tectorate in the Roman pontiff. We find even the fierce Robert Guiscard bowing down and taking the oath of fealty to the holy see. It is proper however to observe here, once for all, that the oath of feudal vassalage did not imply unlimited obedience much less did it enforce a slavish submission in all things to the will of the liege lord. Feudal allegiance was very different from that of modern times. The former was peculiar to the middle ages, and its duties were few and clearly marked, requiring at the same time as a condition sine qua non, the compliance with certain correlative duties on the part of him to whom the oath was taken.

Gregory could not hope to carry out his plan for reforming the Church, without the co-operation of temporal princes. From many of them he had reason to expect the most determined opposition. Hence it is not at all surprising, that, intent upon one great idea, he sought, from the very commencement of his pontificate, to rally around him the princes of the earth. This will explain to us his course of conduct in regard to Dalmatia, Hungary, Sardinia, and part of Spain, which, in various letters, he sought to prove, to have been in former times feudal dependencies of the holy see. We read of no resistance to his claims in any of these countries, which proves that they were well founded, and that the documents he alleged were genuine. This should put to shame those maligners of the sainted pontiff, who would fain persuade us, that he forged documents to suit his own purposes!! To prove, that the princes and people of the middle ages were not advocates of passive obedience, even to the Pope, particularly where temporal matters were concerned, we may adduce the refusal by William the Conqueror, to take the oath of fealty to Gregory. His answer to the pontiff is brief, blunt, and characteristic of the Norman: yet even he, while positively refusing to take the oath, says nothing in his answer to impugn the motives of Gregory. He had been the early favorite of Gregory who had extolled him

See his answer to the pontiff in Voigt, vol. ii, p. 330, note.

VOL. II.-No. 3.

as a model of princes;* and on his refusal to take the oath, the pontiff in his letter to his English legate Humbert, only complains of the bluntness of the English monarch, and of his refusal to suffer the English bishops to visit Rome. This last fact will perhaps explain to us his motive for endeavoring to induce William to take the oath.

Those who would charge Gregory with motives of mere worldly ambition, have not learned the first elements of his character. Had worldly grandeur been his object, why did he not obtain it, as he certainly could have done? Why did he not doff his humble and coarse apparel, and clothe himself in the "soft garments of kings?" Why did he not keep up a splendid court, and live luxuriously in the midst of earthly pomp and display? Why did he not die a great temporal prince, instead of a poor exile at Salerno? Ambition, forsooth! Nothing was more foreign from his mind and heart. All his letters breathe a higher spirit all his acts imply higher motives. He was not a man to swerve one iota from the plain path of duty, for all the kingdoms of the world! “I would rather," says he,

66

undergo death for your salvation, than obtain the whole world, to your spiritual ruin. For I fear God, and therefore value but little the pride, and pleasures of the world."+

2. Much has been written of the pontiff's long and painful struggle with Henry IV of Germany: but those who have taken occasion from it to cast all the blame on Gregory, betray great ignorance of the history of that remarkable contest. In the first place, who was Henry, and what was his character? He was the most powerful sovereign of his day, and his vast empire extended over more than half of Europe. His influence was immense for good or for evil. He was in his twenty-third year, when Gregory was raised to the pontificate. His many natural good qualities had been almost destroyed by a vicious education from his earliest youth-the stream of his existence had been tainted in its very source. He had given into the most criminal excesses from the time he had first

mounted the throne, and from a confirmed debauchee, had become the most heartless and cruel of men. For his criminal excesses, and his shameful sale of bishopricks and abbeys, he had been already summoned to appear before the holy see, in the last year of Pope Alexander II.* This sumsoms had no other effect upon the dissolute young king, than to cause him to enter momentarily into himself: but on the death of Alexander, his excesses became more enormous and insufferable than ever. He no longer observed any bounds. His court resembled more the seraglio of the mussulman, than the residence of a Christian prince. Perhaps a greater monster never disgraced a throne. To obtain the objects of his criminal passion, he stopped at nothing-husbands, fathers, or lovers were removed by assassination! He knew how to refine on cruelty: he could smile on you one day, and have a dagger sent to your heart the next! In adversity, he was the meanest of sycophants, and the most crouching of slaves: look at him at the diet of Tribur,t when the Saxons were victorious, and the princes of the empire had abandoned him; look at him also at the castle of Canossa, when sueing for reconciliation with the Church. When flushed with victory, he was the most ferocious of tyrantscrushing and trampling in the dust those who had already submitted: witness the horrible manner in which he overran Saxony, Thuringia, and Suabia, as most graphically painted by Voigt. He was as perfidious, as he was cruel. He could be bound neither by treaties the most solemn, nor by oaths the most sacred. In one word, he was the Nero of the middle ages, and his cotemporaries gave him this title. All these charges could be substantiated by facts almost innumerable from Mr. Voigt, were it deemed necessary.

Such was the monster with whom Gregory had to deal. He could not escape a contest with such a man, without sacrificing his most sacred duty. For, in addition to Henry's private and political crimes, he made a regular traffic of the bishopricks

*See Voigt, vol. i, p. 23. † Ibid, vol. ii, 168–9. St. Anselm. Tract. de Ferment.

and abbeys, intruding into them the most unworthy subjects; thus deluging the Church with a flood of scandals! He would sell a bishoprick to one, and if another subsequently offered more, he would have the former deposed as simoniacal, and bestow the investiture upon the latter! By this abuse, some of the principal Churches had two, and that of Milan, had three bishops at one time!! Thus schisms were added to the other evils of the Church.

How did Gregory deport himself in his controversy with Henry? The limits of this article will not allow more than a very brief expose of the various stages of that contest; and those who may wish a fuller account of it, are referred to the luminous work of Mr. Voigt. We will endeavor to present in order the various facts of the case, scattered through the two volumes of our author; and we think, it will be seen, that the simple unadorned statement of facts is the best possible vindication of Gregory's

course.

1. From the very commencement of his pontificate, he employed every means in his power to win the heart of Henry : he wrote to him two letters* full of sweetness, unction and a divine eloquence in which he appealed to him by every consideration that was calculated to touch his heart, and arouse him to a proper sense of his duty : in both of these letters he however hinted to him, that, in conformity with the jurisprudence of the age, the right to the crown could be secured to him, only, on condition "of his governing according to the law of God, and protecting the liberty of his holy Church." To his own efforts, his influence added those of Henry's mother, the pious Empress Agnes, and of the Countesses Beatrix and Matilda his (Henry's) relatives; not to mention those of the great and good Anno, archbishop of Cologne.

2. When Henry, notwithstanding the hopes with which his answer had at first inspired Gregory, still continued in his evil

* See them in Voigt, vol. i, 407-8. Mr. Voigt thinks that these letters are master pieces of prudence and eloquence. In general, all the epistles of Gregory breathe sentiments fresh from a heart, warmed by divine charity.

:

courses, the latter did not immediately excommunicate him. He proceeded slowly and cautiously. His object throughout seems to have been to correct, not to crush Henry. He first excommunicated the unworthy bishops who had purchased their sees from him; then five of his evil counsellors hoping that he would profit by these unequivocal demonstrations. And whenever Henry made the least show of repentance, with what paternal tenderness did not the pontiff felicitate him!* About this time, (A. D. 1073), Henry wrote him a most submissive and hypocritical letter ;† and though Gregory saw through the deceit, and knew well that Henry's difficult political position alone had prompted the letter, yet with what sweetness did he not answer this letter!

3. Nearly two years later, in 1075, occurred the infamous plot of Cencius, and the outrage upon Gregory's person, alluded to above. The pontiff had every reason to believe, that Henry and Guibert archbishop of Ravenna, were at the head of this plot; and yet he forbore! He does not even allude to it in any of his controversy with Henry!!

4. In the same year, 1075, the brave Saxons, after a noble struggle against tyranny, submitted to Henry on the faith of a solemn treaty at Gerstungen, in which he promised to protect their property, and the liberty and rights of their princes. Henry violated his solemn oaths, and trampled the brave Saxons in the dust. Crushed, and bleeding, they appealed to the Pope for protection. The "holy see," says Mr. Voigt, "was the only tribunal, which could set any limits to imperial despotism, as a second defender of humanity." He might have said, that it was the first, and, in many cases, the only defender of humanity, of human liberty and rights. In those times of anarchy and confusion, to whom could the oppressed cry, but to the common father of Christians? Could Gregory be indifferent to their cry for relief? Could he do otherwise than hear their appeal, listen to their complaints, and endeavor to redress their wrongs? Henry himself had also

appealed to the holy see against the Saxons;* so that Gregory saw both parties appealing to him to settle their quarrel. By the fact, he was virtually chosen arbitrator. Who can then blame him for taking cognizance of the cause, and for deciding in it according to justice? Would not posterity have censured him, had he neglected the appeal, thus solemnly interposed? At the instance of Rodolph, duke of Suabia, and of other German princes, Gregory had been induced nearly two years previously in 1073-4, to act as mediator between Henry and the rebellious Saxons. He had accepted the office, and had written a most eloquent letter to many bishops and princes of Germany, imploring them by their influence to stop the effusion of blood, until the difficulties could be amicably adjusted. But amidst the din of arms, this voice had not been heard. About that same time, Henry had sent embassadors to Rome to complain of the Saxons: so that he may be said to have appealed twice to the holy see. Gregory therefore had a right to interfere in the political affairs of Germany, under each of two characters-that of mediator, and that of arbitrator. Why have his enemies concealed these facts?

Saxons, whose They were the advocates of li

5. And who were the cause Gregory espoused? oppressed they were the berty! The decision of Gregory against Henry, was a blow aimed at tyranny, and struck for the rights of the people! If ever a people deserved liberty, the Saxons deserved that boon. Instead of being the fierce savages that some historians would fain represent them, they were remarkable for their accurate perception of right and justice, and for their firm, yet moderate, advocacy of their liberties. At the famous convention of the Saxon people at Nockmeslove, in 1073, Otto of Nordheim had made a speech, which for solid reasoning, and moving eloquence, perhaps equals any effort of our own Patrick Henry! Its

*Voigt, ii, p. 97. Ib. vol. i, p. 360. Ep. i, 39. § Voigt, vol. i, p. 381. Where he cites for his authority, his favorite historian Lambert.

Whoever will read the portion of this famous speech, given us by Mr. Voigt, (vol. i, p. 238-9, &c.) will scarcely think this an exaggeration. If

stirring accents rang throughout all Saxony, and its effect was not only to thrill every bosom, but to cause the war cry "to arms! to arms!" to be heard from every valley and hill-top! To show in what light the oath of fealty to the king was viewed in those days, we will present the following extract from Otto's speech: "Perhaps you hesitate to break the oath you have taken to the king, because you are Christians! What! to the king! So long as he was king for me— so long as he showed himself such, I have scrupulously observed the oath I had taken: since he has ceased to act like a king, and to discharge the duties of a king, I owe him fealty no longer. Courage then! we do not march against the king. No, but against the enemy of our liberty; against the enemy of our country, &c."

*

This reasoning only alleges a principle generally received in the middle ages: that obedience and protection are correlative terms, and that the former ceases to be obligatory, where the latter is wanting. According to this principle, Henry could have been deposed without the sanction of the Pope: and in fact the princes of the empire seriously thought of doing so before Gregory had spoken. The Saxons, in appealing to the Pope had not only expressly recognized in him the power of deposing princes, but had said, that the German empire was a fief of the holy see. In fine, Gregory, while declaring under all the circumstances, that the Saxons were absolved from their oath of allegiance to Henry, did precisely what every American and every lover of liberty I would have done.

6. In answer to the appeal of the Saxons, Gregory wrote a letter to Henry, in which, after having employed all his eloquence to reclaim him, he threatened him with excommunication, unless he repented and

some one would take the trouble to collect together the various famous speeches of the middle ages, and present them in a good English dress, he would add to the stock of medieval literature. This speech, two or three of Gregory before Roman councils and one of Urban II, at the council of Cleremont in 1095, might belong to the collection.

* See decision of a council of Toledo referred to by Guizot-Lectures, &c. where this principle is connected with the etymology of the word rex recte, &c.

+See Voigt, vol. ii, p. 98.

reformed.* Flushed with his recent victory over the Saxons, Henry despised the admonitions of the pontiff. He assembled a conventicle at Worms, in 1075, which attempted to depose Gregory, and set up Guibert, archbishop of Ravenna, in his stead. He directed two insolent letters to the Roman people and to the Pope, to announce to them the decision of the mock council: and sent Rolando, a secret emissary, to insult the pontiff to his face, in the council which he was to open in Rome. Gregory screened the envoy from the punishment which his insolence provoked; read the insulting documents himself to the council, with the utmost sang froid; and, in order to let the excitement subside, adjourned the session until the next day. He then calmly explained to the one hundred and ten assembled bishops, the whole of his past relations with Henry, and his wish to secure the freedom and peace of the Church. It was only at the most urgent request of the council, that he consented to excommunicate Henry.+

7. It is manifest, that in the whole proceeding Gregory wished to correct and not to degrade Henry: hence, in a letter to the princes and bishops of Germany, he promised to readmit him on repentance.§

8. It was a law of the German empire, that if a prince remained under excommunication for one year, he forfeited his crown. Hence it was that Henry was in so much haste to be absolved by Gregory at Canossa.

9. If Gregory deposed Henry, the consent of princes and people at that time secured to him the right to do so. This is so certain, that it is not deemed necessary to adduce facts to prove it. Voigt admits it;¶ and his translator proves it by incontestible cotemporary documents.** Gregory then usurped nothing-he is borne out by the spirit and the jurisprudence of his age.††

*See Voigt, vol. ii, p. 103.
Ibid, p. 115, et seq.

+Ibid, p. 107. § Ibid, p. 129. ¶ Ibid, p. 214. et seq.

|| Ibid, p. 137. **See his introduction, p. lix. ++ See a work by Gosselin, published in Paris, 1829, entitled, Pouvoir des Papes sur les souverains,

au Moyen Age. See also the admirable work of Count de Maistre, "Du Pape." Voltaire also admits this.

*

10. Finally, though Henry was not sincere in obtaining absolution from the excommunication, at Canossa; though in less than fifteen days thereafter he broke all his solemn oaths, yet Gregory abstained for nearly four years from renewing the excommunication. His legates in Germany went beyond their instructions, when, at the diet of Forcheim in 1077, they approved of the election of Rodolph. He often lamented this imprudent step. He viewed it as premature, and calculated to foment, rather than to remedy the troubles of Germany and of the Church; and he declares,† that “he would rather suffer death, if necessary, than be the cause of the troubles of the Church." He labored incessantly to heal the divisions of Germany, and to stop the effusion of blood-council after council, he assembled in Rome-diet after diet, he appointed to be held in Germany, for the final settlement of the matter. But Henry

This fact does not appear to be generally known. Even Feller (Dict. Hist. Art. Greg. VII) ascribes the election of Rodolph to Gregory: and this too in the face of many of the pontiff's letters, and of his solemn declaration to the contrary, at the Roman council held in 1080! He also asserts that, Gregory excommunicated Henry again immediately after their reconciliation at Canossa in 1076: whereas, though his legates in Germany renewed the excommunication in 1077, yet the pontiff himself abstained from doing so until 1080. + Ep. iv, 24.

thwarted all his measures: so far from seeking, he was afraid of that justice which Gregory wished to have meted out to him. He then, and not Gregory, was responsible for the protracted civil war in Germany.

Such was Gregory, as shown by his acts. Henry triumphed over him for a time; and he died an exile; but he died as he had lived, virtuous, calm, unshaken and happy. Henry died, reduced to the lowest degradation, abandoned by all, and despised by all, even his own sons, who had successfully carried on a civil war against him. Gregory was "the Hercules of the middle ages: he enchained monsters, crushed the hydra of feudalism, saved Europe from barbarism, and what is more beautiful still, he illustrated Christian society by his virtues.‡ We conclude with the last words of Mr. Voigt: "It is difficult to bestow on him exaggerated eulogy: for he has laid every where the foundation of a solid glory. But every one should wish to render justice to whom justice is due; let no one cast a stone at him that is innocent: let every one respect and honor a man, who has labored for his age, with views so grand and so generous. Let him who is conscious of having calumniated him, re-enter into his own conscience." P. F.

Abbe Jager Introd. p. xcix.

DAY by day the writings of Fenelon be

gan to excite the attention of the public. Whatever opinion might have been previously entertained of his talents, and acquirements, no one had anticipated, or indeed could anticipate, that, in a theological controversy, he would have dared to enter the field with so formidable an antagonist as the author of the "Variations," and the Conference with Claude." For half a century Bossuet had occupied the field; the other prelates were lost in the blaze of his

splendor. Add to this that Fenelon stood before the public invested with that kind of renown which persecution and misfortune always give to genius and to virtue. Hitherto Bossuet had been the accuser. Often, indeed, he assumed the tone and authority of a judge. He thought he had reduced Fenelon to the painful and humiliating dilemma, either of remaining silent, or being the mere repeller of accusations. But Fenelon in the last letter, of which we selected a part, had elevated himself without any vio