POPE
271
POPE
lege of aged bishops [sacerdolum], and of good men"
(Ep. Iv ad Anton., n. 8). And a precisely similar
ground is alleged by the Roman priests in their letter
to Emperor Honorius regarding the validity of the
election of Boniface I (A. D. 418; P. L., XX, 750).
Pre\-ious to the fall of the Western Empire interference
by the civil power seems to have been inconsiderable.
Constantius, it is true, endeavoured to set up an
antipope, Fehx II (35.5), but the act was universally
regarded as heretical. Honorius on the occasion of
the contested election of 418 decreed that, when the
election was dubious, neither party should hold the
papacy, but that a new election should take place.
This method was appUed at the elections of Conon
(686) and Sergius I (687). The law is found in the
Church's code (c. 8, d. LXXIX), though Gratian de-
clares it void of force as having emanated from civil
and not ecclesiastical authority (d. XCAT, proem.; d.
XCVH, proem.). After the barbarian conquest of
Italy, the Church's rights were less carefully obseri-ed.
Basilius, the prefect of Odoacer, claimed the right of
supervising the election of 483 in the name of his
master, alleging that Pope SimpUcius had himself
requested him to do so (Hard., II, 977). The dis-
turbances which occurred at the disputed election of
Symmachus (498) led that pope to hold a council and
to decree the severest penalties on all who should be
guilty of canvassing or bribers' in order to attain the
pontificate. It was moreover decided that the ma-
jority of votes should decide the election. Theodorio
the Ostrogoth, who at this period ruled Italy, became
in his later years a persecutor of the Church. He even
went so far as to appoint Felix III (l\) in 526 as the
successor of Pope John I, whose death was due to the
incarceration to which the king had condemned him.
Felix, however, was personally worthy of the office,
and the appointment was confirmed by a subsequent
election. The precedent of interference set by
Theodoric was fruitful of e\i\ to the Church. After
the destruction of the Gothic monarchy (537), the
Byzantine emperors went even farther than the
heretical Ostrogoth in encroaching on ecclesiastical
rights. Vigilius (540) and Pelagius I (553) were
forced on the Church at imperial dictation. In the
case of the latter there seems to have been no election:
his title was validated solely through his recognition
as bishop by clergv' and people. The formalities of
election at this time were as follows (Lib. Diumus
Rom. Pont., ii, in P. L., CV, 27). .\fter the pope's
death, the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the primi-
cerius of the notaries sent an official notification to
the exarch at Ravenna. On the third day after the
decease the new pope was elected, being invariably
chosen from among the presbviiers or deacons of the
Roman Church (cf. op. cit., ii, titt. 2, 3, 5), and an
embassy was despatched to Constantinople to request
the official confirmation of the election. Xot until
this had been received did the consecration take place.
The Church acquired greater freedom after the Lom-
bard invasion of 568 had destroj-ed the prestige of
Byzantine power in Italy. Pelagius II (578) and
Gregorj' I (590) were the spontaneous choice of the
electors. And in 684, owing to the long delays in-
volved in the journey to Constantinople, Constantine
IV (Pogonatus) acceded to Benedict II's request that
in future it should not he necessarv' to wait for con-
firmation, but that a mere notification of the election
would suffice. The loss of the exarchate and the
iconoclastic heresy of the Byzantine court completed
the severance between Rome and the Eastern Empire,
and Pope Zacharias (741) dispensed altogether with
the customarv- notice to Con.stantinople.
In 769 a council was held under Stephen III to rectify the confusion caused by the intrusion of the antipope Constantine. This usurper was a lajTnan hurriedly raised to priest's orders to render his nomi- nation to the pontificate possible. To make a repeti-
tion of the scandal impossible it was decreed that only
members of the sacred college were eligible for elec-
tion. The part of the laity was, moreover, reduced
to a mere right of acclamation. Under Charlemagne
and Louis the Pious the Church retained her freedom.
Lothair, however, claimed more ample rights for the
civil power. In 824 he exacted an oath from the
Romans that none should be consecrated pope with-
out the permission and the presence of his ambas-
sadors. This was, in fact, done at most of the
elections during the ninth centurv*, and in 898 the
riots which ensued upon the death of Pope Stephen V
led John IX to give ecclesiastical sanction to this
system of imperial control. In a council held at
Rome in that year he decreed that the election should
be made by bishops (cardinal) and clergj-, regard
being had to the wishes of the people, but that no con-
secration should take place except in the presence of
the imperial legate (Mansi, XVIII, 225).
The due formahties at least of election appear to have been obser\-ed through the wild disorders which followed the collapse of the Carlovingian Empire: and the same is true as regards the times of Otto the Great and his son. Under the restored empire, however, the electors enjoyed no freedom of choice. Otto I even compelled the Romans to swear that they would never elect or ordain a pope without his or his son's consent (963; cf. Liutprand, "Hist. Ott.", viii). In 1046 the scandals of the preceding elections, in which the supreme pontificate had become a prize for rival factions entirely regardless of what means they em- ployed, led clergj- and people to leave the nomination to Henrv' III. Three popes were chosen in this man- ner. But Leo IX insisted that the Church was free in the choice of her pastors, and, until he was duly elected at Rome, declined to assume any of the state of his office. The party of reform, of which Hilde- brand was the moving spirit, were eager for some measure which should restore an independent choice to the Church. This was carried out by Nicholas II. In 1059 he held a council in the Lateran and issued the Decree "In Nomine". This document is found in two recensions, a papal and an imperial, both of early date. There is however little doubt that the papal recension embodied in the "Decretum Gra- tiani" (c. 1. d. XXIII) is genuine, and that the other was altered in the interest of the antipope Guibert (1080; Hefele, "Conciliengesch.", IV, 800, 899). The right of election is confined to the cardinals, the effective choice being placed in the hands of the cardinal bishops: clergj* and people have a right of acclamation only. The right of confirmation is granted to the Emperor Henrv- 1\ and to such of his successors as should personally request and receive the privilege. The pope need not necessarily be taken from the number of cardinals, though this should be the case if possible.
This decree formed the basis of the present legis- lation on the papal election, though the system under- went considerable development. The first important modification was the Constitution "Licet de \'itanda" [c. vi, X, "De elect." (I, 6)] of Alexander III, the first of the decrees passed by the Third Ecumenical Council of the Lateran (1179). To prevent the evils of a disputed election it was established by this law that no one should be held duly elected until two- thirds of the cardinals should have given their votes for him. In this decree no distinction is made be- tween the rights of the cardinal bishops and those of the rest of the Sacred College. The imperial privilege of confirming the election had already become obso- lete owing to the breach between the Church and the Empire under Henrv- IV and Frederick I. Between the death of Clement IV (126S) and the coronation of Gregor\- X (1272) an interregnum of nearly three years intervened. To prevent a repetition of so great a misfortune the pope in the Council of Lyons (1179)
