¹ The major work on establishing the chronology and assessing the accuracy of John’s references to German affairs was done by von Giesebrecht, W.. Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, 5 (Leipzig 1880) and 6 (ed von Simson, B.: Leipzig 1895)Google Scholar, passim; see also Giesebrecht, W. von, ‘Noten zu Briefen Johanns von Salisbury’, Forschungen zurdeutschen Geschichtell (Berlin 1881) pp 622–33Google Scholar. References to more recent work on particular problems will be found in Letters 2 (below, n 3) and the notes below.

² Barbarossa’s encyclical issued from the Council of Würzburgon 1 June 1165, MGH Dip 10/2 no 480 p 395, and his mandate to Abbot Erlebald of Stavelot concerning the administration of oaths of obedience to Paschal III, no 483 p 401, both survive in Becket letter-collections. It is also probably to the Beckct circle that we owe the preservation of a fragment of an edict issued by Barbarossa at about the same time against the Cistercians, ibid no 479 p 393: see Reuter, T., ‘Das Edikt Friedrich Barbarossas gegen die Zisterzicnser’, MIÖG 84 (1976) pp 328–36.Google Scholar

³ Brooke, C. N. L., ‘A Note on the Early Letters and Corrigenda to Volume 1’, [The] Letters] of John of Salisbury,] 2]: The Later Letters (1163-1180) (ed Millor, W.J. and Brooke, C. N. L., OMT: Oxford 1979) p xi.Google Scholar

⁴ Letters 2, p xxxviii.

⁵ For the German nobles see the review by Leyser, [K.J.] [of W.] Kienast, [Deutschland und Frankreich in der Kaiserzeit, 3 vols) (Stuttgart 1974), [EHR 93 (1978)] p 849Google Scholar; for French and Italian students travelling to Cologne (apart from Gerard la Pucelle, on whom see n 7), see Annates S. Dionisii, MCH SS 13, p 720 sa 1168(?); and Luchaire, A., ‘Etudes sur quelques manuscrits de Paris et de Rome. Les recueils epistolaires de l’abbaye de St. Victor’, BFLUP 8 (Paris 1899) pp 66–8, 105–6.Google Scholar

⁶ For Henry’s relations by blood and marriage see Letters 2, p 314 n 1 and Kehr, P., ‘ZurGeschichte Viktors IV.’, NAGAC 46 (Hanover 1926) pp 53–85Google Scholar. For his role as an intermediary during the schism see [T. A.] Reuter, [The Papal Schism, the Empire and the West, 1159-1169] (unpublished D Phil thesis: Oxford 1975) pp 81-100, 129, 151, 252.

⁷ Letters 2, pp xxviii-xxix, xxxi, xxxix, 68 n 1. For his work as a canonist see Kuttner, S. and Rathbone, E. ‘Anglo-Norman Canonists of the Twelfth Century’, Traditio 7 (1949-51) pp 296–303Google Scholar; Fransen, G., ‘Colligite Fragmenta: la Summa Elnonensis ’, SGra 13 (1967) pp 85–108.Google Scholar

⁸ Ep 242 (to William Brito), Letters 2, pp 472-4.

⁹ John calls Frederick imperator in ep 272 to Baldwin of Exeter (Letters 2, pp 556-60) and ep 279 to Master Lombard (ibid pp 606-8), both of 1168. For his use of ex-augustus see ibid p 474 n 4.

¹⁰ John seems to have had a text of Gregory’s sentence of deposition issued at the Lent Synod of 1080 in front of him as he wrote, as the following quotation shows: ‘… Heinricum, quern regem dicunt, omnesque fautores eius excommunicationi subicio et anathematis vinculis alligo. Et iterum regnum Teutonicorum et Italie ex parte omnipotentis Dei et vestra [referring to Saint Peter) interdicens ei omnem potestatem et dignitatem illi regiam tollo et, ut nullus christianus ei sicut regi oboediat, interdico omnesque, qui ei iuraverunt vel iurabunt de regni dominatione, a iuramenti promissione absolve Ipse autem Heinricus cum suis fautoribus in omni congressione belli nullas vires nullamque in vita sua victoriam optineat’, Gregorii VII Registrum, vii. 14a (ed E. Caspar, MGH Epp Sel 2, p 486). A text of Gregory’s register was at Clairvaux in the twelfth century, but the sentence of deposition also circulated independently (ibid pp vii, 479 n 2).

¹¹ Kehr, P., ‘Nachträge zu den Papsturkunden Italiens, VII’, NaAWG, PhK (1912) no 11 pp 32–3.Google Scholar

¹² Jaffé nos 10628 (Alexander III to Archbishop Eberhard of Salzburg, 4 April 1160), 10729 (Alexander III to Archbishop Syrus of Genoa, 7 June 1162); Reuter, T., ‘A List of Bishops Attending the Council of Tours (1163)’, AHC 8 (1976) pp 121–2 and n 38.Google Scholar

¹³ Ullmann, W., ‘Cardinal Roland and the Diet of Besancon’, MiscHP 18 (1954) pp 107–79Google Scholar; Pacaut, M., Alexandre 111: Étude sur la Conception du Pouvoir Pontifuial dans sa Pensée et dans son Oeuvre (Paris 1956) p 177.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Reuter pp 144-6. I intend to discuss this question more fully in an article entitled ‘Imperium Romanum and regnum Italicum from Gregory VII to Innocent III’ which I am preparing for publication.

¹⁵ Ottonis et Rahewini Gesta Friderici I Imperatoris (ed G. Waitz and B. von Simson, MGH SRG 1912) p 177; W. Heinemeyer, ‘Beneficium-non feudum sed bonum factum: Der Streit auf dem Reichstag zu Besancon 1157’, 15 (1969) pp 184-204.

¹⁶ For the chronology and significance of these negotiations see Reuter pp 111-22, 139-49. The problems of doctrine and ideology they presented have been discussed more recently by Classen, P., ‘Die Komnenen und die Kaiserkrone des Westens’, JMedH 3 (1977) pp 212–20Google Scholar; Kahl, H. D., ‘Römische Krönungspläne im Komnenenhause? Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Zweikaiserproblems im 12. Jahrhun-dert’, AKG 59 (1977) pp 282–315Google Scholar; Spiteris, J., La critica Bizantina del Primato Romano nel secolo XII, OCA 208, (1979) pp 177–210.Google Scholar

¹⁷ [The] Letters [of John of Salisbury,] 1 [: The Early Letters (1153-1161) (ed W.J. Millor, H. E. Butler and C. N. L. Brooke, NMT, OMT: London and Edinburgh 1955)] 124 p 207.

¹⁸ The letter is MGH Dip 10/1 no 5 p 9; on the circumstances surrounding the embassy see Zeillinger, K., ‘Friedrich Barbarossa, Wibald von Stablo und Eberhard von Bamberg’, MIÖG 78 (1970) pp 210–23Google Scholar; Reuter, T., review of MGH Dip 10/1, EHR 92 (1977) p 596.Google Scholar

¹⁹ MGH Dip 10/1 no 52 p 89, ‘Et quicumque iustitiam et honorem regni conculcare ac subvertere ausu temerario presumpserint, dominus papa a regie dignitatis dilectione premonitus eos ad satisfactionem canonice commonebit. Quodsi regi ad apostolicam ammonitionem de iure et honore regio iustitiam exhibere con-tempserint, excommunicationis sententia innodentur’. The clause is retained in the renewal by Hadrian IV, no 98 p 166.

²⁰ Simonsfeld, H., Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Friedrich I, 1 (Leipzig 1908) p 166 n 61Google Scholar. The objections raised by Kienast, p 364 n 960 to Simonsfeld’s interpretation are groundless; there is no independent evidence that John was with Eugenius at Segni in the spring of 1152.

²¹ Ep 288 to Bartholomew of Exeter, Letters 2, p 648; ep 289 to Baldwin of Totnes, 2, pp 656-8, ‘Fredericus … pacem cum ecclesia facturus creditur, petens ut filium suum natu secundum, quern in regem eligi fecit, in imperatorem recipiat dominus papa et a catholicis episcopis praecipiat consecrari, apostolicae sedi pariturum, dum tamen Fredericus in persona sua nullum apostolicum, nisi uelit, recipere compellatur praeter Petrum et alios qui in caelis sunt. Et in his facile audiretur, si non pactis insereret ut in gradibus et dignitatibus suis remaneant qui sunt a scismaticis haeresiarchis ordinati et consecrati’; ep 298 to Baldwin of Totnes, Letters 2, pp 690-2.

²² Baaken, G., ‘Die Altersfolge der Söhne Friedrich Barbarossas und die Konigserhebung Heinrichs VI.’, DA 24 (1968) pp 46–78.Google Scholar

²³ The bishops of Basle and Strasbourg were deposed: see GPont, 2/2 (1927) p 15 no *41; ibid, 3/3 (1935) p 227 no *25. The position of the schismatic bishops was the subject of a number of clauses in the Treaty of Anagni of 1176 (MGH Const 1, no 249 pp 351-2) and the Peace of Venice of 1177 (ibid, no 260 pp 363-4).

²⁴ Letters 2, p 656 n 18. John may have supposed that Frederick was suggesting Henry’s coronation as emperor by catholic bishops, and this is assumed by Baaken, G., ‘Unio regni ad imperium: Die Verhandlungen von Verona 1184 und die Eheabredung zwischen König Heinrich VI. und Konstanze von Sizilien’, QFIAB 52 (1972) pp 236–8Google Scholar; and Wolf, G., ‘Imperator und Caesar-zu den Anfängen des staufischen Erbreichsgedankens’, Friedrich Barbarossa (ed Wolf, G., Wege der Forschung 390: Darmstadt 1975) pp 363–5Google Scholar. But this would have been very odd in the twelfth century.

²⁵ Reuter pp 63-78, 85-6, 106-7, 173-6, 226-8.

²⁶ Ep 186 to Gerard la Pucelle (Letters 2, p 226): ‘Defecerat enim scisma, pacem fuerat tirannus uester ecclesiae redditurus, nisi eum Coloniensis etiam adhuc aduersus ecclesiam incitaret’. See Spörl, J., ‘Rainald von Dassel auf dem Konzil von Reims 1148 und sein Verhältnis zu Johannes von Salisbury’, HJch 60 (1940) pp 250–7Google Scholar; Rill, [G.], [‘Zur Geschichte der Würzburger Eide von 1165’, Würzburger Diözesangeschichtsblätter 22] (Würzburg 1960) pp 7–19.Google Scholar

²⁷ Ep 272 to Baldwin of Totnes (Letters 2, pp 552-61) is the only detailed account of Barbarossa’s return from Italy in 1167.

²⁸ Ep p 272, 273, 276 (Letters 2, pp 558, 572, 588). See also Ep 168, 2, p 102, ‘qui solo uerbo pacem gentibus ad arbitrium indicebat et bella, nunc a suis et inter suos petitis et acceptis treuiis gratulatur’, referring to events of 1166. John was probably drawing here on a letter from Gerard la Pucelle to Thomas Becket, MHTB … 6, no 234, p 30: ‘Conspiraverunt multi principum contra ducem Saxoniae, quod tamen imperator pacificari contendit’; possibly he also meant to refer to Frederick’s feud with his brother (see next note).

²⁹ Brinken, B., Die Politik Konrads von Staufen in der Tradition der Rheinischen Pfalzgrafschaft (Bonn 1974) pp 188–95Google Scholar. Brinken does not discuss the passage in ep 272.

³⁰ Ep 276 (Letters 2, p 588), ‘… noueritis nos audisse pro certo quod Henricus dux Saxonum in solempni praelio uictus est ab archiepiscopo Magdeburgensi, episcopo Eluestadensi et Alberto marchione…. Studuit imperator duci reformare pacem, sed episcopi non adquiescunt, maxime ut sub optentu guerrae se possint a scismaticorum consortio separare’. The fullest account of the feuding and the destruction in the Goslar region is Hoppe, y, [‘Erzbischof Wichmann von Magdeburg’, Die Mark Brandenburg, Wettin und Magdeburg: Ausgewählte Aufsätze (ed Ludat, H.: Cologne 1965)] pp 54–64Google Scholar. See further Jordan, K., Heinrich der Löwe: Eine Biographie (Munich 1979) pp 116–23.Google Scholar

³¹ Bogumil, K., Das Bistum Halberstadt im 12. Jahrhundert (Cologne 1972) pp 240–9 and n 234.Google Scholar

³² Hoppe pp 42-8; Rill, p 10 and n 23; Claude, [D.], [Geschidue des Erzbistums Magdeburg his in das 12. Jahrhundert] (Cologne 1975) pp 149–51, 164–8.Google Scholar

³³ Helmoldi Presbyteri Bozouiensis Cronica Slavorum (ed B. Schmeidler, MGH SRG 1937) pp 206-8.

³⁴ Annales Ralisponenses, MGH SS 17 p 587 sa 1166: ‘Saxones se ad Alexandrum, coactis ad cundem consensum principibus terre sue et vicinarum provinciarum, unanimiter contulerunt’.

³⁵ Hoppe pp 65-6.

³⁶ Claude pp 149, 166.

³⁷ Böhm, [F.], [Das Bild Friedrich Barbarossas und seines Kaisertums in den ausländischen Quellen seiner Zeit] (Eberings Hisiorisdie Studien 289, Berlin 1936) pp 87–104Google Scholar; Kienast 2, pp 356-65, 390-4; Leyser pp 848-9.

³⁸ Werner, K. F., ‘Das hochmittelalterliche Imperium im politischen Bewusstsein Frankreichs (10.-12. Jahrhundert)’, HZ 200 (1965) pp 33–54.Google Scholar

³⁹ Above pp 419-20.

⁴⁰ These trends were identified and well described in two articles by Brackmann, A.: ‘Die Wandlung der Staatsanschauungen im Zeitalter Kaiser Friedrichs I.’, HZ 145 (1930) pp 1–18Google Scholar; ‘Die Ursachen der geistigen und politischen Wandlung Europas im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert’, HZ 149 (1934) pp 229-39.

⁴¹ Ep 184 to Gerard la Pucelle (Letters 2, p 216), ‘Quis enim similis erat Frederico in filiis hominum antequam in tirannum uerteretur ex principe, et ex catholico imperatore scismaticus et haereticus fieret?’ Haller, J., Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, 3 (paperback edition, Hamburg 1965) p 372Google Scholar, gives other examples of this theme in contemporary writers.

⁴² Ep 124 to Ralph of Serre (Letters 1, p 206), ‘Quis Teutonicos constituit iudices nationum? Quis hanc brutis et inpetuosis hominibus auctoritatem contulit, ut pro arbitrio principem statuant super capita filiorum hominum?’

⁴³ Ep 124 (Letters 1, p 207), ‘Teutonicorum inpetus’; ep 152 (Letters 2, p 54), ‘furor Teutonicorum’. The phrase was a commonplace in the twelfth century (Böhm p 12) and was even used by Germans of themselves in a favourable sense; see E. Dümmler, ‘Uber den furor Teutonhus’’, Sitzungsberkhte der königlich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, PhK (1897) 112-27. For the Germans as barbarians and (ancient) Persians see ep 277 (Letters 2, p-592) and ep 158 (Letters 2, p 70 and n 8) respectively.

⁴⁴ Ep 184 (Letters 2, pp 218-20); ep 185 (2, p 224). The res beati Remigii mentioned in the second letter was probably the curia at Meerssen, where the monks had for some time had trouble with the Heinsberg family; see MGH Dip 10/1, no 8p 14(1152); Ramackers, J., Papsturkunden in den Niederländen, AAWG, 3 Folge 9 (1934) no 114 p 2491 (1165/6).Google Scholar