BOOK VII.

FROM THE ELECTION OF INNOCENT III TO THE DEATH OF BONIFACE VIII, A.D. 1198-1303.

CHAPTER I.

INNOCENT III. A.D. 1198-1216

I

AFFAIRS OF GERMANY.

 

At the death of Celestine the Third, the urgency of affairs appeared to supersede the observance of the rule which prescribed that the election of a pope should be deferred until after the funeral of his predecessor. On the same day on which Celestine breathed his last, a meeting of cardinals, attended by all but four of the twenty-eight who then formed the college, was held in a church near the Colosseum—probably the monastic church of St. Gregory, on the Coelian hill. Of three names proposed for the vacant dignity, that of John, bishop of Sabina, found the greatest favor; but this cardinal himself, and the aged Octavian of Ostia, whose influence was powerful in the consistory, exerted themselves that the votes should be united in favour of Lothair, cardinal of SS. Sergius and Bacchus; and Lothair, although he endeavoured by tears and struggles to decline the papacy, was elected by his brethren, invested with the mantle, presented to the expectant people, and enthroned in the Lateran as Innocent the Third.

Innocent was of the family of the Counts of Segni, who took from their rank the surname of Conti. The Conti had mixed deeply in the feuds of their neighbourhood, and had usually been arrayed in opposition to the late pope’s family, the Orsini. Innocent had studied at Paris, a circumstance to which he refers with interest in a letter addressed to Philip Augustus; and he had displayed and strengthened his hierarchical feeling by a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. Thomas the Martyr at Canterbury. After having further prosecuted his studies at Bologna, where he acquired a profound knowledge of ecclesiastical law, he returned to Rome, was ordained sub-deacon by Gregory VIII, and soon after became a canon of St. Peter’s. In the twenty-ninth year of his age, he was advanced to the dignity of cardinal by Clement III, to whom he was nearly related; and under this pope, as under his predecessor, Lucius, he was employed in important missions. The papacy of Celes­tine, to whom he was obnoxious on account of the hostility between their families, condemned him for a time to inaction, and he employed himself chiefly in study, which produced its fruit in a treatise “On the Contempt of the World”, and in other writings. The general tone of these is that of a rigid ascetic, withdrawn from the world and despising it—a tone seemingly very alien from the vigorous practical character which the author was soon to display. His sermons are remarkable for the acquaintance with Scripture which appears in them, and for his extraordinary delight in perverting its meaning by allegory—a practice which in later times enabled him to produce scriptural authority for all his pretensions and for everything that he might desire to recommend. And in his books “On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar”, he had laid down the highest Roman doctrine as to the elevation of St. Peter and his successors over all other apostles and bishops.

At the time of his election, Innocent was only thirty-seven years old, and on this account fears were entertained by some that he would not prove equal to the burden of the papal office. But all such apprehensions were speedily dispelled by the display of a character which united the boldness of Gregory VII with the politic caution and patience of Alexander III, and under him the papacy attained its highest elevation. The vast, although imperfect, collection of his letters attests that immense and varied activity which justified him in saying of himself—“Not only am I not allowed to contem­plate, but I cannot even get leave to breathe; I am in such a degree made over to others that I almost seem to be altogether taken away from myself”. In what degree these letters may be regarded as his own compositions, it may be impossible to say; but there is in them a remarkable unity not only of character but of style. With much redundancy of words, and with that systematic abuse of Scripture which has been already mentioned as characteristic of him, they are marked throughout by the impress of his clear mind and of his powerful will. Yet stern as Innocent was in principle, fully as he upheld the proudest claims of the papacy—and not the less so for his continual affectation of personal humility—he appears to have been amiable in his private character. His contemporary biographer describes him as bountiful but not prodigal, as hot in temper, but easily appeased, and of a magnanimous and generous spirit. He is said to have been even playful in intercourse; he was a lover of poetry and of music, and some well-known hymns of the church have been ascribed to him. Among his defects is noted the common papal failing of a too great devotion to the interest of his own family; he erected a principality for his brother Richard, and provided for other kinsmen with a care which exposed him to reproach.

Innocent when chosen to the papacy was as yet only a deacon. Out of scrupulous regard for the laws of the church, he deferred his promotion to the order of priesthood until the next ember season; and, having then been duly ordained, he was consecrated and enthroned in St. Peter’s on the festival of the apostle’s Chair.

The pope immediately set on foot a reformation of his own household. The luxury of the court was exchanged for a rigid simplicity. The multitude of nobles who had lately thronged the palace were discarded, except on occasions of high ceremony, and the ordinary services were committed to ecclesiastics. The high-born pages were dismissed, but each of them was presented with a gift sufficient to pay the expenses of knighthood, and an attempt was made to extend to the general administration of the curia that freedom from corruption by which Innocent himself had been honourably distinguished as cardinal. A moderate table of fees for the preparation of bulls and for other official acts was established, and it was ordered that no officer should demand anything of suitors; but the permission to accept voluntary offerings may perhaps have been enough to frustrate in a great degree the effect of this salutary measure. By dismissing most of the doorkeepers Innocent rendered access to his own person more easy. He sat often in his consistory, where the clearness and equity of his judgments were greatly admired, so that lawyers and men of learning were in the habit of frequenting the court in order to hear him.

At the election of the pope, the Romans were clamorous for the donative with which they had been usually gratified on such occasions. Innocent thought it well to comply with their wishes, although he put off the payment until after his consecration; and thus he secured the support of the multitude for the important changes which he intended to effect. Hitherto the prefect of the city had held his office under the emperor. But Innocent abolished this last vestige of the imperial sovereignty, by compelling the prefect to take an oath of fidelity to himself, and to receive investiture at his hands, not by the secular symbol, a sword, but by a mantle and a silver cup. The citizens were also required to swear obedience to the pope. The power of the senate had centered in a single person, who bore the title of senator or consul. Innocent persuaded the senator, Scoto Paparone, to retire, and substituted another, who was bound by an oath to him, and whose tenure of office was annual. Thus the exclusive authority of the pope was established in Rome, although the pontificate of Innocent was not free from serious troubles in the municipal government, or from those outbreaks of the Roman factions which had so often disquieted his predecessors.

2

A.D. 1198. AFFAIRS OF SICILY.

 

Next to the affairs of his own city, those of central and southern Italy and of Sicily demanded the pope’s attention. The late emperor had established his military officers as dukes and counts, and these with their troops held possession of the country, even to the gates of Rome. In order to rid himself of his dangerous neighbours, Innocent was able to take advantage of the hatred which the Italians felt towards the Germans—an ancient hatred which had lately been rendered more intense by Henry’s violence and cruelties—and of the jealousies and rivalries by which the German chiefs were divided among themselves, each labouring for his own interest alone, while during the infancy of the young Frederick there was no power that could control or unite them. Conrad of Lützenburg, duke of Spoleto, whose wild and unsteady character had got for him from the Italians the name of Moscancervello, was persuaded to swear that he would obey the pope’s commands, and then, notwithstanding all that he could offer for leave to remain in Italy, was compelled to return to Germany. Greater difficulty was found in the case of Markwald of Anweiler, duke of Ravenna and seneschal of the empire—a bold, ambitious, and perfidious man, who was believed to have instigated his late sovereign to some of his worst excesses. Markwald professed to have been nominated by Henry on his death-bed as executor of his will and regent of Sicily. He had been expelled from Sicily by the emperor’s widow, Constance, who heartily espoused the cause of her own countrymen against the detested Germans; but he held possession of the Romagna with the march of Ancona, and was formidable from his power and wealth. Markwald, on being required by the pope to give up the patrimony of the church, attempted to draw Innocent into his interest—offering, on the strength of the late emperor’s testament, to raise the church to a grandeur such as it had never enjoyed since the days of Constantine. The pope, however, withstood this and all Markwald’s offers, whether of money or of other things, and compelled him, after having been excommunicated by two cardinals, to withdraw from the marches into the Apulian kingdom. The pope went about from city to city, receiving the allegiance of one after another. He got possession of many fortresses in the Campagna, and reduced its robber-nobility to order. The cities of Tuscany and of the duchy of Spoleto (with the exception of Pisa, which was excommunicated for its adherence to the Ghibelline party) were united in a league resembling that of the Lombards, under the patronage of the pope, to whom they took an oath of fidelity; and Innocent found that he could afford to refrain for a time from pressing the claims of the Roman church as to the countess Matilda’s donation, the exarchate of Ravenna, and the territory of Bertinoro—leaving these in the hands of their actual possessors, with an acknowledgment of the papal suzerainty. Among the acquisitions made during this rapid progress, although all were claimed as the ancient possessions of the church, there were many which really belonged to the empire; and these, when the imperial throne had again found an occupant, became subjects of dispute.

By a document which professed to be the will of the late emperor, it was directed that his widow and son should perform to the pope all the services that had been done by former kings of Sicily; that, in case of Frederick’s dying without an heir, the kingdom should devolve to the pope; that the pope should confirm to Frederick the empire and the kingdom of Sicily, and that in consideration of this certain territories, including almost the whole of the countess Matilda’s inheritance, should be given up to the Roman church. The genuineness of this document, however, has been much questioned, partly on the ground that it was never displayed by Markwald while it was in his possession; and that the deed on which Innocent afterwards rested his claims to Sicily was not this, but the will of the empress Constance. Constance, soon after her husband’s death, caused her son, then four years old, to be taken from the custody of the duchess of Spoleto (wife of Moscancervello), and conveyed to Sicily, where he was crowned as king in May 1198. In order to secure herself against the Germans, she opened negotiations with the pope, proposing to place the kingdom and its young sovereign under his especial protection; and Innocent took the opportunity to make favourable terms for the papacy, by requiring a renunciation of the privileges which had been granted to the Sicilian kings by Adrian IV, and confirmed by Clement, as to the election of bishops, and the matters of legations, appeals, and councils; he also required a yearly tribute of 600 tarenes for Apulia, and of 400 for Marsia. Constance’s envoys were forced, after a struggle, to submit; but before the treaty could reach Sicily, the empress died, leaving the pope as chief guardian of her son. Sicily and Apulia were for years a scene of anarchy, violence, bloodshed, and ceaseless intrigues. The pope provided Frederick with a tutor, Cencio Savelli, and endeavoured to exercise authority by means of a legate. But the chancellor, Walter of Pagliara, bishop of Troia, who contrived also to possess himself in an irregular way of the vacant archbishopric of Palermo, compelled the legate to leave Sicily; and the kingdom was distracted and ravaged by the movements of Markwald, and of another German soldier, Diephold (or Theobald), count of Acerra, whom the pope ineffectually denounced with all the thunders of the church. With these two the chancellor Walter was sometimes at enmity, and sometimes in intimate alliance. At one time he held nearly absolute power, which he abused by a profligate disposal of dignities, and by selling part of the royal demesnes; at another time he was driven from Sicily, and reduced to wander about Apulia in poverty and contempt; and yet again he was able to recover his authority. He was deposed and excommunicated, defied the sentence, sued humbly for absolution, was admitted to mercy, and incurred a fresh excommunication. In July 1200, Markwald was defeated in Sicily by the pope’s cousin and general, James; his baggage was captured, and in it was found the alleged testament of Henry VI. Yet Markwald contrived once more to regain the ascendency, and got possession of the young king’s person; but in 1202 his career was cut short by death in consequence of a surgical operation.

A new turn was given to Sicilian affairs by Walter of Brienne, a noble and gallant Frenchman, who had married one of king Tancred’s daughters after her release from her German prison, and in her right claimed the county of Lecce and the principality of Taranto, the original possessions of Tancred, which the late emperor had promised to restore to his family. Walter’s determination to attempt the recovery of these territories was sanctioned by the pope, on condition of his swearing before the college of cardinals that he would be faithful to Frederick, and would aid him against all his enemies. In order to raise money for the enterprise, Innocent authorized Walter to pledge his security for a large sum, and even assisted him with gifts; and Walter appeared in Apulia at the head of a French force which he had been able to enlist by means of pay and of promises.

The chancellor, Walter of Pagliara, after the death of Markwald, again entreated that he might be released from his excommunication; but, although this was granted, his petitions for restoration to the sees of Palermo and Troia were unsuccessful. The legate who pronounced his absolution endeavoured to exact a promise that he would not oppose Walter of Brienne; but his answer was that he could not make such a promise, even if St. Peter himself required it, and if he knew that his refusal would involve his damnation. He therefore joined Diephold, who was the chief antagonist of the new adventurer. For a time Walter of Brienne was successful; he repeatedly defeated Diephold, and for four years the advantage of the war was on his side. But his successes produced an overweening confidence in the prowess of the French, as compared with the Germans; and in consequence of this he was surprised, defeated, and taken prisoner by Diephold in 1205. He died of the wounds which he had received in battle.

In 1207, while Frederick was in the hands of the chancellor Walter, a letter complaining of the durance in which he was held was circulated in his name. While the Germans were wholly bent on securing for themselves some advantages from the prevailing anarchy, Innocent, although mainly intent on keeping up the papal suzerainty over Sicily, was sincerely desirous to preserve Frederick’s royalty, and appears to have performed his duties as guardian with fidelity. In 1208, when the king had reached the age of fourteen, the guardianship expired, and in the following year, through Innocent’s mediation, Frederick married a daughter of the king of Aragon.

3

FREDERICK II

 

With regard to the greater dignity which had lately been connected with the kingdom of Sicily, Innocent was resolved to take advantage of circumstances for the enforcement of his theory as to the superiority of ecclesiastical over temporal power. Ever since the death of Henry III of Germany, the papacy had been gaining on the empire; for, although the Hildebrandine doctrine as to the supremacy of the church had been confronted by the despotic theory of the imperial power which had been propounded by the civil lawyers under Frederick Barbarossa, this had never been much more than a theory. And now that the representative of the imperial family was an infant, the time appeared to be come when the Hildebrandine claims might be successfully asserted in their fullest extent. Frederick had, indeed, already received the homage of the Germans as his father’s successor. But the inexpediency of a minor’s reign was strongly impressed on the minds of all by the remembrance of the troubles of Henry IV’s youth, and the obligation to Frederick was set aside under the pretext that it had been wrongfully extorted; that when it was exacted, he was but an infant, and even unbaptized; and that his father’s death, at a time when the son was too young to assume the government, had altered the conditions of the case. Philip, duke of Swabia, the youngest son of Frederick Barbarossa, on hearing of his brother’s death, hurried from Tuscany, of which he had been governor, to check by his presence the disorders which were certain to break out in Germany, and to secure the interest of his young nephew. But he found the feeling of opposition to the election of the child as king to be irresistibly strong, and the adherents of the Hohenstaufen interest entreated him to become himself the representative of his family in opposition to the other candidates who were set up for the crown. Of these, Berthold, duke of Zähringen, after having spent a large sum, shrank from further outlay, and was persuaded by an ample bribe to give in his adhesion to Philip; and Bernard of Saxony withdrew, partly from a dread of expense, and partly because he felt his health unequal to the labours of the office. The choice of the party opposed to the Swabian family—headed by Adolphus of Altena, archbishop of Cologne, a man of great ability, but ambitious, artful, and rapacious,—fell on Otho, a younger son of Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, and nephew by his mother’s side of Richard king of England, by whom he had been created duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitou. Otho, who in childhood was involved in his father’s banishment, had grown up in England, and had been employed by his uncle as viceroy of Poitou; and Richard, who could not forget his German captivity, although he declined to attend an election, to which he was summoned in right of the titular kingdom of Provence, bestowed on him by the late emperor, sent commissioners to represent him, recommended the cause of his nephew to the pope, and aided Otho with money which he levied by additional taxes on his subjects. Philip was chosen defender of the kingdom by an assembly of princes and prelates, mostly from the eastern part of Germany, at Arnstadt, near Erfurt, on the 6th of March 1198; Otho, whose strength lay along the Rhine and in the north-west of the country, was elected about Easter by a rival assembly at Andernach, but did not arrive in Germany until Philip had appeared for ten weeks to be without a rival. Each of the competitors was in the earliest manhood—Otho, twenty-three years of age, and Philip younger by a year. In personal character, in wealth, and in the number of his adherents, Philip had the advantage. The chroniclers praise his moderation and his love of justice; his mind had been cultivated by literature to a degree then very unusual among princes,—a circumstance which is explained by the fact that he had been intended for an ecclesiastical career, until the death of an elder brother diverted him from it; and his popular manners contrasted favourably with the pride and roughness of Otho. But Otho was the favourite with the great body of the clergy, to whom Philip was obnoxious as the representative of a family which was regarded as opposed to the interests of the hierarchy. Philip was said to have been excommunicated by pope Celestine for invading the property of the Roman church; and Innocent insisted on this, although Philip himself declared that he had never had any knowledge of having incurred such a sentence. The truth seems to be that he had either done so by holding intercourse with his excommunicate brother Henry, or had fallen under some general denunciation against all who should interfere with ecclesiastical property; and, without admitting all that was said against him, he was now desirous of reconciliation with the church. The pope sent the bishop of Sutri, a German by birth, into Germany, with instructions to demand the release of Tancred’s wife and daughters, and of the archbishop of Salerno, who had been carried off as a captive by the late emperor; and he authorized him to absolve Philip on his surrendering these prisoners and swearing to obey the papal judgment as to all the matters for which he had been excommunicated.

But although the release was effected, the bishop incurred his master’s censure by pronouncing the absolution without insisting on the terms which had been prescribed. On the 12th of July, Otho was crowned by the archbishop of Cologne at Aix-la-Chapelle, which he had gained from Philip by winning over the officer who commanded the garrison. He swore to maintain the Roman church, and to relinquish the abuses of his predecessors, especially the jus exuviarum; and a similar oath was taken by the electors who were present. Philip, who, although excluded from Charlemagne’s city, was in possession of the insignia of the kingdom, and was supported by all the great officers of the imperial court, was crowned at Mainz on the 8th of September, and was hailed as the second of his name—the first having been the Arabian Philip, in the middle of the third century, who had come to be erroneously regarded as the earliest Christian emperor. Although the archbishop of Treves, a vacillating man, who had left the party of Otho, was present, he did not venture to deviate from the tradition in favour of Aix by performing the coronation, and the archbishop of Tarentaise officiated; for which he was cited to answer by the pope. The bishop of Sutri was also present, and in punishment of this and of his other offences, was deposed and was banished to a monastery in an island, where he soon after died.

Innocent, even if he had not wished to interfere, was called on to do so by applications from both parties. The king of England sent an embassy to him in behalf of Otho, who himself wrote to him, making great offers of privileges for the churchy and Philip Augustus of France exerted his interest for Philip. The pope wrote to the princes of Germany, telling them that Philip’s coronation was invalid. It had not been performed at the right place or by the right person; his absolution had been pronounced without regard to the conditions prescribed, and was therefore null; he had been crowned while excommunicate, so that the oaths to him were of no force; to have him for king would be to forfeit the right of election, and to admit that the kingdom was hereditary. To Philip’s envoys he addressed a warning from Scripture and history, that the empire had no chance of success in opposition to the priesthood; but he added that he would consider of the question; and he drew up a formal statement of the case under the title of a “Deliberation on the Three Elect”. In this paper, after laying down (as he had already done in his speech to the envoys) that to the papacy belongs “principally and finally” the disposal of the empire—inasmuch as by the pope it had been transferred from the Greeks to the West, and it was the pope who bestowed the crown—he discussed successively the claims of Frederick, Philip, and Otho. In favour of Frederick were the oath which the princes had taken to him during his father’s life, and his connection with the pope as his guardian. Innocent, however, pronounces the oath to be invalid, inasmuch as it was taken when Frederick was an infant and unbaptized, and because the unforeseen death of his father had occasioned the necessity of choosing another king at a time when Frederick was unfit to perform the duties of the office. The papal guardianship he declares to relate to the kingdom of Sicily only, not to the empire; and he points out the inconveniences which would result from the union of the Sicilian kingdom with the imperial dignity. As to Philip it is admitted that he had been elected by a greater number than Otho; but numbers, it is said, are not the only thing to be regarded; and the objections to Philip are insisted on—his excommunication, the irregularity of the absolution pronounced by the bishop of Sutri, his alleged connection with Markwald and Diephold, the offences of his family against the church, the danger of appearing to substitute the principle of hereditary right for that of election. And the judgment concludes in favour of Otho, as having been chosen by the more judicious, if not the larger, party, as descended on both sides from ancestors devoted to the church, and in himself possessing the qualities requisite for the empire. The pope is said to have declared that either he must take the crown from Philip, or Philip must take from him the ensigns of apostolical dignity.

War immediately broke out along the Rhine, and for ten years it was carried on with extraordinary ferocity—the Bohemians, as in former wars, being branded as guilty of atrocities surpassing those of the Germans. Among the disastrous effects of this war on religion, it is noted that in the choice of bishops regard was chiefly had to their martial qualities, and that this contributed greatly to swell the general disorder of the German church.

From both the contending parties Innocent received frequent applications for his support. Conrad, archbishop of Mainz and primate of Germany, who had been engaged in the crusade during the earlier proceedings, in returning from the Holy Land in 1199, had frequent interviews with the pope, who entreated him to use the influence of his high dignity, his age, his great experience, and his revered character, for the reestablishment of peace. But the archbishop, on reaching his own country, found the undertaking beyond his power, and withdrew into Hungary, where he attempted to mediate between two rival claimants of the Hungarian crown. In returning from this mission, Conrad died at Passau, in October 1200, leaving his see to become the object of a contest between representatives of the parties of Philip and Otho. The anti-papal candidate, Leopold, bishop of Worms, a man of resolute character, who had taken part in the affairs of Italy both as a negotiator and as a warrior, is said to have gone so far as to retaliate the pope’s excommunication of him by pronouncing with all the most solemn forms an anathema against Innocent himself. Of the other great Rhenish prelates, John of Treves continued to waver from one party to the other, while Adolphus of Cologne, the chief author of Otho’s elevation, forsook his interest, and in November 1204 did homage to Philip. The pope threatened him, and appointed in his stead another archbishop, who for a time got possession of Cologne, and was supported by the citizens. It was remarkable that, of the German bishops, many sided with what was supposed to be the national cause, notwithstanding the terrors of spiritual censure; while the abbots, from their greater dependence on Rome, were generally in favour of Otho. Everywhere there were contests for churches, and appeals to Rome for a decision between rivals; and it is said that, in consequence of the dissensions which prevailed, many members of monastic societies fell away from the communion of the church.

In 1201 legates were sent into Germany, carrying with them the “Deliberation on the Three Elect”, as their instructions. It would seem that, from whatever reason, their intercourse was almost wholly with Otho’s party, and that they listened to its representations exclusively. They published the pope’s judgment at Cologne, declared Otho to be king and “semper Augustus”, and reported to their master that Otho had almost all Germany with him, that he had 100,000 men ready to take the field, while Philip was reduced so low that he could not venture to show himself.

The pope wrote letters in all directions, zealously recommending the cause of Otho; but, although he was careful to enforce his lofty hierarchical doctrines by considerations of temporal advantage, his exertions had but little success. Richard of England, who had warmly supported Otho, was succeeded in 1199 by John, and Innocent repeatedly urged the new king to give his nephew effectual assistance. But John was indifferent in the matter; in 1200 he concluded a treaty with France, by which he swore to refrain from helping Otho; and he even alleged this treaty as a reason for withholding payment of a legacy which Richard had bequeathed to his nephew. The pope annulled the oath; but it was with difficulty that he persuaded John to pay even a portion of the legacy; and, although Otho received some money from England in 1202, it was either too little or too late to be availing. To Philip Augustus, Innocent urged the dangers which might be apprehended from the union of Sicily with Germany, as a reason for opposing the Swabian house; but he found that the French king was more powerfully swayed by his jealousy of England, which inclined him to make common cause with Philip against Otho. He endeavoured to secure Ottocar of Bohemia to the cause of Otho, by confirming the royal title which he had received from Philip, and by favourably entertaining a proposal to erect a metropolitical see, so as to render the Bohemian church independent of the primate of Mainz. He reminded the Lombards of the ancient enmity between them and the Hohenstaufen family. He urged again and again on the princes and prelates of Germany the misdeeds of the Swabian house, the personal demerits of Philip, the danger of allowing the principle of inheritance to supersede their electoral rights, while he disclaimed for himself all wish to interfere with these rights, or to overrule their decision; it is not, he said, the man that is to be provided with an empire, but the empire that is to be provided with a man worthy to govern it. He declared all oaths which had been taken to Philip to be null and void; and he showered privileges and immunities of all sorts on the bishops and the monastic societies who espoused the party of Otho. Yet, notwithstanding the pope’s strenuous opposition, Philip’s strength increased from year to year. His arms prevailed in the held, and he was able to gain some of his rival’s chief partisans—such as Adolphus of Cologne, king Ottocar, and Henry, duke of Lorraine and Brabant—so that at length Otho had hardly any other support than that of the people of Cologne; and even this city, the most important in Germany, which had been long the great mart of northern commerce, and had lately acquired a new religious significance through the possession of the relics of the holy Three Kings, was compelled to forsake Otho’s party for that of Philip, in October 1206. In order that the defects of form in his earlier election might be remedied, Philip in 1205 resigned the crown at Aix-la-Chapelle, in the presence of a great assemblage of princes; he was enthusiastically reelected, and was crowned in Charlemagne’s minster by his new adherent Adolphus of Cologne.

Each of the rivals from time to time endeavoured to propitiate the pope by large offers of concession as to the subjects which had been disputed between the ecclesiastical and the secular powers—the election of bishops and abbots, the jus exuviarum, and the like; by promising to employ the secular authority for the enforcement of ecclesiastical and monastic discipline, and for the protection of the church’s property. Philip offered to submit to the judgment of the Roman church in all points as to which he might have offended; to restore all that his predecessors or himself had taken from the church; to assume the cross, and to use the influence of his connection with the imperial family of Constantinople for the subjection of the Greek church to Rome.

The course of events in Germany told even on Innocent’s resolution. In August 1207, his legates were commissioned to absolve Philip, although without any acknowledgment of his title as king, and to endeavour to procure a peace, or at least a truce for two years. The absolution was pronounced at Worms, while Philip agreed to give up Bruno, the papal archbishop of Cologne, who was his prisoner, to admit Siegfried as archbishop of Mainz, and to send the antipapal claimant of that see, Leopold, with Adolphus of Cologne, to the pope for his judgment. It seemed that Innocent, in despair of Otho’s success, was about to abandon his cause; even a matrimonial connection between the pope’s family and that of Hohenstaufen was projected. But on the 21st of June 1208, Philip was assassinated at the castle of Altenberg, near Bamberg, by Otho of Wittelsbach, count palatine of Bavaria, in revenge, as was supposed, for having retracted a promise of giving him his daughter Beatrice in marriage. The news of this crime—which excited general horror, and made the perpetrator an outcast until, some months later, he was discovered in a stable and slain by one of his victim’s officers—overtook the legates on their return from Germany; and Innocent hastened to write to the German princes, charging them to acquiesce in the manifest declaration of Divine Providence in favour of Otho, by refraining from all opposition to him. He exhorted Otho to moderation and conciliation, and for a time this advice was followed. Philip had left no son, and the only male representative of the Hohenstaufen family was the young Frederick of Sicily. On both sides there was an ardent desire for peace after the troubles which for ten years had desolated Germany; and a proposal that Otho should marry the daughter of his rival, which had in vain been urged on Philip, was now renewed with better success. In a great assembly at Frankfort, on St. Martin’s day, Otho was invested with the diadem and the holy lance; and the princess Beatrice, a child of twelve years of age, was led in by the bishop of Spires, who in her name demanded punishment of her father’s murderers. She avowed her consent to the proposed marriage, and the canonical objections, which existed in this as in most other cases of princely marriages, were overruled by the pope’s dispensation, on condition that Otho should rule with justice, should protect widows and orphans, monasteries, and the church, and should go in person on the crusade. In March 1209, Otho executed at Spires a document by which he renewed his promises to the pope as to the freedom of appeals and elections, the property of deceased bishops, and respect for the rights of the church, and engaged himself to give effectual aid for the extirpation of heresy, and to assist the pope in recovering all the territory which rightfully belonged to the see of Rome. The betrothal with Beatrice was celebrated at Wurzburg on the octave of Pentecost; and in the middle of July Otho set out, with an imposing train of nobles and prelates, at the head of a powerful army, to receive the imperial crown.

In the north of Italy, the feuds of the imperialists and the papalists had raged with great fury. Not only was city opposed to city, but each city was distracted between the two embittered factions—Guelfs and Ghibellines, as they were now called—which divided every class of society, and were outwardly distinguished from each other not only by varieties of dress, but even by the architecture of their houses, and by differences in the minutest habits of life. Some of the cities which had achieved independence, had already fallen under the dominion of lords or tyrants. The first of these was Azzo, marquis of Este, who was chosen by Ferrara, and other nobles after his example made themselves masters of towns in their neighbourhood. Otho, in his progress southward, found much to do in endeavouring to reconcile the enmities of the Italians. The statement of some writers, that he received the Lombard crown either at Milan or at Monza, appears to be mistaken; indeed, it is very questionable whether he even visited Milan at this time. After a succession of festive receptions at Bologna and other cities, he was met by the pope at Viterbo; on the 4th of Octo­ber, he was crowned as emperor by the hands of Innocent in St. Peter’s at Rome, renewing by an oath the promises which he had subscribed at Spires; and for the first and last time an emperor professed to hold his dignity “by the grace of God and the apostolic see”. But hardly was the ceremony completed by which Innocent raised to the temporal headship of Christendom a prince of his own choice, when differences began to show themselves. Otho, hitherto so profuse of offers and promises, now felt himself in a new position, and bound to maintain the prerogatives of his crown against the encroachments of the spiritual power. He was assured by jurists that such promises as he had made to the pope in ignorance were not binding; and perhaps a knowledge of Innocent’s late negotiations with Philip may have set his mind at ease as to any obligations of gratitude.

Immediately after the coronation, the quarrels which had become customary on such occasions were renewed between the Romans and the emperor’s troops, and many of the Germans were slain. Otho demanded compensation for his loss in men and horses, and on the pope’s refusal, retired from the city; but, on being requested to withdraw his troops from the neighbourhood, he declared that he would remain until they should have exhausted its provisions. He refused to pay the donative which the Romans claimed at imperial coronations, and enriched himself by the plunder of pilgrims whom his soldiery intercepted on their way to Rome. He seized on some towns and fortresses which the pope had occupied during the vacancy of the empire, and which partly belonged to the inheritance of the countess Matilda; and when Innocent remonstrated, and reminded him of his oath to respect the property of the church, he replied that he had also taken an oath, imposed by the pope himself, to maintain the rights of his crown; that, while he owned the authority of the pope in spiritual things, he was himself supreme in the affairs of this world. After having spent about twelve months in Tuscany and Lombardy, Otho, in November 1210, proceeded into Apulia, where he received the adhesion of Diephold, and invested him anew in the duchy of Spoleto. On this invasion of a territory which was under the special guardianship of the apostolic see, Innocent issued a sentence of anathema against the emperor and his adherents, interdicted the clergy of Capua for having celebrated divine offices in his presence, and declared his subjects to be released from the duty of obedience; and, after having made fruitless attempts by the offer of large concessions to reconcile Otho and Frederick—for which purpose the abbot of Morimond visited the emperor five times in his winter quarters at Capua—he renewed the anathema on Maundy Thursday 1212. Innocent took active measures to make this sentence generally known, and to stir up against Otho those whom he had formerly laboured to enlist in his favour, and, in allusion to the disappointment of his policy, he quoted the text—“It repenteth me that I have made man on the earth”.

Otho was recalled from his career of success in Italy by tidings of serious disturbances in Germany, which he endeavoured to quell by arms and by negotiation. On the 7th of August 1212, his marriage with the daughter of his late rival was celebrated at Nordhausen; but within four days Beatrice suddenly died. Her death was popularly ascribed to poison, supposed to have been administered by one of the mistresses whom the emperor had brought with him from Italy; and the result was disastrous for Otho. The feelings of attachment to the Swabian house, which he had hoped to secure for himself by his late marriage, were now centred on the undoubted and only heir of the Hohenstaufens, Frederick of Sicily, who was already on his way to claim the German kingdom. Otho had made himself unpopular by his pride, by the roughness of his manners, by his illiberality as to money, which was unfavourably compared with the remembrances of Philip’s generosity, and by the heavy taxation which he found it necessary to lay on his subjects The great prelates,—among them Adolphus of Cologne, whom Innocent, in disgust at Otho, now allowed to resume his see, had turned against him, and had been followed by the clergy in general, who were offended by the rudeness with which he treated the highest members of the hierarchy, and by his proposing to reduce their state and their revenues; and some of the chief personages who had by turns sided with both parties in the late contest, such as the king of Bohemia and the duke of Austria, with many of those who were specially attached to the imperial service, had joined the movement of opposition. Otho was declared by the princes to have forfeited the empire, and in the end of 1211 envoys were sent in their name to invite Frederick to Germany.

To the pope the election of Frederick could not be altogether pleasing. He was yet but a boy of sixteen; his claims were founded on that principle of inheritance which Innocent had always striven to exclude from the election; he was the representative of a family which the pope had continually denounced, and already he had shown symptoms of having inherited the traditions and the feelings of his race. But no other policy than that of supporting Frederick seemed possible; and Innocent gave his approval of the choice. By Frederick himself the invitation of the Germans was eagerly welcomed. The promptings of ambition, the desire to emulate the renown of his forefathers, to find a wider scene for himself than the kingdom of the Sicilian Normans, prevailed over the advice of his southern counsellors and the entreaties of his wife; and, having seen his infant son Henry crowned as his successor, he set out from Palermo on his bold enterprise on Palm Sunday 1212. In April he arrived at Rome, where he had frequent conferences with the pope, and received from him a large supply of money. He then proceeded by sea to Genoa, where he remained nearly three months; and, as the Alpine passes were in the hands of Otho’s partisans, he made his way across the north of Italy to Trent, under the escort of cities which were friendly to him, and not without occasional danger from those of the opposite party, such as Milan and Piacenza. From Trent, with a handful of companions, he crossed the mountains to the great monastery of St. Gall, where the abbot received him with honour, and secured to his interest the wavering bishop of Constance. On reaching that city, he was informed that Otho was at hand, and that his culinary train was already within the walls; but the emperor, on arriving three hours later, found that the gates were shut against him, and that the citizens had declared for his rival. As Frederick proceeded down the Rhine, accessions of strength continually poured in on him, and the general disposition in his favour was increased by his popular manners and by his bountiful largesses. On the 12th of November, he was met at Vaucouleurs in Lorraine by the dauphin, Lewis, who in the name of his father, Philip Augustus, assured him of support; and a week later a formal alliance with the French king was concluded at Toul. In the meantime Otho was so deeply engaged in a war with France, that he was unable to check the progress of Frederick. At the great battle of Bouvines, near Tournay, on the 27th of July 1214, Philip Augustus was victorious over Otho and his allies; and for the remaining five years of his life the emperor was forced to confine himself within his hereditary territory of Brunswick. On St. July 25, James’s day in the following year, Frederick received the German crown at Aix-la-Chapelle, from the primate Siegfried of Mainz; and, in the enthusiasm of the moment, he, with many others, took the badge of the crusade, to which he afterwards more fully pledged himself by oath at Nuremberg, in the presence of a Roman legate.

The ambition to emulate the fame of Frederick Barbarossa and his other ancestors prevailed over the advice of counsellors who represented to the young prince that the difficulties of Germany required his presence at home; but the result of the engagements into which he thus rashly entered was such as he little expected. In the same year, the question of the empire was considered in the great council of the Lateran, and the pope, after having once adjourned the meeting on account of the heat of the discussion, pronounced in favour of Frederick.

On the other hand, Frederick repaid the pope for his support by large promises in favour of the hierarchy and of the Roman see. In July 1213, he pledged himself at Eger, in Bohemia, in the very words of the oath which Otho had taken and had broken, to allow freedom of elections and appeals, to renounce the jus exuviarum, to labour for the suppression of heresy, and to do all that might be in his power towards recovering for the papacy all the territories which it claimed tinder the donation of Matilda or otherwise. In May 1216, he granted fresh immunities to the church, and in the same year he executed at Strasburg an act by which he promised that, on his coronation as emperor, his son Henry should be emancipated from the paternal control, and should alone hold the kingdom of Sicily, both beyond and within the Strait, under the Roman church; that during his minority, he should be under the care of a governor responsible to the pope; and that the Sicilian kingdom should always be separate from the empire.

4

PHILIP AUGUSTUS AND INGEBURGA.

 

With Philip Augustus of France Innocent was drawn into a contest which lasted many years. In this contest the pope appeared as the protector of innocence against wrong; nor is there any reason for supposing that he was influenced by a mixture of lower motives, although his conduct was marked by much of the assumption which had become characteristic of the papacy. Philip, an able, ambitious, prudent, and unscrupulous prince, under whose reign the kingdom of France was doubled in extent, and the power of the crown was much strengthened as against that of the great feudatories, had lost his first wife while preparing to set out on the crusade in 1190. On his return from the East, he was attracted by the fame of the beauty and virtues of Ingeburga, sister of the king of Denmark, a country which at that time had much inter­course with France, as appears from the fact that in the University of Paris there was a special college for Danish students. It is said that, on being sounded by the Danish king as to his expectations of dowry, Philip answered by asking for a transfer of the claims on the crown of England which Denmark had derived from the great Canute, with a year’s service of a Danish fleet and army for the assertion of them; but that Canute VI, from unwillingness to involve himself in a war with the formidable Richard of England, preferred to portion his sister in money. In 1193 the princess was conducted to Amiens, and her marriage with Philip was celebrated on the day of her arrival. Next day the royal pair were crowned; but during the ceremony Philip was observed to look pale and to tremble. It was found that since the preceding day he had conceived an unconquerable aversion for Ingeburga, which, as the real cause of it was not disclosed, was popularly ascribed to sorcery. The Danish nobles who had escorted the queen refused to take her back to her native country, and she herself was determined to remain in France. Philip knew, by the experience of some of his predecessors, that he could not hope for peace unless a divorce could be obtained in regular form. The usual objection of relationship within the forbidden degrees between Ingeburga and his former wife was therefore set up against the marriage; and a council at Compiegne, composed of bishops devoted to the king, pronounced for a separation on this ground. Ingeburga, who was present, was filled with astonishment and grief when the sentence was explained to her. In her scanty knowledge of French, she could only give notice of an appeal by crying out—“Wicked France! Rome! Rome!” and the suit was earnestly urged by her brother on Celestine III. The pope declared the sentence of the late council to be annulled by apostolical authority, reproved the French bishops for the part which they had taken in the matter, and charged them to prevent the king from contracting another marriage. But it was in vain that he desired Philip to restore his queen to her rights. Ingeburgawas shut up in a convent at Beaurepaire, in the diocese of Arras, where her piety and gentleness won the respect of all who approached her; and Philip, after having met with refusals in other quarters, married Agnes, the beautiful daughter of the duke of Merania, who ruled over a large territory in Istria, the Tyrol, and Bohemia.

The aged Celestine’s interest in the matter appears to have cooled, and no decided step was taken during the remainder of his pontificate. But Innocent, on succeeding him, took up the question with characteristic vigour. Even before his consecration, he wrote to the bishop of Paris, desiring him to admonish the king to put away Agnes and to restore Ingeburga; he soon after addressed to Philip himself a letter in which arguments of all sorts were enforced by threats of the heaviest ecclesiastical penalties; and he sent Peter, cardinal of St. Mary in the Via Lata, as legate into France, with authority, in case of the king’s obstinacy, to lay his dominions under an interdict. The legate held a council at Dijon, from which the king, by his representatives, appealed to Rome; and the legate—(“not out of deference to the appeal, but that he might find a more convenient time and place for fulfilling his commission”)—put off the sentence to another council, which he held at Vienne, then within the imperial terri­tory. There the interdict was proclaimed, and, as the king showed no sign of repentance, it was generally published by the bishops in the beginning of February 1200. Some bishops who at first refused, were compelled by the pope to carry out his orders, although a few still continued to celebrate the offices of religion as usual.

The innocent—such was the theory of the interdict— were to suffer for the guilty sovereign, in order that his heart might be softened either by pity for their misery, or by fear of their discontent. And the sentence of general interdict was one which had never before been felt in France; for that against Robert and Bertha had been limited to their persons, and that against Philip I and Bertrada had been of force only in the places where the sinful pair should be found. The misery now inflicted was extreme. “Awful and wonderful it was”, says Ralph of Coggeshalle, “to see in every city the doors of the churches locked, Christians debarred like dogs from entering them, a cessation of divine offices, no consecration of the sacraments of the Lord’s body and blood, no flocking of the people, as had been usual, to the high solemnities of the saints, the bodies of the dead not committed to burial with Christian rites; but the stench of them infected the air, while the frightful sight of them struck horror into the minds of the living”.

For a time Philip met the interdict with defiance. He expelled from their sees some of the bishops who had published it, and reproached them with their indifference to the sufferings of the people. Instead of restoring Ingeburga, he removed her to the castle of Etampes, where she was treated with greater severity than before; and he declared himself ready to turn Mussulman, and professed to envy Saladin for having no pope to annoy him. But after a time the fear of personal excommunication induced him to send envoys to Rome; and there were circumstances which tended to procure for them a favourable hearing. Bishops who had not shrunk from a conflict with the secular power began to fear that their people might learn to despise the ordinances of religion which were denied to them, and might thus fall a prey to heresy; Innocent himself, too, had reason to foresee a contest with England, and was thus disposed to conciliate the king of France. Cardinal Octavian, of Ostia, was therefore sent into France, with orders to require that Philip should receive Ingeburga as queen, should send Agnes out of his dominions, and should make compensation to the clergy for the damages which they had suffered; if the king should wish to impugn the validity of his marriage with the Danish princess, he must begin the proceedings within six months. The legate had an interview with Philip at Sens, where he reproved him for his misdeeds, and Philip with tears promised to obey the pope’s commands. The king and queen afterwards met in Octavian’s presence; Ingeburga was treated with royal pomp, and was publicly displayed as queen; and on this the interdict was taken off, after having weighed on the people of France for upwards of seven months, and the bishops who had been suspended for refusing to publish it were released from their suspension, on swearing to go to Rome and to obey the pope’s commands.

But although Philip complained to the pope that Octavian had dealt hardly with him, the cardinal had contented himself with receiving promises which were not to be performed. Ingeburga was again sent back to her prison-like seclusion at Etampes, until the question of the marriage should be tried before Octavian and another legate. For this purpose a council was held at Soissons in Lent 1201. The king’s lawyers began by arguing the objection on the ground of affinity; but the advocates who had been sent from Denmark for the queen’s cause appealed to the pope, on the ground that Philip had not treated her as his nobles had sworn for him that he would treat her, and also because Octavian, as being related to the king, and for other reasons, was suspected of partiality in the case. The legate desired them to wait for the arrival of his colleague, cardinal John of St. Paul; but they refused and withdrew. Ingeburga was left alone and friendless; but after a discussion of several days, in which Philip’s counsel exhausted the resources of their learning, an unknown clerk stood forward, and, having asked leave to speak in the queen’s behalf, argued her cause with a skill and a power which extorted admiration even from the king himself. Philip saw that the judgment of the council, which cardinal John was about to pronounce, would be against him, and resolved to prevent such a result. He announced his intention to treat Ingeburga as a wife and a queen; and, proceeding to the convent where she lodged, after a long interview with her, he placed her behind him on his horse and carried her away. On being informed of this, the council broke up. But when Philip’s object had been gained by avert­ing a sentence, the unfortunate Ingeburga was again removed to the castle of Etampes, where she was treated with increased rigour.

Agnes of Merania, while the interdict was in force, had implored the pope to let her enjoy the society of Philip as a husband; for the crown she declared that she did not care. The French nobles had advised the king to send her out of the country; but it was impossible to act on this advice after the council of Soissons, as she was then far advanced in pregnancy; and she soon after died of grief, having given birth to a son, on whom she bestowed the significant name of Tristan. This child did not long survive his mother; but at the earnest suit of Philip, who represented that the divorce pronounced by the council of Compiegne had led him to think himself free to marry—and perhaps also from motives of policy—Innocent consented to acknowledge the two elder children of Agnes as legitimate, and capable of inheriting after their father. Agnes was buried at Nantes with great splendour, and in memory of her Philip erected and endowed a convent for a hundred and twenty monks.

From time to time Ingeburga addressed to the pope complaints of the treatment which she received, and entreaties that he would interfere in her behalf. It is represented that she was kept in close seclusion, seeing no one except occasionally a priest; that her character was aspersed by slander; that she was denied the opportunity of confessing, and was rarely admitted to the mass; that she was cut off from all communication with her native land, and that even her two Danish chaplains were not allowed to speak with her except in French and in the presence of Frenchmen; that her guards were persons of low condition and of rude behaviour; that she was ill supplied with food and clothing, so as to be reduced even to accept charitable gifts for her comfort; that she was denied the use of the bath and of medical attendance; and she prays that any concession which may be wrung from her by such treatment may not be allowed to prejudice her rights. The pope in consequence of these letters often wrote to Philip, exhorting him to fulfill his promises to Ingeburga, or, if he could not love her, at least to show her outward respect. Philip endeavoured by various means to procure a divorce; by ascribing his aversion to the influence of magic, by endeavouring to induce Ingeburga to become a nun, or to make such statements as should agree with his own account of their conjugal connection. But the pope steadily adhered to his purpose—exhorting Philip, if he believed himself to be under magical influence, to strive against it by fasting and prayer, and telling him that compliance with his wishes was unlawful and impossible.

At length, in the year 1213—twenty years after the repudiation, and seventeen years after Ingeburga had been committed to seclusion—Philip, after consultation with the cardinal-legate, Robert Curzon, and probably with a view to popular support in his quarrels with England and Flanders—consented to receive her as queen. They lived together until his death in 12233 and Ingeburga founded at Corbeil, where she spent her fourteen years of widowhood, a college of priests in connection with the military order of St. John, for the benefit of her husband’s soul.

5

AFFAIRS OF ENGLAND

 

The sovereign of England, during all but the first year of Innocent’s pontificate, was one whose character—sensual, faithless, cruel, violent and weak, without religion, but not without superstition—afforded ample opportunities for the encroachment of the papacy on the secular power. John, after having been forgiven by his brother Richard for many offences, had been declared by him his heir, in preference to Arthur, the son of an elder but deceased brother. The crown of England, although limited to one family, had hardly ever since the Norman conquest descended according to the strict rule of inheritance; and it is said that at John’s coronation the archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter, addressed the assembled nobles in words which declared it to depend on election. John had already given general scandal by carrying off the betrothed bride of the count of la Marche, while he himself had another wife living; he was believed to have instigated the murder of his nephew Arthur, or even to have murdered him with his own hand. For this he was cited by Philip Augustus, as suzerain of his continental territories, to answer before the peers of France—a court of fabulous origin, and of which this is the first mention in authentic history. In default of appearing, he was condemned to forfeiture; and, through the disaffection which his vices and his extravagant taxation had excited among his subjects, Philip was enabled to wrest from him within a few months the great inheritance of Rollo. His matrimonial irregularities, although really as criminal as those of Philip Augustus, had passed without censure from the pope. But he had already been involved in serious differences with Innocent on account of his disposal of sees, his taxation of monasteries, and other offences, when a question as to the appointment of a pri­mate brought him into direct collision with the papacy.

On the death of Archbishop Hubert, in 1205, the younger monks of Canterbury hastily assembled by night and elected the sub-prior, Reginald, placed him on the high altar, seated him in the archiepiscopal chair, and sent him off to sue for the pall at Rome, under an obligation to keep his election secret until he should appear in the pope’s own presence. But Reginald’s vanity was too strong for this promise, and immediately on landing in Flanders he proclaimed his new dignity. When this was known in England, the monks—even those who had elected him—became ashamed of their choice, and, in order to disarm the king’s indignation, they applied to him for leave to proceed to a fresh election. John recommended one of his chief counsellors, John de Grey, bishop of Norwich, who was accordingly chosen, invested with the temporalities of the see, and sent to Rome with a statement on the king’s part that he had been unanimously elected, and with a protest against any claims which might be set up in favour of a rival. The bishops of the province, however, who had been disregarded in the affair, sent envoys to assert their customary right to a share in the election; and Innocent saw in these circumstances an opportunity for effectually inter­fering with the Anglo-Norman system, by which, wherever the choice of bishops might nominally be lodged, it was really in the hands of the sovereign. He therefore disallowed both the elections, denied the claim of the suffragan bishops to a share in the appointment of their metropolitan, and desired that fifteen monks of Christ-church should be sent to Rome by a certain day, as representatives of the convent, to choose on the spot an archbishop of his own nomination. The person whom the pope recommended was Stephen Langton, an Englishman, who had been his fellow-student at Paris, and, after having taught in that university with great distinction, had lately been promoted to the cardinalate of St. Chrysogonus. It was in vain that the representatives of the Canterbury monks urged the necessity of the king’s approval. Innocent peremptorily declared that such was not the case when an election was made at the place of the pope’s own residence; and, with the protest of a single monk, on the part of the king and of his candidate, Langton was elected by the deputies of Christ-church, and was thereupon consecrated by the pope.

Such an interference with the rights of the national church, in entire disregard of the crown, was wholly new in England, and might reasonably have awakened the king’s resentment. But through the unpopularity and folly of John, the high reputation of Stephen Langton, and the energy with which Innocent carried out his policy, the result was very different from what it might otherwise have been.

On receiving an account of the late proceedings from Innocent, with a request for his approval (although the pope intimated that this was unnecessary), John violently objected to Langton as one who, although by birth an English subject, was personally unknown to him, and had lived among his “public enemies” in France. He reminded the pope that England contributed more to the income of the Roman church than all the other countries north of the Alps; he declared himself resolved to carry through the promotion of the bishop of Norwich, and, in case of the pope’s refusal, to cut off all communication between his dominions and Rome. In the meantime he turned his rage against the monks of Canterbury, whom two of his officers, with the assistance of mercenary soldiers, ejected from their convent; and he seized their lands, together with those belonging to the archbishopric. The monks, however, as had been usual in the case of ecclesiastics driven from England for opposition to the royal will, found an eager welcome abroad, and were entertained at St. Bertin’s and in other foreign monasteries. The pope continued the correspondence for some time. He remarked that John could not well be unacquainted with Langton’s character, inasmuch as he had congratulated him on his advancement to the cardinalate, and, in disregard both of the king’s threats and of the money with which the English envoys were furnished, he bestowed the pall on Langton with his own hands at Viterbo.

Innocent, after some further exchange of letters, empowered the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester to interdict the kingdom of England, without excepting even the churches of monastic or military orders, if John should obstinately refuse to hearken to the admonitions which they were charged to deliver. On the announcement of this, John burst out in a paroxysm of rage, uttering violent abuse against the pope, with threats against the clergy and all who should bring any message from the Roman court; and he drove the bishops from his presence. The interdict was therefore published in Lent 1208, and John met it by putting his threats into execution. At first, he was disposed to deny the clergy the protection of the laws, so that, when a man was charged with the murder of a priest, the king exclaimed: “He has slain one of my enemies; let him go free”. But he afterwards changed his policy in this respect, and ordered that anyone who should outrage a clerk should be hanged on the nearest oak. A general order was issued for the banishment of all clergymen; and, as many of them would not leave the country, it was directed that their property should be seized, but that enough to sustain life should be allowed them. Severe measures were also taken against the wives or concubines of the clergy. The bishops who had published the interdict fled across the sea, and were followed by all their brethren except those who enjoyed the king’s favor; and a chronicler strongly blames them for leaving their flocks to the wolf, while they themselves lived “in all manner of delights abroad”. At length Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, was the only member of his order who remained in England, and he, says a chronicler, remained, not as a defender of the church, but as a minister of the king. The Cistercians at first continued to celebrate their rites, in neglect of the interdict, but were compelled by the pope to refrain; and when, at a later time, some other societies of monks were allowed at the primate’s intercession to celebrate, the Cistercians were punished by exclusion from this favour. It was in vain that the king’s nephews, the duke of Saxony and Otho of Germany, entreated him to make peace with the church; but, although the sufferings of the English during the time of the interdict were great, they were far less severe than the misery which had lately been produced by a like sentence in France. For it was found impossible to enforce the interdict in all its rigor; the nobles, who at other times stoutly opposed the crown, had no wish to see the hierarchy supreme, and even among the clergy there was a strong feeling of nationality. And thus it was that, while the powerful and able Philip Augustus was reduced to submission by an interdict in seven months, the weak, pusillanimous, and unpopular John was able to hold out against the pressure of a like censure for upwards of six years, even although an excommunication of his person was added to the general sentence. In 1209 the bishops of London, Ely, Worcester, and Arras were authorized to pronounce the anathema; but they did not venture into England for the purpose, and John took all possible means to prevent the introduction of letters conveying the sentence, as it was considered that a formal delivery of such a document was necessary to its taking effect. But reports of the excommunication reached England, and were acted on by the more scrupulous of the ecclesiastics who remained in the country. Geoffrey, archdeacon of Norwich, resigned a judgeship in the Exchequer on the ground that he could not serve an excommunicated sovereign; whereupon he was imprisoned, loaded with a leaden cope, and scantily fed; and under these severities he died. Hugh of Wells, a royal chaplain who was much employed in the king’s affairs, having been elected to the bishopric of Lincoln in 1209, obtained leave to go abroad that he might be consecrated by the archbishop of Rouen; but on landing in France, he took his way to Pontigny, where Langton, like his predecessor Becket, had found a refuge, and there he received consecration from the banished primate. In punishment of this, the revenues of Lincoln were confiscated, and the bishop was compelled to remain in exile. In the mean­time John endeavoured to obtain supplies of money by taxing the monasteries excessively, and the Cistercians, as they were longest spared, had at last to pay heavily in proportion. In 1210 the pope absolved all John’s subjects from their oath of fealty; and it is said that the king, on his part, endeavoured to strengthen himself by sending a mission to seek an alliance with the Mahometans of Africa.

In 1212 Langton went to Rome, in company with the bishops of London and Ely, to represent to the pope the crimes of John against the church, and the sufferings which the bishops and clergy had endured. Indignant that his spiritual thunders should have been so long spent without effect, Innocent resolved to employ means of another kind, and the archbishop on his return to France was authorized to pronounce the deposition of John, and to invite Philip Augustus to an invasion of England, promising to all who should take part in this enterprise the privileges of crusaders. Philip eagerly caught at the hope of adding England to the territories which he had already wrested from John; the crusade was resolved on at a national assembly at Soissons, and preparations were made for a speedy and formidable descent on England, while John endeavoured to prepare for meeting it by assembling a fleet at Portsmouth, and an army on Barham Downs, near Canterbury. John’s superstitious mind had been much alarmed by a prophecy of one Peter, a hermit of Pontefract or Wakefield, that he would cease to reign before Ascension-day, the anniversary of his coronation; and this prediction, with others of the same person, or feigned in his name, had become generally current, and had produced a strong impression on the people, although Peter, on being questioned by the king, professed himself unable to explain in what manner the fullfillment was to take place. While men’s minds were in general alarm, and while the forces on either side were mustering, Pandulf, a Roman sub-deacon of great experience in affairs, arrived in England, with two knights of the Temple, and had a meeting with the king at Dover. They represented to him the imminent danger in which he was from enemies both abroad and at home, and Pandulf suggested that there was but one way of safety possible—namely, through reconciliation with the church—through resigning the kingdoms of England and Ireland to St. Peter, and consenting to hold them in vassalage, and on condition of a yearly tribute, under the Roman see. To this proposal—not the less degrading because in other kingdoms and in other circumstances some similar tenure had been admitted in consideration of special benefits and privileges—John was fain to consent. He promised to submit to the pope’s judgment as to all the matters which had caused his excommunication; to recall the banished bishops and clergy, and to pay them a compensation for their losses; and on the eve of Ascension-day, at a house of the templars near Dover, he formally yielded up the crowns of England and Ireland, and did homage for his kingdoms to the papal envoy. The Yorkshire hermit’s prophecy was popularly regarded as fulfilled; and whether in acknowledgment or in denial of its truth, John caused Peter and his son to be dragged at the tails of horses from Corfe Castle (where he had imprisoned them) to Wareham, and there to be hanged. The interdict was relaxed, and Pandulf, on his return to France, charged Philip in the pope’s name to refrain from carrying out his designs against England, as the king had become the vassal of St. Peter. Philip indignantly exclaimed against the pope for having lured him by deceitful hopes to incur vast trouble and expense in preparing for the expedition which his representative had now forbidden. In the meantime John summoned his liegemen to attend him on an expedition into Poitou, and, on their hesiting to comply, under the pretext that he was not yet formally absolved, he invited Langton and the other banished bishops to return.   The primate was received with great honour, and on St. Margaret’s day, in Win­chester Cathedral, the king swore in his pre­sence to do justice in his courts to all men, keep the ancient laws, (especially those of Edward the Confessor,) to restore all church property, and to com­pensate the owners for all that they had lost. With a view to the settlement of all remaining difficulties, as well as to the preaching of a crusade and summoning a general council, Nicolas, cardinal-bishop of Tusculum, arrived in England as legate about Michaelmas; and at a council which was held at St. Paul’s in October, John again went through the humiliation of doing homage for his kingdom to the representative of Rome, and paid the first portion of the stipulated tribute.

In the beginning of February 1214, John set out for his campaign in Poitou, where his army met with considerable success. But he was recalled by the tidings of the great victory gained by Philip at Bouvines, where among Otho’s allies was a large force of English under the earl of Salisbury, who himself was struck down and taken prisoner by the martial bishop Philip of Beauvais. On hearing of this defeat, John passionately exclaimed that since his reconciliation with God and the church everything had gone ill with him.

The removal of the interdict was delayed by negotia­tions as to the indemnity which was to be paid to the clergy. But Innocent was now disposed to take part with his new vassal, and the legate Nicolas disgusted the English clergy by insisting on a compromise which was far short of their demands.  When this had at length been settled, the interdict was formally taken off on St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s day 1214.

The barons of England felt deeply the degradation which John’s abject submission to the pope had inflicted on them and on the whole kingdom; and his long misgovernment, his reckless indulgence in excesses of tyranny and lust, had excited a general desire for the privileges and the control of settled law. It was therefore resolved to insist on the fullfillment of the king’s solemn promise to observe the laws of king Edward; and in this movement the primate took the lead, with the intention of guiding it according to equity and to written right. At a meeting held at St. Paul’s, London, in August 1213, he announced to the assembled nobles that he had found a charter of liberties, granted by Henry I at his coronation, and confirmed by Henry II; and on this it was determined by the bishops and barons that they would take their stand. The spiritual and the lay chiefs swore to support each other in the attempt, and the compact was renewed in a later meeting at Bury St. Edmund’s. It was in vain that the legate Nicolas threw all his influence into the oppo­site scale; that the king raged, and swore never to consent to a claim of liberties which would reduce him to the condition of a slave; that he tried to detach the bishops from their alliance with the barons by offering entire freedom of election to sees; that he took the cross at the hands of the bishop of London, in order to secure the privileges of a crusader; that he surrounded himself with foreign mercenary soldiers. He found himself deserted by all but the nobles of his court; the barons pressed steadily onwards, possessed themselves of the capital, and on the 15th of June, 1215, extorted from the king at Runnymede the signature of the Great Charter—a document intended to record with unquestionable certainty, and thereby to secure, the rights to which English subjects were already entitled on the ground of earlier laws, with such new provisions as were necessary to counteract new dangers and usurpations. In the first article of this it is declared, with a reference to the king’s spontaneous grant of freedom of election, that the church of England shall be free, and shall have her rights entire and her liberties uninjured.

John reckoned on evading his obligations under the pretext that, as the pope was now suzerain of England, the charter could have no validity without his consent. It is said that Innocent, on hearing of the meeting at Runnymede, burst out into an indignant exclamation, swearing by St. Peter to punish the barons for attempting to dethrone a king who had taken the badge of a crusader, and had placed himself under the protection of the Roman church; and on the 24th of August he issued a bull by which he condemned and annulled the charter, released all men from their obligations to observe it, and severely censured the English primate for the part which he had taken in extorting it from the king. Against Langton, in whom he had expected to find a submissive instrument of Rome, Innocent was especially provoked, not only by his political conduct, but by his opposition to the legate Nicolas, who had thrown himself wholly into the king’s interest, and by claims as to patronage and other matters had frequently come into collision with the ancient privileges of Canterbury. The bishop of Winchester, the abbot of Reading, and Pandulf, who about this time was elected to the see of Norwich, were charged to pronounce an excommunication against all who should oppose the king, and to suspend any prelate who should refuse to publish the sentence. Langton was on the point of setting out for the Lateran council when he received notice from the commissioners that he was suspended by the pope’s commands But, while professing obedience to the papal authority, he declared that the order had been issued on false information, declined to publish it until he should have had an opportunity of conferring with the pope, and proceeded on his way to the council. At that great assembly John had his representatives, who dwelt on the primate’s alleged offences, and the pope declared himself unreservedly for the king. Excommuni­cation was denounced against all who should oppose John; Langton was severely censured by Innocent for having taken part with the barons, and for having disregarded the notice of suspension; and the election of his brother Simon to York was disallowed in favor of the king’s nominee, Walter de Grey, bishop of Worcester. The primate’s suspension was removed in February 1216, but with the condition that he should not return to England until peace should have been concluded between the king and the barons, by a party of whom Lewis, eldest son of the king of France, had been invited into England, as the only means of successfully opposing the foreign mercenaries whom John kept in his pay. Lewis had eagerly embraced the opportunity, in defiance of solemn and repeated warnings and threats from the pope’s legate, Gualo—alleging that John had never been rightful king, that he had been condemned for the murder of his nephew, that he had violated his coronation-oath, that his surrender of the kingdom was void, because unsanctioned by the barons. Philip Augustus, although he professed to take no share in his son’s enterprise, secretly encouraged it, and England was for a time a prey to the ravages of three foreign armies—the French, the Scots, who took the opportunity to break in on the north, and the king's Brabançons, or mercenaries.

In the meantime Innocent endeavoured to support John by spiritual denunciations against his chief opponents, and by interdicting the city of London, which took part with the invaders. But these sentences were generally disregarded, and John at his death, on the 16th of October 1216 (three months after that of Innocent), left to a boy only nine years old a kingdom of which the soil was in great part occupied by a foreign invader.

6

AFFAIRS OF HUNGARY, SPAIN, ETC.

 

In his dealings with the less considerable states of Christendom, Innocent displayed the same lofty conception of his authority, the same vigor and firmness in asserting it, the same skill in finding opportunities for intervention, which we have seen in his policy toward the empire, France, and England. Thus in Hungary he took advantage of a disturbed succession, when, on the death of Bela III, Andrew employed against his brother Emmerich the forces which he had raised as if for a crusade; and the pope, by persuading the rivals to lay down their arms, while he restored peace to the country, established his own spiritual sway.

In the Christian kingdoms of Spain, he benefited by the irregular marriages of sovereigns, which placed them at his mercy for the employment of spiritual punishments, such as interdict and anathema, and compelled them to submit to his decisions. The reigning family of Aragon had risen from being counts of Barcelona to a degree of importance which seemed to warrant the assumption of the royal title; but they had never been crowned, and the young king Peter resolved to seek the papal confirmation of his dignity. In 1204 he received the crown from Innocent’s hands in the church of St. Pancras without the walls of Rome, and then, accompanying the pope to St. Peter’s, he laid his crown and sceptre on the altar. Having thus offered his kingdom to St. Peter, he was reinvested in it by the symbol of the sword, and promised to hold it as a fief of the apostolic see, paying a yearly tribute, and granting entire freedom of election to bishoprics and abbacies, for the disposal of which the consent of the sovereign had until then been necessary. On returning home, Peter found that his concessions to Rome had excited some discontent among his subjects; but the compact was observed, and although Peter himself, as we shall see, was drawn into opposition to the cause which the pope sanctioned in the religious war of southern France, it was not from any want of loyalty to the papacy, but from sympathy with his own relations and allies, for whom he had interceded with Innocent in vain.

Innocent earnestly exerted himself to persuade the Christians of Spain to peace among themselves, and to combination against their Moslem enemies. When a great invasion from Africa, under the miramolin Mahomet el Nazir, was threatened in 1211, he authorized the raising of a crusading force from other countries for the assistance of the Spanish Christians, and instituted solemn prayers at Rome for the success of their arms. In 1212 the invaders were overthrown by the kings of Aragon and Castile, with their allies, in the battle of Navas de Tolosa—a victory which recalls that of Charles Martel at Poitiers by its greatness both in itself and its results, inasmuch as it for ever delivered Europe from the fear of invasion on the side of Africa. In acknowledgment of the pope’s assistance, the victors sent the banner and the lance of the Saracen leader to be hung up in St. Peter’s; and a solemn thanksgiving was there celebrated, in which the king of Castile’s report of the victory was publicly read, and the pope addressed the assembled multitude on the deliverance which had been wrought for Christendom.

In Portugal, in Scotland, in the Scandinavian kingdoms, and in Poland, the vigilance and the vigour of Innocent’s administration made themselves felt, in inculcating the obligations of Christian morality and religion, as well as in asserting the pretensions of the Roman see. In countries where the claims of the Greek church conflicted with those of the Latin, he laboured to secure the allegiance of the princes and of their people to St. Peter; but, although he was successful in Dalmatia, and in Bulgaria, where he conferred the title of king on the barbarian prince Joannicius, it was in vain, that he attempted to conciliate the Russians by the offer of a similar dignity, with the power of St. Peter’s sword. “Has your master a weapon like this?” said the Russian prince Roman to the papal envoy, laying his hand on his own sword—“If so, he may dispose of kingdoms and cities; but so long as I carry this on my thigh, I need no other”. And when the overtures were renewed after the Latin conquest of Constantinople, the Russians continued obstinately to hold to the Greek patriarch who had established himself at Nicaea.

With Armenia Innocent was drawn into particular communication by the connection of the crusaders with that country. The differences of doctrine and usages which had divided the churches were smoothed over; the Armenian patriarch accepted a pall from Rome, and promised to appear either in person or by deputy at councils convoked by the pope, and to send a representative to Rome every fifth year.

7

THE CRUSADES

 

The state of the Latin kingdom in the East engaged the attention of Innocent from the very beginning of his pontificate. The late attempt at a crusade had not only failed of its object, but had thrown discredit on the western nations which had been concerned in it. Even before the Germans had relinquished the expedition, the pope endeavoured to stir up fresh volunteers to take their place in fighting the infidels. He attempted, by correspondence with the emperor and with the patriarch, to draw the Greeks of Constantinople into a new enterprise for the common cause of Christendom; and in the last days of the year 1199, he issued letters summoning the west to the deliverance of the Holy Land. He bound himself and the cardinals to give a tenth of their income towards the cost of the expedition; from other ecclesiastics a fortieth at least was required. For the Cistercians and Premonstratensians, the Carthusians, and the order of Grammont, the demand was only a fiftieth; but the Cistercians pleaded the privileges granted by former popes, and it is said that a threatening vision of their patroness, the blessed Virgin, terrified the pope into exempting them from all contribution, except their prayers for the success of the crusade. The old privileges of crusaders were renewed and extended; and this, we are told by Villehardouin, was an inducement which persuaded many to take the cross. But the legates and the preachers who were sent to publish the crusade in various countries, found in general a lack of zeal for the cause. There was a prevailing suspicion that the money contributed for the Holy Land was sometimes detained in the Roman coffers; and Innocent condescended to counteract this suspicion, by announcing that the funds for the new crusade would not pass through his hands—that in every parish a chest with three locks was to be provided for the collection, and that the keys were to be entrusted to the bishop of the diocese, with a knight of the Temple, and one of the Hospital. Among those who enlisted themselves for the crusade there was no prince of the highest rank. In Germany, Philip and Otho were contending for the possession of the imperial crown. The pope’s endeavours to unite the rival kings of France and England in a new expedition to the East had been fruitless; and after the death of Richard, Philip Augustus was engrossed by the interests of his kingdom at home, and by the difficulties which had arisen out of his marriage. The highest in dignity and importance of those who took the cross was Baldwin, count of Flanders and Hainault, whose father, Philip, had died in the Holy Land.

In France, a remarkable excitement was produced by the preaching of an ecclesiastic named Fulk, of Neuilly on the Marne. Fulk had been for years a parish-priest of the ordinary kind, when he became impressed with the desire of something higher and better than the life which until then had satisfied him. Feeling his ignorance, he resorted to the lectures of Peter the Chanter, a famous teacher of Paris and with the knowledge which he thus acquired, a spirit and a fervour altogether new appeared to animate him. His preaching became famous; he eloquently denounced the errors of heretics, the subtleties of dialecticians and decretalists, and reprobated the vices of all classes—especially those of usurers. He reclaimed many women from a life of sin, and either persuaded them to enter into convents, or portioned them for marriage. He sent disciples to preach in various parts of France and in other countries—among them, Eustace of Flai, whose visit to England has been already mentioned. After a time, the power of Fulk’s preaching was reinforced by miracles; he cast out devils, he cured the blind, the dumb, the deaf, and the lame—discovering by a special gift who were likely to receive spiritual benefit from the bodily cures which he bestowed on them; and those who refused to believe were delivered by him to Satan—a sentence which was followed by the vengeance of heaven. Nor were the admonitions of Fulk confined to the multitudes of low condition who flocked around him with such eagerness that sometimes he was even in danger from their pressure; it was he, according to some authorities, who reproved Richard of England for cherishing as his three daughters, pride, covetousness, and luxury; to which the king replied that he bestowed his pride in marriage on the templars, his greed on the Cistercians, and his luxury on the prelates of the church. Yet in the midst of his success Fulk incurred much suspicion by the difference of his habits from the asceticism which was generally affected by such preachers; for he rode on horseback, shaved his hair, and professed no austerity as to clothing or diet. By these suspicions the effect of his sermons was impaired, so that many of his converts fell away; the offence which he had given to many persons seemed to stand in the way of his work; and it would seem that the freshness and energy of his discourse had worn off, when he was commissioned to preach the crusade in the room of Peter the Chanter, who had undertaken the task, but had died, and had bequeathed it to his pupil. For this new object Fulk exerted his eloquence with even more than his former vigour and effect. He presented himself at the general chapter of the Cistercians, where he, with the bishop of Langres and others, solemnly took the cross. At Écry, a castle on the Aisne, he arrived at the time of a great tournament given by the young count Theobald of Champagne, brother of Henry, the late king of Jerusalem; and such was the effect of his fervid words, that the count himself, with most of his guests, took the cross—among them, Walter of Brienne (who, however, afterwards relinquished the crusade for his attempt in southern Italy), Simon de Montfort, who had already been distinguished as a crusader, and Geoffrey of Villehardouin, marshal of Champagne, who eventually became the historian of the expedition.

At meetings which were afterwards held, it was re­solved that the surest way to weaken the Mussulman power was by means of an attack on Egypt; and with a view to this, as well as from a remembrance of the disasters which had befallen former expeditions by land, it was resolved to proceed by sea. Villehardouin was therefore dispatched, with five others, to Venice, in order to negotiate for the means of transport.

Venice had by this time become the most important of the Italian trading cities; excelling her rivals Genoa and Pisa, not only in the number of her ships, but in their size and build, and in the boldness, the skill, and the discipline of their crews. She was the great centre of commerce between the East and the West, and had a factory or quarter of her own in all the chief cities of the Levant. The Lateran council of 1179 had forbidden all Christians to supply munitions of war to the Saracens, and Innocent had endeavoured to put an end to all commerce with the infidels; but the Venetians repre­sented to him that, as they had no agriculture, a suppression of their traffic would be ruinous to them; and the pope relaxed his order by allowing them for a time to trade with “the kingdoms of Egypt and Babylon” in everything but warlike stores, adding the expression of a hope that this indulgence would render them more zealous to help Jerusalem. The Venetians, although always respectful to the papacy, had been accustomed—perhaps through some influence of their communication with the infidels and the schismatics of the East—to behave with firmness in their dealings with Rome, and had thus achieved for themselves a peculiar amount of spiritual independence. Their relations with Constan­tinople had been for some time unfriendly; their merchants had been plundered by the emperor Manuel, their settlers had been massacred under Andronicus, and, although Isaac Angelus had restored their privileges, the dethronement of that emperor by Alexius, in 1195, had produced a new and unfavourable turn in the state of affairs.

At Venice, Villehardouin and his companions found a ready hearing. Henry Dandolo, the doge, who, although ninety-four years old, and almost entirely blind, retained all his mental vigour, and even his martial spirit, entered eagerly into the project, and after a solemn mass in St. Mark’s, an agreement was ratified by the acclamations of 10,000 Venetians who were present, and by mutual oaths on the holy Gospels. In consideration of a certain sum, the Venetians were to provide, by the feast of St. John at midsummer 1202, ships and provisions for the transport and maintenance of the crusading force; they were to add at least fifty galleys of their own, and, so long as the partnership should last, any conquests which might be made were to be equally divided between the contracting parties. The pope sanctioned the enterprise, with the significant condition that no attack should be made on any Christian peopled

On returning to France, the envoys found the gallant Theobald of Champagne dangerously sick, and he soon after died, at the age of twenty-five. The command of the expedition was thus left vacant, and, after having been declined by the duke of Burgundy and other princes, it was accepted by Boniface, marquis of Montferrat, and brother of the famous Conrad. Boniface, in consequence of an invitation to France, appeared at an assembly at Soissons, where he was invested with the cross and with a general’s staff by the bishop of the place and Fulk of Neuilly; and at a chapter which the marquis afterwards attended at Citeaux, Fulk was able to declare that he had given the cross to 200,000 men.

At the appointed time, the crusaders appeared in great numbers at Venice, and it was found that the Venetians, in their naval preparations, had more than fulfilled their part of the engagement. But as many of the crusaders, in the hope of finding cheaper terms of passage, had preferred to embark at Marseilles, or at some port of southern Italy, those who assembled at Venice were unable to make up the stipulated sum; and although count Baldwin and other chiefs liberally contributed all that they had with them, including plate and jewels, and even all that they could borrow, a large deficiency still remained. Although the price had been calculated for a much larger number, yet, as it had been promised in one sum, the Venetians were peremptory in requiring full payment before they would consent to sail; and at length, when the fullfillment of this condition was evidently hopeless, the doge proposed to the Venetian council that, instead of insisting on further money, or of using their right to seize as forfeit that which had already been paid, they should persuade the crusaders to join them in an expedition against Zara, in Dalmatia, which had been lately taken from the republic by the king of Hungary. The crusaders were informed that, if this proposal were accepted, the forces of Venice would go with them to the holy war; and at a great assemblage in St. Mark’s, the doge announced from one of the lecterns that he himself, although old, infirm, and needing rest, would gladly take the lead of his countrymen in so glorious an enterprise. His words were received with acclamations of joy, mixed with tears; and Dandolo, descending from the lectern, proceeded to the altar, where, amidst intense excitement of the multitude, he fell on his knees, weeping profusely, and received the cross.

On the 8th of October 1202, a fleet of 480 vessels sailed from the port of Venice, and, after having reduced some of the small islands of the Adriatic to subjection, the crusaders arrived off Zara. A cardinal, whom the pope had sent to accompany the expedition, had returned to his master, on finding himself refused by the Venetians as legate, although they were willing to admit him as a preacher; and on his report Innocent had threatened to anathematize the crusaders if they made war on any Christians. Guy, abbot of Vaux-Cernay, who had accompanied Simon de Montfort, now protested in the pope’s name against attacking a Christian city, belonging to a king who himself had taken the cross. But Dandolo replied that the king of Hungary’s crusading was only a pretence, and it was with difficulty that Simon was able to save the zealous abbot from the fury of the Venetians. On Martinmas day, siege was laid to Zara, and on the sixth day the defenders, after having in vain appealed to the sympathy of the crusaders by displaying crosses and sacred pictures from the walls, were forced to surrender. The expedition was now joined by the marquis of Montferrat, who had been unable to accompany it at the outset; but it was weakened by the departure of Simon de Montfort and others, who had taken no part in the assault on Zara.

During the winter, which was spent at Zara, some serious conflicts took place between the French and Venetians, and negotiations were actively carried on with the pope. Innocent, after having severely reproved and excommunicated the crusaders for their transgression of his orders, was at length persuaded to accept their professions of repentance, and to absolve them, charging them to restore Zara to the king of Hungary, and to undertake no further expedition against Christians, but to go on to the Holy Land.

But a new object was now suggested for their enterprise, and was rendered the more attractive by the necessities into which a great part of them had by this time fallen. Alexius, son of the dethroned emperor Isaac Angelus of Constantinople, and brother-in-law of Philip of Swabia, had entreated their leaders while at Venice to help in the recovery of his father’s throne. His first application had been fruitless, and he had been unable to obtain any decided answer from the pope. But at Zara the crusaders received envoys from Philip, who recommended the cause of his Byzantine connections, and held forth on the part of the young Alexius tempting offers of money and of cooperation towards their great object, with the hope of reunion between the Greek and the Latin churches, if they would turn aside for a short time to restore the rightful emperor to the throne of Constantinople. Innocent again remonstrated through his representatives, and there was much division of opinion among the crusaders. The French were inclined to obey the pope, but the keen Venetians, who were animated not only by the desire of gain, but by the feeling of national and even personal enmity, were for closing with the new proposal, and prevailed.

About the middle of May 1203, forty thousand men sailed from Zara, and, after having spent three weeks at Corfu, they came in sight of Constantinople on St. John’s eve. “Much”, says Villehardouin, “did those look at Constantinople who had never before seen it; for they could never have believed that in all the world there could be a city so rich and so beautiful; when they saw its high walls, and the fair towers wherewith it was surrounded on all sides, and its sumptuous palaces and its lofty churches, whereof there were so many as no man could believe unless he beheld it with his own eyes, and the length and breadth of the city which was mistress of all others. No one was there among them so bold but that his heart beat; and no wonder, for never since the world began was so great an enterprise undertaken by a like number of people”. The usurper, in his devotion to his pleasures, had neglected to prepare against invasion, and the Greeks looked on with stolid or affected contempt while the western armament passed along the quays, with Alexius the son of Isaac conspicuously placed on the stern of one of the ships as the rightful heir of the empire. On the 6th of July the grand assault was made; the tower of Galata, which commanded the harbour, was taken, and the chain which stretched across the Golden Horn was burst by the force of a Venetian ship driven against it with the sails swollen by a strong wind. Dandolo appeared in the prow of the foremost vessel, with the banner of St. Mark displayed before him, and, after having been the first to land, exposed himself gallantly while he cheered on his men to the fight. The usurper Alexius, after having been roused with difficulty to show himself at the head of his troops, who were tenfold as many as the assailants, deserted them. It was in vain that the “axe-bearing barbarians” (as a Greek historian styles them)—the English and Danes of the Varangian guard—fought manfully, and that the Genoese and the Pisan settlers exerted themselves in defence of the privileges which they had acquired in preference to the Venetians. Alexius ran off the following night; the blinded Isaac was brought forth from his prison, hastily arrayed in imperial robes, placed in a chair of state, and surrounded with the magnificence of a court, that he might give audience to Villehardouin and another noble Frank, who appeared as envoys from the crusaders, to offer him the restoration of his crown on condition of his ratifying the terms of their compact with his son. On hearing the statement of these terms, Isaac declared that he felt them to be heavy and difficult, but that no recompense could be too great for the allies to whom he owed his deliverance; he swore to the compact, sealed it, and was then allowed to embrace his son. On the feast of St. Peter’s chains, Isaac was again enthroned with great pomp, in St. Sophia’s, and the young Alexius was anointed as his colleague in the empire.

The crusaders were now desirous to go on; but the young emperor entreated them to remain at Constantinople until the following Easter, for the purpose of securing his father’s throne, as the Greeks were not to be trusted; and the offers of further benefits which accompanied the proposal prevailed on them, although not until after some opposition had been manifested. The payment of the stipulated money to the allies was begun by instalments; but while the Greeks complained that in order to this they were heavily taxed, and that churches were stripped of their precious ornaments, the Latins cried out that the payments were irregular, scanty, and continually diminishing, until at length they ceased altogether. Other causes of quarrel speedily appeared. The reconciliation of the Greek and Latin churches, which Innocent in the beginning of his pontificate had urged on the late emperor and on the patriarch, and to which Isaac and his son had pledged themselves, was hindered by the as­sumption of the Latins, and by the bigoted prejudices of both parties. The Greeks saw with disgust that Alexius degraded the crown by familiarly associating with the Franks, conforming to their manners, and playing at dice in their tents; the Latins complained that the emperors were estranged from them, and that their services were requited with ingratitude. While Alexius and the mar­quis of Montferrat were engaged in an expedition to reduce the country to subjection and order, a serious affray took place in consequence of an attack which was made on the Mahometan mosque by some Flemings, Pisans, and Venetians. In the defence of their building, the Mussulmans were assisted by the Greeks; the mosque was set on fire, and a conflagration ensued, which raged for two days, and is said to have destroyed a fourth part of the city. By this calamity the hatred of the Greeks against the Latins was further exasperated; continual skirmishes took place, and an attempt was made to burn the crusading fleet. A deputation from the crusaders, of which Villehardouin was a member, waited on the emperors, to reproach them with their ingratitude, and insist on the fulfillment of their promises, with a threat that otherwise the Latins would hold themselves released from their own engagements. Jealousies arose between the elder and the younger emperors, and Isaac, whose misfortunes might have bespoken pity, made himself hated by his vices, and ridiculous by his belief in the flatteries of monks and astrologers, who lived luxuriously at his expense, and repaid him by promising the recovery of his sight and vigour. An attempt to set up one Nicolas Cannabus as emperor proved futile; but soon after this a more dangerous design was matured and executed by Alexius Ducas, a prince of the blood, who, from the meeting of his bushy eyebrows, was commonly called Murzuflus. Having failed to draw the Latins into a scheme for the dethronement of the princes whom their arms had restored, Murzuflus decoyed Alexius into a prison, where it is believed that the young emperor was murdered, although the usurper pretended that his death was natural, and honoured him with a costly funeral; and Isaac soon after died of grief.

By these unexpected events all terms of peace were necessarily brought to an end, and the Latins, after some fruitless negotiation, and many slight encounters both by sea and land, resolved to take possession of Constantinople for themselves. Their first assault was repulsed with heavy loss; but three days later they again made an attempt; Murzuflus, after calling all the holiest relics to his assistance, and after having vigorously withstood the enemy for a time, was driven to flight, and the imperial city fell into their hands. A great slaughter followed; but the cruelties which were inflicted on the Greeks were not so much the work of the crusaders as of the Latin settlers, who had lately been plundered and driven out of the city to seek a refuge in the camp of the besiegers. In the wildness of their triumph acts of profanity were committed by the crusaders, which not only revolted the feelings of the Greeks, but drew down the indignant reproof of the pope. Pictures of the Redeemer and of the saints were torn from the walls of churches, and were scattered on the ground or used as seats and benches; sacred relics were thrown into filthy places, and the consecrated host was trodden under foot; hallowed vessels were used as plates and drinking-cups; the imperial tombs—among them that of the great Justinian—were violated and rifled; the splendid ornaments of St. Sophia’s and other churches were stripped off and sold to pedlars; a prostitute was seated on the patriarchal throne, and indecent songs and dances were performed around her. No wonder that the historian Nicetas, who himself was a sufferer by the capture of Constantinople, apostrophizes the crusaders as to the inconsistency of such things with their profession, or that he holds up by way of contrast the humane and decent conduct of the Saracens on getting possession of Jerusalem.

The spoil of Constantinople was of immense value, but much that was precious perished. Bronze statues, the masterpieces of ancient art, were melted down for coinage. The Venetians alone among the conquerors had an eye for art; and thus, while others carried home with delight such treasures as Jacob’s stone pillow, fragments of the true cross, one of the heads of St. John the Baptist, which forms the glory of Amiens cathedral, and other relics of holy personages, from those of Scripture down to the martyrs and confessors of the iconoclastic controversy, the Venetians secured the famous bronze horses, which, after having within the present century served as trophies of a later conquest, have been restored to their place on St. Mark’s.

It had been resolved before the attack on Constantinople, that, in case of success, the imperial crown should be awarded by six representatives of the French and six of the Venetians, who should swear to choose the fittest man. The claims of Dandolo might have seemed preeminent before all others; but his own countrymen dreaded such an elevation of one Venetian family above the rest, and perhaps apprehended that under a Venetian emperor of the east, Venice itself might sink into an inferior position. To them too Boniface of Montferrat was objectionable, as a near neighbour, whose interests might possibly clash with their own. The electors, therefore, on the 9th of May, made choice of count Baldwin of Flanders, a man of Carolingian descent, of high character, and in the full vigor of manhood. The marquis of Montferrat was the first to do homage; and a week later Baldwin received the crown from the bishop of Bethlehem, a papal legate who had lately arrived from Palestine.

It had been agreed that the patriarchate should be given up to that division of the allies which should not obtain the empire; and agreeably to this, the Venetians chose Thomas Morosini, a man of noble Venetian birth, a subdeacon of the Roman church, and one whose personal acquaintance with Innocent might be expected to bespeak the pope’s approval of the choice. Innocent had received from Baldwin a letter announcing the conquest, asking for the assistance of clergy from the west, and proposing a general council with a view to a reconciliation of the churches. It seems as if the brilliancy of the exploit, and the prospects which it opened for the Latin Church, in some measure overpowered his objections to the diversion of the crusade from its proper object. He therefore replied favourably; he reproved the crusaders severely for their excesses in the capture of Constantinople, especially for their sacrilegious plunder of holy things, which, he said, would make the Greeks hate the Latins worse than dogs, and so must hinder their return to the unity of the church; he disallowed the absolution which had been pronounced by the bishop of Bethlehem, as having been given without proper authority; he declared the compact between the French and the Venetians as to the disposal of the ecclesiastical property to be null, and the election of a patriarch to be informal, while, in consideration of Morosini’s merits, he appointed him to the patriarchate as if by his own authority. Morosini had been compelled by the Venetians to swear that he would bestow the dignities of St. Sophia’s and the chief offices of the hierarchy exclusively on Venetians or on persons who should have resided ten years at Venice. But on his appearance at Rome, the pope pronounced this oath to be void, and made him swear that he would not observe it. Morosini was then ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and took the usual oath of metropolitan to the pope, who affected to bestow on the church of Constantinople precedence next to that of Rome, declaring that the precedence of “new Rome” in former times had been granted through the favor of the elder Rome. But the patriarch, in returning by Venice to Constantinople, found his fellow-citizens bent on exacting from him a renewal of his former oath as the only condition on which they would agree to show him due honor; and the pope, on being informed of the new oath, again declared it invalid. Innocent furnished the patriarch with instructions for the administration of his church: in places where the population was Greek, he was to place Greek bishops whose fidelity to Rome might be relied on, if such could be found; where it was mixed, the bishops were to be Latins. But it was soon found that, instead of forwarding the conversion of the Greeks, this and other measures conceived in a like spirit tended only to increase their alienation from the Latin church. Even among the Latins, the patriarch was unable to obtain submission to his authority. The French clergy charged him with having gained his office by trickery and by imposing on the pope; he was brought into conflict on questions of jurisdiction and patronage with the secular power, and with the patriarch of Grado; and the pope, although he endeavored to support him as far as pos­sible, had to reprove him for his exclusive patronage of Venetians in appointments to ecclesiastical dignities, and for other acts inconsistent with Innocent's view of his duty.

The new empire was from the beginning sickly, and, instead of strengthening the Latin power in the east, was a burden on it. Baldwin invited Christians from all countries of the west to join the settlement, and the pope exhorted both laity and clergy to reinforce the crusaders; but those who acted on these invitations were for the most part grievously disappointed. An attempt was made, as in the kingdom of Jerusalem, to establish the feudal system, which was here the more unsuitable on account of its unlikeness both to the republican institutions of the Venetians, and to the old traditions of the empire. The partition of the conquests produced much disagreement among the Franks. Baldwin soon quarrelled with Boniface of Montferrat, and in 1205, on a disastrous expedition, he fell into the hands of Joannicius, a perfidious savage to whom the pope had confirmed the title of king over Bulgaria and Wallachia, and whom the crusaders had provoked by scornfully refusing his offers of alliance. It is believed that Baldwin was put to death in prison, with circumstances of great cruelty, and to the pope’s intercessions for him Joannicius answered that they were too late. Two years afterwards, Boniface was killed in action against the same enemy, whom the pope in vain solicited to be at peace with the Latins of Constantinople; but in the same year they were delivered from the fear of Joannicius, who died by some unknown means. Henry, the brother of Baldwin, who had acted as regent since the emperor’s capture, was crowned as his successor in August 1206, and for ten years administered the empire with vigor and skill, contending on the one hand against the Bulgarians, and on the other against the Byzantine princes who furnished rallying points for their countrymen by founding little principalities in Asia and Epirus. Murzuflus, who had for a time combined with the dethroned usurper Alexius, might perhaps have been a dangerous enemy; but having been blinded by Alexius, he fell into the hands of the Latins, and, after a trial, was thrown from the top of the pillar of Theodosius at Constantinople. Alexius was also caught, and was shut up in a monastery. Henry wisely endeavoured to conciliate the Greeks, both by checking religious persecution and by relaxing that rule of exclusion from all public employments which had branded them as a servile race. The pope also after a time mitigated the rules which he had laid down as to the preference of Latin over Greek clergy; but such concessions, even if they had been greater, would have come too late.

The people, who most substantially and lastingly profited by the Latin conquest of Constantinople were the Venetians. To them it brought a vast increase of the trade by which they flourished; and, while they declined to set up one of their own citizens as a candidate for the empire, they allowed them to make private conquests, so that the islands of the Levant became filled with petty Venetian princes. Henry Dandolo had become lord of Romania, and the dignity continued in his family for more than a century and a half. The aged doge himself died in June 1205, and was buried with great splendour in the church of St. Sophia.

While the main body of the crusaders had turned aside for the expedition against Constantinople, a part of them had gone on to the Holy Land, where other adventurers arrived by way of Marseilles and from northern ports; but these were not enough to engage in any great attempts against the infidels, and many of them, on hearing of the successes of their companions, had rejoined them in the new Latin empire. Innocent, however, although deeply grieved by the result of the expedition which had been undertaken for the deliverance of the Holy Land, abated nothing of his zeal for the cause, and throughout the remainder of his pontificate we find him repeatedly pressing on the sovereigns and people of the west the duty of a new crusade. For some years, indeed, the state of southern France was such that he thought it well to extend the privileges of crusaders to the men who were there warring for the extirpation of heresy; and during this time it was obviously inexpedient that those who were disposed to fight in behalf of the faith should be distracted between rival objects. But in 1213, when the Albigenses appeared to be effectually defeated, he recalled the indulgences for southern France, and sent Robert Curzon—an Englishman who had been his fellow-student, afterwards a preacher under Fulk of Neuilly, and was now cardinal of St. Stephen’s on the Coelian hill—to preach in France an expedition for the recovery of the Holy Land. Orders were issued that solemn monthly services should be instituted for the success of the crusade; and all who should take part in it were encouraged by the declaration that the religion of the false prophet must be near its fall, since of the 666 years allotted to it more than 600 were already completed. But Curzon showed himself indiscreet in the fullfillment of his commission. In order to win the popular ear, he inveighed bitterly and unscrupulously against the ordinary clergy; and by giving the cross to multitudes of inefficient persons—old, blind, deaf, lame, lepers, women and children—he rendered those who were fit for war unwilling to undertake an enterprise in which they were to be encumbered by such associates. The king and the clergy of France appealed to the pope against the legate; but Innocent approved of his proceedings, on the ground that those who were personally incapable of fulfilling their vow might help the crusade by paying a commutation.

About the same time many were enlisted for the holy war in England and in Germany; and a strange independent movement was set on foot by one Stephen, a shepherd boy at the village of Cloies, near Vendome, who professed to have been charged by the Saviour in a vision to preach the cross. By this tale he gathered some children about him, and they went on through towns and villages chanting, “O Lord, help us to recover thy true and holy cross!”. Their numbers swelled as they advanced, so that when they reached Paris, they are said to have amounted to 15,000; they displayed banners, crosses, and censers. We are told that all the efforts of parents to restrain their children from joining the party were unavailing; nay, it is said that, when some of them were privately shut up, bars and locks gave way for their escape. Philip Augustus, after having consulted the university of Paris, endeavoured to check the movement, but without success. Stephen had acquired the reputation of miraculous power; threads of his dress were treasured up as precious relics; and the number of his followers continually increased, so that it is said to have amounted to 30,000 when they arrived at Marseilles, which Stephen entered in a triumphal car, surrounded by a body-guard. Some shipmasters undertook to convey them gratuitously to Egypt and Africa; but these wretches were kidnappers, and their unfortunate victims were either wrecked on a rock of the Mediterranean, or, on reaching the African coast, were sold into slavery. In Germany a similar movement was set on foot by a boy named Nicolas, who, after having lost many of his companions through hunger and fatigue, arrived at Genoa with 7000 of them, among whom were many grown-up persons, and not a few women of bad reputation. Thence they struggled onwards to Brindisi, where the bishop of the place discovered that the father of Nicolas had a design of selling them into slavery. By this discovery the crusade was broken up; the unfortunate children tried to return home, but the greater part of them fell victims to the hardships of the way. The father of Nicolas was executed at Cologne.

Innocent, although he had taken no share in these insane and calamitous expeditions, declared that the zeal manifested by the children put to shame the listlessness of their elders; and the question of a new crusade was one of the subjects proposed for the great council which he assembled in 1215.  

8

THE ALBIGENSIAN WAR

 

Innocent was zealous and indefatigable in his exertions against the heresies of his time. Among the most remarkable of these (although from its nature it was not likely to win much popular acceptance, even if free course had been allowed it) was the doctrine taught by a clerk named Amalric, a native of Bène, in the diocese of Chartres, who is described as a man of very subtle, but perverse and paradoxical mind. Amalric had been eminent as a teacher of logic and the liberal sciences at Paris before he betook himself to the study of theology. He is accused by his contemporaries of paying greater regard to Aristotle than to Holy Scripture; but later inquirers suppose that his errors are rather to be traced to the Arabian commentators than to Aristotle himself, and yet more to the influence of Plato and of Scotus Erigena’s book “On the Division of Nature”. His doctrine was pantheistic—that God is all, and that all is God; that everything issues from the All and will return to it. Hence he inferred that God was as truly incarnate in Abraham as in Christ; that the Holy Spirit spoke as really through Ovid as through Augustine. He is said to have maintained that the Trinity denotes three forms of the Divine manifestation, connected with the same number of stages in the history of mankind; that the second stage, under the Son, was nearly at an end, and that the third, under the Holy Ghost, would follow; that every Christian must believe himself to be a member of Christ, and that this was the only way of salvation. In consequence of a complaint from the University of Paris, Amalric was summoned to appear before the pope, who, after having heard him, pronounced against him. The university required him to retract his errors; and, having submitted to this humiliation, he soon after died of shame and grief.

After Amalric’s death his doctrine was taught by David of Dinant, although apparently in a coarser form and with new developments. Whereas Amalric had said that God is the source and the end of all things, David declared Him to be the material principle of all things. He asserted that the reign of the Holy Ghost was already come; that outward rites were needless; that acts done in the body were no sins, forasmuch as nothing could be sinful if it were done in love. Every one, he said, carries hell within, him, “like a bad tooth in the mouth”. And he held that the soul could by contemplation exchange its separate existence for that which it has in the Divine soul.

In 1209 an inquiry into the tenets of this sect was held by the bishop of Paris, in the presence of some lay magistrates. Fourteen of the sectaries were made over to the secular arm as guilty, and of these ten were burnt, and the others were committed to close confinements. It was ordered that Amalric’s bones should be disinterred and burnt; and his books were also condemned to the flames, with some of Aristotle’s writings, which had lately been brought from Constantinople and translated into Latin. The doctrines of Amalric were again condemned at the Lateran council of 1215; and in 1225 the work of Scotus, to which Amalric and his followers had directed attention, was proscribed by Honorius III. The last teacher of the party is said to have been one Godin, who was burnt at Amiens.

Notices are occasionally found of sectaries professing the Waldensian opinions. Thus, in 1199, Innocent wrote to the bishop and the faithful of Metz, in denunciation of a party of laymen and women who used French trans­lations of the Scriptures, and on the strength of their acquaintance with these despised the clergy and their ministrations. The pope admits that a desire to know the Scriptures is not only innocent but praiseworthy; but he censures the party at Metz for their sectarian spirit, for imagining that the mysteries of the faith are open to the unlearned, and for their behaviour towards the clergy—as to which he is careful to deprive them of such warrant as they might allege from the parallel of Balaam’s ass rebuking the prophet. He desires the bishop to inquire into the authorship and character of the vernacular translations; and in the following year he commissioned some Cistercian abbots to labour in conjunction with the bishop for the suppression of the heresy at Metz. In consequence of this appoint­ment, it is said, the vernacular Scriptures were burnt, and the Waldensian opinions were extinguished.

There is mention of heretical, and seemingly Wal­densian, teaching at Auxerre and in the neighbouring dioceses; and in 1210 Innocent records the form in which some Waldenses abjured their errors, among which that of regarding ordination as unnecessary for the ministers of Christ is especially dwelt on. The presumption of preaching without a regular mission is also denounced by the Lateran council of 1215, in which those who should be guilty of it “under the appearance of piety”, are threatened with excommunication, and, in case of obstinacy, with yet heavier punishments.

Of all sectarian parties in this time the cathari were by far the most numerous and the most widely spread. Even within the papal territory they abounded. At Orvieto the opinions of this sect were especially rife among the female sex. A bishop, named Richard, endeavoured to suppress them by severe punishments, such as banishment, and even death; but during his absence from the city, and through the influence of a new teacher, the cathari became so strong that they threatened to expel their orthodox fellow-citizens. On this the orthodox applied to the Romans for a leader, and, with the pope’s consent, a young man of high courage and ardent zeal, named Peter Parenzio, was sent to them in February 1199. Peter at once proceeded to take strong measures for the repression of the opposite party, and, after having proceeded in this course until the approach of Easter, returned to Rome for the festival. The pope, at an interview in a street near the Lateran, told him that he must now take an oath of fidelity as governor of Orvieto; to which Peter replied that he was willing to do so, but added that the heretics were so much exasperated as to threaten his life. He received full absolution from the pope, as if in prospect of death; settled his worldly affairs; and, notwithstanding the entreaties of his mother and wife, returned to his government, ready and eager for martyrdom. Three weeks later he met with the fate which he had expected—being dragged out of the town and murdered by some sectaries, who had gained admission to his house through the treachery of a servant. His death is said to have been followed by judgments on the murderers, by miracles at his tomb, and eventually by the suppression of heresy in Orvieto.

At Viterbo the heretics had gained such influence that an attempt was made to elect two of the “believers” as consuls, and the chief of the sect as chamberlain of the city, although he had been formally excommunicated. Innocent desired the bishops of Viterbo and Orvieto to eject these magistrates; and in 1207 he himself proceeded to Viterbo for the purpose of rooting out the heresy. The patarenes took flight; but this did not prevent the pope from inquiring into the matter, and he ordered that their property should be confiscated, that their houses should be demolished, and that all heretics, especially the members of this sect, should be “delivered to the secular arm”—a phrase which now occurs for the first time—in order to punishment. In the same spirit Innocent wrote to the authorities at Faenza, Bologna, Florence, Verona, Treviso, and other places. He severely censures the Milanese for their encouragement of the sectaries; that they not only did not “take the little foxes”, but cherished them until the foxes grew into lions, and the locusts into horses ready to battle; and he tells them that he had been urged to send a crusade to Milan as well as into Provence.  Beyond the bounds of Italy we read of heretics in Dalmatian Bosnia, and the Tyrol; at Strasburg, where about eighty were put to the trial of hot iron, and most of them were convicted and burnt; and of similar executions at Paris, Troyes, Rouen, Langres, and in various parts of northern France and Belgium, where a Dominican friar named Robert earned by his severities the glorious name (as the annalist Rinaldi considers it) of “the hammer of heretics”.

But it was in the south of France that the catharist doctrines chiefly prevailed. In this region they had become so general that the church and the clergy had fallen into the greatest contempt. The nobles and knights no longer allowed their younger sons to be trained for the ministry of the church, but put sons of their serfs into benefices, of which they themselves appropriated the tithes, while the priests were obliged to be content with a miserable pittance. As an instance of the disrepute into which the clergy had sunk, we are told that, instead of the expression “I would rather be a Jew than do such a thing”, it was now customary to say “I would rather be a chaplain”. They themselves were so sensible of their ignominy, that they were fain to hide their tonsure by drawing the hair from the back of the head over it. The heretics were so audacious that in the sight of the bishops and clergy they defiled the chalices and other sacred vessels, and threw the holy Gospels into the dirt. The princes of southern France were for the most part ill-affected to the hierarchy. Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, the most powerful of them next to the king of Aragon, had in early life associated much with heretics, and was suspected of inclining to their opinions, although rather on account of his roughness towards the clergy than of any expression of his belief. He had been excommunicated by Celestine for his aggressions on the abbey of St. Gilles; but he was able to obtain absolution from Innocent. The laxity of his life was notorious; of his five wives, three were living at the same time; he is even charged with incest by the unscrupulous writers of the orthodox party. The count of Foix was married to a Waldensian; of his two sisters, one was said to be Waldensian and the other a catharist; and, in common with the counts of Béarn and Comminges, the viscount of Beziers, and other princes of the neighbourhood, he is described as an oppressor of the bishops and clergy.

Innocent, in the first year of his pontificate, addressed a letter to the prelates and nobles of southern France, exhorting them to take vigorous measures for the suppression of heresy. Patarenes, Waldensians, and others were to be anathematized and banished; but there is no distinct mention of death as a penalty, although it may perhaps be implied in the declaration that heresy is murder of the soul. But this letter met with little attention. To Raymond of Toulouse and his subjects, the requisition to persecute those whom they respected as peaceable neighbours was unwelcome. “We have been brought up with them”, they said; “we have relations among them, and we know that their life is honest”.

The pope in his letter had announced that two Cistercians, Rainier and Guy, were sent as legates into the country affected with heresy. Rainier soon after fell sick, and was succeeded by Peter of Castelnau, arch­deacon of Maguelone, who, after having been a teacher of theology at Paris, had become a member of the Cistercian order. In 1204, the power of these envoys was extended; the cognizance of questions of heresy was transferred to them from the bishops, and they were authorized to suspend such bishops as should be found lukewarm in the cause; and on this they acted in some cases, although they found among the members of the episcopal order a general disinclination to submit to two monks, however specially empowered by the pope. At Peter of Castelnau’s request, the cardinal of St. Prisca was fixed as legate at Montpellier; and in 1204, Arnold Amalric, abbot of Citeaux, a bitter and unsparing enemy of heresy, with twelve members of his order, was added to the mission. Yet the work made little progress. The envoys held conferences with the heretics, but found themselves continually baffled by objections drawn from the evil lives of the clergy. In May 1205, they were strengthened by the appointment of a new bishop to Toulouse—Fulk or Folquet of Marseilles—a man who, as a famous troubadour, had formerly been among the ornaments of gay and licentious courts, but had lately been turned to a different career, had entered the Cistercian order, while his wife became a nun, and had taken up with a fervour natural to such converts an extreme zeal for the orthodox faith, with a fierce hostility against heresy. Still, the efforts of the missionaries were attended with little success; and they were almost in despair, when they fell in at Montpellier with Diego (Didacus) bishop of Osma, and Dominic, the sub-prior of his cathedral, who were returning from Rome with a commission to labour against heresy.

The legates, in conversation with the Spaniards, lamented their want of success; whereupon Diego told them that mere words would not be of any avail; that the only hopeful course for them was to counteract the professed simplicity of the heretics by putting aside their gold and silver, their pomp and splendour, and going forth like the apostles, barefooted and in poverty. The legates professed their willingness to follow this advice, if they might have the example of any sufficient authority; and the bishop told them that he would himself show them the way. Sending away his servants, horses, and baggage, and retaining with him only a few clerks, of whom Dominic was the chief, he remained in Languedoc, and provided by a large outlay of money for the support of those with whom he had associated himself. The Cistercians, according to their promise, sent away everything but their books of devotion and study, and followed the course which Diego had pointed out. The missionaries went barefooted, in companies of two or three, from place to place, and engaged the heretics in conferences, one of which lasted fifteen days; and in no long time the effects of the new system began to show themselves.

Another Spaniard, Durand of Huesca, who had been converted from Waldensianism, wishing to carry on the ascetic life to which he had been accustomed, proposed to found a society of “catholic poor”, who should be bound by a strict rule, as a means of counteracting the profession of poverty which gave a strength to heresy; and, having obtained the pope’s approval, he laboured for a time with good effect, although his society soon disappears from view, having probably been superseded by the rise of the two great mendicant orders. In the end of 1207, the bishop of Osma returned to his diocese, where he died within a few months; and by the temporary withdrawal of the Cistercians about the same time. Dominic was left to carry on his work almost alone; but he persevered, and it is said that miracles were wrought by him in support of his teaching.

Peter of Castelnau had distinguished himself by his zeal, and had made himself especially obnoxious to the sectaries and those who favoured them. In 1206, he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse for refusing to turn his arms against the heretics. His companions, fearing for his safety in consequence of threats which had been uttered, sent him away for a time; but he soon returned, declaring that the cause of orthodoxy would never prosper until one of the preachers should be killed, and expressing a wish that he might himself be the first martyr, Count Raymond submitted and was absolved, on condition that he should take part in the persecution; and when Peter charged him with breach of this promise, he was violently enraged, so as to utter threats against the legate’s life. The magistrates and people of St. Gilles, dreading some fatal consequences, escorted Peter as far as the place at which he was to cross the Rhone; but next day, as he was about to embark, a man who had lodged at the same inn entered into conversation with him, sought a quarrel, and mortally wounded him. Peter’s last words were, “God forgive thee, as I forgive thee!” Suspicion of having instigated the murder fell on Count Raymond, to whose household the murderer belonged. The pope denounced him, absolved his subjects from their allegiance, and urgently and repeatedly exhorted the king and the nobles of France to take arms for the punishment of his crime, and for the extirpation of heresy. Raymond (who seems to have been really innocent of any share in the murder) feeling himself hardly pressed, entreated the pope to send some other representative than the abbot of Citeaux, whom he dreaded as his personal enemy; and Innocent affected to comply with this request by joining in commission with Arnold his own secretary Milo, while he strictly charged him to be guided in all things by the abbot. Cardinal Gualo was sent into France to proclaim a crusade for the extirpation of heresy, with all the privileges which had been bestowed on the warriors of the Holy Land, and the scheme (which had indeed been announced even before the murder of Peter) was proposed at a great national assembly at Villeneuve on the Yonne. Philip Augustus excused himself and his son, on the ground that while they were threatened on each side by “two great lions”—the king of England and the emperor—they could not leave their own territory undefended; but he granted leave for his subjects to take part in the enterprise, and at his own expense maintained 15,000 soldiers. The clergy were to pay a subsidy of a tenth for the support of the crusade; and multitudes enlisted, not only from religious enthusiasm, but partly from a wish to obtain the benefits of the crusading indulgences more cheaply than by an expedition to Palestine; partly from the northern hatred of the southern people, and in the hope of gaining settlements in the lands which were to be conquered. Among the leaders of the host were the archbishop of Sens, the bishops of Autan, Clermont, and Nevers, the duke of Burgundy, the count of Nevers, and Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester, who became the hero of the Albigensian war.

Simon was now about sixty years of age, and was regarded as a model of the chivalry of the time. In person he was tall, strong, and active; as a leader, he was at once daring and skilfull; and his affable and popular manners contributed to secure for him the enthusiastic love and confidence of his followers. The sincerity of his devotion to the church had been shown in the late crusade, when he resolutely opposed the diversion of the armament from its proper object, and, refusing to share in the attacks on Zara and Constantinople, held on his course for the Holy Land. He was remarkable for his regularity in the exercises of religion, daily hearing mass and the offices of the canonical hours; and he was upheld by a lofty confidence in the protection of heaven. “Think you that I am afraid?” he said to one who attempted to encourage him while weakened by the withdrawal of a great part of his force—“it is Christ’s cause that is at stake; the whole church is praying for me, and I know that I cannot be beaten”. And it is told that a Cistercian, who prayed for him at the consecration of the Eucharist, was interrupted by a voice from heaven—“Why pray for him? there are so many praying for him that thy prayer is not needed”. But with Simon’s better qualities were combined some of the vices which not uncommonly seek their sanctification from high religious professions—a vast ambition, a daring unscrupulousness as to the means of pursuing his objects, a ruthless indifference to human suffering, and an unbounded and undisguised rapacity.

Raymond, through the exertions of his envoys at the papal court, had got a promise of absolution, if he could purge himself of the murder of Peter of Castelnau, and would submit to certain conditions. Although he complained of the terms imposed on him, he made his submission to the legates at Valence; and on the 18th of June 1209 he did penance and received absolution at St. Gilles, in the presence of three archbishops and nineteen bishops. The legate Milo met him in the porch of the church where Peter of Castelnau was buried, and, throwing a stole over his neck, led him by it into the building. There the count, after having been stripped to the waist, knelt down, submitted to flagellation, and swore obedience to the pope and the legate as to all the matters for which he had incurred ecclesiastical censure; to give up all interference in the appointment of bishops, to repair the wrongs which he had done to some bishops, to dismiss his mercenary soldiers, to expel all Jews from his dominions, to receive the crusaders, and to help them in their war against heresy. By way of security, he was to give up seven fortresses, with the county of Melgueil; and in case of his failing to fulfill his oath he was to fall under excommunication, and these pledges were to become forfeit to the Roman church. As the crowd blocked up the way by which he had entered, the count had to leave the church by a side door, and in order to reach this, he was obliged to pass close to the tomb of the man whose murder he was accused of having contrived.

Raymond Roger, viscount of Beziers, a gallant young man of twenty-four, and nephew of the count of Toulouse, waited on the legates at Montpellier, and endeavoured to clear himself from suspicion of favouring the heretics by throwing the blame on some of his officers, who had acted without his orders. But his excuses were received with derision, and the viscount indignantly withdrew, to put his territories into a state of defence. The army of the crusaders speedily followed—a force which is very variously reckoned as to numbers, and composed of men from all parts of France, Normandy, and Flanders. At their head was Simon de Montfort, who had been chosen as general after solemn invocation of the Holy Ghost; with him was the legate Arnold of Citeaux, and Raymond of Toulouse had unwillingly joined the army with a few followers. When the crusaders appeared before Beziers, the viscount had gone onwards to Carcas­sonne. The bishop, who was in the army, was allowed by Arnold to offer his advice to his people, and recommended a surrender; but they relied on the strength of their city, and believed that the besiegers would speedily be driven by want of provisions to withdraw. Catholics joined with heretics in declaring that, rather than surrender, they would be drowned in the sea—they would eat their wives and children. “Then”, said abbot Arnold, on hearing this answer, “there shall not be left one stone upon another; fire and sword shall devour men, women, and children”. On St. Mary Magdalene’s day, a sally was made by the besieged and was repulsed. The besiegers found their way into the town, mixed up with the retreating inhabitants, and a butchery began, which was carried on to a literal fullfillment of the abbot’s words. It was in vain that the canons of St. Mary Magdalene, habited in the vestments of the altar, attempted to stay the bloodshed; men, women, children, clergy, were indiscriminately slaughtered, while the bells of the cathedral were rung until the massacre was completed. It is said that, when abbot Arnold was asked how the soldiers might distinguish Catholics from heretics, he answered, “Kill them all! The Lord knoweth them that are His”. The ordinary population of Beziers had been greatly increased by fugitives; but the number of victims is very variously estimated. Arnold himself reckons it at 20,000, while others make it as much as 60,000 or even 100.000. The city was given up to plunder, and was then set on fire.

The crusaders proceeded onwards to Carcassonne, where the viscount of Beziers commanded in person. The late terrible example had struck fear into all hearts; and as they advanced they found the country desolate—villages, and even strong castles, abandoned by their inhabitants, who had fled for refuge to the towns. Carcassonne stands on a steep and lofty hill, and was surrounded by a double line of outworks, each with its own wall and fosse; and the fortifications had lately been strengthened, partly with materials from ecclesiastical buildings which were pulled down. The crusaders speedily penetrated through the outermost walls, but the second enclosure was obstinately defended. Simon de Montfort was foremost in the assault; he was the first to plunge into the moat, and afterwards, at the risk of his own life, rescued a wounded soldier who was struggling in it. On the other side, the viscount Raymond-Roger was no less conspicuous, exposing himself everywhere at the head of the defenders, and animating their courage by words and example. The besiegers were repulsed with great loss, and retired after having set fire to the outer suburb. A second assault, eight days later, was also repulsed; and Peter, king of Aragon, then appeared to offer his mediation—a work for which it might have seemed that he was well fitted, by his connection with the princes of Languedoc on the one hand, and on the other, by his friendly relations with the pope, whose favour he had earned by expelling all heretics from his dominions. But the abbot of Citeaux would only allow that the viscount and eleven others might withdraw in safety; all the rest must surrender at discretion. On hearing this, the viscount declared that he would rather be flayed alive than desert his companions, and the king withdrew in disgust at the fruitlessness of his endeavours. The siege was closely pressed, and the inhabitants, crowded within the walls from a wide surrounding country, soon found themselves reduced to distress by excessive heat, by the scantiness of water, and by the stench which arose from the bodies of dead men and beasts. The viscount, having been decoyed into a conference by the assurance of a safe conduct, was committed to prison, under the plea, advanced by abbot Arnold, that no faith was to be kept with one who had been faithless to his God. The people, dismayed by the loss of their chief, were no longer in a condition to resist, and submitted to the terms imposed by the besiegers—that they should leave the city half-naked, carrying with them nothing but their sins. But for this extraordinary clemency the crusaders in some measure consoled themselves, by hanging or burning more than four hundred victims for the common offence of heresy.

The viscounty of Beziers was offered successively to the duke of Burgundy, to the count of Nevers, and to the count of St. Pol; but all refused to accept it in such circumstances; and the election of a viscount was committed to two bishops, four knights, and the abbot of Citeaux, who agreed in choosing Simon de Montfort. Simon, although free from any scruples as to the mode of acquisition, thought it necessary to make a show of refusal; but this was easily overcome, and he was hailed as viscount of Beziers and Carcassonne, promising to hold his dignities and territory on condition of a yearly payment to St. Peter. Within a few weeks, the deprived viscount, Raymond-Roger, died in his prison, and, although dysentery was alleged as the cause of his death, the guilt of it was popularly charged on Simon.

Simon soon found that his conquest was incomplete. On requesting the king of Aragon, as suzerain, to invest him in his new territories, he was met at first with delays, and afterwards with a refusal. Peter had taken up the cause of the late viscount’s infant child, Raymond Trencavel, and was endeavouring to organize means for the expulsion of the invaders. The count of Nevers and the duke of Burgundy withdrew from the crusade, in disgust at the late proceedings of the dominant party; and the great mass of the troops, having served the forty days which were all that was required by feudal duty, and were sufficient to earn the crusading privileges, likewise withdrew, leaving Simon with a very small force to maintain his conquests through the winter. It was with difficulty that he was able to hold his ground at all; many fortresses and other places fell away from him, and an incessant war was carried on, marked by the fierce exasperation of the contending parties, and by relentless cruelty on both sides. The pope, while he confirmed the election of Simon, and wrote letters in his favour to the emperor Otho and other sovereigns, expressed regret that the claims of the eastern crusade prevented any more effectual aid to that against the heretics of the West. In the spring of 1210, however, Simon received large reinforcements, under the command of his countess; and, notwithstanding the resistance of the count of Foix and others, his arms made considerable progress.

Raymond of Toulouse, although he had given the required securities, and had taken part in the crusade, had received such treatment from Simon and his party that he resolved to carry his complaints to Rome; and he was recommended to the pope by letters from the king of France, the duke of Burgundy, and the count of Nevers. He found the pope disinclined to listen to him, yet eventually succeeded in making a favourable impression; he received a provisional absolution, and it was settled that he should be put to canonical purgation before the legates in his own country; that, if he went through this successfully, he should be acknowledged as orthodox, and as guiltless of the death of Peter of Castelnau; and the pope dismissed him with valuable presents. But on returning home, he found that the legates were determined to deal harshly with him. Milo had lately died, and had been succeeded in the com­mission by Theodisius, a canonist, who was deeply prejudiced against the count of Toulouse, and was resolved, if possible, to deprive him of the benefit of the pope’s concession. When, therefore, Raymond appeared at St. Gilles, before the bishop of Riez and Theodisius, in order to the proposed purgation, Theodisius told him that, since he had forsworn himself by omitting to fulfill his former oaths as to lesser things, he could not be admitted to clear himself by oath from such crimes as heresy and murder. On this, Raymond began to weep, when Theodisius insultingly quoted the text—“In the great water-floods they shall not come nigh Him”; and, instead of absolving the count, he pronounced his excommunication afresh. Raymond was soon after cited to another council at Arles, where his cause was pleaded by a famous lawyer, Guy Cap de Porc. But the terms proposed—which it is said that the legates communicated in writing, out of fear lest the public reading of them should produce a tumult—were such as the count declared that all his territory could not satisfy. He laughed aloud on the announcement of them, and immediately, in defiance of the council’s order, rode away, in company with the king of Aragon. At Toulouse he caused the document to be publicly read aloud, and it was received with shouts of indignant derision. From Toulouse he went on to other towns, everywhere proclaiming the intolerable terms which had been offered to him, and everywhere exciting a determination to resist the invaders. His allies, the counts of Foix and Comminges, with others, joined their forces, and much of the conquered territory was wrested from the crusaders. On the other hand, a force of Germans, Auvergnats, Lombards, and others arrived to reinforce the crusading army, and the war was actively carried on. The legates declared Raymond to be an apostate, and his lands to be free for anyone who could seize them; and the pope confirmed their proceedings. The capital, Toulouse, itself was divided between embittered factions—the “white band”, formed by bishop Fulk for the extirpation of Jews, usurers, and heretics, and the “black band”, composed of members of the more tolerant party. At one time, the bishop excommunicated the citizens, and in obedience to his orders the whole body of the clergy, barefooted and carrying the consecrated host, went forth to the camp of the besiegers. Year by year Simon de Montfort made progress. The crusade was actively preached in Germany and northern France, and was joined by adventurers trained in the wars of Germany and of the East. William, archdeacon of Paris, was the chief engineer of the army, and by his mechanical skill contributed greatly to the success of sieges and other operations. Yet the fluctuating nature of Simon’s force prevented him from improving his advantages to the full, and his successes were chequered by much of hardship, and by occasional reverses.

In 1210, Peter of Aragon consented to invest Simon in the viscounty of Beziers and Carcassonne, and even connected himself with him by marriage—perhaps in the hope of sheltering the count of Toulouse and his son, who were married to two of the king’s sisters. But in this he was disappointed; and he endeavoured to obtain from the pope redress for his kinsmen against the rapacity of Simon—who, he complained, took advantage of the king’s being engaged in fighting the Saracens, to oppress his vassals. In consequence of this appeal, the pope wrote to his legates and to Simon; but the local influence was, as usual, too strongly against Raymond, and the intercessions of king Peter with a council at Pamiers, in 1212, were unavailing. In the following year, Peter found himself set at liberty by the great victory of Navas de Tolosa, to take more active measures for the assistance of his kinsmen and allies on the other side of the Pyrenees. His force was so much superior that Simon might well have endeavoured to decline a combat. But the viscount, with that confidence in his mission which never deserted him, was not to be daunted either by unfavourable circumstances or by omens: “You have spoken like one of the foolish women”, he said to his wife, on her telling him of an alarming dream; “for you fancy that we follow dreams and auguries, like the Spaniards”. And when a priest expressed some apprehensions, Simon replied by drawing from his pocket a copy of a letter from king Peter to a married lady—most probably one of his sisters, although De Montfort assumed that it was a paramour—telling her that for the love of her he was coming to drive the French out of the country. “What do you say to this” he asked; “So God help me, I do not fear a king who comes against God’s cause for the sake of a strumpet”. On his way to the relief of Muret, which the king and his allies were besieging, he entered the chapel of a Cistercian monastery, and, laying his sword on the altar, declared that he took it back as from God, to fight His battles. Next morning, at daybreak, he confessed his sins and made his will. He then attended a solemn mass, at which all the bishops who were with him excommunicated the count of Toulouse and his son, the counts of Foix and Comminges, and all their partisans—among whom the king of Aragon was supposed to be included, although, out of regard for a privilege by which he had been exempted from excommunication by any one but the pope himself, he was not named. Negotiations were attempted, but in vain; and on the following day the armies engaged at Muret. When it was proposed to Simon that his force should be numbered— “There is no need”, he replied; “we are enough, by God’s help, to beat the enemy”. During the fight, seven bishops, with other ecclesiastics, among whom was the preacher Dominic, were earnestly praying in a neighbouring church. Peter of Aragon, after having done, prodigies of velour, was slain, with many of his nobles, and the greater part of his army perished on the field, or was driven into the Garonne. The gallant and chivalrous character of Peter excited a general lamentation over his untimely end; even De Montfort himself is said to have wept over him, “like another David over another Saul”.

But of such generous feeling towards an enemy the instances were very few in this war, which was shamefully remarkable for the savage ferocity with which it was waged on both sides. The crusaders, wherever they went, spread desolation over the country; they destroyed vineyards and growing crops, burnt villages and farm­houses, slaughtered unarmed peasants, women and children. Their cruelty towards prisoners was sanctified and exasperated by the pretence of zeal for religion. Thus, when La Minerve, near Narbonne, yielded after an obstinate defence, and it was proposed that the besieged should be allowed to retire, if they would recant their heresy, one of the crusaders protested that the terms were too easy. “We came to extirpate heretics”, he said, “not to show them favour”. “Be not afraid”, replied Arnold of Citeaux, “there will not be many converts”. And about a hundred and forty of the “perfect” of both sexes were burnt—some of them rushing into the flames with an appearance of exultation. At a castle called Bran, De Montfort cut off the noses and plucked out the eyes of more than a hundred of the defenders, leaving one of them a single eye that he might lead the rest—not, says Peter of Vaux-Cernay, that the count took pleasure in such things, “for of all men he was the mildest”, but because he wished to retaliate on the enemy. At Lavaur, where the commander Almeric and eighty nobles were led before Simon, he ordered that they should all be hanged. But as the highest gibbet, which had been erected for Almeric, fell down, the count ordered that the rest of the party should be put to the sword, and the crusaders, “with the greatest eagerness”, despatched them. Almeric’s sister, who, as being an obstinate heretic, was charged with complicated incest, was thrown into a deep well, and overwhelmed with stones. By the intervention of “a Frenchman, courteous and gay”, the other ladies of the castle were saved, but four hundred of the “perfect were burnt with immense joy”, according to the chaplain of the crusading army. The same phrase is used by the same writer in relating the burning of some Waldenses who were taken at Marcillac. Nor were such cruelties confined to one party. The heretics retaliated severely on such of the invaders as fell into their hands after a victory. They wounded and mutilated the fallen; they hanged prisoners, and afterwards mutilated their bodies; it is said that on one occasion, after having promised some soldiers safety for life and limb, they dragged them through the streets of Toulouse at the tails of horses, and at last hanged them. As a proof of the unnatural exasperation produced by such a war, it may be mentioned that Baldwin, brother of Raymond of Toulouse, having forsaken the count’s party and having afterwards fallen into his hands, was hanged by his brother’s orders or with his consent—the count of Foix and his son acting as executioners, and denying him the consolation of the last sacraments.

The clergy who took part in the crusade,—especially the Cistercians, who were deeply concerned in it,—excited general indignation by their bitterness, their cupidity, and sometimes by their treachery. Arnold of Citeaux was especially conspicuous for his frequent displays of all these forms of wickedness. Bishop Fulk of Toulouse is charged with having urged Simon de Montfort to extremities, in opposition to the advice of his lay allies. Cardinal Peter of Benevento, in 1214, affected to receive the counts of Foix and Comminges, with other dispos­sessed nobles, into the favor of the church that he might gain time for De Montfort’s movements; and this draws from the admiring historian who relates it an exclamation of “Oh the pious fraud of the legate! oh his fraudulent piety!”. The preachers of the crusade had provoked the ordinary clergy by inveighing against them as supine and indifferent; and they now caused great scandal by the eagerness which they showed to profit by the conquests of their associates. Thus, Arnold in 1212 became archbishop of Narbonne, and forthwith required De Montfort to do homage for the viscounty. On Simon’s refusal, he excommunicated him, and interdicted the churches of Narbonne. Simon treated this sentence with contempt, took away some castles from the archbishop, and set his soldiers to annoy him in various ways; and the quarrel was carried on into the pontificate of Honorius III. Innocent, when reports of the real state of things reached him, showed himself desirous to do right; but those who acted in his name were generally able to sway him by their representations, in which he acquiesced without attempting to ascertain the truth. The king of Aragon had induced him, in 1213, to reprove De Montfort and the legates for their ambition and rapacity, to order restitution of lands which they had unjustly seized, and to recall the crusading indulgences; but in the following year, under the influence of Theodisius and some bishops whom Simon had sent to the papal court, he again reversed his policy. In the same year, the legate Robert Curzon consented that the crusade against the heretics should take precedence of that against the infidels; he preached it with zeal, and himself joined the army, which was now raised to the formidable number of 100,000 men. Toulouse, where the surviving heretics from other parts had found a refuge, was taken in 1215. The bishop, Fulk, was eager that it should be destroyed; but De Montfort was unwilling to lose so valuable a spoil, and contented himself with demolishing the fortifications. In this campaign Prince Lewis of France took a part, but only for the forty days’ service which was required in order to the performance of a vow. The apprehensions of the older crusaders, that he might interfere with their conquests, proved to have been needless; but he and others carried back with them a feeling of disgust at the conduct of the warriors of the cross.

Raymond and his son had submitted in 1214, and were compelled to live privately at Toulouse, while bishop Fulk took possession of their palace. A council at Montpellier, in January 1215, ordered a strict inquisition after heretics, and chose Simon de Montfort as prince of the whole subjugated territory; but as the legate, Peter of Benevento, had no authority to invest him, a deputation was sent to the pope, who committed the lands to Simon’s custody until the council of Lateran, which was about to meet, should decide as to the disposal of them. At that council the two Raymonds and the count of Foix appeared. The younger Raymond was recommended to the pope by John of England; the favour which the dispossessed princes met with at the hands of many members of the council was such as to raise the indignation of Simon’s partisans; and the pope himself showed a disposition to befriend them. The bishop of Toulouse urged their punishment with great bitterness; to which the count of Foix replied in a vehement tone, telling Fulk that he was more like an antichrist than a Roman legate and charging him with having caused the death of ten thousand men. The precentor of Lyons spoke strongly in behalf of the counts, and in reprobation of the acts by which the crusaders had disgraced themselves; but the opposite party was too strong, and De Montfort was confirmed in all his conquests, with the exception of Provence and the Venaissin, which were reserved for the younger Raymond, if his conduct should appear to deserve them. The council enacted that heretics of all sorts should be made over to the secular power, which was bound, under pain of ecclesiastical censures, to do its part for the extermination of heresy; that the bishops should visit twice or thrice a year those parts of their dioceses which were suspected of heretical infection; and that certain persons in each neighbourhood should be sworn to give information against heretics and their congregations.

In 1216 Simon de Montfort returned to northern France. In every town, as he went along, the champion of the faith was received with the greatest honor—the clergy and the people meeting him in procession, and welcoming him with shouts of “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!”, and he was invested by Philip Augustus as suzerain in the territories of Toulouse and Narbonne, with his other recent conquests. Yet while he was thus triumphant, a wide and deep feeling of dissatisfaction had been produced by the misconduct of the crusaders of Languedoc, even among those who favoured their cause. Thus, William of Puy-Laurens, one of the historians of the war, remarks that, so long as the catholic army aimed at the suppression of heresy, all went well with them; but that when Simon introduced new and selfish objects, and when those who shared his conquests fell into evil living, God made them to drink of the dregs of the cup of His anger.

9

A.D. 1215-16. MENDICANT ORDERS. DEATH OF INNOCENT III.

 

The pontificate of Innocent is remarkable in monastic history for the rise of the great mendicant orders founded by Dominic and Francis. The especial object of these societies was to counterwork the influence which the heretics acquired over the poorer classes of people by familiarly mixing with them and by preaching. For preaching suitable for the humbler classes had been almost disused in the church. Sometimes, indeed, a preacher was found to devote himself to the work of religious and moral reformation, like Eustace of Flai and Fulk of Neuilly; but more commonly the crusades were the only subject in behalf of which the clergy attempted to rouse the multitude by the power of eloquence, while almost the only means of religious instruction was the ritual, which, in so far as language was concerned, had long ceased to be intelligible. The heretics, on the other hand, had sedulously laboured to spread their doctrines among the people. Their teachers had professed an apostolical poverty, while they, and such reformers as Arnold of Brescia, had denounced the wealth of the clergy and monks as an intolerable corruption. The new orders, therefore, brought to the support of the church a severity of life which had before been employed against it. They professed not only poverty, but beggary, forbidding the reception of endowments; and their object was not, as with older orders, to cultivate a contemplative piety apart from the world and its engagements, but to converse among men, and by teaching and example of life to draw them to salvation. Each of these orders had at the outset its distinctive character—the Dominicans, severely intellectual, rigidly orthodox, and tinged by the sternness and the gloom which had been impressed on the religion of the founder’s native land; the Franciscans milder and more genial, addressing themselves less to the intellect than to the sentiments and the affections.

Dominic was born about 1170, at Calaruega, a village in the diocese of Osma. According to some writers (whose opinion, however, is gravely questioned), he was descended from the illustrious family of Guzman; and it is said that the effect of his eloquence was foreshown by his mother’s dreaming that she gave birth to a whelp carrying in his mouth a blazing torch, with which he set the world on fire. At the university of Palencia, he distinguished himself by his ardour in study; and in consequence of his reputation he was invited by Diego de Azevedo, bishop of Osma, to become a canon of his cathedral, where he rose to the dignity of sub-prior. His nature was tender and gentle; at the university, during a famine, he sold his books, with his own comments, which made them more precious to him, in order to relieve the distressed—saying that he would not study on dead skins while the poor were dying of hunger. And at a later time he would have sold himself to obtain the means of support for a man who hesitated to avow his conversion from heresy lest he should forfeit the charity on which he lived. But religious zeal steeled Dominic against the impulses of his nature; and while, as we are told, he was amiable towards Jews and infidels, he was unrelenting towards heretics. His life was rigidly ascetic; he gave more of his hours to prayer than to sleep, and, although during the day-time he was cheerful in his conversation, his nights were for the most part spent in severe penitential exercises; he flogged himself nightly with an iron chain, once for his own sins, once for the sinners in this world, and once for those in purgatory.

Something has already been said of Dominic’s labours in the Albigensian territory, where he spent ten years in endeavouring to root out heresy. The power of his preaching is described as marvellous; he was indefatigable in conferences and in private conversations; and a number of miracles are related as having been wrought by him in attestation of his doctrine. The amount of the part which he took in the Albigensian war, and in the establishment of the Inquisition, has been the subject of controversy, not so much between opposite parties, as between his earlier and his later admirers. For whereas in some ages it was supposed to be for his honour that the largest possible share in the persecution of heretics by the sword and by torture should be claimed for him—whereas Cistercians and Dominicans have quarrelled for the honour of having furnished the first inquisitors, and a pope has thought to do Dominic honour by ascribing to him the origin of the Inquisition,—Dominic’s eulogists of later days have been no less eager to clear him from the imputation of acts which are no longer regarded as a title to the admiration of mankind. It would seem in truth that during the Albigensian crusade Dominic confined himself to the office of preaching. But if he is not chargeable with any such atrocities as those which have made Arnold of Citeaux infamous, there is, on the other hand, no reason for supposing that he ever attempted to check the worst deeds of Simon de Montfort and his followers. And, although it is certain that he did not found the Inquisition, it is yet possible that that institution may in some degree have originated in his preaching, as it certainly found among his brotherhood the most numerous and the most merciless of its officials.

The first foundation of the Spanish missionaries in Languedoc was a school at Prouille, intended for the daughters of the poorer nobles, who were often obliged by their necessities to commit their children to the free schools of the heretics for education. From this, Dominic went on to the formation of a brotherhood devoted to preaching and to the confutation of heresy. The new institution was patronized by bishop Fulk of Toulouse, who, on going to the Lateran council in 1215, took Dominic with him, and endeavoured to recommend it to the pope. Innocent was at first disinclined to entertain the scheme; but it is said that he was warned by a vision in the night, and he then professed his willingness to give his sanction to it, if Dominic would comply with a canon by which the council, with a view to check the too great multiplication of religious orders, had enacted that persons who might wish to found a monastic society should place it under some one of the rules which had already been approved. Dominic, therefore, chose for his preaching fraternity the rule of the great preacher St. Augustine, to which some additional severities were annexed. On returning to Toulouse, Dominic received from the bishop a church in the city, with some churches in other places, and a proportion of the tithes of the diocese by way of endowment; he founded a convent, and began to send out his disciples into various countries. But in the beginning of the next pontificate he again went to Rome, where he eventually fixed the head-quarters of his order in the church of St. Sabina, on the Aventine, which was bestowed on him by Honorius III. From this pope the order received many charters, in one of which he speaks of them by the title of “friars preachers”, which afterwards became distinctive of them. On Dominic himself was conferred the mastership of the Sacred Palace—an office instituted with a view to the religious instruction of the households of the pope and cardinals, but to which later popes have attached more important functions, and among them the censorship of books. This office has always been retained by the order.

The new brotherhood made rapid progress. In England, they were patronized by archbishop Langton; at Paris (where they were known by the name of Jacobins, from a hospital of St. James, which was bestowed on them), they soon acquired an important influence in the university. In 1220, and again in the following year, Dominic held general chapters of his order at Bologna. At the first of these, he expressed a wish to resign the mastership; and, as the brethren would not consent to this, he insisted on the appointment of “diffinitors”, whose power should be supreme, even over the master himself. In Languedoc he had been willing to accept endowments; but he now adopted from the order lately established by Francis the principle of absolute poverty or mendicancy—whether from a belief in its soundness, or from perceiving that in it the Franciscans had a power against which his own order could not otherwise hope to make head. At the second chapter, the order was divided into eight provinces, each under a prior; and to these four others were added at a later time.

In addition to the friars (whose dress of white, with a black scapulary, was believed to have been shown to the founder by the blessed Virgin), the order included nuns, and also a grade of tertiaries—persons who continued to be engaged in the common occupations of the world, but who, by entering into a connection with the Dominican brotherhood, added greatly to its popularity and influence.

The death of Dominic, of which he had received supernatural intimations, took place at Bologna in 1221. It is said that a member of the order saw a golden ladder let down from heaven, and held at the top by the Saviour and the blessed Virgin, who drew it up until a friar who was at the bottom of it, and whose face was hidden by his cowl, had reached the bright opening above, while jubilant angels ascended and descended on either side; and it was afterwards found that the same hour in which this vision was seen, was that of Dominic’s departure. He was buried with great pomp by the cardinal-legate, Ugolino, bishop of Ostia (afterwards pope Gregory IX); and, after the miracles which he had done in his life had been far surpassed by those which followed his death, he was canonized by Gregory in 1233.

The founder of the other great mendicant order, Francis, was born at Assisi in 1182. His father, a rich merchant, was then absent in France, and the mother gave the boy the name of John; but for this his father, on his return, substituted the name under which he has become famous. Francis, according to his biographers, had been foretold by the Erythraean Sibyl, and typified in the Old Testament. St. John, in the Apocalypse, had described him as an angel ascending from the east; he and Dominic were the two staves, Beauty and Bands, of Zechariah's prophecy; and, that the list of his conformities with the Saviour might begin with his birth, it is said that his mother, by the direction of an unknown visitor, repaired to a stable when about to bring him into the world.

Francis in his early years followed his father’s occupation, and for a time he gave himself up to habits which are rather to be described as idle and extravagant than as profligate. But he was sobered by a captivity of a year at Perugia, with whose citizens those of Assisi had gone to war, and, in consequence of some visions which were afterwards vouchsafed to him, he resolved to change his course of life. The severity of his religious exercises, the visions and raptures by which he was encouraged, the eccentric manifestations of his awakened spirit, need not be here detailed. He resolved to fulfill literally the precept “Give to every one that asketh thee”; and when money failed him, he gave away his clothes. The condition of lepers struck him especially with pity. The misfortune of these sufferers, whose frightful disease was then very common, was aggravated by social disabilities which seem to have originated in the religious view of the leprosy as typical of sin. There was a solemn service for their seclusion from the world; they were shut out from intercourse with men, and were treated as if dead. Many houses had indeed been founded for their relief; but Francis resolved to show his charity in a different way. Overcoming the natural loathing which he very strongly felt, he tended and kissed the sores of the lepers, washed their feet, and consorted with them; and early in this course it is said that he was rewarded by finding that a leper on whom he had bestowed his compassion miraculously disappeared.

One day, as Francis was in the church of St. Damian, in devotion before a crucifix, a voice from it addressed him by name—“Repair my church, which is falling to ruin”. The real meaning, as he is said to have afterwards discovered, related to the church of Christ; but Francis supposed the old building of St. Damian's to be meant, and resolved to find the means of restoring it. He sold a quantity of his father’s cloth at Foligno, and, returning to Assisi, offered the price of it and of his horse to the priest of St. Damian’s, who, however, was afraid to receive the money. Francis then began to beg in behalf of the restoration, but his “intoxication of Divine love” was taken for madness, and he was hooted and pelted by the mob. His father cited him before the magistrates for having stolen the price of the cloth which he had sold; but Francis refused to appear, on the ground that he was now the servant of God only; and the magistrates admitted that the case belonged to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The father was somewhat appeased by the recovery of his money, which Francis had thrown into a hole; but he summoned him before the bishop, that the young man might renounce his inheritance. Francis gladly obeyed; in the bishop’s presence he stripped him­self of all his clothing, except a shirt of hair which he was found to wear next his skin, and he declared that he owned no other father but Him who is in heaven. Francis now put on the dress of a hermit; he continued to sing and to beg round the neighbourhood for the restoration of St. Damian’s, and afterwards for that of two other churches; and his efforts were successful. His father, whenever he saw him, loaded him with curses; but Francis, by way of antidote, took for his companion a beggar whom he styled his father, and whose business it was at every curse to utter a blessing, and to make the sign of the cross.

Hearing in church the Saviour’s charge to His apostles, that they should go forth without staff or scrip or shoes or changes of raiment, Francis exclaimed that this was what he had been seeking for; and, throwing away his staff, his shoes, and all his clothes except a single coarse frock, he girt himself with a rope, and set forth as a preacher of repentance By degrees he gathered disciples, and when their number amounted to eleven, he drew up a rule for them, and resolved to seek the pope’s approval. Innocent at first hesitated, apparently from an apprehension that the proposed discipline might be found too severe after the first enthusiasm of the brotherhood should have passed away. But cardinal John of St. Paul’s strongly advocated the new institution, and the pope eventually sanctioned it, in consequence, it is said, of a dream, in which he saw the Lateran church in danger of falling, and Francis propping it up. He conferred on Francis and his brethren the clerical tonsure, and the authority to preach; and as they returned to Assisi their addresses were everywhere heard by enthusiastic crowds, who pressed around Francis and tore his dress to pieces in their eagerness to possess some relic of him. It is said also that he performed a multitude of miracles. The church of St. Mary in Portiuncula at Assisi—one of the three churches which Francis had restored, and the original cradle of the order—was given up to them, and the Franciscans speedily spread into all lands, their propagation being accelerated by the principle of mendicancy, which rendered endowments needless. Francis doubted for a time whether he should devote himself to prayer and contemplation or to preaching; but the question was decided by an intima­tion from heaven that it was his work to labour for the good of others. The brethren, therefore, addressed themselves especially to the work of preaching and teaching among the poorest classes; and thus they acquired an influence which made the order very powerful and important.

In 1212 a sisterhood was founded in connection with the order by Clara Sciffi, a noble maiden of Assisi, who left her father’s house to place herself under the guidance of Francis. The life of these sisters, who are commonly styled after the name of their foundress, was very rigid; some of them, it is said, had become so accustomed to silence, that, when compelled to speak, they could hardly form the words. Clara herself, although she supported her excessive mortifications with continual cheerfulness, is said to have never raised her head so high that the colour of her eyes could be seen, except on the single occasion of receiving the papal blessing. On her death-bed, in 1253, she was visited by Innocent IV, and in 1255 she was canonized by Alexander IV. To the friars and the sisters was added in 1221 the class of tertiaries, or “Brethren of Penitence”,—persons who without forsaking secular life, or even the marriage-tie, connected themselves with the order by undertaking certain obligations, such as to dress plainly, to live soberly, to carry no weapon of offence, and to perform stated devotions. And, as in the case of the Dominicans, this link between the order and the world was found a powerful means of strength and influence.

Francis studied humility in its extremest form, and enjoined it on his disciples. When the multitude expressed admiration of his sanctity, he used to command one of the friars to load him with abuse. It was revealed in a vision to a member of the order that the seat from which an angel had fallen by pride was reserved as a reward for the humility of Francis. His followers were charged to court contempt, and to be uneasy when they met with usage of an opposite kind. They were not to be called brethren, but little brethren (fraticelli) they were to be minorites, as being less than all others. They were not to accept ecclesiastical dignities; there was to be no prior among them, but their superintendents were to be styled ministers, as being the servants of all. To the clergy they were to show profound reverence—if they met a priest riding, they were to kiss his horse’s feet. They were to be content with the poorest dress; a coarse frock, patched and clouted again and again, if necessary, a cord round the waist, and a pair of drawers, were all that a friar ought to possess. Their food was to be of corresponding quality; Francis stinted himself even in his allowance of water, although, when he mixed in society, he conformed to the usages of those around him. Yet he forbade extreme austerity. When a friar had almost starved himself to death, Francis encouraged him by his own example to take food, and, in speaking of the case to the rest of his companions, he told them to imitate not the abstinence but the love. When some of his followers had injured themselves by their severities, he forbade all “indiscreet inventions” by way of penance, such as the use of cuirasses, chains, or rings confining the flesh, and all endeavours of one to outstrip another in religion. Among the forms under which pride was to be combated, Francis greatly dreaded the pride of learning. His own education had been scanty, but it was supposed that the knowledge of Divine things came to him miraculously, and he seems to have expected his followers to learn in the same manner. When one of them expressed some difficulty as to parting with his books, he told him that his books must not be allowed to corrupt the gospel, by which the friars were bound to have nothing of their own. From another he took away even a psalter, telling him that, if that book were allowed him, he would next wish for a breviary, and then for other books, until he would become a great doctor of the chair, and would imperiously thunder out to his humble companion orders to fetch such books as he might require. He then astonished the novice by scattering ashes on his head, rubbing them on it with his hand, and telling him that he himself had been reclaimed from the temptation of wishing for learning by opening the Gospels at the text—“To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to others in parables that the knowledge of Christ crucified was all in all”. To the sisters of St. Clare, if they could not read, the permission even to learn was not given without insisting on humility of mind as a condition. Yet when asked at a general chapter whether men of learning might be admitted into the order, Francis replied that they might, because learning was not without its uses.

Francis was remarkable for his love of animals, which he treated as reasonable creatures. He often bought off lambs which were on their way to the slaughter, and in the church of the Portiuncula he kept a sheep, which, without any training (as we are told), used to take part in the services by kneeling and bleating. He preached to attentive audiences of birds on the benefits for which it was their duty to thank their Creator. Once, as he was about to preach, and found that some swallows were making a noise, he addressed them—“Sisters, you have spoken enough for the present, and it is my turn; be silent, and listen to the word of God”. He spoke to the fishes, to the worms, and even to the flowers. His love of personification embraced all sorts of objects. His own body he spoke of as “Brother ass”, on account of the heavy burdens which it was to bear and the hard usage which it was to experience; when about to undergo an operation of cautery, he addressed the fire as his brother, and begged it to deal gently with him; and it is said that in his last moments he uttered the words, “Welcome, sister Death!”. He saw, says an early biographer, the Creator in all His creatures; and it has been conjectured that the pantheism with which the order was afterwards infected may perhaps be traced to the founder’s love of nature, and to his fondness for personifying it.

Francis was desirous to preach to the infidels, and, if possible, to finish his life by martyrdom. With this view he embarked for Syria in 1212, but was driven back by storms. In 1213 or the following year, he set out with a like design for Morocco; but when he had gone as far as Spain, a serious illness compelled him to give up the attempt. In 1219 he and twelve companions sailed for Egypt, and joined the crusading force, which had just taken Damietta. The sultan of Egypt treated him with much respect, but declined to let the question between Christianity and Islam be decided by an ordeal, in which Francis offered to go into a fire with some Mahometan teachers, or even alone; and Francis returned to Italy after having foretold to the crusaders the reverses which soon after came on them. About the same time when he went into the east, five of his followers were sent into Morocco, where they were cruelly tortured and put to death in the following year, and thus reflected on the new brotherhood the glory of their martyrdom.

In the meantime the order was growing rapidly. In 1216 the first general chapter was held; and in 1219, before the founder’s departure for the east, another general chapter was assembled, at which as many as 5000 friars were presents The devils, it is said, alarmed at the progress of the new enemy, held equally numerous chapters in opposition; but their machinations were revealed in visions, and were foiled by the devotion of Francis and his brethren. At the Lateran council, in 1215, Innocent had declared his full approbation of the order; but the first formal charter bestowed on it was given by Honorius III, who in 1223, at the request of the founder, confirmed a stricter rule which Francis had then drawn up, and appointed cardinal Ugolino (afterwards Pope Gregory IX) to be protector of the minorites.

In 1224 Francis is said to have received the stigmata (or marks of the crucifixion), by which his conformity to the Saviour was supposed to be completed. He had retired to a mountain called Alvernia, among the Apennines, near Bibbiena, to keep a fast of forty days in honour of the archangel Michael, when in an ecstasy of devotion he saw a seraph with six wings, either crucified, or bearing between two of his wings a figure of the crucified Saviour. The vision deeply affected him; and forthwith he began to feel in his own body the likeness of the wounds which he had seen. It is stated that in his hands and in his feet the flesh grew out into the form of the nails by which the Saviour was fixed to the cross—the heads appearing on one side, and the points, sharp and somewhat turned back, on the other; while his side seemed as if pierced by a lance, and blood issued from the wounds. We are told that, although he tried to conceal these marks, they were seen by many persons while he was yet alive, and that the miracles wrought by them after his death converted many who until then had doubted. Francis survived the reception of the stigmata two years, during which he suffered greatly from illness of various kinds. Finding his end approaching, he desired that he might be carried into the church of the Portiuncula, where he solemnly blessed his weeping brethren, and breathed his last, lying on a shirt of hair and sprinkled with penitential ashes. His soul was seen in the form of a star, more dazzling than the sun, which was conveyed on a luminous cloud over many waters to the “abyss of brightness”. In 1228 he was canonized by Gregory IX; and both by that pope and by some of his successors, the story of the stigmata was affirmed as true. Alexander IV decreed that anyone who should speak against it was to be excommunicated, and that the power of absolving from the offence was reserved to the pope alone.

The later history of the Franciscans will come before us hereafter. A temperate historian has pronounced that at the time of the Reformation these were “perhaps the most profoundly corrupted of all the orders”.

10

THE FOURTH LATERAL COUNCIL

A.D. 1215-16.

 

The fourth general council of the Lateran, to which Innocent had long looked forward, met in November 1215. There were present at it two claimants of the Latin patriarchate of Constantinople, the titular patriarch of Jerusalem, seventy-seven primates and metropolitans, four hundred and twelve bishops, and more than eight hundred abbots, with ambassadors from Christian powers, and a multitude of deputies for bishops, chapters, and monasteries: the whole number of persons entitled to attend the sittings is reckoned at 2283. The business began on St. Martin’s day, when the pope preached on the text “With desire I have desired to eat the Passover with you before I suffer”. But the work of this great assemblage was hardly equal to the expectations which had been raised by the laborious preparations for it, and by its unequalled numbers and splendour. The part which it took in the affairs of England and of southern France has been already mentioned. Arrangements were made for a crusade to the east, which was to be carried out in the following year; but, although Innocent himself declared his intention of taking part in the enterprise, and wrote many letters in pursuance of this resolution, the execution of it was frustrated by his death.

But the fourth Lateran Council is chiefly memorable for two canons, relating to matters of doctrine and discipline respectively—the 1st, which for the first time laid down by the authority of the whole western church the doctrine of transubstantiation in the Eucharist; and the 21st, which prescribed for every catholic Christian the duty of confessing once a year at least to his own priest, and of yearly receiving the holy Eucharist at Easter.

The words which Innocent had chosen as the theme of his sermon before the council were speedily found to have had an undesigned prophetical meaning. In the following summer, he fell sick at Perugia, when on his way to reconcile the enmities of the Genoese and the Pisans. The seriousness of his ailment was not suspected, so that he indulged freely in eating fruit; and in consequence, as is supposed, of this imprudence, he died on the 16th of July 1216, at the age of fifty-five.

In this great pope the power of the Roman see had been carried to its utmost height; those who came after him, by endeavouring to advance it yet higher, provoked a reaction which proved disastrous to it. Innocent’s pontificate began at the early age of thirty-seven, and to the end of it he enjoyed the full vigour of his powers. He was exempted from the rough personal collisions, from the necessity of fleeing to the compassion of foreign princes, and from the other humiliations which had befallen many of his predecessors; in every quarter he appeared to be successful and triumphant; and his character, in which generous and amiable dispositions mingled in an unusual degree with the sterner qualities which tended to secure an ecclesiastical despotism, was fitted to take off from the invidiousness of his success. “He was dreaded by all”, says an English chronicler, “above all the popes who for many years had gone before him”. Other writers express thankfulness to God that under Innocent the catholic church triumphed over three kinds of enemies—the schismatics of the east, the heretics of the west, and the Saracens of the south. And he had carried out with a high hand in every country of western Europe his policy of establishing the papal authority as paramount over that of secular princes. Yet his success was more apparent than real; it was chequered by important failures, and in some cases temporary success bore within it the seeds of future reverses. As to Germany and the empire of the west, his policy would have utterly failed but for the assassination of Philip of Swabia; the emperor of his own choice turned against him, so that Innocent was obliged to set up in rivalry to Otho the natural heir, whom he had before thrust aside, and to consent to that union of Sicily with Germany under the rule of the Hohenstaufen, which the papal policy had long laboured to render impossible. And, although his guardianship of Frederick may not have been unfaithful, yet, as being in the interest of the papacy only, it left impressions on the young prince’s mind which were amply shown in his later history, to the detriment of Innocent’s successors. The eastern Crusade, which Innocent had laboured to set on foot, was diverted from its proper object to one which he found himself bound to denounce; and, although the splendour of the immediate result prevailed over his feelings of indignation, the power which the Latins thus founded in the east was sickly from the first; it tended to increase, instead of healing, the division between the Greek and the Latin churches; and after a few years of wretched decay, it came to an end. The crusade against the Albigenses, although successful, was attended with so much of cruelty and injustice that Innocent’s connection with it has left a deep stain on his reputation; and his eulogists find themselves driven to plead in his excuse that he whose eye watched over all Christendom knew no better than continually to choose unfit and untrustworthy agents; to be guided by their interested and untrue reports, and, when warned of their misdeeds, and stirred to some ineffectual attempts at redress, still to continue his reliance on them. His sanction of the mendicant orders was contrary to his own first judgment, and, notwith­standing the powerful help and support which the papacy derived from those orders, there was more than enough in their later history to justify the foresight of his original distrust. And in England, where the pope’s immediate triumph was most signal, it proved in the end disastrous to the papacy. He himself lived to find that the primate whom he had imposed against the will of the king, and in contempt of the right of election, took the lead in asserting the claims of the national church against the papal usurpations. And from the surrender of the crown by the despicable John, the English spirit took a more strongly anti-papal impulse, which, after continual provocation from the assumptions, the corruptions, and the outrageous exactions of Rome, prepared men’s minds for revolt against the dominion of the papacy.

 

 

CHAPTER II.

FROM THE ELECTION OF POPE HONORIUS III TO THE DEATH OF INNOCENT IV

A.D. 1216-1254