has not yet been declared independent, it in
effect rivals and threatens the throne which ought to govern it. Already
the Two Sicilies had become fiefs of the Holy See; the donations of
Matilda have extended, over almost all Middle Italy, the rights or
pretensions of the court of Rome. But what signify the limits and the
nature of these temporal possessions, when the spiritual authority no
longer recognizes restriction, when the gospel ministry transforms
itself into a universal theocracy, which brands, curses, deposes kings,
and disposes of their crowns. One man alone, it is true, had fully
conceived this tremendous system; but the opinions, of which the
ignorance of this man, as well as his contemporaries, was composed,
encouraged his undertakings, however monstrous, and political
circumstances promised him success from them. New dynasties had arisen
in France, England, and other countries: the French emperors, threatened
in their own palaces, had lost every remnant of authority in Italy: it
was sufficient to humble the Emperor of the West; he alone
counterbalanced in Europe the weight of the Holy See. In attacking him
one might reckon on the support or neutrality of other monarchs; they
were jealous of his preponderance: Rome in humiliating them, disposed
them to reconcile themselves to it by the spectacle of more serious
outrages reserved for their head; they childishly rejoiced in the great
share he should have in the common humiliation. They turn, in the mean
time, against him, the old or new factions which troubled Germany; they
redouble their insolence and their power by the thunder of the anathemas
with which they struck him; and if so many efforts did not overthrow
him, at least, they staggered and weakened him. Such was the war waged
by Hildebrand, against Heniy IV. the first at the period, or as we may
term him, the only representative of the civil power in the West. In
bequeathing this war to his successors, Hildebrand vanquished as he was,
had pointed out the object, traced the plan, and tempered the arms.¹⁷⁰
There had needed to complete his work, perhaps, in the course of the
following century, but two or three successors of his inflexible
enthusiasm. Giannone accuses him of having forged the Donations of
Constantine, Pepin, Charlemagne, and Louis-le-Debonnaire. We have seen
the first of these donations adduced in the eighth century;¹⁷¹ the rest
are mentioned by writers anterior to the eleventh: all these acts were
spoken of before Gregory’s time: at the most he could only have arranged
the texts more categorically, and more favourable to his pretensions. It
is certain, that no means adopted for the establishment of pontifical
tyranny would have alarmed his conscience: the most efficacious,
therefore, appeared to him the most laudable; and, if some of his
proceedings, judged of after the events, seem to us equally imprudent
and violent, we should reflect that so enormous an enterprise could only
be accomplished by audacity in the extreme.
¹⁷⁰ Giannone’s Hist, of Italy. 1.10, c. 6.
¹⁷¹ Ibid. p. 12.