Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Raynald. a. 1558, n. 8, 10. Pallavic. 1. xiv. c. vi. n. 5-14. Bromato, Vita di Paolo IV. t. ii. p. 431. The individual motives, arguments, and

votes are not the important thing, but the legal decision.

Ranke, 1.c. p. 422.

7 Pallavic. 1.c. c. xi. n. 1. 8 Raynald. a. 1559, n. 42.

• Pallavic. 1.c. c. xii. n. 1.

$18.

The Roman emperor, henceforward no longer 'crowned,' but 'elect,' had from that time scarcely any relations with the Holy See beyond those of other sovereigns. The empire had become a mere phantom. The election was always signified to Rome by the elected prince, and Rome always in return acknowledged it. Enfeebled and unmeaning, the empire after a life of a thousand years expired in the person of Francis II. in 1806, in consequence of the ascendency of the French and of the confederation of the Rhine. Sixty-four years later it revived not merely in a new guise, but with a new spirit and new foundations, in some sort a new creation. Time will show whether the new foundations are more lasting than the old. Would that in looking onward we might hope that the Ghibellines and the Guelfs had laid their arms down for ever, that those who so recklessly impugn the past would not more recklessly embroil the present and the future, and that the statesmen of these times would judge the Catholic Church by her deeds and her fruits, not by partyspirited perversions and misrepresentations of her doctrine!

ESSAY X.

THE POPES AND THEIR VASSAL KINGDOMS.

AFTER the eleventh century many princes entered into feudal relations with the Church of Rome, and the rights of the Pope over such princes were much greater than over other rulers. He had not only an ecclesiastical, but also a temporal jurisdiction over them. The lord superior had the right to judge those princes who were his vassals, in any case of violation of fealty (felony) to depose them, and to give away to others the fiefs that escheated to him in these cases. The Popes in using their right of lord paramount to support their spiritual power acted in conformity with the general feeling of the Middle Ages, according to which the material sword served as an aid to the spiritual. The exercise of their power may appear frequently to have been imprudent, immoderate, even hard and oppressive; but there was no violation of law or usurpation of jurisdiction. We must not blame a judge who rests his judgment on the principles of jurisprudence prevailing in his time only because they do not find the same acknowledgment in our day. This principle is always recognised, except when in the case of the Popes. This is the less reasonable, as it was precisely the justice of their authority which caused their contemporaries most highly to esteem and most strongly to support it. To meet the complaints made on this subject against the Popes, we will consider the Papal fiefs-I. in Italy; II. out of Italy.

PART I. PAPAL FIEFS IN ITALY.

§ 1. Feudal connection of the South Italian kingdom with the Pope. § 2. From 1251-1282. § 3. From that time till 1302. § 4. Till 1372. § 5. Till the eighteenth century. § 6. Sardinia and Corsica. § 7. Parma and Piacenza.

§ 1.

The Normans in Lower Italy and Sicily were the first who entered into a feudal connection with the Church of Rome, and in spite of many vicissitudes this connection continued.1 Calixtus II. received homage in 1121 from the nobles of Lower Italy.2 Innocent II. recognised Roger as King of Sicily, July 27, 1139, on condition of his taking the oath of allegiance and paying a tribute.3 As William II. (1154) caused himself to be crowned without application to the Roman See, Hadrian IV. protested, and at the peace of 1156 the king admitted his feudal dependence. Under Clement III. (1187-1191) the question was discussed whether his heirs were to render allegiance to the Popes in every new pontificate, which, according to strict feudal law, could of course be demanded; the Pope, however, decided that the one act of allegiance was sufficient for each king.5 Under the Emperor Henry VI. the kingdom passed to the house of Hohenstaufen. Innocent III., though guardian of the young Frederick, both protected the claims of his ward to the South Italian kingdom and the undisputed rights of suzerainty of the Church of Rome, and provided for a regular administration there. The successors of Innocent interceded more than once with this tyrannical ruler for the oppressed people. When in the history of Frederick II. we are told that 'the Papal pretension to power was without any legitimate title and utterly exorbitant," the fact is entirely overlooked that the feudal subjection under which Frederick, as King of Sicily, stood to the See of Rome was in itself a very important and very legitimatetitle. A single breach of faith, such as Frederick himself committed by the hundred, would have sufficed in his eyes for the immediate degradation of any of his vassals.

1 Baron. a. 1059, n. 70. Cf. Leo Ost. Chron. Cassin. iii. 12; Cenni Monum. Domin. Pontif. ii. 48 seq.; Urban. II. ap. Mansi, xx. 659. 2 Jaffé, Reg. n. 5034, pp. 536, 537.

3 Baron. a. 1139, n. 12. Mansi, xxi. 396. Jaffé, n. 5734, p. 588. 4 Baron. a. 1156, n. 4, seq. Mansi, 1.c. p. 801. J. n. 6941, p. 667.

• Mansi, xxii. 556. J. n. 10,279, p. 885: 'Haeredes tui, qui nobis vel alii successorum nostrorum juraverint, alii postea minime jurare compel

lantur, Catholicis tamen successoribus nostris et hominii et fidelitatis puritatem, ac si juraverint, teneantur observare.'

Raynald. a. 1198, n. 67. Innoc. III. 1. i. Ep. 410-413 (Migne, ccxiv. p. 387 seq.); Ep. 507-515 (ib. pp. 510-521); 1. ii. Ep. 167, 179 (ib. pp. 717, 729); Ep. 187, 200, pp. 736, 749; 1. vi. Ep. 52-54.

Huber, p. 35.

$2.

After the deposition of Frederick II. the kingdom of the Two Sicilies reverted as a vacant fief, even according to imperial law, to the Church of Rome; his successors had forfeited their right, and could only be readmitted as vassals by an act of favour. Innocent IV. also expressed this view in 1251.1 In the mean time Conrad IV. came to Apulia in 1252, conquered many towns, behaved most ungratefully to his bastard brother Manfred, and most injudiciously to the towns which had allied themselves to the Church of Rome. In order to put a check to Conrad's further progress Innocent, as lord paramount, offered the Sicilian crown in the summer of 1253 to Prince Charles of Anjou; and as this came to nothing, to the English Prince Edmund, whose father, Henry III., accepted the offer, but then failed to send an army as stipulated. When the Counts of Savoy and Montfort tried to effect an understanding between Conrad and the Pope, Innocent did not reject it; but Conrad died, May 20, 1254, before further negotiations could be brought about. Being still quite free as to the disposal of this fief, the Pope, while reserving his rights, could still declare that he was inclined to show favour to Conrad's child when he should be of proper age, and already acknowledged him as Duke of Swabia and King of Jerusalem ;* but he did not pledge himself to maintain the former Hohenstaufen provinces in Italy in their full integrity. Manfred in the mean time sought a reconciliation with the Pope, acknowledged his overlordship, and was confirmed as viceregent of Lower Italy. However, shortly after he faithlessly renewed hostilities, and Innocent IV. soon died. His successor, Alex

ander IV., revived the negotiations with England, but without better result; he also wrote to the mother and grandmother of Conradin, telling them of the favourable dispositions he enter

6

tained towards him: his object was to find a faithful vassal and neighbour, well disposed towards the Church, and competent for the position. He was obliged to interfere against Manfred, who had already proved faithless, and was even now (1258) being crowned king at Palermo, and so sorely pressing the Pope that another nomination to the fief was becoming an urgent necessity. Urban IV., in many difficulties, and pressed by the creditors of the Papal States, did not by any means refuse to be reconciled with Manfred, but the proposals of peace made by the latter were of such a nature that the Pope, straitened on all sides though he was, could not accept them. At that time England was torn by civil wars, and Edmund was not in a position to undertake the kingdom of Sicily; he soon resigned his claims to it, and on July 28, 1263, Urban declared them extinct.8 He then turned his attention to France, and Charles of Anjou, brother of St. Louis, accepted the proposal, urged thereto by his own ambition and by his wife, Beatrix of Provence. St. Louis at first hesitated. The King of England had besought him to use his interest for his son Edmund, and he imagined that after Conradin, Edmund had the best claim. But the Pope represented to him that the former had no right on account of the felony of his grandfather, and the second on account of his having failed to fulfil the accepted conditions. Louis then gave his consent, and even allowed a tithe to be levied on the clergy, in order to help his brother to take possession of his throne.9

Almost the whole of Italy was at that time in the hands of Manfred, so much so that Cardinal Guido Fulcodi, elected Pope under the name of Clement IV., February 5, 1265, could only travel through Italy in the dress of a simple monk. Charles came to Italy in this year (1265), and after the confirmation of the Papal overlordship was crowned king (January 6, 1266). Manfred's army was overcome, he himself killed in battle. But the Roman See was cruelly deceived in the wicked brother of St. Louis. In Rome he acted in an arbitrary manner, levying heavy contributions on the Papal States, allowing many outrages to be committed by the troops. Clement IV. had bitter cause to com

« PreviousContinue »