practice of evangelical perfection? To reduce this to a working theory. Arnold ventured to formulate the following propositions: "Clerics who own prop- erty, bishops who hold regalia [tenures by royal grant], and monks who have possessions cannot pos- sibly be saved. All tliese things belong to the [tem- poral] prince, who cannot dispose of them except in favour of laymen. "
Tlie welcome given such teachings by the higher clergy may readily be inferred. Brescia passed through an alarming crisis, the various phases of which, owing to the brevity and obscurity of the documents at our disposal, can be but vaguely traced. From the testimony of various authors, however. Otto of Freisingen, St. Bernard, and John of Salisbury (supposed autlior of the "Historia Pon- tificalis"), the following facts are ascertained: a jour- ney made by Bishop Manfred to Rome about 1138; an insurrection during his absence; the attempt of Arnold to prevent him on his return from taking possession of his see or temporal power; the appeal of the rebellious provost and his condemnation by Innocent II. at the Lateran Council, in 1139. Silence and exile were the penalties imposed on Arnold, and he was forbidden to return to Brescia without the express permission of the sovereign pontiff. The following year (1140) we find Arnold at Sens at the side of Abel.ard, who was about to make his last struggle against the champions of orthodoxy. St. Bernard awaited steadfastly both combatants, whose attack was turned to utter rout. In the words of the Abbot of Clairvaux, the "squire" was involved in the downfall of the "knight". The sentence passed upon Abelard by the council was confirmed by Innocent II. Arnold fared no better, for both were condemned to perpetual confinement in sep- arate monasteries (Bull of 16 July, 1140). This de- cree, however, was never put into execution. While Abelard took refuge with Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, ArnoKl feigned retirement to Mont Sainte- Genevieve at Paris, where, however, he opened pub- lic courses of moral theology. He had but few disciples, and these, according to Jolm of Sali.sbury, were so needy that they had to beg their daily bread. For that matter, however, this state of affairs ac- corded very well with the teachings of the new pro- fessor, who sharply censured the luxury of bishops and the worldly possessions of monks, and stigmatized wealth as the real virus that was infecting the Church. Arnold's attacks did not stop here. He was con- stantly haunted by the memory of his condemna- tion, and pursued unscrupulou.sly with his taunts the detractors of Abelard. Thus he described the Abbot of Clairvaux as a man " puffed up with vain- glory, and jealous of all those who have won fame in letters or religion, if they are not of his school". Thus boldly challenged, Bernard took up the gaunt- let and denounced Arnold to Louis VII as "the in- corrigible schismatic, the sower of discord, the dis- turber of the peace, the destroyer of unity", and brought it about that the "Most Christian King drove from the kingdom of France" him whom Italy had already exiled.
.Arnold, compelled to flee, took refuge in Switzer- land and fixed his abode at Zurich in the diocese of Constance. The Abbot of Clairvaux continued active in pursuit, and some time afterwards (1143) we find the exile in Bohemia begging protection from a papal legate named Guy. This prelate — who must not be confounilcd with his namesake, dis- ciple of Abelard, and later pope — received him with kindness and, touched by his misfortunes, treated him with great friendliness. This attitutle vexed St. Bernard, who addressed to the legate a dis- course on prudence, which, however, remained un- heeded by Guy. There is every rca.son to believe that Arnold had given liis host pledges of sincere
submission, for this fact alone would explain liis re- turn to Italy, thenceforth open to him. This, too, explains the solemn abjuration which he made at Viterbo, before Pope Eugenius III, in 1 145. The pon- tiff, on reconciling him with the Church, had im- posed a fonn of penance then customary: fasts, vig- ils, and pilgrimages to the principal shrines of Rome. Unfortimately, in the air which .\rnold was about to breathe there were floating the germs of revolt. Rome was endeavouring to re-establish her Senate to the detriment of the temporal power of the popes. A movement so thoroughly in keeping with the ear- lier thoughts and the secret desires of the repentant innovator could not but secure his sympathy and e\'en his outspoken support. It was soon discovered that he was vilifying the clergy and disseminating from the Capitol his plans for ecclesiastical reform. The Curia became the chief object of his attacks; he depicted the cardinals as vile hypocrites and misers playing among Christians the role of Jews and Pharisees. He did not even spare the pope. Eugenius III, whose gentle moderation this terrible reformer had but recently acknowledged, was sud- denly transformed into the executioner )f the Church, more concerned " with pampering his own body, and filling his own purse than with imitating the zeal of the Apostles whose place he filled ". In particular, Arnold reproached the pope for reljang on physical force, and for "defending with homicide" his rights when contested. Eugenius III was forced to leave the Eternal City, and for some time (1146-49) Ro- man democracy triumphed under Arnold of Brescia. Though excommunicated by the pope (15 July, 114S), Arnold did not despair of his position. By degrees, however, his revolutionary programme took on another character. The abolition of the tem- poral power of the papacy was now only the first of his demands; the second contemplated the sub- ordination of the spiritual to the civil power. Wet- zel, one of his disciples, presumed to offer to King Conrad III the keys of the Castle of Sant' Angelo, so that the German emperors might have the future disposal of the tiara and the government of Rome. Arnold's policy, at first republican, thus ended in downright imperialism. Frederick Barbarossa, how- ever, Conrad's successor, refused to support the schemes of the Roman agitators. With much clev- erness and tact, Eugenius III won over the emperor to the cause of the papacy. Arnold was thus ren- dered helpless. The senatorial elections of Novem- ber, 1152, had turned against him, and marked the beginning of his fall.
Little is known of Arnold during the brief reign of Anastasius IV (July, 115.3-December, 1154), but the election of Adrian IV was fatal to his cause. He had fallen into the hands of Odo, Cardinal-Deacon of St. Nicholas in carccre Tultiano, but was freed by the Viscounts of Campagnatico, and found for some years a safe refuge in their territory. They "looked on him as a prophet" inspired by God. However, as in an agreement between .\drian and Frederick Barbarossa, the pope obtained the em- peror's promise that he would seize the person of Arnold and remove him, willing or unwilling, from the custody of the Viscounts of Campagnatico. Fred- erick did not hesitate to make and keep this prom- ise, and accordingly .Arnold was handed over to the Curia. It is quite difficult to give an exact account of the trial of .\rnold. .According to the story recorded by Gerhoh de Reichersperg. he was se- cretly removed from the ecclesiastical prison and put to death by the servants of the prefect of Rome, who had suffered great injuries from the revolution fomented by Arnold. It is very probable, however, that the Curia had a larger share in his condemnation. One annalist goes so far as to say that the pope personally ordered him to be hangcti. .Another writer