Durham E-Theses
What was the Investiture Controversy a controversy
about?
Knight, Emma
How to cite:
Knight, Emma (2005)
What was the Investiture Controversy a controversy about?,
Durham theses, Durham
University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2764/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
•
a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
• the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP
e-mail: e-theses.admin@dur.ac.uk Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk
What was the Investiture Controversy a
Controversy About?
A copyright of this thesis rests
with the author. No quotation
ғ.ттүไЯ ไՀ^Tาio•Ьł•
ᄂᄂrsjugiu
it should be published
without his prior written consent
and information derived from it
should be acknowledged.
ք*՛*՛™
M A by Research
University of D u r h a m
Department of Politics
2005
I 7 纖 200B
Abstract
What was the Investiture Controversy a Controversy About?
T h e Ш У Є З І І Ш Г Є C o n t r o v e r s y b e t w e e n P o p e G r e g o r y vn
H e n r y rv
and
Emperor
o f G e r m a n y presents us w i t h a w i d e v a r i e t y o f issues t h a t are
n o t i m m e d i a t e l y d i s c e r n a b l e a t first s i g h t .
It is n o t s i m p l y a b o u t t h e g i f t
o f i n v e s t i t u r e s b y l a y p e r s o n s w i t h w h i c h i t is c o n c e r n e d , n o r t h e issues o f
simony
and
clerical
marriage
which
provided
the
sole
troubles
for
e l e v e n t h a n d t w e l f t h c e n t u r y relations b e t w e e n the p a p a c y a n d secular
leaders. T h e Investiture C o n t r o v e r s y w a s representative of the d i v i s i o n ,
conflict a n d b l u r r i n g of borders b e t w e e n the t w o realms of
a n d regnutn;
sacerdotium
' C h u r c h ' a n d 'State'.
This thesis w i l l a i m t o p r o v i d e a contextualisation a n d c h r o n o l o g y
events that;
firstly,
of
w i l l describe the early C h u r c h a n d the relations w h i c h
w e r e f o r m e d w i t h state i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d i m p e r i a l leaders.
Secondly, it
w i l l l o o k at events t h a t l e d t o t h e d e g r a d a t i o n o f t h e p a p a c y a n d w i d e r
C h u r c h and therefore brought about the r e f o r m movement.
T h i r d l y , it
w i l l a n a l y s e h o w t h e s e f a c t o r s b r o u g h t regnum
into direct
a n d sacerdotium
a n d s o m e w h a t inevitable conflict a n d c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h one another.
This thesis w i l l a i m to demonstrate that the Investiture C o n t r o v e r s y w a s
p r i m a r i l y a c l a s h o r i g i n a t i n g f r o m fifth c e n t u r y i d e a s w h i c h w e r e p u t i n t o
practice a n d developed b y an eleventh century papacy. The doctrine that
w a s developed contained a theocratic n o t i o n of government a n d one that
consequently,
powers.
dearly
exalted
the
spiritual
W h e n t h e p a p a c y f r o m G r e g o r y vn
order
above
the
secular
o n w a r d is o f t e n d i s c u s s e d ,
t e r m s s u c h as ' p a p a l m o n a r c h y ' a r e r e p e a t e d l y a p p l i e d ; i m p l i c i t i n t h i s is
the n o t i o n that particular pontiffs w e r e a t t e m p t i n g to extend the r e a l m of
sacerdotal p o w e r t o t h a t also o f t h e t e m p o r a l sphere.
made -with any
degree
of surprise
Christian t r a d i t i o n has been made.
I f t h i s assertion is
then a misunderstanding
of
the
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-12
Chapter 2: The power and degradation of the papacy,
150-1045 A. D
13-28
Chapter 3: 'Secular Church' and Monastic reform: the House of
Cluny, Peter Damian and Cardinal Humbert
29-45
Chapter 4: Secular reform and the early 'Reform Papacy'
46-60
Chapter 5: Pope Gregory v n and Henry IV of Germany
61-89
Chapter 6: The Polemical Literature of the Investiture Contest
90-99
Chapter 7: Post-Gregorian reform; the Controversy over
Investiture and its conclusion
100-116
Chapter 8: Conclusion - What was the Investiture Controversy
a Controversy about?
117-128
Bibliography
129-137
Chapter 1: Introduction
T h e b w e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y p r e s e n t s us w i t h a w i d e v a r i e t y o f issues t h a t
a r e n o t i m m e d i a t e l y d i s c e r n a b l e a t first s i g h t .
It is n o t s i m p l y a b o u t the
gift of investitures b y l a y persons w i t h w h i c h w e are c o n c e r n e d , n o r t h e
issues o f s i m o n y a n d clerical m a r r i a g e w h i c h p r o v i d e d t h e sole t r o u b l e s
for
eleventh and twelfth
century
relations between
the papacy
and
secular, i m p e r i a l leaders. T h e g i v e n n a m e of t h e disagreements b e t w e e n
P o p e G r e g o r y V I I {pont.
1073-85) a n d E m p e r o r H e n r y I V o f G e r m a n y
(imp.
1065-1106: m i n o r i t y 1 0 5 6 - 6 5 ) , t h e ' I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y " o r ' I n v e s t i t u r e
C o n t e s t ' , is m i s l e a d i n g i n e n c o u r a g i n g o n e t o b e l i e v e t h a t the a r g u m e n t
was specifically about investiture.
The investiture of clerical officers b y
m e m b e r s o f t h e l a i t y w a s o n e o f t h e issues o v e r w h i c h G r e g o r y
Henry
clashed, b u t
it
was
certainly
not
the
only
one; the
s u r r o u n d i n g t h e b w e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y are o f a m u c h m o r e
and all-encompassing nature than this.
and
events
complex
O n e is left w i t h the
distinct
f e e l i n g t h a t the c o m b i n e d issues of l a y i n v e s t i t u r e , clerical m a r r i a g e a n d
s i m o n y w e r e , p e r h a p s m o r e t h a n a n y t h i n g else, r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a m o r e
u n d e r l y i n g assertion o f p o w e r , f r o m b o t h sides.
They culminated
i l l u s t r a t e t h e d i v i s i o n s b e t w e e n w h a t a r e o f t e n t e r m e d sacerdotium
regnum
was
o r imperium;
representative
between
the
two
' C h u r c h ' a n d 'State'.
of
the
realms.
The Investiture
division, conflict
It
highlighted
and
Controversy
and blurring
their
to
of
borders
interdependence
m u t u a l r e l i a n c e as w e l l as t h e i r d i f f e r i n g i n t e r e s t s a n d a i m s .
and
Imperial
ambitions b r o u g h t into question the Gelasian f o r m u l a u p o n w h i c h the
C h u r c h asserted its s u p r e m a c y w i t h i n the s p i r i t u a l sphere.
Similarly,
a c t i o n s t a k e n b y G r e g o r y V I I , s u c h as t h e e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f H e n r y
rv,
challenged the emperor's p r i m a c y w i t h i n the t e m p o r a l political sphere.
T h e p r o b l e m o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f regnum
a n d sacerdotium
is o n e t h a t
dates back m a n y centuries p r i o r to the Investiture C o n t r o v e r s y a n d takes
shape i n the A u g u s t i n i a n - G e l a s i a n f o r m u l a - of the t w o separate spheres
i n h a b i t e d b y t h e t w o p o w e r s . D i f f i c u l t i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o r e - e m e r g e d as
a result of the level of corruption that grew u p w i t h i n the C h u r c h
in
earnest f r o m the n i n t h c e n t u r y o n w a r d s , i n p a r t d u e t o the
prartices
against w h i c h G r e g o r y
of
problems
as
railed.
derivative
of
The papacy regarded m a n y
what
they
perceived
as
the
these
growing
i n v o l v e m e n t of the laity, especially i m p e r i a l interests, w i t h clerical life.
A s w i l l be demonstrated, therefore, the controversy h a d m o r e
varied
causes, o u t c o m e s a n d i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a n s i m p l y t h e issue o f i n v e s t i t u r e .
R e s u l t a n t l y i t is p e r h a p s m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e t o b e g i n b y l o o k i n g a t t h e
context w i t h i n w h i c h
Gregory
VIFs
views
concerning the roles
and
relationship of the p o p e a n d emperor emerged. The E m p i r e that existed
i n the inid-eleventh century was one that had experienced a traumatic
f e w centuries. It h a d been rejuvenated u n d e r the Carolingian m o n a r c h y ,
specifically
during
the
reigns
of
Pepin
and
Charlemagne, but
later
disintegrated to a p o s i t i o n of near collapse. T h r o u g h o u t the n i n t h , t e n t h
and
first
half of the eleventh centuries, corruption was rife a m o n g the
laity, l o w e r clerical ranks, episcopacies a n d e v e n the papacy, reaching
q u i t e e x t r a o r d i n a r y e x t r e m e s u n d e r p o p e s s u c h as S t e p h e n V I , S e r g i u s V I ,
John X I I , Boniface V I I a n d Benedict IX.
Gregory's primary aim
was
therefore to e n d c o r r u p t i o n (in his m i n d epitomised b y the three elements
of clerical marriage, s i m o n y a n d lay investiture) t h r o u g h b u i l d i n g u p o n
t h e r e f o r m s w h i c h as a c a r d i n a l d u r i n g L e o I X ' ร p o n t i f i c a t e h e h a d h e l p e d
to formulate.
Gregory
was
provided
with
ample
theological
justification
u l t i m a t e belief t h a t e v e n i n m a t t e r s of state, w h e r e
for
they became
his
of
concern to the papacy, the emperor w a s subordinate to the judgement of
1 T e r m a t t r i b u t a b l e t o R. พ . D y s o n , Normative
Medieval Thinkers, ( L a m p e t e r , 2003), p. 86.
Theories of Societ]/ and Government
in Five
the
pope.
However,
when
Christian
doctrine
is
more
thoroughly
a n a l y s e d i t is s h o w n t o p r o v i d e s o m e w h a t c o n t r a d i r t o r y a n d a m b i g u o u s
evidence for Gregory's arguments.
Christian doctrine had largely been
p a s s e d o n t h r o u g h t h e w r i t i n g s o f St A u g u s t i n e , h o w e v e r , as s h a l l b e
i l l u s t r a t e d , A u g u s t i n e ' s m e a n i n g , m a i n l y f o r t h e s e p u r p o s e s i n De
Dei,
was often misinterpreted, deliberately or otherwise, b y
papalist writers.
evident h o w
civitate
subsequent
N o n e t h e l e s s , e v e n r e t u r n i n g t o the Bible, it is
differing v i e w p o i n t s can be supported d u e to the
selfoften
c o n t r a d i c t o r y n a t u r e of the text, p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n c o m m e n t s are t a k e n
o u t of context a n d filled w i t h a n altered m e a n i n g .
F o r e x a m p l e , Jesus'
g i f t of t h e keys of the k i n g d o m of h e a v e n to Peter a n d w i t h t h e m the
p o w e r t o b i n d a n d loose, a p p l i c a b l e b o t h t o t h i s w o r l d a n d t h e n e x t , is
o f t e n u s e d t o s u p p o r t c l a i m s o f p a p a l s u p r e m a c y as P e t e r w a s t h e first t o
o c c u p y t h e see o f R o m e .
M a t t h e w 16:18-19 w a s i n v o k e d as e v i d e n c e o f
these claimร.2 H o w e v e r , s u p p o r t e r s of i m p e r i a l a u t h o r i t y o f t e n t o o k t h i s
t o m e a n t h a t Jesus w a s s p e a k i n g t o P e t e r as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f m a n k i n d
rather
than
giving
him
alone
the
power.
'The
ecclesiology
of
the
Carolingian period and of the tenth century h a d usually interpreted the
b i b l i c a l t e x t s r e c o r d i n g C h r i s ť s c o m m i s s i o n t o P e t e r 一 Ma t t .
16:18-19,
L u k e 22.32 a n d J o h n 2 1 : 1 5 - 7 - as s i g n i f y i n g t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e ' p r i e s t l y
order': the p o w e r of b i n d i n g a n d l o o s i n g g r a n t e d to Peter w a s g r a n t e d
t h r o u g h h i m t o a l l b i s h o p s (Petrus
initum
episc
o patus)/^
Robinson then
c o n t r a s t s t h i s w i t h t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e c o n c e p t is a l t e r e d u n d e r P o p e
G r e g o r y vn,
d r a w i n g u p o n Ч һ е ' R o m a n t r a d i t i o n ' o f P e t r i n e p r i m a c y ' 4 as
expressed b y Pope Leo I a n d Pope G r e g o r y I a n d f o r m u l a t e d i n
2
the
" A n d I say also u n t o thee. T h a t t h o u a r t Peter, a n d u p o n t h i s r o c k I w i l l b u i l d m y
c h u r c h ; a n d the gates o f h e l l s h a l l n o t p r e v a i l a g a i n s t it. A n d I w i l l g i v e u n t o thee the
k e y s of t h e k i n g d o m o f h e a v e n : a n d w h a t s o e v e r t h o u s h a l t b i n d o n e a r t h s h a l l be b o u n d
i n h e a v e n : a n d w h a t s o e v e r t h o u s h a l t loose o n e a r t h s h a l l be l o o s e d i n h e a v e n . "
3
1 , ร. R o b i n s o n , Authority
of the Խէ6 Eleventh Century,
4
Ibid,, p. 26.
and Resistance in the Investiture
( M a n c h e s t e r , 1978), p. 26.
Contest: The Polemical
Literature
f o r g e d Constantium
Constantini,
the 'Donation of Constantine'.
Through
t h i s , i t i s e a s y t o see h o w t h e n o t i o n o f a ' p a p a l m o n a r c h y ' c a m e a b o u t ,
a l t h o u g h the extent to w h i c h this t e r m can be a p p l i e d to the pontificate of
G r e g o r y V I I is questionable.
O n e t h i n g that becomes i m m e d i a t e l y clear
is t h a t i n m a n y s i t u a t i o n s , t h e n , as n o w , i t i s o f n o c o n c e r n w h a t t e x t o r
spoken w o r d w a s actually intended to m e a n , b u t merely h o w it c o u l d be
interpreted.
T h e f a m o u s c o n v e r s i o n o f C o n s t a n t i n e o n t h e M i l v i a n B r i d g e i n 312 a n d
Theodosius
F s series o f decrees s u b s e q u e n t
practices, henceforth
making
e m p i r e , e n s u r e d t h a t imperium
Christianity
to 391 o u t l a w i n g
the
a n d sacerdotium
pagan
official religion
of
the
became, i n m a n y respects,
impossible to completely d i v i d e . M a n y authors of the t i m e discussed the
role of a Christian emperor, b y a n d large c o n c l u d i n g that a l t h o u g h a
Christian emperor was definitely preferable to a pagan one, b u t due to
their i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e secular w o r l d , even t h e y can never be ideal.
A u g u s t i n e ' s p r i m a r y p u r p o s e i n w r i t i n g De civitate
Dei w a s t o a c c o u n t f o r
t h e sack o f R o m e b y A l a r i c a n d t h e V i s i g o t h s , c o u n t e r i n g t h e assertions
that it o c c u r r e d because R o m e h a d t u r n e d a w a y f r o m her p a g a n g o d s
w h o h a d b r o u g h t h e r success, i n f a v o u r o f t h e C h r i s t i a n G o d .
Instead,
A u g u s t i n e e x p l a i n e d t h e v e r y n o t i o n o f a t e m p o r a l state i n t e r m s
h u m a n sin, r e s u l t i n g f r o m the Fall, w h i c h o c c u r r e d because of
of
man's
p r i d e a n d w r o n g l y o r d e r e d souls, choosing self-love over love of G o d .
T h e s t a t e is t h e r e f o r e b o t h a p u n i s h m e n t a n d r e m e d y f o r s i n a n d h e n c e
e v e n a C h r i s t i a n e m p e r o r c a n o n l y b e i m p e r f e c t , as i n d e e d i s a l l
m a n k i n d . A u g u s t i n e ' s d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e civitas
Dei a n d civitas
terrena
of
(the
'city of G o ď or 'heavenly city' and the ' e a r t H y city') led m a n y to believe
t h a t h e w a s d i s c u s s i n g C h u r c h a n d State r e s p e c t i v e l y a n d hence t h a t h e
was extolling the virtues of the institutional C h u r c h over those of the
s e c u l a r State a p p a r a t u s . T h i s w a s h o w e v e r a m i s c o n c e p t i o n as A u g u s t i n e
believed that there w a s no element of this earthly life, the institutional
4
C h u r c h i n c l u d e d , t h a t w a s w i t h o u t s i n . I t is p e r h a p s e a s y t o see w h y , d u e
to ambiguities i n his language, A u g u s t i n e w a s repeatedly misimderstood
t o b e t a l k i n g a b o u t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l C h u r c h a n d S t a t e i n p a s s a g e s s u c h as
this:
T w o cities, t h e n , h a v e b e e n c r e a t e d b y t w o loves: t h a t is, the e a r t h l y b y
l o v e of self e x t e n d i n g e v e n t o t h e c o n t e m p t o f G o d , a n d the h e a v e n l y b y
l o v e of G o d e x t e n d i n g t o t h e c o n t e m p t o f self.
The one, therefore,
g l o r i e s i n itself, t h e o t h e r i n t h e L o r d ; the one seeks g l o r y f r o m m e n , t h e
o t h e r f i n d s its h i g h e s t g l o r y i n G o d , the W i t n e s s of o u r conscience. T h e
o n e l i f t s u p its h e a d i n its o w n g l o r y ; the o t h e r says t o its G o d , ' T h o u a r t
m y g l o r y , a n d the l i f t e r u p o f m i n e h e a d /
I n the E a r t h l y C i t y , p r i n c e s
are as m u c h m a s t e r e d b y t h e l u s t f o r m a s t e r y as the n a t i o n s w h i c h t h e y
s u b d u e are b y t h e m ; i n t h e H e a v e n l y , a l l serve one a n o t h e r i n c h a r i t y ,
r u l e r s b y t h e i r c o u n s e l a n d subjects b y t h e i r obedience.
T h e one c i t y
l o v e s its o w n s t r e n g t h as d i s p l a y e d i n its m i g h t y m e n ; the o t h e r says t o
its G o d , Ί w i l l l o v e T h e e , о L o r d , m y s t r e n g t h / " ^
I t m a y b e t h e case t h a t t h i s w a s a p p a r e n t i n m e d i e v a l t i m e s t o o , b u t t h a t
p a p a l p o l e m i c i s t s chose d e l i b e r a t e l y t o m i s i n t e r p r e t A u g u s t i n e ' s i n t e n d e d
m e a n i n g to a d d weight to their argument.
I t is t h u s t h a t m e m b e r s o f t h e
e a r t H y C h u r c h m a y also be reprobate; m e m b e r s of the E a r t h l y C i t y ,
conversely,
as
Augustine's
conception
of
the
City
of
God
and
6
extends
t h r o u g h o u t time, i t is p o s s i b l e f o r p e o p l e w h o l i v e d i n p r e - C h r i s t i a n t i m e s
( a n d so c o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n m e m b e r s of the e a r t M y C h u r c h ) t o
members
Christ's
of the H e a v e n l y
coming
on
City.
7
Nevertheless, for
Earth, membership
essential for t h e possibility of salvation.
of
the
those b o r n
earthly
Church
As Henry Chadwick
was
old
A u g u s t i n e , De civitas Dei, R. พ . D y s o n ( e d . a n d trans.)/ ( C a m b r i d g e , 1998), B o o k X I V ,
C h a p t e r 28, p. 632.
6 Cf. ibi๘.,Bk 1 , C h p 35, p p . 48-9; B k X V I I I , C h p 49, p p . 896-7.
7
after
asserts,
' T h e r e c a n be n o clear f r o n t i e r s b e t w e e n c h u r c h a n d w o r l d , the
5
be
C f . ibid., B k X V I I I , C h p 47, p p . 893-4.
o p p o s i t i o n especially clear t o A f r i c a n ecclesiological l a n g u a g e o f ' i n s i d e '
a n d O u t s i d e ' has lost its applicability.
The conflict between sin
and
holiness cuts i n t o the substance of all h u m a n g r o u p s , the C h u r c h
not
excluded
C h a d w i c k does, h o w e v e r , also i l l u s t r a t e t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e
Church
could be, and often was, equated w i t h the Heavenly City.
T h e e m p i r e , a n d a n y secular society, is n e u t r a l l y O p e n ' t o b o t h ' c i t i e s ' ;
t h e C h u r c h is n o t , b u t is, i n s o m e p r o f o u n d
sense,
sacramentally
i d e n t i c a l w i t h the e s c h a t o l o g i c a l c o m m u n i t y o f t h e r e d e e m e d . H e r e a n d
n o w i t c o n t a i n s m a n y w h o s h a l l n o t be w i t h h e r at the e n d ; b u t t h e
essential c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n the C h u r c h 'as i t is n o w ' w i t h t h e C h u r c h
' as i t w i l l b e ' creates a n a s y m m e t r y b e t w e e n C h u r c h a n d E m p i r e i n t h e
w a y the l a n g u a g e o f the t w o ' c i t i e s ' a p p l i e s t o t h e m . T h e C h u r c h is t h e
C i t y o f G o d h e r e a n d n o w i n a sense w h i c h n o state o r g r o u p is t h e
earthly
City/'9
A u g u s t i n e certainly believed that all p o w e r was derived f r o m G o d : this
e n t a i l e d t h a t b a d p a g a n r u l e r s , as w e l l as g o o d C h r i s t i a n o n e s , h a d t h e
authority
of G o d
in their
r u l e r s h i p . 10
I t i s as a r e s u l t o f t h i s
that
A u g u s t i n e b e l i e v e d t h a t r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t t h e State c o u l d n o t be j u s t i f i e d
as i t w a s t a n t a m o u n t t o r e v o l t i n g a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r o f G o d . i i
However,
i t is e v i d e n t t h a t A u g u s t i n e b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e b e s t t y p e o f r u l e r w a s a
Christian one, w h o w o u l d be subservient to the C h u r c h ' s requests, such
8
H ， C h a d w i c k , ' C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e ' , The Cambridge Histo ry o f Medieval
Po litical
Tho ught, c.
350 - с. 1450, J. Н . B u m s (ed.), ( C a m b r i d g e , 1988), p. 13.
9
Н . C h a d w i c k , ' C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e ' , p. 13.
10 ' A l l t h e o t h e r t h i n g s o f t h i s l i f e , be t h e y great o r s m a l l , s u c h as t h e w o r l d itself, l i g h t ,
air, e a r t h , w a t e r , f r u i t s , the s o u l a n d b o d y o f m a n h i m s e l f , s e n s a t i o n , m i n d , l i f e ; a l l these
t i l i n g s h e b e s t o w s u p o n g o o d a n d e v i l m e n a l i k e . A n d a m o n g these t h i n g s is i m p e r i a l
s w a y also, of w h a t e v e r scope^ w h i c h H e dispenses a c c o r d i n g t o H i s p l a n f o r
g o v e r n m e n t oř t h e a g e s / A u g u s t i n e , De civ. Dei, B k V , C h p 26, p. 235.
11 Cf. ша,
B k V , C h p 2 1 , p p . 227-8.
the
as T h e o d o s i u s ' s u b m i s s i o n t o A m b r o s e . ^ 2
Similarly, " W h e n y o u art/
[ A u g u s t i n e ] once w r o t e t o a h i g h A f r i c a n o f f i c i a l , ' i t is t h e C h u r c h
arts, for
whose
sake
and
not
as w h o s e
son y o u
art/
He
he
that
regarded
r e l i g i o u s c o e r c i o n p r i m a r i l y as a f u n c t i o n n o t o f t h e c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s , b u t
of the
Church.
power'/^3
In
Through
his
Christian
discussion
of
rulers it
is t h e C h u r c h t h a t
the happiness
of
Christian
'uses
emperors,
A u g u s t i n e asserted:
w e say t h a t t h e y are h a p p y i f t h e y r u l e j u s t l y ; i f t h e y a r e n o t l i f t e d u p b y
t h e t a l k o f those w h o a c c o r d t h e m s u b l i m e h o n o u r s o r p a y t h e i r respects
w i t h a n excessive h u m i l i t y , b u t r e m e m b e r t h a t t h e y are o n l y m e n ; i f
they make their p o w e r the h a n d m a i d of H i s majesty b y using it to
s p r e a d H i s w o r s h i p t o t h e greatest p o s s i b l e e x t e n t ; i f t h e y fear, l o v e a n d
w o r s h i p G o d ; i f t h e y l o v e t h a t k i n g d o m w h i c h t h e y are n o t a f r a i d t o
share w i t h o t h e r s m o r e t h a n t h e i r o w n ; i f t h e y are s l o w t o p u n i s h a n d
s w i f t t o p a r d o n ; i f t h e y r e s o r t t o p u n i s h m e n t o n l y w h e n i t is necessary
t o the g o v e r n m e n t a n d defence o f t h e c o m m o n w e a l t h , a n d n e v e r t o
g r a t i f y t h e i r o w n e n m i t y ; ... i f t h e y d o a l l these t h i n g s n o t o u t o f c r a v i n g
f o r e m p t y g l o r y , b u t f r o m l o v e o f e t e r n a l f e l i c i t y ; a n d if, f o r t h e i r sins,
t h e y d o n o t neglect t o o f f e r t o t h e i r t r u e G o d t h e sacrifices o f h u m i l i t y
a n d c o n t r i t i o n a n d ргауегЛ^
The phrase here t a k e n o u t of context b y later authors w a s that
kings to 'make their p o w e r
the h a n d m a i d
urging
of H i s majesty', w h i c h
was
ւ ' A n d w h a t c o u l d be m o r e marvellous t h a n the religious h u m i l i t y of Theodosius w h e n
շ
he p u n i s h e d t h e a b o m i n a b l e a n d g r a v e c r i m e o f t h e Thessalonians?
F o r , at t h e
intercession of the bishops he h a d p r o m i s e d to treat their office leniently; b u t he w a s
t h e n c o m p e l l e d t o take vengeance o n t h e p e o p l e b y t h e t u m u l t o f c e r t a i n p e r s o n s close t o
h i m . T h e n , h o w e v e r , coerced b y t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f t h e C h u r c h , h e d i d p e n a n c e w i t h s u c h
h u m i l i t y t h a t t h e p e o p l e , as t h e y p r a y e d f o r h i m , w e r e m o r e r e a d y t o w e e p w h e n t h e y
s a w t h e i m p e r i a l m a j e s t y t h u s b r o u g h t l o w t h a n t h e y w e r e t o fear i t w a s a n g e r e d b y
t h e i r s i n . ' Ibid., B k V , C h p 2 6 , p . 235. T h i s c h a p t e r is e n t i t l e d : Of the faith and godliness of
Theodosius
Augustus.
13 R. A . M a r k u s , ' T h e L a t i n F a t h e r s ' , Cambridge History,
1 A u g u s t i n e , De civ. Dei, B k V , C h p 24, p. 232.
4
B u m s (ed.)/ p. 115.
o f t e n i n t e r p r e t e d as m e a n i n g t h a t s e c u l a r p o w e r s h o u l d b e s u b o r d i n a t e t o
t h e sac erdotal; i n t e r m s o f t h e t w o s w o r d s q u e s t i o n , t h a t t h e State w i e l d s
the sec ular s w o r d at the behest of t h e C h u r c h rather t h a n i n d e p e n d e n t l y
of spiritual affairs or
u p o n its o w n
initiative.
P r o v e r b s 21:1 c o u l d
s i m i l a r l y b e r e a d i n t h i s l i g h t : ' T h e k i n g ' s h e a r t is i n t h e h a n d o f t h e L o r d ,
as t h e r i v e r s o f w a t e r : h e t u r n e t h i t w i t h s o e v e r h e w i l l /
l a n g u a g e o f 'two
A l t h o u g h the
swords' was barely to figure explic itly i n the literature
o f t h e I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y a n d w a s n o t f u l l y e l u c i d a t e d as a c o n c e p t
until the m i d - t w e l f t h c e n t u r y /
5
i t is o n e w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n f a m i l i a r
d u e t o b i b l i c a l i m a g e r y s u c h as L u k e 22:38 w h i c h s t a t e d , ' A n d t h e y s a i d .
L o r d , b e h o l d h e r e a r e t w o s w o r d s . A n d h e s a i d u n t o t h e m . I t is e n o u g h /
'Just
as t h e
New
Testament
auctoritas
Romans
1 3 , 1-7
defined
the
f u n c t i o n s o f t h e k i n g , so L u k e 2 2 , 38 ― ' L o r d , h e r e a r e t w o s w o r d s '
d e f i n e d t h e r e l a t i o n s o f regnum
a n d sacerdotium:
the image of the
-
two
s w o r d s , sec ular a n d s p i r i t u a l bec ame a p o l i t i ca l t h e o r y / お
' T h e c lassic
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t w o s w o r d s as t h e m a t e r i a l s w o r d o f
secular c oerc ion a n d the s p i r i t u a l s w o r d of e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n appears i n
the papal letters of the n i n t h c entury.
Before the investiture c ontroversy
the image of the t w o s w o r d s w a s i n t e n d e d to suggest h a r m o n i o u s c o­
operation/1^
A s w e s h a l l p r e s e n t l y see t h o u g h , t h i s w a s a l l t o c h a n g e ,
w i t h i m p e r i a l s u p p o r t e r s c l a i m i n g t h a t G r e g o r y vn
h a d upset the balanc e
o f p o w e r b y s e i z i n g t h e s e c u l a r s w o r d a n d p a p a l i s t s c o u n t e r -c l a i m i n g
that it w a s the pope's to take a n d H e n r y w h o w a s instead a r t i n g i n a n
aggressive manner. Pro-Henric ian authors questioned the legitimac y of
the papalist c laim to authority over b o t h swords.
M a n y voic es i n the c ause of the r e f o r m s t r u g g l e s of t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y
d e c l a r e d t h a t the t w o s w o r d s s i g n i f i e d t w o separate spheres o r spe c ies
See below, pp. 121-3.
I 1 . ร. R o b m s o n , ' C h u r c h a n d P a p a c y ' , Cambridge
6
17
ζω., p. 303.
History,
B u m s (ed.), p. 302.
of rulership, spiritual and t e m p o r a l , b o t h sanctioned b y G o d ; for the
priesthood to appropriate b o t h swords was to destroy a d u a l i t y that
w a s s u p p o r t e d b y a b i b l i c a l a l l e g o r y a n d ' i n effect also, t o r e d u c e t w o
s w o r d s t o one.^^
A f t e r a l l , Jesus h a d c o n d e m n e d P e t e r ' s u s e o f a s w o r d a g a i n s t a s e r v a n t o f
t h e H i g h P r i e s t i n t h e g a r d e n o f G e t h s e m a n e a t t h e t i m e o f h i s arrest.^^
A l t h o u g h there was little question that the material s w o r d s h o u l d be
w i e l d e d b y the secular p o w e r s , w h a t w a s i n d o u b t w a s t h e extent of the
e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r i g h t t o c o m m a n d t h e m a t e r i a l s w o r d as w e l l as t o w i e l d t h e
spiritual sword.
I t is clear t h a t i n practice the p r i n c i p l e of d u a l i t y does
n o t u l t i m a t e l y w o r k a n d the t w o spheres, quite naturally, overlap. It w a s
thus that Gelasius felt the n e e d to elaborate o n the A u g u s t i n i á n f o r m u l a ,
which
he d i d
most
prominently
in
a letter
to
Emperor
Anastasius,
dissuading h i m f r o m interfering i n doctrinal matters, asserting that the
s e c u l a r p o w e r s s h o u l d n o t c o n c e r n t h e m s e l v e s w i t h s a c e r d o t a l affairs.20
Implicitly
although
Gelasius
clearly
believes
the
two
powers
to
be
separate, h e , u l t i m a t e l y , does n o t b e l i e v e t h e m t o b e e q u a l because at the
last, t h e s p i r i t u a l p o w e r is responsible f o r the s a l v a t i o n o f the t e m p o r a l ;
the spiritual a u t h o r i t y m u s t answer directly to G o d , the t e m p o r a l to this
1 D . E. L u s c o m b e a n d G . R. E v a n s , ' T h e T w e l f t h - C e n t u r y Renaissance',
8
History
Cambridge
B u m s (ed.), p p . 318-19.
1 M a t t . 26:51-52: ' A n d , b e h o l d , o n e o f t h e m w h i c h w e r e w i t h Jesus s t r e t c h e d o u t his
9
h a n d , a n d d r e w h i s s w o r d , a n d s t r u c k a s e r v a n t o f the h i g h p r i e s t ' s , a n d s m o t e o f f h i s
ear. T h e n said Jesus u n t o h i m . P u t u p t h y s w o r d i n t o h i s p l a c e : f o r a l l t h e y t h a t take the
s w o r d shall perish w i t h the s w o r d . '
J o h n 18:10-11: ' T h e n S i m o n Peter h a v i n g a s w o r d , d r e w i t , a n d s m o t e the h i g h p r i e s t ' s
s e r v a n t , a n d c u t o f f his right ear.
The servant's name was M a l c h u s .
T h e n s a i d Jesus
u n t o Peter, P u t u p t h y s w o r d i n t o t h e sheath: t h e c u p w h i c h m y F a t h e r h a t h g i v e n m e ,
shall I n o t d r i n k it?'
շ
0 Q u o t e d at p p . 16-17 b e l o w ; G e l a s i u s ' T w e l f t h L e t t e r , Famuli vestrae pietatis, in D y s o n ,
Five Normative
Theories, p p . 85-6.
world.
was
G e l a s i u s s t r o n g l y a d v o c a t e d t h e p r i m a c y o f t h e R o m a n see a n d
the
first
recorded.21
pope
to
whom
a reference
as
'Vicar
of
Christ'
was
Despite the retention of the n o t i o n of d u a l i t y i n Gelasius'
w r i t i n g s , t h e y are also p e p p e r e d w i t h t h e d i s t i n c t i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i f a
c h o i c e b e t w e e n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f regnum
i t w o u l d b e t h e regnum
a n d sacerdotium
w e r e to be made
that w o u l d have to concede a subordinate role.
A s o p p o s e d t o t h e k e y s o f H e a v e n , g i v e n t o St P e t e r o r o t h e r e c c l e s i a s t i c a l
s y m b o l s , the s w o r d receives biblical references i n b o t h a s p i r i t u a l
and
s e c u l a r sense; a n a m b i g u i t y e x p l o i t e d b y b o t h p a p a l a n d i m p e r i a l a u t h o r s .
Similarly,
although
it
is
often
Pauline
phrases
used
by
i m p e r i a l i s t s t o s u p p o r t t h e i r case a n d t h o s e o f St P e t e r u s e d b y
the
papalists, this does n o t necessarily h o l d true.
that
are
A d d i t i o n a l l y , m u c h o f St
A u g u s t i n e ' s d o r t r i n e o f o r i g i n a l s i n w a s d e r i v e d f r o m St P a u l ' s a c c o u n t o f
the Fall.
Paul c o m m a n d e d the Ephesians:
W h e r e f o r e take u n t o y o u t h e w h o l e a r m o u r of G o d , t h a t y e m a y be able
to w i t h s t a n d i n the evil day, and h a v i n g done all to stand.
Stand
therefore^ h a v i n g y o u r l o i n s g i r t a b o u t w i t h t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f the
g o s p e l o f peace; A b o v e a l l , t a k i n g the s h i e l d of f a i t h , w h e r e w i t h y e s h a l l
be able t o q u e n c h a l l t h e f i e r y d a r t s of the w i c k e d . A n d take the h e l m e t
or s a l v a t i o n , a n d t h e s w o r d o f the S p i r i t , w h i c h is the w o r d o f G o d .
2 2
P a u l also stated t h a t C h r i s t i a n s s h o u l d settle t h e i r o w n affairs rather t h a n
t u r n i n g to secular magistrates.
D a r e a n y o f y o u , h a v i n g a m a t t e r against a n o t h e r , g o t o l a w b e f o r e t h e
u n j u s t , a n d n o t b e f o r e the saints? D o ye n o t k n o w t h a t t h e saints s h a l l
j u d g e t h e w o r l d ? a n d i f t h e w o r l d s h a l l be j u d g e d b y y o u , are ye
u n w o r t h y t o j u d g e the s m a l l e s t matters?
21 A t
the R o m a n s y n o d o f
13 M a y
K n o w ye n o t that w e shall
495), J. N . D . K e l l y , The Oxford
Dictionary
of
Popes ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press), p. 48.
2 2
E p h . 6:13-17.
10
j u d g e angels? h o w m u c h m o r e t h i n g s t h a t p e r t a i n t o t h i s l i f e , set t h e m t o
j u d g e w h o are least e s t e e m e d i n the c h u r c h . I speak t o y o u r s h a m e . Is i t
so, t h a t there is n o t a w i s e m a n a m o n g y o u ? n o , n o t one t h a t s h a l l be
able t o j u d g e b e t w e e n h i s b r e t h r e n ?
But brother goeth to l a w
with
brother, a n d that before the unbelievers.^
T h o u g h these m a y be expected to be Petrine claims rather t h a n the w o r d s
o f St P a u l , t h e s a m e c a n b e s a i d o f s o m e o f St P e t e r ' s c o m m a n d s , w h i c h
s o u n d m o r e P a u l i n e i n c h a r a c t e r , s u c h as:
S u b m i t y o u r s e l v e s t o e v e r y o r d i n a n c e o f m a n f o r the L o r d ' s sake:
w h e t h e r i t b e t o t h e k i n g , as s u p r e m e ; O r u n t o g o v e r n o r s , as u n t o t h e m
t h a t are sent b y h i m f o r t h e p u n i s h m e n t o f e v i l d o e r s , a n d f o r the p r a i s e
of t h e m t h a t d o w e l l . F o r so is the w i l l o f G o d , t h a t w i t h w e l l d o i n g y e
m a y p u t t o silence the i g n o r a n c e o f f o o l i s h m e n : A s f r e e , a n d n o t u s i n g
your l i b e r t y f o r a d o k e o f m a l i c i o u s n e s s , b u t as the servants o f G o d .
H o n o u r a l l men. L o v e t h e b r o t h e r h o o d . Fear G o d . H o n o u r t h e k i n g .
2 4
These a i d us b y i l l u s t r a t i n g some o f t h e s c r i p t u r a l tensions that
were
p r e v a l e n t a n d easily t r a n s m i t t e d i n t o ecclesiastical a n d secular a r g u m e n t s .
Papalists u s e d t h e G e l a s i a n f o r m u l a t o assert t h e p r i m a c y o f t h e C h u r c h
i n all areas,
2 5
not just those of spiritual concern.
Imperial
supporters
a r g u e d v e h e m e n t l y against this interpretation, c l a i m i n g that it u s u r p e d
t h e r i g h t f u l p o w e r o f t h e regnum.
Perhaps the most returned to text i n
t h i s c o n t e x t i s R o m a n s 13:1-7, w h i c h , d e s p i t e i t s f a m i l i a r i t y , i t i s p e r h a p s
worth quoting verbatim:
L e t e v e r y s o u l b e subject u n t o the h i g h e r p o w e r s . F o r there is n o p o w e r
b u t o f G o d : t h e p o w e r s t h a t be are o r d a i n e d o f G o d .
Whosoever
t h e r e f o r e resisteth the p o w e r , resisteth t h e o r d i n a n c e of G o d : a n d t h e y
t h a t resist s h a l l receive t o t h e m s e l v e s d a m n a t i o n .
F o r r u l e r s are n o t a
2 3 1 C o r . 6:1-6. See also M a t t . 18:15-17.
2 4
1 Pet. 2:13-17,
25 A l t h o u g h e s p e c i a l l y the R o m a n see.
11
terror to good w o r k s , b u t to evil.
W i l t t h o u t h e n n o t be a f r a i d o f the
p o w e r ? d o t h a t w h i c h is good^ a n d t h o u s h a l t h a v e p r a i s e o f t h e same:
For h e is t h e m i n i s t e r of G o d t o thee f o r g o o d . B u t i f t h o u d o t h a t w h i c h
is e v i l , b e a f r a i d ; f o r i f h e b e a r e t h n o t t h e s w o r d i n v a i n : f o r h e is the
m i n i s t e r o f G o d , a r e v e n g e r t o execute w r a t h u p o n h i m t h a t d o e t h e v i l .
W h e r e f o r e ye m u s t needs b e s u b j e c t n o t o n l y f o r w r a t h , b u t also f o r
conscience sake. F o r this cause p a y y e t r i b u t e also: f o r t h e y are G o d ' s
ministers^ a t t e n d i n g c o n t i n u a l l y u p o n t h i s v e r y t h i n g . R e n d e r t h e r e f o r e
t o a l l t h e i r d u e s : t r i b u t e t o w h o m t r i b u t e is due; c u s t o m t o w h o m c u s t o m ;
fear t o w h o m fear; h o n o u r t o w h o m h o n o u r .
T h e relevance of t h i s text is s e l f - e v i d e n t a n d p r o v i d e s u s w i t h a clear
theological basis for p o l i t i c a l o b l i g a t i o n a n d obedience. A c c o r d i n g to this
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n y rebellion against the ' p o w e r s that b e / w o u l d also be a
rebellion against G o d .
This resultantly brings into question the rights
w h i c h a p o p e has o v e r a n e m p e r o r a n d poses challenges to the l e g i t i m a c y
of Gregory V l ľ s
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n a n d d e p o s i t i o n o f H e n r y Ī V as i t
p r o v i d e d a n i n c i t e m e n t t o r ebel t o H e n r y ' s subjects; w h e t h e r or
not this
w a s G r e g o r y ' s c h i e f m o t i v a t i o n is a n o t h e r m a t t e r e n t i r e l y .
W e shall n o w t u r n to a contextualisation a n d c h r o n o l o g y of events that;
firstly,
were
w i l l descr ibe the ear ly C h u r c h a n d the m a n n e r i n w h i c h r elations
f or m u l a t e d
between
C h a r l e m a g n e ' s e m p ir e .
regnum
and
sacerdotium
up
to the
fall
of
Secondly, it w i l l l o o k at events t h a t l e d t o the
d e g r a d a t i o n o f t h e C h u r c h a n d h e n c e i n t u r n b r o u g h t a b o u t t h e r e f or m
m o v e m e n t . T h i r d l y , a n d s o m e w h a t inevitably, it w i l l be analysed
t h i s b r o u g h t regnum
a n d sacerdotium
how
into dir ect conflir t a n d competition
w i t h one another .
12
Chapter 2: The power and degradation of the papacy, 1501045.
T h e see o f R o m e t o o k o n t h e p e r s o n a o f P e t e r a n d P e t e r ' s i n h e r i t a n c e o f
the keys of the k i n g d o m of heaven a n d the p o w e r to b i n d a n d loose i n
this w o r l d , the decisions of w h i c h w i l l r e m a i n b i n d i n g i n the next. It w a s
a r o u n d t h i s f r a m e w o r k t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e p a p a l see w a s a s s e r t e d .
I n f a c t t h e p a p a l see w a s v e r y s l o w t o d e v e l o p ; i t h a d t a k e n s h a p e b y t h e
mid-150ร under Anicetus
(thought to be the tenth pope) 1 d u e to
the
proliferation of v i e w s a n d doctrines w i t h i n the C h u r c h a n d hence there
w a s a n e e d for stricter a u t h o r i t y ,
u n i f i e d set o f i d e a s .
tighter
discipline a n d adherence to one
The persecutions that Christians suffered resulted
f r o m the p e r c e i v e d threat that talk of another k i n g d o m , one far greater
t h a n the R o m a n E m p i r e , c o u l d pose. C h r i s t i a n i t y also p r o v i d e d a useful
scapegoat for e x p l a i n i n g h o w the Goths m a n a g e d to o v e r c o m e the great
Roman Empire.
E m p e r o r s c o u l d w i t h ease a r g u e t h a t t h e
traditional
p a g a n gods of R o m e , w h i c h h a d thus far p r o t e c t e d the city a n d
empire and allowed her to
flourish,
her
w e r e a n g r y at their rejection a n d
replacement w i t h the Christian G o d a n d were resultantly r e m o v i n g their
protection f r o m , a n d exacting their p t m i s h m e n t u p o n , R o m e a n d
her
citizens.
and
H o w e v e r , instead of d e m o l i s h i n g the C h u r c h ' s a u t h o r i t y
strength, m a r t y r d o m increased it further a n d i n s o m e respects b r o u g h t
the C h u r c h the u n i t y it needed i n a manner it h a d been p r e v i o u s l y unable
to do.
W i t h an increasingly unified Church, amongst other things
b e c a m e m u c h easier t o i d e n t i f y w h i c h v i e w p o i n t s a n d concepts
it
were
O r t h o d o x ' a n d w h i c h 'heretical'.
It
was b y
no
means
completely
accepted
that
the
status
of
Peter's
successor i n t h e f o r m o f t h e p o p e h a d t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e status t h a t h e h a d
E. D u f f y , Sainis and Sinners: A History
of the Popes, ( L o n d o n , 2001), p. 13.
13
u n d o u b t e d l y g a i n e d b y t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y as D u f f y a s s e r t s , " C h r i s t h a d
i n d e e d f o u n d e d the C h u r c h o n Peter, b u t all the Apostles a n d all bishops
shared
fully
in
the
one
indivisible
apostolic
power/'
This
2
was
particularly emphasised b y C y p r i a n of Carthage i n the t h i r d century i n
h i s t r e a t i s e o n t h e Unity
of the Catholic
light
with
of
disagreements
Pope
Church
Stephen
w h i c h he h a d rewritten i n
I
over
the
rebaptism
of
s c h i s m a t i c s , as C y p r i a n c o m m e n t e d " n o n e o f u s sets h i m s e l f u p as a
bishop
of
colleagues
bishops
into
or
exercises
obedience."
3
the
power
Resultantly,
of
a tyrant
"with
the
to
force
his
confrontation
between Stephen and Cyprian, the divisive potential of papal
claims
became clear/'^
U p o n C o n s t a n t i n e ' ร c o n v e r s i o n h e s o u g h t t o u n i f y t h e C h u r c h as h e s a w
t h e p o t e n t i a l o f t h i s u n i t y as t h e c o r n e r s t o n e o f h i s e m p i r e . Q u i t e s i m p l y ;
w i t h a u n i f i e d C h u r c h his subjects w o u l d b e m o r e o b e d i e n t to his d i k t a t s ,
especially if his control over the C h u r c h w a s considerable.
For example.
C o n s t a n t i n e p r e s i d e d o v e r s o m e o f t h e sessions at t h e C o u n c i l o f N i c a e a
where the A r i a n schism was condemned.
Clashes b e t w e e n the p a p a c y
a n d e m p i r e w e r e quick to come, they d i d not, h o w e v e r , have the same
s i g n i f i c a n c e as t h o s e o f e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y a n d b e y o n d . T h i s w a s p r i m a r i l y
d u e t o t h e fact t h a t at this t i m e , a l t h o u g h t h e p o p e d i d w i e l d a f o r m of
p o w e r h i m s e l f , especially i f s u p p o r t e d b y t h e p o p u l a c e at l a r g e / t h e p o p e
w a s essentially dependent u p o n the e m p e r o r for a large degree of his
p o w e r a n d authority; w i t h o u t the emperor a n d his support, the pope
w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o act ef fe r t i v e l y .
2
D u f f y , Saints
and Sinners.,
3
Ibid.,
p. 22.
4
鼠,
p. 23.
5
For example. Pope Felix, installed b y E m p e r o r Constantius after Liberius' exile h a d to
p. 2 1 .
be w i t h d r a w n a n d Liberius reinstalled d u e to protests b y the R o m a n people.
14
A m b r o s e w a s one of the early popes w h o d i d s h o w considerable p o w e r
a n d s t r e n g t h o f character i n t h e face o f i m p e r i a l d e m a n d s . H i s r e l u r t a n c e
t o g i v e w a y t o i m p e r i a l p r e s s u r e is g i v e n i t s c l a s s i c f o r m i n A m b r o s e ' s
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f E m p e r o r T h e o d o s i u s I i n 390 for h i s o r d e r i n g of a
massacre at Thessalonica f o l l o w i n g t h e m u r d e r o f a n i m p e r i a l o f f i c i a l .
M u c h w a s later m a d e of T h e o d o s i u s ' o b v i o u s a n d sincere repentance,
w i t h A u g u s t i n e using his example of h o w a g o o d Christian ruler should
act.
6
I n De
Dignitate
Sacerdotali,
later d r a w n u p o n b y
Gregory
vn,
7
Ambrose commented:
Brothers, the episcopal h o n o u r a n d d i g n i t y cannot possibly be equated
to any comparisons.
I f y o u r c o m p a r i s o n is t o t h e l u s t r e o f k i n g s a n d t h e
d i a d e m of princes, it w i l l be far l o w e r t h a n if y o u c o m p a r e the metal of
lead
to the lustre of
gold; indeed, when
you
may
see t h e n e c k s
of
princes b o w e d d o w n to the knees of priests a n d i n that they kiss their
right hands, they believe themselves to be fortified b y their prayers.
8
A n d also, t h e r e is ' n o t h i n g i n t h i s w o r l d m o r e p r e - e m i n e n t t h a n priests,
a n d n o t h i n g to be f o u n d m o r e exalted t h a n bishops.'^
L e o t h e G r e a t (pont. 4 4 0 - 6 1 ) c r e a t e d a s t r o n g c o n c e p t i o n o f p a p a l p r i m a c y .
H e clearly b e l i e v e d that the a u t h o r i t y of Peter w a s representative of that
o f C h r i s t a n d h e n c e t o r e m a i n a p a r t o f t h e C h u r c h , w a s t o be o b e y e d at
a l l costs.io T h e p o p e w a s t h e r e f o r e a d i r e c t s y m b o l o f C h r i s t ' s p o w e r o n
earth a n d to d e f y the p o p e w a s to d e f y Christ. The p o p e resultantly acted
as a l i v i n g m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n t h i s l i f e a n d t h e n e x t , p a r t i c u l a r l y
when
participating i n one of the sacraments, w h i c h helps to explain the severity
6
A u g u s t i n e , De
CÍO.
Dei, B k
v, Chp 26, pp. 233-36.
7 C o w d r e y , H . E . J . ( e d . a n d t r a n s . ) . The Register
of Pope Gregory
VII
1073-1085,
(Oxford,
2002), p. 3 9 1 .
» aid., p. 391.
4bid.,
p.
391.
10 D u f f y , S a i n i s and Sinners,
p. 43.
15
of
the
punishment
of
excommunication
and,
in
particular,
the
i m p l i c a t i o n s that this w o u l d h a v e for a u t h o r i t y of a secular ruler.
I n the late
West, w i t h
fifth
c e n t u r y t h e A c a c i a n s c h i s m o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n East a n d
the
former
vinder the s p i r i t u a l
leadership
of
Acacias
as
Patriarch of Constantinople h o l d i n g the belief that Christ has o n l y one
n a t u r e a n d t h e l a t t e r t h a t C h r i s t possesses t w o n a t u r e s ; d i v i n e a n d h u m a n .
The E m p e r o r Z e n o supported the Eastern M o n o p h y s i t e claims
rather
t h a n s u p p o r t i n g P o p e F e l i x I I I {pont.
483-492) a n d so h a d t h e effect o f
increasing
the
papal
suspicion
towards
imperial
r u l e r ร.
Gelasius
{pont. 4 9 2 - 4 9 6 ) w a s F e l i x ' s s u c c e s s o r a n d h a d a p r o f o u n d a n d
I
lasting
effect u p o n the i m a g e of t h e p a p a c y a n d p a p a l r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e secular
powers.
Gelasius
saw
himself
as
a
loyal
Roman
citizen
but
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e f u s e d to b o w to the E m p e r o r Anastasius I I a n d to use
the
same
kind
of
language
and
deference
that
the
majority
of
his
p r e d e c e s s o r s h a d d o n e . I t is c l e a r t o see t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f t h e p a p a c y as
h a d been conceived of b y Constantine w a s v e r y different f r o m that w h i c h
h a d e v o l v e d b y the late f i f t h century.
For Constantine, the
powers
concern
were
undoubtedly
entitled
to
themselves
imperial
with
the
C h u r c h ' s affairs because all matters of concern to the u n i t y a n d strength
of the empire lay w i t h i n the emperor's remit.
Conversely, for Gelasius,
there w e r e some t h i n g s o v e r w h i c h the i m p e r i a l secular p o w e r s c o u l d n o t
preside.
was
T h e C h u r c h w a s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e care of souls; i t
interested
in
the
next
world
rather
than
the
temporal
world.
Resultantly, the affairs of the C h u r c h w e r e the C h u r c h ' s alone because the
care of souls i n c l u d e d t h a t o f t h e e m p e r o r .
reasoning for w h y
G e l a s i u s c l e a r l y set o u t h i s
the secular p o w e r s s h o u l d l i m i t their activity
interference to w i t h i n the secular r e a l m alone.
c l e a r l y set f o r t h i n G e l a s i u s ' Twelfth
There
are t w o
orders, о
August
This is p e r h a p s
and
most
Letter t o A n a s t a s i u s I I :
Emperor,
by
which
this
world
p r i n c i p a l l y r u l e d : the consecrated authority of the pontiffs, a n d
is
royal
16
p o w e r [auctońtas
sacrata
pontificum,
et regalis
potestas].
But the
burden
l a i d u p o n t h e priests i n t h i s m a t t e r is the h e a v i e r , f o r i t t h e y w h o are t o
render on account of the D i v i n e j u d g e m e n t even for the kings of m e n .
K n o w , О most clement Son, that although y o u take precedence over the
h u m a n race i n d i g n i t y , nonetheless y o u b e n d y o u r n e c k i n
submission
to those w h o preside over things Divine^ a n d look to t h e m for the means
of y o u r salvation.
I n p a r t a k i n g of h e a v e n l y sacraments, w h e n they are
p r o p e r l y dispensed, y o u a c k n o w l e d g e that y o u o u g h t to be subject to
the
order
religion
keeping
of
religion
rather
acknowledging
of
public
that
than
you
discipline,
ruling
it.. .For
rule, insofar
has
been
given
if
as i t
to
the
mmisters
pertains
you
by
to
of
the
Divine
d i s p o s i t i o n , o b e y y o u r l a w s , lest t h e y s e e m t o o b s t r u c t the p r o p e r course
of w o r l d l y affairs: w i t h w h a t g o o d w i l l , I pray, o u g h t y o u to obey those
w h o h a v e been c h a r g e d w i t h the d i s p e n s a t i o n of the h o l y mysteries?^^
I n h i s Four th
r
T actate
Gelasius refers to the priest-kings w h o existed p r i o r
t o t h e c o m i n g o f C h r i s t , s u c h as M e l c h i z e d e k ^ ^ :
B u t after t h e c o m i n g o f t h e T r u t h [i.e. o f C h r i s t ] , W h o w a s H i m s e l f b o t h
true K i n g a n d true Pontiff, n o subsequent e m p e r o r has taken the title of
pontiff,
and
no
pontiff
had
laid claim
to royal
dignity...For
Christ,
m i n d f u l of h u m a n frailty, has...separa ted b o t h offices according to the
different functions a n d d i g n i t y proper to each, w i s h i n g that H i s people
should be preserved b y a healthy h u m i l i t y , and not again ensnared
by
h u m a n p r i d e ; so t h a t C h r i s t i a n e m p e r o r s s h o u l d n o w h a v e n e e d of the
Pontiffs
for
their
etemal
life, a n d
the
pontiffs
should
make
use
of
[uterentur] the resources of the imperial g o v e r n m e n t for the direction of
temporal things: to the e n d that spiritual activity m i g h t be
removed
f r o m c a m a l distractions, a n d that the soldier of the L o r d m i g h t n o t be at
all e n t a n g l e d i n secular business.i3
Gelasius' m e n t i o n of Melchizedek a n d w h y there have been n o priestk i n g s since t h e c o m i n g o f C h r i s t is w o r t h b e a r i n g i n m i n d w i t h r e g a r d t o
լ D y s o n , Five Normative
Theories,
p p . 85-6.
ί G e n . 14:18.
！ T r a c t a t u s 4 : 1 1 i n D y s o n , Five Nor mative
Theo
r ies,
P.85.
17
Salian a r g u m e n t s i n the eleventh century w h i c h appeared keen
upon
resurrerting the notion of the priest-king and d r e w u p o n such examples
as M e l c h i z e d e k f o r s u p p o r t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n G e l a s i u s '
Fourth
Tractate
is b o t h precise a n d y e t subtle i n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e d i g n i t y
o f t h e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l s p h e r e is g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t o f t h e t e m p o r a l .
There is,
quite literally, a w o r l d of difference b e t w e e n p o n t i f f s m a k i n g 'use of the
resources of the i m p e r i a l g o v e r n m e n t for the d i r e c t i o n of t e m p o r a l t h i n g s '
a n d Christian emperors w h o ' s h o u l d n o w have need of the pontiffs for
their eternal life'.
T h e i m p l i c i t difference b e t w e e n the q u a l i t y of these
t w o f u n c t i o n s , a n d b y e x t e n s i o n , t h e i r h o l d e r s , is self-evident.
Gelasius,
i n t h e m a n n e r o f St A u g u s t i n e , e m p h a s i s e s t h e s e p a r a t e n e s s o f t h e t w o
p o w e r s ; a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e s u b s e q u e n t , a n d i n s o m e cases s i g n i f i c a n t ,
blips i n the relations b e t w e e n the papacy a n d the empire, it does n o t
become a substantial issue u n t i l the e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y . W h e n p a p a c y a n d
empire d o come into conflirt, the illogical nature of the statements m a d e
b y b o t h A u g u s t i n e a n d Gelasius b e c o m e s clear.
a n d sacerdotium
The realms of
can never be separate f r o m one another.
regnum
It is i n t h i s
context that the e m b e d d e d assertions of Gelasius a n d A u g u s t i n e that the
sacerdotal
powers
contribute
a
higher
form
of
power
than
those
b e l o n g i n g to the t e m p o r a l r e a l m , really take o n their fullest significance.
A f t e r t h e f a l l o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e , t h e sack o f R o m e i n 410 b y t h e G o t h s
a n d the l o o t i n g o f t h e city b y Gaiseric the V a n d a l i n 455, it r e m a i n e d u p
to the Byzantine E m p e r o r s to take u p the m a n t l e of Constantine, a n d this
some d i d w i t h vigour.
For example, Justinian w h o , similar to Gelasian
dualism, believed that there w e r e t w o powers b u t he t u r n e d t h e m
on
their head f r o m Gelasius' m o d e l a n d envisaged a substantial a n d pre­
eminent role for the emperor i n the g o v e r n m e n t of C h u r c h affairs.
To
t h e E m p e r o r b e l o n g e d the care o f all t h e churches, t o m a k e a n d u n m a k e
bishops, to decide the bounds of orthodoxy.
The Emperor, not the Pope,
w a s G o d ' s v i c a r o n e a r t h , a n d t o h i m b e l o n g e d t h e t i t l e kosmocrator,
Lord
18
o f t h e w o r l d , r u l i n g o v e r o n e e m p i r e , o n e l a w , o n e church.'14
The gulf
b e t w e e n E a s t a n d W e s t g r e w as t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w a s b r o a d l y a c c e p t e d
by
the
Eastern bishops w h i l s t
i n the West
the conception of
papal
p r i m a c y increased.
Both
Pope
Gelasius
and
Pope
Gregory
the
authority of the e m p e r o r in temporal matters.
Great
recognised
The difference
the
between
East a n d W e s t lies m o r e i n t h a t t h e B y z a n t i n e w o r l d d i d n o t t h i n k
of
i t s e l f as t w o ' s o c i e t i e s ' , s a c r e d a n d s e c u l a r , b u t a s a s i n g l e s o c i e t y
in
harmony
Monarch.
with
the emperor
as t h e e a r t h l y
counterpart
of the
divine
T h e balance of this t h e o r y c o u l d be s e r i o u s l y u p s e t b y State
domination
of the C h u r c h ; the m o r e
dualistic Western
theory
could
p r o d u c e e c c l e s i a s t i c a l d o m i n a t i o n o v e r l a y s o c i e t y . 15
G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t {pont.
590-604), despite d e m o n s t r a t i n g a d i s p o s i t i o n of
concord t o w a r d s the Emperor, was particularly keen to emphasise the
i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e see o f R o m e . I n a l e t t e r o f 5 9 5 t o t h e E m p e r o r M a u r i c e ,
Pope Gregory
stated t h a t , ' t h e care o f t h e w h o l e
Church had
c o m m i t t e d t o the blessed Peter, Prince of the A p o s t l e s .
been
Behold
he
received the keys of the k i n g d o m of heaven; to h i m w a s g i v e n the p o w e r
o f b i n d i n g a n d l o o s i n g , t o h i m t h e care a n d p r i n c i p a t e o f t h e
whole
Church was committed.'!^
Perhaps the most significant t u r n i n events occurred d u r i n g the papacy of
Z a c h a r y I {pont.
741-752). C h i l d e r i c Ш , k i n g o f t h e M e r o v i n g i a n s w a s a
w e a k leader w h o w a s essentially g o v e r n e d b y t h e M a y o r o f the Palace,
Pepin; a position w h i c h h a d often before been held b y someone
w i e l d e d artual b u t not ceremonial p o w e r , for example, Pepin's
Charles.
who
father,
Pepin asked Pope Zachary w h e t h e r he t h o u g h t it w a s fitting
t h a t t h e m a n w h o h o l d s c e r e m o n i a l a n d f o r m a l p o w e r b u t does n o t use i t
1 D u f f y , Saints
4
and Sinner s,
15 H . C h a d w i c k , The Ear ly
1 D u f f y , S a i n i s and Sinner s,
6
p. 58.
Chu
r ch
( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , 1967), p . 166,
p p . 59-60.
19
s h o u l d r e t a i n it a n d t h e title o f k i n g w h i c h goes w i t h i t , o r s h o u l d p o w e r
a n d the k i n g s h i p be transferred to the m a n w h o i n actual fact w i e l d s
power.
The Pope's r e p l y p e r m i t t e d the deposition of Childeric a n d the
election of Pepin to the k i n g s h i p ; Pepin w a s anointed a n d c r o w n e d b y
Zachary i n 751. Pepin was anointed and c r o w n e d for a second time b y
Z a c h a r y ' ร s u c c e s s o r . P o p e S t e p h e n I I (pont.
Donation,
Rome.
p r o m i s i n g t o p r o t e c t , a n d at t h i s t i m e also t o r e c o v e r a n d r e t u r n ,
Pepin and Stephen enjoyed a favourable relationship, however,
t h r o u g h t h e Donations
power
752-757) t o w h o m h e m a d e a
grew
Constanttum
of b o t h Pepin and Constantine, Pope
considerably
Constantini
relative
to
that
of
Pepin.
Stephen's
The
forged
is t h o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n w r i t t e n a r o u n d this t i m e ,
perhaps i n response to the question over w h e r e the justification came
f r o m for Pepin's gift of Ravenna, Emilia, Pentapolis a n d R o m e to Pope
Stephen after he h a d freed t h e m f r o m L o m b a r d .
Although
the
immediate
aftermath
of
Pepin's
Donation
was
disarray for the p a p a l state, w i t h Pope P a u l I a n d Pope Stephen ш
one
of
being
challenged respectively b y the antipopes Constantine a n d Philip, this w a s
to
alter
once
Pepin's
C h a r l e m a g n e {imp.
son,
Charlemagne,
acceded
to
the
throne. 1
7
768-814) e n j o y e d a v e r y close r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h P o p e
H a d r i a n I {pont. 7 7 2 - 7 9 5 ) . C h a r l e m a g n e t o o k h i s r o l e as R o m e ' s p r o t e r t o r
s e r i o u s l y b u t so t o o d i d h e r e s p o n d t o t h e a f f a i r s o f t h e p a p a l s t a t e ; t h e
title 'patrician of the R o m a n s ' w a s n o t for Charlemagne a symbolic one.
His
dealings
in
Ravenna
made
Hadrian
uneasy
because
what
C h a r l e m a g n e c l e a r l y s a w as h i s r i g h t a n d b e n e f i c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . P o p e
H a d r i a n s a w as i n t e r f e r e n c e i n a r e a l m w h i c h d i d n o t c o n c e r n h i m .
C h a r l e m a g n e r e g a r d e d h i m s e l f as t h e d e f e n d e r o f t h e C h u r c h a n d as s u c h ,
w h e n the second C o u n c i l of Nicaea was convened he t h o u g h t it o n l y
corrert that he w e i g h i n a n d expressed strong v i e w s o n the iconoclasm of
t h e East.
1 K e l l y , Dictionar y
7
of Popes, p p . 9 2 - 5 .
20
W h e n P o p e L e o Π Ι (pont.
795-816) r e p l a c e d H a d r i a n I u p o n h i s d e a t h ,
Charlemagne's
in
position
relation
to
the
sacerdotal
power
was
strengthened. Leo was not universally popular and was attacked i n
f o r c i n g h i m t o flee t o C h a r l e m a g n e ' s p r o t e c t i o n .
against
Leo, including
those
of
ρθηιιτγ
and
799,
Charges were brought
adultery.
This
caused
s o m e t h i n g o f a q u a n d a r y f o r C h a r l e m a g n e because h e w a s , i n essence,
being asked to f o r m judgement pertaining to the innocence or guilt of a
correctly
elérted
sitting
Pope
and
such
a
judgement,
whatever
Charlemagne concluded, w o u l d go against the principle that n o earthly
p o w e r s h o u l d b e p e r m i t t e d t o j u d g e t h e a p o s t o l i c see.
Pope Leo was
safely r e t u r n e d to R o m e a n d C h a r l e m a g n e j o u r n e y e d to the city a year
later.
The council over w h i c h Charlemagne presided i n this matter was
c h a r g e d t o l o o k at t h e accusations m a d e against t h e P o p e , b u t
without
directly sitting in judgement over h i m ; a somewhat tenuous distinction.
Leo f u l l y s u b m i t t e d to the council a n d it f o u n d i n his f a v o u r after Leo h a d
s o l e m n l y p r o n o u n c e d h i s i n n o c e n c e . T h e f a c t t h a t , w h a t w a s i n essence a
j u d g e m e n t u p o n p o p e w a s a l l o w e d t o o c c u r g a v e substance t o a close
a d v i s e r o f C h a r l e m a g n e , A l c u i n ' ร p r o n o u n c e m e n t t h a t : " O u r L o r d Jesus
C h r i s t h a s set y o u u p as t h e r u l e r o f C h r i s t i a n p e o p l e , i n p o w e r
more
excellent t h a n the p o p e or the e m p e r o r of Constantinople, i n
wisdom
m o r e distinguished, i n the d i g n i t y of y o u r rule m o r e sublime.
On
alone d e p e n d s the w h o l e safety of the churches of Christ/"18
you
Nonetheless,
w a s n o t p e r m i t t e d t o s i t i n j u d g e m e n t o v e r t h e p a p a l see. T w o d a y s a f t e r
t h e c o u n c i l c o n c l u d e d its p r o c e e d i n g s , o n 25 D e c e m b e r 800, s u b s e q u e n t t o
celebrating Mass, Leo placed a c r o w n u p o n Charlemagne's head
declared h i m to be 'Emperor of the Romans'.
from
I
8
Charlemagne, it w a s clearly
R . พ . S o u t h e r n , mstern
Society
Despite later protestations
a pre-arranged
and the Church
and
in the Middle
Ages,
a n d staged
event.
( L o n d o n , 1970), p. 32.
21
however, it was b y n o means entirely to Charlemagne's benefit
and
c e r t a i n l y n o t t o t h a t o f h i s successors i n several instances.
I n c r o w n i n g C h a r l e m a g n e , Pope Leo w a s reasserting his status t h r o u g h
t h e s y m b o l i s m o f a p o p e c r o w n i n g a n d , t h e r e f o r e i n s o m e senses, c r e a t i n g
an emperor, w h i c h w o u l d not have been lost o n h i m .
Nonetheless, the
P o p e w a s p l a c i n g t h e sole secular p o w e r i n t h e h a n d s of the W e s t e r n
E m p e r o r a n d consequently, rejecting his Eastern coxmterpart, m a k i n g the
split b e t w e e n East a n d W e s t e v e n m o r e decisive. T h e p a p a c y h e n c e f o r t h
increasingly looked w e s t w a r d ; to the Frankish k i n g d o m , to christianised
Spain once the 're-conquest' of Spain f r o m the M o o r s h a d begtm,!^ a n d to
t h e g r o w i n g N o r m a n k i n g d o m w h i c h c a m e t o i n c l u d e England.20 W h a t is
c l e a r f r o m a l l t h i s i s t h a t d r a w i n g u p o n t h e Constanttum
Constantini,
i n the
pronouncement of Charlemagne to be E m p e r o r of the Romans, relations
between pope and emperor were made more complicated,
further
the
already
opaque
waters,
and
bringing
the
muddying
secular
and
ecclesiastical r e a l m s i n t o a m o r e c e r t a i n c o l l i s i o n course. T h r o u g h t h i s act,
the emperor c o u l d c l a i m p r i m a c y over all R o m a n affairs b y u s i n g his title,
i n c l u d i n g those of the C h u r c h , b u t similarly, the pope could
declare
s u p r e m a c y b y b e i n g a b l e t o d e p o s e , i n t h e case o f P o p e Z a c h a r y a n d K i n g
Childeric I I I , a n d c r o w n , i n the instance of Pope Leo I I I a n d the E m p e r o r
C h a r l e m a g n e , w h o m s o e v e r t h e y chose.
This a m b i g u i t y came to haunt
b o t h the i m p e r i a l forces a n d the p a p a c y i n later centuries.
19 T h e ' r e - c o n q u e s ť
w a s n o t c o m p l e t e u n t i l 1492 w h e n G r a n a d a fell to the
Christìan
forces a n d S p a m w a s r e u n i t e d as a C h r i s t ì a n c o u n t r y t h r o u g h t h e m a r r i a g e a n d r u l e o f
K i n g F e r d i n a n d a n d Q u e e n Isabella (1479-1516).
շ
0 Incidentally, first evangelised b y G r e g o r y the Great w h e r e m u c h of his
t h o u g h t w a s t o t r i u m p h a t t h e S y n o d o f W h i t b y i n 6 6 4 ( c f . B e d e , Ecclesiastical
the English
ecclesiastical
History
of
People).
22
C h a r l e m a g n e ' s s u c c e s s o r , L o u i s t h e P i o u s (imp.
8 1 4 - 4 0 ) , i n t e r v e n e d less
f r e q u e n t l y o r s e v e r e l y a n d u n d e r P a s c h a l I (pont.
817-24) t h e
papacy
m a n a g e d t o p u l l b a c k s o m e o f its lost g r o u n d t e m p o r a r i l y ; E u g e n i u s
п
{pont. 8 2 4 - 3 7 ) a n d S e r g i u s I I {pont. 8 4 4 - 4 7 ) w e r e , h o w e v e r , n o t as s t e a d f a s t
i n e n s u r i n g the r e t e n t i o n of these gains.
Charlemagne's empire
a l r e a d y i n d e c l i n e ; n o n e o f h i s successors l i v e d u p t o
promise.
was
Charlemagne's
S i m i l a r l y , i n t h e p a p a l s p h e r e , P o p e N i c h o l a s I (pont.
858-67)
w a s p r o b a b l y t h e final p o p e p r i o r t o t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y t o act as h e i r t o
s u c h p o p e s as ' t h e G r e a t s ' ; L e o I , G e l a s i u s I a n d G r e g o r y I .
His v i e w of
the p a p a l office concurred w i t h theirs a n d it w a s thus that
Nicholas
r e f u s e d t o accept L o t h a i r п o f L o r r a i n e ' s p u t t i n g aside o f his l a w f u l w i f e ,
Theutberga, and subsequent marriage to his concubine.
Lothair
was
b r o t h e r t o E m p e r o r L o u i s I I {imp. 8 5 5 - 7 7 ) w h o l a i d s i e g e t o R o m e
Nicholas refused to capitulate.
but
Lothair was resultantly compelled
a c c e p t t h e P o p e ' s decree.2^ P o p e J o h n V I I I (pont.
872-82) c r o w n e d
e m p e r o r s i n c l o s e s u c c e s s i o n ; C h a r l e s t h e B a l d (imp.
to
th
r ee
875-77), L o u i s t h e
S t a m m e r e r (imp. 8 7 8 - 9 ) a n d C h a r l e s t h e F a t (imp. 8 8 1 - 8 8 7 ) ; n o n e o f w h o m
were
in
any
way
remarkable
and
who
died
in
quick
s u c c e s s i o n . 22
C h a r l e m a g n e ' s e m p i r e c a m e to a c o m p l e t e standstill i n 887 w h e n Charles
the Fat w a s deposed a n d d i e d the f o l l o w i n g year.
A
b r i e f l o o k at the late n i n t h c e n t u r y a n d t e n t h c e n t u r y p a p a c y
clearly indicate w h y
i n the early to mid-eleventh century the
m o v e m e n t w a s necessary a n d g r e w accordingly.
will
reform
B e t w e e n 8 8 2 a n d 1012
n o f e w e r t h a n five p o p e s w e r e m u r d e r e d w i t h t w o p r o b a b l e o t h e r s a n d
t h r e e a n t i p o p e s ; J o h n X I I (pont.
H a d r i a n I I I (pont.
շ
ւ This
(pont.
872-82) p o i s o n e d a n d c l u b b e d t o d e a t h ;
8 8 4 - 5 ) m a y h a v e b e e n m u r d e r e d ; S t e p h e n V I {pont.
decree, h o w e v e r ,
effectively
became
null
and
void
under
Pope
896-
Hadrian
п
867-72).
՜ひ P o p e J o h n V I I I a l s o h a s t h e d u b i o u s h o n o u r o f b e i n g t h e f i r s t p o p e i s t o h a v e b e e n
r e c o g n i s e d t o h a v e b e e n a s s a s s i n a t e d . ( K e l l y , Dictionar y
of Popes, p .
Ill)
23
7) s t r a n g l e d w h i l s t i n p r i s o n ; L e o V (pont.
903) d e p o s e d a f t e r o n e m o n t h
b y a m e m b e r of his clergy, C h r i s t o p h e r ( a n t i p o p e 903), b o t h of
were
murdered
in prison, most
s u c c e s s o r , S e r g i u s I I I {pont.
probably
at the c o m m a n d
9 0 4 - 1 1 ) ; J o h n х (pont.
whom
of
Leo's
914-928) s u f f o c a t e d i n
p r i s o n b u t e v e n s o s t i l l m a n a g e d t o o u t l i v e h i s s u c c e s s o r L e o vin
կ)0Ոէ.
9 2 8 ) ; S t e p h e n V I I I {pont.
died
939-42) w a s i m p r i s o n e d , m u t i l a t e d a n d
f r o m h i s i n j u r i e s ; J o h n xrv
murdered,
he
either
{pont.
starved
983-84) w a s i m p r i s o n e d a n d p r o b a b l y
to
death
or
was
poisoned; John
XVI
( a n t i p o p e 947-8) w a s h o r r i f i c a l l y m u t i l a t e d b u t d e s p i t e h a v i n g n o eyes,
nose, lips, t o n g u e or hands, s u r v i v e d for another three years, a n d
Sergius
IV
(pont.
1009-1012), a C r e s c e n t i a n
murdered by the Tusculani family.
stooge, w a s
most
finally;
likely
For m u c h of this t i m e , the fate of the
papacy was held in the hands of Rome's r u l i n g families, primarily
Crescenti!, the Tusculani a n d the Theophylarts.
the
Papal candidates w o u l d
v a r y a c c o r d i n g t o w h i c h f a m i l y h a p p e n e d t o b e d o m i n a n t at t h e t i m e , b u t
the t y p e of p o p e altered little; w e a k , often p o w e r - h i m g r y a n d d e v o i d of
t h e m o r a l s t a n d a r d s e x p e r f e d o f t h e a p o s t o l i c see. A f e w e x a m p l e s w i l l
serve t o illustrate this.
P o p e S t e p h e n V I {pont. 8 9 6 - 7 ) h a d h i s p r e d e c e s s o r F o r m o s u s {pont.
891-
896) e x h u m e d n i n e m o n t h s a f t e r h i s d e a t h , d r e s s e d u p i n p o n t i f i c a l r o b e s
a n d t r i e d for p e r j u r y w i t h a y o u n g deacon a n s w e r i n g the questions for
h i m . After being f o u n d guilty Formosus h a d the three fingers of his right
h a n d w h i c h w e r e used to give blessings hacked off a n d his b o d y
was
t h r o w n into the Tiber before being eventually recovered and buried b y a
m o n k a n d t h e n later retrieved b y a subsequent p o p e . Stephen V I d i d n o t
last m u c h
longer; the
Roman
people
were
up
in arms
about
these
i n c i d e n t s ( F o r m o s u s w a s a l l e g e d l y a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o m o t e r o f t h e ascetic
life) a n d Pope Stephen w a s d e p o s e d , i m p r i s o n e d a n d strangled s h o r t l y
after.
B o n i f a c e V I , w h o w a s p o p e f o r less t h a n a m o n t h ( A p r i l 8 9 6 ) i n -
between Formosus a n d Stephen V I , w a s n o shining example of m o r a l i t y
24
(pont. 8 7 2 - 8 2 ) , o n t h e
e i t h e r ; h e h a d b e e n d e g r a d e d t w i c e b y J o h n vni
second o f these occasions it w a s w h i l s t he w a s a priest, for
immorality
a n d he h a d n e v e r h a d his status restored.
T h e case o f p o p e s f r o m S e r g i u s I I I (pont.
9 0 4 - 1 1 ) u n t i l J o h n X I (pont. 9 3 1 -
3 5 ) is a n i n t e r e s t i n g a n d i n t e r t w i n e d o n e . T o b e g i n w i t h S e r g i u s I I I , s o o n
after b e c o m i n g p o p e , he h a d b o t h L e o V
and
antipope
Christopher
strangled. Sergius h a d strong connertions w i t h the f a m i l y of Theophylact
( d . c. 9 2 0 ) w h o c o n t r o l l e d t h e
finances
o f t h e R o m a n see a n d a l s o t h e
m i l i t i a ; i n essence, t h e f a m i l y g o v e r n e d R o m e .
son
with
Theophylact
Anastasius ш
(pont.
and
Senatrix
Sergius r e p u t e d l y h a d a
Theodora's
9 1 1 - 1 3 ) a n d L a n d o (pont.
daughter,
Marioza.
9 1 3 - 1 4 ) a r e p o r t r a y e d as
little m o r e t h a n puppets of the Theophylact f a m i l y a n d embarked u p o n
f e w i n i t i a t i v e s o f t h e i r o w n . J o h n X (pont. 9 1 4 - 2 8 d e p o s e d ) w a s a s t r o n g e r
leader, b u t w i t h i n the context of T h e o p h y l a c t d o m i n a t i o n rather
than
w o r k i n g against it; he m a y or m a y not have been a former lover
Theodora.
of
John d i d , h o w e v e r , distance h i m s e l f after a t i m e f r o m all the
Roman noble families
a n d it was this that
led to M a r i o z a
and
her
h u s b a n d . G u i d o , M a r q u i s of Tuscany, to organise a rebellion
against
Pope John, leading to his deposition, i m p r i s o n m e n t and m u r d e r .
Leo V I
l a s t e d o n l y s i x m o n t h s as p o p e i n 9 2 8 , h e w a s a l l b u t e l e c t e d b y M a r i o z a
a n d w a s e n t i r e l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n h e r p a t r o n a g e ; t h e s a m e is t r u e f o r h i s
s u c c e s s o r , S t e p h e n vn
of
Marioza
and
was
կ)0Ոէ.
most
9 2 8 - 3 1 ) . J o h n X I (pont. 9 3 1 - 3 5 ) w a s t h e s o n
probably
fathered
by
Pope
Sergius
III;
u n s u r p r i s i n g l y , John w a s designed to a n d d i d succeed i n b e i n g a tool of
p o w e r f o r M a r i o z a . A f t e r h e r s e c o n d h u s b a n d d i e d , she m a r r i e d H u g h o f
Provence, K i n g of Italy, w h o w a s brother-in-law to M a r i o z a , b u t despite
her marriage being นncanonical, her son. Pope John, officiated a n y w a y .
A l l w a s n o t h a r m o n i o u s t h o u g h as t h e r e w a s s u s p i c i o n o v e r h a v i n g H u g h
o f P r o v e n c e as a f o r e i g n r u l e r a n d t h i s w a s e x a c e r b a t e d b y a n o t h e r o f
M a r i o z a ' ร sons a n d John's half-brother, A l b e r i c I I .
25
A l b e r i c i m p r i s o n e d M a r i o z a a n d J o h n , d e c l a r e d h i m s e l f as g o v e r n o r
of
R o m e a n d e v e n t u a l l y let h i s b r o t h e r o u t o f p r i s o n a n d k e p t h i m u n d e r
T h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r p o n t i f f s ( L e o V I I (pont.
house arrest instead.
S t e p h e n vni
(pont. 9 3 9 - 4 2 ) , M a r i n u s I I (pont. 942-6),
946-9),
A g a p i t u s I I {pont.
55) w e r e a l l i n d e b t t o A l b e r i c f o r t h e i r p r o m o t i o n s .
946-
O n his death bed,
A l b e r i c u n c a n o n i c a l l y forced A g a p i t u s to concur, a l o n g w i t h the rest of
the R o m a n clergy a n d n o b i l i t y that his o w n son, O r t a v i a n , w o u l d succeed
Agapitus
as p o p e .
This
occurred
just
as A l b e r i c
commanded
O c t a v i a n b e c a m e P o p e J o h n Х П at t h e age o f e i g h t e e n .
and
F r o m 958 t o 9 6 0
John experienced political difficulties i n Rome and sought the help
of
Otto
by
I,
K ing
simultaneously
of
Germany,
hoping
to
induce
offering the imperial crown.
him
to
do
so
Otto was anointed
and
c r o w n e d e a r l y i n 962 a n d w i t h his c o r o n a t i o n , the H o l y R o m a n E m p i r e
was
reinstated.
Due
to
difficulties
which
arose b e t w e e n
Pope
and
Emperor, a synod over w h i c h Otto presided deposed John and installed
L e o V I I {pont.
963-5),23 J o h n f o u n d t h a t h e h a d c o n s i d e r a b l e
h o w e v e r , a n d so f o u g h t h i s w a y b a c k .
support,
It was r u m o u r e d f r o m the outset
t h a t J o h n h a d t u r n e d t h e L a t e r a n Palace i n t o a b r o t h e l , it w a s p e r h a p s n o
surprise, therefore, w h e n he allegedly d i e d of a stroke aged o n l y t w e n t y five w h i l s t i n b e d w i t h a m a r r i e d w o m a n .
B o n i f a c e V I I w h o w a s b o t h a n t i p o p e i n 974 a n d p o p e i n 9 8 4 - 8 5 w a s set u p
b y the Crescentii family.
W h e n antipope he was aware of a m o v e to
r e s t o r e t h e f o r m e r P o p e 68Ո(ՍԺ V I (pont. 9 7 3 - 4 ) a n d s o h a d h i m s t r a n g l e d
^ L e o vn
h a d , i n fact,
risen
f r o m the status of l a y m a n to p o p e i n the space of a single
d a y ; i t w a s f a r f r o m u s u a l f o r a p o p e t o a s c e n d t o t h e a p o s t o l i c see w i t h s u c h
rapid
succession b u t that the process w a s speeded u p s o m e w h a t w a s n o t u n p r e c e d e n t e d ; John
X I X (pont.
1024-32) w a s t o r e p e a t t h e p r o c e d u r e a n d St A m b r o s e h a d m a d e t h e l e a p o v e r
t h e course of a w e e k , a l t h o u g h h e at least e x p e r i e n c e d t h e process a d a y at a t i m e
and
t o o k place i n t h e face o f p o p u l a r a c c l a i m , a n d , i t is asserted, u n w i l l i n g l y .
26
b y a priest to prevent his restoration.
the Crescenti! faniily
B o n i f a c e w a s e x c o m m u n i c a t e d as
c o n s e n t e d t o P o p e B e n e d i c t vn's
(pont.
974-83)
accession i n s t e a d . B o n i f a c e m a n a g e d t o re-ascend t h e p a p a l t h r o n e i n 984
b y h a v i n g t h e u n p o p u l a r J o h n X I V կ)օոէ.
murdered.
983-4) d e p o s e d , i m p r i s o n e d a n d
P o p e J o h n X I X (ponř. 1 0 2 4 - 3 2 ) , l i k e L e o V I I I , a l s o m a d e t h e
j u m p f r o m l a y m a n to p o p e i n a day and apparently bribed his w a y to the
papal office. H e w a s clearly not respected b y the n e w E m p e r o r , C o n r a d
I I (imp.
1024-39) as h e r e f u s e d t o s w e a r t o p r o t e r t R o m e i n t h e s a m e w a y
his O t t o m a n forefathers h a d done.
I X {pont.
P o p e J o h n X I X ' ร successor, B e n e d i c t
1 0 3 2 - 4 4 ; 1045; 1 0 4 7 - 8 ) w a s a l s o a l a y m a n u p o n h i s e l e r t i o n , h e
w a s the son of the h e a d of the T u s c u l a n f a m i l y a n d the electorate w a s
b r i b e d t o accept h i m .
H i s three periods out of office w e r e due to an
insurrection due to his u n p o p u l a r i t y , the Crescenti f a m i l y instituting their
o w n P o p e , S i l v e s t e r in a n d as a r e s u l t o f B e n e d i c t ' s o w n sale o f t h e o f f i c e
t o h i s g o d f a t h e r , J o h n G r a t i a n ( G r e g o r y V I , pont.
1045-6).
T o decide w h i c h o u t of all these p o p e s h a d the greatest m o r a l failings a n d
was most
influential in bringing
the apostolic
see t o
the
depths
of
d e g r a d a t i o n w h i c h it reached, w o u l d be a l e n g t h y a n d unnecessary job.
W h a t is i m p o r t a n t is t h a t b y t h e m i d - e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y , t h e p a p a c y , t h e
h e a d o f t h e C h u r c h i n t h i s w o r l d , w a s a b o u t as f a r as i t c o u l d g e t f r o m t h e
v i s i o n o f t h e E a r l y C h u r c h F a t h e r s . I t i s c l e a r t o see w h y m u c h o f t h i s w a s
b l a m e d u p o n t h e d e a l i n g s o f the ecclesiastical sphere w i t h t h e secular
s p h e r e . T o a l a r g e d e g r e e , t h e see o f R o m e h a d b e e n e n t i r e l y a t t h e b e c k
a n d call of the secular p o w e r s ; t h e l e a d i n g R o m a n n o b i l i t y h a d
amongst themselves to h a v e their candidate elected p o p e .
vied
O f course, i n
t h i s c o n t e x t the w o r d ' e l e c t e d ' is a l i t t l e m e a n i n g l e s s ; 'elections' o f t h i s
kind
usually
took
place
through
bribery
or
force.
A
reasonable
p r o p o r t i o n o f t h o s e w h o a c c e d e d t o t h e p a p a l see h a d l i t t l e o r n o i n t e r e s t
i n the spiritual life; politics a n d p o w e r , or perhaps m o r e correctly, p o w e r -
27
politics, w a s the n a m e of the game.
The g r o w t h and influence of the
r e f o r m m o v e m e n t w a s a n inevitable a n d necessary t u r n of events.
28
Chapter Зะ 'Secular Church' and Monastic reform: The House
of Cluny, Peter Damian and Cardinal Humbert
W h a t c a n b r o a d l y b e d e f i n e d as ' t h e R e f o r m M o v e m e n t ' w a s b y n o m e a n s
a u n i t e d m o v e m e n t w i t h r e g a r d to its a i m s , objertives a n d artions.
general t e r m s , t h r e e p o i n t s can be seen t o it.
In
T h e first is r e f o r m w i t h a
w h o l l y secular d r i v i n g force, p r i m a r i l y that of H e i \ r y I I a n d H e n r y
Ш,
a n d shall n o t b e dealt w i t h i n t h i s chapter.^ T h i s is n o t t o d i s m i s s t h e r o l e
of the early Salian rulers w i t h i n the m o v e m e n t for reform.
As Ullmann
highlights, it w a s they w h o b egan the m o v e m e n t , 'whatever " r e f o r m " the
post-Leonine
popes
carried
out
or
tried
to
carry
out,
conditioned b y the previous imperial r e f o r m measures/2
was
largely
T h e s e c o n d is
w h a t c a n b e r e f e r r e d t o as ' s e c u l a r c h u r c h r e f o r m ' a n d w o u l d i n c l u d e t h e
r e f o r m s a d v o c a t e d b y t h e p a p a c y a n d p a p a l a d v i s e r s . I t i s l a b e l l e d as
'secular' b ecause it concerned the coxmections b e t w e e n the C h u r c h a n d
the w o r l d . The t h i r d contrib utory element to reform was the g r o w t h and
rejuvenation of monasticism; the most celeb rated example b eing that of
Abbot
Hugh's
sixty-year
reign
over
the
House
of
Cluny
and
his
relationship and influence w i t h b o t h Gregory V I I and H e n r y ĪV.
One
also c a n n o t a d e q u a t e l y l o o k at e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y r e f o r m w i t h o u t a n a l y s i n g
t h e r o l e o f St P e t e r D a m i a n , a f o r m e r p r i o r o f F o n t e A v e l l a n a
who,
despite his protestations a n d constant desire to r e t u r n to w i t h i n
the
monastery walls, was m a d e Cardinal-b ishop of Ostia b y Stephen IX, a n d
that
of
Cardinal
Moyenmoutier.
H u mb e r t
of
Silva
Candida,
originally
a
monk
of
H u mb e r t a n d D a m i a n o s v i e w s d i f f e r e d s h a r p l y o v e r t h e
issue o f t h e r e - o r d i n a t i o n of priests w h o h a d b e e n o r d a i n e d b y s i m o n i a c a !
bishops b ut whose o w n p r o m o t i o n had not involved simony.
Despite
See p p . 4 6 - 7 , 5 3 - 4 , 6 3 .
- พ . U U m a r m , Growth
of Papal
Government
in the Middle
Ages,
( L o n d o n , 1955), p. 262.
29
their divergence of o p i n i o n b o t h m e n w e r e influential figures, especially
i n the papacy of Leo IX.
C l u n y w a s f o u n d e d i n 910 b y W i l l i a m , d u k e o f A q u i t a i n e .
F r o m its
inception the order held reformist principles, inaugurating a strirter a n d
r e n e w e d f o r m of the Benedictine life.
I t w a s t h r o u g h its
Foundation
C h a r t e r that C l u n y , a n d i n t u r n later its dependencies also, g a i n e d its
u n i q u e status.
rendered
Decrees enacted b y Pope G r e g o r y V a n d Pope John X I X
Cluny
theoretically
increasing
free
from
at least, p a p a l .
dependence,
interference,
be
T h r o u g h this, ' A
service, a n d
sympathy
it
lay,
bond
had
episcopal
of m u t u a l
been
3
or,
and
established
between the Cluniacร a n d the Papacy, w h i c h w a s henceforth n o r m a l l y to
be decisive for their relationship/^ Nonetheless, C l u n y still subsequently
h a d occasion t o r e l y at t i m e s u p o n the assistance o f b o t h l a y l o r d s a n d t h e
papacy.
T h e Charter created a special relationship b e t w e e n the papacy
a n d C l u n y i n t h a t C l u n y ' ร d i r e c t d e p e n d e n c e f o r h e r l i b e r t y w a s u p o n St
Peter a n d , t h e r e f o r e , h i s heir, w h i c h adherence t o t h e t h e o r y of p a p a l
primacy
promulgated.
Interestingly, the m o ti v a t i o n for creating
this
relationship f r o m the p o i n t of v i e w of t h e pontificate w a s m o r e based at
this t i m e , i n l i m i t i n g the p o w e r of the episcopacy t h a n that of the laity.
Certain bishops i n particular, posed a threat to the pope's a u t h o r i t y t h e
papacy became thoroughly embroiled i n the struggle between numerous
bishops of Orleans a n d the m o n k s
of Fleury.
For the papacy,
this
particular struggle became not just about the d u t y w h i c h they o w e d to
m o n a s t i c p r o t e c t i o n , b u t also t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e c l a i m s o f p a p a l p r i m a c y
against episcopal rights.
T h i s p a t t e r n w a s r e i t e r a t e d i n 1079 w h e n C l u n y
a n d the church of M a c o n came into conflict. Monastic f r e e d o m , i n general,
h a d been i n Carolingian times, guaranteed above all b y the r o y a l p o w e r .
3
T h e f u l l e x e m p t i o n b e c a m e active i n 1024. Cf. н. E. J. C o w d r e y , The Cluniacร
and the
Gregońan Reform ( O x f o r d , 1970), p. 34.
4
C o w d r e y , Cluntacร, p. 4 3 ,
30
b u t as E m p e r o r s b e c a m e w e a k e r a n d t h i s p o w e r r e c e d e d , l a y l o r d s a n d
princes
tended
to
predominate.
This
influence
was
not
always
a
beneficial one a n d , t o w a r d s the end of the n i n t h century reached a point
whereby,
t h e r e b e g a n a w i d e s p r e a d r e v u l s i o n a g a i n s t the dominium
which laymen
exercised, as a r e s u l t o f the P r o p r i e t a r y C h u r c h S y s t e m , o v e r b o t h the
m o n a s t i c a n d secular o r d e r s o f the C h u r c h .
The clergy h a d for
long
e m p h a s i z e d the d u t i e s , r a t h e r t h a n the r i g h t s , o f t h e k i n g , w i t h r e g a r d t o
the c h u r c h e s t h a t h e p r o t e c t e d .
N o w t h a t lesser l o r d s w e r e
advancing
t h e i r p o s i t i o n , the c l e r g y w e r e the b e t t e r able t o p r o m o t e a m o v e m e n t
against l a y d o m i n i o n . 5
I t w a s as a r e s u l t o f t h i s r e a c t i o n t h a t p r o t e r t i o n f r o m l a y p o w e r s w a s
i n c r e a s i n g l y s o u g h t b y m o n a s t e r i e s f r o m t h e see o f R o m e .
I n times of
need of p r o t e r t i o n , monasteries l o o k e d to the papacy i n the first instance
a n d o n l y t o r o y a l p o w e r as a s e c o n d a r y m e a s u r e . ^ I t w o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , b e
a m i s t a k e t o m a r k t h i s d e v e l o p m e n t as o n e r e l a t e d t o t h e
Reforms, but instead substantially predates them.
Gregorian
As Cowdrey
makes
explicit i n relation to C l u n y ,
I t a l r e a d y p r o v i d e d the q u i n t e s s e n t i a l e x a m p l e of ' l i b e r t a s ' , as a n u t t e r
freedom
from
temporal
subjection
under
immediate
papal
defence,
w h i c h w a s a r e a d y - m a d e p a t t e r n f o r the G r e g o r i a n s t o a d o p t i n t h e i r
o w n struggle for the f r e e d o m of the C h u r c h f r o m temporal d o m i n a t i o n .
T h a n k s i n n o s m a l l m e a s u r e t o p a p a l a c t i o n o n its b e h a l f , the first f a c t o r
i n the a r t i c u l a t i o n o f C l u n y ' ร l i b e r t y - the g u a r a n t e e i n g o f its f r e e d o m
f r o m e x t e r n a l c l a i m s u p o n i t i n t e m p o r a l m a t t e r s , a n d e s p e c i a l l y o f its
i m m u n i t y - w a s , b y 1032, f u l l y a n d c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d /
Despite the potential for C l u n y to have become a w a y for the papacy to
d e l i v e r its message t h r o u g h o u t t h e e m p i r e , this w o u l d be to s e r i o u s l y
5
C o w d r e y , Cluniacร,
p. 12.
6/birf„ p.l5.
7 Ibid.. p. 22.
31
tınderestimate the role that C l u n y i n a n d of itself p l a y e d : ' . . . i n the first
t h i r d o f t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y C l u n y d e c i s i v e l y e m e r g e d as a f o c a l p o i n t
about w h i c h the aspirations of the monastic order for freedom f r o m all
k i n d s of external a u t h o r i t y b e g a n u n i q u e l y t o gather.'^
Cluny
did, however,
provide
more
than just
The reforms of
a focal
point
for
the
aspirations of m o n a s t i c r e f o r m , b u t also for t h e secular c h u r c h r e f o r m s
t h a t P o p e G r e g o r y vn
envisaged.
The monastic order supplied a very
g o o d example for G r e g o r y of w h a t he w a n t e d to achieve w i t h i n the w i d e r
C h u r c h . The h i g h l y hierarchical a n d centralised structure of C l i m y w a s a
m o d e l for w h a t G r e g o r y w i s h e d t o create.
A l t h o u g h there w a s certainly a great d e p t h of m u t u a l respect b e t w e e n
A b b o t H u g h a n d G r e g o r y vn,
C o w d r e y is m o s t p r o b a b l y a c c u r a t e
a r g u i n g t h a t t h e closeness of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p is o f t e n o v e r p l a y e d .
l i t e r a t u r e is i n a g r e e m e n t t h a t G r e g o r y w a s n e v e r a m o n k
at
in
Most
Clxiny,
a l t h o u g h s u b s e q u e n t t o h i s time s p e n t w i t h G r e g o r y V I i n e x i l e , h e m a y
have spent u p to a year there, b u t it nonetheless appears u n l i k e l y that if
Hildebrand and H u g h even met any lasting bonds were formed.
coincidental
that
Gregory
and
Hugh
had
similar
It is
reforming
aims,
a l t h o u g h it s h o u l d be borne i n m i n d that their notions of h o w
e n v i s a g e d these changes t a k i n g place, a n d t h e effect w h i c h t h e y
have, were q uite radically different.
they
would
Gregory was grounded, to a large
extent, i n m a k i n g i m p r o v e m e n t s w i t h i n the С һ ш с һ i n this w o r l d .
s a w h i s m i s s i o n as t h a t o f r e f o r m i n g
inspired by
Jerusalem.
the 'secular
ideas of Christianising 'barbarian nations' a n d
been m o r e different f r o m H u g h ' s v i e w
8
from
was
regaining
Gregory w o u l d have been clearly disappointed w i t h h a v i n g
to give u p his desire to l a u n c h the First Crusade.
reform
church' and
He
9
This could not have
of the w o r l d .
Hugh
sought
w i t h i n the monastic w a l l s , a n d that its influence
would
C o w d r e y , Cluniacร, p. 43.
9 Reg. 2.31, p p . 122-4.
32
e n c o u r a g e o t h e r s t o t h e m o n a s t i c l i f e ; h i s m o t i v a t i o n w a s n o t t o act w i t h i n
the w i d e r w o r l d , it was to encourage a r e t u r n to the Benedictine monastic
l i f e . T h e p o t e n t i a l f o r t e n s i o n b e t w e e n H u g h a n d G r e g o r y is s e e n i n s u c h
e x a m p l e s as H u g h ' s r e s p o n s e t o K i n g P h i l i p I o f F r a n c e ' s l e t t e r t o h i m ,
asking w h e t h e r it w o u l d be legitimate for h i m to e n d his earthly
w i t h i n the w a l l s of a monastery.
life
H u g h ' s response w a s to strongly urge
h i m t o d o s o b u t G r e g o r y c o n d e m n e d t h i s a r t i o n i n t h e case o f
Duke
H u g h of B u r g u n d y i n a m a n n e r w h i c h indicated he felt that to encourage
a ruler to a b a n d o n his subjerts w a s irresponsible.
'Behold! those
who
s e e m t o f e a r o r t o l o v e G o d flee f r o m t h e b a t t l e o f C h r i s t , d i s r e g a r d t h e
s a l v a t i o n o f t h e i r b r o t h e r s , a n d as t h o u g h l o v i n g o n l y t h e m s e l v e s seek
quiet/iö
T h i s is i l l u s t r a t i v e o f G r e g o r y ' s a d h e r e n c e t o t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f
s p i r i t u a l a c t i o n w i t h i n the secular w o r l d .
dogs that defend the
flocks;
' T h e s h e p h e r d s flee as d o t h e
w o l v e s a n d robbers i n v a d e C h r i s ť s sheep
w h i l e n o one challenges t h e m . Y o u have t a k e n or received the d u k e into
the quiet of C l u n y ― a n d y o u have brought it about that a
hundred
t h o u s a n d Christians lack a guardian!'11
Monastic
through
reform
its
reached
growing
the
influence
attention
at large
of
and
the
secular
Church
through, amongst
both
other
s o u r c e s , a d v i s e r s c l o s e t o t h e p a p a l see w h o h a d f o r m e r l y b e e n m o n k s , i n
b o t h I taly a n d France.
St P e t e r D a m i a n i s p e r h a p s t h e m o s t
notable
e x a m p l e o f t h e m i d - e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y . I n h i s case, i t i s h e n c e u n s u r p r i s i n g
that his gravest concern w a s that of clerical นnchastity; he saw the p u r i t y
o f H o l y O r d e r s as p a r a m o u n t a n d b e l i e v e d t h a t i f o n e c o u l d n o t f a c e
temptation a n d remain pure i n body, then one could certainly not remain
c l e a n i n s p i r i t , a f t e r a l l , as Jesus d e m o n s t r a t e d , t o b e t e m p t e d is n o t t o s i n ;
s i n is o n l y c o m m i t t e d t h r o u g h t h e c o n s u m m a t i o n o f t e m p t a t i o n .
t h u s that clerical c h a s t i t y is the p r i m a r y t h e m e o f m a n y of
10
Reg. 6.17, p. 299.
11
Reg. 6.17, p. 299.
I t is
Damianos
33
s u r v i v i n g letters.i2 N o n e t h e l e s s , h e d i d also m a k e c o n s i d e r a b l e c o m m e n t
u p o n t h e i s s u e o f s i m o n y , a l t h o u g h h e h a d less s p e c i f i c a l l y t o s a y a b o u t
lay investiture but d i d w r i t e m o r e generally about the relationship of the
spiritual a n d earthly p o w e r s , w i t h particular reference t o the transitory
nature of this w o r l d a n d all w h i c h it contains, i n c l u d i n g earthly glory.
I t i s i n h i s Liber
opposition
to
gratissimus^^
the
t h a t D a m i a n ' ร clearest e l u c i d a t i o n o f
reordination
simoniacal bishops
of those w h o
appears, and
it was
Simoniacos
as a r e s p o n s e t o Liber
been
ordained
over this issue that he
Cardinal H u m b e r t differed most dramatically.
Adversus
had
his
by
and
H u m b e r t , i n fact, w r o t e
gratissimus.
Damian
draws
u p o n t h e e x a m p l e o f b a p t i s m , 'since o n e w h o is b a p t i z e d e v e n b y
a
h e r e t i c i s n o t t o b e r e b a p t i z e d , I see n o r e a s o n w h y o n e w h o i s p r o m o t e d
b y a so-called s i m o n i s t s h o u l d b e either d e p o s e d o r r e o r d a i n e d . ' i * I n fact,
as a n y a t t e m p t a t r e b a p t i s m w o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d b o t h t i n l a w f u l
and
s i n f u l , so w o u l d
not
reordination.
In
essence, t h e
'sacrament
does
d e p e n d u p o n the merits of the minister or the recipient, b u t u p o n the rite
ordained w i t h i n the C h u r c h o n the invocation of the n a m e of God.'i^
Damian
makes a n interesting connection i n this respect b e t w e e n
o r d i n a t i o n of kings a n d priests.
the
H e draws u p o n the example of
King
SauP^ a n d explains that a l t h o u g h some kings a n d priests have
been
w o r t h y of c o n d e m n a t i o n t h e i r a n o i n t i n g c a n n o t b e w i t h d r a w n , 'so also
Saul, even after he w a s deposed f r o m the heights of r o y a l office b y the
ւ Cf. О . B l u m , (trans.), The Fathers of the Church: Medieval
շ
Continuation:
The Letters of Peter
Damian, V o l u m e s 1-3, ( W a s h i n g t o n D.C., 1989, 1990, 1992) Letter 61, V o l . 3, p p . 3-13, a n d
m o s t p a r t i c u l a r l y . Letter 32, V o l . 2, p p . 3-53, o t h e r w i s e k n o w n as "The B o o k
of
Gomorrah'.
13 Letter 4 0 , V o l . 2, p p . 111-214.
1
4
๒id., p. 120.
15
Ш.,
16
Cf. 1 Sam. 24:7; 26:9.
p. 124.
34
c o m m a n d of G o d , was nevertheless still called the anointed of the L o r d
r i g h t u p t o h i s death.'17
P e t e r D a m i a n w r i t e s o f t h e f o l l o w e r s o f G e h a z i ^ s ' w h o a p p e a r s as t h e
teacher o f t h e sellers'i^ a n d o f Simonko ' t h e o r i g i n a l o f the b u y e r s ' ,
if t h e i r o r d i n a t i o n is p r o p e r l y C a t h o l i c , e v e n t h o u g h t h e y a p p r o a c h
u n w o r t h i l y , t h e y f u l l receive t h e h o l y o f f i c e o f t h e p r i e s t h o o d . F o r t h e
p o w e r o f t h e H o l y S p i r i t is t h e s a m e , b o t h w h e n h i s grace is s o l d a n d
w h e n i t is g i v e n f r e e l y .
N o r does t h e p o w e r o f G o d lose its p r o p e r
effectiveness
because
of
transactions
that
flow
from
human
perverseness.
O b v i o u s l y , o u r S a v i o r h i m s e l f , j u s t as h e w a s s o l d t h a t
p e s t i f e r o u s s u m o f m o n e y w a s a l r e a d y b u l g i n g t h e p u r s e of t h e t r a i t o r ,
r e s t o r e d t h e ear o f the s e r v a n t M a l c h u s e v e n as he f e l l i n t o t h e h a n d s o f
his persecutors.^!
Peter D a m i a n ' ร c o n c e r n w i t h t h i s issue is also a p r a r t i c a l o n e . H e is o n l y
too aware of the prevalence of s i m o n y a n d the little that was done to
c o u n t e r a c t it p r i o r , as h e sees it, t o t h e t i m e o f t h e E m p e r o r H e n r y
Pope Clement п
in.
a n d P o p e L e o I X . I t is t h u s t h a t D a m i a n s a w
the
p r o p o s a l t o r e o r d a i n t h o s e o r d a i n e d b y s i m o n i s t s as a n u n r e a l i s t i c
aim
a n d one that c o u l d result i n m o r e d a m a g e t h a n g o o d . I f the premise that
deacons, priests or bishops o r d a i n e d or e n t h r o n e d b y a simonist
i n v a l i d t h e n a t w o - f o l d p r o b l e m m a y be created.
Firstly, i n
were
episcopal
t e r m s , i t w o u l d i n v a l i d a t e a b i s h o p ' s acts, i n c l u d i n g f u r t h e r o r d i n a t i o n s .
Secondly, i n the interim, prior to reordinations, the C h u r c h w o u l d
find
itself w i t h a severe shortage of priests available to say M a s s a n d deliver
the sacraments.
Q u i t e f r a n k l y , the C h u r c h w o u l d have rvin the risk of
1 Utter 40, Vol . 2, p. 136.
7
18 2 K i n g s 5:20-27.
" Шег
40, V o l . 2, p. 122.
20 A c t s 8: 9-24.
շ
ւ Utter iO, V o l . 2, p. 122.
35
finding
itself i n disarray.
A s D a m i a n expresses, t h e s i t u a t i o n w i t h i n t h e
C h u r c h until very recently h a d been that whereby,
the p o i s o n of simonist heresy spread its d e a d l y influence t h r o u g h o u t
the k i n g d o m s o f t h e w e s t , so t h a t w h a t w a s e v e r y w h e r e accepted as l i c i t
w a s n e v e r j u d g e d t o b e subject t o c o n d i g n p u n i s h m e n t , a n d w h a t w a s
t h o u g h t p r o p e r v i r t u a l l y b y a l l , w a s h e l d t o be t h e r u l e , as i f i t w e r e
decreed b y
D a m i a n illustrated his deep concern over simony early i n his s u r v i v i n g
letters.
H i s initial reaction to John Gratian'ร p r o m o t i o n to the papacy,
prior to discovering that he h a d bought it f r o m his godson, h a d been a
p o s i t i v e o n e as h e v i e w e d h i m t o b e a h o l y m a n w h o w o u l d d o m u c h t o
dispel the evils of s i m o n y a n d nicolaitism. D a m i a n even said i n a letter t o
G r e g o r y V I o f 1045,
T h e r e f o r e , " l e t t h e h e a v e n s be g l a d , l e t t h e e a r t h r e j o i c e / ' 2 ^ a n d l e t h o l y
c h u r c h e x u l t t h a t she has r e c o v e r e d h e r a n c i e n t c h a r t e r o f liberties. M a y
the h e a d o f t h e p o i s o n o u s , d e c e p t i v e s e r v a n t n o w b e c r u s h e d , l e t
t r a f f i c k i n g i n t h i s w i c k e d business b e e n d e d , l e t t h e c o u n t e r f e i t i n g
S i m o n n o w q u i t his m i n t i n g of m o n e y i n the C h u r c h , a n d i n the present
absence
of his circumspect
master,
m a y Gehazi
useful
insights
carry
away
no
clandestine gift.24
Peter
Damian
also
h a d some
regarding
t h e specific
i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e R o m a n See, c l e a r l y b e l i e v i n g t h a t t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e
p a p a l see w a s f a r - r e a c h i n g i n e x t r e m i s , a r g u i n g t h a t , ' u n l e s s t h e R o m a n
See r e t u r n s t o i t s f o r m e r i n t e g r i t y , t h e w h o l e w o r l d w i l l r e m a i n f o r e v e r i n
its fallen state/^^
H e discussed t h e 'principle o f renewaľ^^ w h i c h w a s
22 Letter 40, V o l . 2, p p . 180-1.
1 C h r . 16:31.
24 Letter 13, V o l . 1 , p . 1 3 1 .
25 Letter n . V o l . 1 , p . 125.
26
Wid., p. 125.
36
n e c e s s a r y f o r r e f o r m o f t h e R o m a n See a n d b y e x t e n s i o n , t h e C h u r c h a t
large.
W h e n s e n t as a p a p a l l e g a t e t o M i l a n , D a m i a n f o u n d
himself
h a v i n g t o d e f e n d t h e R o m a n C h u r c h t o t h e C h u r c h o f St A m b r o s e w h i c h
h a d a v e r y s t r o n g sense o f i n d e p e n d e n c e .
I n his exposition,
Damian
c o m m e n t e d o n Jesus' g i f t o f t h e k e y s o f t h e k i n g d o m a n d t h e p o w e r
to
b i n d a n d loose t o Peter s t a t i n g t h a t
It was n o o r d i n a r y a n d earthly utterance, b u t the W o r d b y w h o m
heaven a n d earth w e r e m a d e , a n d t h r o u g h w h o m f i n a l l y the elements
of a l l t h i n g s w e r e s t r u c t u r e d , w h o f o x m d e d t h e R o m a n C h u r c h . C l e a r l y
it e n j o y s h i s p r i v i l e g e a n d is s u p p o r t e d b y h i s a u t h o r i t y .
A n d so,
w i t h o u t d o u b t , w h o e v e r d e p r i v e s a n y c h u r c h o f its r i g h t s c o m m i t s a n
injustìce; b u t i f one a t t e m p t s t o d e n y t h e R o m a n C h u r c h t h e p r i v i l e g e
g r a n t e d i t b y t h e h e a d of a l l t h e c h u r c h e s h i m s e l f , h e d o u b t l e s s falls i n t o
heresy; a n d w h i l e t h e f o r m e r m a y be c a l l e d a n u n j u s t m a n , t h e l a t t e r
m u s t be labeled a heretic.
27
O n e o f t h e m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g f e a t u r e s o f Peter D a m i a n ' ร w r i t i n g s is h i s
t h o u g h t f u l reflections o n the role a n d importance of the t e m p o r a l powers.
Good
Christian
indeed by
rulership
Damian.
Theodosius I,
2 9
was
Amongst
clearly
something
valued
others, he praised h i g h l y
very
Henry
O t t o 111,30 a n d C o n s t a n t i n e . 3 1 I n p a r t i c u l a r , h e
praise u p o n H e n r y
higMy
ni,28
lavished
I I I , a r g u i n g that, 'After G o d , certainly, it w a s
[ p r e v i o u s sentence: 'the g l o r i o u s r e n o w n of the great k i n g H e n r y ' ]
he
who
rescued us f r o m the m o u t h of the insatiable d r a g o n ; it w a s he w h o used
the s w o r d of d i v i n e p o w e r to cut off all the heads of the multicephalous
h y d r a o f t h e s i m o n i a c a l h e r esy.'32 D a m i a n c o n t i n u e d , t o c o m p a r e H e n r y
27
Utter 65, V o l . 3, p. 27.
2 8
Cf. e.g. Letters 20 ( V o l . 1 , p p . 194-6) a n d Letter 40 ( V o l . 2, p p . 111-214).
29 Cf. utter
67, V o l . 3, p p . 76-7.
30 Cf. ibid., p. 78.
31 C f . Lefter 40, V o L 2, p. 208.
32 Ibid., p. 206.
37
t o b o t h K i n g D a v i d a n d his defeat o f G o l i a t h お a n d also t o C o n s t a n t i n e ' ร
c o n d e m n a t i o n of a n d v i c t o r y over A r i u s a n d his followers.34
I n another letter he also m a d e reference to the g l o r y of H e n r y ш
and
again likened h i m b y association w i t h D a v i d i n saying, ' " L e t the heavens
t h e r e f o r e b e g l a d , l e t e a r t h r e j o i c e " 3 5 t h a t C h r i s t i s r e c o g n i z e d as t r u l y
r e i g n i n g t h r o u g h h i s k i n g a n d t h a t t h e g o l d e n a g e o f D a v i d is r e s t o r e d
j u s t as t h e w o r l d is c o m i n g t o a n e n d , '
3 6
Nevertheless, D a m i a n w a s also
quick to emphasise the lowliness of earthly p o w e r a n d the subservient
role w h i c h it s h o u l d r i g h t l y p l a y .
3 7
H e r e i t e r a t e d t h a t i t is n o t j u s t o u r
possessions t h a t w e c a n n o t take to the grave w i t h us.
'Like
smoke,
earthly honors a n d dignities r e t u r n to n o t h i n g the h i g h e r they rise, a n d
n o n e o f t h e t h i n g s o f t h i s w o r l d c a n e s c a p e t h e w o r l d ' s d e s t r u c t i o n at t h e
e n d of time.'38 I n the context of w o r l d l y
d e g r a d a t i o n , Peter
Damian
praised the monastic life a n d i n a letter to A b b o t Desiderius of
Cassino, he w r o t e that w i c k e d
people
do not
deserve
a good
Monte
ruler,
d r a w i n g u p o n t h e w r i t i n g s o f t h e p r o p h e t Hosea^^ a n d hence t h e m o n k s
of M o n t e Cassino s h o u l d be grateful to G o d that t h e y ' w e r e chosen to live
a p a r t f r o m t h e w o r l d i n w h i c h i t is o b v i o u s l y d i f f i c u l t f o r a n y o n e t o b e
saved.'-^o
Despite D a m i a n ' ร o b v i o u s despair at the w o r l d he still s a w a
relevant and potent role for g o o d , strong, effective Christian ruler ship:
w i t h i n t h e imperium a n d t h e sacerdotium w e m u s t d i s t i n g u i s h f u n c t i o n s
t h a t are p r o p e r t o each, so t h a t t h e k i n g m a y e m p l o y secular a r m s , w h i l e
t h e b i s h o p s h o u l d b u c k l e o n t h e s w o r d o f t h e s p i r i t , w h i c h is t h e w o r d
33 Letter 4 0 , V o l . 2, p. 208.
34 Ibid., p. 208.
35 Ps. 9 6 : 1 1 .
36
Letter 20, V o l . 1 , p. 195.
3 7
Cf. e.g. Utters 2,12,20,23,
65, 67, 86, 87, 89.
38 Letter 12, V o l . 1 , p. 127.
39HGS. 13:10-11.
ω Letter 86, V o l . 3, p. 256.
38
of G o d . i F o r P a u l says o f the secular prince,^2 " I t is n o t f o r n o t h i n g t h a t
4
h e h o l d s t h e p o w e r of the s w o r d , f o r h e is G o d ' s agent of
punishment
f o r r e t r i b u t i o n of t h e o f f e n d e r . ' ^ 3
Before w e leave Peter D a m i a n t h e r e are t w o m o r e o f his letters t h a t are
w o r t h y of attention.
discussion of gifts
4 4
I n the
first
{Letter
69) D a m i a n d r e w u p o n I s a i a h ' s
i n defining w h a t he perceived to be the three types of
gift, ' n a m e l y , a gift of the h a n d , a gift of service, a n d a gift of the tongue.
O b v i o u s l y , a g i f t o f t h e h a n d i s m o n e y ; a g i f t o f s e r v i c e is t h e o b e d i e n c e
r e q u i r e d b y v a s s a l a g e ; a g i f t o f t h e t o n g u e is
flattering
approbation/^^
He
p e r c e i v e d t h a t b o t h a gift of the h a n d a n d o f the t o n g u e are contained i n
t h a t o f service, t h e r e f o r e vassalage is t h e w o r s t state possible
F o r i n t h e case o f those w h o sell a c h u r c h , i f t h e y are p r o m p t e d
a v a r i c e , i t suffices to c o n s i d e r
conceited, often only
flattery
its v a l u e i n m o n e y ; b u t i f t h e y
by
are
w i l l b e accepted as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r p a y i n g
the p r i c e . B u t those w h o s u r r e n d e r t h e m s e l v e s t o e a r t h l y p r i n c e s f o r the
sake o f a c q u i r i n g p r e f e r m e n t m u s t be b o t h l a v i s h w i t h t h e i r m o n e y a n d
not forget to ingratiate themselves w i t h their patrons b y f o n d l i n g t h e m
w i t h f a w n i n g compliments.^^
It is t h u s t h a t D a m i a n h i g h l i g h t e d s u c c i n c t l y the i n h e r e n t p o t e n t i a l f o r
problems w i t h lay investiture.
For clerics t o achieve their p o s i t i o n , there
is a n u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n o f service r e n d e r e d , i n all l i k e l i h o o d i n the
41
C f . E p h . 6:17.
42
R o m . 13:4.
43
Utter
87, V o l . 3, p. 305.
^ C f . Isa. 33.15-16: ' H e
that w a l k e t h
righteously,
a n d speaketh u p r i g h t l y ;
he
that
d e s p i s e t h the g a i n of o p p r e s s i o n s , t h a t s h a k e t h h i s h a n d s f r o m h o l d i n g of b r i b e s , t h a t
s t o p p e t h h i s ears f r o m h e a r i n g of b l o o d , a n d s h u t t e t h h i s eyes f r o m seeing e v i l . H e s h a l l
d w e l l o n h i g h : h i s place o f defence s h a l l be t h e m u n i t i o n s of r o c k s : b r e a d s h a l l be g i v e n
t o h i m ; h i s w a t e r s s h a l l be s u r e . '
45 Letter 69, V o l . 3, p p . 89-90.
^4bid,
p. 9 1 .
39
f o r m o f v a s s a l a g e . I t is t h u s t h a t p r o m o t i o n s f r o m w i t h i n t h e r o y a l c o u r t
w e r e a f r e q u e n t occurrence. I t is nonetheless i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t Peter
D a m i a n accepted the practice of lay investiture, b u t u r g e d the
royal
p o w e r s t o exercise t h e i r j u d g e m e n t s w i s e l y , a c c o r d i n g t o h o l y precepts
rather than those of personal gain.
Princes also, a n d a l l o t h e r s i n c h a r g e o f ecclesiastical a p p o i n t m e n t s ,
s h o u l d be especially c a r e f u l n o t t o g r a n t h o l y places at t h e i r o w n w h i m
o r p l e a s u r e w i t h o u t t a k i n g d i v i n e justìce i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , so t h a t t o
their o w n confusion, they d o n o t violate the precepts of God's l a w a n d
the statutes o f the sacred canonร.*7
T h e f i n a l l e t t e r (Letter
89) t o w h i c h w e s h a l l t u r n i s t h a t w h i c h w a s w r i t t e n
i n 1062 t o t h e a n t ì p o p e H o n o r i u s п. I n i t P e t e r D a m i a n w r o t e a d i a l o g u e
p r e s e n t e d as a d r e s s r e h e a r s a l f o r t h e C o u n c i l o f A u g s b u r g / 8 b e t w e e n a
fictional
A t t o r n e y for the R o m a n C h u r c h a n d I mperial Counsel regarding
their respertive claims.
A l t h o u g h i t w a s s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d t o t h e case
b e t w e e n A l e x a n d e r I I a n d t h e a n t i p o p e H o n o r i u s I I , it also l o o k e d m o r e
b r o a d l y a t t h e i s s u e s c o n c e r n i n g regnum
a n d sacerdotium.
Damian began
b y a c k n o w l e d g i n g certain r i g h t s of k i n g s a n d e m p e r o r s b u t also p u t f o r t h
a v e r y clear accovmt o f p a p a l p r i m a c y , ' B u t o n l y he w h o g r a n t e d t h e
blessed c u s t o d i a n of the keys of eternal life the p o w e r s of earthly
and
heavenly d o m i n i o n , founded o n the R o m a n C h u r c h and built it on the
r o c k of faith*^ t h a t w o u l d s o o n emerge/so I t is t h r o u g h t h i s p r i m a c y t h a t
D a m i a n m a d e the distinrtion between a m a n w h o commits an 'injustice'
a g a i n s t a c h u r c h a n d o n e w h o d o e s so a g a i n s t t h e R o m a n C h u r c h ; ' w h i l e
the f o r m e r m a y be called an unjust m a n , the latter m u s t surely be labeled
'Letter 69, V o l . 3, p. 96.
' Letter 89, V o l . 3, p. 336. C o u n c i l of A u g s b u r g , O c t o b e r 1062.
' Cf. M a t t . 16:18-19.
' Utter 89, V o l . 3, p. 337.
40
as a h e r e t i c / 5 1 A n a r g u m e n t is t h e n c o n d u c t e d a b o u t t h e r i g h t f u l
role
w h i c h a n e m p e r o r w a s t o p l a y i n p a p a l e l e r t i o n s . T h e i m p e r i a l p o s i t i o n is
put
forward
that w i t h o u t
t h e assent o f t h e e m p e r o r ,
p r o p e r l y be called a pope.
draws
upon
the
a pope
cannot
F o r t h e case o f t h e C h u r c h t h o u g h , D a m i a n
Constantium
Constantini
whereby
it
is
alleged
that
C o n s t a n t i n e m o v e d the e m p i r e a n d r o y a l p o w e r t o B y z a n t i u m (to the city
that w a s to become C o n s t a n t i n o p l e ) because
"where
the chief b i s h o p a n d head of the Christìan r e l i g i o n was
s t a t i o n e d b y t h e celestial e m p e r o r , i t is n o t p r o p e r f o r t h e e a r t h l y
emperor there to have power."52 D i d y o u n o t just hear that the earthly
e m p e r o r has n o p o w e r o v e r t h e R o m a n C h u r c h ? H o w is i t u n l a w f u l ,
t h e r e f o r e , t o elect a b i s h o p w i t h o u t its consent, since h e has n o
a u t h o r i t y ?53
P e t e r D a m i a n d r e w u p o n G o d ' s p u t t i n g d o w n o f S a u l as k i n g a n d t h e
raising u p of D a v i d i n terms of the inadequacy that Cadalus w o u l d have
s h o w n as p o p e , ^ h o w e v e r , t h i s m o d e l is s u g g e s t i v e o f t h e p u t t i n g d o w n
a n d r a i s i n g u p o f k i n g s o n a m o r e g e n e r a l l e v e l . I n t h e case o f D a v i d a n d
Saul, G o d acted t h r o u g h Samuel.
enartments
regarding Gregory
This certainly begs questions of later
VII, Henry
rv
and
Rudolf
of
รwabia;
s h o u l d i t b e r e g a r d e d as l e g i t i m a t e f o r a p o p e t o j u d g e a k i n g ?
Damian
c l e a r l y s a w t h e s a c e r d o t a l p o w e r as s u p e r i o r i n d i g n i t y t o t h a t o f t h e r o y a l ,
a n d s a w t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e t w o as b o t h m a t e r n a l a n d p a t e r n a l .
H e stated that, 'the R o m a n C h u r c h , i n a m u c h m o r e noble a n d sublime
w a y t h a n a n y n a t u r a l m o t h e r , is t h e m o t h e r o f t h e e m p e r o r .
The latter,
i n d e e d , gives h i m b i r t h , t h a t b y his descent f r o m her he m i g h t r e t u r n to
51 Utter
89, V o l . 3, p. 337.
52
Constantium
53
Utter
Constantini,
C.18.94f.
89, V o l . 3, p. 3 4 1 .
54 ' S a u l , w h o h a d p r e v i o u s l y b e e n g o o d , became e v i l ; b u t t h i s m a n , n a m e l y C a d a l u s ,
w h o b e f o r e h a n d h a d c e r t a i n l y b e e n e v i l , l i k e t h e d e v i l b e c a m e d a i l y m o r e e v i l s t i l l . ' Ibid.,
p. 364.
41
dust; the former, h o w e v e r , bore h i m that he m i g h t surely become coheir
of Christ to rule forever/^5
A t t h e close o f t h e d i a l o g u e , t h e
Imperial
counsel capitulates to the attorney for the R o m a n C h u r c h , b u t all this, i n
essence, a c h i e v e s is t h a t i t reiterates t h e false a n d c o n t r i v e d n a t u r e o f t h i s
t y p e o f d i a l o g u e , i n e x a c t l y t h e s a m e m a n n e r as S o c r a t e s ' v i ժ o r i e s i n t h e
Platonic dialogues.
I n the c o n c l u s i o n to this letter, Peter D a m i a n p u t f o r w a r d his clearest
opinion
of
the
right
relationship
between
the
two
powers
which
a c k n o w l e d g e d their separate spheres, t h e o v e r l a p b e t w e e n these spheres
a n d , along Augustinian-Gelasian lines, the ultimate supremacy i n d i g n i t y
t h a t t h e sacerdotium
Thus,
is o w e d .
as these t w o , t h e
empire and
the p r i e s t h o o d , b y
divine
d i s p e n s a t i o n are u n i t e d i n o n e m e d i a t o r b e t w e e n G o d a n d m e n , so m a y
these t w o e x a l t e d p e r s o n s b e j o i n e d t o g e t h e r i n s u c h h a r m o n y t h a t , b y a
c e r t a i n b o n d of m u t u a l l o v e , w e m a y b e h o l d the e m p e r o r i n t h e R o m a n
p o n t i f f a n d the R o m a n p o n t i f f i n the emperor, reserving to the p o p e ,
h o w e v e r , t h e d i g n i t y n o o t h e r m a y possess.
Likewise, s h o u l d the
s i t u a t i o n arise, t h e p o p e s h o u l d be able t o use c i v i l l a w t o c o n t r o l
o f f e n d e r s , a n d t h e e m p e r o r w i t h h i s b i s h o p s s h o u l d be p e r m i t t e d t o
a d j u d i c a t e m a t t e r s w h e r e t h e w e l f a r e of s o u l s is i n v o l v e d , b u t u n d e r t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f t h e sacred canons. T h e f o r m e r , as a f a t h e r , s h o u l d a l w a y s
e n j o y p a r a m o u n t d i g n i t y b y reason of h i s p a t e r n a l rights; t h e l a t t e r , as
h i s u n i q u e a n d special s o n , s h o u l d rest s e c u r e l y i n h i s l o v i n g
Unlike
Peter
Damian,
Humbert
saw
all
the
evils
embrace/^^
of
the
Church
encapsulated i n lay investiture a n d his emphasis w a s u p o n s i m o n y rather
than nicolaitism.
H u m b e r t argued that the w h o l e order of the C h u r c h
h a d b e e n t u r n e d o n i t s h e a d , ' T h e s e c u l a r p o w e r i s first i n c h o o s i n g a n d
55
Utter 89, V o l . 3, p. 343.
56
Wid., p. 368.
42
c o n f i r m i n g ; the consent of the nobles, people, a n d clergy a n d t h e n
the
decision
of
the
metropolitan
come
afterwards
whether
finally
they
are
w i l l i n g or not/57
H u m b e r t d r e w u p o n the s y m b o l i s m of the crosier a n d r i n g g i v e n to a
b i s h o p u p o n his consecration a n d the i n a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f these b e i n g
b e s t o w e d b y a m e m b e r o f t h e l a i t y ; t h e c r o s i e r as a s y m b o l o f p a s t o r a l
c a r e a n d t h e r i n g as a s y m b o l o f t h e h e a v e n l y m y s t e r i e s , o f
Christ's
m a r r i a g e to t h e church.^^ ' A n y o n e , t h e n , w h o a p p o i n t s a m a n w i t h these
t w o s y m b o l s u n d o u b t e d l y c l a i m s all r i g h t s of p a s t o r a l care f o r h i m s e l f i n
so p r e s u m i n g / ^ ^
H u m b e r t w a s similarly m o r e outspoken i n his
d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f regnum
a n d sacerdotium,
direct
complaining of
t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e C h u r c h is o f t e n j u d g e d b y its o u t w a r d ,
earthly
successes a n d t h a t r e s u l t a n t l y t h e s t a t e o f a f f a i r s w a s s u c h t h a t
public
p e r c e p t i o n w a s ' s o m e t i m e s p r e f e r r i n g t h e secular p o w e r t o the p r i e s t l y
like
sun
to
moon,
sometimes
setting
them
together
like
two
suns,
s o m e t i m e s - b u t t h i s is v e r y r a r e - b y t h e o n e t i t l e o f s o n s u b o r d i n a t i n g
the secular p o w e r like a son to a father/^0
H e continues, to make
an
organic comparison of the t w o dignities b y saying that,
i n t h e e x i s t i n g c h u r c h , t h e p r i e s t h o o d is a n a l o g o u s t o t h e s o u l a n d t h e
k i n g s h i p t o t h e b o d y , f o r t h e y cleave t o one a n o t h e r a n d n e e d one
a n o t h e r a n d each i n t u r n d e m a n d s services a n d r e n d e r s t h e m o n e t o
a n o t h e r , i t f o l l o w s f r o m t h i s t h a t j u s t as t h e s o u l excels t h e b o d y a n d
c o m m a n d s i t , so t o o t h e p r i e s t l y d i g n i t y excels t h e r o y a l or, w e m a y say,
the h e a v e n l y d i g n i t y t h e e a r t h l y . T h u s , t h a t a l l t h i n g s m a y be i n d u e
o r d e r a n d n o t i n d i s a r r a y t h e p r i e s t h o o d , l i k e a տ օ ս Լ m a y a d v i s e w h a t is
t o be d o n e . T h e k m g s h i p i n t u r n , l i k e a h e a d , excels a l l m e m b e r s o f t h e
b o d y a n d leads t h e m w h e r e t h e y s h o u l d g o ; f o r j u s t as k i n g s s h o u l d
5 7
H u m b e r t , Adversus simoniacos, M G H , LdL·L, p. 205.
58
Ibid., p. 205.
59
Md., p. 205.
60
Ш ฝ . , p. 225.
43
f o l l o w c h u r c h m e n so also l a y f o l k s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e i r k i n g s f o r t h e g o o d
of church a n d country.61
Just as t h e s o u l r i g h t l y o r d e r s , d i r e r t s a n d c o m m a n d s t h e b o d y i n i t s b e s t
i n t e r e s t s , so d o e s t h e c h u r c h o v e r t h e k i n g s h i p .
H u m b e r t ' s attack u p o n lay investiture w a s a radical one a n d the
first
its k i n d , d r a w i n g i n t o d o u b t the w h o l e n o t i o n of k i n g s h i p a n d
t h e o c r a c y as p e r c e i v e d b y t h e S a l i a n m o n a r c h y .
of
royal
'The sacred character of
kingship was ignored, a n d for H u m b e r t the k i n g was a l a y m a n p u r e and
simple/^2 H e accused secular m o n a r c h s of t r y i n g to take for themselves
that w h i c h they h a d no right to take a n d it was thus that the
whole
procedure concerning the a p p o i n t m e n t of bishops s h o u l d be overturned.
For
Humbert,
investiture
'The
are b u t
proprietary
church
manifestations
of
system
and
one a n d the
concomitant
lay
same principle
of
o r d e r . . . . L a y i d e o l o g y as s u c h i s m a d e t h e c h i e f t a r g e t o f
constructive
criticism/^
Resultantly, a monarch
Humbert's
d i d not have
i n t r i n s i c v a l u e a n d c e r t a i n l y t h e n o t i o n o f a Rex-Sacerdos
much
was an invalid
one.
T h e C h r i s t i a n w o r l d w a s t o h i m i n d e e d a n "ecclesiae/'
Christť
b e c a m e m a n i f e s t , concrete a n d t a n g i b l e . " O u r
C h r i s t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e G e l a s i a n "mundus"
the
"corpus
emperor"
is
is e x c h a n g e d b y H u m b e r t
f o r the ecclesia, a n d t h e l a y r u l e r is p a r t o f t h i s ecclesiae, b y v i r t u e of h i s
being a Christian.^
T h e k i n g ' s p r i m a r y f u n r t i o n i s , t h e r e f o r e , t o p r o t e c t a n d assist t h e c h u r c h .
If a k i n g does n o t f u l f i l this f u n r t i o n t h e n he has n o r o l e at all.
6
1 H u m b e r t , Adversus
6 2
Without
simoniacos, p. 225.
G. T e l l e n b a c h , Church,
state and Christian
Society at the time of the Investiture
Contest, R.
R B e n n e t t , (trans.), ( O x f o r d , 1970),p. 109.
お บ น m a n n , Growth
of Papal Government
in the Middle Ages, p. 266.
^ / ш . , p. 267.
44
s i n f u l c o n d u c t ' t h e r e w o u l d b e n o n e e d f o r a p o w e r w h o s e sole
raison
ď être is t h e p h y s i c a l s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h i s k i n d o f c o n d u c t , f o r b y f u l f i l l i n g
its f u n c t i o n allotted or assigned to h i m , the p r i n c e protects the w h o l e
corporate
body
of
Christians/ お
H u m b e r t ' s c r i t i c i s m s i n Adversus
As
simoniacos
Gerd
Teilenbach
had no similar
higMights,
comparisons
i n 1058; t h e y p r o v i d e d a r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e f r o m c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e , b u t
s e e m i n g l y n o t c u r r e n t t h o u g h t g i v e n t h a t less t h a n a y e a r l a t e r t h e P a p a l
Elertion Decree w a s formulateci.^^
A l t h o u g h t h e d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n C l u n y a n d P o p e G r e g o r y V I I is
often o v e r - p l a y e d , the influence of monastic r e f o r m u p o n 'secular c h u r c h
r e f o r m ' w a s u n d o u b t e d l y g r e a t . A l m o s t a l l o f t h e k e y figures i n t h e p a p a l
r e f o r m w e r e of a m o n a s t i c b a c k g r o u n d : Peter D a m i a n , C a r d i n a l H u m b e r t ,
Pope Stephen I X (former abbot of M o n t e Cassino), Pope Nicholas I I , Pope
G r e g o r y vn.
P o p e V i c t o r in
( A b b o t Desiderius of M o n t e Cassino), Pope
U r b a n П a n d Pope Paschal I L
お U l h n a n n , Growth of Papal Government,
p p . 270—1.
^ T e l l e n b a c h , Church, State and Christian
Society, D p . 110-11.
45
Chapter 4ะ Secular reform and the early 'Reform Papacy'
The revival a n d strengthening of monasticism a n d adherence to
the
ascetic l i f e c l e a r l y h a d a p r o f o u n d i m p a r t u p o n t h e g e n e r a l m o v e m e n t f o r
reform.
Another
contributory
factor
was,
somewhat
ironically
c o n s i d e r i n g its consequences, t h e i m p e r i a l p o w e r itself.
T h r o u g h t h e Ottoman
Privilege,
O t t o I (imp. 9 6 2 - 7 3 ) s t r e n g t h e n e d h i s l i n k s
w i t h the p a p a c y a n d reasserted the rights a n d obligations of the e m p e r o r
a n d its e n t i t l e m e n t s o f t h e p a p a l state b y c o n f i r m i n g t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t s
o f t h e Constantium
Constantini
a n d a l s o t h e Donation
of Pepin. A s part of
this privilege, 'the imperial p o w e r included the right of ensuring that
p a p a l elections w e r e j u s t l y a n d c a n o n i c a l l y c a r r i e d o u t ― e n s u r i n g i n fact
that no election was m a d e contrary
Ottoman
Privilege
to the emperor's wishes/^
The
w a s m a d e at a t i m e w h e n t h e p a p a c y w o u l d h a v e n o
r e a l q u a r r e l w i t h i t ; t h e a p o s t o l i c see l a c k e d p o w e r a n d o p e r a t e d a t t h e
whim
of
the
Crescenti!,
Tusculani
and
Theophylart
families;
the
e m p e r o r ' s c h o i c e w a s v i e w e d b y c l e r i c s as p r e f e r a b l e , b y a n d l a r g e , t o
t h a t o f t h e l e a d i n g R o m a n n o b i l i t y , n o t least because o f t h e m a n n e r
in
w h i c h the g r o w t h of m o n a s t i c i s m i n G e r m a n y h a d i n s o m e p a r t a n effect
o n the G e r m a n K i n g , the H o l y R o m a n Emperor.
H o w e v e r , the papacy
d i d become uneasy w i t h the p r o x i m i t y of the imperial p o w e r to Rome's
o w n jurisdirtion and
so
distanced themselves although this i n
p r o v e d u n n e c e s s a r y w h e n O t t o I I (imp.
itself
973-83) d i e d , l e a v i n g t h e E m p i r e
u n d e r the regency of his w i f e i n lieu of his three-year-old son; the R o m a n
n o b i l i t y w a s t e d n o t i m e i n reasserting its o w n a u t h o r i t y .
O t t o I I I (imp. 996-1002) s t r o n g l y e c h o e d h i s g r a n d f a t h e r ' s t h o u g h t s o n t h e
correct relationship b e t w e e n papacy a n d empire. T o r O t t o , the Pope w a s
լ S o u t h e r n , Western Society, p p . 99-100.
46
a j u n i o r p a r t n e r , t h e c h a p l a i n o f e m p i r e , w h o s e first d u t y w a s c o n f o r i n i t y
t o t h e w i l l o f t h e L o r d ' s a n o i n t e d / 2 I t is u n s u r p r i s i n g , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t h e
h a d h i s s e c o n d c o u s i n e l e v a t e d t o t h e p a p a c y , P o p e G r e g o r y V (pont, 996—
9 ) , w h o w a s t h e first G e r m a n p o p e . M o r e s u r p r i s i n g , h o w e v e r , w a s t h a t
G r e g o r y t r i e d t o assert a n o t i n c o n s i d e r a b l e d e g r e e o f i n d e p e n d e n c e f r o m
O t t o since r e f o r m w a s once of his m a j o r preoccupations.
Pope Gregory
d i d , i n fact, e x c o m m u n i c a t e K i n g R o b e r t I I of France f o r m a r r y i n g h i s
c o u s i n a n d r e f u s i n g t o r e n o u n c e her?
p u r p o r t e d t h e Constantium
Constantini
O t t o , c o r r e c t l y as i t t u r n e d o u t ,
to be a forgery.
This contributed
to his belief that 'The E m p e r o r was not the creation of the papacy; rather,
the papacy was an instrument i n the h a n d of the E m p e r o r / 4
T h e g r o w i n g influence of m o n a s t i c houses l i k e C l i i n y can be seen b y s u c h
e x a m p l e s a s , u p o n t h e d e a t h o f P o p e G r e g o r y V , O t t o in t o o k t h e a d v i c e
of A b b o t O d i l o of C l u n y i n a p p o i n t i n g Silvester п
pope.
(pont. 9 9 9 - 1 0 0 2 ) as
Nonetheless,
T h e i d e a of a n O t t o n i a n p r o t e c t o r a t e o v e r the R o m a n C h u r c h w a s g i v e n
its clearest e x p r e s s i o n i n t h e d i p l o m a w h i c h O t t o ш issu e d f o r Silvester
1 Լ the p o p e w h o m he h a d ' e l e c t e d . . . o r d a i n e d a n d c r e a t e d ' .
I n this
d i p l o m a o f 1001 the e m p e r o r d i s m i s s e d the Donation of Constantine
as a
f a b r i c a t i o n a n d ' f r o m o u r o w n H b e r a l i t y w e g i v e to St Peter t h a t w h i c h
is o u r s , n o t w h a t is h i s / t h e e i g h t c o u n t i e s of the Pentapolis.s
Silvester
was
a keen
reformer,
attacking
simony,
nepotism,
clerical
marriage and concubinage, yet simultaneously w o r k i n g i n concord w i t h
Otto. U p o n Otto's death, the Crescenti! f a m i l y took control of Rome once
a g a i n , u n d e r J o h n I I C r e s c e n t i u s w h o p r e v e n t e d J o h n X V I I կ?օոէ.
N o v 1 0 0 3 ) , J o h n X V I I I (pont.
1 0 0 3 - 9 ) a n d S e r g i u s I V (pont
2
D u f f y , Saints and Sinners, p. 107.
3
K e l l y , Dictionary
4
D u f f y , Saints and Sinners, p. 107.
5
R o b i n s o n , ' C h u r c h a n d P a p a c y ' , p. 297.
May-
1009-12) f r o m
of Popes, p. 135.
47
receiving H e n r y п i n Rome. Sergius I V a n d John I I Crescentius b o t h d i e d ,
most likely m u r d e r e d , w i t h i n a w e e k of one another a n d Sergius w a s
r e p l a c e d w i t h B e n e d i c t V I I (pont.
f r o m the Tusculan House.
1012-24), f o r m e r l y n a m e d T h e o p h y l a r t
B e n e d i c t c r o w n e d H e n r y п {imp. 1002-24) as
E m p e r o r i n 1014 a n d t o g e t h e r t h e y l e g i s l a t e d a g a i n s t s i m o n y a t a s y n o d
at R a v e n n a w h i c h w a s f o l l o w e d u p b y t h e s y n o d o f P a v i a i n
b a n n i n g clerical m a r r i a g e a n d concubinage.
1022,
I t is o f n o t e t h a t i t
was
H e n r y I I w h o w a s t h e d r i v i n g force b e h i n d these r e f o r m s rather
than
Benedict.
{pont.
Benedict's
1024-32)
bribery.
successor
whose
C o n r a d I I {imp.
was
appointment
his
younger
reputedly
brother,
involved
John
substantial
1024-39) w a s c r o w n e d b y P o p e J o h n , b u t t h e
E m p e r o r h a d l i t t l e r e g a r d f o r h i m a n d so g e n e r a l l y d i s r e g a r d e d
r e c o g n i s i n g t h e P o p e as a n i n s t r u m e n t
finding
XIX
of the Tusculani,
h i m c o m p l i a n t , b u t h i s s u c c e s s o r , B e n e d i c t I X (pont.
him,
nonetheless
1 0 3 2 - 4 5 ) , less
so.
W e t u r n n o w t o E m p e r o r H e n r y I I I (imp. 1039-56) w h o m a r k e d s o m e t h i n g
of a watershed w i t h i n the i m p e r i a l m o v e m e n t for r e f o r m .
Henry
reportedly
had
a reasonable
relationship
at
the
Although
outset
with
Benedict IX, he became increasingly disgusted w i t h the contempt
with
w h i c h t h e p a p a l see w a s t r e a t e d , n o t l e a s t b y s o m e o f t h e p o p e s , b u t a l s o
b y the R o m a n nobility. A Tusculan pope (Benedirt IX) was replaced b y a
C r e s c e n t i a n o n e ( S i l v e s t e r Ш , pont.
1045) w h o w a s i n t u r n t o b e r e p l a c e d
b y h i s p r e d e c e s s o r a f t e r less t h a n f o u r m o n t h s .
Benedict then decided to
get m a r r i e d a n d so s o l d t h e p a p a c y t o h i s g o d f a t h e r , w h o , d e s p i t e h a v i n g
c o m m i t t e d the sin of simony, was the o n l y one of the three w h o was t r u l y
suitable for the papal dignity.
J o h n G r a t i a n (Pope G r e g o r y V I ) w a s a k e e n r e f o r m e r a n d it appears clear
that b y purchasing the papal office he h a d h o p e d to e n d the d e p r a v i t y
that h a d become associated w i t h it. H e n r y ш
t r a v e l l e d t o R o m e i n 1046,
48
b u t refused to receive his c r o w n f r o m a m a n tainted b y simony.
It was
this that caused H e n r y t o call the s y n o d o f Sutri at w h i c h Benedict I X ,
Silvester I I I a n d G r e g o r y V I w e r e all d e p o s e d . Subsequently, G r e g o r y V I
w e n t into exile a n d w a s accompanied b y H i l d e b r a n d .
Henry
presided
o v e r t h e s y n o d a n d so d i d w h a t e v e n C h a r l e m a g n e b a u l k e d a t a l i t t l e a n d
t h a t w a s to n o t o n l y sit i n j u d g e m e n t o v e r t h e c u r r e n t p o p e b u t t w o of his
predecessors also, thereby v i o l a t i n g the precedent that the p o p e can be
j u d g e d b y n o one.
H e n r y III ensured the election of Suidger, Bishop of Bamberg to be Pope
C l e m e n t I I {pont.
1046-7) a n d h e c r o w n e d H e r a y a n d h i s w i f e
Agnes.
H e n r y w e n t o n to ensure that no future p o p e c o u l d be installed w i t h o u t
the emperor's express permission.
A l t h o u g h H e n r y III was concerned
about m a i n t a i n i n g the calibre of f u t u r e pontiffs, the tool c o u l d evidently
h a v e b e e n u s e d t o d i f f e r e n t e n d s b y a less p r i n c i p l e d e m p e r o r .
Clement
a n d H e n r y w o r k e d effectively together o v e r the issue o f r e f o r m .
Clement
quickly condemned simony but the m o m e n t u m of his campaign slowed
s o m e w h a t after its i n i t i a l b u r s t of e n t h u s i a s m .
H e d i e d after o n l y nine
m o n t h s i n office a n d w a s replaced b y Damasus I I w h o w a s p o p e for one
6
m o n t h i n t h e s u m m e r o f 1048.
W e c o m e n o w t o t h e p o p e w h o , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f G r e g o r y vn,
had
the most impact u p o n the reforms of the eleventh centtiry and b e y o n d ;
P o p e L e o I X Qjont. 1 0 4 8 - 5 4 ) . L e o h a d t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h r e f o r m i n g
i d e a l s a n d t h e d r i v e t o see t h e m t h r o u g h .
were
Humbert
(later
Cardinal
of
Silva
A m o n g s t h i s close a d v i s e r s
Candida),
Hugh
Candidus,
Frederick of Liège ( A b b o t of M o n t e Cassino a n d later Pope Stephen IX)
a n d H i l d e b r a n d , r e l y i n g also o n the counsel o f Peter D a m i a n a n d A b b o t
H u g h of C l u n y .
L e o l a u n c h e d h i s c a m p a i g n less t h a n t w o m o n t h s a f t e r
being made pontiff
6
at a s y n o d h e l d i n R o m e i n w h i c h he
initiated
A n d w h e n C l e m e n t w a s e x h u m e d i n the 1940s, h e s h o w e d signs of lead p o i s o n i n g .
49
l e g i s l a t i o n a g a i n s t s i m o n y a n d c l e r i c a l น n c h a s t i t y . H e s t r u c k at t h e h e a r t
of simony by
deposing a number
of simoniacal bishops and b y
o r d a i n i n g large n u m b e r s of clergy w h o h a d receieved o r d i n a t i o n
refrom
simoniacal bishops w i t h o u t h a v i n g themselves engaged i n simony.
In
1048 L e o h e l d s y n o d s a t P a v i a , R h e i m s a n d M a i n z , i n 1 0 5 0 a t V e r c e l l i ,
S i p o n t o , S a l e r n o a n d R o m e , 1 0 5 1 a n d 1 0 5 3 a t R o m e a n d a l s o i n 1053 a t
M a n t u a a n d Bari.
A s i d e f r o m s i m o n y a n d clerical unchastity. Pope Leo's other
concerns
i n c l u d e d B e r e n g a r o f T o u r s ' t e a c h i n g o f c o n s u b s t a n t i a t i o n as o p p o s e d t o
the accepted f o r m that transubstantiation occurs w i t h i n the
Eucharist.
L e o a l s o p r o m u l g a t e d t h e p r o p e r e l e c t i o n o f b i s h o p s a n d a b b o t s as w e l l
as a r g u i n g s t r o n g l y f o r t h e p r i m a c y o f R o m e a n d t h e p a p a l see.
Of the
s y n o d s t h a t L e o I X h e l d , t h e m o s t q u o t e d i s t h a t a t R h e i m s i n 1049.
He
t r a v e l l e d t h e r e t o c o n s e c r a t e a n e w c h u r c h o f St R e m i g i u s
H a v i n g p l a c e d the b o n e s o f St R e m i g i u s o n t h e h i g h altar, he [ L e o ]
d e m a n d e d that the bishops a n d abbots present [there were n o French
bishops
present
as
King
Henry
I
of
France
had
anticipated
a
d e n u n c i a t i o n o f t h i s k i n d a n d so d i d n o t a l l o w t h e m t o a t t e n d ] declare
individually
whether
they
had
paid
money
for
their
office.
He
evidently k n e w his m e n : the g u i l t y m a j o r i t y were shamed into silence/
Leo was, nonetheless, m e r c i f u l to those w h o confessed; it w o u l d perhaps
n o t be d i f f i c u l t to accept that i n a climate w h e r e the c u r r e n c y for g a i n i n g
office w a s
a literal one, otherwise
good
priests
and bishops
found
themselves falling into sin t h r o u g h s i m o n y and hence those bishops w h o
m a d e a f u l l confession w e r e p a r d o n e d a n d restored.
Pope Leo had a
clear v i s i o n of t h e d a m a g e t h a t l a y i n v o l v e m e n t , t h r o u g h s i m o n y , l a y
investiture a n d clerical m a r r i a g e , w r o u g h t u p o n clerical life a n d it w a s
f r o m lay interference that he w i s h e d to relieve the sacerdotal r e a l m a n d
' D u f f y , Saints and Sinners, p p . 114-5.
50
r e t u r n i t t o a status of r e n e w e d p u r i t y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m the rest of the
fallen w o r l d .
V i c t o r П (pont.
1055-57), a l t h o u g h t h e f a v o u r e d c a n d i d a t e o f H e n r y
rather t h a n the curia u p o n the death of Leo IX, continued w i t h
ΠΙ
the
r e f o r m s b e g u n b y his predecessor. A j o i n t s y n o d w a s h e l d at Florence b y
p o p e a n d e m p e r o r i n 1055 w h i c h c o n d e m n e d s i m o n y , c l e r i c a l u n c h a s t i t y
a n d t h e t r a n s f e r e n c e o f C h u r c h p r o p e r t y t o o t h e r causes a n d u s e s . B y t h i s
time
Hildebrand
was
papal
legate
in
France, charged
with
issuing
p r o n o x m c e m e n t s m a d e at s y n o d s o r o t h e r w i s e b y the p o p e a n d r e p o r t i n g
b a c k a b o u t the state o f clerical life i n France.
S t e p h e n I X ' ร e l e c t i o n կ)օոէ.
T h e c u r i a at t h e t i m e o f
1 0 5 7 - 5 9 ) m a d e u s e o f t h e p a p a l see's a d v a n c e s
a n d the s t r e n g t h e n i n g of its i n d e p e n d e n c e since the pontificate of Leo I X
w i t h the c o m b i n e d effect o f o n l y h a v i n g a n i m p e r i a l regency to c o n t e n d
w i t h . Resultantly, neither the counsel nor approval of the imperial family
w a s s o u g h t as H e n r y I I I h a d set o u t o n l y e l e v e n y e a r s p r e v i o u s l y , p r i o r t o
Stephen's election.
It d i d perhaps make the decision somewhat
easier
t h a t i f h e l p w e r e r e q u i r e d , S t e p h e n ' s b r o t h e r w a s G o d f r e y , EHike
of
Lorraine.
Pope Stephen h a d been active i n r e f o r m p r i o r to ascending to the papal
see s i n c e h e h a d b e e n t h e A b b o t o f M o n t e C a s s i n o .
H e s h o w e d these
reforming
Peter
tendencies
Cardinal bishop
once
in
office b y
promoting
of Ostia, he a p p o i n t e d H u m b e r t
Damian
as C h a n c e l l o r
to
and
H i l d e b r a n d was recalled f r o m France to become one of Stephen's chief
advisers.
D u r i n g this time H i l d e b r a n d was given a key role w h i c h was
l a t e r t o s h a r p e n t h e c o n f l i r t b e t w e e n h i m s e l f as p o p e a n d H e n r y I V o v e r
a p p o i n t m e n t s t o t h e see o f M i l a n .
H i l d e b r a n d w a s sent t o M i l a n d u r i n g
Stephen's pontificate to l o o k i n t o the Patarene reformist m o v e m e n t
in
t h a t r e g i o n , as t h e P a t a r e n e s r a d i c a l l y o p p o s e d b o t h s i m o n y a n d c l e r i c a l
m a r r i a g e , b u t d i d so i n a r e v o l u t i o n a r y m a n n e r .
Clearly i n the R o m a n
51
c o n t e x t , t h e T u s e u l a n s at least w e r e n o t e n t i r e l y o u t o f t h e p i r t u r e because
after Stephen's death t h e y m a n a g e d to e n t h r o n e the a n t i p o p e Benedict X
(1058-9) f o r n i n e m o n t h s since S t e p h e n I X h a d o r d e r e d t h a t a n e w p o p e
s h o u l d n o t be chosen before H i l d e b r a n d , w h o w a s at the G e r m a n court at
this time, returned to Rome.
When
Hildebrand
Lorraine
and
returned, w i t h
of the
i n s t a l l e d as p o p e .
German
the
acquiescence
court, Nicholas
II
of
(ponr.
the
Duke
1058-61)
of
was
N i c h o l a s also h a d r e f o r m i n g values a n d he p r o m o t e d
H i l d e b r a n d to the position of Archdeacon of Rome.
H i l d e b r a n d , Peter
D a m i a n a n d H u m b e r t of Silva C a n d i d a all h a d a p r o f o u n d i m p a r t u p o n
the papacy of Nicholas IL
e l e c t i o n d e c r e e o f 1059.
Pope N i c h o l a s ' greatest l a s t i n g effert w a s t h e
The spirit of the decree dictated that the p o p e
should be chosen b y the cardinals before the r e m a i n i n g clergy a n d then
the p e o p l e assented to their decision ( w h i c h it w a s tacitly i m p l i e d that
t h e y a l w a y s w o ฬ d ) a n d the e m p e r o r c o u l d at t h i s stage also g i v e r o y a l
assent. I t w a s r e c o g n i s e d t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n w o u l d h a v e t o be e x c e p t i o n a l
for r o y a l a p p r o v a l to be w i t h h e l d a n d if the p o w e r w e r e m i s u s e d t h e n the
i m p e r i a l p r i v i l e g e w o u l d be lost.
The synod not only produced
m o m e n t o u s piece of l e g i s l a t i o n b u t also p r o m u l g a t e d t h e
first
this
outright
c o n d e m n a t i o n o f l a y i n v e s t i t u r e as w e l l as r e i t e r a t i n g p r e v i o u s d e c r e e s
concerning clerical นnchastity
and simony.
Nicholas made a
a l l i a n c e w i t h t h e N o r m a n s ; t h i s g a v e t h e papacy
formal
an extended suzerainty
b u t additionally gave a potential m i l i t a r y ally other than the emperor.
was
a
policy
supported
strongly
by
Hildebrand
and
used
to
It
his
a d v a n t a g e w h e n h e n e e d e d as p o p e t o t u r n t o t h e N o r m a n d u k e , R o b e r t
G u i s c a r d to defeat the forces of H e n r y I V .
I n m a k i n g this b o l d m o v e ,
Nicholas incurred the w r a t h of m a n y of the G e r m a n bishops, some of
w h o m d e c l a r e d h i s acts i n v a l i d s h o r t l y b e f o r e h i s d e a t h . A s h a d o c c u r r e d
since t h e t i m e o f L e o , N i c h o l a s c o n t i n u e d t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e
legatine
52
system w h i c h w a s a u s e f u l a n d p o w e r f u l t o o l f o r s p r e a d i n g the message
of reform throughout the empire.
Alexander
п
(pont.
1061-73)
was
also
elérted
at
the
proposal
of
H i l d e b r a n d a n d h e w a s e l e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e d e c r e e o f 1059.
D u e to a lack of consultation, the i m p e r i a l court, currently under
the
r e g e n c y o f t h e E m p r e s s - m o t h e r , A g n e s , set u p t h e a n t i p o p e H o n o r i u s Π Ι
(1061-64)
to
challenge
him.
False
charges
were
brought
against
Alexander w h o was forced to repudiate t h e m i n a council over w h i c h he
w a s p r e s i d i n g at M a n t u a ; he w a s cleared of the charges a n d the G e r m a n
court disowned Honorius. M eanwhile Pope Alexander h a d continued to
reiterate Pope N i c h o l a s '
decrees.
Alexander
also gave his
support,
p r o b a b l y at t h e s u g g e s t i o n o f H i l d e b r a n d , t o t h e N o r m a n d u k e , W i l l i a m ,
i n his efforts against H a r o l d G o d w i n s o n , K i n g of E n g l a n d . H i l d e b r a n d i n
particular
noticed the r e f o r m i n g zeal of W i l l i a m
potential ally.
and
saw h i m
as a
It w a s Alexander's pontificate that saw the beginnings of
real division b e t w e e n the papacy a n d the i m p e r i a l powers.
Henry
rv's
m i n o r i t y c a m e t o a c l o s e i n 1065 a n d h e c a m e i n t o c o n f l i c t w i t h P o p e
A l e x a n d e r o v e r t h e d e s i r e t o d i v o r c e h i s w i f e i n 1068 (a b a t t l e w h i c h t h e
p o p e w o n ) a n d a m o r e serious d i f f i c u l t y three years later concerning the
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n o f f i v e o f h i s a d v i s e r s f o r s i m o n y o v e r t h e see o f M i l a n .
This issue w a s t o r e m a i n a salient one t h r o u g h o u t relations b e t w e e n Pope
Gregory V I I a n d H e n r y I V ; one of Gregory's k e y d e m a n d s w a s
that
H e n r y relinquish the b a d advice that he h a d been given a n d submit to
h o l y m e n w i t h m o r a l a d v i c e i n s t e a d , тыร
dispute was still raging u p o n
A l e x a n d e r ' s d e a t h a n d so a n i m m e d i a t e p o i n t o f c o n f l i r t w a s
between
Alexander's
successor
Pope
Gregory
VII
and
Henry
created
IV
of
Germany.
T o 1073 w e s h a l l s h o r t l y r e t u r n b u t
firstly
I w i s h t o l o o k at t h e i n h e r i t a n c e
that H e n r y I V w a s left a n d the conduct of his regency government.
The
53
n o t i o n o f t h e k i n g as rex et sacerdos,
a priest-king, w a s passed d o w n
from
the Carolingians to the O t t o n i a n monarchs^ and f r o m t h e m , transmitted
t o the Salians.
and
A l l d r e w u p o n the biblical examples of D a v i d , Solomon
Melchizedek ^ w h o
funrtions.
Otto
were
simultaneously
I believed that
'He
was
kings
at once
and
rex
had
priestly
et sacerdos,
like
M e l c h i z e d e k a n d also l i k e C h r i s t . . .kings b e c a m e canons o f cathedrals a n d
abbots of monasteries a n d n o t m e r e l y i n a titular w a y .
T o the question
w h e t h e r the k i n g w a s a l a y m a n or a cleric the a n s w e r w a s o f t e n t h a t h e
w a s a cleric/10 I n examples of w r i t i n g s a n d prayers f r o m Charlemagne's
t i m e , s u c h as Prospice^^
8
it was indicated that royal p o w e r was
directly
'The Ottonians' k i n g d o m w a s a direct heir of the Carolingian Empire a n d its image
w a s c o n s t r u c t e d b y m e n steeped i n C a r o l i n g i a n t r a d i t i o n s . ' J. N e l s o n , ' K i n g s h i p a n d
E m p i r e ' , Cambridge History,
9
B u m s (ed.)/ p . 242.
A l s o , i n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n later c e n t u r i e s (i.e. f r o m 13^һ c e n t u r y o n w a r d , b u t m o s t f a m o u s l y
b r o u g h t i n t o t h e p u b l i c p s y c h e b y H a n d e l ' s Zadok the Priest c o m p o s e d f o r t h e c o r o n a t i o n
of K i n g George П
a n d Q u e e n C a r o l i n e i n 1727) D a v i d a n d S o l o m o n w e r e also m a d e
reference t o i n t h e c o r o n a t i o n services o f E n g l i s h m o n a r c h s . H o w e v e r , t h e r e m i n d e r t h a t
w a s m a d e w a s o n e w h i c h w o u l d f a l l u p o n t h e ecclesiastical side o f t h e a r g u m e n t . T h e
l y r i c s o f Zadok the Priest ( ' Z a d o k t h e Priest a n d N a t h a n t h e P r o p h e t a n o i n t e d S o l o m o n
k i n g . A n d a l l t h e p e o p l e r e j o i c e d . A n d s a i d , ' G o d Save t h e K i n g !
L o n g Live the King!
M a y the K i n g live forever! Hallelujah! A m e n . " ) although clearly designed to g l o r i f y the
m a j e s t y o f t h e m o n a r c h b e i n g c r o w n e d , also s e r v e d as a r e m i n d e r o f 2 S a m u e l 12 i n
w h i c h N a t h a n t h e P r o p h e t severely r e b u k e d D a v i d f o r , h a v i n g m a d e t h e w i f e o f U r i a h
the H i t t i t e , Bathsheba, p r e g n a n t , t h e n s e n d i n g h e r h u s b a n d t o w a r i n o r d e r f o r h i m t o b e
k i l l e d a n d t o t a k e Bathsheba as h i s o w n w i f e . N a t h a n does n o t h o l d b a c k i n h i s c r i t i c i s m
o f D a v i d a n d so t h e use o f h i s n a m e i n a c o r o n a t i o n c e r e m o n y w o u l d p r o v i d e a subtle
r e m i n d e r as t o t h e r o l e of t h e s a c e r d o t a l p o w e r s i n k e e p i n g t h e r o y a l p o w e r i n check a n d
p r o v i d i n g moral guidance.
I t is also a r e m i n d e r t h a t n o e a r t h l y p o w e r is h i g h e r t h a n
G o d ' s m o r a l l a w s a n d i f a n a t t e m p t is m a d e t o act i n s u c h a m a n n e r , s h a l l b e r i g h t l y
c o n d e m n e d b o t h i n t h i s life a n d t h e n e x t .
10 D . E. L u s c o m b e , ' b i t r o d u c t i o n : T h e F o r m a t i o n o f P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t i n t h e W e s t ' ,
Cambridge History,
B u m s (ed.)/ p . 167.
11 ' G r a n t h i m . O m n i p o t e n t G o d , t o b e a m o s t m i g h t y p r o t e c t o r of the f a t h e r l a n d , a n d a
c o m f o r t e r o f c h u r c h e s a n d h o l y m o n a s t e r i e s w i t h t h e greatest p i e t y of r o y a l m u n i f i c e n c e ,
a n d t o b e t h e m i g h t i e s t of k i n g s , t r i u m p h i n g o v e r h i s enemies so as t o c r u s h rebels a n d
54
t r a n s m i t t e d f r o m t h e d i v i n e ; it p r o v i d e d a v e r y l i t e r a l t a k e o n R o m a n s 13;
t h a t a l l p o w e r is d e r i v e d f r o m G o d . i 2 I t w a s n o t d i f f i c u l t , t h e r e f o r e , f o r a
m o n a r c h t o see t h e d i r e r t r o l e a n d b e n e f i t f o r h i m i n t e r m s o f e n s u r i n g t h e
preservation of the Christian faith a n d especially the Christian faith i n
this particular, very hierarchical and authoritative format.
If the unity of
the C h u r c h was m a i n t a i n e d t h e n the k i n g h a d a constant factor to aid the
justification of his power.
Put simply, w i t h o u t the Christian faith, the claim of the D i v i n e Right of
Kings,
the
meaningless.
assertion
that
all
power
comes
from
God,
would
Resultantly, the e m p e r o r felt c o m p e l l e d , for the sanrtity of
h i s o w n p o s i t i o n i f n o t h i n g else, t o e n s u r e t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f
unity
be
throughout
the empire
and thus become
further
Church
embroiled
in
affairs w h i c h w e r e i n t e r m s of content, a l t h o u g h n o t necessarily effect,
entirely belonging to the sacerdotal sphere.
u p o n ecclesiastical u n i t y , o r d e r
himself
The emperor's
and authority
a role i n p r o t e r t i n g these t h i n g s
dependence
meant that he saw
for
a n d hence c o u l d assert
the
v a l i d i t y of his i n v o l v e m e n t i n matters of schism, heresy, canon l a w a n d
d o c t r i n e i f h e chose t o d o so.
O n e p o i n t of note was that t h r o u g h the
assertion that kings gain their p o w e r f r o m G o d , the indication left w a s
t h a t t h e k i n g is r e s u l t a n t l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n G o d ' s m e d i a t i o n , t h e p r i e s t s
a n d their temporal head; the supreme pontiff.
implication
that
regnum
is
dependent
This can certainly give the
upon
sacerdotium
transference a n d m e d i a t i o n of this G o d - g i v e n power.i3
context
that
'It
has
often been
argued
that just
for
the
I t is w i t h i n t h i s
as t h e
kingdom
of
G e r m a n y w a s p o l i t i c a l l y u n d e r m i n e d b y the Investiture Contest because
h e a t h e n n a t í o n s ; a n d he m a y be v e r y t e r r i b l e t o h i s enemies w i t h t h e u t m o s t s t r e n g t h of
r o y a l p o t e n c y . ' N e l s o n , ' K i n g s h i p a n d E m p i r e ' , p . 218. Prospice w a s і п с о ф о г а ї е с і i n t o
the language of the royal coronation.
ւ N e l s o n , ' K i n g s h i p a n d E m p i r e ' , p p . 217-8.
շ
1 R o b i n s o n , ' C h u r c h a n d P a p a c y ' , p. 246.
3
55
k i n g s c o u l d n o l o n g e r c o n t r o l t h e G e r m a n C h u r c h , so t h e G r e g o r i a n s '
desacralisation of kingship destroyed the ideological fotmdations of royal
t h e o c r a c y . ' i 4 N o n e t h e l e s s , a m o n a r c h c o u l d s t i l l f a l l b a c k o n R o m a n s 13
a n d t h i s i s i l l u s t r a t i v e o n c e a g a i n t h a t b o t h regnum
find
a n d sacerdottum
a r g u m e n t s t o s u p p o r t t h e i r cause i n S c r i p t u r e , t h e E a r l y
could
Church
Fathers a n d s u b s e q u e n t w r i t i n g s (be t h e m r e a l o r f o r g e d ) .
The idea of sacral k i n g s h i p w a s certainly one a d h e r e d to b y H e n r y Ш .
In
m a n y respects, H e n r y I I I s h o u l d be listed a m o n g s t the great reformers for
he a l l o w e d and encouraged the church, i n particular monastic, reforms to
grow and
one
flourish.
correctly
Nevertheless, he perceived the emperor's role to be
directing
these
reforms.
He
rejerted
the
theory
p r o m u l g a t e d b y P o p e S y l v e s t e r I (pont. 3 1 3 - 3 3 5 ) , w h i c h m a d e i t s w a y i n t o
canon l a w , that n o p o p e s h o u l d be j u d g e d ; H e n r y obviously felt that it
was an emperor and patrician's d u t y to h o l d jurisdirtion over the papal
see i f i t a p p e a r e d i n n e e d o f g u i d a n c e .
H e n r y took the title 'patrician of
the R o m a n s ' a n d his u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the office h a d a significant effert
u p o n h o w he dealt w i t h the papacy.
The same w a s true of H e n r y I V b u t
w i t h a n outcome w h i c h was somewhat different to that of his father's
reign.
' T h r o u g h all the vicissitudes of his reign H e n r y I V was sustained
b y a belief in his divine ordination to the kingship.
It was he ' w h o m ,
a l t h o u g h u n w o r t h y , G o d ordained even f r o m his c h i l d h o o d to be k i n g
a n d e v e r y d a y s h o w s H e has o r d a i n e d h i m ' . ' i s It w a s f r o m this belief i n
his a u t h o r i t y f r o m the d i v i n e that, a n y political calculations aside, H e n r y
rv
m o s t genuinely refused to give u p his right to invest archbishops a n d
b i s h o p s w i t h r i n g a n d s t a f f as h e a l s o n u m b e r e d a m o n g s t G o d ' s a n o i n t e d .
I t is c l e a r t h a t ' d u r i n g t h e r e i g n o f H e n r y in
the imperial authority
had
1 R o b ü i s o n , ' C h u r c h a n d P a p a c y ' , p. 246.
4
151. ร . R o b i n s o n , Henry IV of Germany, 1056-1106, ( C a m b r i d g e , 1999), p. 14. cf. H e n r y I V ,
Letter 17, i n T. M o m m s e n a n d K. M o r r i s o n , Imperial
Lives and Letters of the Eleventh
Century, ( L o n d o n , 1962), p p . 162-5.
56
been o n the side of r e f o r m , a n d that, w h i l e there m a y have been some
q u e s t i o n as t o t h e p r o p r i e t y o f s o m e o f t h e a r t i o n s w h i c h h a d b e e n t a k e n
in promoting
reform, o n the w h o l e the r e f o r m i n g
p a r t y recog nised his
sincerity, a n d was g rateful for his energ y.'iö
H o w e v e r , u p o n H e n r y I l l ' s d e a t h i n 1056 t h e s i t u a t i o n w a s t o c h a n g e
radically a n d certainly w a s not aided b y the machinations of the reg ency
government.
alterations
I n i t i a l l y A g n e s , t h e e m p r e s s - m o t h e r , a r t e d as r e g e n t
quickly became apparent.
The administration
and
lacked
the
potency that it had h a d under her husband, not evident more than i n the
fact that the G e r m a n c o u r t w a s n o t c o n s u l t e d o v e r the a p p o i n t m e n t s of
Stephen IX, Benedict X a n d Nicholas I I a n d hence h a d lost the role w i t h i n
p a p a l e l e c t i o n s t h a t H e n r y ш h a d set u p a n d e n v i s a g e d t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n
of; the i m p e r i a l g o v e r n m e n t d i d n o t t r y a n d i m p o s e its o w n
candidate
u p o n p r o c e e d i n g s . U p o n t h e e l e r t i o n o f A l e x a n d e r I I , C a d a l u s w a s set u p
as a n t i p o p e H o n o r i u s a n d s u p p o r t e d b y t h e i m p e r i a l c o u r t f o r a t i m e a t
least.
H e n r y I V w a s k i d n a p p e d i n 1062 b y a c o n s p i r a c y l e d b y A n n o o f
Cologne and involving
Ekbert I of B r i m s w i c k a n d O t t o of N o r d h e i m .
policy w e r e A d a l b e r t of Bremen a n d B u r c h a r d I I of Halberstadt. A n n o of
Cologne was p r i m a r i l y preoccupied w i t h p r o m o t i n g his family and the
c h u r c h of Colog ne a n d w a s keen to co-operate w i t h the papacy a n d hence
a i d e d i n t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e a n t i p o p e ' ร cause.
H e n r y rv
w a s clearly
n o t c o n t e n t w i t h t h e p o l i c i e s t h a t A n n o p u r s u e d as, u p o n h i s c o m i n g o f
a g e i n 1065 a t t h e a g e o f
fifteen,
H e n r y rejected the coimsel of A n n o for
that o f A d a l b e r t , a n d A g n e s also r e g a i n e d f a v o u r at c o u r t .
The regency g o v e r n m e n t h a d done m u c h , i n one w a y or another,
undermine the y o u n g king's position.
" R . พ . a n d A . J . C a r i y l e , A History
of Mediaeval
to
But perhaps m o r e t h a n that it
Political
Thought
in the West, ( E d i n b u r g h ,
1909-36), V o l . I V , p. 6 1 .
57
heavily influenced his choice of advisers.
Throughout his y o u n g
life
H e n r y h a d b e e n t r e a t e d as a p o l i t i c a l p a w n b y m a n y w i t h i n t h e r a n k s o f
t h e p o w e r f u l n o b i l i t y a n d c l e r g y i n G e r m a n y a n d so w a s d i s t r u s t f ฬ o f a
great n u m b e r of those w h o offered advice. Resultantly, H e n r y struck out
his o w n p a t h w h e n he m a y have been wiser to take the advice of others.
When
invited by
Alexander
п
to Rome
for
his imperial
coronation,
consternation was raised w h e n H e n r y delayed the expedition.
Alexander
w a s k e e n f o r H e n r y t o b e c r o w n e d as t h i s w o u l d r e m o v e o n c e f o r a l l t h e
threat
of
C a d a l u s , as t h e
Alexander's papacy.
king
would
thenceforth
be
committed
to
E v e n at t h i s e a r l y stage H e n r y r e c e i v e d a p r o f o u n d
w a r n i n g f r o m Peter D a m i a n , w h o w r o t e to h i m p l e a d i n g w i t h H e n r y to
"stop
[his]
ears
against
evil
counsellors
as
against
the
hissing
of
p o i s o n o u s s n a k e s ' a n d t o f u l f i l h i s d u t y as p r o t e c t o r o f t h e R o m a n C h u r c h
b y m a k i n g w a r o n Cadalus.
This r e m i n d e r of the special f u n r t i o n of the
e m p e r o r elect w a s a c c o m p a n i e d b y a threat.
' I f [a k i n g ] f a i l s i n h i s d u t y
to G o d a n d the C h u r c h , he w i l l be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t b y his s u b j e r t s ' / i ^
O n e of t h e ' e v i l c o u n s e l l o r s ' t o w h o m Peter D a m i a n w a s r e f e r r i n g w a s
A d a l b e r t w h o t r i e d t o steer i m p e r i a l p o l i c y a w a y f r o m d e a l i n g s w i t h t h e
p a p a c y as t h e p a p a c y w a s e n c o m p a s s e d b y h i s r i v a l A n n o ' s s p h e r e o f
k n o w l e d g e a n d influence rather than his o w n .
I n 1066 H e n r y
married
Bertha a n d A n n o r e t u r n e d also to his counsel b u t n o single adviser w a s to
play a dominant role any longer.
H e n r y also f a i l e d t o c o m e t o t h e p o p e ' s
a i d w h e n r e q u e s t e d , as a r e s u l t o f a n a t t a c k b y N o r m a n p r i n c e , R i c h a r d o f
C a p u a , later that year.
W h e n H e n r y sought a divorce f r o m his queen the matter was referred to
a
synod
first
at
Worms
and
then
Frankfurt.
It
was
opposed
by
Archbishop Siegfried of M a i n z and was referred to the Pope w h o d i d not
g i v e h i s c o n s e n t a n d so H e n r y a b a n d o n e d h i s q u e s t .
This provides a
notable indication of the g r o w i n g p o w e r of the r e f o r m papacy.
O n very
1 R o b i n s o n , Henry IV, p. 107, cf. Peter D a m i a n , L e t t e r 120.
7
58
f e w occasions since the r u l e of 'the G r e a t ' p o p e s w o u l d such a n o u t c o m e
have been possible.
P r e v i o u s l y i t w a s e m p e r o r s d i c t a t i n g ecclesiastical
policy to the pontiffs rather than the papacy m a k i n g
over the marital dealings of kings a n d emperors.
pronoimcements
Alexander refused to
c r o w n H e n r y as e m p e r o r i f h e c o n t i n u e d w i t h h i s e x p r e s s e d w i s h
divorce
Queen
Bertha.
Although
Henry
did
submit
to
the
pope's
d e m a n d s , t h i s i n c i d e n t w a s e m p l o y e d as a u s e f u l t o o l s u b s e q u e n t l y
the
Gregorians
who
sought
to
sully
Henry's
to
reputation, painting
by
a
picture of a highly unprincipled and i m m o r a l man.i^
C o n t r a r y to the v i e w p u t f o r t h b y the G r e g o r i a n polemicists, m a n y
of
H e n r y ' s candidates for bishoprics w e r e devout m e n , a d m i t t e d l y loyal to
the r o y a l cause, b u t m o r a l nonetheless.
They were, however,
f r o m above rather t h a n given popular acclaim b y clergy a n d
imposed
people.
W h e n accusations of s i m o n y w e r e t h r u s t at H e n r y , m a t t e r s b e c a m e m o r e
c o m p l i c a t e d as w h e t h e r h e w a s g u i l t y o r n o t l a r g e l y d e p e n d e d u p o n t h e
definition used for simony.
If s i m o n y w a s confined to discussions
of
m o n e y changing hands, then H e n r y w a s p r o b a b l y innocent of this charge,
h o w e v e r , 'the t e r m ' s i m o n y ' e x p a n d e d its m e a n i n g i n the later e l e v e n t h
c e n t u r y , as r e f o r m e r s i n t e n s i f i e d t h e i r c a m p a i g n t o f r e e t h e C h u r c h f r o m
every k i n d of secular i n f l u e n c e / 1 ^
T h i s w o u l d also h a v e i n c l u d e d
the
traditional a n d symbolic exchanging of gifts between k i n g a n d prelate.
There are, nonetheless, suggestions that H e n r y d r e w u p o n the w e a l t h of
the churches to help s u p p o r t his g o v e r n m e n t .
The issue that b r o u g h t A l e x a n d e r a n d H e n r y i n t o direct c o n f l i r t w a s that
of the succession of t h e archiepiscopacy of M i l a n . U p o n t h e d e a t h o f
A r c h b i s h o p G u i d o H e n r y s u p p o r t e d t h e cause of G o d f r e y a n d i n v e s t e d
IS C o n v e n i e n t l y i g n o r i n g t h e fact t h a t the l a t e r - t o - b e c o m e a n t i - k i n g , R u d o l f of S w a b i a ,
h a d s o u g h t a d i v o r c e f r o m B e r t h a ' s sister at t h e same t i m e .
1 R o b i n s o n , H e n r y IV, p. 120.
9
59
h i m w i t h t h e a r c h b i s h o p r i c i n 1072. P o p e A l e x a n d e r , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
had
consecrated
Atto,
the
choice
of
the
clergy
and
the
Patarene
m o v e m e n t i n M i l a n . I t w a s H e r u y ' ร r e f u s a l t o a c c e p t A t t o as t h e r i g h t f u l
archbishop a n d rejert G o d f r e y that led Alexander to excommunicate five
of H e n r y ' s advisers w h o m he felt w e r e m o s t responsible for
Henry's
obstinacy. I t is also possible t h a t ,
A l e x a n d e r ' s d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e o f 1073 w a s i n s p i r e d n o t o n l y b y t h e
case o f M i l a n , b u t also b y o t h e r i r r e g u l a r i t i e s t h a t h a d c o m e t o l i g h t i n
the
imperial
Church.
Henry's
admission
that
his
'servants
and
f a m i l i a r s ' m a y h a v e p r a c t i s e d s i m o n y p e r h a p s s u g g e s t e d t o the
pope
t h a t t h e r e f o r m o f the i m p e r i a l C h u r c h c o u l d m o s t r e a d i l y be
achieved
b y a p u r g e of r o y a l advisers.20
U p o n t h e d e a t h o f A l e x a n d e r п i n 1073, H i l d e b r a n d a s c e n d e d t o t h e HolySee as P o p e G r e g o r y V I I ( n a m e d a f t e r G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t , a l t h o u g h a l s o
H i l d e b r a n d h a d been d o s e to G r e g o r y V I i n his exile) a n d a p p r o v a l f r o m
the imperial court was not sought.
F r o m the outset, relations between
Gregory and Henry were unfavourable.
՝ R o b i n s o n , Henry
IV, p. 125.
60
Chapter 5ะ Pope Gregory V I I and Henry I V of Germany
'Under
the line of G e r m a n popes the Papacy learned to b o r r o w
strength of the Imperial system under w h i c h it had g r o w n to power.
the
So
s t r e n g t h e n e d , t h e P a p a c y a i m e d at i n d e p e n d e n c e . ' 1 It w a s i n t h i s c o n t e x t
that Gregory took o n the imperial powers. H e strongly believed not o n l y
i n the C h u r c h ' ร i n d e p e n d e n c e , b u t also i n its f u n d a m e n t a l
o v e r t h e state a n d secular p o w e r s .
supremacy
T h e conflict w h i c h arose
Gregory and H e n r y was, therefore, inevitable.
f r o m his father, H e n r y I V d i d m a i n t a i n H e n r y ա՛տ
For all the
between
differences
vision of the emperor
as R o m a n p a t r i c i a n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , H e n r y rv s a w t h e r i g h t o f i n v e s t i t u r e
t o be central t o his role; his r i g h t t o m a k e decisions i n the best interests of
the
'Imperial
Church'
in
appointments
to
bishoprics
and
arch-
episcopacies. O f c o u r s e , t h e c o n f l i c t w e n t d e e p e r t h a n t h i s a n d h a d at its
heart the struggle for the p o w e r of supremacy.
I n fact, t h e ' b i v e s t i t u r e
C o n t e s t ' as a s t r u g g l e p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e r i g h t o f l a y i n v e s t i t u r e d i d
not b e g i n i m t i l after Gregory's death. The conflict b e t w e e n G r e g o r y a n d
H e n r y s t r u c k m u c h c l o s e r t o t h e h e a r t o f r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n regnum
sacerdotium.
and
F o r t h e m e a n t i m e , h o w e v e r , i t is w o r t h l o o k i n g at H e n r y a n d
G r e g o r y ' s first b a t t l e ; t h a t o v e r t h e a r c h i e p i s c o p a c y o f M i l a n , t o see h o w
future relations w e r e to be shaped.
A s m a n y of his later changes i n a t t i t u d e a n d action also d e m o n s t r a t e ,
m u c h of Henry's policy towards
Gregory
was
dictated b y
problems
w i t h i n t h e G e r m a n k i n g d o m , specifically b y a series o f r e v o l t s i n S a x o n y .
D u e to difficulties i n Saxony a n d hence a need to concentrate o n domestic
affairs, H e n r y renounced his s u p p o r t of G o d f r e y a n d w a s p r e p a r e d to
a c c e p t A t t o as a r c h b i s h o p .
A s H e n r y accepted i n his letter of
August
1073, ' w e a s k f o r t h e c h u r c h o f M i l a n , w h i c h t h r o u g h o u r f a u l t i s i n e r r o r .
A. Н
M a t h e พ ,The Life and Times of Hildebrand:
Pope Gregory VII, ( L o n d o n , 1910), p. v i .
61
that it m a y
be canonically
set r i g h t
by
your
apostolic
censure;
and
thereafter w e ask t h a t t h e j u d g e m e n t o f y o u r a u t h o r i t y m a y m o v e o n t o
the correction of other t h i n g s / 2
However,
i n 1075 t h e S a x o n
surrendered
and
d i e d ; these
to H e n r y
at Speier
Atto
rebels
circumstances
c o m b i n e d c a u s e d H e n r y t o r e a s s e r t w h a t h e s a w as h i s i m p e r i a l r i g h t t o
i m p o s e h i s o w n c h o i c e o f c a n d i d a t e u p o n M i l a n a n d so elected T e d a l d .
Henry
took
the
campaign
forward
aggressively
and
instructed
a d v i s e r s t o i n v e s t t h e b i s h o p s o f F e r m o a n d S p o l e t o as w e l l .
his
'The n e w
p r i n c i p l e s of the r e f o r m e d Papacy a n d its n e w m a t e r i a l s t r e n g t h w e r e
thus simultaneously challenged b y the conventional prerogative of the
G e r m a n k i n g ; the challenge w a s v i g o r o u s l y accepted a n d the t w o p o w e r s
came into bitter conflict/3
Gregory
held
his
first
synod
in
March
1074
at
which
he
strongly
c o n d e m n e d s i m o n y a n d c l e r i c a l m a r r i a g e b u t s t o p p e d s h o r t o f d o i n g so
over the issue of lay i n v e s t i t u r e . G r e g o r y m a d e use o f the legatine s y s t e m
i n the w a y his i m m e d i a t e predecessors h a d done a n d s t a m p e d
down
h a r d u p o n clerical m a r r i a g e a n d s i m o n y t h r o u g h o u t the e m p i r e . G r e g o r y
h a d also b e e n enthusiastic a b o u t the idea of l a u n c h i n g a crusade t o t h e
H o l y L a n d t o d r i v e o u t t h e Saracens, w h i c h h e h i m s e l f p r o p o s e d to l e a d
a n d d u r i n g this p e r i o d of cordial relations w i t h H e n r y , requested that he
take care o f t h e e m p i r e a n d C h u r c h w h i l s t G r e g o r y w a s t o be a w a y .
course, this project d i d n o t take place u n d e r Gregory's pontificate
shows
the
idealist
in
Gregory.
When
Henry
chose
Tedald
to
archbishop of M i l a n , G r e g o r y strirtly forbade it b u t H e n r y ignored
^RegA29a,
Of
and
be
him
p. 35.
3
M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
LiveSf p . 3 9 .
4
T h e First C r u s a d e w a s w a g e d b y the E a s t e r n E m p e r o r A l e x u ร I a n d i n 1095 P o p e
U r b a n I I gave a speech at the C o u n c i l of C l e r m o n t u r g i n g the s u p p o r t of the W e s t to the
cause of d e f e a t i n g the infidels. Jerusalem w a s c o n q u e r e d i n July 1099.
62
and
it was
this
act t h a t
weighed
heavily
i n the pope's
decision
to
e x c o m m u n i c a t e H e n r y i n 1076.
Gregory
set f o r t h
a clear
exposition
of
the
reasons
behind
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n i n t h e f o u r t e e n t h l e t t e r o f h i s Epistolae
Henry's
Vagantes.
He
recognised that i n excommunicating the k i n g a n d 'emperor-to-be' he h a d
' s e i z e d t h e s p i r i t u a l s w o r d ' b u t g a v e s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r so d o i n g ,
'.. .we s u m m o n e d to d o penance some of his courtiers, b y w h o s e counsels
a n d devices he h a d p o l l u t e d w i t h the simoniac heresy the bishoprics a n d
the m a n y monasteries i n w h i c h , for a price, w o l v e s h a d been established
i n s t e a d o f s h e p h e r d s . ' 5 G r e g o r y s a w t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f s i m o n y as o n e o f ,
if not the, most i m p o r t a n t mission of his pontificate a n d saw the actions
o f H e n r y as a c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h i s p r o b l e m .
Gregory
Nonetheless,
d i d not write-off Henry; i n Henry's more penitent
moments
G r e g o r y w a s r e a d y t o r e c e i v e h i m as a n a i d e t o t h e c a u s e o f
Church
r e f o r m ; at these t i m e s , G r e g o r y
Henry's
imperial coronation.
was
also r e a d y
to
consider
H o w e v e r , once fortunes w e r e brighter i n
Saxony
a n d H e n r y h a d reneged o n his penitence Gregory could come to no other
j u d g e m e n t or d e d s i o n about h i m t h a n that he s h o u l d be 'separated f r o m
the C h u r c h a n d share the c o m p a n y of the excommtinicates w i t h w h o m he
h a d chosen to have his part rather than w i t h Christ/0 But if H e n r y were
prepared to a m e n d his life,
we
called, a n d w e
still call, G o d to witness h o w
greatly w e
would
rejoice for his salvation a n d h o n o u r , a n d w i t h h o w m u c h l o v e w e w o u l d
e m b r a c e h i m i n t h e b o s o m o f h o l y c h u r c h as o n e w h o m , b e i n g set as a
prince over the people a n d h a v i n g the rule of a m o s t f a r - f l t m g k i n g d o m ,
it behoves to be the u p h o l d e r of catholic peace a n d
' H . E. J . C o w d r e y , The E p i s t o l a e V a g a n t e s of Pope Gregory
' Md.,
p. 34.
'Ibid.,
p. 39.
VII,
righteousness^
( O x f o r d , 1972) 14, p. 35.
63
The three reasons, therefore, for H e n r y ' s e x c o m m u r d c a t i o n were, firstly,
that
he
continued
excommunicated
for
to
communicate
the
simoniac
with
heresy;
men
who
secondly,
had
he
been
would
not
p e r f o r m penitence f o r h i s o w n g u i l t y deeds a n d ; t h i r d l y , 'because h e h a d
n o t feared to r e n d the b o d y of C h r i s t , that is, the u n i t y of h o l y church's.
H e h a d , i n other w o r d s , caused a schism i n the Milanese church
rendered
d a m a g e t o o t h e r s ; h e w a s , t h e r e f o r e , t r e a t e d as a n y
and
other
schismatic w o u l d have been a n d w a s e x c o m m u n i c a t e d . O n e of Gregory's
greatest q u a l m s i n r e l a t i o n to H e n r y w a s that his b e h a v i o u r w a s n o t that
w h i c h befitted either k i n g or emperor.
Gregory w o u l d have adhered to
the A u g u s t i n i a n n o t i o n of a g o o d Christian ruler a n d it was not a pattern
that H e n r y followed.
T h i s i n itself w o u l d h a v e caused p r o b l e m s at the
v e r y least f o r t h e G e r m a n C h u r c h a n d so G r e g o r y felt t h a t i t w a s p a r t o f
h i s d u t y a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o set H e n r y o n a s t r a i g h t p a t h .
Eventually Gregory came r o u n d to the v i e w , w i t h significant persuasion
f r o m the G e r m a n princes, that if H e n r y c o u l d n o t be restored t o
righteous p a t h t h e n he s h o u l d be replaced b y another.
the
It s h o u l d perhaps
b e m e n t i o n e d t h a t G r e g o r y d i d n o t a t t h i s t i m e s e e m e n t i r e l y a t ease w i t h
t h i s course o f a c t i o n a n d i t is q u e s t i o n a b l e w h e t h e r i t w a s ever one w h i c h
he
whole
heartedly
p r o p o s i t i o n s , Dictatus
undated,
enter
supported,
Gregory
set
forth
twenty-seven
Papae, c o n c e r n i n g p a p a l a u t h o r i t y ^ w h i c h a l t h o u g h
Gregory's
Register
during
Lent
1075.
Of
particular
r e l e v a n c e t o h i s c l a s h e s w i t h H e n r y , w h i c h a l t h o u g h at t h i s m o m e n t a t a
lull i n proceedings, w e r e his pronouncements that the p o p e 'alone can
use i m p e r i a l i n s i g n i a ' ; that the p o p e 'is p e r m i t t e d to depose e m p e r o r s ' ;
that the pope's 'sentence be j u d g e d b y n o o n ๙ a n d ; that the s u p r e m e
pontiff
unlikely
8
Epistolae
^Reg.
' c a n absolve subjects f r o m fealty t o t h e w i c k e d ' .
that
Vagantes
Gregory
made
any
statement
about
lay
It
appears
investiture
14, p p . 3 9 , 4 1 .
2.55ü., p p . 149-50.
64
specifically
at
his
c o m m e n t a t o r s . 10
If
1075
any
synod
mention
despite
were
the
made
writings
of
lay
of
some
investiture,
a
p r o h i b i t i o n u p o n it most p r o b a b l y s t o p p e d short of b e c o m i n g a decree
a l t h o u g h i t d o e s l a t e r a p p e a r as t h o u g h G r e g o r y r e b u k e d H e n r y
for
investing G e r a l d I I of C a m b r a i , H u z m a n of Speyer a n d H e n r y of A q u i l e i a
despite t h e fact t h a t t h e y w e r e all i n v e s t e d p r i o r t o the
first
surviving
d e c r e e o f N o v e m b e r 1078.11 T h i s r e a c t i o n m a y , h o w e v e r , h a v e b e e n i n
r e l a t i o n i n s t e a d t o H e n r y ' s c o n t i n u e d interference i n ecclesiastical affairs
despite his o n g o i n g dealings w i t h excommimicates a n d t h r o u g h o u t his
o w n brief period of excommunication.
H e n r y rv's
i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n ecclesiastical affairs w e r e s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t
t o those of his father, a l t h o u g h i n some respects m o t i v a t e d b y the same
concerns.
H e n r y Ill's episcopal a p p o i n t m e n t s t e n d e d to be of a h i g h e r
calibre t h a n that of his son's.
concerned w i t h C h u r c h reform.
Henry
ш
was genuinely and
deeply
H e w a n t e d to eradicate s i m o n y b u t d i d
n o t , h o w e v e r , see l a y i n v o l v e m e n t as t h e c e n t r a l f o r c e o f e v i l , q u i t e t h e
reverse i n fart.
I n p a r t i c u l a r , H e n r y in
saw his involvement i n
the
p r o c e d u r e s o f i n v e s t i t u r e as a c r u c i a l o n e a n d a l s o as h i s t r a d i t i o n a l r i g h t
w h i c h he w a s n o t w i l l i n g to forfeit. O n this latter p o i n t , the rights of the
i m p e r i a l p o w e r , H e n r y rv
f u l l y u p h e l d his father's policies, b u t he w a s
n o t , h o w e v e r , s o c o n c e r n e d w i t h c a r r y i n g o n w i t h t h e r e f o r m s , as h e d i d
n o t see t h e m as b e i n g i n h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t a n d i t w a s f o r t h i s r e a s o n t h a t
H e n r y was treated very differently b y the r e f o r m papacy than his father
h a d been; i n t h e m e a n t i m e , t h e p a p a c y h a d also g r o w n i n s t r e n g t h a n d
independence.
Nevertheless, G r e g o r y h e l d a deep respect for
certain
secular rulers. For e x a m p l e , a l t h o u g h h e extensively criticised H e n r y
IV
of G e r m a n y a n d Philip I of France, he reserved, o n the w h o l e , praise for
W i l l i a m I of England.
W i l l i a m ' s policies were not i n contradichoท to
10 i.e. A m u l f o f M i l a n .
" R o b i n s o n , Henry
IV, p . p . 1 3 6 - 7 .
65
Gregory's
aims,
encouraged
instead
religious
they
reform
in
generally
complemented
England.
Gregory
them
viewed
and
William,
t h e r e f o r e , as m u c h c l o s e r t o A u g u s t i n e ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f a g o o d C h r i s t i a n
ruler.
W i l l i a m ' s p o w e r w i t h i n the C h u r c h a n d in deciding the affairs of
the church was considerable,
W i l l i a m w a s i n fact a n active a n d c o - o r d i n a t i n g agent i n p r o m o t i n g the
reforms
throughout
the C h u r c h i n his conjoint
realm.
He
assumed
responsibility for the welfare of the C h u r c h t h r o u g h o u t all his d o m i n i o n ,
a n d h e c l a i m e d a l s o f u l l a u t h o r i t y as k i n g i n d i r e c t i n g i t s a f f a i r s .
The
ecclesiastical a u t h o r i t y
and
exercised b y
England was pervasive. ւ
William
both іл N o r m a n d y
շ
T h i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t G r e g o r y V I I ' s o p p o s i t i o n w a s n o t t o r e g a l p o w e r per se,
b u t to the misuse of regal p o w e r .
G r e g o r y ' s greatest resistance o c c u r r e d
w h e r e t h e State's a r t i o n s m a d e it d i f f i c u l t t o l e a d a t r u l y r e l i g i o u s life a n d
also p r o h i b i t e d p e o p l e f r o m a c t i n g i n obedience w i t h t h e dictates o f t h e
p a p a l see. A l t h o u g h p o w e r w a s o f i s s u e , i t w a s p o w e r w i t h a n e n d r a t h e r
t h a n the u n l i m i t e d a c c u m u l a t i o n of p o w e r for its o w n sake. For e x a m p l e ,
W i l l i a m I stated, Ղ have not s w o r n , nor w i l l I swear, fealty, w h i c h w a s
never s w o r n b y a n y of m y predecessors to y o u r s /
It has been suggested
that:
A
cause f o r especial f a v o u r
with which William
I was
regarded
by-
G r e g o r y V I I is t o b e f o u n d i n t h e d y i n g k i n g ' s u t t e r a n c e , t h a t h e
was
free f r o m the g u i l t o f s i m o n y , a n d h a d a l w a y s p r e f e r r e d ecclesiastics of
good
character
to bishoprics.
Such
freedom
from
the
"plague"
of
simony was rare a m o n g rulers of that period, and thus W i l l i a m retained
the
favour
of
Gregory,
though
independence, created bishops
the
Conqueror
maintained
a n d abbots at his w i l l , a n d
was
his
lord
a b s o l u t e o v e r h i s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l as o v e r h i s f e u d a l l i e g e m e n . ^ ^
ւ David С
շ
D o u g l a s , William
1 M a t h e w , Life and
3
Times,
the Conqueror,
p. 48.
( L o n d o n , 1964), p. 335.
S e e a l s o H . R. L o y n , The Norman
Conquest,
(London,
1982), p p . 166-7
66
This presents us w i t h a picture that shows that G r e g o r y VII's opposition
t o H e n r y I V w a s n o t as c y n i c a l l y - b a s e d as s o m e a c c o u n t s i n d i c a t e ; t h a t i t
w a s i n fact f o u n d e d u p o n a g e n u i n e concern o v e r the m o r a l d e g r a d a t i o n
o f t h e C h u r c h u n d e r t h e p r o t e c t o r a t e o f H e n r y rv
the Empire.
in both Germany and
The relationship between Gregory
and William was
a
unique one and was most probably influenced b y the similarly unusual
concord between the K i n g of E n g l a n d a n d his A r c h b i s h o p of Canterbury;
Lanfranc. A s L o y n notes:
For v a r i o u s reasons, therefore, the crisis of the I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t e s t
was
delayed in England. N o t until the early twelfth century d i d the struggle
b e t w e e n c h u r c h a n d state for effective c o n t r o l b r e a k o u t , to be settled b y
compromise.
I n the m e a n t i m e the English church, secular a n d
regular,
w a s r e f o r m e d a l o n g authoritative, traditional lines b y the m o s t
fruitful
co-operative effort of k i n g a n d a r c h b i s h o p k n o w n to E n g l i s h history.^4
O n e must, however, consider the possibility that due to the
independence
that
England
maintained
from
the
rest
of
peculiar
Europe,
if
G r e g o r y h a d been concerned b y the lack o f deference s h o w n b y W i l l i a m I,
t h e r e w o u l d h a v e b e e n l i t t l e t h a t h e c o u l d h a v e d o n e a b o u t iO^
This was
n o t t h e case w i t h H e n r y I V , w h o s e e n e m i e s w e r e n u m e r o u s a n d h e n c e
supporters
for
the
papal
cause
were
readily
foimd.
Nonetheless,
Gregory's m o t i v e s appeared, b y a n d large, genuine i n their desire for
r e t u r n i n g t h e p a p a c y a n d C h r i s t i a n f a i t h o n a w i d e r scale t o
greater
purity. After all, of W i l l i a m , Gregory commented:
L o y n , Norman
Conquest,
1 For example^
5
p. 167.
'It was between
1076 a n d
1080 that G r e g o r y
Canossa to the peak of his political p o w e r .
y e a r s t h a t , as h a s b e e n seen, W i l l i a m
between
1079
and
1081
that
the
f o r m i d a b l y a c u t e . ' D o u g l a s , William
that Gregory
was a consummate
And
VII advanced
it w a s precisely d u r i n g these
suffered his greatest reverses....It
issues
between
the Conqueror,
through
the
p. 338.
pope
and
the
was
in
same
fact
king
became
This, consequently,
suggests
politician; k n o w i n g not to p r o v o k e m o r e than
one
p o t e n t i a l conflict at a n y one t i m e .
67
" A l t h o u g h i n certain matters the k i n g of the English does n o t
himself
as d e v o u t l y
comfort
as m i g h t b e w i s h e d , n e v e r t h e l e s s h e h a s
neither
destroyed n o r sold the churches of G o d ; he has taken pains to
govern
his subjects i n peace a n d justice; h e has r e f u s e d his assent t o
anything
d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e A p o s t o l i c See, e v e n w h e n s o l i c i t e d b y c e r t a i n e n e m i e s
of the cross of Christ; he has c o m p e l l e d priests o n o a t h to p u t a w a y their
w i v e s a n d the laity to f o r w a r d the titles t h e y w e r e w i t h h o l d i n g f r o m us.
I n all these respects he has s h o w n h i m s e l f m o r e w o r t h y of a p p r o b a t i o n
and honour than other kings..."16
' H e n r y ' s i n t e r v e n t i o n i n I t a l i a n ecclesiastical affairs w a s i n t e r p r e t e d b y
G r e g o r y V I I as a b r e a c h o f t h e ' p e a c e ' o f e m p i r e a n d p a p a c y . I t p r o v o k e d
t h e p a p a l u l t i m a t u m o f 8 D e c e m b e r 1075, w h i c h i n t u r n p r e c i p i t a t e d t h e
conflict o f 1076/^^ I n response to G r e g o r y ' s sentence of e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
Henry
felt p o w e r f u l e n o u g h at this t i m e t o s u m m o n the C o u n c i l of
W o r m s , the p r i m a r y purpose of w h i c h was to discredit Gregory.
assertion
that
Gregory
was
never
rightfully
pope
was
The
expounded
t h r o u g h arguments that the election w a s i n v a l i d and that Gregory's
subsequent artions w e r e not befitting those of a pontiff.
H e n r y accused
G r e g o r y of assaulting the C h u r c h i n G e r m a n y a n d attacking its bishops
w i t h o u t just cause. T h e c o u n c i l d e c i d e d i n f a v o u r o f H e n r y ' s c o m p l a i n t s
b u t its real d r i v i n g force w a s H e n r y a n d his advisers rather t h a n the
1 D o u g l a s , William
6
the Conqueror,
p.341.
T h a t these relations w e r e u n u s u a l , o n
both
sides, h o w e v e r , c a n be seen b y the fact t h a t ' W i l l i a m n e v e r ceased t o foster the r e f o r m s
that were
the
special concern
of
the
papacy....Ho w
much
controversy
was
in
fact
avoided can be guessed b y a comparison between the A n g l o - N o r m a n k i n g d o m a n d the
rest of w e s t e r n E u r o p e .
The papal decree agamst lay-investiture w h i c h w a s
published
i n R o m e i n 1074 d i d n o t enter E n g l a n d before the e n d of the e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y ,
despite
the fact t h a t e v e r y b i s h o p a p p o i n t e d i n N o r m a n d y a n d E n g l a n d b e t w e e n 1070 a n d 1087,
except o n l y E m o s t a n d G a n d u l f of Rochester, received his pastoral staff f r o m the k i n g .
There w a s never an 'investiture contest' i n the A n g l o - N o r m a n k i n g d o m d u r i n g the reign
of พ і Ш а т the Conqueror."
17 R o b i n s o n , Henry
IV,
Wid.,
p. 342.
p. 1 4 0 .
68
bishops.
Twenty-six bishops i n all renounced H i l d e b r a n d t ^ w i t h
the
accusations
You
delight
in
a great
name
rather
than
in
a good
one, a n d
with
u n h e a r d - o f seU-exaltatìon, like a standard bearer of schism, y o u distend
all the limbs of the C h u r c h w h i c h before y o u r times led a quiet
t r a n q u i l life, according to the a d m o n i t i o n of the Apostle.
flame
and
Finally, the
oř discord, w h i c h y o u stirred u p t h r o u g h terrible factions in the
Roman
Church,
you
spread
with
raging
madness
through
all
the
churches of Italy, G e r m a n y , G a u l and Spain.
T h e bishops, h a v i n g p r o p o u n d e d their reasons a n d c o m m e n t e d that all
w e r e g i v e n t h e legacy o f Peter i n t h e f o r m o f t h e p o w e r t o b i n d a n d loose
rather t h a n just the p o p e a n d his delegates, c o n c l u d e d b y saying, ' w e
declare that i n the f u t u r e w e shall observe n o longer the obedience w h i c h
w e h a v e n o t p r o m i s e d t o y o u . A n d s i n c e n o n e o f u s , as y o u h a v e p u b l i c l y
d e c l a r e d , has h i t h e r t o b e e n a b i s h o p to y o u , y o u also w i l l n o w be p o p e t o
none of
B o t h p o p e a n d e m p e r o r m u s t share the b l a m e for the e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n
a n d call to abdication.
cease
communication
excommunicated.
H e n r y h a d s h o w n his obstinacy i n refusing to
with
his
advisers
whom
Alexander
п
had
A s s h o w n b y G r e g o r y ' s earlier letters, if the k i n g h a d
m a d e his peace w i t h G r e g o r y h e w o u l d h a v e a l l o w e d h i m t o invest s u c h
IS S i e g f r i e d , a r c h b i s h o p o f M a i n z , U d o o f T r i e r , W i l l a i m o f U t r e c h t , H e r m a n o f
Henry
of Liège, Richard
of Speier, B u r c h a r d
of
H a l b e r s t a d t W e r n e r of Strassburg, B u r c h a r d of Basel, O t t o of Constance, A d a l b e r o
of
Würzburg, Rupert
Freising, Ulrich
of
of Hildesheim, Benno
of
Eichstätt, Frederick
of
of V e r d u n , B i d o of T o u l , H o z e m a n
Metz,
Bamberg, Otto
of Münster,
of
Regensburg, Egilbert
Eilbert of M i n d e n , H e z i ł o
of
Osnabrück, E p p o of N a u m b e r g , I m a d u s of P a d e r b o r n , T i e d o of B r a n d e n b u r g , B u r c h a r d
o f L a u s a n n e a n d B r u n o o f V e r o n a . C f . M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
1
9
Wid,,
20 Md,
Lives,
p. 147-9.
p. 148.
p. 149.
69
individuals
as A n s e l m , t h e b i s h o p - e l e c t
of Lucca.2^
Nonetheless it
arguable that Gregory's e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n of H e n r y w a s a slight
reaction because of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s w h i c h it left.
over-
Even without a formal
sentence of d e p o s i t i o n , e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m the C h u r c h w a s , to
intents
a n d p u r p o s e s , e q u a l t o that, because
is
saw
their
s p i r i t u a l l i f e as t a k i n g p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e i r t e m p o r a l l i f e w o u l d
obey
their C h u r c h rather than their k i n g .
subjerts w h o
all
I n other w o r d s , the king's enemies
c o u l d i g n o r e t h e k i n g ' s d e c r e e s , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e m m i l l a n d v o i d , as t h e y
were delivered by an excommunicate.
E x c o m m u n i c a t i o n h a d t h e effect
o f d i s s o l v i n g t h e f e a l t y o f t h e k i n g ' s s u b j e c t s a n d so i n m a n y
resperts,
d e p r i v i n g the k i n g of kingship.
Gregory's principle was that it w a s his
right
as P o p e , a s s u c c e s s o r t o S t
Peter, t o d e p o s e k i n g s , w h i l e H e n r y w i t h s t o o d s u c h а л a s s u m p t i o n , as
an unheard-of n o v e l t y i n C h r i s t e n d o m , w i t h all his energy.
was
permeated
with
the
idea
that
in
temporal
He himself
matters
he
was
i n d e p e n d e n t of the Pope, a n d subject to G o d alone.^
Henry
continued
with
his
campaign
calling
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t o f 1076.
for
Gregory's
Eastertide of that
year
h e l p e d t o set t h e p a t t e r n f o r t h e y e a r s t o c o m e a n d t h e w a y i n w h i c h t h e
polemical writings
w e r e to be used.
Henry
h e l d a n Easter M a s s
Utrecht i n rejection of Gregory's anathema of h i m .
at
T h e k i n g staged a
'crown-wearing', one of the rituals of p o w e r that, like coronation
were
d e s i g n e d t o d r a m a t i s e t h e O t t o n i a n - S a l i a n i d e a o f t h e m o n a r c h as ' t h e
Vicar
of
God'...to
the
accompaniment
of
the
royal
celebrating the majesty of Christ a n d of the k i n g , w h o
շ
laudes
hymns
exercised
His
ւ i . e . Reg. 1 . 2 1 , p . 2 4 , i n w h i c h G r e g o r y a s k e d A n s e l m ' t h a t y o u w i t h h o l d y o u r s e l f f r o m
investiture w i t h y o u r bishopric b y the h a n d of the k ü l g u n t i l he has m a d e satisfaction to
G o d f o r h i s c o m m u n i n g w i t h e x c o m m u n i c a t e d persons^ a n d t h u s h e can, w i t h m a t t e r s
set i n o r d e r , h a v e peace w i t h o u r s e l f /
ปี· M a t h e w , Ախ
and Times,
p. 107.
70
a u t h o r i t y o n earth.'23
Regrettably for H e n r y , the s y m b o l i c effect of the
M a s s w a s n e g a t e d b y t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e c a t h e d r a l o f St P e t e r
U t r e c h t after i t w a s h i t b y l i g h t n i n g a n d also B i s h o p W i l l i a m , w h o
celebrated the Mass, d i e d u n e x p e c t e d l y one m o n t h later.
chose t o
represent
these t m f o r t u n a t e
events
in
had
H e n r y ' s critics
as a d i v i n e
sign of
the
c o n d e m n a t i o n o f H e n r y . T h e f i r s t r o y a l p o l e m i c s a p p e a r e d a t t h i s t i m e as
H e n r y s a w the necessity of w i n n i n g o v e r t h e s u p p o r t of, i n p a r t i c u l a r , the
G e r m a n c l e r g y a n d s e c u l a r p r i n c e s s o as t o s t r e n g t h e n h i s p o s i t i o n a n d
d i s c o u r a g e a second S a x o n u p r i s i n g . These p o l e m i c a l w r i t i n g s w e r e also
i n r e s p o n s e t o G r e g o r y ' s aggressive call t o r e b e l l i o n against t h e k i n g at
his L e n t e n synod,24 accusing h i m of the v e r y serious c r i m e of 'separating
himself f r o m y o u r [Peter's] c h u r c h i n a n a t t e m p t t o r e n d it asunder, o n
y o u r [Peter's] behalf I b i n d h i m w i t h the chain of anathema.'25
Henry's
c o x m t e r - c l a i m ร w e r e j u s t as e x p l o s i v e , r e f e r r i n g t o ' t h e m o n k H i l d e b r a n d ,
s o - c a l l e d p o p e ' w h o ' p r e s i d e s i n t h e A p o s t o l i c See n o t w i t h t h e c a r e o f a
pastor b u t w i t h the violence of a u s u r p e r a n d f r o m t h e t h r o n e of peace
dissolves t h e b o n d o f t h e o n e c a t h o l i c peace.'26 I n t h i s s a m e letter, H e n r y
m a d e o n e of h i s clearest e x p o s i t i o n s o n h o w h e c o n c e i v e d t h e
relations between
regnum
a n d sacerdotium
and how
correct
he believed
that
G r e g o r y h a d t u r n e d o n i t s h e a d t h e o r d e r as i n s t i t u t e d b y G o d . T o q u o t e
2 3
R o b i n s o n , Henry
IV, p . 1 4 9 .
2 4
Reg. 3 . 6 , p . 1 8 1 ; 3 . 1 0 , p p . 1 8 7 - 9 0 : ' A n d b y y o u [ P e t e r ' s ] g r a c e , t h e p o w e r h a s b e e n g i v e n
to m e f r o m G o d of b i n d i n g a n d loosing i n heaven and o n earth.
Therefore, fortified b y
this confidence, for the h o n o u r a n d defence of y o u church, o n behalf of A l m i g h t y G o d ,
Father, Son a n d H o l y Spirit, t h r o u g h y o u r p o w e r a n d authority. I d e n y to K i n g H e n r y ,
son of the E m p e r o r H e n r y , w h o has risen u p w i t h u n h e a r d - o f p r i d e against y o u r church,
the g o v e r n m e n t of the entire k i n g d o m of the Germans a n d of Italy, a n d I absolve all
Christians f r o m the b o n d of a n y oath that they h a v e taken, or shall take, to h i m ; a n d I
f o r b i d a n y o n e t o s e r v e h i m a s k i n g . ' Reg. 3.6., p . 1 8 1 .
25 Ibid.,
2 6
p. 181.
M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
Lives,
L e t t e r 13, p. 152.
71
a t l e n g t h f r o m a l e t t e r o f H e n r y rv
dictator,
w r i t t e n b y his p r i m a r y
Gottschalk of Aachen:
...without God's k n o w l e d g e he has u s u r p e d
and
the
priesthood.
In
this
deed
he
for himself the
held
in
contempt
kingship
the
o r d i n a t i o n of G o d , w h i c h especially c o m m a n d e d these t w o ―
pious
namely,
k i n g s h i p a n d t h e p r i e s t h o o d 一 s h o u l d r e m a i n , n o t as o n e e n t i t y b u t as
two.
I n his P assion, the Savior H i m s e l f m e a n t the figurative
sufficiency
of the t w o s w o r d s to be u n d e r s t o o d i n this w a y : W h e n it w a s said
to
H i m , " L o r d ^ b e h o l d there are t w o s w o r d s h e r e / ' H e a n s w e r e d , " I t
is
e n o u g h / ' signifying b y this sufficient duality, that the spiritual and the
carnal swords
are to be u s e d i n the C h u r c h a n d
that by them
every
h u r t f u l t h i n g is t o b e c u t off.
T h a t is t o say. H e w a s t e a c h i n g t h a t e v e r y
man
priestly
is
constrained
by
the
sword
to
obey
the
king
as
the
representative of G o d b u t b y the k i n g l y s w o r d b o t h to repel enemies of
Christ
outside
and
to obey the priesthood
within.
So i n charity
the
p r o v i n c e o f o n e e x t e n d s i n t o t h e o t h e r , as l o n g as n e i t h e r t h e k i n g s h i p is
d e p r i v e d o f h o n o r b y t h e p r i e s t h o o d n o r t h e p r i e s t h o o d is d e p r i v e d
honor
by
the
kingship.
You
yourself
have
found
out, if
you
of
have
w a n t e d to discover it, h o w the H i l d e b r a n d i n e m a d n e s s has
confounded
this ordinance
be a
of G o d ; for
in his j u d g m e n t ,
no
unless he begs that [honor] f r o m his arrogance.
one m a y
priest
H e has also s t r i v e n
d e p r i v e m e of the k i n g s h i p , m e w h o m G o d has called to the
to
kingship
( G o d , h o w e v e r ^ has n o t called h i m t o the p r i e s t h o o d ) 一 since h e s a w that
I w i s h e d to h o l d m y r o y a l p o w e r f r o m G o d a n d n o t f r o m h i m a n d since
h e h i m s e l f h a d n o t c o n s t i t u t e d m e as k m g . 2 7
The C o u n c i l of M a i n z occurred i n Jime w h e n the accusations against
G r e g o r y w e r e reiterated, a l t h o u g h already cracks w e r e b e g i n n i n g to f o r m
i n the façade of the council's u n i t y . G r e g o r y began to consider the n o t i o n
of the elertion of a n e w
king2^
b u t e v e n t s t o o k a d i f f e r e n t t u r n as H e n r y ' s
enemies h a d increased i n n u m b e r , o r p e r h a p s m o r e correctly, h a d seen
ปี M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
2 8
Reg. 42,
the king]
Lives,
L e t t e r 13, p. 153.
p . 2 0 9 : ' L e t t h e m p o n d e r [ a l l t h o s e w h o s a y i t is n o t r i g h t t o
why
Pope Zacharias
deposed
the k i n g of the Franks
excommunicate
and absolved
all
the
Prankish people f r o m the b o n d of the oath that they h a d taken to h i m /
72
t h e i r chance at a p o i n t o f w e a k n e s s f o r H e n r y .
Henry led an army into
Saxony, b u t w a s unsuccessful a n d w a s forced to retreat w h i c h w e a k e n e d
his position still further.
of
Oppenheim
It was this that led H e n r y to make the Promise
(Prommissio
Oppenheimensis)
to
Gregory,
in which
he
s w o r e t o r e n e w o b e d i e n c e t o t h e H o l y See a n d t o u n d e r t a k e p e n a n c e f o r
the 'rather serious schemes w h i c h I a m s u p p o s e d t o h a v e against that
same S e e /
2 9
This language still appears strained t h o u g h ^ a n d w i t h the
3
b e n e f i t o f h i n d s i g h t , i t is o b v i o u s t h a t H e n r y m a d e t h e P r o m i s e
only
because he felt b a c k e d i n t o a corner a n d fearful for his o w n p o w e r at this
t i m e ; h e c o u l d n o t a f f o r d t o b e at o d d s w i t h t h e p o p e i f he d i d n o t w i s h t o
forfeit his crown.
H e n r y j o u r n e y e d t o S p e y e r t o l i v e as a p e n i t e n t a n d w a s v i s i t e d b y h i s
godfather.
Abbot
Hugh
of C l u n y , w h o
then went
on to meet
with
Gregory. A t the Diet of T r i b u r it w a s decided b y the G e r m a n princes that
H e n r y h a d t o be free of the sentence o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h i n a year or
else h e w o u l d b e k i n g n o l o n g e r . T h e p r i n c e s u s e d H e n r y ' s f e u d w i t h t h e
pope to their o w n advantage; they d i d not w i s h for H e n r y to fulfil the
terms
of
the
Prommissio
Openheimensis
nor
to
rid
himself
from
the
anathema of e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n , w h a t the princes t r u l y desired w a s to be
free f r o m their o a t h of allegiance to h i m a n d to h a v e p a p a l s u p p o r t i n the
elertion of a n e w king.
A l t h o u g h some of H e n r y ' s f o r m e r decisions m a y have been rash, his
m o v e t o i n t e r c e p t G r e g o r y o n h i s w a y t o a c o u n c i l at A u g s b u r g at w h i c h
H e n r y w o u l d receive j u d g e m e n t , w a s p e r h a p s his cleverest.
A n e x c o m m u n i c a t e d k i n g , w h o w a s also rejected b y his subjects, w a s at
a d o u b l e disadvantage; h a d the Pope gone to G e r m a n y , a n d there a
n a t i o n a l s y n o d j u d g e d the k i n g , the v i c t o r y of the C h u r c h w o u l d
2 9
3
M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
Lives,
have
p. 154.
0 ' w h i c h I a m s u p p o s e d t o h a v e ' is c e r t a i n l y n o t a n a d m i s s i o n o f g u i l t .
73
b e e n c o m p l e t e . B u t at Canossa G r e g o r y h a d to choose b e t w e e n his d u t y
as a p r i e s t a n d h i s p o l i c y as a P o p e . 3 ՝
T h e s t o r y of Canossa is a f a m o u s o n e ; H e n r y
was forced to w a i t
by
G r e g o r y f o r t h r e e d a y s o u t s i d e t h e castle w a l l s , d r e s s e d i n t h e g a r b o f a
penitent and barefoot i n the snoพ.
Gregory granted H e n r y
absolution
a n d s o m e w h a t r e m a r k a b l y , the o a t h w h i c h H e n r y gave at Canossa w a s
left i n v e r y b r o a d terms, w i t h o u t d e m a n d i n g that H e n r y retract m u c h of
w h a t has been said a n d d o n e i n the past year a n d n o m e n t i o n , also, w a s
m a d e of lay investiture.32 A l t h o u g h this appears the v e r y h i g h p o i n t of
p a p a l p o w e r , as s u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s w e r e t o i l l u s t r a t e , t h i s p o w e r w a s f a r
f r o m u n q u a l i f i e d a n d e v e n t s at Canossa u l t i m a t e l y p r o v e d t o b e a greater
t r i u m p h for H e n r y than for Gregory.
'Henry's m o o d of penitence soon
passed a w a y , b u t w h a t he h a d gained - a political advantage - w a s left
b e h i n d . ' 3 3 G r e g o r y , o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , l o s t s u p p o r t as h e w a s n o l o n g e r
p r o v i n g t o b e as u s e f u l t o t h e p r i n c e s as t h e y h a d h o p e d . W i t h a t l e a s t a
semblance of t e m p o r a r y peace a n d c o n c o r d b e t w e e n p o p e a n d k i n g , the
princes k n e w
that they
needed to find another
way
of
undermining
H e n r y ' s p o w e r a n d k i n g s h i p . G r e g o r y h a d r e l i s h e d h i s r o l e as t h e a r b i t e r
b e t w e e n k i n g a n d princes b u t this role h a d been b e s t o w e d b y the р rinces
w h e n they h a d need of h i m a n d w h e n they expected his support; there
w a s h e n c e f o r t h less d i s c u s s i o n o f G r e g o r y ' s j o u r n e y t o G e r m a n y t o j u d g e
b e t w e e n t h e r i v a l c l a i m s as h e w a s d e e m e d t o b e n o l o n g e r c e n t r a l t o t h e i r
plans.
No
sooner
had
the
news
of
the
absolution
at Canossa
reached
p r i n c e s , t h a n t h e y p r e p a r e d t o set u p a k i n g i n o p p o s i t i o n t o
They
had
welcomed
the
king's
excommunication
with joy
were proportionately disgusted w i t h his rehabilitation.
' J . P. W l ใ i t n e y , Hildebrandine
Essays,
the
Henry.
and
they
They h a d failed
( C a m b r i d g e , 1932), p. 37.
'- Reg. 4 . 1 2 a . p . 2 2 2 - 3 .
' W h i t n e y , Hildebrandine
Essays,
p. 38.
74
in
making
the
Pope
their
tool
to
overthrow
Henry,
and
they
now
p r e p a r e d t o d i s c a r d a n d e v e n a c t c o u n t e r t o t h e H o l y See.3*
B y events at Canossa, G r e g o r y w a s i n fact f o r c e d i n t o m a k i n g a decision
a n d a b s o l u t i o n t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e far r a t h e r w a i t e d u n t i l at a s y n o d i n
Germany to pronounce upon.
N o n e t h e l e s s , H e n r y ' s p o s i t i o n i n i t i a l l y , at
l e a s t , w a s a w e a k o n e as G r e g o r y h a d r e s t o r e d h i m t o c o m m u n i o n b u t n o t
t o t h e k i n g s h i p .35 A l t h o u g h H e n r y ' s e n e m i e s s t i l l c o n s i d e r e d t h e m s e l v e s
absolved f r o m their oaths of fealty, H e n r y clearly saw his restoration to
c o m m u n i o n a n d t o t h e k i n g s h i p as o n e a n d t h e s a m e . I n f a c t , i t w a s m o r e
t h e case t h a t H e n r y b e l i e v e d t h a t h e h a d o n l y b e e n w i t h d r a w n
communion
and
not
the
kingship
also,
because
Henry
had
from
never
a c c e p t e d h i s d e p o s i t i o n as h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t G r e g o r y , as p o p e , h a d
the authority to j u d g e and depose h i m .
seen
by
sacerdotium
the
Henrician
party
as
the
Resultantly, Canossa w a s
total
submission
of
regnum
not
to
as t h e G r e g o r i a n s v i e w e d i t .
I n M a r c h 1077 a n a s s e m b l y w a s h e l d at F o r c h h e i m at w h i c h t h e G e r m a n
p r i n c e s i n o p p o s i t i o n t o H e n r y d e c l a r e d R u d o l f o f S w a b i a as k i n g a f t e r
formally deposing Henry.
they
did
not
act
in
A l t h o u g h p a p a l legates w e r e at F o r c h h e i m ,
concurrence
with
Gregory's
wishes
as
Gregory
c e r t a i n l y d i d n o t d e s i r e t h e d i v i s i o n o f G e r m a n y w h i c h , i n essence, i s
w h a t this decision m a d e inevitable; he still h o p e d to preside over s y n o d
deciding between H e n r y a n d Rudolf's rival claims.
H e n r y continued to
a s s e r t w h a t h e s a w as h i s r o y a l r i g h t s : ' H e w a s n o m o r e w i l l i n g t o h a v e
h i s case j u d g e d b y t h e p r o p o s e d a s s e m b l y o f p r i n c e s t h a n h e w a s
s u b m i t h i s c a u s e t o t h e c o u n c i l e n v i s a g e d by
Gregory
vn.
to
Henry's
p u r p o s e i n t h e y e a r s 1077-80 w a s t o s u p p r e s s a r e b e l l i o n r a t h e r t h a n t o
participate i n a debate about the kingship.'36 Some of Gregory's political
3* M a t h e w , Life and Times,
p. 138.
35 Reg. 7.14Я, p. 3 4 3 , see pp. 7 3 - 4 below.
3 6
R o b i n s o n , Henry
IV,
p. 177.
75
calculations i n the a f t e r m a t h of Canossa a n d F o r c h h e i m w e r e based u p o n
the realisation that to p u s h f o r w a r d his r e f o r m p r o g r a m m e he required
n o t o n l y a c o m p l i a n t k i n g b u t also a r e l a t i v e l y p o w e r f u l one. T h i s h e l p s
to explain w h y Gregory had dealings w i t h Rudolf of Swabia but d i d not
w i t h s u b s e q u e n t a n t i - k i n g s , as n o n e o f t h e m p o s e d a c r e d i b l e t h r e a t t o
Henry.
Gregory's
first
recorded
decree
against
lay
investiture
came
at
his
a u t u m n s y n o d o f 1078 s t a t i n g t h a t
S i n c e w e k n o w t h a t i n m a n y p a r t s i n v e s t i t u r e s o f c h u r c h e s t a k e p l a c e bylay persons against the decrees of the h o l y fathers, a n d that f r o m
many
disturbances arise i n the c h u r c h , t h r o u g h w h i c h the
this
Christian
r e l i g i o n is t r a m p l e d u n d e r f o o t , w e h a v e d e c r e e d t h a t n o n e o f the c l e r g y
m a y receive investiture of a bishopric, abbey, or c h u r c h f r o m the h a n d
of an emperor or k i n g or any lay person, m a n or w o m a n .
presume, he should
recognize
that the investiture
If he shall so
in question
a p o s t o l i c a u t h o r i t y n u l l a n d t h a t h e is subject t o e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n
he makes proper satisfaction.
The
language
puts
the
is
by
until
3 7
emphasis
upon
the
individual
receiving
investiture rather t h a n the one p e r f o r m i n g the ceremony, nevertheless,
the decree is still o n e p r o h i b i t i n g t h e practice o f l a y i n v e s t i t u r e , j u s t
p r o m u l g a t e d i n a m a n n e r designed n o t to p r o v o k e a direct clash w i t h
Henry.
T h e decree d i d , h o w e v e r , alter t h e issue f r o m o n e , f o r G r e g o r y ,
concerning H e n r y ' s right of investiture w h i l s t still receiving advice f r o m
excommunicated advisers, to one concerning the right of royal investiture
i n a n d of itself, regardless of H e n r y ' s c o n d u c t . It s h o u l d also be b o r n e i n
m i n d that t h r o u g h p r o h i b i t i n g lay investiture, it w a s not just r e f o r m that
G r e g o r y w a n t e d to p r o m u l g a t e , b u t also p a p a l c o n t r o l . G r e g o r y d i s l i k e d
the level of independence enjoyed b y the episcopate a n d h o p e d that this
decree w o u l d h e l p to c u r b it.
^^Reg.
6.5b, p. 2 8 3 .
76
Whatever
Henry's
reaction
to
the
decree
was,
he
felt
under
no
c o m p u l s i o n to obey it a n d w i t h i n a m o n t h h a d invested the archbishops
of both Cologne and Trier.
T o h i s c r e d i t t h o u g h , t h r o u g h o u t 1078 a n d
indeed prior to that, Gregory h a d made a n u m b e r of conciliatory moves
t o w a r d H e n r y a n d avoided direct confrontation.
h a n d , acted p u r e l y
according to what
H e n r y , o n the other
his political fortunes
allowed.
A f t e r H e n r y ' s direct breach of G r e g o r y ' s p r o h i b i t i o n of lay investiture, it
is n o t s u r p r i s i n g t h a t G r e g o r y felt t h e necessity of
excommunicating
H e n r y f o r t h e s e c o n d t i m e , at h i s L e n t e n s y n o d o f 1080.
A t this synod
G r e g o r y declared a second decree p r o h i b i t i n g lay investiture, a n d this
decree w a s w o r d e d m u c h m o r e s t r o n g l y t h a n t h e o n e o f N o v e m b e r 1078,
a l s o p l a c i n g e m p h a s i s u p o n t h e i n v e s t o r as w e l l as t h e i n v e s t e e :
if a n y e m p e r o r , k i n g , d u k e , m a r q u i s , c o u n t or a n y other secular
power
or person w h a t s o e v e r shall p r e s u m e to give the investiture of bishoprics
o r o f a n y ecclesiastical d i g n i t y , h e s h o u l d k n o w t h a t h e is b o u n d b y t h e
chain of the same sentence [ e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n ] .
In addition too, unless
he should repent a n d restore p r o p e r liberty to the church, he s h o u l d feel
t h e r e t r i b u t i o n o f d i v i n e p u n i s h m e n t i n t h i s p r e s e n t l i f e as w e l l as i n h i s
o w n b o d y as i n o t h e r t h i n g s , so t h a t t h e s p i r i t m a y b e s a v e d at
the
c o m i n g of the Lord,^^
B y i m p l i c a t i o n , therefore, after the a b o l i t i o n o f lay investiture, G r e g o r y
s a w i t as a p p r o p r i a t e t h a t t h e p o p e p l a y t h e r o l e i n e p i s c o p a l e l e c t i o n s
p r e v i o u s l y p l a y e d b y the secular m o n a r c h .
Gregory makes a definitive
statement of c o n d e m n a t i o n against H e n r y ; he details the 'conspiracy w i t h
m a n y bishops' that the k i n g h a d made, a n d despite H e n r y ' s penitence
a n d a b s o l u t i o n at C a n o s s a , G r e g o r y e m p h a s i s e s t h a t , '1 r e s t o r e d
solely to c o m m u n i o n ; h o w e v e r , I d i d n o t restore h i m to the
him
kingdom
f r o m w h i c h I h a d deposed h i m i n a R o m a n s y n o d [1076], n o r d i d
I
c o m m a n d that the fealty of all w h o h a d s w o r n to h i m , f r o m w h i c h
I
3 8
Reg. 7.Ua,
p. 340.
77
absolved them all in the same synod, should be observed toward him.'3^
W i t h this statement, Gregory made clear that he saw events at Canossa as
fulfilling his priestly duty to a penitent seeking absolution and that
restoring Henry to communion was an individual and personal event
rather than a political one; Henry made no distinction between the two.
A t the synod, Gregory also officially recognised Rudolf of Swabia as king
for the first time, although made the point that the bishops and princes
had 'elected for themselves' Rudolf. 'For even as Henry is justly cast out
from the royal dignity for his pride, disobedience, and falseness, so the
power and dignity of the kingdom are granted to Rudolf for his humility,
obedience and truth.'^o I n so declaring, Gregory may have been making a
political calculation i n believing that Rudolf could t r i u m p h over Henry.
A t the close of Gregory's record of the 1078 Lent synod, he makes one of
his clearest expositions on his perception of the relative merits of the
secular and ecclesiastical powers. Invoking the pope's power to bind and
loose, Gregory sets forth that he has the power to 'take away from and
grant
to
each
one
according
to
his
merits
empires,
kingdoms,
principalities, churches, marches, counties, and the possessions of all
men.'4^ Gregory illustrates the papal claims by argviing 'For if you judge
spiritual things, should it be believed that you can do concerning secular
things? A n d if you w i l l judge the angels who rule over all proud princes,
what can you do concerning their servantsľ'^^ Henry's response to the
Lenten synod was to widen his propaganda campaign to include Italy^3
as most of the Italian bishops retained their loyalty to Henry as they were
not pleased by the encroachments that Gregory had made into their
' Reg. 7.Ш,
p. 343.
' Ibi d., p . 344.
Md., p. 344.
： Ibid., p . 344.
' Petrus Crassus, The Defence of Ki ng Henry, MGH
LdL.
i ., p p . 432-53.
78
episcopal rights.
The German bishops, on the other hand, who had
tended to be reform-minded, disliked Henry's incursions into their
episcopacies and so welcomed the Gregorian party and supported the
anti-king. Prior to Gregory's Lent synod of 1080, Henry sent messengers
to the Pope stating that if Gregory w o u l d excommunicate R udolf, Henry
w o u l d show obedience to Gregory, but if he refused to do so then Неїไry
w o u l d set up his o w n p o p e .
44
Such a demand was
evidently
unacceptable for Gregory but does not appear to have been his primary
motivation i n excommunicating Henry at this synod.
It seems more
likely that Gregory simply reached a point at which he felt that he could
offer Henry no more chances as since lifting Henry's sentence of
excommunication at Canossa, the king had continually thrown back at
h i m the conciliatory gestures made by Gregory.
I n p a s s i n g sentence u p o n H e n r y , G r e g o r y w a s t h u s r e n e w i n g a sentence
o f e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m w h i c h h e h a d a b s o l v e d H e n r y at Canossa b u t
u n d e r w h i c h he n o w recognized H e n r y already to have placed himself
a g a i n b y h i s o w n d i s o b e d i e n c e ; as f o r H e n r y ' s d e p o s i t i o n f r o m k i n g s h i p
a n d f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e oaths o f h i s subjects, G r e g o r y w a s
reiterating
sentences u n d e r w h i c h h e h a d b e e n p l a c e d i n 1076 a n d f r o m w h i c h he
h a d never become
free.
45
In so doing, Gregory declared Rudolf to be the rightful king of the
Germans.
This move has often been thought of as a political one on
Gregory's part. Rudolfs forces were strong i n battle and not only d i d
Rudolf appear as though he might achieve military success against Henry,
but he seemingly provided a model of good obedient Christian kingship
i n Gregory's eyes, w i t h emphasis upon obedience.
However, this is
perhaps to do Gregory a disservice as w i t h Rudolf as king, Gregory
w o ฬ d have been better placed to enact his vision for reform because, as
" H . E. J. C o w d r e y , Pope Gregory VII 1073-1085, ( O x f o r d , 1998), p. 195.
45
Ibid.. p. 198.
79
Robinson illustrates, it was clear by this stage that Henry w o u l d never
willingly relinquish the grip of royal power over the Church.
In
response
to this
Henry
convened
the
Synod
of
46
Brixen, the
pronouncements of which echoed those made at the Synod of Worms. It
emphasised
the
unity
of
action
amongst
its
attendees
in
their
condemnation of 'the false monk. Hildebrand'. The synodal decree
certainly d i d not hold back i n its condemnation of Gregory, amongst
other things, accusing h i m of devoting 'himself more than laymen to
obscene theatrical shows; publicly for the sake of filthy lucre, to attend to
the tables of the money changers on the porch of those who do
business/^7 As Robinson describes, according to the decree, 'the pope
was guilty of simony, ambition, violent intrusion into the apostolic see
contrary to the Papal Election Decree of 1059, heresy, necromancy and
poisoning four of his
րք8ժ606ՏՏՕքտ/՛*^
Henry threw Gregory's accusations
back at his stating that, 'He it was who subverted ecclesiastical order,
who threw the rule of the Christian empire into turmoil, who plotted
death of body and soul for the catholic and pacific King, w h o defended a
king who was a breaker of vows and a traitor, who sowed discord
amongst those i n concord'49
The decree was an exercise i n propaganda more than a real demand that
experted a response. It issued a request, which Gregory was clearly not
going to adhere to, for Gregory to abdicate, and threatened deposition if
he d i d not do so; what the synod d i d not do was to depose the Pope.
There was clearly reticence o n the part of the bishops and possibly also
some of Henry's advisers to pronounce a definitive judgement upon the
4 6
R o b i n s o n , Hennj IV, p. 194.
4 7
M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial Lives, p. 157.
4 8
R o b i n s o n , Henry พ, p. 198.
4 9
M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial Lives, p. 159.
80
Pope. 'As i n 1076, so i n 1080 there was a danger that Henry had reached
beyond his resources and beyond the limits of what his bishops and other
followers w o u l d , i n the long run support/^^^
The other major event of the synod was the election of Wibert, 51
Archbishop of Ravenna, ^2 as the new pope, so becoming antipope
Clement IIL Although a negative pirture is often painted of the antipope,
he was himself a supporter of the reform of the clergy, but after his
elertion at the Synod of Brixen, had little opportunity to demonstrate his
reforming credentials.
Henry was swiftly drawn back into events i n
Saxony and so the antipope was left to do battle alone w i t h Gregory for
the time being. Gregory used military means to try to expel Wibert from
Ravenna and when that failed, he asked the bishops and clergy of that
place to appoint a successor to the archsee as he declared Wibert deposed.
I n the end, the Pope appointed his o w n successor but unfortunately for
Gregory, the clergy and people of Ravenna showed a preference for
Wibert.
Meanwhile i n Germany, Rudolf was killed at the Battle on the Elster and
so Gregory's prediction at his Lenten synod, that Henry w o u l d suffer
death or deposition imminently, as a sign of God's vengeance, came to
haunt h i m as it was the anti-king who lost his life. Even though Henry
lost the battle, the greater victory went to h i m and it was portrayed as a
moral victory by Henrician supporters and polemicists.
Henry then
turned his attention back to his struggles w i t h the Pope and commenced
his first expedition into Italy i n 1081.
'Henry's primary concern
according to the manifesto of 1081, was to be crowned emperor.
The
50 C o w d r e y , Pope Gregoญ VII, p. 204.
sı I t d e p e n d s o n the t r a n s l a t i o n as t o w h e t h e r he is r e f e r r e d t o as W i b e r t o r G u i b e r t .
5 2
A p o s i t i o n w h i c h he i n fact o w e d t o H e n r y a n d w a s o b t a i n e d d u r i n g A l e x a n d e r I ľ s
pontificate.
81
resolution of his dispute w i t h the papacy was a secondary matter/5^ But,
without the acquiescence of the Romans, this proved impossible and
resultantly Henry's tools of propaganda became centred upon Rome.
A t this time also, Gregory produced his most extensive justification, in a
letter to Bishop Hermann of Metz, of the excommunication of Henry i n
the light of the schism into which the Church was t h r o w n through a
combination of the acts of both Henry and Gregory.
After quoting
Matthew 16:18-19, Gregory asked
A r e k i n g s h e r e e x c e p t e d , o r are t h e y n o t the sheep t h a t t h e S o n of G o d
has c o m m i t t e d t o blessed Peter? W h o , I ask, c o n s i d e r s h i m s e l f i n t h i s
u n i v e r s a l c o n c e s s i o n o f b i n d i n g a n d l o o s i n g t o be e x c l u d e d f r o m t h e
p o w e r of Peter, u n l e s s p e r h a p s t h a t u n h a p p y m a n w h o , b e i n g u n w i l l i n g
t o b e a r t h e y o k e of t h e n u m b e r of C h r i s t ' s s h e e p ? '
54
Gregory explained that the Roman Church was declared to be the
universal Church, both mother and head, and resultantly all judgements
concerning the business of the Church should be referred to her; appeal
cannot be made against the universal Church's judgements, 'and that her
judgements neither should, nor can be realised or rejected by anyone/
Gregory continued by quoting 'the blessed Pope Gelasius/ i n which he
set forth the primacy of the Roman Church, and Pope Julius in saying of
the inheritor of Peter's power to bind and loose. T o r he has the power
granted by a special privilege to open and to close the gates of the
heavenly kingdom to w h o m he w i l l . Therefore is the one to w h o m the
power is given of opening and closing heaven not allowed to judge
concerning the earth?' He also drew upon his namesake, Pope Gregory
5 3
R o b i n s o n , Henry พ, p. 213.
54
Reg. 8.21; a l l s u b s e q u e n t q u o t e s u p to f o o t n o t e 55 ( o n p. 81) are t a k e n f r o m Reg 8.21, p p .
387-395.
82
the Great, arguing that he 'ruled that kings who shall presume to
transgress the decrees of the apostolic see fall from their office/ w i t h the
words, ' N o w if any king, priest, judge, and secular person who knows
the text of this enactment of ours shall venture to proceed against it, let
the offence that he has committed he is guilty by a divine judgement'.
Through Gregory the Great's threat of deposition and excotาโvmunication
for a single misdeed, Gregory v n was provided w i t h good justification
for deposing and excommunicating Henry.
Gregory asserted, 'should
not a dignity invented by men who were ignorant of God not be subject
to that dignity which the providence of Almighty God has devised for his
o w n honour and mercifully given to the world?'
The pope's Augustinian tendencies can be recognised in his discussion of
man and the w o r l d . He referred to the devil as 'the prince of the w o r l d
and sees greed, treachery, rapine, murder and pride to be methods by
and for which kings and other secular lords set themselves up over their
equals/ Gregory praised the Emperor Constantine for his greatness i n
not presuming to pass judgement upon the thought and acts of the
bishops present at the Nicene synod and deferring his o w n judgement to
theirs i n matters ecclesiastical.
The example of Pope Innocent I's
excommunication of the Emperor Arcadius for his part in allowing St
John Chrysostom to be driven from his see, is mentioned by Gregory, as
is the deposition of K i n g Childeric ш by Pope Zachary, 'not so much for
his iniquities as for the reason that he was not useful for so great a power,
and substituted i n place of h i m Pippin the father of the Emperor
Charlemagne and absolved all the Franks from the oath of fealty that they
had taken to h i m /
Gregory also mentioned the excommunication of
Theodosius by Ambrose w h o , Ί η his writings, too, he shows that gold is
not as much more precious than lead as the sacerdotal dignity is higher
than the royal p o w e r / Gregory asserted that i n terms of the Church, an
83
exorcist has more power than any lay person, a king included, and
exorcists ranked extremely low i n the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
I n addition, Gregory made plain the point that a king, as any other
member of the laity, depends upon the priestly dignity for his eternal
salvation, 'Moreover, every Christian king who comes to his end, i n order
that he may escape the prison of hell, i n order that he may proceed from
darkness into light, in order that he may appear i n the Judgement of God
loosed from the bonds of sins, seeks as a suppliant and pitiably the help
of a priesť. He simultaneously explained that a king could do nothing so
important for any individual as a priest could as whilst a king is
concerned w i t h the things of this w o r l d , a priest is concerned w i t h the
eternal salvation of the w o r l d to come. Even the emperors that Gregory
had praise for he believed had a limited value and one lesser than
ecclesiastical because
however
pious
they
may
have been, their
jurisdiction only dealt w i t h the concerns of this w o r l d . 'Behold!
holy
church does, indeed, praise and venerate Constantine of pious memory,
Theodosius, Honorius, Charles and Louis, ― lovers of righteousness,
propagators of religion, and defenders of churches; she does not,
however, declare that they have been bright w i t h so great a glory of
ฑfűracles/
On the whole, Gregory's view of kings and emperors was a highlynegative one and although having previously praised the honour of
Henry I I I , he made no mention of h i m i n this particular letter,
the k i n g s a n d p r i n c e s o f the e a r t h , e n t i c e d b y v a i n g l o r y j u s t as has b e e n
s u g g e s t e d p r e f e r t o s p i r i t u a l t h i n g s those t h i n g s t h a t are t h e i r o w n ,
w h i l e r e l i g i o u s p o n t i f f s , d e s p i s i n g v a i n g l o r y , set t h e t h i n g s t h a t are
G o d ' s b e f o r e c a m a l things?...Being excessively g i v e n o v e r t o e a r t h l y
d e e d s , the
former
set n o
value
upon
spiritual
things;
diligently
84
m e d i a t i n g u p o n h e a v e n l y t h i n g s , t h e l a t t e r despise t h i n g s t h a t are
earthly.
Gregory's letter to Bishop Hermann contains a wealth of material that
was to become much more common i n the religious and political
commentary and rhetoric of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for
example, 'Let them [kings and emperors] not seek to subject or to subdue
holy church to themselves like a handmaid, but before all else let them be
concerned duly to honour her eyes, that is the priest of the Lord, by
acknowledging them as masters and fathers.'
This letter effectively
declares that i n contrast to the priestly dignity, it is the kingship which is
i n fact not appointed by the divine.55 Kingship is treated by Gregory V I I ,
very much as Augustine d i d , as a necessary evil to deal w i t h the worst
excesses of the fallen w o r l d ; Gregory also regarded it as factor which
contributed to these excesses as he argued that pride was frequently to be
found i n its highest levels amongst those who set themselves up as kings
and rulers over their fellow man. 'It is founded upon human wickedness
and diabolic suggestion, i n ambition and intolerable presumption;
kingship, moreover, is a usurpation of the natural rights of quality among
all men.'5^
This letter provided Gregory's most definitive exposition of his views
concerning the correct relations of church and state. It is also his most
radical pronouncement upon the subject and marks a divergence from his
previously
mild
and
conciliatory
language.
Until
the
second
excommunication of Henry, in 1080, Gregory was clearly ready to make a
full and comprehensive peace w i t h Henry and to his credit, was prepared
to do so i n the face of numerous rejections and deceptions suffered at the
hands of Henry. Nonetheless, peace and concord w o u l d have had have
55
Reg. 8.21.
5 6
M a t h e พ , Life and Times, p. 203.
85
to have been ultimately negotiated on Gregory's terms and hence Henry
w o u l d have had his authority compromised in a manner perceived to be
unacceptable by the inheritor of Henry ПГз throne. Although father and
son differed i n many respects, they d i d not do so upon the notion of how
the Salían kingship should operate and the authority which it should
rightfully wield.
1082 saw Henry's second expedition into Italy and he appealed fervently
to the people of Rome to accept his claims. He pointed to the fidelity and
love shown by them to his grandfather and father, argiiing that this had
been subverted by H i l d e b r a n d . H e n r y evidently realised by this stage
that there was no turning back as far as Gregory was concerned; even if
he had desired it, which especially due to the death of R udolf he w o u l d
not have done, a second Canossa w o u l d no longer have been possible. It
is thus that Henry decided to b u m his bridges altogether and
F o r the first t i m e H e n r i c i a n p o l e m i c d e a l t d i r e c t l y w i t h the p r i n c i p a l
G r e g o r i a n c a n o n l a w w e a p o n : t h e c l a i m t h a t the p o p e c a n n o t be j u d g e d .
H e n r y ' s e a r l y attacks o n G r e g o r y V I I h a d e v a d e d t h i s c l a i m : at the
C o u n c i l o f W o r m s (1076) b y caHing f o r t h e p o p e ' s a b d i c a t i o n ; at the
C o u n c i l o f B r i x e n (1080) b y d e c l a r i n g h i m a n i n t r u d e r a n d t h e r e f o r e n o
pope.
T h e 1082 m a n i f e s t o , h o w e v e r , t o o k issue w i t h
Hildebrand'ร
s t a t e m e n t ' t h a t h e m u s t be j u d g e d b y n o one'.^^
Resultantly, Henry proposed that Gregory's claims to the papacy should
be judged by a council, at which he clearly perceived that he should be
the final arbiter.
Because of Henry's advances toward Rome, Gregory
could not hold a Lenten synod i n 1082, He also struggled financially to
resist Henry as the Roman clergy w o u l d not allow Gregory to mortgage
any church properties or possessions to pay for his defence of the Roman
57 C o w d r e y , Pope Gregory VII
p. 219; M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imperial
Lives, L e t t e r 17,
p p . 162-5.
5 8
R o b i n s o n , Hennj
IV, p. 216.
86
see
59
against Wibert of Ravenna, because they viewed the action as
having a secular rather than holy purpose.
This is illustrative of the
success that Henry's propaganda was having, both in terms of resonating
w i t h the clergy and people of Rome (despite, at this time, their ultimate
continued loyalty to Gregory) and of directing the opposition of
Gregory's supporters primarily away from himself and onto Wibert.^0
Through this latter aspect, Henry therefore still left open the possibility,
however slight, of imperial coronation by Gregory if a reconciliation were
made, although by now, Henry could only have envisaged the possibility
of reconciliation on his o w n terms and w o u l d have required considerable,
if not complete, capitulation by Gregory.
By 1083-4, Henry knew for certain that his ฬtímate ambition, that of
imperial coronation, w o u l d never occur at the hands of Gregory and so
sought i n prartice, rather than just words, to set up Archbishop Wibert of
Ravenna as Pope Clement I I I . Henry succeeded in entering Rome in
March 1084 and managed to gain the Lateran Palace and install Wibert
there, forcing Gregory to retreat to the Castel Sant'Angelo. Subsequently,
Henry was consecrated and crowned at St Peter's by Clement as imperator
and patriciusfi^
Henry and Clement resided in the Lateran for some seven
weeks before Robert Guiscard, duke of Apulia and Calabria, and his
Norman army captured and sacked the city prior to setting about the
reclamation of other papal lands. Henry retreated northward now that
Clement had fulfilled his primary purpose in Henry's coronation, and
Clement held Tivoli against Guiscard'ร forces. When Guiscard travelled
south from Rome in July 1084, Gregory accompanied h i m for fear of
remaining in Rome without Guiscard'ร presence and protection. Clement
succeeded i n celebrating Christmas back at Rome before again being
5 9 R o b i n s o n , Henry IV, p p . 2 2 0 - 1 ; C o w d r e y , Pope Gregory vu, p p . 22060 C o w d r e y , ibid., p. 2 2 1 .
" Ibid., p. 228.
87
driven out of the Lateran by Gregorian supporters and was forced back to
Ravenna. 'R ome became i n effect terra nullis;
not until 1094 w o u l d either
a pope or an anti-pope establish himself there for any considerable
time.'62 Gregory still persisted i n his campaign against Henry and his
antipope by renewing his sentence against them and publicising it widely.
Gregory, however, relied upon R obert Guiscard for his return to R ome,
but Guiscard was more concerned w i t h success against the Byzantines.
Henry, on the other hand, returned to Germany i n triumphant fashion,
for despite having been driven out of R ome he returned to his homeland
as Rome's conqueror, emperor and patrician; his major Saxon rival. Otto
of Nordheim had died; and the anti-king who had replaced R udolf,
Hermann of Salm, was weak. 'Therefore, i n a weary land torn by feuds
and wasted by devastation, Henry now seemed to many, at least for a
time, to promise the surest hope of the peace for which they ardently
yearned.'63 Henry held a synod at Mainz, w i t h legates sent from Clement
Ш , at which a central tenet was that of emperor and (anti)pope working
together harmoniously for peace and concord, drawing comparison w i t h
the manner i n which Gregory had failed to do so.
Henry's position upon the death of Gregory V I I was one of strength and
ascendancy. I n the memorandum reportedly recording Gregory's final
testament,
when
asked
about
what
should
be
done
regarding
exconuminicates, Gregory responded by saying that, '1 absolve and bless
all whomsoever who undoubtedly believe me to have this spiritual
power on behalf of St Peter the apostle.'64 Even of Henry and Wibert, he
replied that they should not be delivered from excommunication, 'unless
perchance they shall come to you according as it seems best to you to
6 2
C o w d r e y , Pope Gregory vu, p. 2 3 1 .
« ft/rf., p. 233.
" A p p e n d i x 3, Reg., p. 488.
88
make due and canonical satisfartion',
Therefore, even upon his
65
deathbed Gregory discharged his pastoral duty to those w h o m he had
fought against for the entirety of his pontificate and who resulted i n his
death in exile at Salerno rather than i n glory at Rome; as his final words
on 25 May 1085 reportedly expressed, '1 have loved righteousness and I
have hated iniquity, therefore I die i n exile.'
6 6
' A p p e n d i x 3, Reg., p. 488.
' Ibid., p. 488.
89
Chapter 6ะ The Polemical Literature of the
Investiture
Contest
The conflict between Gregory and Henry was of importance for an
additional reason also; a departure from traditional norms occurred i n
terms of the polemical literature that was produced and distributed by
both parties, some officially sanctioned and some emerging as part of a
broader offshoot of the controversy. It differed from the correspondence
between Henry and Gregory, although much of this was also written by
their respective polemicists, 1 i n that it often dealt more generally and
directly w i t h the issue of the rival claims to the supremacy of the secular
and spiritual powers. In that sense, it encapsulated the essential debate
between Gregory and Henry.
The 'Anonymous of York' was probably the most radical of the royalist
polemicists. He emphasised the importance of the right of royal tmction,
arguing from this that
T h e r e f o r e k i n g s receive i n t h e i r c o n s e c r a t i o n the p o w e r t o r u l e t h i s
c h u r c h , t h a t t h e y m a y r u l e i t a n d s t r e n g t h e n i t i n j u d g e m e n t a n d justice
a n d a d m m i s t e r i t i n accordance w i t h the d i s c i p l i n e o f the C h r i s t i a n l a w ;
f o r t h e y r e i g n ฆ่า t h e c h u r c h , w h i c h is t h e k i n g d o m o f G o d , a n d r e i g n
together w i t h Christ, i n order that they m a y rule, protect and defend it.
T o r e i g n is t o r u l e t h e subjects w e l l a n d t o serve G o d w i t h fear.
2
The Anonymous recognised Pope Gelasius' division of the two powers
and the right to rule i n the Church possessed by the episcopal order. He
provided, however, a different interpretation of Gelasius' words, turning
1 A s R o b i n s o n asserts, ' T h e f i r s t decade of the h i s t o r y o f the p o l e m i c a l l i t e r a t u r e o f t h e
I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t e s t is d o m i n a t e d b y the c i r c u l a t i o n o f t h e letters o f G r e g o r y V I I / I. ร.
R o b i n s o n , ' T h e D i s s e m i n a t i o n o f the Letters o f P o p e G r e g o r y V I I / journal
History
2
34 {ШЗ),
of Ecclesiastical
p. 193.
Tractatus Eboracenses, MGH
LdL
ii L,
p. 663.
90
them on their head by arguing that what Gelasius meant i n saying that
this world is ruled by t w o powers; priestly and royal,
h e m e a n s t h e h o l y c h u r c h , w h i c h is a s o j o u r n e r i n t h i s w o r l d .
w o r l d , t h e n , the
priestly
authority
p r i n c i p a t e of sacred g o v e r n m e n t .
and
the
royal
power
I n this
hold
the
Some seek t o d i v i d e t h e p r i n c i p a t e i n
this f a s h i o n , s a y i n g t h a t t h e p r i e s t h o o d has the p r i n c i p a t e
of
ruling
s o u l s , the k i n g t h a t o f r u l i n g b o d i e s , as i f souls c o u l d be r u l e d w i t h o u t
b o d i e s a n d b o d i e s w i t h o u t souls, w h i c h c a n n o t be d o n e b y a n y meanร.3
The Anonymous held that i n Christ the royal power was the stronger
element than the priestly through relating the royal power more to
divinity and the priestly to humanity and arguing that divinity was
predominant over humanity i n Christ.^ The Anonymous also tackled the
issue of the investiture of a bishop w i t h the pastoral staff. Ί think that he
[the king] does not confer the order or right of priesthood, but what
pertains to his o w n right and to the rule of w o r l d l y things, namely the
lordship and guardianship of the things of the church'.^ The Anonymous
drew support for this from the temporal lordship that a bishop
commanded through the possession of land, hence making imperative
their loyalty and adherence to the king and law of the land. When i n
1110-11, negotiations were made, although a satisfartory conclusion was
never reached, between Paschal I I and Henry V, Paschal made the
suggestion that the king could renounce his right to investiture if the
lands accrued by the Church since the time of Charlemagne were
returned to the king, thus negating the problem of the secular lordship of
bishops.
This was not, however, a line of thinking pursued by the
Anonymous author of the York Tractates.
The York Anonymous asserted
instead that the king
bradātus
Eboracenses, p. 663.
4
Ibi d., p. 667.
5
Ibi d,, p. 667.
91
is n o t t o be called a l a y m a n , f o r h e is the a n o i n t e d of the L o r d , a G o d
t h r o u g h grace, t h e s u p r e m e r u l e r , l o r d o v e r h i s b r o t h e r s , w o r t h y t o be
a d o r e d b y a l l m e n , chief a n d h i g h e s t p r e l a t e . I t is n o t t o be s a i d t h a t he
is i n f e r i o r t o the b i s h o p because t h e b i s h o p consecrates h i m , f o r i t o f t e n
h a p p e n s t h a t lesser m e n consecrate a greater, i n f e r i o r s t h e i r s u p e r i o r , as
when
the
cardinals
metropolitan.
consecrate
a
pope
or
suffragan
bishops
a
T h i s c a n be so because t h e y are n o t t h e a u t h o r s o f the
c o n s e c r a t i o n b u t m i n i s t e r s . G o d m a k e s the s a c r a m e n t e f f i c a c i o u s ; t h e y
a d m i n i s t e r it.^
The Anonymous of York also took issue w i t h the concept of the primacy
of R ome,
A c c o r d i n g t o h i m , t h e r e w a s n o s u c h t h i n g as p r i m a c y i n the p r i m i t i v e
C h u r c h , a n d C h r i s t h a d s a i d n o t h i n g of it. C h r i s t g a v e a l l the A p o s t l e s
e q u a l p o w e r ; the b i s h o p o f R o m e c a n c l a i m n o m o r e c o n t r o l o v e r the
A r c h b i s h o p o f R o u e n t h a n Peter possessed o v e r t h e o t h e r A p o s t l e s 一
i n d e e d , h e can r e a l l y o n l y c l a i m the a u t h o r i t y Peter exercised o v e r
himself/
The logical conclusion of this is that every bishop is the successor of Peter,
not just the one occupying the see of R ome, and resultantly their appeal is
to God alone, not to the Pope as His intermediary. 'The assertion that one
church is superior to another makes two churches out of one, that is to
say, divides the one indivisible Church/8
The attitude of the Anonymous of York was more radical than most of
the polemicists w r i t i n g at the time of the Investiture Controversy; most
other authors tended to demonstrate a greater adherence to the dualism
of the sacerdotal and secular spheres and the relative balance between
their powers and jurisdirtions.
՛ Tractatus Eboracenses, p. 679 .
' T e l l e n b a c h , Church, State and Chństian
Society, p. 146.
Մա.,թ.146.
92
The anonymous author of De Uni tate
Eccles
i ae Conservanda,
for example,
concentrated upon the issue of whether it was lawful for a pope to
depose a king.
He analysed the precedent of Pope Zachary, Pope
Stephen, Pippin and Childeric and objerted to Gregory v n ' s use of this
case in supporting the argшnent that a king could be deposed at a pope's
say-so.
9
Interestingly, he too appeals to Gelasius in support of his
arguments, 10 asserting the necessity of the t w o powers, and the
subversion of this principle by Gregory's attempt to claim the secular
power for himself as well. 'Since God himself has thus arranged things
priests, by which this w o r l d is chiefly ruled, who can attempt to go
against this except one w h o resists the ordinance of G o d ľ ' i i The author
also makes reference to Hildebrand'ร use of the example of St Ambrose's
excommunication
of
Theodosius; he
saw
the
difference
between
Ambrose's artions and those of Gregory over the excommtinication of
Henry, as that by the excommunication of Theodosius, Ambrose ' d i d not
divide the church; rather he taught that we should render to Caesar the
things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.'i2 The
difference that the author perceived between this case and that of
Gregory is that Ambrose was healing a rift whereas Gregory was creating
schism, 'propagating a schism by which princes and nobles of the realm
are separated from the companionship and service of their етрегог.'із
I n contrast to the Anonymous of York, Manegold of Lautenbach , who
was w r i t i n g to refute the epi stola
9
of Wenrich of Trier, heavily supported
C f . Reg. 8.21a, p p . 387-345; 7.14a, p p . 340-44.
10 Liber de unitate ecclesi ae conservanda, MGH
LdL.
ii ., p p . 186-7.
11 Ibid., p. 187.
12 Ibid., p. 194.
13 Ibid., p. 195.
93
the
importance
of
the
Roman
see
and
consequently
felt
that
excommunication and deposition w a s o n l y fitting for H e n r y for j u d g i n g
the supreme pontiff, w h o was to be w i t h o u t h u m a n judgement, a n d for
t h r e a t e n i n g t h e u n i t y o f t h e R o m a n C h u r c h as a r e s u l t .
A s f o r the k i n g h i m s e l f , t h e a u t h o r a n d f o m e n t e r of so m u c h e v i l , t h e
h o l y c o u n c i l decreed that the apostolic s w o r d be u n s h e a t h e d to cut h i m
off f r o m the b o d y of the w h o l e c h u r c h a n d t h a t b o u n d b y the b o n d of
anathema, he be d e p r i v e d of the r o y a l d i g n i t y .
It absolved from
their
oaths all those w h o h a d s w o r n oaths to h i m a n d forbade anyone to save
h i m as k i n g , f o r i t w a s f i t t i n g t h a t h e w h o h a d p r e s u m e d t o a n n u l
and
t r a m p l e u n d e r f o o t t h e h o n o u r d i v m e l y c o n f e r r e d o n St Peter b y special
p r i v i l e g e s h o u l d h i m s e l f lose t h e h o n o u r t h a t h e s e e m e d to possess, a n d
that
he
who
disdained
to
obey
u n w o r t h y to rule over Christians, 1
as
a
Christian
should
be
judged
4
I n s o m e r e s p e c t s , i t w a s because o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e t h a t M a n e g o l d a s c r i b e d
to the royal d i g n i t y that he believed Gregory h a d the right a n d d u t y to
depose H e n r y because a w i s e , just a n d p i o u s m a n s h o u l d be k i n g / 'for the
p e o p l e d o n o t e x a l t h i m a b o v e t h e m s e l v e s s o as t o c o n c e d e t o h i m a n
u n l i m i t e d p o w e r of tyrannising over t h e m , b u t rather to defend
against the t y r a n n y a n d wickedness of others/1^
compact
made
duty
h i m s e l f first b r o k e t h e b o n d o f m u t u a l
they
If a ruler breaks the
w i t h his people, 'reason justly considers that he
absolved the people f r o m their
them and
them
to
of s u b m i s s i o n t o h i m since
fidelity
has
he
b y w h i c h he was b o u n d to
Nevertheless, M a n e g o l d
and other
papal
polemicists r a r e l y m a d e a consistent effort t o secularise the k i n g s h i p a n d
resultantly the H e n r i d a n s a n d Gregorians h e l d some notions of k i n g s h i p
i n c o m m o n b u t d r e w d i f f e r e n t c o n c l u s i o n s as t o t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s
this h a d u p o n the extent to w h i c h the p o p e can depose a k i n g .
' աւ,
； M a n e o l d i , ЛЬ Gebehardum
ՂЫd.,
Liber,
MGH
LdL.L,
which
'The idea
p. 358.
p. 365.
p p . 391-2-
94
o f t h e k i n g as t h e typu s Christi
appeared i n the p o l e m i c of M a n e g o l d not,
o f c o u r s e , i n c e l e b r a t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f H e n r y I V b u t as a r e m i n d e r o f
the duties of the papal a n t i - k i n g / I t
is t h u s t h a t t h e n o t i o n o f co­
operation w i t h a pious Christian ruler remained present t h r o u g h o u t the
reformist polemic.
I n 1103 H e n r i c i a n p o l e m i c i s t S i g e b e r t o f G e m b l o u x
appealed to Pope Paschal I I to:
lay
aside
advisers
Sylvester
the
spirit
how
of
popes
to that
presumption
obtained
the
of H i l d e b r a n d ;
and
carefully
Roman
how
see
many
consider
from
the
unheard-of
with
time
his
of
crimes
were
c o m m i t t e d o u t o f a m b i t i o n f o r t h a t see a n d h o w t h e y w e r e c h e c k e d
kings
and
bnperial
emperors,
virt
u s
was
and
false
worth
popes
more
condemned
than
the
and
S t
by
deposed,
excommunication
of
H i l d e b r a n d , O d o a n d Paschal.i8
Peter D a m i a n h a d s i m i l a r l y seen t h e w o r t h i n h a v i n g a g o o d , a n d s t r o n g .
C h r i s t i a n m o n a r c h , s u c h as H e n r y ш h a d b e e n . G r e g o r y V I I c l e a r l y t o o k
t h e i s s u e o f C h r i s t i a n k i n g s h i p s e r i o u s l y a l s o , as w h e n d i s c u s s i o n s t o o k
place r e g a r d i n g a successor t o R u d o l f o f S w a b i a , G r e g o r y w r o t e , 'unless
[ t h e n e w a n t i - k i n g ] i s as o b e d i e n t a n d h u m b l y d e v o t e d a n d u s e f u l t o h o l y
C h u r c h as a C h r i s t i a n k i n g o u g h t t o b e , a n d as w e h o p e d o f
Rudolf,
beyond doubt holy Church w i l l not only not favour h i m but w i l l oppose
him/19
Bonizo of S utri w r o t e u p o n the topic of Christian k i n g s h i p a n d
saw
secular
and
rulers
as s o m e t i m e s
beneficial
to
the
Church's
liberty
sometimes destructive of it dependent u p o n the nature of the
ruler.
'"Those princes of the R o m a n E m p i r e w h o feared G o d a n d were obedient
1 1 , s. R o b i n s o n , Au thority
and Resistance
of the Ше
( M a n c h e s t e r , 1978) p. 117.
7
Eleventh
Cent
u ry,
^8 R o b i n s o n , Au thority
and
Pasämlem
LdL.ii,
papam,
MGH
1 R o b i n s o n , Au thority
9
Resistance,
in the Investitu re
Contest:
p . 117; cf. S i g e b e r t ,
The Polemical
L·odicensi
u m
epístola
Literat
u re
advers
u s
p p . 459-60.
and Resistance,
p . 1 1 9 ; Reg. 9 . 3 , p . 4 0 3 .
95
protecting the churches
g o v e r n e d t h e respublica
and
honouring
the priests, w h i l e
i n c o m p l e t e peace.'"2*^ A m o n g s t
they
these,
lived,
Bonizo
included Theodosius, H o n o r i u s , Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Otto
and Henry IL
and
possibly
I
' T h e f i g u r e o f t h e C h r i s t i a n k i n g as p r o t e c t o r o f t h e f a i t h
as m a r t y r ,
reforming ideology/2^
therefore, remained
an
essential
feature
I t is t h u s t h a t a considerable n u m b e r
of
of
papal
polemicists still believed i n the v i r t u e of the k i n g w i e l d i n g one of the t w o
s w o r d s , b u t as l a t e r w r i t e r s , s u c h as B e r n a r d o f C l a i r v a u x , 2 2 a s s e r t e d , t h e
k i n g w a s t o w i e l d t h i s s w o r d i n defence o f a n d at t h e behest o f
Church.
' B o n i z o s a w t h a t H e n r y rv
the
used his s w o r d against the Catholic
C h u r c h i t s e l f , t h a t i s , a g a i n s t t h e p a r t y o f G r e g o r y vn:
he h a d therefore
failed i n his office a n d fallen i n t o heresy/2^ Conversely, Henricianร such
as S i g e b e r t b e l i e v e d t h a t H e n r y h a d u s e d t h e s w o r d l e g i t i m a t e l y as i t w a s
G r e g o r y w h o w a s causing schism w i t h i n the Church.^4
'This was
crux of the debate about the r e g n u m i n the p o l e m i c of the
the
Investiture
Contest: n o t w h a t w a s its f u n c t i o n , for o n that question the poleinicist of
t h e t w o p a r t i e s w e r e m o r e o r less a g r e e d ; b u t w h e t h e r r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t
the r e g n u m w a s ever justifìed/2^
O n e of Manegold''ร p r i m a r y purposes i n his polemical w r i t i n g s w a s to
assert t h a t r e b e l l i o n w a s j u s t i f i e d .
H e argued that the office a n d
the
h o l d e r o f t h e o f f i c e w e r e d i v i s i b l e a n d t h a t as t h e o f f i c e i t s e l f s h o u l d b e
g i v e n all d u e h o n o u r , its h o l d e r m u s t be w o r t h y of it, resultantly, if the
office-holder w a s n o t p r o p e r l y dispensing his d u t y then he s h o u l d r i g h t l y
20 W i d o o f F e r r a r a , De scismate
շ
ւ R o b i n s o n , Authority
Hildebmndh
and Resistance,
MGH
LdLl,
p. 575.
p. 120.
22 S e e p p . 1 1 9 - 2 0 b e l o w .
23 R o b i n s o n , Authority
2 4
C f . R o b i n s o n , ibid.,
LdUi,
and Resistance,
p . 1 2 0 ; c f . W i d o , De scismate
p . 1 2 1 a n d Leodicensium
epistola
adversus
Hildebrandi,
Paschaìem
p. 620.
papam,
MGH
p p . 459,462.
25 R o b i n s o n , Authority
and Resistance,
p. 121.
96
b e d e p o s e d . A s I s i d o r e o f S e v i l l e h a d d e s c r i b e d i t i n h i s Etymologiae,
'You
w i l l b e a k i n g i f y o u a c t o u t r i g h t l y (recte); i f y o u d o n o t s o a c t , y o u w i l l b e
no king,'
2 6
I n the justification of rebellion, 'The Saxon rebels' solution to
t h e p r o b l e m o f a n u n s a t i s f a r t o r y k i n g a p p e a r s i n t h e Liber ad
Gebhardum
side b y
problem,
side
with
the
papal
party's
solution
to
the
same
p r o v i d i n g a n interesting instance of the tendency of the arguments of the
Saxon rebellion to be absorbed into the polemic of the papal party, a n d
especially into the p o l e m i c of the 'South G e r m a n Gregorians'.'27
H o n o r i u s A u g u s t o d u n e n s i s , i n h i s Summa
Gloria,
argued that royal power
w a s d e r i v e d t h r o u g h the p r i e s t h o o d . H e asserted that the d e m o n s t r a t i o n
of the priesthood's superiority i n dignity to the kingship was
through the comparison made between Abel and Cain, ' w h o
the t w o orders'.
2 8
evident
prefigured
' T h e L o r d Jesus C h r i s t , t r u e k i n g a n d p r i e s t a c c o r d i n g
to the order of Melchisedech, established laws a n d rights for H i s bride
the church, and
p r i e s t h o o d . ' 2^
It
for
her
was
governance
only
upon
instituted not
the
Donation
of
a kingship
Constantine
but
a
that,
according to H o n o r i u s , this altered. The implication was that kings were
t o b e o b e y e d s o l o n g as t h e y f u l f i l l e d a n d u p h e l d t h e i r d u t y a n d f i m c t i o n
w i t h regard to the C h u r c h . Obedience, however, w a s not required if they
f a i l e d t o d o so. H o n o r i u s e c h o e d C a r d i n a l H u m b e r t ' s o r g a n i c a n a l o g y i n
s a y i n g , ' i n a s m u c h as t h e s o u l , w h i c h g i v e s l i f e t o t h e b o d y i s n o b l e r t h a n
t h e b o d y , a n d as s p i r i t u a l t h i n g s , w h i c h j u s t i f y s e c u l a r t h i n g s , a r e
of
g r e a t e r d i g n i t y t h a n s e c u l a r t h i n g s , s o t h e p r i e s t h o o d is o f g r e a t e r d i g n i t y
t h a n the k i n g s h i p , w h i c h it establishes a n d ordains.'30
2 6
R o b i n s o n , Authority
27 Ibid.,
and Resistance,
p. 133.
p. 131.
2 8
H o n o r i u s A u g u s t o d u n e n s i s , Summa
2 9
Ibid.,
p. 73.
3° Ibid.,
p. 72.
Gloria,
MGH
LdL.iii,
p. 65.
97
I v o of Chartres suggested a solution to the p r o b l e m of investiture i n a
letter o f 1097 t o A r c h b i s h o p H u g h o f L y o n s . I v o w a s w r i t i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y
with
regards
to
the
case o f
Archbishop
Daimbert
of
Sens a n d
his
investiture b y the hand of K i n g Philip I to w h i c h Archbishop H u g h h a d
vehemently objerted.
prohibited by
I v o a r g u e d that, 'It does n o t seem that k i n g s are
apostolic
authority
canonical election has b e e n h e l d / i
3
from
installing
in bishoprics
after
H e c o n t i n u e d , t o assert, ' W h y s h o u l d
it m a t t e r w h e t h e r this i n s t a l l a t i o n is a c c o m p l i s h e d b y h a n d o r b y g e s t u r e ,
b y w o r d or b y staff, w h e n the k i n g s d o n o t i n t e n d to b e s t o w
anything
s p i r i t u a l b u t o n l y to a d d their assent t o t h e p e t i t i o n o f the p e o p l e , o r t o
c o n f e r o n t h e p e r s o n s e l e c t e d t h e ecclesiastical estates a n d o t h e r w o r l d l y
goods w h i c h the churches receive t h r o u g h the mxmificence of
Ivo
is, nonetheless,
election, is
fiercely
concerned
that
simony,
or
otherwise
improper
condeixmed, b u t a p p e a r s t o believe that this be best
achieved if the t w o p o w e r s w o r k e d together.
Ivo dearly demonstrated a
great respert f o r the C h u r c h , b u t i n d i c a t e d t h a t he t h o u g h t it at fault i n
the division between the kingship and the priesthood, w i t h o u t
whose
' h a r m o n i o u s c o o p e r a t i o n there c a n be n o s o u n d a n d secure c o n d u c t of
human
affairs/^3
In
essence, a l t h o u g h
in
agreement
with
much
of
G r e g o r y ' s r e f o r m i n g p r o g r a m m e , I v o believed that G r e g o r y ' s attack u p o n
lay investiture
and particularly
upon Henry
IV was
misdirected
as,
contrary to an i n d i v i d u a l like H u m b e r t , Ivo d i d not h o l d lay investiture
t o be o n e of the C h u r c h ' s greatest evils, I v o c o m m e n t e d that t h e m o c k e r s
o f t h e p a p a c y c o u l d j u s t i f i a b l y say: ' " Y o u s t r a i n at a g n a t a n d s w a l l o w a
camel.
Y o u p a y tithes o n m i n t a n d anise a n d c u r m n i n b u t leave u n d o n e
the weightier matters of the
3
1 I v o o f C h a r t r e s , Epistolae
Ibid.,-p.
33
ad litem
law/''34
investiturarum
Although an eminent bishop, Ivo
spectantes,
MGH
LdL.ii,
p. 644.
645.
p. 646.
34 ա ւ , p . 6 4 6 ; c f . M a t t . 2 3 : 2 3 - 2 4 .
98
e v i d e n t l y s a w s o m e v a l u e i n the m o n a r c h i c a l cause; nonetheless, his
r e m a r k s w e r e d i s m i s s e d b y P o p e U r b a n п i n 1097.
Moderate royalist H u g h of Fleury was prepared to compromise further.
I n Tractatus
de Regia Potestate^^ h e e x p r e s s e d t h a t a k i n g s h o u l d i n v e s t a
bishop w i t h the secular items p e r t a i n i n g to his role b u t not w i t h r i n g a n d
s t a f f , as t h e y a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h h i s e c c l e s i a s t i c a l f u n c t i o n .
' T h e care o f
s o u l s t h r o u g h t h e r i n g o r staff/2^ h e o u g h t t o r e c e i v e f r o m t h e A r c h b i s h o p ,
'so t h a t t h i s k i n d o f business m a y be c a r r i e d t h r o u g h w i t h o u t d i s p u t e a n d
the privilege of his authority m a y be maintained b y b o t h eartMy
spiritual powers.'
3 7
and
H u g h also e m p h a s i s e d that the k i n g h a d a d u t y to
respect t h e w i s h e s o f t h e p e o p l e a n d h e n c e m u s t a p p r o v e t h e i r c h o i c e , so
l o n g as h e w a s n o t o f r e p r e h e n s i b l e c h a r a r t e r , b u t i f h e w a s , t h e n t h e k i n g
s i m i l a r l y h a d a d u t y t o r e s i s t h i s e l e c t i o n , as d i d t h e p e o p l e .
By
secular a n d s p i r i t u a l s y m b o l s of a b i s h o p b e i n g d i v i d e d u p a n d
the
only
b e i n g i n v e s t e d b y t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n , L u k e 20:25 w o u l d b e r e n d e r e d
corrert.
H u g h w a s q u i c k t o i l l u s t r a t e as w e l l t h a t t h e k i n g d o m
which Christ talked
3 8
about
was n o t one of this t e m p o r a l w o r l d but, 'was a
k i n g d o m o f h o l y souls...as C h r i s t w i t n e s s e d at t h e t i m e o f h i s p a s s i o n
w h e n h e s a i d t o P i l a t e , ' M y k i n g d o m is n o t o f t h i s world'.39 F o r , as t h e
apostle
Paul wrote
to
T i m o t h y , 40 'N๐
one
serving
as G o d ' s
soldier
entangles h i m s e l f i n w o r l d l y affairs.'^i
35 W r i t t e n b e t w e e n 1 1 0 2 a n d 1 1 0 4 .
3 6
Leodicensium,
37 Ibid,
MGH
LdL.ii,
p. 472.
p. 472.
38 C f . e . g . L u k e 2 2 : 2 7 .
39 J o h n 1 8 : 3 6 .
« 2 T i m . 24
H u g o n i s m o n a c h i F l o r i a c e n s i s , Tractatus
LdLii,
de regia
potestate
et sacerdotali
dignitate,
MGH
p. 472.
99
Chapter 7: Pos t-Gregorian reform; the Controver s y over
Investiture and its conclusion
The chronological p i r t u r e shall n o w be c o m p l e t e d b y r e t u r n i n g to events
p( ont.
s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d e a t h o f P o p e G r e g o r y V I I i n M a y 1085. V i c t o r ш
1086-87),
formerly
Desiderius,
Abbot
of
Monte
Cassino,
succeeded
G r e g o r y i n the p a p a c y b u t w a s forced to leave R o m e after his e l e r t i o n b u t
p r i o r t o h i s c o n s e c r a t i o n as a r e s u l t o f r i o t i n g .
H e returned to
Monte
C a s s i n o a n d s p e n t m o s t o f h i s s h o r t p o n t i f i c a t e t h e r e as C l e m e n t
n's
t r o o p s h e l d R o m e . D e s p i t e H e n r y ' s a t t e m p t at t h e s y n o d h e l d at M a i n z i n
1085 t o i m p o s e u n i t y u p o n t h e i m p e r i a l C h u r c h , h e w a s f o r c e d t o r e t r e a t ,
as h e s t i l l l a c k e d
the
support
i n Saxony
which
he required,
before
r e t u r n i n g w i t h a n a r m y i n J a n u a r y 1 0 8 6 . I t w a s n o t u n t i l 1089 t h a t H e n r y
a c h i e v e d u l t i m a t e success i n t h e p a c i f i c a t i o n o f S a x o n y , b u t at t h e cost o f
never again r e t u r n i n g to the region.
P o p e U r b a n I I Qjont.
1088-99) s u c c e e d e d V i c t o r Π Ι a n d w a s v e r y m u c h o f
the Gregorian mindset, h a v i n g been a m o n k of Cliiny and then
under Abbot Hugh.
prior
O d o , c a r d i n a l - b i s h o p o f O s t i a , as U r b a n h a d b e e n
f o r m e r l y n a m e d , h a d been one of those f a v o u r e d for the papacy
by
G r e g o r y ! a n d a l s o b y V i r t o r a n d h a d b e e n a fierce a n d e f f e c t i v e c r i t i c o f
H e n r y rv
and Clement III.
U r b a n ' s first battle w a s w i t h Clement, w h o
p r o v e d a difficult rival due to the considerable support w h i c h he held.
U r b a n d r o v e C l e m e n t f r o m R o m e i n 1089, b u t d i d n o t g a i n c o n t r o l o f t h e
L a t e r a n h i m s e l f u n t i l 1094 a n d t h e C a s t e l S a n t ' A n g e l o i n 1098.2
Urban's
a p p r o a c h appeared f r o m the outset to be a m o r e p r a g m a t i c one t h a n that
of Gregory, ' U r b a n d i d not place the same emphasis o n the p r o h i b i t i o n of
investiture
that
Gregory
VII
had
done
after
1078.
He
was
more
the Ninth
to the
1 C f . A p p e n d i x 3 , Reg., p . 4 4 6 .
2
บ . - R . B l u m e n t h a l , The Investiture
Twelfth
Century,
Controversy:
Church
and Monarchy
from
( P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1988), p p . 135-6.
100
concerned w i t h e n d i n g the schism i n the C h u r c h , defeating the challenge
of the antipope Clement
ш
a n d reconstructing the obedience of
the
r e f o r m p a p a c y . ' ^ H e n r y ' s e y e s w e r e fixed o n c e a g a i n u p o n R o m e a n d h e
l a u n c h e d a t h i r d c a m p a i g n i n t o I t a l y i n 1090 b u t a f t e r m a k i n g i n i t i a l g o o d
p r o g r e s s , s u f f e r e d a s u b s t a n t i a l d e f e a t , i r o n i c a l l y e n o u g h , a t C a n o s s a , as
t h e n o r t h - I t a l i a n states a s s e r t e d t h e i r i n d e p e n d e n c e ^
H e n r y ' s p r o b l e m s w e r e exacerbated b y the betrayal of his eldest son,
Conrad,
with
some
conclusions ^ being
drawn
that
Conrad
rebelled
against h i s father because h e d i s a g r e e d w i t h h i m o v e r the issue of p a p a l
a u t h o r i t y a n d t h e l i b e r t y o f t h e c h u r c h . 6 T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n t h e case, o r
greater political calculation m a y h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d , b u t either w a y , it
p r o v e d a significant b l o w t o H e n r y , n o t least t o m o r a l e . U r b a n I I s a w t h e
p o t e n t i a l o f h a v i n g C o n r a d r e p l a c e h i s f a t h e r as k i n g a n d e n v i s a g e d a
relationship b y w h i c h emperor a n d pope could w o r k together, p u t d o w n
Clement a n d instil h a r m o n y t h r o u g h the empire. It was a r o u n d this t i m e
t h a t U r b a n f o r t h e first t i m e b e g a n t o s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r t h e n o t i o n o f a n
anti-king.
This concept ' p r o m p t e d t h e reappearance o f the issue o f l a y
i n v e s t i t u r e o n t h e p a p a l r e f o r m i n g a g e n d a after a n absence of six y e a r s / 7
This familial betrayal was added to b y Henry's second w i f e .
Empress
E u p r a x i a - A d e l a i d e , ^ w h o a l s o s i d e d a g a i n s t h e r h u s b a n d i n 1094.
A s a n issue, lay investiture h a d barely been m e n t i o n e d u n t i l the C o u n c i l
o f C l e r m o n t i n 1095.
T h i s C o u n c i l is m o s t f a m o u s f o r U r b a n ' s
speech
m a k i n g a c a l l f o r a n d , i n essence f r o m t h e w e s t e r n p e r s p e c t i v e , l a u n c h i n g
3
R o b i n s o n , Henry
4
B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
5
i.e. E k k e h a r d o f A u r a .
6
R o b i n s o n , Henry
7 f t ź d . , p.
8
IV, p . 2 7 8 .
Controversy,
p. 136.
IV, p . 2 8 8 .
292.
T h i s t r a n s l a t i o n , R o b i n s o n , ibid.,
c f . B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
p. 289; o t h e r translations i n c l u d e P r a x e d i s o r A d e l h e i d ,
Controversy,
p. 136.
い ^
議
101
the First C r u s a d e , b u t also, his attack u p o n l a y i n v e s t i t u r e w a s i n some
respects, m o r e far-reaching t h a n that of G r e g o r y .
The prohibition w h i c h
he m a d e , ' w a s n o t o n l y o f i n v e s t i t u r e b u t also o f p e r f o r m a n c e o f h o m a g e
to the secular ruler b y b i s h o p s a n d a b b o t s / ^ d u e to the threat to
f r e e d o m of the c h u r c h that these presented.
the
I n t h i s sense. U r b a n p i c k e d
u p o n Peter D a m i a n ' ร t h e m e o f t h e d a n g e r s o f vassalage a n d the m a n n e r
i n w h i c h this w a s the p r i m e evil infecting the C h u r c h .
Lay investiture a n d homage, firstly, transformed a clerk or a m o n k
a f e u d a l vassal, c o n t a m i n a t i n g h i m w i t h the sins of the secular
into
world
a n d , s e c o n d l y d e c l a r e d t h a t the c h u r c h a n d its p r o p e r t y w i t h w h i c h h e
w a s invested constituted a feudal benefice, h e l d entirely at the pleasure
of t h e s e c u l a r r u l e r . ^ o
Nevertheless, U r b a n ' s o v e r r i d i n g concern r e m a i n e d the issue o f schism
w i t h i n t h e C h u r c h as h e w a s a w a r e t h a t i t w a s n o t u n c o m m o n , b o t h i n
G e r m a n y a n d I t a l y , f o r b i s h o p r i c s a n d o t h e r ecclesiastical d i g n i t i e s , t o
h a v e t w o c h a l l e n g e r s c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e see o r d i g n i t y b e l o n g e d t o t h e m ,
one w h o was supported b y the i m p e r i a l party, the other b y the papalists.
' U n d e r such conditions intraecclesiastical p r o b l e m s a c c u m u l a t e d r a p i d l y .
These
proved
particularly
thorny:
reconciliations
with
the
church,
encounters w i t h e x c o m m u n i c a t e d persons, a n d the v a l i d i t y of sacraments
conferred b y schismatics/^^ A s B l u m e n t h a l highlights, h o w e v e r , part of
the d i f f i c u l t y at this t i m e w a s t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h the d i v i s i o n b e t w e e n
the imperial party and the papal supporters h a d become
entrenched,
meant that it w a s h a r d to understand w h a t 'schism' a n d 'heresy' meant
a n d t o w h o m , i f a n y o n e , these t e r m s a p p l i e d .
schisma,
meaning
rent
or
division,
ecclesiastical u n i t y , caused b y
' R o b i n s o n , Henry
4bid..
applies
Schism, f r o m the Greek
to
a disturbance
a s p e c i f i c act o f a n i n d i v i d u a l
within
or
the
ІУ, p . 2 7 9 .
p. 279.
1 B l u m e n t h a l Investiture
Controversy,
p. 137.
102
breaking a w a y of a faction.
H e r e s y , f r o m t h e G r e e k hairesis
meaning
c h o o s i n g t o d e p a r t f r o m t h e t r u t h a n d i n t h i s sense a p p l y i n g t o
h o l d i n g of an invalid opinion, that ո տ տ
d o r t r ine.
counter
It is o f t e n f o u n d t h a t t h e f o r m e r
to accepted
the
church
i n v o l v e s the latter.
The
p r o b l e m i n t h e l a t e - e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y w a s t h a t t h e use o f these w o r d s w e r e
in no way
actually
related to the crimes
to w h i c h
they
supposedly
r e f e r r e d ; t h e y w e r e u s e d m o r e i n a sense o f s u p e r i o r i t y b e t w e e n t h e t w o
sides, u l t i m a t e l y b o t h of w h o m ( a l t h o u g h a d m i t t e d l y t o v a r y i n g degrees
of concern) w e r e i n favour of e l i m i n a t i n g s i m o n y a n d nicolaitism
the C h u r c h .
from
I t is f o r t h i s r e a s o n t h a t t h e i s s u e o f i n v e s t i t u r e b e c a m e t h e
s t i c k i n g p o i n t b e c a u s e w h i l s t t h e p a p a l r e f o r m e r s s a w l a y i n v e s t i t u r e as
being inextricably linked w i t h nicolaitism and more particularly simony,
the royal p o w e r was relurtant, and ultimately u n w i l l i n g , to give u p a
r i g h t w h i c h t h e y a l s o s a w as c e n t r a l t o t h e i r n o t i o n o f k i n g s h i p .
T h e C o u n c i l o f Piacenza, h e l d i n 1095, r e s o l v e d t h e debate w h i c h
had
occurred a p p r o x i m a t e l y half a century earlier b e t w e e n H u m b e r t of Silva
C a n d i d a a n d Peter D a m i a n . I t w a s d e c i d e d t h a t c l e r g y w h o s e o r d i n a t i o n
was
performed
by
a
simonist
although
they
were
non-simoniacal
t h e m s e l v e s w a s v a l i d s o l o n g as t h e y w e r e n o t a w a r e o f t h e s i m o n y t h a t
had been committed
by
their
consecrator.
The Council
of
Piacenza
l o o k e d to call a n amnesty, a n d hence f r o m U r b a n ' s p o s i t i o n , d r a w m o r e
o f C l e m e n t ' s s u p p o r t e r s a w a y as t h e a m n e s t y h a d a n e x p i r y d a t e
and
would
had
o n l y be o f f e r e d once. E v e n once t h e issue o f i n v e s t i t u r e
become of greater relevance to U r b a n П, it w a s never all-consuming:
Ήβ
r e g a r d e d h i s s t r u g g l e a g a i n s t H e n r y I V n o t as a n ' I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t e s t ' b u t
as a d e f e n s i v e w a r a g a i n s t a s c h i s m a t i c e m p e r o r a n d h i s a n t i p o p e .
their part, the emperor
and his advisers seem to have been
u n a w a r e of being participants i n an 'bivestiture Contesť/12
somewhat
strange
12 R o b i n s o n , Henry
that
Urban
π
had
greater
success
in
For
equally
It
seems
achieving
พ , p. 279.
103
G r e g o r i a n a i m s t h a n d i d G r e g o r y vn.
western
conquest
of
Jerusalem
Urban's pontificate ended i n the
(although
probably
without
his
k n o w l e d g e ) , achieved p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h the French crusaders.
P a s c h a l I I (pont.
1099-1118), U r b a n ITs successor, w a s a i d e d b y C l e m e n t
I I ' s d e a t h i n 1100 close t o t h e b e g i n n i n g o f h i s p o n t i f i c a t e .
This could
have p r o v i d e d a n excellent o p p o r t u n i t y for the n e w p o p e a n d o l d k i n g to
reach a peace a n d , a l t h o u g h H e n r y s h o w e d n o interest i n s u p p o r t i n g a n y
of
Clement's
successors
as
antipope, 1
3
he
was
unsuccessful
in
reconciliation attempts w i t h the papacy. H e n r y ' s lack of c o m m u n i c a t i o n
w i t h the antipopes m a y have been more t h r o u g h political
calculation
t h a n f o r a n y o t h e r r e a s o n as t h e r e h a d b e e n t i m e s a t w h i c h
appeared
to
consider
dropping
his
support
for
Clement
Henry
III.
This
consideration w a s a b a n d o n e d after the i m p e r i a l c o r o n a t i o n because h a d
C l e m e n t ' s v a l i d i t y as p o p e b e e n c a l l e d i n t o q u e s t i o n b y t h e H e n r i c i a n
p a r t y , t h e n H e n r y ' s c o n s e c r a t i o n as e m p e r o r w o u l d a l s o h a v e b e e n i n
doubt.
H e n r y h a d n o s u c h ties t o C l e m e n t ' s successors a n d clearly s a w
his fortunes better served independent
of them.
'Henry's failure
to
achieve this reconciliation w a s the decisive factor i n the disintegration of
his a u t h o r i t y i n the years 1 1 0 5 - 6 / " H e n r y d i d , to his credit,
attempt
r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h t h e p a p a c y , as H e n r y w r o t e t o A b b o t H u g h o f C l u n y ,
w e d e c l a r e t o Y o u r s e r e n i t y t h a t as f a r as G o d m a y g i v e u s t h e
we
desire
to w o r k
affairs w h i c h
in every w a y
for
the reparation
of
power,
ecclesiastical
(alas) h a v e g o n e t o r u i n i n o u r t i m e t h r o u g h o u r
sins.
N o w , w e also w i s h to labor a n d to acquiesce i n the s o u n d counsels of all
g o o d m e n , if w e can i n this w a y
gather the things w h i c h have
been
scattered a n d b r i n g together i n the b o n d of u n i o n the o p e n i n g m a d e b y
the wedge of schism.
1 Theoderic
3
of
Albano
Thus, w e w i s h to recompense w i t h a renewal of
(1100-1), A l b e r t
of
Silva
Candida
(1102)
and
Magmulf
of
S a n t ' A n g e l o (1105-11)
1 R o b i n s o n , Henry
4
IV,
p. 304.
104
peace
a n d justice
the
ruin
of
the
Church, which
we
have
brought
a b o u t . ^5
A l t h o u g h v e r y l i t t l e is k n o w n a b o u t P a s c h a ľ s d i r e c t r e s p o n s e t o H e n r y ' s
change o f h e a r t , t h e r e is r e c o r d of h i m h a v i n g p r a i s e d R o b e r t п
of
F l a n d e r s f o r h i s successes a g a i n s t t h e i m p e r i a l
At
the L ent
synod
excommunication
of
against
1102,
Henry
Paschal
and
renewed
reiterated
the
sentence
Urban
p r o n o u n c e m e n t against lay investiture a n d h o m a g e .
n's
of
double
The synod
made
clear t o the i m p e r i a l p a r t y that for H e n r y t o be r e c o n c i l e d t o the p a p a c y ,
he w o u l d have to renounce lay investiture but this was the one point that
H e n r y r e m a i n e d still u n w i l l i n g t o concede. T h r o u g h o u t his r e i g n , H e n r y
had
become
more
involved
in
Church
reform
in
Germany;
his
a p p o i n t m e n t s to episcopacies became of a n increasingly h i g h calibre a n d
he used his p o w e r s m o r e a n d m o r e to protect churches f r o m the worst
ravages of secular d e g r a d a t i o n .
While
insisting
that
lay
investiture
was
sanctioned
by
'secular
and
canon l a w / the e m p e r o r d u r i n g the final years of his reign b o t h strove
to preserve the rights a n d p r o p e r t y of the churches over w h i c h he r u l e d
a n d reiterated his desire to 'reconcile kingship a n d p r i e s t h o o d /
Henry
rv, t h a t is, s o u g h t t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e ecclesiastical r e g i m e o f h i s f a t h e r / 1 ^
I t w a s at t h i s t i m e t h a t t h e ' b i v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y ' t r u l y b e c a m e
controversy p r i m a r i l y concerning the right of lay investiture,
up
a
until
the pontificate of Paschal I I a n d the death of C l e m e n t Ш , the investiture
been
more
a power
struggle
between
regnum
controversy
had
and
sacerdotium.
A l t h o u g h the issue of investiture encapsulated the core o f
the struggle for supremacy, the debate was n o longer specifically about
1 M o m m s e n a n d M o r r i s o n , Imp erial
5
1 R o b i n s o n , Henry
6
Lives, L e t t e r 3 1 , p . 1 7 7 .
พ , p. 3 1 1 .
i7/birf., p. 314.
105
scoring political points, b u t w a s about the opposing claims of p o p e and
k i n g s u r r o u n d i n g a n issue o f c a n o n l a w a n d w h e r e the b o u n d a r i e s t o the
sacerdotal a n d secular spheres a n d their respertive p o w e r s w e r e to be
located.
It b r o u g h t into sharp focus the inadequacy for the eleventh a n d
t w e l f t h centuries of the A u g u s t i n i a n - G e l a s i a n n o t i o n of the t w o separate
s p h e r e s w h i c h h a d s u f f i c e d f o r t h e e a r l y d a y s o f respublica
whereby
Christiana
t h e C h u r c h w a s r e l i a n t u p o n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e state
and
v a l u e d i n t e r v e n t i o n s s u c h as C o n s t a n t i n e ' ร a t t h e C o u n c i l o f N i c a e a .
The
state s i m i l a r l y f o u n d the u n i t y of t h e C h r i s t i a n f a i t h a u s e f u l t o o l
h o l d i n g together
a crumbling
empire.
By the eleventh century,
usefulness w a s w e l l a n d t r u l y spent a n d the t w o spheres h a d
in
this
become
r i v a l s t o o n e a n o t h e r ' s p o w e r ; i t is t h u s t h a t t h e issue o f s u p r e m a c y arose.
H e n r y I V was determined to retain the practice of investiture, w h i c h
Paschal п
d e c l ar e d t o b e
'the r oot of simoniacal wickedness'.
The
conflict of e m p i r e a n d p a p a c y h a d at last b e c o m e t r u l y a n 'L·ivestitur e
C o n t e s t ' , a c o n f l i c t c o n c e r n e d p r i n c i p a l l y w i t h t h e r ights
of the m o n a r c h
in the a p p o i n t m e n t of pr elates, w h i c h was to continue for sixteen year s
after the death of H e n r y
H e n r y ' s b e l o v e d y o u n g e r s o n , H e n r y V , w h o h a d b e e n c r o w n e d i n 1099,
e n s u r i n g t h e succession of t h e e m p i r e t o h i m , i 9 also r ebelled against his
father
and
t ur n e d
t o w ar d
t h e r e f or m
papacy
f or
s u p p or t .
Paschal
released H e n r y V f r o m his o a t h t o h i s father , m a d e at h i s c o r o n a t i o n , t h a t
h e w o u l d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h state a f f a i r s unless e x p l i c i t l y a s k e d t o d o so
b y H e nr y
IV. 0
2
I n his negotiations
with
H e nr y
V , Paschal m a d e
m e n t i o n of the r elinquishing of the r ight of investitur e, w h i c h d i d
a p p e a r a t t h i s t i m e t o b e a c o n d i t i o n f or
18 R o b i n s o n , Henry
Paschaľs support.
This
no
not
was
พ , p. 312.
1 A l t h o u g h as e v e n t s h a d i t , C o n r a d d i e d p r i o r t o H e n r y r v ' s
9
death a n y w a y , it
is
thought in 1101.
շ
0 B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
Controversy,
p. 167.
106
f o r t t m a t e f o r H e n r y V , as h e s h o w e d a s i m i l a r r e l u c t a n c e t o t h a t o f h i s
father at the prospect of r e l i n q u i s h i n g the r o y a l r i g h t
Nonetheless, concord
over
this
issue w a s
not
of
investiture.
lasting; future
events
illustrated that.
The leaders of the Gregorian p a r t y considered it m o r e i m p o r t a n t
to
assist t h e y o u n g k i n g t o o v e r t h r o w h i s f a t h e r ' s r e g i m e t h a n t o e n s u r e h i s
adhesion to the p r o g r a m m e
Contest' between H e n r y V
of the reform papacy.
The
and the reform papacy was
'bìvestìture
consequently
p o s t p o n e d u n t i l after the defeat a n d d e a t h of E m p e r o r H e n r y IV.21
H e n r y V s h o w e d m a n y m o r e chararteristics similar to those of H e n r y I V
as a y o u n g k i n g t h a n h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r
Conrad had done;
whereas
Conrad's
a d h e r e n c e t o t h e r e f o r m p a p a c y a p p e a r e d at l e a s t i n
measure
genuine, H e n r y
V
was
clearly
only
s u p p o r t to help a i d h i m o v e r t h r o w his father.
some
interested
in
Paschal'ร
H e n r y rv
continued to
m a k e a p p e a l s t o t h e p a p a c y , as w e l l as t o A b b o t H u g h t o i n t e r c e d e o n h i s
behalf a n d a t t e m p t e d t o achieve a b s o l u t i o n at the assembly of b \ g e l h e i m
i n D e c e m b e r 1105; h e w a s u n s u c c e s s f u l i n a l l these a t t e m p t s .
Henry
rv
d i e d a t L i è g e i n A u g u s t 1 1 0 6 , a c c e p t i n g H e n r y V as k i n g a n d r e q u e s t i n g
to be b u r i e d i n the Cathedral of Speyer, w h i c h h a d retained a strong
ancestral significance for h i m t h r o u g h o u t his l i f e .
After the death of H e n r y
I V , conflict b e t w e e n Paschal a n d H e n r y
b e c a m e m o r e i n e v i t a b l e , as n e i t h e r p o p e n o r
illusion any
flexible
longer
2 2
that their
position toward
k i n g h a d to create
lay
the
investiture was
a
one. T h i s a t t i t u d e w a s h e i g h t e n e d f o r Paschal i n p a r t i c u l a r since
b o t h t h e F r e n c h a n d E n g l i s h m o n a r c h s h a d a g r e e d t o concessions.23
R o b i n s o n , Henry
'• Ibid.,
V
A
IV, p . 3 2 8 .
p. 343.
' B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
Controversy,
p. 168.
107
b r i e f l o o k at t h e c o m p r o m i s e s m a d e i n F r a n c e a n d E n g l a n d m a y a i d o u r
imderstanding.
In
England,
the
concordant
relationship
that
had
existed
between
monarch and Archbishop of Canterbury d u r i n g the reign of K i n g W i l l i a m
I a n d L a n f r a n c w a s n o t t o last b e t w e e n A n s e l m (1093-1109) a n d
both
W i U i a m R u f u s (1087-1100) a n d H e n r y I (1100-35). E n g l a n d h a d n o t b e e n
i n d i r e r t c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p a p a c y since a t least 1083 a n d w h e n
r e q u e s t e d a v i s i t t o R o m e i n 1095 t o seek t h e pallium
a direct conflict w a s created w i t h W i l l i a m Rufus.
Anselm
f r o m P o p e U r b a n 11,
The k i n g insisted that
Anselm'ร first loyalty be to h i m , above the p o p e .
2 4
Agreement
was
r e a c h e d i n t h e e n d b e t w e e n W i l l i a m a n d t h e p a p a l l e g a t e as U r b a n w a s
eager
to
gain
official
recognition
from
r e s u l t e d i n A n s e l m r e c e i v i n g t h e pallium
the
English
monarch
which
i n Canterbury, b u t he d r e w the
l i n e at r e c e i v i n g i t f r o m t h e h a n d o f t h e k i n g . P r o b l e m s b e t w e e n t h e k i n g
and archbishop
re-emerged in
1 0 9 7 as A n s e l m r e p e a t e d l y
requested
permission to go to Rome; W i l l i a m п issued an u l t i m a t u m , the outcome
of w h i c h was Anselm'ร resignation and journey to Rome, f r o m w h i c h he
d i d not r e t u r n u n t i l after the king's death.
Henry I was
considerably
reliant u p o n A n s e l m ' ร s u p p o r t for his succession b u t difficulties
were
caused d u e to the h a r d e n i n g of A n s e l m ' ร resolve concerning investiture
and homage.
A n s e l m r e t u r n e d t o R o m e i n 1103 a n d H e n r y e x p e r i e n c e d
similar p r o b l e m s t o those w h i c h H e n r y I V of G e r m a n y h a d faced at the
b e g i n n i n g o f h i s r e i g n i n h a v i n g b a d a d v i s e r s ; i n t h i s case t h e a d v i c e w a s
to continue w i t h the practice of investiture a n d resulted i n the k i n g being
threatened w i t h excommunication.
I n 1105, c o m p r o m i s e w a s
reached
between H e n r y a n d A n s e l m ; H e n r y was prepared to give u p his right to
i n v e s t i t u r e w i t h r i n g a n d staff, b u t n o t t o t h a t o f h o m a g e .
Henry
astutely
grasped
the
difference
between
Seemingly,
temporalities
and
spiritualities, something w h i c h m a n y of his contemporaries failed to d o
2 4
B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
Controversy,
p. 156.
108
so.
Anselm
negotiated
this
compromise
with
Paschal
and
it
was
p u b l i c i s e d i n 1107.25
P a s c h a l a l s o r e a c h e d a s e t t l e m e n t w i t h t h e F r e n c h k i n g s , P h i l i p I (1060֊
1108)
and
opposition
Louis
to
VI
King
(1108-37).
Philip,
he
Despite
Gregory
vn's
never
enacted
his
continued
threat
of
e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n against h i m . Investiture i n France became a secondary
issue d u r i n g t h e p o n t i f i c a t e o f U r b a n I I w h e n i n 1092 P h i l i p
his wife, the queen, i n favour of Bertrada of Montfort.
abandoned
T h i s w a s a cause
for contention amongst the French bishops and one that saw Bishop Ivo
of
Chartres
imprisoned
due
to
his
opposition.
The
king
was
excommunicated b y H u g h of Lyons and this was confirmed b y U r b a n i n
1095. P h i l i p w a s a b s o l v e d i n t h e s a m e y e a r w h e n h e p r o m i s e d t o g i v e u p
B e r t r a d a , b u t h e d i d n o t k e e p t h i s p r o m i s e a n d so h e f e l l s p e e d i l y u n d e r
anathema again.
P h i l i p w a s once m o r e reconciled to the p a p a c y
Paschal П, after he h a d f u l f i l l e d his earlier p r o m i s e .
under
I n 1106, Paschal
j o u r n e y e d to France a n d m e t K i n g Philip a n d his son a n d co-ruler, L ouis
VI.
A t t h i s m e e t i n g at Saint D e n i s a c o m p r o m i s e w a s r e a c h e d t h a t , t o a l l
intents and purposes, allowed the French kings to continue w i t h
their
current practices.
W h y investiture p r o v e d an intractable p r o b l e m for G e r m a n y and not for
E n g l a n d a n d France does n o t h a v e a n easy a n s w e r .
By a n d large, the
English monarchs h a d p r o v e d to be m o r e perceptive i n their h a n d l i n g of
p a p a l relations. I t also h e l p e d t h a t m a n y o f the N o r m a n r e f o r m s
w i t h the r e f o r m i n g ideas of the papacy.
struck
between
Pope
Paschal
II
and
A
King
fitted
genuine compromise
Henry
I,
succeeded i n achieving the a i m m o s t i m p o r t a n t to t h e m .
whereby
in
was
each
It o u g h t to be
recognised that investiture h a d a different a n d heightened significance i n
Germany than in England.
^ B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
Controversy,
E n g l a n d w a s m u c h closer t o o b t a i n i n g
a
p p . 158-9.
109
feudal
structure
and
homage
was
thus
adequate,
and
as
Henry
i l l u s t r a t e d , essential, b u t i n v e s t i t u r e w a s n o t strictly necessary.
other h a n d , G e r m a n y
Therefore, investiture
O n the
was a more disparate nation w h i c h lacked
obedience a n d obligation
compelled by
a feudal
structure and
a n d the tools of g o v e r n m e n t
I
the
oath.
employed by
the
O t t o n i a n s a n d S a l i a n s w e r e s t i l l o f i m m e a s u r a b l e v a l u e ; as o f y e t , t h e r e
was no conceivable replacement.
P a s c h a l w a s p r e p a r e d t o r e a c h a c o m p r o m i s e w i t h H e n r y V at C h a l o n s i n
1107, b u t n e i t h e r p o p e n o r e m p e r o r w o u l d e n t i r e l y c o n c e d e t h e i r c l a i m s
over
investiture.
Resultantly,
in
1110, Paschal
pronounced
'decrees
p r o h i b i t i n g n o t o n l y i n v e s t i t u r e w i t h churches o r ecclesiastical d i g n i t i e s
(recipient, consecrator, a n d the l a y m a n g i v i n g investiture w e r e all subjert
t o e x c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) b u t also t h e c o n v e y a n c e o f ecclesiastical p r o p e r t y / 2 ^
A s B l u m e n t h a l also e x p l a i n s , n o m e n t i o n w a s m a d e of h o m a g e , b u t t h i s
was most probably in the light of compromises made w i t h K i n g Henry I
o f E n g l a n d . H e n r y V h o p e d t o a c h i e v e i m p e r i a l c o r o n a t i o n a n d so set o f f
for R o m e i n the same year.
Paschal a n d H e n r y m e t at S u t r i t o negotiate,
b u t b e a r i n g i n m i n d t h e i m p a s s e w h i c h t h e y w e r e at, i n t h e k n o w l e d g e
that,
T h e k i n g w o u l d n o t give u p his right to a p p o i n t bishops because they
w e r e feudal lords exercising secular jurisdiction over the lands that they
held f r o m the king.
of
The p o p e w o u l d n o t acknowledge this royal
a p p o i n t m e n t because bishops
were
ministers of
God
right
wielding
a
special authority that w a s n o t d e r i v e d f r o m any lay
H e n r y reputedly agreed to give u p the imperial
r i n g a n d staff.
right
to transference of
' I n return, the pontiff w o u l d instruct the G e r m a n bishops
to r e t u r n to the k i n g
' B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
' B . T i e m e y , The Crisis
regalia
Controversy,
ofChurch
(rights a n d property)
that pertained
by
p p . 168-9.
and State 1050-1300,
( L o n d o n , 1988) p. 85.
110
inalienable right to the E m p i r e b u t w h i c h h a d been transferred to the
churches since the t i m e of Charlemagne.'28
Henry
V
was due to
be
c r o w n e d o n 12 F e b r u a r y 1 1 1 1 , b u t t h e c o r o n a t i o n d i d n o t t a k e p l a c e as
agreement broke d o w n
on the day; consequently, H e n r y
imprisoned
Paschal, his cardinals, some other clergy a n d R o m a n nobles
Agreement
of
the
c o m p r o m i s e s m a d e at Paschal'ร i n s t i g a t i o n , b u t neither cardinals
nor
German
Paschal'ร
cotild
bishops
not
(in
suggestion
ultimately
agreement
had
be
for
reached
once)
been Franciscan
as
a
present.
could
in
result
possibly
outlook,
concede.
despite
being
s e v e n t y y e a r s p r i o r t o St F r a n c i s ' b i r t h , as h e b e l i e v e d t h a t s o l u t i o n m a y
b e f o u n d i n t h e r e t u r n o f C h u r c h l a n d s i n G e r m a n y t o t h e r o y a l p o w e r so
that bishops w o u l d live o n tithes a n d hence n o t shoulder a n y of
the
b u r d e n , or temptation, of government a n d w o u l d therefore give the k i n g
no
further
cause
appointments.
to
be
involved
in
ecclesiastical
elertions
and
Investiture b y the k i n g p r i o r to consecration. Paschal
believed, caused
b o t h the wickedness
of simoniacal heresy
a n d , at t i m e s , so great
an
a m b i t i o n h a s p r e v a i l e d t h a t t h e e p i s c o p a l sees w e r e i n v a d e d
without
a n y e l e c t i o n . . . . A n d so, m o s t b e l o v e d s o n . K i n g H e n r y - n o w
through
our office, b y the grace of G o d , e m p e r o r of the R o m a n s 一w e decree that
those
royal
kingdom
appurtenances
are to be
which manifestly belonged
given
back
to
thee
to that k m g d o m
and
to
in the time
thy
of
Charles, L o u i s , a n d of t h y o t h e r predecessors.29
Paschal e v i d e n t l y b e l i e v e d that this w o u l d r e t u r n the bishops to a p u r e r
state n o t j u s t t h r o u g h abstinence f r o m t h e vassalage a n d o p p o r t u n i t y f o r
s i m o n y o f f e r e d b y l a y i n v e s t i t u r e , b u t also b y a r e t u r n t o t h e i r
resulting f r o m the freeing of a b u r d e n .
' F o r i t is
fitting
duties
that the bishops,
f r e e d f r o m secular cares, s h o u l d t a k e care o f t h e i r p e o p l e , a n d n o t a n y
2 8
B l u m e n t h a l , Inves titure
2 9
T i e m e y , C r i s i s of Church
Controver
s y,
p. 169.
and State, p . 8 9 .
I l l
longer be absent f r o m their churches. For, according to the apostle Paul,
l e t t h e m w a t c h b e i n g a b o u t t o r e n d e r a c c o u n t , as i t w e r e , f o r t h e s o u l s o f
these [their people]/30
It w a s t h r o u g h i m p r i s o n m e n t that H e n r y V succeeded i n e x h o r t i n g f r o m
P a s c h a l t h e pravilegium
of Ponte M a m m o l o
retention
of
of
the
right
investiture
w h i c h gave to H e n r y
with
ring
and
staff
the
prior
to
consecration w h i l s t also p e r m i t t i n g his i m p e r i a l c o r o n a t i o n a n d a p r o m i s e
t h a t Paschal w o u l d never e x c o m m u n i c a t e
This grant,
however,
w a s rescinded a year later d u e to t h e duress that Paschal h a d been u n d e r
w h e n he h a d m a d e the p r o m i s e a n d the s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n that Paschal
evidently
received
from
the
reform
party,
notably
Bruno
of
Segni,
Geoffrey of V e n d ô m e a n d A r c h b i s h o p Josserand of L y o n w h o stated that
the
concessions
made
by
Paschal
concerning
lay
h e r e t i c a l . 3 2 A f t e r P a s c h a ľ s w i t h d r a w a l o f t h e Pravilegium,
investiture
were
Henry was not
e x c o m m u n i c a t e d b u t significant pressure w a s p u t u p o n Paschal to
SO.
3 3
Paschal, therefore, faced dissent f r o m w i t h i n the C h u r c h ,
murmurs
o f heresy a b o u n d i n g , b u t H e n r y w a s , b y 1115, also
do
with
having
d i f f i c u l t i e s i n m a i n t a i n i n g a u n i t e d f r o n t w i t h i n t h e G e r m a n k i n g d o m as
the Saxons w e r e r e b e l l i n g once again.
Paschaľs i n i t i a l s o l u t i o n to the p r o b l e m of vassalage a n d s i m o n y t h r o u g h
l a y i n v e s t i t u r e w a s a n i n t e r e s t i n g o n e , a n d m o r e so g i v e n t h a t i t c a m e
p r i o r to the Franciscans.
It w a s i n m a n y respects, a logical m e t h o d
of
d e a l i n g w i t h the p r o b l e m , because, lay investiture aside, bishops h a v i n g
t e m p o r a l f u n r t i o n s , for example, i n t e r m s of p r o p e r t y , still c o n t r i b u t e d to
30 T i e m e y , Crisis
3
1 ibid.,
3 2
of Church
and State, p . 9 0 .
p . 9 0 ; B l u m e n t h a l , Investiture
M o r r i s , The Papal
Monarchy:
Controversy,
The Western
Church
p. 170.
from
ใ 050 to 1250, ( O x f o r d , 1 9 8 9 ) p . 1 6 0 .
^ i.e. b y A r c i า b i s h o p G u y o f V i e n n e , l a t e r P o p e C a l i x t u s I I .
112
t h e s e c u l a r i s a t i o n o f t h e C h u r c h a n d s t i l l o f f e r e d t h e s a m e t e m p t a t i o n s as
those p r o v i d e d b y lay investiture.
Paschal came
to realize
this; G r e g o r y
never
did
so.
The
difference
b e t w e e n t h e m illustrates v i v i d l y h o w the o v e r t issue o f c h u r c h a n d state
that arose d u r i n g the investiture contest w a s related to the still
fundamental
problem
of
defming
the
right
relationship
more
between
spiritual office a n d material p r o p e r t y . ^
A n answer to this question seemed to depend u p o n the w o r l d
assumed.
A
view
w h i c h held the superiority
view
of the d i g n i t y of
the
sacerdotal sphere m a y believe that the C h u r c h was better placed i n terms
of k n o w l e d g e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h r o u g h heightened m o r a l standards to
deal w i t h and dispense temporalities; b o t h p r o p e r t y a n d p o w e r .
alternative take, still u p h o l d i n g the superior d i g n i t y of the
'maintained that the church's superiority
An
sacerdotium,
h a d to be based o n a
real
r e p u d i a t i o n of the w o r l d l y p o w e r a n d w e a l t h that secular princes s o u g h t
for themselves/^^ This latter v i e w w a s h e l d b y Paschal I I a n d w a s m o r e
w i d e l y p r o m u l g a t e d i n t h e w r i t i n g s o f St B e r n a r d o f C l a i r v a u x .
Paschal
d i e d i n 1118 i n w h a t w a s a v e r y tense R o m e a n d h i s successor, G e l a s i u s I I
(pont.
1118—19) h a d a b r i e f a n d u n h a p p y p o n t i f i c a t e w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e
excommunication of H e n r y .
P o p e C a l i x t u s I I (pont.
1119-24), f o r m e r l y A r c h b i s h o p G u y o f V i e n n e , h a d
been a staunch critic of Paschaľs capitulation to H e n r y ' s d e m a n d s of 1111,
a l t h o u g h d i d h i m s e l f m a k e i n i t i a l conciliatory gestures t o w a r d
a f t e r h a v i n g a s c e n d e d t o t h e see o f R o m e .
Henry
H e n r y responded likewise,
a n d m e t w i t h p a p a l envoys, W i l l i a m of C h a m p e a u x a n d A b b o t Pons of
C l u n y , i n Strasbourg.^^ H e n r y w a s p e r s u a d e d i n t o r e n o u n c i n g his c l a i m
^ T i e m e y , Crisis
35 Ibid.,
3 6
of Church
and State, p . 8 7 .
p. 87.
M o r r i s , Papal
Monarchy,
p. 170.
113
to investiture b u t w h e n a meeting was due to occur between pope and
emperor the p a p a l p a r t y w i s h e d to r e w o r d some of the terms of the treaty
b u t H e n r y refused. Skirmishes c o n t i n u e d b e t w e e n H e n r y a n d the Saxons,
b u t a p e a c e w a s c o n c l u d e d b e t w e e n t h e p r i n c e s o f b o t h p a r t i e s at t h e d i e t
of W ü r z b u r g i n September
1121, but w i t h the condition dictated
by
f o r m e r chancellor to H e n r y , t u r n e d p a p a l legate, A d a l b e r t of M a i n z , that
H e n r y m a k e peace w i t h C a l i x t u s .
The m a j o r papal representatives w h o
came to G e r m a n y to negotiate w i t h H e n r y were Cardinal Lambert
Ostia
(later
Pope
Honorius
I I , pont.
1124-30)
G r e g o r y ( l a t e r P o p e I n n o c e n t I I , pont.
1130-43).
convoked,
but
Worms
exchanged
outside
Henry
remained
the
city
at
walls
and
deacon
A s y n o d at M a i n z
where
between
Cardinal
the
documents
two
of
was
were
sides.
Henry
r e n o u n c e d , ' A l l i n v e s t i t u r e t h r o u g h r i n g a n d staff; a n d d o agree t h a t i n all
churches t h r o u g h o u t m y k i n g d o m a n d empire there shall be canonical
elertions
and
f r e e c o n s e c r a t i o n ' . 37 T h e
c a n d i d a t e s w i t h t h e regalia
king was
permitted
to
invest
i n the f o r m of a sceptre, p r i o r to consecration,
a l t h o u g h i n Italy, this c o u l d o n l y be enarted after consecration h a d taken
place.
I n return, Calixtus conceded that w i t h i n G e r m a n y the k i n g could
be present
at t h e
elections
for
bishoprics
and
abbacies
and
that
in
elections w h i c h w e r e d i s p u t e d , the k i n g c o u l d intervene, t a k i n g advice
f r o m his bishops.
Prelates also h a d t o o b s e r v e t h e l a w i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e
secular ruler, b u t the r e m i t of the 'legal o b l i g a t i o n s ' r e m a i n e d u n d e f i n e d .
Ά
t r u e peace' w a s g r a n t e d each to the other i n b o t h doctiments.
The
a g r e e m e n t d i d n o t s a t i s f y p a p a l r a d i c a l s s u c h as G e r h o h o f R e i c h e r s b u r g
d u e to the concessions m a d e b y Calixtus w h i c h
Offended
Gregorian
p r i n c i p l e s / 3 8 b u t p e a c e w a s s e e n as o f p a r a m o t m t i m p o r t a n c e .
Despite
its
shortcomings,
'the
'temporary'
s u c c e e d e d i n r e s t o r i n g p e a c e b e t w e e n regnum
3 7
T i e m e y , C r i s i s of Church,
p. 9 1 .
3 8
M o r r i s , ΡαγαΙ Monarchy,
p.l72.
settlement
of
a n d sacerdotium
Worms
in
the
114
E m p i r e a n d thus freeing the t w o p o w e r s f r o m antiquated concepts w i t h
their
increasingly
anachronistic
restrictions/
3 9
The
deaths
of
C a l i x t u s II a n d E m p e r o r H e n r y V i n 1024 a n d 1025 r e s p e c t i v e l y
an end to a t u m u l t u o u s
period within imperial and papal
marked
relations.
Successive p o p e s w e r e n o l o n g e r e x p l i c i t l y ' G r e g o r i a n ' i n t h e i r
outlook,
their concerns h a d m o v e d o n ; similarly G e r m a n emperors, for a
least, w e r e n o l o n g e r a n t a g o n i s t i c t o w a r d s t h e p a p a c y .
A
Pope
time
at
concordant
alliance existed b e t w e e n e m p i r e a n d papacy u n t i l conflict emerged once
again
when
royal
power
was
reasserted
upon
the
Frederick Barbarossa to the G e r m a n t h r o n e a n d H e n r y п
ascendance
of
to the English
t h r o n e i n 1152 a n d 1 1 5 4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h e n a t u r e o f t h e p o n t i f f h a d b e g u n
t o c h a n g e as p o p e s n o l o n g e r h a i l e d s p e c i f i c a l l y f r o m B e n e d i c t i n e
Cluniac
backgrounds
and
the
Bernard of Clairvaux'ร advocacy.
Cistercians
gained
exposure
or
through
C o n f l i c t b e t w e e n f u n c t i o n s arose w i t h
p a p a l elections at R o m e , b o t h after the d e a t h of C a l i x t u s a n d a g a i n i n
1 1 3 0 ; t h e l a t t e r s c h i s m b e t w e e n s u p p o r t e r s o f b m o c e n t II a n d A n a c l e t u s
lasting
for
Anacletus.40
eight
years,
which
was
only
resolved
by
the
Events subsequent to the Concordat of W o r m s
death
II
of
illustrated
t h a t a l t h o u g h i t w a s r e g a r d e d as a b e t r a y a l , l i k e t h a t o f P a s c h a l II i n 1 1 1 1 ,
b y the o l d G r e g o r i a n p a r t y , a n e w , m o r e p r a g m a t i c yet still
reformist,
papacy w a s developing. M o r r i s argues that, 'the events of the next t h i r t y
y e a r s [ a f t e r W o r m s ] c o n f i r m e d t h e c l a i m o f C a l i x t u s II
to have w o n a
v i r t o r y f o r t h e c h u r c h / 4 1 T h i s is d e m o n s t r a t e d b y t h e p a c i f i c a t i o n of t h e
kingdom
of
Germany
and
England
toward
the
papacy,
whereas
G r e g o r i a n ideals a n d r e f o r m s they h a d been recalcitrant a n d hostile.
more
flexible
to
This
papacy understood the value of compromise. Alongside an
a l t e r e d p a p a c y t h e r e w a s also a c h a n g e i n t h e character of t h e G e r m a n
m o n a r c h y w h e n L o t h a r o f S a x o n y (1125-37), a m e m b e r o f t h e G r e g o r i a n
3 9
B l u m e n t h a b Investiture
40 M o r r i s , Papal
4
1 Ibid.,
Monarchy,
Controversy,
p.l73.
p p . 183-4.
p. 184.
115
p a r t y a n d e n e m y o f H e n r y V , b e c a m e k i n g ; his successor, C o n r a d
Hohenstaufen
(1138-52)
was
also
sympathetic
toward
papal
of
policy.
D u r i n g the early reign of Lothar, it w a s n o t unheard-of for the k i n g or his
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n o t t o b e p r e s e n t at t h e e l e c t i o n o f a b i s h o p . L o t h a r r a i s e d
t h e issue o f i n v e s t i t u r e i n 1131 a n d 1133 a n d reasserted h i s r i g h t t o i n v e s t
p r i o r t o c o n s e c r a t i o n . 4 2 A l t h o u g h t h e k i n g u n d o u b t e d l y h a d less c o n t r o l
o v e r a p p o i n t m e n t s , h e n e v e r t h e l e s s m a i n t a i n e d a close r e l a t i o n s h i p
with
t h e G e r m a n C h u r c h . T h i s w a s n o t t h e case w i t h i m p e r i a l r e l a t i o n s i n I t a l y
where i n general, 'The w h o l e
approach of the curia t o w a r d s
secular
p o w e r s r a d i a t e d a n e w c o n f i d e n c e . ' ^ 3 Xhxร c o n f i d e n c e e x t e n d e d b e y o n d
t h e c o n f i n e s o f I t a l y a n d b o t h I n n o c e n t I I a n d E u g e n i u s I I I (pont.
had
'confirmed' and
'approved' monarchs
(Stephen of
1145-53)
England
and
Frederick Barbarossa respertively).
The pragmatism of the post-Gregorian papacy
success
in
asserting
itself
over
the
รесгіїаг
achieved
rulers
of
considerable
Europe.
The
f o r m u l a t i o n of Gregorian concepts h a d an irrevocable influence u p o n the
early t w e l f t h century.
U r b a n П, Paschal I I a n d Calixtus I I all f o l l o w e d i n
Gregory's m o d e of t h o u g h t , b u t perhaps s h o w e d m o r e inclination
for
c o m p r o m i s e as t h e i n t e n s i t y o f t h e I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y f a d e d , d e s p i t e
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e c o n t e s t h a d b e c o m e m o r e s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t e d t o layinvestiture after the death of G r e g o r y vn.
argument
that
the
Investiture
This further supports
Controversy
was
not
primarily
the
a
c o n t r o v e r s y c o n c e r n i n g the issue o f l a y i n v e s t i t u r e .
՝• M o r r i s , Papal Monarchy,
p. 186.
' / b i d . , p. 186.
116
Chapter
8ะ Conclusion
一 What
was
the
Investiture
Controversy a Controversy about?
The Gregorian reforms w e r e the logical outcome of the reforms begun
d u r i n g the pontificate of Leo IX w h i c h Gregory himself had an impact
upon.
T h e r e f o r m s of G r e g o r y ' s p a p a c y w e r e t h e n , a n d are o f t e n still
n o w , c h a r a c t e r i s e d as a r a d i c a l c h a n g e i n t h e d i r e r t i o n or p a p a l p o l i c y
a n d b r e a k i n t r a d i t i o n . I n s o m e respects t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a n accurate
o n e . R e f o r m o f t h e n a t u r e a n d o n t h e scale o f t h a t x i n d e r P o p e L e o I X h a d
n o t r e a l l y b e e n seen since t h a t o f P o p e G r e g o r y the Great.
For this level
o f a l t e r a t i o n a n d assertion t o be seen i n p a p a l p o l i c y , t h e r e f o r e ,
provide
a significant departure f r o m w h a t had become the
did
expected
n o r m s of papal action. O n the other h a n d , the writings of m a n y reformist
a u t h o r s s u c h as P e t e r D a m i a n a n d G r e g o r y V I I h i m s e l f , c a n b e t a k e n
seriously i n terms of their discussions of 'renewal'.
T h e G r e g o r i a n r e f o r m s w e r e a n a t t e m p t t o r e t u r n t h e C h u r c h t o a state o f
p u r i t y w h i c h it h a d p r e v i o u s l y possessed.
The reforms were, according
to this interpretation, concurrent w i t h Christian tradition a n d it w a s the
last f i v e h u n d r e d years t h a t h a d p r o v i d e d the b r e a k i n s t e a d .
W h e n the
p a p a c y f r o m G r e g o r y V I I o n w a r d is o f t e n d i s c u s s e d , t e r m s s u c h as ' p a p a l
monarchy'
a r e s o m e t i m e s a p p l i e d ; i m p l i c i t i n t h i s is t h e n o t i o n
particular pontiffs w e r e attempting to extend the r e a l m of
p o w e r t o t h a t also o f t h e t e m p o r a l .
that
sacerdotal
If this assertion is m a d e w i t h a n y
degree of surprise t h e n a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Christian t r a d i t i o n has
been made.
I f o n e i s t o a n a l y s e M a t t h e w 2 2 : 2 1 , w h e r e Jesus i s a s k e d a b o u t
paying
t a x e s t o C a e s a r , H e i s q u e s t i o n e d as t o w h o s e i m a g e is r e p r e s e n t e d o n t h e
tribute penny.
he ւ տ է օ
them.
' T h e y [the Pharisees] say u n t o h i m , Caesar's.
Render
T h e n saith
therefore u n t o Caesar the t h i n g s w h i c h
are
117
Caesar's; a n d u n t o G o d t h e t h i n g s that are G o d ' s /
A s i n m u c h t h a t Jesus
s a i d , a d o u b l e m e a n i n g is t o be f o u n d . T h e Pharisees h a d b e e n t r y i n g t o
t r i c k Jesus i n t o r e v e a l i n g H i s r e v o l u t i o n a r y t e n d e n c i e s s o t h a t t h e y c o u l d
g o t o t h e R o m a n a u t h o r i t i e s a n d accuse H i m o f i n c i t i n g o t h e r s t o r e b e l
against t h e m .
J e s u s ' a n s w e r , t h e r e f o r e , d i s a p p o i n t e d t h e m as i t d i d n o t
a i d t h e m i n b u i l d i n g a case a g a i n s t H i m .
However, in rendering unto
C a e s a r t h e t h i n g s t h a t a r e C a e s a r ' s , Jesus w a s n o t j u s t t a l k i n g
about
f i n a n c i a l r e m u n e r a t i o n ; i n fact. H i s choice o f w o r d s h a d echoes o f t h e
r e v o l u t i o n a r y Judas Maccabeus. R e n d e r m g t o Caesar that w h i c h w a s d u e
t o h i m w o u l d b e t o r e n d e r t h e p e n a l t i e s d u e t o h i m as w e l l as t a x e s .
I m p e r i a l t a x a t i o n w a s a t h e o l o g i c a l i s s u e , j u s t as J e s u s ' d e a t h o n t h e c r o s s
a n d resurrection was a political one.
T h r o u g h Jesus' d e a t h H e
was
r e n d e r i n g b y H i s b l o o d t h a t w h i c h w a s o w e d t o T i b e r i u s C a e s a r as a
r e s u l t o f H i s o w n r e j e c t i o n o f a n i m p e r i a l e m p i r e h e r e o n e a r t h . Jesus w a s
simultaneously rendering to G o d what H e o w e d to H i m , through
the
sacrifice of H i s life a n d r e d e m p t i o n of m a n k i n d .
Evidently, therefore, the K i n g d o m of G o d stood i n opposition to
any
earthly k i n g d o m ; they made claims and promises of a similar nature.
On
a R o m a n c o i n , Caesar's face w o u l d b e f o u n d o n o n e side a n d o n t h e o t h e r
t h e g o d o f p e a c e : t h e m e s s a g e w a s c l e a r , r e n d e r w h a t is d u e t o C a e s a r a n d
peace o n e a r t h w i l l be secured. H o w e v e r , this peace w a s a n u n s u r e one;
it was o p e n to challenge, threat a n d ultimately destruction b y the very
fact t h a t
it w a s
a temporal
t e m p o r a r y p e a c e as a r e s u l t .
peace a n d
can, b y
necessity, o n l y be
a
T h e claims of the peace of the K i n g d o m of
G o d , o n the other h a n d , lack this d o u b t ; the K i n g d o m of G o d provides a
sure, c e r t a i n a n d e v e r l a s t i n g p r o m i s e o f peace.
The t w o
contentions,
therefore, stood i n direct o p p o s i t i o n to one another.1
1 F o r t h e a b o v e d i s c u s s i o n see B i s h o p T o m
Wright
of D u r h a m , comments m a d e
at
Compline, D u r h a m Cathedral, 22/03/05.
118
I t s h o u l d b e r e m e m b e r e d t h a t t h e C h r i s t i a n c a l l is n o t j u s t o n e c o n c e r n i n g
t h e n e x t w o r l d , as J e s u s ' t e a c h i n g s c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e d ; t h e r e s u r r e c t i o n w a s
not about an other-worldly
earth.
a f t e r l i f e , Jesus w a s r e s u r r e c t e d u p o n
this
T h e C h u r c h h a s r e s u l t a n t l y a l w a y s p o s s e s s e d a s t r o n g sense o f i t s
secular m i s s i o n here a n d n o w .
A s a consequence part of the C h u r c h ' s
role,
its
and
particularly
that
of
leaders, w a s
to
denounce
secular
government and rulers where they thought they were acting i m m o r a l l y
a n d hence endangering the spiritual health of their subjerts.
It becomes
obvious t h r o u g h this that the supremacy of the sacerdotal sphere to that
of the t e m p o r a l w a s , a n d is, i m p l i c i t i n the C h u r c h ' s m i s s i o n .
What
h a d been lost b e t w e e n the seventh century
and
mid-eleventh
c e n t u r y w a s t h e n o t i o n o f C h r i s t i a n i t y as a r a d i c a l d o r t r i n e , w h i c h , i n
r e a l i t y is w h a t it h a d b e e n f r o m its i n c e p t i o n .
Resultantly, Leo IX and
Gregory V I I , despite m a k i n g a considerable departure f r o m w h a t papal
g o v e r n m e n t h a d b e c o m e , w e r e n o t t h a t r a d i c a l per se; t h e y w e r e m e r e l y
r e t u r n i n g the C h u r c h t o its b i b l i c a l r o o t s a n d those w h i c h h a d
been
p r o m u l g a t e d a n d enacted b y the Early C h u r c h Fathers a n d papacy.
In
t h e i n t e r i m , t h e C h u r c h h a d l o s t i t s w a y a n d sense o f m i s s i o n ; i t w a s i n a
mess, d u e at least i n p a r t , t o i n c r e a s e d secular i n v o l v e m e n t ,
primarily
t h r o u g h the dealings of the major families of R o m e , the Crescenti!, the
Tusculani and the Theophylact.
A l t h o u g h i t is e n t i r e l y p l a u s i b l e t o see
G r e g o r y V I I as r a d i c a l , t h i s r a d i c a l i s m w a s n a t u r a l r a t h e r t h a n u n u s u a l t o
Christianity;
the
Gregorian
reforms
truly
encapsulated
the
spirit
of
renewal w i t h i n the C h u r c h .
W h a t , t h e n , w a s t h e I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y a b o u t ? A l t h o u g h f r o m 1078
the issue o f l a y i n v e s t i t u r e w a s a r e c u r r e n t one, it w a s n o t , u l t i m a t e l y , t h e
p r i m a r y c o n c e r n o f p o p e o r e m p e r o r a n d d i d n o t b e c o m e s o u n t i l 1105. I t
is
undeniable
that
the
question
concerning
lay
investiture
was
a
significant one b u t its crucial i m p o r t a n c e l a y i n w h a t it i l l u s t r a t e d m o r e
119
b r o a d l y a b o u t t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n regnum
brought to the forefront was t w o f o l d ;
firstly
a n d sacer dotium.
What
it
that t h r o u g h its r e n e w a l the
papacy a n d spirit of r e f o r m w i t h i n the C h u r c h , the relation of the t w o
powers,
as
set
forth
by
Augustine
and
Gelasius
and
the
inherent
s u p r e m a c y w h i c h b o t h believed that the spiritual r e a l m possessed, w a s
reasserted.
S e c o n d l y , as b y t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y b o t h C h u r c h a n d S t a t e
were strong institutions w i t h o u t the other, the inherent contradiction a n d
i m p r a r t i c a l i t y o f t h e A u g u s t í r ü a n - G e l a s i a n f o r m u l a t i o n o f regnum
sacer dotium
became apparent.
and
I t w a s t h u s t h a t t h e a m i c a b l e , i f at t i m e s
tenuous, balance between the t w o p o w e r s was lost a n d a renegotiation
s o u g h t i n f a v o u r o f t h e c h u r c h . F o r m o r e t h a n five c e n t u r i e s t h e s e c u l a r
powers, be they Byzantine, R o m a n or G e r m a n , h a d undeniably
had
รนpremaq/· i n terms of a u t h o r i t y a n d p o w e r over the C h u r c h w i t h i n the
spiritual r e a l m . This h a d n o t been the v i s i o n of the Early C h u r c h Fathers
a n d so G r e g o r y V I I w a s , i n essence, c a r r y i n g o n w h e r e G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t
h a d left o f f i n 604. I n s e e k i n g t o restore u n i t y , c o n c o r d a n d p u r i t y w i t h i n
the C h u r c h a n d C h r i s t i a n society, G r e g o r y w a s a t t e m p t i n g t o
return
m e m b e r s of that society to their corrert roles. ' W h e n therefore everyone
acts a c c o r d i n g t o t h e f u n c t i o n a l l o t t e d t o h i m , t h e r e w i l l c o m e a b o u t w h a t
Gregory
vn
c a l l s Concordia
e n t a i l i n g pax
within
the
s u b s t a n t i a l l a y i n t e r f e r e n c e i n e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a f f a i r s , discordia
ecclesia.'With
was instead
established a n d it w a s this that Gregory a i m e d to right.
The b a n u p o n lay investiture concerned the assertion of p a p a l control i n a
m o r e g e n e r a l sense as w e l l . I f a r u l e r n o l o n g e r h a d a n y c o n t r o l o v e r t h e
investitxire of bishoprics, the role p l a y e d i n the elertion or a p p o i n t m e n t of
bishops w o u l d pass to the papacy.
It w a s t h r o u g h this centralisation of
control that i m d e r Gregory V I I , the p o w e r of the episcopacy h a d b e g u n to
be curbed.
'Centralization
and
the
enforcement
of strict obedience o n the p a r t of the bishops, w a s
the
• พ . U l l m a n n , The Growth
of Papal
of the ecclesiastical
Government
in the Middle
government
Ages,
( L o n d o n , 1955) p. 273.
120
a n s w e r t o t h e p r o b l e m o f e f f e c t i v e p a p a l c o n t r o l o f t h e s acerdotiump
In
this respert, the f o r m of papal government initiated u n d e r Gregory
vn
c a n b e d e s c r i b e d as m o n a r c h i c a l .
The analogy s h o u l d not be stretched
t o o far t h o u g h a n d there is a l e v e l o f i n a c c u r a c y i n t h e p r e s u m p t i o n w i t h
w h i c h s o m e ' m o d e r n c o m m e n t a t o r s h a v e seen a w h o l e s y s t e m of p a p a l
sovereignty
Henry's.'
in
Gregory's
position
and
an implicit
caesaropapism
in
I t is p e r h a p s m o r e a c c u r a t e t o r e c o g n i s e t h a t , ' s u c h c o n c e p t s
w e r e far f r o m the m i n d s
of the contestants.
They
did not think
of
t h e m s e l v e s as m a k i n g s y s t e m s f o r t h e f u t u r e b u t as d e f e n d i n g s p e c i f i c
p o w e r s w h i c h w e r e p a r t of a s y s t e m a l r e a d y l o n g e s t a b l i s h e d ; t h e i r eyes
w e r e bent o n the past.'4
G r e g o r y νπ'ร
eyes w e r e f o c u s e d u p o n
the
g l o r i o u s pontificates of L e o I a n d G r e g o r y I, a n d H e n r y ' s u p o n the p o w e r
exerted b y his father, the O t t o n i a n monarchs a n d those of the
early
Carolingian period, epitomised b y the Emperor Charlemagne.
Nonetheless,
monarchical
tendencies
a c t i o n s as h e h a d set o u t i n Dtctatus
were
discernible
in
Gregory's
Papae,^ t h e p o p e a l o n e c o u l d u s e
i m p e r i a l i n s i g n i a , i l l u s t r a t i n g t h a t h e w a s t h e h e a d o f Societas
Christiana^
T h e c r o w n w h i c h w a s w o r n b y the p o p e w a s of n o liturgical significance^
a n d i n the t w e l f t h century, papal coronation, i n a d d i t i o n to consecration,
became the n o r m rather t h a n the exception.8 The p a p a l c o u r t increased i n
size a n d h a d w h a t a m o u n t e d t o f e u d a l vassals attached t o i t .
i n c r e a s i n g l y p e r s o n i f i e d t h e sacerdos regalis
9
The pope
a n d acted accordingly.io
The
pontificate of Gregory V I I certainly h a d a lasting i m p a r t in this manner
3
U l l m a n n , Growth
4
E . L e w i s , Medieval
5
Reg. 2 . 5 5 a , p p . 1 4 9 - 5 0 .
6
U l l m a n n , Growth
7 Ibid.,
p. 3 1 1 .
Ibid.,
p. 316.
^ Ibid.,
p. 3 3 1 .
8
of Papal
Political
of Papal
Government,
Ideas,
p. 297.
V o l . 2, ( N e w Y o r k , 1974), p. 512.
Government,
p. 297.
1 0 / b i d . , p. 325.
121
a n d a l t h o u g h he d i d n o t extend monarchical p a p a l g o v e r n m e n t to the
s a m e e x t e n t as P o p e b i n o c e n t
III, papal government
under
Gregory
p r o v i d e d a precursor a n d solid foundation for Innocent I I I to b u i l d u p o n .
A s E w a r t L e w i s e x p r e s s e s , t h e p r o c e s s c a n b e v i e w e d as a s p i r a l , f r o m ,
'the expansion of the theory of spiritual p o w e r o n w h i c h Gregory
had
a c t e d / to that w h i c h w a s , 'best e x e m p l i f i e d i n the t h e o r y a n d practice of
Innocent І І І / w h i c h i n t u r n led to the, 'development of the theory
d i r e c t p a p a l p o w e r i n t e m p o r a l s , w h i c h is a s s o c i a t e d p a r t i c u l a r l y
The
polemical
literature
produced
throughout
the
of
with
Investiture
C o n t r o v e r s y also m a r k e d a w a t e r s h e d w i t h i n t h e m e t h o d o l o g y of t h e
p r o m u l g a t i o n of ideas w i t h i n political t h o u g h t .
The polemicists saw the
c o n f l i c t o f t e n as o n e r e g a r d i n g t h e r i v a l c l a i m s o f p o p e a n d e m p e r o r
terms of the pope's ability to j u d g e a n d depose an e m p e r o r a n d
ability of an emperor to judge a n d depose a pope.
the
This n e w w a v e of
pamphleteering w e n t b e y o n d the specifically Gregorian a n d
arguments.
in
Henrician
The papalist a n d i m p e r i a l authors d e r i v e d m a n y of their
arguments a n d based their rival claims u p o n the Gelasian d u a l i s m of
regnum
a n d sacerdotium.
I t w a s , i n fact, the royalists w h o a d h e r e d m o r e t o
the t w o p o w e r t h e o r y since, 'The o l d ideas of C h r i s t i a n o r d e r h a d n o t
b e e n f o r m a l l y rejected, b u t o n occasions the G r e g o r i a n p a r t y w a s e r o d i n g
it b y the w a y the Petrine p r i m a c y was n o w
affirmed.'12
The
Petrine
commission was of the utmost importance for papal p r i m a c y a n d it w a s
i n t h i s sense t h a t G r e g o r y V I I t r u l y w a s t h e h e i r o f b o t h L e o I
and
G r e g o r y I.
I t w a s i n p a r t t h r o u g h Jesus' c o m m i s s i o n t o Peter t h a t G r e g o r y asserted
t h e a u t h o r i t y o f sacerdotium
11 L e w i s , Medieval
ւ M o r r i s , Papal
շ
Political
Monarchy,
o v e r regnum.
'Gregory d i d not claim that the
Ideas, p . 5 2 3 .
p. 133.
122
c h u r c h h a d a n y a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e e m p i r e as s u c h .
Gelasian theory
powers.
that
he
of the
mutual
independence
of
H e accepted
the t w o
the
coordinate
H i s originality consisted i n the extreme prartical conclusions
drew
from
premises
already
familiar
and
generally
unquestioned/13 Gregory used the Petrine p o w e r of b i n d i n g and loosing
to justify the deposition of H e n r y .
T h r o u g h the extension of this, kings
w e r e , t h e r e f o r e , t o b e s e e n as s u b j e c t t o p a p a l p o w e r a n d j u d g e m e n t .
If
the greater d i g n i t y of the sacerdotal p o w e r w e r e accepted t h e n the logical
conclusion was that w h i c h Gregory reached, 'and f o u n d i n the spiritual
p o w e r itself a p o t e n t i a l l y illimitable a u t h o r i t y to d o a n y t h i n g w h a t e v e r
t h a t w a s necessary f o r t h e f u l f i l m e n t o f its ends.'14 T h e A u g u s t i n i a n Gelasian premises o n w h i c h G r e g o r y based his t h o u g h t w e r e n o t
themselves radical, b u t they h a d never before been applied w i t h
in
the
rigour that Gregory demonstrated. A s Gregory wrote to K i n g W i l l i a m I
of England,
w e believe it not to be h i d d e n f r o m y o u r w i s d o m that A l m i g h t y
God
h a s a l l o t t e d t o t h i s w o r l d as i t s g o v e r n i n g a u t h o r i t i e s t h e a p o s t o l i c
and
r o y a l d i g n i t i e s w h i c h are m o r e excellent t h a n all others.
F o r j u s t as
to
m a k e m a n i f e s t the b e a u t y of the w o r l d at d i f f e r e n t times to b o d i l y eyes
h e h a s set i n p l a c e as І ш п і п а г і е ร t h e s u n a n d m o o n
w h i c h are
more
c o n s p i c u o u s t h a n all others.15
G r e g o r y d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h i s p r i n c i p l e i n a b s t r a c t i o n , n o r is the reader left
i n a n y d o u b t as t o w h i c h p o w e r
precedence over the m o o n .
is t h e รนท a n d hence w h i c h
takes
I t is t h i s p r e m i s e t h a t G r e g o r y s o u g h t
to
m o v e f r o m the r e a l m of t h o u g h t a n d discussion to that of practice.
I n a s i m i l a r m a n n e r to that of A u g u s t í n e , G r e g o r y s a w at w o r k i n the
w o r l d the forces of g o o d a n d e v i l , one d e r i v a t i v e f r o m G o d a n d the other
13 L e w i s , Medieval
"
15
Ibid.,
Political
Ideas, p . 5 1 0 .
p. 510.
Reg. 7.25,
p. 357.
123
from men.
I n t h i s r e s p e c t t h e k i n g , as h e a d o f t h e t e m p o r a l w o r l d , w a s
s y m b o l i c o f m a t t e r a n d so n o t o f i n t r i n s i c v a l u e . A k i n g w a s o n l y o f v a l u e
i f h e w e r e s e r v i n g t h e c h u r c h ; ' T h e k i n g f x m c t í o n s 一 j u s t as m u c h as t h e
"temporaľ'
does
-
as
a
means
to
an
end.' I
6
Resultant
from
the
importance that G r e g o r y placed u p o n rendering the balance of g o o d over
e v i l i n the w o r l d w a s his divergence f r o m monastic ideas.
It w a s at this
p o i n t t h a t t h e m o n a s t i c a n d p a p a l r e f o r m e r s p a r t e d c o m p a n y b e c a u s e as
the papal reformers believed that the effert of their w o r k
r e q u i r e d i n t e r m s o f respublica
Christiana
was
most
as a w h o l e e n t i t y , t h e m o n a s t i c
reformers conversely believed that their mission was to w i t h d r a w
from
the secular w o r l d , its t e m p t a t i o n s , c o r r u p t i o n a n d e v i l a n d the o n l y extent
of their secular i n t e r a c t i o n w o u l d be to encourage others to j o i n
w i t h i n the r e d e m p t i v e h o p e of the monastery walls.
Gregory's
them
policy
w a s c o n s e q u e n t l y v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t b e c a u s e as G e r d T e l l e n b a c h p u t s i t ,
' G r e g o r y stands at the greatest 一 f r o m the s p i r i t u a l p o i n t of v i e w p e r h a p s
the o n l y - t u r n i n g - p o i n t i n the history of Catholic C h r i s t e n d o m ; i n his
t i m e the p o l i c y of converting the w o r l d gained once for all the
upper
h a n d o v e r t h e p o l i c y o f w i t h d r a w i n g f r o m it.'^^
A particular reason for the inadequacy of the Gelasian f o r m u l a b y
the
t i m e o f t h e e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y is t h a t , i n h i s w r i t i n g s . P o p e G e l a s i u s h a d
discussed 'the w o r l d ' , b u t after the fall of the R o m a n E m p i r e 'the w o r l d '
effectively became C h r i s t e n d o m , resultantly, 'priests a n d kings c o u l d be
c o n s t r u e d as t w o p o w e r s w i t h i n t h e s i n g l e c o m m u n i t y o f t h e c h u r c h / 1 ^
The t w o spheres w e r e n o longer distinguishable f r o m one another.
was fundamentally
not
a p r o b l e m o f c h u r c h vers us
s t a t e , as
l a n g u a g e t o o g l i b l y p u t s i t , b u t r i f t s w i t h i n a s i n g l e res publica
1 บ น m a n n . Growth
6
of Papal
17 T e l l e n b a c h , Church,
IS L e w i s , Medieval
'4bid.,
Government,
State and Christian
Political
'It
modern
ОгтЫгапа/^"^
p. 287.
Society,
p. 164.
Ideas, V o l . 2 , p . 5 0 8 .
p. 506.
124
I t is i m p o r t a n t , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e c o n t r o v e r s y b e r e g a r d e d as i t w a s i n
medieval times of one between
the kingship a n d priesthood rather than
T h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r regnum
c h u r c h a n d state.
a n d s acerdotium,
'was
essentially a c o n t r o v e r s y over the best structure o f a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n a
single society/20
The policies shaped a n d f o l l o w e d b y Leo IX, Gregory vn.
Urban п
and
Paschal I I , i n p a r t i c u l a r , a n d the polemicists w h o w r o t e t h r o u g h o u t the
I n v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y , p a v e d t h e w a y f o r s u c h t h i n k e r s as B e r n a r d o f
Clairvaux
and John of Salisbury.
St B e m a r d p o s s e s s e d
influence i n the m i d - t w e l f t h century a n d was a m o n g the
considerable
first
to
write
explicitly using the biblical language of the ' t w o swords' i n a political
context.
Around
1150, B e r n a r d w r o t e t o P o p e E u g e n i u s in
after
failure of the Second Crusade a n d w h i l e a n e w expedition was
the
being
p l a n n e d t o r e s c u e t h e E a s t e r n C h u r c h , I n t h i s l e t t e r St B e r n a r d s t a t e d .
I n this second passion of C h r i s t w e m u s t d r a w these t w o s w o r d s that
were d r a w n d u r i n g the
but you?
by his
one
Both of Peter's
command,
of
first
passion.
s words
mus t
by his
hand.
the other
these s w o r d s , for
scabbard'.
Although
drawn
Mnd.
by his
they
he
both
was
A n d w h o is t h e r e t o d r a w
be drawn
whenever
nece
ss ary;
them
the one
It seems that Peter w a s n o t to use
told
belonged
'put
to him,
up
they
thy
sword
zvere not
into
both
the
to be
I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e time h a s c o m e f o r b o t h s w o r d s t o b e
d r a w n i n defence of the Eastern c h u r c h . Y o u h o l d the p o s i t i o n of Peter,
a n d y o u o u g h t also t o h a v e his zeal.
W h a t could w e think of one w h o
h e l d the p r i m a c y b u t neglected the responsibility?^^
T o Peter t h e V e n e r a b l e , A b b o t of C l u n y , B e r n a r d d e c r i e d t h a t , ' T h e hearts
of princes are u n t o u c h e d .
' L e w i s , Medieval
Political
B . ร . J a m e s , The Letters
• Ibid.,
I n v a i n they carry the sword/22
The
two
Idea
s , V o l . 2, p. 557.
of St Bernard
of Clairvaux,
( S t r o u d , 1998), p. 4 7 1 ; m y italics.
p. 473.
125
s w o r d s a p p e a r a g a i n t h r o u g h o u t St B e r n a r d ' s De Consider alione,
and in
Book I V he v e r y clearly illustrated the Church's c o m m a n d of b o t h swords.
B o t h s w o r d s , that is, the s p i r i t u a l a n d the m a t e r i a l , b e l o n g to the C h u r c h ;
h o w e v e r , the latter is t o b e d r a w n f o r the C h u r c h a n d the f o r m e r b y
Church.
the
T h e spiritual s w o r d s h o u l d be d r a w n b y the h a n d of the priest;
the m a t e r i a l s w o r d b y the h a n d oř the k n i g h t , b u t clearly at the
bidding
of the priest a n d at the c o m m a n d of the emperor.2^
J o h n o f S a l i s b u r y is a n o t h e r m i d - t w e l f t h c e n t u r y a u t h o r o f interest t o the
d i s c u s s i o n o f regnum
a n d sacerdotium,
w r i t i n g h i s Policraticus
i n t h e 1150ร.
John f o l l o w e d i n C a r d i n a l H u m b e r t ' s footsteps b y p r o v i d i n g an analogy
of the b o d y politic t h r o u g h the means of a description of the w o r k i n g s of
a human body.
H e v i e w e d t h e p r i e s t h o o d as p r o v i d i n g t h e s o u l o f t h e
b o d y , w h i c h d i r e r t s a l l else,
j u s t as t h e s o u l h a s r u l e r s h i p o f t h e w h o l e b o d y so t h o s e w h o a r e c a l l e d
prefects of religion direct the w h o l e body....The position of the head
the r e p u b l i c is o c c u p i e d , h o w e v e r , b y a p r i n c e subject o n l y t o G o d
t o t h o s e w h o act i n H i s p l a c e o n e a r t h , i n a s m u c h as i n t h e h u m a n
in
and
body
i s s t i m u l a t e d a n d r u l e d b y t h e s o u 1.2^
J o h n i l l u s t r a t e d a clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d a g r e e m e n t w i t h the p r i n c i p l e s
o f the r e f o r m p a p a c y r e g a r d i n g the use of the t w o s w o r d s .
He
made
p l a i n t h a t t h e b i b l i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e use o f t h e one s w o r d b y t h e
C h u r c h a n d one at the behest of the C h u r c h resulted f r o m a n e e d t o r e t a i n
the p u r i t y
of the Church.
In
t h i s sense, t h e
secular p o w e r s
were
necessary because o f t h e existence o f e v i l a n d so w e r e r e q u i r e d t o p u t
down,
with
force,
the
enemies
of
the
Church,
whilst
the
Church
combated t h e m w i t h the w o r d of G o d .
2 3
A . H . B r e d e r o , Bernard
ofClairvaux;
J o h n o f S a l i s b u r y , Policraticus,
between
cult
( e d . a n d t r a n s , c.
and history,
( E d h ไ b u r g h , 1996), p. 1 5 1 .
J. N e d e r m a n ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , 1 9 9 0 ) , B k .
V , C h p . 2, p. 67.
126
T h i s s w o r d is t h e r e f o r e accepted b y the p r i n c e f r o m
Church,
entirely.
although
it
still
does
not
itself
possess
the
the h a n d of
bloody
the
sword
F o r w h i l e it h a s t h i s s w o r d , y e t it is u s e d b y the h a n d o f the
p r i n c e , u p o n w h o m is c o n f e r r e d t h e p o w e r o f b o d i l y c o e r c i o n ^ r e s e r v i n g
spiritual authority
minister
for the papacy.
of the priests
and
one
T h e p r i n c e is t h e r e f o r e
who
exercises
those
a sort
features
of
of
the
s a c r e d d u t i e s t h a t s e e m a n i n d i g n i t y i n the h a n d s o f priests.25
T h e b x v e s t i t u r e C o n t r o v e r s y b r o u g h t t o t h e f o r e issues c o n c e r n i n g t h e
b r o a d e r r e l a t i o n s o f regnum
a n d sacerdotium,
w h i c h led to the formulation
of a r g u m e n t s such these. It w a s e v i d e n t l y the p a p a l polemicists w h o w o n
the ultimate w a r of w o r d s a n d their longevity was to be fotind i n the
w r i t i n g s of authors like Bernard of Clairvaux a n d John of Salisbury.
The Investiture Controversy ultimately was sparked by the strengthening
of the papacy u n d e r the O t t o m a n a n d Salian emperors.
T h e p a p a l see
h a d reached such depths of degradation t h r o u g h o u t the n i n t h and tenth
centuries that a m o v e m e n t for r e f o r m was inevitable a n d the monasteries
w e r e the o b v i o u s choice for the re-birth of ideas of r e n e w a l d u e to their
t e m p o r a l a n d spiritual distance f r o m the power-politics of Rome.
The
'Gregorian Reforms' w e r e genuinely m o t i v a t e d b y a desire to eradicate
clerical m a r r i a g e , s i m o n y a n d lay investiture, b u t t h e y all
broader
piriure.
They
epitomised what
Gregory
b e c o m e t h e w r o n g l y - o r d e r e d n a t u r e o f t h e respublica
saw
fitted
into a
as w h a t
Christiana,
had
What
G r e g o r y sought above all, w a s to r e t u r n Christian society to a balance
whereby good predominated over evil, G o d predominated over m a n and
t h e r e d e m p t i o n o f t h e e m p i r e ' s citizens w a s m a d e easier.
' J o h n o f S a l i s b u r y , PoUcraticus,
Bk. I V , C h p . 3, p. 32.
127
It was i n this manner that Gregory adhered to the n o t i o n of the t w o
p o w e r s as A u g u s t i n e a n d G e l a s i u s h a d c h a r a c t e r i s e d t h e m , as b o t h o f
importance, but ultimately unequal.
A u g u s t i n e is w e l l a w a r e t h a t t h e d u a l i s m w h i c h h e p o s t u l a t e s is n o t ,
a n d cannot be, a d u a l i s m of separate b u t equal partners.
may
call
Platonist
an
asymmetrical
metaphysics,
dualism.
When
I t is w h a t
Christian
as i t s o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y
does
in
belief
we
meets
Augustine's
m i n d , t h e r e s u l t is a n a c c o u n t o f t h e m a t e r i a l o r t e m p o r a l o r d e r as b e i n g
i n its v e r y n a t u r e p l a c e d b e n e a t h t h e spiritual.2^
T h e s a m e is r e n d e r e d t r u e o f G r e g o r y .
T h r o u g h his v e r y conception of
t h e t e m p o r a l , f a l l e n w o r l d , i t m u s t b e p l a c e d as s e c o n d a r y t o t h e s p i r i t u a l
realm.
The Investiture Controversy was primarily a d a s h originating f r o m
fifth
century ideas w h i c h w e r e p u t i n t o practice a n d d e v e l o p e d b y an eleventh
century papacy. The d o r t r i n e that was d e v e l o p e d contained a theocratic
n o t i o n of government a n d one that consequently, clearly exalted the
s p i r i t u a l o r d e r above the secular p o w e r s .
' D y s o n , Normative
Theories,
p p . 56-7.
128
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
All
taken
from
imperatorum
et
( H a ^
Monumenta
the
pontificum
Impensis
Germaniae
saeculis
XI
Bibliopolii
et
Historica,
XII
Hahniani,
Libelli
conscripti,
de
Tomus
1 8 9 1 , 1892,
Lite
1-111
1897)
and
r e f e r r e d t o i n t e x t as MGH
LdL f o l l o w e d b y t h e v o l u m e n u m b e r .
Dicta cuiusdam
papae et Regis ( К . F r a n k e , e d . ) . T o m u s I , p p . 4 5 4 -
de discordia
70.
Liber canonum
contra
Heinricum
quartum
(Thaner, ed.), T o m u s I, p p . 4 7 1 -
516.
Liber de unitate
ecclesiae conservando,
(w. Schwenkenbecher, ed.). T o m u s I I ,
p p . 173-284.
Tratatus
de investitura
Tratatus
Eboracenses
episcoporum
(E. B e r n h e i m , ed.), T o m u s I I , 495-504.
( H . B o e h m e r , ed.). T o m u s I I I , p p . 642-87.
A u g u s t o d u n e n s i s , H o n o r i i , Summa gloria,
( I . D i e t r i c h , e d . ) . T o m u s in,
pp.
63-80
B o n i z o n i s e p i s c o p i S u t r i n i , Liber ad amicum
(E. E K i m m l e r , ed.). T o m u s I,
p p . 568-620.
B r u n o n i ร e p i s c o p i S i g n i n i , Libellus
de symoniacos,
(E. Sackur, ed.). T o m u s
П, p p . 543-62.
C r a s s i , P e t r i , Defensio
Hetnrici
IV. Regis ( L . d e H e i n e m a n n , e d . ) . T o m u s I ,
p p . 432-53.
D a m i a n i , P e t r i , Liber gratissimus,
L( . d e H e i n e m a n n , e d . ) . T o m u s I , p p . 1 5 -
75.
D e u s d e d i t p r e s b i t e r i C a r d i n a l i s , Libellus
reliquos
schismaticos,
Gerhohi
praepositi
contra
invasores
et symoniacos
et
(E. S a c k u r , ed.). T o m u s I I , p p . 292-365.
Reichersbergensis,
Libelli
selecţi,
(E. Sackur,
ed.).
T o m u s Ш , p p . 131-525.
H u g o n i s m o n a c h i F l o r i a c e n s i s , Tractatus
digitate,
de regia protestate
et
sacerdotali
(E. S a c k u r , ed.)/ T o m u s I I , p p . 265-94.
129
H u m b e r t i C a r d i n a l i , Libri
ш adversus
simoniacos,
(F. T h a n e r , ed.). T o m u s I,
p p . 95-253.
spectantes,
(E.
Sackur, ed.). T o m u s I I , p p . 640-657.
L e o d i c e n s i u m epistola adversus
Paschalem
papam, ( E . S a c k u r , e d . ) , T o m u s п ,
449-64.
M a n i g o l d i , Ab gebehardum U ber, ( К . F r a n k e , e d . ) , T o m u s I , p p . 3 0 0 - 4 3 1 .
W e n r i c i , Scolastici
Trevirensİs
Epistola,
( К . F r a n k e , e d . ) , T o m u s I , p p . 280-99.
W i d o e p i s c o p u s F e r r a r i e n s i s , De sciamate
Hildebrandi,
(R. W i l m a n s , e d . ) ,
T o m u s Լ p p . 529-67.
130
Articles:
B a r t o n , S i m o n , ' C h a p t e r 6: S p a i n i n t h e E l e v e n t h C e n t u r y ' , The
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol.
IV
c. 1024
-
с. 1198,
Part
II,
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S n u t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
New
D.
E.
University
Press, 2004), p p . 154-190.
B l u m e n t h a l , U t a - R e n a t e , ' C h a p t e r 2: T h e P a p a c y , 1 0 3 4 - 1 1 2 2 ' , The
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol.
IV
c. 1024
-
с. 1198,
Part
II,
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
New
D.
E.
University-
P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) , p p . 8-37.
B o u c h a r d , С . В,, ' C h a p t e r 5: T h e K i n g d o m o f t h e F r a n k s t o 1 1 0 8 ' , The New
Cambridge
Histoญ
Medieval
Vol.
IV
c. 1024
-
с. 1198,
Part
II,
D.
E.
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2004), p p . 120-153.
B r o o k e , z. N.,
' P o p e G r e g o r y vn's
C o n q u e r o r ' , English
Historical
D e m a n d for Fealty f r o m W i l l i a m the
Review,
V o l . X X V I , 1 9 1 1 , p p . 225-38
C a n e g e m , R. V a n , ' G o v e r n m e n t , L a w a n d S o c i e t y ' , The Cambridge
of Medieval
Political
c. 350 - с. น50,
Thought
History
J.H. B u r n s (ed.), ( C a m b r i d g e ,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 174-210.
Canning,
J.
P.,
Cambridge
History
'Introdurtion:
of Medieval
Politics,
Political
bistitutions
Thought
and
The
Ideas',
c. 350 ― с. 1450, J . H . B u r n s
(ed.), ( C a m b r i d g e , L a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 341-66.
C h a d w i c k , Н . , ' C h r i s t i a n D o r t r i n e ' , The Cambridge
Political
Thought
History
of
Medieval
c. 350 - с. 1450, J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 11-20.
Constable,
Cambridge
Giles,
Medieval
'Chapter
History
10:
Religious
The
Communities',
New
Vol. IV c. 1024 - с. 1198, Part I, D . E. L u s c o m b e
a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) ,
p p . 335-367
C o w d r e y , H . E. J. ' C h a p t e r 8: T h e S t r u c t u r e o f t h e C h u r c h , 1 0 2 4 - 1 0 7 3 , The
New
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol.
IV
c. 1024 - с. 1198,
Part
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
Լ
D.
E.
University
Press, 2004), p p . 229-267.
Hamilton,
Cambridge
Bernard,
Medieval
'Chapter
Histoญ
13: R e l i g i o n
and
the
Laity',
The
New
Vol. IV c. 1024 - с. 1198, Part Լ D . E. L u s c o m b e
a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) ,
p p . 499-533.
131
K i n g , P. D . , ' T h e B a r b a r i a n K i n g d o m s ' , The Cambridge
Political
Thought
History
of
Medieval
c. 3 5 0 ֊ c. 1 4 5 0 , J - H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 123-53.
L u s c o m b e , D . E. a n d R i l e y - S m i t h , J., ' C h a p t e r 1 : I n t r o d u r t i o n ' , The New
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol. IV c. 1024 - с. 1198, Part Լ D E. L u s c o m b e
a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) ,
p p . 1-10.
L u s c o m b e , D . E. a n d R i l e y - S m i t h , J . , ' C h a p t e r 1 : I n t r o d u c t i o n ' , The New
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol.
IV
с. 1024 -
с. 1198,
Part
II,
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
D.
E.
University
P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) , p p . 1-7.
L u s c o m b e , D . R, ' I n t r o d u c t i o n : T h e F o r m a t i o n o f P o l i t i c a l T h o u g h t i n t h e
W e s t ' , The Cambridge
History
of Medieval
Political
Thought
c. 350 - c.
น50,
J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 157֊
73.
L u s c o m b e , D . E. a n d E v a n s , G . R., ' T h e T w e l f t h - C e n t u r y
The Cambridge
History
of Medieval
Political
Thought
Renaissance',
c. 350 ― с. 1450, J . H .
B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( L, a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 8 ) , p p . 3 0 6 - 3 8 .
M a r k u s , R. Α . , ' T h e W e s t ' , The Cambridge
Thought
c. 350 -
с. 1450,
J.H. Burns
History
of Medieval
(ed.), ( C a m b r i d g e ,
Political
Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 83-91.
M a r k u s , R. Α . , ' T h e L a t i n F a t h e r s ' , The Cambridge
Political
Thought
History
of
Medieval
c. 350 - с. 1450, J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 92-122.
M c K i t t e r i c k , R o s a m o n d , ' C h a p t e r 5 : T h e C h u r c h ' , 'The New
Medieval
History,
Volume
ш
с. 900 -
с. 1024,
(Cambridge,
Cambridge
Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1999), p p . 130-62.
N e l s o n , J a n e t , ' K i n g s h i p a n d E m p i r e ' , The Cambridge
Political
Thought
c. 350-c.
History
1450, J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , (Cambridge,
of
Medieval
Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 211-51.
P r o c o p e , J., ' G r e e k a n d R o m a n P o l i t i c a l T h e o r y ' , The Cambridge
Medieval
Political
Thought
History
of
c. 350 - с. 1450, J . H . B u m s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e ,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 21-36.
R o b i n s o n , I. ร . , ' T h e D i s s e m i n a t i o n o f t h e L e t t e r s o f P o p e G r e g o r y V I I /
Journal
of Ecclesiastical
Histori/
3 4 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , p p . 175-93.
132
R o b i n s o n , I . ร . , ' C h u r c h a n d P a p a c y ' , The Cambridge
Political
Thought
History
of
Medieval
c. 350 - с. 1450, J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 252-305.
R o b i n s o n , I . ร . , ' C h a p t e r 9: R e f o r m a n d t h e C h u r c h , 1 0 7 3 - 1 1 2 2 , The
Cambridge
Medieval
History
New
Vol. IV c. 1024 - с. 1198, Part I, D . E. L u s c o m b e
a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 4 ) ,
p p . 268-334.
R o b i n s o n , I. ร., ' C h a p t e r 1 1 : T h e I n s t i t u t i o n s o f t h e C h u r c h , 1073-1216',
The New
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol. IV c. 1024 ― с. 1198, Part I, D . E.
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
University
Press, 2004), pp.368-460.
R o b i n s o n , I . ร . , ' C h a p t e r 13: T h e P a p a c y , 1 1 2 2 - 1 1 9 8 ' , The New
Medieval
History
Cambridge
Vol. IV c. 1024 - с. 1198, Part II, D . E. L u s c o m b e a n d J.
R i l e y - S m i t h (eds.) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2004), p p .
317-83.
Downside
Staqวoole, D o m Alberic, ' H i l d e b r a n d , C l u n y a n d the Papacy I',
Review,
V o l . 8 1 ( n o . 2 6 3 ) , 1963, p p . 1 4 2 - 6 1 .
S m i t h , L u c y M . , ' C l u n y a n d G r e g o r y V I I ' , English
Historical
Review,
Vol.
X X V I , 1 9 1 1 , p p . 20-33
S t e i n , P. G . , ' R o m a n L a w ' , The Cambridge
Thought
c. 350
-
с. 1450,
J.H. Burns
History
of Medieval
(ed.), ( C a m b r i d g e ,
Political
Cambridge
U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 37-47.
Teuniร,
Henk,
'Negotiating
Central M i d d l e
Medieval
Ages: A
Secular
and
Ecclesiastical
Historiographical
Research 6: Negotiating
Power
bitroduction'.
Secular and Ecclesiastical
in
Power, p p . 1-16
U l l m a n n , W a l t e r , ' L e o I a n d t h e T h e m e o f P a p a l P r i m a c y ' , The Journal
Theological
Studies,
the
International
of
V o l . X I , 1960 ( O x f o r d , C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ) , p p . 2 5 - 5 1 .
V o l l r a t h , H a n n a , ' C h a p t e r 3: T h e W e s t e r n E m p i r e u n d e r t h e S a l i a n s ' , The
New
Cambridge
Medieval
History
Vol. IV
c. W2A - с. 1198, Part
L u s c o m b e a n d J. R i l e y - S m i t h ( e d s . ) ( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e
II,
D . E.
University
Press, 2004), p p . 38-71.
W a t t , J. Α . , ' S p i r i t u a l a n d T e m p o r a l P o w e r s ' , The Cambridge
Medieval
Political
Thought
History
of
c. 350 ֊ c. 1450, J . H . B u r n s ( e d . ) , ( C a m b r i d g e ,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1988), p p . 3 6 7 ^ 2 3 .
133
W o l l a s c h , J o a c h i m , ' C h a p t e r 6: M o n a s t i c i s m : T h e F i r s t W a v e o f R e f o r m ' ,
'The
New
Cambridge
Medieval
History,
Volume
III
c.
900
―
с.
1024,
( C a m b r i d g e , C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 9 9 ) , p p . 163-85.
134
Books:
A r q u i l l è r e , Н . - Х . , L'Augustinisme
Théories Politiques
Politique:
du Moyen-Age
Essai sur la formation
dest
( P a r i s , L i b r a i r i e P h i l o s o p h i q u e J. V r i n ,
1972)
A u g u s t i n e , De civitas
Dei,
R. w .
D y s o n (ed. a n d trans.), ( C a m b r i d g e ,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1998)
B l u m , O w e n J. ( t r a n s . ) . The Fathers
The Letters
of Peter
Damian,
of the Church:
Volumes
Medieval
Continuation:
1-3, ( T h e C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y
of
A m e r i c a Press, W a s h i n g t o n D.C., 1989,1990,1992)
B l u m e n t h a l , U t a - R e n a t e , The Investiture
from
the
Ninth
to
the
Twelflh
Controversy:
Century,
Church
(Philadelphia,
and
Monarchy
University
of
P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s , 1988)
Bredero,
Adriaan
H.,
(Edinburgh, T & T Clar^
Bernard
of
Clairvaux:
between
cult
and
history,
1996)
C a n n i n g , J o s e p h , A History
of Medieval
Political
Thought
300-1450
(L o n d o n ,
R o u t l e d g e , 1996)
C a r i y l e , R. พ . a n d Α . J., A History
of Mediaeval
Political
Thought
in the
West,
V o l u m e s I - V , ( E d i n b u r g h , B l a c k w o o d , 1909-36)
C h a d w i c k , H e n r y , The Early
Cowdrey,
H.
E. J,, The
Church,
Cluniacร
( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , P e n g u i n , 1967)
and
the
Gregorian
Reform,
(Oxford,
C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1970)
C o w d r e y , H . E. J. ( e d . a n d t r a n s . ) . The E p i s t o l a e V a g a n t e s of Pope
Gregory
VII, ( C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , O x f o r d , 1972)
C o w d r e y , H . E. J., Pope Gregory
VII 1073-1085,
( C l a r e n d o n Press, O x f o r d ,
1998)
C o w d r e y , H . E. J. ( e d . a n d t r a n s . ) . The Register
of Pope Gregory
VII
1073-
1085, ( O x f o r d , O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 2 0 0 2 )
D o u g l a s , D a v i d c , William
the Conqueror,
D u f f y , E a m o n , Saints
Sinners:
and
( L o n d o n , E y r e M e t h u e n , 1964)
A History
of the Popes, ( 2 n d E d i t i o n ,
L o n d o n , Y a l e N o t a Bene, 2001)
D v o r n i k , F r a n c i s , Early
Christian
and Byzantine
Political
Philosophy,
Volume
II ( T r u s t e e s f o r H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y , W a s h i n g t o n D . C . , 1966)
135
D y s o n , R. พ . , Normative
Thinkers,
Theories of Society and Government
in Five
Medieval
(The E d w i n M e l l e n Press, L e w i s t o n , Q u e e n s t o n a n d L a m p e t e r ,
2003)
E l l i o t t B i n n ร , L., The History
of the Decline
and Fall of the Medieval
Papacy,
( M e t h u e n & C o . L t d . , L o n d o n , 1934)
Hunt,
Cluny
Noreen,
Under
St
Hugh
1049-1109,
(Edward
Arnold
( P u b l i s h e r s ) , L o n d o n , 1967)
J a m e s , B r u n o S c o t t ( t r a n s . ) . The Letters
of St Bernard
of Clairvaux,
(Stroud,
S u t t o n , 1998)
J o h n o f Salisbury, Policraticus,
(ed. and trans, c. J. N e d e r m a n ) , ( C a m b r i d g e ,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1990)
K a n t o r o w i c z , E r n s t Η · , The King's
Theology,
Two
Bo dies: A Study
in Medieval
o
P litical
( P r i n c e t o n , P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957)
K e l l y , J. N . D . , The Oxfo rd
Dicti
o nary o f Po pes ( C a m b r i d g e ,
Ca m b r i d g e
U n i v e r s i t y Press)
Knowles,
Dom
Da v i d ,
The
Mo nastic
Order
in
England,
(a
C mbridge,
C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1940)
L a w r e n c e , c.
H . , Medieval
Europe in the Middle
M
o nasticism;
o
F rms o f religio us
life in
Western
Ages, ( L o n g m a n G r o u p L t d , L o n d o n , 1984)
L e w i s , E w a r t , Medieval
o
P litical
Ideas, T w o V o l u m e s ( N e w Y o r k , C o o p e r
S q u a r e P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1974)
Loyn,
H.
R.,
The
No rman
o
C nquest,
(London,
Hutchinson
&
Co.
( P u b l i s h e r s ) L t d , 1982)
M a t h e พ , A . H . , The Life and Times of Hildebrand:
Pope Gregory
VII,
(London,
F r a n c i s G r i f f i t h s , 1910)
M c l l w a i n , c . H . , The Growth
to the End of the Middle
of Political
Thought
in the West: From the Greeks
Ages, ( N e w Y o r k , T h e M a c m i l l a n C o m p a n y , 1932)
M o m m s e n , T h e o d o r E. a n d M o r r i s o n , K a r l R , Imperial
the Eleventh
Century,
Lives and Letters of
( N e w Y o r k a n d L o n d o n , C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y Press,
1962)
136
M o r r i s , C o l i n , The Papal Monarchy:
The Western
Church
from
1050 to
1250,
( C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , O x f o r d , 1989)
M o r r i s o n , C l i n t o n , The Powers That Be: Earthly
in Romans
and Demonic
Powers
13.1-7, ( S C M P r e s s L t d , L o n d o n , 1960)
R o b i n s o n , I. s.. Authority
Polemical
Rulers
Literature
and
Resistance
of the Late Eleventh
in
the Investiture
Century,
Contest:
(Manchester
The
University
P r e s s , M a n c h e s t e r , 1978)
R o b i n s o n , I . ร . , The Papacy 1073-1198:
Continuity
and
Innovation,
( C a m b r i d g e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , C a m b r i d g e , 1990)
R o b i n s o n , I . ร . , Henry
S o u t h e r n , R. พ . ,
IV of Germany,
Western
Society
1056-1106,
and
( C a m b r i d g e , C U P , 1999)
the Church
in
the Middle
Ages,
( L o n d o n , P e n g u i n , 1970)
Tellenbach, G.,
Investiture
Church,
Contest,
State
and
Christian
Society
at
the
time
of
the
R. F. B e n n e t t , ( t r a n s . ) , ( B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , O x f o r d , 1970)
T i e r n e y , B r i a n , The Crisis
of Church
and State
1050-1300,
(University
of
T o r o n t o P r e s s , T o r o n t o a n d L o n d o n , 1988)
U l l m a n n , W a l t e r , Medieval
Political
Thought,
(Harmondsworth, Penguin,
1975)
Ullmann, Walter,
The Growth
of Papal
Government
in
the Middle
Ages,
( L o n d o n , M e t h u e n , 1955)
W h i t n e y , J. P., Hildebrandine
Essays, ( C a m b r i d g e , C U P , 1932)
137