serving with distinction in the Neapolitan army; on his return to Corsica (q.v.) he was chosen commander-in-chief of the rebel forces, and after a series of successful actions he drove the Genoese from the whole island except a few coast towns. He then set to work to reorganize the government, introducing many useful reforms, and he founded a university at Corte. In 1767 he wrested the island of Capraia from the Genoese, who, despairing of ever being able to subjugate Corsica, again sold their rights over it to France. For two years Paoli fought desperately against the new invaders, until in 1769 he was defeated by vastly superior forces under Count de Vaux, and obliged to take refuge in England. In 1789 he went to Paris with the permission of the constituent assembly, and was afterwards sent back to Corsica with the rank of lieutenant-general. Disgusted with the excesses of the revolutionary government and having been accused of treason by the Convention, he summoned a consulta, or assembly, at Corte in 1793, with himself as president and formally seceded from France. He then offered the suzerainty of the island to the British government, but finding no support in that quarter, he was forced to go into exile once more, and Corsica became a French department. He retired to London in 1796, when he obtained a pension; he died on the 5th of February 1807.
See Boswell’s Life of Johnson, and his Account of Corsica and Memoirs of P. Paoli (1768); N. Tommaseo, “Lettere di Pasqualo de Paoli” (in Archivio storico italiano, 1st series, vol. xi.), and Della Corsica, &c. (ibid., nuova serie, vol. xi., parte ii.); Pompei, De L’état de la Corse (Paris, 1821); Giovanni Livi, “Lettere inedite di Pasquale Paoli” (in Arch. stor. ital., 5th series, vols. v. and vi.); Bartoli, Historia di Pascal Paoli (Bastia, 1891); Lencisa, P. Paoli e la guerra d’indipendenza della Corsica (Milano, 1890); and Comte de Buttafuoco, Fragments pour servir à l’histoire de la Corse de 1764 à 1769 (Bastia, 1859).
PAPACY[1] (a term formed on the analogy of “abbacy” from Lat. papa, pope; cf. Fr. papauté on the analogy of royauté. Florence of Worcester, A.D. 1044, quoted by Du Cange s.v. Papa, has the Latin form papatia; the New Eng. Dict. quotes Gower, Conf. i. 258, as the earliest instance of the word Papacie), the name most commonly applied to the office and position of the
bishop or pope of Rome, in respect both of the ecclesiastical and
temporal authority claimed by him, i.e. as successor of St Peter
and Vicar of Christ, over the Catholic Church, and as sovereign of
the former papal states. (See Pope and Roman Catholic Church.)
I.—From the Origins to 1087.
The Christian community at Rome, founded, apparently, in the time of the emperor Claudius (41–54), at once assumed great importance, as is clearly attested by the Epistle to the Romans (58). It received later the visit of Paul while a prisoner, and, according to a tradition which is now but little disputed, that of the apostle Peter. The Primitive Roman Church. Peter died there, in 64, without doubt, among the Christians whom Nero had put to death as guilty of the burning of Rome. Paul’s career was also terminated at Rome by martyrdom. Other places had been honoured by the presence and preaching of these great leaders of new-born Christianity; but it is at Rome that they had borne witness to the Gospel by the shedding of their blood; there they were buried, and their tombs were known and honoured. These facts rendered the Roman Church in the highest degree sacred. About the time that Peter and Paul died in Rome the primitive centre of Christianity—that is to say, Jerusalem—was disappearing amidst the disaster of the war of the Roman Empire with the Jews. Moreover, the Church of Jerusalem, narrowed by Jewish Christian particularism, was hardly qualified to remain the metropolis of Christianity, which was gradually gaining ground in the Graeco-Roman world. The true centre of this world was the capital of the Empire; the transference was consequently accepted as natural at an early date. The idea that the Roman Church is at the head of the other Churches, and has towards them certain duties consequent on this position, is expressed in various ways, with more or less clearness, in writings such as those of Clemens Romanus, Ignatius of Antioch and Hermas. In the 2nd century all Christendom flocked to Rome; there was a constant stream of people—bishops from distant parts, apologists or heresiarchs. All that was done or taught in Rome was immediately echoed through all the other Churches; Irenaeus and Tertullian constantly lay stress upon the tradition of the Roman Church, which in those very early days was almost without rivals, save in Asia, where there were a number of flourishing Churches, also apostolic in origin, forming a compact group and conscious of their dignity. The great reception given to Polycarp on his visit to Rome in A.D. 155 and the attitude of St Irenaeus show that on the whole the traditions of Rome and of Asia harmonized quite well. They came into conflict, however (c. A.D. 190), on the question of the celebration of the festival of Easter. The bishop of Rome, Victor, desired his colleagues in the various parts of the Empire to form themselves into councils to inquire into this matter. Early Authority of the Roman Bishops. The invitation was accepted by all; and, the consultation resulting in favour of the Roman usage, Victor thought fit to exclude the recalcitrant Churches of Asia from the Catholic communion. His conduct in this dispute, though its severity may have been open to criticism,[2] indicates a very definite conception on his part of his authority over the universal Church. In the 3rd century the same position was maintained, and the heads of the Roman Church continued to speak with the greatest authority. We find cases of their intervention in the ecclesiastical affairs of Alexandria, of the East, of Africa, Gaul and Spain. Though the manner in which they wielded their authority sometimes meets with criticism (Irenaeus, Cyprian, Firmilianus), the principle of it is never questioned. However, as time went on, certain Churches became powerful centres of Christianity, and even when they did not come into conflict with her, their very existence tended to diminish the prestige of the Roman Church.
After the period of the persecutions had passed by, the
great ecclesiastical capitals Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch and
Constantinople, as secondary centres of organization
and administration, drew to themselves and kept in
their hands a share in ecclesiastical affairs. It was
only under quite exceptional circumstances that any
Centrifugal Forces in
the Catholic Church.
need was felt for oecumenical decisions. Further, the direction
of affairs, both ordinary and extraordinary, tended to pass from
the bishops to the state, which was now Christianized. The
Eastern Church had soon de facto as its head the Eastern emperors.
Henceforth it receded more and more from the influence of the
Roman Church, and this centrifugal movement was greatly
helped by the fact that the Roman Church, having ceased to
know the Greek language, found herself practically excluded
from the world of Greek Christianity.
In the West also centrifugal forces made themselves felt. After Cyprian the African episcopate, in proportion as it perfected its organization, seemed to feel less and less the need for close relations with the apostolic see. In the 4th century the Donatist party was in open schism; the orthodox party had the upper hand in the time of Aurelius and Augustine; the regular meeting of the councils further increased the corporate cohesion of the African Episcopal body. From them sprang a code of ecclesiastical laws and a whole judicial organization. With this organization, under the popes Zosimus, Boniface and Celestine the Roman Church came into conflict on somewhat trivial grounds, and was, on the whole, being worsted in the struggle, when the Vandal invasion of Africa took place, and for nearly a century to come the Catholic communities were subjected to very hard treatment. The revival which took place under Byzantine rule (6th and 7th centuries) was of little importance;
- ↑ This article is a general history in outline of the papacy itself. Special periods, or aspects are dealt with in fuller detail elsewhere, e.g. in the biographical notices of the various popes, or in such articles as Church History; Roman Catholic Church; Investitures; Canon Law; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Ultramontanism; or the articles on the various ecclesiastical councils.
- ↑ Victor’s conduct in this matter was not approved by a number of bishops (including Irenaeus), who protested against it (ἀντιπαρακελεύονται) in the interests of peace and Christian love (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. v. 24).—[Ed.]
