But these great divisions do not represent effective centres of authority. Under the Saxon kings the German monarchy was reasonably strong. But even they were compelled to assert their authority especially on the borders of Germany, and in Italy, where they had but the shadow of power save when they visited it at the head of an army. Real power was localized, and indi vidual nobles, lay or spiritual established themselves as the effec tive rulers of a district, paying a respect to central authority that varied with circumstances. Rome itself fell into the hands of the nobles whose large estates outside Rome gave them pre-eminence within. Feudalism was beginning, and feudalism is roughly a system which identifies ownership of land with rule over it. The Pope therefore was often but the creature of the most powerful noble. This break-up of society, and destruction of effective central power resulted in loss of civilisation, in a constant appeal to immediate force, in ineffective law, and in an alarming moral decadence.
The trouble was aggravated by the activities of the Scandi navian pirates who from the 9th to the 11th centuries were an almost annual source of disturbance.
We must realize that nevertheless the Church remained the most vigorous influence for civilisation in Western Europe. It was this that enabled her later to establish so strong a power. Churchmen were often as bad as their lay fellow-Christians, and therefore more reprehensible. But the actual machinery of gov ernment in the Church preserved better than any other institution the traditions of unity and of central authority. Moreover it was Christian teaching that gave rise to all efforts at reform. Some times it led to what may seem to us excessive asceticism, but this was at least better than the excessive self-indulgence prevalent, and was perhaps a necessary counter-balance. Monasticism which had developed steadily since its re-organization by St. Benedict in the 6th century, afforded a shelter to those anxious to live in peace. At frequent intervals mainly from the monasteries, reforms were started which became very influential. The greatest of these movements was that of Cluny, founded in the ioth century. This movement owing to the influence of one of the Cluniac abbots, S. Odo, affected a temporary reform at Rome itself. But there were other revivals. In Germany the influence of S. Bruno of Cologne and the ability of the Saxon emperors led to a reform, ultimately of great importance. The Normans, the Scandinavians, the Slays were all converted during this period. Finally especially in the 9th century certain great popes preserved the splendid traditions of the papacy. The most notable was St. Nicholas (858 867). As even lesser popes did not neglect their work the recol lection of these great periods helped to keep for the papacy a dignity that its actual subservience to the nobles might have lost.
It remained the central authority of Europe, and the hope of all who were working for reform.
Meanwhile the breach between East and West had grown wider. The ambitions of Photius led to a temporary schism, and though this was healed, there remained an ever-growing difference in out look and in interests. This caused the papacy to concentrate on the West, and led the Western peoples gradually to identify them selves with the Church, and later facilitated the creation of the papal monarchy.
In spite however of the good work undoubtedly done by the Church the general tone even of churchmen was low. Immorality was rife even in monasteries; the clergy were often amazingly ignorant ; such learning as there was consisted too much in the slavish retention of past thought; law was almost non-existent effectively; and peace was almost entirely dependent upon the direct use of force. The Church was riddled with pluralism, simony and nepotism; clerical celibacy was an almost forgotten ideal ; many of the higher clergy were merely rough warriors or ambitious schemers, the creatures of their lay backers. In such circumstances civilisation, culture and peaceful industry were almost impossible. The crowning evil was that the very class that should have raised the moral standards by their teaching and example was so entirely under lay control, that little could be expected of it. The separatism of political power, and the use of direct force made lay rulers all important in the choice of eccle siastical authorities. Until this power was broken, no reform could attain success. Once lay support was withdrawn reformers became powerless. We see this at Rome where Alberic's death led to the cessation of Cluniac influence, and in England where St. Dunstan, so influential under Edgar, became so powerless under Ethelred that he had to bribe that king to refrain from ar bitrary violence against the see of Rochester.
This was the state of affairs when there arrived in Rome the men who were to end it. The papacy under Benedict IX. had reached its lowest degradation. Germany was then ruled by a good and capable king, Henry III. He invaded Italy to assert his Imperial authority, and to end the scandals in the papacy. By high-handed action he ousted all claimants and began to appoint German Popes. This effort of 1046 like earlier ones would have failed, had it continued to depend upon Imperial support. But the third German pope was St. Leo IX. He was a man of remarkable ability, who, helped by the young monk Hildebrand, began the formation of a party of reform in Rome itself. This party, subse quently led by Hildebrand, was able to free the papacy from dependence upon any individual power, and by full use of its spiritual authority, to enable it to assert its active control over Europe so effectively that it began the great revival of the izth century.