No More Learning

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. He fortified his house, he moved about with a bodyguard; he
became the Captain of the city; personal power and democratic rule were
combined and so he was the real founder of the Italian commune. Ariald
was content, as he put it, to use the word while Erlembald wielded the
more powerful sword. The new leader visited Rome (1065) when
Alexander was settled there; he received from the Pope a white banner
with a red cross, and so became the knight of the Roman and the
universal Church. The archbishop, with no traditions of family or
friendship to uphold him, saw power slipping from his hands, and the
Emperor counted for naught. From a second visit to Rome (1066)
Erlembald returned with threats of a papal excommunication of Guido,
and fresh disturbances began. Married priests and simonists were sharply
condemned from Rome, and believers were forbidden to hear their masses.
But the Papacy sought after order, and the cathedral clergy, faced by
persecution, gathered around the archbishop. More tumult arose when
Ariald preached against local customs of long standing. Milan had not
only its own Ambrosian Liturgy', but various peculiar customs: the ten
days between Ascension Day and Pentecost had been kept since the
fourth century as fasts; elsewhere only Whitsun Eve was so observed.
Ariald, preferring the Roman custom, preached against the local use,
and so aroused indignation. Then Guido at Whitsuntide seized his chance,
and rebuked the Patarines for their action against him at Rome in
1 It seems best with Duchesne (Origins of Christian worship, p. 88) to connect
the Ambrosian Rite with the Gallican group. Aquileia and the Danubian districts
followed Milan. The Carolingian changes affected the Gallican Church, and through
imperial influence reached Rome. But Milan kept its Ambrosian traditions, dating
from the days of Auxentius (355–374), a Cappadocian Arian and immediate pre-
decessor of St Ambrose; no doctrines were concerned (Duchesne, op. cit. pp. 93 sqq. ).
CH. 1.


## p. 48 (#94) ##############################################

48
The commune at Milan
1
1
1
seeking his excommunication; a worse tumult than before arose, and the
city was again in uproar. But the day after the riot the mass of citizens
took better thought and repented. The archbishop placed the city under
an interdict so long as Ariald abode in it. For the sake of peace the
threatened preacher left, and (27 June) was mysteriously murdered, at
Guido's instigation as his followers said. Ten months later his body was,
strangely and it was said miraculously, recovered. He had perished by the
sword of violence which he had taken, but the splendid popular ceremonies
of his funeral restored his fame, and so in death he served his cause.
Once again two legates came to still the storm (August 1067): Mainard,
Cardinal-bishop of Silva Candida, and the Cardinal-priest John'. The
settlement they made went back to that of Damian, and so recognised
the position of Guido, but years of violence had by now changed the city.
The legatine settlement attempted to re-establish Church order and
Damian's reforms, and the revenue of the Church was to be left untouched.
Violence was forbidden, but things had gone too far; revolution had
crystallised, and neither side liked the settlement; Guido thought of re-
signing
Erlembald, supported from Rome, thought he could increase his
power by enforcing canonical election on the resignation of Guido, setting
aside the imperial investiture and gaining the approval of the Pope. But
Guido now chose the sub-deacon Godfrey, a man of good family, in his con-
fidence, eloquent, as even his later enemies confessed, and therefore likely
to be influential. Guido formally although privately resigned, and
Godfrey went to the imperial Court where he was already known through
services rendered; he returned with his ring and staff, but was driven
away. Alexander II condemned not only Godfrey but also Guido, who
had resigned without papal leave; Guido took up his duties again, and
remained in power; disorder passed into war. Erlembald, with an army
made up of his followers and some nobles, attacked Godfrey. Revolution
had become war against a claimant chosen by the Emperor but in
defiance of ecclesiastical law and the Papacy. During Lent 1071 part of
the city was set on fire, causing great destruction and misery; Guido
withdrew to the country and there on 23 August 1071 his life and
trouble ended. Not until 6 January 1072 did Erlembald find it possible
to elect a successor; by a large assembly from the city, its neighbourhood,
and even farther afield, in the presence of a legate Cardinal Bernard,
Atto, a young cathedral clerk of good family but little known, was
elected. Erlembald, the real ruler of the city, was behind and over
all; and many, laymen and ecclesiastics, disliked the choice. The dis-
contented took to arms, the legate escaped with rent robes, and Atto,
torn from the intended feast at the palace, was borne to the cathedral,
where in mortal fear he was made to swear never to ascend the throne of
St Ambrose. But next day Erlembald regained control; he "ruled the
1 The embassy, often slurred over in narratives, is described by Arnulf, Chap. 21.


## p. 49 (#95) ##############################################

Death of Alexander II
49
both men
city as a Pope to judge the priests, as a king to grind down the people,
now with steel and now with gold, with sworn leagues and covenants
many and varied. ” It mattered little that at Rome a synod declared
Atto rightly elected, and condemned Godfrey and his adherents as
enemies of God. Meanwhile the Patarines held the field, and their success
at Milan encouraged their fellows in Lombardy as a whole. But the new
turn of affairs had involved the Pope; he wrote (c. February 1072) to
Henry IV, as a father to a son, to cast away hatred of the servants of God
and allow the Church of Milan to have a bishop according to God. A
local difficulty, amid vested interests, principles of Church reform, and
civic revolution, had merged into a struggle between Emperor and Pope.
Henry IV sent an embassy to the suffragans of Milan announcing his
will that Godfrey, already invested, should be consecrated; they met at
Novara where the consecration took place.
At the Easter Synod (1073) the Pope, now failing in strength,
excommunicated the counsellors of Henry IV who were, it was said,
striving to alienate him from the Church. This was one of Alexander's
last acts. Death had already removed many prominent leaders, Duke
Godfrey at Christmas 1069, the anti-Pope Cadalus at the end of 1072
(the exact day is not recorded). Peter Damian died on 22 February
1072, and Adalbert of Bremen on 16 March of the same year,
of the past although of very different pasts. Cardinal Humbert had died
long before, on 5 May 1061. Hildebrand was thus left almost alone
out of the old circle of Leo IX.
On 21 April 1073 Alexander died, worn out by his work and responsi-
bilities; even as Pope he had never ceased the care of his see of Lucca;
by frequent visits, repeated letters, and minute regulations he fulfilled his
duty as its bishop! It was so with him also as Pope. The mass of great
matters dealt with was equalled by that of smaller things. Even the
devolution of duties, notably to cardinals and especially to the archdeacon,
did not ease the Pope himself. He seems to us a man intent mainly upon
religious issues, always striving (as we should expect from a former leader
at Milan) for the ends of clerical reform, able now to work towards them
through the Papacy itself. Reform, directed from Rome and based upon
papal authority, was the note of his reign. A man of duty more than of)
disposition or temperament, he gained respect, if not the reverent love
which had gathered around Leo IX. His measure of greatness he reached
more because he was filled with the leading, probably the best, ideas of
his day than because of any individual greatness of conception or power.
But he had faced dark days and death itself with devotion and unswerving
hope. It was something to have passed from his earlier trials to his later
prosperity and firm position, and yet to have shewn himself the same man
1 The history of the Chancery under him is "peculiarly anomalous. " And this
was because he not only was, but acted as, Bishop of Lucca. See Poole, The Papal
Chancery, p. 69.
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. I.
4


## p. 50 (#96) ##############################################

50
The new Papacy
throughout, with the same beliefs, the same aims, and the same care for
his task. If he left his successors many difficulties, and some things even
for Gregory VII to criticise, he also left them a working model of a con-
scientious, world-embracing Papacy, filled, as it seems to us, with the
spirit of the day rather than inspiring the day from above. The Papacy
had risen to a height and a power which would have seemed impossible
in the time of Benedict IX. But the power, strong in its theory and
conception, had a fragile foundation in the politics of the Empire, of Italy,
and of Rome itself.


## p. 51 (#97) ##############################################

51
CHAPTER II.
GREGORY VII AND THE FIRST CONTEST
BETWEEN EMPIRE AND PAPACY.
I.
On 21 April 1073 Pope Alexander II died. The strained relations
between the Papacy and the ruler of the Empire made the occasion more
than usually critical; moreover, the Election Decree of Nicholas II, for
which so narrow a victory had been won at the previous vacancy, was to be
put to a second test. Fortunately for the Papacy, there was no division of
opinion within the Curia; the outstanding personality of the Archdeacon
Hildebrand made it certain on whom the choice of the cardinals would
fall. But their deliberations were anticipated by the impatience of the
populace. While the body of Alexander was being laid to rest in the
church of St John Lateran on the day following his death, a violent
tumult arose. The crowd seized upon the person of Hildebrand, hurried
him to the church of St Peter ad Vincula, and enthusiastically acclaimed
him as Pope. The formalities of the Election Decree were hastily com-
plied with; the cardinals elected, the clergy and people gave their assent,
and Hildebrand was solemnly enthroned as Pope Gregory VII'. Popular
violence had compromised the election, and provided a handle for the
accusations of his enemies. But the main purpose of the Election Decree
had been fulfilled. The Pope was the nominee neither of the Emperor
nor of the Roman nobles; the choice of the cardinals had been anticipated
indeed, but not controlled, by the enthusiasm of the multitude. Hildebrand
only held deacon's orders; a month later he was ordained priest, and on
30 June” consecrated bishop. In the interval, he seems, in accordance
with the Election Decree, to have announced his election to the king and
to have obtained the royal assent.
We have little certain information of the origin and early life of this
great Pope. He is said to have been the son of one Bonizo and to have
been born at Sovana in Tuscany; the date of his birth is uncertain, but he
was probably about fifty years old at the time of his accession. The im-
portant fact, to which he himself bears emphatic testimony, is that his
early days were passed in Rome and that it was there that he received his
The choice of name is significant. It seems most probable that he took it in
memory of his predecessor and master, Gregory VI.
? Or 29 June. But as 30 June was a Sunday, the regular day for episcopal con-
secrations, it is the more likely date, although 29 June was a great festival.
3 But see R. L. Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI (from Proc. Brit. Acad. Vol. vııı).
CH. II.
4-2


## p. 52 (#98) ##############################################

52
Early life of Pope Gregory VII
education. So he saw the Papacy in its degradation and was to partici-
pate in every stage of its recovery. He received minor orders (reluctantly,
he tells us) and was attached in some capacity to the service of Gregory VI,
the Pope who bought the Papacy in order to reform it. With him he
went into exile in 1047, and spent two impressionable years in the Rhine
district, then the centre of the advanced reform movement of the day, and
probably it was at this time that he received the monastic habit? In
1049 Leo IX, nominated Pope by Henry III, was filling the chief places
in the Papal Curia with leading reformers especially from this district; on
his way to Rome he took with him the young Hildebrand, whose life was
for the future to be devoted entirely to Rome and the Papacy. With
every detail of papal activity he was associated, in every leading incident
he played his part; his share in the papal councils became increasingly
important, until at the last he was the outstanding figure whose qualifica-
tions for the papal throne none could contest.
By Leo IX he was made sub-deacon and entrusted with the task of
restoring both the buildings and the discipline of the monastery of St
Paul without the walls. Later he was sent to France to deal with heresy
in the person of Berengar of Tours, whose views he condemned but whose
person he protected. By Victor II he was given the important task of
enforcing the decrees against simony and clerical marriage in France,
where in company with Abbot Hugh of Cluny he held synods at Lyons
and elsewhere. With Bishop Anselm of Lucca he was sent by Pope
Stephen IX to Milan, where the alliance of Pope and Pataria was for the
first time cemented; and from Milan to Germany to obtain the royal
assent to Stephen's election. He had a share in vindicating the indepen-
dence of papal elections against the turbulence of the Roman nobles at
the election of Nicholas II, and again in the papal Election Decree which
was designed to establish this independence for the future. By Nicholas he
was employed in initiating the negotiations which led to the first alliance
of the Papacy with the Normans in South Italy. In the same year (1059)
his appointment as Archdeacon of the Roman Church gave him an
important administrative position; shortly afterwards occurred the death
of Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, and Hildebrand took his place as
the leading figure in the Papal Curia.