Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/746

Rh the Roman Church possessed property in all parts of the empire; but gradually, whether because the confiscations of the barbarian emperors had curtailed its extent, or because the popes had made efforts to concentrate it nearer to themselves, the property of the Holy See came to be confined almost entirely to Italy. In the time of St Gregory there subsisted only what lay in Byzantine Italy, the Lombards having confiscated the property of the Church as well as the imperial domains. During the quarrels between the papacy and the Byzantine Empire her domains in lower Italy and Sicily also disappeared as time went on, and the territorial possessions of the Roman Church were concentrated in the neighbourhood of Rome.

It was then, towards the middle of the 8th century, that the pope, who already exercised a great influence over the government of the city and province of Rome, defending her peacefully and with difficulty against the advancing Lombard conquests, saw that he was forced, short of the protection of the Greek Empire, to put himself under the protection of the Frankish princes. Thus there arose a kind of sovereignty, disputed, it is true, by Constantinople, but which succeeded in maintaining itself. Rome, together with such of the Byzantine territories as still subsisted in her neighbourhood, was considered as a domain sacred to the apostle Peter, and entrusted to the administration of his successor, the pope. To it were added the exarchate of Ravenna and a few other districts of central Italy, which had been recently conquered by the Lombards and retaken by the Frankish kings Pippin and Charlemagne. Siich was the foundation of the papal state.

The higher places in the government were occupied by the clergy, who for matters of detail made use of the civil and military officials who had carried on the administration under the Byzantine rule. But these lay officials could not long be content with a subordinate position, and hence arose incessant friction, which called for constant intervention on the part of the Frankish sovereigns. In 824 a kind of protectorate was organized, and serious guarantees were conceded to the lay aristocracy.

Shortly afterwards, in the partition of the Carolingian Empire, Italy passed under the rule of a prince of its own, Louis II., who, with the title of emperor, made his authority felt in political matters. Shortly after his death (875) fresh upheavals reduced to nothing the power of the Carolingian princes; the clergy of Rome found itself without a protector, exposed to the animosity of the lay aristocracy. The authority of the pontificate was seriously impaired by these circumstances. One of the great families of Rome, that of the vestararius Theophylact, took possession of the temporal authority, and succeeded in influencing the papal elections, after Theophylact the power passed to his daughter Marozia, a woman of the most debased character; then to her son Alberic, a serious-minded prince; and then to Alberic’s son Octavius, who from “prince of the Romans” became pope (John XII.) when yet a mere boy. After Marozia and Alberic and the rest another branch of the same family, the Crescentii, exercised the temporal powers of the Holy See; and after them the same regime was continued by the counts of Tusculum, who were sprung from the same stock, which sometimes provided the Roman Church with, the most unlikely and least honourable pontiffs.

The pope, like all the bishops, was chosen by means of election, in which both the clergy and the laity took part. The latter were represented in the most essential functions of the election by the aristocracy: at first by the senate, and later by the exercitus romanus, or rather of its staff, composed of Byzantine officers. It was the latter which gave rise to the feudal aristocracy which we see appearing under the Carolingians. The new pope was chosen by the principal members of the clergy and nobles, and then set before the assembled people, who gave their decision by acclamation; and this acclamation was accepted as the vote of the assembly of the faithful. The pope-elect was then put in possession of the episcopal house, and after waiting till the next Sunday his consecration was proceeded with. This ceremony was at first celebrated in the Lateran, but from Byzantine times onwards it took place at St Peter’s. It was also under the Byzantine regime that the condition was imposed that the pope should not be consecrated until the emperor had ratified his election. This had not been required under the old Latin emperors nor under the Gothic kings, and it disappeared of its own accord with the Byzantine regime. It was revived, however, by the emperor Louis the Pious, much to the disgust of the Romans, who resisted on several occasions. The Roman “princes” or “senators” in the 10th century went still further: it was they who actually nominated the pope. The same was the case with the Saxon emperors (Otto I., II. and III.), and in the 11th century of the lords of Tusculum, the latter nominating themselves and choosing members of their own family for the pontificate. When the emperor Henry III. (1046) put an end to this oppression it was only to substitute another. The popes of Tusculum did, at least, belong to the country, while the German kings chose bishops from the other side of the Alps. Such was the state of affairs up to the time of Hildebrand.

The entry of Hildebrand into the counsels of the papacy marks the beginning of a great change in this institution. He cannot, however, claim the honour of having opened the way which he impelled his predecessors to follow even before following it himself. All good Christians calling for reform; bishops, princes, and monks were in agreement on this point when they spoke or acted according to their convictions. Many of them had tried to effect something; but these isolated efforts were often counter mined by incompatible aims, and had produced no serious results. It is in the supreme head of the Church that the movement ought to have found its origin and inspiration. There was no dispute as to his possessing the authority in spiritual matters necessary to impose reform and overbear the resistance which might arise; no one was better qualified than he to treat with the holders of the temporal power and obtain the support which was necessary from them. The Fathers of the Church had repeated times without number that the priesthood stands above even the supreme secular authority; the Bible was full of stories most aptly illustrating this theory; nobody questioned that, within the Church, the pope was the Vicar of Christ, and that, as such, his powers were unlimited; as proof positive could be cited councils and decretals—whether authentic or spurious; at any rate all authorized by long usage and taken as received authorities. It only remained to take possession of this incontestable power and use it with firmness and consistency. The example of Nicholas I., two centuries before, had shown the position which a pope could occupy in Christendom; but for a long time past the man had come short of the institution, the workman of his tool. Under Leo IX. (1045–1054) the pope suddenly came forward as the active and indefatigable champion of reform; simony and incontinence of the clergy were attacked by the one most qualified to purify the Church of them. Henceforth the way was open, and it became clear that, given good popes, the reform movement might be carried into effect. The choice of the pope was then subject to the pleasure of the sovereign of Germany, against whom the Roman feudal lords, devoted as they were to the old abuses, were in constant revolt. In the midst of the frequent changes of pope which went on during these years, and the political vicissitudes of Italy, Hildebrand took such measures as enabled him to checkmate the opposition of the Roman barons by turning against them, now the armed force of the Normans, now the influence of the German king.