Baring-Gould’s sources: At Einsiedeln and in the diocese of Coire as a double. Authority A life written by Albert Breinstaten, dean of Einsiedeln, in 1404, from traditions and lost historical notices; also the lessons in the Coire Breviary.] Near Mittemacht, three hours walk from Bludenz, in the Walserthal, in Tyrol, lies the scattered village of S. Gerold, with an old church and a convent, called the Probstei, belonging to the abbey of Einsiedeln. In the nave is the tomb of S. Gerold and his two sons, Kuno and Ulrich, an object of devout pilgrimage. S. Gerold, of the ducal house of Saxony, lived here among the mountains of the Vorarlberg, as a hermit, towards the close of the 10th century. Count Otto of Jagdberg gave him the wild uninhabited mountain side, and this he presented to the abbey of Einsiedeln before his death. His two sons, Benedictines of Einsiedeln, with the consent of their abbot, retired after the death of their father into his cell, and, dying there in the odour of sanctity, were laid in the same grave with him. After a while the dense pine-forests were cleared, and made way for green meadows, peasants settled and built their chalets near the grave; and from that time to the present day, two priests from Ensiedeln have watched by the holy grave, and ministered to the spiritual wants of those who dwell around.

April x?.] S. Alphege. a ALPHEGE, ARCHE M. [Sarum Breviary, Roman Martyrology; Modern Anglican Kalendar. Authority His life written by Osbern, monk of Canterbury, by order of archbishop Lan franc, A.D. 1070; and the Saxon Chronicle, and Dietmar of Merseburg. 1 ] S. Alphege, or properly ASlfheagh, was born of a noble family in Britain, about the year 954. While he was still very young he renounced the world; and, notwithstanding the tears and entreaties of his mother, retired into the monastery of Dersherste, in Gloucestershire, where he served God with great devotion, and in warfare against his passions for many years. After a time he became abbot of a religious house at Bath. On the death of Ethelwold, bishop of Winchester, in 984, S. Dunstan, who was then primate [the leading bishop of a country] of England, called S. Alphege to the vacant dignity; and after governing the see of Winchester [a bishop’s “see” is his diocese, named from his seat (Latin sedes)] for twenty-two years, he was translated to that of Canterbury on the death of archbishop ^Elfric, in 1006, being then fifty-five years of age. But in the mean time he had rendered one piece of important service to his country. In 994, Anlaf — as the Saxon Chronicle calls him — that is, Olaf Tryggveson, king of Norway, attacked London, when the citizens bravely beat him off, and then he ravaged the south coast of England, and wintered at Southampton. King Ethelred sent S. Alphege and the alderman Ethel1 The account In the Saxon Chronicle Is perfectly trustworthy. Osbern Is fond of marvels, and he says some things which are clearly not true. For instance, he makes Eadric join the Danes [Viking raiders from Scandinavia] and help to take Canterbury, because one of his brothers had been killed by the thanes of Kent. But it is worth noticing that a great part of Osbern’s account appears also in Florence of Worcester; either Florence copied so much of Osbern as agreed with the Chronicle, or else both Florence and Osborne copied from somebody else. Dietmar, bishop of Merseburg^ a German historian who lived at the time, says he had his account from a man who had just come from England, but he makes a strange blunder when he calls Alphege, Dunstan.

werd to Olafi to request him to confer with the king; and they brought him to Andover where Ethelred then was. Olaf was a Christian, but was unconfirmed. A treaty of peace was concluded between the two kings at Andover, and Ethelred had Olaf confirmed by S. Alphege, and adopted him as his son. Olaf then promised that he would never invade England again, and he kept his promise faithfully.

But in 1008, a Danish fleet came in two divisions, the first commanded by earl Thorkell, the second by his brothers Heming and Eglaf. From this time till the end of Ethelred’s reign we read of nothing but ravages by the Danes. These lasted till 1013, when king Sweyn came himself. In 10 11, the Danes took Canterbury, which was betrayed to them by Alfmar, the abbot of S. Augustine’s, whose life had once been saved by archbishop Alphege. The Danes are said to have committed every sort of cruelty; and they took many prisoners whom they destined to sell as slaves. The city was plundered, and the cathedral burnt But what made this taking of Canterbury most famous is the martyrdom of archbishop Alphege. This the Saxon Chronicle describes at length as follows: — “The Danes went to their ships and led the archbishop with them.

He was then captive Misery where men oft Who was erewhile Erewhile saw bliss. The head of the English Whence to us first came And of Christendom. Christianity and bliss There might then be seen Before God and the world. In that hapless city And they kept the archbishop with them till the time that they martyred him.

“ 1012. In this year came Edric the Ealdorman, and all the chief Witan, clergy and laity of the English people, to London, before Easter; Easter day was then on the Ides of April, (April 1 3th); and they were there then so long as until all the tribute was paid, that is, eight and forty thousand pounds. Then on the Saturday the Danish army was greatly excited against the bishop, because he would not promise them any money; but he forbade that any money should be given as his ransom. They had also drunk deeply, for wine had been brought there from the south. Then they took the bishop, led him to their hustings on the eve of Sunday, the Octave of Easter; and they pelted him with bones and horns of oxen, and then one of them struck him with an axe-iron on the head, so that he sank down, and his holy blood fell on the earth, and his holy soul he sent forth to God's kingdom. And on the morrow they carried the dead body to London, and bishops Ednoth (of Dorchester), and Elfhun (of London), and the townsmen received it with all reverence, and buried it in S. Paul's minster; and there now God manifested the miraculous powers of the holy martyr.”

Thus it stands in the Saxon Chronicle, as written within eleven years of the martyrdom, before the body of S. Alphege was translated from London to Canterbury. Florence of Worcester says that on Sunday, the 19th, the Danes told S. Alphege that he must obtain three thousand pounds of the king and people as his ransom, or they would kill him next Satuiday. And as he refused to allow this additional burden to be laid on the country in its last distress, to raise the tax demanded of the Danes, they brought him forth and killed him, as it is said in the Chronicle. He adds that the Dane who smote him with the battle axe was one Thrum, whom he had converted and baptized in his prison, and had confirmed only the day before, and that he did it out of pity to put an end to his sufferings. The story, as told by Dietmar, is rather different, and in all probability incorrect The bishop of Merseburg says that Alphege had promised to obtain the money for his ransom, and that he had fixed the time for paying it, but when the time came, he said he had none to pay. But this contradicts the Saxon Chronicle, which is far more likely to be correct, and which distinctly states that Alphege would not promise them any ransom, and this explains why the Danes were so incensed against him. But another statement of Dietmar is probably correct He says that Thorkell, the Danish earl, tried to save him, but that the other Danes would not hearken. This agrees with ThorkelTs conduct afterwards, for he passed into the service of Ethelred. The murder of S. Alphege is said to have taken place at Greenwich, where the church of S. Alphege now stands. As the Saxon Chronicle indicates, the murdered archbishop was looked upon by the English, almost at once, as a martyr. After the Norman Conquest, Lanfranc, the Italian archbishop, said that he was no martyr, because he had not died for the Christian faith; but S. Anselm, who was afterwards archbishop, acknowledged him as a true martyr, for he had died for righteousness and charity; that is, that he chose to die rather than let his people be further oppressed to raise the money to ransom him.

In 1023, Canute the Great was prevailed upon by his pious queen Emma, to make amends for the cruelty and sacrilege which the followers of his father had committed. He removed the body of S. Alphege to Canterbury, where it was laid in a noble tomb, near the high altar, and the cathedral was enriched by many costly gifts of the king and queen.

& LEO IX., POPE. [Roman Martyrology. Authority: — His life written by his archdeacon, Wibert; also the account of his death by an eye-witness, published by the Bollandists [Jesuit scholars who since the 1600s have critically studied the lives of the saints]; also a life written by S. Bruuo, B. of Segni, (d. 1123). and an Itinerary of Leo IX., through France, by Anselm, monk of Rheims. Also a life, by an anonymous writer, written fifty years after the death of S. Leo; and a life by Nicolas, cardinal of Aragon, (d. 136a.) Of these the life by S. Bruno is unimportant, being in the form of a sermon. That by Wibert is very valuable; the account of the death of S. Leo is exaggerated and amplified by a later hand. The life by the Cardinal of Aragon, being late, is of little value. Another important source of information is the contemporary chronicle of Hermann the Cripple.] To understand the greatness and the difficulties that beset S. Leo IX., we must have some knowledge of the condition of the Western Church and of the Papacy in the first half of the nth century.

The counts of Tusculum governed Rome; they were a powerful family, who had resisted the emperor Otho III. in the zenith of his power. The counts bought the venal people of Rome, and appointed popes by the most open simony. The papacy became an apanage of their family; they had almost succeeded, had they not blindly abused their influence, in rendering it hereditary. Three popes in succession from this powerful family became the heads of Christendom. The hereditary papacy in the house of Tusculum, if it had debased the Holy See by men of rapacity and violence, had yet appointed as popes men not wanting in energy and vigour. But at length, as though their object had been to reduce the Chair of S. Peter to the utmost degradation, by their irresistible gold they secured the pontificate for a boy of ten years old, the nephew of his predecessors, Benedict VIII., and John XIX. 1 For twelve years Benedict IX., under the pro1 ** Puer ferine decennis, intercedente thesauronim pecunla, clectus extitit a Romania.’* — Radolfui Glaber, hr. 5.

tection of his powerful kindred, ruled in Rome, in the words of one of his successors, Victor III., leading a life so shameful, so foul, and execrable, that he shuddered to describe it 1 The oppressed people at length grew weary of his robberies, murders, and abominations. They rose in 1044, drove him from the city, and proceeded to the election of Silvester III. But the counts of Tusculum were too powerful for the Romans to resist them thus, and Benedict IX. was brought back in triumph, and Silvester retired excommunicated. But Benedict grew weary of his office, and sold it to the arch-priest John, who assumed the name of Gregory VI. Not only did he pay a large sum to Benedict himself, he confessed the purchase of the suffrages of the people.

But Benedict's brother would not brook the obscuration of the house of Tusculum. He brought back the abdicated pope, and reinstated him on his throne. There were therefore three popes in Rome, each at the head of a faction. Benedict held the Lateran [St. John Lateran, the pope’s cathedral in Rome], Gregory Sta Maria Maggiore, Silvester S. Peter's and the Vatican.

Christendom could not longer endure this state of things. Peter, archdeacon of Rome, commissioned by the monks, a great number of the clergy, and the more devout laity, crossed the Alps, and threw himself at the feet of the emperor, imploring his succour. Henry III. at once advanced to the rescue. At Piacenza, Gregory, supposing his own claims to the papacy irrefragable, ventured to meet him. Henry gave no answer, but advanced to Sutri, about thirty miles north of Rome. There he assembled a council, in which were examined the claims of the conflicting popes. Silvester was condemned at once as an usurper, the voluntary abdication of Benedict annulled his claim. Gregory fondly thought that there was now no obstacle to 1 Victor III., Dialog, lib. ill.

his universal recognition. But he was called upon to give an account of his election. He could not deny, he could not attempt to extenuate, the flagrant simony of those proceedings by which he had bought the papacy, admitted his guilt, his disqualification, stripped off his pontifical robes, and quietly surrendered up the papacy. The only remedy for the evil was the appointment of a foreigner, so as to rescue the chief throne of the Church from the counts of Tusculum and the barons of Rome. Henry III. went with all the prelates and princes to Rome to be there crowned emperor.

But to be crowned he must first have a pope. He looked around, and saw that there was scarcely one in the Roman Church who was not disqualified either as illiterate, or as tainted with simony, 1 or through immorality. Suidger, bishop of Bamberg, was appointed to be pope by the emperor, who led him himself to the papal throne; the people seeming to assent by their acclamations. Suidger took the name of Clement II., and Henry received the imperial crown from the hands of the new pope. Clement II. united with the emperor to abolish simony, and pronounced excommunication against all such as had bought their offices in the Church; he also decreed that all such as had received orders from a simonical bishop should do penance for forty days.

Pope Clement II. died the same year that he was appointed, and the emperor, desirous of acting in accordance with canon law for the good of the Church, consulted the 1 Simony is the sin of buying holy offices in the Church, so called after Simon Magus. On the notoriety of the slmoniacal proceedings at Rome, see S. Peter Damian " Heri Bedes Apostollca Orbis ollm gloria.

Nunc, pro dolor I efficeris OfBcinia Simonls/* Damian, lib. hr. Ep. 9. virtuous bishop Wazo of Lifege, who told him that the deposition of Gregory VI. was informal on account of his interference. But before the opinion reached the emperor, he had already appointed bishop Poppo of Brixen to the Papal throne, which he assumed under the title of Damasus II., and held for only a few days, dying to all appearance, from poison. The emperor then nominated bishop Bruno of TouL 1 This excellent prelate received the nomination with great repugnance. He habited himself as a pilgrim, and walked to Rome, where he assembled the clergy and people, and protested that he was acting solely on compulsion in undertaking the heavy burden of the government of the Church, and that he accepted it only on condition of its being ratified by the clergy and laity of Rome. If they did not feel willing to acknowledge him, he declared that none would be more rejoiced than himself and that with glad heart and relieved mind he would resume his pilgrim’s staff and speed home to his little church of TouL But his election was unanimous, and he was enthroned under the name of Leo IX. His moderation was so great, that he supported himself, and gave to the poor, out of the money he had brought with him, for the Papal exchequer was empty. When he had spent all, he was going to sell his ecclesiastical vestments and return home to Toul, but the news spreading, so many offerings poured in from Beneventum that he was relieved from all anxiety on the subject of his finances. S. Leo had a work demanding the zeal of a saint and the courage of a hero to carry it through. If he hesitated in his course it was not that he doubted for a moment as to what was the crying sin of the Church which had to be extirpated, but as to when and by what means he could 1 He was born In the castle of Egesheim, a league from Colmar, in the year 1009. In the year 1026 be succeeded Herman, bishop of Toul j and Damasus II, as S. Leo IX.

effect his sacred purpose. Among the adherents of the principle of reform there was a division, some going so far in their zeal against the sin of simony, that, as none of the bishops who had obtained their sees by purchase were, in their opinion, true bishops, they declared all ordinations performed by them to be invalid also. The other more prudent party held fast, even here, to the objective validity of the sacramental acts which constituted bishops and priests. Pope Leo was at first inclined to the principles of the former party, at the head of which stood cardinal Humbert, until it was represented to him, that if all such ordinations should be considered null, the churches in Rome would be left without priests, and no mass could be celebrated. 1 But at Vercelli he was once more induced to consider these ordinations as void, and to ordain over again those who had been ordained by simoniacal prelates. It being again represented to him, that such a proceeding was at variance with the principle of the objective validity of the sacraments, he rose up in the council from his papal chair, and begged the assembled bishops to pray to the Lord that he might be forgiven. An instance of the humility of this great and holy man, bent on the cleansing of the vineyard of the Lord. But on his return to Rome, the influence of cardinal Humbert again prevailed, and he continued to re-ordain in the same manner. The general marriage or concubinage of the clergy no less embarrassed the austere reformers. It was determined that the clergy of Rome should no longer live scattered about in private houses, but in colleges, and so be submitted to rigid superintendence. The stem S. Peter Damiani presented a book to the pope, the title of which expressed in the coarsest form the vices widely prevalent among the monks and secular clergy, a book which the 1 S. Pet. Damian. Liber Gratissimus. Opus. vi. s. 35. wiser Alexander II. stole and shut up, but which Leo IX. accepted as an honest exposition of the morals of the times. The energy of the vigorous German pope knew no abatement His pontificate of five years was spent in constant activity. One month after his enthronement, he held a council at Rome on the crying question of simony: and then he went to Pavia, where he assembled another council But the saintly ambition of Leo did not confine his views for the reformation of the Church to Italy. Though now hardly seated firmly in his throne at Rome, he resolved to undertake, as it were, a religious visitation of Western Europe, to show himself in each of the three great kingdoms as the supreme pontiff, and that in all the genuine characteristics of his office, the protector of the oppressed, the redresser of grievances, the corrector of abuses, the judge of offenders.

Leo came forth to Europe, not only with the powbr and dignity, but with the austere holiness, the indefatigable religious activity, the majestic virtue which became the head of Christendom. He crossed the Alps to Germany. He celebrated the feast of Christmas at Cologne, where he was received by the holy archbishop Hermann. S. Leo created a new and high office for the archbishop of Cologne, the arch-chancellorship of the Apostolic See, On the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, S. Leo was at Toul, whence he issued summons to the bishops and abbots of France to assemble in council at Rheims, in October. Those bishops and abbots who dreaded an examination into their way of attaining their offices, complained to the king of France, and Henry sent the bishop of Senlis to request that the council might be held at some future period. The pope peremptorily replied that he had promised to be at Rheims in October to dedicate S. Leo IX.

the new abbey church of S. Remigius [bishop of Reims who baptized Clovis, king of the Franks], and that he would keep his promise and hold the counciL The pope arrived at Rheims on the feast of S. Michael, 1049, accompanied by the archbishops of Treves [Trier in Germany], Lyons, and Besangon, by John, bishop of Porto, and Peter the deacon, prefect of Rome. Three bishops, those of Senlis, Angers and Nevers met him in procession, and at the entrance of the city, he was received by the archbishop and clergy of Rheims, and conducted to the cathedral, where he sang high mass.

On the 1st October S. Leo dedicated the glorious abbey church of S. Remi, one of the noblest monuments of early French architecture; and preserved to our days almost intact On October 3rd, the first session of the council of Rheims was held in this church. It was attended by twenty bishops and fifty abbots: among the latter were two English abbots sent by king Edward the Confessor. Again, foremost on the chapter of agenda came the great question of simony, to combat which the great pope sacrificed himself. The atchbishop of Treves rose first and swore that he had not bought his throne, the archbishops of Lyons and Besan£on followed; the archbishop of Rheims hesitated, and asked a delay before he answered, that he might speak in private with the pope. All the other bishops swore to their innocence, except those of Langres, Nevers, Coutances, and Nantes. Then the abbots were required to take the oath. He of S. Remi did so without hesitation, but he was one among very few. In the second session the archbishop of Rheims again declined to take the oath, and was required to attend a council to be held at Rome the following year. We have not space to enter further into the deliberations of the council. No sooner was it over, than the energetic pope hastened to Mainz, to hold there a council. This council was attended by forty prelates. It confirmed all the acts of the council of Rheims. Sibico, bishop of Spires, was forced to take the sacrament in proof of his guiltlessness of simony. According to the biographer of Leo, Sibico’s cheek was struck with palsy, and he bore for life the brand of his perjury. Leo passed the Christmas in Verona, and thence returned to Rome. In this single spiritual campaign, by the calm dignity of his holiness, by his appeal to the strong religious reverence of Christendom, he restored the papacy to all its former authority over the minds of men. He had justly elevated the pride of Germany in having bestowed such a pope upon the world, crushed the tendencies to rebellion in the churches of France and Spain, and brought them again into acknowledged subordination to the see of S. Peter.

In April, next year, 1050, the council meditated the previous year was held at Rome. In it was condemned the heresy of Berengarius, who denied Transubstandation. In September, S. Leo presided at the council of Vercelli, after which he crossed the Alps and came to Toul. The German popes had introduced a singular kind of plurality. Clement II. had retained the bishopric of Bamberg, and Leo was still bishop of Toul.

The pope again visited some of the great cities of Germany, everywhere making magnificent grants, confirming the rights and possessions of monasteries. He was at Treves and at Augsburg, and on the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin met the emperor. But enemies of the pope had now arisen at the court of the emperor. Leo IX. was too much of a German pontiff for the Italians, not German enough for his countrymen. The Germans, during the reign of the Franconian emperors, had possessed themselves of some of the wealthiest sees in Italy. A German held the see of Ravenna, and under his episcopate Ravenna S. Leo IX.

had begun to reassert her ancient pretensions to independence of Rome. Leo would not endure the encroachments even of a German prelate, raised to his see by the special favour of the emperor. The Italian prelates joined eagerly in the humiliation of the German of Ravenna; Humfred of Ravenna was degraded and excommunicated by the pope and council of VercellL At this act, the brooding jealousy against the pope broke out at the court of Henry into open hostility. Bishop Notger of Friesingen grasping his neck, said, “ May a sword cleave this throat if I work not the ruin of this pope.” The biographer of Leo adds that the bishop was seized with a pain in his neck, and died in a few days. At Augsburg the pope was compelled to submit to the restoration of his haughty antagonist Humfred knelt “According to the depth of thy repentance,” said the pope, “ may God forgive thee thy sins.” The prelate rose, and broke into scornful laughter. Tears filled the eyes of the pope. “Miserable, he is a dead man 1” Humfred returned to Ravenna, fell ill, and in a few days died.

The third journey of Leo IX. beyond the Alps was as mediator between the emperor Henry and Andrew king of Hungary; but his efforts were in vain. Henry coldly declined to accept his mediation, and the pope withdrew. Christmas was celebrated by S. Leo and the emperor, and many of the great prelates of Germany, at Worms. They met not merely to celebrate the birth of the Redeemer with more than usual magnificence, but on secular affairs of great importance.

The anti-papal party at the court of Henry had grown in strength and bitterness of hostility. The pope's most attached friend and most powerful supporter, Bardo, archbishop of Mainz, was dead; and the emperor of his own authority had appointed Liutpold, dean of Bamberg, to the German primacy. The pope, in order to propitiate the new primate, had bestowed some further privileges on the see of Mainz. But Leo, as if he knew the character of Liutpold, when he appointed him papal legate [an official representative sent by the pope] in his diocese, took occasion to remind him of the duties of his function. A trifling incident betrayed the jealousy of the German and Italian Churchmen, the difficult position of the pope, who having favoured the insolent superiority of the Italians, was obliged to humble himself before the sullen obstinacy of the Germans. On S. Stephen's Day, at Worms, Liutpold said mass before the pope. After he had said the first prayer, the deacon chanted a lesson, for it was the custom in some Churches to sing several at the solemn feasts. But as this was not according to the Roman use, some near S. Leo instigated him to send and forbid the deacon to proceed. The deacon flatly refused to obey, and though he received from S. Leo a second injunction to desist, continued to thunder forth the lesson. The pope thereupon had him conducted to his chair, and degraded him from his office. The archbishop of Mainz took fire, and refused to proceed with mass till his deacon was restored to him. The pope refused, whereupon the archbishop sat down, in dogged resistance. The pope yielded. The dalmatic and the stole were replaced on the degraded deacon, and he was sent back to the archbishop, who thereupon resumed the singing of mass.

But this, humiliating as it was, was not the most fatal mark of jealousy displayed by German Churchmen against the unpopular Pontiff At a council at Mantua in 1053, suddenly broken oft, undisguised signs of German hostility manifested themselves. For the servants of some of the bishops having insulted those of the pope who were standing at the entrance to the church in which the council was assembled, the Holy Father was obliged to go forth to | £ Leo IX.

allay the tumult But without respecting his person, the servants of the bishop drove those of S. Leo against the door, and to save their lives they were admitted. Arrows and stones flew about the head of the pope, and some who sheltered themselves under his mantle were wounded. The tumult was quelled with difficulty, and the council was dissolved. On the morrow the guilty bishops, who were the authors of the disturbance, were brought up for examination and sentence, but S. Leo pardoned them, lest it should appear as if he were judging partially. Gebhard, bishop of Eichstadt, who was of great weight in the councils of the emperor, persuaded him to withdraw the troops, which were to march with the pope into Italy, and put him in possession of Benevento, which Leo had obtained in grant from the emperor in lieu of certain rights claimed by the Holy See in Germany. The pope had influence enough to retain in his service five hundred Swabians. With these, and a host of lawless adventurers and mercenaries, who gathered around his standard as he proceeded, S. Leo marched through Italy to appear at the head of his own forces, the first, or almost the first, martial pope, against the terrible Normans.

In 1021, Rudolf, a Norman, with some few followers, half adventurers driven from their native lands, half pilgrims to the shrine of the Apostles, had appeared in Rome. Benedict IX. had enlisted them in his cause, and had garrisoned with them one of his fortresses. But the Normans had speedily asserted their independence, had seized and made themselves sovereigns of many cities, and swept Southern Italy with fire and sword. The deliverance of Southern Italy from these half-Christianized and barbarous freebooters seemed to justify to pope Leo even his warlike preparations. He wrote to the Greek emperor, Constantine Monomachus, to declare the reasons which urged him to undertake this war in person. The Normans, thus wrote Leo to the emperor, that undisciplined race, were ravaging Christian Italy with more than pagan impiety; they spared neither age nor sex, and not merely slew the Christians indiscriminately in promiscuous fray, but put them to death slowly with indescribable tortures. They made no distinction between things sacred and profane; they plundered, burned, razed churches. Princes, according to the apostle, were not to bear the sword in vain; and as a prince, Leo went out to war, not that he desired the death of a single Norman, but his subjects must look to him, as their sovereign, for protection.

In his youthful days, Leo had acquired some fame for military conduct; he had commanded the vassals of the bishopric of Toul in one of the expeditions of the emperor Conrad into Italy. But his conduct in this campaign belied his early fame. The sagacity and forethought formerly ascribed to him, utterly failed, not that he actually took the generalship of his troops in the battle, but all the movements seem to have been under his guidance. He fixed his head-quarters at Civitella, and launched his first blow, the excommunication of the Normans. Then he pushed forward his troops to the banks of the Fertorio, near Dragonata. The German troops were not above five hundred. The terrible Normans mustered three thousand horsemen, who were said to be able to cleave an enemy from the head to the saddle with one blow. They were commanded by the sons of Tancred, Humphrey, Richard of Aversa, and the yet unrenowned Robert Guiscard. Three days the armies watched each other. While the negociations were pending, Leo allowed the Normans to occupy a hill which was the key to his position, and which subsequently lost him the battle. The fourth day the Normans burst down in three squadrons. The Lombards [a Germanic people who ruled much of Italy from 568 to 774], £ Leo IX.

on one wing of Leo's army, the Apulians on the other, fled at once; the Germans were surrounded and cut to pieces to a man. The Normans rushed from the field to seize the pope at Civitella. The humbled pope at once relieved them from their excommunication. The rude soldiers, perhaps from dread, the leaders from that craft in which Normans excelled as much as in valour, cast themselves down before the pope, entreated his pardon, and professed penitence. Count Humfrey, the gentlest of the sons of Tancred, became the gaoler of the pope, and conducted him with all respect to Benevento, where he remained, a prisoner, for some months, from the 23rd June, 1053, to Heart-broken at the failure of all his schemes, conscious that he had incurred the rebuke of S. Peter Damiani and many of the strictest of the reforming party, in becoming the leader of an army; knowing that he was absolutely in the power of his enemies, the Normans, S. Leo betook himself to the severest acts of penitential austerity. He wore nothing but sackcloth; he slept on a carpet, with a stone for his pillow, the few hours which he allowed for sleep. Every day he said mass, almost all the rest of the day and night were passed in prayer, and the recital of the psalter. Whilst S. Leo was a prisoner to the Normans, he received a letter from Peter, the new patriarch [the title of the bishops of the great ancient sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem] of Antioch, announcing his promotion and soliciting intercommunion. The pope replied, praising the patriarch for recognizing the primacy of the Holy See, and exhorting him to sustain the dignity of the see of Antioch against the claims of the see of Constantinople.

About the same time Humbert, cardinal-bishop of S. Rufina, being at Trani, saw a letter from Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Leo, bishop of Achrida and Metropolitan of Bulgaria, to the bishop of Trani, objecting to the use of unleavened bread for the Holy Eucharist There can be no doubt that our Lord used unleavened bread at the institution of the Sacrament, but the Eastern Church, in opposition to the Jews, employed bread that had been leavened. But where there was no Judaising element, as in Western Christendom, it was manifestly right for the Church to recur to the use sanctioned by Christ's example. To this the patriarch objected. Another objection was raised to the eating of things strangled, and also to the omission of Alleluia in Lent [the forty days of fasting before Easter] Cardinal Humbert took this letter to S. Leo; he answered it in a long epistle, and afterwards sent three legates to Constantinople to endeavour to compose the difference. His life was, however, drawing to a close. He was still at Benevento, studying Greek, and in hours of relaxation playing with a parrot, which he had taught to say “ Papa Leo.” But he fell sick in his confine ment, and the Normans, perhaps out of compassion, perhaps lest they should be accused of the death of the pope while in their hands, were willing to release the dying man. On the 12th March he left Benevento, under the escort of the Norman Humfrey. He was obliged to rest twelve days at Capua. He arrived at Rome, but repressed the universal joy by melancholy intimations of his approaching death, too visibly confirmed by his helpless condition. His calm departure reaches sublimity. He ordered his coffin to be carried to S. Peter's; he reposed in a couch by its side. There he gave his last admonitions to the ecclesiastics around, entreating them to abstain from simony; there he received the last sacraments of the Church. He rose with difficulty, and looked into his coffin. “ Behold, my brethren, the mutability of human things. The cell which was my dwelling when a monk expanded into yonder spacious palace; it shrinks again into this narrow coffin.” Next morning he was dead. He died before the altar of S. Peter's. S. Leo IX, S. Leo was a great man, and if he erred in judgment, to have so erred was creditable to his heart Zeal, enthusiasm for truth and righteousness, was the distinguishing feature of his character, and it is impossible to over-rate the advantage to the Church, and to the Holy See, of the brief rule of this admirable pontiff. From him vice and irreligion met with the sternest opposition. Had he been less earnest in his advocacy of reformation, he would not have incurred the hostility of the German prelates, the emperor would not, by their advice, have withdrawn his troops from the support of Leo, and perhaps the war would have taken a different turn, and the Norman conquest of Southern Italy would have been prevented. It was his sympathy with the sufferers through the incursions of the Normans which excited the pope to draw the sword against those ferocious marauders. To him the people turned in their despair, and to no one else could they look. Yet by the men of the more strict party, who were earnest for the restoration of Church discipline, and with whom he had hitherto worked cordially, his conduct was disapproved. 1 They would have preferred to have seen him sit meekly in a comer of the Vatican, immersed in meditation, whilst houses were burning, rich farm-lands devastated, and virgins violated. of God Indeed, but not perhaps according to knowledge. Would that he had not gone himself, bat had sent, Instead, his army for the defence of the right.'* Hermann the Cripple says that the defeat of Civltella was a judgment of God, either because the pope ought to hare warred only with spiritual weapons, or because his army was made np of such licentious adventurers. But the sternest rebuke came from his friend S. Peter Damiani, who remained firm in maintaining that the priest ought in no case to contend with the sword, not even in defence of the Church, much lass in defence of the property and rights of the Church 1 and he even classes Leo’s warfare with such crimes as the adultery of David and the denial of S. Peter. Damiani, Epist. iv. 9. And even in the Christian consciousness of many a layman the disadvantageous impression which this expedition of his made, seems to have raised objections against paying him the honours of a saint. Bruno of Segni relates that when, after Leo's death, it was reported that persons possessed of evil spirits were healed at his tomb, a certain woman exclaimed, “ Pope Leo, who caused so many men to shed their blood, drive away evil spirits I When Leo can do this, I will restore to life those whom he killed by his Impiety.”