Three Ninth-Century Popes
I T is not the least symptomatic feature of Nicholas's state of mind that the writings of his predecessors in the papal office come so readily to his pen: Leo I, Gelasius I, Gregory I, and a whole host of others whose official communications form the backbone of Nicholas's own products. In accepting the Eastern challenge to the principatus of the Roman Church, Nicholas I was given the opportunity of re-stating the papal-hierocratic theme and in so doing he powerfully buttressed papal ideology. But what Gelasius lacked, was now at the disposal of this ninth-century Pope, namely all the ideological armoury of his predecessors, fortified by contemporary Western declarations and expressions of a strong hierocratic nature, and ably assisted by PseudoIsidore. Nevertheless, whilst the Eastern theatre of war provided, so to speak, only a theoretical battle ground, the transformation of Western society gave Nicholas the opportunity to assert the papalhierocratic theme most forcefully. Set against the Western background, the papal point of view was forced to accept the Eastern challenge: although there were no reasonable grounds for hoping that the breach between East and West could be healed, Nicholas could not acquiesce in the defiant Eastern denial of the principatus of the Roman Church. 1 The assertion of the Pope's functions in the West peremptorily demanded a clear re-statement of the papal theme towards the East. The pontificate of Nicholas I shows us the approximation of Western society to the body politic of the Societas omnium fidelium.
Standing on the ancient roads as he did, Nicholas had the ability to formulate the hierocratic temper of his time in an articulate manner. His communications are characterized by firmness coupled with the conviction of speaking with authority divinely conferred and sanctioned; by strong-mindedness combined with the knowledge of being superior and unaccountable to any one; by aggressiveness resulting
1. It may be recalled that the argument in favour of Constantinople, because it was the seat of the imperial government and senate (the urbs regia) was still employed by Photius, Nomocanon, i. 5, ed. Paris, 1615, pp. 7-8.
from impatience at still not seeing ancient and justifiable claims recognized. And he had powerful satellites upon whom to rely. The Frankish episcopacy had for the most part become one of the firm props of the papal scheme of things; the "imperium," itself the offspring of papal aspirations and dreams, had become a reality, though now showing unmistakable features of decay; the thorough permeation of the Western orbit with Romanism could not but produce the expected results; and perhaps most important of all, the Papacy had effectively emerged as the empire maker. 1
I Nicholas I had the good fortune of having in Anastasius a great savant, librarian, chancellor, archivist and church historian. 2 There can be few parallel cases of such a harmonious association as existed between Nicholas and Anastasius, when once the earlier differences between the two men had been ironed out. It is fair to assume that Anastasius acquainted the Pope with Pseudo-Isidore, 3 but too much weight should not be attached to this facet. On the one hand, a Pope, like Nicholas I, who was able to sense the temper of his time and who was the personification of an idea, could see in Pseudo-Isidore little more than a useful and handy reference work which made time-consuming search for earlier papal manifestations superfluous; on the other hand, 4 Anastasius begins his fruitful co-operation with Nicholas
1. The idea is very prevalent that Nicholas I was the builder of the medieval Papacy, e.g., H. Böhmer, in Realencykl. f. prot. Theol, 3rd ed., p. 69: " Nikolaus hat die mittelalterliche Papstidee geschaffen"; cf. also A. Hauck, Kirchengeschichte, ii. 549, and Weltherrschaftsgedanke, p. 14. It seems very difficult to label one Pope as the builder (or according to T. G. Jalland, op. cit., p. 378: as the "creator") of the medieval Papacy: this edifice was built of many stones by many architects.
2. J. Haller, Nikolaus I & Pseudo-Isidore, Stuttgart, 1936, p. 131; E. Perels, Papst Nikolaus I und Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Berlin, 1929, pp. 185 ff., 242 ff. Cf. also idem, in the Introduction, pp. vi-ix, and G. Lähr, "Briefe und Prologe des Bibl. Anastasius" in Neues Archiv, xlvii ( 1928), pp. 416 ff.
3. For this thesis see Haller, op. cit., pp. 187 ff., and Perels, op. cit., pp. 181 ff. See furthermore H. Schrörs, in "Hist. Jb.", 1904, pp. 1 ff., 1905, pp. 275 ff. Jalland assertion, op. cit., p. 384, that "the belief that Nicholas made use of the False Decretals to justify his claims, once widely held, has now been generally abandoned" has little foundation. Cf. P. E. Schramm, "Studien etc." in Sav. Z., Germ. Abt., 1929, pp. 206-7 about the close association of Anastasius with the composition of the so-called "Early List of Judges" which was modelled on the Donation of Constantine, see ibid., pp. 213-14 and 230. That Nicholas avoided a direct reference to the Donation can be explained: he no doubt perceived the weakness of the document.
4. F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, Cambridge, 1948, p. 106, suggests that Pseudo-Isidore was already known in the papal chancery under Leo IV and Benedict III.
only after the end of his involuntary exile, that is, after 862. Once the intimate association between the two men was established, they supplemented each other extraordinarily well; the one supplying the geistige Ristieug, the historical learning and arguments, the other laying down the aim and policy to which the librarian's learning should be harnessed.
It may not be unprofitable to sketch rapidly some of Anastasius's ideas about the role of the Papacy, since these ideas form a useful background to the great Pope's own. The librarian's expressions are perhaps somewhat flamboyant and rhetorical, but were very efficacious in strengthening the confidence of the Pope in the librarian's knowledge and ability.
In Anastasius's letter to the Pope 1 the learned author hails the pontiff as the "vicar of God," the "pontiff of universal mankind" without whose authority nothing may be accomplished nor be made known in this world. For he is the "unicus papa," the "peculiar pastor and father" of all men, the judge and arbiter of all and also the doorkeeper of heaven. 2 "In the Pope's breast live the tables of the Testament as well as the manna of heavenly savour." What he has bound, nobody can loose, and vice-versa, and what he has opened, nobody can shut again, for
vicem namque in terris possides Dei 3
he writes to the Pope.
Stripped of their exuberance, these expressions manifest the view of the Pope's mediatory role, a view which emerges in the Pope's own communications. But the language employed by Anastasius was precisely the language which Nicholas wished to hear and read. 4 These and similar adulatory expressions 5 are indicative, on the one hand, of
1. MGH. Epp. vii, Ep. 1, pp. 396 ff.
2. MGH. Epp. vii, Ep. 1, p. 397, lines 9-12: "Neque enim fas est, ut absque vicario Dei, absque clavigero coeli, absque curru et auriga spiritualis Israel, absque universitatis pontifice, absque unico papa, absque singulari pastore, absque speciali patre, absque omnium arbitro, aliquid consummetur aut divulgetur."
3. MGH. Epp. vii, Ep. 1, p. 397, lines 12-16. The whole passage runs: "Tu enim tenes claves David, tu accepisti claves scientiae. In arca quippe pectoris tui tabulae testamenti et manna coelestis saporis requiescunt. Tu enim quod ligas, nemo solvit; quod solvis, nemo ligat. Qui aperis et nemo claudit, claudis et nemo aperit; vicem namque . . ."
4. In order to assess the versatility of the librarian, one should compare his earlier conduct with the language of this letter.
5. Another example is Bishop Adventius of Metz: he writes that the Pope is vice-gerent of God, sitting as he does as a true apostle in the papal chair. See
the general esteem in which Nicholas was held, and, on the other hand, of the susceptibility of the Pope himself to these high sounding phrases about the papal office.
The theme dominating the mind of Nicholas I was that of the Roman Church's being the epitome of the whole of Christendom: Christians are Christians by virtue of their membership of one of the individual churches: but these in turn receive their life from the Roman Church, which is the head and fountain of all Christian life.
Universitas credentium ab hac sancta Romana ecclesia, quae caput est omnium ecclesiarum, doctrinam exquirit, integritatem fidei deposcit. 1
Consequently, the Pope alone has to render an account for all those calling themselves Christians: 2 they on the other hand, submit their request for the forgiveness of their sins to the apostolic chair. 3 In a word, the whole flock of Christians -- and this includes the Eastern ones -- is committed to his care, because it is solely through the Roman Church that they become Christians. 4
As far as the earth is Christian, the Popes are set above the whole earth: principes super omnem terram. 5 Theoretically, the Church in the East is just as much subjected to papal ruling as the body of Christians in the West. 6 The universal Church is epitomized in the Roman Church:
MGH. Epp. vi, Ep. 8, P. 220, lines 14 ff.: "qui vices Dei tenetis et in reverendissima summi principis cathedra verus apostolus residetis, ut vestris fovear solaminibus . . ." His readiness to obey papal edicts as if they came from God: p. 221, lines 9 ff.: "Ecce paratus sum obsecundare edictis vestrae auctoritatis veluti Deo, in cuius persona cuncta profertis."
1. MGH. Epp. vi, Ep. 86, p. 447, lines 32 ff.
2. MGH. Epp. vi, Ep. 86, p. 447, lines 34 ff.: "Pro quibus tantum consistimus pavidi, quantum consideramus in aeterno examine pro omnibus et prae omnibus, qui Christi censentur nomine, rationem reddituri."
3. MGH. Epp. vi, Ep. 86, p. 447, lines 37 ff.
4. Ep. 29, p. 296, lines 19 ff., to the Frankish bishops: "Ne forte, quod absit, homini haerentes perverso ab illa petra decidatis, super quam verus architectus totius domus suae voluit fundamentum construere et auctorem pravitatis sequentes amittatis communionem ipsius, a quo et episcopatus et apostolatus sumpsit initium, per quem etiam vos per gratiam Dei non solum episcopi, verum et Christiani estis effecti. Capiti ergo religionis, id est, sanctae apostolicae sedi haerete." Cf. Innocent I supra p. 7 n. 6.
5. Ep. 29, p. 296, lines 10 ff.: "Cum, licet indigni, pro patribus nati filii vicem eius agentes Dei sumus gratia constituti in domo ipsius principes super omnem terram."
6. See especially Ep. 88, p.t., and Ep. 31, p. 300, lines 21-2: "Ergo quia totius nos ecclesiae maxima cura praestolatur nostrum praecipue debet ecclesia tota procul dubio judicium promereri."
Universa sancta ecclesia, quae apud nos est. 1
The conciseness of this statement can hardly be surpassed. The Roman Church is the epitome of all Christendom:
Suscepit ergo ac continet in se Romana ecclesia quod Deus universalem ecclesiam suscipere ac continere praecepit. 2
Consequently, fullness of power rests solely with the Roman Church: powers are diffused throughout the organism of the universal Church, but the Roman Church contains in epitome all these powers. 3 Whatever the Pope does, speaks, and writes, affects the whole body of believers: in a way he represents the universal Church:
Nos ecclesiam Dei, qui ei per abundantiam supernae gratiae praesumus, juxta modum acceptae distributionis exhibere debemus. 4
All this is the application and elaboration of Pauline expressions. 5 According to Nicholas, Christianity lives solely through the Roman Church -- without this Church there is no Christianity. The solicitude for the universal Church is therefore only the other side of the Pope's function. 6 The decrees of the Roman Church are therefore binding
1. Ep. 88, p. 480, line 15; repeated in Ep. 90, p. 491, line 5.
2. Ep. 88, p. 478, lines 2-3.
3. Ep. cit., p. 476, lines 4 ff.: "Proinde animadvertendum est, quia non Nicena, non denique ulla synodus quodquam Romanae contulit ecclesiae privilegium, quae in Petro noverat earn totius jura potestatis pleniter meruisse et cunctarum ovium regimen accepisse," with a reference to Boniface I, cf. Mansi, viii. 755.
4. Ep. 77, p. 411, lines 37-8. The soundness of the whole building presupposes firmness of foundations, hence the imperative need for unimpeded authority of the Roman Church:
Ubi universa fabricae moles innititur, ibi firmum validumque habeatur in omnibus fundamentum.
(Ep. 71, p. 394, lines 20-2.)
This also means the personal immunity of the Pope from any sort of accusation:
"Prima sedes non judicabitur a quoquam," Ep. 88, p. 466, lines 22-3, with a reference to the spurious Council of Sinuessa ( Mansi, i. 1257).
On this apocryphal source see Maassen, Geschichte, i. 411 ff. Nicholas also quotes from the Constitutum Silvestri, cap. xx: "Neque ab augusto neque ab omni clero neque a regibus neque a populo judex judicabitur," Ep. 88, p. 465, lines 15-16. The text of this forgery in Mansi, ii. 632. Cf. also Ep. 100, p. 606, lines 19 ff.: "Cum enim Christi munere propter primatum ecclesiae Romanae in b. Petro concessum nemini sit de sedis apostolicae judicio judicare aut illius sententiam retractare permissum . . ." since the disciple is not above the master, Matt. x. 24, cf. also Const. Silv. cap. iii, and Nicholas again in Ep. 88, p. 466, line 28, and p. 467, line 26; see furthermore Pseudo-Isidore, Hinschius, p. 449. See also supra p. 175.
5. Especially Col. ii. 19.
6. Ep. 71, p. 397, lines 1 ff.: "Totius enim ecclesiae Deo auctore generaliter gerimus sollicitudinem et omnium utique, qui ecclesiae filii sunt, cura constringimur atque omnium . . . nostrum praecipue fidelium statu impigram gerere providentiam." Cf. also Ep. 91, p. 513; this is an application of II Cor. xi. 28.
upon the whole Church 1 because the Pope has been divinely instituted as the Ruler over the whole (Christian) world:
Nos divinitus . . . constituti principes super omnem terram id est, super universam ecclesiam. 2
This whole corpus of believers can be compared, according to Nicholas, with a vessel which contains in itself all those species of living beings individually known as men, collectively known as nations. 3 The world, as far as it was Christian, is to him an "ecclesia" -- "Terra enim ecclesia est" 4 -- which is ruled by its epitome, the Roman Church, through the hierarchically subordinated sacerdotium. Consequently, the heads of this epitome are "principes super omnem terram." Reverence shown to the Pope is reverence shown to St Peter, whose place Nicholas takes, or rather "reverence is shown to God in his apostle who . . . instituted us as his heirs and successors." 5
The logical application of this view is that major causes must be submitted to the Roman Church. Hincmar's high-handed dealings with Rothad, the bishop of Soissons, gave the Pope the opportunity of proclaiming the supreme jurisdictional powers of the Roman Church in a major cause, such as the deposition of a bishop. 6 From his point of view it was intolerable that a metropolitan should arrogate to himself the rights which were reserved to the Pope. In rather sarcastic tones Nicholas reproaches the Frankish bishops for their curious practice of sending lay people to Rome for all sorts of Papal decisions, but of refusing to allow an important matter of ecclesiastical discipline and
1. Ep. 91, p. 523, lines 3-4: "Satis nostis, quae ab ea statuta fuerint, haec universalem ecclesiam semper tenuisse."
2. Ep. 88, p. 475, lines 32 ff.
3. Ep. 88, p. 478, lines 1 ff. After the allusion to Acts x. 11-12, xi. 5-6, he says: "ipsius vasis instar dignoscatur in se continere universorum animalium, quae homines intelliguntur, spiritualiter nationes." He also refers to Luke v. 3. About this allegory and its early history see especially H. Rahner, "Navicula Petri" in Z.f. kath. Theol., lxi ( 1947), pp. 3-20, 30-1. The Nicholean statement was later utilized by Innocent III, also in a letter to the patriarch, Reg. ii. 209. 4. Ep. 88, p. 475, line 34.
5. Ep. 78, pp. 412 - 13 to Charles the Bald. About the notion of the Pope being the heir of St Peter, see supra p. 8 n. 4.
6. In his encyclical, Ep. 71, p. 393, he relies on Pseudo-Isidore, p. 393, lines 25 ff.; on this see Hinschius, Pseudo-Isidore, pp. ccv ff.; H. Schrörs, Hinkmar, Erzbischof von Reims, p. 259, note 82; Fournier-Le Bras, Hist. d. coll. can., i. 228. Cf. also E. H. Davenport, The False Decretals, p. 51, note 34. The subject-matter of the dispute could have been dealt with just as effectively without a recourse to Pseudo-Isidore, for instance by referring to Leo IV's statement, MGH. Epp. v, p. 595; see also Perels, op. cit., p. 172: Nicholas used Preudo-Isidore because the collection assisted the Pope's aspirations.
organization to be taken thither. The "sedes apostolica" is the "caput" of all Christianity, 1 including of course the "sacerdotium." Its affairs are more important for the governance of universal Christendom than the "judicia saecularium." 2 The stern hierarchical ordering of the ecclesiastical body and its subordination appear to Nicholas as the pivotal points of government. 3 The "outstanding members of the Church" are the bishops: by virtue of their qualifications they assume a particularly important function within the societas, and therefore they must be strictly subordinated to the Pope, and through their subordination they partake in the Pope's fullness of power.
The insistence of Nicholas on the strict hierarchical ordering is from a governmental point of view consistent: this insistence means in effect centralization of the ecclesiastical government, a claim that was inherent in the idea that "ecclesia universalis (quae) apud nos est." The "sacerdotium" is the vehicle for the transmission of papal decrees which are the "sancta decreta." On the other hand, the episcopal will has to be suppressed if an effective centralization is to be carried out. The reduction of episcopal and metropolitan power was a necessary preliminary to the implementation of the strict monarchic Papal rule.
The presupposition for reducing episcopal independence was however the attack on the exuberant proprietary church system: it was this system which presented itself as the most effective bar to the exercise of direct papal control over the higher ecclesiastics. Their installation amounted to an appointment, hence Nicholas's insistence on episcopal elections by the clergy. His protestations and vituperations against the prevalent system are couched in quite unusually strong terms. Clerics, he says, who obtain their "clerical" position through the machinery of the proprietary church system, do not thereby become members of the "sacerdotium": rather they are the property of the layman who appoints them; they are the appointees in the houses of laymen, and by no means can be said to be clerics. It is his duty to see that this poisonous toadstool -- "venenatum elleborum" -- is uprooted. 4 In the decree sent to the bishop of Besançon, Nicholas lays
1. Ep. 71, p. 393, line 10.
2. Ep. 71, p. 397, line 15.
3. Ep. 71, p. 397, lines 20 ff. The significance of a cause being a "major causa" is that the Pope acts as a tribunal of first instance, and not as a court of appeal. It was therefore an excellent means of exercising direct control over the episcopacy. Cf. also Perels, op. cit., pp. 171-2.
4. Ep. 39, pp. 313 - 14 : "Numquid Gerardus comes ilium (scil. presbyterum) consecravit, numquid de ipsius est diocesi? Ubi hoc legisti -- the letter is addressed
down the principle of free episcopal elections; bishops must be elected "non a saccularibus quibusque, sed a clero ecclesiae." 1
The exercise of papal control over the episcopacy presupposed that the lay power was prevented from intervening in the creation of a bishop. So long as the "sacerdotium" was not extracted from lay control, there was no prospect of its Papal control or of a centralized government. That is the underlying meaning of the often misunderstood Nicholean "separation of powers." What he attempts to lay down is the principle that the societas fidelium -- the term which he himself coined -- cannot be ruled by those who are not functionally qualified. The only functionally qualified members of this societas are the "sacerdotes" or as he says the "outstanding members of the Church," in effect the bishops. But the presupposition is that they must be free, that is to say, they must be under papal control. For this societas is one of the faithful, and consequently, its direction and government -- the "regimen" as Nicholas had it -- must be in the hands of the "caput religionis" 2 who, however, cannot function properly if the "sacerdotium" is controlled by the lay power, which has no governmental functions within the terms of this societas. True monarchic power within this society lies only with the Pope: his decrees and laws are binding upon all:
Cui (scil. apostolicae sedi) facultas est in tota Christi ecclesia leges speciali prerogativa ponere ac decreta statuere atque sententias promulgare. 3
The ideas of Nicholas I on the function and standing of a king within the societas fidelium appear as an application of his fundamental view on the epitome character of the Roman Church. At the imperial coronation, the emperor 4 is pontifically conceded the right to use the
to the archbishop of Vienne, Ado -- ubi hoc didicisti, nisi quia presbyteri non specialiter ecclesiae civitatis aut ecclesiae possessionis aut martirii aut monasterii secundum sacras regulas ordinantur, sed in domibus laicorum constituuntur et cum saecularibus adeo conversantur, ut non jam Dei, non ecclesiae cuiuslibet, sed illius comitis atque illius ducis esse dicantur? Ita ut impletum sit, quod per proplietam dicitur 'et erit populus sic sacerdos' . . . tamquam venenatum elleborum amputari."
1. Ep. 123, p. 643, cap. iv. Civic authorities have merely the right of consenting to the election.
2. Ep. 29, p. 296, line 23.
3. Ep. 29, p. 296, lines 35 ff. With this should also be compared the report of Anastasius, MGH. Epp. vii. 409.
4. It is Louis II whom the Pope has in mind.
sword. He is given the right to wield the sword against infidels: the underlying idea is that of protection: by virtue of the coronation papally performed, the emperor is now entitled to draw the sword against the enemies of universal Christianity. He does not bear the sword in vain. Moreover, the emperor receives the empire itself "for the sake of the exaltation and peace of his mother, this holy and apostolic Church." 1 The purpose of creating the emperor was that of obtaining a protector of the Roman Church; since this Church is the epitome of the whole Church, its protection is at the same time the protection of the universal Church; hence the use of the sword pontifically blessed, is the effluence of the emperor's function as a protector. Negatively expressed, without papal intervention, the use of the sword would not be legitimate for a Christian prince.
St Peter had once wielded the physical sword against Malchus, Nicholas declares, whilst he employed spiritual weapons against Ananias and Saphira. 2 This statement leaves no room for doubt that, in terms of later terminology, St Peter possessed both swords, the material as well as the spiritual. 3 If we now bring to bear upon such pregnant expressions Nicholas's idea that the Popes had been divinely instituted in the Roman Church as vicars of the two luminaries illuminating the whole world, we shall have no difficulty in appraising the stimulus and direction which his statement was to give to later generations.
Hi ergo (scil. apostoli) tamquam duo luminaria magna coeli in ecclesia Romana divinitus constituti totum orbem splendore fulgoris sui mirabiliter illustrarunt. 4
This declaration expresses metaphorically the doubly apostolic character of the Roman Church, but it lent itself easily to a different interpretation, especially when linked with the metaphor of the "greater
1. Ep. 34, p. 305, lines 4 ff.: ". . . macherae usum, quem primum a Petri principis apostolorum vicario contra infideles accepit . . . sinatur omnino a Deo protectum imperium suum, quod cum benedictione et sacratissimi olei unctione sedis apostolicae praesule ministrante percepit, ad exaltationem et quietem matris suae, huius sanctae et apostolicae ecclesiae, licenter ac rectissime moderari."
2. Ep. 123, p. 641, lines 23 ff.: "Beatus scilicet Petrus apostolorum princeps, qui Malchi corporali abscissa gladio aure inobedientiam et in Anania et Saphira spirituali verbi mucrone mendacium et avaritiam perculit."
3. Cf. also Perels, op. cit., p. 175: it is worthy of remark that Nicholas"dem Petrus ausdrücklich die Verfügung über beide Schwerter zuerkannt hat." (Perels's italics.) A passing reference to this important statement of Nicholas in J. Lecler, "La théorie des deux glaives" in Recherches de science religieuse, xxi, 1931, p. 306.
4. Ep. 88, p. 475, lines 12-14.
light" -- "majus luminare" -- which was St Peter instituted by Christ in heaven: 1 the potentialities of this metaphor were indeed great.
The adaptation of Gelasius's 2 famous views by Nicholas must be set against these statements. The Pope's vicariate of St Peter begins to approach his vicariate of Christ. For what Nicholas wishes to show is his role as a mediator, his role as a bridge-builder between Christ and man, his role as the divinely instituted monarch who has the "sollicitudo totius ecclesiae." 3 This adaptation of Gelasius by Nicholas was necessary in order to justify his claim that the Popes were "principes super omnem terram": "terra enim ecclesia est." The true significance that lies in this incipient approximation of the Pope as a vicar of Christ, is brought out by Nicholas in the changes which he made in Gelasius's well-worn passages: the changes are slight from a purely verbal point of view; they are significant from the point of view of the subjectmatter.
In the first place, whilst Gelasius had written: "Quoniam Christus
1. Ep. 103, p. 611, written five years before Ep. 88, from which the words in the text are quoted, see preceding note: "Quem (scil. Petrum) Dei filius in sancta ecclesia sua tamquam luminare majus in coelo constituit." The biblical basis may be Gen. i. 16. For an eighth-century use of the metaphor cf. Paulinus of Aquileja, MGH. Poet. Lat. i. 136, speaking of "praeclara coeli duo luminaria." Cf. also Isidore of Seville, De ordine creaturarum, cap. 5 (PL. lxxxiii. 923-4) and esp. his Quaestiones in Vetus Test. PL. Cit., Col. 213, no. 6, which is a very suggestive passage.
2. The reliance of Nicholas on Gelasius is explicable by the great similarity of the situations. Acacius and Photius are frequently bracketed together by Nicholas. The conclusions of F. Dvornik, op. cit., have no bearing on our enquiry, since what is important, for our purposes, is what Nicholas thought and how his thought was reflected in his writings. That he thought Photius did challenge the Roman primacy, is clear, otherwise Ep. 88 would make little sense, unless one is prepared to attribute to Nicholas the basest motives, as, for instance, E. Dümmler, Geschichte des ostfränk. Reiches, i. 657 has done. Nor does it make any difference whether Ep. 88 was actually drafted by Nicholas alone or jointly with Anastasius: it was an official papal communication dispatched in the name of Nicholas I. Cf. N. Ertl in Arch. f. Urk., xv ( 1938), p. 83; cf. also the cautious appreciation of Dvornik's view by the late E. de Moreau, "La réhabilitation de Photius" in Nouvelle Revue Thdologique (offprint), January 1950, pp. 180 ff. The Frankish antagonism to the Greek views was, of course, a great help to Nicholas. Cf. e.g., Aeneas of Paris, Liber adversus Graecos (in L. D'Achery, Spicilegium, Paris, 1723, i. 116-49) who significantly also operates with the Donation of Constantine to prove the principatus of the Roman Church; cf. p. 146 : there are copies of this document, he says, in the archives of the churches: "Haec et alia quam plurima . . . in eodem releguntur privilegio, cuius exemplaribus ecclesiarum in Gallia consistentium armaria ex integro potiuntur." See also Ratramnus of Corbie, Liber contra Graecorum opposita ( D'Achery, i. 63-112) also attacking the clesaropapist Eastern regime (p. 64 ). There is some resemblance with the Libri Carolini.
3. Ep. 31, p. 300 ; Ep. 90, p. 491.
memor fragilitatis humanae . . . discrevit" Nicholas expands this slightly and his version of Gelasius is this:
Quoniam idem mediator Dei et hominum homo Christus Jesus . . . discrevit. 1
Perhaps no significance should be attributed to Nicholas's omission of the Gelasian motive 2 but the expansion is important. The qualification of Christ as the "mediator between God and man" in a letter addressed to the East, is no doubt intended to suggest a very intimate connexion between Christ and the Pope; to suggest, in other words, the Pope's own role as a mediator. The point to bear in mind is that Christ's distribution of the functions, sacerdotal and regal, is now suggested to be vicariously in papal hands. 3
This is an important statement, subtle, no doubt, but at least it enables us to understand the prima facie cryptic and usually misinterpreted passage which he addresses to the Eastern emperor as well as to the Eastern bishops and metropolitans.
Ingrati filii circa matrem vestram, ex qua imperandi fastigium vos et patres vestri ordine coelitus disposito percepistis, nullatenus appareatis. 4
This again is Gelasius in slightly modified form. Gelasius had written to the Eastern bishops that the emperor had the privileges of his power divinely conferred upon him and "for these benefices he should not show himself ungrateful and should not usurp anything in contradiction to the divine ordering of things."
Et eius beneficiis non ingratus contra dispositionem coelestis ordinis nil usurpet. 5
The idea behind Nicholas's statement is again that of the mediatory role of the Pope. What Gelasius had declared to be a divine benefice and privilege, is now suggested to be the effect of the function of the Roman Church, the "mother of the Eastern emperors." Differently
1. Ep. 88, p. 486, lines 6 ff. The passage went into Gratian in its Nicholean form and was correctly attributed to Nicholas ( Dist. xcvi, c. 6). This Ep. 88 was later "exploited to the utmost by the canonists of the Gregorian and post-Gregorian periods," F. Dvornik, op. cit., p. 106. Gratian has no less than twenty-four excerpts from this one letter of Nicholas. The biblical basis for the expansion is I Tim. ii. 5.
2. "Memor fragilitatis humanae" is omitted by Nicholas.
3. Cf. also Ep. 60, p. 371 : "Privilegia namque Romanae ecclesiae totius sunt Christi." In Ep. 71, p. 398, he says that Christ's ordinances are alive in the Roman Church.
4. Ep. 90, p. 508, lines 30-2; the same words in Ep. 91, p. 530, lines 10-12.
5. Ep. 1, p. 293, ed. Thiel. Immediately before Gelasius says: "Habet privilegia potestatis suae, quae administrandis publicis rebus divinitus consecutus est; et eius beneficiis . . ."
expressed, nothing, including the obtaining of rulership and of power -- "fastigium imperandi" -- occurs in a Christian world without divine disposition: but the Roman Church is divinely instituted; it has the "principatus divinae potestatis" 1 and therefore whatever occurs, occurs through the intervention of the Roman Church. By this somewhat circuitous route Nicholas could indeed claim that the Eastern emperors had achieved the height of their power by means of their mother, the Roman Church. In all the long development of papal doctrine, this is perhaps the most far-reaching claim ever made on a practical plane. Divine will is transmitted through the Roman Church: the Eastern emperor -- in whose making the Pope played not the slightest rolehas his power divinely willed, hence the divine will intervenes through the medium of the Roman Church. 2
The mother-function of the Roman Church is, by virtue of the approximation of the Pope's vicariate of St Peter to a vicariate of Christ, greatly, though logically, extended to those who even refused to acknowledge the primacy of the "mother church." Nevertheless, the mother-function of the Roman Church is paralleled by the fatherfunction of the Pope himself. Again, in the Western world, where the primatial position of the Pope was fully acknowledged, this was rather
1. Ep. 82, p. 433.
2. This passage, as is well known, has caused a good deal of misunderstanding. Cf. e.g., A. Hauck, Weltherrschaftsgedanke, p. 21, who overlooked the rather obvious fact that the Roman Church had no share whatsoever in the creation of the Eastern emperor. J. Haller, op. cit., p. 142-3, maintained that this passage refers to the emperor's standing in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. But Haller was right in rebuking Hauck for reading "a qua" instead of "ex qua." John VIII has "a qua" instead of the Nicholean "ex qua." See infra p. 222 n. 5. All difficulties concerning the interpretation of this passage would be cleared away, if the Donation of Constantine could be shown to have been in Nicholas's mind. But he explicitly states that the Eastern emperor is not an emperor of the Romans (see infra 202 n. 5) and he addresses the Eastern emperor personally ("vos") and in the present tense. The Donation could have been the basis, if the passage had referred to the predecessors of the present emperor only, and if Nicholas had not used "ex qua" which when juxtaposed to John VIII's "a qua" shows a difference of meaning. Cf. also Louis's "a qua" in the passage quoted infra 217 n. 2. Statements similar to that of Nicholas were made by Pope Agatho in 680 on the occasion of the Easter synod at Rome, but it is doubtful whether Nicholas knew of them. Agatho wrote to the emperor, Constantine IV Pogonatus ( Mansi, xi. 239): "Apostolica et evangelica traditio quam tenet spiritualis vestri felicissimi imperii mater apostolica Christi ecclesia"; cf. also ibid., col. 242: "Haec spiritualis mater vestri tranquillissimi imperii, apostolica Christi ecclesia, quae per Dei omnipotentis gratiam a tramite apostolicae traditionis numquam errasse probabitur." Cf. also col. 243: "Apostolica Christi ecclesia, spiritualis mater a Deo fundati imperii." However, things had radically changed between the pontificate of Agatho and that of Nicholas I.
commonplace : but Nicholas extended his father-function to the Eastern emperors as well. And the father-function of the Pope is based upon the same mediatory principle as the mother-function of the Roman Church.
Patres etenim vestri per gratiam Christi sumus et vos tamquam karissimos diligimus filios nec possumus vobis nisi viam veritatis ostendere; terrenam gloriam vestram augeri divinitus exoptamus; sed quid peccamus, si coelestem ac aeternam vos capessere nihilominus exoramus? 1
Once this step was taken the following suggested itself. Obedience to a carnal father is self-evident -- and the argumentem a fortiori at once comes to the fore -- how much more justifiable is the demand of obedience to the spiritual father. 2 And another argument is also at once at hand, namely, that of the spirit excelling the flesh, with the inescapable consequence that matters pertaining to the spirit must be placed before carnal things. 3
The other slight change of a Gelasian passage effected by Nicholas was the insertion of the single "tantummodo" into a sentence of his predecessor. Whilst the Christian emperors needed the priests for eternal salvation, the priests on the other hand, should make use of the imperial laws merely for the management of their material affairs. The insertion of the "merely" strikingly brings out the essence of the Gelasian passage. 4
It is nevertheless worthy of remark that Nicholas denies that the Eastern emperor is the (universal) Roman emperor. The Roman empire is where the Pope wishes it to be -- the contents of the Donation of Constantine -- and it certainly is not in the East, but in the West. What sort of Roman emperor are you, he writes to Michael III, who know no Latin? It is just ridiculous for you to call yourself emperor of the Romans: you say that Latin is a barbarous language, because you do not understand the language of the Romans. 5
1. Ep. 88, p. 484, lines 34 ff.
2. Ep. 88, p. 463, lines 22-4: "Si ergo carnales quanto potius spirituales digna penitus a filiis debent veneratione potiri."
3. Ep. 88, p. 463, lines 24-5: "Quanto enim spiritus carnem praecellit tanto magis ea quae sunt spiritualia carnalibus oportet omnibus anteponi." The same in Ep. 92, p. 535 to Photius himself, whom the Pope calls in this same letter a "viper": "porro si te viperam appellamus non fallimur."
4. Ep. 88, p. 486, lines 11 ff.: ". . . et pontifices pro cursu temporalium tantummodo rerum imperialibus legibus uterentur."
5. Ep. 88, p. 459, lines 18 ff.: "Si ideo linguam Latinam barbaram dicitis, quoniam illam non intelligitis, vos considerate, quia ridiculum est vos appellare Romanorum imperatores et tamen linguam non nosse Romanam . . . quiescite igitur
The empire in the
East is but a kingdom, not the universal Roman Empire which is in the West, for it is the Pope who "ex inspiratione coelesti" decides upon the emperor's person. 1
In pursuance of this theme Nicholas's language towards secular rulers is that of the master who issues orders. 2 A ruler who does not obey the mandates and decrees of the Roman Church must be considered "quasi minus Christianus" and should be anathematized. 3 No ruler must give a mandate which is "contra ecclesiasticas regulas." 4 It is in his function as the interpreter of the divine and human law that Nicholas issues his lengthy catalogue of injunctions and prohibitions to the Bulgars, 5 in which his detailed regulations concerning the social life are of particular interest. 6 As Christians, rulers have the duty of extirpating heresy within their boundaries, and a heretic should be treated as an "extraneus." The function of the king is the establishment of peace for the sake of the universal Church: in this way kings serve their mother "unde spiritualiter nati sunt." 7 Naturally, in a Christian society the determination of what is and what is not heresy, belongs to those who are qualified to pronounce on the issue, the members of the "sacerdotium." Moreover, in this Christian society kings are not entitled to sit in judgment over the priests: they are exempt from the formers' jurisdiction, since judgment is the effluence of authority which the kings have not:
vos nuncupare Romanorum imperatores, quoniam secundum vestram sententiam barbari sunt quorum vos imperatores esse asseritis."
1. John VIII's reference to Nicholas's choice of the future emperor, see supra 161 and Eichmann, Kaiserkrönung, i. 53, with special reference to John's report: it is the "Entschluss des Papstes, der zum Imperium beruft."
2. E.g., Ep. 15 to Lothar II; Ep. 23, P. 288, lines 12-13; Ep. 26, p. 291, lines 24-5; Ep. 160, p. 370, lines 36 ff.
3. Ep. 90, p. 504, lines 15 ff.
4. Ep. 88, p. 465, lines 29-30, referring to Pelagius's letter to Childebert, MGH. Epp. iii. 76.
5. Ep. 99, pp. 569-600.
6. Ep. 99, cc. 26-32, pp. 580-1.
7. Ep. 99, c. 17, p. 578, lines 12 ff.: "per hoc jam merito per potestates exteras tamquam extraneus opprimatur . . . ham nisi moverentur potestates Christianae adversus huiusmodi, quomodo rationem redderent de imperio suo Deo? Quippe cum pertineat ad hoc reges saeculi Christianos, ut temporibus suis pacatain et sine dirainutione velint servari matrern suam. ecclesiam, unde spiritualiter nati sunt."
Non autem vobis licet clericos judicare, cum vos magis ab ipsis conveniat judicari. 1
The functions which the clerics have to fulfil in the Christian society exclude their subjection to lay tribunals: the functionalist principle made the principle of the privilegium fori a necessity. 2
There are also other ideas within the jurisdictional sphere which germinate in the important pontificate of Nicholas I. The one concerns widows -- one of the categories constituting the "personae miserabiles" in later times -- because widows are worthy of special protection. Their judge was Christ -- "quarum judex Christus est" 3 -- and when the Pope emerged as the vicar of Christ in the full technical and constitutional sense, it was not difficult to claim the ecclesiastical tribunal as the proper forum for widows. 4 Christ is "pax nostra" 5 and because the universal Church is the manifestation of Christ's peace, the Popewho presides over this body 6 -- has to watch that peace is kept within its boundaries. In practical terms this vigilance of the Pope extends in particular to treaties made between Rulers, for treaties promote peace and concord, and a breach of a treaty is therefore of fundamental concern to the Pope. Here 7 we find another germ for later medieval theories of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and arbitration concerning "international" treaties. Lastly, Nicholas's step in the marriage affair of Lothar II heralds the later doctrine of the exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical tribunal in matrimonial matters. 8 No doubt Gregory IV's handling of the affairs of Judith and Louis 9 influenced Nicholas. But whilst
1. Ep. 99, cap. 83, p. 595, lines 12-13; cf. also ibid., cap. 70, p. 592, lines 8 ff.: "Verum de presbyteris qualescumque sint, vobis, qui laici estis nec judicandum est nec de vita ipsorum quippiam investigandum." The echo of Gelasius is again unmistakable, cf. supra p. 27 n. 4.
2. In another context he quotes with full approval Leo IV's citation from the Const. Silvestri: Ep. 107, p. 621, lines 1 ff.; on Leo IV, see supra 175. Cf. also A. Nissl, Gerichtsstand des Clerus im fränk. Reich, pp. 182 ff., and pp. 240 ff.
3. Ep. 44, p. 319, line 15.
4. The biblical source may have been Ps. lxvi. 6.
5. Ep. 33, p. 302, line 7; Eph. ii. 14.
6. Ep. 33, line 12: "sancta Mater Ecclesia, cui mea humilitas per habundantiam divinae miserationis praeest."
7. Ep. 33, pp. 30 - 3.
8. On the subject itself see J. Calmette, La diplomatie Carolingienne, pp. 66 ff.; J. Haller, op. cit., pp. 5-15; 35-74; and L. Halphen, Charlemagne & l'empire Carolingien, pp. 375 ff.
9. See supra 167. Cf. also Leo IV's statement made in 847: MGH. Epp. v. Ep. 16, p. 595, cap. 9: "Scripturn est, 'Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non separet' (Matt. xix. 6). Tamen nuptiae, ut multi maximi et religiosi viri sanxerunt, suo ordine peragendae."
the former Pope did not supply any theoretical justification for his step, Nicholas supplied it when he declared that it was his "pastoralis cura" which prompted him to have the matter decided by his "legati a latere, apostolica auctoritate fulti." 1
According to Nicholas I matrimonial matters belong to that wider sphere of matters which directly affect the salvation and faith of the Christian people: the irterests of the "populus Dei" and of the "grex dominicus" make ecclesiastical, that is, papal jurisdiction in matrimonial matters imperative. 2 The Pope as the pastor of the "dominicus grex" must see that the people devoted to the divine cult do not live in a reprehensible manner. 3 Matrimony as a divine institution appertains to the spiritual sphere of a Christian's life, and as such is of direct concern to the Pope. It is a spiritual issue and therefore touches the very foundation of the whole society. For this society is the societas omnium fidelium 4 which is an organic and closely knit body, whose sole substratum is the spiritual element of faith as expounded by the Roman Church. The corporate character and the bond that creates this corpus, namely the spiritual-moral element of Roman-papal provenance, is exquisitely brought out by Nicholas's designation: societas omnium fidelium. Hence on the assumption that marriage affairs are matters falling within the precincts of faith which is the cementing bond of this societas, the Pope is bound to take the view that a setting aside of a matter of faith by one member affects the whole society. From this point of view the Pope is not only entitled, but in duty bound to decide matrimonial matters. 5 And it is also from the same point of view that an effortless explanation can be given for the threat of excommunication in the case of disobedience. 6 On this basis the Pope can approach the king -- Charles II -- and admonish him not to tolerate in his kingdom any longer a woman who has fled from her
1. Ep. 3, p. 269.
2. Ep. 3, p. 269, lines 5 ff. (Theutberga and Waldrada)
3. Ep. 1, p. 267, lines 14 ff.: "Canonica auctoritas hoc omni in loco praedicare non cessat, ut populus divino cultui mancipatus inreprehensibilis existat. Quo enim mediante fieri melius poterit quam illorum sollicitudine, qui pastorum loco curam dominici gregis susceperunt? Quapropter vestram admonemus fraternitatem . . . ut vestram diocesim non sinatis pollui fornicariis."
4. Ep. 1, p. 267, line 23.
5. J. Haller, op. cit., p. 13, remarks that nobody could seriously say that the marriage of a king affected the whole Church. A grosser misunderstanding of the premisses upon which Nicholas worked, and of the Papal theme in general, is hardly possible.
6. So in the case of Engeltruda and Count Boso: Epp. 1. and 2, pp. 267 - 8 and in the case of Lothar himself: Ep. 44, p. 319, line I; also Ep. 32, p. 301, line 1.
husband. 1 No doubt the papal measures were something new at that time; no doubt also that contemporaries were somewhat apprehensive, 2 but a good deal of the supposedly revolutionary attitude of Nicholas I disappears when it is set against the previous ideological development. What Nicholas did, was to draw the obvious conclusions from this.
The same observation may be made as regards Nicholas's views on the relationship between ecclesiastical and secular laws. It is axiomatic for him that in the societas fidelium the ecclesiastical laws must take precedence over those laws issued by princes. "Terra enim ecclesia est" he had once said. Hence, civil laws can in no way override ecclesiastical laws -- "ecce quemadmodum imperiali judicio non possint ecclesiastica jura dissolvi" -- for the latter stand on a par with divine laws: "ecce qualiter, quod lex humana concessit, lex divina prohibeat." 3 This is not to say that Nicholas has no use for the civil laws: he accords to them subsidiary character in so far as that they may be applied if no ecclesiastical laws exist for the particular case and if they do not contradict the underlying principles of the canons. 4 Civil laws can on no account diminish canonical authority. 5
These are indeed very important declarations of principles. They are ideologically firmly based upon the nature of the societas fidelium in which the individual king fulfils a function in relation to the whole societas. This societas being a Christian society must necessarily be guided by those who are functionally qualified and through the machinery provided for government, namely through the laws issued by the functionally qualified members of this societas. That means that the king's laws must be in accordance with this regulative principle; that means that the king must issue only such laws which contribute
1. Ep. 2, p. 268
. 2. It is, of course, true that these papal steps in a matrimonial matter had not been taken before, and Hincmar's reaction is characteristic of a contemporary; cf. his opinion in PL. cxxv. 623-772; K. Sdralek, Hinkmar's Gutachten, pp. 93 ff.; Cf. also A. Esmein, Le mariage en droit canonique, 2nd ed., i. 70 ff., and G. Tellenbach in Hist. Z., 1939, pp. 341-2, referring to Loening Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, ii. 630, note 2.
3. Ep. 57, p. 357, lines 31-3.
4. Ep. 57, p. 357, lines 21-3: "Cum constet enim jus mundanum legum et imperatorum non omnibus ecclesiasticis controversiis utendum esse, praesertim cum conveniatur evangelicae ac canonicae sanctioni aliquotiens obviate." Gratian ( Dist. x, c. 1) has a different and possibly better reading: "Lege imperatorum non in omnibus. . ."
5. Ep. 57, p. 357, lines 35-6: "Eas (scil. leges) evangelicis apostolicis atque canonicis decretis quibus postponendae sunt, nullum posse inferre praejudicium asseramus." It will be recalled that this was the principle throughout the medieval period: it assumed particular importance as regards the Roman law.
to the wellbeing and proper functioning of his kingdom, which in itself forms part of the wider societas fidelium. Royal laws, in other words, must fit in with the purpose for which the whole societas exists. It is the teleological principle which Nicholas expresses with the new term of the ordinabilitas legum: for it is the function of the civil laws to adjust themselves to the underlying purposes of society -- to help to bring about the realization of the aim of society and thus to contribute to its proper working:
Nemo ita justius operari debet quam cui commissa videtur legum ordinabilitas. 1
Seen from a different angle: that prince will fulfil his role as a Christian prince whose laws fall in line with the character and purpose of the whole societas fidelium. 2
These views stand in close proximity to Nicholas's ideas about the duties of clerics as subjects of a king. The bishop of Metz, Adventius, justified his conduct at a recent synod by declaring that he was a subject of his king and hence owed loyalty to him. Although Nicholas cannot impugn the validity of the biblical passage invoked by the bishop, 3 he nevertheless counsels him to examine whether or not a particular king or prince deserves to be treated as such, and the first criterion upon which a decision can be based is whether he governs himself well, and secondly whether he governs his people well. 4 In other words, sacerdotal loyalty to a king depends upon the qualification of the king and on the manner in which he fits into the framework of the societas fidelium. It is the lawful exercise of government which is the criterion: "videte, si jure principantur." 5 Or expressed on the moral-religious plane: is the king the personification of virtue? What, however, is "jus," what constitutes "virtue," cannot be decided in the societas fidelium but by Christian principles. And it is the sacerdotium alone which by virtue of its qualifications has the knowledge and capability of judging whether or not the individual king lives according to the principles of Chris-
1. Ep. 2, p. 268, line 10.
2. This is the same principle which the synodists at Diedenhofen had expressed in 844, see supra 174. Cf. also Benedict III concerning the authorization by the Roman Church of civil laws, supra 177. This too was a principle which was at work throughout the medieval period.
3. The bishop probably referred to I Pet. ii. 13. Ep. 31, p. 299, lines 34 ff.: "Illud veto quod dicitis regibus et principibus vos esse subjectos eo quod dicat apostolus 'sive regi tamquam praccellenti' placet."
4. This may be an Isidorian echo of the "bene regere," cf. the passage cited supra p. 30.
5. Ibid., line 37.
tianity. 1 If the king does not conform to what the sacerdotium lays down as the "jus," if the king's government as part of the societas fidelium is opposed to "canonicis decretis," disobedience is counselled. For that king is a tyrant and as such is to be resisted. 2 What is "vitium" and what constitutes virtue must be left to the judgment of those who are the "sors Domini." A tyrant is consequently put on the same footing as a heretic. 3 Disregard of papal mandates naturally comes under the heading of "vitia," and disregard of the divine law -- as expounded by the Roman Church -- is another item in the same category. 4 For every decision or decree issued by the Roman Church is final. 5 The visible effect of a deliberate disregard of Papal decrees is exclusion from Christian society with the attendant consequence of social isolation. 6
We have singled out only some of the leading ideas of Nicholas I. It will have become sufficiently clear that there are few original themes
1. Ibid.: "Verumtamen idete, utrum reges isti et principes, quibus vos subjectos esse dicitis, veraciter reges et principes; sint. Videte, si primum se bene regunt, deinde subditum populum; nam qui sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit? Videte, si jure principantur: alioquin potius tyranni credendi sunt quam reges habendi. Quibus magis resistere et ex adverso ascendere quarn subdi debemus. Alioquin si talibus subditi et non praelati fuerimus nos, necesse est eorum vitiis faveamus. Ergo 'regi praecellenti,' virtutibus scilicet et non vitiis, subditi estote . . ."
2. See preceding note and Ep. 24, p. 288, lines 21 ff. addressed to all the bishops in France, Burgundy and Germany telling them: "Si unanimes fueritis, quis est, qui vobis resistat? Patres nostri etiam regibus restiterunt."
3. Cf. Ep. 88, p. 469, line 13; Ep. 90, p. 500, line 21; and Ep. 92, p. 535, line 38.
4. Ep. 31, per totam.
5. Ep. 52, p. 339, lines 21 ff.: "Nam sedis apostolicae sententia tanta semper consilii moderatione concipitur, tanta patientiae maturitate decoquitur tantaque deliberationis gravitate profertur, ut retractatione non egeat nec immutari necessarium ducat. . ." Cf. also Ep. 53, p. 348, lines 13 ff., and Ep. 71, p. 398.
6. Ep. 68, p. 384, lines 25 if.: ". . . omnibus alienus et tamquam violentus invasor atque tyrannus sit Christianorum communione privatus, ita, ut qui huiusmodi in communione susceperit, simili poena teneatur adstrictus."
It may not be unprofitable to record a few testimonies of contemporaries concerning their reaction to Nicholas's pontificate. Gunther of Cologne, for instance, held that Nicholas had raised himself to the level of an emperor of the whole world: Ann. Bertiniani (SS. RR. GG.) ad 864, p. 68 (ed. G. Waitz): "Nicolaus, qui dicitur papa et qui se apostolum inter apostolos adnumerat, totiusque mundi imperatorem se fecit." Regino of Prüm said that Nicholas had ordered kings and tyrants "with such authority as if he had been the master of the world" ( Reginonis Chron., in SS. RR. GG. ed. F. Kurze, ad 868, p. 94). Cf. also Walafrid Strabo in MGH. Capit., ii. 575. Amongst recent judgments on Nicholas cf. Halphen, op. cit., p. 393 and p. 395: "La volonté du pape tromphait. Elle triomphait pareillement dans tous les domains de la vie politique ou religieuse de l' Europe carolingienne." Bihlmeyer-Tüchle, Kirchengeschichte, 12th ed., 1948, ii. 56: "Der Anspruch auf eine 'directive' Gewalt der Kirche bezw. des Papstes über die Herrscher in bezug auf religiös-sittliche Fragen ist bei ihm bereits deutlich ausgeprägt."
in his views. Yet, it was precisely by a skilful adaptation and combination of old papal expressions that Nicholas I greatly added to their poignancy and bequeathed to them a stimulating flexibility. It is the vigorous assertion of the Roman principatus which, when logically pursued, was to lead to the conception of the societas fidelium as the supra-regal, autonomous, corpus of Christendom.
If the test of political ability is to sense the temper of the time and to act accordingly, Adrian II emerges as an equal of his great predecessor, Nicholas I. The hallmark of his five years' rule was the exercise of pontifical authority within the societas fidelium.
The very first lines of his first pontifical letter set the tone. These lines peremptorily order Lothar II to take back Theutberga. The justification for this order lies in Adrian II's function: he functions as the vicar of St Peter to whom Christ had committed "oves suas, totam videlicet ecclesiam." 1 The ecclesia is the whole corporate union of all Christians, that entity which Nicholas had termed the societas fidelium and which Adrian himself calls also the populus Dei. 2 The emphasis on papal functions within this ecclesia or societas is therefore very marked in Adrian II -- "nos qui per supernam gratiam apostolorum principis fungimur vice" 3 -- because the exercise of his authority within this body is based upon his function as the vicar of St Peter: thereby also the fullness of the Petrine commission is demonstrated. For Christ's commission to St Peter -- "Whatsoever thou shalt bind . . ." -- does not suffer any exception. The power to bind and to loose is allembracing and comprehensive: whatever means whatever.
In quibuscumque omnia sunt, quantacumque et qualiacumque sint. 4
By virtue of this power the Pope is entitled to exclude individuals, including kings, from this Christian society. 5 As the supreme monarch
1. MGH. Epp. vi, Ep. 1, p. 695, lines 10 ff.: "Quia b. Petro apostolorum principi Dominus noster oves suas, totam videlicet ecclesiam precioso jam sanguine suo redemptam . . . nos vice utique apostolatus illius Domino in omnibus cooperante fungentes. . ."
2. Ep. 21, p. 725.
3. Ep. 19, p. 721, lines 39-40.
4. Ep. 4, p. 701, lines 4-5. In the immediately preceding lines he wrote this: "Nemo plane dubitet nullum facinus esse quod ecclesia data sibi potestate ab eo desistentibus non possit absolvere vel poenitentibus relaxare, cui dicitur 'Quaecumque dimiseritis super terram, dimissa erunt et in coelis, . .' In quibuscumque . . ." as text. This seems a literal borrowing from Gelasius, see supra p. 20 n. 1.
5. Ep. 4, p. 701, lines 10 ff. See also Ep. 1, p. 697, lines 3 ff.: "Si vero quilibet . . . nocere, sciat se a nobis perpetui anathematis vinculo esse procul dubio
within the societas fidelium, the Pope has to care as much for the spiritual well-being of his subjects as for the stability of the kingdoms themselves. 1 For the stability of a kingdom rests upon the security of its foundations which are of a spiritual nature. The kingdom is but a part of the wider societas which in itself is based on the spiritual element of faith. Hence the Pope's jus apostolicum to concern himself with a kingdom's stability: the king, if necessary, must accept Papal "correctionem." 2
The reason for Adrian's invectives against Charles the Bald is not, as he points out, an earthly or mundane desire: he does not inveigh against the king "ambitione regni, sed justitia commovemur." 3 It is not territorial ambition that prompts him -- "et non terrarum spatia quaerimus" -- but his function as head of the societas fidelium, that is, of the universal Church. It is this function which lays upon him the duty of rendering an account on the Day of Judgment for the doings of the kings under his care: "An non pro te, rex, rationem coram Domino ponere compellemur si . . . facturn tuum non reprehendimus"? 4 Gelasius's theory was being applied to such an extent that even the omission of the king ( Charles the Bald) to receive Papal legates "more regali" would be made an item in the Pope's eventual rendering his account for the king. 5 The king's doings did not harmonize with justitia; and justitia is manifested in Papal decrees, because through them St Peter speaks:
Praecepta . . . beati Petri per os nostrum prolata.
Papal decrees are Petrine decrees: papal judgments are St Peter's judgments. 6 But since St Peter was instituted by Christ Himself, his decrees are therefore God's voice made known through the Roman Church. 7 And since, furthermore, the external ferment of the societas
innodanclum, et ab omni Christianorum consortio separanclum, te (rex) autem, si talibus consensurn praebueris, omnimodis excommunicandum."
1. Ep. 1, p. 695, lines 16 ff.: "Os nostri apostolatus . . . pro regni stabilitate felicitateque perpetua . . . vicibus inclefessis aperientes excellentiam tuam . . . jure apostolico exhortemur." See also Ep. 19, p. 722, line 8: "Coelesti magisterio exoramus, ut pro regni stabilitate vos nunc . . . satagatis."
2. Ep. 1, p. 695, lines 24-5.
3. Ep. 21, p. 726, line 1.
4. Ep. 21, p. 724, lines 21-2.
5. This is inserted in parentheses between "si" and "factum" in the quotation in the text: "si -- ut illud interim sileamus, quod missos apostolicae sedis more regali recipere contempsisti -- factum. . ."
6. Ep. 36, p. 745, lines 33 ff.: "Quod praefati canones et decreta decernunt . . . decernimus, et quod statuunt statuimus; et quod judicant, judicamus."
7. Ep. 37, p. 747, lines 12 ff.: "Quoniam, tranquillissime imperator, audisti vocern Dei per apostolicae sedis officium tibi delatam. . ."
fildelium is justice, it is the jus apostolicum to decree that nobody's rights are violated: "ad unicuique jus proprium reservandum." 1 Having assumed the authority of the supreme arbiter as to what is and what is not just in the societas fidelium, the Pope has the jus apostolicum to issue binding instructions to the members of this societas, in all matters in which justice is involved. Hence his order to the barons of Charles the Bald's kingdom not to take up arms or to make any military preparations under pain of excommunication. 2 The outlines of Hildebrand's conceptual framework begin to become discernible.
Hand in hand with this function as the supreme arbiter, or as the supreme repository of justitia, goes the other function of the Pope, namely that of a peace maker and peace preserver. Peace is a virtue, and Christians have to cultivate virtues, of which none is of greater moment than this one, peace. "Omnes quidem virtutes Christi cultoribus sectandae sunt, sed nulla utilius quam pax." 3 Moreover, the duty incumbent upon the Pope as the organ of preserving peace is also based, Adrian II argues, on the angelic message at the time of Christ's birth: "Gloria in excelsis Deo et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis." 4 The intimate relationship between him and Christ -- a line so clearly indicated by Nicholas I -- that emerges from this argumentation, should not pass without notice: just as the coming of Christ signified "peace on earth," so it is the Pope's office now to keep that peace as the head of the whole Christian commonwealth. 5 Peace amongst the component parts of the societas fidelium is a necessary presupposition for the fulfilment of the purpose and aim of this society. 6 These are
1. Ep. 18, p. 720, lines 25 ff.: "Praeterea noveris misisse nos epistolas quasdam in Gallicanarum partium regiones, tam reges quam praesules et omnes omnino regnorum primates ad comprimendum ambitum et unicuique jus proprium reservandum." The invasion by Charles the Bald's of Lothar's kingdom is to Adrian II a flagrant violation of the law because this kingdom belongs by right to Louis II: "regnum quondam regis Hlotharii quod carissimo filio nostro domino imperatori jure debetur" (Ep. 18, p. 720, lines 32 ff.); cf. also on the same topic Ep. 19, p. 722, lines 15-16.
2. Ep. 32, p. 736, lines 34 ff.: "Alioquin quisquis vestrum contra Karolomannum castra moverit, arma sustulerit vel laesionis exercitia praeparaverit ac per id, ut effundatur fidelium sanguis, construxerit, non solum excommunicationis nexibus innodabitur, verum etiam vinculis anathernatis obligatus in gehenna cum diabolo deputabitur."
3. Ep. 16, p. 717, line 15.
4. Luke ii. 14: Ep. 6, p. 703, lines 31 ff.
5. Ep. 6, p. 703, lines 5-6.
6. That despite his authoritative language Adrian did not meet with conspicuous success, is beside the point. What is to the point, however, is that his pontificate stands out as a reign which crystallizes the Nicholean welter of ideas. It may well be that Anastasius drafted most of Adrian's letters, cf. Perels, op. cit., pp. 231 ff.
indeed powerful ideological agencies by which the minds of contemporaries and of later generations became saturated. And this saturation in its turn was the presupposition for erecting a legal edifice upon this set of ideas.
This programme has all the characteristic Roman imprints: Adrian II was perhaps the most Roman of all the ninth-century Roman Popes. 1 His letters reveal the typical Roman stamp: authority and command; demand for subordination and obedience, for order and for consequent gradation of organized authority. Christian elements and Roman elements are blended into one consistent whole in his letters. In a way, the Christian idea of "pax" is complementary to the Roman idea of "justitia." 2 It is in the function as a "pater familias" that Adrian II attempts to preserve peace and to guard justice. Hence also the authoritative, commanding language; hence also the stress he lays upon the qualifications of the "sacerdotium": the limited "jus episcopale" corresponds to the universal "jus apostolicum"; in support of this "jus episcopale" Adrian II invokes Gregory I 3 as well as Leo's counsel: "unusquisque suis terminis contentus." 4 All this is of course nothing else but the principle of functional order, expressed in legal terminology. Hence also Adrian's insistence on the episcopal control of monastic institutions -- "omne monasterium in potestate episcopi consistere debet juxta canonum auctoritatem." 5 Hence also Adrian's addiction to the conception of the Roman empire: to him the "regnum Romanum," merely a preliminary to the "imperium Romanum," was of quite an especial concern. The emperor is "imperator noster." 6
It is from the point of view of the Roman empire ideology that one can understand the significance of Adrian II's letter to Charles the Bald in 872. This letter 7 is certainly somewhat puzzling when set against other letters written by the same Pope to the same king. In these latter communications Charles is taken to task for all sorts of
1. But cf. L. Halphen, pp. cit., p. 401: " Hadrien II . . . se trouve un prêtre romain assez efface. Borgne et boiteux, c'est un homme sans grand préstige."
2. Cf., for instance, Adrian's bracketing of the "paterfamilias" with the conception of the "domus Domini" and the "civitas Dei": p. 714, lines 8 ff. The biblical reference is Ps. lxviii. 10, and John ii. 17.
3. Ep. 6, p. 714; Ep. 34, p. 740, etc. The "jus episcopale" in Ep. 20, p. 723, line 9.
4. Ep. 18, p. 720, line 31; cf. also Ep. 30, p. 735 p.t., and Ep. 35, p. 742.
5. Ep. 35, p. 742, lines 29-30.
6. Ep. 36, p. 745, line 17.
7. Ep. 36.
wicked action -- "Inter cetera excessuum tuorum . . . illud quoque nihilominus objicitur, quod etiam bestiarum feritatem excedens. . ." -- is the cheerful beginning of a letter sent barely a year earlier. 1 Now in 872 that same king is held up as a model of piety, justice, and zeal. 2
The background of this enigmatic letter is the communication sent by Charles the Bald and written by Hincmar to Adrian II in which they severely and provocatively criticize the Pope, because by his earlier remonstrations he had so bitterly insulted the king. Although assuring Adrian of their veneration for the vicar of St Peter, Charles and Hincmar nevertheless find it apposite to remind Adrian of the fate which had once befallen Vigilius. It was hardly possible to utter a graver threat. 3 In order to make the picture complete, we should bear in mind that in 871 Charles the Bald was on his way to Italy 4 and had taken up stations at Besançon. The combination of the threat expressed in the letter of Charles with his actual movement was no doubt intended to create the worst forebodings in the papal mind.
But the Pope had not yet played his trump card. The problem of imperial succession had become acute -- the choice lay between Louis the German and Charles the Bald -- and in order to ward off the menacing attitude of Charles, Adrian II wrote to him this enigmatic letter. He, the Pope, would never acquiesce in anyone else but Charles being the future emperor. 5 The letter shows traces of hurried composition and indicates that the Pope thought that only the employment of superlatives and unequivocal statements would achieve his end and ward off the execution of the threat. The most confidential tone adopted by the Pope -- "ut sermo sit secretior et litterae clandestinae nullique nisi fidelissimis publicandae" 6 -- was to add a personal and intimate note to this letter. It may, however, be open to doubt whether Adrian's explanation of his earlier letters to which Charles had taken such strong exception, was accepted by the king. 7
The acquisition of the Roman imperial crown was the offer which
1. Ep. 31 p. 735, lines 26 ff.
2. Ep. 36, p. 743.
3. PL. cxxiv. 881-2.
4. Ann. Bertiniani, ed. cit., ad 871, p. 118; cf. also Halphen, op. cit., p. 414; in the same year Emperor Louis II was made a prisoner at Bari and rumour had it that he was already dead. 5. Ep. 36, p. 745.
6. Ep. 36, p. 745, lines 16-17.
7. Ep. 36, p. 744, lines 15 ff.: "Et si quaedam litterae delatae vobis sunt, aliter se habentes in superficie vel subreptae vel a nostris infirmantibus extortae vel a qualibet persona confictae, durius aut acrius mordaciter sonantes: id tamen nobis fixum semper mansit in mente, quod vobis significavimus devote, nec alienum. judicavimus, judicamus et judicabimus a nostra communione mentis devotione, quam diligimus tota animi intentione."
the Pope made to Charles. The offer was sure to fall on fertile soil: in a few words Adrian II manages to summarize the function of the papally created Roman emperor:
Si contigerit te imperatorem nostrum vivendo supergredi, te optamus omnis clerus et plebs et nobilitas totius orbis et urbis non solum ducem et regem, patricium et imperatorem, sed in praesenti ecclesia defensorem et in aetema cum omnibus sanctis participem fore. 1
The role which the Pope plays in the making of the Roman emperor is here unambiguously stated; 2 no less unambiguously is stated the role of the emperor within the societas fidelium or, as Adrian II expresses it, within the ecclesia. The imperial crown was the allurement to Charles.
The full appreciation of the papal point of view presupposes some observations on the larger background which produced this communication of the Pope. It will be recalled that the eighth ecumenical Council of Constantinople had come to an abrupt end in March 870. Anastasius was the joint papal and imperial legate at that Council. His report on the Council's proceedings throws some interesting light on papal and Western-imperial points of view. Moreover, in the late summer of 871 Adrian performed a festive coronation on Emperor Louis II after his recent release from captivity. 3 And in the same year Louis II despatched his famous letter -- drafted by Anastasius -- to the Eastern emperor, in which the papal Roman empire conception is set forth in classic manner. Set against such manifestations of the imperial theme, this letter of Adrian II sent to Charles only a few months afterwards, contained not only the bait of the imperial crown for Charles, but it was also prompted -- like Louis's festive coronation -by the turn which the eighth ecumenical Council had taken. Let us first briefly review Anastasius's report, and then Louis's letter to the Emperor Basilius.
1. Ep. 36, p. 745, lines 22 ff. The whole passage runs: "Igitur ergo integra fide et sincera mente devotaque voluntate -- ut sermo sit secretior etc. (as text) -- vobis confitemur devovendo et notescimus affirmando, salva fidelitate imperatoris nostri, quia, si superstes ei fuerit vestra nobilitas, vita nobis comite, si dederit nobis quislibet multorum modiorum auri cumulum, numquam adquiescemus, exposcemus aut sponte suscipiemus alium in regnum et imperium Romanum, nisi te ipsum. Quem, quia praedicaris sapientia, et justitia, religione et virtute, nobilitate et forma, videlicet prudentia, temperantia, fortitudine atque pietate refertus, si contigerit. . ." as text.
2. "exposcemus aut sponte suscipiemus".
3. Eichmann, op. cit., i. 49-50. A "festive coronation" (Festkrönung) is not an original coronation: it is merely the repetition of a coronation on certain occasions, such as on feast days, or as here on release from captivity. A "festive coronation" may also be called a crown-wearing ceremony.
(1) The report of the learned librarian allows us a welcome insight into the mentality of the official imperial and papal legate. 1 He reports that Basilius, the emperor, had in the course of the conciliar debates arrogantly and aggressively designated himself "emperor of the Romans" and had thereby touched upon a very sore point. In refuting the Eastern theme the versatile librarian re-states the papal theme that the Eastern emperors, as a consequence of divine judgment, had lost their empire in the West. They may legitimately call themselves "emperors of the Greeks," but not "emperors of the Romans." They had sought to sow dissension into the universal Church; and not satisfied with this, they had continued to prevail upon the Roman pontiffs with crooked methods and even now attempted to infringe the privileges of the Roman Church. 2 The genuine irritation that appears from these few lines in the report, can well be explained by the Eastern disregard for vital papal principles, principles in fact on which the history and herewith the development of the papal theme had hinged for so long. In a way Anastasius's irritation is understandable when one considers that apart from arranging the planned marriage between Ermengard, the daughter of Louis, and the son of the Eastern emperor, the purpose of this council was the establishment of unity in the Roman empire. And according to the librarian's opinion, this unity of the empire was the presupposition for the liberty of the universal Church, for the spheres of empire and universal Church were identical. 3
The two empires, the Greek and the Roman ones, will be united only when the primatial function of the Roman Church is acknowledged and this unity of the whole empire will consequently lead "ad totius Christi ecclesiae libertatem." The function of the Roman Church as the epitome "totius Christi ecelesiae" necessarily guarantees the unity of the empire: imperial unity depends upon the recognition of the Roman Church as the one unitary principle. Behind all these statements there lurks the latent claim to the specific role which the Roman Church plays in the making of the only one universal Ruler, the "imperator Romanorum." The emperor of the Greeks is an emperor, but not the specific universal ruler which can only be he who is "emperor of the Romans," that is, who is thus created by the Pope. The
1. MGH. Epp. vii, no. 5, pp. 403-15. The joint papal and imperial commission is at p. 410, lines 15 ff. The report is addressed to Adrian II.
2. Ep. cit., p. 411, lines 35 ff.
3. Ep. cit., p. 410 : "In tam enim pio negotio et quod ad utriusque imperii unitatem, imo totius Christi ecclesiae libertatem pertinere procul dubio credebatur, praecipue summi pontificii vestri quaerebatur assensus."
"ecclesia Romana" and the "imperator Romanorum" are indissolubly linked together.
(2) The letter of Emperor Louis II 1 presents the papal Roman empire theme in classic form. Its main theme is the emphasis on the correct meaning of the term "Roman" which, according to the letter, denotes the Latin Christian. Roman emperorship is the supreme dignity that can be acquired only within the Roman orbit. The "Roman" idea is the Latin-Christian idea: Romanism thus understood is a convenient term to denote all Christians who derive their spiritual life blood from the Roman Church. In so far, then, the imperium Romanum and the ecclesia Romana are expressions of one and the same idea, looked at from different angles.
The tone and theme of the letter 2 are set by the inscription: Louis, "imperator augustus Romanorum" writing to his brother, Basilius, "imperatori novae Romae" in order to remonstrate against the latter's use of the title arrogated to himself. If Basilius had taken the trouble to delve into books and other records, he would have found out that the term "basileus" could be applied to all sorts of rulers who were merely kings, and not emperors. The Old Testament offers examples of this use of the word, and so does history: for not only the Greeks had their "basilei," but also the Persians, Indians, Armenians, Saracens, Goths, and so forth. 3 The Eastern emperor should therefore realize that the term "basileus" is in itself indifferent and its use can be detected in all nations at all times. 4 When Basilius points out that, ever since apostolic times, the prayers referred to "unum imperium," Louis (and Anastasius) retort that this means the "imperium patris et filii et spiritus sancti." It is simply not true as Basilius had written that he, Louis, had
1. That Anastasius was the author of this letter is certain. Cf. A. Kleinclausz, "La lettre de Louis II a Basile V" in Moyen Age, viii ( 1904), pp. 48 ff.; W. Henze, "Ueber den Brief K. Ludwigs II" in Neues Archiv, xxxv ( 1910), pp. 663 ff., esp. 670 ff.; N. Ertl, "Dictatoren frühmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe" in Arch. f. Urkundenforsch., xv ( 1938), pp. 128 ff. Anastasius was the dictator of most of ( Nicholas's) Adrian II's and John VIII's letters, see Ertl, art. cit., pp. 83 ff.
2. MGH. Epp. vii, pp. 385 ff. The letter is a reply to a letter sent by the Eastern emperor Basilius which Louis answers point by point. Cf. also W. Henze, art. cit.
3. MGH. Epp. vii, pp. 386-7.
4. MGH. Epp. vii, p. 387: "Et certe, ut de Latinis codicibus interim tacemus, si Graecos etiam noviter editos revolvas codices, invenies procul dubio plurimos tali nomine (scil. basilei) vocitatos et non solum Graecorum, set et Persarum, Hepierotarum Indorum Bithiniensium, Parthorum, Armeniorum, Sarracenorum, Aethiopum Guandalorum et Gothorum atque aliarum gentium praelatos "basileon" appellatione veneratos. Intuere, igitur, frater, et considera, quod multi fuerint qui basilei diversis temporibus et in diversis locis et nationibus nuncupati sunt vel hactenus nuncupentur."
assumed a new title; nor that his grandfather had usurped the title "imperator Romanorum." The truth is -- as can be read in the records -- that divine wish and judgment of the Church and of the supreme pontiff made his family the bearers of Roman imperial dignity. 1
Roman imperial dignity, however, can be conferred only by and upon Romans, and not by and upon Greeks. Hence, when Basilius suggests that Louis should call himself "emperor of the Franks," he should bear in mind that there can not be an emperor of the Franks unless he is first an emperor of the Romans. The greater includes the smaller. This dignity is conferred by the Roman Church upon the Franks, so that they may defend and exalt the Roman Church. They alone are anointed by the Roman pontiff with holy oil for this purpose. The function of the Roman emperor as the defensive and protective organ of the Roman Church is here stated by the emperor himself: his creation entails the function and duty of a protector and defender. 2
It is a pardonable mistake for the Eastern emperor to state that a Frank cannot be a Roman, although this statement reveals a profound lack of understanding of the point of view which he wishes to attack. For he overlooks that the biological or racial or national element plays no role in this ideology: he is a Roman who acknowledges the primatial function of the Roman Church. A Roman is a Latin Christian. It is not the person that matters -- "quoniam non est personarum acceptator Deus" -- but, as the apostle had said, it was the spiritual element, the idea as such, which determines whether or not an individual was a Christian. 3 But the Greeks adhere to "kacodosiam," that is, they follow the wrong views and that is why they cannot be "emperors of the Romans": they cannot be emperors over those who hold the right views, "bonam opinionem, id est, orthodosiam." Christianity and
1. MGH. Epp. vii, p. 387: ". . . quantum ad lineam generis pertinet, non sit novum vel recens, quod jam ab avo nostro non usurpatum est, ut perhibes, set Dei nutu et ecclesiae judicio summique praesulis inpositionem et unctionem manus obtinuit, sicut in codicibus tuis invenire facile poteris."
2. MGH. Epp. vii, p. 389: "Praeterea mirari se dilecta fraternitas tua significat, quod non Francorum, set Romanorum imperatores appellemus, set scire te convenit, quia nisi Romanorum imperatores essemus, utique nec Francorum. A Romanis enim hoc nomen et dignitatem assumpsimus, apud quos profecto primum tantae culmen sublimitatis et appellationis effulsit, quorumque gentem et urbem divinitus gubernandam et matrem omnium ecclesiarum Dei defendendam atque sublimandam suscepimus, a qua et regnandi prius et postmodum imperandi auctoritatem prosapiae nostrae seminarium sumpsit. Nam Francorum principes primo reges, deinde vero imperatores dicti sunt, hii dumtaxat, qui a Romano pontifice ad hoc oleo sancto perfusi sunt."
3. Reference is made to Acts x. 35.
Latinity and Romanism are interchangeable terms: hence the Pope alone is entitled to confer Roman imperial dignity, for the Roman Church is the epitome of Christendom which follows "orthodosia"; the term "Roman" has nothing to do with nationality. If this papal right were denied, one might just as well deny the legality of Samuel's anointing David after the lapse of Saul; nobody had ever said that Arcadius and Honorius and others were not Roman emperors, because they were originally Spaniards. Moreover, the Frankish line has rightly achieved the apex of power, because of their services to that Church which holds the right views. Christ's dictum, therefore, had a prophetic application to the Eastern emperor -- "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to the nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 1 And St John's the Baptist's promise was also fulfilled. 2
Ideologically the other points made by Louis-Anastasius yield little new material. There is the natural retort that the Easterners had even deserted Rome, which was the seat of the empire, as well as the Roman nation and language. 3 There is the linguistic argument, this time accentuated by Basilius's use of the term "riga" and "rix" which gives Anastasius welcome opportunity of making fun of the emperor's inadequate mastery of the language. There are the elegant allusions and alliterations which convey an air of superiority in a subtle, but nevertheless unmistakable manner.
This letter of Louis-Anastasius is a document of first class importance. The historical development of the ninth century was skilfully woven into the texture of pure ideas. The transaction based upon the Donation of Constantine had lost its earthly connexion and was transposed onto a higher plane: the removal of the empire from the East to the West was an act of God. But the "emperor of the Romans" was charged with definite duties: his raison d'étre was the defence and protection of his mother, the Roman Church, "a qua imperandi auctoritatem sumpsit." This is an idea which is to leave its imprint upon the next centuries. And in the course of time the Nicholean societas
1. Matt. xxi. 43.
2. Matt. iii. 9."Sicut ergo potuit Deus de lapidibus suscitare filios Abrahae, ita potuit de Francorum duritia Romani suscitare successores imperii."
3. Ibid., p. 390, lines 12 ff. In many ways this letter is complementary to the denunciations of the Greek errors by the synod of Worms ( Mansi, xv. 866 ff.) held in 868. Cf. Annales Fuldenses (SS. RR. GG.) ad 8 68):"Synodus apud Wormatiam mense Maio habita est praesente Hludowico rege ubi episcopi nonnulla capitula de utilitate ecclesiastica conscribentes Graecorum ineptiis congrua ediderunt responsa."
fidelium will emerge in the shape of the Gregorian societas christiana as the one body corporate and politic, which will reduce the Roman empire to an integral and vital part of this whole, autonomous societas.
Three years after this letter was written, and seventy-five years after the Great Charles's coronation, another Charles -- the Bald -- was crowned by Adrian II's successor, John VIII, on Christmas Day 875.
The conceptions of John VIII, Adrian II's immediate successor, show a very considerable deepening of the papal-hierocratic theme. With ever-increasing clarity the notion of the corporate unity of all Christians emerges: this body, called by Nicholas I the societas fidelium, by Adrian II the populus Dei, and by John VIII the respublica christiana, 1 is a definite and concrete society: it is the visible Church made manifest and tangible -- a body politic, for want of a better term, which in its underlying premisses is universal, comprising all Christians who derive their spiritual life blood from the Roman Church. And within this body the functionalist principle is at work: functions are distributed according to the qualifications of the members of this society. Those who are functionally qualified to rule and to direct, have rights and duties different from those who are not so qualified, but who still have to play an important part within the framework of the respublica christiana.
The Roman Church, according to John VIII, has the principatus over all nations of the world: the Roman Church is the unifying principle of the many nations which acknowledge it as their mother and head. 2 The character of the Roman Church as the epitome of Christendom is expressed in a manner which suggests John's close acquaintance with Nicholas's declaration. For according to John"the whole Church of God is with us" -- "ecclesia Dei, quae penes nos est." 3 Consequently, the respublica christiana is entrusted to the care of the Pope. 4
1. MGH. Epp. vii. Ep. 150, p.126"status christianae religionis ac reipublicae."
2. Ep. 198, p. 159, lines 18 f.: "Quae (scil. Romana ecclesia) omnium gentium retinet principatum et ad quam totius mundi quasi ad unam matrem et unum caput conveniunt nationes." This may be an elaboration of a Gelasian passage, cf. supra p. 15.
3. Ep. 9, p. 326, line 19 (an almost literal borrowing from Nicholas I, see supra 194); cf. also Ep. 7, p. 277, lines 25 ff.
4. Ep. 8, p. 323, lines 26 ff.: "ministerii nostri est universalis ecclesiae Dei sollicitudinem beati Petri apostoli sententiam circumferre." Cf. also Ep. 103,
The closely knit organic nature of this society entails that whatever affects one of its particles, affects the whole society, and in a particular sense the Roman Church. 1 Nevertheless, there are some faint vibrations of the later theory that the imperium Romanum and the respublica christiana are by no means identical conceptions. 2
John issues binding decrees to the whole society: they are binding because they are issued "judicio Dei omnipotentis." 3 Disobedience to them is equal to disobedience to divine commands. 4 The sanction for disobedience is exclusion from Christian society "auctoritate omnipotentis Dei" 5 with the further consequence that no member of society may have contact with the excluded member. 6 It is only an application of this point of view that kings are bound to enforce ecclesiastical laws within their domains. 7 Moreover, the preservation of peace within the "tota Christianitas" is a major obligation imposed upon the holder of the papal office. "Nolite socialia bella committere" John VIII writes to the barons in Louis the German's kingdom. 8 And it is in this function as a peacemaker that in 878 he announces his intention to go to Troyes and to preside over the meeting of the four kings. 9 As the supreme head of the respublica christiana he declares that treaties are not to be made with pagans, especially not with the Saracens, since such transactions turn out to be detrimental to the whole of Christendom: the underlying idea being that these treaties need papal approval. 10
p. 97 : "nobis pro totius sanctae ecclesiae statu laborantibus." We note the conflation of Matt. xvi. 18 with II Cor. xi. 28, about which see also supra p. 5 n. 4. 1. Ep. 8, p. 323, lines 28 ff.: "Quid in qualibet mundi parte congruat sive non congruat, censoria gravitate depromere, quatinus oves dominicae, quae vocem pastoralis nostrae sollicitudinis cognoscentes pastorum principem humiliter audiunt . . ." See also Ep. 257, p. 225, lines 16 ff. 2. Evildoers, he writes to Charles the Bald, will not only defile his empire, but will inflict harm on the whole of Christianity. Ep. 24, p. 23, lines 1 ff.: "Totum idem imperium coinquinabunt, et omni Christianitati dispendium generabunt, quia, cum sint ipsi oves morbide, totum gregem contaminant." Cf. also Ep. 31, pp. 29 f.: "vestrum vilescat imperium et totae Christianitati nascatur dispendium." 3. Ep. 54, p. 308, lines 3-4.
4. Ep. 8, p. 235, lines 22 ff. with a reference to Rom. xiii. 1-2 and to Prov. viii. 15: "Per me reges regnant."
5. Ep. 303, p. 263, line 13. Cf. also Ep. 56, p. 309, lines 29 ff., and Ep. 54, p. 308, line 4; etc. 6. Ep. 57, p. 310.
7. Ep. 35, p. 293, to the king of Mercia, Burgrad, to see that Gregory I's matrimonial statute is kept.
8. Ep. 8, p. 325, line 27.
9. Ep. 107, pp. 99 - 100 ; cf. also Ep. 136, 137, pp. 119, 120. For factual details see L. Hartmann, Geschichte Italiens im MA., iii/2, pp. 56 ff.
10 Ep. 279, p. 246, lines 10 ff. (concerning the Bishop of Naples who had made
John's reason for insisting on the functionalist theme within the Respublica Christiana is evident. The "sacerdotes" on the model of Gregory I, are the "dei," or "angeli," to whom the Old Testament pronouncement applies: "He who toucheth you toucheth the apple of His eye." 1 The privilegium fori is only the reverse side of the functional qualification of the priests: laymen have no right to sit in judgment over those whose function is a "ministerium sacerdotale"; judgment on them is reserved to God alone. 2 For the priests are the properly qualified organs of the whole Christianitas who thereby assume functions which raise them above the level of laymen: it would be a reversal of the proper ordering of society if laymen were to pass judgment on the "sacerdotes." John VIII is perfectly aware of the duplicity of meaning attributable to ecclesia:
Ecclesia nihil aliud est nisi populus fidelis, sed praecipue clerus censetur hoc nomine. 3
This society being an ecclesia must needs be ruled by the "clerus" who at times may also be designated as "the Church." It is they, the priests, whose task it is, to lay down the faith, the foundation of the whole building, and in this way they direct the society, whose cementing bond is the spiritual element of the faith. 4 This society -- it may be termed respublica christiana or Christianitas 5 -- forms one body corporate and politic. "La Chrétienté est donc une patrie -- mais une patrie tout à
a treaty with the Saracens; on this see also F. E. Engreen, in Speculum, xxi, 1946, p. 319); Ep. 217, p. 194 to the Prefect Pulcaris. The bishop of Naples was then excommunicated, p. 247, lines 6 ff., where the sentence of excommunication will be found. 1. Zach. ii. 8, Ep. 303, p. 263.
2. Ep. 155, p. 129, line 26. The archbishop of Bourges had been seized by the men of Count Bernard who himself was excommunicated in September 878: Ep. 142, p. 122. "Episcoporum judicium, fili karissime, suo tantummodo Dominus servavit arbitrio, nec de episcopis vult Deus laicos judicare. Unde monemus dilectionem tuae caritatis (Bernard), ut, quicquid in hac causa praedicti episcopi deliquistis, sub celeritate et legaliter officio ac ministerio sacerdotali emendare studete, quia nos illud . . . inultum remanere nullo modo patimur." 3. Ep. 5, p. 332, line 30.
4. Ep. 113, pp. 104 - 5 : "Canonica instituta servantes oportet nos, quotiescumque inierunt passiones, sacerdotum collegia aggregare, ut simul venientibus salubre universae ecclesiae consilium. et totius Christianitatis fidem eidem imponant." See furthermore Ep. 210, p. 187, lines 27 ff.: "Divina potestate, quam accepit ecclesia Christi, cuncta solvuntur vincula, quando per pastoralem auctoritatem quae fuerant ligata, solvuntur." 5. See preceding note, and Ep. 208, p. 177, line 45: "universus in orbe terrarum christianus populus." Ep. 78, p. 74, lines 23 and 28: "tota christianitas."
la fois temporelle et spirituelle." 1 Being a Christian society, it can be directed only by the functionally qualified members, that is, the "clerus."
John VIII's views on the derivation of Roman imperial power are worth mentioning. The Roman Church is not only the "caput nationum" 2 and the "caput orbis et mater omnium fidelium" 3 but, by virtue of the see of St Peter, the city of Rome itself is also raised to a "civitas sacerdotalis et regalis per sacram sedem." 4 That this designation of Rome is directed against the East, seems clear; it seems equally clear that this designation also has specific reference to the imperial question in the West; and in the last resort it is the transposition of the "regale sacerdotium" onto a different plane. Charles the Bald had received his power to rule as well as his faith from the Roman Church. 5 The discretionary but decisive role played by the Roman Church is brought out by John's statement that the Roman Church could have selected Louis the German instead of Charles the Bald as Roman emperor: nevertheless, Charles was chosen by the Roman Church "in the manner of God" -- "more Dei" -- as another David. 6
The mediatory role of the Roman Church and the Pope, to which we have drawn attention in our survey of Nicholas I's ideology, is here delineated in very concrete terms. Charles should not think that he had received the empire as a mere human beneficium, but rather as a divinum beneficium, handed to him by the instrumentality of the Pope. 7 The empire is a divine institution, or as John VIII has it: "Dei omnipotentis ordinatio" 8 and rebellion against it is not rebellion against the person of the emperor, but against God Himself Whose kingdom the
1. J. Rupp, L'idée de Chrétienté, Paris, 1938, p. 38.
2. See supra p. 219.
3. Ep. 78, p. 74, line 25.
4. Ep. 78, p. 74, lines 36-7. About Leo I's expression see his Sermo 82, C. 1, supra p. 77.
5. Ep. 22, p. 20, line 32: "a qua (scil. Romana ecclesia) non solum regnandi sed et in unum Deum et verum credendi exordium percepistis." With this cf. Nicholas I's statement, supra 200 and Adrian II's, supra 217. Cf. also John's Ep. 87, p. 82, lines 27 ff. to Louis the Stammerer: ". . . . matri vestrae, a qua et potum praedicationis in proavis et infulam imperii accepistis."
6. Ep. 27, p. 20, lines 20 ff.: "Spreto magno et bono fratre, vos more Dei gratuita voluntate tamquam alterum regem David elegit et praeelegit atque ad imperialia sceptra provexit."
7. Ep. 7, p. 321, lines 20 ff. Repeated in Ep. 8, p. 324, lines 44 ff.: "Quando ad imperium, quod ei constat non humano collatum beneficio, licet per nostrae mediocritatis ministerium, sed divino pertingere potuisset." About Gelasius see supra p. 22. Eichmann in Festschrift f. Hertling rightly stresses John's view on the mediatory role of the Pope, p. 267.
8. Ep. cit., p. 325, line 23.
empire is. 1 There is no need to comment upon the Gelasian origin of the idea of beneflcium; suffice it to say that, as a consequence of the mediatory role of the Pope, the Gelasian beneficium was divinely conferred by the Pope. What was implicit in Gelasius, is now explicit. 2
"Vos auctore Deo in imperium coronaverimus," says John. 3
In pursuance of this theme John writes to Charles that he had obtained the empire as a divine benefice because he had been "divinitus praescitus et praedestinatus." 4
This divine pre-selection was revealed through John's predecessor, Adrian II:
Divina ergo majestas excellentiam vestram prae ceteris elegit Romani imperii altitudine sublimare augustalique voluit diademate coronare. 5
This statement is all the more interesting as John combines it with the duty which the divine selection of the emperor throws upon him: protection and defence of the Roman Church and thereby of the universal Church, that is, of the whole of Christendom. 6 The emperor is the sworded organ of the Roman Church against internal and external enemies, because he is the "filius specialis" of the Roman Church. 7
The responsibility of the Pope for the rulers, and especially for the Roman emperor follows as a natural corollary of this theme. For he as the head of "tota Christianitas" appoints its temporal protector and the account which the Pope will render on the Day of Judgment about the Ruler, will depend on how the protector has discharged his duty. If therefore despite Papal admonition, protection of the Roman Church is not forthcoming, the Pope's account on the Day of Judgment
1. Ep. cit., lines 24 ff., reminding the barons in Louis the German's kingdom of their duty not to invade the empire: "neque enim contra Karolum est murmur vestrum, sed contra Dominum, cuius est regnum et cui voluerit ipse dat illud." 2. Cf. also supra 299 on Nicholas I, and infra 341 on Adrian IV.
3. Ep. 32, p. 31, line 27.
4. Ep. 32, p. 325, line 7.
5. Ep. 56, p. 51, lines 8-9.
6. Ep. 56, p. 51, lines 9-12: ". . . coronare, ut Deo nostro clementer auxiliante potentiae vestrae brachio triumphali ecclesiam Christi voce supra petram verae fidei fundatam tueremini semper et ab immani crudelique paganorum infestatione . . . defenderitis." As soon as John had crowned Louis the Stammerer king at Troyes (for details see P. E. Schramm, Der König Yon Frankreich, Weimar, 1939, pp. 62 ff.) he pointed out the new king's duty, namely "defensionem, liberationem atque exaltationem sanctae Romanae ecclesiae," Ep. 115, Allocutio, p. 106, lines 7-8. Here also the application of Rom. xiii. 4 that the prince does not bear the sword in vain. That Louis the Stammerer was also "selected" by divine majesty through the instrumentality of John VIII to become Roman emperor -- after Charles the Bald's death -- is certain, even though the candidate was eventually dropped, see supra 164, and Eichmann, op. cit., i. 55, Schramm, op. cit., loc. cit., and L. Hartmann, op. cit., iii/2, pp. 58-9, who draws attention to John's imitating Stephen II at Troyes. 7. See supra p. 152.
will be adverse. 1 On the other hand, defence of the Roman Church is a guarantee of reward on the Day of Judgment. 2 This duty of protection and defence and exaltation of the Roman Church is in fact the price which the emperor has to pay for receiving the Roman imperial crown. The emperor is not a protector ex se and per se, but is made one: he is a patron, an adjutant, an advocate. 3
Murdered by his own entourage, 4 John VIII stands out as one of the very great medieval Popes who had advanced the theme of papalhierocratic views quite considerably. John's pivotal idea was that contemporary society formed one body corporate and politic: it was an organic whole which was headed by him and which was to be ruled through the instrumentality of the sacerdotium. The emperor is created for the sake of protection and defence of the Roman Church, and he receives his empire, through the medium of the Pope, as a divinum beneficium. And since the Roman Church can confer only universal power, the emperor created by the Pope becomes the master of all
1. Ep. 193, p. 155, lines 17 ff.: "Nam si, quod absit, per vos forte remanserit, ut ecclesia Dei in praesenti defensionem non habeat et taliter turbata consistat, videte, ne ante tribunal Christi et coram apostolorum principum praesentia vestrae animae patiamini detrimentum, quia nos paterna vos ammonitione hortantes secundum ministerium nostri officii ea, quae Dei sunt, et saluti vestrae proficua, agere incunctanter convenimus." Cf. also Ep. 78, p. 74, line 32: ". . . ne . . . districtam Domino cogamur reddere rationem."
2. Ep. 180, p. 145, lines 3-5: "Nam si per vos sancta Romana ecclesia fuerit exaltata atque defensa, vester honor et gloria hic et in futuro sine dubio coram Domino multiplicata manebit." This was written to Charles III (the Fat) in 879, before he was made an emperor and when John was still angling for an emperor.
3. This is made quite clear by John VIII in two letters both dealing with his making Charles II Roman emperor. In the one (Ep. 36, p. 36, lines 1 ff.) he combines this idea with his responsibility to God for the emperor and the empire (which is a divine benefice) and writes to the hierarchy in Charles's territory: "Unde et eum adversus omnes hostes ecclesiae non solum defensorem, sed etiam patronum et advocatum nostrum existere proposuimus, ut, quod ei nos apud Deum esse satagimus, ipse inter homines pro nobis fieri non detrectet." The other letter is written to Charles himself (Ep. 32, p. 31, lines 25 ff.). After depicting the tribulations besetting Rome, John writes: "Haec sunt, karissime, de innumerabilibus pauca, quae mater vestra Romana, pro dolor! diebus vestris perfert ecclesia, quasi nos non vos auctore Deo in imperium coronaverimus . . ." and hence his appeal for help: "unde iterum iterumque totis singultibus totisque imploramus praecordiis et per Christum Dei filium suppliciter adjuramus, qui vos ad tantum provexit fastigium et imperium: vel nunc citatum extendite clementiae brachium et periclitanti patriae quin potius mundo, auxilii jamjamque porrigite dexteram." See also Ep. 48, p. 46, quoted supra, p. 162 and Ep. 4, p. 318 : the emperor as "Christi patronus."
4. First he was poisoned, and when the poison did not work quickly enough, his head was battered with a hammer. The epitaph of John is printed by Duchesne, Lib. Pont., ii. 223, note 4.
kingdoms: Roman emperorship is universal lordship. The theme of the letter of Louis II emerges in unsurpassable succinctness in John's letter to a possible future emperor in the year 879:
Si Deo favente Romanum sumpseritis imperium, omnia vobis regna subjecta existent. 1
The advance made in these three pontificates is also mirrored in the new coronation ordo (B) which was composed then. The visible changes effected in it are significant enough to warrant a few observations, because the coronation ordines are an excellent means of fathoming contemporary ideas. 2
There is, considering on the one hand the pronounced manifestations of papal-hierocratic conceptions during the pontificate of John VIII and on the other hand the period of ideological stagnation in the succeeding decades, some justification for subscribing to the view that Ordo B 3 was composed relatively soon afterwards. 4 No change was effected in the emperor's standing as a persona sacra. 5 He was not
1. Ep. 205, p. 165, written to Louis the Stammerer: "Scitote pro certo, quia nullus parentum vestrorum tantam gloriam et exaltationem a decessoribus nostris percepit, quantam nos vobis, si veneritis, totis multipliciter viribus desideramus impendere . . . sedes apostolica, quae caput est omnium ecclesiarum. Dei, vos magno desiderio quasi unicum et carissimum filium praestolatur, vestra speciali visione celeriter perfruatur, quoniam, si Deo favente Romanum sumpseritis imperium, omnia vobis regna subjecta existent." Reviewing John's activity, Schramm observes that "the papal court had always been the unsurpassable master in the art of justifying each of its steps by reference to divine order, morals, law or tradition," König von Frankreich, p. 35.
2. Cf. the pertinent observations of P. E. Schramm, "Die Ordines der Kaiserkrönung" in Archiv f. Urkundenforschung, xi ( 1930), p. 285: "So eng war diese Beziehung zwischen Zeremonie und Politik, dass man geradezu sagen darf, eine Ideengeschichte der beiden Gewalten beruhe so lange auf unsicherem Boden als es nicht gelungen ist, die verschiedenen Entwicklungsphasen der römischen Kaiserkrönung mit Sicherheit festzulegen."
3. We adopt Eichmann's nomenclature. This Ordo B (ed. E. Eichmann, Kaiserkrönung, i. 135-8) was previously called Cencius I, because it was the first Ordo entered by Cencius in his Liber Censuum. Cencius II is the Ordo C, about which see infra 253. Cf. also E. Eichmann, Das Verhältnis von Cencius I und Cencius II" in Grabmann Festschrift, Munich, 1935, i. 204-45.
4. Schramm, loc. cit., p. 354, between 880 and 890. On the other hand, Eichmann, op. cit., i. 149, and C. Erdmann, Forschungen, p. 70, would date Ordo B somewhere in the 20s or early 30s of the tenth century. But there is unanimous agreement that this Ordo B was used for the Ottonian coronations, cf. Erdmann, op. cit., p. 71. Cf. also the attractive suggestion by M. Uhlirz, art. cit., pp. 269 - 70, about the possibility of reconciling the controversy concerning the Salian Ordo (Schramm) and the purely liturgical coronation ordines.
5. Cf. also Ph. Oppenheim in Ephemerides Liturgicae, lviii ( 1944), p. 47.
a "sacerdos" in any meaning of the term, because the "cura animarum" was not entrusted to him, this being the effluence of ordination. The promise which the emperor made on the occasion of his coronation in front of St Peter's was one of a protector defending the Roman Church. 1 The external setting of the emperor's consecration and unction is parallel to the consecration of the Pope himself: the same three bishops who take part in the consecration of the Pope -- those of Albano, Porto and Ostia -- also take part in the anointing of the emperor. 2
This brings us to the first change in Ordo B. The ceremonies of unction and coronation are separated: the former is carried out by the three bishops, whilst the latter is solely the Pope's prerogative. The symbolic significance of this division of functions and ceremonies lies in that the Pope's function is thereby brought into clearest possible relief: until the climax of all the coronation ceremonies is reached, namely the imposition of the crown, the Pope remains inactive; he stands erect in front of the main altar of St Peter's:
Pontifex vero stet sursum ante altare et imponat ei diadema.
The Pope becomes active when the final act begins.
The second change is this. We have already had an opportunity of pointing out that the coronation of 816 signified the fusion of Byzantine and Frankish elements. Now in Ordo B we find another Byzantine
1. The promise of Ordo B: "In nomine Christi promitto, spondeo atque polliceor ego N. imperator coram Deo et beato Petro apostolo me protectorem ac defensorem esse huius sanctae Romanae ecclesiae in omnibus utilitatibus, in quantum divino fultus fuero adjutorio, secundum scire meum ac posse." About the possible derivation of the formula from Pippin's promise cf. P. E. Schramm, in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xxvii ( 1938), pp. 186-91.
2. This is modelled on Liber Diurnus, form. 57, pp. 46-7; cf. also OR. IX cap. 5 (PL. lxxviii. 1006). The Pope was consecrated by the bishop of Ostia (already testified for 336) who ranked first amongst the seven Lateran bishops; he anointed the emperor, after the bishop of Albano (the third in rank) had said the first Oratio over the emperor, followed by second Oratio spoken by Porto (second in rank). All this is closely modelled on OR IX, cap. 5 and Lib. Diurn. form. cit.; see also F. Wasner, "De consecratione . . . pontificis" in Apollinaris, viii ( 1935), pp. 108-9, Ordo B and Eichmann, op. cit., ii. 218-19. According to the privilege of John XIX of 17 December 1026 (PL. cit., appendix to OR XI, Col. 1055) the bishop of Silva-Candida was to say the first Oratio over the emperor: "Ad unguendum consecrandumque imperatorem primum vestram et vestrorum successorum episcoporum fraternitatem convocamus." In 1037 Benedict IX confirmed this privilege (PL. cxli. 1356) adding that the bishop of Silva-Candida was to be the "bibliothecarius" of the Roman Church and one of the two bishops who were to enthrone the Pope "in apostolica sede." Since the bishopric of SilvaCandida was not filled by the end of this century, the privilege became a dead letter. The three Rhenish bishops ( Cologne, Mainz, Trier) at the royal coronation, corresponded to these three Roman bishops.
influence. The Pope whilst imposing the crown no longer says the old prayer "Accipe coronam," but prays
Accipe signum gloriae in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti.
The reason for this change is, on the one hand, that the old formula denoted the principle of hereditary kingship, 1 whilst the function of the Pope was thought to have been brought out more clearly when the emperor received the "sign of glory in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." He was then indeed "a Deo coronatus" as his official title had it. On the other hand, the Byzantine emperor, too, claimed this distinction, though he was crowned only by the patriarch: the new title and the accompanying prayer was adopted in the West in order to demonstrate the mediatory role of the Pope between Christ and the emperor. 2
The third and most important change concerned the anointing. Whilst previously the emperor had been anointed on the vertex, he is now anointed on the right arm and between the shoulders -- "brachium dexterum et inter scapulas" -- no longer with chrism, but with an inferior kind of oil. 3 In both these changes the papal-hierocratic point of view is exquisitely manifested. And both were in fact dictated by the Gallic liturgy relating to the unction of the head of the bishop and by the introduction of this liturgy in Rome, as a consequence of which the Pope too was anointed on the head. 4
1. See Eichmann, op. cit., i. 142: the new formula betrays its Byzantine model; cf. also ii. 61 f.
2. The whole prayer runs: "Accipe . . . sancti, ut spreto antiquo hoste spretisque contagiis omnium viciorum sic judicium et justitiam diligas et misericorditer vivas, ut ab ipso Domino nostro Jesu Christo in consortio sanctorum aeterni regni coronam percipias, qui cum patre et spiritu sancto vivit et regnat Deus per infinita saecula saeculorum. Amen." Biblical models: Eccl. xlvii. 7; Is. xxviii. 5; Jer. xiii. 18. The "antiquus hostis" may be the dragon of Rev. xii. 9 and xx. 2. For further interpretative details see Eichmann, op. cit., ii. 62 f.
3. Liturgically three kinds of oil must be distinguished, cf. H. A. Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary, no. XL, pp. 69-74; no. LXX, p. 113, and no. LXXII, pp. 114-15; Eisenhofer, Liturgik, pp. 130-1, 270-1; E. Eichmann, "Königs und Bischofsweihe" in SB. Munich, 1928, fasc. 6, pp. 21 ff.; idem, in Hist. Jb., lxix ( 1949), pp. 611-12. They are: (1) the "oleum infirmorum"; (2) the "oleum catechumenorum" or "exorcitatum" which is the one used for imperial coronations since Ordo B and which has the function of driving out evil spirits (exorcism): it is purifying and re-invigorating; and (3) the "chrisma" or olive oil mixed with balsam, embodying the Holy Spirit: a "compound oil," see L. W. Legg, English Coronation Records, pp. xxxiv f.
4. Cf. M. Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain, ii. 264; Eichmann, SB. cit., pp. 37-8, and G. Ellard, Ordination Anointings in the Western Church, pp. 75 ff., 88 ff., 98: there was no liturgical anointing in Rome before John X. Ellard bases his conclusions on MS. BM. Add. 15222. Cf. also supra p. 67 n. 3.
Unction with chrism on the head is what came to be called sacramental in character, whilst unction with oil bestows no such specific distinction. Ordo B constitutes therefore an explicit "demotion" of the emperor. 1 The underlying assumption is that the function of those parts of the (imperial) body which are anointed, is thus sanctified. Anointing of the head would symbolize headship, whilst anointing of the right arm and between the shoulder blades -- the seat of physical strength -- symbolizes the sanctification of the physical support and protection of the head. The idea of protection (in the Roman-Papal sense) is thus most exquisitely symbolized in the ceremony of anointing. 2
1. Cf. Eichmann, SB. cit., p. 37 and the quotation from Amalarius of Metz, ibid. The late Erdmann, op. cit., p. 71, does not accept the distinction between ordinary oil and chrism for the tenth century. But the texts in Ellard to which Erdmann refers (p. 71, note 3) are partly in pontificals of Southern France ( Ellard, p. 83 ) showing Dunstan's influence (p. 82 ), and in part they make the distinction between oil and chrism: for episcopal consecration anointing with chrism on the vertex appears quite distinct from the anointing of priests' hands with oil, see p. 87 (Troyes) and pp. 95, 98. The exception is Verona, p. 93.
2. We should take note of Pseudo-Isidore's view which was attributed to Pope Clement, according to which the anointing of the head of the bishop made him "quasi Christi locum tenens," see Hinschius, op. cit., p. 53, cap. 59. We should also refer to the declaration of the council of 881: "Tanta est dignitas pontificum major quam regum, quia reges in culmen regium sacrantur a pontificibus, pontifices autem a regibus consecrari non possunt," Mansi, xvii. 538. This is Gelasian theory expressed in liturgical terms (cf. Gelasius, Tract IV, cap. 13, p. 569, quoted supra p. 26). It is well known that Innocent III later expressed the classic theory of the significance of unction (Extra: I. xv. un.): "Refert autem inter pontificis et principis unctionem: quia caput pontificis chrismate consecratur, brachium vero principis oleo delinitur, ut ostendatur quanta sit differentia inter auctoritatem pontificis et principis potestatem." This too is Gelasianism. Imperial or royal unction is not a sacrament, but a sacramentale. That English kings were anointed with chrism on the head is well known, cf. the Liber Regalis, ed. Legg, op. cit., at p. 93; cf. also P. E. Schramm, History of the English Coronation, Oxford, 1937, pp. 120, 128-9, 132, and the interpretation of Becket adduced by Schramm, p. 122, note 2. In a pontifical of the twelfth century (MS. Trinity College, Cambridge: B. 11. 10, fol. 106r) we read a rubric which is almost identical to that of the fourteenth-centuryLiber Regalis (i.e. unction with chrism on the king's head), but on which a marginal gloss in a thirteenth-century hand comments: "Dicit tamen Innocentius III in tit. de sacra unctione, quod rex non debet inungi in capite, sed in brachio, humero vel armis." For another six MSS. of this so-called Anselm Ordosee Schramm, "Ordines Studien III" in Archiv f. Urkundenforsch., xv ( 1938), p. 320, who considers the possibility of St Osmund being the author of this ordo. The evidence, however, would go to show that the medieval kings were always anointed with chrism on the head. Whether Peter of Blois used terms in a technical sense is not quite clear when he wrote to the Pope on behalf of Eleanor to secure her son's release from captivity; Henry VI committed a sacrilege: "O impie, crudelis et dire tyranne, qui non es veritus manus sacrilegas immittere in christum Domini, nec te regalis uncti o nec sanctae viae reverentia nec timor Dei a tanta inhumanitate cohibuit," PL. ccvi. 1270.
THE end of the ninth and the first half of the tenth centuries demonstrate the truism that the Roman emperor was indeed of vital importance for the functioning of the Papacy. The raison d'être of the Roman emperor was the protection and defence of the Roman Church, but these decades would also show that the Roman Church depended for its very existence on its protector. With the disappearance of the powerful Frankish monarchy, there disappeared also the special protector of the Roman Church which rapidly began to degenerate in these decades; the Popes climbed down to depths which must be classed unparalleled. There is every justification for saying that the Roman Church was tossed about like chaff in the wind at the time when its "brachium" was in abeyance.
Ideological advance under these circumstances can hardly be expected: the Popes' personalities; the overpowering domination of the Roman nobility; the frequent changes in the papal chair itself; the strong influence exercised by women of a shady past with no less shady ambitions; the depravity of the Papal personnel -- these indeed are not factors conducive to the development of ideas. Nevertheless, the idea that Roman emperorship could only be received from the hands of the Roman pontiff, had not suffered any eclipse. This idea was as important to the new dynasty in Germany as to the Papacy itself. The early Saxons bear witness to the enduring attraction and fascination of the empire conception. The foremost of European Rulers, the first Otto, after his successful Italian campaign, had to return home in 951 as a mere king: his request submitted to Pope Agapetus II for the imperial crown was refused. 1 It is an illustrative sidelight that before his Italian campaign, Otto I had already ordered the striking of the characteristic imperial bulla -- a somewhat premature governmental action. 2
The appeal of John XII to Otto I ten years later naturally fell on
1. Cf. also R. Folz, op. cit., p. 59.
2. For this see W. Ohnsorge, Das Zweikaiserproblem, pp. 51, 59, with specific reference to DO. I. 135.
fertile soil: it was the old appeal of the Papacy for protection and defence, couched in terms reminiscent of some two hundred years earlier. Otto's help was invoked against the advancing armies of Berengar and his son Adalbert. Otto eagerly followed the call: he undertook the second Italian campaign in the function of a protector and defender of the Roman Church having been thus designated by John XII. Otto went in the capacity of the "brachium Romanae ecclesiae." On 31 January 962 at the gates of Rome, through his legates, Otto took the characteristic oath of protection and defence, particularly as regards the papal territories: and in the function of a protector (in the Romanpapal sense) he was crowned by the Pope on 2 February 962. Eleven days later he made the compact with John in which he confirmed the Carolingian donations. In his function as a protector he set out to subject the hostile forces in Italy, on 14 February 962.
It was in the following months that Otto's role as a protector in the Papal sense changed into one in the royal sense. In the districts which he conquered and which he had recently confirmed as papal territory he made the inhabitants take an oath to himself instead of, as the Pope expected, to the Roman Church. To John XII therefore Otto I appeared no longer as the protector whom he had wished to see, but as the oppressor, in no way different from an Aistulph, Desiderius or Berengar. Thus the Pope called upon new protectors, against Otto, namely the Hungarians, the Byzantines -- and Berengar. To Otto I the Pope appeared as a traitor, no better than any other Roman. The insurrection instigated by John made it imperative for Otto that the root of the trouble should be eradicated: hence Otto's return to Rome in November 963, the summoning of Pope John XII before the synod held at St Peter's under Otto's chairmanship, and the eventual deposition of the Pope by this synod on 6 December 963.
On this occasion the compact issued in February 962 was falsified by the insertion of clauses, of which the most important was that which dealt with the promise by the Romans, given on oath, that they would insist on an oath to be taken by the Pope to the imperial legates before his consecration. The significance of this lies less in the actual falsification than in the changes made in another document which then served as the model for the Ottonianum which has been preserved until this day. 1 That other document was the so-called Sacramentum Romanorum of 824 2 which, we hold, did not contain an oath to be taken by the
1. For details see Cambridge Historical Journal, xi ( 1953), pp. 114-28.
2. MGH. Capitularia, i. 235.
Pope, but the stipulation that, for the sake of being effectively protected, the Pope should notify the emperor of his election, so that the Pope's consecration should proceed in the presence of the imperial legates. This notification was changed into an oath in December 963 and the falsified Sacramentum Romanorum served as the basis of the falsification of the original Ottonianum. In other words, what was previously laid down in the interests of the Papacy, was now modified in the interests of the empire: the idea of protection in the papal sense, expressed in the no longer extant original Sacramentum Romanorum, changed into one in the royal sense and was expressed in the falsified, transmitted Sacramentum Romanorum.
Whilst originally, therefore, the Papacy notified the emperor so as to be protected, mainly against the unruly Romans, the emperor now appeared as the protector in the royal sense of the Roman Church, and the latter became a protectorate of the empire. The root of the papal notification to the emperor was, ideologically, the conception of the emperor as the "brachium" of the Roman Church; in documentary form this root could be found in the old Liber Diurnus regulation according to which Papal elections had to be announced to the emperor (or to the exarch at Ravenna) so as to be confirmed: the Papacy made use of this Liber Diurnus regulation, after the creation of the (Roman) Empire in the West, but changed its meaning: the emperor should be notified, not in order to obtain confirmation from him, but protection. This Papal notification was therefore the signal given to the emperor to act as the "brachium" of the Roman Church: it was the invocation of the service which was the emperor's raison d'être, according to the papal point of view. And it was this (papal) idea of protection which was changed into its royal counterpart: the way in which this was done was by falsifying the document which originally contained a stipulation concerning a mere announcement of the papal election to the emperor: this was transformed into an oath to be taken by the Pope to the imperial legates. The emperor, according to the Ottonianum in its transmitted form, is the supreme protector in the Teutonic-royal sense.
That change in the role of the protector on the part of Otto could be effected all the more easily as this was precisely the role which he had played towards the imperial churches. The ninth and tenth centuries had not only witnessed the exuberant growth of the proprietary church system, which, from an ideological point of view, is characterized by the application of the Teutonic idea of protection to the individual churches, but also the application of the true monarchic principle to all the important bishoprics. That is to say, the imperium as a Christian entity and monarchically ruled, was to be given its appropriate ecclesiastical officers in the shape of suitable bishops and abbots. Hence, fundamentally and as regards royal control, there was no difference between a royal proprietary church and any bishopric or abbacy. Both were essential organs of the imperial government -- both kinds of churches were subjected to the monarch, and by the mid-tenth century this distinction had been obliterated. Every important church was now an imperial church. To leave the creation of a bishop to an electing body would have been a serious infringement of a correctly understood monarchic principle. And the Ottonianum in its falsified form is a clumsy attempt to adapt the Roman Church to imperial conditions: and there was no safer way of so doing than of basing this document on "previous" documents. This arrangement in the Ottonianum is the nearest approach to a full transformation of the Roman see into an imperial see. 1
The coronation of Otto I in 962 is perhaps the most eloquent testimony of the enduring efficacy of that part of the papal theme by virtue of which only the Pope of Rome can confer Roman imperial dignity.
1. About the requirement of suitability, cf. also infra 244. This requirement of a suitable incumbent in the case of a proprietary church is clear: the church was the owner's property, hence the need to protect it by installing a suitable cleric. In the case of imperial churches, which were not originally proprietary churches, the king -- and especially the Ottonians -- supplied the bishop with rich lands and so forth, and hence here too the necessity arose of appointing a suitable and loyal bishop. Cf. also H. Schmidinger, "Die Besetzung des Patriarchenstuhls von Aquileja" in MIOG., lx. 1952, p. 344: "Für die ottonische Kirchenpolitik, die ihren Grundsätzen entsprechend die Bischofssitze reich mit Ländereien und Regalien ausstattete, um sie auf diese Weise zu den mächtigsten Lehensträgern des Reiches zu machen, war es von entscheidender Bedeutung, die wichtigsten Bischofssitze in die Obhut treuer Anhänger zu bringen." It seems that in the case of a proprietary church, property was the basis upon which the system could grow: the erection of the church was the effluence of ownership. In the case of the imperial churches (the Reichskirchen) property was handed to the imperially appointed bishop so that the episcopal church was the cause of providing the bishop and his see with property. The protection of property was therefore intimately and intrinsically bound up with this system which was clothed in feudal garb: the bishop (or abbot) did homage and took the oath of fealty to the lord. And just as the idea of protection was vital to the feudal system, so it was the ideological ferment of the proprietary church and the imperial churches. And when we allow ourselves a glance ahead into the twelfth century, it will become clear that the temporalia, or as they were appropriately called, the Regalia, played a crucial role in the relations between the episcopacy and the crown.
And five years later -- it was another Christmas Day -- Otto had his son crowned emperor at St Peter's. Although Charlemagne served as the model for all three Ottos, 1 his main theme of an unpolitical and religious Romanism had unobtrusively, but steadily, transformed itself into a fully fledged political Romanism: it was this avowed political Romanism which became a permanent feature of the medieval European landscape. 2 This political Roman empire ideology was so firmly entrenched in men's minds that no other imperial conception could hope to be a serious competitor. 3
To this Romanism, however, the dispensatory role of the Pope was axiomatic and fundamental. Only he is a Roman emperor upon whom the Pope had conferred the title and dignity. 4 And yet, neither title nor dignity added anything of tangible value to the power of the first Otto. Before his imperial coronation he had been hailed as "caput totius mundi," as "dominus pene totius Europae"; his power before coronation was said to stretch into Asia and Africa; 5 he occasionally called himself in several Diplomata before his coronation "imperator augustus"; 6 he was the most powerful European Ruler who could count not only Denmark and Burgundy as virtual satellites, but who also was invoked as an arbiter in France, who interfered in Spain on behalf of the Christians, whose influence was effectively felt in Norway and Sweden, who had strong ties to Anglo-Saxon England -- but in spite of all this, he was a mere "Rex." What he did not have was power over Italy. But in order to be a Roman emperor, he had to have control of the geographical Romans. In order therefore to be Roman emperor he
1. See the already quoted excellent work of R. Folz, Le souvenir et la Idgende de Charlemagne, pp. 45ff. The coronation of Otto II may have been inspired by this "imitatio Caroli" -- and yet what difference between 813 and 967.
2. Cf. the observations of F. Schneider, Rom und Romgedanke, p. 191, which, though exaggerated, deserve quotation: "Die umbarmherzige Logik des Geschehens forderte, dass die besonders naturwidrige Pseudomorphose des abendlädischen Imperiums sich in Phantasmen und Illusionen verzehren sollte." 3. For the Frankish or Western imperial idea, see C. Erdmann, Forschungen, pp. 44 ff.: "Die nichträmische Kaiseridee," especially Widukind of Corvey.
4. Cf. now also W. Holtzmann, Das mittelalterliche Imperium und die werdenden Nationen, Cologne, 1953, p. 8: " Otto I hat an der Tradition festgehalten, das nur der Papst die Kaiserkrone vergeben kann."
5. So Widukind of Corvey, see the passage quoted by Erdmann, op. cit., p. 46, note 2; cf. also R. Folz, op. cit., pp. 56 f.
6. In the protocol of DO. I. 132, p. 212, of 951; DO. I. 195, p. 276, of 13 June 958; DO. I. 209, p. 288, of 960; cf. also DO. I. 31, p. 117, line 35: "Defendatur imperiali sceptro"; DO. I. 46, p. 131, line 16: "hoc imperiali regiae auctoritatis praecepto"; DO. I. 177, p. 257, line 15: "imperiali nostra auctoritate constituimus."
had to exercise some control over the "Romans" who, so to speak, physically epitomized the Romans (= Latin Christians) everywhere. Hence Otto's eagerness to deal with Italian affairs and his emergence as king of Italy -- "rex Francorum et Italicorum" -- on 23 September 951 at Pavia. 1 The king of Italy was the king of the geographical "Romans" epitomized -- the later "Rex Romanorum" -- and this status was an indispensable preliminary to the dignity of the emperor of the Romans. 2
The other reason for the Italian campaign of Otto stands in closest proximity to the advance of the Byzantine troops in Southern Italy: they were the armies of him who had never given up the claim to be the true "imperator Romanorum." 3 The Eastern emperor, in Western conceptions, was a mere Greek emperor, 4 and the Ottonian acknowledgment of the Donation of Constantine was the implicit confirmation of the papal point of view that the Roman empire was at the disposal of the Pope, by virtue of Constantine's action. 5
And, so it was held, this Roman empire could never perish: that empire which is, according to tenth-century conceptions, the idolized political manifestation of Christianity, must be defended against him who arrogates to himself the title "emperor of the Romans." This, so it was held, was the proper interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel: 6 the four empires of this prophecy were the Assyrian-Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek and the Roman empires. This fourth kingdom "shall be diverse from all kingdoms and shall devour the whole earth and shall tread it down and break it to pieces." 7 Already widely current in the middle of the ninth century, this eschatological interpretation of the biblical prophecy furnished a strong ideological ferment in the tenth century as also in later times. 8 In a way, this eschatology was a spiritualized teleology of history.
1. For details see R. Holtzmann, Geschichte der sächsischen Kaiser?eit, Munich, 1943, pp. 143-9.
2. Cf. also supra p. 163.
3. The aim of the Byzantine armies was Rome, as we know from Liutprand Legatio, cap. xviii (ed. SS. RR. GG., by F. Becker), pp. 184-5.
4. Liutprand, Legatio, cap. lxvii, p. 200.
5. Liutprand, Legatio, cap. xvii, p. 184.
6. Dan. vii. 14.
7. Dan. vii. 23.
8. R. Folz, op. cit., p. 41, note 13, and R. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 193. About the patristic interpretation in the same sense see C. Trieber, "Die vier Weltreiche" in Hermes, xxvii ( 1892), pp. 321 ff., especially pp. 340-2 ( St Jerome), and W. Kamlah , Christentum und Geschichtlichkeit, Cologne, 1951, pp. 302 ff. ( St Augustine). Cf. also H. Löwe, "Von Theoderich d. Gr. zu Karl d. Gr." in Deutsches Archiv
At this stage of the development it is perhaps advisable to state the one point on which both imperial and papal conceptions were in agreement, namely on the exclusive and universal character of Roman emperorship. Because he was the Roman emperor, the medieval emperor surpassed all other Rulers in dignity and excellence.
But as regards the substance of this Roman emperorship the two points of view differed fundamentally. According to the papal standpoint, this dignity is universal, because it is conferred by the Roman Church. The universality of the Church is reflected in the ideational universality of Roman emperorship. The emperor's universality is a reflexion, not indeed in degree, but in kind of that universality which is epitomized in the Roman Church which confers the dignity of emperorship through the medium of the Pope. This may be a subtle, though we hold, a necessary distinction. 1 And the emperor is created for the specific purpose of protecting the Roman Church -- hence the protector of the Roman Church, itself the epitome of the universal Church, must needs be conceived on the plane of an ideational universality.
On the other hand, the imperial standpoint did not view the substance of Roman emperorship from this functionalist angle. Accordingly, emperorship is universal, because it is Roman emperorship. The Ottonians (and later imperial generations) put upon Charlemagne's empire the complexion of the Roman empire; they interpreted his Romanism in the historical-political sense. To them Charlemagne appeared as the model monarch, because he was held to have been a Roman emperor. This imperial view of Roman emperorship was based, in the last resort, upon the ancient Teutonic idea of royal monarchy. Being the strongest monarchs in Europe, the German kings deemed it their right to be the Roman emperors. 2 The conferment of the Roman
Archiv, ix ( 1952), pp. 363 ff., and note 124. It is interesting to observe that the prophecy still played some part in the capture of Constantinople: according to Salimbene's report ( MGH. SS. xxxii. 23-4) the Greeks fought fiercely against the Latin invaders and the inspiration of the Greeks was the Daniel prophecy (I owe this to Dr C. H. Talbot). Later at the end of the thirteenth century to the four empires was added a fifth, the empire of Christ "qui fuit verus Rex et verus Monarcha," Ptolomy of Lucca in his continuation of Thomas Aquinas De regimine principum, about which see C. N. S. Woolf, Bartolus of Sassoferrato, pp. 318-20.
1. This reflexion of the universality of the Roman Church in the empire is, we think, the ideological germ out of which later grew the allegory of sun (Pope) and moon (emperor).
2. And consequently universal rulers. And in periods of crisis and tension attempts will be made to restore the waning confidence by asserting the ideational
imperial crown by the Pope was a necessary formality of a declaratory character. The substance of this emperorship was monarchic and autonomous, according to the imperial standpoint. There is no need for us to comment upon the ideological metamorphosis which Charlemagne had undergone, nor upon the inconsistencies of this point of view which tacitly brushed aside the genesis of medieval Roman emperorship. Genetically and ideologically he had grown out of the patrician of the Romans, and was always considered by his creator an ad-vocatus, an adjutor, a brachium of the Roman Church.
As we have said before, the identification of the imperium christianum with the imperium Romanum was one of the bequests of Charlemagne. This identification was of considerable weight with later imperial generations, and the temptation to identify both "empires" had by no means spent all its impetus by the time of the Staufens. But, however much, in a rough sense, Charles's identification corresponded to reality, from the mid-tenth century onwards these two terms began to express different ideas: this was one more feature which the imperial point of view disregarded. According to it, the imperium christianum was still the same as the imperium Romanum. This identification appears as a salient feature of the century between the first Otto's coronation and the third Henry's death. Hand in hand with this goes -- again quite in accordance with the historical-political conception of Romanism -- the quickening insistence on the Roman features of the empire, reaching its apogee in Otto III; and with this goes, again for evident reasons, the rivalry with the Eastern emperor and the concomitant borrowing of
universality of the emperor in concrete terms. For instance, in the stormy days of Frederick I, so full of stress and tension, Staufen ideology will operate with the ideologically significant term of "kinglings" (reguli) to denote kings as mere provincial governors within the empire; and the Eastern Empire will sink to a mere "regnum Graeciae." Cf. on this now W. Holtzmann, op. cit., pp. 20, 22-3, with a special reference to Frederick's threat to the independence of France. Under his son, Henry VI, this threat to France was no less real, cf. Roger of Hoveden, iii. 301 (Rolls Series) ad 1195:
"Notum erat regi Angliae, quod praedictus imperator (Henry) super omnia desiderabat, ut regnum Franciae Romanorum imperio subjaceret." The term reguli seems to have been coined by Benzo of Alba who wrote his poem for the imperial cause also in a period of crisis and stress; cf. P. E. Schramm, Kaiser, i. 256, note 5, and for details infra 387.
In obvious allusion to the Papalist sun-moon allegory, the Cistercian Caesar of Heisterbach, Henry VI's contemporary, says: "Just as the sun excels in size and splendour all the stars, in the same way the Roman Empire shines forth more magnificently than all the kingdoms of the world. Here is the monarchia: as the stars receive their light from the sun, so have the kings their power from the Emperor," Dialogus miraculorum, quoted from Th. Toeche, Kaiser Heinrich VI, Leipzig, 1867, p. 270.
Byzantine imperial features, and finally the utilization of the proprietary church system for governing the "imperium." These appear to be the salient features of that century. We can but briefly touch on these features and we do this merely in an attempt to bring the contrast between this system and its successor into clearer relief.
The title of Otto I for some years after his coronation was the simple "imperator" or "imperator augustus" without the epithet "Romanorum." This may or may not have deeper significance, although the assumption cannot be dismissed out of hand that this title without "Romanorum" was considered sufficient indication of the Roman character of this empire. But that this self-same (Roman) empire was also the Christian empire par excellence, cannot be legitimately doubted, considering the actual policy of Otto: he appeared as, and was, the foremost protector of Christianity in contemporary Europe. To all intents and purposes Otto considered his empire identical with the Christian empire, that entity which is made up of the Latin Christians. 1
The intelligentsia of the Ottonian period bears witness to this Carolingian bequest of the identification of the empire with the Christian empire. At first Otto's empire was the "imperium Romanum" pure and simple, so, for instance, in the poems of the nun, Hrotsvita of Gandersheim. To her the empire could bear no other complexion than a Roman one: it was the "imperium Romanum" or "Caesarianum" or "Octavianum." 2 Almost simultaneously another school of thought appears which programmatically identifies the Roman empire with the Christian empire. Its chief representative was Adso of Montieren-Der. 3 On the basis of his eschatological interpretation of the prophecy of Daniel he entirely identifies the Roman and Christian empires: "Roman" and "Christian" were interchangeable terms and ideas to
1. Governmentally, of course, Otto I was Rex-Sacerdos (in the sense in which we use the term, see supra 156) and this explains his strong hand in the liturgical reforms carried out during his long stays in Italy: it was he who transported into Italy and enforced in the Italian churches the rich liturgy so highly developed as it had been during the preceding decades (Pontifical of Mainz). On all this see Th. Klauser, "Die liturgischen Austauschbeziehungen etc." in Hist. Jb., liii ( 1936), pp. 186-9. The Pope installed after John's deposition, Leo VIII, was a layman and the first Pope consecrated according to the new liturgy, see Klauser, p. 187, and M. Andrieu, "La carrièe ecclésiastique des papes" in Revue des sciences religieuses, xxi ( 1947), pp. 109-10.
2. See the fine study of C. Erdmann, "Das Ottonische Reich als imperium Romanum" in Deutsches Archiv, vi ( 1943), pp. 421-6, where the hitherto overlooked and very significant expressions of the nun are given in toto.
3. See Erdmann, art. cit., pp. 426-33.
him. 1 This empire was the last of the four and its idea is therefore imperishable although its material form was nearly ruined. 2 Hence under the presupposition that both empires were ideologically identical, the collapse of the Roman empire would mean the ruin of the Christian empire: the germs of the "Renovatio Romani imperii," the task of the Latin Christian, were contained in this point of view. 3 But when we now look at Odilo of Cluny, a representative of yet another school, though still French, writing in the first decade of the eleventh century, we shall see that, although to him too the idea of the "imperium Romanum" is of crucial importance, it is no longer identifiable with the "imperium christianum." 4 This is all the more important since Odilo of Cluny is one of the foremost Cluniacs: with them certainly the idea of a Christian empire begins visibly to detach itself from the idea of the Roman empire. As regards the functions of the Roman empire, there seems no divergence between Odilo and Adso: to both the Roman empire is indispensable for Christianity at large; to both the Christian empire needs the Roman empire as its protector. 5
Seen against the political and ideological background of his time, the "Wonder of the World," Otto III, may become accessible to understanding. His motto was Charlemagne: 6 his seal was Charlemagne's, upon which was engraved the head of an old man so as to leave no possible room for doubt; and ROMA on the other side of his seal was surrounded by the inscription:
RENOVATIO IMPERII ROMANORUM. 7 But
1. Erdmann, art. cit., p. 429: "einfache Gleichsetzung von Römer- und Christenreich."
2. Erdmann, art. cit., p. 427.
3. Erdmann, art. cit., p. 429: "Die Erneuerung des römischen Reiches wurde zu einer chrisdichen Aufgabe."
4. See the passages cited by Erdmann, pp. 433 - 40.
5. The deeper reason for the Cluniac attitude is to be sought in their ideas of "reform": they hoped to "reform" contemporary society, including of course the "sacerdotium," through the medium of the Roman empire. Hence the close connexion they had with the emperor in the early eleventh century, and hence also why the emperors appeared to them the providential saviours of Christendom. But cf. now G. Ladner views on the Ottonian Renascence in "Die mittelalterliche Reformidee und ihr Verhältnis zur Renaissance" in Festschrift f. A. Löhr ( MIOG. Ix, 1952), pp. 54-5.
6. See especially R. Folz, op. cit., pp. 78 ff.
7. The sources concerning the coronation of Otto III are now well assembled by M. Uhlirz, "Zur Kaiserkrönung Ottos III" in Festschrift f. E. E. Stengel, Minster, 1952, pp. 263-7.
the fundamental difference between him and his great model is too obvious to need any comment: for Charlemagne the Renovatio was exclusively religious and orientated by Christian Rome; for Otto III it was exclusively political and orientated by ancient Rome. Otto's idea behind his Renovatio was that of Adso: in order to save Christianity, the fourth empire must be resurrected: the empire of the Romans is the vehicle, the only vehicle, which can raise Latin Christendom from the quagmire into which it had sunk. Undertaken in the interests of Christendom, this "renovation" was to be carried out by the wholesale adoption of old Roman official titles no less than by the wholesale borrowing of Byzantine models. Naturally, as "imperator Romanorum" Otto III could not tolerate that even in a detail the self-styled "Imperator Romanorum" in the East could surpass him. 1 Even the lance as an imperial standard carried before Otto III is reminiscent of the Byzantine model of the emperor's standard. 2 The former purely religious "renovatio" had now turned into a thoroughly political "renovatio": the former's unpolitical Romanism was replaced by a political Romanism. 3
This "renovatio" however was only a transitory step in the ideological development of Otto III. For after the Gnesen campaign when he adopted the title "servus Jesu Christi," he advanced in 1001 to the height of "servus apostolorum." 4 There is in fact a consistent line of development on the part of the young emperor within the space of three years. First he introduces the "Renovatio" in April 998 on his seal;
1. For details see Schramm, Kaiser, i. 105 ff.
2. See Arnold, De sancto Emmerano: "(Otto) ex more precedente sancta et crucifera imperiali lancea exivit de civitate (Ratisbon) petiturus Italiam," quoted by Eichmann, op. cit., i. 186, who held that the lance was "das abendländische Gegenstück zu der byzantinischen Kaiserstandarte, die, von einem Kreuz überhöht, dem Kaiser vorangetragen wurde." On the history and the problem as to whether the lance had political significance or was merely a relic (which guaranteed victory in battle) see W. Holtzmann, König Heinrich und die heilige Lan?e, Bonn, 1947, pp. 15 ff., 58 ff. (here also a review of the relevant literature). The older view that the Libellus de ceremoniis was composed in Otto III's time, must be rejected, see Schramm, op. cit., i. 193 ff., 202 ff.; against this is A. Michel, Papstwahl & Königsrecht, Stuttgart, 1936, p. 172, note 161, and p. 195, note 230.
3. About the probable time and the source which directly inspired his Renovatio ( Gerbert with his triumphant exclamation: "Nostrum, nostrum est imperium Romanum") see Erdmann, Forschungen, pp. 107-9, supporting an earlier view of Schramm ( Hist., Z., cxxix, 1924, pp. 462-3.)
4. One is inevitably reminded of the Eastern ?sapóst????, the emperor being the thirteenth apostle; cf. also Ohnsorge, op. cit., p. 70. We think that this title of Otto III was not only an attempt to combine papal and Byzantine conceptions, but also a (daring) attempt to repudiate the Leonine theory of the jurisdictional primacy of the Roman Church.
then, on 17 January 1000, he adds to the title "imperator Romanorum the designation "servus Jesu Christi"; 1 this is replaced in the following year by the designation "sacrarum ecclesiarum fidelissimus et devotissimus dilatator"; 2 and lastly there emerges in his title the "servus apostolorum":
Otto servus apostolorum et secundurn voluntatem Dei salvatoris Romanorum imperator augustus. 3
The "Imperium Christianum" is identified with the "Imperium Romanum" and hence its leadership must be in the hands of the one "imperator Romanorum." The identity of the two empires entailed that there must be identity of rulership; as head of the Roman empire Otto III was "imperator Romanorum"; as head of the Christian empire he was "servus apostolorum." 4 The government of this one body was concentrated in the one who, by his title, expressed his most intimate relationship with the apostles, especially with St Peter. Otto III was emperor and "Pope." 5 Or in the more familiar terminology of bygone days, Otto III was rex and sacerdos. 6 The Renovatio of the Roman empire entailed the Renovatio of the Christian empire.
This new double function of the emperor appears first in the famous Diploma which is of particular concern to us. Issued between 18 and
1. DO. III. 344 ff.
2. DO. III. 388, issued in Rome under this title: "Otto tercius secundum voluntatem Jesu Christi Romanorum imperator augustus sanctarum ecclesiarum . . . dilatator."
3. DO. III. 389, and its contents (see infra 241) leave no doubt about the significance of the title emerging in precisely this Diploma.
4. If the year 1001 -- the last of his life -- is any indication of the trend of his ideology, it seems that the title "servus apostolorum" was going to oust the "imperator Romanorum" altogether. In the following DD. after 389/90, the intitulatio is simply: "Otto tercius servus apostolorurn"; DO. III. 407, 409, 412, 414-16, 419, 422.
5. The court proceedings of DO. III. 396, of 4 April 1001, were first signed by "Otto servus apostolorurn subscripsi" to which the Pope adds his signature: "Ego Silvester s. catholicae et apostolicae ecclesiae Romanae praesul huic refutationi et sponsioni ut supra legitur, praefui et subscripsi." Cf. also Schramm, op. cit., i. 158, note 5.
6. As early as November 998, Otto III presided together with Gregory V in a synod at St Peter's, Rome, in which a Spanish bishop was deposed and another put in his place. This is, we think, a clear instance in which the emperor acting on his claim as an ideational universal Rex-Sacerdos intervened in a purely ecclesiastical and organizational matter. On the affair itself see R. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 352; here also the facsimile of the document (J. 3888) with Otto's signature; cf. now also W. Holtzmann, op. cit., p. 15: " Otto III hat aus seiner Kaiserwürde Folgerungen gezogen, welche über den gewohnten geographischen Bereich des Imperiums hinausgingen. Sie sind aber beschränkt auf das Kirchenregiment." (Italics mine.)
23 January 1001 1 this document also expresses the double function of Rome itself. Rome is no longer the apostolic city, but the urbis regia, hence the capital of the world, and therefore the Church of Rome is the Mother Church of all other churches. It is as a consequence of his double function, the imperial and apostolic, that Otto III has the authority to testify to this:
Romam caput mundi profitemur, Romanam ecclesiam matrem omnium ecclesiarum testamur.
And because he testifies to this position of Rome, 2 he finds it particularly exasperating that the pontiffs have so much blackened the record of the city.
(Testamur), sed incuria et inscientia pontificum longe suae claritatis titulos obfuscasse.
Not only have they claimed what is not theirs, but what they had, had sold, spoilt or embezzled. And when all had gone, they came to the emperor asking for more. Asking for more, he exclaims, basing their claims on those false tales which they fabricated under the name of the Great Constantine and which they made the deacon John write in golden letters. The Popes base their claims on those other figments by which they say that a certain Charles (II) had given to St Peter "our public goods." "To which we reply that Charles could not give anything away by right. He had given away what he did not possess. Brushing aside these imaginary scraps of paper and fairy tales, we, out of our munificence, make a present to St Peter from those territories which are ours. Just as we have elected for the love St Peter the Lord Silvester, our teacher, and as we have by God's will ordered and created him Pope, so do we now confer on St Peter through Silvester gifts from our public imperial property." This gift consisted of the eight counties of the Pentapolis. 3 The Pope was not, however, the owner of these eight counties, but merely their administrator.
1. According to Th. Sickel, ad DO. III. 389, p. 819.
2. As a "novus Constantinus" Otto III built new churches at Rome, about which see E. Mâle, Rome et ses vieilles èglises, Paris, 1944, pp. 133-59.
3. DO. III. 389. About editions, literature and authorship (Bishop Leo of Vercelli) see Sickel, loc. cit., and Schramm, op. cit., i. 166, ii. 65. We quote from Schramm's edition, pp. 66 - 7 : "In nomine sanctae et individuae Trinitatis Otto servus apostolorum et secundum voluntatern Dei salvatoris Romanorum imperator augustus. Romam caput mundi profitemur, Romanam ecclesiam matrem omnium ecclesiarum esse testamur, sed incuria et inscientia pontificurn longe suae claritatis titulos obfuscasse. Nam non solum, quae extra Urbem esse videbantur, vendiderunt et quibusdam colluviis a late s. Petri alienaverunt, sed -- quod absque
It is plain that according to Otto III the Papacy had no right to the territories hitherto claimed as their own. The title-deed of their claim is declared null and void -- the Donation of Constantine is a fabrication from which no rights can flow. This fictitious basis of papal possessions must be supplanted by an act of the emperor himself. On account of his imperial and apostolic capacity he could not allow any other title-deed to possessions than his own. The Ottonian Donation is therefore the effluence of imperial omnipotence. It is moreover a Donation which is prompted by the recognition of the services which he had received from his former master, Gerbert, now created Pope by the imperial will. 1 Perhaps no particular significance should be attached to the omission of the usual designation of the Pope as "spiritualis
dolore non dicimus -- si quid in hac nostra Urbe regia habuerunt, a maiori licentia evagarentur, omnibus judicante pecunia in commune dederunt et s. Petrum, s. Paulum, ipsa quoque altaria spoliaverunt et pro reparatione semper confusionem induxerunt. Confusis vero papaticis legibus et jam abjecta ecclesia Romana, in tantum quidam pontificum irruerunt, ut maximam partem imperii nostri apostolatui suo conjungerent, jam non quaerentes, quae et quanta suis culpis perdiderunt, non curantes, quanta ex voluntaria vanitate effuderunt, sed sua propria, utpote ab illis ipsis dilapidata, dimittentes, quasi culpam suam in imperium nostrum retorquentes, ad aliena, id est ad nostra et nostri imperii, maxime migraverunt. Haec sunt commenta ab illis ipsis inventa, quibus Johannes diaconus cognomento digitorum mutilus, praeceptum aureis litteris scripsit, sub titulo magni Constantini longa mendacii tempora finxit.
Haec sunt alia commenta, quibus dicunt, quendam Karolum s. Petro nostra publica tribuisse. Sed ad haec respondemus ipsum Karolum nichil dare jure potuisse, utpote jam a Karolo meliore fugatum, jam imperio privatum, jam destitutum et adnullatum. Ergo: quod non habuit, dedit; sic dedit, sicut nimirum dare potuit, utpote qui male adquisivit, et diu se possessurum non speravit. Spretis ergo commenticiis preceptis et imaginariis scriptis, ex nostra liberalitate s. Petro donamus, quae nostra sunt, non sibi, quae sua sunt, veluti nostra conferimus. Sicut enim pro amore s. Petri domnum Silvestrum magistrum nostrum papam elegimus et Deo volente ipsum serenissimum ordinavimus et creavimus, ita pro amore ipsius domni Silvestri papae s. Petro de publico nostro dona conferimus, ut habeat magister, quid principi nostro Petro a parte sui discipuli offerat."
Then follows the enumeration of the eight counties.
The deacon mentioned here, Johannes, had to make an ornamental copy of the Donation of Constantine by order of John XII, on the occasion of Otto I's Roman sojourn in 962. Later, but before 964, John XII had the deacon's fingers chopped off, hence his nickname. He fled to Otto's court revealing the secret of the Donation, hence Otto III's knowledge; on all this see Schramm, op. cit., i. 70-1, 163, and I. M. Watterich, Romanorum pontificum vitae, i. 42. The text of the Donation may have been supplied by that contained in Pseudo-Isidore, see G. Tellenbach, Libertas, p. 221.
1. It seems fairly certain that the choice of the name Silvester by Gerbert aroused some suspicions in his "creator," especially as Otto was familiar with the secrets contained in the bosom of the Roman Church which were revealed to his grandfather by John the deacon.
pater noster": but there can be little doubt about the functions allotted to Silvester by Otto: he was no more than the chief metropolitan within the ambit of the "orbis Romanus."
On the other hand, the Ottonian Donation is also directed against the Eastern aspirations. Not only is Rome -- and not Constantinople -the urbs regia, but also the Byzantine Church stands in a filial relationship to the Roman Church. Indeed, it is the whole "orbis Romanus" that is seen by Otto in his twofold capacity. 1 According to him, the "orbis Romanus" was nothing else than the political conception of Christianity. Hence, Roma caput mundi, and the unity of this universal body politic presupposes unity in its government: Otto appears as the supreme monarch.
But this Ottonian Donation signifies more than the mere assertion of the emperor's imperial and apostolic capacity. It brings into clearest possible relief Otto's function as the supreme monarch and protector. We think that here is the link with the prevalent institution of the proprietary church system, whose ideological strength lay in the king's affording protection to a weak and defenceless body, the sacerdotal hierarchy. In the exercise of his monarchical rule, the king had the right to install the bishop in his ecclesiastical functions: the bishop thereby came under the special protection of his "creator." It is this idea of protection (in the royal sense) which cemented the proprietary church system ideologically. The protection afforded by the owner of the church -- and in the widest sense the king was "owner" of every bishopric -- was the inner ferment of the system, fortified as this was by the oath of fealty taken by the bishop. The bond thus created was a very personal one. As a protector the king had a very natural interest in the maintenance of his property. He could, if he considered it expedient, concede to certain collegiate bodies, the right to elect their superior, 2 but in the case of the important episcopal sees and as the one
1. Cf. DO. III. 390, of 23 January 1001.
2. The examples of these Wahlprivilegia are too numerous to be quoted. Cf. e.g., DO. III. 269: "Insuper etiam statuimus et confirmamus per hanc nostri praecepti paginam atque inviolabilem auctoritatem ut quandoquidem abbas de ipso monasterio ex hac luce migraverit . . . tunc qualem digniorem et meliorem de ipsa congregatione fratres invenerint, licentiam habeant eligendi et ipse qui electus est a nostra imperiali potestate . . . sine ulla contradictione inimicorum investiatur"; or DO. III. 319: "Insuper etiam privilegium dedimus monachis praesentibus et cunctis qui post eos futuri sunt in eodem loco, abbatem inter se eligere secundum regulam sancti Benedicti"; for Otto II cf. DO. II. 142: "Concessimus etiam praedictis sanctimonialibus ex imperiali majestate per privilegii huius munitionem licentiam eligendi inter se abbatissam Dei servitio aptam. . ."
most directly interested in the administration and organization of his churches, he himself exercised the right to see that a suitable incumbent was appointed: in these cases the king proceeded by simple nomination; and of Silvester II Otto says: "elegimus . . . ordinavimus et creavimus."
There is therefore a noteworthy parallel between the protective function of the Teutonic king and the protective function of the prototype of every Rex-Sacerdos, Justinian. Although in their origins independent, the two conceptions of rulership had so many elements in common that for all practical purposes they were identical. Teutonic and Byzantine ideas 1 in this respect were so similar to each other that the wholesale borrowing of Byzantine ideas and forms by essentially Teutonic rulers may have a simple explanation. Both governmental systems relied heavily on the sacerdotium, and the Teutonic manner of harnessing the sacerdotium to the governmental machinery by way of the proprietary church system was, in our opinion, merely a practical modification of the same principle, perhaps furthered by the prevalent feudal conceptions. 2 To both systems, the Eastern and the Western, it was essential that a suitable candidate was appointed for the see. Here we find the principle of idoneity or suitability which was of such crucial importance to the hierocratic system too. But whereas in the latter system the suitability concerned the Ruler himself, in the former it concerned the ecclesiastics, above all, the bishops, and of course the Pope. To all three systems, the sacerdotium was an indispensable vehicle by which the respective policies were to be carried out. And in a way one might say that the later Investiture Contest was essentially a fight over the control of the sacerdotium. 3
1. See, for instance, the prefaces to Justinian Novellae, vi; lxxxv; and lxxxvi.
2. That the proprietary church was not unknown in the East has been proved, cf. P. Thomas, Le droit de propriété des laiques sur les églises, Paris, 1906, especially pp. 3-11.
3. The Ottonian (and Salian) governmental systems stand and fall with the sacerdotium as the agency of the government. The benefits accruing to imperial power can hardly be exaggerated; by virtue of the proprietary church system the king was free to install the ablest cleric wherever he found it necessary; for good examples under Otto Isee R. Holtzmann, Kaiser Otto d. Gr., Leipzig, 1936, pp. 96-7; the king had no need to take into consideration territorial or regional motives; the system was also immune to the cancer of hereditary succession with all its inherent dangers of decomposition; the members of the sacerdotium were -- one has only to look at the DD and the immediate entourage of the kings -highly cultured men, versed in literature, history and politics: the cancellaria of the kings was staffed with precisely these men. Indeed the chancery was the nursery of influential bishops and archbishops, since the vacant sees were filled from
What seems important was that the idea of royal protection was carried by Otto III to its logical conclusion. Indeed, the Ottonianum made an attempt at this when it initiated the somewhat clumsy machinery of an oath to be enforced by the Romans from the Pope. The Ottonianum was a patched-up document which did not make any fundamental pronouncement, and because of this shortcoming the third Otto may have refused to confirm it; he also recognized that the donations contained in the document were based upon slender foundations. But in the Ottonian Donation we have in fact a programmatic declaration of him who was supreme monarch and therefore supreme protector of everyone in his "orbis Romanus," including the Papacy. And the angry outburst of Otto about the squandering of papal possessions by the pontiffs is the outburst of one who believes that his own property has been the subject of wanton spoliation. Hence a clean sweep has to be made. And he programmatically declares that the Pope -- in no way different from any other bishop -- owes his position to him: he also declares that the Pope qua Pope has no right to territories. The donation to St. Peter through the hands of the Pope who is to be the trustee of the territories, is the effluence of Otto's imperial and apostolic omnipotence.
Monarchy means supreme rulership carried out by means of the law and the appropriate agencies. For the Ottonian system this entailed a function of the Pope which was not unlike that accorded to him by Otto's great model, Charlemagne. Whether or not Otto acknowledged the magisterial primacy of the Roman Church is of no concern to us, but what is of concern is that the jurisdictional primacy of the Roman Church was denied. The Pope was not, and could not be, given the right to surround his pronouncements with the halo of a legal sanction. The conception of true monarchy militated against this. The Pope is, in Otto's conceptions, the chief priest in the "orbis Romanus," appointed by the servus apostolorum." The former Justinianean prescription of an imperial confirmation of the elected Pope had now degenerated into a straight imperial appointment. This manner of making a Pope was, naturally enough, based upon the principle
the ranks of the royal chancery personnel. Cf. now also W. Holtzmann, Das mittelalterliche Imperium, cit., p. 7, who speaks of the great advantage which the Ottonian empire had through the "Hereinnahme der Kirche in den Staat"; the Capetians at the same time lost all influence on the sacerdotium, ibid. For the composition of the German royal chancery and its tasks in the tenth and eleventh centuries, see H. W. Klewitz, "Königtum, Hofkapelle und Domkapitel" in Arch. f. Urkundenforsch., xvi ( 1939), pp. 102-34.
of suitability, and Otto had every reason for finding Gerbert suitable. The spirituality of the papal -- as indeed of every sacerdotal -- office made it imperative that in this Christian "orbis Romanus" only the best and most suitable should be raised to this dignity. It is at this point that the "reforming" Cluniacs come into the picture, and Otto III himself was very much influenced by Odilo of Cluny. As the supreme protector Otto III, not unlike Justinian, had to see that his empire, Roman and Christian as it was, was given the best men. This astonishing parallelism between East and West led to a still more intensified copying of Eastern features and the adoption of ancient Roman elements, particularly by contemporary littérateurs, of which none is perhaps more significant than the Graphia circle. And the renascence of Roman legal studies was an inescapable consequence.
To sum up, Otto III's standpoint was focused upon the implementation of the monarchic principle. The monarch rules over that body politic which, by virtue of its universal character, is Roman and Christian. The basis of this view is the idea that this political entity is entrusted to him by God: he as the divinely appointed monarch must therefore rule, that is, guide and direct that body politic, of which the cementing idea was that of the Christian faith. In this sense his empire was indeed Roman -- in the other, political, sense the empire could call itself Roman only as a result of accepting papal ideology, according to which the Roman empire was dispensed by the Pope. In either sense the ideological weakness of Otto's position is apparent. It was a governmental theory which bore all the germs of its own destruction within itself. Was he functionally qualified to lead a body politic whose substratum was a spiritual element, the Christian faith? Was not his own Romanism the tacit acceptance of the Papal theme?
The implementation of the monarchic principle by Otto III's successors is still more pronounced. They considered themselves as monarchs in the most literal sense of the term. They bore themselves as the divinely appointed Rulers over the entity which they called the empire of the Romans. In this capacity they had at heart all the interests affecting that body. And since this body over which they ruled was substantially Christian, they had a particular predilection for the regeneration of the sacerdotium.
Henry II's title
Heinricus servus servorum Christi et Romanorum imperator augustus secundum voluntatem Dei et salvatoris nostrique liberatoris 1
neatly expresses the monarchic function in its twofold aspects: he is "servus servorum Christi," an obvious borrowing of the papal title, and he also is emperor of the Romans. As the monarch of this Christian body politic calling itself Roman empire, his foremost function as a protector is to see that the spiritual life is regenerated. The protecting hand of the emperor can be witnessed in every vital sphere of contemporary life.
Henry II is an effective reformer of monastic institutions: on his behalf and by his order monastic reforms are carried out at Prüm, Hersfeld, Berge near Magdeburg, Reichenau, Fulda, Corvey, StabloMalmedy, St Maximine near Trier, Gandersheim, and so forth. 2 Certain organizational matters also fall into the competency of the emperor: a number of smaller monastic institutions were incorporated by his order into the framework of great episcopal churches, a measure which greatly increased their economic efficiency. 3 It is probably true that Henry II's zeal was to a great extent inspired by the Cluniacs. 4 Vacant episcopal sees were filled by simple nominations -- "dono regis episcopus fiebat" as a chronicler reported 5 -- having had due regard to the principle of suitability. He it was who erected Bamberg, 6 and who
1. DH. II. 284, issued at Rome, on the occasion of his imperial coronation in 1014. In this context attention should be drawn to the picture of Henry II which depicts him crowned by Christ Himself, see P. E. Schramm, Die deutschen Könige & Kaiser in Bildern ihrer Zeit, Table 85a; cf. also Table 85b which shows Henry crowned by a hand reaching down from heaven (with this should be compared the Roman picture reproduced by Alföldi, supra p. 17 ), whilst yet a third shows him crowned by the Holy Ghost, Table 86. The crown is the characteristically Byzantine crown showing the pendilia on both sides, see Schramm, Text, p. 110. Cf. also Table 81 showing Christ Who crowns Henry being sponsored by St Peter, whilst his wife, Cunigunde, is sponsored by St Paul, Text pp. 107 - 8, 197. The difference between Henry II and Otto III emerges clearly --and hence also the difference in their titles -- when one looks at Table 78 showing Otto III crowned by SS. Peter and Paul; cf. also Text, pp. 101 - 2. In this context attention should also be drawn to the intitulation of the Spanish king, Ordonius III in 954: "Servus servorum Domini," see E. E. Stengel, in Deutsches Archiv, iii ( 1939), p. 9, note 1, who also noted the parallel to the papal title.
2. One should beware of exaggerating the decadence of monastic life in imperial monasteries, cf. now K. Hallinger, "Gor?e-Kluny", in Studia Anselmiana philosophica-theologica, xxii-xxv, 1950-1.
3. For details of Henry's "church policy" see the lucid account in H. Mikoletzky, Kaiser Heinrich II und die Kirche, Vienna, 1946.
4. Cf. Mikoletzky, op. cit., pp. 11 ff., who observes that the Cluny movement could never have succeeded without Henry II.
5. Chron. s. Laurentii Leodiensis, MGH. SS. viii. 267.
6. For details see now Th. Mayer, "Die Anfänge des Bistums Bamberg" in Festschrift Stengel, 1952, pp. 272-88.
revived the suppressed bishopric of Merseburg, who transformed the abbey of Bobbio -- Columban's foundation -- into a bishopric. Numerous ecclesiastical synods were held under his presidency, the convocation having been in his hands. It is in his function as monarch that he confirms papal privileges 1 or that he confers on abbots and monks the privilege of having the imperial tribunal as their proper court. 2 Externally, too, Henry II appeared as the personification of the monarchic idea: he used to wear a gown which was said to denote universal dominion, the so-called Weltenmantel. 3 It was a garment ornamented with apocalyptic and zodiacal figures, and had been worn by the biblical high-priests: 4 it manifested his regal-sacerdotal position. 5 In short, Henry's empire was a priest-state: the "populus Christianus" as he understood the term, was entrusted to him, and being a Christian people they had to be given suitable ecclesiastical officers. The sacerdotium was to be regenerated because it was vital to the governmental machinery of Henry II.
From the point of view of protection the confirmation of the Ottonianum by Henry II 6 becomes understandable. The natural assumption is that this so-called Privilegium would have been confirmed at Henry's imperial coronation in 1014, 7 provided always that it really was a privilege conferred on the Roman Church. What was not done in 1014, was done six years later, at Bamberg, on the occasion of Pope Benedict VIII's memorable visit to the emperor. The Pope obviously considered the Ottonian Donation unsatisfactory from every point of view: above all, there was no undertaking of protecting the territories ceded. The Pope's visit to Bamberg was prompted by the advance of the Byzantine armies in Southern Italy which clearly threatened the city of Rome. And in order to obtain a firm undertaking of protection of the patrimony of St Peter from Henry II, Benedict undertook the
1. Cf. DH. II. 494, of 2 September 1023, to the monastery of Fruttuaria.
DH. II. 475, to the monastery of S. Salvator near Isola.
3. See Schramm, in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 429; Eichmann, Kaiserkrönung, i. 149. About Otto III's dalmatic see M. Uhlirz, "Zur Kaiserkrönung Ottos III" in Festschrift Stengel, pp. 263-4.
4. Cf. Ex. xxviii. 4; Lev. viii. 7.
5. Schramm, König von Frankreich, p. 160, note 2.
6. DH. II. 427 = MGH. Const. i. no. 33, pp. 65-70.
7. This was indeed assumed by no less an authority than Baronius, Ann. Ecclesiastici, ad 1014, ed. Lucca, 1744, xvi. 487. Although he does not know when the privilege was conferred, Baronius says, "nihilominus tamen ex consuetudine praedecessorum imperatorum, qui similia privilegia statim post imperialem a pontifice susceptam coronam eidem tradiderunt, facile possumus colligere" that it was given at Henry's coronation in 1014.
journey across the Alps. Naturally, as the supreme protector Henry did not refuse Benedict's request. The price which the Pope paid for the promise of protection was high: for we recall that the Ottonianum also contained in its second part severe restrictions imposed upon the Papacy. Henry, from his monarchic point of view, had of course no scruples in confirming what the first Otto had enacted. The reason why there was no re-issue of the document on the occasion of Henry's coronation seems rather obvious: the Pope considered it incongruous and incompatible with his function as the dispenser of imperial dignity to ask for confirmation of the Ottonianum. For it was at Henry's coronation that Ordo C, the herald of a new age, was first applied, and the ideas underlying this Ordo militated against submitting a request for the confirmation of the Ottonianum with its severe restrictions on the Papacy.
The ruthless exploitation for governmental purposes of the sacerdotium by Conrad II, the first Salian emperor, is perhaps the most characteristic feature of his reign. Consequently, the criterion he applied to episcopal appointments and depositions was not so much that of suitability for the spiritual office, but rather that of usefulness to the crown. Against useless ecclesiastics Conrad proceeded severely and adamantly. Archbishop Burchard of Lyons was kept in chains for years; Archbishop Aribert of Milan was arrested and deposed by imperial decree; the bishops of Piacenza, Cremona and Vercelli were exiled. In Conrad II one meets an upright and stern, though coldly calculating monarch, to whom the sacerdotium was a mere machine. That the Roman Church was perhaps not even credited with magisterial primacy, may well be true. The public burning by the bishop of Constance of a bull of John XIX on Maundy Thursday 1033 throws significant light on the frame of mind of a part of the episcopacy; nor is it less significant that the archbishop of Mainz addressed Conrad as "vicarius Christi." 1 There can have been few medieval monarchs who
1. See Wipo, Gesta Chuonradi imperatoris, MGH. SS. xi. 260, ad 8 September 1024, the day on which Conrad was anointed and crowned at Mainz. About the jubilations on this occasion Wipo says that "si Carolus magnus cum sceptro vivus adesset, non alacrior populus fuisset nec plus gaudere valeret de tanti viri reditu." In his speech the archbishop of Mainz said, amongst other things, this: "Omnis potestas fluitantis saeculi de uno fonte purissimo derivatur . . . is omnipotens rex regum, totius honoris auctor et principium, quando in principes terrae alicuius dignitatis gratiam transfundit . . . tecum et propter te nobis est sermo, domne rex. Dominus, qui te elegit ut esses rex super populum suum, ipse te prius voluit probare et postmodum regnare . . . passus es injurias, ut nunc scias misereri sustinentibus injurias; pietas divina voluit te esse sine disciplina, ut post coeleste
acted so faithfully in the spirit of the Roman Caesars as Conrad did, the first to adopt the title which was the preliminary to full imperial dignity, that of "Rex Romanorum." And on his seal the inscription embodied his ideological programme:
Roma caput mundi tenet orbis frena rotundi. 1
Logically enough, the Roman laws were bolstered up, at least as far as Rome was concerned: 2 as we indicated before, the "Renovatio" of the Roman empire entailed a "renovatio legum Romanarum." Nevertheless, despite the accentuation of the Roman character of his empire, Conrad was not Roman emperor until he had received the imperial crown from John XIX's hands. 3
The appellation of Henry III as the apotheosis of the medieval ideal of a monarch, would not seem inadequate: in fact, he was the personification of the monarch who, appointed by God to rule his people, had, in his function as supreme protector, to take care of all their interests. And since his empire was Christian, Christian interests came before every other consideration. 4
Magisterium Christianum caperes imperium. Ad summam dignitatem pervenisti, vicarius es Christi." Cf. also Thietmar of Merseburg, quoted infra 264. Because he considered himself christus Domini, Frederick I, some 130 years later applied to himself the vicariate of Christ: "Imperatoria majestas, quae regis regum et domini dominantium vicem gerit in terris, in gubernatione universitatis. . .", MGH. Const. i. no. 240, p. 335.
1. On this and the literary source see Schramm, Kaiser, i. 212, 227, 284 f. It was in Conrad's time that the Graphia came to be written in its original form which was made up of all sorts of sources, mainly Byzantine, because its author held that in Constantinople the unadulterated "Romanism" could be found, see Schramm, i. 203 - 4, 216 ; ed. of the text, ibid., ii. 73 ff. Of particular interest is the Libellus de ceremoniis aule imperatoris, ed. ibid., ii. 90 ff., modelled on the Liber de cerimoniis of Constantine Porphyrogenitos and adapting the latter's ideological symbolism for Roman-Western conditions. Significantly enough the emperor is correctly styled: Monokrator (cap. 4).
2. MGH. Const. i. no. 37, p. 82.
3. Raoul Glaber living in this time, reflects the temper of the period when he says that nobody can be called emperor who is not crowned by the Pope. See his Historia, MGH. SS. vii. 59, lines 11 ff.: "Illud nihilominus nimium concedens ac perhonestum videtur atque ad pacis tutelam optimum decretum, scil. ut ne quisquam audacter Romani imperii sceptrum praeporerus gestare princeps appetat, seu imperator dici aut esse valeat, nisi quem papa sedis Romanae morum probitate aptum delegerit reipublicae eique commiserit insigne imperiale." About a general review of this writer cf. P. Rousset, "Raoul Glaber interprète de la pensée commune au xi siècle" in Revue d'histoire de l'église de France, xxxvi ( 1951), pp. 5-24; and about the plan of dividing the world and the churches into East and West reported by him, see A. Michel, "Die Weltreichs- und Kirchenteilung des R. Glaber" in Hist. Jb., lxx ( 1951), pp. 62-4.
4. About the deep religiosity of Henry III see G. Ladner, Theologie and Politik vor dem Investiturstreit, Vienna, 1936, pp. 70-1.
It is only from this point of view that one can understand his episcopal and papal appointments. In each case he, as the monarch of the Christian empire, had to see that the candidate was suitable for his office, and also that he was useful to the monarch. Since the episcopacy was a governmental organ as well as the body administering to the spiritual, Henry's predilection and zeal for reform is understandable. Again, the frequent councils in his reign furnish abundant evidence of his deep religious concerns. Naturally the "reform" of the episcopacy was without practical avail, so long as the "caput sacerdotum" was not reformed -- and the Papacy at the time of Henry's accession presented a spectacle peremptorily demanding reform. As supreme protector of Christendom -- as far as this was realized in his empire -- he could not but be resolved to take matters into his own hands. The Papacy being the chief protectorate of the empire -- in fact an episcopal see on a magnified scale -- had to be purged of the unsuitable and useless individuals. Constitutionally inclined as he was, Henry III would not act and depose the two Popes without a synod, at which he presided himself. 1 Sutri signifies the consummation of the monarch's supreme protective functions: Christendom had to be protected against these unworthy individuals.
It is nevertheless worthy of remark that Henry III, insisting on strict constitutional principles, had conferred upon himself the office of a patrician by the Romans. This office was to give him the handle by which he proceeded to the direct appointment of the Popes. By this step he pursued the aim, on the one hand, of depriving the Roman nobility of their hold over the Papacy 2 and, on the other hand, of being in a position to appoint the Popes directly -- in a no wise different manner from that of the appointment of a bishop in the empire. We may observe in parenthesis that although this constitutional device enabled Henry to treat the Papacy as just another bishopric, the office of the patriciate additional to the imperial dignity was something of an historic anomaly. For no emperor had ever been a patrician --the latter was appointed by the former. 3 In Frankish times we recall, the emperor absorbed the office of the patrician.
1. For the whole question see the detailed study of G. B. Borino, "L'elezione e deposizione di Gregorio VI" in Archivio della R. societa Romana, xxxix ( 1916), pp. 141-252; 295-410, especially pp. 208 ff.; R. L. Poole, "Benedict IX and Gregory VI" in Proc. Brit. Acad., viii ( 1917), pp. 199 ff., at pp. 212 ff., and also G. Tellenbach, Libertas, pp. 212-17.
2 The Crescentii had the title conferred on themselves by the Roman nobility, but the title seems to have disappeared since 1012, see G. B. Borino, art. cit., pp. 361 ff., and Schramm, op. cit., i. 189, 230; also Tellenbach, op. cit., p. 216 note.
3 This was emphasized by the author of the Libellus, cap. 20. ed. cit., ii. 103:
Henry III utilized his authority of appointing Popes to the full; and those whom he appointed were throughout men of the highest calibre -- Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, and Victor II -- whose suitability for the office could never be called into question. If ever a monarch acted in consonance with the functions and principles that animated his policy, it was Henry III. As a Christian monarch in the most literal meaning of the term, Henry, by exercising his protective functions, demonstrated how a true monarchic form of government could be practised. He gave his Christian empire an episcopacy and a Papacy, in short ministers who were commensurate to their calling. His papal appointments were the effluence of his duty as the supreme monarch ruling a Christian empire. In an inverted sense he may be spoken of as the "brachium sanctae Romanae ecclesiae," whose help proved of inestimable and historic value for the implementation of the hierocratic system.
To say that Henry's fatal mistake lay in the -- to him and to others -- attractive and persuasive equation of Christian empire with his Roman empire, is to state a truism. The idea of universality inherent in Roman emperorship was understood in a factual manner, instead of in a functional sense. By its very nature Roman emperorship gave the Papacy a strong preponderance; and, considering the previous development of hierocratic ideology, it was incongruous to admit the magisterial primacy of the Roman Church and at the same time deny its jurisdictional primacy, epitomized as this was in the Petrine commission. But this is precisely what Henry III -- and his predecessors -failed to grasp. All were insistent on the essential Christian-theocentric nature of their own body politic -- which was, from any objective point of view, merely a part, albeit an important one, of a greater and wider society -- and this insistence on the character of their society so largely explains their policy and governmental systems. But was the monarchic rule of a king -- even if he was also called "imperator Romanorum" -compatible with the essence of the society over which he ruled and which in any case was only a part of a larger body? If this society was Christian, by what authority do kings and emperors preside as monarchs over it? Are they functionally qualified to govern monarchically a society that is [Catholic] Christian, which in other words receives its life blood from the Roman Church? Could the king or emperor be a
the patrician appointed by the emperor "sit enim valde notus imperatori, sit fidelis et prudens, non elatus. . ." About Otto III's appointment of patricians and its significance see Erdmann, Forschungen, pp. 105-6.
monarch in a completely Christo-centric world that acknowledged the primatial function of the Roman Church, the epitome of the whole [Catholic] Christian world? Was not the function of the king or emperor in this kind of society on quite a different level?
To these questions the lay point of view could not find a satisfactory answer. What the hierocratic point of view had hitherto lacked was the kind of men whom Henry III was to provide by violating one of the most cherished hierocratic tenets, that is, by direct imperial appointment. Hierocratic tenets were ready to be implemented -- Henry III, the supreme protector, furnished the men who were to make his son a protector in a different sense, because he was "filius, non praesul, ecclesiae" which latter term denoted the corporate union of all Christians, the societas christiana.
A brief consideration of the new coronation Ordo C may provide a suitable transition to the succeeding age. The -- to all seeming -imposing edifice of royal monarchy had already been gravely undermined: the very act that made the king an "imperator Romanorum," symbolized the strength of the Papal theme, and at the same time also exposed the inconsistency of the laical-monarchic standpoint.
Despite some controversy about the date of this Ordo C, 1 there is overwhelming evidence that it was composed in the early eleventh century, and that this Ordo C formed in fact the coronation rite for the imperial coronations in this century, beginning with the coronation of Henry II in 1014. 2 Still based on the Liber Diurnus 3 as well as on
1. Formerly known as Ordo Cencius II, see supra p. 225.
2. We accept Eichmann reasons for the dating of Ordo C, see his "Der Krönungsordo Cencius II" in Misc. F. Ehrle, 1926, ii. 322 ff.; "Zur Datierung des sog. Cencius II" in Hist. Jb., lii, 1932, pp. 265-312; "Das Verhältnis von Cencius I und II" in Festschrift f. Grabmann, 1935, i. 204 ff., at pp. 238-45; Kaiserkrönung, i. 151 ff., 234 ff., ii. 303; and in Hist. Jb., lxix ( 1949), pp. 613-5 (a reply to his critics). Against Eichmann's dating and for a later date (end of twelfth century) and for the view that Ordo C was a mere programme that was not put into practice, see Schramm, "Die Ordines etc." in Arch. f. Urkundenforschung, xi ( 1930), pp. 285 ff.; idem, "Der Salische Kaiserordo & Benzo von Alba" in Deutsches Archiv, i ( 1937), pp. 390 ff.; M. Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au MA., ii. 291 ff., 292 n. 1 ("nature theorétique"); M. David, Le Serment du sacre, 1950, p. 229, n. 24; H. W. Klewitz, "Das Papsttum & Papsttum & Kaiserkränung" in Deutsches Archiv, iv ( 1941), pp. 421 ff. (for late eleventh century); idem, "Die Krönung des Papstes" in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xxxi ( 1941), pp. 96 ff.Cf. now also M. Uhlirz in Festschrift f. E. E. Stengel, 1952, p. 270, tentatively suggesting that Ordo C (or an early redaction) was used for Otto III's coronation.
3. Liber Diurnus, from. 57, pp. 46-7.
OR. IX, our Ordo C takes the "demotion" of the emperor several stages further than did its immediate predecessor. 1 Structurally, symbolically and ideologically Ordo C appears as an elaboration of Ordo B.
A comparison of the rubrics in Ordo B and Ordo C reveals a not inconsiderable change. The heading of Ordo B -- "Incipit ordo Romanus ad benedicendum imperatorem quando coronam accipit" -- is continued in its successor: "a domno papa in basilica beati Petri apostoli ad altare sancti Mauritii." 2 The important point of this Ordo C is that the function of the Pope as the sole crowning agency is considerably stressed. Whilst the actual coronation and conferment of the imperial insignia was no longer performed by the Pope on the main altar of St Peter's, but on a side altar, that of St Maurice, the liturgical-religious act of the unction was still performed at the main altar in the same manner and by the same high ecclesiastics and with the same kind of oil as prescribed in Ordo B. What appertained to the actual coronation including the specific coronation prayers, was performed by the Pope personally -- at a side altar. The insignia were the ring, the sword, the crown and the sceptre. 3 Perhaps nothing illustrates the ideas underlying
1. It should be remembered that just as Ordo IX (the ordo for papal consecrations) knew nothing of the Credo as part of the (Roman) mass, so there is no Credo in Ordo C. The Credo was introduced into the Roman mass in the eleventh century, after Henry II had expressed his astonishment at its absence, cf. Th. Klauser , "Die liturgischen Austauschbeziehungen" in Hist. Jb., liii ( 1933), p. 188; Eisenhofer, Liturgik, ed. cit., p. 200 f.; Eichmann, op. cit., i. 133, 214, n. 88. There is no mention of the curia in Ordo C nor of the college of cardinals, which would indeed exclude the late date suggested.
2. Text ed. by Eichmann, op. cit., i. 169 ff., and Schramm, Arch. f. Urk. forsch., cit., p. 375 (Cencius II) and p. 371 (Cencius I). We print the full text in the appendix.
3. The orb is not yet part of the imperial insignia, but according to Glaber's report ( Historia, MGH. SS. vii. 59) Benedict VIII handed to Henry II a globe surmounted by a cross. This sign was produced on Papal orders: "Praecepit (scil. papa) fabricari quasi aureum pomum atque circumdari per quadrum pretiossissimis quibusque gemmis ac desuper auream crucem inseri. Erat autem instar speciei huius mundanae molis, quae videlicet in quadam rotunditate consistere perhibetur . . ." The symbolism was unmistakable, even though the orb was handed to the emperor outside the actual coronation ceremony. The orb became part of the insignia at Henry VI's coronation by Celestine III. Cf. now J. Deér, Der Kaiserornat Friedrichs II, Bern, 1952, Table XXI (3) and XXV (10) depicting Henry VI holding the orb in the left hand; earlier emperors held the orb, but not as part of the insignia: it signified subjection of all nations "in cuncto orbe" to the emperor, cf. Lib. de ceremoniis, ed. cit., c. 13, p. 99 (about 1030). The lorum too seemed to have been worn first by Henry VI, see Schramm, Hist. of the English coronation, pp. 135-6 and Eichmann, op. cit., ii. 152: only in the fourteenth century the stole became "via facti" an imperial sign, Eichmann, ibid., p. 151. For the lorum (the stole royal) in Constantine's Donation, see supra p. 79, and
Ordo C better than the consistent appellation of the future emperor as "electus." The opening sentence sets the tone: "At the break of Sunday dawn the 'electus' with his wife descends . . ." and this designation is kept up throughout the Ordo until the future emperor has received the last imperial sign, the sceptre. 1 Although of biblical origin, 2 this appellation has nevertheless ideological significance when it is brought into connexion with the scrutinium of the emperor by the Pope: this too was an innovation of Ordo C. 3
The procession of the imperial train from Monte Mario across the Via Triumphalis to St Peter's is of little symbolic significance, except that upon reaching the city boundary at the foot of Monte Mario the
Lib. de cerem., cap. 6, p. 97. At the opening of Edward I's grave in the eighteenth century, it was found that he too had worn the stole in priestly fashion, see Schramm, Arch. f. Urkundenforsch., xv ( 1938), p. 355.
1. There is some parallel as regards the coronation of Richard I who was termed "Duke" in all stages of his coronation prior to unction, see L. W. Legg, English coronation records, p. 46. About the symbolic meaning of the sceptre -- originally the most outstanding sign of rulership and gradually degraded to a mere ornamental piece ( Gregory IX) -- and the rod, see Eichmann, op. cit., ii. 83-92; cf. also the complaint of Charlemagne about the bishops carrying the signs of rulership, ibid., ii. 85. The ring was first worn by the Frankish bishops in the ninth century as "signum pontificalis honoris" and as "signaculum fidei" and the Frankish royal coronation ordines have a ring as a royal insigne. Henry IV appeared with the "anulus pontificalis" in Rome, see Eichmann, ii. 95 : invested with the "virga" and the "anulus," the signs of "sacri regiminis," the emperor was "in der Tat bischofsgleich." It disappeared in Innocent III's Ordo D. Cf. also his Reg. i. 519: the ring as a "sacramentalis ornatus."
2. I Kgs. ix. 2: "Saul electus et bonus"; Ps. cv (cvi). 23: "Moyses electus eius"; Is. xlii. 1: "Ecce servus meus . . . electus meus"; cf. also I Pet. ii. 4. It is true that Gregory VIII uses the term "electus" in MGH. Const. i. no. 411, pp. 586-7 but we think it would be too hasty to conclude therefrom that Ordo C was composed in the late twelfth century. Quite in conformity with hierocratic-papal ideology Gregory VII lays stress on the election of the candidate, see his Reg. iv. 3, p. 299, iv. 7, p. 305, and vii. 14a, p. 484, also iv. 25, p. 340. With special reference to Rudolf of Swabia -- Reg. vii. 14a -- see H. Mitteis, Die deutsche Königswahl, pp. 22, 61.
3. The omission of a formal enthronement of the emperor in this Ordo and its successor (Ordo D of 1209, the last medieval coronation Ordo) is very significant; and this all the more so as the ORi (beginning with OR. IX) lay great stress on the formal enthronement of the Pope. Enthronement symbolizes the taking of physical possession of a dominion. This omission indicates the essential function which the emperor, according to papal ideology, is to perform: he was created an advocatus, a defensor, a patronus, and for this there was no need for an enthronement. As far as it is known, no emperor was ever enthroned in his capacity as an emperor. The late Eichmann, op. cit., i. 103, thought that the absence of an enthronement could be explained by a recourse to the Donation of Constantine (cap. 18), but it may be suggested that the papal view on the emperor's function affords an equally plausible explanation.
future emperor is solemnly and in great state received by the Roman authorities, the judges, military leaders, guilds, and so forth; and upon reaching the Leonine city, near the Church of Maria Transpadina, the future emperor is received by the local Roman clergy -- the "clerici minores," the sub-deacons in their tunics, the deacons in their dalmatics, and the presbyters in their own liturgical vestments, the monks, and so forth, who all extend their welcome to the future emperor with incense, crosses, flags, and other appropriate symbols. 1 Here at the Church of Maria Transpadina the two chief authorities of Rome are also present, the city prefect of Rome and the Count Palatine of the Lateran. The ceremonial bears a strong resemblance to Byzantine customs. The solemn -- and by now -- lengthy procession moves along the "porticus" of the Via Cornelia 2 and comes to a halt in front of St Peter's. Here on the top of the flight of steps leading into St Peter's, the Pope seated -- so as to indicate his authority and to bring into clear symbolic relief the position of the emperor as the one who submits a request 3 -- waits for the emperor to approach him: bishops and the other ecclesiastical dignitaries are grouped around him. The emperor (and the empress) ascend the flight of steps followed in strict hierarchical order by the ecclesiastical and lay dignitaries, by the bishops, abbots, knights, barons, ladies-in-waiting, and so forth. And here in the view of "all the world" -- "urbis et orbis" -- some important symbolic acts take place.
1. For all details see Eichmann, op. cit., i. 184 ff.
2. It is here on the Via Cornelia before the train reaches St Peter's that the emperor receives gifts and homage from the strangers, from Greeks and Jews in their native tongues, the reception symbolizing the universality of imperial rule; cf. also the (Graphia) Libellus de ceremoniis aule imperatoris, cap. 19 (ed. Schramm, Kaiser, ii. 102). This also seems to be the place about which Thietmar of Merseburg, an eye witness of Henry II's coronation, says that twelve senators -- six shaved and six unshaved -- surround the emperor with their staffs; see his Chronicon, viii (vii). 1, p. 193 (ed. R. Holtzmann): "Heinricus Dei gratia rex inclitus a senatoribus duodecim vallatus, quorum VI rasi barba, alii prolixa mistice incedebant cum baculis, cum dilecta suimet conjuge Cunigunda ad ecclesiam s. Petri papa expectante venit." Eichmann, op. cit., i. 187, considers it possible that the twelve senators represented the old lictors; Schramm, in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 428, considers that the twelve senators represented the twelve apostles who accompanied Christ: this, according to Schramm, is the mystagogy in the imperial ceremonial.
3. This is of ancient Roman origin, cf. Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i. 397-8. The magistrate sat, whilst the citizen submitting a request, had to stand. This prerogative was then adopted by the emperors, who then alone had the right to sit, whilst everybody else had to stand, see A. Alföldi, "Die Ausgestaltung des monarchischen Zeremoniells am römischen Kaiserhof" in Mitt. d. deutschen archaeologischen Instituts, Rom. Abt., xlix, 1934, pp. 42-4.
The ceremony begins with the kissing of the Pope's feet, the emperor's oath, his solemn assurances that he had come in peaceful intentions, and his adoption as a "filius" of the Roman Church. All these are new items in Ordo C. Upon reaching the Pope the future emperor -- and empress -- kiss the Pope's feet as a token of their humility, submission and veneration. 1 Immediately after this ceremony the emperor takes the oath to the Pope and his successors who enter into their office canonically: he swears fidelity to, and protection and defence of, the Roman Church and the Pope personally. 2 It is at this point that lay and papal points of view were so far apart: what the one meant by protection did not exactly harmonize with the meaning attached to it by the other. The kiss of peace given by the Pope to the emperor in the form of a cross on forehead, chin and cheeks, seals the oath and the emperor's threefold assurance of his peaceful intentions. 3 Thereupon, as a sign that some important step is to be taken, the Pope rises from his seat and thrice asks the future emperor if he wishes to be "a son of the Church." "Et ego te recipio ut filium ecclesiae" is the Pope's answer: the emperor thus becomes the "filius-defensor," he is the "unicus" or "specialis filius" of the Roman Church and thereby of the universal Church: as such he has the special duty of protection and defence. This is followed by the symbolic act of the Pope's adopting the emperor as the special protector. In the view of the whole large congregation the Pope enfolds the "filius" under his mantle ("mantum") whilst the latter kisses the Pope's breast. 4 Bearing in mind what we said when analysing John VIII's ideology, namely that the Pope elects, designates and postulates the (future) emperor, we shall have no difficulty in appreciating not only the continuity of the Papal-
1. This is the Western transformation of the Eastern proskynesis, the actual prostration on the ground before the emperor as the earthly representative of divinity. Cf. also OR. VIII, cap. 7 (PL. lxxviii. 1002).
2. The changes of Ordo C are typographically indicated by Schramm, Archiv cit., pp. 371, 375. The emperor's is not a feudal oath, but an oath that he will keep faith, cf. also infra 339. The reference to the "Popes canonically entering" will not escape attention: the validity of the oath depended upon the fulfilment of this criterion. It was no doubt a veiled attack on the practice of papal installation by the emperor. Cf. also Leo IX's reference to the term: PL. cxliii. 631, 684, 690, and Gregory VII in his Dict. Papae, cap. 23.
3. Here Ordo C has the admonition that the emperor must come cleanshaven -"rasus enim debet esse" -- because the Saxons had adopted the un-Roman beard: as a "novus Constantinus" the emperor had at least to look like a Roman.
4. For the origin of this see H. Planitz, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, Graz, 1950, p. 21: "Einhüllung in den Mantel," and E. Eichmann, "Die Adoption des deutschen Königs" in "Sav. Z., Kan. Abt.", vi. 1916, pp. 237 ff.
hierocratic theme, but also the deep symbolism which manifested itself in the enfolding ceremony: the "filius" is now solemnly adopted by the Pope: no other European king was ever adopted by the Pope. Hierocratic ideas could not be expressed more suitably than in this symbolic act designating the fatherhood of the Pope, 1 and the sonship of the emperor.
The ceremony of adoption is immediately followed by the Pope's taking the right hand of the "electus." This act symbolizes again the fatherhood of the Pope and also his function as a helper to the (future) emperor. 2 It is as the father of the emperor that the Pope presents himself to the view of the crowd: and the crowd now acclaims the emperor -- the last remnant of the popular acclamation: indeed this is the natural consummation of the scene enacted on Christmas Day 800. 3
The acclamation by the Romans finished, the Pope's archdeacon takes the emperor's right hand and leads him into the interior of St Peter's, where the bishop of Albano says the first Oratio "Deus in cuius manu" over the emperor. The Pope himself accompanied by the chanting of "Petre amas me?" 4 leaves the emperor behind with the bishop of Albano, and enters the basilica proper. This chant also has symbolic significance in so far as the Pope is praised as the living Peter to whom the words of the gospel apply. 5 The end of the chant signals the beginning of a new important act, the scrutinium. The Pope taking his seat on a "Rota" in the central aisle is faced by the "elected." The scrutinium is the formal examination of the future emperor. His assistants are the archpresbyter and the archdeacon, sitting left and right of him. On the Pope's side sit the other Lateran bishops. The rest stand
1. Cf. I Paral. xxviii. 6-7: "Dixitque mihi: Salomon, filius tuus, aedificabit domum meam et atria mea; ipsum enim elegi mihi in filium et ego ero ei in patrem et firmabo regnum eius."
2. Cf. Ps. lxxii (lxxiii), 23-4: "Jumentum factus sum apud te; et ego semper tecum. Tenuisti dexteram meam et in voluntate tua deduxisti me et cum gloria suscepisti me."Cf. also Ps. cxvii (cxviii), 16, Is. xli. 10, and esp. 13: "Quia ego Dominus Deus tuus, apprehendens manum tuam dicensque tibi, Ne timeas, ego adjuvo te." For the Babylonian and Byzantine usage of the same ceremony see Eichmann, op. cit., i. 195, and note 48.
3. This acclamation by the Romans is attested at all the Salian coronations in the eleventh century. F. Schneider, Rom & Romgedanke, p. 207, seems to think that the Romans exercised a constitutive right of election. Against this view rightly E. Kantorowicz, Laudes regiae, pp. 79-80: the acclamation was a mere "collaudatio" -- an acclamation "in stunted form" -- without any constitutive meaning.
4. John xxi. 15-17.
5. As Eichmann, loc. cit., observes, the chant must be taken as a whole, and the "Pasce oves meas" assumes in this context very great significance.
in a half circle around. The Pope himself opens the examination which is modelled on that of a bishop: it is of course true that the examination is a pure formality, but this should not deceive us into thinking that it was devoid of deeper significance. 1 This, in fact, is the adoption of another Byzantine usage, namely, the confession of faith which the Byzantine emperor had to make before his coronation. 2 In the scrutinium of Ordo C lies the root of the later formal approbation by the Pope of the emperor. 3
The Pope then betakes himself into the sacristy, where he puts on his vestments, that is, amice, alb and cingulum, tunic and dalmatic, but not the pallium and the mitre. Thus dressed he awaits the "electus" who after having been clothed by the two high ecclesiastics in the chapel of St George, is now taken before the Pope in the sacristy, always assisted by his two papal clerics. It is then that the Pope makes him a cleric by conceding to him the wearing of specific clerical, though not sacerdotal, vestments. 4 This is the so-called "immantatio" amplified in this case by the characteristic imperial garments, such as the tunic, dalmatic, pluviale and mitre. 5 What are not conceded to the emperor are the proper sacerdotal regalia, stole, maniple, planeta, nor of course the pallium. 6 There is no need to underline the significance of all this, and its intimate connexion with the Donation of Constantine. The
1. For the actual questions see Text of Ordo C.
2. See Eichmann, i. 201.
3. The fact is undeniable that later Papal approbation of the candidate could without any efforts be based upon the scrutinium; cf. also Schramm, art. cit., pp. 326 f., and Eichmann, i. 271 ; Gregory VII, infra 288, and Innocent III in RNI. 62.
4. Eichmann's transcription has "faciat clericum," whilst Schramm has "fatiit" (p. 379 ). In his "Krönungs und Bischofsweihe" in SB. Munich, 1928, p. 53, Eichmann reads "facit."
5. About the grant of the mitre to other potentates see also infra 313. If the description of the imperial mitre in the (Graphia) Libellus is applicable to this time, the mitre of the emperor was worn from front to back (and not as the later episcopal mitre from left to right): the mitre looked the same from the front as from the back and was called by the author of the Libellus a crown. It was meant to symbolize the emperor's Janus-like face and his knowledge of what is going on behind and in front of him; see Libellus de ceremoniis aule imperatoris, cap. 4 (ed. Schramm, Kaiser, ii. 94): "Sexta corona est mitra, qua Ianus et reges Troianorum usi sunt, per quam innuitur, quod monocrator que ante et que retro sunt, sollicita mente advertere debet."
6. We may perhaps be allowed to refer to a later medieval jurist, Baldus, who says that the consecration of the emperor constitutes an "ordo ecclesiasticus, sed non sacer": Super Decretalibus, I. vi. 34, no. 3. According to Schramm, König von Frankreich, p. 161, the garments of the French king were not clerical: "Die Dynastie bleibt bei der laikalen Kaisertracht."
stage is now set for the next great event -- the solemn procession to the main altar of St Peter's. The Pope now wears his mass vestments, his pallium and mitre. The train is headed by the ecclesiastics in strict hierarchical order followed by the Pope, then the "electus" still assisted by the two high ecclesiastics, and lastly the empress with her ladies-in-waiting. The act of ordinat ion -- consisting of unction and the conferment of the imperial insignia, the latter act being performed at the side altar of St Maurice -- is built into the coronation mass between the Kyrie and the Gloria. 1
A few observations appear warranted about the prayers which the Pope says when conferring the sword. It is he himself who fastens the sword on the emperor -- "cingit eum cum gladio" -- and the accompanying prayer makes it clear that the sword is conferred on him "cum Dei benedictione." 2 Acceptance as a "filius-defensor" of the Roman Church, his adoption through the enfolding ceremony, and lastly the conferment of the sword as the concrete means of protection --these are the acts which translate an abstract idea into symbolic language: it is a rich symbolism whose underlying ideas stand in glaring contrast to the idea which the emperors themselves had of their function as monarchs and protectors of the Roman Church. If we recall that Charlemagne had prided himself on being a "filius et defensor sanctae Dei ecclesiae" 3 and when we find this phrase in Ordo C, we shall have no difficulty in appraising the fundamentally divergent standpoints that inspired the two literally agreeing statements.
Ordo C forms the bridge which spans the age between Henry II and
1. For the reason of this see Ph. Oppenheim, in Ephemerides Liturgicae, lviii ( 1944), p. 47, and for all other details Eichmann, i. 205 - 17 ; about the feast which the Pope gives in honour of the emperor, ibid., 217 - 22. It is during the coronation mass that the laudes are chanted by two groups -- the one headed by the archdeacon and consisting of the six other palatine deacons and subdeacons; the other consisting of the "scola cum notariis," the latter representing the officials who had to issue papal documents and who actually acclaimed the emperor in this official capacity at the end of the antiphon, see E. Kantorowicz, Laudes regiae, p. 84. Innocent III's Ordo D was to change the arrangement: higher orders could be received only during mass, but since the emperor did not receive any higher orders, the whole anointing ceremony was performed before mass, no longer at the main altar, but also at the side altar of St Maurice; the coronation was still performed between epistle and gospel, see Ordo D, ed. Eichmann, op. cit., i. 259 f., and 279 f. The ring -- the episcopal sign -- also did not appear in Ordo D as an imperial sign, but the orb did which was handed over without any prayers.
2. Cf. also Mach. xv. 16: the sword, like the pallium, was taken from St Peter's altar.
3. MGH. Concilia, ii. 158, No. 19F.Cf. also MGH. Cap. i. 44, p. 19: "devotus sanctae ecclesiae defensor atque adjutor in omnibus."
Otto IV. Ideologically there is therefore an uninterrupted development. The original idea, first aired by Stephen II, of the role of the Frankish king, through the intermediate stages of a patrician of the Romans and of the emperor of the Romans, remained basic to the conceptual framework of Papal-hierocratic ideas. It subsequently formed the foundation of the coronation ordines upon which was erected a detailed and elaborate liturgical and symbolic edifice.
T HE designation of the Papacy as Reform Papacy from Leo IX onwards expresses the fallacious view that with the accession of this Pope the era of "reform" begins. If indeed "reform" was what distinguished the Hildebrandine Papacy, one may be forgiven for asking why this epitheton ornans is not bestowed upon the emperors immediately preceding this period. For, as we hoped to show, the Saxon and quite especially the early Salian emperors were indeed imbued with the spirit of reform and were successful to a not negligible extent. In a way one might say that whatever "reform" the post-Leonine Popes carried out or tried to carry out, was largely conditioned by the previous imperial reform measures. This point of view which sees in the Papacy a mere "Reform" Papacy, would restrict its objectives to the removal of certain evils and abuses: did the Papacy in the second half of the eleventh century really aim at nothing higher than this barren and negative end?
What the Papacy attempted was the implementation of the hierocratic tenets, that is, the translation of abstract principles into concrete governmental actions. It is no doubt true and understandable that the first concrete application of these principles is apt to give a contemporary a somewhat severe jolt, 1 but this sensation is a reaction, however natural, to the application of the idea, not to the idea itself. The unparalleled advantage which the Papacy had over any other institution was its own storehouse of ideological memory, the Papal archives. On the other hand, it would have been impossible for any power, including the Papacy, to achieve so much within so short a time, had there not been a potent permeation of the contemporary mind with the very same ideas which were now applied in practice. Moreover, there were unobtrusive channels which preserved the hierocratic theme, such as the symbolism expressed in Ordo C, which was a faithful mirror of the
1. Cf. e.g., Bonizo of Sutri, Liber ad Amicum, viii (MGH. Libelli de lite (henceforward quoted: LdL.), ii. 609): "Postquarn de banno regis ad aures personuit, universus noster Romanus orbis contremuit."
advance which hierocratic ideas had made. To this must be added a number of institutionalized manifestations: these are effective carriers of ideas and are, so to speak, its conservators. It was in these incubators of its own theme that the Papacy had always found great support. 1
(a) It would be wholly erroneous to assume that the Roman Papacy was the only guardian of hierocratic principles. At the time which witnessed the exercise of sacerdotal functions by the prototype of a Rex-Sacerdos, Henry III, there came from across the Alps the (fragmentary) tract De Ordinando Pontifice. Written in the year following Sutri 2 the tract demonstrates the ideological preparedness in regions far away from Rome. With unusual alacrity and alertness the author 3 pursues the hierocratic theme. To him Henry's action at Sutri was nothing more nor less than illegitimate: it was pure usurpation on his part, and compulsion on the part of the Popes concerned. Henry is a "coactor" who perpetrated an offence. 4
The title of this tract might well be: "By what authority did Henry III act?" Was Henry functionally qualified to sit in judgment over the Popes at Sutri? As a Christian heno doubt belongs to the Church, but is this sufficient qualification for the exercise of judicial functions over
1. The usual denunciations of the early eleventh-century Papacy should no longer be repeated. Cf. e.g., W. Kölmel, Rom und der Kirchenstaat im 10. und 11. Jarhrhundert bis in die Anfönge der Reform, Leipzig, 1935, who shows how much the Tusculan Popes had contributed to purely organizational matters. See also K. Jordan, in Studi Gregoriani, i. 119f. This recent and only partial re-orientation towards the eleventh-century Papacy makes a thorough study of these Popes very necessary; cf. now also R. Elze, in Studi Gregoriani, iv. 33ff. With special reference to papal insignia the late Eichmann, Weihe & Krönung des Papstes im Mittelalter, 1951, pp. 30-1, points out that the "Reform" Papacy did not emerge as suddenly as is usually maintained. It is also in the early eleventh century that papal documents came to be written on parchment (instead of on papyrus), for which see now L. Santifaller, Beschreibstoffe im Mittelalter (MIOG., suppl. vol. xvi/1, 1953), pp. 87-9: the oldest parchment document of 967 by John XIII (cf. also infra p. 328) but this was an isolated case, and from 1007 onwards parchment begins to oust papyrus in the papal chancery, see Santifaller list, p. 88, and pp. 89-90.
2. Between 1047 and 1048, see G. B. Borino, "Invitus ultra montes cure domno papa Gregorio abii " in Studi Gregoriani, i. 30, note 63.
3. About the authorship see F. Pelster, "Der Traktat `De ordinando pontifice' und sein Verfasser Humbert von Moyenmoutier" in Hist. Jb., lxi ( 1941), pp. 88 ff.: Humbert's authorship is denied by A. Michel, "Die folgenschweren Ideen des Kardinal s Humbert" in Studi Gregoriani, i. 87, but accepted by J. de Ghellinck, Le Mouvement théologique du XIIe siècle, 2nd ed., Paris, 1949, p. 438.
4. De Ordinando Pontifice, in MGH. LdL. i. 13.
priests and Popes? For Henry's decision was a judgment which concerned in particular the alleged sinful (because simoniacal) conduct of Gregory VI. But where is the scriptural or other nimpeachable evidence of the emperor's qualification to judge priests and Popes? For he who sits in udgment over a Pope, must take the place of Christ:
Ubi enim inveniuntur imperatores locum Christi obtinere?
Our author puts the finger on the vital spot: this was precisely the function which Henry as supreme monarch had assumed: 1 it was precisely in the function as a vicar of Christ that he and his predecessors had acted basing themselves on the view that they had received their power and authority directly from God. 2 And it was precisely on this question that the whole regal-sacerdotal scheme floundered, because the lay point of view had no answer to this question of the legitimate origin of the emperor's power to judge priests and Popes. It is this question which was of crucial importance at a time which was throughly soaked with Christo-centric principles. Emperors might have all history and tradition in their favour, but this says nothing about the legitimacy of the functions exercised, however much based upon history and tradition. Could emperors apply to themselves the Petrine words? This was the basic query, and the lay standpoint had no answer to it.
It is from this premiss, and this premiss alone, that the fundamental principle of functional qualification can be understood. The power to bind and to loose, the power to forgive sins, is a specific sacerdotal qualification; hence our author very pertinently asks:
Cui erat confessionem reddere, cuius erat exigere? Quo loco, quo ordine?
And the answer which he gives leaves nothing to be desired as regards lucidity and pungency:
In ecclesia populus sacerdoti, sacerdos episcopo potest confiteri, eposcopus summo et universali pontifici, ille autem soli Deo, qui eum juditio reservavit. Quod autem jure non debet converti.
1. About him see supra 251 and cf. also his characterization as "vicarius Dei" by G. Ladner, Theologie und Politik vor dem Investiurstreit, Vienna, 1936, pp. 60f. and 154f. Cf. also following note.
2. Cf. the pictorial presentation of the idea, supra p. 247 and see also as a characteristic contemporary example Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, i. 26, p. 16, ed. cit.: "Quin potius reges nostri et imperatores summi Rectoris vice in hac peregrinatione praepositi ... hii quos Christus sui memores huius terrae principes constituit"; bishops therefore must be subjected to the emperors, because the latter act "vice Christi." Cf. also Wipo report supra p. 249.
What the author does here is to combine the Gelasian principle 1 with the principle laid down in the Constitutum Silvestri, 2 one of the Symmachan forgeries, namely, that the supreme pontiff may not be judged by anyone. 3 This sacerdotal qualification is the presupposition for exercising jurisdictional functions over the members of the sacerdotal hierarchy, and we are not therefore surprised to find here the old statement allegedly made by Constantine in the Council of Nicaea, in which he called the bishops "gods" who are not subejctto any earthly tribunal. 4 Not only is Constantine held up as the example to be followed by all rulers, because he had shown himself obedient to Pope silvestr, but the authority of Charlemagne is also invoked for the following statement which he was supposed to have made: "Praesul summus a quoquam non judicabitur." 5 In a word, laymen are not qualified to exercise any functions for which they have not been given authority. 6
(b) Whilst the principle of functional qualification is applied to a specific question by the anonymous author, in the case of Cardinal Humbert it is the basis of what may well be called a system. In his literary products 7 he gives the hierocratic theme its permanent com-
1. See Tract. IV, cap. 13, p. 569: "Sed dicatur forsitan: Non imperator absolvit, sed a pontificibus poposcit absolvi ... inferior quippe potiorem absolvere non potest: soloergo potior inferiorem convenienter absolvit."
2. Const. Silv., cap. iii, Mansi, ii. 623: "Neque praesul summus judicabitur a quoquam, quoniam scriptum est 'Non est discipulus super magistrum'" ( Matt. x. 24). Cf. also supra p. 117 n. 4.
3. The bishop of Liège, Wazo, who wrote his Sententia de Gregorio VI pontifice at the same time as the tract under discussion was written, also operated with the Const. Silv.: "Inter haec ad mentem redit, quod cum papa Clemens ex episcopo Bavembergensi in apsotolica sede sublimatus de hac vita discessit, imperator de subrogando in locum illius alio consilium eius quaerere animum induxit. Ille autem ut erat in omnibus et in talibus maxime scrutator studiosissimus, vigilanter cum aliis, quibus laboris huius partes expenderat, hinc gesta pontificum Romanorum, hinc orundem decreta, hinc autenticos canones, capitulare recensere sollicitus fuit. In quibus diligenter revolutis nichil aliud quam summum pontificem, cuiuscumque vitae fuerit, summo honore haberi, eum a nemine unquam judicari oportere, immo nullius inferioris gradus accusationem adversus superiorem recepi debere, invenire potuit," I. M. Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum Vitae, i. 79-80. It will be seen that, not unlike Humbert a few years later, Wazo combined the Const. Silv. with an Isidorian statement; cf. Studi Gregoriani, iv. 113ff.
4. "Vos a nemine judicari potestis, quia Dei solius juditio reservamini, dii etenim vocati estis, idcirco non potestis ab hominibus judicari,"ibid, p. 12.
5. Charlemagne of course never said this. Our author takes it from Benedictus Levita, i. 302, or the Capitula Angilramni, cap. 51, Hinschius, p. 766.
6. In support of this the author cites Pseudo-Isidorian statements of Popes Pius I, Telesphorus, Pontianus and Xistus; the relevant passages are in Hinschius, pp. 120, 147; see also pp. 108, 111. 7. We can but briefly survey them here: an exhaustive monographic treatment of the cardinal's ideas is long overdue.
plexion. His work is a summary of old tenets and maxims, but a summary which everywhere shows a master mind at work: in a way his work looks back, and yet in another it looks forward, precisely because of the masterly moulding of old material. And the actual personal influence exercised by Humbert on the Papacy in the fifties of the eleventh century, gives his work the stamp of added significance.
The pivotal point in the programme of Humbert is the closely reasoned, sharp hitting and high spirited attack on the prevailing RexSacerdos ideas and practices. The proprietary church system and the concomitant lay investiture are but manifestations of tone and the same principle, namely, disregard of the principle of order: in this disorder, as he witnessed it, the government of the Church lies in the hands of its unordained members with the result that the priesthood, the ordained members of the Church, are dominated by laymen. Lay ideology as such is made the chief target of Humbert's constructive criticism.
What he wishes to see established is the ordo rationis, so as to prevent confusio. 1 That in its argumentation Humbert's work shows itself a veritable storehouse of ancient material and that this argumentation necessitated an exhaustive utilization of the pentheon of all papal prerogatives, namely Pseudo-Isidore, cannot by any means diminish the value of the cardinal's ideas. To him the implementation of the primacy of the Roman Church was the cardinal point: the Roman Church is the hinge and head - "cardo et caput" -- of all the other churches. 2 The Roman Church is the fountain head of all Christian life and order and principles. It is the epitome of all Christendom embracing as it does "universam terram." 3 In practical terms these
1. Adversus simoniacos, in MGH., LdL. i. 205: "Ad totius ... religionis conculcationem praepostero ordine omia fiunt." See also Humbert Sententiae (the former Diversorum patrum sententiae or collectio minor) in Anselm Collectio canonum, ed. F. Thaner, iv. 8, p. 195. The "Sentences" of Humbert have rightly been called by A. Michel "Das erste Rechtsbuch der Reform"; its influence cannot be exaggerated. Cf. also the characterization by the late de Ghellinck, Mouvement théologique, p. 436: "C'est le premier véhicule des principes de la réforme qu'elle fait pénétrer dans tout l'occident." An edition is very much wanted.
2. Sententiae, cc. 2, 12 ( Thaner Anselm, i. 20, p. 7; i. 9, p. 10); cf. also Leo IX's letter in Corn. Will, Acta et Scripta, cap. xxxii, pp. 81-2; also A. Michel, Die Sentenzen des Kardinals Humbert, Leipzig, 1944, p. 18. A comparison between the headings of the Sententiae and the DP. of Gregory VII (infra 292) is very instructive, cf. the conspectus of W. Peitz, "Das Originalregister Gregors VII" in SB. Vienna, clxv ( 1911), pp. 282-3.
3. Cf. the similar expression of Nicholas I, supra 195, and see Humbert Fragmentum B, printed by P. E. Schramm, Kaiser, ii. 133. Cf. also ibid.: "Rommana ecclesia ... afficit totius Christianitatis membra." p. 131. See furthermore his Sententiae, cc. 2, 10, 12, 17 = Gelasius I, ep. 42, c. I, Thiel, p. 455, and cf. also
aximos of Humbert denote the jurisdictional and legislative primacy of the Roman Church. 1
Before the formal break of 1054 the Cardinal's standpoint is universalist in the best meaning of the term. The primacy of the Roman Church, according to him, must be the principle working wherever the Christian faith is the norm of conduct, and this comprises also the Eastern half of Christendom. 2 The Christian world was to him indeed an "ecclesia," the "corpus Christi" become manifest, concrete and tangible. "Our emperor" is Christ. 3 Consequently, the Galesian "mundus" is exchanged by Humbert for the ecclesia, and the lay ruler is merely a part of this ecclesia, by virute of his being a Christian. The cardinal employs a terminology that is as significant as it is lucid. In comparing royal and sacerdotal dignities one should say that
sacerdotium in praesenti ecclesia assimilari animae, regunum autem (scil. in praesenti ecclesia) corpori, quia invicem se diligunt et vicissim sese indigent ... sicut praeeminet anima et praecipit, sic sacerdotalis dignitas regali, utputa coelestis terrestri. 4
The Christian world was the ecclesia, the body corporate and politic of all Christians, which derives its sulstenance from the epitome of all Christendom, the Roman Church. 5
But pre-eminence of the sould over the body is not merely a religious, or moral of philosophic pre-eminence: it is a nomological preeminence: it is a function which the soul exercises over the body by prescribing to it what is and wht is not to be done in the interests of the whole human organism. The soul decrees, orders, directs and orientates the body. The body is a mere instrument of the soul, necessary indeed, but on no account autonomous: in fact, the cardinal's point of view is nof course nothing but a truism in Christian cosmology which, when transplanted onto the governmental plane, emerges in the axiom-
just as the soul commands the body, so does sacerdotal dignity command royal dignity.
Ancletus in Pseudo-Isidore, Hinschius, p. 83, c. 30: "Haec vero sancta Romana apostolica acclesia non ab apostolis, sed ipse beato Petro dixit `Tu es Petrus...'"
1. See especially Sententiae, cap. 3.
2. We hold that the cardinal's mission to Constantinople in 1054 was prompted by this aim.
3. Adv. sim., ii. 27, p. 174.
4. Adv. sim., iii. 29, p. 225.
5. For the more correct appellation of the Roman Church as the "corporate epitome" of Christendom, see infra p. 309, and our paper in Studi Gregoriani, iv. 111 ff.
The sacerdotium within the Catholic] Christian body corporate has the same function as the anima within the individual human body. The priesthood commands, because it alone is functionally qualified to issue orders. The Clericalis Ordo is the soul of the Christian body politic:
Est enim clericalis ordo in ecclesia praecipuus tamquam in capite oculi, de quo ait Dominus "Qui tetigerit vos, tangit pupillam oculi mei."
The consequence is that the unordained members, including kings and emperors, of the Church are subjected to the priesthood, which after all is the hallmark of the hierocratic theme. The "laicalis potestas," Humbert says, is the organ which executes the commands of the priesthood: the lay order, if the principle of ordo rationis is to be established, must be obedient to the celrical order:
Est et laicalis potestas (scil. in ecclesia) tamquam pectus et brafhia ad obediendum et defendendum ecclesiam valida et exerta. 2
Hence, the priesthood and the secular arm of the Church stand to each other like sould an body, sun and moon, head and limbs. The Western and Eastern emperors are the arms of the Pope. 3
In consequential pursuit of the hierocratic theme Humbert considers the function of the kings and emperors as protectors and defenders in the sense of being advocates. In fact, the only meaning which the cardinal is able to attribute to royal (and imperial) anointing is that by
1. Adv. sim., p. 235; Zach. ii. 8.
2. Ibid., p. 235.
3. See Leo IX's letter written by Humbert, in C. Will, Acta et Scripta, p. 87; cf. also A. Michel, Sentenzen, p. 67, and in Studi Gregoriani, i. 85, and Humbert himself in Adv. sim., iii. 29. Leo IX made lavish use of the Donation of Constantine in his letter to the patriarch, Michael Kerullarios, where the Pope says that the patriarch, after having been shown the testimonies, should now be satisfied "de regali sacerdotio sanctae Romanae et apostolicae sedis"; this should be acknowledged by all those who wish to be, or be spoken of as, Christians. PL. cxliii. 753 ( = Will, op. cit. p. 68): "His et quamplurimis testimoniis jam vobis satisfactum esse debuit de terreno et coelesti imperio de regali sacerdotio sanctae Romanae sedis precipue super speciali eius dispositione in coelis, si quonquo modo Christiani esse vel dici optatis, et si ipsam evangelii veritatem aperte, quod absit, non impugnatis." The testimonies referred to are, on the one hand, the Petrine commission, and, on the other hand, the Donation of Constantine which is here copied in extenso. Cf. also ibid.: "Tantum apicem (i.e. sumi sacerdotii privilegium) coelestis dignitatis in beato Petro et eius vicariis prudentissimus terrenae monarchiae princeps Constantinus intima consideratione reveritus, cunctos usque in finem saeculi sukccessores eidem apostolo in Romana sede pontifices, per b. Silvestrum non solum imperiali potestate et dignitate, verum etiam infulis et ministris adornavit imperialibus, valde indignum fore arbitratus terreno imperio subdi quos divina majestas praefecit coelesti." The text of the Donation as incorporated in this letter agrees with the text in Pseduo-Isidore.
this visible liturgical act kings and emperors are thereby stamped as specially selected protectors of the Church. Kings, according to him are not self-styled or self-appointed protectors: they do not receive their sword from God: it is the "priests of Christ" who confer upon kings the sword for the specific purpose of protection and defence. By accepting the symbol of the sword from priestly hands the king assumes the solemn duty - solemn because fortified by unction -- of defending the Church universal and herewith also the individual churches.
Ad hoc enim gladium a Christi sacerdotibus accipiunt (scil. reges), ad hoc inunguntur, ut pro ecclesiraum Dei defensione militent et, ubicumque opus est, pugnent. 1
Far from being entitled to erect churches, kings have only the duty of defending existing ones. But erection of churches is only one of those actions which are based upon the assumption of "sacerdotalis officii" 2 entailing "duplicem confusionem." The worst offenders in this respect were the "ottones, prae omnibus ante se regibus sacerdotalis officii praesumptores." 3 But the "ordo rationis" demands that the temporal rulers should be especially assigned -- "assignati" is the cardinal's succinct term -- as "tutors and defenders" by the priests. Kingship is tutela.
Inde est, quod reges saeculi et principes ecclesiis Dei tutores et defensores assignati,
otherwise they would bear the "sword in vain." 4 From this follows conclusively that, in order to establish the principle of ordo within the Christian body politic, clerics must have precedence over kings, just as kings have precedence over the lay people whom they rule:
Sicut enim regum est ecclesiasticos sequi, sic laicorum quoque reges suos. 5
The adherence to this principle will be "ad utillitatem ecclesiae et patriae."
Two observations are here warranted. Firstly, the ecclesia is one body corporate and politic, one indivisible and undivided corpus. 6 Its
1. Adv. sim., ii. 15, p. 217.
2. Adv. sim., iii. 15, p. 216.
3. Adv. sim., III. 1, p. 217.
4. Adv. sim., iii. 5, p. 204;` Rom. xiii. 4; cf. Isidore supra p. 29.
5. Adv. sim., iii. 21, p. 225.
6. The unitary principle also works in purely theological problems: God hates duality ("dias ... scismatica") and loves the oneness: "monas," see Adv. sim., iii. 24, p. 229, line 27 ff.; on this see Ladner, op. cit., pp. 34; 58, note 132; 289, who considers that Humbert borrowed the term "monas" from Johannes Scotus De divisione naturae; cf. also Thaner in the edition of Humbert Adv. sim., p. 97.
direction lies in the hands of the sacerdotium: it is the latter which assigns to everyone within this body his function. This assignment constitutes then the ordo, and the well-being of this body politic will be furthered if each keeps to the sphere of action allotted to him. Consequently, the right order will be disturbed if priesthood or lay people intervene in -- or rather interfere with -- matters which do not belong to their legitimate sphere of action: the basis of legitimacy is the allocation by the sacerdotium. This applies within each section 1 as well as to the relations between the two sections. 2 In other words, the principle of order demands that there be a horizontal and a vertical limitation of spheres of action, otherwise there will be confusion and disorder. But the presupposition is that the allocation of functions in this [Catholic] Christian body politic is the task of its anima, the sacerdotium and eventually of the "caput sacerdotum" who epitomizes all the powers and functions widely diffused as they are throughout the length and breadth of the [Catholic] Christian body.
Secondly, the king's function is purely auxiliary and supplementary: his function in negative: he functions for the sake of the [Catholic] Church universal and is instituted and sanctified by the sacerdotium for the purpose of defence and protection in the widest meaning of the term. Protection and defence however are not exclusively focused on the individual churches, but are also concerned with the suppression fo evil by force. Of course, this constitutes proper defence of the Christian body politic, particularly defence frok enemies within the body itself. This forcible suppression of what the sacerdotium alone is in a position to judge evil and wicked -- always presupposing a [Catholic] Christian body politic -- is the foremost function of the king in the [Catholic] Christian society. Hence, if there were no evil doers, no cirminals -- and we may add, looking ahead: nohereitcs -- there would be no need for a secular power within the Church. Humbert relies on, and quotes from, Isidore's famous passage. 3 Evil actions, however, are sins and, according to contemporary and accepted beliefs, promoted by the devil: they are the devil's doings. Consequently, the secular prince exists inorder to suppress these actions instigated by the devil: if there were no sinful conduct in a community, there would be no need for a power whose sole raison d'être is the physical suppression of this kind of conduct, for by ful-
1. For instance, no metropolitan should interfere in those spheres which are assigned to the bishops, or archdeacons, etc., and vice-versa.
2. Adv. sim., iii. 9, p. 208.
3. Adv. sim., iii. 21, p. 226. Isidore, Sententiae, iii. 51, no. 4, quoted supra p. 29.
filling this function allotted or assigned to him, the prince protects the whole corporate body of Christians. All this is in the tradition of the hierocratic theme; it was soon to be given its permanent and perhaps most famous clothing by Gregory VII. 1
As we said before, the period from the fifties of the eleventh century onwards, is not a period which witnessed the evolution of a new doctrine, but a period which saw the application and implementation of a -- by now -- old idelogy. This hierocratic doctrine by virtue of being applied became the governmental basis of the Papacy. What pure doctrine declared ought to be done, is now being done. Hierocratic doctrine emerges in the shape of the hierocratic system, the essence of which is the conception of the Universal Church as a body corporate and politic, comprising all Christians. This is the societas christiana, to use Gregory VII's distinctive terminology, 2 in which the authority of the Roman Pontiff holds sway; in which the Pope's function as legigslator and judge of appeal is effective; in which the mandate of the Pope creates binding effects. For practical purposes this societas christiana is Western Europe, whose paternity can be traced back to Charlemagne and to the first Gregory's prophetic vision. This societas christiana is an entity which is to be governed on the monarchic principle: it is the corpus of the [Catholic] Christians over which the Roman Church exercises its monarchic principatus through the medium of the Pope as the Vicar of St. Peter. This European society is technically a body politic, and despite its cementing bond, the spiritual element of the [Catholic] Christian faith, it is also earthy and has all the appurtenances and paraphernalia attendant upon civil society: its legislative, consultative, administrative, executive offices. Indeed, the societas christiana or what Cardinal Humbert called the ecclesia, is a societas perfecta.
1. For the application of this tenet by Gregory VII, see his Reg. viii. 21, p. 552 and Reg. vi. 2, p. 295 (ed. E. Caspar). Perhaps no other doctrine of Gregory VII has caused so much misunderstanding as this alleged "devilish or sinful origin of the State." But when looked at from the point of view of functionalism and hierocratic idelogy, the statement of Gregory is rather commonplace and says absolutely nothing new: Isidore's statement contained all the ingredients. Incidentally, this is a good example of how misleading it is to speak of the "devilish" of "sinful" origin of the State, as if this makes any sense at all. Cf. St Augustine, Civ. Dei, xi. 1; xiv. 28; xv. 5 and 7; xvi. 3 and 4; xvii. 6; xviii. 2; etc.
2 Originally the term societas (and its related notions sociatus, societas coetus, multitudinis, and the like) is Ciceronian ("Quid enim est civitas nisi juris societas?") and denotes respublica, State or commonwealth (cf. De Republica, i. 32; 49; iii. 31; iv. 3) and was transmitted to the Middle Ages through thge medium of St Augustine Civ. Dei.
We turn to Gregory VII and omit the hierocratic manifestations of the Pontificates of Nicholas II and Alexander II, because not only did he give the whole period its stamp and complexion, but also because he appears as the personification of the hierocratic idea. Indeed, he is hierocratic doctrine brought down to earth and made eminently con crete. None sensed the temper of his time better than he -- his warlike phrases, speeches and appeals, are not a reflextion on the man, but rather on contemporary society. None had that passionate vision and that impelling conviction which he embodied -- his dramatic per formances are a mirror of the man and of contemporary society. None possessed the same inflexibility and stubbornness as he -- and this is a reflextion of the man, and not of contemorary society. Rarely had an idea found such a protagonist who was at once its personal manifestation, effective expounder and fearless executor. 1
Some preliminary remarks on Gregory VII's premisses may profitably precede the survey of his thought.
Firstly, it is axiomatic for him that the ecclesia is a body corporate and politic the constituent element of which is the spiritual element of the [Catholic] Christian faith. As such this society knows no territorial frontiers: it is literally universal. As a body politic it is territorially confined to Latin Christendon. But this society despite its constituent spiritual substance, is not by any means a pneumatic body, but has all the appurtenances of real earthiness. As such it must be governed and the substratum of this society necessitates its government by those who are uniquely qualified to function as the directing and governing organs, namely by the ordained members of the [Catholic] Church. The principle of functional qualification must be translated into a workable govern-mental machinery. The sacerdotium alone is qualified and entitled and bound to function as the governmental organ of the societas christiana. The correct application of this principle rests, on the one hand, on the delinetion of the ordo laicalis and the ordo sacerdotalis and, on the other hand, entails strict hierarchical ordering within the functionally qualified part of the ecclesia.
Secondly, it is axiomatic for Gregory that order, that is, the neat demarcation between the two ordines must be preserved: order within
1. In the words of the Breviarium Romanum, ad 25 May, he was "acerrimus ecclesiae defensor."
the societas christiana is the second vital principle of Gregory VII. It means that each and every member must fulfil the functions allotted to him, functions, that is to say, which are determined by the nature of the body of the Christian society. The function of each member of this societas is orientated by the purposes of this society. When therefore everyone acts according to the function allotted to him, there will come about what Gregory VII calls concordia entailing pax within the ecclesia. 1 Its opposite is discordia, which emerges when the individual members do not adhere to the functions which they are called upon to fulfil.
Thirdly, it is fundamental to Gregory VII that the basis of the allocation of the functions is justitia. Justitia is not a purely religious-ethical idea, nor is it a purely nomological idea: it partakes of both. It contains the totality of all those ideological principles which flow from the substratum of the societas christiana, namely the [Catholic] Christian faith. The substance of justitia is the right norm of living, and justitia answers the question: what is the appropriate norm of conduct in a Christian society? Justitia is the crystallized and most abstract expression of hierocratic doctrine. 2 It is according to Gregory the Christian norm of conduct, a regulative principle which yields an applicable criterion for measurement. 3 Just conduct is unquestioned acknowledgment and acceptance of the ideological principles constituting justitia. He who thus acts, shows humilitas; he who refuses to acknowledge and to accept these principles shows superbia. Superbia is the deliberate setting aside fo the norm of conduct as prescribed in and by justitia. Justitia is the canon of [Catholic] Christian world order, according to which the functions are allotted in [Catholic] Christian society and its life consequently regulated. Justitia shows what is right conduct, and what, therefore, ought to be the law -- in a [Catholic] Christian society.
Fourthly, and lastly, justitia is unshaped jus: it stands in the ante chamber of jus. It is "quasi juris status" as Bishop Atto of Vercelli
1. See especially infra P. 289 f. for the texts quoted from Gregory VII and St Augustine.
2. The verdict of E. Emerton, The correspondence of Pope Gregory VII, New York, 1932, p. xxiv, partakes somewhat of crudity: "Whatever was favourable to the Roman Church system, came within the definition of justitia." Emerton seems at lest to have felt however that the term "righteousness" -- the usual interpretation ( Bernheim, Whitney, Tellenbach) -- is quite inadequate to render the sense of the profound idea appropriately.
3. Considered by itself, justitia is an indifferent term: Emperor Henry III could have invoked it, so could and did Luther: Justicia becomes meaningful only by the means of the ideology which is infused into it.
and Abbot Thietland of Einsiedeln exquisitely expressed it. 1 The conduct prescribed by justitia need not be one that can be found in the mould of the jus, as, for instance, in a papal letter or a conciliar decree, and the like. It is, as we have said, the pure idea of right conduct, but nevertheless this idea is also a norm and as such demands conformity which is nothing else but obedientia, the direct effluence of justitia being "quasi juris status." Deliberately setting aside the principles of justitia not only shows superbia, but also inobedientia. The pair "humilitas-superbia" refers to the religious-ethical side, whilst the pair "obedientia-inobedientia" refers to the nomological side, of justitia. Or differently expressed: "humilitas-superbia" concerns the internal, psychic-emotional state; "obedientia-inobedientia" relates to external conduct. 2
It will be seen that these premisses of Gregory's thought contain nothing new, execpt the terminology. But this terminology reflects the maturity of the hierocrtic view: it is assuredly a sympotom of a matured view when its many aspects can be neatly expressed in a few pregnant terms. And, apart from the actual application of hierocratic principles, the most important consequence of this maturity of thought was Hildebrand's clear perception of the need to have a law with which to govern the societas christiana. That law for which he repeatedly expressed his wish, was to show the distillation of justitia into jus, into generally binding rules of conduct. 3 Hierocratic principles as evolved in times gone by in Papal statements and in historical events 4 constitute in their
1. See Denifle, Die abendländische Schriftauslegung bis Luther, Freiburg, 1906, pp. 25, 27. It should be noted that the "justitia Dei" in Rom. i. 17 (cf. also iii. 21-2; x. 3-4) was thus defined only by these two authors: "Justitia dicitur quasi juris status. Justitia ergo est, cum unicuique proprium jus trilbuitur; unde et justus dicitur, eo quod jus custodiat"; all the other interpreters adopted the purely theological or moral explanation, e.g. of St Augustine or of Walafrid Strabo.
2. It may be that the idea of justitia, as a consequence of legal studies, reapeared later in the "jus naturale" which has exactly the same amphibious character as justitia, and, just as justitia, its substance is determined by the prevailing ideology. The conception of natural law is not of Roman law origin, but is an excrescence of Greek legal philosophy: in the Institutes of Ulpian which contain the "Roman" law definition of natural law, this definition was "probably a post-classical insertion," see F. Schulz, History of Roman legal science, Oxford, 1946, p. 137; cf. also pp. 71-2, 136, 337, note O. But cf. for Roman law itself C. A. Maschi, La concezione naturalistica del diritto e degli istituti giuridici Romani, Milan, 1936, pp. 162 ff., and on "naturalis ratio" in Roman law, ibid., pp. 236 ff.
3. See Peter Damian Opusculum no. 5: De priv. Romanae ecclesiae ad Hildebrandum (PL. cxlv. 89). The actual biblical basis of this view on the need for a law in a Christian society may possibly have been Rom. i. 17 ( Hebr. x. 38). The living as such, the human actions, must be regulated in a society.
4. This is what the reference to "Gesta" means, i.e. the history as recorded in the Liber Pontificalis. In contemporary terminology the expression "Gesta"
totality justitia, and these detailed principles should be made available for the actual government of the societas christiana. And of these principles none was more importatn than the function of the Roman Church as the eiptome of all Christendom -- that see, because it had been St Peter's, which has the principatus.
One might well say that, acording to Gregory VII, the Roman Church is the embodiment of justitia: 1 the Roman Church headed by the Pope knows the canon of the Christian world order -- the norma justitiae -- and hence the Pope alone, by virtue of this self- same point of view, is entitled to issue on the basis of justitia concerete and detailed laws which bind everyone, without exception, in the societas christiana. 2 In a way, therefore, the concrete chapter headings of the Dictatus papae may be siad to embody justitia in the mould of jus. The compilation of the Dictatus Papae is the conspicuous answer to Hildebrand's request, a request which showed his realistic appreciation of the situation, namely, that pure doctrine without the jus is little more than an illusion. The other and equally important symptom of this maturity of hierocratic doctrine is the concomitant canonistic activity assiduously assembling those previous utterances which is their totality contain justitia. The beginning was made with Humbert Sentences, closely followed by the great collections fo the late eleventh century, all of which show the execution of the one fundamental principle with its
always was understood in this sense. Cf. the advice given by the "Magister" to his "Discipulus" in the anonymous contemporary tract discovered by H. Weisweiler , "Un MS inconnu de Munich sur la querelle des investitures" in RHE. xxxiv ( 1938), pp. 245 ff.; see p. 268 : "Lege libellum, qui gesta pontificum dicitur." It seems tht in the ninth century the term "Gesta pontificum" referred to the ORi, as is shown by the use of the term by Gottschalk Opusc. II, ed. D. C. Lambot, Oeuvres theologiques at grammacticales de Godescalc d'Orbais, Louvain, 1945, p. 464, no. 137.
1. According to Innocent II the Roman Church was the "sedes justitiae," see e.g., his Epp. 347 and 380, PL. cluxxix. 397 and 436. Cf. also Alexander III, Ep. 43 (PL. cc. 115): the Roman Church is divinely instituted "ut ad similitudinem aeterni et justi judicis unicuique pro meritorum qualitatibus responderet"; cf. also Ep. 766, PL. cit., col. 706. Innocent III called the Roman Church the "fundamentum legis totius Christianitatis" in Reg. ii. 217; cf. also Reg. ii. 105, 197, etc.
2. This, we consider, is the germ out of which the later theory grew that the Pope "omnia jura in suo pectore habet." The idea inherent in this axiom was later also expressed thus: "Summus pontifex non humanae adinventionis studio, sed divinae potius aspirationis instinctu leges statuens", Innocent IV in MGH. Epp. sel. XIII s., ii. 55, p. 41. The view tht the Roman Church alone knows the norma justitiae is, we think, also the germ of the late principle that the Pope is "judex ordinarius omnium," as, for instance, expressed by Hugucio, the master of Innocent III.
many ramifications and derivations and applications, namely, the function of the Roman Church in the societas christiana, exercising the monarchically conceived principatu. All this Rome-orientated legal activity was to present the jus as it appeared when derived from justitia. 1
In consonance with traditional views Gregory VII conceives the [Catholic] Church as the corpus Christi. 2 This corpus is composed of the ordained and unordained members of the Church: it is the [Catholic] Christian society -"corpus Christi, quod est fidelium congregatio" 3 -- and as such is an autonomous body of all Christians who thus form the orbis Romanus. 4 This body has all the concreteness and tangibility of an organically integrated and earthy society. Those who live by the maxims of Christianity as expounded by the Roman Church are Romans, the othes are Greeks. 5 In this we recognize the remmants of the old imperial ideology: the societas christiana embodies the Roman Empire -- "quibus imperavit Augustus, imperavit Christus" 6 -- although this Christian society stands on a level different from that of the Roman empire: "Plus enim terrarum lex Romanorum Pontificum quam imperatorum obtinuit." 7
1. For details see infra, ch. XI.
2. See Reg. vi. 10, p. 412 (ed. E. Caspar): "Eos velut putrida membra a toto corpore Christi quod est ecclesia catholica, anathematis gladio resecamus." The Registes of Gregory VII (preserved in the Vatican Library: Reg. Vat. no. 2) were the original registers of the papal chancery, according to W. Peitz, "Das Orginalregister Gregors VII" in SB. Vienna, 1911, fasc. 5. Peitz's opinion has held virtually undisputed sway, despite some hesitations expressed here and there, e.g., by R. L. Poole, Lectures on the history fo the papal chancery, Cambridge, 1917, p. 127, note 2. But Peitz's views are now severely impugned by L. Santifaller, Beschreibstofe im Mittelalter (MIOG. suppl. vol. xvi/1, 1953), pp. 94-113. Santifaller holds that Gregory's Register as preserved, is an aide-memoire, and not the original Reigster: "Samlung des politisch und administrativ wichtigen Schriftenmaterials der Regierung Gregors VII, bestimmt zur Orientierung und Verwertung für die Nachfolger ... eine Art Verbindung von Gedenkbuch für den innern Gebrauch und von Farbbuch für äussere Zwecke" (p. 112). In this respect there is then no difference between Gregory's Register and Innocent III's Registers, especially the RNI, about which see F. Kempf, Die Register Innocenz III ( Misc. Hist. Pont., ix. 1945), pp. 102 ff., esp. pp. 105-7, 117-19.
3. Reg. ii. 73, p. 234. Cf. also Reg. vi 16, p. 422. See also R. Morghen, "Questioni Gregoriane" in Archivio della R. Deputazione di storia patria, lxv ( 1942), p. 61; idem, ibid., lxix ( 1946), pp. 97-116.
4. Reg. viii. 5, p. 522.
5. Reg. viii. I; and for the "Romans" viii. 5 and 12, pp. 522, 532.
6. Reg. ii. 75, p. 237.
7. Reg. ii. 75, p. 237.
Over this societas christiana comprising as it did Latin Christendom, the Pope rules by virtue of the Petrine comission. The orbis Romanus is directed by its epitome, the Church of Rome. For the whole Christian people had been entrusted to St Peter's care by Christ, the "summus imperator." 1 Hence this people is in the charge of the Pope and he alone is entitled to demand unqualified obedience to his decrees. 2 Through the instrumentality of St Peter God had given to the Pope the unique power to bind and to loose on earth as well as in heaven. 3 This power is indeed a concession of universal validity. 4 It is all embracing and comprehensive. And it is this power cntained in the Petrine commission which confers the universale regimen upon the Pope, excepting no Christian and no Christian's affairs. 5 The universality of government cannot, logically enough, be confined to particular aspects or to particular persons. The "universalitas suscepti regiminis" 6 knows in theory no frontiers. For as the Dictatus of Avranches had it, on the authority of Gelasius, "to the Pope every power of the world must be subjected." 7 Should one really assume, Gregory asks very pertinently, that this universal government stops short of the power "judicare de terra? Absit." 8 The Pope is the common father and master of all Christians -- "communis pater et dominus" 9 -- and therefore his authority cannot be subjected to any restrictions. God Himself had given St Peter the "regimen totius ecclesiae" 10 and consequently to him as St Peter's vicar is entrusted "universalis ecclesiae regimen," 11 that is, the government over the whole corpus of Christians.
1. Reg. vii. 21, p. 557. On the Gelasian origin of the term see supra p. 26.
2. Reg. iii. 6, p. 253: "Placet, ut populus christianus specialiter tibi (scil. beato Petro) commissus mihi obediat pro vice tua mihi commissa."
3. Reg. iii. 6, p. 253: "Mihi tua gratia est potestas a Deo data ligandi et solvendi in terra et in coelo."
4. See Reg. viii. 21, p. 548, iv. 2, p. 295: "Nullum excipit, nichil ab eius potestate subtraxit." Cf. also Reg. vi. 4, p. 396, and vii. 6, p. 465. On the Gelasian model of this see supra p. 20.
5. Reg. ii. 51, p. 193: "Nos equidem jam nunc non solummodo regum et principum, sed ommium christianorum tanto propensior sollicitudo coartat, quanto ex universali regimine quod nobis commissum est, omnium ad nos causa vicinius et magis proprie spectat."
6. Reg. ii. 44, 180: "Ex universaltate suscepti regiminis, omnibus qui in Christo sunt..."10 Reg. i. 15, p. 24.
7. See the quotation from the Dictatus of Avranches (DA) infra p. 283 n. 2.
8. Reg. viii. 21, p. 550: "Cui ergo aperiendi claudendiquecoeli data est potestas, de terra judicare non licet? Absit."
9. Reg. ii. 25, p. 157; ii. 67, p. 223, and in many other places.10 Reg. i. 15, p. 24.
10. Reg. i. 15, p. 24.10 Reg. i. 15, p. 24.
11. Reg. i. 9, p. 14.
From the hierocratic point of view one can but sympathize with the easperation of Gregory VI which underlies the following question:
If the holy and apostolic see, through the principal power divinely conferred upon it, has the right to judge spiritual things, why then not secular things? 1
The purely physical and material aspects of a Christian's life must of necessity be subjected to the direction of the spirit, indeed a commonplace enough statement, but one that seemed to have the peculiar fate of escaping the attention of contemporaries. 2 It is this commonplace idea that is contained in the other purely rhetorical question of Gregory VII:
For if the see of St Peter decides and judges celestial things, how much more does it decide and udge the earthly and secular. 3
It is the same point of view, only seen from a different angle, which prompted Gregory to this statement:
Since the apostle has ordained obedience to mundane powers, how much more has he enjoined obedience to the spiritual powers and those who are the vice-regents of Christ amongst Christians. 4
He, as the Vicar of St Peter, whom Christ had made the prince over all earthly kingdoms 5 has the power "universo orbi imperare." 6 But governing this whole societas christiana is indeed a heavy load on Papal shoulders and places so much responsibility upon him. Thus he writes to Hugh of Cluny:
1. Emerton's translation, which in one or two places we have slightly changed. Reg. iv. 2, p. 295: "Quodsi sancta sedes apostolica divinitus sibi collata principali potestate spiritualia decernens dijudicat, cur non et saecularia?" Cf. I Cor. vi. 3.
2. Of Gregory VII and of some later writers, too. Cf. e.g., E. Voosen, Papauté et pouvoir civil, Louvain, 1927, pp. 247 ff., and A. Fliche, Le reforme Grégorienne, Paris, 1932, ii. passim; Gregory did not claim "temporal" powers. This is an oblique point and prevents and adequate appraisal fo the profundity of hierocratic idelogy.
3. Reg. iv. 24, p. 338: "Si enim coelestia et spiritualia sedes beati Petri solvit et judicat, quanto magis terrena et saecularia." This statement sets the tone for all the hierocratic manifestations down to the Fourteenth century, e.g. Aegidius Romanus , De eccles. potestate (ed. R. Scholz, Weimar, 1929), iii. 4, p. 163.
4. Reg. i. 22, p. 38: "(Apstolus) ait 'omnis anima sublimioribus potestatibus subdita sit.' Cum ergo mundanis potestatibus oboedire praedicavit, quanto magis spiritualibus et vicem Christi inter Christianos habentibus."
5. Reg. i. 63, p. 92: "Petrus apostolus, quem Dominus Jhesus Christus rex gloriae principem super regna mundi constituit." Cf. also Reg. iii. 15, p. 267, where the normans are said to desire to have St Peter as the only "dominus et imperator post Deum."
6. Reg. iii. 31, p. 166; and Reg. ii. 45, p. 183: "Nos ... qui ad regendum populum praelati ... vocati et constituti sumus."
Portamus in hoc gravissimo tempore non solum spiritualium, sed et saecularium ingens pondus negotiorum. 1
This Gregorian point of view, as we shall presently see, is little more than a truism when the import of hierocratic doctrine is properly appraised. Moreover, this society over which the Pope rules, is so closely knit and so much an organism that an injustice or damage inflicted upon a single part of it, redounds to the detriment of the whole corpus. 2
From these premisses which can have validity only in a wholly [Catholic] Christian society, the claim follows conclusively that Papal commands are divine commands and that therefore those who deliberately set aside Papal orders expose themselves to the charge of having committed idolatry. 3 For papal commands are issued "ex parte omnipotentis Dei" 4 or "auctoriatate Dei"; 5 being the "deputy of St Peter" the Pope has inherited the apostle's fullness of power. 6 Governing the Christian people not only entails issuing binding decrees by divine authority, but also supervision of those who in actual fact rule the people, namely the kings and emperors. For they too had been entrusted by St Peter with rulership over their peoples, 7 and St Peter's function has now been taken over by the Pope. This is what Gregory tells the king of France, Philip I: his kingdom as well as his soul are in the power of St Peter. 8 And to the king of Ireland, Terdelvach, Gregory writes that Christ Himself had instituted St Peter over all the kingdoms of the world -- "super omnia mundi regna constituit" -- and to St Peter and his successors He wished all the powers " in saeculo" to be subjected.
1. Reg. i. 62, p. 91.
2. Reg. v. 7, p. 358 to Archbishop Udo of Trier and his suffragans: "Agite ergo, dilectissimi fratres ... quoniam, si causa neglecta fuerit et ad graviorem, quod absit, exacerbationem venerit, non solum genti vestrae et regno Teutonicorum, sed quoad fines Christianitatis sunt, dampna pericula confusionem et inaestimabiles miserarum causas pariet." Reg. iv. 23, p. 335: "Hoc autem, quod inter eos agitur, negotium tantae gravitatis est tantique periculi ut, si a nobis fuerit aliqua occasione neglectum, non solum illis et nobis, sed etiam universali ecclesiac magnum et lamentabile pariat deterimentum." This view was of course intimately associated with the corporate nature of Christendom, cf. supra p. 6 f.
3. Reg. iv. 24, p. 338: "Qui apostolicae sedi oboedire contempserit, scelus idolatriae incurrit"; see also Reg. iv. 23, p. 336; vi. 10, p. 411; viii. 15, p. 536; ix. 20, p. 601, and in many other places.
4. Reg. v. 15, p. 375, etc.
5. Reg. ix. 35, p. 624.
6. See Reg. i. 63, p. 92.
7. Reg. ii. 50, p. 192, to King Sancho II of Argon: "A beato Petro apostolorum principe ad regendum tibi commissum populum."
8. Reg. viii. 20, p. 543: "Beatus Petrus, in cuius potestate est tuum regnum et anima tua."
"The whole universe must obey and revere the Roman Church." 1 In a word, because [Catholic] Christian society means a society that is directed by the conceptions of Roman-Papal-Petrine ideas, the Pope as Vicar of St Peter exercises supreme rulership over the societas christiana.
Although not claiming the vicariate of Christ for himself, Gregory nevertheless in his function as Vicar of St Peter applies to himself the same fullness of power with which St Peter was credited. Gregory entirely operates with the Petrine commission; he does not say or imply that he was Christ-like or that he was Christ's vicar. Because St Peter had been set over the kingdoms, so he too as Peter's vicar has the same authority. In other words, the Pope continues Petrine powers. The important point here is that the Petrine commission was not yet conceived to constitute a civariate of Christ: the Pope merely inherited the fullness of power which Christ had given to St Peter. But by virtue of of this fullness of powers the -- later -- claim could be raised that this fullness constitutes a vicariate of Christ in the person of St Peter and consequently of the Pope as his successor. Although, as we have said, Gregory VII himself did not claim the vicariate of Christ for himself qua Pope, there can be no legitimate doubt that his pontificate and his
1. See J. Usserius (Ussher), Veterum eipstolarum Hibernicarum sylloge, Dublin, 1632, p. 76: "Cui (scil. Petro) principatus et potestates et quicquid in saeculo sublime videtur esse, subjecit ... beato Petro eiusque vicariis (inter quos dispensatio divina nostram quoque sortem annumerari disposuit) orbis universus obedientiam similiter et reverentiam debet, quam mente devota sanctae Romanae ecclesiae exhibere reminiscimini." This letter of Gregory is now newly edited on the basis of MS. Claud. A. i, fol. 38, by A. Gwynn, in Studi Gregoriani, iii. 115. On the letter tiself and its date see the excellent discussion ibid., pp. 113-22. Cf. also Gregory's similar statement: "Cui (scil. papae) omnes principatus et potestaes orbis terrarum subjiciens, jus ligandi et solvendi in coelo et in terra contradidit," Ph. Jaffe, Mon. Greg., p. 386. This Gregorian phraseology shows a kinship with Peter Damian's statement in Disceptatio synodalis, in LdL., i. 78, lines 7-8. The conception fo Peter being the head of the kingdoms, could without undue difficulty lead to the thesis which adduced, and applied to the Pope, the passage in Jer. i. 10. Cf. in this context also Innocent III writing to Philip Augustus , Reg. ii. 251: "Christus, rex regum et dominus dominantium ... et corpus et animam tibi contulit ... regnum tibi concessit, qui et vivere tibi contulit et moveri, et universa quae habes bona donavit"; also Reg. iii. 18: Christ, "qui tibi praeter excellentiam regiae dignitatis et vitam contulit ..." Of non- papal sources we may quote Peter of Blois's letter to Celestine III on behalf of Queen Eleanor ( 1193), entreating the Pope for his effective intervention with Henry VI to secure Richard I's release: "Nonne Petro apostolo et in eo vobis, a domino omne regnum omnisque potestas regenda committitur? ... Non tex, non imperator, aut dux a jugo vestraie jurisdictionis eximitur. ubi est ergo zelus Phinees? Ubi est auctoritas Petri? .... non degeneret in haerede Petri dignitatis apostolicae reverenda successio" (PL. ccvi. 1267). In the third letter (PL. cit., col. 1270) there is then the reference to Jer. i. 10.
vigorous assertion of the Petrine fullness of powers materially contributed to the crystallization of the conception that St Peter was given vicatious powers by Christ. 1
On the presupposition that St Peter exercises supreme rulership over the societas christiana, the deposition of kings by St Peter's vicar was a logical consequence of this premises. From this also followed that in the case of a prince's unwillingness to implement instructions issued to him by the episcopacy,the latter was entitled to proceed against the recalcitrant prince "spiritualibus et saecularibus armis." 2 Bishops are ordered to attack a count alleged to be a tyrant "with weapons, both carnal and spiritual." 3 By the same token the Pope is entitled to invoke the help of a duke against a disobedient bishop who is to be ejected from his see forcefully by the duke. 4 And again by the same token the Pope authorizes a count to reproach his king for deeds which in Gregory's eyes are wicked, and to threaten the king on the Pope's behalf with excommunication. 5
It is an axiomof a correctly understood hierocratic doctrine that the
1. For some of the reasons why the Pope was not "vicarius Christi" at that time see G. Tellenbach, Libertas, app. xvi, pp. 228-30, against Harnack's well-known thesis. G. Ladner, op. cit., p. 155, note 412, points out that none of the "Reform" Popes claimed the title "vicarius Christi." The Pope could not appear as vicar of Christ until the Petrine commission was considered to constitute a vicariate of Christ in St Peter, and hence also in his successors. When this concept was evolved, the Donation of Constantine could be dispensed with, as in fact was done by Innocent III. The development of the constitutional position of the Pope as vicar of Christ was necessitated by the very concept of the congregation of the faithful forming the corpus Christi that is, an autonomous, juristic entity whose head was Christ. But this entity had to be governed, hence the Pope acted on behalf of Christ on earth, as Innocent III was to make abundantly clear; hence also the notion of Christ's visible vicar (cf. infra 444) became indispensable for purposes of government. The notion was also used to uphold the papal view of episcopal power being derived from the Pope.
2. Reg. ii. 5, p. 133: "Quod si facere contempserit (i.e. Lancelin of Beauvais) spiritualibus et saecularibus armis eum insequi et urgere non prius desistatis . . ."
3. Epp. coll., no. 34, p. 562 (ed. Ph. Jaffe). The bishops were those of Liege and Verdun, and the count was Arnulf of Chiny; cf. also Reg. vii. 13, pp. 477-8. On this letter see also A. M. Stickler in Studi Gregoriani, iii. 101. The immediate model of this letter may have been Nicholas II's letter to the bishops of France in 1059, telling them to proceed against the archbishop of Trier ( Eberhard) "spirituali simul et materiali gladio" (PL. cxix, 783; partly incorporated in Gratian, XV. vi. 2 and ascribed to Nicholas I).
4. Reg. ii. 8, p. 137: "Ducem (Wratislaw of Bohemia) vero rogavimus, ut si episcopus nobis non oboediret, ut eum de castro expelleret." The same idea in Reg. viii. 18, p. 540: a papal order to Count Ebulus of Roucy to resist Archbishop Manasses of Rheims. 5. See Reg. ii. 18, pp. 150-1 to Count William of Poitou ordering him to make strong representations with Philip I of France.
principle of superiority and inferiority shows itself in all spheres of the societas christiana. It is on the basis of this axiom that royal power must be directed by the instructions of the apostolic see.
Qua tamen majoritatis et minoritatis distantia religio sic se movet Christiana, ut cura et dispositione apostolica dignitas post Deum gubernetur regia. 1
Again, considering the nature and substance of the body corporate over which the Pope presides, this principle is self-evident. In logical pursuit of this theme and by raising the famous Gelasian words to the level of a scriptural testimony -- "divina testatur scriptura" -- Gregory tells the Conqueror that the apostolic and pontifical authority has to represent Christian kings and all others before the divine tribunal in order to render an account of their doings. 2 Quite in consonance with Gelasius I Gregory VII speaks of all Christians as his "subditi," precisely because he as head of the societas christiana is responsible for the doings of its members before the divine tribunal. 3 In classic form Gregory expresses one of the principal hierocratic tenets by declaring that apostolic and royal powers are to be likened to the two luminaries, sun and moon. 4 The ingenious bracketing of the sun and moon
1. Reg. vii. 25, p. 506, to the Conqueror.
2. Reg. vii. 25, p. 506, continuing: "Licet fili karissime, tua non ignoret vigilantia, tamen, ut pro salute tua indissolubiliter menti tuae sit allegatum, divina testatur scriptura, apostolicam et pontificalem dignitatem reges Christianos ceterosque omnes ante divinum tribunal representaturam et pro eorum delictis rationem Deo reddituram." It is not easy to see what new idea Gregory VII was supposed to have expressed here, as A. Fliche, op. cit., ii. 319, maintains. Cf. also E. Voosen, op. cit., p. 247, where the Gelasian background is overlooked.
It is sometimes alleged that the supposed Two-Power theory of Gelasius I does not fit into Gregory's scheme: of course not, if Gelasius had propounded a "dualism." But on that reading of Gelasius this dualistic theory would also constitute an alien element in Pseudo-Isidore as well as in every papal communication that uses Gelasius. The reference to "divina scriptura" was no doubt chosen by Gregory to impress the Conqueror. This Gelasian background was also overlooked by the late Z. N. Brooke, "Pope Gregory's demand for fealty from William the Conqueror" in EHR. xxvi ( 1911), p. 235, where the passage was given a feudal meaning. In Reg. viii. 21, p. 553, Gregory quotes Gelasius directly from the source.
3. Reg. ii. 51, p. 193 to Sven of Denmark: "Nosti, quod reges . . . et quodom nes ad districtum judicium futuri examinis venturi sumus, quod nunc non solum nobis, qui sacerdotes sumus, sed et regibus ceterisque principibus tanto concussius timendum et expavendum est, quanto pro nobis et subditis nostris rationem posituri sumus."
4. Reg. vii. 25, to the Conqueror, p. 505 f.: "Sicut enim ad mundi pulchritudinem oculis carneis diversis temporibus representandam solem et lunam omnibus aliis eminentiora disposuit luminaria, sic, ne creatura, quam sui benignitas ad imaginem suam in hoc mundo creaverat, in erronea et mortifera traheretur pericula, providit, ut apostolica et regia dignitate per diversa regeretur officia." The
allegory with the Gelasian principle of the priestly rendering an account for the crimes of the kings, shows the maturity which hierocratic thought had reached. Indeed, "Christi sacerdotes" are the "patres et magistri" of all the faithful, including kings and princes -- what a pitiable madness, he exclaims, if the son were to subjugate the father or the pupil his master: and has not Pope Gelasius said exactly the same to his contemporary emperor, and fortified by such declarations some pontiffs have excommunicated kings, whilst others excommunicated emperors. Henry IV's second excommunication and final deposition are thus expressly based upon Gelasian authority. 1 And the Dictatus of Avranches in the chapter corresponding to the Dictatus of Gregory, dealing with the deposition of kings, supports this by invoking the testimony of Gelasius I. 2 In other words, Christian royal power can be exercised so long as the king accepts the ruling of the Pope. Or looked at from a different angle, the deposition of a Christian king is the rightful exercise of the supreme power contained in the Pope's universale regimen. 3
Closely allied to this conception of Gregory VII is his view of the duty of the king in a Christian society, and of the function of the priesthood. He sees the foremost duty of the king in the implementation and execution of justitia, in carrying out the sum total of all the precepts contained in "pura religio." This, as we know, is nothing else but Christian cosmology brought down to earth. 4 The "justitia Chris-
biblical reference is Gen. i. 17. Sacerdotal dignity and royal power stand to each other like gold and lead: Reg. viii. 21, p. 553, quoting from "Ambrosius" that is, De dignitate sacerdotali, c. 2 (PL. xvii. 569-70). This tract though ascribed to Ambrose, was written in the second half of the fifth century, cf. H. Rahner, Abendl. Kirchenfreiheit, p. 175, note 5; cf. also supra p. 78. This comparison was later also used by Thomas Becket, see D. Knowles, Episcopal colleagues of Archbishop Thomas Becket, Cambridge, 1951, p. 147; it seems that Becket quoted from Gregory's letter, cf. the report of Grim, quoted by Knowles, note 3. Gilbert Crispin, too, quoted from this pseudo-Ambrosian tract, cf. J. Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, Cambridge, 1911, pp. 68, 113.
1. Reg. viii. 21, p. 553.
2. See DA. cap. 10: "Papae omnis potestas mundi subdi debet Clemente Gelasio teste. Regna mutare potest ut Gregorius Stephanus Adrianus fecerunt."
3. See Reg. vii. 14a, p. 487: "Si potestis in coelo ligare et solvere, potestis in terra imperia, regna, principatus, ducatus, marchias, comitatus, et omnium hominum. possessiones pro meritis tollere unicuique et concedere."
4. Reg. iv. 28, p. 344, to the kings and princes of Spain: "Exhibentes vos fideles ministros faciendam justitiam"; Reg. vi. 20, p. 432, to Count Centullus: he deserves to be called "christianus princeps, quia sis videlicet amator justitiae, defensor pauperum et propagator pacis"; Reg. viii. 20, p. 542, to Philip I, admonishing him to be "amator justitiae"; in the same sense already Reg. i. 75,
tianae legis" 1 made known through the mouth of the. Roman Church, is to be executed by the Christian kings. Hence no one may call himself a Catholic who disregards the norms of living as expounded by the epitome of the universal Church, that is to say, ignores the "norma justitiae": 2
"Quod catholicus non habeatur qui non concordat Romanae ecclesiae." 3
Obedience is thus the hallmark of the Christian and particularly of the Christian prince: obedience to the decrees of the Roman Church must be unqualified: he who contradicts the decrees shows unheard-of "superbia" and has consequently no right to exercise governmental power. 4 This claim to unquestioned obedience flows from what may be called the legalization of the faith and, in the last resort, from the true monarchic position of the Pope who exercises the universale regimen. In the case of a prince disobedience entails deposition. 5 This penalty itself is, logically enough, justitia. 6 The societas christiana can live, can exist, can develop, can come to its full fruition only if the (Papally decreed) "justitia christianae legis" is made the norm and standard of living. Obedient kings are members of the "corpus veri regis Christi"; disobedient kings are members of the "corpus diaboli." 7 It is not the Pope, but St Peter who excommunicates and deposes kings through the instrumentality of the Pope. 8 On the other hand, kings rule by the
p. 107; Reg. vi. 29, p. 442, to Ladislaw of Hungary: "De cetero prudentiam tuam monemus, ut viam justitiae semper studeas . . ."; Reg. i. 70, p. 101, to the Conqueror: "Justitiae per omnia, cum oportunum est, inmodo insudare, ne desistas"; cf. furthermore the protocol of the Lenten synod in Rome, 1078, Reg. v. 14a, p. 370, no. 6, where Gregory announces his intention to send legates "a latere apostolicae sedis" to Germany who will convoke "omnes religiosos et justitiae amatores in Teutonici regni partibus . . ."; see also Reg. viii. 21, p. 559: Constantine, Theodosius, Honorius, Charlemagne, and Louis the Pious were "justitiae amatores, Christianae, religionis propagatores, ecclesiam defensores . . ."; Reg. ix. 34, p. 622 to Count Robert I of Flanders: it behoves a Christian prince to have "in hoc negotio justitiae amorem." 1. Reg. ii. 9. p. 140.
2. Reg. vi. 29, p. 441, to the king of Hungary.
3. DP. 26.
4. See Gregory's letter to Henry IV: Reg. iii. 10, p. 267.
5. Reg. iii. 6, p. 253: "Per auctoritatem Heinrico regi, filio Heinrici imperatoris, qui contra tuam ecclesiam inaudita superbia insurrexit, totius regni gubernacula Teutonicorum et Italiae contradico, et omnes Christianos a vinculo juramenti . . . absolvo." See also Reg. iii. 10a, p. 270, and Reg. iv. 23, p. 336: threat of deposition and excommunication in the case of not affording safe conduct to papal legates: "Resistite et totius regni gubernacula contradicendo . . ." Cf. also infra p. 301. 6. Cf. the remarks of Gregory concerning the affection of a mother towards a deposed son whose deposition was the execution of justice, in Reg. iv. 3, p. 299.
7. Reg. viii. 21, p. 557.
8. Reg. iii. 6, p. 255.
consent of the Roman Church or, as Gregory puts it, those whom the (Roman) Church after mature deliberation has called to government, should humbly obey:
Quos sancta ecclesia sponte sua ad regimen vel imperium deliberato consilio advocat, non pro transitoria gloria, sed pro multorurn salute, humiliter obediant. 1
All these views, we repeat, can only be propounded and accepted in a Christian society, that is, a society which is not held together by a mere biological or linguistic element or by sheer force, but one whose substratum is the spiritual element of the [Catholic] Christian faith. Only under this presupposition can the function of a king be understood, and under this presupposition royal power is not and cannot be monarchic or absolute, referring as it does to the mere exercise of physical-material power. Royal power receives its meaning and purposeful function only in relation to the substratum of the society or part of the society over which this physical-material force is to be executed. Royal power is not autonomous: it must be considered in relation to the character of contemporary society, that is in relation to the purpose and aim of the societas christiana. As we said before, the constitutive element of contemporary society was not force, nor a racial or national or biological element, but the spiritual element of the Christian faith: or what Gregory himself called "pura religio." This alone is the directive principle; this alone is the orientating factor, and this alone is the criterion which enables us to understand the function of the king as well as of the "temporal" or "secular."
For the king is a Christian and as such is subjected to the decrees of the Roman Church: in fact it is his specific duty to show himself an amator justitiae. True royal power can be had in a Christian society "by bowing before Christ, king of kings" and hence by accepting the decrees of the Roman Church. 2 Had there not been sin, instigated by the devil, there would have been no need to have a physical-material power to repress sinful conduct: from the teleological point of view kingship owes its origin to the devil, because he made man deviate from the path of justitia; 3 consequently, the king's function, as an
1. Reg. Viii. 21, p. 561.
2. Reg. ii. 30, p. 164, to Henry IV.
3. This is of course Isidorian doctrine. Cf. also Humbert supra 270, and Innocent III in RNI.18, speaking of the "causa institutionis" of priesthood and secular rulership: the "sacerdotium" was instituted "per ordinationem divinam, regnum autem per extorsionem humanam." That is why metaphorically expressed, "regalis potestas praeest noctibus" ( Solitae, Rainer, ii. 2 (PL. ccxvi. 1184); also Reg. i. 409; vii. 79 and RNI. 2). Cf. infra p. 423 n. 4.
amator justitiae, is the suppression of evil, but what is, and what is not evil, must necessarily be left to those who in a Christian society are qualified to pronounce upon it, that is, the ordained members of the Church: for they alone are qualified to function as the directing organs of this society; they alone are functionally qualified to direct society according to its underlying purpose; they alone, therefore, are functionally qualified to lay down the norma justitiae. The king, through being an amator justitiae, functions as a means to an end. The suitability of the king for his office is consequently of vital concern to the directing organs of the societas christiana; so is the king's usefulness. But these are criteria which can be established only by a recourse to the substance and essence of the societas christiana. 1
The function of any member of the societas christiana can be determined only through relating it to the constituent element of this society, namely, the Christian faith as expounded by the Roman Church. Hence in this society, because he fulfils a higher function, the lowest exorcist stands higher than an emperor: in fact he is a "spiritualis imperator." And if this can be said of exorcists, "quanto amplius sacerdotes!" Another Gregory had said that the priests alone have the "sensum Christi." Which, transplanted to the sphere of government, means that they alone are qualified to direct Christian society: they alone have auctorhas; they alone are functionally qualified to rule. On the other hand, the "temporal" or "carnal" has a no doubt valuable function, according to Gregory, namely the function of a means to an end: considered from the teleological point of view, the "temporalia" are indeed indispensable to the proper working and functioning of the whole societas. Precisely because this society is endowed with real earthiness, the "temporal" is useful, but it becomes useful only by its being related to the aim and purpose, the "finis" or "telos" of society. It must be harnessed to the purpose of this societas, whose constitutive element is the spiritual element of the faith; the temporal must, in other words, serve the purpose of a substantially spiritual society. Then it will become purposeful, useful and meaningful. Then it will lose its inert character and become useful in the promotion of the health of the whole organism. By itself the "temporal" has no
1. We think that this is the substance of the letter to Hermann of Metz, Reg. viii. 21, especially pp. 555ff. What Gregory is anxious to impress is the teleological principle underlying the working of the Christian body politic. Considered from his point of view his exclamations show a justifiable note of irritation: "Quis igitur vel tenuiter sciolus sacerdotes dubitet regibus anterferri?" and so do many other statements in this letter.
indigenous function: if related to the spiritual substance of society, it will then be auxiliary and instrumental to the realization of the purpose underlying society. Matter, in hierocratic doctrine, is logically the servant of the spirit. 1
Kings dealing as they do with matter, are, for governmental considerations, on the same level as matter, or the "temporal." The king is matter personified. The Christian king who acts on the basis of unqualified obedience to the Roman Church, is a king who deserves the epithet "useful"; he who does not, is "useless." The king functions -- just as much as the "temporal" does -- as a means to an end. Each is useful, provided each is harnessed to the purpose and substance of the society in which each exists. Usefulness to the societas christiana is the hallmark of the Christian king, and he proves himself useful by accepting the principles of justitia. This idea of usefulness underlies a number of statements made by Gregory VII which have not always been appreciated properly. For according to him, the function of a king is the defence and protection of the universal Church in general and of the Roman Church in particular: he who thus fulfils this function is useful to the whole corpus; he who does not is useless and loses his standing as a king. 2 It is far better, he counsels, to wait for a suitable
1. This view on the "temporal" is in fact the germ out of which later grew the theory that the Pope was entitled to dispose of the world's temporal goods (cf. Aegidius Romanus, Cardinal Bertrandi, etc., Medieval Papalism, pp. 133 ff.). This theory is extraordinarily consistent and the only one that seemed compatible with the notion of the societas christiana. Considering the purpose of this society it was logical that the Pope (and with him the sacerdotium) alone knew to what use -- from the point of view of this society -- the temporal goods were to be put. It may be that the further penetration into the texture of Roman law (cf. e.g., Cod. Just., VII. xxxvii. 3) facilitated the emergence of this theory. Cf., for example, Innocent III in RNI. 18: "Principibus datur potestas in terris, sacerdotibus autem tribuitur et in coelis. Illis solummodo super corpora, istis etiam super animas." Gregory IX writing to Frederick II ( 23 October 1236) says that the Pope had not only "animarum imperium," but also "in universo mundo rerum et corporum principatum" (MGH. Epp. sel. XIII s., i. 604, no. 703). Or as Innocent IV expressed it, the universal Church itself possesses the temporal goods: "Christus dominium et possessionem rerum ecclesiae habet . . . vel ecclesia habet possessionem . . . id est aggregatio fidelium quod est corpus Christi capitis" (ad X: II. xii. 4; I owe this passage to my former pupil, Dr B. Tierney). On the basis of the directive principle the Pope as the monarch governing the corpus was considered to be in the best position to direct the actual use of temporal goods. The problem of papal taxation, especially in the fourteenth century, stands in closest proximity to this theory.
2. Reg. ix. 3, p. 575, instructing Altmann of Passau and Abbot William of Hirsau, about the procedure to be adopted in the election of the new king ( March, 1081): ". . . defensorem et rectorem, sicut eam (scil. ecclesiam) decet, clementer tribuat. Nisi enim ita obediens et sanctae ecclesiae humiliter devotus ac utilis,
king than to hurry matters and perhaps elect an unworthy man. 1 And in the fateful autumn days of 1076 he writes to all the faithful in Germany that if Henry should notrepent, a new king should be elected who "shall bind himself unquestionably to carry out the measures" which the Pope decrees: at the same time Gregory demands, so as to be in a position to confirm the election, prior notification of the elected candidate -- "inform us at the earliest possible moment of the matter itself, the person and the character of the candidate." 2 The principle upon which this demand is based, is that of suitability -- the Pope alone is in a position to judge whether the king elected is a suitable king within the societas christiana. 3 But behind this there stands as a logical corollary the papal right of examining the election itself. 4 From here it is only a short step to the programmatic declaration of Innocent III. 5 Naturally, the principle of suitability assumes major importance in the case of him who is eventually to be the special defender of the Roman Church. 6 Within the realm of government the principle of
quemadmodum Christianum regem oportet, et sicut de R(udolpho) speravimus, fuerit procul dubio ei non modo sancta ecclesia non favebit, sed etiam contradicet." Cf. also Reg. viii. 21, p. 554, where he declares that Childeric was deposed, not because of his iniquities, but because "non erat utifis." This conception was one of the germs from which the later theory grew (particularly after the intensified study of Roman law) of "public utifitas": the Pope as the monarch of the Christian body politic knows what is required by publica utifitas. Cf. also infra p. 425 n. 2.
1. Reg. ix. 3, p. 575: "Melius quippe fore arbitramur, ut aliqua mora secundum Deum ad honorem sanctae ecclesiae rex provideatur idoneus quam nimium festinando in regern aliquis ordinetur indignus."
2. Reg. iv. 3, p. 299 f.: "negotium, personam et mores eius quamtotius potestis nobis indicare."
3. In a way one might see in this demand, logical as it is, a reversal of the former imperial demand for notification of the elected Pope to the exarch of Ravenna for confirmation.
4. Reg. cit.: "Ut autern electionem . . . apostolica auctoritate firmemus."
5. In RNI. 62.
6 For the historical background of Gregory's letter and its significance see the important contribution of W. Berges, "Gregor VII und das deutsche Designationsrecht" in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 189-209, especially pp. 198-200. Berges points (note 24) to the development of Gregory's views as regards Pope Zacharias's participation in the affair of Childeric: in Reg. iv. 2, p. 294, the Pope merely deposed Childeric; in Reg. viii. 21, p. 554, Childeric was deposed by the Pope who himself "set in his ( Childeric's) place Pippin, the father of Charlemagne." This latter statement comes nearer to historical truth (see supra p. 53) than that concerning the deposition. The passage in Reg. iv. 3 -- "ut . . . novam ordinationem nostris temporibus corroboremus, sicut a nostris patribus factum esse cognoscimus" -might possibly refer to the scrutinium of the coronation procedure. Cf. also Reg. i. 20, to which Berges himself draws attention (p. 199) -- "Rex et Romae Deo
suitability manifests itself in the king's being useful to the societas christiana; and he is useful when he executes with his sword what the Roman Church decrees. The abstract Isidorian thesis comes near to its practical realization. 1
These considerations of Gregory VII are the effluence of his basic view of the hierarchical ordering of society itself. Diversity of offices, that is, of functions and orders, is, according to him, necessary for the integration of any organism. 2 In a most memorable passage -- indeed lacking neither in profundity nor in beauty -- the first Gregory had declared and the seventh was to repeat it:
Neque enim universitas alia poterat ratione subsistere, nisi huiusmodi magnus earn differentiae ordo servaret. 3
The proper working of society is the result of what the two Gregories call the ordo diferentiae. By this they mean the differential grading of the members of society: by fulfilling the functions attached to each individual grade, to each individual order, there will come about what the seventh Gregory styled "una concordia ex diversitate." 4 This was "divinae dispensationis provisio" 5 which instituted "gradus diversos ordines distinctos," so, however, that the lower orders show due reverence to the higher orders. Therefrom pax will emerge and society
annuente futurus imperator" -- pointing out the connexion between idoneity and the making of the emperor.
1. From Gregory's point of view it is consistent that the king should become a "miles bead Petri," cf. Reg. ii. 49, p. 190; ix. 3 and 4, pp. 576, 178; or that he should become a "fighter in the service of the apostolic court," as he makes plain to King Sven II of Denmark, Reg. ii. 51, p. 194: "If our holy mother, the Roman Church, should have need of your aid in fighting men against God's enemies, we would like to know how much hope we can place in you. Not far from here there is a very wealthy province near the sea which is now in the hands of vile and miserable heretics, where we desire to put one of your sons as duke and prince and defender of Christianity, that is, if you are willing, as one of your bishops has told us of your intention to give him as a fighter in the service of the apostolic court ('apostolicae aulae militandum') together with a good following of faithful troops." The province mentioned may be Dalmatia
2. This point of view stands in closest proximity to the organic conception of the societas christiana; for the fully developed organic conception see infra ch. xiii on John of Salisbury and Hugh of St Victor.
3. Reg. vi. 35, p. 45. Gregory I: Reg. v. 59, p. 371) lines 15-16. The biblical basis of this principle is 1 Cor. xii. 6: "diversity of operations."
4. Ep. cit., p. 450.
5. We shall not miss the allusion to the Gelasian "dispensatio."
as a whole will fulfil the purpose for which it exists. The purpose of this society will be achieved if there is concord, itself the result of the integration of diverse orders -- unity of the whole organism, not in spite of, but because of the diversity of functions. 1 Unity results from accepting the principles contained in justitia which allots specific directive functions to the sacerdotal order, functions, that is to say, which are explicable only by the character of society as a Societas Christiana. It is also justitia which allots the auxiliary function and servile role to the "temporal" and its human personification, the temporal ruler. This functionalist approach based upon the teleological principle, is of the greatest importance to the conceptual framework of Gregory VII.
His sharp distinction between the two ordines composing the societas christiana, the sacerdotal and laical orders, is not merely a matter of principle, but a matter of government. For the sacerdotal order is, by virtue of its members having received ordination, alone functionally qualified to lead and to direct the whole Christian people. Through ordination the members of the sacerdotal order alone are given the power to bind and to loose -- and this power alone creates, on the one hand, the deep cleavage between them and their unordained lay counterparts, and, on the other hand, gives them the functional qualification for their governing the societas christiana, which is genetically and substantially a spiritual society. The role which, in this society, the lay order, headed by king or emperor, has to play, will have become sufficiently clear.
It is consequently in keeping with the basic and traditional tenets of the hierocratic theme, when the sacerdotal order is raised to the level of divine agents: to them alone is applicable the biblical "He who toucheth you, toucheth the apple of my eye" 2 and "Touch not mine anointed." 3 The sacrament of ordination lifts its recipient out of the ordinary mass of individuals. He obtains thereby the qualification of guiding the unordained members of society. The transition from mere guidance into leadership is carried out by transforming "pura religio" into an enforceable, binding rule, into the law. 4 The sacerdotium is the
1. Cf. St Paul, loc. cit., and also St Augustine, Civ. Dei, xix (13): "Pax omnium retum tranquillitas ordinis. Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique loca tribuens disppsitio."
2. Reg. ix. 37, p. 631; Zach. ii. 8.
3. I Chron. xvi. 22.
4. Evidenced, for instance, in the transformation of the "claves regni coelorum" into "claves juris" by the twelfth-century canonists; cf. also infra ch. xi. As far as can be seen, the author of the Summa Coloniensis (written in the late sixties of the twelfth century) was the first to do so.
vehicle which makes justitia articulate. The functional qualification is conferred upon them by the "caput sacerdotum." 1 Since the whole "christianitas" was handed to St Peter by Christ Himself, it is consequently St Peter's vicar upon whom falls the duty to judge and to legislate upon all matters affecting this societas. Judgment and legislation being the two vital channels through which any form of government can be carried out, must therefore be the preserve of those functionally qualified to govern the Christian body. Hence, the priests alone are the "sors Domini" and hence they alone are qualified to function as the directing organs of the "corpus Christi, quod est ecclesia catholica." 2 This idea of functionalism stands and falls with hierocratic doctrine or more correctly, with the idea of the Roman Church being the epitome of the ecclesia universalis, the corporate body of all Christians.
Several consequences could be, and were, drawn from this functionalist approach.
Firstly, having obtained their specific function from the pontiff, the lower churches logically partake in the authority of the Roman Church, though never in the fullness of its authority. Gregory brings the earlier doctrine to its fruition. 3
Sancta Romana Ecclesia vices suas ita aliis impertivit ecclesiis, ut in partem vocatae sunt sollicitudinis, non in plenitudinern potestatis. 4
Supreme sacerdotal power is concentrated in the pontiff alone as the head of the Roman Church which diffuses its power throughout the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
Secondly, centralization of government is a further consequence of the functionalist principle correctly understood and applied. Centralization is not, however, confined to sacerdotal matters, but concerns, by virtue of the epitome character of the Roman Church, all matters affecting the societas christiana. 5
1. Reg. viii. 21, p. 552.
2. Reg. vi. 10, p. 412.
3. The original phrase came from Leo I, see supra p. 8, who had used it for a special occasion only (Ep. 14, c. 1). The phrase also appeared in Pseudo-Vigilius, see Hinscgius, Pseudo-Isidore, p. 712; it was appended to a genuine Vigilius letter as the seventh chapter, cf. Hinschius, p. cv., and p. 712 notes ad cap. 7.
4. PL. cxlviii. 783. Cf. also Gratian, II. vi. 11 (and 12). It was not so very difficult to construct a corporation theory on this basis. On this see the unpublished (Cambridge) thesis of B. Tierney.
5. This is the theme of the twenty-seven sentences of the Dictatus Papae (DP) which in their totality are a concise re-statement of the Roman primacy. What they contain is hierocratic ideology in the garb of the law. The riddle which the DP has hitherto presented, is most satisfactorily solved by G. B. Borino, "Un ipotesi sul DP di Gregorio"
This applies specifically to the following items.
a. The legalization of the headship of the whole universal Church: the Pope is by law -- "de jure" -- the universal pontiff, since the Roman Church is divinely founded. 1 The name of this head is now legally monopolized, and the Pope alone applies to himself the epithet "sanctus." 2
b. The institution of papal legates who are the prolonged arms of the Pope and invested with papal powers. They carry out direct papal government through the length and breadth of the societas. From this follows that they have precedence over all other ecclesiastical orders. 3 The papal legates being "a latere papae" are "pars corporis papae" and consequently function on behalf of the Pope 4 who applies to himself Christ's dictum "He who despiseth you, despiseth me" 5 when he issues instructions to his legates who are, in a sense, papal apostles. 6 To disregard their instructions which are Papal instructions, is to disregard "ipsam Veritatis sententiam." 7
c. The supreme jurisdictional powers of the Pope himself, In his capacity as Pope he is outside the bounds of any tribunal, 8 whilst as an appellate tribunal the verdicts given by the Pope are incapable of revision. 9 Every member of the Christian society is entitled to appeal
ipotesi sul DP di Gregorio" in Archivio della R. depueaiione di storia atria, n.s. x ( 1944), pp. 240 ff.: these twenty-seven sentences are the chapter headings of a lost canonical collection. Borino's solution is now generally accepted, cf. St. Kutner , in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 400; K. Hofmann, ibid., i. 531 ff.; P. E. Schramm, in Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1953, p. 131. Cf. already W. Peitz, op. cit., pp. 280 ff.
1. DP. 2 and 1.
2. DP. 11, and 23. For details concerning the DP. see K. Hofmann, Der Dictatus Papae Gregors VII, Munich, 1933; cf. also R. Koebner in Festschrift f. Robert Holtzmann, Leipzig, 1933, pp. 64-92. 3. DP. 4.
4. Cf. also the observations of P. E. Schramm, in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 440: "Auf sie bezog das Dekretalenrecht, was das ramische Recht auf die Consuln und die kaiserlichen Legaten aussagte"; also G. Tellenbach, ibid., ii. 138; and J. B. Sägmüller, in Theologische Quartalschrift, lxxx ( 1898), p. 71: "rein delegatäres Beamtentum." See also H. E. Feine, Kirchliche Rechtsgeschichte, Weimar, 1950, p. 270.
5. Luke, x. 16.
6. See the many passages in which Luke is quoted in this sense: Reg. i. 17, p. 27; ii. 40, p. 177; ii. 73, p. 234; in iii. 10, p. 265 writing to Henry IV he says: "Non nobis, sed Deo omnipotenti debitam non denegaris reverentiam, quamquam apostolis eorumque successoribus Dominus dicere dignatus sit 'qui vos audit. . . .' "
7. Reg. i. 17, p. 27: "Non eos (scil. legatos), sed ipsarn Veritatis sententiam spernunt."
8. DP. 19 On the genesis of this see Studi Gregoriani, iv. III ff. 9. DP. 18.
to the head of the Roman Church. 1 Supreme jurisdiction is in Supreme jurisdiction is in effect justitia made concrete. For the Roman Church is the repository of justitia, of the sum total of the principles of hierocratic theory. 2
It was only a specific application of this tenet that the Papal Chancery from Gregory VII onwards abandoned in the solemn privilegia the usual clause binding the Pope's successors 3 and adopted phrases 4 which denoted the freedom of the issuing Pope himself and of his successors to effect changes prompted by justitia. This chancery peculiarity is not an adoption of a mere phraseology because the clause which was adopted, expressed in documentary form the Papal plenitude of power and signified the Pope's legal and jurisdictional freedom from any cramping restrictions imposed by a predecessor. Privileges, conferred by the Roman Church, can always be altered, Gregory declared, or abolished, "si necessitas vel utilitas major exegerit." 5 The Pope as a monarch stands above the law. 6
b. The supreme legislative functions of the Pope, 7 which include the papal right to set aside conciliar decrees. 8 Legislation the basis of which can only be justitia must necessarily be concerned with any
1. DP. 20.
2. In the widest sense this applies also to DP. 17, the authorization of dogmaticcanonical books, about which see St. Kuttner in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 387 ff.
3. Cf. Liber Diurnus, form. 9 5, p. 125: "Statuentes auctoritate b. Petri principis apostolorum, sub divini judicii obtestatione et anathernatis interdictum, ut nuili umquam nostrorum successorum pontificum . . . liceat ipsum praenominatum. fundurn quoquo modo aufferre vel alienare . . ."; almost the same phrase in form. 9, p. 120 ; cf. also form. 88, p. 117 : "omnino interdicentes nostris posteris ac successoribus . . ."
4. Such as "Salva per omnia justitia sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae."
5. Reg. vi. 2, p. 393.
6. There were isolated instances of this chancery peculiarity before Gregory's pontificate, cf. Sergius II in 844 (J. 2586: Mansi, xiv. 807) conferring the apostolic vicariate on Archbishop Drogo of Metz "salvo in omnibus huius universalis Romanae sedis primatu nostrique praesulatus honore vigoreque"; Benedict III in 855 (J. 2664, Mansi, xv. 110) spoke of "salvo in omnibus jure apostolicae sedis." On the whole question see F. Thaner, "Ueber die Entstehung und Bedeutung der Formel 'Salva sedis apostolicae auctoritate'" in SB. Vienna, lxxi ( 1872), pp. 807-51; J. B. Sägmüller, "Zur Entstehung etc." in Theologische Quartaischrift, lxxxix ( 1907), pp. 93-117; idem, Zur Geschichte der Entwicklung des päpstlichen Gesetzgebungsrechts, Rottenburg, 1937, pp. 9ff.; cf. also idem, "Die Idee Gregors VII vom Primat der römischen Kirche"" in Theol. Quartalschrift, lxxviii ( 1896), pp. 571-613.
7. DP. 7. The claim to supreme legislative power is the application of the Roman law principle "What pleases the prince has the force of law," about which see G. Le Bras "Le droit romain all service de la domination pontificale" in Revue hist. de droit français et itranger, xxvii ( 1949), pp. 390-1.
8. DP. 16 and 25.
topic or aspect which affects the working of the societas. Legislation, next to jurisdiction, is, as we have said, the vital channel through which any government, if it deserves this name, must function. And this legislation cannot, and does not, stop short of either persons or things: it is comprehensive, because it emanates from the epitome of all Christendom, which alone knows how matters existing, and persons living, in this societas, should be directed, if the purpose of this society is to be realized and its substratum come to its full fruition. 1 The deceptively sudden onrush of the numerous canonical collections in the Gregorian period is perhaps the best symptom of the state of preparedness of hierocratic doctrine: from now onwards these canonical collections stand in sharp contrast to the older models, since the former have universal and centralized character, orientated as they were by Rome. The episcopal bias of the earlier collections is swept aside in favour of the Roman bias. 2
Thirdly, only from the functionalist point of view the full meaning of Gregory's battle cry "libertas ecclesiae" becomes understandable. That "ecclesia" does not mean the universal Church is plain and needs no further comment. What this slogan means is "libertas sacerdotii." We have here in fact one of the instances in which the meaning of the term "ecclesia" is restricted to the sacerdotal order of the universal ecclesia. That this terminology could and did cause a good deal of confusion is clear. For nobody could assert that the Church, that is the universal body of believers, the societas christiana, was oppressed; in actual fact, the eleventh-century emperors considered their actions and government exercised in the interests of the universal Church. The numberless benefactions, grants, immunities and so forth, bestowed upon the sacerdotal order, indeed do not indicate any oppression. But what these benefactions and so forth represented was the idea of protection in the royal sense. The emperor, and kings, acted as Christian overlords, and by virtue of their being divinely appointed "protectors" of the whole body of believers, including the sacerdotal order, they necessarily defended this body and one of the aspects of defence and
1. Shortly afterwards St Anselm was to express this principle thus: "Certum quippe est quoniam qui non obedit Romani pontificis ordinationibus, quae fiunt propter refigionis Christianae custodiam, inobediens est apostolo Petro, cuius vicarius est, nec de grege illo qui ei a Domino commissus est,Ep. xiii (PL. clix. 208). Cf. also Ep. lxv (PL. cit. col. 103): apostolic decrees are issued "ad robur Christianae religionis" because they emanate from "Petro utique apostolo, cuius vice fungitur (scil. papa)."
2. Cf. A. Michel, "Die folgenschweren Ideen des Kardinals Humbert"" in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 65 ff.
protection was the conferment of beneficia on the sacerdotium as a token of "exaltation." Defence and protection are only one aspect of "exaltation." But this function of the emperors and kings necessarily entailed control of the sacerdotal order. The way in which control was exercised was by the utilization of the proprietary church system for governmental purposes. 1 And the form in which this was symbolically carried out was that of investiture. The ceremony of investing the "elected" bishop 2 was the visible sign of the conferring of protection upon him by his royal lord. 3
That this point of view was incompatible with the idea of functionalism and that it was diametrically opposed to the "pura religio," since the sacerdotal status was conferred by the lay lord, is understandable; so also is the fierceness of the battle against the whole lay standpoint which underlay the proprietary church system now thoroughly ossified. The deeper meaning of the battle cry "libertas ecclesiae" lies in the opposition to the royal idea of protection: not control of lies sacerdorium by the protector, but control by the sacerdotium of the protector. 4 Control of the sacerdotal order by the emperor or king was
1. The so-called lower churches (Niederkirchen) do not come within the purview of this essay, but the principles are the same. On the lower churches see especially the important investigations of H. E. Feine, "Studien zum langobardischitalienischen Eigenkirchenrecht" in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., xxxi-xxxiii ( 1941-3); idem, "Ursprung, Wesen und Bedeutung des Eigenkirchentums" in Festschrifit f. L. Santifaller (MIOG. lviii, 1950), pp. 195-208; idem, "Kirchenreform und Niederkirchenwesen" in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 505ff. The financial and general economic benefits of this proprietary church system, including the lower churches, to the lay lords was of considerable importance to the latter. As Feine, in the last mentioned contribution has shown, in the neighbourhood of Lucca one church went through six generations of priests in the tenth century, whilst the more regular arrangement was inheritance to the priest's son and grandson only. For valuable comparisons and historical developments see now again, H. E. Feine, "Kirchleihe und kirchliches Beneficium" in Hist. Jb., lxxii ( 1953), pp. 101ff. For Cluniac priories or cells many of which were originally lay churches, their absorption into the Cluniac circle, the serious breaches thereby caused to the proprietary church system, and the resultant economic and social consequences, see the fine study by G. Schreiber, "Cluny und die Eigenkirche" in Archiv f. Urkundenforsch., xvii ( 1942), pp. 359-418. For some post-Conquest examples see also D. Knowles, Monastic Order in England, pp. 596-7.
2. See the lucid account by Z. N. Brooke, "Lay investiture" in Proc. Brit. cad., xxv ( 1939), pp. 223f.
3. According to Brooke (p. 224 ), lay investiture "was not the means by which the king maintained his control, but rather the outward sign of that control and of its character."
4. The statutory beginning was made in the synod of April 1059, MGH. Const. i. 547, no. 384, cap. 6: "Ut per laicos nullo modo quilibet clericus aut presbyter obtineat ecclesiam nec gratis nec pretio."
irreconcilable with the control of the same body by the "caput sacerdotum." In a Christian society the control of the sacerdotal order was essential for both emperor and Pope. The effective government of each depended upon the effectiveness of the control exercised over the priests. Hence the ferocious nature of the Investiture Contest. "Libertas ecclesiae" therefore meant freedom of the sacerdotium from the control of the protector and its subjection to papal control. In order to execute the universale regimen the Pope was forced to subject the sacerdotium to his control, for its members were the transmitters of justitia made articulate by the Roman Church. And participating in the plenitude of power of the Roman Church they were alone qualified to function as the governing and directing organ of the societas christiana, in consonance with its underlying purpose. In fact and in theory the royal-laical control of the sacerdotal order turns into a sacerdotal control of the lay order. The protector becomes a "patronus" or "advocatus."
This subjection of the sacerdotal order to papal control was implemented by the insistence on strict hierarchical ordering within the ranks of the order, that is, by unqualified obedience to superior authority. This duty of obedience is reinforced by the specific episcopal oath.
Ego N. episcopus ab hac hora et inantea fidelis ero et obediens beato Petro et papae Gregorio suisque successoribus, qui per meliores cardinales intraverint. 1
Disobedience was consequently a violation of this oath. The sacerdotium was the civil service of the Pope -- the role once intended for its members by the emperors and kings -- through which the societas
1. Reg. vi. 17a, p. 428. About the nature of this oath see infra 337. It should be noted that the words "et obediens" were omitted in the episcopal oath as incorporated in the Compilatio Prima and in the Liber Extra (II. xxiv. 4). On the other hand, these words occur in the oath prescribed for archbishops and bishops and abbots in the thirteenth-century formularies of the papal chancery, see M. Tangl , "Päpstliche Kanzleiordinungen", Innsbruck, 1896, "Juramenta" nos. xviii (archbishops) and xix (bishops and abbots), pp. 50, 51. They are also in the modern episcopal oath, see Pontificale Romanum, ed. 1891, pp. 38-9. Gregory's episcopal oath also contained this: "Romanam ecclesiam per saecularem militiam fideliter adjuvabo, cum invitatus fuero." In this addition the late C. Erdmann, Entstehung des Kreuzzugsgedankens, Stuttgart, 1935, p. 196, saw the whole Kriegsmann Gregory, "den ganzen Gregor." But the passage may merely mean that the bishop, when ordered, would assist the Roman Church with a secular militia, and in so doing he would only execute a papal order. This passage was omitted in canon law, in the formularies, and in the Pont. Rom. However, Gregory IX in 1229 ordered under pain of ecclesiastical censures bishops to hasten to Rome personally
Christiana was to be governed and directed. Consistently enough, the sacerdotium controlled by the Pope and freed from lay control, was the domina of kingdoms. 1 It was precisely the crime of Henry IV in Gregory's opinion, that by exercising control over it he had acted "contra libertatern sanctae ecclesiae": subjection of the sacerdotal order to lay control redounds eventually to the detriment of the whole Christian corpus, hence "libertas ecclesiae" according to Gregory, for the sacerdotal order is then not in a position to direct and govern according to the principles underlying the societas christiana; it is then not in a position to act in accordance with the principles of justitia as enunciated by the Roman Church. Centralization of the ecclesiastical government and the enforcement of strict obedience on the part of the bishops, was the answer to the problem of effective papal control of the sacerdotium. Hence also the repeated attempts in this same century to secure the "purification" of the priesthood. 2
with an armed force to defend the Roman Church against a possible attack by Frederick II; to Robert, archbishop of Lyons: "sub debito juramenti districte mandantes ac in remissionem peccaminum . . . inungentes, quatenus sine more dispendio cum congruo exfortio bellatorum ad nos personaliter venire festines" (MGH. Epp. sel. XIII sacc., i. no. 403, p. 323); the same to William, Bishop of Paris (no. 404, pp. 323-4); cf. also no. 401, p. 324 to Henry, archbishop of Milan.
1. Reg. iv. 3, p. 298: "Non ultra putet (scil. Heinricus) sanctam ecclesiam sibi subjectam ut ancillam, sed praelatam ut dominam." Of the many echoes which this statement of Gregory produced, we may single out that of St Anselm, writing to Baldwin I in Jerusalem: "Ne puteds vobis, sicut multi mali reges faciunt, ecclesiam Dei quasi domino ad serviendum esse datam, sed sicut advocato et defensori esse commendatam . . . fiberam vult esse Deus sponsam suam, non ancillam,"Ep. ix (PL. clix. 206).
2. "Libertas ecclesiae" thus understood naturally contained the strongest condemnation of simony and concubinage. In each case sacerdotal liberty was endangered and sacerdotal subjection to the "caput sacerdotum" made problematic. As regards concubinage Gregory said this: "Non liberari potest ecclesia a servitute laicorum, nisi liberantur clerici ab uxoribus." Moreover, simony and concubinage are fundamentally opposed to the spiritual function of the cleric. Their designation as "haeresis" and the fierce fight against these two evils are thus explicable. Nor should the danger be overlooked which lay in the diversion of revenues from their proper purpose and the other danger of hereditary priestly offices. On the principle to which we have drawn attention (see supra 281) lay princes were ordered to suppress simony and concubinage, see Reg. ii. 45, 62, etc. It was only a corollary that lay people were ordered to resist simoniacal and married priests who thus could not enjoin obedience. The proclamation of a lay strike against married clerks was one more means of enforcing liberty of the sacerdotal order, cf. e.g., the decree of the synod of 1059, cc. 3 and 8. On the whole question of the battle against simony in particular, see the fine study by I. Parisella, "Ecclesiae Romanae dimicatio contra simoniam" in Apollinaris, xv ( 1942), pp. 95-140; here also a full bibliography, pp. 96 - 8. That the underlying reason for
The function of the emperor or king is reduced to that of a protector in the Roman-papal sense, a defender who acts in the interests of, and when called upon by, the sacerdotal order. The transmutation of the royal protector into a papal protector, of the owner of the individual church into the patron of the church, was a necessary consequence of these premisses. We have had an opportunity to point to the attempt made by a ninth-century council 1 to effect this change, but the attempt could not succeed because it was premature. The successful transmutation of the owner into a patron by Gratian 2 was conditioned by the firm hold which hierocratic principles had gained upon the contemporary mind. On numerous occasions Gregory VII wrote to kings commanding them to do their duty and to defend "ecclesias," because this defence was the proper function of the Christian king: the transmutation of the king into the patron was inevitable. 3
The means by which lay control or even influence was to be excluded was the implementation of the old principle of the "juste et canonice" electing of the Pope and the bishops. The mechanism of the one was provided by the decree of Nicholas II ( 1059) which will engage our attention later, and which began the development culminating in the decree of Alexander III. The mechanism of the other was the "canonical election" of the bishops. Although the compromise of Worms ( 1122) still provided for the bishop's election by diocesan clergy and people, seventeen years later, in 1139, the second
the battle was not always understood, is testified, inter alia, by the Annales Augustani (MGH. SS. iii, ad 1076): "Papae (Gregorii) enorme decretum de continentia clericorurn per laicos divulgatur. Sacerdotes a laicis pro connubiis et ecclesiarurn emptione miserabiliter ejiciuntur." Considered from this point of view, the magnitude of the vexatious problem of the validity of simoniacal ordinations is understandable, see the classic work of L. Saltet, Les Réordinations, Paris, 1907, especially pp. 182ff.; A. Michel, "Die antisimonistischen Reordinationen" in Römische Quartalschrift, xlvi ( 1938), pp. 29ff.; F. Pelster, "Die römische Synode von 1060"" in Gregorianum, xxiii ( 1942), pp. 66ff. The first literary product concerning the condemnation of simony, is alleged to come from the musician Wido of Arezzo (ca. 1030, cf. F. Thaner in his introduction to LdL. i. 2 - 3 ) printed in LdL. i. 5 - 7, but according to Michel, art. cit., this was written by Humbert, ca. 1054-5.
1. See supra pp. 134 ff.
2. Cf. especially U. Stutz, "Gratian und die Eigenkirchen" in Sav. Z., Kan. Abt., i ( 1911), pp. 15ff.
3. Cf. Reg. i. 75, p. 107 (to Philip I); i. 70, p. 101 (to the Conqueror); vi. 20, p. 432 (to Count Centullus of Béarn); vi. 29, p. 442 (to Ladislaw of Hungary); viii. 20, p. 542 (to Philip I); the protection asked for, also concerned the property of the individual church: Reg. ii. 8 (to Wratislaw of Bohemia); vi. 37, p. 454 (to Count Jordan of Capua), etc.
Lateran Council under Innocent II excluded the lay element altogether, restricting the election to the "religiosi viri" 1 which in actual fact meant election by the chapter until finally in 1171, Alexander III established the exclusive right of the cathedral chapter to elect the bishop. 2
An attempt has been made to set forth the main ideological principles of Gregory VII. It will have become sufficiently clear that Gregory's thought-pattern is hewn in one mould: he stands firmly on the old tenets and pursues their logical implications to the very utmost. To him, as we have repeatedly pointed out, the multitude of Christians forms one corporate entity, constituting the societas christiana, whose essence is the spiritual element of faith, but which has nevertheless all the appurtenances of real earthiness. There are several features which are characteristic of this society showing us more clearly than any theoretical disquisition its basic spiritual structure and at the same time its very real earthy character.
Firstly, excommunication is the effective exclusion of individuals from membership of the societas christiana. The character of this society and its underlying idea made it self-evident that the authority which was to pronounce sentence of exclusion from the Christian corpus was the sacerdotal order; and the essence of this society also rendered obvious the grounds upon which this exclusion was to be based. Primarily a sanction laid down for setting aside the "justitia legis christianae," itself the crystallization of "pura religio," the effects of excommunication were by no means confined to the purely religious spheres of life. Intercourse with the excommunicate individual was prohibited: he was
1. Mansi, xxi. 533, cap. 28; Gratian, Dist. lxiii. 35.
2. In his letter to the chapter of Bremen, PL. cc. 1270. The great importance which the sacerdotal members of the Church assumed in the hierocratic scheme, necessitated their special penal protection. The second Lateran Council ( 1139) decreed the Privilegium canonis (cap. xv = Gratian, XVIL. iv. 29) according to which any corporal injury inflicted on a cleric entailed automatic excommunication from which only the Pope could absolve upon the personal request and appearance of the excommunicate individual. On the other hand, proceedings by laymen against clerics (except in the case of heresy) were denied, obviously an application of the principle of (hierarchical) functional ordering, according to which only an equal or a superior could charge an equal or inferior individual. According to the later canon law, moreover, no cleric was to stand his trial in civil or criminal matters before the secular tribunal, no matter whether he was plaintiff or defendant.
to all intents and purposes socially isolated. He was to be shunned because outside the norm of living prescribed for the members of the societas. Having been declared an outcast, he was considered to be infected with a contagious disease, 1 hence contact with him was prohibited, with the further consequence that those who disregarded this prohibition became themselves, so to speak, infected and therefore shared the fate of him with whom they communicated. And one of the grievances of Gregory against Henry was that the latter had not given up intercourse with the five excommunicate counsellors, and consequently he found himself excommunicated. 2 Excommunication is the juristic and concrete social exclusion from the corporate body of Christians. Only wives were allowed to be in direct contact with their excommunicate husbands, children with their parents and the low manual workers with their masters. 3 To those unaware of the excommunication the prohibition did not apply. 4 A further consequence was that those, for instance vassals, who were tied to the excommunicate individual by an oath of fealty, were for obvious reasons released from the obligations into which they had entered. 5
These measures were applicable to private individuals as well as to kings. The latters' standing in Christian society was thereby clearly brought out. What amounted to a mere social isolation on the part of private individuals, 6 amounted in the case of a king to a virtual deprivation of government. For if nobody except his nearest relatives were
1. Cf., for instance, in the twelfth century Alexander III, Ep. 768, PL. cc. 707: "Excommunicatio enim ad modum leprae quae toturn corpus corrumpit, totum hominem contaminat et deturpat."
2. Gregory VII, Reg. iv. 2, pp. 293-4, and Reg. ii. 52a, p. 196.
3. See Reg. v. 14a, cap. 16, p. 373.
4. Ibid.; cf. also Reg. iii. 10a, p. 269; iii. 16, and 17; ix. 24, pp. 605-6.
5. Reg. v. 14a, cap. 15, p. 372; also iv. 6, p. 304.
6. In later canonistic doctrine and conciliar and Papal legislation this social isolation of the excommunicate individual will lead to the concept of "civil death" ("civiliter mortuus"): all acts of the excommunicate are invalid. He is incapable of performing "actus legitimi" (this term originated in Roman law: Dig. 50. 17. 77, cf. E. Eichmann, Acht & Bann im Reichsrecht, Paderborn, 1909, p. 67). This means that the excommunicate is incapable of making a last will, of testifying before a court, of accepting donations, of disposing his property or of acquiring new property -- in short he is outlawed. He is declared infamous: he cannot occupy public offices; if he is a judge, his verdicts are null and void; he is excluded from the bar; his acts as a notary public are invalid, and so forth; see especially Innocent III Vergentis. It goes without saying that he is excluded from the sacraments, that he cannot have a christian burial, that he cannot enter a church, and so forth. In order to prevent contamination, incarceration was decreed, cf. Innocent III, Reg. ii. 99 (imprisonment of an abbot "ne contaminet gregem intactum").
allowed to communicate with him, he was obviously in no position to govern, that is, to issue binding decrees, in the sphere conceded to him, to his Christian subjects. 1 The prohibition of social contact was made plain in the case of Philip I of France. In his letter to William of Poitou, Gregory threatened Philip's excommunication as well as the excommunication of everyone "who showed Philip royal honours and obedience." 2
Secondly, formal deposition of a reigning king must, in theory, be distinguished from his excommunication. Whilst the latter was the consequence of a purely religious or moral disobedience and could be inflicted upon any member of Christian society, deposition was the consequence of the king's uselessness. He was no longer useful, because as a consequence of his disobedience to papal orders, he did not execute justitia laid down by the Pope. Hence he was to be deprived of his title-deed to rule. And we may recall that, according to Gregory, Childeric was deposed by Zacharias, not because he was iniquitous, but because he was useless. Incapacity to govern was the effect of excommunication. Deposition, on the other hand, concerned the titledeed, the basis, of the king's position: it was this which was taken away and he therefore had no longer any right to rule. In his action against Henry IV, Gregory distinguishes between excommunication and deposition by declaring "totius regni Teutonicorum et Italiae gubernacula contradico." Excommunication concerned Henry the Christian, deposition Henry the king. Exercise of rulership was, according to hierocratic ideology, an honour or a privilege, and this must be lost if the ruler tries to follow his own views of government to the detriment of the whole body. 3
Deposition is, therefore, strictly speaking independent of excommunication: the latter is focused on the internal sphere, the former on the external sphere, of a ruler. In each case the criteria are different.
1. These considerations applied later also to a prince who turned out to be an apostate: he is to be deprived of his governmental power, according to St Thomas Aquinas, because this prince intends "homines separare a fide. Et ideo quarn cito aliquis per sententiam denuntiatur excommunicatus propter apostasiam a fide, ipso facto eius subditi sunt absolud a dominio eius et juramento fidelitatis, quo ei tenebantur," S. TheoL, II. ii. qu. xiii. a. 2.
2. Gregory VII, Reg. ii. 18, p. 151.
3. Reg. ii. 18, p. 151: "Dignum est enim, ut qui studet honorem ecclesiae taae imminuere, ipse honorem amittat, quem videtur habere." The numerous papal documents decreeing excommunication of kings, princes, etc., and the release of their subjects from the obligation of obedience are assembled (down to Boniface VIII) by G. B. Pallieri and G. Vismara, Acta pontificia juris gentium, Milan, 1946, pp. 52ff., documents nos. 207-324.
Inability to govern is the indirect consequence of excommunication; it is the direct consequence of deposition. Seen from the hierocratic point of view, excommunication was the effluence of the Pope's supreme sacerdotal powers, whilst deposition was the effluence of his function as the supreme monarch of the Christian body politic. Empires, kingdoms, princedoms, and so forth, form parts of this body politic: but it is the Pope's duty to see that justitia is carried out through the instrumentality of the secular prince. Hence it is the Pope's right to take the basis of kingship away, if an individual king should prove himself useless, and to transfer kingship to some other suitable, and therefore useful, individual. 1 This distinction between deposition and excommunication makes it clear why the latter is not even mentioned in the Dictatus of Gregory, whilst the former is given due prominence. 2
In the case of Henry IV the sentence of deposition was never revoked by Gregory. Canossa concerned Henry's re-admission to Christian society, and had nothing to do with his exercise of governorship. Had he not also been deposed, this re-admission at Canossa would have been sufficient to re-instate him in his kingship. This is clear'from Gregory's speech at the synod of 7 March 1080:
( Henry) came to me in Lombardy begging me to release him from excommunication. And when I had witnessed his humility and when he had promised me reforms of his life, I restored him to communion only, but I did not re-instate him in his kingship from which I had deposed him in the Roman synod. 3
The deposition of 1076 was only what may be called a preliminary deposition amounting to a suspension from kingly power, but this sentence was never revoked by Gregory: the preliminary deposition was made final in 1080. 4 Hence, in the intervening years between 1076
1. Reg. vii. 14a, p. 487: "Omnis mundus intelligat et cognoscat, quia, si potestis in coelo ligare et solvere, in terra imperia, regna, principatus. . . . et omnium hominum possessiones pro meritis tollere unicuique et concedere." The same idea emerges in the communication concerning Philip I of France which Gregory writes to the French clergy: "Commanded and bound by apostolic authority . . . separate ourselves from all service and communion with him ( Philip) and forbid throughout France the celebration of divine worship in public. But if this measure should not bring him to his knees, we wish to leave no doubt in anyone's mind that, with the help of God, we will make every effort to take away from him the kingdom of France by all possible manner of means," Reg. ii. 5, p. 132 (". . . quin modis omnibus regnum Franciae de eius occupatione adjuvante Deo temptemus eripere").
2. DP. 12.
3. Reg. vii. 14a, p. 484.
4. Against A. Fliche who held that at Canossa Henry was re-instated, see now H. X. Arquillière, in Studi Gregoriani, iv. 1ff. Cf. also W. Berges, ibid., ii. 201-2, and Schramm, Göttinger Gelehrte Anz., 1953, p. 92.
and 1080 the royal office in Germany was in suspense, until in 1080 Gregory transferred royal power to Rudolf of Swabia: " Rudolf for his humility, his obedience and his truthfulness, is granted the power and dignity of kingship." 1
Closely allied to formal deposition is the release of the subjects from their oath of allegiance to the ruler. This release is only a specific application of the view that the Pope is entitled to release anyone from the obligation to fulfil an oath, in itself a faculty that is directly based upon the power to bind and to loose. 2 The formal release from the oath was not superfluous in the case of deposition, for, theoretically, the deposition of the king does not affect the oaths taken to him. Hence, immediately after the (preliminary) deposition of Henry IV Gregory declares solemnly:
Et ornnes christianos a vinculo juramenti, quod sibi fecerunt vel facient, absolvo et, ut nullus ei sicut regi serviat, interdico. 3
Thirdly, the repression of actions and movements which threaten the continued existence of society or attack its foundations, is the duty of any responsible ruler. If need arises, this repression takes the form of employing force.
One kind of repression may be called police action, that is, forceful repression of internal activities considered hostile to the fabric of society: the activities to be repressed constitute the denial of justitia. There is the case of Robert Guiscard and the Normans who were declared rebels because they threatened the liberty of the Roman Church. The proper function of a prince was to be a protector (in the Roman-papal sense) of the Church by specifically protecting the Roman Church. But since the Normans threatened the Roman Church, repressive measures were called for: Gregory issued a summons to Count William of Burgundy who, moreover, had taken an oath to the effect that he would lend his hand for the defence of the goods of St Peter 4 "If necessary, you should come with your army in the service of St Peter." 5 Gregory's hope was that the mere show of military
1. Reg. cit., p. 487. The sentence of Henry's final deposition, ibid., p. 486 : "Omnem potestatern et dignitatern illi regiam tollo."
2. Cf. the tone of irritation on this point in Gregory's letter to Hermann of Metz, Reg. viii. 21, pp. 547-8. Could any legitimate doubt exist in Hermann's mind about the right of Gregory to release subjects from this oath?
3. Reg. iii. 10a, p. 270.
4. Reg. i. 46, p. 70: ". . . ut quacumque hora necesse fuisset vestra manus ad dimicandurn pro defensione return sancti Petri non deesset, si quidem requisita fuisset."
5. Reg. i. 46, p. 70". . . quatinus praeparetis vestrae militiae fortitudinern ad
force would teach the Normans a lesson so that bloodshed amongst Christians might be avoided and the Normans "facilius subdantur justitiae." 1
It was by the same token that -- ironically enough -- Robert Guiscard and the Normans were summoned in 1080 for a police action against Ravenna, where Wibert was in residence. But this time the leadership of this expedition was to be in the hands of the Pope himself. After referring to the oath of protection and defence of the Roman Church taken by Guiscard and others, Gregory continues his summons by saying:
We propose by the beginning of September, after the cooler weather has set in, to enter the district of Ravenna with an armed force, in order to restore the church ( Ravenna) to its father, the blessed Peter. 2
The same idea is contained in Gregory's communication of the same year ( 27 June 1080) which voices the threat that if the Castilian king, Alphonso VI, who had allegedly supported the simoniacal activity of the monk Robert and who had meted out some rough treatment to a papal legate, were not to give satisfaction, and if the papal demand for the people's insurrection against their king went unheeded, he himself would not find it too grave a labour to cross over to Spain, so as to take drastic measures against the king. 3 But a police action, such as envisaged by Gregory, if successful, would entail that the Pope himself would temporarily have to assume the function of the king deprived of his kingdom. This possibility was reckoned with by Gregory: the violation of the principles of justitia by Philip I would impose upon the Pope the duty to use both hands "when there is no prince to care for such matters, to watch over the lives of the religious." 4 In this we witness the -- logically consistent -- theory that in the case of negligence or disobedience on the part of the temporal ruler or secular justice,
succurendum Romanae Ecclesiae libertati, scilicet, si necesse fuerit, veniatis huc cum exercitu vestro in servitio sancti Petri."
1. Reg. i. 46, p. 70, lines 28-9.
2. Reg. viii. 7, p. 525.
3. Reg. viii. 2, p. 518: "Qui si minus praeceptioni nostrae obedirent, non gravem existimaremus laborem nos ad Hispaniam proficisci et adversum eum, quemadmodum Christianae religionis inimicum, dura et aspera moliri." Erdmann, op. cit., p. 160, remarks: "Diese Worte können venünftigerweise keinen anderen Sinn haben als den einer Drohung mit einem eigenen Kriegszuge des Papstes nach Spanien." In Gregory's letter to Alphonso himself we read: Reg. viii. 3, p. 520: "Beati Petri gladium super te evaginare cogamur." 4. Reg. ii. 49, p. 190.
the Pope must supply what is wanting. 1 Moreover, this "taking over" by the Pope was in perfect harmony with the function allotted to a king within the societas christiana and the function of the Pope himself in ruling it.
Into this category of repression by a police action will soon come also the persecution of heretics. The treatment meted out to the unorthodox or erring members of the societas christiana or those defiantly challenging the authority of the Roman Church in doctrinal matters can be understood by a proper appraisal of the nature of the societas as a corporate entity held together solely by the spiritual bond of the faith. Hence deviations from faith, heresy, attacked the foundations of this society and made drastic measures necessary. 2 Heresy, in hierocratic doctrine, is the very negation of the foundation upon which society rests: it is the open denial of -- not merely disobedience to -- the papally expounded justitia as a norm of living; the function of the Roman Church as the epitome of universal Christianity is implicitly denied. Hence, heresy, as canonistic doctrine will evolve the theory, is high treason; it is a crimen publicum because it strikes at the very foundations of contemporary society, and if not checked, will eventually destroy the unity of the whole corpus, so that its former constituent parts will emerge as autonomous units. 3 As the monarch
1. Cf. also Erdmann, op. cit., p. 148, referring to Peter Damian's interpretation of the two hands: PL. cxliv. 463, 368. Obviously, the "gladius b. Petri" had only one meaning at that time, when used by the Pope, as the hierocratic two-swords theory had not yet been developed: A. M. Stickler, "Il gladius nel Registro di Gregorio VII" in Studi Gregoriani, iii. 89-103, is therefore quite right in his explanation of Gregory "gladius beati Petri." About Henry IV's view see infra pp. 345f.
2. At times, however, the notion of heresy was capable of liberal application. For instance, Henry IV was considered a heretic in 1102 by Paschal II; and it is against him, the "chief heretic," that Count Robert of Flanders is ordered to marshal his forces. The Pope's letter is not only an early instance of a "Crusade" against a heretic, but also of the employment of the ambiguous phrase "for the remission of sins" (other examples supra 297):
"Justum enim est ut qui semetipsos a catholica ecclesia segregarunt, per catholicos ab ecclesiae beneficiis segregentur. Nec in hac parte tantum, sed ubique, cum poteris, Henricum haereticorum caput, et eius fautores pro viribus persequaris. Nullum profecto gratius Deo sacrificium offerre poteris quam si eum impugnes qui se contra Deum erexit, qui ecclesiae regnum auferre conatur, qui in loco sancto Simonis idolum statuit, qui a principibus Dei sanctis apostolis corumque vicariis de ecclesiae domo s. spiritus judicio expulsus est. Hoc tibi ac militibus tuis in peccatorum remissionem et apostolicae sedis familiaritatem praecipimus," Ep. lxxxviii, PL. clxiii. 108.
3. For imperial legislation on heresy, particularly under Frederick II, see now G. de Vergottini, Studi julla legislaffione imperiale di Frederico II in Italia, Milan, 1952, pp. 97ff., and its influence on French legislation, pp. 265 ff. For the canonistic background see ibid., pp. 179ff. (De Brabantionibus, Ad abolendam, Vergentis).
ruling this corporate entity the Pope has to ensure the safety of the fabric of the society through various agencies. 1
There is one more kind of action which is prompted however by other considerations. There are, on the one hand, the massacres of Christians in the East -- "unheard-of slaughter, daily slain like so many sheep by the pagans" as Gregory put it 2 -- and, on the other hand, the attempt at liberation of the Holy Sepulchre from the hands of the Turks. 3 Although both considerations are of a defensive nature, they nevertheless stand in closest proximity to the division of Christianity into an Eastern and Western half. And it was this division -- caused by the Eastern refusal to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman Church -- which provided the special motive for Gregory to issue his summons for a military campaign against the East:
Illud etiam me ad hoc premaxime instigat, quod Constantinopolitana ecclesia de sancto spiritu a nobis dissidens concordiam apostolicae sedis expectat. 4
Again, considering the nature of the societas christiana as a corporate entity monarchically ruled, it is only logical and consistent for Gregory VII himself to lead the expedition as its "dux et pontifex." 5
1. Cf., in this period, Bonizo of Sutri's defence of a "war against error," Liber ad Amicum, MGH. LdL. i. 568ff.; cf. also Anselm of Lucca, "Quod ecclesia persecutionem possit facere," see on this A. M. Stickler, Studi Gregoriani, ii. 259.
2. Reg. ii. 31, p. 166.
3. Reg. ii. 31, p. 166, lines 31-2.
4. Reg. ii. 31, pp. 166-7. Cf. C. Erdmann, op. cit., p. 152 : "Wir dürfen es ihm aufs Wort glauben, dass dieser Plan, eine Union . . . und den römischen Primat dort zur Anerkennung zu bringen, sein Hauptmotiv gewesen ist." About the story of Emperor Michael III's request to Gregory see W. Holtzmann, "Studien . . . zur Entstehung des ersten Kreuzzuges" in Hist. Vierteljahrschrift, xxii (1925), p. 173f., and C. Erdmann, op. cit., p. 149, note 66. Cf. also the cautious formulation by S. Runciman, History of the First Crusade, Cambridge, 1951, p. 98. Innocent III was later to express the effect of the crusade when he wrote to the patriarch of Constantinople: "Nos ergo, qui per gratiam Redemptoris ipsam Constantinopolitanam ecclesiam nuper ad obedientiam apostolicae sedis, taniquam ad sinum reduximus matris suae . . ." Reg. viii. 153 (PL. ccxv. 728).
5. This, he says, was the condition under which the 50,000 men had accepted his call: "Quam ammonitionem Italici et ultramontani Deo inspirante, ut reor, immo etiam omnino affirmo, libenter acceperunt et jam ultra quinquaginta milia ad hoc se preparent, ut, si me possunt in expeditione pro duce et pontifice habere, armata manu contra inimicos Dei volunt insurgere et usque ad sepulchrum Domini ipso ducente pervenire." According to Gregory's programme, the protection and defence of the Roman Church was to be in the hands of Henry IV, whilst the Pope's companions were to be the old empress Agnes and Countess Mathilda. C. Erdmann, op. cit., p. 151, remarks: " Wüssten wir das nicht alles aus Gregor's eigenen Briefen, so würden wir es vielleicht für den schlechten Witz eines boshaften Gegners halten." S. Runciman, op. cit., p. 99, holds Gregory's plan "a stroke of imaginative statesmanship." Later papal ideology expressed the view of
In the same year, 1074, Gregory had issued a general summons to all those willing to defend the Christian faith, 1 and in this summons the theme of liberating the Christians in the East from the danger of the pagans is made the object of the campaign to be undertaken. The magic word "liberation" -- "pro liberatione fratrum" -- gives the proposed military undertaking its defensive complexion: but liberation of the Christians would result in the union between East and West, and thereby the acknowledgment of the Roman primacy in the East would be brought about.
That Gregory's intended military campaigns were not "wars" in the accepted modern sense, seems clear. His idea about these envisaged measures was that of the later crusades: Gregory VII must be credited with giving the crusading idea its first concrete formulation; and none recognized this more freely than Urban II himself explicitly adopting Gregory's aim and idea. 2 But it seems equally clear that this crusading
the Pope being "Dux et Pontifex" of the expeditionary force in terms such as contained in the arenga of a letter of Gregory IX to Frederick II: "Post vicarium Iesu Christi Romanum Pontificem, qui disponente Domino Christiani dux est et magister exercitus, fidem catholicam defendere ac tueri consuevit augustus, qui non inaniter accepisse nec sine causa portare gladium cernitur," Epp. sel. XIII saec., i. 553, p. 447.
1. Reg. i. 49, p. 75.
2. See Liber Pontificalis, ed. cit., ii. 293: "Audierat iste praeclarus et devotus pontifex predecessorem suum Gregorium papam praedicasse ultramontanis Iherosolimam pro defensione Christianae fidei pergere et Domini sepulcrum manibus inimicorum liberare, quod facere minime potuit, quia persecutio Heinrici regis nimium eum undique urguebat." The evidence would indicate that the appeal of Sergius IV (J. 3972, of 1011) is a forgery of the early twelfth century, cf. J. Haller, Papsttum, ii/2, p. 531, against Erdmann, op. cit., p. 102f. The savants of the crusades do not mention this appeal of Sergius, cf. Runciman, op. cit. The words which Hildebrand spoke in the Council of Tours some twenty years earlier in 1054, have a prophetic ring: "Romam fide atque armis semper fuisse invictam," see B. Sudendorff, Berengarius von Tours, Gotha, 1850, p. 217. In examining Gregory's crusading idea one should not leave out of account its eschatological aspect. There was, we believe, a strong eschatological element in it. A perusal of his letters impresses the reader with the author's being tormented by an overpowering anxiety to rescue Christianity from the clutches of anti-Christ. In some mystical prophecies current in his time, the theme of anti-Christ is central, so especially in Adso Epistola ad Gerherdam Reginam de ortu et tempore anti-christi; this work (ed. E. Sackur, Sibyllinische Texte und Forschungen, pp. 104-113) may have been some source of inspiration of Gregory, but the place of the Roman emperor who is to lead his army into Jerusalem, is taken by the Pope as "dux et pontifex." According to Adso, the expedition to Jerusalem by him who "Romanum imperium ex integro tenebit" will bring about the "finis et consummatio Romanorum christianorumque imperil." The Triburtine Sibylla (Text in Sackur, pp. 177-97; now newly edited and translated into German by A. Kurfess, Sibyllinische Weissagungen, Cologne, 1951, pp. 262-79) would be
idea implicitly contains the germs of the later theory of the "just war": again, the qualification of a war as just or unjust is the result of measuring its aims by the standard of justitia. Defence and liberation were to become the criteria of the just war, and defence and liberation can be correctly measured only by the prevailing ideas, epitomized as they were in justitia. 1
Whatever shape the employment of force took, the presupposition was that the action was undertaken in conformity with justitia: therefrom resulted the duty of individuals and rulers to participate in these actions. In characteristically medieval fashion the justness of the undertaking was symbolically expressed: the symbol showing to all the world that the action was just, was the papal banner. The "vexillum sancti Petri" symbolized the blessing of the undertaking by the seat of justitia, hence this symbol was also called the "vexillum sedis apostolicae." This symbol is despatched or handed over by the Pope and thus publicly signifies action undertaken on behalf, or with the approval, of the Roman Church. 2 Its bearer was called the "signifer papae." 3 In all its profundity of meaning this symbol emerges in Gregory's predecessor, Alexander II, and stands in closest proximity to the character of the societas christiana as an autonomous body politic embracing all the "Romans." As such this body must have an outward symbol -- like its constituent, but smaller royal and imperial parts -- which at the
nearer to Gregory's time (about 1047, see Sackur, p. 217 ), though its influence appears negligible, cf. E. Bernheim, Mittelalterliche Zeitanschauungen, p. 224. About eschatological influences on the crusading idea in the late eleventh century see C. Erdmann, "Endkaiserglaube & Kreuzzugsgedanke" in Z. f. Kirchengeschichte, li ( 1932), pp. 386-414.
1. The dynamic element of the crusading idea reflects also in its theoretical development the idea of a military campaign undertaken, not for the sake of liberation and defence, but for the sake of implanting the Christian faith in nonChristian territories, in order to expand the scope and size of the societas christiana. Here again the previous campaigns under the leadership of emperors, beginning with Charlemagne, should be appraised from the ideological point of view. For the roots of the Missionskrieg, see Erdmann, op. cit., pp. 6-9, also G. Combès, La doctrine politique de s. Augustine, pp. 255 ff., 417ff. About the whole question of Christianity and war, cf. Erdmann, op. cit., p. 8 ff.; cf. also R. H. Bainton, "The early church and war" in Harvard Theological Rev., xxxix ( 1946), Pp. 189-212 (dealing with the second century) and now also H. v. Campenhausen, "Der Kriegsdienst der Christen" in Festschriftf. C. Jaspers, 1953, pp. 257- 64). For the views of medieval theologians on war see H. Finke in Festschrift Grabmann, ii. 1426-34.
2. It was therefore also called "signurn Romanum," see Erdmann, op. cit., p. 175, note 37.
3. So Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccl. iii. 3 and 5, quoted by Erdmann, op. cit., p. 119, note 52.
same time also signified that those to whom it was given, acted in conformity with justitia. In a way, this symbol reflects the spiritual and earthy nature of the societas christiana. 1 But this topic of external symbols belongs to the next chapter in which we propose to survey some other signs by which the government of the societas christiana is revealed.
1. For details of the papal banner see Erdmann, op. cit., pp. 166-84; idem, "Kaiserfahne und Blutfahne" in SB. Berlin, 1932; idem, "Kaiserliche und pästliche Fahnen" in Quellen & Forschungen aus ital. Atrchiven, xxv ( 1934), pp. 8-18, and also P. E. Schramm, in Studi Gregoriani, ii. 441f. In our period the following cases in which a papal banner was despatched or handed over, are worth mentioning: to Count Roger of Sicily who was to fight the Moslems ( 1063); to Count Erlembald of Milan ( 1064); to Duke William of Normandy ( 1066); to William of Montreuil as the general in the Campagna ( 1064); to the leader of men ( William of Aquitaine?) fighting for Barbastro ( 1064?); to the inhabitants of the maritime Italian towns for their campaign against North Africa ( 1087); for the further cases see Erdmann, op. cit., especially from the time of Urban II onwards. The new mosaics ordered by Innocent III (Gesta, cap. cxlv; PL. ccxiv. cciv) are characteristic: they depict Christ flanked on the left by St Paul and on the right by St Peter, and Innocent III himself standing in the foreground with a female: he is clad in full pontifical vestments with the tiara, whereas the female described as "ecclesia Romana" wears a crown holding in the left hand a book and in the right hand a banner, in whose flag the keys of St Peter are woven. For further details and a full description see K. Burdach, "Walther von der Vogelweide's Kampf gegen Innocenz III" in Z.f. Kirchengeschichte, Iv ( 1936), pp. 499-502, here also further literature, note 74. Innocent appointed Byzantine artists for these mosaics, ibid., pp. 512-13. About the picture depicting Leo III see supra p. 95.
[ Continue to Ch.X ]