No More Learning

? A more favourable view of him is summarised in Hefele-Leclercq, iv, p. 914.
So K. W. Nitzsch, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes, Leipsic, 1892, 1, pp. 392 sqq. , in the
same sense.
3 The date of this Council is disputed. 1022 was accepted until Giesebrecht
suggested 1018 (op. cit. 11, p. 188, and note 623–4). Also Hauck (who prefers 1022),
op. cit. III, p. 528, n. 2. The earlier date seems a little more probable. In Vol. ui
supra, p. 251, the date 1022 is accepted.
CA. 1.


## p. 16 (#62) ##############################################

16
The Emperor Henry II
concubinage and simony. His starting point was a wish to protect
Church property from alienation to priestly families, a consideration
likely to weigh with a statesmanlike administrator, although Henry II
might have had a more spiritual concern. By the decrees of the Council,
marriage and concubinage were forbidden to priests, deacons, and sub-
deacons, indeed to any clerk. Bishops not enforcing this were to be
deposed. The children of clerks were to be the property of the Church.
In the Council the initiative of the Pope seems to have been strong.
The Emperor gave the decrees the force of law, and a Council at Goslar
(1019) repeated them. Italy and Germany were working as one.
There was little difference between the ecclesiastical powers of Henry
in Italy and in Germany. He knew his strength and did not shrink
from using it. Before his imperial coronation he held a synod at Ravenna
(January 1014) where he practically decreed by the advice of the bishops;
for Ravenna he had named as archbishop his half-brother Arnold, who
was opposed by a popularly-supported rival Adalbert. This probably
canonical prelate was deposed, and after Henry's coronation a Roman
synod approved the judgment, although it did obtain for the victim the
compensation of a smaller see. Decrees against simonist ordinations and
the alienation through pledges of Church lands were also passed, and
published by the Emperor. A liturgical difference between Roman and
German use in the mass was even decided in favour of the latter. So
far did German influence prevail.
The reforming tendencies of the German Church found full expression
at the Synod of Seligenstadt (12 August 1023). In 1021 a young
imperial chaplain Aribo had been made Archbishop of Mayence; and he
aimed at giving the German Church not only a better spirit but a more
coherent discipline. In the preamble to the canons, Aribo states the aim
of himself and his suffragans, among whom was Burchard of Worms
(Bishop 1000–1025): it was to establish uniformity in worship, discipline,
and ecclesiastical morals. The twenty canons regulated fasting, some
points of clerical observance, observance of marriage, in which the
canonical and not the civil reckoning of degrees of kinship was to hold";
lay patrons were forbidden to fill vacancies without the approval and
assent of the bishop; no one was to go to Rome (i. e. for judgment)
without leave of his bishop, and no one subjected to penance was to go
to Rome in the hope of a lighter punishment. This legislation was
inspired by the reforming spirit of the German Church, due not only to
the saintly Emperor but to many ecclesiastics of all ranks, with whom
religion was a real thing; and for the furtherance of this the regulations
of the Church were to be obeyed. The Canon Law, now always including
the Forged Decretals, involved respect to papal authority, but Aribo
1 The civil law reckoned brothers and sisters as in the first degree; the canonical
law was now reckoning cousins-german as such.


## p. 17 (#63) ##############################################

Benedict IX
17
and his suffragans laid stress also upon the rights of metropolitans
and bishops in the national Church, which gave them not only
much power for good but the machinery for welding the nation to-
gether.
In June 1024 Benedict VIII died and was followed by his brother
Romanus the Senator, who became John XIX; his election, which was
tainted by bribery and force, was soon followed by the death of the
Emperor (13 July 1024). The new monarch, Conrad II, was supported
by the German adherents in Italy and especially by the Archbishop
Aribert of Milan, a city always important in imperial politics. Both he
and John XIX were ready to give Conrad the crowns which it was theirs
to bestow. So in 1026 he came to Italy; and he and his wife Gisela were
crowned in St Peter's (26 March 1027). Then, after passing to South
Italy, he slowly returned home, leaving John XIX to continue a papacy,
inglorious and void of reform, until his death in January 1032. Under
him old abuses revived, and so the state of things at Rome grew worse,
while in Germany, although Conrad II (1024-1039) was very different
from Henry II in Church affairs, the party of reform was gaining
strength.
With the election of Benedict IX, formerly Theophylact, son of
Alberic of Tusculum, brother of a younger Romanus the Consul, and
nephew of Benedict VIII and John XIX, papal history reached a crisis,
difficult enough in itself, and distorted, even at the time, by varying
accounts. According to the ordinary story, Benedict IX was only twelve
years old at his election, but as he grew older he grew also in debauchery,
until even the Romans, usually patient of papal scandal, became restive;
then at length the Emperor Henry III had to come to restore decency
and order at the centre of Western Christendom. But there is reason to
doubt something of the story. That Benedict was only twelve years
old
at his accession rests on the confused statement of Rodulf Glaber; there
is reason to suppose he was older. The description of his depravity
becomes more highly coloured as years go by and the controversies of
Pope and Emperor distort the past. But there is enough to shew that as
a man he was profligate and bad, as a Pope unworthy and ineffective.
It was, however, rather the events of his papacy, singular and significant,
than his character, that made the crisis. He was the last of a series of
what we may call dynastic Popes, rarely pious and often bad; after him
there comes a school of reformed and reformers.
Conrad II differed much in Church matters from Henry II. It is true
that he kept the feasts of the Church with fitting regularity and splendour
and that he also was a “brother” of some monasteries. But his aims were
purely secular, and the former imperial regard for learning and piety was
not kept up. Some of his bishops, like Thietmar of Hildesheim, were
ignorant; others, like Reginhard of Liège and Ulrich of Basle, had
openly bought their sees, and not all of them, like Reginhard, sought
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. I.
2


## p. 18 (#64) ##############################################

18
The Emperor Conrad II
absolution at Rome. Upon monasteries the king's hand was heavy:
he dealt very freely with their possessions, sometimes forcing them to give
lands as fiefs to his friends, sometimes even granting the royal abbeys
themselves as such. Thus the royal power worked harmfully or, at any
rate, not favourably for the Church', and bishops or abbots eager for
reform could no longer reckon upon kingly help. It is true that Poppo
of Stablo enjoyed royal favour, but other ecclesiastics who, like Aribo of
Mayence, had supported Conrad at his accession, received small en-
couragement. Conrad's marriage with Gisela trespassed on the Church's
rule of affinity, and the queen's interest in ecclesiastical appointments, by
which her friends and relatives gained, did not take away the reproach;
but she favoured reformers, especially the Cluniacs, whose influence in
Burgundy was useful.
A change in imperial policy then coincided with a change in Popes.
Benedict VIII may have been inspired by Henry II, but John XIX was
a tool of Conrad. For instance, he had to reverse a former decision,
by which the Patriarch of Grado had been made independent of his
brother of Aquileia. Poppo of Aquileia was a German and naturally an
adherent of Conrad; everyone knew why the decision was changed? .
It was even more significant that the Emperor spoke formally of the
decree of the faithful of the realm, “of the Pope John, of the venerable
patriarch Poppo, and others. ” It was thus made clear that, whether for
reform or otherwise, the Pope was regarded by the Emperor exactly as
were the higher German prelates. They were all in his realm and there-
fore in his hands. Here he anticipated a ruler otherwise very differently-
minded, Henry III.
2
Benedict IX could be treated with even less respect than John XIX.
It is true that he held synods (1036 and 1038), that he made the Roman
Bishop of Silva Candida bibliothecarius (or head of the Chancery) in
succession to Pilgrim of Cologne. But in 1038 he excommunicated
Aribert of Milan, who was giving trouble to Conrad. To the Emperor
he was so far acceptable, but in Rome where faction lingered on he had
trouble. Once (at a date uncertain the citizens tried to assassinate him
at the altar itself. Later (1044) a rebellion was more successful: he and
his brother were driven from the city, although they were able to hold
1 See supra, Vol. 111, p. 271.
2 The later incident, 1042, in which Poppo entered Grado by force, burning
and destroying churches and houses, slaughtering and ravaging, illustrates what
some bishops of the day were and did. The story of this revived quarrel between
Grado and Aquileia is well told by F. C. Hodgson, Early History of Venice, London,
1901, pp. 196-206 sqq. ; also supra, Vol. iv, pp. 407-8. The quarrel, which was
old ecclesiastically, had now a twofold connexion with Venetian and German politics.
3 On the difficult chronology of Benedict's pa pacy see R. L. Poole, Benedict IX
and Gregory VI (Proceedings of the British Academy, vı). For the chronology
of, and authorities for, the Italian journey of Henry III, Steindorff, Jahrbücher des
deutschen Reiches unter Heinrich III, 1, pp. 456-510.


## p. 19 (#65) ##############################################

Sylvester III and Gregory VI
19
the Trastevere. Then John, Bishop of Sabina, was elected Pope, taking
the name of Sylvester III. Again we hear of bribery, but as John's see
was in the territory of the Crescentii, we may suppose that this rival
house was concerned in this attack upon the Tusculans; in fifty days
the latter, helped by Count Gerard of Galeria, drove out Sylvester's
party, and he returned to his former see. Then afterwards Benedict
withdrew from the Papacy in favour of his godfather, John Gratian,
Archpriest of St John at the Latin Gate, who took the name of
Gregory VI. The new Pope belonged to the party of reform; he was a
man of high character, but his election had been stained by simony, for
Benedict, even if he were weary of his office and of the Romans, and
longed, according to Bonizo's curious tale, for marriage, had been bought
out by the promise of the income sent from England as Peter's Pence.
The change of Popes, however, was welcomed by the reformers, and
Peter Damian in particular hailed Gregory as the dove bearing the olive-
branch to the ark. Even more significant for the future was Gregory's
association with the young Hildebrand; both were probably connected
with the wealthy family of Benedict the Christian'. There was a
simplicity in Gregory's character which, in a bad society calling loudly for
reform, led him to do evil that good might come. For nearly two years
he remained Pope, but reform still tarried.
Attention has been too often concentrated on the profligacy of
Benedict IX, which in its more lurid colours shines so prominently in
later accounts. What is remarkable, however, is the corruption, not of
a single man, even of a single Pope, but of the whole Roman society.
Powerful family interests maintained it; the imperial power might
counterbalance them, and, as we have seen, the Papacy had been lately
treated much as a German bishopric. In the Empire itself there had
been a change; Conrad II had died (4 June 1039), and his son Henry III,
a very different man, now held the sceptre.
Whether it be true or not that, as Bonizo tells us, Peter the Arch-
deacon became discontented and went to ask Henry's interference, it is
certain that in 1046 Henry came to Italy; German interests and the state
of the Church alike incited him. At Pavia (25 October) he held a
Council, and the denunciation of simony made there? by him gave the
keynote of his policy, now, after Germany, to be applied to Italy and
Rome itself.
Henry was now a man of twenty-two, versed in business, trained to
responsibilities and weighty decisions since his coronation at eleven.
1 For a very probable genealogy see Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI,
pp. 23 sqq. The connexion explains but avoids Hildebrand's alleged Jewish descent.
2 Steindorff places here Henry's discourse (given by Rodulf Glaber, ed. Prou,
p. 133). See Steindorff, op. cit. pp. 309 sqq. and 497 sqq. , followed by Hefele-
Leclercq, iv, pp. 979 sqq. But see also Hauck, op. cit. 111, p. 586, n. 3, who rightly
holds the words not to be taken as an exact report.
CH, I.
2-2


## p. 20 (#66) ##############################################

20
The Emperor Henry III
He had been carefully taught, but, while profiting from his teachers, had
also learnt to think and decide for himself. He had a high ideal fof his
kingly office; to a firm belief in righteousness he added a conception of
his task and power such as Charlemagne had shewn. He was hailed,
indeed, as a second Charlemagne, and like him as a second David,
destined to slay the Goliath of simony. But in his private life he far
surpassed the one and the other in purity. He saw, as he had declared
at Constance and Trèves (1043), the need of his realm for peace, but the
peace was to come from his royal sway.
He was every inch a king, but heart and soul a Christian king. Simony
he loathed, and at one breath the atmosphere of Court and Church
was to be swept clear of it. Inside the Church its laws were to bind not
only others but himself as well: no son of a clerk, for instance, could
hope for a bishopric under him, because this was a breach of law, and he
told Richard of St Vannes that he sought only spiritually-minded men
for prelates. His father had been guilty of simony, but, at much loss
to himself, he abstained from it; his father had been harsh, but he
did not hesitate to reverse his decisions: thus he reinstated Aribert
at Milan. But on the other hand, election by chapters, for bishoprics and
monasteries, was unknown: he himself made the appointments and made
them well; in the ceremony of investiture he gave not only the staff but
the ring. Synods he called at his will, and in them played much the part
of Constantine at Nicaea. This was for Germany, and in Italy he played,
or meant to play, the same part. The case of Widger of Ravenna is
significant. This canon of Cologne had been named as Archbishop of
Ravenna (1044), but when two years had passed he was still unconsecrated,
although he wore episcopal robes at mass. He was summoned to the
imperial court, and the German bishops were asked to decide his case.
Wazo of Liège asserted that an Italian bishop could not be tried in
Germany, but clearly to Henry the distinction meant nothing. Wazo
also laid down the principle, of novel sound then although common later,
that to the Pope they owed obedience, to the Emperor fealty; secular
matters the one was to judge, ecclesiastical matters the other. Widger's
case, then, was for the Pope and Italy, not for Henry and Germany.
Nevertheless, Henry gained his point and Widger had to return his ring
and staff. It was doubly significant that the distinction between
ecclesiastical and secular authority should be drawn by Wazo, for the
king had no more devoted servant; he said once that if the Emperor put
out his right eye he should still serve him with the left, and his acts,
notably in defending the imperial rights around Liège even by force,
answered to his words. He was the bishop, too, to whom, when he
asserted the superiority of his episcopal anointing, Henry answered that
he himself was also anointed. Here then, in the principles of Wazo,
canonist, bishop, loyalist, and royal servant, but a clear thinker withal,
were the signs of future conflict. In Henry's own principles might be


## p. 21 (#67) ##############################################

The Synod of Sutri
21
seen something of the same unformed conflict, but with him they were
reconciled in his own authority and power.
Such was the king whom the scandals of the Papacy called from
Germany, where for six years the Church had rapidly improved, to Rome,
over which reformers grieved. Of Rome, Desiderius, Abbot of Monte
Cassino and afterwards Pope as Victor III (1086–7), could write, although
with the exaggeration of a critic: “the Italian priesthood, and among
them most conspicuously the Roman pontiffs, were in the habit of defying
all law and all authority; thus utterly confounding together things sacred
and profane. . . . . . . Few prelates kept themselves untainted with the vile
pollution of simony; few, very few, kept the commandments of God orº
served him with upright hearts. "
After his synod at Pavia, Henry III went on to Piacenza, where
Gregory VI, the only Pope actually in power, came to meet him and was
received with fitting honour. Then in Roman Tuscany another synod
was held at Sutri; at this point later and conflicting accounts, papal and
imperial, begin gravely to distort the evidence and the sequence of
events'. At the synod the story of the payment made by Gregory VI for
the Papacy was told; he was most probably deposed, although a later
pro-papal account made him resign of himself, as the bishops refused to
judge him. Up to their interview at Piacenza Henry had treated him as
the legitimate Pope, but afterwards there was certainly a change. The
details of his accession were probably now more clearly unfolded; stress
may have been laid upon them, and so Henry may have been influenced.
It was not an unknown thing for an Emperor to remove a Pope. Another
motive may also have influenced him. His second marriage to Agnes of
Poitou, sound as a piece of policy, was within the prohibited degrees. It
had caused some discussion in Germany', but there no bishop, whatever
he thought, cared to withstand a king so good. Probably at Rome it
would be looked at more suspiciously, and to the eyes of a strict Pope
might go against the coronation of the royal pair. We are reminded of
the marriage of William the Conqueror; both cases would at a later date
have been rightly covered by a dispensation, but the law and its system
of dispensations was only beginning to grow into shape. And Henry
might naturally wish for a Pope who would support him without reserve,
for such was his view of bishops generally. The exile, which Gregory was
in Germany up to his death (probably in October 1047), is a
strange ending to an almost blameless life; it can only be accounted for
to pass
1 Here the reconstruction by R. L. Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI, a fine
piece of criticism, is followed. See also Steindorff's Excursus, noted before, and
G. B.
Borino, L'elezione e la deposizione di Gregorio VI (Archivio della R. Soc. Rom.
di Storia Patria, xxxıx).
See supra, Vol. 1, pp. 283–4. The letters of Siegfried of Gorze, who would
have had strong measures taken, to Poppo of Stablo and Bruno of Toul, in Giesebrecht,
op. cit. 11, Dokumente 10 and 11.
CH, I.


## p. 22 (#68) ##############################################

.
22
Clement II
by the fear of danger arising from him if he were left in Italy. The doubt
about Henry's marriage, and the recognition of Gregory VI as the true
Pope, wide-spread in Italy and testified to by Wazo of Liège in Germany,
might be used for trouble.
But if Gregory was removed from the papal throne on the ground of
an invalid title, either Benedict IX or Sylvester III must be the rightful
Pope; the throne could hardly now be treated as vacant. Henry had
doubtless made up his mind for a German Pope, who could be better
relied on than an Italian; Rome could well be treated as Milan or
Ravenna had been, and a German Pope was a good precedent since the
days of Gregory V. The claims of Benedict IX and even of Sylvester III
were stirred into life, although they may not have been urged; the
story that they were considered at Sutri comes from later writers and is
unlikely. It was probably in a synod at Rome (23-24 October) that
Benedict was deposed; at one time he had certainly been a rightful, if an
unrighteous, Pope, and so he must be legally deposed. Sylvester III,
whose claims were weaker, disappeared into monastic retirement at
Fruttuaria, and was, if dealt with at all, probably deposed in the same
synod.
The way was now clear, and Suidger of Bamberg, a worthy bishop, was
chosen as Pope (Christmas 1046). Then, as Clement II, he crowned
Henry and Agnes. We can judge of the degradation of the papal office,
in spite of the enhanced appeal to it through the spread of Canon Law,
by the refusal of Adalbert of Bremen to accept it on Henry's offer; his
own see, even apart from his special Baltic plans, seemed to be more im-
portant. There was a show of election in the appointment, but the real
power lay with Henry, who named Suidger with the approval of a large
assembly; once again he treated an Italian bishopric, even that of Rome,
as he would have done a German. Significant is the renunciation by the
Romans of their election rights, which must be taken along with the title
of Patrician given to Henry'.
But the new state of things was not to pass without criticism. From
Lower Lorraine came a curious and rather bitter tractate (De ordinando
pontifice auctor Gallicus) written late in 10472. It betrays some un-
revealed discussion, and the writer urges the French bishops, who had
not been consulted in the election of Clement, to stand aloof; it was not
for the Church to palter with the laws of marriage at the wish of a king.
Evidently, therefore, Henry's marriage was held to be of moment in the
election. Even in Germany there were some who, like Siegfried of Gorze
and like Wazo a little later, were uneasy. Siegfried had disliked the
marriage, and Wazo protested to Henry, when he sought a successor to
1 For the title see supra, Vol. II, pp. 291, 305.
3 Ed. by E. Dümmler, MHG, Libelli de lite, 1, pp. 9 sqq. But it is to be dated,
not as by Dümmler in 1048, but late in 1047. See Sackur, Die Cluniacenser, 11,
pp. 305 sqq. ; R. L. Poole, Benedict IX and Gregory VI, pp. 29–30.


## p. 23 (#69) ##############################################

Damasus II
23
Clement, that no Pope could be made while Gregory VI was still
alive?
Clement II was worthy of his office, but his papacy was short, and so
uneventful; he was overshadowed by the presence of the Emperor, whom
he followed to southern Italy, but he held in January 1047 a Council at
Rome, where deposition was decreed against all simonists, while those
ordained by a simonist bishop were to do forty days' penance. Like pre-
ceding Popes he was ready to excommunicate the Emperor's foes, and the
Beneventans, who refused admittance to the German army, were sufferers.
But, setting a strange example to later Popes, he kept his old bishopric,
to which, as his sweetest bride,” he sent an affectionate letter, and where
on his unexpected death (9 October 1047) his body was laid to rest (he
was the only Pope buried in Germany); a widely-accepted rumour had
it that his unexplained illness was due to poison administered in the
interests of Benedict IX, and the same was said about his successor. It
is certain, at any rate, that on 9 November Benedict returned to Rome,
and, supported by the Marquess Boniface of Tuscany, kept his old office
until July (1048). Neither Roman families nor Italian nobles would
accept imperial control if they could help it. The power of Boniface now
threatened to become dangerous : his grandfather Azzo owned Canossa,
and his father Tedald, favoured by Henry II, had held Mantua, Ferrara,
and other towns, and kept them faithful to the Emperors. Boniface at
first followed his father's policy and Conrad had given him the March of
Tuscany. But his choice of a second wife, Beatrice, daughter of Frederick,
Duke of Upper Lorraine, brought him into a wider sphere of politics.
Distrust grew between him and the Emperor. At Rome he could injure
the Emperor most, and hence his support of Benedict. The Romans,
however, did not follow him; a deputation was sent to Henry at Pöhlde
seeking a new nomination, and Poppo, Bishop of Brixen, was chosen
(Christmas 1047). But Boniface, although Henry's representative in
Italy, at first refused to lead the new Pope to Rome, and only renewed
orders brought him to obedience; then at length he expelled Benedict IX,
and the new Pope was enthroned as Damasus II (17 July 1048). On
9 August he too died at Palestrina, after a pontificate of only twenty-
three days; poison was again suspected, although malaria may have been
the cause. It was no wonder that the deputation which again visited
Germany found the papal throne little desired. They suggested Halinard
of Lyons’, much beloved in Rome, where he had sojourned long. But
he did not accept, even if Henry offered it. At Worms the Emperor
chose a relative of his own, Bruno of Toul, and so there began a papacy
which was to change even the unchanged Rome itself.
1 Wazo, Sententia de Gregorio VI, in Watterich, Vitae Pontificum, 1, pp. 79-80,
quoted from Anselm of Liège.
: It seems better, with Hauck and others, to place the suggestion of Halinard
here, and not earlier.
CH. I.


## p. 24 (#70) ##############################################

24
Leo IX as Bishop of Toul
Bruno, Bishop of Toul, was son of Hugo, Count of Egisheim, and
related to Conrad II, who destined him for rich preferment. Herman of
Toul died on 1 April 1026, and the clergy and citizens at once chose for
successor Bruno, who vas well known to them but was then with the
army of Conrad II in Italy. The Emperor hinted at a refusal in hope of
better things, but the unanimous election seemed to the young ecclesiastic
a call from God; there had been no secular influence at work on his be-
half, and so to Toul, a poor bishopric, often disturbed by border wars, he
determined to go.
The future Pope had been born 21 June 1002, and, as destined for the
Church, was sent to a school at Toul, noted equally for its religious spirit
and its aristocratic pupils. His parents were religious and devoted
patrons of monasteries in Alsace, and at Toul reforming tendencies, due
to William of Dijon, were strong, while an earlier bishop, Gerard (963–
994), was revered as a saint; the young man, learned and literary, became
a canon of Toul, and although not a monk had a deep regard for
St Benedict, to whose power he attributed his recovery from an illness.
From Toul he passed to the chapel of the king, and as deputy for
Herman led the vassals of the bishopric with Conrad; in military affairs
he shewed ability, and was, from his impressive figure, his manners and
activity, liked by many besides Conrad and Gisela. His acceptance of
Toul seemed to others a self-denial, but even its very poverty and
difficulties drew him. He was not consecrated until 9 September 1027,
as Poppo of Trèves wished to impose a stricter form of oath upon his
suffragan, and not until Conrad's return did the dispute end by the
imposition of the older form. This difficulty cleared, Bruno devoted him-
self to his diocese: monastic reform in a city where monasteries were
unusually important was a necessity, and to this he saw; the city lay open
to attacks from the Count of Champagne, and Bruno had often occasion
to use his military experience, inherited and acquired. Thus, like the
best bishops of his day, notably Wazo of Liège, he was a good vassal to
the Emperor and a defender of the Empire. On the ecclesiastical side,
too, he had that love of the past which gave a compelling power to
historic traditions: it was he who urged Widerich, Abbot of St Evré, to
write a life of his predecessor, St Gerard; as a pilgrim to the apostolic
threshold, he often went to Rome. In diplomacy he was versed and use-
ful: in Burgundian politics he had taken a share; he had helped to
negotiate the peace with France in 1032. As a worthy bishop with
many-sided interests and activities he was known far beyond his diocese,
and even in countries besides his own.
Christmas 1048 Bruno spent at Toul, and then, accompanied by other
bishops and by Hildebrand, the follower of Gregory VI, he went to Rome.
It was a journey with the details of which clerical and partisan romance
afterwards made itself busy. But an election at Rome was usual and,
to Leo more than to other men, necessary. As before at Toul, his


## p. 25 (#71) ##############################################

Leo IX as Pope
25
path must be plain before him. Only when accepted by his future flock
could he begin his work, although the real choice had been the Emperor's.
Leo moved along a path he had already trodden, and he needed no
Hildebrand, with the warning of an older prophet, to guide his steps.
Already he knew a bishop's duty and the needs of the Church. He now
passed into a larger world, even if he kept his former see up to August
1051: his aims and his spirit were already set, only he was now to work
on an international field; reading, travel, diplomacy, and episcopal work
had trained him into a strong, enlightened statesman, of fixed principles
and piety, clear as to the means he ought to use. Church reform had be-
gun in many places and under many leaders; its various forms had been
tending to coherence in principles and supports, removal of abuses, and
recognition of Canon Law. Taught by these, many eyes had turned
to Rome. But guidance had been lacking thence, and abuses had
flourished to excess. Leo IX was to bring to the movement guidance;
he was to give it a coherence based on papal leadership and power. We
find under him all the former elements of the movement welded together,
and re-interpreted by a Pope who knew what the Papacy could do.
Hence came its new strength. His papacy is marked by its many
Councils, held not only at Rome but also far afield: Rome (after Easter
1049), Pavia (Whitsuntide), Rheims (October), Mayence (October), Rome
(Easter 1050), Salerno, Siponto, Vercelli (September 1050), Rome (Easter
1051), Mantua (February 1053), Rome (Easter)'. But this itinerary gives
little idea of his travels; on his route from place to place he made visits
of political importance, such as to Lorraine, and southern Italy, and
even to Hungary; everywhere he strove to rouse the Church, and
incidentally composed political or ecclesiastical strifes. Details are
wanting for some of these councils, but we must assume that in all of
them decrees against simony and clerical marriage, often spoken of as
concubinage (which was sometimes the truth), were issued. At the Roman
Council of 1049 simony was much discussed; guilty bishops were deposed,
and one of them, Kilian of Sutri, while trying to clear himself by false
witness, fell like another Ananias and died soon afterwards. There was a
like incident later at Rheims, when the innocent Archbishop of Besançon,
pleading for the guilty and much accused Hugh of Langres, suddenly lost
his voice. It was ascribed to a miracle by St Rémy (Remigius), but such
details shew how personal responsibility was now being pressed home on
the bishops. There was a suggestion that ordinations by simonist bishops
should be declared null, and it is sometimes said that Leo decreed they
were so? . This, as it was urged, would have made almost a clean sweep
1 An account of Leo's councils is given in Hefele-Leclercq, iv, pp. 995 sqq. , with
a very full bibliography for the reign; points of chronology, etc. , are discussed.
: For a full discussion see Saltet, Les Réordinations, Paris, 1907, PP.
note, p. 408. The evidence comes from Peter Damian, and the difficulty lies in the
translation of his “tanquam noviter ordinavit. ” I agree with the text of the Abbé
Saltet, and am not convinced by his note correcting his views as given there.
181
sqq. and
CH. 1.


## p. 26 (#72) ##############################################

26
The Council of Rheims
of the Roman clergy, for many Popes of late had been simoniacal.
Finally it was settled on the lines laid down by Clement II that a penance of
forty days met the case. But Leo brought up the matter again in 1050
and 1051, and on the last date he bade the bishops seek light from God.
In the Curia there were different views. Peter Damian insisted that the
acts of simoniacal bishops were valid, and he supported this by the assertion
that some of them had worked miracles; Cardinal Humbert, on the other
hand, went strongly on the other side. The two men were foremost in rival
schools of thought, divided by opinions on other matters also. Peter
Damian, for instance, welcomed the help of pious kings like Henry III,
while Humbert held any lay interference in Church affairs an outrage.
Strife on this matter was to grow keener, and the fortune of battle is
recorded as by an index in the treatment of simonist ordinations. There
was a side issue in the question whether simony was not a heresy, as the
musician-monk Guido of Arezzo suggested; if it were, simonist ordi-
nations, according to received doctrine, would be automatically void.
The Council of Rheims (3 October 1049) was of special importance. In
France local conditions varied: here the king and there a great vassal
controlled episcopal appointments, but everywhere simony was rife. It
arose, however, not as in Germany from the policy of one central power,
based upon a general principle of law or administration; it was a wide-
spread abuse of varied local origin to be attacked in many individual cases.
The needed reform was now to be preached on French soil by the Pope
himself; it was to be enforced with all the authority given to the Pope
by the Canon Law, genuine or forged; it appealed to ancient decisions,
such as that of Chalcedon (canon II, repeated at Paris in 829), against
simony, whether in ordinations or in ecclesiastical appointments, and
such as those enforcing attendance at councils, which were henceforth
commoner. The appearance of a Pope with definite claims to obedience
was thus emphasised by an appeal to the deficient but reviving sense of
corporate life. And, when the synod had done its work, the appeal was
driven home by the summons of guilty bishops to Rome, and by the
Pope's bold guardianship of free elections against royal interference, as in
the case of Sens (1049) and Le Puy (1053), and Henry I shewed himself
fairly complaisant.
But a German Pope was by no means welcome in France; national
diplomacy rather than a fear of papal authority made Henry I look
askance on the assembly at Rheims. The consecration of the new abbey
church of St Rémy was the occasion of Leo's visit, but the king, by sum-
moning his episcopal vassals to service in a well-timed campaign, made their
attendance at the synod difficult, and so many held aloof. An attack
upon simony was the first and main business, and after an allocution the
bishops one by one were called upon to declare their innocence of it. To
do this was notoriously difficult for Guy, the local Archbishop, and the
Bishops of Langres, Nevers, Coutances, and Nantes were in the same plight.


## p. 27 (#73) ##############################################

Activity of Leo IX
27
The archbishop promised to clear himself at Rome the next Easter,
which he may have done; the much-accused Hugh of Langres fled and
was excommunicated; Pudicus of Nantes was deposed; the two others
cleared themselves of suspicion. The Archbishop of Sens, and the Bishops
of Beauvais and Amiens, were excommunicated for non-attendance with
insufficient reason. The canons enjoined election by clergy and people
for bishops and abbots, forbade the sale of orders, safeguarded clerical
dues but prohibited fees for burials, eucharists, and service to the sick;
some canons recalled the objects of the Truce of God, and others dealt
with infringements of the marriage law. If the synod had been in itself
and in many ways, and above all in its vigorous reforms, an expression of
the Church's corporate life, it also drove home with unexpected energy
the lesson of individual responsibility. The new Papacy as a means of
reform had justified itself in a hitherto disorderly field. Summonses to
Rome, attendance at Roman synods, and the visits of Roman legates to
France, were to secure for the future the gains that Leo had made
possible.
From Rheims the Pope passed by way of Verdun, Metz, and Trèves, to
Mayence, where (in October) a large Council was held. Here simony and
clerical marriage were sternly condemned. Adalbert of Bremen and other
bishops after their return home enforced these decrees with varying
strictness, but without much success; Adalbert drove wives of clerics from
his city to the country outside. But the unhappy fact that a few of the
bishops, and notably Sigebod of Spires, were not above moral reproach
gave Bardo of Mayence, who was named legate, a difficult task. On
leaving Germany, Leo visited Alsace and Lorraine, having with him
Humbert, a monk of Moyenmoutier in the Vosges; he was designed for a
new arch-see in Sicily, but that not being created he was named Cardinal-
bishop of Silva Candida. It was doubtless meant that he was to help Leo
in the plans already forming against the Normans in southern Italy.
Then, whether before or after the Easter Council at Rome (1050) it
is hard to say, Leo went to southern Italy where matters religious and
secular needed attention. At the outset of his reign an embassy, it is
said', from Benevento had begged for his help; there was another embassy
in 1052, and probably an intermediate one. And one of the legates whom
Leo sent to report upon the situation was Cardinal Humbert. In his own
visit of 1050 Leo held Councils at Salerno and at Siponto, in the Norman
territory; here the customary decrees were made and some simoniacal
bishops deposed. The Easter Council at Rome (1050) was largely
attended, as was becoming usual, fifty-five bishops and thirty-two abbots
1 By his archdeacon and biographer, Wibert of Toul; this is the oldest life of
Leo, and is written in the older panegyrical style, but is a sound authority for de-
tailed events; like the other biographies of the time, it shews the influence of the
Cluniac spirit. See Giesebrecht, op. cit. 11, p. 566; Wibert's Life of Leo in Muratori,
RR. II. SS. Ed. 1, II, pp. 282 sqq. , and in Watterich, 1, pp. 127-170.
CH. I.


## p. 28 (#74) ##############################################

28
The Pope and the Normans
being present. Guido of Milan successfully cleared himself from a
charge of simony, but his very appearance to do so marked, much as
similar trials at Rheims and Mayence, a triumph for papal power. But,
unhappily for Guido, the struggle for precedence between him and
Humfred of Ravenna ended in his being wounded so severely as to be
healed only on his return by the miraculous help of St Ambrose. But
Humfred himself offended by words against the Pope, for which he was
excommunicated at the Council of Vercelli, and his forgiveness at Augs-
burg (February 1051) was followed by a somewhat dramatic death. The
very stars seemed to fight against Leo's foes, and submissions to his com-
mands became more general.
It is needless to follow the later councils of Leo; they were all part of
the policy so strikingly begun. A few fresh matters appear in them,
mingled with the old: at Vercelli (1 September 1050) the heresy of
Berengar, previously discussed in the Roman Council of the same year,
was brought up afresh and was to come up again and again. It was an
outcome, almost inevitable, of the varied and growing movements of the
day.
From Vercelli Leo went by way of Burgundy and Lorraine to Germany,
only coming back to Rome for the Easter Council of 1051. He wished
to get the Emperor's support for a Norman campaign, but the advice of
Gebhard of Eichstädt (afterwards Victor II) swayed Henry against it.
Then later in the year he visited southern Italy, whither he had already
sent Cardinal Humbert and the Patriarch of Aquileia as legates. His
plans almost reached a Crusade; he wished for help both from Henry and
the Emperor Constantine IX (1042–1055); he had visions of a papal
supremacy which should extend to the long-severed East. Hence a cam-
paign against the Normans and negotiations with Constantinople were
combined. Benevento, whence the citizens had driven the Lombard
Princes, and which Leo now visited, was at Worms (autumn 1052) in a
later visit to Germany given to the Papacy in exchange for Bamberg.
Leo IX therefore, like many a Pope, has been called, though for services
further afield, the founder of the Temporal Power. On his return from
the south, Councils at Mantua (February 1053), where opposition to the
decrees for celibacy raised a Lombard riot, and at Rome (Easter) followed;
at the latter, the rights of the Patriarch of Grado over Venice and Istria
were confirmed, and to the see of Foroiulium (Udine), where the Patriarch
of Aquileia had taken refuge after the destruction of his city by the Lom-
bards, was now left only Lombard territory. These measures are to be
taken along with the Pope's Eastern plans, in the general policy and military
preparations for which Hildebrand had a share. But the host, like other
crusading forces, was strangely composed, and the battle of Civitate, which
was to have crowned everything, brought only disaster and disappoint-
ment. An honourable captivity with the Normans at Benevento made
warfare, against which Peter Damian raised a voice, impossible, but Leo


## p. 29 (#75) ##############################################

Work of Leo IX
29
could still carry on correspondence and negotiations. The story of the
papal embassy to Constantinople, whence help was expected more hope-
fully than from Germany, has been told elsewhere! The three legates,
Cardinal Humbert, Frederick of Lorraine, Cardinal and Chancellor, and
Peter, Bishop of Amalfi, had small success, and the breach between the
Churches of the East and of the West only became wider and more lasting.
Constantine IX had hoped by conquering the Normans to revive his
failing dominion over southern Italy, where the Catapan Argyrus was as
anti-Norman as Leo himself. But Michael Cerularius, Patriarch since
March 1043, had his own large views, carried into politics with much
ability, and a natural dislike of the now more strongly-urged Roman
claims. Constantinople for many centuries had jealously maintained its
independence of Rome; it knew nothing of the Forged Decretals, while
Canon Law, Church customs, and ritual were now taking separate paths
in East and West. Eastern Emperor and Eastern Patriarch thus had very
different interests and views about Leo's designs. The fortune of war
favoured the Patriarch, for Argyrus, like Leo, was routed in Italy
(February 1053), and the negotiations at Constantinople came to worse
than naught.
But the end of a great papal reign was near. Sick in heart and health,
Leo left Benevento (12 March 1054), slowly travelling to the Rome
where he had dwelt so little but which he tried to make so great. Before
his death be besought the Romans to keep from perjury, forbidden
marriages, and robbery of the Church; he absolved all whom he had
excommunicated; he prayed for the Church and for the conversion of
Benedict IX and his brothers, who had set up simony over nearly all the
world. Then (19 April 1054) he died.
There seems to us a contrast between the more political schemes of his
later and the reforming work of his earlier years.