Chapter XXX: Part 30

It is as well to observe here that at this period and for some time later the position of the concubine had not the odium attaching to it by modern manners, and this should be borne in mind when reviewing the morals of the Middle Ages. The connection was a recognized and almost a legal one, following the traditions of the Roman law, by which it was legitimate and permanent, so long as the parties respectively remained unmarried. A man could not have a wife and concubine at the same time (Pauli Sentent. II. 20), nor could he legally have two concubines together (Novel. XVIII. c. 5). Not only were such regulations thus promulgated by Christian emperors, but the relationship was duly recognized by the Christian church. The first council of Toledo, in 398, enjoined upon the faithful “tantum aut unius mulieris, aut uxoris aut concubinæ, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus” (Concil. Toletan. I. c. 17), showing that either connection apparently was legitimate, and this is quoted at the commencement of the tenth century, as still in force, by Regino (De Discip. Eccles. Lib. II. c. 100). A half century later, about 450, Leo I. was actually appealed to to decide whether a man who quitted a concubine and took a wife committed bigamy—which Leo reasonably enough answered in the negative (Leon. Epist. XC. c. 5). The principle of the Roman law was still the rule of the church in the 9th century, for a Roman synod held by Eugenius II. in 826 declared “Ut non liceat uno tempore duas habere uxores, uxoremve et concubinam. De illo vero qui cum uxore concubinam habet, præcipit, ut si admonitus eam a se abjicere noluerit, communione privetur.” (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 12.) The view entertained of the matter at the time under consideration may be gathered from a canon of the councils of Rome, in 1052 and 1063, suspending from communion the layman who had a wife and concubine at the same time (Concil. Roman. ann. 1059 c. 12: ann. 1063 c. 10)—whence we may deduce that a concubine alone was hardly considered irregular. During the latter part of the succeeding century we find the concubine a recognized institution in Scotland, for the laws of William the Lion, after stating that the wife was not bound to reveal the crimes of her husband, adds “De concubina vero et de familia domus non est ita; quia ipsi tenentur revelare maleficia magistri sui, aut debent a servitio suo recedere” (Statut. Willelmi c. XIX. § 9). In England, late in the thirteenth century, Bracton speaks of the “concubina legitima” as entitled to certain rights and consideration (Lib. III. Tract. ii. c. 28 § 1, and Lib. IV. Tract. vi. c. 8 § 4). In Spain, at the same period, the son of an unmarried noble by a concubine, was noble (Juan Perez de Lara, in Arch. Seld. 130, Bib. Bodl.), and in the Danish code of Waldemar II., which was in force from 1280 to 1683, there is a provision that a concubine kept openly for three years shall be held to be a legitimate and legal wife (Leg. Cimbric. Lib. I. cap. xxvii. Ed. Ancher); while the elaborate provisions for the division of estates between legitimate and illegitimate children, contained in the code compiled by Andreas Archbishop of Lunden, in the 13th century, show that certain legal rights were recognized in the latter (Legg. Scan. Provin. Ed. Thorsen pp. 110-2). Indeed, in the Norwegian law of that period, when the king left no legitimate sons the crown descended to illegitimates (Jarnsida, Kristendoms-Balkr, c. III.). In Bigorre, concubines, under the name of _Massipia_, were recognized by law, and formal notarial contracts were drawn up, as late as the close of the fifteenth century, specifying the price to be paid and the duration of the connection; and when the man was already married he sometimes engaged to marry the _massipia_ in case of his wife’s death during the term (Lagrèze, Hist. du Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 377). We must therefore bear in mind that, until the rule of sacerdotal celibacy became rigorously enforced, the “concubina” of the canons generally means a wife, and that for some time afterwards the concubine was by no means necessarily the shameless woman implied under the modern acceptation of the term.

[478] Hujus autem constitutionis maxime fuit auctor Hildebrandus, tunc Romanæ ecclesiæ archidiaconus, hæreticis maxime infestus.—Bernaldi Chron. ann. 1061. Benzo declares, in his slashing way, stigmatizing Hildebrand as a Sarabite, or wandering monk, “De cetero pascebat suum Nicholaum Prandellus in Lateranensi palatio, quasi asinum in stabulo. Nullum erat opus Nicholaitæ, nisi per verbum Sarabaitæ” (Comment. de Reb. Henr. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2). The verses of Damiani on the influence of Hildebrand are too well known to quote.

[479]

... Hic [Nicholaus] ecclesiastica propter
Ad partes illas tractanda negotia venit;
Namque sacerdotes, levitæ, clericus omnis
Hac regione palam se conjugio sociabant.
Concilium celebrans ibi, Papa faventibus illi
Præsulibus centum jus ad synodale vocatis,
Ferre Sacerdotes monet, altarisque ministros
Arma pudicitiæ, vocat hos et præcipit esse
Ecclesiæ sponsos, quia non est jure sacerdos
Luxuriæ cultor: sic extirpavit ab illis
Partibus uxores omnino presbyterorum.

(Gulielmi Appuli de Normann. Lib. II.)

[480] Concil. Turon. ann. 1060 c. 6.

[481] Porro autem nos contra divina mandata, personarum acceptores, in minoribus quidam sacerdotibus luxuriæ inquinamenta persequimur; in episcopis autem, quod nimis absurdum est, per silentii tolerantiam veneramur.—Damiani Opusc. XVII. c. 1.

[482] Sanctis eorum femoribus volui seras apponere. Tentavi genitalibus sacerdotum (ut ita loquar) continentiæ fibulas adhibere.... Hujus autem capituli nudam saltem promissionem tremulis prolatam labiis difficilius extorquemus. Primo, quia fastigium castitatis attingere se posse desperant; deinde quia synodali se plectendos esse sententia propter luxuriæ vitium non formidant. ... Si enim malum hoc esset occultum, fuerat fortassis utcunque ferendum; sed, ah scelus! omni pudore postposito, pestis hæc in tantum prorupit audaciam, ut per ora populi volitent loca scortantium, nomina concubinarum, socerorum quoque vocabula simul et socruum ... postremo, ubi omnis dubietas tollitur, uteri tumentes et pueri vagientes etc.—Damiani Opusc. XVII.

[483] Decret. Nicolai PP. c. 3, 4 (Baluz. et Mansi II. 118-9).

[484] “Dogmatizatis enim sacri ministros altaris jure posse mulieribus permisceri ... Jam vero quod impudenter asseritis, ministros altaris conjugio debere sociari etc.”—Damiani Lib. V. Epist. 13.

[485] Ad Cadaloum Lib. I. Epist. 20.

[486] In 1060, Cardinal Humbert of Silva-Candida, in combating the prevailing vice of simony, made use of this argument, reasoning that an immoral priest may be suspended or may be tolerated in hope of amendment, but if he trenches on heresy, there can be neither hope nor mercy for him (Humbert. Cardinal. adv. Simoniac. Lib. III. c. 43). Damiani applied this to the defenders of marriage with all his vigor. “Qui nimirum dum corruunt, impudici; dum defendere nituntur, merito judicantur hæretici” (Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 8). “Nam cum peccat homo, quasi in puteum labitur; cum vero peccata defendit, os putei super eum, ne pateat egressus, urgetur ... Hoc autem inter peccatorem et hæreticum distat: quia peccator est qui delinquit, hæreticus autem qui peccatum per pravum dogma defendit” (Opusc. XXIV. Præf.).

[487] Opusc. XXVII. Diss. ii. c. 8.

[488] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 3.

[489] Obeunte igitur pellice, viduatus adjecit iterare conjugium. Quid plura? Confœderat sibi quasi tabularum lege prostibulum, amicorum atque confinium congregat nuptiali more conventum, epulaturis etiam totius affluentæ providet apparatum—Damiani Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 6.

[490] Nec vos terreat quod forte, non dicam fidei sed perfidæ, vos annulus subarrhavit: quod rata et monimenta dotalia notarius quasi matrimonii jure conscripsit; quod juramentum ad confirmandam quodammodo conjuii copulam utrinque processit. Totum hoc quod videlicet apud alios est conjugii firmamentum, inter vos vanum judicatur et frivolum—Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. c. 7.

[491] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii. Præf.

[492] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. ii.

[493] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 1, 2.

[494] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. iii. c. 3.

[495] Opusc. XVIII. Diss. i.

[496] Alex. II. Epist. 125.—Batthyani (Leg. Eccles. Hungar. I. 407) remarks that this lenity arose from the fact that otherwise divine service would have ceased—“omnes ecclesiæ a divinis officiis vacassent.”

It is also observable that subdeacons are not included in this prohibition—a remarkable exemption, since by this time their subjection to the law of celibacy had become a settled rule in the Roman church. I may here remark that I had collected considerable material to trace the varying practice with regard to the subdiaconate, but as it involves no principle, merely depending in earlier times upon the local custom as to the functions of that grade, the discussion would scarcely repay the space that it would occupy.

[497] De manifestis loquimur; secretorum autem cognitor et judex Deus est.—Alex. II. Epist. 118.

[498] Cenomanensem electum, pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si cæteræ virtutes in eum conveniunt, non rejicimus; sed, suffragantibus meritis, patienter suscipimus; non tamen ut hoc pro regula in posterum assumatur, sed ad tempus ecclesiæ periculo consulitur.—Gratian. Dist. LVI. c. 13.

[499] Nam pro eo quod filius sacerdotis dicitur, si cæteræ virtutes in eum conveniant, non rejicimus, sed suffragantibus meritis connivendo, eum recipimus.—Alex. II. Epist. 133. Baronius attributes to this the date of 1071.

The contrast between the weakness of Alexander and the unbending rigidity of his successor, Hildebrand, is well shown by comparing this unlimited acceptance of priestly offspring with the refusal of the latter to permit the elevation of a clerk requested by both his bishop and the King of Aragon, simply because he was illegitimate, although in other respects admitted to be unexceptionable (Gregor. VII. Lib. II. Epist. 50). We have already seen that even amid the license which prevailed during the early part of the century, some German bishops habitually refused orders to the sons of priests.

[500] Alex. II. Epist. 112.

[501] I think that there is too much concurrent testimony to this effect to admit a reasonable doubt that the Albigenses were Manichæans. I may return to them hereafter, and therefore will not discuss the point here. As regards the earlier heretics, however, I may mention the following contemporary authorities:—

With respect to those of Toulouse and Orleans, the “Fragmentum Historiæ Aquitaniæ” (Pithœi Hist. Franc. Script. p. 82) says: “Eo tempore decem ex canonicis sanctæ crucis Aurelianis probati sunt esse Manichæi, quos rex Robertus quum nollent ad Catholicam converti fidem, igne cremari jussit. Simili modo apud Tholosam inventi sunt Manichæi, et ipsi igne cremati sunt: et per diversas Occidentis partes Manichæi exorti per latibula sese occultare cœperunt”—and their errors are thus specified in the “Fragmentum Hist. Franc.” (Op. cit. p. 84) “Ii dicebant non posse aliquem in baptismate spiritum sanctum suscipere, et post criminale peccatum veniam non promereri; impositionem manuum nihil posse conferre; nuptias spernebant; episcopum affirmabant non posse ordinare, &c.”

In the Artesian synod, held in 1025 to condemn those of Cambrai, the tenth canon is directed against their hostility to marriage (Labbei et Coleti XI. 1177-8).—See also the prefatory letter of Gerard, Bishop of Cambrai—“Conjugatos nequaquam ad regnum pertinere”—(Hartzheim Concil. German. III. 68).

Concerning those executed at Goslar in 1052—“Ibique quosdam hæreticos, inter alia pravi erroris dogmata Manichæa secta omnis esum animalis exsecrantes, consensu cunctorum, ne hæretica scabies latius serpens plures inficeret, in patibulis suspendi jussit.”—Herman. Contract. ann. 1052.

About 1100 Radolphus Ardens describes the Manichæans who infested the territory of Agen, and recapitulates their doctrines as embracing dualism, abhorrence of animal food and of marriage, rejection of the Old Testament and part of the New, disbelief in the Eucharist, in baptism and resurrection, &c.—“Dicunt enim tantum flagitium esse accedere ad uxorem, quantum ad matrem vel ad filiam”—Radulf. Ardent. T. I. P. ii. Homil. 19.

The council of Toulouse, held by Calixtus II. in 1119, adopted a canon condemning those who objected to the Eucharist, priesthood, and legitimate marriage, showing that Manichæism was unextinguished in Languedoc.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 303.

In 1146 a synod at Cologne tried certain heretics, but before the examination was concluded the unfortunates were seized by the rabble and burned “et quod magis mirabile est, ipsi tormentum ignis non solum cum patientia, sed et cum lætitia introierunt et sustinuerunt.” Their Manichæism is manifested by their tenets concerning marriage—“De baptismo nostro non curant: Nuptias damnant.... In cibis suis vetant omne genus lactis, et quod inde conficitur, et quidquid ex coitu procreatur”—Narratio Everwini Præpositi (Hartzheim. III. 353-4). Cf. Bernardi Serm. 65, 66, in Cantica.

The accusations so freely disseminated against them for the purpose of stirring up popular indignation—such as that in their conventicles, after religious exercises, the lights were extinguished, and the congregation abandoned themselves to indiscriminate excesses—are, of course, without foundation. It is instructive to observe that precisely the same scandals were asserted of the early Christians (Tertull. Apologet. c. vii.)—so little does human nature change with the lapse of centuries.

[502] It is scarcely worth while to more than refer to the assertion of mediæval Milanese chroniclers that Eriberto married a noble lady named Useria. Puricelli (Muratori Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3) has sufficiently demonstrated its improbability. He does not, however, allude to the argument derivable from the fact that Eriberto’s name is signed to the proceedings of the council of Pavia in 1022, where priestly marriage was so severely condemned.

[503] Gualvaneo Flamma, Chron. Mag. c. 763.—Landulph. Senior. Mediolan. Hist. Lib. III. c. 2.

[504] Landulf. Senior. L. II. c. 35.

The writer was a partisan of the married clergy; but his description is confirmed by the testimony which Damiani bears (ante, p. 203) to the good character of the married clergy of Savoy. Still, there may be some truth in the counter statement of an opponent, S. Andrea of Vallombrosa, a disciple of S. Arialdo—“Nam alii cum canibus et accipitribus huc illucque pervagantes, suum venationi lubricæ famulatum tradebant; alii vero tabernarii et nequam villici, alii impii usurarii existebant; cuncti fere aut cum publicis uxoribus sive scortis, suam ignominiose ducebant vitam.... Universi sic sub simoniaca hæresi tenebantur impliciti.”—Vit. S. Arialdi c. I. No. 7.

The Milanese defended their position not only by Scripture texts, but also by a decision which they affirmed was rendered by St. Ambrose, to whom the question of the permissibility of sacerdotal marriage had been referred by the pope and bishops. Of course the story was without foundation, but singularly enough, the Milanese clung to it long after the subject had ceased to be open to discussion. Puricelli has investigated the matter with his usual conscientious industry, and shows the repetition of the legend not only by Datius and Landulfus Senior in the eleventh century, but by Gualvaneo Flamma in the thirteenth, by the author of the Flos Florum, by Pietro Agario and by Bernardino Corio in the fifteenth, and by Tristano Calco in the sixteenth century—the two latter falling in consequence under the revision of the Index. (Script. Rer. Ital. V. 122-3.)

[505] Milan long retained its bad preeminence as a nest of heresy. When Frederic II., in 1236, delayed his promised crusade to subdue the rebellious Milanese, his excuse to the pope was that he ought not to leave behind him unbelievers worse than those whom he would seek across the seas. “Cum ... jam zizania segetes incipiant suffocare per civitates Italicas, præcipue Mediolanensium, transire ad Saracenos hostiliter expugnandos, et illos incorrectos pertransire, esset vulnus infixo ferro fomentis superficialibus delinire, et cicatricem deformam non medelam procurare,” and Matthew Paris calls Milan “omnium hæreticorum, Paterinorum, Luciferanorum, Publicanorum, Albigensium, Usurariorum refugium ac receptaculum.”—Hist. Angl. ann. 1236.

[506] Arnulf. Gest. Archiep. Mediolan. Lib. III. c. 9.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 10.

Benzo, the uncompromising imperialist, always alludes to the papal party when he speaks of the Patarini—that term not having yet assumed the significance which it subsequently obtained. He accuses Anselmo di Badagio of being the author of the troubles—“primitus Patariam invenit, arcanum domini sui archiepiscopi cui juraverat inimicis aperuit. Abusus est etiam quædam monacha, cum Landulfino suo proprio consobrino.”—Comment. de Reb. Henric. IV. Lib. VII. c. 2.—The latter accusation can no doubt be set down as one of the baseless scandals so freely cast from one party to the other in those turbulent times.

[507] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 10.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 9.

[508] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 11.

[509] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13.

[510] “Quod Mediolanensis civitas tunc in seditionem versa, repentinum utique nostrum minabatur interitum.”—The peril must have been serious, for even Landolfo, whose nerves were seasoned by constant civic strife, made a vow to become a monk if he should escape—his delay in fulfilling which, after the danger was past, called forth the urgent remonstrances of Damiani.—Damiani Opusc. XLII. cap. 1.

[511] Their defence was “non debere Ambrosianam ecclesiam Romanis legibus subjacere, nullumque judicandi vel disponendi jus Romano pontifici in illa sede competere”.—Damiani Opusc. V.

[512] Nicolaitarum quoque hæresim nihilominus condemnamus, et non modo presbyteros sed et diaconos et subdiaconos ab uxorum et concubinarum fædo consortio, nostris studiis, in quantum nobis possibilitas fuerit, sub eodem quo supra testimonio arcendos esse promittimus.—Damiani Opusc. V.

[513] Damiani op. cit.—Damiani’s account is addressed to the pope, who, he seems to think, may be dissatisfied with the lenity which permitted heretics to return to the church on such easy terms, and he is at some pains to justify himself for his mildness.

[514] Alexand. II. Epist. 1.

[515] His followers claimed for him the honors of martyrdom. He was reverenced accordingly, and Muratori gravely asserts that the evidence in his favor is indubitable.

[516] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 13, 14.

To this period may probably be attributed two epistles of Alexander II. (Epistt. 93, 94) to the clergy and people of Milan, informing both parties that a Roman synod had recently prohibited incontinent priests from officiating, and had ordered the people not to attend at their ministrations. He adds that those who abandon their functions to cleave to their wives, must be forced also to give up their benefices.

[517] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 15.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 15.—Arnulfus alludes to a dispute concerning the litany, which complicated the quarrel. The troubles even invaded the monasteries, for Erlembaldo procured the forcible ejection of sundry abbots appointed by Guido.

[518] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18.—Landulf. Lib. III. c. 29. In 1090 the remains of St. Arialdo were translated by Archbishop Anselmo IV. to the church of St. Denis, and Muratori quotes from Alciati a curious statement to the effect that in 1508 Louis XII. removed them to Paris in mistake for the relics of St. Denis the Areopagite, the Parisians in his time still venerating them as those of the latter saint.

About the time of Arialdo’s martyrdom, Cremona must have been won over to the cause of the reformers, for in 1066 we find Alexander II. addressing the “religiosis clericis et fidelibus laicis” of that city, thanking God that they had been moved to extirpate the simoniacal and Nicolitan heresies, and commanding that in future all those in orders who contaminated themselves with women should be degraded.—Alex. II. Epist. 36.

[519] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 18, 19.

[520] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 20.

[521] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 28.

[522] Arnulf. Lib. III. c. 23; Lib. IV. c. 2, 3, 4.

[523] Arnulf. Lib. IV., Lib. V. c. 2, 5, 9.—Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 29, Lib. IV. c. 2.—Lambert. Schafnab. ann. 1077.

Erlembaldo was canonized by Urban II. towards the end of the century. Muratori (Annal. ann. 1085) styles Tedaldo “capo e colonna maestra degli Scismatici di Lombardia.”

[524] Landulf. Sen. Lib. III. c. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.

[525] Gregor. II. Regist. Lib. I. Epistt. 25, 26, 27.

[526] Maritos ab uxoribus separat; scorta pudicis conjugibus; stupra, incestus, adulteria, casto præfert connubio; populares adversus sacerdotes, vulgus adversum episcopos concitat.—Comit. Ticinens. ann. 1076 (Goldast. III. 314).

[527] To this period is no doubt referable a fragment of a decretal addressed by Urban II. to Anselmo, Archbishop of Milan, giving him instructions as to the ceremony of restoring to the church the ecclesiastics who were to be reconciled (Ivon. Decret. P. VI. c. 407—Urbani II. Epist. 74)—showing that Milan had submitted, and that her clergy were forced to seek absolution and obey the canons. It was this revolution in Lombardy that drove the anti-pope Clement III. from Rome.

[528] Item heresis Nicolaitarum, id est incontinentium subdiaconorum, diaconorum et præcipue sacerdotum inretractabiliter damnata est, ut deinceps de officio se non intromittant qui in illa heresi manere non formidant; nec populus eorum officia ullo modo recipiat, si ipsi Nicolaitæ contra hæc interdicta ministrare præsumant.—Bernald. Constant. ann. 1095.

The very terms of this canon, however, show that “Nicolitism” was still an existing fact.

[529] Tamburini, Storia generale dell’ Inquizione, Milano, 1862, T. I. pp. 307-9.

[530] S. Leon. IX. Epist. 55.

[531] Vit. S. Anselmi Lucensis.—In his collection of canons, St. Anselmo is careful to accumulate authorities justifying his course, and condemning his antagonists.—S. Anselmi Collect. Canon. Lib. VIII. c. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10.

[532] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.

[533] Cujus prudentia, non solum in Italia sed etiam in Theutonicis partibus refrenata est sacerdotum incontinentia, scilicet quod prædecessores ejus in Italia prohibuerunt, hoc ipse in aliis ecclesiæ catholicæ partibus prohibere studiosus attemptavit.—Bertold. Constant, ann. 1073.—Also Bernald. Constant, ann. 1073.

Gregorius ... connubia clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra, per totum orbem Romanum edicto decretali, in æternum prohibuit.—Gotefrid. Viterb. Chron. P. XVII.

Sed et datis decretis clericorum a subdiaconatu et supra connubia in toto orbe Romano cohibuit.—Otton. Frisingen. Chron. Lib. VI. c. 34.

Eodem quoque tempore canones antiqui de continentia ministrorum sacri altaris innovari novis accedentibus præceptis cœperunt, per hunc Urbanum Papam et prædecessores suos Gregorium VII. et Nicholaum II. atque Alexandrum II.—Chron. Reichersperg. ann. 1098.

Tempore illo cum Gregorius qui et Hiltebrant Romani pontificatus jura disponeret, hoc decretum quidem antiquitus promulgatum, nunc autem innovatum est, ut videlicet omnes in sacris ordinibus constituti, presbyteri scilicet et diaconi, a cohabitationibus feminarum se, ut decet, cohiberent, aut ab officio cessarent.—Gest. Trevir. Archiep. cap. XXX. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 174).

Hoc tamen ab eo tempore fuit introductum ut nullus ordinaretur in presbyterum conjugatus: et ordinandi omnes castitatem promittere compellantur coram ordinante.—Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1074.

One chronicler, however, attributes the reform to Alexander II. “Constituit etiam ut nullus presbyter sive diaconus vel subdiaconus, uxorem habeat, sive concubinam in occidentali ecclesia, sed ut sint casti.”—Chron. S. Ægid. in Brunswig. ann. 1071.

[534] Paul Bernried. Vit. Gregor VII. c. ii. § 20.

[535] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. c. iii. § 26.

Even Gregory, however, was not equal to his contemporary Hugh, Bishop of Grenoble, who, during fifty-three years spent in the active duties of his calling, never saw the face of a woman, except that of an aged mendicant.—Rolevink Fascic. Temp. ann. 1074.

The fanciful purity which came to be considered requisite to the episcopal office is well illustrated by the case of Faricius, Abbot of Abingdon, who was elected to the see of Canterbury. His suffragans refused his consecration because he was a skilful leech—“tunc electus est Faricius ad archiepiscopatum, sed episcopus Lincolniensis et episcopus Salesburiensis obstiterunt, dicentes non debere archiepiscopum urinas mulierum inspicere” (De Abbat. Abbendon.—Chron. Abingdon. II. 287). The prejudice against the practice of physic as incompatible with the purity of an ecclesiastic was wide-spread and long-lived, as chronicled in the canons of numerous councils prohibiting it (e. g. Concil. Claromont. ann. 1130 c. 5)—but it was not always so. In 998 Theodatus, a monk of Corvey, received the bishopric of Prague from Otho III., as a reward for curing Boleslas I., Duke of Bohemia, of paralysis, by means of a bath of wine, herbs, spices, and three living black puppies four weeks old (Paulini Dissert. Hist. p. 198); and about the year 1200, Hubert Walter, Archbishop of Canterbury, bestowed the see of St. David’s on Geoffrey, Prior of Llanthony, his physician, whose skill had won his gratitude.—Girald. Cambrens. de Jur. et Stat. Menev. Eccles. Dist. VII.

[536] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30.

[537] Ut secundum instituta antiquorum canonum presbyteri uxores non habeant, habentes aut dimittant aut deponantur; nec quisquam omnino ad sacerdotium admittatur qui non in perpetuum continentiam vitamque cœlibem profiteatur.—Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074. Cf. Gregor. Epist. Extrav. 4.

[538] As regards Germany, Gregory, in 1074, sent two legates to Henry IV., who promulgated the canon in a national council; and the next year he followed this up by a legation empowered to forbid the laity from attending the offices of married priests. (Herman. Contract. ann. 1074-5.) His correspondence, however, shows that he did not rely alone on such measures, but that he also addressed the prelates directly.

[539] Lambert. Hersfeldens. ann. 1074.

[540] Novo exemplo et inconsiderato prejudicio, necnon et contra sanctorum patrum sententiam ... ex qua re tam grave scandalum in ecclesia oritur, quod antea sancta ecclesia nullius hæresis schismati tam graviter est attrita.—Chron. Turonens. (Martene Ampl. Collect. V. 1007.)

[541] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 4, 12, 13.—Bernald. pro Gebhardo Episc. Apologet. c. 4, 5, 6, 7.

[542] Vit. S. Altmanni.—Hinc capitulum illud de incontinentia sacerdotum a tam invicto propugnatore castitatis dissimulatum non approbatum remansit.

[543] Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 12.—Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1074-5-6.—Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 132.—Gregor. Regist. Lib. II. Epist. 29.—Goldast. Constit. Imp. I. 237.

An encyclical letter of Siegfrid, in 1075, states that Gregory had sent to his diocese commissioners to reform the immorality of the clergy, and that they had labored earnestly, but fruitlessly, to accomplish the task by a liberal use of suspension and excommunication. He had thereupon reported to the pope the scandal and infamy of his church, when Gregory, considering the multitude of the transgressors, counselled moderation. Siegfrid therefore orders all incorrigible offenders to be suspended and sent to him for judgment. (Hartzheim Concil. German. III. 175.)—Hartzheim also (III. 749) gives, under date of 1077, another letter from Siegfrid to Gregory, in which he promises to do his best in reforming the clergy, but advises moderation towards those whose weakness merits compassion.

[544] See, for instance, Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. II. Epistt. 25, 55, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 68; Lib. III. Epist. 4; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11, 20; Lib. VII. Epist. 1; Epistt. extrav. 4, 12, 13, etc.

[545] His præcipimus vos nullo modo obedire, vel eorum præceptis consentire, sicut ipsi apostolicæ sedis præceptis non obediunt, neque auctoritati sanctorum patrum consentiunt.—Gregor. VII. Epist. extrav. 14. “Omnibus clericis et laicis in regno Teutonicorum constitutis.”

[546] Regist. Lib. II. Epist. 45.

Letters conceived in the same spirit are extant, addressed to the principal laymen of Chiusi in Tuscany, to the Count and Countess of Flanders, &c. (Lib. II. Epist. 47; Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11.)

[547] Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 218.—Hugon. Flavin. Chron. Lib. II. ann. 1079.—Cf. Chron. Augustinens. ann. 1075. Theodoric was naturally forced in the end to take a decided stand against Gregory. See his letter in Goldastus, T. I. p. 236, and the account of his episcopate in the Gesta Trevir. Archiep. (Martene Ampl. Collect. IV. 175-8).

[548] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. cap. 162.

[549] Annalista Saxo, ann. 1076.

We have already seen (p. 142) that Nicholas I., in the ninth century, had expressly forbidden any popular interference with married priests, and it is a little singular to observe that his decretal on the subject is extracted by Ivo of Chartres (Decreti P. II. cap. 82) and presented as valid law, in less than a generation after the death of Gregory VII.

[550] The writer indignantly adds—“Si autem quæris talis fructus a qua radice pullulaverit, lex ad laicos promulgata, qua imperitis persuasum est conjugatorum sacerdotum missas et quæcumque per eos implentur mysteria fugienda esse, in reipublicæ nostræ ornatum illud adjecit.”—Martene et Durand. Thesaur. I. 230-1.

[551] Sigebert. Gemblac. ann. 1074.

[552] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 81, 107.

[553] Ibid. No. 105, 106, 107.

[554] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epist. 20.

[555] Pauli Bernried. Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 87.—Ekkehard of Uraugen and the Annalista Saxo, however, in their accounts of these disturbances, attribute them to political rather than to ecclesiastical causes. The latter, no doubt, would hardly have been efficient without the former. The efforts of Henry to reduce the savage feudal nobles to order made him, throughout his reign, a favorite with the cities.

[556] Lambert. Hersfeld. ann. 1076.

[557] Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

[558] Ob hanc igitur causam, quia scilicet sanctam Dei ecclesiam castam esse volebat, liberam atque catholicam, quia de sanctuario Dei simoniacam et neophytorum hæresim et fedam libidinosæ contagionis pollutionem volebat expellere, membra diaboli cœperunt in eum insurgere, et usque ad sanguinem præsumpserunt in eum manus injicere.—Hugon. Flaviniac. Lib. II.

Eo vesaniæ imperatorem induxerat cæca sacerdotum (qui tunc frequentes apud eum erant) libido. Timebant enim si cum pontifice in gratiam rediret, actum esse de concubinis suis, quas illi pluris quam vel propriam salutem vel publicam pendebant honestatem.—Hieron. Emser Vit. S. Bennon. c. III. § 40.

Gregory’s celebrated exclamation on his death-bed does not, however, specially recognize this—“Dilexi justitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.”

[559] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. I. Epist. 30; Lib. III. Epist. 3.

[560] According to Conrad of Ursperg (Chron. ann. 1080) among the reasons adduced for the deposition of Gregory the synod of Brixen, was “Qui inter concordes seminavit discordiam, inter pacificos lites, inter fratres scandala, _inter conjuges divortia_, et quicquid quiete inter pie viventes stare videbatur, concussit”—in which the words italicized may possibly allude to the separation of the married clergy. Conrad, however, was a compiler of the thirteenth century, and his statements are not to be received without caution. If this motive had its weight with the prelates of the synod, they did not care to publish it to the world, for there is no allusion to it in the letter of renunciation addressed by them to Gregory (Goldast. Const. Imp. I. 238)—forming a striking contrast to the proceedings of the synod of Pavia in 1076, already alluded to.

[561] Wibert Antipap. Epist. VI.

Bishop Benzo, the most bitter of imperialists, did not desire to be confounded with the Nicolitan heretics—

“Omnis enim caste vivens templum Dei dicitur;
Si quis tantum sacramentum violare nititur,
Unus de porcorum grege protinus efficitur.
Facti cœlibes ardentem fugiamus Sodomam:
Hierosolymam petamus, Christianis commodam.”

Comment. de Reb. Hen. IV. Lib. V. c. 6.

[562] Honorius III. in Vit. Gregor. VII. No. 15.

[563] Bernald. Constant. ad Herman. Contract. Append. ann. 1085.

[564] Henricus multitudinem sequens, accessit eis qui sacerdotum conjugium sublatum volebant. Quare resistentes ei opinioni condemnati sunt.—H. Mutii German. Chron. Lib. XV.

I do not remember to have met with any contemporary authority for this assertion, nor is there any provision of this nature in the decrees of the Diet as given by Goldastus (I. 245); but the chroniclers of the period were generally papalists, and would be apt to omit recording anything which they would deem so creditable to their adversaries. Yet that the imperialists were no longer held responsible for clerical irregularities is evident from a letter written in 1090 by Stephen, the papalist Bishop of Halberstadt, to Waltram of Magdeburg, who was a follower of Henry. In all his violent invectives against the imperialists, and in his long catalogue of their sins, he makes no allusion to priestly incontinence, showing that they must have disavowed these irregularities so formally as to leave no ground for imputations of complicity (Dodechini Append. ad Mar. Scot. ann. 1090).

[565] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1091.

[566] Bernald. Constant. ann. 1089.

[567] A monkish chronicler professes to record of his own knowledge Guiberto’s death-bed remorse for the schism which he had been instrumental in causing. “Malens, ut ab ore ipsius didicimus, apostolici nomen nunquam suscepisse.”—Chron. Reg. S. Pantaleon. ann. 1100.

[568] Udalr. Babenb. Cod. Lib. II. c. 173.

[569] Eos qui in subdiaconatu uxoribus vacare voluerint, ab omni sacro ordine removemus, officio atque beneficio ecclesiæ carere decernimus. Quod si ab episcopo commoniti non se correxerint, principibus licentiam indulgemus ut eorum feminas mancipent servituti. Si vero episcopi consenserint eorum pravitatibus, ipsi officii interdictione mulctentur.—Synod. Melfit. ann. 1089, can. 12.

The second canon of the same council—“Sacrorum canonum instituta renovantes, præcipimus ut a tempore subdiaconatus nulli liceat carnale commercium exercere. Quod si deprehensus fuerit, ordinis sui periculum sustinebit”—shows how much more venial was the offence of promiscuous licentiousness than the heresy of marriage.

[570] Urbani II. Epist. 24.

[571] Gratian. Dist. XXVII. c. 8.

[572] Decret. Comit. Constant. c. 2 (Goldast. I. 246).

[573] Et quia hospes est, plus ecclesiæ prodest: non eum parentela exhauriet, non _liberorum cura_ aggravabit, non cognatorum turba despoliet—Cosmæ Pragens. Chron. Lib. III. ann. 1098.—It should, however, be borne in mind that Bohemia had been Christianized in 871 by Cyrillus and Methodius, missionaries from Constantinople, and the national Slavonic worship, founded on the Greek faith, after many struggles, was not abolished until 1094 (see Krasinski’s Reformation in Poland, London, 1838, I. 13). The attachment of the race to their ancestral rites explains the proneness of the Bohemians and Poles to fall away into heresy.

[574] Höfler, Concilia Pragensia p. xiii. (Prag, 1862.)

[575] Annalista Saxo, ann. 1105.

[576] Nycholaitarum quoque fornicaria commixtio ibidem est ab omnibus abdicata.—Chron. Reg. S. Pantaleon. ann. 1105. Cf. Annal. Saxo, ann. 1105.

[577] Compare Bernaldi Constant. de Reordinatione vitanda etc.

[578] Quod cum dolore dicimus, vix pauci sacerdotes aut clerici Catholici in tanta terrarum latitudine reperiantur.—Annal. Saxo, ann. 1106.

[579] Concil. Trecens. ann. 1107 c. 2 (Pertz, Legum T. II. P. ii. p. 181).

[580] Cosmæ Pragensis Chron. Lib. III. ann. 1118, 1123.

Rerum cunctarum comes indimota mearum
Bis Februi quinis obiit Boseteha kalendis.

[581] Ibid. Lib. III. ann. 1125 (Mencken. Script. Rer. German. III. 1799).

[582] Dubravii Hist. Bohem. Lib. XIV. (Ed. 1687, pp. 380-1.)

[583] Statuitur et hoc semper memorabile, secundum decreta canonum, presbyteros parochianos castos et sine uxoribus esse debere: uxorati vero presbyteri missam a nemine audiendam esse.—Annal. Bosoviens. ann. 1131.

Statuitur quoque ab omnibus, secundum decreta canonum, illud antiquum, quod semper erit innovandum, presbyteros castos et sine uxoribus esse, missam autem uxorati presbyteri neminem audire debere.—Chron. Sanpetrin. Erfurt. ann. 1131.

Statuitur etiam hoc semper memorabile, per decreta canonum presbyteros parrochianos castos et sine uxoribus esse debere, uxorati vero presbyteri missam a nemine audiendam esse.—Chron. Pegaviens. Continuat. ann. 1131.

[584] Ruperti Tuitens. Comment. in Apocalyps. Lib. II. cap. ii.

[585] Hist. Monast. S. Laurent. Leodiens. Lib. V. c. 39 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. IV. 1005).

[586] Henrici Salisburg. Archidiac. de Calam. Eccles. Salisburg. cap. ix.

[587] “Deinde dum nimio zelo rectitudinis de incontinentia clericorum multa sæve disponeret, sine condimento discrecionis, magnam sibi comparavit invidiam, et quam nec dici fas est, acquisivit infamiam.”—He went to Italy, seeking aid from Honorius II., but was captured by Conrad the Swabian, the rival of the Emperor Lothair, and died of affliction in his prison at Parma, October 1st, 1130. (Gest. Trevirorum Continuat. c. 27, 28.)

[588] Anon. Zwetlensis Hist. Roman. Pontif. No. CLXI. (Pez, T. I. P. iii. p. 385.)

[589] Concil. Ratisbonens. sæc. XIII. c. v. (Printed by Schneller, Straubing, 1785.)

[590] Presbyteris autem qui prima et legitima duxere conjugia, indulgentia ad tempus datur, propter vinculum pacis et unitatem Spiritus Sancti, quousque nobis in hoc Domini Apostolici paternitas consilietur.—Synod. Zabolcs ann. 1092 c. 3, or Decret. St. Ladisl. Lib. I. c. 3. (Batthyani, I. 434-5.)

[591] Synod. Zabolcs c. 1, 2.—Any prelate assenting to such illicit unions, and not insisting on immediate separation, was punishable to a reasonable extent (Ibid. c. 4).

[592] Synod. Strigonens. II. (Batthyani, II. 121-8). Peterffy’s emendation of “voluerint” for “noluerint,” in the clause respecting _digami_, can hardly be questioned.

[593] Decret. Coloman. cap. 41, 42, Comp. cap. 27 and 37.

[594] Synod. Vencellina, circa 1109.

[595] Batthyani, I. 431.

[596] Epist. Urbani apud Batthyani, II. 274.

[597] Synod. Dalmatiæ ann. 1199 (Batthyani, II. 289-90).

[598] Concil. Vienn. ann. 1267 (Batthyani, II. 415-17).

[599] Complures ea tempestate sacerdotes uxoribus velut jure legitimo utebantur.—Dlugosz, ad ann. 1197 (apud Krasinski, I. 52).

[600] Staravolsc. Concil. Epit. ap. Harduin. T. VI. P. II. p. 1937.

[601] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. Lib. IX. Epist. 235.

[602] Concil. Vratislaviens. ann. 1279, c. iii. (Hartzheim III. 808).

[603] Saxo. Grammat. Hist. Dan. Lib. XV. (Ed. 1576, p. 327).

[604] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. VI. 198.

[605] Innocent. III. Regest. XVI. 118.

[606] Prima intentio et cura Cardinalis Sabinensis in hoc concilio erat revocare Suecos et Gothos a schismate Græcorum, in quo presbyteri et sacerdotes, ductis publicis uxoribus consensisse videbantur.—Harduin. VII. 423.

[607] Jaffé, Regesta, p. 515-6.—Paschal. II. Epist. 497.

[608] Concil. Bremens. ann. 1266 (Hartzheim IV. 580).

[609] Emonis Chron. ann. 1219.

[610] “Eodem tempore defunctus est præfatus decanus (Herbrandus) possessor ecclesiæ in Husquert, tertius heres illius nominis, relicto parvulo ejusdem nominis.” (Emonis Chron. ann. 1231.)—and Emo alludes to him as “honesto viro Herbrando.”

“Obiit Geyco decanus in Firmetium vir per omnia sæcularibus artibus idoneus, et bene religiosus et obsequiosus. Successit ei Sicco, quartus a proavo Sigrepo.”—Ibid. ann. 1233.

[611] Menconis Chron. Werens. ann. 1271.

[612] Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1056 can. vii.

[613] Concil. Turon. ann. 1060 c. 6.

[614] Ceterum, quod excommunicavit diaconum suum propter ductam uxorem, contra canones fecisse videtur mihi, nisi forte cogente pertinacia ipsius.—Epist. Berengar. Turon. (Martene Thesaur. I. 195-6). It must be borne in mind that the persecution of Berenger arose solely from his theological subtleties, and that objections to celibacy formed no portion of his errors.

[615] Art de Vérifier les Dates, s. v.

[616] Concil. Pictaviens. ann. 1078 can. 9.

[617] Concil. Rotomag. ann. 1072 can. 16 “de clericis uxoratis.”

[618] Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. iv. c. 2.

[619] Concil. Juliobonens. ann. 1080 can. 3, 5 (Orderic. Vital. P. II. Lib. V. c. 6.—Harduin. Concil. T. VI. P. I. p. 1599).—Propter eorum feminas nulla pecuniæ emendatio exigatur.

[620] Pauli Carnot. Vet. Agano. Lib. VIII. c. 11.

[621] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IX. Epist. 5.

[622] Gaufridi Grossi Vit. Bernardi Tironens. c. 6 §§ 51-54.

[623] Gregor. VII. Epist. Extrav. 29.—Epist. in Martene Thesaur. III. 871-6.

[624] Roujoux, Hist, de Bretagne, II. 98-99. The independence affected by the Breton church is well shown in a singularly impertinent letter addressed to Leo IX. by the clergy of Nantes, refusing to receive a bishop appointed by him, after the degradation for simony of Prodicus by the council of Rheims in 1050 (Martene Thesaur. I. 172-3).

[625] Martene Thesaur. III. 882.—Haddan and Stubbs II. 96.

[626] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IV. Epistt. 10, 11.

[627] Ebrardi Chron. Watinens. cap. 22-3. Ebrard was a contemporary, a disciple of Otfrid, and therefore his statement of the motives of the persecution is entitled to credence.

[628] “Addens malos sacerdotes sacerdotes non esse, acsi peccator homo non esset homo.” From the tenor of Robert’s defence it is evident that it was the children of the clerks whom he disinherited. The documents are in Warnkönig, Hist. de Flandre, I. 330-3 (Bruxelles, 1835).

[629] Urbani PP. II. Epist. 70.

[630] Lambert. Atrebat. Epist. 60.

[631] Lambert. Atrebat. Epist. 84—Paschalis PP. II. Epist. 134.—Lambert. Epist. apud Baluz. et Mansi II. 150.

[632] Paschalis PP. II. Epist. 415.

[633] Guibert. Noviogent. de Vita Sua Lib. I. cap. vii.

[634] Concil. Claromont. can. 9, 10, 25.

In Lent of the following year (1096) Urban caused these canons to be received by a provincial council held under his auspices at Tours.—Bernald. Constant. ann. 1096.

[635] Ivon. Carnot. Epist. 218.

[636] Ivon. Decret. P. VI. c. 50 sqq.—Panorm. Lib. III. c. 84 sqq.

[637] Ivon. Epist. 200.

[638] Quod ultra modum laxaveris frena pudicitiæ, in tantum ut post acceptum archidiaconatum, accubante lateribus tuis plebe muliercularum, multam genueris plebem puerorum et puellarum.—Ibid. Epist. 277.

[639] Est etiam eis publica et inexpugnabilis cum mulieribus familiaritas, quibus illæ, promissis et præmissis obligatæ munusculis, dies iniquitatis et noctes infamiæ vindicare comprobantur.—Hildebert. Cenoman. Epist. 38 (Lib. II. Epist. 25).

[640] Hist. Episc. Verdunens. (D’Achery Spicileg. II. 254).

[641] Audivi turpissimam famam de monasterio Sanctæ Faræ, quod jam non locus sanctimonialium sed mulierum dæmonialium prostibulum dicendum est, corpora sua ad turpes usus omni generi hominum prostituentium.—Ivon. Epist. 70.

[642] Martene Thesaur. T. V. p. 1142-3.—Honorii PP. II. Epist. 91.—Guill. Nangis ann. 1123, 1124.

[643] P. Abælardi Sermo XXIX.

[644] Bull. Pontif. No. XXIII. ap. Hahnii Collect. Monument. Vet. I. 147. As to the reformation of the nuns of Laon, see Guill. de Nangis ann. 1128.

[645] Roberti de Monte Chron. ann. 1143.

[646] Nonne qui nocentes deberemus absolvere, eis malo exemplo nocemus? Nonne qui deberemus pollutos lavare, vitiorum nostrorum contagione alios polluimus?—— Sed nos, hodie indigni sacerdotes quid dicemus qui cæteris hominibus non majores sed deteriores sumus? Qui cum in conspectu hominum gradu sacerdotalis ordinis celsiores cæteris videamur, tamen cæteris inferiores vita moribusque jacemus? Radulph. Ardent. T. II. P. ii. Homil. 25.—See also Homil. 21.

[647] Nihil enim est quo magis lædatur Ecclesia quam quod laicos videt esse meliores clericis.—Pet. Cant. Verb. Abbreviat. cap. lvii.

[648] Hoc totum factum est rogatu Germani presbyteri, filiorumque ejus, qui post inde noster effectus est monachus.—Chron. Besuens. Chart. de tenement. German. presbyt.

[649] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. v. 67.

[650] Petri Venerab. de Mirac. Lib. I. c. 25.—Chron. Episc. Mindens. c. 26.

[651] S. Bernardi Vitæ Primæ Lib. VII. cap. xxi.

[652] Concil. Remens. ann. 1119 can. 4, 5.—“Nullus episcopus, nullus presbyter, nullus omnino de clero ecclesiasticas dignitates vel beneficia cuilibet, quasi hereditario jure, derelinquat.” Calixtus had already caused this provision to be adopted by the council of Toulouse, held in the previous June (Concil. Tolosan. ann. 1119 can. 8).

[653] Cujas quotes these verses as still current in his day, and attributes to the efforts of Calixtus the suppression of sacerdotal marriage in France. (Giannone, Apologia, c. xiv.)

[654] Orderic. Vital. P. III. Lib. xii. c. 13.

[655] Arnulf. Lexoviens. de Schismate cap. I. II. (D’Achery I. 153).

[656] Vit. S. Bertrandi Convenar. No. 13, 14 (Martene Ampliss. Collect. VI. 1028).

[657] Ut clerici ejusdem ecclesiæ sicut usque modo vixerunt permaneant; hoc tamen præcipimus ut presbyteri, diaconi, subdiaconi nullatenus deinceps uxores concubinas habeant; cæteri vero cujuscumque ordinis clerici propter fornicationem, licentiam habeant ducendi uxores.—Du Cange, s. v. _Concubina_.

[658] Epist. Alex. PP. III. in Martene Ampliss. Collect. II. 794.

[659] Concil. Paris, ann. 1212 can. xvi., xviii. (Ibid. VII. 99).

[660] Gregor. VII. Regist. Lib. IX. Epist. 5.

[661] Roger of Hoveden. ann. 1070.—Baron. Annal. ann. 1070 No. 26.

[662] Lanfranci Epist. XXI.

[663] Alexand. II. Epist. 83.

[664] Wilkins Concil. Mag. Britan. I. 363.

[665] Camden’s Britannia, Tit. Shroppshire.

[666] Decretumque est ut nullus canonicus uxorem habeat. Sacerdotes vero in castellis vel in vicis habitantes, habentes uxores non cogantur ut dimittant; non habentes interdicantur ut habeant; et deinceps caventur episcopi ut sacerdotes vel diaconos non præsumant ordinare, nisi prius profiteantur ut uxores non habeant.—Wilkins I. 367.

Polydor Virgil describes a council of London held by Lanfranc in 1078, in which—“Ante omnia mores sacerdotum parum puri quamproxime potuit, ad priscorum patrum regulam revocati sunt, estque illis in posterum tempus recte vivendi modus præscriptus” (Angl. Hist. Lib. IX.); but he has evidently mixed together the proceedings of various synods.

[667] Henric. Huntingdon. Lib. VII.—Matt. Paris ann. 1102.—Henry of Huntingdon, though an archdeacon, was himself the son of a priest, and therefore was not disposed to regard with complacency the stigma attached to his birth by the new order of things.

[668] Concil. Londin. ann. 1102.—Wilkins. I. 382 (Eadmer. Hist. Novor. Lib. III. ann. 1102).

[669] Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 62.

[670] D’Achery Spicileg. III. 434.

[671] Paschalis PP. II. Epist. lxxiv.—Anselmi Lib. IV. Epist. 41.

[672] Simeon Dunelmens. _ap._ Pagi IV. 348.

[673] See the confirmation of excommunication in which St. Anselm exhaled his fiery indignation at those who continued with “bestiali insania” to defy the authorities of the church. (Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 112.)

Anselm was not entirely without assistance in his efforts. One of his monks, Reginald, of the great monastery of Canterbury, wrote a fearfully diffuse paraphrase, in Leonine verse, of the life of St. Malchus. It was an evil-minded generation, indeed, that could resist such a denunciation of marriage as that pronounced by the saint—

Plenum sorde thorum subeam plenumque dolorum?
Plenus, ait, tenebris thalamus sordet muliebris.
Displicet amplexus, horror mihi copula, sexus.
Conjugium vile, vilescit sponsa, cubile.
Nolo thorum talem, desidero spiritualem.

(Croke’s Rhyming Latin Verse, p. 67.)

[674] Eadmer. Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.—Anselmi Lib. III. Epist. 109.

[675] Wilkins, I. 378-80.—Paschalis II. Epist. 221.

[676] D’Achery Spicileg. III. 448.

[677] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[678] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[679] Eadmeri Hist. Novor. Lib. IV.

[680] Messenii Chron. Episcoporum per Sueciam etc. p. 76 (Stockholmiæ, 1611).

[681] Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1126 c. 13 (Wilkins, I. 408).

[682] Henric. Huntingd. Lib. VII.—Matt. Paris ann. 1125.—Baronius (ann. 1125, No. 12) endeavors to disprove the story, but is only able to offer general negative allegations, of but little weight when opposed to the testimony of a contemporary like Henry of Huntingdon, who speaks of it as a matter of public notoriety, which covered the cardinal with disgrace and drove him from England.

Such conduct was a favorite theme of objurgation with the ascetics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries—

Certe tu qui missam dicis
Post amplexum meretricis,
Potaberis ab inimicis
Liquore sulphuris et picis.

(Du Méril, Poésies Latines, p. 133.)

So also, among the poems which pass under the name of Golias Episcopus is one of fierce invective directed against the priests, in which this is one of the principal accusations—

O sacerdos, hæc responde,
Qui frequenter et jocunde
Cum uxore dormis, unde
Mane surgens, missam dicis,
Corpus Christi benedicis,
Post amplexus meretricis
Minus quam tu peccatricis.

* * * * *

Plenus sorde, plenus mendis,
Ad autorem manus tendis,
Quem contempnis, quem offendis,
Meretrici dum ascendis.

* * * * *

Quali corde, quali ore
Corpus Christi, cum cruore,
Tractas, surgens de fœtore,
Dignus plagis et tortore.

Mapes’s Poems (Camd. Soc. Ed. pp. 49-50).

[683] Concil. Westmonast. ann. 1127 c. 5, 6, 7 (Wilkins, I. 410).

[684] Henric. Huntingd. Lib. VII.—Anglo Saxon Chron. ann. 1129.—Matt. Paris ann. 1129.

[685] Concil. Westmonast. ann. 1138 c. 8 (Wilkins, I. 415).

[686] Rymer, Fœdera Tom. I. ann. 1144.—Post. Concil. Lateran, P. XIX. passim.—Lib. I. Tit. 17 Extra.

[687] Orderic Vital. P. III. Lib. xiii. c. 20.

[688] Fluit semine et hinnit in feminas, adeo impudens ut libidinem, nisi quam publicaverit, voluptuosam esse non reputet.... Fornicationis abusum comparat necessitati. Proletarius est adeo quod paucis annis ei soboles tanta succrevit ut patriarcharum seriem antecedat.—Joann. Saresberiens. Epist. 310. Well might Alexander, in ordering his ejection, say “ipsum invenerint tot excessibus et criminibus publicis irretitum, quod per eorum nobis litteras recitata auribus nostris nimium præstiterunt tædium et dolorem.”—Elmham Hist. Monast. August, p. 413.

[689]

Crescit malorum cumulus,
Est sacerdos ut populus,
Currunt ad illicitum,
Uterque juxta libitum
Audax et imperterritus.

(Wright, Polit. Songs of England, p. 9.) And another indignant churchman exclaims:—

Qui sunt qui ecclesias vendunt et mercantur?
Qui sunt fornicarii? Qui sunt qui mœchantur?
Qui naturam transvolant et abominantur?
Qui? clerici; a nobis non longe extra petantur.

Mapes’s Poems, pp. 156-7.

[690] A woman applied to Bishop Hugh for advice “super impotentia mariti, quia debitum ei reddere non poterat,” when the prelate gravely replied, “Faciamus ergo si vis eum sacerdotem, et statim illo in opere, reddita sibi facultate, proculdubio potens efficietur.”—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. c. xviii.

[691] Benedicti Abbatis Gesta Regis Henr. II. T. I. pp. 135-6; T. II. p. xxx. (M. R. Series.)

[692] Chron. Monast. de Bello, London, 1846, pp. 142-3.

[693] Haddan & Stubbs’s Councils of Great Britain I. 423-4.

[694] Matt. Paris ann. 1208.

Perhaps it is to John’s experience in this matter that may be attributed the fact that when, in 1214, he entered into a league with his knight-errant nephew, the Emperor Otho IV., against Philip Augustus, they also declared war against Innocent III., and proposed to carry out a gigantic scheme of spoliation by enriching, from ecclesiastical property, all who might rally to their standard. They proclaimed their intention of humbling the church, reducing the numbers of the clergy, stripping those who were left of all their temporalities, and leaving them only moderate stipends. Both John and Otho had been under excommunication, and could speak feelingly of the overweening power and abuses of the church, whose members they characterize as “genus hoc pigrum et fruges consumere natum, quod otia ducit, quodque sub tecto marcet et umbra, qui frustra vivunt, quorum omnis labor in hoc est, ut Baccho Venerique vacent, quibus crapula obesis poris colla inflat, ventresque abdomine onerat.” (Lünig. Cod. Diplom. Italiæ I. 34). A few weeks later the Bridge of Bouvines put a sudden end to this prosperous plan of reformation.

[695] Du Méril, Poésies Pop. Latines, p. 179.

[696] Mapes’s Poems, p. 10.

[697] Du Méril, op. cit. p. 171.

[698] Filius autem, more sacerdotum parochialium Angliæ fere cunctorum, damnabili quidem et detestabili, publicam secum habebat comitem individuam, et in foco focariam et in cubiculo concubinam.—Girald. Cambrens. Specul. Eccles. Dist. iii. c. 8. (Girald. Opp. III. 129.) However Giraldus and the severer churchmen might stigmatize these companions as concubines, they were evidently united in the bonds of matrimony. He says himself, respecting Wales, “Nosse te novi ... canonicos Menevenses fere cunctos, maxime vero Walensicos, publicos fornicarios et concubinarios esse, sub alis ecclesiæ cathedralis et tanquam in ipso ejusdem gremio focarias suas cum obstetricibus et nutricibus atque cunabulis in laribus et penetralibus exhibentes.... Adeo quidem ut sicut patres eorum ipsos ibi genuerunt et promoverunt, sic et ipsi more consimili prolem ibidem suscitant, tam in vitiis sibi quam beneficiis succedaneam. Filiis namque suis statim cum adulti fuerint et plene pubertatis annos excesserint, concanonicorum suorum filias, ut sic firmiori fœdere sanguinis scilicet et affinitatis jure jungantur, _quasi maritali copula dari procurant_. Postmodum autem ... canonicas suas filiis suis conferri per cessionem non inefficaciter elaborant.” (De Jure et Statu Menev. Eccles. Dist. i.) That this condition of affairs was not confined to the canons of cathedral churches is evident from his general remarks in the Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap. xxiii.

His treatise De Statu Menevens. Eccles. was written after 1215, and therefore subsequent to the death of Innocent III.

[699] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. V. 66; VIII. 147.

[700] De presbytero et logico. Mapes’s Poems, p. 256.

[701] Hali Meidenhad, p. 7. (Early English Text Society, 1866.)

[702] Innocent. PP. III. Regest. VI. 103.

[703] Mapes’s Poems, pp. 171-2. This well-known poem has been attributed to the Venerable Hildebert, Bishop of Le Mans, as written on the occasion of the reformation of the French clergy by Calixtus II. (Croke, Rhyming Latin Verse, p. 85), but the character of that reverend prelate forbids such an assumption, even if the allusion to Innocent did not assign to it a later period.

[704] Concil. Eboracens. ann. 1195 c. 17.—Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1200 c. 10.—Concil. Dunelmens. ann. 1220.—Concil. Oxoniens. ann. 1222 c. 28.—Constit. Archiep. Cantuar. ann. 1225 (Matt. Paris ann. 1225).—Constit. Episc. Lincoln. ann. 1230 (Wilkins, I. 627).—Constit. Provin. Cantuar. ann. 1236 c. 3, 4, 30.—Constit. Coventriens. ann. 1237 (Wilkins, I. 641), &c.

[705] Matt. Paris ann. 1237.

[706] Wilkins, I. 672-3.

[707] De Convocatione Sacerdotum (Mapes’s Poems, pp. 180-2).

[708] Mapes’s Poems, pp. 176-9.—All the poetasters of the period, however, were not enlisted on one side. There is extant an exhortation against marriage, addressed to the clergy, which consists of a violent invective against the sex, recapitulating the customary accusations against women with all the brutal coarseness of the age:—

Hæc est iniquitas omnis adulteræ
Qui virum proprium vellet non vivere,
Ut det adultero non cessat rapere—
Desistat igitur clerus nunc nubere.

Du Méril, op. cit. p. 184.

The “Confessio Goliæ” feelingly bewails the difficulty of rendering obedience to the new regulations:—

Res est arduissima vincere naturam,
In aspectu virginum mentem ferre puram;
Juvenes non possumus legem sequi duram,
Leviumque corporum non habere curam.
Quis in igne positus igne non uratur?
Quis in mundo demorans castus habeatur?
Ubi Venus digito juvenes venatur
Oculis illaqueat, facie prædatur?

Mapes’s Poems, p. 72.

[709] Matt. Paris ann. 1250.

This Boniface was brother of the Duke of Savoy, and was one of the Italian prelates whose intrusion into the choice places of the Anglican church was a source of intense irritation. The career of another brother, Philip, is an instructive illustration of the ecclesiastical manners of the age. He was in deacon’s orders, and yet, as a leader of condottieri, he was a strenuous supporter of Innocent IV. in his quarrel with Frederic II. He was created Archbishop of Lyons, Bishop of Valence, Provost of Bruges, and Dean of Vienne, and, after enjoying these miscellaneous dignities for some twenty years, when at length Clement IV. insisted on his ordination and consecration, he threw off his episcopal robe, married first the heiress of Franche-Comté and then a niece of Innocent IV.—dying at last as Duke of Savoy (Milman, Latin Christ. IV. 326).

The indignation felt at the standing grievance of foreign prelates is quaintly expressed a century later by Langlande—

And a peril to the pope
And prelates that he maketh,
That bere bisshopes names
Of Bethleem and Babiloigne,
That huppe aboute in Engelond
To halwe mennes auteres,
And crepe amonges curatours,
And confessen ageyn the lawe.

Piers Ploughman, Wright’s Edition,
l. 10695-702.

[710] Nullusque eorum uxorem ducat: et si antequam sacros ordines suscepit uxorem duxerit, seu postea, si beneficium habeat, ipso privetur, et ab exsecutione sui officii suspendatur, nisi in casu a jure concesso.—Constit. Walteri Episc. Dunelmens. (Wilkins, I. 705).

[711] Sir, il ne doit mie joyer du benefit de celle priviledge, car il ad forfait per vice de Bigamy; comme celui qui ad espousé vefve ou plusors femmes.—Myrror of Justice, cap. III. sect. v.

[712] Concil. Londiniens. ann. 1268 c. 8 (Wilkins, II. 5).

[713] Convocat. Cantuar. ann. 1399 c. 13 (Wilkins, III. 240).