public affairs, the great Pope Innocent III. was at the height of his power. He was a man of splendid political genius, who used his authority for righteousness in almost every country in Europe, as we know he had occasion to use it in England. Certainly Innocent III., in the exercise of his authority, was helped by the character of the princes with whom he had to deal. In England, John was one of the worst of kings. When he found things going against him, he made his submission to the papal See, resigning the whole kingdom into the hands of the Pope, and receiving it back again as a papal fief. To us that seems an extraordinary arrangement to have made, but it was not so very extraordinary to the men of those times. It is curious to note that though subsequent historians speak of it as a shameless act, there is no contemporary historian who speaks of it as shameless at all. It was in fact the recognition of a claim which fitted in very well with the political conceptions of the time. The only conceptions of authority which then prevailed were conceptions drawn from the feudal system. It was considered that everybody must have a superior over him. The villain had his lord, the lord had his over-lord, the over-lord had the king over him. Every one was bound together in a graduated hierarchy of rank. But when the king was reached, there arose the question, who was lord over him? The only answer that could be given was that the king depended upon the Pope. So that all that happened in the case of John was that this theory was carried into practice, and the definite act did not at the time call forth very much criticism. On John's
