with the government, could only return to Rome with the aid of the Normans. Being now absorbed in the great investiture question, he had recourse to a daring plan. He proposed to Henry V. that the bishops should resign all property derived from the crown and depend solely on tithes and donations, while the empire should resign the right of investiture. Henry seemed disposed to accept the suggestion, but, suddenly changing his mind, took the pope prisoner and forced him to yield the right of investiture and to give him the crown (1111). But the following year the party of reform annulled in council this concession, which the pope declared to have been extorted by force. By the death of Countess Matilda in 1115 and the bequest of her vast possessions to the Holy See, the pope’s dominions were greatly enlarged, but his authority as a ruler was nowise increased. Deeds of violence still continued in Rome; and then followed the death of the prefect Pietro. The nobles of the imperial party, joined with the people, wished to elect Pietro’s son, also nephew to Tolomeo of Tusculum, who then held the position of a potent imperial margrave, had territories stretching from the Sabine mountains to the sea, was the dictator of Tusculum, master of Latium and consul of the Romans. The pope opposed this election to the best of his strength; but the nobles carried the day, and their new prefect received investiture from the emperor. Upon this the pope again quitted Rome, and on his return, two years later, was compelled to shut himself up in the castle of St Angelo, where he died in 1118.
The popes were now the sport of the nobles whom they had
aggrandized by continual concessions for the sake of peace.
And peace seemed at hand when Innocent II. (1130–43),
after triumphing over two anti popes, came to terms
with Roger I., recognized him as king of Sicily, and
New power of
the people.
gained his friendship and protection. But now still
graver tumults took place. In consequence of the division of
the nobles neither party could overcome its foes without the
aid of the people, which thus became increasingly powerful.
Throughout upper and central Italy the cities were being
organized as free and independent communes on a democratic
basis. Their example soon followed in the ancient duchy of
Rome and almost in the immediate neighbourhood of the
city. Even Tivoli was converted into a republic. This excited
the deepest jealousy in the Romans, and they became furious
when this little city, profiting by its strong position in the Teverone
valley, not only sought to annex Roman territory, but
dared to offer successful resistance to the descendants of the
conquerors of the world. In 1141 Tivoli openly rebelled
against the mother city, and the pope sent the Romans to
subdue it. They were not only repulsed, but ignominiously
pursued to their own gates. Afterwards, returning to the
assault in greater numbers, they conquered the hostile town.
Its defenders surrendered to the pope, and he immediately
concluded a treaty of peace without consulting either the
people or the republic. The soldiery, still flushed with victory,
were furious at this slight. They demanded not only submission
of Tivoli to the Roman people, but also permission to
demolish its walls and dwellings and expel its population.
Innocent II. refused consent to these excesses, and a memorable
revolution ensued by which the temporal power of the papacy
was entirely overthrown.
In 1143 the rebellious people rushed to the Capitol, proclaimed the republic, reconstituted the senate, to the almost entire exclusion of the nobles, declared the abolition of the temporal power, issued coin inscribed to the senate, the people and St Peter, and began to reckon Popular revolution. Reconstruction of senate and republic. time from the day of the restoration of liberty. Arnold of Brescia was not, as has been incorrectly stated, the author of this revolution, for he had not yet arrived in Rome. It was the outcome of an historic necessity—above all, of the renewed vigour of the people and its detestation of the feudal aristocracy. This body, besides being divided into an imperial and a national party, had almost excluded from the government the powerful baronage of the Campagna and the provinces. Also, as we have before noted, the Roman aristocracy was by no means an exclusive caste. Between the great aristocrats and the people there stood a middle or new nobility, which made common cause with the people, whose chief strength now lay in the army. This, divided into twelve and then into thirteen or fourteen regions, assembled under its banners all arm-bearing citizens. Thus the exercitus was also the real populus Romanus, now bent on the destruction of the temporal power. This purpose, originating in the struggle of the investitures, was the logical and inevitable result of the proposals of Paschal II., which, despite their rejection, found a loud echo in Italy. Lucius II. (1144–45) tried to withstand the revolution by seeking Norman aid and throwing himself into the arms of the feudal party, but this only precipitated the course of events. The people, after having excluded nearly all aristocrats from the senate, now placed at its head the noble Giordano dei Pierleoni, who had joined the revolutionary party. They named him patrician, but without prejudice to the authority of the empire, still held by them in respect, and also conferred on him the judicial powers appertaining to the aristocratic and imperial office of prefect. The pope was requested to resign the temporal power, the regalia and every other possession, and content himself with the tithes and offerings of the faithful according to the scheme of Paschal II. He indignantly refused, marched at the head of the nobles against the Capitol, but was violently repulsed, and received a blow on the head from a stone, which is supposed to have occasioned his speedy death on the 15th February 1145. Eugenius III. was then elected (1145–53), but soon had to fly to Viterbo in quest of armed assistance, in consequence of the senate’s resolve to prevent his consecration by force until he recognized the new state of things in the Eternal City.
It was at this moment that Arnold of Brescia arrived in Rome. His ideas, already well known in Italy, had inspired and promoted the Roman revolution, and he now came to determine its method and direction. Born at Brescia in the beginning of the 12th century, Arnold Arnold of Brescia. had studied in France under the celebrated Abelard, who had instructed him in theology and philosophy, inspired him with a great love for antiquity, and stimulated his natural independence of mind. On returning to his native land he assumed the monkish habit, and proved the force and fervour of his character by taking part in all struggles for liberty. And, together with political reform, he preached his favourite doctrine of the necessary renunciation by the clergy of all temporal wealth. Expounded with singular eloquence, these doctrines had a stirring effect on men’s minds, spread throughout the cities of northern Italy, and were echoed on all sides. It seems undoubted that they penetrated to Rome and helped to promote the revolution, so that Arnold was already present in spirit before he arrived there in person. It is known that at the Lateran council of 1139 Innocent II. had declared these doctrines to be inimical to the church and enjoined silence on their author. And, as at that time the party hostile to liberty was triumphant in Brescia, Arnold left his native place, crossed the Alps and returned to France, where other struggles awaited him. He professed no anti-Catholic dogmas,—only maintaining that when the pope and the prelacy deviated from the gospel rule of poverty they should not be obeyed, but fearlessly opposed. In France, finding his master, Abelard, exposed to the persecutions of St Bernard, he assumed his defence with so much ardour that St Bernard directed the thunders of his eloquence against the disciple as well as the master, saying of the former, “He neither eats nor drinks, suffers hunger, and, being leagued with the devil, only thirsts for the blood of souls.” In 1142 we find Arnold a wanderer in Switzerland, and then, suddenly reappearing in Italy, he arrived in Rome.
Three different elements entered into his nature and inspired his eloquence—an exalted and mystic temperament, a great and candid admiration for classic antiquity added to an equal admiration for republican freedom independent of the church
