The Final Exposition of the Hierocratic Theme
IT cannot reasonably be maintained that the antagonists of the hierocratic theme had presented unanswerable theoretical arguments. The anti-hierocratic arguments especially when fortified by the Aristotelian armoury, no doubt made an impression in later times, but, as the facts proved, made virtually none at the turn of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. One might indeed wonder whether, in the circumstances, there was an effective reply to hierocratic arguments.
When society was conceived to be Christian, the argument that it was to be governed by those functionally qualified, namely those who constitute the "sors Domini," could hardly be countermanded: government consists of giving orders, issuing the law, making decisions, in short directing a given entity. The path to be taken by that entity, the corpus of the congregatio fidelium was determined by its substance, that is, the Christian faith. This alone was the exclusive criterion by which the societas christiana was to be governed and directed. From the governmental point of view the tenet of the primacy of the Roman Church in matters of religion -- the primatus magisterii -- included the primatus jurisdictionis. This side of the primatial power is of necessity complementary to the magisterial primacy; or seen from a different angle, the jurisdictional primacy makes real the magisterial one. If we wish to employ more familiar terminology, the monarchic principle -- the principatus -- was the political expression of the jurisdictional primacy. 1 The Pope as the monarch directs and governs Christendom conceived as constituting a corporate and organic and juristic entity. In the execution of this government the Papal monarch used certain agencies, which functioned in an auxiliary capacity. In course of time this will lead to the theory of the so-called potestas indirecta, but the
1. Matt. xvi. 18 f.; John xxi. 16 f. The "Pasce oves meas" was sometimes also connected with Ez. xxxiv. 16 ("Ego pascam oves meas") and 17 ("Ego judico inter pecus et pecus, arietem et hircorum"), hence the interpretation that "pascere" means in fact judgment or jurisdiction.
essential hierocratic point is that the Pope has the right to give orders to be executed, always provided that there is a corporate and juristic congregatio fidelium. 1 He, and through him the sacerdotium, are the only organs functionally qualified to govern this corporate body politic.
To these fundamental axioms of the hierocratic theme its opponents did not address themselves, with the exception of the author of the York Tracts. They failed to grasp the teleological principle which was to be put into operation. Considering the atmosphere of the time, the hierocratic theme was virtually unassailable, precisely because of the consistency of its structure and the loftiness of its underlying premisses. The writings of some twelfth-century authors allow us to obtain a good insight into the maturest manifestations of the hierocratic point of view. The selection of the literary products of Honorius of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, John of Salisbury and Hugh of St Victor, is justified by several considerations: they set forth the hierocratic scheme in its fully developed form; their writings were influential; they were men of affairs; they approached the theme from different angles. 2
Hic libellus ad honorem veri regis et sacerdotis, Iesu Christi edatur. Et quia de regno et sacerdotio eius est materia, sit nomen eius Summa Gloria. 3
These opening words of Honorius's work 4 set the tone and tenor of his thesis. The principle of unity is axiomatic for Honorius. This unitary principle shows itself in his main themes, namely (1) that the universal Church, or the "populus christianus" is one unit and consists of the sacerdotium and the regnum; 5 (2) that, by virtue of its being the corporate congregation of the faithful, this body must be ruled by
1. Whether the Pope has potestas directa or indirecta is irrelevant. What is relevant from the hierocratic point of view is that he has potestas, and this follows from his monarchic position. 2. We do not adhere to the strict chronological order according to which Honorius should be followed by Hugh of St Victor, Bernard and John of Salisbury. But from the point of view of presenting their themes it seemed to us advisable to disregard strict chronology: and in any case the main works of the three last authors are little more than twenty years apart, so that they all can be counted as contemporaries.
3. Summa Gloria, ed. MGH. LdL., iii. 63 ff.
4. It has been shown that Honorius came from St Augustine, Canterbury, and not from Autun or Augsburg, see R. Bauerreiss, "Zur Herkunft des Honorius Augustodunensis" in Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktinerordens, liii ( 1935), pp. 24-36. 5. See especially the preface of his work speaking of the machina universitatis.
the sacerdotium and that, consequently, the king functions in the capacity of an "adjutor," a lieutenant, who is appointed by the "caput sacerdotii"; 1 (3) that the Pope combines sacerdotal and regal powers and therefore is authorized to appoint the king. What gives the work a particular attraction is the tidy notional differentiation between the sacerdotium and the ecclesia. 2
His argumentation is biblical-historical: at the same time it projects the teleological point of view into history. The principle of unity, the principle, that is, that there is but one society, manifests itself in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. In the Old Testament the "populus Dei" pre-figures the "ecclesia universalis" of the New Testament. Both societies are composed of the two integral sections, the "clerus" and the "populus." Ideologically, Adam was the "figura Christi," and symbolized the principle of unity, whence sacerdotium and regnum take their origin. 3 When Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, he did not appoint kings to govern them, but priests 4 who ruled the "populus Dei" until by God's order, Samuel, as a "propheta et sacerdos" anointed Saul as king who was thus instituted by a priest. 5
The "ecclesia Dei" chronologically and ideologically followed the
1. This is somewhat reminiscent of Ivo of Chartres's designation of the king ( Henry I) as a "protector, non possessor"; cf. Ep. cxvi to Henry I (PL. clxii. 125): "Regnum terrenum coelesti regno, quod ecclesiae commissum est, subditum esse semper cogitatis; sicut enim sensus animalis subditus debet esse rationi, ita potestas terrena subdita esse debet ecclesiastico regimini; et quantum valet corpus nisi regatur ab anima, tantum valet terrena potestas, nisi informetur et regatur ecclesiastica disciplina . . . hoc cogitando servum servorum Dei vos esse intelligite, non dominum; protectorem, non possessorem." About the different interpretations of the idea of protection cf. supra pp. 69 ff., 230, 295.
2. Cf. his terminology: "sacerdotium populi Dei"; "sacerdotium ecclesiae"; "princeps sacerdotum ecclesiae"; and so forth.
3. Abel: sacerdotium, and Cain: regnum. The same holds true of Noah, also "figura Christi" and his two sons pre-portrayed the sacerdotium ( Shem) and the regnum ( Japheth), p. 67: "Romanum quippe regnum a Jafeth descendens quamquam in toto orbe dilatatum, tamen habitat in tabernaculis Sem, in ecclesiis sacerdotum." Honorius also refers to the saying of the Lord to Rebecca, Isaac's wife ( Gen. xxv. 23) that there are two nations in her womb and that two manner of people will be born: the one will be stronger than the other and the elder shall serve the younger. Naturally, Esau typified the king and the lay population, Honorius writes: "Quis demens contraibit divinae auctoritati? En, aperta voce praecipitur numerositati laicorum, ut serviat devotioni clericorum," cap. 8, p. 69, lines 25-6.
4. "Hic (scil. Moses) populum Dei de Egypto educens legem et jura statuit et ad hunc gubernandum non regem, sed sacerdotium constituit," cap. 10, p. 69. lines 21-2.
5. Cap. 11, p. 69 : "Samuel propheta et sacerdos jussu divino unxit eis regem regnique mox conscripsit legem." Cf. I Kgs. x. 25.
"populus Dei." Christ, "verus rex et sacerdos secundum ordinem Melchisedek" 1 had given His Church its laws and constitution -"ecclesiae leges et jura statuit" -- but did not consider that the government of the Church necessitated the institution of a king. 2 There is a parallelism between between the Old and the New Testaments: the time from the Egyptian exodus down to Samuel is paralleled by the time from the advent of Christ down to Silvester I. 3 The Emperor Constantine abdicated as a result of his conversion and placed the crown upon Silvester's head, stipulating at the same time that no one should hold the Roman Empire without the pontiff's consent. 4
Hoc privilegium Silvester a Constantino accepit, hoc successoribus reliquit.
Through the constitutional grant of Constantine, Silvester was entitled to dispose of the Roman empire.
Moreover, Silvester realized, Honorius argued, that he could not govern with the "sword of God" alone, since repressive and coercive measures would be called to quell rebellion and to defend the universal Church against internal and external enemies. In other words, Silvester realized that a specific organ was necessary, if the whole Christian body was to be effectively governed. Therefore, Honorius goes on to say, Silvester appointed the emperor an "adjutor" for the purpose of governing the universal Church. And he appointed him thus by conceding to Constantine the sword for the purpose of physical suppression of evil and by conferring on him the imperial crown. 5 The metamorphosis which the Donation of Constantine underwent at the hands of Honorius, need not detain us. It suffices to observe that the transaction appeared now entirely in the light of functionalist and teleological speculations -- the function of the emperor, according to Honorius's
1. Cap. 15, p. 71, line 4.
2. "Ad hanc (scil. ecclesiam) gubernandam non regnum, sed sacerdotium instituit, in quo Petrum apostolum praefecit, cui dixit 'Tu es Petrus . . .'"
3. "Sicut ergo a tempore Moysi usque ad Samuelem sacerdotes populo Dei praefuerunt, ita a tempore Christi usque ad Silvestrum soli sacerdotes ecclesiam rexerunt," ibid., lines 11 ff.
4. Cap. 15, p. 71, line 4: "Qui Constantinus Romano pontifici coronam regni imposuit, et ut nullus deinceps Romanum imperium absque consensu apostolici subiret, imperiali auctoritate censuit."
5. "Cumque sacerdotii cura et regni summa in Silvestri arbitrio penderet, vir Deo plenius intelligens rebelles sacerdotibus non posse gladio verbi Dei, sed gladio materiali coerceri, eundem Constantinum ascivit sibi in agriculturam Dei adjutorem ac contra paganos, Judaeos, haereticos ecclesiae defensorem. Cui etiam concessit gladium ad vindictam malefactorum, coronam quoque regni imposuit ad laudem bonorum."
interpretation of the Donation, was that of an "adjutor" to the Pope, because the Pope needed an agency whose sole purpose and raison d'être was the eradication of evil and the quelling of rebellions. In brief, the Pauline-Isidorian idea of kingship is clad in the garb of the Donation. 1
Consequently, the papal auctoritas appears in a threefold capacity, namely, as a "dominica auctoritas," as an "apostolica auctoritas" and lastly as an "imperialis auctoritas." It is by virtue of the latter that the Roman Church elects and establishes the emperor. 2 Or expressed in simpler terms:
Imperator Romanus debet ab apostolico eligi. 3 The same holds true of the other kings: according to Honorius, the king should be elected by the priests and the people should give their consent to the priestly election. 4 That two swords were necessary for the government of the universal Church, Christ Himself declared; and the one, the physical sword, wielded for the suppression of evil, is handed over by the Pope. 5
Sacerdotium jure regnum constituit. 6
The universitas fidelium is divided into two component parts, clergy and people: the accent lies on the "fidelium"; it is they who form that "universitas" and hence it is the spiritual element which is constitutive of this body. Faith alone has brought this body into existence, and faith alone is the criterion by which this body is ruled. The function
1. It is well known that in the thirteenth century, after the devaluation of the Donation by Innocent III, the transaction was considered a mere restitution of rights which belonged to the Pope in any case. The Donation then had merely a declaratory character. This is only a logical extension of the functionalistteleological speculation.
2. C. 19, p. 72, lines 15 ff.: "Apostolicus a Romanis cardinalibus est eligendus consensu episcoporum et totius urbis cleri et populi acclamatione in caput ecclesiae constituendus. Ad huius providentiam dominica auctoritate pertinet cura universalis ecclesiae, scilicet totius populi et cleri, apostolica auctoritate sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, imperiali auctoritate Romani regni electio vel constitutio."
3. C. 21, p. 73, line 1.
4. C. 22, p. 73, lines 14-15: "Rex a Christi sacerdotibus, qui vere ecclesiae principes sunt, est constituendus; consensus tantum laicorum requirendus."
5. C. 22, p. 73, line 16; c. 26, p. 75, lines 15-16: "Ad regimen ecclesiae in praesenti vita duos gladios necessarios praemonstravit (scil. Dominus)."
6. There may be an echo of Honorius's view in Herbert of Bosham's biography of Thomas Becket: clerics, he says, "terrenis regibus non subsunt, sed praesunt, utpote qui reges constituunt, a quo et rex militiae cingulum et gladii materialis accipit potestatem," Materials . . . Thomas Becket, Rolls Series, iii. 268.
which an individual member fulfils in society depends upon the character of society. This one, being a body composed of all the believers in Christ, is to be ruled by those who are functionally qualified to rule it, namely the "sacerdotes," hence "jure regnum sacerdotio subjacebit," because the "sacerdotes" alone are entitled to direct the path of the universitas fidelium. It is therefore perfectly logical from this point of view for Honorius to say: "Equidem quilibet sacerdos, licet ultimi gradus in sacro ordine, dignior est quovis rege." 1 And the further consequence is equally conclusive: "Justissime, rex qui utique de numero laicorum est, subjectus erit apostolico." 2 From the point of view of contemporary society, his assertion that the priests are the princes of the Church is only an application of the functionalist idea. 3
In our survey of Humbert's and Gregory VII's thoughts we noted the principle of functional order. Its essence is that each member of society should fulfil the functions which are allotted to him; or negatively expressed, no one should intervene in the sphere of competency which is not assigned to him: this intervention would be an interference. Within the sacerdotium, for instance, no bishop should arrogate to himself powers and functions which are assigned to the archdeacon; no metropolitan should usurp functions allotted to a bishop; and so on. If this principle of functional order is disregarded, the result is confusion, and government would eventually become impossible.
If we keep this principle in mind, and if we furthermore recall the substance of contemporary society and the manner and purpose of making a king (or an emperor), it will be easier to understand its application by Honorius. Within the sphere of functions assigned to the king, functions, that is to say, for which he has been specifically created, he must be obeyed: so long as he fulfils this function allotted to him, he is a legitimate ruler. His power in the allotted sphere is a trust, a beneficium, conferred in the last resort by the Pope. The direction and orientation of the universitas fidelium lies in the hands of the qualified members of the fideles. But this does not mean that they them-
1. Cap. 9, p. 69 ; cap. 23, p. 73. Cf. Gregory VII supra p. 286.
2. Cap. 8, p. 68.
3. Cf. also cap. 1, pp. 64 - 5 : "Cum universitas fidelium in clerum et populum distribuatur, et clerus quidem speculative, populus autem negotiative vitae ascribatur, et saepe haec pars spiritualis, haec vero saecularis nominatur, et ista sacerdotali, illa autem regali virga gubernetur, solet plerumque apud plerosque queri, utrum sacerdotium regno, an regnum sacerdotio jure debeat in dignitate praeferri. Ad quod quidem breviter possem respondere, quod sicut spiritualis praefertur saeculari, vel clerus praecellit populum ordine, sic sacerdotium transcenderet regnum dignitate."
selves should undertake the specific functions of a king. For he was created to deal with specific matters essential to the wellbeing of the universitas fidelium, namely with the "saecularia"; if therefore the priests were to do what he has been appointed to do, what in actual fact is his raison d'être, they would upset the principle of functional order. Differently expressed: the "What is to be done" must lie in the hands of the sacerdotium; the "How it is to be done," the execution of the "What," lies in the hands of the regnum, namely the taking of coercive and repressive measures against rebels, evildoers, pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics, apostates and so forth. 1 As long therefore as the king functions as a protector and defender of the universitas fidelium, he must be obeyed. And he functions as a protector and defender if he wields the sword for the purposes for which it was first given to him by Pope Silvester I. Should the king transgress the functions assigned to him, should he himself become a heretic or a schismatic, or a rebel against the Roman Church -- "quam Rex regum et Dominus dominantium caput ecclesiae esse voluit" -- he is then no longer an "imperator, sed tyrannus." 2 The essential point is that the auctoritas of government rests securely with the "caput ecclesiae," the Pope. In the principle of functional order -- always keeping the premisses in mind, namely the Pope as the emperor-making agency -certain well-known biblical texts can find their concrete manifestations 3 and the secular power within the Church can be allotted an honourable place.
1. Cf. cap. 9, p. 69 ; cap. 21, p. 73 ; also cap. 11, p. 69 and cap. 24, p. 74. The essence of this principle is the old Pauline-Isidorian view on the raison d'être of the secular ruler who functions as an auxiliary organ. It is the principle which makes the papal orders to secular rulers understandable, particularly papal orders concerning confiscation of property, expulsion of heretics, occupation and annexation of countries, war against allies of infidels and against infidels themselves, and so forth. Cf. IV Lateranum, cap. iii; Innocent III in Reg. ii. 270 and 271; Reg. iii. 3 (to the king of Hungary); Reg. vii. 79 and ix. 28 (to the king of France); x. 141 (to Sicily) and in many other places. Cf. also Lucius III's Ad abolendam (Extra: V. vii. 9). As regards the latter aspects see the official documents assembled by G. B. Pallieri and G. Vismara, Acta pontificia juris gentium, Milan, 1946, pp. 249 ff., 259 ff., 534 ff., 571 ff., 581 ff., all in the thirteenth century.
2. "Hic inquam talis patienter quidem est tolerandus, sed in communione per omnia declinandus, quia non est imperator, sed est tyrannus. Huiusmodi imperium Martinus renuit dicens 'Christi miles sum, pugnare mihi non licet.'" The "patienter tolerandus" means, as the context makes clear, that no active steps should be taken against the tyrant, such as regicide.
3. In cap. 24, for instance, he quotes "Render unto Caesar . . ." ( Matt. xxii. 21) or "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king as supreme . . ." (I Pet. ii. 13-14) or "Fear God, honour the king" (ibid., 17). Our author comments: "In quibus verbis considerandum est,
John of Salisbury presents the hierocratic theme with all the accomplished elegance and facility of exposition which is characteristic of his writings. Unlike his compatriot, Honorius of Canterbury, John does not need to resort to the Donation of Constantine to support his ideology. Soaked as he was in the ancient Roman cultural elements he operates with the concept of the all-embracing, comprehensive Respublica consisting of all the Christians acknowledging the primacy of the Church of Rome. This Respublica is not an ideal State, but a living organism: it is the orbis Latinus, the congregation of the faithful in its corporate nature. It is axiomatic for John that the human organism is guided, orientated and directed by the soul. 1 And just as this is the function of the soul in the individual human body, so it is the function of the spirit to move the inert body politic. The spirit, that is the Christian faith, is the agency 2 which moves the universal Christian body:
Sicut anima totius corporis habet principatum, ita et hi, quos ille (Plutarchus) religionis praefectos vocat, toti corpori praesunt. 3 The priests function as the transmitters of the divine mandates as expounded by the head of the Roman Church. The priests themselves therefore "vicem animae in corpore reipublicae obtinent." 4 John explains both the teleological and the functionalist tenets effortlessly setting out as he does from the definition that the Respublica is an "animate corpus":
Corpus quoddam, quod divini muneris beneficio animatur. 5 The body receives its life -- "animatur" -- through the infusion of the Christian faith: this body becomes then meaningful, because purpose-
quod reges et judicies ob solam vindictam malorum constituuntur, qui laudem ferre bonis dicuntur."
1. Policraticus, iii. 1: "Deus animam perfecte viventem totam occupat, totam possidet, regnat et vivit in tota."
2. Metalogicon, iv. 13: "Fides autem, tam in humanis quam in divinis rebus, maxime necessaria est: cum nec contractus sine ea celebrari inter homines possent, ut aliqua exerceri commercia, quinimo inter homines quoque meritorum praemiorumque nequit esse commercium, fide substracta."
3. Policraticus, v. 2. On this source cf. C.C.J. Webb, John of Salisbury, London, 1932, p. 39; idem, in the Introduction to the edition; and J. Dickinson, The Statesman's book of John of Salisbury, Introduct.
4. Policr., loc. cit.
5. Policr., loc. cit.
ful, and thereby fulfils the divine purpose of creation. And since the Christian faith is the leaven of society, the vital role which John allots to the priests is understandable.
The basic feature of this corporate body of Christians is its unity: the unitary principle being represented in the Pope, the "vicarius crucifixi." 1 The Pope alone is set by the Lord over nations and kingdoms -- "a domino constitutus super gentes et regna" 2 -- and is therefore the Ruler of the whole Christian body. 3 Consequently, he is the judge of all the faithful -- "fidelium omnium judex est a Domino constitutus," 4 and from sacerdotal judgment neither cause nor person is exempted. 5 This unity is achieved by unconditional obedience to the Roman Church, the epitome of the universal Church, or as he terms it, the "praesidium" of all the faithful. 6 Disobedience is schism and heresy, precisely the offence committed by Frederick I. 7 John realizes what the aims of Frederick are -- "scio quod Teutonicus moliatur" -namely the subjection of the "world" to imperial rule: in the scheme devised by Frederick the Pope would have to play the role which by right was the emperor's. 8 The vehement denunciation by John of Frederick's aims is understandable, realizing as he did that they violated one of his basic axioms, namely the functionalist and unitary
1. Ep. cxcviii (PL. cxcix. 217); cf. also Ep. cccvi, PL. cit., col. 362. A new edition of John's letters is in preparation; for the dates of his letters cf., in the meantime, R. L. Poole, "The early correspondence of John of Salisbury" in Proc. Brit. Acad., xi ( 1924-25), pp. 27-53; and H. G. Richardson, under the same title in EHR. liv ( 1939), pp. 471-3.
2. Ep. ccxviii, col. 242: Jer. i. 10.
3. Ep. lxxxiii, col. 70: "ecclesiam regit, corrigit, et dirigit, universam."
4. Ep. cxciii, col. 210.
5. Ep. cxciii, col. 210: "Ecce quod a judicio sacerdotum nec causam excipit, nec personam, licet alias per seipsos, alias per ministros vicarios ecclesiae decidant sacerdotes. Nonne in persona sacerdotum, sicut ecclesiae doctores fideliter tradunt, Jeremiae dictum est: 'Ecce constitui te hodie super gentes et regna.'" About the application of this principle of functional order by Grosseteste see infra 424 n. 6; cf. also Innocent III infra 445 n.3.
6. Ep. cxxv, col. 105.
7. Who was an equal of Frederick, John exclaims, having turned "ex catholico principe schismaticus et haereticus? Non dico, quod in articulis fidei, ne recte credatur, inducat errorem, sed quia in sinceritate ecclesiastici ordinis procedere non sinat veritatem. Ille sacerdotium scidit adversus Dominum et a Domino scissuram sentit imperii," Ep. clxxxv, col. 194. Cf. also Ep. lix cols. 38-43; Ep. cxlv, cols. 133-4. About Henry IV as a heretic see supra 305 n. 2, and Henry II infra p. 422 n. 1.
8. Epp. cit. About this topic cf. also J. Spörl, "Rainald von Dassel und sein Verhältnis zu Johannes von Salisbury" in Festschrift f. Eichmann, Munich, 1940, pp. 249 ff. Cf. also Studi in memoria di Paolo Koschaker, Milan, 1953, i.109-10,
theses: the Respublica is a Christian corpus and can therefore be governed only by those qualified to do so, and not by a mere emperor. 1 The task of the secular ruler is to issue such laws as conform to the divine law: hence the priests must be given a hearing in the making of the laws, 2 because it is through them that the body of the Christians is directed and ruled. 3
It is through the laws which the secular ruler issues that he can properly function. The laws constitute for John one of the chief means by which the purpose of society is realized, hence the contents of the laws is derived from the purpose and aim of society. For the laws, within the Christian Respublica, are wholly religious laws: John does not divorce the law from the purpose of society, nor does he separate "politics" from "religion": functionally the laws are the vehicles of government, and government is the direction of a body politic in consonance with the purpose for which this body politic exists. Government is simply the practical realization of the aim underlying society: and John's society was Christian. It is therefore only from the teleological point of view that one can understand the meaning of his statement:
For the whole function of the laws is religious and holy. 4
1. And exactly the same must be said of Henry II: Ep. cci, col. 223. In a kingdom one only can rule, and if it is the king alone, then the sacerdotium must obey him which means its end in a very short time. John is perfectly aware of the true meaning of monarchy: he would have nothing to do with a diarchy or a dualism. "Si pastorale officium non nisi ad nutum principis liceat exercere, et procul dubio nec crimina punientur, nec tyrannorum arguetur immanitas, nec reipsa diu stabit ecclesia." Whoever obeys Henry is a heretic: "Haereticum esse non dubito et praeambulum anti-christi, si ipse non sit personaliter anti-christus." Frederick's and Henry's aims are incompatible with the nature of contemporary society; cf. about Henry: Ep. ccxxxix, col. 271: Henry thinks that he has the Pope and the cardinals "in his pocket" -- "in bursa sua" -- and glories in obtaining the position of his grandfather "qui in terra sua erat rex, legatus apostolicus, patriarcha, imperator et omnia quae volebat."
2. Policr.. iv. 3: "Omnium legum inanis est censura si non divinae legis imaginem gerat; et inutilis est constitutio principis, si non ecclesiasticae disciplinae sit conformis . . . sic enim legitimi sacerdotes audiendi sunt, ut reprobis et ascendentibus ex adverso, omnem vir justus claudat auditum."
3. Only from the functionalist point of view can the biting remarks of John about some clerics be understood. Cf. Ep. cl, col. 144: "Numquid enim clerus institutus est ut comedens, bibens, stertens, mortem expectet et variis luxuriae incitamentis inflammet gehennam?" Cf. also John's advice to Roger of Worcester, Ep. ccxvii, col. 241. About the extraordinary state of affairs at St Augustine's, Canterbury, see the report of Bartholomew of Exeter and Roger of Worcester to Alexander III, Ep. cccx, cols. 366-7.
4. Policr.. iv. 3: "Sacrarum namque legum omne officium religiosum et pium"
This statement expresses in classic form teleological ideas. In a Christian community all activity is directed by the Christian idea, hence each and every individual law is "religious" and "holy." The law is, John states in consonance with ancient doctrine, "regula recte vivendi." 1
The civil laws deal with that part of the administration of the Christian commonwealth which is unworthy of being directly dealt with by the priests: for the secular ruler's function is the physical suppression of evil, and he may therefore be likened, in a way, to a "slaughterer": "Quandam carnificis representare (scil. princeps) videtur imaginem." 2 And it is for this purpose that he receives the material sword. The prince is a minister of the priesthood. The priesthood although possessing both swords, does not use both directly, but uses the physical sword through the instrumentality of the secular ruler. 3 The raison d'être of the secular ruler is the suppression of evil, and for this he was instituted by the priesthood which gave him the physical-material sword for this purpose. There would never have been any kingdoms at all, John declares, if there had not been iniquity or if human wickedness had not forced God to institute royal power. 4 All this, as we know, is Isidorian, Humbertine and Gregorian thought.
est." The "sacrae leges" are the civil laws, the term used by Justinian and also by Frederick I himself; also by Peter Crassus and by Benzo. About the ordinabilitas of the laws of Nicholas I, cf. supra p. 207. 1. Policr. viii. 17. Cf. Pseudo-Isidore and the Hispana, supra p. 188 n. 5.
2. Policr.. iv. 3.
3. Policr.. iv. 3: "Hunc ergo gladium de manu ecclesiae accipit princeps, cum ipsa tamen gladium sanguinis omnino non habeat. Habet tamen et istum, sed eo utitur per principis manum, cui coercendorum corporum contulit potestatem, spiritualium sibi in pontificibus auctoritate reservata. Est ergo princeps sacerdotii quidem minister, et qui sacrorum officiorum illam partem exercet, quae sacerdotii manibus videtur indigna. Sacrarum namque legum . . ." There is an ingenious bracketing of John's views and the famous Bernardine passage (about which see infra 431) by Robert Grosseteste who after quoting John says: "Debent quoque principes saeculi nosse quod uterque gladius, tam materialis videlicet quam spiritualis, gladius est Petri, sed spirituali gladio utuntur principes ecclesiae qui vicem Petri et locum Petri tenent, per semetipsos; materiali autem gladio utuntur principes per manum et ministerium principum saecularium, qui ad nutum et dispositionem principum ecclesiae gladium quem portant, debent evaginare et in locum suum remittere" (with a reference to Rom. xiii. 4): Ep. xxiii, pp. 90-1, ed. cit.
4. Policr.. viii. 17: "Omnino regna non essent quae, sicut ab antiquis liquet historiis, iniquitas per se aut praesumpsit, aut extorsit a Domino." The "extorquere" appeared later with Innocent III as "humana extorsio," cf. the quotation from RNI. 18 supra 285, Cf. furthermore John in Policr. viii. 18, saying that the Jewish people "a Deo quem contempserat, sibi regem extorsit." And: "In furore Domini dati sunt reges" (to the Jews). Cf. Augustine, Civ. Dei, xi. 1; xiv. 28; xv. 5 and 17; xvi. 3 and 4; xvii. 6; xviii. 2, etc.
Considering thus the creation of the (Christian) ruler, John has indeed no difficulty in saying, on the one hand, that the ruler is the "imago divinitatis" and that he will fulfil his functions properly if he is mindful of his own creation as a ruler, 1 and, on the other hand, that if he should misuse the trust put in him, he may be deprived of his power by him who created him a ruler: this is merely the application of an old legal maxim. 2 Moreover, the contents of the laws are the criterion which distinguishes the tyrant from the true ruler: the latter will always keep in mind the function which he is to fulfil; and, within the sphere allotted to him, his laws will realize the function for which he himself is created. Hence "omnium legum inanis est censura, si non divinae legis imaginem gerat." 3 Or seen from a different angle: "Voluntas regentis de lege Dei pendet et non praejudicat libertati." 4 True law, being a "gift of God" -- "donum Dei" -- must therefore embody the "norma justitiae" and will consequently be the "image of the divine will." The tyrant's laws are in every respect the opposite: he acts in precisely the way that is opposed to his function which is to suppress evil and iniquity. But the tyrant creates evil and iniquity through his laws. 5 The very term rex is derived from rectum, but what is, and what is not, right (rectum), that to fix is the business of those who are qualified to pronounce upon it. In brief in the making of the laws for the Christian Respublica, the "sacerdotes audiendi sunt." They alone know the norma justitiae; they alone know what the norm of right conduct is in a Christian community. 6 The prince who acts thus
1. Policr. iv. 3: "Gerit autem (scil. princeps) ministerium fideliter, cum suae conditionis memor." Cf. also ibid., v. 6.
2. Policr. iv. 3: "Porro de ratione juris eius est nolle, cuius est velle, et eius est aufferre, qui de jure conferre potest." Theobald of Canterbury tells Henry II, Ep. xliv, col. 28: "Ipsa (scil. ecclesia Cantuariensis) est enim caput regni vestri et vobis et toti regno, fidei parens in Christo."Cf. also Ep. liv, col. 34: "Commendo vobis sanctam Cantuariensem ecclesiam, de cuius manu per ministerium meum regni gubernaculum accepistis, ut eam, si placet, ab incursu pravorum hominum tueamini." See also John's Ep. ccciv, col. 356. According to Eadmer the see of Canterbury was "totius regni caput," Hist. novorum, PL. clix. 402.
3. Policr. iv. 6.
4. Policr. viii. 22.
5. Policr. viii. 17:
"Tyrannus pravitatis imago, plerumque occidendus. Origo tyranni iniquitas est et de radice toxicata mala et pestifera germinat." The tyrant is "Luciferianae pravitatis imago."
6. With specific reference to the jurisdictional powers of secular and ecclesiastical tribunals, exactly the same point of view is expressed by Bishop Grosseteste. He says that properly speaking all judgments (within contemporary society) are those of the priesthood: "Omne igitur judicium proprie per auctoritatem est sacerdotii et cleri" ( Ep. lxxii*, p. 217 ed. cit.); but the priesthood exercises direct jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, whilst jurisdiction in temporal matters the
is the "image of deity" and as such "amandus, venerandus est et colendus." 1
There can be few medieval thinkers and writers who set forth such a closely reasoned and consistent view as did John of Salisbury. To him the universal Church is the corporation of all living Christians; it is the Respublica, a truly living organism. It is one body and as such must be ruled by one, by one who is functionally qualified to govern this body. The Respublica is indeed a body or an organism in which the individual parts function on the model of the human body. From the head down to the feet each part of the human body fulfils a certain function -- and all these parts of the human body can be found in the body politic. Head, heart, eyes, ears, tongue, hands, stomach, and so forth, all find their functional complement in the Christian body politic. And just as the human body is governed by the soul, so as to become a comprehensible, integrated whole, in the same way the body politic is governed by those who "vicem animae obtinent," namely the ordained members of the Church. The one body just as the other constitutes a whole: and this whole is orientated, guided and governed by the purpose for which it exists. The body politic is the human body writ large. Neither can realize its inherent purpose: each must be governed so that its purpose is realized. All individual parts of the Respublica must function with a view to the whole body: all their activities must be related to, and orientated by, the "finis" or "telos" of the whole body, or as John has it:
Ad publicam utilitatem omnia referantur, 2
priesthood hands over to the secular princes (on the principle of the priesthood possessing both swords): "Principibus vero saeculi tradidit . . ." Hence it is that "potestas judiciaria judicis ecclesiastici extendat se etiam in saecularia, cum, ut supra dictum est, omne judicium per auctoritatem et per doctrinam sit ecclesiae, licet non omne per ministerium," p. 220. For John see supra 422, and Innocent III infra 436. Because the priesthood alone has, what Grosseteste calls sapientia, they alone rule: "Sapientia in omnibus regit, gubernat, et moderatur, ac per hoc dijudicat potentiam: potentia autem numquam in aliquo potest dijudicare sapientiam; igitur nec populus clerum, nec regnum sacerdotium," ibid., p. 217. The principle of functional qualification could hardly be better expressed. Cf. also John, Policr. iv. 6: "Impossibile enim est, ut salubriter disponat principatum, qui non agit consilio sapientum."
1. Policr. viii. 17. For the influence of John's idea of a tyrant on Bracton see F. Schulz, in EHR., lx ( 1945), p. 153, although it may perhaps be open to doubt whether Bracton accepted all John's premisses.
2. Policr. vi. 20. About the principle of publica utilitas cf. also supra 287 n. 2 and Innocent III in Reg. i. 409: "Utilitas totius populi christiani," hence preference of "communis utilitas" to "privata utilitas," Reg. i. 481; cf. also Reg. vi. 138. About publica utilitas in Roman law see the important article by A. Steinwenter,
for only in this way can the purpose of the whole body be realized. The functions of all the members and their activities must be dovetailed, 1 so as to make the body an integrated whole. This is what John calls cohaerentia, 2 a principle which when adhered to, will alone produce unitas. In a theocentric world teleological conceptions can produce no other doctrine but the hierocratic one: the sacerdotium directs and leads the corporate Church which is geographically the Orbis Latinus. 3
The exposition of the hierocratic theme by St Bernard of Clairvaux is embedded in the vehicles which he employed for his "triumphant propaganda" 4 -- in the numerous letters, tracts and sermons, all of which denote the fiery enthusiast with whom the hierocratic theme finds one of its greatest and profoundest exponents. To rank him amongst the "political" writers would be some sort of degradation of Bernard's objectives, and yet the tract which he wrote for the consideration of
"Utilitas publica -- utilitas singulorum" in Festschrift f. Paul Koschaker, Leipzig, 1939, i. 84-102: the idea was of Greek origin and adopted by Cicero through whose influence it gained currency in Rome. See now also the fine study by J. Gaudemet, "Utilitas publica" in Rev. hist. de droit français et étranger, xxix ( 1951), pp. 465-99, who shows the development of the notion in Roman law ( Papinian, Paul and Ulpian) and in imperial legislation (utilitas reipublicae): the meanings attributable to it, were virtually inexhaustible (cf. pp. 485 -93). The concept of raison d'état is an offspring of this idea. From the hierocratic point of view, the principle of publica utilitas is extraordinarily fruitful. Primarily of teleological contents, the notion belongs to the sphere of government and developed partly out of the "cura et sollicitudo" which the Pope has for the whole of Christendom, and partly out of the equally old principle of usefulness. In all its maturity this principle was expressed by Guido de Baysio (the Archdeacon) in the following century: "Dominus papa cuius est cognoscere quod utile reipublicae et quod non," Rosarium ad XV. vi. 3. Under this heading may come the papal claims to confirm or annul treaties made between secular rulers, to incite rebellion in a country, to depose rulers, etc.; the relevant papal documents are conveniently assembled by Pallieri and Vismara, Acta pontificia, cit., pp. 115 ff., 146 ff., 149ff.
1. Policr., loc. cit.: "Tunc autem totius reipublicae salus incolumis praeclaraque erit, si superiora membra se impendant inferioribus, et inferiora superioribus pari jure respondeant, ut singuli sint quasi aliorum ad invicem membra, et in eo sibi quisque maxime credat esse consultum, in quo aliis utilius noverit esse prospectum."
2. Policr. vi. 25; cf. also ibid., v. 7.
3. The whole Orbis Latinus has heard with horror of the violent death of Thomas Becket, Ep. ccciv, col. 355.
4. D. Knowles, Monastic Order in England, p. 218.
the Pope has indeed all the makings of a speculum paparum on the model of the speculum regum. 1 There is perhaps no other writer in the medieval period who because he was so much a theologian, was so eminently "political." But this cannot cause any surprise. Bernard's outlook, philosophy and therefore theology, was one, was cast into one consistent and integrated whole. With him a separation of the various categories of thinking could not possibly exist: Bernard was indeed the most consequent exponent of Christian cosmology. The overpowering role which he attributed to faith, could not lead to any other "political" doctrine but the hierocratic one.
Unity of the body of Christians presupposes unity of leadership. Unity and monarchy are for Bernard one and the same principle, though seen from two different angles. The corporate body of all Christians, that is, the "multitudo credentium" form the "corpus ipsum Christi," 2 or the "domus Dei." 3 The nature of this society presupposes that it can have one head only, him who has the "plenitudo potestatis" 4 and who is the vicar of Christ. The function of the Pope as the true monarch of this "corpus Christi" is the necessary guarantee of the unity of this "corpus." Those who adhere to Anacletus II -Innocent II's anti-Pope -- are "enemies of unity"; 5 are not Christians, but follow anti-christ. 6 The subject of the papal monarchy is something that concerns the whole Church, and not merely a single individual, 7 such as that man of Jewish extraction, Anacletus, who had occupied the See of Peter to the detriment of Christ. 8 For it is through
1. Cf. also E. Caspar, in Meister der Politik, Berlin, 1926, i. 576. The concrete influence of this tract upon the Popes in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries would be worth detailed study. That above all Innocent III had studied the tract carefully, becomes clear when one peruses this Pope's correspondence. Even the allegedly scholastic triad ("quid liceat; quid deceat; quid expediat") in the Deliberatio (RNI. 29) is Bernardine; cf. De consideratione, III. iv. 15 (PL. clxxxii).
2. De consideratione, III. i, PL. cit., col. 760; cf. also his Sermo XII in Cant. cant., no. 7 (PL. clxxxiii. 831). 3. Ep. ccxxii. 5 (PL. clxxxii. 389); Ep. ccxxxvi. 1, col. 424.
4. De cons., II. viii, col. 752: "Ergo juxta canones tuos, alii in partem sollicitudinis, tu in plenitudinem potestatis vocatus es. Aliorum potestas certis arctatur limitibus, tua extenditur et in ipsos qui potestatem super alios acceperunt." Cf. also Ep. ccxxxix, col. 431. For some interpretative details of Bernard's "plenitudo potestatis" cf. now B. Jacqueline in Bernard de Clairvaux, Paris, 1953, pp. 346-7.
5. Ep. cxxvi. 8, col. 276: "Hostes unitatis."
6. Ep. cit., col. 275: "Probaret sese non christianum, sed anti-christum." Cf. with this John of Salisbury's view about Henry II, supra p. 422 n. 1.
7. Ep. cit., no. 11, col. 279: "Universae quippe ecclesiae negotium est, non unius causa personae."
8. Ep. cxxxix. 1, col. 294: "Constat Judaicam sobolem sedem Petri in Christi occupasse injuriam." Anacletus belonged to the family of the Pierleoni.
the instrumentality of the one Roman Church, and therefore of the one Pope, that this "corpus Christi" is alive, that what it is, it has become through the papal monarch. Moreover, the papal plenitude of power, that singularly monarchic distinction, is not of human origin, but is divinely derived: he who resists it, therefore resists God's ordinance. 1 The "corpus" thus presided over by the Papal monarch, embraces all kingdoms and the empire: this "corpus" is a State which is holy -- "civitas sancta" -- because it is the corporate universal Church of the living God. 2 Unity can be preserved only by the monarchic rule of the one Pope. 3
The Pope, in St Bernard's mind, is no longer a vicar of St Peter, but of Christ. 4 The Papal plenitude of power was considered to constitute a vicariate of Christ; the crucial words "Tu es Petrus . . ." were understood to mean a vicariate of Christ; the binding and loosening powers of the Pope were taken as expressing the mediatory role of the Pope, the role of the mediator between God and man. The Pauline declaration that "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus" 5 is now directly applicable to the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ. Even etymologically, the term "Pontifex" demonstrates the function of a bridge-builder -- "pontem facere inter Deum et proximum" -- of a good mediator, who offers the prayers and the requests
1. Ep. cxxxi. 2, col. 287: "Plenitudo potestatis super universas orbis ecclesias, singulari prerogativa apostolicae sedis donata est: qui igitur huic potestati resistit, Dei ordinationi resistit."
2. Ep. cxxiv. 2, col. 269:" . . . civitatem sanctam, quae est ecclesia Dei viventis." Cf. also Bernard's Liber ad Milites, cap. 5 (11), PL. cit., col. 928: "Civitas sancta . . . Regis magna." Cf. also Anselm, Homil. I (PL. clviii. 587-8). It may be recalled that St Augustine considered the State a "societas" or a "multitudo hominum" ( Civ. Dei, ii. 21; xix. 21, 24; also Ep. cxxxviii. 10, etc.). This conception of the State is Ciceronian, cf. supra p. 271 n. 2.
3. Cf. also Ep. cxxv. 2, col. 270: "Alemanniae, Franciae, Angliae, Scotiae, Hispaniarum et Jerosolymorum reges, cum universis populis et clero, favent et adhaerent domino Innocentio, tamquam filii patri, tamquam capiti membra." 4. Ep. ccli, col. 451; De consideratione, ii. 8, col. 752, and iv. 7, col. 788; cf. also De moribus, viii (31), PL. cit., col. 829, and ix (36), col. 832. The Popes began slowly to adopt the title "vicarius Christi" as a result of Bernard's influence (cf. Eugenius III supra 342), until with Innocent III this became the official and usual title. Bernard it should be noted, does not seem the inventor of the title "vicarius Christi" as a title exclusively applicable to the Pope alone. The immediate predecessor was St Peter Damian, see M. Maccarrone, "Il papa 'vicarius Christi'" in Miscellanea Pio Paschini, Rome, 1949, i. 429-31; here also other twelfth-century testimonies, but all coming from non-papal sources, pp. 432 - 43 ; they are rather reminiscent of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, see supra 192. About the appellation of Gelasius I by the synodists assembled in Rome, see supra 26 n. 4 and about Gerhoh supra p. 411 n. 2.
5. I Tim. ii. 5.
of the peoples to God and, on the other hand, gives them God's benediction. 1 Indeed, the Pope's position on earth approaches that of God. 2 The Pope is "os de ossibus suis (scil. Christi)"; he is flesh from His flesh, spirit from His spirit. 3 And Bernard tells the Pope that he has no equal on earth: "parem super terram non habes." 4 It is rather self-evident, on this basis, that by virtue of the Petrine commission, the Pope as Christ's Vicar was given the government of the world (saeculum), and not merely the government of the sacerdotium. 5 Selfevident also, because if the "corpus unum" is considered a civitas, the vicar of Christ must be able to rule, to govern it, otherwise this "corpus" may not fulfil the purpose and aim for which it is established.
Unicum se Christi vicarium designavit, 6 qui non uno populo, sed cunctis praeesse deberet.
It is in his function as vicar of Christ that all Christians show their liveliest interest in the Pope: the stupid and the wise, the freeman and the serf, rich and poor, man and woman, young and old, cleric and
1. De moribus, iii. 10, col. 817; cf. also ibid: "Pertingit pons iste usque ad Deum ea fiducia, qua non suam, sed illius gloriam quaerit. Pertingit usque ad proximum illa pietate, qua et ipsi, non sibi prodesse desiderat. Offert Deo bonus mediator praeces et vota populorum, reportans illis a Deo benedictionem et gratiam." Cf. in this context again St Anselm, Homil. I, PL. clviii. 588.
2. Ep. cxcvi. 2, col. 364: "Domino papae contradicere est et etiam Domino Deo." Cf. also Ep. cxxxi, col. 286: "Bene vobiscum facit Deus; bene vobiscum facit Romana ecclesia; facit ille quod pater, facit illa quod mater." This was written to the Milanese.
3. Ep. cxxvi. 6, col. 275: "Carnem de carne sua, spiritum de spiritu suo." This was frequently quoted in later canonistic doctrine. About Benzo of Alba's description of the emperor, see supra 391. Innocent III's well known expression may be modelled on Bernard: the Pope is "inter Deum et hominem medius constitutus, citra Deum, sed ultra hominem; minor Deo, sed major homine," Sermo iii in consecr. pontificis, PL. ccxvii. 658. Reg. i. 335: the Pope "non puri hominis, sed veri Dei vicem gerit in terris." According to Peter of Blois, St Peter "regnat, et imperat et in medio constitutus est," PL. ccvi. 1270.
4. De consideratione, II. ii. 4, col. 744.
5. De consideratione, II. ii. 8, col. 752: "Nempe signum singularis pontificii Petri, per quod non navem unam, ut caeteri quique suam, sed saeculum ipsum susceperit gubernandum. Mare enim saeculum est, naves ecclesiae." With this should be compared Innocent III, Reg. ii. 209: "Petro non solum universam ecclesiam, sed totum saeculum gubernandum reliquit . . . per hoc quod Petrus se misit in mare, privilegium expressit pontificii singularis, per quod universum orbem susceperat gubernandum." Cf. also before him Alexander III, Ep. 762 (PL. cc. 699): "In hoc mari magno et spatioso (Ps. ciii. 25) . . . ubi non tam corporum et corporalium mercium, quam animarum et spiritualium virtutum pericula formidantur, ei qui navem regit ecclesiae . . ."; furthermore Innocent III in Reg. vii. 1, obviously borrowing from St Bernard.
6. These words too are copied by Innocent III in Reg. ii. 209, and in other places.
layman, the just and the impious -- they all drink from the public fount, the Pope's breast: "Omnes de fonte publico bibunt pectore tuo." 1 The Pope is the king of the earth, the lord of the heavens, 2 because the apostolic see is "singularly distinguished by divine and royal privileges." 3 Christ Himself was supreme priest and king --"summus et sacerdos et rex" 4 -- and consequently regnum and sacerdotium were united in Him. 5 The Pope is His vicar; 6 and hence as the supreme monarch of this universal civitas sancta he disposes of kingdoms and empires and presides over the princes, nations and peoples. 7 In short, the Pope is "vicarius Christi, christus Domini, deus Pharaonis." 8 His voice as Vicar of Christ rings out over the entire world: "Ipsius vox est hodie per universum mundum." 9 [VICARIVS FILII DEI]
Thrown against such a background and set against the attribution of such functions to the Pope, it is something like an anticlimax when St Bernard descends to allegorical language and states that the Pope alone possesses both swords. As vicar of Him who was both king and priest,
1. De consideratione, i. 5, col. 735. Cf. Eugenius III's expression which may be an echo of Bernard: "Ab ea (scil. Romana ecclesia) sicut a fonte ad universos ecclesiae filios sit religio derivata" (PL. clxxx. 1541). 2. Ep. ccxliii, col. 439.
3. Ep. cit.: "Sacram et apostolicam sedem, divinis regalibusque privilegiis singulariter sublimatam."
4. Ep. ccxliv, col. 441.
5. Ep. ccxliv, col. 441.
6. That the old conception of the vicariate of Christ was not yet dead in the late twelfth century, is shown by the Summa Reginensis in which we read: "Presbiter . . . personam Christi habet, argumentum contra illos qui dicunt solum papam esse vicarium Christi. Nam quilibet sacerdos est vicarius Christi et Petri . . . Dicebat cardinalis sanctorum Johannis et Pauli quod inde dominus papa dicitur Christi vicarius, quia Iesus Christus toto orbi preest ita et papa," ed. A. M. Stickler, Salesianum, xiv ( 1952), p. 489. About the cardinal mentioned here, cf. ibid., note 68.
7. See, for instance, his reproach to the cardinals who had elected his pupil Pope ( Eugenius III). Ep. ccxxxvii, col. 426: "Was there not a sensible man amongst you?" he asks them: "Ridiculum profecto videtur, pannosum homuncionem assumi ad praesidendum principibus, ad imperandum episcopis, ad regna et imperia disponenda." And before: "Quid igitur rationis seu consilii habuit . . . irruere in hominem rusticanum, latenti injicere manus, et excussa e manibus securi et ascia vel ligone, in palatium trahere, levare in cathedram, induere purpura et bysso, accingere gladio ad faciendam vindictam in nationibus, increpationes in populis, ad alligandos reges eorum in compedibus, et nobiles eorum in manicis ferreis?" Cf. Ps. cxlix. 8.
8. De consideratione, iv. 7, col. 788. On the expression "deus Pharaonis" ( Ex. vii. 1) see J. Rivière, "Sur l'expression Papa-Deus au moyen âge" in Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, Rome, 1926, ii. 278, who also shows that later "deus Pharaonis" was changed into "Papa est Deus imperatoris" (p. 285: Alvarus Pelagius). It should be noted that Innocent III has the same expressions as Bernard in his Sermo iii in consecr. pont., PL. ccxvii. 658.
9. Ep. ccvliii. 2, col. 438.
the Pope in the allegorical language of the time, must needs possess both swords, the spiritual as well as the physical-material sword. For the Pope is the monarch of this civitas. The one sword he possesses and uses, the other he hands over to the secular prince to be wielded at the bidding of the priests: "Is (scil. materialis gladius) pro ecclesia, ille (scil. spiritualis gladius) ab ecclesia exserendus: ille sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis et jussum imperatoris." 1 And in order to leave no doubt in the mind of his papal addressee, the Saint tells him: "The material sword is yours and is to be used at your bidding, though it is not to be drawn out of the sheath by your own hand." 2 In his pleading to Eugenius III for the crusade, Bernard urges the Pope to wait no longer, but to draw both swords: "Exserendus est
1. De consideratione, iv. 3, col. 776. There may be a further echo of Bernard in Innocent III, Reg. ii. 259 (to the Armenian king): "Cum . . . materialem acceperis gladium, non in domesticos fidei, sed hostes crucis potius exerendum"; see also Reg. iii. 24, and several other places. Cf. also the echo of Bernard in Gregory IX's combination of the Two-Sword theory with the theory of the translation of the empire: MGH. Epp. sel. XIII s., i. no. 672, p. 568: "Ecclesia gladii spiritualis et materialis obtinens a Domino potestatem, ut alteram ipsa exerat, et ut alter exeratur indicat, imperium eidem Carolo . . . contulit." An almost literal borrowing of St Bernard in Gregory's letter to the patriarch of Constantinople: "Uterque igitur gladius ecclesiae traditur, sed ab ecclesia exercetur unus; alius pro ecclesia, manu saecularis principis est eximendus, unus a sacerdote, alius ad nutum sacerdotis administrandus a milite," Mansi, xxiii. 60. Gregory omits the Bernardine "ad jussum imperatoris." Cf. also Epp. cit. no. 553, p. 448 : "'Ecce gladii duo hic,' id est, non hic unus, et alius alibi sunt, sed hic in uno loco." Innocent IV expressed the allegory in an original manner. The power symbolized by the physical sword is with the Pope potentialis, and through handing the sword to the emperor this power becomes actualis. The coronation ceremony brings this out visibly according to Innocent IV: the Pope hands the sheathed sword to the emperor who unsheathes it and brandishes it in the air as a sign that he now has the exercise of physical-material power. "Hoc nempe ille ritus ostendit, quo summus pontifex Caesari, quem coronat, exhibet gladium vagina contentum, quem acceptum princeps exerit et vibrando innuit se illius exercitium accepisse," F. Winkelmann, Acta imperii inedita, ii. 698, no. 1035. This realistic symbolism was indicated already by Gregory IX addressing Frederick II: "(Gladium) de corpore b. Petri sumptum et de manu susceptum vicarii Iesu Christi imperialis vibravit dextera ad vindictam malefactorum,"Epp. cit., i. 392, no. 488; see also Innocent IV after the deposition of Frederick II, ibid., ii. 247, no. 184. Bernard's formula was also incorporated in Unam Sanctam, though in accentuated form, cf. now also W. Levison in Deutsches Archiv, ix ( 1952), p. 36. It will be recalled that the Pope sent to Henry VII of England (and also to Henry VIII) the sword, cf. J. W. Legg in Archaeolog. Journ., lvii ( 1900), pp. 183-98; the liturgy, pp. 199 - 201, may be modelled on the Ordo composed by Durantis (ob. 1296).
2. St Bernard, loc. cit.: "Tuus ergo et ipse, tuo forsitan nutu, etsi non tua manu evaginandus." He continues: "Alioquin si nullo modo ad te pertineret et is, dicentibus apostolis 'ecce gladii duo' non respondisset dominus 'satis est,' sed 'nimis est.'" ( Luke xxii. 38). On the linguistic dependence of Bernard on the
uterque gladius." 1 "Who else but you can do this?" -- "per quem autem nisi per vos" -- because both swords are St Peter's: "Petri uterque est," the one to be used at his bidding, the other by his own hand: "alter suo nutu, alter sua manu, quoties necesse est, evaginandus." 2 Any other view would have been inconsistent: the unity of Bernard's outlook demanded unity of government, and this unity of government could be found only in the proper monarchic rule.
St Bernard's thesis is, moreover, entirely consistent with the old tenet of the function which the prince has to fulfil in a Christian society: his raison d'être is the suppression of evil. 3 He has to execute what the spiritual sword is incapable of achieving; his function therefore is auxiliary and complementary. He is therefore bidden by the sacer dotium to act and to use force for the good of the whole Christian body politic. What the good of this body politic is, must necessarily be left to the Pope (or the sacer dotes). 4 The decision to act lies in sacerdotal hands: ad nutum expresses the binding signal of the Pope to the prince to use the sword; ad jussum imperatoris expresses the legitimate exercise of physical power. The authority as to when this physical power is to be legitimately exercised always remains with the Pope: the prince is the "patronus, advocatus, defensor ecclesiae." In short, he is the protector of the Christian people, and as a protector in the Roman-papal sense he is controlled by those who in the symbolic transfer of the sword hand him his power. 5 The Vicar of Christ as successor of St.
Scriptures in general see V. Lossky, "Études sur la terminologie de s. Bernard" in Bulletin du Cange, xvi ( 1942), pp. 82-6. For Bernard's quotations from profane writers, see now Bernard de Clairvaux, 1953, app. iv, pp. 549-54.
1. Ep. cclvi. 1, col. 463.
2. Ep. cclvi. 1, col. 464.
3. Cf. his Liber and Milites Templi, cap. 3 (PL. clxxxii. 925): In killing the pagans by the sword "Christus glorificatur," for the swords are used "ad destruendam omnem altitudinem extollentem se adversus scientiam Dei, quae est christianorum fides." See also Ep. cxxxix. 1, col. 294 (to Lothar): "Non est meum hortari ad pugnam; est tamen (securus dico) advocati ecclesiae arcere ab ecclesiae infestatione schismaticorum rabiem. . ." Here Bernard merely expresses the old doctrine of the emperor as the advocate; cf. Eugenius III calling the emperor "specialis advocatus" (PL. clxxx. 1638) or Alexander III: "advocatus ac specialis defensor Romanae ecclesiae" (MGH. Const. i. no. 185, p. 256 ).
4. About publica utilitas see supra p. 425 n. 2
5. About the two conceptions of protection cf. supra 69 ff. In many ways the ideology of this Two-Sword theory is exactly the same as that underlying the Donation of Constantine, according to which the Pope possessed the imperial crown, but left its use to the emperor, cf. supra p. 82. This fact and time-tied ideology was now expressed in biblical-allegorical terms. Common to both was the ideology of the function of the secular ruler in a Christian society.
Peter and therefore as possessor of both swords appoints a suitable actual bearer of the physical sword for the express purpose of protection. The Pope appears as, and is, the true monarch. The development of the Pauline-Gelasian-Isidorian thesis was concluded. 1 As the true monarch of the civitas sancta, of the corporate congregation of the faithful, the Pope exercises a supervisory function over everything occurring in this body: he is the "speculator super omnia." 2 For he is set over the nations and kingdoms for this purpose by Christ Himself as His vicar. 3
St Bernard pursues this functionalist theme relentlessly. Dealing with mundane matters is beneath the dignity of the sacerdotes and all the more so of the vicar of Christ. Of course, if the priests insisted, they could deal with mundane matters directly, and so naturally could the Pope. This right is unquestionable. What is questionable is whether it is expedient and advisable for the Pope and the priests to act thus. Parcelling out of lands, settling all sorts of disputes concerning the "terrena possessiuncula hominum" 4 or acting as a "divisor terminorum aut distributor terrarum" are activities which are unbecoming to
1. Cf. Bernard himself in his Lib. ad Milites Templi, c. 3, PL. cit., col. 824-5.
2. 2 De consideratione, II. vi. 10, col. 748.The term "speculator" is biblical, Ez. iii. 17: "Fili hominis, speculatorem dedi te domui Israel." This Bernardine expression was adopted by Innocent III, Reg. ii. 95: "Nos, qui licet indigni, speculatoris officium super universam ecclesiam exercemus"; also in Reg. ii. 240 and in other places. The term was applied to the bishop by the mid- twelfth century Summa Codicis (ascribed to Rogerius by H. Kantorowicz, Studies, etc., pp. 149, 154 f.; ed. by H. Fitting, but attributed to Irnerius), p. 8, line 3, saying of the bishop "qui recte speculator seu superintendens appellatur." It now turns out that St Bernard was very familiar with this Summa, cf. B. Jacqueline, "Bernard et le Droit Romain" in Bernard de Clairvaux, Paris, 1953, pp. 430-1.
3. Ep. clxxxix. 5, col. 356 (to Innocent II): "Nonne cum esses parvulus in oculis tuis, ipse te constituit super gentes et regna? Ad quid, nisi ut evellas et destruas et aedifices et plantes?" Also Ep. ccxl. 1, col. 432, to Eugenius III: "Unde et de flecto genua mea ad ipsum unici huius vestri primatus auctorem, ut det vobis sic sapere et sic agere semper in evellendo et plantando in destruendo et aedificando." Furthermore, De moribus, vii. 26, col. 826; De cons. II. vi, col. 747. The biblical reference is to Jer. i. 10. Cf. Alexander III, Ep. 975, PL. cc. 850: quoting the same Jeremiah passage: "Super gentes et regna, licet immeriti, in apostolica specula constituti, pontificalis officii debito pro universis compellimur sollicitudinem gerere. . ."; also Ep. 979, col. 854: "Constituti a Domino super gentes et regna . . . compellimur . . . ad universum commissi gregis corpus extendere"; also Ep. 624, col. 595;Ep. 1173, col. 1017. Innocent III, in Reg. ii. 220; vii. 42; and Sermo II in cons. pont., PL. cit. col. 657; also RNI. 2, 18, 46 (applied to the papal legate, also in Reg. i. 526: legates are sent "per varia mundi climata" so that they do on behalf of the Pope as said in Jer. i. 10; also Reg. ii. 123, 202, and in numerous other places).
4. De consid., I. vi, col. 736.
apostolic dignity: 1 "non quia indigni vos, sed quia indignum vobis talibus insistere, quippe potioribus occupatis." 2 Not that all this direct intervention is incompatible with the power of the keys, but that this is unworthy of this unique power, is the gist of Bernard's advice to the Pope."What is greater," he asks the Pope,"to dismiss sins or to divide estates?" 3 "Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra" he tells the Pope. The power of the keys refers naturally to the conduct, that is, the mode of living, not to (lifeless) possessions. 4 Of course, if the "possessions" are consequences of "criminal behaviour," papal jurisdiction comes into full play. 5 For the substance of the civitas sancta, the corporate entity of the Christians, is the spiritual element of faith, and since this is what gives society its complexion,
1. De consid., I, vi, col. 735: "Derogans apostolicae dignitatis." That is why Bernard inveighs against the noise made by Justinian's laws in the Roman curia: "Quotidie perstrepunt in palatio leges Justiniani, non Domini." That the Saint was quite well versed in Roman law is now shown by B. Jacqueline, art. cit., pp. 429 ff. Anxiety about life in the Roman curia had already been expressed by Peter Damian in his letter to the cardinals, PL. cxliv. 256: "Porro quia ad Lateranense palatium a diversis populis de toto terrarum orbe confluitur, necesse est ut ibi prae ceteris uspiam locis, recta semper vivendi sit forma, districta teneatur assidue sub honestis moribus disciplina." Cf. also the vituperations of Bernard's contemporary, Bernard of Morval, in his De contemptu mundi, for which see R. C. Petry, "Medieval eschatology, etc." in Speculum, xxiv ( 1949), p. 214; about Gerhoh see supra 411 and cf. also John of Salisbury's well-known account of the people's feeling towards the Roman curia during his conversation with Adrian IV at Benevento, see Policr., vi. 24 ("Nam pauper aut nullus aut rarus admittitur . . . justitiam non tam veritati quam pretio reddunt . . . sedent in ea scribae et pharisaei . . .")
2. Bernard, loc. cit., col. 736.
3. An allusion to Luke, v. 23. The basis of this Bernardine opinion is I Cor. vi. 4: "Saecularia igitur judicia, si habueritis, contemptibiles qui sunt in ecclesia, illos constituite ad judicandum." The great imitator of Bernard, Robert Grosseteste, quotes the Bernardine passage at length in his letter remonstrating against the royal appointments of abbots as itinerant justices. Commenting on the "contemptibiles" he says (Ep. lxxii*, ed. cit., pp. 206 - 7 ): "Contemptibiles scilicet, non imperitia judicandi, sed vitae inferioris merito et dignitatis gradu et impotentia percipiendi spiritualia. Sed numquid viri contemplativi sunt de contemptibilibus in ecclesia? . . . Liquet quod ad potestates saeculares et non ad dignitates ecclesiasticas pertinent causarum saecularium discussio et decisio; personae namque in gradibus et dignitatibus ecclesiasticis constitutae sunt velut stellae, quas posuit Deus in firmamento coeli (Gen. i. 17) et tamquam elementa mundi superiora." The principle applies to all ecclesiastical persons, p. 210.
4. De consideratione, I. vi, col. 736: "Propter illa (scil. crimina), et non propter has (scil. possessiones) accepistis claves regni coelorum."
5. This is, as we may recall, the theme of Innocent III's Novit ille: "Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo . . . sed decernere de peccato, cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus et debere . . . super quolibet criminali peccato."
meaning and purpose, the Pope's jurisdiction in matters affecting the substance of this society, that is, the "crimina," cannot be denied. Priestly and papal authority is directive; it is the regulative authority of the corporate body; it governs by issuing orders as to what is and what is not to be done, so as to realize the purpose of this society; the doing itself is not the proper function of the priests; for this there are special organs, above all the secular princes who are instituted precisely for this purpose.
What Bernard wishes to express in his criticisms of the direct handling of disputes by the clerics, is the danger to which this activity exposes them. Engulfed as they become in the myriads of quibbles, 1 they consequently tend to neglect their proper functions, with the result that they are bound to lose their freedom. 2 Too many have succumbed to this temptation: too many have become victims of what a Gelasius had once called "human frailty." What is necessary, is the implementation of the principle of functional order, or what Bernard calls discretio. 3 Functionally the prince exists to do all these numerous terrestrial matters; that is why he has been instituted by the sacerdotium, and that is why he has been given the physical sword. Hence strict adherence to the functional ordering within the Christian civitas is imperative, if this civitas is to be a workable entity, otherwise confusion will prevail 4 instead of unity based upon order:
Dum sibi assignato officio nemo contentus erit, sed omnes omnia indiscreta administratione pariter attentabunt, non plene unitas erit, sed magis confusio. 5
Discretio or order and fulfilling the function assigned to each member of the civitas is what Bernard is anxious to see applied. 6 The opposite
1. Cf. Ep. lxxviii. 11, cols. 193, 197, 198.
2. This theme is strongly re-echoed in Grosseteste's letter, loc. cit., pp. 214 - 15
3. Cf. Bernard's Sermo xlix in Cant., PL. cit., col. 1018: "Discretio quippe omni virtuti ordinem ponit: ordo modum tribuit et decorem . . . est ergo discretio non tam virtus quam quaedam moderatrix . . . tolle hanc et virtus vitium erit." 4. Cf. also his observations on clerical soldiers who are neither soldiers nor clerics: "Nempe habitu milites, quaestu clericos, actu neutrum exhibent. Nam neque pugnant ut milites, neque ut clerici evangelizant. Cuius ordinis sunt? Cum utriusque esse cupiunt, utrumque deserunt, utrumque confundunt," De cons., IV. v. 20, col. 772.
5. Sermo cit., col. 1019.
6. It will be recalled that Gelasius also said that Christ discrevit the two offices. It is not without interest to note that Bernard who to all seeming was not acquainted with Gelasius's writings, uses the same term discretio to express the same thought as Gelasius. Cf. Gelasius laying down the principle of functional order, supra p. 25, and also St Augustine, supra p. 290 n. 1. We should not that Bernard's Pope was the "vicarius Christi," a position which the Pope did not have in Gelasius's thought.
is confundere ordinem, perturbare terminos. 1 This civitas is one body "fitly joined together" which can realize its purpose only when each member performs the functions due to him --"secundum operationem in mensuram uniuscuiusque membri" 2 -- when in other words everyone works towards the same end within his allotted sphere of activity.
The Pope, then, in Bernard's conception, is Christ on earth. In this function he is the monarch directing the civitas. 3 For the mundane matters he appoints a prince by the symbolic handing over of the physical sword; he appoints a potestas, not because he has no right to do what he bids the prince to do, but because the thing itself is unworthy of being dealt with by the "vicarius Christi." But next to this potestas, the vicar of Christ should also appoint a chief minister, an "oeconomus," in the curia itself, who is to have auctoritas for sacerdotal matters. True, the vicar of Christ will still have to do some things personally, but there is a good deal of ordinary curial business -exchange of bishops; their translation; litigations, and so forth -- with the handling of which the chief minister should be entrusted: "Procurandus quem implices, qui pro te molat." 4 This minister toiling for the Pope, should be loyal and prudent, but he must also have auctoritas in these sacerdotal matters. 5 And the auctoritas must indeed be a full
1. De cons., III. iv. 17, col. 768.
2. De cons., III. iv. 17, col. 768; Ephes. iv. 16.
3. In IV. i, col. 759, he applies Matt. xxiv. 45 to the Pope: "Quem constituit super familiam suam"; cf. also Jer. i. 10. This Matthew passage was later made the subject of Innocent III's second consecration sermon (PL. ccxvii. 653 ff.) in which the Pope combines it with his responsibility as the monarch for all his subjects: "Redditurus Deo rationem, non solum pro se, sed pro omnibus qui sunt suae curae commissi. At omnes omnino qui sunt de familia Domini, sub eius cura constituti sunt; non enim distinguit inter hanc atque illam familiam, nec pluraliter dicitur, super familias, tamquam multas, sed singulariter dicitur."
4. De cons., IV. vi, col. 785. The general rule should be:"Quaedam per temet facies; quaedam per te et alios simul; quaedam per alios ac absque te." This, too, may be a source of Innocentian thought, Reg. v. 128:"Porro saecularis officium potestatis interdum et in quibusdam per se, nonumquam autem et in nonnullis per alios exsequi consuevit (scil. papa)"; cf. also Reg. ii. 202.
5. Loc cit.: "Quaerendus proinde fidelis et prudens, quem constitues super familiam tuam. Adhuc inutilis est, si tertium desit. Quaeris quid hoc? Auctoritas." One might perhaps see in the comprehensive powers and authority of the later chamberlain a partial realization of Bernard's idea. On the chamberlain in the thirteenth century see B. Rusch, Die Behörden und Beamten der päpstlichen Kurie des 13. Jahrhunderts, Koenigsberg, 1936, pp. 23 f., 54 ff. There can be little doubt that the later papal tribunal, the Rota, staffed by the "capellani" and in this function called "capellani auditores" was an implementation of Bernard's advice, I. xi. 14, col. 742:"Quaedam, ut dixi, negotia nec audiendo, quaedam aliis committendo, quae tua digna putaveris audientia, fideli quodam et accomodo ipsi causae compendio terminando." Cf. also N. del Re, La Curia Romana, Rome, 1952, p. 217.
one, so that nobody can say to this chief minister: "Why did you do this?" -- "cur fecisti sic?" -- nor shall he suffer any contradiction: "subdendi igitur omnes." 1 All the routine sacerdotal business should be concentrated in this minister's hands. 2 All this is the consistent application of the idea that Christ is head of the Christian civitas: it is Christ's vicar who in actual fact fulfils this role of the "caput." 3
This brief survey of St Bernard's ideas will have shown that within their scope it is not the mystical visionary who speaks to us; rather an author who logically pursues the unitary and monarchic principle; his civitas is the Christian body politic ruled by Christ through His vicar: the Pope is the vicar of Him Who was "verus rex et pontifex." As the Saint's disciple, Pope Eugenius III, said: the universa christianitas knows that St Peter had been entrusted by Christ with the jura terreni simul et coelestis imperii. 4
Whilst the accent in Bernard's ecclesiastical-political writings lies on the function of the Pope as Vicar of Christ within the civitas, Hugh of St Victor concentrates on the concept of ecclesia. It is, we think, no
1. De cons., IV. vi, col. 785: "Praesit omnibus, ut omnibus prosit."
2. De cons., IV. vi, col. 785: "Potestatem habeat excludere et admittere quos voluerit, mutare ministros, transferre ministeria ad quos et quando voluerit. Ita timore sit omnibus, ut sit utilitati."
3. This idea leads to the formulation of Christ's visible vicariate in the Pope cf. infra pp. 444, 449.
4. See Ep. 232 of 12 October 1147 (PL. clxxx. 1285). The phrase is no more than the Petrine commission expressed in the easily available juristic terminology. It is of course very likely that Eugenius was familiar with Gratian's Decretum, cf. R. Gleber, Papst Eugen III (in Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen und neueren Geschichte, vol. vi, 1936), pp. 74 - 5. The canonists shortly afterwards coined the significant term of the claves juris possessed by the Pope (Summa Coloniensis). The phrase itself came from St Peter Damian, Disceptatio synodalis, MGH. LdL. i. 78, lines 7-8. Cf.also Peter Damian's poem no. LXXII, PL. cxlv. 941: "Tibi, Petre, sunt traditae (claves) tuisque patent legibus terrena cum coelestibus." The phrase was capable of infinite expansion and variation. Cf. Honorius III, MGH. Epp. sel. XIII s., i. no. 234, p. 163; Gregory IX, ibid., no. 672, p. 568; Innocent IV, ibid., ii, no. 71, p. 52, linking the idea of Peter Damian with the conception of true monarchy:"Dominus Iesus Christus, Dei filius . . . in apostolica sede non solum pontificalem, sed et regalem constituit monarchatum, b. Petro eiusque successoribus terreni simul ac coelestis imperii commissis habenis, quod in pluralitate clavium competenter innuitur, ut per unam, quam in temporalibus super terram, per reliquam quam in spiritualibus super coelos accepimus, intelligatur Christi vicarius judicii potentiam accepisse,"E. Winkelmann, Acta imperii inedita, ii. 698, no. 1035. The phrase is quoted as late as the fourteenth century by John XXII (Extrav., V. un.).
exaggeration to maintain that with Hugh the idea of the universal Church as a corporate and autonomous entity which has to be governed according to its own underlying principles, reaches its full maturity. 1
Hugh of St Victor sharply distinguishes between the Church and the priesthood: the "Church" is by no means the sacerdotal hierarchy, but a living organism composed of the two orders, the laical and sacerdotal."Quid est ergo ecclesia nisi multitudo fidelium, universitas christianorum?" 2 This organic body is Christian: in so far as every one of its members whether or not ordained, is a Christian, he is an essential part of the body. 3 It is held together solely by the element of Christ's spirit and as such transcends all natural, biological, linguistic or racial frontiers. The element vivifying this body is the faith in Christ:
Per fidem membra efficimur . . . per fidem accipimus unionem.
Nevertheless, this corporate union is also earthy: it must live; it consists of living human beings; it must be guided; it must, above all, be organized so that it may be adequately administered. Hence different functions are allotted to the different parts composing this entity. The character of this unum corpus as an organic entity -- spiritual in substance, earthy in appearance -- presupposes in other words a differentiation of the functions so as to make this body an integrated whole. It is of course true that "omnes unum corpus," but this does not mean that all have the same functions within this unum corpus. This body may very well be compared with the human body. The latter's parts are parts of the whole; each part functions for the sake of the whole, and thereby integration of the human personality is achieved. All parts of the human body have, in Hugh's words, "propria et discreta officia." 4 The
1. One of the first to draw attention to the importance of Hugh's concept of ecclesia was A. Hauck, "Die Rezeption und Umbildung der allgemeinen Synode" in Hist. Viertel jahrschrift, x ( 1907), pp. 467 f. 2. De sacramentis, ii. 2 (PL. clxxvi. 417). Shortly afterwards the chancellor of Lincoln, Richard Wethershet, was to express the same idea:"Credo populum christianum esse sanctam ecclesiam,"Speculum ecclesiae, Univ. Libr., Cambridge, Add. MS. 3471, fol. 126 rb.
3. De sacramentis, ii. 1, col. 415: "Caput enim est Christus, membrum christianus. Caput unum, membra multa, et constat unum corpus ex capite et membris et in uno corpore spiritus unus."
4. De sacramentis, cap. 2, col. 416: there is absolutely no indication that Hugh was acquainted with Gelasius's writings, and yet the identical thought in him and Gelasius produces the identical terminology. Hugh: "discreta officia"; Gelasius: "Christus . . . officia discrevit." For Bernard's identical terminology see supra 435 n. 3. In his De off. eccl., i. 43 (PL. clxxvii. 402) Hugh says:'Papa vicem et locum Christi tenet."
eyes do not see for themselves, but for the whole body, although they are the only part of the body which can see; the same applies to the ears, feet, and so forth. All parts of the human body therefore function for the sake of the whole body, not for their own sakes. 1
The direction of the human body as well as of the Christian body corporate and politic, the universitas christianorum, must accord with the purpose and aim, for which each exists. The logical deduction is that the direction of the universitas must lie in the hands of those who are properly qualified. The direction of the human body is the work and function of the soul, the "anima," which operates through the human body and is its prime agent. The direction of the universitas christianorum must necessarily be the work and the function of the personified "anima," that is, the "spiritualis potestas." 3 The spiritual power, that is, the sacerdotal order in the Church, is the "anima" of the whole "corpus christianorum."
Corpus vivit ex anima . . . anima vivit ex Deo.
In the universitas christianorum, the ecclesia, the lay order corresponds to the human body, because its members busy themselves with the "terrena" only, the physical needs of this life. To the soul of the human being corresponds the sacerdotal order, because its members are engaged in spiritual pursuits. Just therefore as the human being is formed of body and soul, in the same way the universal Church is made up of these two orders: 4
1. Loc. cit., cap. 2: "Soli enim oculi vident, et tamen sibi solummodo non vident, sed toti corpori. Solae aures audiunt nec tamen sibi solummodo audiunt, sed toti corpori. Soli pedes ambulant et non sibi tamen solummodo ambulant, sed toti corpori. Et ad hunc modum unumquodque quod habet solum in se non habet solummodo propter se quatenus secundum dispositionem optimi largitoris et distributoris sapientissimi, singuli sint omnium, et omnia singularorum." There may be a direct echo of Hugh's theme in Alexander III's statement, Ep. 260, PL. cc. 301-2: "Sicut in humano corpore pro varietate officiorum diversa ornata sunt membra, ita in structura ecclesiae . . . diversae personae in diversis sunt ordinibus constitutae." For the thirteenth century see, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, operating with the same anthromorphic comparisons as Hugh: see his Ad Romanos, xii, lectio 2, ending with this statement:"Non potest dicere oculus manui, opera tua non indigeo." Cf. also infra p. 443 n. 2.
3. Cap. 3, col.418. Cf. also Thomas, Summa Theol., III qu. viii, art. 2: "Inquantum vero anima est motor corporis, corpus instrumentalizer servit animae."
4. See also in this context Hugh's explanation of why water and wine are mixed in the chalice at the Consecration:"Quaeritur, cur aqua cum vino ponatur in calice Domini? Aqua populum significat: unde nec vinum, qua significatur Christus, debet offerri sine aqua, quia Christus non est passus nisi pro populo, nec aqua sine vino ullo modo: quia populus non est redemptus nisi per Christum," Quaestiones in Epistolam I ad Corinthios, qu. 91, PL. clxxv. 531.
Constat his duabus partibus totum corpus Christi quod est universalis ecclesia.
And just as it is the function of the soul to direct the human body, so it is the function of the personified soul, the sacerdotal order, to direct the lay power in the Church. This body being a Christian body, must necessarily be guided, ruled and orientated by those qualified, that is to say, the sors Domini: only he belongs to the sors who is "electus a Deo ad servitium Dei." For its member has per se also regal powers, as is evidenced and signified by the clerical crown which is a royal distinction: "Corona quippe regale decus significat." 1 Hence for the sake of actual government, the sacerdotal order in the Church must needs institute the secular power. And, arising out of this, the sacerdotal power must needs judge whether the lay power performs its functions adequately. The secular power is brought into being by, and kept under the constant controlling supervision of, the sacerdotal power.
Nam spiritualis potestas terrenam potestatem et instituere habet, ut sit, et judicare habet si bona non fuerit. 2
On the other hand, and for understandable reasons, the sacerdotal power -- which in effect means the Pope -- is not subject to any judgment: sacerdotal power is directly instituted by God and therefore "a solo Deo judicari potest," 3 whilst on the other hand, the terrestrial power is instituted by the spiritual power and therefore subjected to the latter's control. In obvious dependence on Honorius of Canterbury, Hugh declares that the sacerdotal power, instituted by God Himself, precedes the temporal-laical power not only in time, but also in dignity. 4 Only later, and by the explicit order of God, the sacerdotal power
1. De sacr., iii. 1, col. 421, with a reference to I Pet. ii. 9: "regale sacerdotium." This view may lead to the narrow application of this biblical expression to the sacerdotium only.
2. De sacr. ii. 3, col. 417. This was literally copied by Alexander of Hales, Summa Theol., IV, qu. x, membr. 4, art. 2; by Egidius Romanus, De ecclesiastica potestate, i. 4 (ed. R. Scholz, pp. 11-12) and ii. 5 (p. 59): "Bene itaque dictum est, quod terrena potestas est per ecclesiasticam et ab ecclesiastica et in opus ecclesiastice constituta"; by Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam; by Hostiensis, Lectur a, I. xv; Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiae, i. 36 - 7 ; and many others.
3. De sacr. ii. 3, col. 418, with a reference to I Cor. ii. 15.
4. De sacr.> ii, cap. 4, col. 418: "Quod autem spiritualis potestas (quantum ad divinam institutionem spectat) et prior sit tempore; et major dignitate; in illo antiquo veteris instrumenti populo manifeste declaratur, ubi primum a Deo sacerdotium institutum est." Cf. also ibid.: "Quanto autem vita spiritualis dignior est quam terrena, et spiritus quam corpus, tanto spiritualis potestas terrenam sive saecularem potestatem honore ac dignitate praecedit."
instituted royal power: "Postea vero per sacerdotium (jubente Deo) regalis potestas ordinata." In other words, the lay power does not become a truly regal power in the Church, unless it is sanctified by the sacerdotium: no legitimate regal power without the sanctification by the priesthood.
Unde in ecclesia adhuc sacerdotalis dignitas potestatem regalem consecrat, et sanctificans per benedictionem et formans per institutionem. 1
The biblical justification for the royal power's being "jure inferior" is St Paul's statement"The less is blessed by the better." 2
From the point of view of the character of the universitas christianorum this thesis of Hugh of St Victor was the only acceptable and logical one. But priority of the sacerdotium in time, its superiority in law, its creation of kingly power, and its control of the king's governmental actions, do not as yet say anything about the administration and the functions within the universitas christianorum. It is the function of the king to act for the sake of the whole Christian body politic, that is, it is his function to procure and to protect the necessaries of life -the terrena -- and the people; he is the sustentamentum populi: through his governmental actions he literally sustains the Christian people. 3 And in so far the king or prince must be obeyed: considering the establishment of royal power and the purpose of this creation, Hugh can say:
Reges et principes, quibus obediendum est in omnibus quae ad potestatem pertinent, 4
which is the same point of view which we have met with Honorius of Canterbury and others.
1. Attention should be drawn to Hugh's discussing the legality of the death penalty in the case of theft (the usual punishment at that time). Could the prince's sword be used for this purpose, since this does not tally with the New Testament? He answers: "Haec nullo modo justitia evangelii est, ut homo pro equo vel bove occidatur, nec in toto evangelio hoc praeceptum invenitur, nec id facit, sed tantum permittit ecclesia,"Quaestiones ad Ep. ad Romanos, qu. 295, PL. clxxv. 504).
2. Hebr. vii. 7. For a concrete application of this view cf., e.g. Innocent III in RNI. 18, where all the arguments of Hugh are marshalled in Innocentian lucidity and incisiveness. For other applications by the canonists in the thirteenth century see Medieval Papalism.
3. De sacr., ii. 3, col. 417: "Laicus interpretatur popularis; Graece enim ?a´??, Latine dicitur populus. Unde et ßa???e?´? basileus rex dictus putatur; quasi ßa???a??´, id est sustentamentum populi." This etymological consideration was of course also applicable to the opposite point of view, cf. e.g., EHR. (lxi), 1946, p. 193.
4. Quaest. in Ep. ad Rom.., qu. 300, PL. cit., col. 505 continuing: "Si autem aliquid percipiunt quod si contra Deum, non sunt audiendi." Of course, what is "contra Deum" must be decided by the agency that sanctifies the king.
Naturally, just as there are different grades and functions --discreta officia -- in the royal hierarchy, so there are various grades and functions within the sacerdotal hierarchy. Each part and grade has to fulfil the function assigned, so as to make the corpus an integrated whole. 1 The presupposition for all this is, however, that there is a directive principle at work, that there is guidance towards a definite object, pursued as a result of the working of that regulative principle: in the individual human being it is the soul, the place of which is taken in the collective organic body of all Christians by the priesthood. For the purposes of the administration of this Christian body politic the functions are allocated by the priesthood, because its members alone have the proper qualification to direct the whole body. Each part to which a specific function is allocated, should confine itself to this specific function. Then the principle of order, or harmonious working together, will be applied to the good of the whole universitas christianorum.
From the samples which we have selected in order to present the hierocratic thesis at its most mature, it will have become sufficiently clear that the writers were dominated by the concept of the universal Church as constituting an organic entity, composed of both the lay and sacerdotal orders. The operation of the teleogical principle with its functionalist adjunct in the societas christiana was explained by a comparison of the Christian body corporate and politic with the human body. Both bodies, the individual and the collective, were considered organic entities: what applied to the one, applied automatically to the other.
In the eleventh century there were some beginnings of this allegorical comparison between the two bodies. 2 But with the further penetration into the texture of hierocratic doctrine, the comparison became a fully fledged theory which thus expressed the profound teleological principle in symbols. This comparison was all the easier as the famous Pauline statements had allegorically suggested this treatment: "We, being many, are one body in Christ": "Unum corpus sumus in Christo." 3 The point which we wish to make is that the teleological principle was transposed onto the plane of allegory. The functions which the members of the "one body in Christ" fulfil, could then be explained by a recourse to the functions which the parts of the human body perform. This again was facilitated by other Pauline statements,
1. See De sacr., cols. 418-19.
2. Cf. Gregory VII, Reg. i. 19, to the Conqueror.
3. Rom. xii. 5.
which depict the human body as a basis of comparison for demonstrating the various functions within the "one body in Christ." 1 All parts therefore of an organic unit fulfil certain purposes to which they are directed. These Pauline expressions setting forth the teleological and functionalist theme in all its profundity, were now in the twelfth century given practical and political significance. 2
Now the unum corpus Christi was headed by Christ. 3 This one body was the congregation of all the faithful, the societas christiana or the universitas christianorum: in brief, this body was the Church universal. Again, on the analogy of the human body, this body corporate was held to have been such that it could have one head only: a human body with two heads was a monstrosity, and so was this body corporate. "Est enim unum corpus ecclesia, ergo unum caput debet habere." The headship of the visible, concrete, Christian society, the ecclesia, was ascribed to the Pope as the vicar of Christ. The mediatory role of the Pope thereby obtained practical and political significance: 4 he is the earthly vicar of Christ -- "qui vices Dei gerit in terris" 5 --and as such
1. See especially I Cor. xii. 4 ff.: There are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit; there are differences of ministries, but the same Lord; there are diversities of operations. . . for the body is not one member, but many; if the foot shall say "because I am not the hand, I am not of the body," is it therefore not the body? . . . and the eye cannot say of the hand, I have no need of thee, nor again the head to the feet, I have no need . . .; also ibid., 11, 26, 27, etc. Eph. i. 23, iv. 10-11, 16, and again Rom. xii. 4: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office.
2. It should by no means be assumed that these anthropomorphic comparisons were characteristic of the twelfth century only. Cf. e.g., Thomas Aquinas, supra 439, and Ad Corinthios II, lectio ii, cap. xi:"Dominus papa pro necessitate unius patriae potest accipere subsidium ab aliis partibus mundi. Ratio est, quia ecclesia est sicut unum corpus. Videmus autem in corpore naturali, quando natura deficit virtus in uno membro, subministrat humores virtutem accipiens ab aliis membris."
3. See the Pauline statements, supra n. 1, and especially Eph. v. 23-4.
4. Later expressed by Grosseteste in the view that the bishops receive their power from Christ "per domini papae mediationem" (Ep. cxxvii, p. 369, ed. cit.; cf. also ibid., 365, 367). In more general terms this principle was expressed later by Augustinus Triumphus: "Omnem potestatem, tam spiritualem quam temporalem, a Christo in praelatos et principes saeculares derivatam esse mediante Petro eius successore cuius personam Romanus pontifex representat," ed. by J. Rivière, in Revue des sciences religieuses, xviii ( 1938), p. 153.
5. Or as Innocent III expressed it: "Dei, cuius locum, licet indigni, tenemus in terris," Reg. i. 485; also 447, 502, 526, and in many others places; in Reg. iii. 44: "Coelestis patris familias, licet insufficientes penitus et indigni, vicem gerentes in terris"; Reg. v. 128: "eius vicarius, qui est sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedek constitutus a Deo judex vivorum et mortuorum" (an application of the principle that the Pope has the "claves juris"). Cf. also Reg. vii. 1 ("Expresse notatur, quod Petro non specialiter aliqua specialis ecclesia, sed
he is the monarch of the Christian body corporate. 1 Moreover, since the sacerdotium symbolized the anima of the Christian corpus, the functions of the personified and institutionalized anima were the direction and government of that body. And this direction and government was carried out by means of the law which rested upon the Christian idea of justice. Since the Roman Church and its head, the vicar of Christ, was considered the repository of justitia, or the fundamentum legis totius Christianitatis, the canon law emanating from this source, appeared as the practical application of a further Pauline idea. 2 Living in society can be regulated by the law only. The canon law was the legalization of the faith. 3 "Materia juris canonici est fides
totus mundus commissus fuerit et ecclesia generalis."); Reg. xvi. 131 ("Ut in unam vicarii Christi personam quasi corpus et anima, regnum et sacerdotium uniantur ad magnum utriusque commondum et augmentum"); also Reg. ii. 209; i. 401; RNI. 2, and Rainer's collection, ii. 2 (PL. ccxvi. 1182: allegory of sun and moon), and Sermo iii (PL. ccxvii. 665): he received "spiritualium plenitudinem et latitudinem temporalium, magnitudinem et multitudinem utrorumque." The Roman Church "non solum terrena, sed coelestia quoque dijudicat," Suppl. Reg. 89 bis.
1. As is well known, Thomas Aquinas in the following century built around the theme of monarchy the visible vicariate of Christ in the person of the Pope, see his Summa contra gentiles, iv. 76, nos. 3-4: "Pax enim et unitas subditorum est finis regentis. Unitatis autem congruentior causa est unus quam multi. Manifestum est igitur regimen ecclesiae sic esse dispositum, ut unus toti ecclesiae praesit . . . quia praesentiam corporalem erat ecclesiae subtracturus, oportuit, ut alicui committeret, qui loco sui universalis ecclesiae gereret curam." As the late Father Eichmann observed (Acht & Bann, p. 37 ),"Die hierokratische Theorie ist also die konsequente Durchführung der mittelalterlichen Idee der ecclesia universalis, die eines sichtbaren Monarchen zu bedürfen schien," referring to St Thomas, loc. cit.: "Si quis autem dicat, quod unum caput et unus pastor est Christus, qui est unus unius ecclesiae sponsus, non sufficienter respondet." It should be pointed out, however, that the term corporalis presentia was used before St Thomas by Innocent IV, MGH. Epp. sel. XIII s., ii. 224, no. 301; p. 476, no. 665, etc. Cf. furthermore Thomas, Summa Theol., III qu. viii, a. 2; his lectio ii ad Romanos XII; hence the visible monarch, the Pope, combines like Christ, according to St Thomas, both powers: ". . . papa, qui utriusque potestatis apicem tenet, scilicet spiritualis et saecularis, hoc disponente, qui est sacerdos et rex in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedek,"In libr. II Sententiarum, Dist. xliv, qu. 2, ad 4 in fine. Because the Pope is the visible monarch, it is necessary to salvation to be subject to him, St Thomas declares in a memorable passage which is better known through Unam Sanctam: "Ostenditur quod subesse Romano pontifici sit de necessitate salutis," Thomas, Opusc. contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum IV, ed. Venice, 1593, fol. 9b. (All our statements of Thomas are taken from this edition.)
2. Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11; Hebr. x. 38. Cf. also Innocent III, Reg. ii. 220; the faithful receive from the Roman Church "non tantum vivendi normam et morum . . . disciplinam, sed et fidei etiam catholicae documenta."
3. Cf. e.g., the enumeration of the species of canon law by the Anglo-Norman glossator of the late twelfth century, who says:
"Juris canonci species (sunt) catholica . . . immo et omne jus comprehendit," Hostiensis was to declare in the following century. By virtue of the Pope's vicariate of Christ, his verdict was God's verdict. 1 "Omnia de jure potest ut Deus." 2
On this basis the principle which we have termed the principle of functional order, assumes its true significance. This organic body corporate is one whole, and in order to be an integrated, efficiently functioning whole, its parts must play the role assigned to them in accordance with the purpose for which they are assumed to exist. Again Pauline declarations were to show the necessity of dividing various functions. 3 The Pope as Christ's Vicar possesses both powers: the symbolic possession of the two swords expresses the principle of unity 4 only to be found in a true monarch. It is not, however, necessary that the monarch uses both swords. The symbolic possession of the swords also expresses the principle that the "vicarius Christi" as the vicar of "the true king and priest," uses certain agencies, so as to make the whole corpus function properly; and these agencies within the framework of the corpus have to fulfil those functions which are allotted to them. Thereby the principle of functional ordering is given practical realization and shape.
This principle of functional order may explain the often misunderstood hierocratic principle of subordination. This unum corpus can work and function adequately only if every member confines himself to the sphere assigned to him. But since it is the corpus Christi, since in other words, it is the body headed by Christ's vicar, everyone of its members should recognize not only the value, but also the limitations of his
dogma, id est statutum de fide promulgatum . . . mandatum . . . decretum . . ." (MS. 676 of Caius College, Cambridge; I owe this passage to my pupil Mr C. Duggan).
1. "Sententia igitur papae et sententia Dei una sententia est," Augustinus Triumphus, ed. cit., p. 159.
2. Hostiensis, Lectura ad I. vii. 3, adding: "Consistorium Dei et papae unum et idem censendum."
3. Cf. the passages supra 443 and I Cor. xiv. 40: "Omnia autem honeste et secundum ordinem fiant." Cf. again Innocent III, Reg. ii. 20: "Superna providentia quae populum humanum per diversa rectorum officia statuit in rectitudine gubernandum"; also Reg. iii. 38: "Unum corpus . . . ecclesia tamen non solum propter varietatem virtutum et operum, sed etiam propter diversitatem officiorum et ordinum, dicitur ut castrorum acies ordinata, in qua videlicet diversi ordines militant ordinati." Cf. also Reg. ii. 131, and similar statements in many other places.
4. Cf. of later writers Augustinus Triumphus: "Tota machina mundialis non est nisi unus principatus: ideo non debet esse nisi unus princeps," ed. cit., p. 172.
office, that is, of his function. 1 This principle of subordination of the temporal-material to the sacerdotal-spiritual was a commonplace enough axiom of Christian cosmology; transposed to society at large this principle 2 means that the temporal-secular ruler should subordinate himself to the rulings of those who represent the spiritual-sacerdotal, namely the "sacerdotes." It is this principle which Gregory VII called humilitas. And it is this principle which means that there can be no room for autonomous (lay) rulership: there can be no room for lay monarchy. 3 The principle expresses the view that the working of the unum corpus demands that the secular ruler shall take, within the framework of the whole corpus, the place and function accorded to him. By taking his place within this framework, the secular ruler recognizes the inferiority of the terrestrial and material: and then, according to the hierocratic point of view, the whole organic entity will function smoothly; then there will be harmony and concord; then confusion will be prevented. 4 The principle of functional ordering and consequently the principle of subordination is nothing else but the political formula for the teleological principle, operative only in a society that was viewed as unum corpus Christi. 5
1. As Innocent III expressed it: "Reg." i. 471: "Unusquisque maneat in ea vocatione, in qua dignoscitur esse vocatus."
2. In juristic terminology and as regards the relations of Pope to emperor the former was said to have the jus auctoritatis and the latter the jus administrandi: Rufinus, Summa Decretorum (about 1157-9), ed. H. Singer, p. 47. True governmental authority remained with the Pope; the execution potest (administratio) of papal esse suprema authoritative rulings was the emperor's task. Cf. on this the late Mochi Onory, Fonti Canonistiche, Milan, 1951, p. 87. 3. So it was also later expressed: "Nulla terrena potestas potest esse suprema simpliciter," Edidius RomanusDe potertate exxlesiastica, ed. R. Scholz, iii. 4, p. 165.
4. As Humbert expressed it in the eleventh century and as Egidius Romanus was to express it in the fourteenth century: "Quia potestas terrena immediate se intromittit de temporalibus, ne sit confusio in potestatibus, et ut hee potestates, terrena videlicet et ecclesiastica, non sint confusae, sed sint ad invicem ordinate, regulariter et generaliter de temporalibus ecclesia non se intromittit, sed solum se intromittet immediate et per se ipsam ex aliquo casu contingente vel propter aliquid speciale, non quod hoc sit ex ecclesiae impotentia, sed ex eius decencia et excellentia (cf. Bernard p. 434 ). Nam qui spiritualia judicat, multa magis potest temporalia et saecularia judicare," ed. cit., iii. 4, p. 163.
5. These conceptions, we believe, were further reasons of why Aristotle fell on such fertile ground in the thirteenth century. The teleological principle could then be stated in terms such as these: "Corpus ordinatur ad animam etiam secundum gentiles philosophos, et temporalia ordinantur ad spiritualia" (Durandus de S. Porciano, cf. Medieval Papalism, p. 85, note 4, and 86, note 1). Cf. also Thomas Aquinas, De regimine principum, i. 14: "Sic enim ei, ad quem finis ultimi cura pertinet, subdi debent illi, ad quod pertinet cura antecedentium finium,"
T HE mid-twelfth century provides a convenient terminating point in the presentation of the growth of papal-hierocratic doctrine. Little new ideological substance was added afterwards. What however gives the period from Gratian onwards its complexion is the scientific making and developing of the law -- that law which expresses a theme in binding terms. The canon law as it came to be rapidly shaped from Gratian onwards, supplied the norma recte vivendi for the members of the universitas christianorum. Like any other law, it was compulsory; unlike any other law, it was universal and binding upon all the members of this universitas, emanating as it did from the Roman Church, the "communis patria" of all Christians. 1 Being universal, every other law and legal system was considered subsidiary and auxiliary: the auxiliary function of the prince was paralleled above
et eius imperio dirigi"; hence "reges debent sacerdotibus esse subjecti"; also cap. 15: "Rex, sicut dominio et regimini quod administratur per sacerdotis officium, subdi debet, ita prae esse debet omnibus humanis officiis." Idem, Summa Theol., I, qu. cxvi, a. 4: "Quandoque multa ordinantur ad unum, semper invenitur unum, ut principale et dirigens"; ibid., III, qu. viii, a. 4: "Unum autem corpus similitudinarie dicitur una multitudo ordinata in unum, secundum actus sive officia." It is therefore perfectly logical for Thomas to say, De reg. princ., i. 14:
"Romano Pontifici, cui omnes reges populi christiani oportet esse subditos, sicut Domino Iesu Christo."
In all its maturity this principle is expressed by Egidius Romanus, op. cit., ed. cit., iii. 4, p. 166: "Tota corporalis substantia per spiritualem gubernatur et regitur et est sibi supposita"; hence:
"Sicut Deus sic administrat istas res corporales, ut eas proprios motus agere sinat, sic Dei vicarius sic debet administrare potestates terrenas et temporales, ut eas permittat propria officia exercere."
And lastly, see the gloss of Cardinal Johannes Monachus on Boniface's bull of granting the indulgence for 1300:
"Oportet quod multitudo hominum reducatur ad unum et in genere hominum sit reperire unum hominem primum, qui sit supremum in illo genere, qui sit mensura et regula aliorum; huiusmodi autem est Romanus Pontifex qui est inter omnes homines supremus existens mensura et regula directiva omnium aliorum".
1. Johannes de Petesella, Summa ad Extra: II. ii, fol. 161ra, of MS. Vat. Lat. 2343. For the designation of Rome as the "communis patria" by second-century Roman jurists, see supra p. 6 n. i.
all by the auxiliary function of the Roman law which, in Hostiensis's memorable words, was the "ancilla juris canonici." 1
The Papal-hierocratic scheme is a gigantic attempt to translate scriptural and quite especially Pauline doctrine into terms of government. The means by which this government was to be carried out were those of the law, "Roman" as it was in every sense of the term. The claves regni coelorum -- "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" -- were transformed into claves juris, the "keys of the law." Perhaps at no other time had the notion of law been raised to so lofty a level as at the time when the papal monarch aimed at ruling the world by his law. 2 This papal-hierocratic government was a government sui generis: it was an attempt to direct Europe, that Caroline entity, by means of an idea enshrined in a universally binding law. It was a government that had not at its beck and call the usual paraphernalia of governments (army, police force, etc.), but employed these through the medium of the secular ruler, the advocatus, whose control by the papal monarch was therefore essential to this kind of government: without the advocatus the papal-hierocratic scheme falls to the ground.
The idea of such a government could only exist, let alone function, in a world that was fundamentally different from ours. And it is this difference which makes it on the one hand so difficult to capture the ideological ingredients, and on the other hand gives rise to some facile generalizations about the "airy" character of medieval doctrines. Whilst faith and religion are nowadays matters of private opinion, at that time they were issues of public law, of public concern and public interest. We have but to recall the public effects of excommunication to appreciate this truism. Moreover, the medieval mind was addicted to what may be termed the charm of sensual concreteness: the most abstract ideas were to be explained by, compared with, and likened to, concrete, tangible objects; whilst on the other hand, the most profound
1. Hostiensis, Lectura ad V. xxxiii.28.
2. Even in its incipient stages the canon law was the main target of the antihierocratic party. Cf. supra ch. xii on Peter Crassus, Gerhoh of Reichersberg, and so forth. (Gottschalk's?) Liber de unitate ecclesiae conservanda which, we recall propounded a dualist form of government, was in fact first published by Ulrich van Hutten who delighted in this apology of Henry IV -- before Luther made a bonfire of the Corpus Juris Canonicion 10 December 1520. This incendium decretalium, as Erasmus termed it, was a symbolic challenge to the jurisdictional and legislative authority of the Roman Church. Henry VIII's prohibition of canon law studies ( 1536) was based on the monarchic view that "the whole realm, clergy as well as laity, hath acknowledged the King to be the supreme head of the Church."
ideas were not expressed in linguistic terms, but in those of objective symbolism. This is a way of arguing, thinking and acting that is a very serious stumbling block to a proper appreciation of medieval doctrines, and quite particularly of the papal-hierocratic theme. In so far then, the criteria of explaining, understanding and judging medieval society are different from our own.
It is superficial to maintain that the actual or attempted exercise of monarchic power by the medieval Popes demonstrates their insatiable lust for power. Every regimen in whatever sphere is exercise of authority and power. The real problem does not start until the purpose, the "finis" or "telos" of the regimen is examined. Considered from their own point of view, the medieval Popes regarded it as their duty and office to rule, for they claimed that the "cura et sollicitudo" for the whole of Christendom was in their hands. 1 They believed that since the whole universitas christianorum, that juristic, corporate and organic entity, was entrusted to them, they had to govern it so as to lead it to its eventual destination. The mediatory role of the Pope (and herewith of the sacerdotium) obtained in this scheme of things practical and "political" importance. Hence the logical necessity of considering the Petrine commission to constitute a vicariate of Christ, so that the Pope in the most concrete, sensual terms appeared as the "vicarius Dei" -the vicar of the "one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (I Tim. ii. 5). 2 The visible vicariate of Christ makes the Pope the ostium Dei. 3 And since at least in an ideational sense Christian
1. The Popes considered themselves responsible to God for the government of the whole Christian people entrusted to their care. Cf., for instance, Innocent III in his third consecration sermon (PL. ccxvii. 658):
"Redditurus (papa) Deo rationem non solum pro se, sed pro omnibus qui sunt suae curae commissi. At omnes omnino, qui sunt de familia Domini, sub eius cura constituti sunt." Cf. also col. 655 and again Bernard's De consideratione, III. i. 2.
2. Cf. Innocent IIIin Reg. i. 335: "Non enim homo, sed Deus separat, quod Romanus pontifex . . . non humana, sed divina potius auctoritate dissolvit"; and in many other places. It is not without interest to note that in the thirteenth century a litigant who appeared personally before the Pope, had to address him in these words: "Mediator Dei et hominum, coram quo loqui praesumo, non considerabit meae scientiae parvitatem," Aegidius Fuscararius, Ordo judiciarius, ed. L. Wahrmund, Innsbruck, 1916, iii. 259, under the heading: "Exordium coram domino papa." (I owe this to my,pupil Mr J. A. Watt.) In the sixteenth century the Spanish Dominican, Mathias de Paz, in his tract "De dominio regum Hispaniae super Indos," said: "Ergo absurdum videretur dicere quod Christus, rex regurn et dominus dominantium, dimiserit orbem terrarum absque judice competenti in omnibus et per omnia, cum ipse vere esset monarcha totius universi," ed. in Arch. Fratrum Praedicatorum, iii ( 1934), at p. 161, lines 28 ff.
3. As regards Innocent III I could find only one reference to Prov. viii. 15, but the statement was not made by him, but addressed to him by Peter of Aragon, see
society was viewed as universal, the Pope claimed to be the universal monarch, the world's monarch. 1 And just as this claim as regards the extent was comprehensive, in the same way it was comprehensive as regards the substance: for the Petrine commission was all-embracing -- "nihil excipiens": neither cause nor person was excepted. It was a conception of monarchy raised to perhaps the highest possible level.
Seen from yet another angle, this Papal world monarchy was also the bridge builder between Roman and modern times. All the characteristic Roman features had impressed themselves upon the physiognomy of the Papacy, the Roman Church. Not only the law; also the conception of the universality of government. 2 It was as universal monarchs that the Popes partly applied Roman principles, partly developed them, and partly created new ones, which have since gained universal recognition in International Law. The protection of legates; safe conduct of ambassadors; secrecy in diplomatic negotiations; insistence on the adherence to treaties made between secular rulers; condemnation of treaty violations; Papal annulment and rescission of treaties and compacts; fixation of treaty conditions; excommunication and deposition of rulers; orders for the release of prisoners, for their humane treatment and that of hostages; protection of exiles, aliens and Jews; condemnation of "unjust" wars and piracy; confirmation of peace treaties; orders for the free passage of troops engaged in a "just" campaign; orders to rulers to enter into alliances; ascription of occupied territories to a victorious belligerent party, and so forth. 3 Being the repository of justice, the sedes justitiae, the Roman Church and herewith the Popes claimed that they had a right to do and enact all those items. And in the case of a default of justice by a secular tribunal or in the case of a vacancy of the imperial throne, the Papal monarch filled the gap by assuming the role of the judge himself or
1. For some development of these views by the canonists see Medieval Papalism, ch. 5. 2. For some challenging views on Roman, medieval and modern universalism, see R. Dekkers, "Deux universalismes" in Mélanges G. Smets, Brussels, 1952, pp. 183ff.
3. Reg. vii. 229: " Romanus pontifex, qui est beati Petri successor, vicarius sit illius per quem reges regnant et principes principantur." This is also incorporated in his Gesta, cap. cxx. The passage from Prov. is however applied in a vicarious sense by Boniface VIII, MGH. Const. iv. no. 105, p. 80: "Apostolica sedes divinitus constituta super reges et regna . . . per quam principes imperant et potentes decemunt justitiam ac reges regnant."
3. Most of the relevant official documents for the thirteenth century are now conveniently assembled in the work already quoted, G. B. Pallieri and G. Vismara, Acta pontificia juris gentium, Milan, 1946.
by taking over the government (so-called imperial vicariate of the Papacy).
In view of these claims, the question is legitimate, What other steps should the medieval Popes have taken to assert themselves as universal monarchs? At the same time the other question is legitimate, How far were all these measures and actions ordered by the Popes effective? Or were these orders and decrees and so forth little more than claims raised on a stupendous scale? The answers to these questions can only be given on the basis of a detailed analysis 1 and a necessary preliminary must be the examination of the legal system itself, that is, of that system which grew up from the mid-twelfth century onwards. What we can usefully do here is to indicate in the briefest possible manner the obstacles to the full realization of the papal-hierocratic system.
Perhaps the most effective obstacle to the full manifestation of the Papal-hierocratic system was the role allotted to the king and, to a larger extent, to the lay population. As we have had ample opportunity of pointing out, the king in hierocratic thought, could not, for the reasons stated, be conceived on the monarchic level. Underneath all the numerous conflicts between the sacerdotium and the regnum, between the Papacy and the kingdoms, including the empire, is detectable one and the same current: the battle for the exercise of monarchic functions. The hierocratic denial of monarchic power to the kings accounts for their resistance to the role allotted to them. It is this point, we think, which characterizes the whole medieval scene as far as it is related to this central theme. One might well say, however, that this royal resistance is not exclusively to be explained by "political" considerations, but by considerations belonging to an order outside the historian's purview. The monarchic instincts of a king -- the honor imperii -- could not then be permanently suppressed. The battle and
1. With regard to Innocent III cf. the pertinent observations of C. R. Cheney in Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xxxv ( 1952),pp. 41-2. See also P. Rassow, "Zum Kampf um das Eherecht im 12. Jahrhundert" in Festchrift f. Santifaller (MIOG), lviii, 1950), p. 311, pointing out (with regard to marriage and divorce) the danger to the historical picture accruing from relying on one group of sources only. A further problem is the continued application of the royal coronation ordines which retained the features of the tenth century sacral lay monarchy (anointing on the head with chrism, conferment of the ring, etc.) and were followed throughout the medieval period in England, France, Germany, Hungary and Spain.
the nomenclatures take on different shapes at different times, but they are essentially the same. From the time of the Eastern emperor styling himself the Atutokrator or the Pontifex inclytus or the Rex-Sacerdos, to Charlemagne, the Ottonians and Salians -- the Monokrator or the Christus Domini or the Servus servorum Christi or the Vicarius Christi - down to the "New Monarchy," it is always the same assertion of true monarchic functions on the part of kings and emperors. Perhaps at no other time had the Sermon on the Mount such practical application as in the medieval period: "No man can serve two masters."
This hierocratic axiom of functional qualification, according to which only the ordained members of the Church are entitled to guide, to orientate, to direct, in brief to govern the whole corpus of Christians, met with resistance also on the lower lay spheres. To all intents and purposes the lay members of the Church were excluded from important determinative matters. It was not one of the least results of the twelfthcentury Renascence that, for practical purposes, it entailed far greater range of activity for the laymen. Education and scholarship had hitherto been almost exclusively the domain of the clerics. Now the lay section of the populus christianus came equally to the fore. Prevailing practices and ways of living of the higher clergy kindled the criticalliberal spirit of laymen and the lower sacerdotal strata. Hence the call to a return to primitive conditions: the call addressed to the higher clergy to divest themselves of their wealth -- it is the emergence of the battle cry "evangelical poverty." And the critical spirit now generally abroad, became inquisitive, hence amongst other things translations of the Bible into the vernacular (French), but inquisitiveness on the one side led to [the] Inquisition on the other. And inquisitiveness was the fertile ground upon which the element of doubt could arise. Doubt in the mediatory role of the Pope and the priesthood was fatal to a system to which this role was vital.
The concept of ecclesia as the corporate, juristic entity of all Christians, which had proved such a signal source of strength to hierocratic thought, was, paradoxically enough, to prove a source of weakness. Again, a number of factors combined. The canonists as befitted lawyers, were great constitutionalists. There is observable a certain dichotomy amongst the canonists, particularly those who were cardinals. 1 On the one hand, they were the staunchest upholders of a rigid papalism; on the other hand, they were very insistent on the constitutional limitations of the Pope, controlled as he was to be by the College of Cardinals.
1. Cf. our observations in Studi Gregoriani, iv. 127.
They developed as regards the Roman Church the corporation theory according to which the Pope and the cardinals were constitutionally on the same level as a cathedral chapter and the bishop. It needed no particular efforts to apply these "Roman Church" principles to the whole corpus of believers and to make the whole union of believers the bearers of true power, with the consequence that the Pope instead of being the head, became the representative, of the "congregatio fidelium." This was to lead straight on to the Conciliar Movement. 1 The so strongly entrenched idea of the corpus was to show itself of extraordinary value to the conciliarists, turning as they did the whole papal-hierocratic system upside down, with the help of the same fundamental concept, the corpus idea of the Church. 2 Naturally, the episcopal quarter took a lively interest in these theories -- was not the bishop "apostolicae sedis gratia episcopus"? -- and the sternly increased centralization of ecclesiastical government together with the virtual exclusion of electoral bodies and the (logically defensible) institutions of expectancies, provisions of benefices and so forth, 3 were bound to play into the hands of the anti-hierocrat and to rekindle the never extinct episcopal ambition of freedom.
The lay opposition to the hierocratic scheme was above all governmentally concentrated in the emperors. The imperial thesis, as far as it was capable of formulating an independent theory of its own, naturally became the focal point of anti-hierocratic opposition, behind which a good many incompatible and diversified strains and equally diverse motives could safely shelter. We do not wish to say that the imperial thesis played any conspicuous part in the weakening of the hierocratic scheme. But what we would maintain is that hierocratic doctrine,
1. Cf. my Origins of the Great Schism, London, 1949, pp. 183ff.; and B. Tierney, in his as yet unpublished dissertation " The authority of Pope and Council in the Writings of the medieval canonists." Cf. now also E. F. Jacob, Essays in the Conciliar Epoch, second edition, Manchester, 1953, pp. 240-1.
2. The logical consequence of the Pope being the representative of the congregatio fidelium, from whom in fact he derived his power, was that the congregatio could also withdraw the powers from him: the master of the Church was turned into its servant. The corpus was founded by Christ -- "petra enim erat Christus" (I Cor. x. 4) -- and its members conferred certain powers on the Pope. This was the conciliarist point of view, greatly valued as it was because it provided a possibility of ending the Schism, cf. Origins of the Great Schism, pp. 176ff, 201ff., 214ff.
3. The increasingly heavy taxes imposed together with the numerous subsidies and fees exacted for an incredibly great variety of causes, the sale of all sorts of offices, including the highest curia! posts, must also be taken into account. Cf. the documentation in W. E. Lunt, Papal revenues, cit., especially vol. ii; also idem, Financial relations of the Papacy with England, cit.
particularly as practised in the thirteenth century towards the Staufen empire, substantially contributed to its own weakening. There can be no doubt that the lessons of history as well as the maxims of hierocratic theory were not heeded by those who applied it. The specifically created protector and defender and advocate gone -- the consequences were inevitable.
Moreover, the hierocratic conception was, as it may have become sufficiently clear, thoroughly Roman in every respect. The whole idea concerning the emperor was Roman. And the execution of hierocratic doctrine was sletermined by these Roman elements which in practice meant that Papal-hierocratic thought manifested clear signs of lack of flexibility and adjustment. Again, traditionalism and conservatism which had been so great a source of strength to the hierocratic scheme, were to prove themselves sources of weakness. This showed itself in Papal-imperial relations during the thirteenth century. The emperor, though a "unicus filius" of the Roman Church, admittedly behaved himself sometimes like a troublesome son. Yet, the Papal-imperial contests absorbed so much energy to the detriment of the Papacy. Apparently unable to free itself from its Roman fetters, the Papacy, for the sake of the Roman empire, nurtured the kings, especially those of France and partly also of England. Many issues in these countries which provoked the papal wrath against the emperors, were overlooked. It faintly begins with Gregory VII; it is continued with Alexander III and it becomes quite plain with Innocent III. The empire, in modern parlance, provided an ideological buffer-state for these kings. And the consequences were clear: the heir of the Staufens became France. It was not Boniface VIII, but Innocent III and his successors who reaped at Anagni what they had sown from Rome. The inability of hierocratic doctrine to adjust itself to new circumstances showed itself not only in that the whole Roman-conditioned set of ideas could make but little impression on the French -- and they were only too quick to point this out -- but it also failed to take into account rising and influential classes, particularly in the cities.
Could above all, in the late thirteenth century, the attractively simple bierocratic arguments make much impression on the Aristotelian trained minds of the age? The impact of Aristotle 1 on the late medieval world is not only, as we are incessantly told, of importance to mere
1. For the actual reasons of papal resistance to the New Aristotle see especially M. Grabmann, I divieti ecclesiastici di Aristotele sotto Innocenzo III e Gregorio IX (Misc. Hist. Pont., vol. v, 1941).
philosophic enquiries, but also, and we venture to say, of greater importance in the field of political science. There are indeed two different worlds, that before and that after the Aristotelian absorption. True, Aristotle could be, and was, adduced to buttress hierocratic principles. But it was also the same Aristotle who demonstrated the very human, very natural origin of society.
The impact of Aristotle came at a time which was ready for him. He provided what anti-hierocratic thinkers had been groping for so long to find. He had shown, not in any way polemical and quite independent of thirteenth-century actuality, therefore of all the greater topical interest, that there was a societas humana, the aim of which was the satisfaction of human needs. This societas humana is something fundamentally different from the societas christiana. It grows from below, from the household, the village and larger entities into a self-sufficing community formed by the natural impulse of men to live in it; it is therefore a creation of nature. The societas christiana comes, so to speak, from above; it is founded or instituted; it has therefore its origin outside nature. The one descends from above, from a unifying principle, from Christ Himself; the other ascends from below, from the natural union of male and female. Into the one societas man comes through the working of the social instinct; into the other societas man comes through the sacramental act of baptism. Consequently, aim and purpose of these two societies are quite different.
The societas humana aims at providing human, earthly felicity; it aims at a perfect, honourable and self-sufficing life. This is an end in itself. The values, criteria and functions of this human society are determined by its character and aim. It is a this-worldly community and on its own showing restricts itself to the satisfaction of human needs. Hence all social, political and cultural activity within this human society is to be orientated by this end which alone is the directive or regulative principle. Wedded to the already formidable awareness of nationhood, this Aristotelian conception of the societas humana provided the early fourteenth-century challenge to hierocratic thought, provided the framework out of which the modern nation-state could arise. Aristotle supplied the roof under which anti-hierocratic thought found a shelter.
In fact, then, there were, conceptually, two distinct societies, the one a "Church," the other a "State." Partly foreshadowed by the earlier anti-hierocrats, partly expressed also in religious terms by some heretical sects, this dualism was now given concrete political shape.
None sensed the danger to the hierocratic system more clearly than Boniface VIII, desperately trying to stem the tide. As a canonist he realized that in this scheme of things the "Church" was to be a "mystical body" with the inevitable consequence that ecclesiastical jurisdiction was not ex se and per se to produce effects in public and social life: ecclesiastical jurisdiction was to be restricted to issues which were pertinent to this mystical body, that is, to spiritual issues. 1 But in the opinion of the curialists this was no longer government in the sense in which they understood the term: curialist opinion perceived the impending reduction of law to morals. Unam sanctam was a magnificent swan song of the papal-hierocratic system, pontifically synthesizing Hugh's, Bernard's, Alan's and Thomas's ideas. 2 "Duo principia ponere, haereticum est."
The State as a human and natural community, as the universitas civium in Marsiglian terminology, confines itself to human ends; it is human and so is its power; wherefrom the claim arises that jurisdiction, that is, coercive governmental power rests with those who constitute the State, the universitav civium. It is they who have sovereign power; it is the "self-sufficing" sovereignty of the people which is the hallmark of the State. And it is this sovereign power that has to institute the various organs who are to operate their own human body politic. Governmental power comes from below, no longer from above through the mediation of the priests. In order to be a civis, it is not necessary to be a christianus. The State -- the universitas civium or civitas or civilitas -- concentrates on civil needs. The State is autonomous and sovereign. "Omne regnum," says Ockham, "omnis communitas debet habere
1. Cf. the observations of J. Leclerq, Jean de Paris et l'ecclisiologie du xiii siècle, Paris, 1942, p. 109: "Contre ce dualisme menaçant, il ( Boniface VIII) insistait sur l'unité de l'église. Affirmer l'independance du pouvoir temporel, c'était imiter à la fois les manichéens et les Grecs schismatiques, et introduire la division dans le monde et l'église. Devant le danger créé par Philippe le Bel et ses partisans, Boniface VIII, Jean le Moine, Mathieu d'Aquasparata et Gilles de Rome appliquaient aux adversaires du pouvoir pontifical la réfutation oppos jadis aux manichéens." Against this was set the thesis: " Le pape était le chef visible de l'église, mais l'église n'était plus seulement pour eux un 'corps mystique' uni par la même foi et les mêmes sacrements, elle était aussi une organization politique temporelle. Revendiquant pour le pape le droit de commander aux hommes en tous les domaines, ils croyaient sauvegarder l'unité du monde: la theocratie pontificale leur semblait être l'un des moyens de soumettre toute créature à l'unique empire de Dieu."
2. It is not without a certain historical irony that on the very eve of the return to medieval-laical conditions (the Reformation), Leo X in the Council of Rome, 1517, re-issued Unam sanctam in the bull Pastor aeternus, Mansi, xxxii. 968-9.
unum judicem simpliciter supremum." 1 The State was given a positive function and purpose; it was also shown to have an origin accessible to human self-sufficing explanation. 2 In a way, it is the return to the old monarchic lay principle which the anti-hierocrats had asserted often enough, but which they never could establish on a satisfactory basis, bound as they were to the same ways of reasoning as their opponents. Aristotle gave late medieval man the scientific tools and it is these tools which eventually will create modern Europe. 3 It is this modern Europe that will call for the necessary re-adjustment of theories relating to Church and State. And it will be Aristotle again, though in the Thomistic metamorphosis, which will adjust the ideological framework.
The debt which medieval Europe owed to the Papal-hierocratic scheme of things is in no need of emphasis. Based upon the view of the individual's and therefore of society's oneness, this theory made a positive and constructive contribution to the medieval world, sharply opposing a divisibility of the individual and therefore of society. It is an impressive conception which aimed at giving medieval Europe a sense of unity, order, direction and purpose; it is a doctrine that engaged and fructified and energized the best contemporary brains; it is a theme which could produce these fertilizing effects only in a period that is not inappropriately called the "Christian Middle Ages." The papal-hierocratic idea of government is a historical phenomenon and explicable only by historical criteria: it is a classic demonstration of the evolution of an idea.
1. With this statement should be compared those supra 446. Due weight should also be given to medieval representative institutions and electoral procedures which, opposed to hierocratic ideology, must have, alongside with certain Roman law principles, facilitated the Aristotelian advance.
2. The great importance of French publicist literature in the early fourteenth century becomes all the clearer if set against this background. For instance, the anonymous Antequam essent clerici expresses not only the denial of the mediatory role of the priesthood, but also symptomatically shows that the teleological view of history was withering away. This somewhat realistic approach to political problems is also evidenced by John of Paris, a very able Aristotelian anti-papalist of the very early fourteenth century. Arguing against a universal body politic -and re-echoing Pierre de Flotte's famous retort to Boniface VIII -- he states the case for diversities of because of the different modes of living, different climatic conditions and geographical situations of peoples (ed. cit., p. 181). The Pope is concerned with a mystical body, hence works with no more than the "verbum," but the king must govern in the proper sense of the term; his power is "manualis: facilius enim est extendere verbum quam manum," ibid. Pierre de Flotte had said to the Pope: "Vestra (potestas) est verbalis, nostra autem est realis" ( EHR. lxi, 1946, p. 181).
3. Once the full implications of the concept "societas humana" are grasped, the further development seems clear: humanism, individualism, liberalism and the doctrine of the Rights of Man.
List of Popes
(from the beginning of the fifth century)
Compiled on the basis of the corrected list by A. Mercati in Annuario Pontificio ( 1947 et seq.) = idem in Medieval Studies, ix ( 1947), pp. 72 ff. For full details of the Popes' Christian names, of their place of origin, of the day and month of their election, consecration, coronation and death, see Mercati, loc. cit. The anti-Popes are given in brackets.
1, line 7 from foot: For this concept of baptism as a legal act see O. Heggelbacher, Die christl. Taufe als Rechtsakt nach dem Zeugnis der frühen Christenheit ( Freiburg, Switzerland, 1953).
2, n. 1: This will become a standing phrase throughout the M.A. and will therefore also be applied to the Pope who functions on behalf of Christ. Cf., e.g., Innocent IV in E. Winkelmann, Acta imperii inedita ( Innsbruck, 1880), ii. 697: "Generali namque legatione in terris fungimur regis regum."
2, n. 2: On the intimate connexion between monotheism and monarchy see especially E. Peterson, Theologische Traktate ( Munich, 1951), i. 60 ff.
3, n. 1: Cf. also L. Cerfaux, La théologie de l'église suivant s. Paul, 2nd ed. ( Paris, 1948), p. 301; cf. also p.173.
3, n. 2: See already the (genuine) Prima Clementis, cc, 37-8, employing the Pauline allegory of body and head. For Pauline conceptions cf. also O. Karrer, "Apsotolische Nachfolge und Primat" in Z. f. kath. Theol. lxxvii ( 1955), pp. 131 ff.; O. Kuss, "Jesus und die Kirche" in Theol. Quartalschrift, cxxxv ( 1955), pp. 150 ff.
4, n. 1: Cf. also Kuss, art. cit., pp. 168 ff.
4, n. 2: For the influence of Tertullian's concept of monarchia -- an influence that deserves detailed examination -- see E. Peterson, op. cit. pp. 68 ff. For the oath of the Roman legionaries (the sacramentum) and baptism see A. Ehrhardt in Festschrift. Guido Kisch ( Stuttgart, 1955), pp. 147 ff.
4, n. 3: About the alleged concrete transmission of Petrine powers by St Peter himself to Clement I, cf. W. Ullmann in J.T.S., xi ( 1960), pp. 295 ff.
5, n. 3: It should be noted that this argumentation was still employed in the fourteenth century by Clement VI who in his jubilee decree (Extrav. comm., V. iv. 2) said that Christ"uni, scil. apostolorum principi, sicut bono dispensatori, claves regni coelorum commisit, alteritamquam idoneo doctori magisterium ecclesiasticae eruditionis injunxit;" here also :"per quos (Petrum et Paulum) ecclesia religionis sumpsit exordium." See also following note.
6, n. 3: The metaphorical use of a source of a river for the Roman Church suggested itself. Cf. Innocent I, Ep. 29 (in P.L., xx. 583): "velut de natali fonte" all other churches received their "life" from the Roman Church. Hence also the designation of the Roman Church as "mater et caput omnium ecclesiarum."
6, n. 4: On the influence of the Ambrosiaster and St Jerome, cf. H. Vogel in Rev. Bénédictine, lxvi ( 1956), pp. 14 ff.; cf. also P. Courcelle in Vigiliae Christianae, xiii ( 1959), pp. 133ff. On Ambrosiaster and the work itself see G. Bardy in Rev. Biblique, xli ( 1932), pp. 343 ff. The Ambrosiaster is edited by A. Souter in C.S.E.L., 1 ( 1908).
7, n. 6: For an analysis of Leo I's theme of primacy cf. now W. Ullmann in J.T.S., xi ( 1960), pp. 25 ff. The Leonine primatial thesis has stood the test of time and was especially useful in establishing the relationship between the Pope and the bishops. Cf., e.g., in the fifteenth century Johannes de Turrecremata, De pontiff. . . . auctoritate (ed. Venice,. 1563), p. 16 v, no. 22:
"Ceteri- apostoli non immediate a Christo jurisdictionem acceperunt, sed mediante Petro." See furthermore, infra p. 443 n. 4 ( Grosseteste, Augustinus Triumphus), and about the modern view cf. the statement of Pius XII, quoted in W. Ullmann, The medieval Papacy, St Thomas and Beyond (Aquinas Lecture, London, 1960), p. 12 n. 24.
8, n. 1: Through the process of monopolisation the view emerged later that this passage proved the dependence of the prelates' jurisdictional powers on the Pope.
8, n. 4: For an analysis of heirship see J.T.S., xi ( 1960), pp. 30 ff. With Leo I's expressions should be compared also a statement made as late as in the early fourteenth century by Clement V (anno 1308): "Christus est nobis via, vita et veritas. Quis ergo potest ipsum negare, per quem et in quo subsistimus?" cited from C. Wenck, Clemens V und Heinrich VII ( Halle, 1882), p. 99. About recent literature on the primatial question cf. also O. Karrer, art. cit. (p. 3, n. 2*), pp. 148 f. at note 13, and A. Rimoldi, L'apostolo San Pietro ( Rome, 1958).
10, n. 1: The prevailing thought in antiquity made the Christian emperor a God on earth. A. Ehrhardt, Die altchristl. Kirchen ( Bonn, 1937), p. 10, speaks on this context of the poison, according to which the Roman Caesars had become Christian, but not the Roman idea of emperorship.
10, n. 3: For the authority of the four ecumenical councils and the hallowing of the number Four, see Y. Congar, Le concile et les conciles ( Paris, 1960), who refers (p. 101 ff.) to biblical and literary models suggesting the quoternité (four empires; four gospels, four virtues; four seasons; four elements; four doctors; four letters of Deus; see furthermore, Roma quadrata, lapis quadrata, etc.). In the eighth century Egbert of York said: "ex omni parte quadratus numerus perfectus dignoscitur", cit. ibid., p. 105 n. 132.
10, n. 4: For the meaning of the Byzantine coronation see now esp. A. Michel, Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche ( Darmstadt, 1959) pp. 132 ff.
12, n. 1: See also Y. M. Duvel, "Quelques emprunts de s. Léon à s. Augustin" in Mélanges de science religieuse, xv ( 1958), pp. 85 ff.; on Leo I cf. now P. Brezzi in Studi Romani, ix ( 1961), pp. 614 ff.
13, n. 2: This notional juxtaposition of imperium and potestas reappears also in the Introit for 6 January in the Miss. Rom.: "ecce advenit dominator dominus, et regnum in manu eius et potestas et imperium." See further on the intimate link of the two concepts in the acclamations: B.Opfermann, Die liturg. Herrscherakklamationen ( Weimar, 1953), p. 36: "Ipsi soli imperium, gloria, et potestas." Cf. also E. Peterson, op. cit., pp. 148 ff. on the analogy between the Roman emperor and Christus imperator in the Revelations of St John; for some observations see also A. Ehrhardt in Studi P. de Francisci ( Milan, 1955), iv. 428ff. It is well known that Justinian ascribed to himself the possession of imperium and potestas. For Christ depicted as Roman emperor see E. Stauffer, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 4th ed. ( Stuttgart, 1948), Table 71.
14, n. 1: It is therefore proved that the concept of potestas regia was introduced by Leo I, and not, as it is always maintained, by Gelasius I.
16, n. 5: A. Michel, op. cit. (p. 10 n. 4*), p. 78, remarks rightly that the emperor who had been so often proved a heretic, rose to the zenith of infallibility.
17, n. 4: For the influence of Eusebius' ideas on the principle of monarchy, cf. H. Eger in Z. f. neutestamentl. Wiss., xxxviii ( 1939), pp. 97-115; E. Peterson, op. cit., pp. 86-101; G. Bardy in R.H.E., 1 ( 1955), pp. 5ff.
21, n. 3: The contrast between "imperialis potestas" and "auctoritas sacerdotalis" had already been made by Leo I, in his Ep. 118; cf. also Ep. 117 and Ep. 120, also Ep. 156. In his Sermo 3, after designating Christ as Melchisedek, Leo I however refers both potestas and auctoritas to the chair of St Peter.
21, n. 4: Cf. also H. Siber, Römisches Verfassungsrecht ( Lahr, 1952), pp. 375 ff. See now also the excellent exposition of auctoritas in F. Wieacker, Vom Römischen Recht ( Stuttgart, 1961), pp. 31, 39 ff.; J. Gaudemet, "Le régime imperial" in Studia et Documenta Historiae et Juris, xxvi ( 1960), pp. 282-322, esp. pp. 309 ff.; E. Meyer, Römischer Staat und Staatsgedanke, 2nd ed. ( Darmstadt, 1961), pp. 362-8.
21, n. 7: In general the monarchic principle is very well expressed by E. Peterson, op. cit., p. 53: "Wenn Gott die Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass es eine potestas gibt, dann wird der Eine Gott zum Träger der auctoritas. Dann wird der Monotheismus zum Prinzip der politischen auctoritas.
22, n. 1: The immediate model for this statement is Hebr. xiii. 17.
22, n. 2: It may very well be, as W. Ensslin in Hist. Jb., lxxiv ( 1955), pp. 661 ff. stresses, that Gelasius was not consistent in his terminology -- a statement that is not quite new -- but the significance of the very carefully chosen terms in Ep. 12 leaves nothing to be desired in regard to clarity.
23, ctd from 22, n. 6: In the twelfth century Frederick I also designated himself as pater patriae, MGH. Const., i. 191, no. 137.
23, n. 3: For modern literature on the figure of Melchisedek see F. Merzbacher in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xlii ( 1956), p. 61 n. 23a.
24, n. 3: The notion of the humana fragilitas seems to originate with Theodosius II, see H. Fichtenau, Arenga ( Vienna, 1957), p. 126; cf. also Leo I in his Sermo 36 (in P.L., liv. 256).
25, n. 1: For an almost identical diction in St Bernard see below, p. 435 n. 3.
25, n. 3: See in this context the statement of E. Peterson, supra p. 21 n. 7*.
26, line 4: In the numerous discussions on Gelasian doctrines it is usually overlooked that the power to bind and to loose refers exclusively to the conduct of the Christian on this earth and that the binding and loosing in the other world is, according to Gelasius and the undisputed medieval doctrine, an automatic consequence of the effects of binding and loosing on earth. Hence, it is exclusively the Christian's conduct on this earth which furnishes the criterion. Seen thus, life on earth is considered the only essential criterion, for life hereafter is based on it. The comprehensiveness of the Petrine powers and the resultant view on the Christian's totality -- his Ganzheit - makes the effects of the Petrine powers understandable and at the same time also explains why there could not be anything approaching a negation of earthly life: on the contrary, earthly life was thereby given its full meaning.
26, n. 4: About the statement of Pope Anastasius that the emperor was vicar of God, see especially A. Michel, op. cit., p. 80 n. 562, who emphasizes that such statements should not be taken too seriously, "for the papal chancery is far too much inclined to play with such expressions in order to influence the attitude of the emperor."
29, n. 1: For a textual analysis of Isidore, cf. now J. Fontaine in Vigiliae Christianae, xiv ( 1960), pp. 65-101.
29, n. 9: As a matter of fact, the edict of King Guntram (anno 585) had already promised the help of the royal power, if ecclesiastical admonition should prove insufficient; see R. Schröder, Lehrb. d. deutschen Rechtsgesch., 7th ed. ( Leipzig, 1932), p. 192 n. 96.
30, n. 4: Here the statement of St Jerome in C.S.E.L., liv. 421, should be adduced. The examples chosen by L. Hardick, "Gedanken z?u Sinn und Tragweite des Begriffs 'clerici'"
Begriffs 'clerici' in Arch. Franc. Hist., l ( 1957), pp. 7-26, belong to a later period.
32, line II, after note 3: Here the idea of Justinian as the vicar of Christ on earth plays its important role: since he is the earthly basileus kai autokrator he reflects the heavenly panbasileus kai pantokrator.
32, n. 1: In this context it should be noted that in the fourth and fifth centuries the term theios meant not only "divine", but also -- and probably more often than not -- "imperial", see A. H. M. Jones in Harvard Theol. Rev., xlvi ( 1953), p. 172.
32, n. 3: The laws, says Justinian, originate in "our divine mouth" (Cod. I xvii. 1 (6). In his Nov. xiii, Epil., he calls his laws a divine precept (preceptio divina).
32, n. 4: On this point cf. also E. H. Kaden, Justinien législateur (in Mémoires publ. par la Faculté de droit de Génève, no. 6, 1952), pp. 58-65; and now B. Rubin, Das Zeitalter Justinians ( Berlin, 1960), pp. 125 ff., and p. 394 notes 210 ff. Hence also Justinian's attempt to reconstitute the old classical Roman law, cf. E. Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law ( Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 12 ff. See now also the fine observations of F. Wieacker, Vom römischen Recht ( Stuttgart, 1961), pp. 224 ff., 242 ff.
33, n. 1: See now also A. Michel, op. cit., pp. 101 ff., and B. Rubin, op. cit., pp. 146 ff.
34, ctd from 33, n. 4: For the Eastern doctrines relating to this point, cf. further H. G. Beck, Kirche und Theolog. Literatur im byzantin. Reich ( Munich, 1959), pp. 36 ff., and H. S. Alivisatos in Akten des XI Internat. Byzant. Kongr. ( Munich, 1960), pp. 15 ff. Cf. also J. Gaudement, L'église dans l'Empire Romain ( Paris, 1958), and R. Tanin, "L'empereur dans l'église byzantine" in Nouvelle Rev. théologique, lxxvii ( 1955), pp. 49 ff. A. Michel, op. cit., p. 124, n. 886, spoke of a "sacral absolutism" practised by the Eastern emperors; here also rich literature and source material about the emperor as king and priest. In his Nov. iii. pr. Justinian designated the Church of Constantinople as the "mother of our Empire".
34, n. 1: About the interchangeability of lex and canon see L. Wenger in S.B. Vienna, ccxx ( 1943), esp. pp. 88 ff., 170 f.
35, ctd from 34, n. 4: For the curious development of this phrase in the M.A., see H. M. Jolowicz, "The stone that the builders rejected" in Seminar, xii ( 1954), pp. 40-1.
35, n. 1: For a practical application of ideological symbolism in medallions see Ph. Grierson in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, xv ( 1960), pp. 221 ff. What is particularly important is that the pictorial representation of Christ becomes adapted to the pictures of the emperor himself and that the pagan imperial cult is simply continued in the Christian empire. Hence the despatch of the imperial portraits to the provinces was to signify the omnipresence of the emperor and the solemn reception of the imperial portrait with incense and torches was to underline the sacral status of the imperial majesty. Hence also Melchisedek in imperial vestments. For all this see A. Michel, op. cit., p. 132, notes 933 ff.
36, n. 5: About the gulf existing between East and West see H. Steinacker, "Die römische Kirche u. die griechischen Sprachkenntnisse des Frühmittelalters" in MIOG., lxii ( 1954), at p. 40; also H. Biedermann, "Zur Frage nach der inneren Entwicklung der Ostkirche" in Ostkirchl. Studien, i ( 1952), esp. pp. 110 ff.
37, n. 3: That the title "ecumenical patriarch" existed certainly since 518, has been proved ( Fichtenau, art. cit., p. 99, n. 348). Moreover, Gregory's state-
ment in Reg. v. 45 that John the Faster had called himself ecumenical patriarch in nearly every line, is incorrect, for the document that gave rise to the whole dispute was merely a synodica, and John did not call himself in the way Gregory alleged. Caspar, ii. 455, remarked very correctly that John probably could not understand what had enraged his Roman friend, the Pope, so much, but Caspar did not appear to have recognized the link between the English mission and the protest.
37, n. 4: Apart from these points there were particularly strongly at work Eastern influences in Irish liturgy, cf. E. Bishop, Liturgica Historica ( Oxford, 1917), pp. 161-3. Private penance was first practised in the West in Ireland and appears to have come from the East, cf. Bishop, pp. 162 f., and also H. Zimmer, The Celtic Church in Britain and Ireland ( London, 1902), pp. 115 ff., 129 ff.; P. Finsterwalder in Z. f. Kirchengesch., xlvii ( 1928), p. 210. The Irish tonsure and Easter reckoning were modelled on Eastern practices, cf. A. Silva- Tarouca, Humanistische Tradition und östl. Geisteshaltung im M.A. ( Innsbruck, 1947), pp. 9 f. Under John IV the abbot of Iona resisted attempts at Romanization, cf. E. Bruck, Kirchenväter u. soziales Erbrecht ( Berlin, 1956), p. 199.
37, n. 5: Justinian called himself "ultimus servus minimus" (Cod. I. xvii. I). Leo I had used servitus for the papal office, Ep. 108. See further St Augustine in P.L. xxxiii. 494.
38, n. 2: For an instructive sidelight on Gregory's handling of papal patrimonies in Gaul see Ph. Grierson in Rev. Belge de Numismatique, cv ( 1959), pp. 95 ff. (striking of pseudo-imperial coins in papal patrimony).
40, ctd from 39, n. 6: See further J. Straub in Studia Patristica ( Berlin, 1957), i. 678; also W. Ullmann in J.T.S., xi ( 1960), pp. 312 ff.
40, n. 3: For the difference between Eastern and Western monasticism cf. D. C. Lialine in Irénikon, xxxiii ( 1960), pp. 435 ff. (posthumously published) .
41, n. 1: About the application of Gregory I's statement see also H. Fuhrmann in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xl ( 1954), p. 65 and notes 192, 193.
41, n. 3: About the alleged "Responsiones" of Gregory I cf. on the one hand M. Deanesly and P. Grosjean in J. Eccl. Hist., x ( 1959), pp. I ff., and on the other hand M., Meyvaert in R.H.E. liv ( 1959), pp. 879 ff. See now again M. Deanesly in J. Eccl. Hist., xii ( 1961), pp. 231 ff.
46, n. 4: For the genuineness of this letter see furthermore H. Bresslau, Handb. d. Urkundenlehre, 2nd ed. ( Leipzig, 1912), i. 154 and note 1; O. Bertolini in Riv. di storia della chiesa, ix ( 1955), p. 37 n. 63, and A. Michel, Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche ( Darmstadt, 1959), p. 7 and n. 38.
49, n. 3: For the background see E. Griffe, "La Gaule chrétienne àl'époque romaine" in Rev. d'hist. de l'eglise de France, xxxvii ( 1951), pp. 40-52; and especially J.-R. Palanque, "La Gaule chrétienne à l'époque franque" ibid., xxxviii ( 1952), pp. 52 ff.; P. Vaccari, "La Gallia pre-carolingia" in Studi . . . in onore di Ettore Rota ( Rome, 1958), pp. 31 ff.
51, line 6 from foot: We should do well to bear in mind that Gregory II's threat to leave the city of Rome for regions inhabited by "savages and barbarians" clearly indicated the one alternative with which the Papacy in the twenties of the eighth century toyed, that is, the physical removal of the Pope outside the confines of the empire. Although at first sight this plan to remove the Pope bodily, had certainly some attraction, it was not executed, and this for excellent reasons. When we consider that the Roman-Petrine tenor of the papal programme gave the Papacy the strongest possible support which, as the most recent history had sufficiently proved, made a correspondingly strong appeal to the Franks, we can well understand why this alternative was not pursued by the Papacy: one has but to visualize the Pope sitting in Rheims or St Denis and putting forward the Petrine and Roman claims, and it becomes at once understandable how vitally necessary the physical connexion between the Pope and Rome was. a There remained only the other alternative: not to take the Pope bodily out of the empire, but to take part of the imperial territory out of the empire. It was to the execution of this plan that the Papacy gradually turned.
52, n. 1: For details cf. also O. Bertolini in Riv. di storia della chiesa, vi ( 1952), pp. 1 ff. (turn of the sixth and seventh centuries) and ibid., viii ( 1954), pp. 1 ff. ( seventh century).
53, n. 1: The statement of Gregory III should be quoted in this context: "Attendite, vobis et universo gregi, in quo vos spiritus sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei. . ." ( MGH. Epp., iii. 703, no. 13).
55, n. 1: The oblique opinion of O. Bertolini (cited infra, p. 59 n. 1) is rightly rejected by F. L. Ganshof in Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoires orientales, x ( 1950), pp. 276-7.
56, n. 3: According to F. L. Ganshof, art. cit., p. 262, the anointing and creation of Pippin as patricius Romanorum took place on 28 July 7 54).
59, line 13: To this consideration comes another one. Upon what legal title-deed could the Pope base himself, when he conferred on Pippin the office of a patricius Romanorum? Where was the Pope given the right to nominate this kind of officer? The only plausible explanation is afforded by the Donation of Constantine, for in it we read that Constantine had laid down that the Pope should have the right to create patricians (and consuls). a The papal title-deed for the appointment of a patrician of the Romans lay in the idea, upon which also the creation of the Emperor of the Romans rested, that is, in the Donation of Constantine.
59, n. 1: Cf. in this context also the feeble and unconvincing argumentation of E. Ewig, "Das Bild Constantin d. Gr. in den ersten Jahrhunderten des abendl. M.A." in Hist. Jb., lxxv ( 1955), pp. 29-31.
62, n. 2: Cf. also St Boniface in MGH. Epp. iii. 341, no. 73, lines 19 f.: "Apud Graecos et Romanos." For some observations in this respect cf. also W. Ullmann in Studia Patristica ( Berlin, 1957), ii. 155 ff., esp. on St. Patrick. The Visigoths called the Gallic Catholics "Romans" as so to be distinguished from them, see J. M. Wallace-Hadrill in Bull. J. Rylands Library, xliv ( 1961), at p.225.
____________________ a The observations of C. Erdmann (infra, p. 96 n. 2) apply here with still greater force: how much more damage would have been inflicted upon the Roman Church in the eighth century by physically removing the Pope and thus severing the link between him and Rome, when the Papacy was still a very tender plant, in comparison with the damage suffered by the removal of the Papacy to Avignon, in the fourteenth century, when the institution could still look back to a past in which it virtually controlled Europe.
a. This is convincingly demonstrated by F. L. Ganshof, art. cit. (supra, p. 55, n. 1*), where also the untenable opinions of Bertolini are rejected E. Ewig, art. cit., slides over the difficulties.
64, n. 4 : It should furthermore be borne in mind that down to the fourteenth century the medieval empire was called the respublica Romanorum, see Gierke, iii. 358. Cf. also A. Roselli in his Monarchia (in Goldast, ed. Frankfurt, 1612), p. 279, and Cardinal Bellarmin in Mirbt, p. 361, no. 502: "Romanus etiam ante 1100 annos idem erat quod catholicus."
69, n. 2 : See now also Reallexikon f. Antike und Christentum, iii ( 1956), cols. 651 ff.
70, n. 3 : This letter is now newly edited by P. M. Gassó and C. M. Batlle, Pelagii I Papae Epp. ( Montserrat, 1956), no. 27, p. 82, where the editors stress the importance of this letter.
70, n. 4 : See further Reallexikon (cit. supra, p.p. 69 n. 216), col. 656: "beamteter Anwalt für die Vertretung der Kirche vor den staatlichen Gerichten."
71, n. 1 : For the underlying conceptions cf. now also W. Ullmann, Principles of Government and Politics in the M.A. ( London, 1961), part II.
73, n. 1 : Our interpretation of commendare is borne out by the use which, for instance, Pelagius I made of it, see MGH. Epp. iii. 77 no. 53, lines 17 f. = new ed. (supra p. 70, n. 3116), p. 29, no. 9: "Preterea commendamus specialiter tuae dilectioni Romanos, qui . . . confugerunt."
75, ctd from 74, n. 2 : About Christophorus, the possible author of the Donation and his great influence on the Popes, see O. Bertolini, "La caduta del primicerio Cristoforo" in Riv. di storia della chiesa, i ( 1947), pp. 227 ff., esp. 364 ff. For the Donation cf. also R. Buchner in Wattenbach-Levison ( Beiheft: Die Rechtsquellen, p. 72) ("made probably between 750 and 760"); Ohnsorge's view is rightly rejected in Wattenbach-Levison, p. 211 n. 136. On the other hand, E. Griffe, "Aux origines de l'état pontifical" in Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, iv ( 1958), pp. 194 ff., at pp. 206 ff. still pleads for a Frankish origin of the forgery made in the early ninth century. M. Pacaut, La théocratie ( Paris, 1957), p. 37, states that the forgery was "composé justement à Rome dans les années 750-760."> About the unfortunate thesis of W. Gericke in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xliii ( 1957), pp. 1 ff.; xliv ( 1958), pp. 343 ff., see H. Fuhrmann in Deutsches Archiv, xv ( 1959), pp. 523-40. About the utilisation of the forgery by the medieval jurists see the forthcoming work by D. Maffei, and in the meantime see idem in Annali della Università di Macerata, xxiii ( 1959), pp. 207-32, with copious literature.
77, ctd from 76, n. 4 : We have already seen that a good deal of this teleology of history goes back to St Augustine. In this context the observations of J. Straub, "Augustinus' Sorge um die Regeneratio imperii" in Hist. Jb., lxxiv ( 1954), p. 39, should be noted: under the influence of the prevailing doctrines "Christianitas und Romanitas waren so eng miteinander verklammert und verflochten worden, dass die politische Existenz in die gefährliche Nähe der Identifikation mit der religiösen Existenz gerückt war." The tract De vocatione omnium gentium is now attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine, see P. de Letter, St Prosper of Aquitaine: The Call of all Nations (in Ancient Christian Writers, vol. xiv, 1952). Cf. also the prayer of Milanese stock in the sixth century: "Pro pace ecclesiarum, vocatione omnium gentium et quiete populorum," see D. B. Capelle in Rev. Bénédictine, xlvi ( 1934), col. 1, sub no. 7. The same teleological and historical thought is still contained in the Römisches Messbuch, ed. A. Schott, in the post-communio where this prayer text for the emperor of the Romans will be found (ed. 1934, p. ).
77, n. 2 : Cf. in this context the stimulating observations of M. Seidlmayer, "Rom und Romgedanke im M.A." in Saeculum, vii ( 1956), pp. 395 ff., at pp. 402-3.
79, n. 2 : But the Donation speaks in the relevant places only of "sancimus"; there is no evidence of an imperial conferment of primatial powers, as M.
Maccarone, Vicarius Christi ( Rome, 1952), p. 73, n. 75 erroneously states What Constantine conferred on the Pope was imperial power. On the other hand, the Donation represents progress, in so far as St Peter (cap. xi) is called "vicarius filii Dei", see on this Maccarone, op. cit., pp. 72-3.
79, n. 5 : About the papal ferula, see also P. Salmon in Rev. des sciences religieuses, xxx ( 1956), pp. 313-37, who knows however nothing of modern literature and disregards Byzantium.
82, n. 1 : From this it is quite clear that the later doctrine of the translation of the empire could indeed be deduced from the Donation. P. A. van den Baar, Die kirchl. Lehre der Translatio imperii Romani ( Rome, 1956), is quite unsatisfactory, cf. E.H.R., lxxii ( 1957), pp. 522ff. Far more satisfactory is W. Goez, Translatio imperii ( Tübingen, 1958), cf. E.H.R., lxxv ( 1960), pp. 332f.
82, n. 2 : See on this now also R. Bork in Festschrift f. A. Hofmeister ( Halle, 1955), pp. 39-56.
88, line 9 : This exposition should now be supplemented by W. Ohnsorge, "Der Patricius-Titel Karls d. Gr." in Byzantin. Z., liii ( 1960), pp. 300 ff., though we cannot agree with all the statements of this savant.
89, n. 3 : For some details cf. also E. Delaruelle, in Rev. d'hist. de l'église de France, xxxviii ( 1952), pp. 64ff.
95, n. 3 : Cf. now also the important article by H. Beumann in Hist. Z., clxxxv ( 1958), pp. 518ff.
97, n. 1 : The Chronographia of Theophanes is now easily accessible also in the translation by L. Breyer ( Graz, 1957); the marriage plan is mentioned here pp. 136, 137.
97, n. 2 : See also S. Giet, "Simple remarques sur l'histoire de Charlemagne" in Rev. des sciences religieuses, xxix ( 1955), pp. 45ff.
98, n. 1 : Cf. also the significant passages cited by Giet, art. cit. (supra, p. 97 ), n. 2*), p. 50 n. 3. This passage from the Litania Karolina is newly edited by B. Opfermann, Die liturg. Herrscherakklamationen im sacrum imperium des M.A. ( Weimar, 1953), p. 101; on the subject itself see ibid., pp. 63-5. This fact of borrowing serves as an important indication for the co-operation of the Franks in the discussions preceding the event itself.
99, ctd from 98, n. 2 : In this context reference should also be made to the adoption of the Dei gratia title by Charlemagne; for further details cf. Principles of Government, cit., part II, ch. 1. The addition a Deo coronatus is of Byzantine origin, see W. Ensslin, SB. Munich, 1943, p. 106.
101, n. 3 : There were, even in this early period, definite beginnings of the conception of the vicariate of Christ in the Pope. Cf., for instance, Paul I expressing his own vicariate in a way which was not materially different from the view of Innocent III: "(Deo) dignante mediator Dei et hominum, speculator animarum, institutus sum" ( Cod. Carol., no. 16, p. 513, lines 19 ff.). For the development of some of these ideas see W. Ullmann in Misc. Hist. Pontif., xviii ( 1954), pp. 107ff. and idem in Studi Gregoriani, vi ( 1959), pp. 229ff.
103, ctd from 102, n. 3 : There is need to clarify the views expressed in the text and in this footnote. No doubt seems possible that the coronation was preceded by talks between Charlemagne and the Pope: this emerges clearly from the Ann. Laur. (quoted in this note) as well as from the borrowing of the Frankish acclamations. But what is essential is that the Pope obviously did not adhere to the arrangement reached before Christmas day, for Charles was acclaimed as imperator Romanorum, that is, acclaimed with a nomen to which he had not agreed, as his subsequent conduct sufficiently explains. He found himself, so to speak, pushed into the very situation which he had wished to
avoid. This nomen was inserted into the Frankish acclamations and it was this nomen to which he objected so strongly, as Einhard bears witness. We agree therefore with F. L. Ganshof, op. cit., pp. p 24, 25, who says: " Leo III had played a crooked game" and that "the Pope had taken him ( Charles) now by a kind of treachery." It was precisely the nomen which Charles wished to have changed and it took five months before his court had found the proper formula. At the same time it was the nomen which aroused the indignation of the Byzantines. H. Fichtenau in MIOG., lxi ( 1953), pp. 259ff. stresses the dependence of Einhard on Suetonius but this fact alone does not diminish the credibility of his report. Einhard's dependence on Suetonius"ne prouve pas que le passage ne révèle rien historique," Giet, art. cit., p. 46, n. 4. See now also H. Beumann in Hist. Z., clxxxv ( 1958), pp. 515 ff., esp. 521-5 ( Einhard) and 525ff. ( Ann. Laur.). Cf. now also R. Folz, Le couronnement impérial de Charlemagne ( Paris, 1964).
104, ctd from 103, n. 2 : See now also the penetrating observations of M. Seidlmayer in Saeculum, vi ( 1956), pp. 404ff.
104, n. 1 : Cf. on this D. Hay, Europa: the emergence of an idea ( Edinburgh, 1957) and J. Fischer, Oriens-Occidens-Europa ( Wiesbaden, 1957), pp. 78ff.
105, n. 1 : Here it should be noted that just as in Byzantium it was the emperor (and not the patriarch) who crowned the co-emperor, so here too in the West it was Charles who crowned Louis I his co-emperor. Charles himself therefore was the "Spender der Krönung", cf. on this A. Michel, Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche, cit., p. 172.
106, n. 3 : For the fertility of contemporary discussions cf. W. Dürig, "Der theolog. Ausgangspunkt der ma. Auffassung vom Herrscher als vicarius Dei" in Hist. Jb., lxxvii ( 1958), pp. 174ff.
109, n. 2 : Cf. also D. Delaruelle in Rev. d'hist. de l'église de France, xxxix ( 1953), pp. 165-200.
113, n. 1 : Here some consideration should be given to the idea that this Renovatio was modelled on the baptismal Regeneratio or Renovatio, that is, the re-birth of natural man effected through baptism. Cf. II Cor. v. 17; Gal. v. 6; vi. 15; Eph. ii. 8 and Tit. iii. 5: "per lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis spiritus sancti."
114, line 5, after note 1 : The title is not merely a frill or an embellishment, but expresses in a succinct manner the inner substance, the qualification and being of him who bears the title. a That is why the change of title effected by Charlemagne has particularly great significance. At the same time a title had to be found which was to express his equality with the Eastern emperor and also his function as the monarch of the RomanChristian imperium.
115, n. 2 : See now in particular W. Schlesinger in Festgabe f. F. Hartung ( Weimar, 1958), pp. 17ff. (imperial title of 806 from the Donation) and p. 22 (no universal dominion).
117, n. 1 : See now again E. E. Stengel, "Imperator und Imperium bei den Angelsachen" in Deutsches Archiv, xvi ( 1960), pp. 15-72, against the unfortunate thesis of Drögereit.
118, n. 2 : This oath of Leo III has now been proved a forgery of the ninth century, see L. Wallach in Harvard Theol. Rev., xlix ( 1956), pp. 123f. and idem im Traditio, xi ( 1955), pp. 37 ff., at p. 62: "The document hitherto known as the oath purgation sworn by Leo III on 23 December 800 is a forgery
____________________ a For this see esp. H. Fichtenau in MIOG., lxi ( 1953), pp. 259 ff.,
of the middle of the ninth century." In agreement with this is H. Fichtenau in MIOG., lxiv ( 1956), p. 380. It should also be stressed that the principle of papal immunity (contained in the Constitutum Silvestri) had already been stated by Pope Zosimus, see his Ep. 12 (in P.L. xx. 677 = Avellana, C.S.E.L., xxxv, p. 116): ". .ut nullus de nostra possit retractare sententia."
119, n. 1 : For the points made here cf. also H. Löwe, "Von den Grenzen des Kaisergedankens in der Karolingerzeit" in Deutsches Archiv, xiv ( 1958), pp. 345-74.
125, n. 1 : Cf. also the outspokenly anti-royalist views expressed in glosses of this time, especially in connexion with the Council of Paris (829), see F. Maassen in SB. Vienna, lxxxiv ( 1876), pp. 235-98.
126, ctd from 125, n. 2 : For some remarks about the monastic revival see also J. Choux, "Décadence et réforme monastique dans la province de Trèves" in Rev. Bénédictine, lxx ( 1960), pp. 204ff.
148, n. 2 : It should be recalled that in Constantinople the imperial palace was also called sacrum palacium, and that Justinian addressed his ordinances to the Quaestor sacri palacii.
154, n. 4 : For this see the important study by E. Kantorowicz in Harvard Theol. Rev., xlv ( 1953), pp. 253ff. The argumentation of Peter Damian in the eleventh century was substantially the same, see his Liber gratissimus in MGH.L.d.L., i. 19, lines 9-11.
178, n. 1 : About the difficult genesis of the prologue and especially about its incorrect beginning in the Hinschius-edition see E. Seckel- H. Fuhrmann, "Die erste Zeile Pseudo-Isidors" in SB. Berlin, 1959, which is also an important contribution to the history of the diplomatic formula of invocation.
181, n. 1 : On the influence see now Ch. de. Clercq, "La législation religieuse franque dépuis les fausses décrétales jusqu'à la fin du ix siècle" in Rev. du droit cononique, viii ( 1957), pp. 113 ff., 255 ff.; ix ( 1958), pp. 122ff.
183, ctd from 182, n. 8 : But see now H. M. Klinkenberg, "Der römische Primat im 10. Jahrhundert" in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xli ( 1955), p. 10.
184, n. 7 : See furthermore H. Fuhrmann, "Pseudo-Isidor und die Abbreviatio Ansegisi et Benedicti Levitae" in Z. f. Kirchengesch., lxix ( 1958), pp. 309ff.
192, n. 3 : The biblical model might have been: Is. xxii. 22.
195, n. 2 : This statement of Nicholas I is actually a practical application of Ps. xliv. 17. Cf. also Miss. Rom., 29 June, in the Graduale and Offertorium.
198, n. 4 : The allegory of the maxima luminaria Dei was later also used by Eugenius III in Bull. Romanum, ii. 588.
199, n. 2 : For Photius cf. also P. L'Huillier, "Le saint patriarche Photius et l'unité chrétienne" in Messager de l'exarchat du patriarchat russe en Europe occidentale, no. 22 ( June 1955, offprint).
202, n. 2 : Exactly the same argument was used by Egidius Romanus in the early fourteenth century, De eccles. potestate, ed. R. Scholz ( Weimar, 1929), ii. 9, pp. 81 ff., at p. 85.
203, n. 5 : For a discussion of this letter see now also G. T. Dennis, "The 'antiGreek' character of the Responsa ad Bulgaros of Nicholas I" in Orientalia Christiana Periodica, xxiv ( 1958), pp. 165ff.
218, n. 3 : For the background of the different conceptions of the Church in the West and in the East, cf. Y. M. Congar in Istina, vi ( 1959), pp. 187 ff., at pp. 201ff.
225, n. 3 : The imperial coronation orders are now newly edited by R. Elze, Ordines coronationis imperialis (in Fontes Juris Germanici Antiqui, Hanover, 1960); Ordo B is here Ordo I.
228, n. 2 : All the English coronation orders have in fact the designation of the king as christus (anointed); see the prayer Protector noster in the Liber regalis, in Liber regie capelle, ed. W. Ullmann ( Henry Bradshaw Soc., vol. xcii, 1961, p. 99).
230, n. 1 : Against this explanation is O. Bertolini in Studi medievali in onore A. de Stefano ( Palermo, 1956), pp. 43 ff., who is apparently unable to penetrate into the texture of the sources and who quite obviously never understood the main arguments employed in art. cit.
232, n. 1 : For a detailed account of the Reichskirchensystem see L. Santifaller in SB. Vienna, ccxxix ( 1954), pp. 22 ff., at 30 ff.
233, n.3 : For Widukind's ideas on the empire see now also J. A. Brundage in Medieval Studies, xxii ( 1960), pp. 15ff.
235, n. 1 : What the Byzantines always feared was that the recognition of papal primacy would automatically entail a recognition of the university of the papally created (Western) emperor. This fear was indeed still very much in the foreground as late as the fifteenth century, cf. C. Beckmann, Der Kampf Sigismunds gegen die Weltherrschaft 1397-1437 ( Gotha, 1902), p. 62.
238, n. 7 : For a fine characterization of Otto III see now M. Uhlitz, Jahrbücher d. deutschen Reiches unter Otto III. ( Berlin, 1954), pp. 411-13; here also the rejection of the view that Otto was an eccentric and unbalanced youth.
239, n. 2 : On the subject of the lance, cf. J. Déer in Byzant. Z., 1 ( 1957), pp. 427 ff. On the Empire itself, cf. W. Ullmann, in Trans. R. Hist. S. ( 1964).
239, n. 3 : See on this now also M. Uhlirz, op. cit., pp. 417-19.
239, n. 4 : In parenthesis it may be recalled that in the thirteenth century Innocent IV was designated as the thirteenth apostle by the Sultan of Egypt, Ayob: MGH. Epp. PP. RR., ii. 87, no. 123.
240, n. 4 : Cf. in this context R. Morghen in I Problemi communi dell' Europa post-carolingia ( Settimani, Spoleto, 1955), pp. 11-35.
241, n. 2 : Cf. now also W. Messerer, "Zur byzantinischen Frage in der ottonischen Kunst" in Byzant. Z., lii ( 1959),pp. 32 ff.
242, ctd from 241, n. 3 : For Leo of Vercelli and DO. 389, cf. now H. Fichtenau, "Rhetorische Elemente in der ottonisch-salischen Herrscherurkunde" in MIOG., lxviii ( 1960), pp. 39, at 46 ff. For the deacon John cf. also Mathilde Uhlirz, op. cit., p. 358 n. 41.
243, n. 2 : The Wahlprivilegien for the German Church are conveniently put together by L. Santifaller, op. cit., pp. 41-6. Here also a very useful survey of the papal creations by the emperors in this period, appendix VI, pp. 88 - 100 (of the 25 Popes 12 were appointed by the emperors and 5 deposed). About the deposition of Popes, mainly by emperors, cf. now the exhaustive study of H. Zimmermann in MIOG., lxix ( 1961), pp. 1-84.
250, n. 1 : The statement in the text had by the fourteenth century become vulgare, see Bartolus in his Commentaries on Cod. VIII. 52. 2 (ed. Turin, 1577, fol. 114).
251, n. 1 : Henry III is called caput ecclesiae by Egbert of Tegernsee in MGH. Epp. sell. (ed. K. Strecker, 1925), iii. 142, and vicarius (Christi) in ecclesia by Siegfried of Tegernsee, ibid., p. 143.
253, n. 1 : In the new edition by R. Elze (see supra p. 225 n. 3*) this imperial ordo is now Ordo XIV, pp. 35ff.
253, n. 2 : R. Elze has in preparation a study of the imperial orders which will clarify the validity of Ordo C. In the meantime cf. idem in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., lxxi ( 1954), p. 218, maintaining however that this ordo originated "around 1100", but according to J. Ramackers in Quellen u. Forschungen aus ital. Arch. und Bibl., xxxvii ( 1956), pp. 16-54, this ordo was composed for the coronation of 1111. But Ramackers gives no satisfactory explanation for the absence of the Credo in this ordo nor can he explain why at this late date the coronation was still built into the structure of the mass -- a feature that is after Gregory VII highly unlikely; the term canonice intrantes had been used long before this time (cf. E. Eichmann in Hist. Jb., lii ( 1932), pp. 284-92, and op. cit., ii. 170 f.); further the designation of Rex et futurus imperator in the oath to be taken has been used in the election decree of 1059 (cap. 6) and in Gregory's own correspondence: Reg. i. 20.
255, ctd from 254, n. 3 : For an excellent discussion of the symbolic detail in the imperial ceremonial see J. Déer, "Byzanz und die Herrschaftszeichen des Abendlandes" in Byzant. Z., l ( 1957), pp. 405ff.; P. E. Schramm, Sphaira, Globus, Reichsapgel Wanderung und Wandlung eines Herrschaftszeichens von Caesar bis Elisabeth II. ( Stuttgart, 1958); cf. also A. Grabar in Hist. Z., cxci ( 1960), pp. 336ff.
255, n. 3 : Part of the explanation may also be supplied by the papal doctrine concerning the function of the emperor. What sense should there have been to enthrone an officer who is charged with specific functions! Cf. on this also W. Ullmann in Cambridge Hist. J., xi ( 1955), p. 242.
257, n. 2 : For the concept of canonice intrans cf. W. Ullmann in Studi Gregoriani, vi ( 1959), at pp. 246f.
259, n. 5 : In the fourteenth century Durantis in his Rationale divin. offic. (ed. Lyons, 1612), iii. 13 (p. 75 v, no. 2) applies very much the same argument to the mitre which symbolizes "scientiam utriusque testamenti per duo cornua, per anterius designans testamentum novum, per posterius vetus."
264, n. 2 : The secular point of view relied on history, tradition and custom, and in these elements lay indeed the strength of the royalist standpoint. The conduct of Henry IV is in fact nothing else but the constant appeal to history and custom. The classic reply to this was made by Gregory VII in his memorable statement: "Dominus non dixit 'Ego sum consuetudo', sed dixit' 'Ego sum Veritas et Vita.'" For this and the Cyprianic and Augustinian origin see G. Ladner in Studi Gregoriani v ( 1956), pp. 225ff. In other words, what is right and law, cannot be determined by history and custom, but by truth alone.
276, n. 5 : J. J. Ryan in Medieval Studies, xx ( 1958), pp. 206ff. unsuccessfully tries to make out that Humbert's piece was a product of Roman-Byzantine relations.
269, n. 6 : The contrast between dias and monas was still used by Cardinal Johannes Monachus in the early fourteenth century in his commentary on the bull of indulgence for 1300 by Boniface VIII, in order to demonstrate the true monarchic principle at work in Christendom. Cf. further Francis de Meyronis, De princ. temp., ed. P. de Lapparant in Arch. d'hist. doctrinale et littéraire du M.A., xiii ( 1942), p. 60 (kind information by my former pupil, Dr. M. J. Wilks).
273, n. 3 : The Gregorian antithesis of superbia and humilitas may have originated in I Pet. v. 5.
275, n. 1 : For Gregory VII himself cf. also his Reg. iii. 7, p. 257 : "Desideramus ...jus suum unicuique observare."
276, n. 2 : For Gregory's Register cf. now also F. Bock in Studi Gregoriani, v ( 1956), pp. 243ff., and G. B. Borino, ibid., pp. 391ff.
276, n. 7 : Cf. also Reg. ix. 2, p. 571, where this society is also called Romana. respublica.
277, n. 5 : This was a theme already enunciated by Alexander II, Ep. 31 in Bull. Romanum, ii. 51.
277, n. 11 : See further Reg. ii. 51, p. 193 and iii. 10, p. 263. The former is particularly interesting.
278, n. 6 : The background of these strongly Petrine passages (cf. also Reg. ii. 9:
"Per Petrum servus et per servum Petrus") is the petrinological idea, about which see Principles of Government, pp. 94f. It is interesting to see that this Petrine function of the Pope is faithfully reflected in the composition and poetry of the hymns which mirror the papal-monarchic function in the occident; cf. on this latter aspect J. Szöverffy, "Der Investiturstreit u. die Petrushymnen des M.A." in Deutsches Archiv, xiii ( 1957), pp. 228ff.
285, n. 3 : The views here expressed can already be found in Theodoret's De providentia (in P.G., lxxxiii. 671f.).
287, n. 1 : Another significant statement of Innocent III may be found in X: III. xxx. 33: "Cum autem in signum univesalis dominii . . . sibi Dominus decimas reservaverit . . ."; for the root of Innocent III's statement in R.N.I. 18 see Principles of Government, p. 93. For an ingenious combination of Leonine with Johannine views ( St John, i. 16) by Innocent III, see his Reg. i. 320.
289, n. 3 : The same application of this Pauline principle by Eugenius III, Ep. 27, in Bull. Rom., ii. 550>.
292, n. 2 : For details of D.P. 23, see W. Ullmann in Studi Gregoriani, vi ( 1959), pp. 229ff. The statement of Ennodius of Pavia (ob. 521) is very similar to that of D.P. 11 and may not have been unknown to Gregory; cf. Ennodius in C.S.E.L., vi. 295.
295, n. 1 : For the proprietary church system see furthermore G. Schreiber, Gemeinschaften des M.A. ( Regensburg, 1948), pp. 81, 300-6, 322-30; F. J. Schmale, "Kanonie, Seelsorge, Eigenkirche" in Hist. Jb., lxxviii ( 1959), pp. 36ff. For the numerous benefactions and conferments of privileges by kings and emperors in the eleventh century, see the informative account in L. Santifaller, SB. Vienna, 1954, appendix II, pp. 46-71.
302, n. 3 : Cf. as an additional source Gregory in his Reg. iv. 3, p. 298 ( 3 Sept. 1076): "Intelligitur, cur sit (Heinricus) anathematis vinculo alligatus et a regia dignitate depositus."
305, n. 2 : The terminology of absolutio omnium peccatorum appears already in the Privileges of Gregory VII ( 1074-75), see L. Santifaller, Quellen und Forschungen zum Urkunden- und Kanzleiwesen Gregors VII ( = Studi e Testi, cxc ( 1957), no. 58, p. 38.
305, n. 3 : Cf. also E. Dupré, Introduzione alle eresie medievali ( Bologna, 1955).
306, n. 4 : For Gregory VII's conception of the crusade see also his Reg.. i. 46, p. 70, lines 30-1. The split between East and West was always clearly understood as a schism in the proper meaning of the term. Cf., e.g., Adrian IV in Ep. 198 (in P.L., clxxxviii) and Gregory IX in MGH. Epp. PP. RR., i. 622, no. 724, lines 31 ff.; p. 623, no. 725, lines 30 ff.
307, ctd from 306, n. 5 : About the depth of impression which the crusades made, see P. Alphandéry, La chrétiente et l'idée de croisade ( Paris, 1954).
313, ctd from 312, n. 5 : On the subject of mitra-tiara, cf. the excellent pages of J. Déer in Byzantin. Z., l ( 1957), pp. 420ff.
315, ctd from 314, n. 7 : For this whole question see now M. Andrieu, Les ordines Romani du haut M.A. ( Louvain, 1956), iv. 168-84.
316, n. 1 : See also R. Elze in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xl ( 1954), pp. 201ff.
321, n. 2 : See also Cod. Just., IX. viii. 5, here also the designation of the imperial senate as consistorium.
322, n. 1 : See also W. Ullmann in Ephemerides Juris Canonici, xii ( 1956), pp. 246ff., and idem in the Essays presented to A. Gwynn ( Dublin, 1961), pp. 359ff.
323, n. 3 : For a historical survey of papal elections see H. Fuhrmann "Die Wahl des Papstes" in Geschichte in Wissenchaft und Unterricht, ix ( 1958), pp. 762ff.
326, ctd from 325, n. 6 : Cf. also J. Sydow, "Untersuchungen zur kurialen Verwaltungsgeschichte im Zeitalter des Reformpapsttums"
Verwaltungsgeschichte im Zeitalter des Reformpapsttums" in Deutsches Archiv, xi ( 1955), pp. 18-73.
330, n. 2 : For some details on papal financial administration, in particular under Albinus and Cencius, cf. V. Pfaff in MIOG., lxiv ( 1956), pp. 1-24.
336, n. 6 : About the concept of tuitio in Gregory I, cf. H. Appelt in MIOG., lxii ( 1954), pp. 105ff.
336, n. 8 : See also Reg. ii. 59, p. 213.
343, n. 1 : On this passage cf. now also W. Ullmann, "Ueber eine kanonistische Vorlage Friedrichs I." in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xlvi ( 1960), pp. 430ff. and on the meaning of beneficium see idem in Cambridge Hist. J., xi ( 1955), pp. 242-5, with which interpretation is in agreement Th. Mayer in Hist. Z., clxxxvii ( 1959), pp. 28f. Despite the overwhelming evidence against the old interpretation of beneficium in the sense of a fief, M. Maccarone, Papato e Impero ( Lateranum, xxv ( 1960), pp. 180ff. still appears to prefer this explanation now discarded. For the idea underlying the conception of beneficium, cf. now also Principles of Government, pp. 57ff. The thesis that the secular-public power of the State was a divine gift and good deed is still maintained by the modern Papacy, cf. Leo XIII in Acta Sanctae Sedis, xiv ( 1881), p. 7: the "potestas rectorum civitatis" as a "donum quodam" and as a divinum beneficium.
343, n. 2 : The same principle was still upheld in the fourteenth century. When in 1346 Clement VI reviewed the double election of 1314 he said: "Ob hoc Romana Ecclesia per longa tempora suo caruerat et carebat speciali advocato et legitimo defensore." Recognizing Charles IV's election, Clement VI said: "Tibi nostrum favorem et gratias concedentes . . . to nominamus, denuntiamus, declaramus et assumpsimus in regem Romanorum promovendum in impera-lb /> torem," Raynaldus, Ann. eccles. (ed. Col. Agr., 1618), xiv. 984, 985. Of course, the imperial standpoint never accepted this, maintaining that through election alone and without any intervention by the Pope the emperor had received his empire a solo Deo ( Frederick I). The same principle was expressed in 1237, see MGH. Const., ii. 441, no. 329, and in Licet juris of Louis the Bavarian ( 1338).
344, ctd from 343, n. 3 : For a neat statement of the imperial (anti-papal) dualist standpoint see also Frederick II in his letter to King Henry III in HuillardBréholles, Hist. dipl. Fred. II, v. 1125. And yet, there is nowadays the one or the other writer who tries to make out that the dualism was the official papal programme. Only lack of knowledge of the sources or a culpable lack of understanding can give rise to this unhistoric view. On this kind of historiography cf. W. Ullmann in Hist. Z., cxci ( 1960), pp. 620ff., and idem in Archivio storico Pugliese, xiii ( 1960), pp. 349ff., at p. 364 n. 27.
346, n. 2 : Henry IV is addressed by Hazilo of Hildesheim as "regis regum insignis vicarius in futuro regnaturus cum eo, cuius vicem executus es strenue" ( Briefsammlung aus der Zeit Heinrichs IV., ed. C. Edrmann and N. Fickermann, no. 53, p. 99, line 16).
348, n. 2 : Cf. in this context also Reg.. iv. 3, p. 298, lines 20 f.
349, n. 1 : The concern for the German kingdom is one that belongs to the "majora ecclesiarum negotia", Reg.. iv. 23, p . 335.
356, n. 6 : It is most instructive to see that the author of these forgeries cannot construct a proper theocratic theme for the king, but has to operate with the opposed theme, that is, the populist thesis. The emphasis on the voluntas populi, within this context, reveals in fact the weakness of the royal-theocratic theme and demonstrates how the author realized that on this basis he could not make a reasoned reply to the Gregorian-hierocratic attack. Henry IV himself, however, never, as far as could be ascertained, invoked the populist principle.
359, n. 1 : The relation between faith and law is neatly expressed by Gregory VII in his Reg. ii. 75, p. 237, to King Sven of Denmark telling him that the Popes were always anxious "omnes reges et principes ad aeternam beatitudinem cunctos invitare legalibus disciplinis."
360, n. 1 : The overriding value attributed to an authority makes understandable the prevalence of the deductive method in the M.A., and hence the aversion from induction and empiricism Hence also the prevalence of thinking in purely abstract terms from which particular ideas could be deduced.
361, n. 2 : The model for this statement of Gratian seems to have been Justinian: "ex nobis eis (scil. the works of the Roman jurisconsults) impertietur auctoritas", Cod. I. xvii. I (6).
365, n. 2 : For the general theme of historical jurisprudence and legal history cf. B. Paradisi, "Droit et Histoire" in Archives de Philosophie et du Droit, 1959, pp. 23ff., and W. Ullmann in his Rapport to the XI International Congress of Historical Sciences ( Stockholm, 1960), fasc. iii, pp. 34ff.
366, n. 1 : On Hildebert of Lavardin see also J. Szövérffy, "Hildebert of Lavardin and a Westminster sequence" in Rev. Bénédictine, lxvii ( 1957), pp. 98ff. In general see also A. M. Landgraf, Einführung . . .Frühscholastik ( Regensburg, 1948), pp. 12-33.
367, ctd from 366, n. 2 : For further details see now M. D. Chenu, La thélogie au douziéme siècle ( Paris, 1957), and A. M. Landgraf, "Zum Werden der Theologie des 12. Jahrhunderts" in Z. f. kath. Theol., lxxix ( 1957), pp. 417-33.
367, n. 4 : For Cremona see U. Gualazzini, Lo Studio di Cremona ( Cremona, 1956); also idem in Studi in onore di Arrigo Solmi ( Milan, 1941), i. 5-52 ( twelfth century).
369, n. 3 : For additional material concerning the early Romanists of U. Gualazzini in Studi Parmensi, iii ( 1953), pp. 363, at p. 374 and notes 48ff. For Bologna see G. de Vergottini, Lo studio di Bologna ( Bologna, 1954), esp. p. 20, and F. Wieacker, Vom röm. Recht ( Stuttgart, 1961), pp. 288ff.
371, n. 4 : A possible model for this advice of Urban II may be found in Justinian's constitution Tanta, cap. 15: "diversitas rationum."
374, ctd from 373, n. 3 : Concerning the qualities of the Popes, Caspar, i. 83, remarked: "Es waren fast zu allen Zeiten andere Qualitäten als die theologische Gelehrsamkeit, welche die Männer auf Petri Stuhl bewährt haben." For an assessment of the canonists cf. also G. Le Bras, "Velur splendor firmamenti" in Mélanges E. Gilson ( Paris, 1959), pp. 373ff.
374, n. 3 : For the historical background cf. now also J. d'Ercole in Apollinaris, xxxii ( 1959), pp. 273ff.
381, n. 1 : The subject of the Summae Confessorum is now examined afresh by P. Michaud-Quentin, "A propos des premières summae confessorum: théologie et droit canonique" in Rech. de théol. ancienne et médiévale, xxvi ( 1959), pp. 264ff.
390, n. 1 : The influence of Benzo of Alba seems to be greater than has hitherto been assumed, cf. W. Ullmann in Misc. Hist. Pont., xviii ( 1954), p. 110 n. 13; idem in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xlvi ( 1960), p. 433 n. 13. Cf., furthermore, the archbishop of Milan addressing Frederick I at Roncaglia as "orbis et urbis imperator" ( Rahewin, Gesta, iv. 5, p. 238). For Frederick I himself, cf. MGH. Const. i. 271, no. 191; no. 270, p. 372; no. 240, p. 335; no. 161, p. 224.
393, n. 1 : The term reguli (kinglings) had already been used by Gregory VII in his Reg. ii. 70, p. 230, though its meaning here does not seem to be the same as Benzo's.
394, n. 1 : With unconvincing reasons N. F. Cantor, Church, Kingship and Lay Investiture in England 1089-1135 ( Princeton, 1958) tries to ascribe these tracts to Gerard of York, cf. my review in J. Eccl. Hist., x ( 1959), pp. 234ff. For the fundamental importance, of these tracts see E. Kantorowicz, The King's Two Bodies ( Princeton, 1957), cf. my review in MIOG., lxvi ( 1958), pp. 364ff.
399, n. 4 : The same standpoint is found in Gregory of Catina, Orthodoxa Defensio in MGH. L. d. L., ii. 358: because kings were christi, they too combined both royal and sacerdotal powers.
406, n. 2 : Hence also the frequent invocation of St John, viii. 36 (My kingdom is not of this world) by the anti-hierocrats (dualists), cf. Hist. Z., cxci ( 1960), p. 621n. 1.
411, n. 2 : For Gerhoh of Reichersberg see now D. van den Eynde, L'oeuvre littéraire de Gerhoch de Reichersberg ( Rome, 1957); E. Meuthen, Kirche und Heilsgeschichte bei Gerhoh von Reichersberg (in Studien u. Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des M.A., vi ( 1959)); P. Classen, Gerhoch von Reichersberg: eine Biographie ( Wiesbaden, 1960).
413, n. 1 : About the juristic tenor of the Matthean passage cf. also J.T.S., xi ( 1960), pp. 41-2; about the Johannean passage (xxi. 15 f.) see P. Gaechter in Z.f. kath. Theol., lxix ( 1947), pp. 328ff., esp. 338, 344.
414, n. 4 : Whilst there is now doubt about Honorius as a member of St Augustine, Canterbury, there seems certainty that he stayed there at the convent, cf. H. Fichtenau. in MIOG., lxvii ( 1959), p. 406.
415, n. 2 : Cf. also in this context Ivo of Chartres and his view that regnum and sacerdotium should work together for the good of the ecclesia, Ep. 238 (in P.L. clxii. 246), and for the implications of this view in a "political" context see M. J. Wilks in Misc. Hist. Eccles. Stockholm 1960 ( Louvain, 1961), pp. 32ff.
420, n. 3 : For recent literature on John of Salisburycf. H. Hohenleutner in Hist. Jb., lxxvii ( 1958), pp. 493ff.
426, ctd from 425, n. 2 : Other statements on the preference of utilitas publica are in Innocent III, Reg. ii. 253: "communem causam privatae praeponens" and in Innocent IV, MGH. Epp. PP. RR., ii. 257, no. 344 and ii. 309, no. 425 (dispensation from the impediment of consanguinity (fourth degree) in) the interests of utilitas evidens).
427, n. 1 : The same triad is repeated by St Bernard in his De gratia et libero arbitrio ( P.L. cit., col. 1007).
429, n. 5 : Another instance of borrowing from St Bernard by Innocent III in X: I. xxiii. 6; cf. De cons., II. viii, cols. 751-2: "Nihil excipitur, ubi distinguitur nihil."
431, n. 1 : Mention should be made of Innocent IV's view expressed in 1245: "Nec curabimus de cetero uti gladio materiali, sed tantum spirituali contra Fredericum", Huillard-Bréholles, Hist. dipl. Fred. II, vi. 347.
433, n. 3 : The application of Jer. i. 10 by the Papacy could be seen already in the pontificate of Leo IX, Ep. 72 (in P.L., cxliii. 692) and see also Gregory VII in his Reg. v. 2, p. 350; vi. 13, p. 415. The passage was also incorporated in the speech before the conclave on 25 October 1958, see Acta Ap. Sedis, I ( 1958), p. 858.
437, n. 4 : For Peter Damiancf. F. Dressler, Petrus Damiani: Leben und Werk (in Studia Anselmiana, xxxiv ( 1954); J. J. Ryan, St Peter Domiani and his canonical sources ( Toronto, 1956); J. Goussette, Pierre Damien et la culture profane ( Louvain, 1956); J. Leclercq, S. Pierre Damien, ermite et homme de l'église ( Rome, 1960).
438, n. 1 : For Hugh of St Victor see now also F. W. Witte, "Die Staats und Rechtsphilosophie des Hugo von St Viktor" in Arch. f. Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, xliii ( 1957), pp. 555 ff.; F. Merzbacher, "Recht und Gewaltenlehre bei Hugo von St Viktor" in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xliv ( 1958), pp. 181ff.
438, n. 2 : In the fifteenth century, too, this was still the view:
"Clerus et populus sunt nomina collectiva significantia totum populum christianum, qui in duo genera hominum dividitur, videlicet clerum et populum," Petrus de Monte, De pot. pont. in I. T. Rocaberti, Bibl. Max. Pont. ( Rome, 1698), xviii. 122. And yet, despite this currency of the concept in the M.A., there is the one or the other writer on historical subjects who tries to make out that by ecclesia only the sacerdotium was understood. According to this ill- informed view Christ would have established merely the acerdotium in Matt, xvi. 18 f. About this fundamental mistake in a recent book cf. my review in J. Eccl. Hist. vi ( 1955), pp. 233ff.
439, n. 3 : For a similar view on the symbolic interpretation of water see already Alcuin in MGH. Epp., iv. 212, no. 137, lines 14 f. ("in aqua populus intelligitur credentium.").
443, n. 2 : Cf., furthermore, Innocent III in Reg. i. 117, 195, 345. For the influence of the Bible on principles of government, see W. Ullmann in Settimana Spoleto, x ( 1963), 189ff.
443, n. 3 : For the whole question of Christ as King see the synthesis of J. Leclercq, "L'idée de la seigneurie du Christ au M.A." in R.H.E., liii ( 1958), pp. 57ff.
443, n. 4 : The same in Johannes de Turrecremata, Summa de ecclesia (ed. Venice, 1561), fol. 19r, no. 28, and in the sixteenth centuryCardinal Dominicus Jacobazzi in his De conciliis in Tractatus illustr. jurisconsultorum, xiii-1, fol. 189vb, no. 91.
444, ctd from 443, n. 5 : See also Innocent III in his Reg. ix. 73. Before him the same views were expressed by Alexander III, Ep. 150 (in P.L. cc. 211) and by Celestine III, Ep. 235 (in P.L. ccvi. 1127).
447, ctd from 446, n. 5 : The view of Johannes Monachus on monarchy as the mensura et regula seems to be of Thomist origin. Thomas' view on the law was that it provided a mensura et regula, see his S. Theol., II-ii. 95, art. 3. Marsiglio of Padua too applies this Thomist view to the government, see his Def. Pacis, i. 18. 2. Cf. now also M. J. Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty in the M.A. ( Cambridge, 1963).
449, n. 2 : Another significant statement is in Innocent III's Reg. i. 326.
453, n. 1 : In this context the so-called electoral pacts (Wahlkapitulationen) deserve attention, because they were designed to check the constitutional freedom of the Pope. For this see W. Ullmann in Ephem. Juris Can., xii ( 1956), pp. 246ff.
456, n. 2: But it should be noted that this bull changed the original "omnis humana creatura" into "omnes Christi fideles."
Abelard, 371, 372, 379 n. 2
Acacius, 16 n. 1, 76, 78 n. 2
Acclamations, 16 n. 3, 81 n. 2, 97 ff., 146 f., 258, 323. See also Laudes
Addrextatores, 316 n. 2
Ado of Vienne, 196 n. 4
Adoption of king, 68 n. 5, 153 n. 3, 164, 257
Adrian I, 88 n. 2, 89, 90 ff., 101, 107 n. 6, 110, 179
Adrian II, 20 n. 1, 172, 209 ff.
Adrian IV, 341 ff., 434 n.1
Adso of Montier, 237, 239
Adventius of Metz, 192 n. 5, 207
Advocatus, 169, 71 f., 85 f., 122, 128, 159, 162, 214, 223 f., 236, 255 n. 3, 285, 296, 297 n. 1, 415, 417, 432, 448, 454. See also Defence and Patron Aegelnoth, 318 n. 2
Aegidius Fuscararius, 449 n. 2
Aegidius Romanus, 277 n. 3, 287 n. 1, 440 n. 2, 446 nn. 3, 4, 5, 456 n. 1
Aeneas of Paris, 199 n. 2
Aethelsig of Canterbury, 313 n. 1
Agapitus II, 229 Agapitus of Rhodes, 16 n. 5
Agatho, 62 n. 1, 201 n. 2
Agnes, empress, 306 n. 5
Agobard of Lyons, 135 ff., 159, 168, 170 n. 1, 171 Aistulph, 54 ff
Aix-la-Chapelle, 95, 97, 105 n. 1, 124 n. 4, 125 f., 127, 145
Alan, canonist, 456
Alcuin, 95 n. 4, 107, 111 n. 1, 112, 116, 117 f., 175
Alexander II, 272, 309 n. 1, 313 n. 1, 314 n. 1, 368 n. 1, 388
Alexander III, 275 n. 1, 298, 300 n. 1, 318 n. 2, 341 n. 3, 379 n. 2, 422 n. 3, 429 n. 5, 432 n. 3, 433 n. 3, 439 n. 1
Alexander of Hales, 440 n. 2
Alfanus of Salerno, 389 n. 7
Alfred the Great, 175
Alger of Liège, 371, 373 n. 1
Alms house, papal, 331 n. 4
Alphonso VI, 304
Altmann of Passau, 287 n. 2
Alvarus Pelagius, 430 n. 8, 440 n. 2
Amalarius of Metz, 150 n. 10, 172 n. 1
Ambrose, St, 7 n. 6, 13, 22 n. 5, 86 n. 1, 383 ;
Pseudo-Ambrose, 78 n. 4, 282 n. 4
Ambrosiaster, 6 n. 4, 383 n. 6
Anacletus II, 427
Anastasius, emperor, 16, 22 n. 8
Anastasius I, Pope, 7 n. 1
Anastasius II, 26 n. 4, 28 n. 2, 168
Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 147 n. 3, 191 f., 197 n. 3, 211 n. 6, 214 ff., 363, 428 n. 4
Angilramn of Metz, 179
Anointing, see Unction
Anonymous of York, 357, 394 ff., 414
Anselm, St, 294 n. 1, 297 n. 1, 428 n. 2, 429 n. 1
Anselm of Lucca, 266 n. 1, 306 n. 1, 359 n. 3
Anselm Ordo, 228 n. 2
Ansgar, 100 n. 1
Apostasy, 301 n. 1, 419
Arabs, 165 n. 3
Archdeacon, Papal, 258, 330
Archives, Papal, 92, 262, 370 n. 2. See also Register and Chancery
Aribert of Milan, 249
Aristotle, 446 n. 5, 454 ff.
Arn of Salzburg, 117
Arnulf, emperor, 165
Arnulf of Chiny, 281 n. 3
Assignatio of office, 268, 435
Atto, Cardinal, 359 n. 3, 362 n. 2
Atto of Vercelli, 273
Auctoritas, 9, 21, 22, 25, 28, 46 n. 5, 130, 173, 174, 286, 359, 367, 407, 423 n. 3, 424 n. 6, 436, 446 n. 2, 449
Auditors, Papal, 337 n. 4; cf. 436 n. 5
[ Main Contents ]