§ 7. NICOLAS II. AND THE CARDINALS. 17
calls Hildebrand his "holy Satan,"1 because he had some times to obey him against his will, as when he desired to lay down his bishopric at Ostia and retire to a convent, but was not permitted to do so. He disliked the worldly splendor which Hildebrand began to assume in dress and mode of liv ing, contrary to his own ascetic principles.
Two important steps were made in the progress of the hierarchy, — a change in the election of the pope, and an alliance with the Normans for the temporal protection of the pope.
Nicolas convened a Lateran Council in April, 1059, the largest held in Rome down to that time. It consisted of a hundred and thirteen bishops and a multitude of clergymen; but more than two-thirds of the prelates were Italians, the rest Burgundians and Frenchmen. Germany was not repre sented at all. Berengar was forced at this synod to submit to a formula of recantation (which he revoked on his return to France). He calls the bishops "wild beasts," who would not listen to his idea of a spiritual communion, and insisted on a Capernaitic manducation of the body of Christ.2
A far-reaching act of this council was the transfer of the election of a pope to the " cardinal-bishops " and " cardinalclergy."3 At the pope's death the initiative was to be taken by the cardinal-bishops. In case they agreed they were to call in the cardinal-clergy. In case of agreement between both these classes of functionaries they were to present the candidate to the Roman clergy and people for ratification. The stress thus laid upon the cardinal-bishops is a new thing, and it is evident that the body of cardinals was ac corded a place of importance and authority such as it had
1 Ep. 1 : 16. 2 see vol. IV. 557 sq.
3 The canons are given in Mirbt, Quellen, 97 sqq. The two classes of cardinals are called cardinales episcopi and cardinales clerici. Langen makes the attempt to identify the latter with "the clergy of Rome," but without sufficient reason. The clergy, clerus, as a special body, are dis tinctly mentioned in the canons. c
18 THE MIDDLE AGES. A.D. 1049-1073.
not enjoyed before. Its corporate history may be said to begin with these canons. The election of the pope was made its prerogative. The synod further prescribed that the pope should be chosen from the body of Roman clergy, provided a suitable candidate could be found among their number. In usual cases, Rome was designated as the place of holding the election. The cardinals, however, were granted liberty to hold it otherwheres. As for the emperor, the language of the canons leaves it uncertain whether any part was accorded to him in the ratification of the elected pope. His name is mentioned with respect, but it would seem that all that was intended was that he should receive due notification of the election of the new pontiff. The matter was, therefore, taken entirely out of the emperor's hands and lodged in the college of cardinals.1 As Henry was still young and not yet invested with the imperial dignity, it was a favorable opportunity for the papal circle to secure the perpetual control of the papal office for the Ro mans and the Roman clergy. With rare exceptions, as in the case of the period of the Avignon exile, the election
1 The canons have come down to us in two forms. The second form, fal sified in the interest of the emperors, was current at least thirty years after Nicolas' s death. The fourth canon bearing on the emperor ran in its original form thus : salvo debito lionore et reverentia dilecti filii nostri Henrici, qui inpresentiarum rex habetur et fitturus imperator deo concedente speratur, sicut jam sibi concessimus et successoribus illius qui ab hac apostolica sedepersonaliter hocjusimpetraverint. See Scheffer-Boichorst, Die Neuordnung der Papstwahl durch Nikolas IL, Strass., 1879, who made a thorough investiga tion of the subject, Hefele, IV. 800 sqq. ; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Kirchengesch.,11. 342 sqq.; Mirbt, Nikolas //., in Herzog, XIV. 73 sq.; Hauck, Kirchengesch. III. 683 sqq. Hergenrother, p. 344 note, interprets the canon as conceding notification and nothing more, in the light of the words of the contemporary Anselm of Lucca (Alexander II.): ut obeunte Apost. pontifice successor eligeretur et electio ejus regi notificaretur, facta vero electione, etc., regi notificata, ita demum pontifex consecraretur. The im perial bishops of Germany fought against the limitation of the election to clerical circles in Rome. Under Henry III. and IV. the view prevailed among them that no one could be a legitimate pope without the consent of the emperor. See Scheffer-Boichorst, Zu den Anfangen des Kirchenstreites unler Heinrich IV., Innsbruck, 1892, p. 122 sq.