^{page 21 note 2} Ullmann, op. cit., 271. The author rightly distinguishes between the hierocratic concept and system: in the Roman ideology the first existed long before the eleventh century but the second only became possible from the time of the Gregorian reform.

^{page 21 note 3} One of the most decisive influences in bringing to light the intricacies of the early Reform period is that of the late Professor Anton Michel. His studies on Humbert of Silva-Candida and on the relationship of the Roman and Greek Churches in the eleventh century have prepared the way for all subsequent research on these problems; for a summary of Professor Michel's views on Humbert's influence cf. his, ‘Die folgenschweren Ideen des Kardinals Humbert (von Silva-Candida) und ihr Einfluss auf Gregor VII’, in SG. i. 65–92.

^{page 22 note 1} The text is at present being edited for the Institute of Research and Study in Medieval Canon Law, Washington. In the present article all references are to be the basic text used in the edition, Monte Cassino MS. 522. Other references are not given, but further details can be had from A. Michel, Die Sentenzen des Kardinals Humbert, das erste Rechtsbuch der päpstlichen Reform, Stuttgart 1943, 2nd impression 1952. On the vexed problem of the collection's place in the early Reform, questions of authorship, etc., cf. Stickler, op. cit., 167–70.

^{page 22 note 2} Cf. Borino, G. B., ‘L'Arcidiaconato di Ildebrando’, in SG. iii (1948), 463–516Google Scholar, especially 488–500, 503.

^{page 22 note 3} Cf. J. Autenrieth, ‘Bernold von Konstanz und die erweiterte 74-Titelsammlung’, in Deutsches Archiv, Jh. 14 (1958), 375–94, especially 375 n.2 for a review of the literature; also see note 1, above.

^{page 23 note 1} Text and literature in Caspar, E. (ed.), Das Register Gregors VII, in Monumenta Germaniae Historica (MGH): Epistolae Selectae, ii, Berlin 1955Google Scholar (reprint of the 1920 edition) = Reg. Dictatus papae = Reg., ii. 55a, 201 f. See also Ullmann, op. cit., 291 n.5, and 292 f.

^{page 23 note 2} Cf. G. B. Borino, ‘Un ipotesi sul “Dictatus Papae” di Gregorio VII’, in Archivio delta R. Deputaz. di Storia Patria, N.S. 10 (1944), Ixvii. 237–52. The same theme occurs in K. Hofmann, ‘Der “Dictatus Papae” Gregors VII als Index einer Kanonessammlung’, in SG. i. 531–7. A comparison of the Sentences and the Register was made by Peitz, W. (‘Das Originalregister Gregors VII’ in SB. Vienna, clxv (1911), 282–3Google Scholar, but limited in scope).

^{page 23 note 3} Caspar gives parallel references to the Sentences for DP. 1, 2, 5, 13, 19, 21, 24.

^{page 23 note 4} For examples of Gregory's appeal to canonical authority cf. Reg., ii. 66, 221, line 13 f.; v. 5, 353, line 22 f.: ‘Nichil novi, nichil nostris adinventionibus superinducere conamur, sed illud solummodo querimus quod et omnium salus postulat et necessitas’; ix. 9, 586, line 20: ‘Nichil tibi, praeter quod sacri canones praecipiunt, respondere possumus’.

^{page 23 note 1} For the premises of Gregory's thought cf. Ladner, G. B., ‘Two Gregorian Letters on the Sources and Nature of Gregory VII's Reform Ideology’, in SG. v (1956), 221–42, especially 236–42Google Scholar. Also Ullmann, who gives a juridico-philosophic account and concludes that ‘the concrete chapter headings of the Dictatus papae may be said to embody iustitia in the mould of ius’, op. cit., 272–5.

^{page 24 note 2} Reg., iv. 6, 303, line 27–304, line 2.

^{page 24 note 3} Reg., vii. 2, 461, lines 5–19.

^{page 26 note 1} Reg., viii. 21, 546 f. The latter should be compared with the previous one to Hermann in 1076, Reg. iv. 2, 293 f.

^{page 26 note 2} Cf. Ullmann, op. cit., 5.

^{page 26 note 3} Text of the letter to the emperor in P.L. cxliii. 751C; text of Fragments A and B in Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio, ii, Leipzig 1929, 120–31Google Scholar; here 128. The fullest discussion of these two Fragments is in Ryan, J. Joseph, ‘Cardinal Humbert De s. Romana ecclesia: Relics of Roman-Byzantine Relations 1053–1054’ in Medieval Studies, xx (1958), 206–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also W. Ullmann, ‘Cardinal Humbert and the Ecclesia Romana’ in SG. iv. 111–27.

^{page 26 note 4} Reg., ix. 35, 622, line 33–623, line 7.

^{page 26 note 5} Cap. 18–20.

^{page 26 note 6} Humbert, Adversus simoniacos (adv. sim.), Praefatio: Hereticus autem est, qui a fide catholica dissentit, in MGH de lite, i. 102; also Humbert in the Bull of Excommunication against the patriarch of Constantinople in 1054: Quicumque fidei sanctae Romanae et apostolicae sedis eiusque sacrificio pertinaciter contradixerit sit anathema, Maranatha, nee habeatur Christianus catholicus, sed prozymita hereticus, fiat, fiat, fiat; P.L. cxliii. 1004C.

^{page 27 note 1} Reg., vii. 24, 504, line 26.

^{page 27 note 2} P. Funk attributes to Humbert the main part in bringing the Donation of Constantine into the field of Church-State relations during the eleventh century; ‘Ps-Isidor gegen Heinrichs III Kirchenhoheit’ in Historische Jahrbuch, xxxvi (1936), 305–30Google Scholar; here p. 329. For a commentary on DP. 8 see P. E. Schramm, ‘Sacerdotium und Regnum im Austausch ihrer Vorrechte’ in SG. ii. 446. P. Zerbi deals with the feudal claims of Gregory in ‘II Termine “Fidelitas” nelle Lettere di Gregorio VII’ in SG. iii. 129–48.

^{page 27 note 3} Reg., iv. 23, 335, line 20 f.

^{page 28 note 1} P.L. cxliii. 780B; cf. Tellenbach, G., Church, State and Christian Society at the time of the Investiture Contest, Eng. tr., Oxford 1940, 154Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 2} Cap. 6; cf. the rubric of Tit. ix, De episcopis sine Romana auctoritate depositis; also cc. 91, 93, 94 and 95.

^{page 28 note 3} Reg., vi. 25, 437, line 29 f.; ix. 34, 621, line 31; i. 44, 68, line 2; ix. 13, 592, line 12; v. 17, 378, line 33 f.

^{page 28 note 4} Reg., viii. 21, 557, line 3; Ep. 83: P.L. cxliii. 728C.

^{page 29 note 1} P.L. cxliii. 1001A, 1002C. For a fuller account see Michel, A., Humbert und Kerullarios. Quellen und Studien zum Schismo des XI Jahrhunderts, Paderborn 1924–30, i. 49 f.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} Michaele praesentiam eorundem et colloquium devitante: P.L. cxliii. 1001C; and again, praesentiam … denegavit: ibid., 1004A.

^{page 29 note 3} Reg., ii. 40, 177, line 18 f. See Gregory's reprimand to Hugh of Die for not keeping him (i.e. Gregory) informed of his decisions as legate: Reg., ix. 15, 595, line 10 f.

^{page 29 note 4} Cf. Autenrieth, loc. cit., 376.

^{page 30 note 1} W. Ullmann, ‘Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy’ in Journal of Theological Studies, NS xi (1960), 25–51, here 3a and n.3. Reference is given to Ep. xii. 1: P.L. xx. 670.

^{page 30 note 2} Reg., viii. 21, 549, line 11 f.

^{page 30 note 3} Ep., 100, c. 39: P.L. cxliii. 768C.

^{page 30 note 4} Cf. Caspar, op. cit., 207 for commentary on DP 23. The significance of the chapter has recently been examined by W. Ullmann. He comments that the monopolisation of the term sanctus by the papacy begins in the late fifth century and finds its conclusion in Gregory VII: loc. cit., 45 f. n.6. He refers his reader to a further article in the (then) forthcoming Studi Gregoriani vi. 229 ff.; at 260 ff. I have been unable to consult this work. See also Michel, A., ‘Humbert von Silva Candida bei Gratian, eine Zusammenfassung’ in Studia Gratiana i (1953), 85–117Google Scholar, here 91, 92.

^{page 30 note 5} Humbert: ‘We are both like Peter and yet we are not like Peter; we have the same office but not the same merit’; Ep., 100, c. 35: P.L. cxliii. 766; cf. Gratian D. 40 c. 1: Officium sacerdotii non confert sed adimit licentiam delinquendi.

^{page 30 note 6} Sentences cc. 17, 10, and 90 where, synodum sine eius auctoritate fieri non est catholicum (i.e., universal): compare this with Humbert's phrase in the letter to Thomas, archbishop of Carthage, ‘no universal council can be held without the consent of the Roman bishop’, in P.L. cxliii. 728CD.

^{page 31 note 1} Reg., ix. 18, 599, line 1 f. The language of the Register is obviously a paraphrase of the text Sentences cap. 188; that is, of the same source:

The recurrence of such phrases as ‘parva civitate’, ‘minori ecclesia’, etc. would impress them on the memory of even the busiest of readers such as Gregory must have been. For an example of a transfer under Leo IX cf. Ep., 7: P.L. cxliii. 598.

^{page 32 note 3} Hofmann, K., Der Dictatus papae Gregors VII, Paderborn 1933, 40Google Scholar. Sentences, rubric of tit. xxiiii, Ne universalis quisquam vocetur, with cc. 184–5; cf. text of cap. 185, Si enim universalem me papam vestra sanctitas dicit, negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur universum. Anselm, Coll. can., 6. 117: Ne universalis quisquam vocetur (ed. Thaner, 325); Gratian D. 99 c. 4: Nee etiam Romanus pontifex universalis sit appellandus; Deusdedit 1. 149: Quod a Chalcedonensi sinodo DCXXX patrum universalis sit appellatus (ed. Glanvell, 8). Also cf. Caspar's commentary on DP 2, op. cit., 202.

^{page 31 note 1} Council of Reims P.L. cxlii. 1432; Humbert ibid., cxliii. 838A; cardinal Stephen ibid., 1411D. Cf. Ryan, J. Joseph, Saint Peter Damiani and his Canonical Sources, Toronto 1956, 103–5Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 2} The literature on the events of 1053/54, when the final break between the two Churches came, is too numerous to be included here: mention may be made, however, of Grumel, V., ‘Les préliminaires du schisme de Michel Céulaire ou La question romaine avant 1054’ in Rev. des Etudes Byzantines, x (1952), 5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and of Mayne, R., ‘East and West in 1054’ in Cambridge Historical Journal, xi (1954), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} Text of Peter's letter (with latin translation and similar letters to the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem) in Michel, Humbert und Kerullarios, ii. 432–57. Leo's reply (in fact, the work of Humbert; cf. ibid., 423 n. 1) in P.L. cxliii. 769D–773B; here 770C: ibi (i.e. Rome) principals dignitatis et totius ecclesiasticae disciplinae venerabilis apex praefulgeat et praecellat.

^{page 32 note 4} P.L. cxliii. 750A: Hic nimiae vanitatis novum nomen primus sibi usurpavit, ubi se a cunctis oecumenicum patriarcham, id est universalem, et dici et scribi debere decrevit. Pro qua utique presumptione a beads pontificibus Pelagio et Gregorio digna perculsus est excommunicatione. Cf. Sentences 184 (Pelagius) and 185 (Gregory): also Michel, Sentenzen, 49 f.

^{page 33 note 1} Hofmann states that Gregory had established ‘a papal prerogative’, op. cit, 136, 137. Caspar says that ‘this claim stands in contradiction to the general canon law’, op cit., 203, n.5. Also Arquillière, H. X., S. Grégoirr VII, Paris 1934, 133Google Scholar.

^{page 33 note 2} Cf. Peter Crassus, Defensio Heinrici regis, in MGH de lite, i. 447.

^{page 34 note 1} MGH constit. et acta, i. 537, line 16.

^{page 34 note 2} Ep., 5: P.L. cxxxvi. 664.

^{page 34 note 3} P.L. cxliii. 1412B.

^{page 35 note 1} In Lanfranc, De corp. et sang. Domini, P.L. cl. 413.

^{page 35 note 2} P.L. cxliii. 1003G.

^{page 35 note 3} Reg., ii. 56, 209, line 15 f.; i. 56, 83, line 25 f.

^{page 35 note 4} Reg., vii. 16, 490, line 21 f.; vi. 8, 408, line 29 f.

^{page 35 note 5} Reg., v. 17, 380, line 6.

^{page 35 note 6} Reg., v. 23, 387, line 22 f.

^{page 35 note 7} Reg., v. 17, 380, line 14.

^{page 36 note 1} Reg., iv. 20, 326, 28 f.

^{page 36 note 2} C. 56, De oxcomm. vitand., in MGH de lite, ii. 138, line 37 f. Bernold quotes from Sentences, cc. 65, 55 and 106. Again in the De damnatione scismalicorum he states: De iudicio domni apostolorum super publicos et contumaces … nihil adhuc illi contrarium reperimus, licent diversorum patrum statuta singulari diligentia evolvissemus … reus … non per absentiam damnationem suam debeat differre, ibid., 28, lines 1–13.

^{page 36 note 3} This was the view of Bernold; cf. De damn. scis. in MGH de lite, ii. 49, line 32 f. Arquillière argues that Gregory's action represented a new theological conclusion that becomes part of canon law; op cit., 133 and n.4. But Gregory claimed to have precedents, e.g. Reg., viii. 21, 554, line 3 f. Also when he threatened Philip of France with deposition he called the punishment ‘the just rigour of the law’; Reg., i. 35, 56, line 29. Gregory's attitude matches that of Humbert in Adv. sim., iii. 7 and 20, MGH de lite, i. 206, line 14, and 223, line 43.

^{page 37 note 1} Reg., ii. 54, 199, line 21 f. Gregory had no formula to follow, hence the ambiguities of the language of deposition and excommunication: cf. Reg., iii. 10a, 269, lines 7 f. But for a different view cf. Ullmann, op. tit., 301 f.

^{page 37 note 2} On this see Ullmann, op. cit., 266 f., and 278 f. Ullmann concludes that the second excommunication and final deposition are ‘thus expressly based upon Gelasian authority’, ibid., 283. The important section of the Gelasian text occurs in Sentences, cc. 226 and 227.

^{page 37 note 3} Reg., ii. 51, 193, line 12 f.; ii. 73, 235, line 1 f.; vi. 13, 417, line 12 f.; vii. 6, 467, lines 4–11; viii. 11, 530, line 28 f.; viii. 22, 564, line 13 f. These are examples of Gregory's admonitions to princes and rulers to despise the things of the world, do their duty and seek the reward of heaven. In such an atmosphere his struggle with Henry appeared merely as the execution of one of the many threats he had made against temporal rulers. Cf. Tellenbach, op. cit., 154. Arquillière points out that the anti-Gregorian polemists disputed the pope's right to excommunicate Henry and did not distinguish between this and the right of deposition. The former seemed to include the latter. Op. cit., 365. Gregory himself described the bishops who supported the emperor as simply those ‘qui dicunt, regem non oportet excommunicari’. But he then proceeded to justify deposition as well as excommunication! Reg. iv. 2 (25 August 1076), 294, lines 4–23.

^{page 37 note 4} On the legal and social consequences of excommunication cf. Ullmann, op. cit. 299 f.

^{page 38 note 1} Adv. Sim. i. 11, in MGH de lite, i. 117–18. Gregory in Reg., iii. 10, 263, line 31 f.; v. 14a, 372, n.16; vi. 1, 389, line 24f.; vi. 17a, 429, line 7; vii. 2, 460 passim, especially 461 lines 21–3: ipsi dati in reprobum sensum et demersi in diabolice cecitatis puteum.

^{page 38 note 2} Cf. J. Autenrieth, loc. cit., 376.

^{page 38 note 3} G. B. Borino, loc. cit., in SG. iii (1948), 503 f. gives a contrary view as to the relative importance of Humbert and Gregory (as the archdeacon Hildebrand) in shaping the 1059 decree on papal elections.