Sources

Let us not, brethren, disturb the Church of God by noise and tumult. Doth not the holy scripture teach us to expect perilous times—seasons in which men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to fathers, unthankful, unholy, not rendering obedience to their teachers? . . . The word of God calleth to us, "It must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." And unto us it is said, in order to instruct us how we ought to demean ourselves in the sight of our enemies: "Behold,I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." And what though at this very time the forerunner of anti-Christ hath risen up in the Church, yet we, under the instructions of the Lord and of the holy fathers, have long since learned how duly to combine both these virtues.[462:1]

The council now amidst the greatest indignation urged the Pope to depose the insolent king and to put him and his accomplices under the ban. The king was formally excommunicated and his subjects absolved from all allegiance to him.[462:2]The churchmen who acted as the king's tools were likewise outlawed and a letter to "all defenders of the Christian faith" announced the curse laid on Germany.[462:3]This was the first instance of the deposition of a king by a Pope and was based on the false decretals and the assumption that this power was an undoubted prerogative of the Chair of St. Peter.[462:4]As a result of this action both Germany and Italy were divided into two great parties, the papal and the imperial. Hoping to save himself by a counter blow,[462:5]Henry had one of his bishops pronounce an excommunication and anathema upon Gregory and induced a servile synod at Pavia to reiterate the curse. Civil and ecclesiastical discord broke out throughout the Empire. Disaffected nobles took this occasion to conspire against the king, and to plot with the papal party. Prelates fell over each other in their eagernessto desert the outlawed ruler and to seek reconciliation with the Pope. The German papal party held a great convention (Oct. 14, 1076) at Tribur on the Rhine. The king was in camp just across the river at Oppenheim with his army. The Pope sent his representatives to purify the convention and to guide the proceedings. All the sins of the age were charged against the king and all allegiance to him was renounced, while it was declared that the crown would be forfeited within a year unless the king obtained absolution. He was ordered to retire to Speyer as a private gentleman until the question was settled and the Pope was urged to hasten to Germany to pass sentence on the royal head.

Henry saw that the tide was against him and resolved to follow the one course open to him, namely, to throw himself at the feet of the Pope and beg forgiveness. He dismissed his court and his ministers, publicly repudiated every act against the Holy See, promised satisfaction to the Pope and reformation,[463:1]begged a permit to visit Rome to sue for pardon, and started for Italy in 1077 to meet the Pope. His accomplices, probably at his suggestion, took the same course but by another route. Meanwhile the Pope was hastening northward to Germany. With excellent tact and courage Henry made his way over the Alps in the midst of a very severe winter into northern Italy, where he was given a hearty welcome, and then hastened on to Canossa, a strong castle belonging to the Countess Matilda where the Pope had broken his journey. Meanwhile the companions and ministers of Henry who had fallen under the papal displeasure outstripped the king and, with naked feet and clothed in sackcloth, presented themselves to thePope, humbly imploring pardon and absolution from the terrible anathema. With some hesitation, the Pope granted their petition. After a brief penance, the penitents were dismissed with an injunction not to hold any communication with the king, until he should in like manner have been released from the bonds of the Church.

With his natural impetuosity Henry resolved to have the humiliating scene over with as soon as possible. To plead his case he had secured the good offices of his mother-in-law, several powerful noblemen, the Abbot of Clugny, and a few other influential orthodox members of the papal party. He had even persuaded the Countess Matilda to induce the Pope to give his case a merciful consideration. The Pope's severity was softened by the entreaties coming from so many persons, and it was finally agreed that the king should appear before the Pope on a certain day; that he should fully admit his guilt; that he should express sincere repentance for the insults he had heaped upon this successor of St. Peter; that he should profess full contrition for all his sins and crimes; and that he should promise to atone for all former vices by obeying papal commands in the future and by submitting to such conditions as the Pope should impose. Henry accepted these terms and prepared for the act of shame and humiliation.

On the stated day he appeared before the outer gate of the castle of Canossa, was admitted into the outer court and told to divest himself of every vestige of royalty. He was then dressed in a garment of sackcloth and stood in the outer court barefooted and fasting from morn till night.

And thus [says the biographer of Hildebrand] for threeentire days, he ceased not, with much weeping and many supplications, to implore the apostolic commiseration, until the bowels of all the spectators yearned with compassion, so that with tears in their eyes they earnestly besought the pontiff to have mercy—nay, even so that they exclaimed against the stern severity of the man of God as smacking of cruelty: then at length, overborne by the solicitations of all around him, he resolved to admit the penitent into the bosom of the Church; but only upon terms which should either crush him effectually, or for the remainder of his days convert him into the passive instrument of the papal policy.[465:1]

The stipulations of absolution accepted by Henry were: (1) That he should appear for trial before an imperial synod to answer all charges, and that if proven innocent should retain his crown; but if by the laws of the Church he should be proved guilty he would surrender all claims to the throne. (2) That until the trial, he should lay aside royalty and perform no active government. (3) That until acquitted he should collect no more taxes than was absolutely necessary for the sustenance of his family. (4) That all contracts with his subjects should be invalid until after the trial. (5) That he should dismiss from his service all councillors designated by the Pope. (6) That if freed of guilt, he should promise obedience and aid in reforming the Church. (7) That the violation of any of these terms wouldipso factoinvalidate the absolution.[465:2]Then followed the solemn act of absolution and the sacerdotal purgation which was taken by the Pope but declined by the king. Theking was then admitted to communion and sumptuously feasted by the Pope, after which he was dismissed to rejoin his followers awaiting him at the castle gate. The trying ordeal of Canossa was over. The mighty Pope of small, wiry stature and physically weak had compelled, by the sheer force of the spiritual weapons in his hands, the powerful German ruler to humbly bow before him and beg forgiveness and absolution. Apparently it was a great victory for the Pope, but the sequel makes the result look like a defeat.[466:1]

Henry's humiliation alienated his Lombard adherents. By opposing Rome he had lost one kingdom; by submitting to Rome he was about to lose another. No sooner was he beyond the castle walls of Canossa with the heavy curse removed from his head than he began to plot to remove the effects of his apparently disgraceful defeat. From now on the king becomes the aggressive champion of secular supremacy, while the Pope assumes the defensive. A trap was laid to catch the Pope at the Council of Mantua and he was practically held as a prisoner at Canossa. Meanwhile Henry openly violated his agreement, by assuming the rule of Lombardy, and denounced the Pope in strong terms. The rebellious princes in Germany, urged on by the papal party and taking advantage of this situation, called the convention of Forscheim, and there elected Rudolph of Swabia as King of Germany. He promised to abolish simony, to renounce the right of investing bishops, and to recognise the law of heredity, so was crowned March 26, 1077. Under these circumstances Henry IV., supported by the Lombard party and the strong imperial party in Germany, returned to his kingdom to regain his crown through civil war.Gregory VII., hoping to profit by the situation, demanded that both kings refer their cause to him as arbiter and, finally, when Henry proved obstinate, in a council held at Rome in 1080 the Pope renewed the excommunication of Henry, and again deposed him.[467:1]The German crown was bestowed by apostolic authority upon Rudolph. In the same council the edict against lay investiture was renewed in a harsher spirit than ever. War to the knife was now inevitable. Rigid party lines were again formed. Henry gradually recovered his mastery of Germany. The German clergy in June, 1080, blaming Gregory VII. for the ruinous civil war, once more retaliated by deposing the Pope.[467:2]A council held at Brescia the same year elected Clement III. as anti-Pope. Gregory's efforts to raise up allies were all in vain. Henry IV. laid siege to Rome with a big army and at last after a long struggle was master of it. Clement III. was installed as Pope and on Easter Day, 1084, Henry IV. received as his reward the imperial crown. Gregory VII., defeated by the German warrior and rescued from the Eternal City with difficulty by the trusty Normans, withdrew to Salerno to die with the curse of the Emperor on his lips, saying: "I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile" (May 25, 1085).

Gregory VII. was a man of unquestionable ascetic purity. The charges made against him by his enemies are probably untrue. His relations with Matilda, Beatrice, and Empress Agnes were of the purest character. In his efforts and ideas he was undoubtedly sincere and firmly believed that he really was the representative of God on earth. It must beremembered, however, that his conceptions of veracity, justice, honour, and charity were those of a mediæval despot. He was one of the greatest politicians of the Middle Ages, but a policy man controlled by the loftiest purpose. To attain his ecclesiastical ideal, policy and principle were one and he almost acted as though the end justified the means. After Charles the Great and Otto the Great before him and Innocent III. after him he had the greatest organising mind of the Middle Ages. Few other men can compare with him. He comprehended the grandCivitas Deiof Augustine and through the false decretals he attempted to create the great universal papal theocracy in which the state should be subject to the Church, the Church purified and subjected to the Pope, and the whole Church ruled byLex Christi. Nature endowed him with an indomitable will, a restless energy, a clear perception, a dauntless courage, an imperious temper, an instinct for leadership, a stern inflexible disposition, a haughty insolent bearing, and a power to draw and to repulse. These native talents were intensified by monastic education which taught him both the virtue and necessity of obedience, trained him to subordinate all affections, opinions, and interest to the one great object, and made him a true child of the mediæval Church with the highest ideas of her prerogatives and mission on earth. The churchman completely swallowed up the man.

Hildebrand was a wily religious autocrat and not a theologian or a moralist. His ideas came from Augustine and Pseudo-Isidore. His Christianity was based on tradition and historical evolution rather than on the Bible. He denounced simony and advocated celibacy, but not on moral grounds so much as because of his sincere conviction about their effect on hisgreat ecclesiastical machine. The Church to him was a grand secular power, resting on spiritual foundations, which had to employ worldly means against the other secular powers. Europe was a chessboard and with the hand of a skilled master he moved kings, queens, knights, and bishops. His schemes were worthy of the plotter—his courage became defiance in danger—his forces were handled with consummate skill—his fatal thrusts were driven home with his teeth clenched—if he seemed to yield it was only to gain a greater advantage. As Pope he was over all, the source of all law, judged by none, and responsible to God alone. Under this conviction, intensified as the years passed, he lived in perpetual conflict, and died a refugee from the capital of his great ecclesiastical Empire.

Napoleon once said: "Si je n'etais Napoleon, je voudrais être Gregoire VII." There were many points of resemblance between these two great characters. Both were of obscure birth and low origin. Both possessed the same indomitable character and threatening ambition. Both were reformers. Gregory established a hierarchy which still lives; Napoleon created an administration which still survives. Gregory wanted to make the Church the master of the world; Napoleon, France. Gregory made theLex Christithe basis of all; Napoleon, the revolution. Both wanted to make feudal vassals of the world's rulers. Both had an indomitable enemy—Henry IV. and England. Both used the power of excommunication. Gregory had his Canossa; Napoleon his Moscow. Italy was invaded and Rome sacked; France was invaded and Paris taken. Salerno and St. Helena in each case closed the drama.

Gregory VII. was the creator of the political Papacy of the Middle Ages because he was the first who dared to completely enforce the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. He found the Pope elected by the Emperor, the Roman clergy, and the people; he left the election in the hands of an ecclesiastical College of Cardinals. He found the Papacy dependent upon the Empire; he made it independent of the Empire and above it. He declared the states of Europe to be fiefs of St. Peter and demanded the oath of fealty from their rulers. He found the clergy, high and low, dependent allies of secular princes and kings; he emancipated them and subjected them to his own will. He reorganised the Church from top to bottom by remodelling the papal curia, by establishing the College of Cardinals, by employing papal legates, by thwarting national churches, by controlling synods and councils, and by managing all Church property directly. He was the first to enforce the theory that the Pope could depose and confirm or reject kings and Emperors. He attempted to reform the abuses in the Church and to purify the clergy. Only partial success attended these efforts, but triumph was to come later on as a result of his labours. His endeavour to realise his theocracy was grand but impracticable as proved by its failure. It was like forcing a dream to be true; yet Innocent III. almost succeeded in western Europe a little more than a century later. The impress of Gregory VII.'s gigantic ability was left upon his own age and upon all succeeding ages.

The strife over lay investiture was carried on by the successors of Gregory VII. Victor III. (1086-1087) renewed the investiture decrees but died too soon to accomplish anything. Urban II. (1088-1099), imbuedwith the zeal and ability of Hildebrand, drove Henry IV. out of Italy and had his son, Conrad, crowned King of Italy (1093). Pope Urban gave all his strength to the crusading mania and made little progress with the Hildebrandine reform. Paschal II. (1099-1118), a Clugniac monk and cardinal under Gregory VII., renewed the excommunication of Henry IV., and plotted with Henry V. to induce him to revolt against his father (1104) and thus to force him to surrender his crown. The aged Henry IV. died under the awful curse of the Church and at war with this traitorous son. Paschal II. took up the question of lay investiture, likewise, and had the practice condemned in the Council of Troyes (1107) and promulgated the prohibition all over Christendom. Henry V. was forced to abjure investiture before he could again receive his imperial crown from papal hands. At length in 1111 Paschal II. entered into an arrangement with Henry V., who had appeared before Rome with a large army, by which the Pope promised that clerical princes in the Empire should give up all temporal rights and possessions received since the time of Charles the Great. The Church and its clergy were to live on the tithes and the gifts of pious persons. The Emperor, for his part, agreed to surrender all claim to nomination, election, and investiture, and to guarantee to the Papacy the full enjoyment of all its possessions and rights. This agreement was fair and just, though the German clergy objected to such a wholesale change without their consent. The compact was publicly proclaimed in St. Peter's before the imperial coronation of Henry V. (Feb. 12, 1111)[471:1]and aroused a great tumult.Therefore Henry V. repudiated the treaty, captured the Pope, carried him together with the cardinals off as prisoners, and wrung from him ignoble terms of peace (Apr. 12th) which stated that the clerical princes in Germany were to retain all their possessions, that the Emperor was to have the full right of investiture, but without simony, and that the higher clergy were to consecrate the nominees after their investiture.[472:1]At the same time Paschal crowned Henry and promised never to excommunicate him. After the Pope's release, he had a Roman synod repudiate the treaty and of course the excommunication of the Emperor followed (1112) and civil war was continued.

Calixtus II. (1119-1124), a Clugniac monk of the royal Burgundian house, settled the perplexing question of lay investiture in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms.[472:2]The Pope agreed (1) that the election of bishops and abbots in Germany should occur in the Emperor's presence and without simony or violence; (2) that the Emperor should decide all disputed elections and enforce his decisions; (3) that the Emperor should invest with the lance and receive homage; (4) that bishops or abbots consecrated in Italy or Burgundy should also be invested by the Emperor and render homage within six months; (5) and that papal aid should be given to the Emperor whenever requested. The Emperor for his part promised (1) to surrender all investiture through the ring and the staff to the Church; (2) to grant "canonical elections and free consecration" in all churches in the Empire; (3) to restore "all the possessions and regalia of St. Peter" to the HolyRoman Church; (4) to secure the return of property held by others; (5) and to give the Pope all needed aid and justice.[473:1]The concordat was in character, therefore, a compromise. It spared both the Emperor and the Pope the humiliation of defeat because now both made the appointment—one politically, the other spiritually. The Emperor retained but half of his former rights, yet could control the elections. The Pope gained "the ring and staff," yet fell far short of what Gregory VII. had demanded. The document was full of ambiguity and who was victor—Pope or Emperor—has been a much disputed question. The concordat lasted down through the centuries as the basis for settling all these appointments until the dissolution of the Empire in 1806. It was frequently violated by both Emperor and Pope, but on the whole gave general satisfaction and determined many menacing disputes. It was modified by Lothair in 1183 so as to permit the Emperor to send a delegate to the election.

FOOTNOTES:

[446:1]Muratori, iii., 304.

[447:1]Greenwood, bk. x., p. 249.

[447:2]Bonizo, 311.

[447:3]The assumption of the name Gregory VII. was a blow at imperial power, because Henry III. had deposed Gregory VI., Hildebrand's old master.

[448:1]Emerton, 242; Henderson, 366; Robinson, i., 274; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 69; Ogg, No. 45. It is now pretty clearly established that theDictatuswas written about 1087 by Cardinal Deusdedit.

[449:1]Lib., i., 7, 64; iv., 28; Bowden, i., 334; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 69, 71.

[449:2]Lib., i., 46, 47; Harduin, vi., 1260, 1521; Johnson,Normans in Europe.

[449:3]Lib., i., 45; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 70.

[449:4]Lib., i., 18.

[449:5]Thatcher and McNeal, No. 67, 68.

[449:6]Lib., i., 22, 23.

[449:7]Lib., vi., 13.

[449:8]Lib., ii., 13, 63; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 72.

[450:1]Lib., ii., 73, 74; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 73.

[450:2]Lib., i., 35; ii., 5, 18, 32; v., 17.

[450:3]Lib., i., 39.

[450:4]Lee, 121; Colby, 37; Freeman,The Norman Conquest.

[450:5]Lib., i., 49; ii., 31.

[450:6]Lib., i., 39; ii., 70; vi., 13, 14.

[450:7]Lib., ii., 51, 57; iii., 8.

[450:8]Lib., ii., 51.

[450:9]Lib., i., 30.

[450:10]Lib., i., 35, 36, 75.

[450:11]Thatcher and McNeal, No. 60, 61, 62.

[451:1]Lib., i., 85.

[451:2]Lea,History of Celibacy.

[451:3]Levit. xxi. 7, 8, 13; Exod. xix., 15.

[451:4]Mat. viii. 14; 1 Cor. ix., 5.

[452:1]1 Cor. ix., 5.

[452:2]1 Cor. vii., 38.

[452:3]Hermas, i., Vis. 2, ch. 3;Ign. to Polyc., ch. 5.

[453:1]Pertz,Leg., ii., 561; Labbe, ix., ann. 937.

[454:1]Lib., ii., 29, 40; iii., 4.

[454:2]Mansi, xx., 437; Mabillon, vi., 805.

[454:3]Mansi, xx., 441.

[454:4]Lib., ii., Ep. 5, 18, 32.

[454:5]Lib., i., 70, 71.

[454:6]Harduin, vi., 1555.

[454:7]Ibid., vi., 1605.

[454:8]Mansi, xx., 758, 760.

[454:9]Greenwood, iv., 434.

[455:1]Acts iii., 18.

[455:2]Gibbon, ii., 457.

[455:3]Bowen, i., 289.

[455:4]Greenwood, iv., 277.

[455:5]Bowen, i., 289.

[456:1]Harduin, iv., 1302.

[456:2]Cf.Fisher.

[456:3]Thatcher and McNeal, No. 60, 61; Robinson,Readings, i., 275; Henderson, 365.

[456:4]Lib., i., Ep. 9, 11, 35, 75.

[456:5]Lib., i., 29, 30.

[457:1]SeeChapter XIV.

[457:2]Greenwood, i., 484, 485.

[458:1]Lib., i., Ep. 92, 119; ii., 12, 18.

[458:2]Greenwood, iv., 281.

[459:1]Harduin, vi., 1551; Pertz, viii., 412; Lib., iii., 367; Henderson, 365.

[459:2]Greenwood, iv., 244, 245.

[459:3]Henry's humble letter of 1073 should be borne in mind. Bowen; i., 340.

[459:4]Pertz, v., 219.

[460:1]Pertz, v., 236, 237.

[460:2]Ibid., v., 241.

[460:3]Lib., iii., Ep. 8; Greenwood, iv., 362.

[460:4]Lib., iii., Ep. 10; Greenwood, iv., 365; Bowen, ii., 75; Ogg, No. 46; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 74; Henderson, 373.

[460:5]Greenwood, iv., 365 to 369; Pertz, v., 241; Robinson,Readings, i., 276; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 74; Henderson, 367.

[460:6]Greenwood, iv., 371; Bowen, ii., 81; Henderson, 372; Robinson,Readings, i., 279; Ogg, No. 47.

[461:1]Pertz, ii., 44; Mansi, xx., 466; Greenwood, iv., 379; Henderson, 373; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 76.

[461:2]Muratori, iii., 334.

[462:1]Bowen, ii., 101; Greenwood, iv., 385.

[462:2]Bowen, ii., 108; Greenwood, iv., 386; Harduin, vi., 1566; Thatcher and McNeal, No. 77; Henderson, 376; Robinson,Readings, i., 281; Ogg, No. 48.

[462:3]Henderson, 380; Bowen, ii., 110; Greenwood, iv., 388; Lib., iii., Ep. 6.

[462:4]Greenwood, iv., 389.

[462:5]Henderson, 377.

Back to Index Next