¹⁵⁵ Fleury Hist eccles. 1. 62. a 9. ¹⁵⁶ Greg. Epist 1. 1, 26, 26, 62, 67.—Fleury, 1. 62. n. 9. “Imitate, says he to them, the Roman Church your mother; sepa− “rate yourselves from the service and communion of “Philip, if he remain obstinate; let the celebration of “the holy offices be interdicted throughout all France; “and know that, by God’s assistance, we shall deliver “this kingdom from such an oppressor.” But of all the sovereigns of Europe, the emperor Henry IV. who had the principal influence in Italian affairs, was, on this account, the most exposed to the thunderbolts of Hildebrand.¹⁵⁷ ¹⁵⁷ Greg. Epist. 1. 2. ep. 6.—Fleury 1. 62. n. 16. Against so many potentates, and especially against Henry IV. Gregory had no other support, no other ally, than an Italian princess, with little talent, but much devotion, this was Matilda, countess of Tuscany. She possessed for him a generous and tender friendship; he addressed to her also, as a spiritual director, extremely affectionate letters; she lived unhappily with Godfrey-le-Bossu, her first husband: from this circumstance, and others, rash inductions have been drawn not supported by any positive fact.¹⁵⁸ It is not the tender passions we can reproach Hildebrand with; and the ascertained consequences of the connexion with Matilda, belong only to the history of the pontifical ambition. This princess gave all her possessions to the Holy See, and three distinct monuments have been cited of this famous liberality. The first act, subscribed by her in 1077, has not been found. The second, which she signed twenty-five years later, when Hildebrand no longer lived, is preserved at Rome;¹⁵⁹ and a will is also spoken of, which is not forthcoming, but which they say, confirms the two preceding donations. There exist indeed some difficulties, respecting these three acts: why has the first been allowed to go astray? wherefore do historians say, it was signed at Canossa, while it is referred to in the second, as having been subscribed at Rome? And this second deed itself, which so completely divests the giver, which reserves to her only some life enjoyments, how reconcile it with the extensive domains with which she continued to enrich monks and canons, from the year 1102, to 1115? Why not publish her will, which had, perhaps, explained these apparent contradictions? To all these questions we shall reply, that the act of 1102 subsists; that it expressly renews that of 1077; and that of all the donations of which the Holy See hath availed itself, that of Matilda is undoubtedly the best authenticated as well as the richest.