Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/748

Rh opposed to the official priesthood according to Rome’s needs. Urban was the first to proclaim with emphasis the necessity of a close association of the Curia with the religious orders, and this he made the essential basis of the theocratic government. As the originator of the first crusade, Urban is entitled to the honour of the idea and its execution. There is no doubt that he wished to satisfy the complaints that emanated from the Christians dwelling in Jerusalem and

from the pilgrims to the Holy Sepulchre, but it is no less certain that he was disturbed by the fears aroused throughout the Latin world by the recrudescence of Mussulman invasions, and particularly by the victory won by the Almoravides over the Christian army at Zalaca (1086). The progress of these African Mussulmans into Spain and their incessant piracies in Italy were perhaps the occasional cause that determined Urban II. to work upon the imagination of the infidels by an expedition into Syria. The papacy of that time believed in the political unity of Islam, in a solidarity—which did not exist—among the Mussulmans of Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt and the Barbary coasts; and if it waited until the year 1095 to carry out this project, it was because the conflict with the Germanic Empire prevented the earlier realization of its dream. The essential reason of Urban II.’s action, and consequently the true cause of the crusade, was the ambition of the pope to unite with Rome and the Roman Church the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and even Constantinople, which the Greek schism had rendered independent. This thought had already crossed the minds of Leo IX. and Gregory VII, but circumstances had never allowed them to put it into execution. Armed by the reformation with a moral authority which made it possible to concentrate the forces of the West under the supreme direction of the Church and its leaders. Urban II. addressed himself with his customary decision to the execution of this enormous enterprise. With him, as with all his successors, the idea of a collective expedition of Europe for the recovery of the Holy Places was always associated with the sanguine hope of extinguishing the schism at Constantinople, its very centre, by the substitution of a Latin for a Byzantine domination. Of these two objects, he was only to realize the former; but the crusade may well be said to have been his own work. He created it and preached it; he organized it, dominated it, and constantly supervised it. He was ever ready to act, either personally or through his delegates, and never ceased to be the effective leader of all the feudal soldiers he enrolled under the banner of the Holy See. He corresponded regularly with his legates and with the military leaders, who kept him accurately informed of the position of the troops and the progress of the operations. He acted as intermediary between the soldiers of Christ and their brothers who remained in Europe, announcing successes, organizing fresh expeditions, and spurring the laggards to take the road to Jerusalem.

The vast conflict aroused by the Hildebrandine reformation, and particularly the investiture quarrel, continued under the three successors of Urban II.; but with them it of the assumed a different character, and a tendency arose to terminate it by other means. The violence and disorders provoked by the struggle brought about a reaction, which was organized by certain prelates who advocated a policy of conciliation, such as the Frenchman Ivo, bishop of Chartres (c. 1040–1116). These conciliatory prelates were sincere supporters of the reformation, and combated simony, the marriage or concubinage of priests, and the immorality of sovereigns with the same conviction as the most ardent followers of Gregory VII. and Urban II.; but they held that the intimate union of Church and State was indispensable to the social order, and that the rights of kings should be respected as well as the rights of priests. The text they preached was harmony between the priesthood and the state. Dividing what the irreconcilable of the Hildebrandine party considered as an indissoluble whole, they made a sharp distinction between the property of the Church and the Church itself, between the political and territorial power of the bishops and their religious authority,

and between the feudal investiture which confers lands and jurisdiction and the spiritual investiture which confers ecclesiastical rights. This doctrine gradually rallied all moderate minds, and finally inspired the directors of Christendom in Rome itself. It explains the new attitude of Paschal II. and Calixtus II., who were both sincere reformers, but who sought in a policy of compromise the solution of the difficult problem of the relations of Church and State.

History has not done sufficient justice to the Italian monk, Paschal II., who was the equal of Urban in private virtues, personal disinterestedness, and religious conviction, but was surpassed by him in ardour and rigidity of conduct. Altered circumstances and tendencies

of opinion called for a policy of conciliation. In France, Paschal granted absolution to Philip I.—who had many times been anathematized by his predecessors—and reconciled him solemnly with the Church, on the sole condition that he should swear to renounce his adulterous marriage. The pope could be under no delusion as to the value of this oath, which indeed was not kept; he merely regularized formally a state of affairs which the intractable Urban II. himself had never been able to prevent. As for the French question of the investitures, it was settled apparently without any treaty being expressly drawn up between the parties. The kings of France contemporary with Paschal II. ceased to practice spiritual investiture, or even to receive feudal homage from the bishops. They did not, however, renounce all intervention or all profit in the nominations to prelacies, but their intervention was no longer exhibited under the forms which the Hildebrandine party held to be illegal. In England, Paschal II. put an end to the long quarrel between the royal government and Anselm of Canterbury by accepting the Concordat of London (1107). The crown in England also abandoned investiture by the pastoral staff and ring, but, more fortunate than in France, retained the right of receiving feudal homage from the episcopate. As for Germany, the Emperor Henry V. wrung from the pope, by a display of force at Rome, concessions which provoked the indignant clamours of the most ardent reformers in France and Italy. It must not, however, be forgotten that, in the negotiations at Sutri, Paschal had pride and independence enough to propose to the emperor the only solution of the conflict that was entirely logical and essentially Christian, namely, the renunciation by the Church of its temporal power and the renunciation by the lay lords of all intervention in elections and investitures—in other words, the absolute separation of the priesthood and the state. The idea was contrary to the whole evolution of medieval Catholicism, and the German bishops were the first to repudiate it. At all events, it is certain that Paschal II. prepared the way for the Concordat of Worms. On the other hand, with more acuteness than his predecessors, he realized that the papacy could not sustain the struggle against Germany unless it could rely upon the support of another Christian kingdom of the West; and he concluded with Philip I. of France and Louis the Fat, at the Council of Troyes (1107), an alliance which was for more than a century the salvation of the court of Rome. It is from this time that we find the popes in moments of crisis transporting themselves to Capetian territory, installing their governments and convening their councils there, and from that place of refuge fulminating with impunity against the internal and external foe. Without sacrificing the essential principles of the reformation. Paschal II. practised a policy of peace and reaction in every way contrary to that of the two preceding popes, and it was through him that the struggle was once more placed upon the religious basis. He refused to retain Hugo, bishop of Die (d. 1106), as legate; like Urban and Gregory, he gave or confirmed monastic privileges without the protection he granted to the monks assuming a character of hostility towards the episcopate; and, finally, he gave an impulse to the reformation of the chapters, and, unlike Urban II., maintained the rights of the canons against the claims of the abbots.

Guy, the archbishop of Vienne, who had been one of the;