INVESTITURE
636
INVESTITURE
pope might be, in fact, the liege lord, temporal ami spir- itual, of half the world" (IMilman, Lat. Christianiti/, iii, 41C-417). These proceedings of the pope the kings could not, of course, possibly permit without a practical abdication of all their powers, and hence arose the con- flicts of investiture which resulted so triumphantly for the papacy, not only in rising to a supremacy over the princes of'the earth, but drawing into their own hands all civil government, and which enabled some of the in- cumbents of the papal see, e. g. Innocent III, to aspire to be the supreme disposers of the Christian world, with all its belongings (see Reichel, p. 348). Some of the sover- eigns, such as Philip of France and William of England, paid no attention whatever to the pope's mandate, and the latter, satisfied that they would not actively oppose him, was quite willing to let them alone ; but far other- %vise was his conduct towards the emperor Henry IV, whom he sought by every possible exertion to compel to submit to these decisions. For this the licentious and ambitious character of Henry had given him good cauw. But for a time he failed to make any impression on the emperor, who paid no regard to the threats of liregnry VII, but continued to nominate not only to Ger- man, but also Italian bishoprics. Other causes widened the breach between the emperor and the pope. See the article Gregory VII, vol. iii, especially p. 1003, col. 1. After Hildebrand's (Gregory VII) death, the rivalry for the papal throne assuaged for a time the controversy on investiture ; each papal party, anxious to secure the greatest number of, and most powerful adherents, will- ingly made all possible concessions. But when Urban II, elected and supported by the Hildebrandian part}-, ascended the papal throne, the controversy was renewed by his declaration " Nullum jus laicis in clericos esse volu- mus et censemus," and the subject was even brought be- fore the Council of Clermont (1095). By canon 15 of this council clergymen were forbidden to accept any ecclesi- astical office from a layman ; the 16th canon applies this especially to kings and other civil authorities; canon 17 forbade bishops and priests binding themselves by feu- dal oaths to either kings or other laymen ; and canon 18 threatened every one who, after two Avarnings, continued in these forbidden relations, with deprivation of all office and power. Yet Urban found more difficulty than he had expected in bringing the princes to second him in his views, and he did not succeed in enforcing these de- cisions even in Italy, where Roger of Sicily stoutly de- fended the rights of the civil authorities. Urban, how- ever, evaded the difficulty by naming Roger, to whom he was under many obligations, his legate in Sicily. The death of this pope, in 1099, by no means extiiiguished the opposition, but, instead, the contest became more ear- nest, and continued during the most of the 11th century. In the begiiniing of the I'ith century it assumed a new form under Rascal II, whose name, of all popes, is most prominently connected with the question of investitures both in England and Germany. Pascal II had ascended the papal throne with the intention of following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but he lacked the strength of character necessary for determined action. " In En- gland, William the Conqueror had maintained his su- premacy over the Church with an iron arm. Thus no one was allowed to acknowledge the pope, when chosen except by the king's permission; no one might receive letters from Rome unless they had been "previously shown to him for approval. The archbishop was not Iternntted to frame any canon, although with the assist- ance of the bishop of the realm, unless it had been pre- viously sanctioned by the sovereign. Nor was any bish- op allowed to excommunicate a baron or minister of the crown on any charge, without having first obtained the king's consent. The same policy was pursued In- his son William Rufus, without any difficulties being raised on the part of the popes. They had too many reasons for conciliating the friendship of the Normans in Italy to venture to oppose their wishes in England." Nor was It otherwise now when archbishop Ansclin came for-
ward, determined to execute the papal decisions con- cerning the investitures, and King Heiu-y I felt his pre- rogatives invaded, and Anselm alone had to bear the whole brunt of Henry's indignation. See Ansel:m. In 1107, an agreement which had been entered into be- tween the king and the archbishop was finallj' proclaim- ed with great solemnitj' at a synod convened for thia purpose. " By it Henry, whilst surrendering an un- necessary ceremony, retained a substantial power; and Anselm's scruples were set at rest by a letter from Pas- chal, in which he freed those who had received lay in- vestitures from the penalties pronounced by his prede- cessor Still more fortunate than the English
kings were the kings of Castile, who, by directh^ yield- ing when Urban's decree was first published, obtained from him an absolute privilege of nomination to all bish- oprics in their dominions — a privilege which they have since retained b\' virtue of a particidar indulgence re- newed by the pope for the life of each prince" (Reichel, p. 363 ; see Hallam, Middle Arjes, ii, pt. i, ch. vii, 190).