No More Learning

Peter Damian had argued for their validity. Cardinal
Humbert had been emphatic against, and Popes Nicholas II and
Gregory VII had practically adopted his opinion. On one thing all alike
were agreed—there could be no such thing as reordination. In Hum-
bert's view, simonists were outside the pale of the Church, and could
confer nothing sacramental; those who received ordination from them in
effect received nothing, and so, unless they afterwards received Catholic or-
dination, they had no orders at all. Urban was obviously at a loss for some
time, and his rulings were of a contradictory nature. He uses the
language of Humbert when he says in 1089 that he himself ordained
Daimbert, Bishop-elect of Pisa, as deacon, because Daimbert had
previously been ordained by Archbishop Werner of Mayence, heretic and
excommunicate, and “qui nihil habuit, nil dare potuit”; and again in
1091 when he ruled that Poppo, Bishop-elect of Metz, must be ordained
deacon by a Catholic bishop if his previous ordination had been simoniacal,


## p. 93 (#139) #############################################

The question of schismatic ordinations
93
because in that case it would be null'. But circumstances were too strong
for him, and even in 1089 he gave permission to his legate in Germany
to allow the retention of their orders to those who without simony had
received ordination from schismatic bishops, provided the latter had
themselves received Catholic ordination. It was at the great Council of
Piacenza in 1095 that he at last issued authoritative decrees on this
subject. Those ordained by schismatic bishops, who had themselves
received Catholic ordination, might retain their orders, if and when they
returned to the unity of the Church. Also those who had been ordained
by schismatics or simonists might retain their orders if they could prove
their ignorance of the excommunication or simony of their ordainers.
But in all cases where such ignorance was not alleged the orders were
declared to be altogether of no effect (omnino irritae). The meaning of
this is not clear, but evidently the validity of such orders is in fact recog-
nised, as the validity of the sacrament could not depend on the knowledge
or ignorance of the ordinand. Some light is thrown by a letter of uncertain
date to one Lucius, provost of St Juventius. After having declared
the validity of the orders and sacraments of criminous clergy, provided
they are not schismatics, he goes on to say that the schismatics have the
forma but not the virtutis effectus of the sacraments, unless and until they
are received into the Catholic communion by the laying-on of hands.
This then was the bridge by which the penitent schismatic might pass into
the Catholic fold, and the ceremony of reconciliation, which included
the performance of all the rites of ordination save that of unction, was
laid down by him in letters written both in 1088 and 1097. Urban's
position was neither easy to comprehend nor to maintain, and the anti-
Pope Guibert was on firmer ground when he condemned those who
refused to recognise the ordinations of his partisans. Urban's successor was
able, when the death of Henry IV brought the schism to an end, to
assist the restoration of unity by a more generous policy of recogni-
tion.
As we have seen, in 1094, when the Pope was at last in possession of
the Lateran palace, his cause was victorious throughout Italy and gaining
adherents rapidly in Germany. In the autumn he left Rome and com-
menced his journey, which lasted two years and was not far short of a
triumphal progress, through France and Italy. He came first to Tuscany
Here in particular I disagree from the interpretation of Urban's attitude given
by the Abbé Saltet (Les Réordinations, pp. 222 sqq. ). He uses these two instances as
evidence that, in the case of deacons as distinct from priests, etc. , Urban insisted on
an entirely new ordination. But the reasons given by the Pope for his decisions in
these two cases have a general application and are not influenced by the fact that he
is dealing with ordinations to the diaconate only. Clearly none of their orders are
valid. Though on various points I cannot accept the Abbé's conclusions, it is only
fair to add that, but for the illumination that he has thrown upon this most involved
subject, it would have been difficult to find one's way at all.
CH, IL


## p. 94 (#140) #############################################

94
Urban's progress through North Italy and France
where he spent the winter, and then proceeded into North Italy which had
been persistent, under the lead of the bishops, in its hostility to the Pope,
and which, now that the episcopal domination was beginning to wane',
was looking to the Pope as an ally against imperial authority. Even the
bishops, following the example of the Archbishop of Milan, were rapidly
becoming reconciled with the Pope. In March 1095 Urban held a Council
at Piacenza, which was attended by an immense concourse of ecclesiastics
and laymen. The business, some of which has already been mentioned,
was as important as the attendance. Praxedis, Henry IV's second wife,
was present to shock the assembly with stories of the horrors her husband
had forced her to commit. These found a ready credence, and she herself
a full pardon and the Pope's protection. The case of King Philip of
France, excommunicated for adultery by Archbishop Hugh at Autun
the previous year, was debated and postponed for the Pope's decision in
France. Finally there appeared the envoys of the Emperor Alexius im-
ploring the help of Western Christendom against the infidel, and the
inspiration came to Urban that was to give a great purpose to his journey
to France. From Piacenza Urban passed to Cremona, where he met
Conrad, who did fealty to him and received in return the promise of im-
perial coronation. Conrad further linked himself with the papal cause by
marrying the daughter of Count Roger of Sicily shortly afterwards at
Pisa. It is easy to blame the Pope who welcomed the rebel son; but it is
juster to attribute his welcome as given to the penitent seeking absolution
and a refuge from an evil and excommunicated father. The fault of
Urban was rather that he took up the unfortunate legacy from Gregory VII
of attempting to establish an Emperor who would be his vassal, falling
thus into the temptation that was to be fatal to the Papacy. Urban in
this respect was as unsuccessful as his rival, who attempted to establish a
compliant Pope; Conrad lived on for six more years, but without a fol-
lowing, and he and Guibert alike came to their end discredited and alone.
In July the Pope entered France, where judgment was to be passed on
the king and the Crusade to be proclaimed. But the Pope's energies were
not confined to these two dominant questions. He travelled ceaselessly
from place to place, looking into every detail of the ecclesiastical organi-
sation, settling disputes, and consecrating churches. Philip I made no
attempt to interfere with the papal progress, and the people everywhere
hailed with enthusiasm and devotion the unaccustomed sight of a Pope.
The climax was reached at the Council of Clermont in the latter half of
November, where both of the important questions were decided. The
king was excommunicated and the First Crusade proclaimed. Urban
recognised that he was again following in the footsteps of Gregory VII,
but his was the higher conception and his the practical ability that
realised the ideal. A less disinterested Pope might have roused the enthu-
siasm of the faithful against his enemy in Germany; personal considerations
1 Cf. infra, Chap. v, pp. 219 sq. , 222 sq.


## p. 95 (#141) #############################################

Urban's last years and death
95
might at least have checked him from sending the great host to fight
against the infidel when the Emperor still threatened danger, the King of
France was alienated by excommmnication, and the King of England was
anything but friendly. His disinterestedness had its reward in the posi-
tion the Papacy secured in consequence of the success of his appeal, but
this reward was not in Urban's mind in issuing the appeal. Clermont was
followed by no anti-climax. The papal progress was continued in 1096,
the Crusade was preached again at Angers and on the banks of the Loire,
synods were held at Tours and Nîmes, and the popular enthusiasm
increased in intensity. He had the satisfaction too of obtaining the sub-
mission of Philip.
When he returned to Italy in September, and, accompanied by
Countess Matilda, made his way to Rome, he was to experience even there
a great reception and to feel himself at last master of the papal city.
“Honeste tute et alacriter sumus” are the concluding words of his
account of his return in a letter to Archbishop Hugh of Lyons. And in
1098 the last stronghold of the Guibertines, the castle of Sant' Angelo,
fell into his hands. But his joy was premature. It would seem that the
turbulent Roman nobles, who had tasted independence, were not willing
to submit for long to papal authority. It was not in the Lateran palace
but in the house of the Pierleoni that Urban died on 29 July 1099, and
his body was taken by way of Trastevere to its last resting place in the
Vatican.
But, on the whole, his last three years were passed in comparative tran-
quillity and honour. The presence of Archbishop Anselm of Canterbury,
in exile from England, added distinction to the papal Court. Received
with the veneration that his character merited, Anselm acted as champion
of Western orthodoxy against the Greeks at the Council of Bari in 1098.
And three months before his death Urban held in St Peter's his last
council, at which the decrees of Piacenza and Clermont were solemnly
re-affirmed. Anselm returned to England with the decrees against lay
investiture and homage as the last memory of his Roman visit. They were
to bring him into immediate conflict with his new sovereign.
It was perhaps due to the unsettled state of Rome that the cardinals
chose San Clemente for the place of conclave; there on 13 August they
unanimously elected Rainer, cardinal-priest of that basilica, as Urban's
successor, in spite of his manifest reluctance. The anti-Pope was hovering
in the neighbourhood and a surprise from him was feared, but nothing
occurred to disturb the election. Rainer, who took the name of Paschal II,
was a Tuscan by birth, who had been from early days a monk and, like his
predecessor, at Cluny. Sent to Rome by the Abbot Hugh while still quite
young, he had been retained by Gregory VII and appointed Abbot of San
Lorenzo fuori le mura and afterwards cardinal-priest of San Clemente. By
Urban II, in whose election he took a leading part, he had been employed
CH. II.


## p. 96 (#142) #############################################

96
Pope Paschal II
as papal legate in Spain. Here our knowledge of his antecedents ceases.
So general was the agreement at his election that he was conducted at
once to take possession of the Lateran palace, and on the following day
was solemnly consecrated and enthroned at St Peter's. Guibert was
dangerously close, but the arrival of Norman gold enabled the Pope to
chase him from Albano to Sutri; soon afterwards he retired to Civita
Castellana, and died there in September 1100. Two anti-Popes were set
up in succession by his Roman partisans, both cardinal-bishops of his crea-
tion—Theodoric of Santa Rufina and Albert of the Sabina-but both
were easily disposed of. Paschal, so far fortunate, was soon to experience
the same trouble as Urban II from the Roman nobles. The defeat of
Peter Colonna (with whom the name Colonna first enters into history) was
an easy matter. More dangerous were the Corsi, who, after being expelled
from their stronghold on the Capitol, settled in the Marittima and took
their revenge by plundering papal territory. Closely connected with this
disturbance was the rising of other noble families under the lead of a
German, Marquess Werner of Ancona, which resulted in 1105 in the
setting-up of a third anti-Pope, the arch-priest Maginulf, who styled
himself Pope Sylvester IV. Paschal was for a time forced to take refuge
in the island on the Tiber, but the anti-Pope was soon expelled. He
remained, however, as a useful pawn for Henry V in his negotiations with
the Pope, until the events of 1111 did away with the need for him, and
he was then discarded. The nobles had not ceased to harass Paschal, and
a serious rising in 1108-1109 hampered him considerably at a time when
his relations with Henry were becoming critical. Again in 1116, on the
occasion of Henry's second appearance in Italy, Paschal was forced to
leave Rome for a time owing to the riots that resulted from his attempt
to establish a Pierleone as prefect of the city.
The new Pope was of a peaceful and retiring disposition, and in his
attempts to resist election he shewed a just estimate of his own capacity.
Lacking the practical gifts of Urban II and Gregory VII, and still more
the enlightened imagination of the latter, he was drawn into a struggle
which he abhorred and for which he was quite unequal. Timid and
unfamiliar with the world, he dreaded the ferocia gentis of the Germans,
and commiserated with Anselm on being inter barbaros positus as arch-
bishop. He was an admirable subordinate in his habit of unquestioning
obedience, but he had not the capacity to lead or to initiate. Obedient
to his predecessors, he was obstinate in adhering to the text of their
decrees, but he was very easily overborne by determined opponents. This
weakness of character is strikingly demonstrated throughout the investi-
ture struggle, in which he took the line of rigid obedience to the text of
papal decrees. Probably he was not cognisant of all the complicated
constitutional issues involved, and the situation required the common
sense and understanding of a man like Bishop Ivo of Chartres to handle
it with success; Ivo had the true Gregorian standpoint. Paschal devised


## p. 97 (#143) #############################################

His character
97
a solution of the difficulty with Henry V in 1111 which was admirable
on paper but impossible to carry into effect; and he shewed no strength
of mind when he had to face the storm which his scheme provoked.
A short captivity was sufficient to wring from him the concession of lay
investiture which his decrees had so emphatically condemned. When this
again raised a storm, he yielded at once and revoked his concession; at the
same time he refused to face the logic of his revocation and to stand up
definitely against the Emperor who had forced the concession from him.
The misery of his later years was the fruit of his indecision and lack of
courage. The electors are to blame, who overbore his resistance, and it is
impossible not to sympathise with this devout, well-meaning, but weak
Pope, faced on all sides by strong-minded men insistent that their extreme
demands must be carried out and contemptuous of the timid nature that
yielded so readily. Eadmer tells us of a characteristic outburst from
William Rufus, on being informed that the new Pope was not unlike
Anselm in character: “God's Face! Then he isn't much good. " The
comparison has some truth in it, though it is a little unfair to Anselm.
Both were unworldly men, drawn against their will from their monasteries
to a prolonged contest with powerful sovereigns; unquestioning obedience
to spiritual authority was characteristic of them both, but immeasurably
the greater was Anselm, who spoke no ill of his enemies and shielded them
from punishment, while he never yielded his principles even to extreme
violence. Paschal would have left a great name behind him, had he been
possessed of the serene courage of St Anselm.
For seven years the tide flowed strongly in his favour. The death of
the anti-Pope Guibert in 1100 was a great event. It seems very probable
that if Henry IV had discarded Guibert, as Henry V discarded Maginulf,
he might have come to terms with Urban II. But Henry IV was more
loyal to his allies than was his son, and he refused to take this treacherous
step. It seemed to him that with Guibert's death the chief difficulty was
removed, and he certainly gave no countenance to the anti-Popes of a day
that were set up in Rome to oppose Paschal. He was indeed quite ready
to recognise Paschal, and, in consonance with the universal desire in
Germany for the healing of the schism, announced his intention of going
to Rome in person to be present at a synod where issues between Empire
and Papacy might be amicably settled. It was Paschal, however, who proved
irreconcilable. In his letters and decrees he shewed his firm resolve to give
no mercy to the king who had been excommunicated and deposed by his
predecessors and by himself. Henry was a broken man, very different
from the antagonist of Gregory VII, and it was easy for Paschal to be
defiant. The final blow for the Emperor came at Christmas 1104, when
the young Henry deserted him and joined the rebels. Relying on the
nobles and the papal partisans, Henry V was naturally anxious to be
reconciled with the Pope. Paschal welcomed the rebel with open arms, as
Urban had welcomed Conrad.
7
C. MED. H. VOL. V. CH. IJ.


## p. 98 (#144) #############################################

98
The end of the schism
The formal reconciliation took place at the beginning of 1106. Born
in 1081, when his father was already excommunicated, Henry could only
have received baptism from a schismatic bishop. With the ceremony of
the laying-on of hands he was received by Catholic bishops into the
Church, and by this bridge the mass of the schismatics passed back into
the orthodox fold. The Pope made easy the path of reconciliation, and
the schism was thus practically brought to an end. The young king, as
his position was still insecure, shewed himself extremely compliant to the
Church party. He had already expelled the more prominent bishops of
his father's party from their sees, and filled their places by men whom the
papal legate, Bishop Gebhard of Constance, had no hesitation in conse-
crating. But he shewed no disposition to give up any of the rights
exercised by his father, and Paschal did not take advantage of the oppor-
tunity to make conditions or to obtain concessions from him. Towards
the old king, who made a special appeal to the apostolic mercy, promising
complete submission to the papal will, Paschal shewed himself implacable.
There could be no repetition of Canossa, but the Pope renewed the
ambition of Gregory VII in announcing his intention to be present at a
council in Germany. The temporary recovery of power by Henry IV in
1106 prevented the holding of this council in Germany, and it was sum-
moned to meet in Italy instead. In the interval Henry died, and still the
Pope was implacable, refusing to allow the body of the excommunicated
king to be laid to rest in consecrated ground. It was a hollow triumph;
the Papacy was soon to find that it had exchanged an ageing and beaten
foe for a young and resolute one. The death of his father had relieved
1
Henry V from the immediate necessity of submission to the papal will.
He soon made clear that he was as resolute a champion of royal rights
as his father, and he faced the Pope with Germany united in his
support.
III.
With the death of Henry IV and the reconciliation of Henry V with
the Church, the schism that had lasted virtually for thirty years was at
an end. The desire for peace, rather than any deep conviction of imperial
guilt, had been responsible perhaps for Henry V's revolt, certainly for his
victory over his father. By the tacit consent of both sides the claims and
counter-claims of the years of conflict were ignored; the attempt of each
power to be master of the other was abandoned, and in the relations
between the regnum and sacerdotium the status quo ante was restored.
On the question of lay investiture negotiations had already been started
before the schism began; they were resumed as soon as the schism was
healed, but papal decrees in the intervening years had increased the diffi-
culty of solution. Universal as was the desire for peace, this issue prevented
its consummation for another sixteen years. The contest of Henry V


## p. 99 (#145) #############################################

Lay investiture. Settlements in France and England 99
and the Papacy is solely, and can very rightly be named, an Investiture
Struggle.
Gregory VII's decrees had been directed against the old idea by which
churches and bishoprics were regarded as possessions of laymen, and
against the practice of investiture by ring and staff which symbolised the
donation by the king of spiritual functions. He shewed no disposition
to interfere with the feudal obligations which the king demanded from the
bishops as from all holders of land and offices within his realm. But his suc-
cessors were not content merely to repeat his decrees. At the Council
of Clermont in 1095 Urban II had prohibited the clergy from doing
homage to laymen, and at the Lenten Synod at Rome in 1102 Paschal II
also prohibited the clergy from receiving ecclesiastical property at the
hands of a layman, that is to say, even investiture with temporalities alone.
To Gregory investiture was not important in itself, but only in the lay
control of spiritual functions which it typified, and in the results to which
this led-bad appointments and simony; the prohibition of investiture
was only a means to an end. To Paschal it had become an end in itself.
Rigid in his obedience to the letter of the decrees, he was blind to the
fact that, in order to get rid of the hated word and ceremony, he was
leaving unimpaired the royal control, which was the real evil.
He had already obtained his point in France, and was about to
establish it in England also. In France, owing to the weakness of the
central government, papal authority had for some time been more effective
than elsewhere; Philip I also exposed himself to attack on the moral side,
and had only recently received absolution (in 1104) after a second period
of excommunication. Relations were not broken off again, as the Pope
did not take cognisance of Philip's later lapses. The king, at any rate,
was not strong enough to resist the investiture decrees. There was no
actual concordat; the king simply ceased to invest, and the nobles followed
his example? He, and they, retained control of appointments, and in
place of investiture “conceded” the temporalities of the see, usually after
consecration and without symbol; the bishops took the oath of fealty,
but usually did not do homage.
Paschal was less successful in England, where again political conditions
were largely responsible for bringing Henry I into the mood for compro-
mise. Henry and Paschal were equally stubborn, and on Anselm fell the
brunt of the struggle and the pain of a second exile. At last Henry was
brought to see the wisdom of a reconciliation with Anselm, and the Pope
relented so far as to permit Anselm to consecrate bishops even though
1 The controversial literature shews this very clearly. It is, from now onwards,
confined to the question of lay investiture. Up to this time it was the greater issues
raised by Gregory VII that had been mainly debated.
2 France was peculiar in this, that not only the king but also nobles invested even
to bishoprics. Normandy was in a special position, and what is said with regard to
England should be taken as applying to Normandy also.
CH. II.
7-2


## p. 100 (#146) ############################################

100
The attitude of Henry V
they had received lay investiture or done homage to the king. This paved
the way for the Concordat of August 1107, by which the king gave up
the practice of investing with ring and staff and Anselm consented to
consecrate bishops who had done homage to the king. Thus what the
Pope designed as a temporary concession was turned into a permanent
settlement. The subsequent practice is seen from succeeding elections and
was embodied in the twelfth chapter of the Constitutions of Clarendon.
The king had the controlling voice in the election, the bishop-elect did
homage and took the oath of fealty, and only after that did the consecration
take place. In effect, the king retained the same control as before. The
Pope was satisfied by the abolition of investiture with the ring and staff,
but the king, though hating to surrender an old custom', had his way on
all the essential points.
Paschal II's obsession with the question of investiture is shewn in the
letter he wrote to Archbishop Ruthard of Mayence in November 1105,
a letter which is a fitting prelude to the new struggle. Investiture, he says,
is the cause of the discord between the regnum and the sacerdotium, but
he hopes that the new reign will bring a solution of the difficulty. Actu-
ally it was the new reign that created the difficulty. During the schism
papal decrees were naturally disregarded in Germany; royal investiture
continued uninterruptedly, and Henry V from the beginning of his reign
regularly invested with the ring and staff. But when Germany returned
to the Catholic fold, papal decrees became operative once more, and the
discrepancy between Henry's profession of obedience to Rome and his
practice of investiture was immediately apparent. He was as determined
as his father that the royal prerogative should remain unimpaired, but
he shewed his sense of the direction the controversy was taking and the
weakness of the royal position by insisting that he was only investing with
the regalia’. This made no difference to Paschal, who refused all com-
promise on the exercise of investiture; his assertion of his desire not to
interfere with the royal rights, which had some meaning in Gregory VII's
mouth, carried no conviction. He must have been sanguine indeed if he
expected in Germany a cessation of investiture as in France; there was
nothing to induce Henry V even to follow the precedent set by his English
namesake. In Germany there was no parallel to the peculiar position in
England of St Anselm, the primate who put first his profession of obedience
to the Pope. Archbishops and bishops, as well as lay nobles, were at one
with the king on this question; even the papal legate, Bishop Gebhard
of Constance, who had endured so much in the papal cause, did not
object to consecrate bishops appointed and invested by Henry. And the
German king had legal documents to set against the papal claims—the
1 His reluctance is seen in the jealous complaint he made in 1108 through Anselm,
that the Pope was still allowing the King of Germany to invest.
2 This meant the important part, but not the whole, of the temporalities of
the see.


## p. 101 (#147) ############################################

Unsuccessful negotiations between Pope and king 101
privileges of Pope Hadrian I to Charles the Great and of Pope Leo VIII
to Otto the Great-forged documents, it is true, but none the less useful.
It needed a change in the political atmosphere to induce Henry V to
concessions.
The council summoned by Paschal met at Guastalla on 22 October
1106. The Pope was affronted by the scant attention paid by German
bishops to his summons.
Instead there appeared an embassy from Henry
claiming that the Pope should respect the royal rights, and at the same
time inviting him again to Germany. To the first message Paschal replied
by a decree against lay investiture, to the second by an acceptance of the
invitation, promising to be at Mayence at Christnias. He soon repented
of his promise, whether persuaded of the futility of the journey or wishing
to avoid the personal encounter, and hastily made his way into France,
where he could be sure of protection and respect. Here he met with a
reception which fell little short of that accorded to Urban; in particular
he was welcomed by the two kings, Philip I and his son Louis, who
accompanied the Pope to Châlons in May 1107, where he received the
German ambassadors with Archbishop Bruno of Trèves at their head. To
the reasoned statement they presented of the king's demands Paschal re-
turned a direct refusal, which was pointed by the decree he promulgated
against investiture at a council held at Troyes on 23 May. At this council
he took action against the German episcopate, especially for their dis-
obedience to his summons to Guastalla: the Archbishops of Mayence
and Cologne and their suffragans, with two exceptions, were put under
the ban, and his legate Gebhard received a sharp censure. It was of little
avail that he invited Henry to be present at a synod in Rome in the
following year. Henry did not appear, and Paschal was too much occupied
with difficulties in Rome to take any action. But at a synod at Bene-
vento in 1108 he renewed the investiture decrees, adding the penalty of
excommunication against the giver as well as the receiver of investiture.
Clearly he was meditating a definite step against Henry. The king, however,
had a reason for not wishing at this moment toalienate the Pope-his desire
for imperial coronation. Accordingly during 1109 and 1110 negotiations
were resumed. An embassy from Henry proposing his visit to Rome was
well received by Paschal, who welcomed the proposal though remaining
firm against the king's demands. At the Lenten Synod of 1110 he repeated
the investiture decree, but, perhaps to prevent a breach in the negotia-
tions, abstained from pronouncing excommunication on the giver of
investiture. He had reiterated to Henry's embassy his intention not to
infringe the royal rights. Had he already conceived his solution of 1111?
At any rate he took the precaution of obtaining the promise of Norman
support in case of need, a promise which was not fulfilled'.
Duke Roger of Apulia died on 21 February 1111, and the Normans were too
weak to come to the Pope's assistance. In fact they feared an imperial attack upon
themselves.
CH. .


## p. 102 (#148) ############################################

102
The events of 1111
In August 1110 Henry began his march to Rome. From Arezzo, at
the end of December, he sent an embassy to the Pope, making it clear
that he insisted on investing with the temporalities held from the Empire.
Paschal's answer was not satisfactory, but a second embassy (from Acqua-
pendente) was more successful. It was now that Paschal produced his
famous solution of the dilemma—the separation of ecclesiastics from all
secular interests. If Henry would renounce investiture, the Church would
surrender all the regalia held by bishops and abbots, who would be con-
tent for the future with tithes and offerings. Ideally this was an admirable
solution, and it may have appeared to the unworldly monk to be a
practical one as well. Henry must have known better. He must have
realised that it would be impossible to obtain acquiescence from those who
were to be deprived of their privileges and possessions. But he saw that
it could be turned to his own advantage. He adroitly managed to lay on
the Pope the onus of obtaining acquiescence; this the Pope readily un-
dertook, serenely relying on the competency of ecclesiastical censures to
bring the reluctant to obedience. The compact was made by the pleni-
potentiaries of both sides at the church of Santa Maria in Turri on
4 February 1111, and was confirmed by the king himself at Sutri on
9 February
the
On 12 February the king entered St Peter's with the usual prelimi-
nary formalities that attended imperial coronations. The ratification of
compact was to precede the ceremony proper. Henry rose and read
aloud his renunciation of investiture. The Pope then on behalf of the
Church renounced the regalia, and forbade the holding of them by any
bishops or abbots, present or to come. Immediately burst forth the storm
that might have been expected! Not only the ecclesiastics, who saw the
loss of their power and possessions, but also the lay nobles, who anticipated
the decline in their authority consequent on the liberation of churches
from their control, joined in the uproar. All was confusion; the ceremony
of coronation could not proceed. Eventually, after futile negotiations, the
imperialists laid violent hands on the Pope and cardinals; they were
hurried outside the walls to the king's camp, after a bloody conflict with
the Romans. A captivity of two months followed, and then the Pope
yielded to the pressure and conceded all that Henry wished. Not only
was royal investiture permitted; it was to be a necessary preliminary to
consecration. They returned together to St Peter's, where on 13 April
the Pope handed Henry his privilege and placed the imperial crown upon
1 The accounts published afterwards by both sides are contradictory as to the
actual order of events. The imperial manifesto declares that Henry read his privilege
and that the uproar arose when he called upon the Pope to fulfil his share of the
compact. The papal manifesto implies that neither privilege was actually read aloud.
The account that Ekkehard gives in his Chronicle (MGH, Script. vi, p. 224 sq. ) is that
the uproar occurred after the reading of both privileges. Whatever actually happened,
it is clear that the contents of the two documents were in some way made public.


## p. 103 (#149) ############################################

The Pope forced to retract his concession to Henry 103
his head. Immediately after the ceremony the Pope was released; the
Emperor, who had had to barricade the Leonine city against the popu-
lace, hastily quitted Rome and returned in triumph to Germany.
The Pope had had his moment of greatness. He had tried to bring
the ideal into practice and to recall the Church to its true path; but the
time was not ripe, the violence of the change was too great, and the plan
failed. The failure was turned into disaster by the weakness of character
which caused him to submit to force and make the vital concession of in-
vestiture; for the rest of his life he had to pay the penalty. The extreme
Church party immediately gave expression to their feelings. Led by the
Cardinal-bishops of Tusculum and Ostia in Rome, and in France and
Burgundy by the Archbishops of Lyons and Vienne', they clamoured for
the repudiation of the “concession," reminding Paschal of his own previous
decrees and hinting at withdrawal of obedience if the Pope did not retract
his oath. In this oath Paschal had sworn, and sixteen cardinals had sworn
with him, to take no further action in the matter of investiture, and
never to pronounce anathema against the king. Both parts of the oath
he was compelled to forswear, helpless as ever in the presence of strong-
minded men. At the Lenten Synod of 1112 he retracted his concession
of investiture, as having been extracted from him by force and therefore
null and void. The same year Archbishop Guy of Vienne held a synod
which condemned lay investiture as heresy, anathematised the king, and
threatened to withdraw obedience from the Pope if he did not confirm the
decrees. Paschal wrote on 20 October, meekly ratifying Guy's actions.
But his conscience made his life a burden to him, and led him into various
inconsistencies. He felt pledged in faith to Henry, and wrote to Germany
that he would not renounce his pact or take action against the Emperor.
The unhappy Pope, however, was not man enough to maintain this
attitude. Harassed by the vehemence of the extremists, whose scorn for
his action was blended with a sort of contemptuous pity, he was forced at
the Lenten Synod of 1116 to retract again publicly the concession of 1111
and to condemn it by anathema. Moreover, Cuno, Cardinal-bishop of
Palestrina, complained that as papal legate at Jerusalem and elsewhere,
he had in the Pope's name excommunicated Henry, and demanded confir-
mation of his action. The Pope decreed this confirmation, and in a letter
to Archbishop Frederick of Cologne the next year, he wrote that hearing
of the archbishop's excommunication of Henry he had abstained from
intercourse with the king. Paschal had ceased to be Head of the Church
in anything but name.
If the events of 1111 brought humiliation to Paschal from all sides,
the Emperor was to get little advantage from his successful violence. The
1 Their efforts in France were, however, to a large extent discounted by the
moderate party with Bishop lvo of Chartres as its spokesman. He deprecated the
action of the extremists, especially in their implied rebuke of the Pope, and emphati-
cally denied that lay investiture could rightly be stigmatised as heresy.
CH. II.


## p. 104 (#150) ############################################

104
Henry as heir to Countess Matilda
revolt that broke out in Germany in 1112 and lasted with variations of
fortune for nine years was certainly not unconnected with the incidents of
those fateful two months. The Saxons naturally seized the opportunity
to rebel, but it is more surprising to find the leading archbishops and many
bishops of Germany in revolt against the king. Dissatisfaction with the
February compact, indignation at the violence done to the Pope, as
well as the ill-feeling caused by the high-handed policy of Henry in
Germany, were responsible for the outbreak; if Archbishop Adalbert
of Mayence was controlled mainly by motives of personal ambition,
Archbishop Conrad of Salzburg was influenced by ecclesiastical considera-
tions only. Henry's enemies hastened to ally themselves with the extreme
Church party,
and Germany was divided into two
camps
once more. Even
neutrality was dangerous, and Bishop Otto of Bamberg, who had never
lost the favour of Pope or Emperor, found himself placed under anathema
by Adalbert.
An important event in 1115, the death of Countess Matilda of Tuscany,
brought the Emperor again into Italy. He came, early in 1116, to enter
into possession not only of the territory and dignities held from the Em-
pire but, as heir, of her allodial possessions as well. Matilda, at some
time in the years 1077–1080, had made over these allodial possessions, on
both sides of the Alps, to the Roman Church, receiving them back as a
fief from the Papacy, but retaining full right of disposition'. This dona-
tion she had confirmed in a charter of 17 November 1102. Her free right
of disposal had been fully exercised, notably on the occasion of Henry's
first expedition to Italy. Both on his arrival, and again at his departure,
she had shewn a friendliness to him which is most remarkable in view of
his dealings with the Pope. Moreover it seems to be proved that at this
time she actually made him her heir, without prejudice of course to the
previous donation to the Papacy. The Pope must have been aware of the
bequest, as he made no attempt to interfere with Henry when he came
into Italy to take possession. The bequest to Henry at any rate prevented
any friction from arising on the question during the Emperor's lifetime,
especially as Henry, like Matilda, retained full disposal and entered into
no definite vassal-relationship to the Pope. For Henry it was a personal
acquisition of the highest value. By a number of charters to Italian towns,
which were to be of great importance for the future, he sought to con-
solidate his authority and to regain the support his father had lost. His
general relations with the Pope do not seem to have caused him any
uneasiness. It was not until the beginning of 1117 that he proceeded to
Rome, where he planned a solemn coronation at Easter and a display of
imperial authority in the city proper, in which he had been unable to set
foot in 1111.
1 A. Overmann, Gräfin Mathilde von Tuscien, pp. 143-4.
? 16. pp. 43 ff. Overmann shews that this was a personal bequest to her relative
Henry, and was not made to him as Emperor or King of Germany.


## p. 105 (#151) ############################################

Deaths of Paschal II and Gelasius II
105
During the previous year Paschal's position in Rome had been
endangered by the struggles for the prefecture, in which a boy, son of the
late prefect, was set up in defiance of the Pope's efforts on behalf of his
constant supporters the Pierleoni. The arrival of Henry brought a new
terror. Paschal could not face the prospect of having to retract his
retractation; he fled to South Italy. Henry, supported by the prefect,
spent Easter in Rome, and was able to find a complaisant archbishop to
perform the ceremony of coronation in Maurice Bourdin of Braga, who
was immediately excommunicated by the Pope. For the rest of the year
Paschal remained under Norman protection in South Italy, where he re-
newed with certain limitations Urban II's remarkable privilege to Count
Roger of Sicily. Finally in January 1118, as Henry had gone, he could
venture back to Rome, to find peace at last. On 21 January 1118 he died
in the castle of Sant' Angelo.
His successor, John of Gaeta, who took the name of Gelasius II, had
been Chancellor under both Urban II and Paschal II, and had distinguished
his period of office by the introduction of the cursus, which became a
special feature of papal letters and was later imitated by other chanceries'.
His papacy only lasted a year, and throughout he had to endure a continual
conflict with his enemies. The Frangipani made residence in Rome im-
possible for him. The Emperor himself appeared in March, and set up
the
excommunicated Archbishop of Braga as Pope Gregory VIII. In April
at Capua Gelasius excommunicated the Emperor and his anti-Pope, and so
took the direct step from which Paschal had shrunk, and a new schism
definitely came into being. At last in September Gelasius set sail for
Pisa, and from there journeyed to France where he knew he could obtain
peace and protection. On 29 January 1119 he died at the monastery of
Cluny.
The cardinals who had accompanied Gelasius to France did not
hesitate long as to their choice of a successor, and on 2 February Arch-
bishop Guy of Vienne was elected as Pope Calixtus II; the election was
ratified without delay by the cardinals who had remained in Rome. There
was much to justify their unanimity. Calixtus was of high birth, and was
related to the leading rulers in Europe-among others to the sovereigns
of Germany, France, and England; he had the advantage, on which he
frequently insisted, of being able to address them as their equal in birth.
He had also shewn himself to be a man of strong character and inflexible
determination. As Archbishop of Vienne he had upheld the claims of his
see against the Popes themselves, and apparently had not scrupled to
employ forged documents to gain his ends. He had taken the lead in
Burgundy ip opposing the “concession" of Paschal in 1111, and, as we
have seen, had dictated the Pope's recantation. But the characteristics
that made him acceptable to the cardinals at this crisis might seem to have
1 On this see R. L. Poole, The Papal Chancery, ch. iv.
CH. II.


## p. 106 (#152) ############################################

106
Pope Calixtus II
militated against the prospects of peace. The result proved the contrary,
however, and it was probably an advantage that the Pope was a strong
man and would not be intimidated by violence like his predecessor, whose
weakness had encouraged Henry to press his claims to the full. Moreover
the revival of the schism caused such consternation in Germany that it
was perhaps a blessing in disguise. It allowed the opinions of moderate
men, such as Ivo of Chartres and Otto of Bamberg, to make themselves
heard and to force a compromise against the wishes of the extremists on
both sides.
Calixtus soon shewed that he was anxious for peace, by assisting the
promotion of negotiations. These came to a head at Mouzon on 23 Octo-
ber, when the Emperor abandoned investiture to churches, and a settle-
ment seemed to have been arranged. But distrust of Henry was very
strong among the Pope's entourage; they were continually on the alert,
anticipating an attempt to take the Pope prisoner. So suspicious were they
that they decided there must be a flaw in his pledge to abandon investi-
ture; they found it in his not mentioning Church property, investiture
with which was equally repudiated by them. On this point no accommo-
dation could be reached, and the conference broke up. Calixtus returned
to Rheims to preside over a synod which had been interrupted by his
departure to Mouzon. The synod pronounced sentence of excommunication
on Henry V and passed a decree against lay investiture; the decree as
originally drafted included a condemnation of investiture with Church
property, but the opposition of the laity to this clause led to its withdrawal,
and the decree simply condemned investiture with bishoprics and abbeys.
A little less suspicion and the rupture with Henry might have been avoided.
Investiture was not the only important issue at the Synod of Rheims.
During its session the King of France, Louis VI, made a dramatic appeal
to the Pope against Henry I of England! On 20 November Calixtus met
Henry himself at Gisors, and found him ready enough to make peace with
Louis but unyielding on the ecclesiastical questions which he raised him-
self. They were especially in conflict on the relations between the
Archbishops of Canterbury and York. Calixtus had reversed the decision
of his predecessors and denied the right of Canterbury to the obedience
of York, which Lanfranc had successfully established. Perhaps his own
experience led him to suspect the forgeries by which Lanfranc had built
up his case, or he may have been anxious to curb the power of Canterbury
which had rendered unsuccessful a mission on which he had himself been
employed as papal legate to England. Heinsisted on the non-subordination
of York to Canterbury; in return, he later granted to the Archbishop of
Canterbury the dignity of permanent papal legate in England. This may
have given satisfaction to the king; it also gave a foothold for papal
authority in a country which papal legates had not been allowed to enter
without royal permission.
1 See infra, Chap. xviii, pp. 603-4.


## p. 107 (#153) ############################################

The Concordat of Worms
107
For more than a year Calixtus remained in France. When he made
his
way into Italy and arrived at Rome in June 1120, he met with an
enthusiastic reception ; though he spent many months in South Italy,
his residence in Rome was comparatively untroubled. The failure of the
negotiations at Mouzon delayed peace for three more years, but the
universal desire for it was too strong to be gainsaid. Two events in 1121
prepared the way. Firstly, the capture of the anti-Pope in April by
Calixtus removed a serious obstacle; the wretched Gregory VIII had
received, as he complained, no support from the Emperor who had exalted
him. Secondly, at Michaelmas in the Diet of Würzburg the German
nobles restored peace between Henry and his opponents in Germany,
and promised by their mediation to effect peace with the Church also.
This removed the chief difficulties. Suspicion of the king had ruined
negotiations at Mouzon; his pledges were now to be guaranteed by the
princes of the Empire. Moreover with Germany united for peace, the
Papacy could have little to gain by holding out against it; Calixtus
shewed his sense of the changed situation by the conciliatory, though
firm, letter which he wrote to Henry on 19 February 1122 and sent by
the hand of their common kinsman, Bishop Azzo of Acqui. Henry had
as little to gain by obstinacy, and shewed himself prepared to carry out
the decisions of the Diet of Würzburg and to promote the re-opening of
negotiations. The preliminaries took time. The papal plenipotentiaries
fixed on Mayence as the meeting-place for the council, but the Emperor
won an important success in obtaining the change of venue from this city,
where he had in the archbishop an implacable enemy, to the more loyal
Worms; here on 23 September was at last signed the Concordat which
brought Empire and Papacy into communion once more.
The Concordat of Worms' was a treaty of peace between the two
powers, each of whom signed a diploma granting concessions to the other.
The Emperor, besides a general guarantee of the security of Church
property and the freedom of elections, surrendered for ever investiture
with the ring and staff. The Pope in his concessions made an important
distinction between bishoprics and abbeys in Germany and those in Italy
and Burgundy. In the former he granted that elections should take place
in the king's presence and allowed a certain authority to the king in dis-
puted elections; the bishop or abbot elect was to receive the regalia from
the king by the sceptre, and in return was to do homage and take the
oath of fealty, before consecration. In Italy and Burgundy consecration
was to follow a free election, and within six months the king might bestow
the regalia by the sceptre and receive homage in return? . This distinction
marked a recognition of existing facts. The Emperor had exercised little
1 The original of the imperial diploma is in the Vatican archives. A facsimile of
it is given in MIOGF, Vol. VI.
2 In both cases the words used are: “Sceptrum a te recipiat et quae ex his iure
tibi debet faciat. ”
CH. II.


## p. 108 (#154) ############################################

108
Effect of the Concordat
1
control over elections in Burgundy, and had been gradually losing
authority in Italy. Two factors had reduced the importance of the Italian
bishoprics: the growing power of the communes, often acquiesced in by
the bishops, had brought about a corresponding decline in episcopal
authority, and the bishops had in general acceded to the papal reform
decrees, so that they were far less amenable to imperial control. As far
as Germany was concerned, it remained of the highest importance to the
king to retain control over the elections, as the temporal authority of the
bishops continued unimpaired. And here, though the abolition of the
obnoxious use of spiritual symbols satisfied the papal scruples, the royal
control of elections remained effective. But it cannot be denied that the
Concordat was a real gain to the Papacy. The Emperor's privilege was
a surrender of an existing practice; the Pope's was only a statement of
how much of the existing procedure he was willing to countenance?
On 11 November a diet at Bamberg confirmed the Concordat, which
forthwith became part of the constitutional law of the Empire. In
December the Pope wrote a letter of congratulation to Henry and sent
him his blessing, and at the Lenten Synod of 11232 proceeded to ratify
the Concordat on the side of the Church as well. The imperial diploma
was welcomed with enthusiasm by the synod; against the papal concessions
there was some murmuring, but for the sake of peace they were tolerated
for the time. It was recognised that they were not irrevocable, and
their wording rendered possible the claim that, while Henry's privilege
was binding on his successors, the Pope's had been granted to Henry
alone for his lifetime. There were also wide discrepancies of opinion as
to the exact implication of the praesentia regis at elections and the
influence he could exercise at disputed elections. By Henry V, and later
by Frederick Barbarossa, these were interpreted in the sense most favour-
able to the king. Between Henry and Calixtus, however, no friction arose,
despite the efforts of Archbishop Adalbert to provoke the Pope to action
against the Emperor. Calixtus died in December 1124, Henry in the
following summer, without any violation of the peace. The subordination
of Lothar to ecclesiastical interests allowed the Papacy to improve its
position, which was still further enhanced during the weak reign of Conrad.
Frederick I restored royal authority in this direction as in others, and the
version of the Concordat given by Otto of Freising represents his point
of view; the difference between Italian and German bishoprics is ignored,
and the wording of the Concordat is slightly altered to admit of in-
terpretation in the imperial sense. It is clear that the Concordat
1 See A. Hofmeister, Das Wormser Konkordat (Festschrift Dietrich Schäfer zum
70 Geburtstag). Hofmeister, following Schäfer against Bernheim and others, insists
also that, though Henry's privilege was to the Papacy in perpetuity, the Pope's
was only to Henry for his lifetime. The Church party certainly adopted this view,
but that it was recognised by the imperialists seems to be disproved by subsequent
history.
2 The First Lateran Council.