Online Encyclopedia

PASQUALE PAOLI (1725-1807)

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V20, Page 691 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: it!
PASQUALE PAOLI (1725-1807), Corsican general and patriot, was born at Stretta in the parish of Rostino. He was the son of Giacinto Paoli, who had led the Corsican rebels against Genoese tyranny. Pasquale followed his father into exile, serving with distinction in the Neapolitan army; on his return to Corsica (q.v.) he was chosen commander-in-chief .of the rebel forces, and after a series of successful actions he drove the Genoese from the whole island except a few coast towns. He then set to work to reorganize the government, introducing many useful reforms, and he founded a university at Corte. In 1767 he wrested the island of Capraia from the Genoese, who, despairing of ever being able to subjugate Corsica, again sold their rights over it to France. For two years Paoli fought desperately against the new invaders, until in 1769 he was defeated by vastly superior forces under Count de Vaux, and obliged to take refuge in England. In 1789 he went to Paris with the permission of the constituent assembly, and was afterwards sent back to Corsica with the rank of lieutenant-general. Disgusted with the excesses of the revolutionary government and having been accused of treason by the Convention, he summoned a consulta, or assembly, at Corte in 1793, with himself as president and formally seceded from France. He then offered the suzerainty of the island to the British government, but finding no support in that quarter, he was forced to go into exile once more, and Corsica became a French department. He retired to London in 1996, when he obtained a pension; he died on the 5th of February 1807. See Boswell's Life of Johnson, and his Account of Corsica and Memoirs of P. Paoli (1768) ; N. Tommaseo, " Lettere di Pasquale de Paoli " (in Archivio storico italiano, 1st series, vol. xi.), and Della Corsica, £h'c. (ibid., nuova serie, vol. xi., parte ii.) ; Pompei, De L'etat de la Corse (Paris, 1821) ; Giovanni Livi, Lettere inedite di Pasquale Paoli" (in Arch. stor. ital., 5th series, vols. v. and vi.) ; Bartoli, Historia di Pascal Paoli (Bastia, 1891) ; Lencisa, P. Paoli e la guerra d'indipendenza della Corsica (Milano, 189o) ; and Comte de Buttafuoco, Fragments pour servir a l'histoire de la Corse de 1764 a 1769 (Bastia, 1859)• PAPACY' (a term formed on the analogy of " abbacy" from Lat. papa, pope; cf. Fr. papaute on the analogy of royaute. Florence of Worcester, A.D. 1044, quoted by Du Cange s.v. Papa, has the Latin form papatia; the New Eng. Dict, quotes Gower, Conf. i. 258, as the earliest instance of the word Papacie), the name most commonly applied to the office and position of the bishop or pope of Rome, in respect both of the ecclesiastical and temporal authority claimed by him, i.e. as successor of St Peter and Vicar of Christ, over the Catholic Church, and as sovereign of the former papal states. (See POPE and ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.) I.—From the Origins to zo87. The Christian community at Rome, founded, apparently, in the time of the emperor Claudius (41-54), at once assumed great The importance, as is clearly attested by the Epistle to Primitive the Romans (58). It received later the visit of Paul Roman while a prisoner, and, according to a tradition which Church. is now but little disputed, that of the apostle Peter. Peter died there, in 64, without doubt, among the Christians whom Nero had put to death as guilty of the burning of Rome. Paul's career was also terminated at Rome by martyrdom. Other places had been honoured by the presence and preaching of these great leaders of new-born Christianity; but it is at Rome that they had borne witness to the Gospel by the shedding of their blood; there they were buried, and their tombs were known and honoured. These facts rendered the Roman Church in the highest degree sacred. About the time that Peter and Paul died in Rome the primitive centre of Christianity—that is to say, Jerusalem—was disappearing amidst the disaster of the war of the Roman Empire with the Jews. Moreover, the Church of Jerusalem, narrowed by Jewish Christian particularism, was hardly qualified to remain the metropolis of Christianity, which was gradually gaining ground in the Graeco-Roman world. The true centre of this world was the capital of the Empire; the transference was.consequently accepted as natural at an early 1 This article is a general history in outline of the papacy itself. Special periods, or aspects are dealt with in fuller detail elsewhere, e.g. in the biographical notices of the various popes, or in such articles as CHURCH HISTORY ; ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ; INVESTITURES; CANON LAW; ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION;ULTRAMONTANISM ; or the articles on the various ecclesiastical councils.687 date. The idea that the Roman Church is at the head of the other Churches, and has towards them certain duties consequent on this position, is expressed in various ways, with more or less clearness, in writings such as those of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius of Antioch and Hermas. In the 2nd century all Christendom flocked to Rome; there was a constant stream of people—bishops from distant parts, apologists or heresiarchs. All that was done or taught in Rome was immediately echoed through all the other Churches; Irenaeus and Tertullian constantly lay stress upon the tradition of the Roman Church, which in those very early days was almost without rivals, save in Asia, where there were a number of flourishing Churches, also apostolic in origin, forming a compact group and conscious of their dignity. The great reception given to Polycarp on his visit to Rome in A.D. 155 and the attitude of St Irenaeus show that on the whole the traditions of Rome and of Asia harmonized quite well. They came into conflict, however (c. A.D. 190), on the question of the celebration of the festival of Easter. The bishop of Rome, Victor, desired his colleagues in the various parts of the Empire to form them-selves into councils to inquire into this matter. Barl The invitation was accepted by all; and, the con- Authority of sultation resulting in favour of the Roman usage, the Roman Victor thought fit to exclude the recalcitrant Churches Bishops. of Asia from the Catholic communion. His conduct in this dispute, though its severity may have been open to criticism,2 indicates a very definite conception on his part of his authority over the universal Church. In the 3rd century the same position was maintained, and the heads of the Roman Church continued to speak with the greatest authority. We find cases of their intervention in the ecclesiastical affairs of Alexandria, of the East, of Africa, Gaul and Spain. Though the manner in which they wielded their authority sometimes meets with criticism (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Firmilianus), the principle of it is never questioned. However, as time went on, certain Churches became powerful centres of Christianity, and even when they did not come into conflict with her, their very existence tended to diminish the prestige of the Roman Church. After the period of the persecutions had passed by, the great ecclesiastical capitals Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, as secondary centres of organization centrifugal and administration, drew to themselves and kept in Forces in their hands a share in ecclesiastical affairs. It was the catholic only under quite exceptional circumstances that any church. need was felt for oecumenical decisions. Further, the direction of affairs, both ordinary and extraordinary, tended to pass from the bishops to the state, which was now christianized. The Eastern Church had soon de facto as its head the Eastern emperors. Henceforth it receded more and more from the influence of the Roman Church, and this centrifugal movement was greatly helped by the fact that the Roman Church, having ceased to know the Greek language, found herself practically excluded from the world of Greek Christianity. In the West also centrifugal forces made themselves felt. After Cyprian the African episcopate, in proportion as it perfected its organization, seemed to feel less and less the need for close relations with the apostolic see. In the 4th century the Donatist party was in open schism; the orthodox party had the upper hand in the time of Aurelius and Augustine; the regular meeting of the councils further increased the corporate cohesion of the African Episcopal body. From them sprang a code of ecclesiastical laws and a whole judicial organization. With this organization, under the popes Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine the Roman Church came into conflict on somewhat trivial grounds, and was, on the whole, being worsted in the struggle, when the Vandal invasion of Africa took place, and for nearly a century to come the Catholic communities were subjected to very hard treatment. The revival which took place under Byzantine rule (6th and 7th centuries) was of little importance; 2 Victor's conduct in this matter was not approved by a number of bishops (including Irenaeus), who protested against it (avroraparesA000vrat) in the interests of peace and Christian love (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. v. 24).—[ED.] but the autonomy which had been denied them under Aurelius was maintained to the end, that is to say, up till the Mahommedan conquest. During the 4th century it is to be noticed that, generally speaking, the Roman Church played a comparatively insignificant The Roman part in the West. From the time of popes Damasus Church In and Siricius various affairs were referred to Rome the 4th from Africa, Spain or Gaul. The popes were asked century. to give decisions, and in answer to those demands drew up their first decretals. However, side by side with the Roman see was that of Milan, which was also the capital of the Western Empire. From time to tine it seemed as if Milan would become to Rome what Constantinople was to Alexandria. However, any danger that menaced the prestige of Rome disappeared when the emperor Honorius removed the imperial residence to Ravenna, and still more so when the Western emperors were replaced in the north of Italy by barbarian sovereigns, who were Arians. In Spain, Gaul, Brittany and the provinces of the Danube, similar political changes took place. When orthodox Christianity The church had gained the upper hand beyond the Alps and the In the Pyrenees, the episcopate of those countries grouped Teutonic itself, as it had done in the East, around the Kingdoms. sovereigns. In Spain was produced a fairly strong religious centralization around the Visigothic king and the metropolitan of Toledo. In Gaul there was no chief metropolitan; but the king's court became, even sooner than that of Spain, the centre of episcopal affairs. The Britons and Irish, whose remoteness made them free from restriction, developed still more decided individuality. In short, the workings of all the Western episcopates, from Africa to the ocean, the Rhine and the Danube, lay outside the ordinary influence of the Roman see. All of them, Restriction even down to the metropolitan sees of Milan and of the Aquileia, practised a certain degree of autonomy, and Papal in the 6th century this developed into what is called Authority. the Schism of the Three Chapters. With the exception of this schism, these episcopates were by no means in op-position to the Holy See. They always kept up relations of some kind, especially by means of pilgrimages, and it was admitted that in any disputes which might arise with the Eastern Church the pope had the right to speak as representative of the whole of the Western Church. He was, moreover, the only bishop of a great see—for Carthage had practically ceased to count—who was at that time a subject of the Roman emperor. This was the situation when St Gregory was elected pope in 590. We may add that in peninsular Italy, which was most clearly under his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the Lombards had spread havoc and ruin; so that nearly ninety bishoprics had been suppressed, either temporarily or definitively. The pope could act directly only on the bishoprics of the coast districts or the islands. Beyond this limited circle he had to act by means of diplomatic channels, through the governments of the Lombards, Franks and Visigoths. On the Byzantine side his hands were less tied; but here he had to reckon with the theory of the five patriarchates which had been a force since Justinian. According to Byzantine ideas, the Church was governed—under the supreme authority, of course, of the emperor—by the five patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Rome had for a long time opposed this division, but, since some kind of division was necessary, had put forward the idea of the three sees of St Peter—Rome, Alexandria and Antioch—those of Constantinople and Jerusalem being set aside, as resulting from later usurpations. But the last named were just the most important; in fact the only ones which counted at all, since the monophysite secession had reduced the number of the orthodox in Syria and Egypt practically to nothing. This dissidence Islam was to complete, and by actually suppressing the patriarchate of Jerusalem to reduce Byzantine Christendom to the two patriarchates of Rome and Constantinople. There was no comparison between the two from the point of view of the East. The new Rome, where the emperor reigned, prevailed over the old, which was practically abandoned to thebarbarians. She was still by courtesy given the precedence, but that was all; the council in Trullo (692) even claimed to impose reforms on her. When Rome, abandoned by the Rome and distant emperors, was placed under the protection of constan• the Franks (754), relations between her and the Greek tinopie. Church became gradually more rare, the chief occasions being the question of the images in the- 8th century, the quarrel between Photius and Ignatius in the 9th, the affairs of the four marriages of the emperor Leo VI. and of the patriarch Theophylact in the roth. On these different occasions the pope, ignored in ordinary times, was made use of by the Byzantine government to ratify measures which it had found necessary to adopt in opposition to the opinion of the Greek episcopate. These relations were obviously very different from those which had been observed originally, and it would be an injustice to the Roman Church to take them as typical of her relations with other Christian bodies. She had done all she could to defend her former position. Towards the end of the 4th century, when southern Illyricum (Macedonia, Greece, Crete) was passing under the authority of the Eastern emperor, she tried to keep him within her ecclesiastical obedience by creating the vicariate of Thessalonica. Pope Zosimus (417) made trial of a similar organization in the hope of attaching the churches of the Gauls more closely to himself. It was also he who began the struggle against the autonomy of Africa. But it was all without effect. From the 6th century onwards the apostolic vicars of Arles and Thessalonica were merely the titular holders of pontifical honours, with no real authority over those who were nominally under their jurisdiction. It was Gregory I. who, though with no premeditated intention, was the first to break this circle of autonomous or dissident Churches which was restricting the influences of the Gregory apostolic see. As the result of the missions sent to the Great, .England by him and his successors there arose a 590-604. church which, in spite of certain Irish elements, was and remained Roman in origin, and, above all, spirit and tendency. In it the traditions of old culture and religious learning imported from Rome, where they had almost ceased to bear any fruit, found a new soil, in which they flourished. Theodore, Wilfrid, Benedict Biscop, Bede, Boniface, Ecgbert, Alcuin, revived the fire of learning, which was almost extinct, and by their aid enlightenment was carried to the Continent, to decadent Gaul and barbarian Germany. The Churches of England and Germany, founded, far from all traditions of autonomy, by Roman legates, tendered their obedience voluntarily. In Gaul there was no hostility to the Holy See, but on the contrary a profound veneration for the great Christian sanctuary of the West. The Carolingian princes, when Boniface pointed them towards Rome, followed him without their clergy offering any resistance on grounds of principle. The question of reform having arisen, from the apostolic see alone could its fulfilment be expected, since in it, with the succession of St Peter, were preserved the most august traditions of Christianity. The surprising thing is that, although Rome was then included within the empire of the Franks, so that the popes were afforded special opportunities for activity, they showed for the most part no eagerness to strengthen their authority over the clergy beyond the Alps. Appeals and other matters of detail were referred to them more often than under the Merovingians. They gave answers to such questions as were submitted to them; the machinery moved when set in motion from outside; but the popes did not attempt to interfere on their own initiative. The Frankish Church was directed, in fact, by the government of Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. When this failed, as happened during the wars and partitions which followed the death of Louis, the fate of this Church, with no effective head and under no regular direction, was very uncertain. It was then that a clerk who saw that there was but an uncertain prospect of help from the pope of his time, conceived ThereFtaialse the shrewd idea of appealing to the popes of the past, Decs. so as to exhort the contemporary generation through the mouth of former popes, from Clement to Gregory. This design was realized in the celebrated forgery known as the " False Decretals (see DECRETALS). Hardly were they in circulation throughout the Frankish Empire when it happened that a pope, Nicholas I., was elected who was animated by the same spirit as that which Nicholas l., had inspired them. There was no lack of oppor- 858-867. tunities for intervening in the affairs not only of the Western but of the Eastern Church, and he seized upon them with great decision. He staunchly supported the patriarch Ignatius against his rival, Photius, at Constantinople; he upheld the rights of Teutberga, who had been repudiated by her husband, Lothair II. of Lorraine, against that prince and his brother, the emperor Louis II.; and he combated Hincmar, the powerful metropolitan of Reims. It was in the course of this last dispute that the False Decretals found their way to Rome. Nicholas received them with some reserve; he refrained from giving them his sanction, and only borrowed from them what they had already borrowed from authentic texts, but in general he took up the same attitude as the forger had ascribed to his remote predecessors. The language of his successors, Andrian II. and John VIII., still shows some trace of the energy and pride of Nicholas. But the circumstances were becoming difficult. Europe was being split up under the influence of feudalism; Christendom was assailed by the barbarians, Norse-men, Saracens and Huns; at Rome the papacy was passing into the power of the local aristocracy, with whom after Otto I. it was disputed from time to time by the sovereigns of Germany. It was still being held in strict subjection by the latter when, towards the end of the rrth century, Hildebrand (Gregory VII.) undertook its enfranchisement and began the war of the investitures (q.v.), from which the papacy was to issue with such an extraordinary renewal of its vitality. In Eastern Christendom the papacy was at this period an almost forgotten institution, whose pretensions were always schism of met by the combined opposition of the imperial East and authority, which was still preponderant in the west. Byzantine Church, and the authority of the patriarchate of Constantinople, around which centred all that survived of Christianity in those regions. To complete the situation, a formal rupture had occurred in 1054 between the patriarch Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX. In the West, Rome and her sanctuaries had always been held in the highest veneration, and the pilgrimage to Rome was General still the most important in the West. The pope, Position of as officiating in these holiest of all sanctuaries, the Papacy as guardian of the tombs of St Peter and St Paul in Theory• and the inheritor of their rank, their rights, and their traditions, was the greatest ecclesiastical figure and the highest religious authority in the West. The greatest princes. bowed before him; it was he who consecrated the emperor. In virtue of the spurious donation of Constantine, forged at Rome in the time of Charlemagne, which was at first circulated in obscurity, but ended by gaining universal credit, it was believed that the first Christian emperor, in withdrawing to Constantinople, had bestowed on the pope all the provinces of the Western Empire, and that in consequence all sovereignty in the West, even that of the emperor, was derived from pontifical concessions. From all points of view, both religious and political, the pope was thus the greatest man of the West, the ideal head of all Christendom. When it was necessary to account for this position, theologians quoted the text of the Gospels, where St Peter is represented as the rock on which the Church is built, the pastor of the sheep and lambs of the Lord, the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. The statements made in the New Testament about St Peter were applied without hesitation to all the popes, considered as his successors, the inheritors of his see (.Petri sedes) and of all his prerogatives. This idea, moreover, that the bishops of Rome were the successors of St Peter was expressed very early —as far back as the and century. Whatever may be said as to its historical value, it symbolizes very well the great authority of the Roman Church in the early days of Cbristianity; anauthority which was then administered by the bishops of Rome, and came to be more and more identified with them. The councils were also quoted, and especially that of Nicaea, which does not itself mention the question, but certain texts of which contained the famous gloss: Ecclesia romana semper habuit primatum. But this proof was rather insufficient, as indeed it was felt to be, and, in any case, nothing could be deduced from it save a kind of precedence in honour, which was never con-tested even by the Greeks. The Gospel and unbroken tradition offered a better argument. In his capacity as head of the church, " and president of the Christian agape," as St Ignatius of Antioch would have said, the pope was considered to be the supreme president and moderator of the oecumenical assemblies. When the episcopate met in council the bishop of Rome had to be at its head. No decisions of a general nature, whether dogmatic or disciplinary, could be made without his consent. The appeal from all patriarchal or conciliary judgments was to him; and on those occasions when he had to depose bishops of the highest standing, notably those of Alexandria and Constantinople, his judgments were carried into effect. During the religious struggles between the East and West he was on a few occasions condemned (by the Eastern council of Sardica, by Dioscorus, by Photius) ; but the sentences were not carried out, and were even, as in the case of Dioscorus, considered and punished as sacrilegious attacks. In the West the principle, " prima sedes a nemine judicatur," was always recognized and applied. In ordinary practice this theoretically wide authority had only a limited application. The apostolic see hardly ever interfered in the government of the local Churches. Practical Save in its own metropolitan province, it took no Applicapart in the nomination of bishops; the provincial dons of the or regional councils were held without its authori- Theory. zation; their judgments and regulations were carried out without any suggestion that they should be ratified by Rome. It is only after the False Decretals that we meet with the idea that a bishop cannot be deposed and his place filled without the consent of the pope. And it should be noticed that this idea was put forward, not by the pope with the object of increasing his power, but by the opinion of the Church with a view to defending the bishops against unjust sentences, and especially those inspired by the secular authority. It was admitted, however, throughout the whole Church that the Holy See had an appellate jurisdiction, and recourse was had to it on occasion. At the council of Sardica (343) an attempt had been made to regulate the procedure in these appeals, by recognizing as the right of the pope the reversing of judgments, and the appointment of fresh judges. In practice, appeals to the pope, when they involved the annulling of a judgment, were judged by the pope in person. But the intervention of the Holy See in the ecclesiastical affairs of the West, which resulted from these appeals, was only of a limited, sporadic and occasional nature. Nothing could have been more removed from a centralized administration than the condition in which matters stood with regard to this point. The pope was the head of the Church, but he exercised his authority only intermittently. When he did exercise it, it was far more frequently at the request of bishops or princes, or of the faithful, than of his own initiative. Nor had any administrative body for the supreme government of the Church ever been organized. The old Roman clergy, the deacons and priests of the church at Rome (presbyteri incardinati, cardinales) formed the pope's council, and when necessary his tribunal; to them were usually added the bishops of the neighbourhood. The body of ecclesiastical notaries served as the staff of the chancery. The Roman Church had from a very early date possessed considerable wealth. Long before Constantine we find her employing it in aid of the most distant churches, Territorial as far afield as Cappadocia and Arabia. Her real Possessions property, confiscated under Diocletian, was restored of the Holy by Constantine, and since then had been continually see. increased by gifts and bequests. In the 4th and 5th centuries, the Roman Church possessed property in all parts of the empire; but gradually, whether because the confiscations of the barbarian emperors had curtailed its extent, or because the popes had made efforts to concentrate it nearer to themselves, the property of the Holy See came to be confined almost entirely to Italy. In the time of St Gregory there subsisted only what lay in Byzantine Italy, the Lombards having confiscated the property of the Church as well as the imperial domains. During the quarrels between the papacy and the Byzantine Empire her domains in lower Italy and Sicily also disappeared as time went on, and the territorial possessions of the Roman Church were concentrated in the neighbourhood, of Rome. It was then, towards the middle of the 8th century, that the pope, who already exercised a great influence over the Beginnings government of the city and province of Rome, of the defending her peacefully and with difficulty against Temporal the advancing Lombard conquests, saw that he Power. was forced, short of the protection of the Greek Empire, to put himself under the protection of the Frankish princes. Thus there arose a kind of sovereignty, disputed, it is true, by Constantinople, but which succeeded in maintaining itself. Rome, together with such of the Byzantine territories as still subsisted in her neighbourhood, was considered as a domain sacred to the apostle Peter, and entrusted to the administration of his successor, the pope. To it were added the exarchate of Ravenna and a few other districts of central Italy, which had been recently conquered by the Lombards and retaken by the Frankish kings Pippin and Charlemagne. Such was the foundation of the papal state. The higher places in the government were "occupied by the clergy, who for matters of detail made use of the civil and military officials who had carried on the administration under the Byzantine rule. But these lay officials could not long be content with a subordinate position, and hence arose incessant friction, which called for constant intervention on the part of the Frankish sovereigns. In 824 a kind of protectorate was organized, and serious guarantees. were conceded to the lay aristocracy. Shortly afterwards, in the partition of the Carolingian Empire, Italy passed under the rule of a prince of its own, Louis II., who, with the title of emperor, made his authority felt in political matters. Shortly after his death (875) fresh upheavals reduced to nothing the power of the Carolingian princes; the clergy of Rome found itself without a protector, exposed to the animosity of the lay aristocracy. The authority of the pontificate was seriously impaired by these circumstances. One of the great families of Rome, that of the vestararius Theophylact, took possession of the temporal authority, and succeeded, in influencing the papal elections. After Theophylact the power passed to his daughter Marozia, a woman of the most debased character; then to her son Alberic, a serious-minded prince; and then to Alberic's son Octavius, who from " prince of the Romans " became pope (John XII.) when yet a mere boy. After Marozia and Alberic and the rest another branch of the same family, the Crescentii, exercised the temporal powers of the Holy See; and after them the same regime was continued by the counts of Tusculum, who were sprung from the same stock, which sometimes provided the Roman Church with the most unlikely and least honourable pontiffs. The pope, like all the bishops, was chosen by means of election, in which both the clergy and the laity took part. The latter Election of were represented in the most essential functions the popes. of the election by the aristocracy: at first by the senate, and later by the exercitus romanus, or rather of its staff, composed of Byzantine officers. It was the latter which gave rise to the feudal aristocracy which we see appear- ing under the Carolingians. The new pope was chosen by the principal members of the clergy and nobles, and then set before the assembled people, who gave their decision by acclamation; and this acclamation was accepted as the vote of the assembly of the faithful. The pope-elect was then put in possession of the episcopal house, and after waiting till the next Sunday his consecration was proceeded with. This ceremony was at first celebrated in the Lateran, but from Byzantine times onwards it took place at St Peter's. It was also under the Byzantine regime that the condition was imposed that the pope should not be consecrated until the emperor had ratified his election. This had not been required under the old Latin emperors nor under the Gothic kings, and it disappeared of its own accord with the Byzantine regime. It was revived, however, by the emperor Louis the Pious, much to the disgust of the Romans, who resisted on several occasions. The Roman " princes " or " senators " in the loth century went still further: it was they who actually nominated the pope. The same was the case with the Saxon emperors (Otto I., II. and III.), and in the nth century of the lords of Tusculum, the latter nominating them-selves and choosing members of their own family for the pontificate. When the emperor Henry III. (7046) put an end to this oppression it was only to substitute another. The popes of Tusculum did, at least, belong to the country, while the German kings chose bishops from the other side of the Alps. Such was the state of affairs up to the time of Hildebrand. The entry of Hildebrand into the counsels of the papacy marks the beginning of a great change in this institution. He cannot, however, claim the honour of having opened The Hildethe way which he impelled his predecessors to follow brandine even before following it himself. All good Christians Reform. were calling for reform; bishops; princes, and monks were in agreement on this point when they spoke or acted according to their convictions. Many of them had tried to effect something; but these isolated efforts were often countermined by incompatible aims, and had produced no serious results. It is in the supreme head of the Church that the movement ought to have found its origin and inspiration. There was no dispute as to his possessing the authority in spiritual matters necessary to impose reform and overbear the resistance which might arise; no one was better qualified than he to treat with the holders of the temporal power and obtain the support which was necessary from them. The Fathers of the Church had repeated times without number that the priesthood stands above even the supreme secular authority; the Bible was full of stories most aptly illustrating this theory; nobody questioned that, within the Church, the pope was the Vicar of Christ, and that, as such, his powers were unlimited; as proof positive could be cited councils and decretals—whether authentic or spurious; at any rate all authorized by long usage and taken as received authorities. It only remained to take possession of this incontestable power and use it with firmness and consistency. The example of Nicholas I., two centuries before, had shown the position which a pope could occupy in Christendom; but for a long time past the man had come short of the institution, the workman of his tool. Under Leo IX. (1048—1054) the pope suddenly came forward as the active and indefatigable champion of reform; simony and incontinence of the clergy were attacked by the one most qualified to purify the Church of them. Henceforth the way was open, and it became clear that, given good popes, the reform movement might be carried into effect. The choice of the pope was then subject to the pleasure of the sovereign of Germany, against whom the Roman feudal lords, devoted as they were to the old abuses, were in constant revolt. In the midst of the frequent changes of pope which went on during these years, and the political vicissitudes of Italy, Hildebrand took such measures as enabled him to checkmate the opposition of the Roman barons by turning against them, now the armed force of the Normans, now the influence of the German king.l 1On the 5th of April io58, six days after the death of Pope Stephen X., John, bishop of Velletri, the nominee of the Roman nobles, was enthroned as Pope Benedict X. Hildebrand set up Gerard, bishop of Florence, as a rival candidate, won over a part of the Romans to his cause, and secured the support of the empress regent Agnes at the Diet of Augsburg in June. Gerard was elected pope at Siena (as Nicholas II., q.v.) by those cardinals who had fled from Rome on the elevation of Benedict X. A synod was held at Sutri, at which the powerful Godfrey, duke of Lorraine and Spoleto, and margrave of Tuscany, and the chancellor Wibert were present. Measures were here concerted against Pope Benedict, who was driven out of Rome in January 1059, Nicholas II. being Side by side with the general movement towards reform, he had set before himself the object of freeing the papacy, not only from its temporal oppressors but also from its protectors. He was successful at the council of 1059, the pontifical election was placed out of reach of the schemes of the local feudal lords and restored to the heads of the clergy; certain reservations were made with regard to those rights which the Holy See was considered to have conceded personally to Henry of Germany (the young king Henry IV., son of the emperor Henry III.), but nothing more.' At the election of Alexander II. (1061-1073)-`- a rival to whom was for a long time supported by the German king—and even at the election of Hildebrand, this rule had its effect. Henceforth the elections remained entirely free from those secular influences which had hitherto been so oppressive. In 1073 Hildebrand was raised to the pontifical throne by the acclamation of the people of Rome, under the name of Gregory VII. ' The work of reform was now in a good way; the freedom of the pontifical elections had been assured, which gave some Gregory promise that the struggle against abuses would be conducted successfully. All that now remained 1053-1085• was to go on following wisely and firmly the way that had already been opened. But this attitude was not likely to appeal to the exuberant energy of the new pope. Hitherto he had had to reckon with obstacles more powerful than those which were now left for him to conquer, and, what was more, with the fact that his authority depended upon the will of others. But now that his hands were no longer tied, he could' act freely. The choice of the pope had been almost entirely removed from the sphere of secular influence, and especially from that of the German king. Gregory claimed that the same condition should apply to bishops, and these were the grounds of the dispute about investitures—a dispute which could find no solution, for it was impossible for the Teutonic sovereigns to renounce all interest in a matter of such importance in the workings of their state. Since the time of Clovis the German sovereigns had never ceased to intervene in such matters. But this question soon fell into the background. Gregory's contention was that the secular sovereigns should be entirely in the power of the head of the Church, and that he' should be able to advance them or dispossess them at will, according to the estimate which he formed of their conduct. A terrible struggle arose between these obviously exorbitant demands and the resistance which they provoked. Its details cannot be described in this place (see INVESTITURES); we need only say that this ill-fated quarrel was not calculated to advance the reform movement, but rather to impede it, and, further, that it ended in failure. Gregory died far away from Rome, upon which he had brought incalculable evils; and not only Rome, but the papacy itself had to pay the penalty for the want of moderation of the pope. Great indeed was the difference between the state in which he received it and that in which he left it. We must not, however, let this mislead us. This struggle between spiritual and secular powers, owing to the tremendous sensation which it created throughout Christendom, showed the nations that at the head of the Church there was a great force for justice, always able to combat iniquity and oppression, and sometimes to defeat them, however powerful the evil and the tyrants might seem. The scene at Canossa, which had at the moment a merely relative importance, remained in the memories of men as a symbol which was hateful or comforting, according to the point of view from which it was considered. As to Gregory's political pretensions, zealous theorists were quick to transform them into legal principles; and though his immediate successors, some-what deafened by the disturbance which they had aroused, seem to have neglected them at first, they were handed on to more distant heirs and reappeared in future struggles. Gregory himself, in his last moments, seems to have felt that it was impossible to maintain them, for Didier, abbot of Monte-regularly enthroned on the 24th of the same month. A synod assembled at the Lateran in April passed the famous new regulations for the elections to the papacy. (See CONCLAVE' and LATERAN
End of Article: PASQUALE PAOLI (1725-1807)
CESARE PAOLI (1840-1902)

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.