of Hanno, Archbishop of Cologne, took the matter in hand and sent a threatening letter on the subject to the Pope, and when the latter rebuked them for their pains, they declared “he had forfeited the papacy."

Things were bad enough now, but they grew immeasurably worse when, after the death of Nicholas II. (July 22, a. D. 1061), the cardinals, under the direction of Cardinal Hildebrand, came together and elected Anselm, Bishop of Lucca, under the name of Alexander II. (a. D. 1061–1073), with an utter disregard of what the Germans might think of it.1

1

Cardinal Stephen, who had been dispatched to the court of the young Henry with an account of the election, was denied an audience, and obliged to return without having had the seal on his official documents broken. A party of discontented nobles, headed by the count of Tusculum, together with such of the clergy as were hostile to a reformation of morals and disciplinary abuses, prevailed upon the empress to order a new election, under pretext that the former had been invalid, because the consent of the imperial court had not been asked. The empress, who was displeased that the Holy See had entered into an alliance with the Normans, and was glad of an opportunity to revenge herself, yielded to their request, and called an assembly of the German and Italian nobles at Basle. Thither, too, under the lead of the chancellor Wibert, came the bishops of Normandy, a country then distinguished above all others for the prevalence of the vices of simony and clerical incontinence. The assembly of Basle presented to Henry the insignia of Patrician; revoked excitement which they caused in Germany. The latter, however, is not fully nor even clearly stated. He simply says: "It is impossible to fix on what was the fault of Archbishop Hanno which called for papal interference." We have been at some pains to look into this view, but, after a close examination, we can not say it is entirely satisfactory. For our own part, we prefer the theory based upon the meager hints contained in the works of Anselm the Younger of Lucca and of Bonizo, which is also adopted by Höfler (Vol. II., p. 357 sq.) and Gfrörer (Greg. VII., Vol. I., p. 633 sq.), and defended against Hefele by Will, in his work entitled "The Commencement of the Restoration of the Church in the Eleventh Century," Pt. II., Marburg, 1864, p. 172.

1 Alexander II. vita et epist., Mansi, T. XIX., p. 639. Harduin, T. VI., Pt. I., p. 1077 sq. Watterich, T. I., p. 235–290.

the decree of Pope Nicholas II. concerning the freedom of papal elections; annulled the election of Alexander, and elevated to the papal chair Cadaloüs, Bishop of Parma, formerly chancellor of Henry III., a wealthy and vicious man, whose licentious life was a sufficient guaranty to his party that no reformation would be undertaken or pushed by him. He took the title of Honorius II. (October 28, A. D. 1061.) After having obtained the approval of the empress, he assembled an army about him, marched toward Rome, encountered and overcame the army of Alexander, and entered the city, where he made a prodigal use of the great quantity of money he had brought with him. His stay was but short. Godfrey, Duke of Tuscany, and the Normans had taken up arms to defend the rights of Alexander, and Honorius, fearing their vengeance, took alarm and fled, at their approach, to his see of Parma (A. D. 1062). In Germany, during the minority of Henry, either Pope was recognized, according to the principles and policy of the party which for the moment was in the ascendant and held the reigns of government.

This condition of affairs continued until Hanno, Archbishop of Cologne, secured for himself the tutorship of the young prince and took the administration of the government into his own hands. He then called a synod at Würzburg, at which the election of Cadaloüs was declared null; the chancellor Wibert, who was the soul of his party, condemned, and Alexander II. proclaimed the lawful Pope.

Alexander, not content with what had already been done for the reformation of morals and discipline, sent Peter Damian into France with plenary authority to correct the abuses existing there. In England, also, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury, ably seconded the exertions of the Pope, and set himself firmly against the sale of ecclesiastical benefices and the unchastity of the clergy.

At the Council of Mantua (A. D. 1064), Alexander repelled. the charges that had been brought against him, and declared them to be slander.1 In answer to those who asserted that

1 On the Council, compare Gfrörer, Gregory VII., Vol. II., p. 44-86, and Will, Benzo's Panegyric of Henry IV., with special reference to the Council of Mantua, Marburg, 1856. Hefele, Hist. of Counc., Vol. IV., p. 793 sq.

66

he had violated the rights and prerogatives of the German king, he said that the privilege of confirming papal elections, which the Emperors had enjoyed, was not of such a character that, if it were withheld, the election would be invalid; that it had been granted, in the first instance, for no other reason than to prevent disorders; and that, moreover, was now claimed was not such a privilege, but a license to oppress the Church." The relations of Church and State had already been clearly and accurately mapped out in a paper which Peter Damian sent to the Council of Osbor (Augsburg, A. D. 1062). He stated there that the two organizations, though both of Divine institution, were entirely different and distinct from each other, and hence each should be left perfectly free to work out its own development, and in this way the two would go on in peace and harmony, mutually aiding and supporting each other.1

The energy, firmness, and resolution displayed by Alexander II. made his authority so respected that he was now in a position to indignantly reject the demands of the young Henry IV., who, tiring of his good and amiable wife, Bertha, and yielding to the solicitations of sensual desire, petitioned the Pope for a separation.

The King had already induced Siegfried, Archbishop of Mentz, to espouse his cause, by a promise to send a body of troops to assist him to collect the tithes which the Thuringians had refused to pay. As soon as the Archbishop had reported the matter to the Pope, the latter sent Peter Damian into Germany, who, at the Synod of Mentz, threatened the servile bishops with the censures of the Church, and declared to them that the Pope would never consent to the separation. Again, at the Diet of Princes, held at Frankfort (a. D. 1069), he made a bold and fearless speech in presence of the King, in which he laid open to him the turpitude of his demand, and warned him that if he should persist in his purpose and have a sentence of separation pronounced in defiance of papal

1 Petri Damiani disceptatio synodalis inter regis advocatum et Romanae ecclesiae defensorem, in Baron. ann. ad a. 1062, nr. 68, in Mansi, T. XIX., p. 1001 1001 sq. Harduin, T. VI., Pt. I., p. 1119 sq. The words quoted here are the clausula dictionis.

prohibitions, the imperial crown would be withheld from him. The princes present also besought him to give over his intention; and thus pressed on all sides, Henry replied: "Very good, then; I shall try to govern myself, and bear the burden which I can not lay aside.”

It was not long before the Saxons made an appeal to the Pope, as the recognized head of religious and moral order, and the divinely appointed avenger of wrong, in which they represented that the conduct of Henry was so oppressive and tyrannous that they could no longer put up with it; and that those about him had sold ecclesiastical benefices and dignities in order to procure money to pay troops which were to be sent against his own people.

The counselors who had advised this policy were excommunicated, and Henry himself threatened with sentence of anathema by Pope Alexander. He was also required to come to Rome and justify his conduct, but in the meantime the Pope died (A. D. 1073).

The Emperor Charlemagne had, upon one occasion, called an assembly of the bishops at Rome, to sit in judgment upon Pope Leo III.; and now, after a little more than two centuries have gone by, a pope cites an emperor to appear before him and give an account of his conduct. The proceeding, though a novel one, was not without precedent. Even in the ninth century, after the bishops of the empire had set aside the claims of Louis the Mild, they became arbitrators in the quarrels of his sons, and deposed Lothaire at the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle. That Hildebrand was the soul of this movement, which began when the Church was covered with shame and sunk in the depths of degradation, and ended only when she was again raised to her former high estate and held in honor everywhere, there can be no doubt. But by his side, sharing his toils and cheering him in his moments of discouragement, was his faithful friend, Peter Damian' († A. D.

1 He thus wrote to Hildebrand: Tuis coeptis tuisque conatibus semper obtemperare contendi et in omnibus tuis certaminibus atque victoriis ego me non commilitonem sive pedissequum, sed quasi fulmen injeci. Quod enim certamen unquam coepisti, ubi protinus ego non essem litigator et judex? Ubi scilicet non aliam auctoritatem canonum, nisi solum tuae voluntatis sequebar arbitrium,

1072). This saint used to call Hildebrand his Holy Satan (adversary), and declare that he was more a ruler in Rome than the Pope himself.1

§ 191. Retrospect.

The one great purpose which those had in view who first contemplated the establishment of a Christian Empire, and advocated its close alliance with the Papacy, was to lay, by the harmonious action of the temporal and spiritual powers, the tempests which the migration of nations had evoked; to subdue the fierce passions of the barbarous German tribes; to watch over the peace of Christendom; and in this way to lift the people up to the generous and noble sentiments which Christianity and Christian civilization inspire. In pursuing this common end, both princes and people readily yielded precedence to the Pope. All recognized in the symbolical ceremony of the coronation and transfer of the sword, the principle that both the imperial dignity and the temporal power were but emanations from the fullness of spiritual authority. Moreover, the Emperor, in regard of his moral conduct (ratione peccati), was, in the full and strict sense of the word, subject to the Pope, and this because the latter is, by virtue of his office, the divinely appointed censor of morals and custodian of justice. With him, there is, in this regard, no distinction of persons. He will be called upon to give an account to God of the conduct of an Emperor as well as of the most obscure in the humblest walks of life. Neither did the Emperor pay deference to the Pope as man, or from personal considera

et mera tua voluntas mihi canonum erat auctoritas. Nec unquam judicavi, quod visum est mihi, sed quod placuit tibi. Transferred from Kraus' Ch. H., Vol. II., p. 265. (TR.)

This was the belief of the whole party at Rome in favor of reform. Peter Damian, indignant at the excessive influence of Hildebrand, gives expression to his feelings in the following caustic epigrams:

Vivere vis Romae, clara depromito voce:

Plus domino papae, quam domno pareo papae.

The following refers to the relations of Hildebrand to the Pope:
Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro:

Tu facis hunc Dominum, te facit iste Deum.

in Baron. ad an. 1061, nros. 34 and 35.