1. Fliche, in one of the latest accounts of the subject, writes: “L'ordre a eu de la peine à se remettre de la crise qui avait suivi la mort de saint Hugues et dont l'abbé Pons de Melgueil (1109–1122) est, pour une large part, responsable.” A Fliche, Foreville, R. and Jousset, J., Du premier Concile du Latran à l'avènement d'Innocent III (1123–1198)Google Scholar, volume IX of Histoire de l'Englise depuis les origines jusqu'à nos jours, edited by Fliche, A. and Martin, V. (Paris, 1948), 114–15Google Scholar. For an account of Cluny under St. Hugh, see volume VIII of the same series, Fliche, A., La Réforme grégorienne et la Reconquête chrétienne (Paris, 1950), 427–45Google Scholar. Literature on the Cluniac movement is cited in Ibid., 427, n. 2, but see especially Berliere, U., L'order monastique des origines au XIIe siècle (Paris, 1924), 251ff.Google Scholar; Smith, L. M., Cluny in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (London, 1930), 237 ff.Google Scholar; Evans, J., Monastic Life at Cluny 910–1157 (London, 1931), 35ff.Google Scholar; Chagny, A., Cluny et son empire (Lyon-Paris, 1949), 255 ffGoogle Scholar., and finally the general histories of De Valous, G., Le monachisme clunisien des origines au XVe siècle (3 vols., Paris, 1935)Google Scholar, and Sackur, Ernst, Die Cluniacenser (2 vols., Halle, 1892–1894).Google Scholar

2. Fliche, Foreville, and Jousset, op. cit., 114 ff.; Knowles, D., “The Reforming Decrees of Peter the Venerable,” in Petrus Venerabilis, 1156–1956: Studies and Texts Commemorating the Eighth Centenary of his Death, edited by Constable, G. and Kritzeck, J., volume XL of Studia Anselmiana (Roma, 1956), 2ffGoogle Scholar., and Bredero, A. H., “The Controversy between Peter the Venerable and St. Bernard of Clairvaux,”Google Scholar in Ibid., 63ff.

3. The basic research on the history of the Curia during this period was done by Jordan, K., “Die Entstehung der römischen Kurie,” ZRG, KA, XXVII, (1939), 105ffGoogle Scholar., and Klewitz, H. W., in two important articles: “Die Entstehung des Kardinalkollegiums,” ZRG, KA, XXIV (1936), 115–221Google Scholar, and “Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,” DA, III (1939), 371–412.Google Scholar

4. See the account of Pontius', Career in Histoire littéraire de la France (Paris, 1869), XI, 19Google Scholar, and Smith, op.cit., 266–75.

5. “Qui primis assumptionis suae annis, satis modeste ac sobrie conversatus, procedents tempore mores mutavit, et multis ac diversis casibus vel causis, fratrum pene universorum animos exasperando, eso paulatim contra se concitavit.” Peter the Venerable, De Miraculis, P. L., 189:922. Bernard's attack upon Pontius' character is mounted in his first epistle, P.L., 182:72ff.

6. Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia Ecclesiastica, P.L., 188:895.Google Scholar

7. It is interesting to note that to Bernard's biographers there is almost no problem in evaluating Pontius. Vacandard, for example, assumes, without any evidence whatsoever, that in the famous case involving Robert of chatillon's flight to Cluny and Bernard's letter to him, Robert was not shown the letter by Pontius. This poinion is cited by Williams as evidence of Pontius' devious methods. See Vacandard, E., Vie de Saint Bernard, Abbé de Clairvaux (Paris, 1910), I, 98Google Scholar, as quoted in Williams, W., St. Bernard of Clairvaux (Manchester, 1935), 63.Google Scholar

8. Ordericus Vitalis, 843–44; Peter the Venerable, 922.

9. Ibid., Ordericus Vitalis, 879.

10. Smith, 276ff.; Fliche, 444; Conant, K. J., “Medieval Academy Excavations at Cluny,” Speculum, XXIX (01, 1954), 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Pontius' role in the Gregorian movement has never been accorded its proper place. While the nature of the relation between Rome and Cluny during the Gregorian Reform period is vague, there can be no doubt that it was only under Pontius that Cluniac resources were committed openly to the papal cause. For a full discussion of the important arguments, see Tellenbach, G., Church, state and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest, translated by Bennet, R. F. (Oxford, 1948), Appendix V, pp. 186–192.Google Scholar

12. Ordericus Vitalis, 879; Smith, 237–65.

13. Pandolf, of Pisa, , “Vita Gelasii,” in Liber Pontificalis Dertuensis, edited by Marsh, J., S. J. (Barcelona, 1925), 177–78.Google Scholar

14. Falco, of Beneventum, , Chronicon, P.L., 173:1172–73Google Scholar; Diego, of Compostella, , Historia Compostellana, P.L., 170:1052Google Scholar; Liber Pont. Dert., 192.

15. Smith, 277–79; Robert, U., ed., Bullaire du pape Calixte II, 1119–24: Essai de restitution (Paris, 1891), I, 313–14, no. 214Google Scholar. The same document is recorded in Bruel, A., Recueil des chartes de l'abbaye de Cluny (Paris, 1894), V, 312, no. 3952.Google Scholar

16. Ordericus Vitalis, 894; Anselm, of Gembloux, , Chronica, P.L., 160:246–47.Google Scholar

17. Ordericus Vitalis, 894–95; Peter Venerable, 923–26.

18. Ibid., 926.

19. Ibid.

20. Ordericus Vitalis, 895; Honorius II, Ep. XXXXVIII, P.L., 166:1268.

21. Ordericus Vitalis, 844.

22. Toynbee, A. J., A Study of History (10 vols., Oxford, 1935–1954), V, 23ff.Google Scholar

23. Weber, M., From Max Weber, Essays in Sociology, translated and with an introduction by Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W. (London, 1952), 246–50.Google Scholar

24. See the “Vita Paschalis” in Duchesne, L., Liber Pontificalis, Texte, introduction et commentaire (Paris, 1886–1892), II, 296Google Scholar, and the “Fragmentum Tractatus Paschalis II,” a document supposedly written by Paschal II which is hardly more than a commentary on Matthew 19:31. In this document Paschal presents poverty as the rule of the Church in all its orders, enjoins the hierarchy to lives the “apostolic life,” and admonishes the priest to seek for himself nothing more than food and clothing, the necessities of life. Mansi, , Concilia (Venetiis, 1754–1798), XX, 1087–88Google Scholar. See also Kratz, W., Der Armutsgedanke im Entäusserungsplan des Papstes Paschalis II (Dissertation, 1933)Google Scholar, a work which I have not been able to see but which is cited in Bihlmeyer, K. and Teuchle, H., Storia della Chiesa, edizione Italiana a cura di Rogger, I. (Brescia, 1956), II, 184, n. 8.Google Scholar

25. Hauck, A., Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands (3rd. ed., Leipzig, 1906), III, 900–901Google Scholar. There is a long castigation of the mores of the clergy of the time in “Privilegium Primae conventionis,” MGH, const., I, 141. See also the remarks of Brooke, Z. N., The English church and the Papacy from the Conquest to the Reign of John (Cambridge, 1931), 29ffGoogle Scholar., where the growing demand for moral reform which marked the reign of Urban II is described. The general attitude is summarized in Bernard's, St. “Epistola ad Sugerium,” P.L., 182:191ff.Google Scholar

26. Fliche, 339–352; Hefele, J. and Leclercq, H., Histoire des conciles d'apres les documents originaux, French translation of the 2nd German edition (Paris, 1912), V, i, 339–52Google Scholar; Carlyle, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Medieval Political Thought in the West (Edinburgh and London, 1922), IV, 111–12Google Scholar; Schwarz, W., “Die Investitur in Frankreich,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XLII (1923), 92ffGoogle Scholar., and Ott, I., “Der Regalienbegriff im 12. Jahrhundert,” ZRG, KA XXXV (1948), 239ff.Google Scholar

27. See Ivo, of Chartres, , “Epistola,” MGH, Lib., II, 644–45, 654Google Scholar, and the exchange of letters between Ivo and Urban II in P.L., 162:85–86. compare the comments of Ott, 240, and Schnargl, A., Der Begriff der Investitur in den Quellen und der Literatur des Investiturstreites (Stuttgart, 1908), 136–37Google Scholar. Fliche maintains that Paschal, “Ioin d'adhére aux idées nouvelles lancées à la fin du précédent pontificat par Yves de chârtres, maintenait dans toute sa rigeur la législation grégorienne.” Fliche, , Histoire, 339Google Scholar. But see the remarks of Juglas, J. J., “Yves de Chârtres et la question des investitures,” Mélanges Albert Dufourcq (Paris, 1932), 59Google Scholar; Schwarz, op. cit. XLIII (1924), 140–41, and Carlyle, 111. Paschal was in constant contact with Ivo of Chartres for the first twelve years of his pontificate, and when he left for France to begin negotiations with the king, he stopped by Chartres and passed Easter 1107 with Ivo. See JW, 6129 (4557), 6130 (4557).

28. By the time of Paschal's succession, the cardinals had won the right of subscribing, that is, of appending their approval to papal acts. Yet from the year 1106, the year in which Paschal opened his campaign to settle the investiture struggle in his ownterms, and 1112, the year in which the curia forced him to renounce his program, there exist no subscriptiones appended. on the rights of the cardinals via-à-vis the popes during the reign of Urban II and Paschal II, see Ullmann, W., The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power (London, 1955), 319–25Google Scholar. On the cardinalate subscriptiones, see “Die Unterschriften der Päpste und Kardinäle in den “Bullae maiores” vom 11. bis 14. Jahrhundert,” Miscellanea Fr. Ehrle (Roma, 1924), 185–86.Google Scholar

29. See the “Promissio Papa per Petrum Leonis Dicta,” MGH, Const., I, 138Google Scholar, no. 85, and the remarks of Carlyle, 116–17, 120.

30. MGH, Const., I, 145.Google Scholar

31. This is the justification given in the “Relatio Registri Paschalis II,” MGH, Const., I, 149.Google Scholar

32. This is the underlying idea of the first important canon law collection of the reform movement, the Diversorum Sententiae Patrum of Humbert of Silva Candida, a work which set the type upon which most subsequent collections were modelled. The work is analyzed in Fournier, P., “Le premier manuel canonique de la réforme du XIe siècle,” Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, XIV (1894), 147–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in Michel, A., Die sentenzen des Kardinals Humbert, das erste Rechtsbuch der päpstliche Reform, volume VII of Schriften des Reichsinstitut für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde (Monumenta Germaniae Historica) (Stuttgart, 1943), 31–70Google Scholar. For a further discussion of Humbert's ideas, see Michel, A., “Die Anfänge des Kardinals Humbert bei Bischof Bruno von Toul (Leo XI),” Studi Gregoriani, III (1948), 299–319Google Scholar, and Michel, A., “Die folgenschweren Ideen des Kardinals Humbert und ihr Einfluss auf Gregors VII,” Studi Gregoriani, I (1946), 65–92Google Scholar, as well as Ullmann, , Growth of Papal Government, 265–71Google Scholar, and idem., “Cardinal Humbert and the Ecclesia Romana,” studi Gregoriani, VI (1952), 111–27Google Scholar. The influence of Humbert on later canonical collections in the pre-Gratian period is developed in Michel, , Sentenzen, 166–ff.Google Scholar

33. On Henry III's ecclesiastical policy, see Tellenbach, , Church, State and Christian Society, Appendix I, 168–177Google Scholar, and Hauck, , Kirchengesch. Deutschlands, III, 380.Google Scholar

34. See Michel, , Sentenzen, 32Google Scholar, n. 1 and Ullmann, , “Cardinal Humbert,” 111–22Google Scholar. on the rise of the College of Cardinals and its concept of participation in Petrine power, see Klewitz, “Entstehung” 119; Andrieu, M., “L'origine du titre de cardinal dans l'Eglise Romaine,” Miscellanea G. Mercati (Roma, 1949), V, 135–44Google Scholar, and Kuttner, S., “Cardinalis: The History of a Cononical Concept,” Traditio, III (1945), 191–94.Google Scholar

35. Ullmann, , “Cardinal Humbert,” 122Google Scholar; Klewitz, , “Entstehung,” 119ff.Google Scholar

36. See Kuttner, , “Cardinalis,” 174ffGoogle Scholar., and Klewitz, , “Entstehung” 166ffGoogle Scholar. The canonical collections of Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit both contain the reservation on papal power and the idea of cardinalate participation in that power given by Humbert. See Thaner, F., ed., Anselmi collectio Canonum una cum collectione minore (Oeniponte, 1906), xii. 12, pp. 272–73Google Scholar, and Von Glanvell, V. E., ed., Die Kanonsammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit (Paderborn, 1905), 267–68.Google Scholar

37. See the discussion of the “Descriptio Sanctuarii Lateranensis Ecclesiae,” Bib. Vat., Reg. MSS, 712, 89v, quoted in Klewitz, “Entstehung,” 119.

38. On the Gregorian radicals, see Dempf, A., Sacrum Imperium: Geschichte und Staatsphilosophie des Mittelalters und der politischen Renaissance (München-Berlin, 1929), 219ff.Google Scholar; Klewitz, , “Entstehung,” 216ff.Google Scholar; Hefeleleclercq, , “Entstehung,” 532–34Google Scholar; Fliche, , Laréforme grégorienne, 370ff.Google Scholar; Robert, U., Histoire du pape Calixte II (Paris, 1891), 8–19, 29–44Google Scholar, and Gigalski, B., Bruno von Segni, 1049–1123: Sein Leben und seine schriften (Münster, 1898), 82ff.Google Scholar

39. Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire, 529.Google Scholar

40. Bruno, of Segni, , “Libellus III,” MGH, Lib., II, 565Google Scholar. See also Gigalski, , Bruno von Segni, 82.Google Scholar

41. “Omnis autem qui heresim defendit hereticus est.” Bruno, , “Libellus I,” MGH, Lib., II, 563.Google Scholar

42. “Debeo igitur diligere te, sed plus debeo diligere illum, qui et te fecit, et me.” Ibid., 564.

43. See the letters of John of Tusculo and Leo of Ostia in P.L., 143:290, and Placidus, of Nonantola's, “Liber and Honore Ecclesiae,” MGH, Lib., II, 637–38.Google Scholar

44. The document is in Duchesne, L., Le Liber Censum de l'Église Romaine (Paris, 1910), II, 136.Google Scholar

45. On the proposed synod at Anse, see Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire, 531.Google Scholar

46. Ivo held that the pope's action coult not be called heretical because heresy “ex fides et error ex corde procederunt. Investitura vero illa, de quatantus ex motus, in solis est manibus datis et accipientis, quae bona et mala aegere possunt, credere vel errare in fide non possunt.” Ivo, of Chartres, , “Epistola ad Ioscerranum,” MGH, Lib., II, 653Google Scholar. He also argued that even if the pope had erred, it was not for the sheep to correct the shepherd. Ibid., 652. See also Ivo's, Decretum, P.L., 161:327Google Scholar; the anonymous work of a French, Chartrian, “Disputation vel Defensio Paschalis Papae,” MGH, Lib., II, 665Google Scholar, in which it is argued: “Habet enim Romani potifices suum speciale privilegium prava corrigere, recta firmare, imperfectu perficere, et illicite prohibere. Habet romana Ecclesia privilegium, quod prima sedes non iudicatur a quoquam,” and, finally, the work of the canonist Berthold, , “De Incontinentia Sacerdotum,” MGH, Lib., II, 21.Google Scholar

47. Jusserand, , of Lyons, , “Epistola ad Ivonem,” MGH, Lib., II 656.Google Scholar

48. On the synod of Vienne, see HefeleLeclercq, , Histoire, 533Google Scholar. The document sent by the French radicals to Paschal for approval is published in Duchesne, , Liber Censum, II, 136.Google Scholar

49. Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire, 537Google Scholar, and Gigalski, , Bruno von Segni, 96ffGoogle Scholar. Paschal ruled that henceforth no cleric might occupy a major abbacy and a bishopric at the same time. As a result of this ruling, Bruno of Segni resigned his abbacy of Monte Cassino. See Peter the Deacon, “Chron. Cass.,” MGH, SS, VII, 783.Google Scholar

50. Paschal's attempt to abdicate is related in the fragment “Ex Historiam Pontificium et Comitum Engolismensis,” Bouquet, M., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1978), XII, 394Google Scholar. See the discussion of the abdication attempt in Schum, W., “Kaiser Heinrich V und Paschalis II im Jahre 1112,” Jahrbücher der Königliche Akademie zu Erfurt, VIII (1877), 221ff.Google Scholar, and Hefele-Leclercq, , Histoire, 533.Google Scholar

51. Ekkehard, , “Chronicon,” MGH, SS, VI, 250–51.Google Scholar

52. John of Gaeta's life is given in Peter the Deacon, “De Viribus Illustoribus Casinensibus,” P.L., 173:1046Google Scholar. His role in the development of curial power is discussed by Jordan, K., “Die Entstehung der römischen Kurie,” ZRG, KA, XXVII (1939), 107–110Google Scholar and Kuttner, , “Cardinalis,” 197Google Scholar. See also Poole, R. L., The Papal Chancery (Cambridge, 1915), 84ffGoogle Scholar. Guy of Vienne was elected by at most six cardinals, the majority of the College of Cardinals having remained in Rome when Gelasius II fled the city for Cluny. See “Annales Romani,” in Duchesne, , Liber Pontificalis. II, 344–48Google Scholar, and Pandolf's, “Vita Gelasii,” in Marsh, Lib. Pont. Dert., 176–77Google Scholar, as well as Ordericus Vitalis, 849. On the importance of Guy of Vienne's election as symbolic of Cluniac supremacy in the Curia, see Caspar, E., “Bernhard von Clairvaux,” in Meister der Politik: Eine Weltgeschichtliche Reihe von Bildnissen, edited by Marcks, E. and Von Müller, K. (Berlin, 1923), 184Google Scholar, and Hampe, K., Das Hochmittelater: Geschichte des Abendlandes von 900 bis 1250 (Münster-Köin, 1953), 179.Google Scholar

53. See the events related in “Chartulario Ecclesiae Gratianopolitanae,” P.L., 166: 1567, and in Guigonis, , “Vita Hugonis,” P.L., 163:447.Google Scholar

54. See the references to the literature on the Concordat of Works in Geschichte, B., Handbuch der deutschen Geschichte, herausgegeben Grundmann, von H. (8th. ed., Stuttgart, 1954), I, 278–79Google Scholar, and the remarks of Fliche, , La réforme grégorienne, 378Google Scholar, and Robert, , Histoire du pape Calixte II, 19.Google Scholar

55. Mansi, XXI, 270.

56. Ibid., 268, which cites Calixitus' ruling that monks may not visit the sick, publicly celebrate mass, or administer extreme unction. This was in keeping with the sacerdotal orientation of the reform from its earliest days. See Tellenbach, , Church, State and Christian Society, 47Google Scholar, and Königer, A., Burkhard von Worms und die deutsche Kirche seiner Zeit (München, 1905), 112ffGoogle Scholar. Also Dereine, C., in his “La probleme de la vie canonial chez les canonistes d'Anselme de Lucques à Gratien,” Studi Gregoriani, III (1948), 287–98Google Scholar, comments on the conflict between secular and regular clergy during the Gregorian period. On Cluny's position under Calixtus, see Smith, 256–65; on Monte Cassino, see Klewitz, H. W., “Monte Cassino und Rom,” Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, XXXVIII (1937–1938), 36–47.Google Scholar

57. “Vita Norberti,” P.L., 170:1284–86.

58. Pandolf, of Pisa, , “Vita Calixti,” in March, Lib. Pont. Dert., 195Google Scholar. See also Ladner, G., “I mosaici e gliaffreschi ecclesiastico-politici nell' antico Palazzo Lateranense,” Rivista dell'archeologia Christiana, XII (1935), 270–79Google Scholar, and Armellini, M., Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX (Roma, 1942), II, 737–40Google Scholar. St. Bernard's ideas on church ornamentation and decoration are developed in his Apologia, P.L., 182: 911–16. For a discussion of this document, see Weisbach, W., Religiöse Reform und mittelälterliche Kunst (Zurich, 1945). 67ff.Google Scholar

59. It is interesting to note that in all of St. Bernard's writings there is not a single mention of Gregory VII, a fact which might indicate a certain antipathy to Gregory's ideals. Fliche, Yet, Du premier concile du Latran, 23Google Scholar; Ullmann, , Growth of Papal Government, 413ffGoogle Scholar., and Williams, , St. Bernard, 249Google Scholar, all maintain that St. Bernard's ideals are a direct extension of those which dominated the great reforming pope. It is my conviction that St. Bernard was directly opposed to Gregorian ideals as those ideals were represented by the last generation of the Gregorian movement, that is, by the Gregorians in the Curia. It will be recalled that in the imperial propaganda of the time—a propaganda which had its strength in the monasteries—Gregory VII was consistently protrayed as “falsus monachus,” perpetrator of the war between Church and State, and pervertor of monasticism itself. There is no reason to assume that Bernard was critical of this tradition; in fact, his attack against a Curia which styled itself Gregory's heir would seem to indicate the opposite. On the imperial picture of Gregory, VII, see “Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae Conservanda,” MGH, Lib., II, 214, 274–76Google Scholar; Guido, of Ferrara, , “De Schismate Hildebrandi,” MGH, Lib., I, 535Google Scholar; Crassus, Peter, “Defensio Heinrici Regis,” MGH, Lib., I, 434–450.Google Scholar

60. Bernard, St., Ep. I, P.L., 182:73–74Google Scholar. On the nature of the letter itself, see A. H. Bredero, “The Controversy between Peter the Venerable and St. Bernard,” 60, n. 24.

61. “Quomodo ergo vel abbatis iussio, vel Papae permissio licitum valuit quod purum (sicut irrefutabiliter probatum est) malum fuit, cum superius nihilominus allegatum sit, ea quae huiuscemodi sunt, id est pura mala, ut nunquam iuste iuberi, sic nec licite fieri?” Bernard, , Ep. VII, P.L., 182:98–9Google Scholar. See also Ep. IV, P.L., 182:89–91, 94–95.Google Scholar

62. For example, Bernard had written to Innocent II on one occasion: “Quis mihi faciet justitiam de vobis? Si haberem ad quem vos trahere possem, jam nunc ostenderem vobis (ut perturiens loquor) quid meremini. Exstat quidem tribunal Christi: sed absit ut ad illud appellem vos, quiillic (si vobis necessarium, et mihi possibile esset) vellem magis totis viribus stare, et respondere pro vobis.” Bernard, , Ep. CCXIII, P.L., 182:378.Google Scholar

63. In the De Consideratione Bernard argued that the union of exalted rank with a base spirit was a monstrosity, as was the joining together of the supreme seat with the lowest life, and added: “Quid si summus pontifex sis? Numquid quia summus pontifex, ideo summus? Infimium noris esse, si summum putas. Quis summus? Cui addi non possit. Graviter erras, si te illum existimes. Absit. Non tu de illis es qui dignitates virtutes putant.” P.L., 182:750Google Scholar. The De Consideratione was written to Eugenius III in order “to please, to edify and to console” him. Its aim is to translate monastic-ascetic ideals into terms suitable for the direction of the entire Church. But Bernard's relation to Eugenius was that of friend and teacher to pupil. Earlier popes he had chastised with a heavier hand. In 1130, for example, he had effected the victory of Innocent II over the anti-pope Anacletus II, even though Anacletus' election was supported by a majority of the College of Cardinals. See his well intentioned but specious arguments on behalf of Innocent in his Ep. CXXVI, P.L., 276–80. In 1139 he criticized the episcopacy and the Roman Curia again. See Ep. CLXXVIII, P.L., 182:340Google Scholar; Ep. CXCIII, Ibid., 359; CCCXXXVII, Ibid., 541. See finally the remarks of Heer, F., Aufgang Europas: Eine Studie zu dem Zusammenhängen zwischen politischer Religiösität, Frömmigkeitsstil und dem Werden Europas im 12. Jahrhundert (Wien-Zurich, 1949), 197ff.Google Scholar

64. “Veniet, veniet qui male indicata reiudicabit, illicite iurata confutabit; qui faciet iudicium iniuriam patientibus, qui iudicabit in iustitia paupere, et arguet in aequitate pro mansuetisterrae … Veniet, inquam, veniet dies iudicii: ubi plus valebunt pura corda, quam astuta verba; et conscientia bona, quam marsupia plena: quandoquidem Iudex ille nec falleture verbis, nec flectetur donis. Tuum, Domine Iesu, tribunal appello: tuo me iudicio servo, tibi committo causam meam, Domine Deus sabaoth, qui iudicas iuste, et probas renes et corda; cuius oculi sicut fallere nolunt, ita falli non possunt; tu vides qui tua, vides qui quaerunt et sua.” Bernard, Ep. I, P.L., 182:74.Google Scholar

65. That Bernard considered curialism, the Anacletan schism and the philosophic movement of which Abelard was leader as having been cut from the same cloth can be seen from references made to them in his letters. For example, Abelard and the Curia are identified in Ep. CXCIII, P.L., 182:559–60Google Scholar; Abelard is connected with the decline of monasticism in Ep. CCCXXXI, Ibid., 359–360; and finally, Abelard is identified with the cause of Anacletus II, the leader of the old guard in the Curia, in Ep. CLXXXIX, Ibid., 354.

66. Ordericus Vitalis, 879.

67. Ibid., 894.

68. On the revolutionary character of Cistercian theories of institutional organization of all kinds, see Schreiber, G., Kurie und Kloster im 12. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1910), I, 297–303Google Scholar; Hallinger, K., Gorz-Kluny: Studien zu den monastischen Lebens formen und Gegensätzen in hoch Mittelater (Roma, 1952), II, 738Google Scholar; Hampe, , Hochmittelalter, 180Google Scholar, and Mahn, J. P., L'ordre cistercien et son gouvernement des origines au milieu du XIIe siècle (Paris, 1945), 178–86.Google Scholar

69. Peter, the Deacon, , “Chron. Cass.,” MGH, SS, VII, 802.Google Scholar

70. Ivo of Chartres had commented on the growing corruption in the Curia during his own lifetime in Ep. CXXXIII, P.L., 162:142Google Scholar. See also the remarks of Jordan, , “Zur päpstlichen Finanzgeschichte im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert,” Quellen und Forschungen, XXV (1933–1934), 65.Google Scholar

71. On the growth of the Cistercian party in the Curia, see Bloch, H., “The Schism of Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil Forgeries of Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino,” Traditio, VIII (1952), 174Google Scholar, and Klewitz, H., “Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,” 383ff.Google Scholar

72. Peter the Venerable, 922.

73. On the influence of Bernard upon Cluniae reform movements in the twelfth century, see Knowles, “The Reforming Decrees of Peter the Venerable,” 2–5, and Bredero, “The Controversy between Peter the Venerable and St. Bernard,” 54–66, 70–71. On Matthew of St. Martin des Champs, see Brixius, J., Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130 bis 1181 (Dissertation, Berlin, 1912), 36Google Scholar. In the sources Matthew is always cited for his reforming zeal. See for example, Peter the Venerable, 921ff.

74. Ordericus Vitalis, 935–36.

75. Ordericus Vitalis, 894.

76. Knowles, , “The Reforming Decrees of Peter the Venerable,” 2.Google Scholar

77. See Robert, , Bullaire du Calixte II, II, 72–73, no. 319.Google Scholar

78. Ordericus Vitalis, 895.

79. Peter the Venerable, 924.

80. Ibid., 923.

81. Ordericus Vitalis, 934ff.

82. Peter the Venerable, 925.

83. Ordericus Vitalis, 895.

84. Peter the Venerable, 924.

85. Pandolf of Pisa, “Vita Honorii,” in Marsh, , Liber Pont. Dert., 204Google Scholar. See also the definitive study by Klewitz, , “Das Ende des Reformpapsttums,” 371–403.Google Scholar

86. Fliche, , La réforme grégorienne, 389.Google Scholar

87. The old guard dated from the era of Paschal II for the most part. See Klewitz, “Das Ende,” 375ff. On the role of the Pierleoni family in papal affairs from Gregory VII to Honorius II, see Zema, D., “The Houses of Tuscany and Pierleoni in the Crisis of Rome in the Eleventh Century,” Traditio, VIII (1953), 160ff.Google Scholar, and Fedele, P., “Le famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio II,” Archivio della Reale Società Romana di Storia Patria, XXVII (1904), 411ffGoogle Scholar. On Peter Pierleoni's legateship, see Schieffer, T., Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich vom Vertrage von Meersen bis zum Schisma von 1130 (Berlin, 1935), 214Google Scholar, and Tillman, H., Die päpstlichen Legaten in England bis zur Beendigung der Legation Gualas (1218) (Dissertation, Bonn, 1926), 26.Google Scholar

88. Klewitz, , “Das Ende,” 403Google Scholar, and Palumbo, F., Lo scisma del MCXXX (Roma, 1942), 154ff.Google Scholar

89. Bernard, , Ep. XIII, P.L., 182:116–17.Google Scholar

90. Honorius, II, Ep. XXXVII, P.L., 166:1249Google Scholar, and “Vita Norberti,” P.L., 170:1323.Google Scholar

91. For example, legates appointed by Calixtus II were replaced by men loyal to the new party in Rome. See Tillman, , Die päpstlichen Legaten in England, 24–27Google Scholar, and Schieffer, , Die Päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich, 225–29Google Scholar. On Changes in the Curia itself, see Klewitz, “Das Ende,” 373ff.

92. Mansi, XII, 91–92, 1367–73, 1392–94.

93. Abbot Oderisius had been a monk at Monte Cassino before entering Paschal II's service. He had been created cardinal in 1116 and elected abbot of Monte Cassino in 1123. For an account of his career, see Brixius, , Die Mitglieder, 37Google Scholar. Peter the Deacon recounts the story of his dispute with Honorius II, a dispute which, if we may believe Peter, was forced by the pope. See “Chron. Cass.,” MGH, SS, VII, 783ff.Google Scholar

94. Joseph Marsh discovered the uncorrupted MS of the “Vita Honorii” in the archives at Tortosa in 1914. He published his findings in the preface to Liber Pontificalis Dertuensis, 7ff. The account of Honorius' reign published in Duchesne, Liber Pontificalis, was doctored by one Petrus William, a partisan of Innocent II in the schism of 1130–38, who desired to mask the fact that the schism really began with Honorius' irregular election in 1124.

95. Pandolf, , “Vita Honorii,” Liber Pont. Dert., 205.Google Scholar

96. Duchesne, , Liber Pontificalis, II, 379.Google Scholar

97. Klewitz, , “Das Ende,” 372.Google Scholar

98. Ordericus Vitalis, 895.

99. Peter the Venerable, 925.

100. Ordericus Vitalis, 895; Pandolf, of Pisa, , “Vita Honorii,” Liber Pontificalis Dertuensis, 207.Google Scholar

101. Geoffrey, of Vigeois, , “Chronicon,” P. L., 166:840.Google Scholar

102. Peter the Venerable, 925.

103. Ibid.

104. “Surgit statim auditis partibus papa, et tota Romana curia sibi adjuncta, ad rem examinandam in partem secedit.” Peter the Venerable, 925; Honorius, II, Ep. XLVIII, P.L., 166: 1267.Google Scholar

105. See Innocent, II, Ep. V, P.L., 179:56Google Scholar; Ernald, , “Vita Prima,” P. L., 185: 268Google Scholar; Diego of Compostella, Historia Compostellana, in Watterich, , Vitae, II, 187–88.Google Scholar

106. Ordericus Vitalis, 895; Honorius, II, Ep. XLVIII, P.L., 166:1267Google Scholar, and Ep. LV, Ibid., 1272.

107. Brixius, , Die Mitglieder, 37.Google Scholar