The movement was
headed by a deacon Ariald, a vavassor by birth and a canonist by
training, an idealist, inspired by visions of the primitive Church and
the simple teaching of Christ : contrasting these with the example of
priests whose life could teach but error.
headed by a deacon Ariald, a vavassor by birth and a canonist by
training, an idealist, inspired by visions of the primitive Church and
the simple teaching of Christ : contrasting these with the example of
priests whose life could teach but error.
Cambridge Medieval History - v5 - Contest of Empire and the Papacy
Then they gathered together in Tuscany and consulted at leisure
on another choice. In the end they settled on a Burgundian, Gerard
Bishop of Florence, a sound and not too self-willed prelate of excellent
repute, favoured by Duke Godfrey and not likely to take a line of his
own. Besides the help of Godfrey the approval of the Empress Agnes
was sought. Even in Rome itself there was a party against Benedict,
headed by Leo de Benedicto Christiano", a rich citizen, son of a Jewish
convert, influential in the Trastevere and in close touch with Hildebrand;
they sent a deputation to the Empress Agnes at Augsburg, pleading that
the election of Benedict had been due to force. As a result Duke Godfrey
was ordered to lead the cardinals' nominee to Rome. Gerard was elected
at Siena, probably in December 1058, by the cardinals, together with
high ecclesiastics and nobles, and chose the name of Nicholas II6. His old
see he kept until his death. Then an approach was made towards Rome;
a synod was held at Sutri. Leo de Benedicto opened the Trastevere
1 On the election and date see Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1133 sqq.
? The invective of Peter Damian against him judges after the election. For it
see Watterich, 1, pp. 204-5.
3 Less probably in Germany itself. But see Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1134, note 2.
4 In war against Ancona he was helped by a papal excommunication of the
opposing citizens. Thus the Papacy was useful to him. Peter Damian did not
approve this action of the Pope (Ep. 1, 7). See Langen, 111, pp. 528–9.
5 From his son Peter his descendants were known as the Pierleoni. On him see
Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI, pp. 23 sqq. ; he was probably connected by
marriage with Hildebrand's mother.
6 For an election near 6 December (St Nicholas' Day), the choice of name was
natural. Martens wrongly assumes a reference to Nicholas I. A Pope chose his
own name, from the time of John XVI (983) whose baptismal name was Peter (see
Poole, EHR, XXXII, pp. 459 sqq. ).
CH. 1.
342
## p. 36 (#82) ##############################################
36
Nicholas II
to them, and Benedict X fled for a few days to Passarano and thence
to Galeria, where for three months he was besieged by the Normans under
Richard of Aversa. Nicholas was enthroned on 24 January 1059; and
the captured Benedict was deposed, stripped of his vestments, and
imprisoned in the hospitium of the church of Sant' Agnese! His name
was long left in the papal lists, and he was not an anti-Pope in the ordinary
sense until Nicholas II was elected. The choice of Gerard had removed
the election of a Pope from the purely Roman sphere to one of wider
importance, and the alliance with the Normans, brought about by the
help of Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino, gave the Pope a support
independent of the Empire or Rome. In all these negotiations Hilde-
brand played a great parts. In the interval between his enthronement
and the Easter Council, Nicholas visited Spoleto, Farfa, and Osimo, and
at the last place on 6 March 1059 appointed Desiderius as cardinal.
In Italy, after the Easter Council at Rome, he held a Council at Melfi,
where decrees on clerical celibacy were repeated stringently, and the
famous peace was made with the Normans. Then he returned to Rome,
accompanied by a Norman army, and the papal sovereignty was enforced.
The Norman alliance, and the celebrated decree on papal elections, worked
together, and a new era began.
A great Council of 113 bishops was held on 14 April 1059 at the
Lateran”. Earlier decrees had broadly regulated the election of a Pope:
Stephen III (769) and Stephen IV (862–3) had anathematised anyone
contesting an election made by priests, prelates, and the whole clergy of
the Roman Church. Otto I had renewed the settlement of Lothar I (824),
by which the election was to be made by the whole clergy and nobility
of the whole Roman people, canonically and justly, but the elect was not
to be consecrated until he had taken the oath to the Emperor. The
normal canonical form was prescribed, but disorderly nobles, imperial
pressure, civic riots, and simony, had tampered with Rome even more than
other churches. The German Popes had brought reform but at the price
of ecclesiastical freedom.
The Election Decree of 1059 has come down to us in two forms, known
1 The final scene of his condemnation may belong to the winter of 1059 or the
Easter Council of 1060. For details see Meyer von Knonau, 1, pp. 177-8 and note 13.
2 On this point see Poole, Names and Numbers of Medieval Popes, EHR, xxxii,
pp. 465 and 473–4. Benedict's name has now disappeared from the official list.
3 Yet the views of Hauck, op. cit. ui, pp. 680–1 seem to me to go too far.
4 See infra, Chapter iv, pp. 174 sq.
5 A discussion of the literature with bibliography in Meyer von Knonau, Jahr-
bücher, 1, Excursus vii, pp. 678 sqq. ; Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1139, note 2; Hauck,
op. cit. III, p. 683, note 4. Also A. Werminghoff, Verfassungsgeschichte der
deutschen Kirche im Mittelalter (in Aloys Meister, Grundriss der Geschichtswissen-
schaft); Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, in, p. 503, note 3; J. v. Pfugk-
Harttung, Die Papstwahlen und das Kaisertum (1046–1328), in ZKG, XXVII, pp.
283 sqq.
## p. 37 (#83) ##############################################
Election Decree of 1059
37
as imperial and papal respectively. The latter is now generally accepted,
and the former is held to have been falsified by Guibert, then Imperial
Chancellor for Italy and afterwards Archbishop of Ravenna and anti-Pope
as Clement III'. The business of election was, in the first place, to be
treated of by the cardinal-bishops. Then they were to call in firstly the
cardinal-clerics, and secondly the rest of the Roman clergy and the people.
To prevent simony, the cardinal-bishops, taking the place of a metro-
politan, were to superintend the election, the others falling in after them.
The elect should be taken from the Roman Church, if a suitable candidate
were found; if not, from another Church. The honour due to Henry, at
present king and as it is hoped future Emperor, was reserved as conceded
to him, and to such of his successors as should have obtained in person
the same right from the apostolic throne. If a pure, sincere, and volun-
tary election could not be held in Rome, the cardinal-bishops with the
clergy and catholic laity, even if few, might hold the election where they
were gathered together. If the enthronement had to be postponed by
reason of war or other evil, the Pope-elect might exercise his powers as
if fully Pope. Anyone elected, consecrated, or enthroned contrary to this
decree was to be anathematised.
The imperial form differed from the papal form summarised above in
giving the Emperor a place with the cardinals as a body in leading the
election; it does not diftinguish the cardinal-bishops from the others,
and it does not mention the rest of the clergy or the people. If an election
were not possible in Rome, it might be held where the electors chose, in
agreement with the king. The differences lie rather in the way in which
the king is brought into the election than in the reservation of the im-
perial rights, which is much the same in both forms, and the cardinal-
bishops are not given the rights of a metropolitan; and the imperial
form mentions the mediation of Guibert, Chancellor of Italy and im-
perial representative. The changes seem to be made less on general
principles than to suit a special case, and if due to Guibert this is what
we might expect.
The decree was not strictly kept, but the place given to the cardinals,
who were now growing into a College, was significant for the future. Its
details had reference to the past election; judged by its standard, the
election of Nicholas was correct and that of Benedict was not. But it
laid stress on the special place of the Papacy, and in the papal form at
1 The papal form (from the Vatican MS. 1994) in MGH, Constitutiones, 1. pp.
539 sqq. , Watterich, 1, p. 229, and Mirbt, p. 140. The imperial form in MGH,
Constitutiones, 1, pp. 542 sq. and Mirbt, p. 141, note 2. Both forms conveniently in
Bernheim, Quellen zur Geschichte des Investiturstreites, 1, pp. 12 sqq. , followed by the
announcements to Christendom at large, to the West Franks, and to the Pro-
vince of Amalfi. These agree more closely with the papal form. The papal form
was preserved by the Canonists and in the Conciliar collections. For the later
falsification by Guibert see Watterich, 1, p. 233, note 1. The papal form agrees with
Peter Damian's comment.
сн. І.
## p. 38 (#84) ##############################################
38
Simoniacal ordinations
any rate it threw aside all imperial influence before assent to the accom-
plished act. It remained to be seen whether this freedom could be
maintained.
Other matters were also dealt with in the Council. Berengar appeared
and made a profession of faith dictated by Cardinal Humbert. The
regulation of the papal election was announced as a matter of European
importance, as indeed it now was, and here the cardinal-bishops are
mentioned expressly; the decree on celibacy was strict, and for those clerks
who obediently observed chastity the common canonical life was enforced.
In this detail we have a trace of the discussion already mentioned". No
clerk or priest was to obtain a church either gratis or for money through
laymen. No one was to hear a mass said by an unchaste priest: the
precedent of this canon was to be followed later under Alexander II and
Gregory VII. Laymen were not to judge or expel from their churches
clerks of any rank. The boldness of this canon may be compared with a
more hesitating grant in 1057 to the clergy of Lucca that none of them
should be taken to secular judgment. The fuller treatment of simonist
ordinations and simony of all kinds belongs to the synods of 1060 and
1061? The upshot of conciliar activity under Nicholas II was to crystal-
lise the former campaign for celibacy into definite decisions, backed by
the whole power of the Papacy and the Curia. What had before been
tentative was now fixed. Opinion was consolidated, and policy was cen-
tralised, not only about celibacy but also about simonists. If those who
had been ordained by simonists in the past were allowed to keep their
orders and their offices, thus conforming to the policy of Peter Damian
at Milan, it was lest the Church should be left without pastors. But
for the future there was to be no hesitation, and the correspondence of
the Popes with Gervais of Rheims (a see carefully watched as in pre-
vious reigns) illustrates the carrying out of the policy.
The Council at Rome (1060) decreed that for the future anyone or-
dained without payment by a simonist bishop should remain in his order
if he was open to no other charge; this decision was made not on principle
but from pity, as the number affected was so great. It was not to be taken
as precedent by following Popes; for the future, however, anyone ordained
by a bishop whom he knew to be a simonist should be deposed, as should
the bishop also. Thus a long-standing difficulty was for the time disposed
of. Reforming councils in France at Vienne and Tours, held under the
legate Cardinal Stephen, made stringent decrees against simony, marriage
1 See supra, p. 13 and note 1.
2 Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1169. See also for canons of 1060 Bernheim, Quellen,
pp. 22 sq.
3 Jaffé-Löwenfeld, Reg. , passim (some 20 letters].
4 For the views of Nicholas on reordination see Saltet, Les Réordinations,
pp. 198–9, and A. Fliche, Les Prégrégoriens, Paris, 1916, p. 246. Decision on the
crucial point was avoided.
## p. 39 (#85) ##############################################
Milan
39
of priests, and alienation of church property or tithes under legal form.
Abbot Hugh of Cluny did the same at Avignon and Toulouse! . But
it was now more a matter of enforcing decrees already made than issuing
new. In Italy some bishops found it difficult to publish reforming decrees,
and in some cases did so with risk of violence.
It has been noted as strange that in such a remarkable reign we hear
little about the character of the Pope himself. The predominance of the
cardinals partly explains it: Humbert, Peter Damian, and Hildebrand
(now archdeacon) were not always in accord, and it was for Nicholas to
balance conflicting views and policies. He was the president of the
College rather than its director. Like other Popes Nicholas kept his old
bishopric, and like them too he was often absent from Rome, which was
not without its drawbacks, as the English bishops, robbed by the Count
of Galeria, found out. But we breathe an air of greater largeness in his
Papacy, and things seem on a larger scale.
Nicholas died suddenly near Florence on 27 July 1061, returning from
an expedition in southern Italy. The Election Decree was to be tested.
The Norman alliance, and still more the Election Decree, had affected
the delicate relations of Pope and Emperor? During the minority of
Henry IV, matters had been allowed to slide, and when attention was at
length given to them the barometer registered a change of atmosphere.
So great was the irritation in Germany that the name of Nicholas was
left out in intercessions at mass; legates from Rome met with bad re-
ceptions.
Meanwhile events in Milan' had taken a decisive turn for papal and
ecclesiastical history. In position, in wealth, in traditions, both political
and ecclesiastical, the city of St Ambrose was a rival of Rome, and
hitherto it had proudly kept its independence. Aribert's opposition to
the Emperor Conrad had shewn the power of the archbishop; and if an
enemy to the Empire were to rule there, imperial influence would be
weakened. This Henry III understood. On Aribert's death in 1045
Guido was appointed. Class distinctions were strongly marked, and the
new archbishop belonged not to the barons but to the vavassors; in
strength and in reputation he was undistinguished, and Bonizo with his
usual exaggeration calls him “vir illiteratus et concubinatus et symonia-
cus,” but concubinage he was not guilty of. He was not the man for a
difficult post, still less the man to lead reform. He valued more the
traditions of St Ambrose as a rival of Rome than as a teacher of
1 For France, Langen, in, pp. 524–5. R. Lehmann, Forschungen zur Geschichte
Abtes Hugo I von Cluny, Göttingen, 1869, pp. 88-9. Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1199 sqq.
Nicholas was, as Langen has noted, specially interested in France, as a Burgundian
might be. It may be mentioned that in later years his enemies spread a rumour
that his birth was irregular.
? See Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher, 1, Excursus viii, pp. 684 sqq. Hefele-
Leclercq, iv, pp. 1209 sqq. Hauck, op. cit. , pp. 700-1, especially note 5.
3 For Milan cf. infra, Chapter v, pp. 217 sqq.
CH. 1.
## p. 40 (#86) ##############################################
40
Milan and clerical celibacy
righteousness. In Italy as a whole the poor were more devoted to the
Church than the rich (who tended to have their own chapels), and they
were keen to criticise the lives of their spiritual teachers; outbursts of
violence against unworthy priests had not been rare in Milan. But these
had been isolated acts; what mattered more was that the Milanese
Church had settled down into a worldly, possibly respectable, but certainly
unspiritual life of its own. It was content to breathe the air around it
but did nothing to revive or purify it, although the clergy were numerous
as the sands of the sea” and the churches were rich. For the most part
the clerks were married, and so the Church was deeply intertwined in the
social state. Sale of Church offices was common, and there was a recognised
scale of charges for orders and for preferments. It was certain that
reformers would find much to complain of; so long had the growth of
secularisation gone on that, even with a more placid populace, reform when
it came was likely to become revolution.
About 1056 the new streams of thought and new ideals began to flow
around the hitherto firm footing of the clergy.
The movement was
headed by a deacon Ariald, a vavassor by birth and a canonist by
training, an idealist, inspired by visions of the primitive Church and
the simple teaching of Christ : contrasting these with the example of
priests whose life could teach but error. He began his campaign in the
villages where he was at home; then, when his hearers pleaded their
simplicity and urged him to go to Milan, where he would find men of
learning to answer him, he took their advice. In the city he found allies
ready to help although starting from a different point-Landulf, who
was in minor orders, and (later on) his brother Erlembald, of the Cotta
family, both gifted with eloquence, ambitious, and thorough demagogues.
The movement soon became political and social as well as religious, owing
to the social standing of those they attacked. With these two worked
Anselm of Baggio, one of the collegiate priests, whom Guido persuaded
the Emperor to appoint to the see of Lucca (1056 or 1057). Guido,
appointed by Henry III who had misjudged his character, was himself a
simonist, and his arguments that clerical marriage was an ancient custom
in Milan, that abuse and violence were evil ways of reproving offenders,
that the clergy were not immoral but for the most part respectable married
men, and that abstinence was a grace not given to all and was not imposed
by divine law, had small effect. In other cities, Pavia and Asti for
instance, the populace rose against their bishop, and Milan was moved
in the same way. Landulf worked in the city ; Ariald carried on the
campaign in the surrounding villages whose feudal lords were citizens
of the town. And Anselm brought the movement into touch with the
wider circle of reformers at Rome and elsewhere. Landulf's eloquence
soon filled the poorer citizens with hatred of the clergy, with contempt
for their sacraments, and a readiness to enforce reform by violence. The
undoubted devotion of the leaders, enforced by their eloquence in sermons
## p. 41 (#87) ##############################################
Milan and simony
41
and speeches, soon made them leaders of the populace. The use of nick-
names-Simonians and Nicolaitans-branded the clerical party ; that of
Patarines brought in class distinctions, and those to whom it was given
could claim like Lollards in England the special grace of simple men. On
the local festival of the translation of St Nazarius a riot broke out, and
the clergy were forced to sign a written promise to keep celibacy. They
had to choose between their altars and their wives. Their appeal to the
archbishop, who took the movement lightly, brought them no help. The
nobles for some reason or other took as yet no steps to help them. The
bishops of the province when appealed to proved helpless, and in
despair the clerks appealed to Rome, probably to Victor II. His care for
the Empire made the Pope anxious to keep order. He referred the
matter to Guido, and bade him call a provincial synod, which he did at
Fontaneto in the neighbourhood of Novara (1057). Arials and Landulf
were summoned, but, in their scornful absence, after three days they were
excommunicated. Although this synod had been called, its consequences
fall in the pontificate of Stephen IX, who is said to have removed
the ban from the democratic leaders. The movement had become, as
democratic movements so easily do, a persecution with violence and
injury? Guido's position was difficult and in the autumn (1057) he
went to the German Court.
But the movement now took a new and wider turn; not only clerical
marriage but simony, the prevalent and deeply-rooted evil of the city,
was attacked. A large association, sworn to reach its ends, was formed.
The new programme affected Guido, equally guilty with nearly all his
clergy. It was of small avail that now the higher classes, more sensitive
to attacks on wealth than on ecclesiastical offences, began to support the
clergy; the strife was only intensified. In the absence of Guido, and with
new hopes from the new Pope, Ariald went to Rome and there complained
of the evils prevalent at Milan. It was decided to send a legate, and
Hildebrand on his way to the German Court made a short stay at Milan
(November 1057). He was well received ; frequent sermons did something
to control the people already roused. But his visit wrought little change,
and it was not until Damianº and Anselm came as legates that anything
1 The chronology is difficult and doubtful. That adopted by Meyer von Knonau
(Jahrb. 1, especially Excursus v, pp. 669 sqq. ) seems best. It is not certain whether
the Milanese clergy appealed to Victor II or Stephen IX; Arnulf says the latter,
but the former is more probable. For the chronology see also Hefele-Leclercq, iv,
pp. 1126 sqq.
2 The legateship is best dated early in 1059 before the Easter Synod at Rome.
We have Damian's own account addressed to Hildebrand, Archdeacon. Hence a
difficulty, for Hildebrand was not Archdeacon until autumn 1059. But Damian
speaks of his having been asked by Hildebrand to put together matters bearing on
Roman supremacy; the account was probably meant in that sense as a record of an
important decision. For other arguments in favour of this date see Hefele-Leclercq,
I, p. 1191, note 2; Meyer von Knonau, 1, p. 127, note 17. Hauck, 1, p. 696, note
1, holds the date as good as certain.
CH. I.
## p. 42 (#88) ##############################################
42
The vacancy on Nicholas II's death
was done. Damian persuaded Guido to call a synod, and here, at first to
the anger of the patriotic Milanese, the legate presided. It seemed a slur
upon the patrimony and the traditions of St Ambrose; even the democratic
reformers were aghast. It was then that Damian, faced by certain violence
and likely death, shewed the courage in which he never failed. With no
attempt at compromise, with no flattery to soothe their pride, he spoke
of the claims of St Peter and his Roman Church to obedience. Milan was
the daughter, the great daughter of Rome, and so he called them to sub-
mission. It was a triumph of bold oratory backed by a great personality;
Guido and the whole assembly promised obedience to Rome. Then
Damian went on with his inquest; one by one the clerics present confessed
what they had paid, for Holy Orders, for benefices, and for preferment.
All were tainted, from the archbishop to the humblest clerk. Punishment
of the guilty, from which Damian was not the man to shrink, would have
left the Church in Milan without priests and ministers of any kind. So
the legate took the course taken by Nicholas II in his decree against
simonists (1059). Those present, beginning with the archbishop, owned
their guilt, and promised for the future to give up simony and to enforce
clerical celibacy. To this all present took an oath. Milan had fallen into
line with the reformers, and in doing so had subjected itself to Rome.
Bonizo, agreeing with Arnulf on the other side, is right in taking this
embassy as the end of the old and proud independence of Milan. When
Guido and his suffragans were summoned to the Easter Council of 1059 at
Rome some Milanese resented it. But the archbishop received absolution
and for some six years was not out of favour at Rome.
The unexpected death of Nicholas II was followed by a contested
election and a long struggle. Both the Roman nobles and the Lombard
bishops wished for a change but knew their need of outside help. At
Rome Gerard of Galeria, whose talents and diplomacy were typical of
his class, was the leader; he and the Abbot of St Gregory on the Caelian
were sent to the German Court, and they carried with them the crown
and insignia of the Patrician. The Lombard bishops, with whom the
Chancellor Guibert worked, met together and demanded a Pope from
Lombardy-the paradise of Italy-who would know how to indulge
human weakness. Thus civic politics at Rome and a reaction against
Pataria and Pope worked together; the young king Henry acted at the
impulse of Italians rather than of Germans; the latter had reason for
discontent, but the imperial nominee was not their choice and their
support was somewhat lukewarm. Henry met the Lombard bishops (some
of whom Peter Damian thought better skilled to discuss the beauty of a
woman than the election of a Pope) and the Romans at Basle on
28 October 1061, and, wearing the Patrician's crown which they had
brought, invested their elect, Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, who chose the
name of Honorius II", "a man rich in silver, poor in virtue” says Bonizo. .
1 There is some conflict of evidence, especially as to the part played by the
## p. 43 (#89) ##############################################
Alexander II and Honorius II
43
Meanwhile the cardinal-bishops and others had met outside Rome, and,
hastening when they knew of the opposition, elected, 30 September 1061,
Anselm of Baggio, the Patarine Bishop of Lucca! It was a wise choice
and likely to commend itself; there could be no doubt as to the ortho-
doxy or policy of this old pupil of Lanfranc at Bec, tested at Milan and
versed in Italian matters; at the same time he was in good repute at the
German Court and a friend of Duke Godfrey. Desiderius of Monte
Cassino carried a request for military help to Richard of Capua, who
came and led Alexander II to Rome. Some nobles, especially Leo de
Benedicto Christiano (" of the Jewish synagogue,” says Benzo), influenced
the Trastevere, but there was much fighting and Anselm was only taken
into the Lateran at night and by force. He was consecrated on 1 October
1061, and like his predecessors kept his old bishopric.
Cadalus found his way to Rome blocked by Godfrey's forces, but in
Parma he gathered his vassals, and could thus march on. But another
help was of greater use. Benzo, Bishop of Alba in Piedmont, was sent
by the Emperor as his ambassador to Rome; he was a popular speaker
with many gifts and few scruples; his happy if vulgar wit was to please
the mob and sting his opponents; he was welcomed by the imperialists
and lodged in the palace of Octavian. Then he invited the citizens, great
and small, and even Alexander with his cardinals, to a popular assembly.
The papal solemnity had little chance with the episcopal wit. “ Asinan-
drellus, the heretic of Lucca,” and “his stall-keeper Prandellus," as Benzo
calls the Pope and Hildebrand, were worsted in the debate; Cadalus
was able to enter Rome on 25 March 1062, and a battle on 14 April
in the Neronian Field after much slaughter left him victor. But he could
not gain the whole city, and it was divided into hostile camps. Honorius
hoped for help from Germany, and he was negotiating with Greek envoys
for a joint campaign against the Normans. But after the arrival of
Duke Godfrey there came an end to the strife; both claimants were to
withdraw to their former sees until they could get their claims settled
at the German Court. Honorius was said to have paid heavily for the
respite, but Alexander could rest easy as to his final success.
Alexander was not without some literary support. Peter Damian from
his hermitage wrote to Cadalus two letters, fierce and prophetic—the
second addressed “To Cadalus, false bishop, Peter, monk and sinner,
wishes the fate he deserves”: he had been condemned by three synods ;
he had broken the Election Decree; his very name derived from cado
raós was sinister, he would die within the year ; the old prophet believed
German bishops. A summary of references in Hefele-Leclerq, iv, p. 1217, note 1.
The part played by Henry corresponds to the imperial falsification of the Election
Decree of 1059 (clause 6).
1 An election outside Rome was provided for in the Election Decree, and Peter
Damian expressly mentions the presence of the cardinal-bishops, a mention which
supports the papal form of the Election Decree.
CH. I.
## p. 44 (#90) ##############################################
44
Victory of Alexander II
the prophecy fulfilled by the excommunication, the spiritual death, of
Honorius within the year. At the same time he was writing treatises on
the episcopal and clerical life. At this time, too, he wrote his well-known
Disceptatio Synodalis, a dialogue between champions of the Papacy and
the Empire; it is not, as was once supposed, the record of an actual
discussion, but a treatise intended to influence opinion at the assembly
called at Augsburg, 27 October 1062, to settle the papal rivalry. But he
was an embarrassing ally? : his letters to Henry and Anno of Germany, if
full of candid advice, laid overmuch stress on the royal rights, and
Alexander and Hildebrand were displeased. Damian, perhaps ironically,
begged the mercy of his “Holy Satan. ”
It was the practical politics of the day, and not theories or arguments,
which turned the balance at Augsburg and elsewhere in favour of Alex-
ander. The abduction of the twelve-year-old boy at Kaiserswerth (April
1062) and his guardianship by Anno of Cologne, first alone and then with
Adalbert, changed affairs. The Empress Agnes, who had taken the veil
about the end of 1061, withdrew from politics. The German episcopate,
weak, divided, and never whole-hearted for the Lombard Honorius,
turned towards Alexander. The Synod of Augsburg, led by Anno, declared
for Alexander and so gained commendation from Damian; "he had smitten
off the neck of the scaly monster of Parma. ” Before the end of 1062
Alexander moved towards Rome, and before Easter 1063 Godfrey
supported the decision of Augsburg; the inclination of Anno and his
position of Imperial Vicar led him to Rome. At the Easter Synod
Alexander acted as already and fully Pope. As a matter of course he
excommunicated Cadalus, and repeated canons against clerical marriage
and simony; the faithful were again forbidden to hear mass said by guilty
priests.
But the opposition was not at an end, so the irrepressible Benzo again
led Cadalus to Rome in May 1063; they took the Leonine City, Sant'
Angelo, and St Peter's, but his seat was insecure. His supporters and his
silver dwindled together; the castle was really his prison until he bought
freedom from his jailor Cencius with three hundred pounds of silver ;
with one poor attendant he escaped to the safer Parma.
Then at Whitsuntide, probably in 1064, he met the Council at
Mantua attended by German and Italian prelates. Anno (“the high-
priest” Benzo calls him) stated candidly the charges against Alexander.
Alexander on oath denied simony, and on the question of his election
without Henry's leave or approval satisfied the assembly. Everyone
1 His letters to Cadalus, Epp. 1, 20, 21 (MPL, CXLIV); to Henry IV, VII, 3;
to Anno, 11, 6; to Hildebrand, clearing himself, 1, 16.
2 The year is taken as 1064, 1066, and 1067 by various writers. The arguments
are most clearly discussed in Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1237 sqq. See also Meyer
von Knonau, 1, p. 375, note 19. Benzo's account with its alternate swoonings of
Beatrice and Anno has a touch of drama.
## p. 45 (#91) ##############################################
Reform under Alexander II
45
present may not have looked at the Council in the same way, but all
were glad to settle the disputed succession. On the second day a mob of
Cadalists attacked the gathering. Only the appearance of Beatrice of
Tuscany with a small force saved the Pope's life; some bishops fled.
Cadalus was excommunicated, and Alexander could safely go to Rome.
But his city was still not a pleasant seat. Benzo did not give up hope and
in 1065 visited the German Court; even up to 20 April 1069 Honorius
signed bulls as Pope.
The remaining years of Alexander's pontificate can be summarised.
The Norman vassals or allies of the Pope soon deserted him; Richard
of Capua ravaged Campania and approached Rome, probably anxious to
be made Patrician. Duke Godfrey, acting in his own interests and not
those of Henry, marched towards Rome with an army of Germans
and Tuscans, and a treaty followed. Once more Pope and Normans
were at peace, irrespective of imperial plans and hopes. The balance
between Duke Godfrey and the Normans was finally kept. Elsewhere too
it was a question of balance. As Anno's influence at the German Court
lessened he depended more upon Rome, and from the German episcopate,
lacking any great national leader like Aribo and now gradually losing its
former moral strength, he gained small support. At Rome he was humili-
ated; in 1068 and again in 1070 he had to clear himself of accusations.
The system by which metropolitans were to be channels of papal authority
was beginning to work its way? But provincial synods both in France
and Germany became commoner, and some, such as that of Mayence
(August 1071) where Charles, the intended Bishop of Constance, resigned
in order to avoid a trial, acted independently. But there as in other cases
legates, the Archbishops of Salzburg and Trèves, were present. Such
councils, often repeating decrees from Rome, raised papal power, and at
this very synod the Archbishop of Mayence is called for the first time
Primas et Apostolicae sedis legatus. It was no wonder that not only
Anno but Siegfried dreamt of a calm monastic life.
The growth of reform seemed to slacken in Alexander's later years: it
may be that Damian was right in contrasting the indulgence shewn to
bishops with the severity towards the lower clergy; it may be that the
movement was now throwing itself more into constitutional solidification
than into spiritual awakening; it may be that the machinery at Rome
was not equal to the burden thrown upon it by the vast conception of its
work. In England alone, where Alexander had blessed the enterprise of
1 Alexander exercised his power more in matters of discipline than of property.
The Thuringian tithes dispute he left for German settlement.
Siegfried's letter to the Pope (see Mon. Bamb. ed. Jaffé, p. 77) does not seem
to me so subservient as it is often held to be, e. g. by Hauck, op. cit. II, p. 743.
3 Siegfried retired to Cluny and made his profession, only returning to his see
at the command of Abbot Hugh (1072). He would have resigned in 1070 but for
Alexander II.
CH. 1.
## p. 46 (#92) ##############################################
46
Conciliar legislation
William of Normandy, was success undiluted. The king was just and
conscientious; Lanfranc was a theologian and a reformer, even if of the
school of Damian rather than of Humbert. The episcopate was raised,
and the standard of clerical life; councils, such as marked the movement,
became the rule, as was seen at Winchester and London in 1072. But if
England moved parallel to Rome it was yet, as an island, apart. It was
also peculiar in its happy co-operation of a just king and a great arch-
bishop.
The growth of canonical legislation (1049-1073) is easily traced. It
begins with an attempt to regain for the Church a control over the
appointment of its officers through reviving canonical election for bishops
and episcopal institution for parish priests. But the repetition of such
canons, even with increasing frequency and stringency, had failed to gain
freedom for the Church in face of royal interests and private patronage.
The Synod of Rheims under Leo IX (1049) had led the way: no one was
to enter on a bishopric without election by clergy and laity. The spread
of Church reform and literary discussion moved towards a clearer definition
of the rival principles: the Church's right to choose its own officers, and
the customary rights of king or patron in appointments. So the Roman
synod of 1059 went further: its sixth canon forbade the acquisition either
gratis or by payment by any cleric or priest of a Church office through a
layman. The French synods at Vienne and Tours (1060), held under the
legate Stephen, affirmed the necessity of episcopal assent for any appoint-
ment. Alexander II, with greater chance of success, renewed in his Roman
synod of 1063 Pope Nicholas' canon of 1059. Under him the two ele-
ments, the cure of souls, which was obviously the Church's care, and the
gift of the property annexed to it, about which king and laymen had some-
thing to say, were more distinctly separated. It was significant when on
21 March 1070 Alexander gave to Gebhard of Salzburg the power of
creating new bishops in his province, and provided that no bishop should
be made by investiture as it was accustomed to be called or by any other
arrangement, except those whom he or his successors should, of their free
will, have elected, ordained, and constituted? So far, and so far only, had
things moved when Alexander II died.
The constant use of legates was continued if not increased, and France
was as before a field of special care. Thither Damian had gone, returning
in October 1063, and Gerard of Ostia (1072) dealt specially and severely
with simony. In France, and also elsewhere, the frequency of councils
1 Throughout the Middle Ages the right of confirming his suffragans was left to
this archbishop, and the peculiarity was mentioned at the Council of Trent.
2 Jaffé-Löwenfeld, Regesta, no. 4673. The history is clearly summarised in
Scharnagl, Der Begriff der Investitur in den Quellen und der Litteratur des Investitur-
streites (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, ed. U. Stutz, No. 86). Some of the canons
mentioned are in Bernheim, Quellen. Also at length Hefele-Leclercq (passim). The
Latin originals in Mansi.
## p. 47 (#93) ##############################################
Alexander II and Milan
47
locally called is now noticeable. Not only the ordinary matters but laxity
of marriage laws among the laity arising from licence among great and
small were legislated upon.
The course of affairs at Milan, however, needs longer and special notice.
Alexander II had been for many years concerned in the struggle at
Milan; his accession gave encouragement to the Patarines; to the citizens
and clergy he wrote announcing his election. When Ariald visited Rome
under Stephen IX, Landulf, who was on his way thither, was wounded
at Piacenza; his wound was complicated by consumption, and he lost
the voice and the energy which he had used so effectively. After his
death, the date of which is uncertain, his place was more than filled by
his brother Erlembald, a knight fresh from a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, and with, as it was said, private, as well as family, wrongs to
avenge upon the clergy. He had a personality and appearance very
different from his brother's; striking and handsome as became a patrician,
splendidly dressed, gifted with that power of military control and
organisation which was destined to reappear so often in medieval Italian
States.
on another choice. In the end they settled on a Burgundian, Gerard
Bishop of Florence, a sound and not too self-willed prelate of excellent
repute, favoured by Duke Godfrey and not likely to take a line of his
own. Besides the help of Godfrey the approval of the Empress Agnes
was sought. Even in Rome itself there was a party against Benedict,
headed by Leo de Benedicto Christiano", a rich citizen, son of a Jewish
convert, influential in the Trastevere and in close touch with Hildebrand;
they sent a deputation to the Empress Agnes at Augsburg, pleading that
the election of Benedict had been due to force. As a result Duke Godfrey
was ordered to lead the cardinals' nominee to Rome. Gerard was elected
at Siena, probably in December 1058, by the cardinals, together with
high ecclesiastics and nobles, and chose the name of Nicholas II6. His old
see he kept until his death. Then an approach was made towards Rome;
a synod was held at Sutri. Leo de Benedicto opened the Trastevere
1 On the election and date see Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1133 sqq.
? The invective of Peter Damian against him judges after the election. For it
see Watterich, 1, pp. 204-5.
3 Less probably in Germany itself. But see Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1134, note 2.
4 In war against Ancona he was helped by a papal excommunication of the
opposing citizens. Thus the Papacy was useful to him. Peter Damian did not
approve this action of the Pope (Ep. 1, 7). See Langen, 111, pp. 528–9.
5 From his son Peter his descendants were known as the Pierleoni. On him see
Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI, pp. 23 sqq. ; he was probably connected by
marriage with Hildebrand's mother.
6 For an election near 6 December (St Nicholas' Day), the choice of name was
natural. Martens wrongly assumes a reference to Nicholas I. A Pope chose his
own name, from the time of John XVI (983) whose baptismal name was Peter (see
Poole, EHR, XXXII, pp. 459 sqq. ).
CH. 1.
342
## p. 36 (#82) ##############################################
36
Nicholas II
to them, and Benedict X fled for a few days to Passarano and thence
to Galeria, where for three months he was besieged by the Normans under
Richard of Aversa. Nicholas was enthroned on 24 January 1059; and
the captured Benedict was deposed, stripped of his vestments, and
imprisoned in the hospitium of the church of Sant' Agnese! His name
was long left in the papal lists, and he was not an anti-Pope in the ordinary
sense until Nicholas II was elected. The choice of Gerard had removed
the election of a Pope from the purely Roman sphere to one of wider
importance, and the alliance with the Normans, brought about by the
help of Desiderius, Abbot of Monte Cassino, gave the Pope a support
independent of the Empire or Rome. In all these negotiations Hilde-
brand played a great parts. In the interval between his enthronement
and the Easter Council, Nicholas visited Spoleto, Farfa, and Osimo, and
at the last place on 6 March 1059 appointed Desiderius as cardinal.
In Italy, after the Easter Council at Rome, he held a Council at Melfi,
where decrees on clerical celibacy were repeated stringently, and the
famous peace was made with the Normans. Then he returned to Rome,
accompanied by a Norman army, and the papal sovereignty was enforced.
The Norman alliance, and the celebrated decree on papal elections, worked
together, and a new era began.
A great Council of 113 bishops was held on 14 April 1059 at the
Lateran”. Earlier decrees had broadly regulated the election of a Pope:
Stephen III (769) and Stephen IV (862–3) had anathematised anyone
contesting an election made by priests, prelates, and the whole clergy of
the Roman Church. Otto I had renewed the settlement of Lothar I (824),
by which the election was to be made by the whole clergy and nobility
of the whole Roman people, canonically and justly, but the elect was not
to be consecrated until he had taken the oath to the Emperor. The
normal canonical form was prescribed, but disorderly nobles, imperial
pressure, civic riots, and simony, had tampered with Rome even more than
other churches. The German Popes had brought reform but at the price
of ecclesiastical freedom.
The Election Decree of 1059 has come down to us in two forms, known
1 The final scene of his condemnation may belong to the winter of 1059 or the
Easter Council of 1060. For details see Meyer von Knonau, 1, pp. 177-8 and note 13.
2 On this point see Poole, Names and Numbers of Medieval Popes, EHR, xxxii,
pp. 465 and 473–4. Benedict's name has now disappeared from the official list.
3 Yet the views of Hauck, op. cit. ui, pp. 680–1 seem to me to go too far.
4 See infra, Chapter iv, pp. 174 sq.
5 A discussion of the literature with bibliography in Meyer von Knonau, Jahr-
bücher, 1, Excursus vii, pp. 678 sqq. ; Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1139, note 2; Hauck,
op. cit. III, p. 683, note 4. Also A. Werminghoff, Verfassungsgeschichte der
deutschen Kirche im Mittelalter (in Aloys Meister, Grundriss der Geschichtswissen-
schaft); Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche, in, p. 503, note 3; J. v. Pfugk-
Harttung, Die Papstwahlen und das Kaisertum (1046–1328), in ZKG, XXVII, pp.
283 sqq.
## p. 37 (#83) ##############################################
Election Decree of 1059
37
as imperial and papal respectively. The latter is now generally accepted,
and the former is held to have been falsified by Guibert, then Imperial
Chancellor for Italy and afterwards Archbishop of Ravenna and anti-Pope
as Clement III'. The business of election was, in the first place, to be
treated of by the cardinal-bishops. Then they were to call in firstly the
cardinal-clerics, and secondly the rest of the Roman clergy and the people.
To prevent simony, the cardinal-bishops, taking the place of a metro-
politan, were to superintend the election, the others falling in after them.
The elect should be taken from the Roman Church, if a suitable candidate
were found; if not, from another Church. The honour due to Henry, at
present king and as it is hoped future Emperor, was reserved as conceded
to him, and to such of his successors as should have obtained in person
the same right from the apostolic throne. If a pure, sincere, and volun-
tary election could not be held in Rome, the cardinal-bishops with the
clergy and catholic laity, even if few, might hold the election where they
were gathered together. If the enthronement had to be postponed by
reason of war or other evil, the Pope-elect might exercise his powers as
if fully Pope. Anyone elected, consecrated, or enthroned contrary to this
decree was to be anathematised.
The imperial form differed from the papal form summarised above in
giving the Emperor a place with the cardinals as a body in leading the
election; it does not diftinguish the cardinal-bishops from the others,
and it does not mention the rest of the clergy or the people. If an election
were not possible in Rome, it might be held where the electors chose, in
agreement with the king. The differences lie rather in the way in which
the king is brought into the election than in the reservation of the im-
perial rights, which is much the same in both forms, and the cardinal-
bishops are not given the rights of a metropolitan; and the imperial
form mentions the mediation of Guibert, Chancellor of Italy and im-
perial representative. The changes seem to be made less on general
principles than to suit a special case, and if due to Guibert this is what
we might expect.
The decree was not strictly kept, but the place given to the cardinals,
who were now growing into a College, was significant for the future. Its
details had reference to the past election; judged by its standard, the
election of Nicholas was correct and that of Benedict was not. But it
laid stress on the special place of the Papacy, and in the papal form at
1 The papal form (from the Vatican MS. 1994) in MGH, Constitutiones, 1. pp.
539 sqq. , Watterich, 1, p. 229, and Mirbt, p. 140. The imperial form in MGH,
Constitutiones, 1, pp. 542 sq. and Mirbt, p. 141, note 2. Both forms conveniently in
Bernheim, Quellen zur Geschichte des Investiturstreites, 1, pp. 12 sqq. , followed by the
announcements to Christendom at large, to the West Franks, and to the Pro-
vince of Amalfi. These agree more closely with the papal form. The papal form
was preserved by the Canonists and in the Conciliar collections. For the later
falsification by Guibert see Watterich, 1, p. 233, note 1. The papal form agrees with
Peter Damian's comment.
сн. І.
## p. 38 (#84) ##############################################
38
Simoniacal ordinations
any rate it threw aside all imperial influence before assent to the accom-
plished act. It remained to be seen whether this freedom could be
maintained.
Other matters were also dealt with in the Council. Berengar appeared
and made a profession of faith dictated by Cardinal Humbert. The
regulation of the papal election was announced as a matter of European
importance, as indeed it now was, and here the cardinal-bishops are
mentioned expressly; the decree on celibacy was strict, and for those clerks
who obediently observed chastity the common canonical life was enforced.
In this detail we have a trace of the discussion already mentioned". No
clerk or priest was to obtain a church either gratis or for money through
laymen. No one was to hear a mass said by an unchaste priest: the
precedent of this canon was to be followed later under Alexander II and
Gregory VII. Laymen were not to judge or expel from their churches
clerks of any rank. The boldness of this canon may be compared with a
more hesitating grant in 1057 to the clergy of Lucca that none of them
should be taken to secular judgment. The fuller treatment of simonist
ordinations and simony of all kinds belongs to the synods of 1060 and
1061? The upshot of conciliar activity under Nicholas II was to crystal-
lise the former campaign for celibacy into definite decisions, backed by
the whole power of the Papacy and the Curia. What had before been
tentative was now fixed. Opinion was consolidated, and policy was cen-
tralised, not only about celibacy but also about simonists. If those who
had been ordained by simonists in the past were allowed to keep their
orders and their offices, thus conforming to the policy of Peter Damian
at Milan, it was lest the Church should be left without pastors. But
for the future there was to be no hesitation, and the correspondence of
the Popes with Gervais of Rheims (a see carefully watched as in pre-
vious reigns) illustrates the carrying out of the policy.
The Council at Rome (1060) decreed that for the future anyone or-
dained without payment by a simonist bishop should remain in his order
if he was open to no other charge; this decision was made not on principle
but from pity, as the number affected was so great. It was not to be taken
as precedent by following Popes; for the future, however, anyone ordained
by a bishop whom he knew to be a simonist should be deposed, as should
the bishop also. Thus a long-standing difficulty was for the time disposed
of. Reforming councils in France at Vienne and Tours, held under the
legate Cardinal Stephen, made stringent decrees against simony, marriage
1 See supra, p. 13 and note 1.
2 Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 1169. See also for canons of 1060 Bernheim, Quellen,
pp. 22 sq.
3 Jaffé-Löwenfeld, Reg. , passim (some 20 letters].
4 For the views of Nicholas on reordination see Saltet, Les Réordinations,
pp. 198–9, and A. Fliche, Les Prégrégoriens, Paris, 1916, p. 246. Decision on the
crucial point was avoided.
## p. 39 (#85) ##############################################
Milan
39
of priests, and alienation of church property or tithes under legal form.
Abbot Hugh of Cluny did the same at Avignon and Toulouse! . But
it was now more a matter of enforcing decrees already made than issuing
new. In Italy some bishops found it difficult to publish reforming decrees,
and in some cases did so with risk of violence.
It has been noted as strange that in such a remarkable reign we hear
little about the character of the Pope himself. The predominance of the
cardinals partly explains it: Humbert, Peter Damian, and Hildebrand
(now archdeacon) were not always in accord, and it was for Nicholas to
balance conflicting views and policies. He was the president of the
College rather than its director. Like other Popes Nicholas kept his old
bishopric, and like them too he was often absent from Rome, which was
not without its drawbacks, as the English bishops, robbed by the Count
of Galeria, found out. But we breathe an air of greater largeness in his
Papacy, and things seem on a larger scale.
Nicholas died suddenly near Florence on 27 July 1061, returning from
an expedition in southern Italy. The Election Decree was to be tested.
The Norman alliance, and still more the Election Decree, had affected
the delicate relations of Pope and Emperor? During the minority of
Henry IV, matters had been allowed to slide, and when attention was at
length given to them the barometer registered a change of atmosphere.
So great was the irritation in Germany that the name of Nicholas was
left out in intercessions at mass; legates from Rome met with bad re-
ceptions.
Meanwhile events in Milan' had taken a decisive turn for papal and
ecclesiastical history. In position, in wealth, in traditions, both political
and ecclesiastical, the city of St Ambrose was a rival of Rome, and
hitherto it had proudly kept its independence. Aribert's opposition to
the Emperor Conrad had shewn the power of the archbishop; and if an
enemy to the Empire were to rule there, imperial influence would be
weakened. This Henry III understood. On Aribert's death in 1045
Guido was appointed. Class distinctions were strongly marked, and the
new archbishop belonged not to the barons but to the vavassors; in
strength and in reputation he was undistinguished, and Bonizo with his
usual exaggeration calls him “vir illiteratus et concubinatus et symonia-
cus,” but concubinage he was not guilty of. He was not the man for a
difficult post, still less the man to lead reform. He valued more the
traditions of St Ambrose as a rival of Rome than as a teacher of
1 For France, Langen, in, pp. 524–5. R. Lehmann, Forschungen zur Geschichte
Abtes Hugo I von Cluny, Göttingen, 1869, pp. 88-9. Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1199 sqq.
Nicholas was, as Langen has noted, specially interested in France, as a Burgundian
might be. It may be mentioned that in later years his enemies spread a rumour
that his birth was irregular.
? See Meyer von Knonau, Jahrbücher, 1, Excursus viii, pp. 684 sqq. Hefele-
Leclercq, iv, pp. 1209 sqq. Hauck, op. cit. , pp. 700-1, especially note 5.
3 For Milan cf. infra, Chapter v, pp. 217 sqq.
CH. 1.
## p. 40 (#86) ##############################################
40
Milan and clerical celibacy
righteousness. In Italy as a whole the poor were more devoted to the
Church than the rich (who tended to have their own chapels), and they
were keen to criticise the lives of their spiritual teachers; outbursts of
violence against unworthy priests had not been rare in Milan. But these
had been isolated acts; what mattered more was that the Milanese
Church had settled down into a worldly, possibly respectable, but certainly
unspiritual life of its own. It was content to breathe the air around it
but did nothing to revive or purify it, although the clergy were numerous
as the sands of the sea” and the churches were rich. For the most part
the clerks were married, and so the Church was deeply intertwined in the
social state. Sale of Church offices was common, and there was a recognised
scale of charges for orders and for preferments. It was certain that
reformers would find much to complain of; so long had the growth of
secularisation gone on that, even with a more placid populace, reform when
it came was likely to become revolution.
About 1056 the new streams of thought and new ideals began to flow
around the hitherto firm footing of the clergy.
The movement was
headed by a deacon Ariald, a vavassor by birth and a canonist by
training, an idealist, inspired by visions of the primitive Church and
the simple teaching of Christ : contrasting these with the example of
priests whose life could teach but error. He began his campaign in the
villages where he was at home; then, when his hearers pleaded their
simplicity and urged him to go to Milan, where he would find men of
learning to answer him, he took their advice. In the city he found allies
ready to help although starting from a different point-Landulf, who
was in minor orders, and (later on) his brother Erlembald, of the Cotta
family, both gifted with eloquence, ambitious, and thorough demagogues.
The movement soon became political and social as well as religious, owing
to the social standing of those they attacked. With these two worked
Anselm of Baggio, one of the collegiate priests, whom Guido persuaded
the Emperor to appoint to the see of Lucca (1056 or 1057). Guido,
appointed by Henry III who had misjudged his character, was himself a
simonist, and his arguments that clerical marriage was an ancient custom
in Milan, that abuse and violence were evil ways of reproving offenders,
that the clergy were not immoral but for the most part respectable married
men, and that abstinence was a grace not given to all and was not imposed
by divine law, had small effect. In other cities, Pavia and Asti for
instance, the populace rose against their bishop, and Milan was moved
in the same way. Landulf worked in the city ; Ariald carried on the
campaign in the surrounding villages whose feudal lords were citizens
of the town. And Anselm brought the movement into touch with the
wider circle of reformers at Rome and elsewhere. Landulf's eloquence
soon filled the poorer citizens with hatred of the clergy, with contempt
for their sacraments, and a readiness to enforce reform by violence. The
undoubted devotion of the leaders, enforced by their eloquence in sermons
## p. 41 (#87) ##############################################
Milan and simony
41
and speeches, soon made them leaders of the populace. The use of nick-
names-Simonians and Nicolaitans-branded the clerical party ; that of
Patarines brought in class distinctions, and those to whom it was given
could claim like Lollards in England the special grace of simple men. On
the local festival of the translation of St Nazarius a riot broke out, and
the clergy were forced to sign a written promise to keep celibacy. They
had to choose between their altars and their wives. Their appeal to the
archbishop, who took the movement lightly, brought them no help. The
nobles for some reason or other took as yet no steps to help them. The
bishops of the province when appealed to proved helpless, and in
despair the clerks appealed to Rome, probably to Victor II. His care for
the Empire made the Pope anxious to keep order. He referred the
matter to Guido, and bade him call a provincial synod, which he did at
Fontaneto in the neighbourhood of Novara (1057). Arials and Landulf
were summoned, but, in their scornful absence, after three days they were
excommunicated. Although this synod had been called, its consequences
fall in the pontificate of Stephen IX, who is said to have removed
the ban from the democratic leaders. The movement had become, as
democratic movements so easily do, a persecution with violence and
injury? Guido's position was difficult and in the autumn (1057) he
went to the German Court.
But the movement now took a new and wider turn; not only clerical
marriage but simony, the prevalent and deeply-rooted evil of the city,
was attacked. A large association, sworn to reach its ends, was formed.
The new programme affected Guido, equally guilty with nearly all his
clergy. It was of small avail that now the higher classes, more sensitive
to attacks on wealth than on ecclesiastical offences, began to support the
clergy; the strife was only intensified. In the absence of Guido, and with
new hopes from the new Pope, Ariald went to Rome and there complained
of the evils prevalent at Milan. It was decided to send a legate, and
Hildebrand on his way to the German Court made a short stay at Milan
(November 1057). He was well received ; frequent sermons did something
to control the people already roused. But his visit wrought little change,
and it was not until Damianº and Anselm came as legates that anything
1 The chronology is difficult and doubtful. That adopted by Meyer von Knonau
(Jahrb. 1, especially Excursus v, pp. 669 sqq. ) seems best. It is not certain whether
the Milanese clergy appealed to Victor II or Stephen IX; Arnulf says the latter,
but the former is more probable. For the chronology see also Hefele-Leclercq, iv,
pp. 1126 sqq.
2 The legateship is best dated early in 1059 before the Easter Synod at Rome.
We have Damian's own account addressed to Hildebrand, Archdeacon. Hence a
difficulty, for Hildebrand was not Archdeacon until autumn 1059. But Damian
speaks of his having been asked by Hildebrand to put together matters bearing on
Roman supremacy; the account was probably meant in that sense as a record of an
important decision. For other arguments in favour of this date see Hefele-Leclercq,
I, p. 1191, note 2; Meyer von Knonau, 1, p. 127, note 17. Hauck, 1, p. 696, note
1, holds the date as good as certain.
CH. I.
## p. 42 (#88) ##############################################
42
The vacancy on Nicholas II's death
was done. Damian persuaded Guido to call a synod, and here, at first to
the anger of the patriotic Milanese, the legate presided. It seemed a slur
upon the patrimony and the traditions of St Ambrose; even the democratic
reformers were aghast. It was then that Damian, faced by certain violence
and likely death, shewed the courage in which he never failed. With no
attempt at compromise, with no flattery to soothe their pride, he spoke
of the claims of St Peter and his Roman Church to obedience. Milan was
the daughter, the great daughter of Rome, and so he called them to sub-
mission. It was a triumph of bold oratory backed by a great personality;
Guido and the whole assembly promised obedience to Rome. Then
Damian went on with his inquest; one by one the clerics present confessed
what they had paid, for Holy Orders, for benefices, and for preferment.
All were tainted, from the archbishop to the humblest clerk. Punishment
of the guilty, from which Damian was not the man to shrink, would have
left the Church in Milan without priests and ministers of any kind. So
the legate took the course taken by Nicholas II in his decree against
simonists (1059). Those present, beginning with the archbishop, owned
their guilt, and promised for the future to give up simony and to enforce
clerical celibacy. To this all present took an oath. Milan had fallen into
line with the reformers, and in doing so had subjected itself to Rome.
Bonizo, agreeing with Arnulf on the other side, is right in taking this
embassy as the end of the old and proud independence of Milan. When
Guido and his suffragans were summoned to the Easter Council of 1059 at
Rome some Milanese resented it. But the archbishop received absolution
and for some six years was not out of favour at Rome.
The unexpected death of Nicholas II was followed by a contested
election and a long struggle. Both the Roman nobles and the Lombard
bishops wished for a change but knew their need of outside help. At
Rome Gerard of Galeria, whose talents and diplomacy were typical of
his class, was the leader; he and the Abbot of St Gregory on the Caelian
were sent to the German Court, and they carried with them the crown
and insignia of the Patrician. The Lombard bishops, with whom the
Chancellor Guibert worked, met together and demanded a Pope from
Lombardy-the paradise of Italy-who would know how to indulge
human weakness. Thus civic politics at Rome and a reaction against
Pataria and Pope worked together; the young king Henry acted at the
impulse of Italians rather than of Germans; the latter had reason for
discontent, but the imperial nominee was not their choice and their
support was somewhat lukewarm. Henry met the Lombard bishops (some
of whom Peter Damian thought better skilled to discuss the beauty of a
woman than the election of a Pope) and the Romans at Basle on
28 October 1061, and, wearing the Patrician's crown which they had
brought, invested their elect, Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, who chose the
name of Honorius II", "a man rich in silver, poor in virtue” says Bonizo. .
1 There is some conflict of evidence, especially as to the part played by the
## p. 43 (#89) ##############################################
Alexander II and Honorius II
43
Meanwhile the cardinal-bishops and others had met outside Rome, and,
hastening when they knew of the opposition, elected, 30 September 1061,
Anselm of Baggio, the Patarine Bishop of Lucca! It was a wise choice
and likely to commend itself; there could be no doubt as to the ortho-
doxy or policy of this old pupil of Lanfranc at Bec, tested at Milan and
versed in Italian matters; at the same time he was in good repute at the
German Court and a friend of Duke Godfrey. Desiderius of Monte
Cassino carried a request for military help to Richard of Capua, who
came and led Alexander II to Rome. Some nobles, especially Leo de
Benedicto Christiano (" of the Jewish synagogue,” says Benzo), influenced
the Trastevere, but there was much fighting and Anselm was only taken
into the Lateran at night and by force. He was consecrated on 1 October
1061, and like his predecessors kept his old bishopric.
Cadalus found his way to Rome blocked by Godfrey's forces, but in
Parma he gathered his vassals, and could thus march on. But another
help was of greater use. Benzo, Bishop of Alba in Piedmont, was sent
by the Emperor as his ambassador to Rome; he was a popular speaker
with many gifts and few scruples; his happy if vulgar wit was to please
the mob and sting his opponents; he was welcomed by the imperialists
and lodged in the palace of Octavian. Then he invited the citizens, great
and small, and even Alexander with his cardinals, to a popular assembly.
The papal solemnity had little chance with the episcopal wit. “ Asinan-
drellus, the heretic of Lucca,” and “his stall-keeper Prandellus," as Benzo
calls the Pope and Hildebrand, were worsted in the debate; Cadalus
was able to enter Rome on 25 March 1062, and a battle on 14 April
in the Neronian Field after much slaughter left him victor. But he could
not gain the whole city, and it was divided into hostile camps. Honorius
hoped for help from Germany, and he was negotiating with Greek envoys
for a joint campaign against the Normans. But after the arrival of
Duke Godfrey there came an end to the strife; both claimants were to
withdraw to their former sees until they could get their claims settled
at the German Court. Honorius was said to have paid heavily for the
respite, but Alexander could rest easy as to his final success.
Alexander was not without some literary support. Peter Damian from
his hermitage wrote to Cadalus two letters, fierce and prophetic—the
second addressed “To Cadalus, false bishop, Peter, monk and sinner,
wishes the fate he deserves”: he had been condemned by three synods ;
he had broken the Election Decree; his very name derived from cado
raós was sinister, he would die within the year ; the old prophet believed
German bishops. A summary of references in Hefele-Leclerq, iv, p. 1217, note 1.
The part played by Henry corresponds to the imperial falsification of the Election
Decree of 1059 (clause 6).
1 An election outside Rome was provided for in the Election Decree, and Peter
Damian expressly mentions the presence of the cardinal-bishops, a mention which
supports the papal form of the Election Decree.
CH. I.
## p. 44 (#90) ##############################################
44
Victory of Alexander II
the prophecy fulfilled by the excommunication, the spiritual death, of
Honorius within the year. At the same time he was writing treatises on
the episcopal and clerical life. At this time, too, he wrote his well-known
Disceptatio Synodalis, a dialogue between champions of the Papacy and
the Empire; it is not, as was once supposed, the record of an actual
discussion, but a treatise intended to influence opinion at the assembly
called at Augsburg, 27 October 1062, to settle the papal rivalry. But he
was an embarrassing ally? : his letters to Henry and Anno of Germany, if
full of candid advice, laid overmuch stress on the royal rights, and
Alexander and Hildebrand were displeased. Damian, perhaps ironically,
begged the mercy of his “Holy Satan. ”
It was the practical politics of the day, and not theories or arguments,
which turned the balance at Augsburg and elsewhere in favour of Alex-
ander. The abduction of the twelve-year-old boy at Kaiserswerth (April
1062) and his guardianship by Anno of Cologne, first alone and then with
Adalbert, changed affairs. The Empress Agnes, who had taken the veil
about the end of 1061, withdrew from politics. The German episcopate,
weak, divided, and never whole-hearted for the Lombard Honorius,
turned towards Alexander. The Synod of Augsburg, led by Anno, declared
for Alexander and so gained commendation from Damian; "he had smitten
off the neck of the scaly monster of Parma. ” Before the end of 1062
Alexander moved towards Rome, and before Easter 1063 Godfrey
supported the decision of Augsburg; the inclination of Anno and his
position of Imperial Vicar led him to Rome. At the Easter Synod
Alexander acted as already and fully Pope. As a matter of course he
excommunicated Cadalus, and repeated canons against clerical marriage
and simony; the faithful were again forbidden to hear mass said by guilty
priests.
But the opposition was not at an end, so the irrepressible Benzo again
led Cadalus to Rome in May 1063; they took the Leonine City, Sant'
Angelo, and St Peter's, but his seat was insecure. His supporters and his
silver dwindled together; the castle was really his prison until he bought
freedom from his jailor Cencius with three hundred pounds of silver ;
with one poor attendant he escaped to the safer Parma.
Then at Whitsuntide, probably in 1064, he met the Council at
Mantua attended by German and Italian prelates. Anno (“the high-
priest” Benzo calls him) stated candidly the charges against Alexander.
Alexander on oath denied simony, and on the question of his election
without Henry's leave or approval satisfied the assembly. Everyone
1 His letters to Cadalus, Epp. 1, 20, 21 (MPL, CXLIV); to Henry IV, VII, 3;
to Anno, 11, 6; to Hildebrand, clearing himself, 1, 16.
2 The year is taken as 1064, 1066, and 1067 by various writers. The arguments
are most clearly discussed in Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 1237 sqq. See also Meyer
von Knonau, 1, p. 375, note 19. Benzo's account with its alternate swoonings of
Beatrice and Anno has a touch of drama.
## p. 45 (#91) ##############################################
Reform under Alexander II
45
present may not have looked at the Council in the same way, but all
were glad to settle the disputed succession. On the second day a mob of
Cadalists attacked the gathering. Only the appearance of Beatrice of
Tuscany with a small force saved the Pope's life; some bishops fled.
Cadalus was excommunicated, and Alexander could safely go to Rome.
But his city was still not a pleasant seat. Benzo did not give up hope and
in 1065 visited the German Court; even up to 20 April 1069 Honorius
signed bulls as Pope.
The remaining years of Alexander's pontificate can be summarised.
The Norman vassals or allies of the Pope soon deserted him; Richard
of Capua ravaged Campania and approached Rome, probably anxious to
be made Patrician. Duke Godfrey, acting in his own interests and not
those of Henry, marched towards Rome with an army of Germans
and Tuscans, and a treaty followed. Once more Pope and Normans
were at peace, irrespective of imperial plans and hopes. The balance
between Duke Godfrey and the Normans was finally kept. Elsewhere too
it was a question of balance. As Anno's influence at the German Court
lessened he depended more upon Rome, and from the German episcopate,
lacking any great national leader like Aribo and now gradually losing its
former moral strength, he gained small support. At Rome he was humili-
ated; in 1068 and again in 1070 he had to clear himself of accusations.
The system by which metropolitans were to be channels of papal authority
was beginning to work its way? But provincial synods both in France
and Germany became commoner, and some, such as that of Mayence
(August 1071) where Charles, the intended Bishop of Constance, resigned
in order to avoid a trial, acted independently. But there as in other cases
legates, the Archbishops of Salzburg and Trèves, were present. Such
councils, often repeating decrees from Rome, raised papal power, and at
this very synod the Archbishop of Mayence is called for the first time
Primas et Apostolicae sedis legatus. It was no wonder that not only
Anno but Siegfried dreamt of a calm monastic life.
The growth of reform seemed to slacken in Alexander's later years: it
may be that Damian was right in contrasting the indulgence shewn to
bishops with the severity towards the lower clergy; it may be that the
movement was now throwing itself more into constitutional solidification
than into spiritual awakening; it may be that the machinery at Rome
was not equal to the burden thrown upon it by the vast conception of its
work. In England alone, where Alexander had blessed the enterprise of
1 Alexander exercised his power more in matters of discipline than of property.
The Thuringian tithes dispute he left for German settlement.
Siegfried's letter to the Pope (see Mon. Bamb. ed. Jaffé, p. 77) does not seem
to me so subservient as it is often held to be, e. g. by Hauck, op. cit. II, p. 743.
3 Siegfried retired to Cluny and made his profession, only returning to his see
at the command of Abbot Hugh (1072). He would have resigned in 1070 but for
Alexander II.
CH. 1.
## p. 46 (#92) ##############################################
46
Conciliar legislation
William of Normandy, was success undiluted. The king was just and
conscientious; Lanfranc was a theologian and a reformer, even if of the
school of Damian rather than of Humbert. The episcopate was raised,
and the standard of clerical life; councils, such as marked the movement,
became the rule, as was seen at Winchester and London in 1072. But if
England moved parallel to Rome it was yet, as an island, apart. It was
also peculiar in its happy co-operation of a just king and a great arch-
bishop.
The growth of canonical legislation (1049-1073) is easily traced. It
begins with an attempt to regain for the Church a control over the
appointment of its officers through reviving canonical election for bishops
and episcopal institution for parish priests. But the repetition of such
canons, even with increasing frequency and stringency, had failed to gain
freedom for the Church in face of royal interests and private patronage.
The Synod of Rheims under Leo IX (1049) had led the way: no one was
to enter on a bishopric without election by clergy and laity. The spread
of Church reform and literary discussion moved towards a clearer definition
of the rival principles: the Church's right to choose its own officers, and
the customary rights of king or patron in appointments. So the Roman
synod of 1059 went further: its sixth canon forbade the acquisition either
gratis or by payment by any cleric or priest of a Church office through a
layman. The French synods at Vienne and Tours (1060), held under the
legate Stephen, affirmed the necessity of episcopal assent for any appoint-
ment. Alexander II, with greater chance of success, renewed in his Roman
synod of 1063 Pope Nicholas' canon of 1059. Under him the two ele-
ments, the cure of souls, which was obviously the Church's care, and the
gift of the property annexed to it, about which king and laymen had some-
thing to say, were more distinctly separated. It was significant when on
21 March 1070 Alexander gave to Gebhard of Salzburg the power of
creating new bishops in his province, and provided that no bishop should
be made by investiture as it was accustomed to be called or by any other
arrangement, except those whom he or his successors should, of their free
will, have elected, ordained, and constituted? So far, and so far only, had
things moved when Alexander II died.
The constant use of legates was continued if not increased, and France
was as before a field of special care. Thither Damian had gone, returning
in October 1063, and Gerard of Ostia (1072) dealt specially and severely
with simony. In France, and also elsewhere, the frequency of councils
1 Throughout the Middle Ages the right of confirming his suffragans was left to
this archbishop, and the peculiarity was mentioned at the Council of Trent.
2 Jaffé-Löwenfeld, Regesta, no. 4673. The history is clearly summarised in
Scharnagl, Der Begriff der Investitur in den Quellen und der Litteratur des Investitur-
streites (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, ed. U. Stutz, No. 86). Some of the canons
mentioned are in Bernheim, Quellen. Also at length Hefele-Leclercq (passim). The
Latin originals in Mansi.
## p. 47 (#93) ##############################################
Alexander II and Milan
47
locally called is now noticeable. Not only the ordinary matters but laxity
of marriage laws among the laity arising from licence among great and
small were legislated upon.
The course of affairs at Milan, however, needs longer and special notice.
Alexander II had been for many years concerned in the struggle at
Milan; his accession gave encouragement to the Patarines; to the citizens
and clergy he wrote announcing his election. When Ariald visited Rome
under Stephen IX, Landulf, who was on his way thither, was wounded
at Piacenza; his wound was complicated by consumption, and he lost
the voice and the energy which he had used so effectively. After his
death, the date of which is uncertain, his place was more than filled by
his brother Erlembald, a knight fresh from a pilgrimage to the Holy
Land, and with, as it was said, private, as well as family, wrongs to
avenge upon the clergy. He had a personality and appearance very
different from his brother's; striking and handsome as became a patrician,
splendidly dressed, gifted with that power of military control and
organisation which was destined to reappear so often in medieval Italian
States.
