¹ Arquilliere, H. X., ‘Gregoire VII, a Canossa, a-t-il reintegre Henri IV dans sa fonction royale ?’ Studi Gregoriani 4 (1952) 1–26. Fliche, A., ‘Gregoire VII, a Canossa, a-t-il reintegre Henri IV dans sa fonction royale?’ Studt Gregoriani 1 (1947) 373-386. I should like to thank Professors B. Tierney and F. Cheyette and Mr. E. Kar afiol for re ading and commenting upon this essayGoogle Scholar

² Art. cit. 1, 6f Google Scholar

³ Ibid. 19 Google Scholar

^3a See note 68 (infra).Google Scholar

⁴ Among the most distinguished analyses of Gregory's thought as illustrative of hierocratic doctrine are those by Tellenbach, G. (trans. Bennett, R. F.), Church, State and Christian Society at the Time of the Investiture Contest (Oxford 1948) esp. 153, 158; Pacaut, M., La théocratie (Paris 1957) esp. 79ff, 87; and W. Ullmann, The Growth of Papal Government (Oxford 1956) 277ff.Google Scholar

⁵ See Voosen, È., Papauté et pouvoir civil à l'époque de Grégoire VII (Gembloux 1927) 313f. Gregory's thought was, however, by no means so fully developed as that of later canonistic advocates of the potestas indirecta. Indeed, by admitting that legitimate rulers might govern outside the Church, he differed markedly from some of them. See Maccarrone, M., ‘“Potestas directa” e “potestas indirecta” nei teologi del xn e xin secolo,’ Sacerdozio e Regno da Gregorio VII a Bonifacio VIII (Miscellanea historiae pontificiae 18; Rome 1954) esp. 44ff. Cf., in the same volume, Stickler, A., ‘Sacerdozio e Regno nelle nuove ricerche attorno ai secoli xn e xm nei Decretisti e Decretalisti fino alle De- cretali di Gregorio IX,’ esp. 5f, 21 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Die Briefe Heinrichs IV. ed. C. Erdmann (Leipzig 1937) nos. 11, 12, pp. 14, 16.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid. no. 17, p. 25.Google Scholar

⁸ MGH SS. 11.670. Dr. Ullmann has accepted this statement as representative of Gregorian thought and attempted to set it in the developing context of papal political doctrine. W. Ullmann, ‘Cardinal Roland and Besançon,’ Sacerdozio e Regno (note 5 supra) 115.Google Scholar

⁹ Brunos Buch vom Sachsenkrieg, ed. Η. Ε. Lohmann (Leipzig 1937) c. 82, p. 78: ‘quia nullam apud regem misericordiam, dum rex erat, invenire poterant et ei nullam modo, cum rex non esset, fidem vel subiectionem debebant ….’Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid. ce. 25, 127, pp. 29f, 120f.Google Scholar

¹¹ On the history of the entire proce ss, the most ample account is still that of G. Meyervon Knonau, J ahrbiiclier des deuischeti R ei ches unter Heinrich I V. und Heinrich V. vols. II, III (Le ipz ig 1874, 1900).Google Scholar

¹² Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 84 (PL 148.84). Paul also recorded that the legates were present at Rudolf's subsequent coronation (ibid. 85).Google Scholar

¹³ See Fliche, A., L a reiorme qr eqorienne II (Paris 1925) 413. For the contrary view, see Voose n, op. cit. 248f. Ther e can be no doubt that Gregory considered other episcopal churc hes and even mon asteries as subjec t members of the Roman church. See JL 5094: J. vo n Pflug k-Har ttun g, Acta Po n ti f icum R omanorum inediia I (Tiibingen 1880) no. 52, p.51, an d furth er the letter of Liemar of Hamburg in H. Sudendorf, Reqislrum tnerkuiiirdiqer Urk u n den I (Jena 184 9) no. 5, p. 9.Google Scholar

¹⁴ For the op pos ite v iew amo n g Gregory's contemporaries, see, in addition, Paul of Be rnried, V i ta Greqor i i V I I c. 86 (P L 148. 85t'.) an d Bruno, ed.cit. c. 104, p. 93. On the history of the juristic process, see V. Dormer, P abs le als Richter iiber die deutschen Koniqe (Bresslau 1897) 141', 18f, 23ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Dus R egistrum Gregors V I I. ed. E. Caspar (MGH Epp. sel. 2; Berlin 1920–22) 3.15 (p. 277).Google Scholar

¹⁶ See H. Sielaff, Studien über Gregors VII. Gesinnung und Verhalten gegen König Heinrich IV. in den Jahren 1073–1080 (Greifswald Diss. 1910) 77.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Reg. 4.2 (293ff.). In this letter, Gregory did not mention deposition.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. 296.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Reg. 4.1, 3 (289ff, 297ff.).Google Scholar

²⁰ Ullmann, Growth 326ff.Google Scholar

²¹ See infra, note 68.Google Scholar

²² Reg. 4.23, 24 (334ff.).Google Scholar

²³ Vita Heinrici IV, ed. W. Wattenbach - W. Eberhard (3d ed. Hanover 1899) 18, c. 4.Google Scholar

²⁴ Reg. 7.142 (484f.).Google Scholar

²⁵ Berthold, Annales an. 1077 (MGH SS. 5.297; JL 5032).Google Scholar

²⁶ Meyer von Knonau, op. cit. III 54ffGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Reg. 5.15, 16 (374ff.).Google Scholar

²⁸ Bruno, op. cit. (note 9, supra) c. 107, p. 96: ‘At nostrates cum ipsas litteras accepissent a magna spe, quam in apostolica petra exciderunt, quia prius coelum stare vel terram crediderant coeli modo moveri, quam cathedram Petri amittere constantiam Petri.’ In the light of subsequent events, the attribution of sweeping powers to the Pope by Rudolf in 1073 is in enlightening contrast with Gregory's own statements. Sudendorf, Registrum II no. 19, p. 22f.Google Scholar

²⁹ Bruno c. 108, p. 97ff.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ibid. c. 110, p. 99ff.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. c. 114, p. 107ff.Google Scholar

³² Ibid. cc. 115, 112, pp. 108f, lOlff.Google Scholar

³³ Ibid. c. 109, p. 99.Google Scholar

³⁴ Reg. 6.1 (389f.).Google Scholar

³⁵ Reg. 6.4 (397).Google Scholar

³⁶ Reg. 6.5b, 17a (401, 428).Google Scholar

³⁷ See the article by Leicht, P. S., ‘Il pontefice S. Gregorin VII. ed il diritto romano,’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 93–110, where the lack of any knowledge of Roman law on Gregory's part is graphically shown. See Ullmann, Growth 276, for the argument to the contrary.Google Scholar

³⁸ Clearly, Gregory attached some importance to his power of imperial coronation, but his few references to the Romanum imperium leave some uncertainty about his precise meaning. As he had before his papal elevation written a letter acknowledging Henry IV as ‘Francorum et Romanorum rex’ (PL 146.1419: JL 4765), one may tentatively conclude that he did not claim for the papacy the civil authority of the Roman Empire. The problem is, however, not at all clear. See Reg. 1.20; 2.7o; 4.1, 3, 24 (33, 237, 289, 298, 337); and P. Jaffé, Monumenta Gregoriana (Berlin 1865) Epistolae collectae nos. 15, 17, pp. 540f, 543. On the power of the Pope to refuse imperial consecration, see Lambert of Hersfeld, an. 1069 (ed. Holder-Egger, MGH SS. in usum scholarum [1894] 110), the message from Pope Alexander II which Peter Damian delivered to Henry: ‘ad haec suis manibus nunquam imperatorem consecrandum fore, qui tam pestilenti exemplo, quantum in se esset, fidem christianam prodidisset. ‘Google Scholar

³⁹ This view was strongly set forth by Bernheim, E., Mittelalterliche Zeitanschauungen I (Tübingen 1918) 203, 211ff, and, more comprehensively, by a number of students who wrote their dissertations under his direction. The clearest statement of the theme is in G. Herzfeld, Papst Gregors VII. Begriff der bösen Obrigkeit (Greifswald Diss. 1914), but Herzfeld, curiously enough, did not apply his conclusions to the Henrican conflict. See pp. 60f, 76, 82. The other relevant dissertations approach that controversy from the same point of view. See the work by Sielaff cited above (note 16), the subsequent study by Reuter, W., Die Gesinnung und die Massnahmen Gregors VII. gegen Heinrich IV. in den Jahren 1080 bis. 1085 (Greifswald Diss. 1913), and the other works by Krüger, H., Was versteht Gregor VII. unter Justifia, und wie wendet er diesen Begriff im einzelnen praktisch an? (Greifswald Diss. 1910), and Weinert, E., Die Bedeutung der superbia und humilitas in den Briefen Gregors VII. (Greifswald Diss. 1920). These somewhat tendentious, but nevertheless suggestive, studies have been in general neglected by students of Gregory's thought. A more recent statement of the same theme, occurs in the article by Nitschke, A., ‘Die Wirksamkeit Gottes in der Welt Gregors VII,’ Studi Gregoriani 5 (1956) 115-219 (esp. 117, 190f, 202), which contains, however, no reference to the earlier works just cited.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Reg. 3.15 (277): ‘Ecce diabolus palam in mundo dominatur, ecce omnia membra sua se exaltasse letatur …’Google Scholar

⁴¹ Jaffé, op. cit. Epp. coll. no. 1, p. 521. See also Reg. 1.42, 7.23 (64ff, 500f.).Google Scholar

⁴² Ε. g. Jaffé no. 28, p. 555: ‘Peccatum igitur paganitatis incurrit quisquis, dum chris- tianum se asserit, sedi apostolicae obedire contemnit. ‘Google Scholar

⁴³ Cf. Jaffé no. 2, p. 522, Reg. 9.2, 4.11 (571, 311) and 2.32 (168), where Philip I of France is judged an enemy of God and the Church.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Reg. 1.28 (46): ‘et inimicis sanctae ecclesiae bellum Dei secum preliaturus viriliter re- stiteris. ‘Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Reg. 9.35 (623), a frequent figure. See A. Stickler, ‘ II gladius nel Registro di Grego- rio VII,’ Studi Gregoriani 3 (1948) 89ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Reg. 2.31 (166f.) and Meyer von Knonau, op. cit. III 311. See also Reg. 8.14 (479); Jaffé, op. cit. no. 2, p. 522f.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Reg. 4.28 (345), Reg. 1.7 (to French barons; llf.).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Reg. 2.51, 6.1 (194, 390).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Reg. 3.7 (258f.); Jaffé, op. cit. Epp. coll. no. 40, p. 567; Pflugk-Harttung II no. 167, p. 135. See Nitschke, op. cit. 193ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Reg. 2.5 (130): ‘ Quarum rerum rex vester, qui non rex sed tyrannus dicendus est, sua dente diabolo caput et causa est,’ and (132): ‘Quodsi nec huiusmodi districtione voluerit- resipiscere, nulli clam aut dubium esse volumus quin rnodis omnibus regnum Franciae de eius occupatione adiuvante Deo temptemus eripere. ‘ The right of rebellion against a wrongful ruler is not explicit in Gregory's letters; his statement to Archbishop Cyriacus of Carthage, Reg. 1.23 (39), suggests the course of passive resistence: ‘Sed Deo gratias, qui in medio nationis pravae et perversae, fidei tuae constantia velud luminare quoddam omnibus adeo innotuit, ut presentatus regiae audientiae potius definires diversis cruciatibus affici quam precipiente rege contra sanctos canones ordinationes celebrari.’Google Scholar

⁵¹ Reg. 1.12 (90): ‘Portamus enim, quanquam infirmi … soli tamen portamus non solum spiritualiuin sed et secularium ingens pondus negotiorum.’Google Scholar

⁵² Cf. Reg. 8.11 (530).Google Scholar

⁵³ Reg. 9.37 (630f).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Reg. 1.24, 3.10 (41, 267) and passim. Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Reg. 1.18a (30f.), 1.21a (35; repeated by Robert Guiscard seven years later, significantly omitting the provision for homage to Henry IV : Reg. 8.1a [514f.]); 8.1b, 8.1c, 9.3 (516f, 575f.) and Deusdedit, ed. V. Wolf von Glanville, Die Kanonensammlung (Paderborn 1905) 3.324ff. On this development, see G. Ladner, ‘The Concepts of “Ec- clesia” and “Christianitas” and their Relation to the Idea of Papal “Plenitudo Potestatis” from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII,’ Sacerdozio e Regno (n. 5 supra), esp. 52f.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Voosen, op. cit. 238.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Reg. 7.25 (505f.): ‘ 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. Qua tarnen maioritatis et minoritatis distantia religio sic se movet Christiana, ut cura et dispositione apostolica dignitas post Deum gubernetur regia. ‘Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Brooke, Ζ. Ν., ‘Pope Gregory VII's Demand for Fealty from William the Conqueror,’ English Historical Review 26 (1911) 235, 237.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Reg. 7.23 (499f.); Ordericus Vitalis, Hist. Eccles. 2.3.17 (PL 188.285); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum 3.238 (Rolls Series) II 299.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Wace, Roman de Brut 12353: Έ si saunt Engleiz de veir /A tuz le velt fere savoir / Ke eil sunt escumengié / De l'Apostoile e del clegié.'Google Scholar

⁶¹ Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 61 (PL 148.73).Google Scholar

⁶² Reg. 4.1 (289).Google Scholar

⁶³ Reg. 4.2 (295): ‘Nam sicut illi, qui omni suae voluntati Deum preponunt eiusque pre- cepto plus quam hominibus oboediunt membra sunt Christi, ita et illi de quibus supra diximus, membra sunt antichristi. Si ergo spirituales viri, cum oportet, iudicantur, cur non seculares amplius de suis pravis actibus constringuntur ? ‘Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Reg. 1.15: ‘… sponsam videlicet Christi diabolo prostituere et a catholica fide temptans earn separare nisus est symoniace heresis scelere maculare.’Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See especially Reg. 8.5, 4.1, 5.14a, 7.14a (522, 289f., 370, 483).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Reg. 2.37 (173). Cf. Reg. 3.15 (277): ‘invenimus dominium diaboli tanto minus duravisse, quanto magis visum fuit exaltari et in christianam religionei*: prevaluisse. ‘Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Jaffé, op. cit. Epp. coll. no. 46 (Gregory's last encyclical), p. 574: ‘Ex quo enim dispo- sitione divina mater ecclesia in throno apostolico me valde indignum et Deo teste invitum collocavit, summopere procuravi ut sancta ecclesia sponsa Dei, domina et mater nostra ad proprium rediens decus, libera casta et catholica permaneret. Sed quia hosti antiquo hec omnino displicent, armavit contra nos membra sua ut omnia in contrarium verteret. Ideo in nos, immo in apostolicam sedem tanta facit, quanta facere a tempore Constantini Magni imperatoris nequivit.’Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Reg. 8.3 (519, to Alfonso VI of Leon and Castille): ‘gloriabamur te vere christianum regem et ideo vere regem nos habere in parte domini Iesu contra membra diaboli gaude- bamus.’ Cf. Reg. 4.1 (290, of Henry IV after his first deposition): ‘… sancta ecclesia … diversas iniquitates regis, et utinam christiani et vestri, sustinuit… ‘ and Reg. 2.5 (130, of Philip I of France): ‘ Quarum rerum rex vester, qui non rex sed tyrannus dicendus est, suadente diabolo caput et causa est.’Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Reg. 2.30 (164): Writing to Henry nearly twenty years after his accession to the throne, Gregory urges him to let the Church have its due rights, ‘… et tunc demum regiam potes- tatem recte te obtinere cognoscas, si regi regum Christo … dominationis tuae altitudinem inclinas …’Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Reg. 3.21 (287); Reg. 7.1 (459): ‘Nemo enim omnium regum etiam paganorum …’Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. Voosen, op. cit. (note 5 supra) 162.Google Scholar

⁷² Reg. 8.21, e. g., p. 547: ‘Qui … garriunt auctoritatem sanctae et apostolice sedis non potuisse regem Henricum, liominem christianae legis contemptorem … excommunicare …’Google Scholar

⁷³ Ibid. 557: ‘Ad summam, quoslibet bonos christianos multo convenientius quam malos principes reges intellegi decet. Isti enim gloriam Dei querendo se ipsos strenue regunt, at illi non quae Dei sunt sed sua querentes sibimet hostes alios tyrannice opprimunt. Hi veri regis Christi, illi vero diaboli corpus sunt. Isti ad hoc sibi imperant, ut cum summo im- peratore eternaliter regnent, illorum vero id potestas agit, ut cum tenebrarum principe, qui rex est super omnes filios superbiae, eterna dampnatione dispereant.’Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See the discussion of this text by M. Pacaut, ‘L'autorité pontificale selon Innocent IV,’ Le Moyen Age 66 (1960) 115. Professor F. Cheyette kindly drew my attention to this article.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Reg. 1.32, 5.10, 7.21 (59, 362, 497). See Voosen, op. cit. 174. Compare his more forceful assertions toward Hungary and Dalmatia, where he claimed the power to bestow the royal office by virtue of his feudal tenure over those lands. On Hungary, see Reg. 2.63, 70 (218, 230); on Dalmatia, the oath of Swonimir, as given by Deusdedit, cited note 55, supra. Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Reg. 8.21 (561).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Reg. 8.21 (554). See Kern, F., Gottesgnadentum und Widerstandsrecht im frühen Mittelalter, 2nd ed. by Buchner, R. (Münster 1954) 50 n. 103.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Bruno, op. cit. c. 91, p. 85.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Reg. 1.19 (32): ‘ Quod ipsum [Henricum] in regem elegimus …’.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 77 (PL 148.80).Google Scholar

⁸¹ Reg. 4.7 (305).Google Scholar

⁸² Reg. 7.14a (484).Google Scholar

⁸³ Reg. 9.29 (613).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ However, one cannot fully accept Sielaff's suggestion that Gregory's acknowledgment of Rudolf was merely ‘Drohpolitik’ designed to secure Henry's repentance, (op. cit. η. 16 supra, 95ff.). Gregory may have been reluctant to receive Rudolf as king because of uncertainty as to his standing on the issue of simony (Reg. 2.45: 183f), a suspicion Rudolf made dramatic efforts to dispel (Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 87: PL 148.86). An interesting new approach to the powers Gregory claimed in this instance is offered by Berges, W., ‘Gregor VII. und das deutsche Designationsrecht, ‘ Studi Gregoriani 2 (1948) 139-209, especially 193ff. Otto of Freising's description of the crown Gregory is supposed to have sent to Rudolf is still a curious element in the fabric of Gregorian thought (Gesta Frederici 1.7 : MGH SS. inusum schol. [1912] 23). The meaning of the inscription Otto preserves—‘Roma dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolfo’—is unclear. Accepting its historicity, one may perhaps assume that Gregory acted either as representative of the Romans in acknowledging Rudolf as ‘rex Romanoru.m, ‘ or as lord of Saxony in investing a temporal ruler for that land, just as he invested the king of Hungary. (See Reg. 8.23 [567]: ‘Idem vero magnus imperator [Garolus] Saxoniam obtulit beato Petro…’). Still, in Reg. 7.14a (486), he acknowledges Rudolf as king over the whole regnum Theutonicum, not merely over Saxony, and the first possibility would therefore seem to be the more likely.Google Scholar

^84a Reg. 4.3.299: ‘Hoc tamen videtur laudabile, postquam certum fuerit apud vos et omnino firmatum, quod eius filius a regno removeatur, consilium ab ea et a nobis requi- ratur de inventa persona ac regni gubernacula. ‘Google Scholar

⁸⁵ This was, of course, the basis of the Investiture Conflict. Gregory also applied the principle to ecclesiastical legislation. See A. Werminghoff, ‘Bruchstück,’ Neues Archiv 27 (1902) 673: ‘Quam [regulam apostolicam] utique in sui regni provinciis inventam nec Ludovicus [Pius] mutare qualibet ratione debuit aut potuit sine auctoritate et consensu sanctae Romanae et apostolicae sedis, quia quamvis imperator et devotus tamen erat laicus sed nec episcoporum quisquam quia non est illorum novam in ecclesias solo suo magisterio vel arbitrio regulam introducere…’Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Art. cit. supra η. 45.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Voosen, op. cit. 281, 283. Kern, op. cit. (note 77 supra) 200. Kern's conclusions are largely drawn, however, from post-Gregorian canonists.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Reg. 2.55a c. 12 (204). On this line, see K. Hofmann, Der ‘ Dictatus Papae’ Gregors VII (Veröffentlichungen der Sektion für Rechts- und Staatswissenschaft der Görres-Gesell- schaft 63; Paderborn 1933) 141ff. For more recent judgments on the general character of the Dictatus see Hofmann's article, ‘Der Dictatus Papae Gregors VII als Index einer Kanonessammlung?’ Studi Gregoriani 1 (1947) 523-537, and the very perceptive comments of S. Kuttner, ‘Liber Canonicus: A Note on Dictatus Papae c. 17,’ Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947) 387-401. As we do not yet know precisely the contents of the collection for which the Die- tatus were headings, it is clearly impossible to attribute any definite meaning to those short and deceptively crisp statements. Professor Kuttner has kindly directed my attention to a recent comment on the Dictatus Papae by R. Morghen, ‘Ricerche sulla formazione del Registro di Gregorio VII,’ Annal i di S tori a del diritto 3-4 (1959–60) 35-63, esp. 38ff., which disputes the conclusions of Hofmann and Borino and accepts the Dictatus as statements of papal doctrine which were complete in themselves. See also Additional Note, p. 148 infra. Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Voosen, op. cit. 260ff. Reuter, op. cit. (note 39 supra) lOff, 40, 59ff. Earlier than these authors, K. Mirbt had established the identity of the two actions in ‘Absetzung Heinrichs IV.,’ Kirchengeschichtliche Studien: Festschrift Hermann Reuter (Leipzig 1890) 95-144. On the ‘provisional’ nature of the earlier decree, see Sielaff, op. cit. 37ff, 60, and P. Sander Der Kampf Heinrichs IV. und Gregors VII. (1080–1084) (Strassburg Diss. Berlin 1893) 155f. Cf. Α. Brackmann, ‘Gregor VII. und die kirchliche Reformbewegung in Deutschland,’ Studi Gregoriani 2 (1947) 16: (of the 1080 decree) ‘Dieser Beschluss brachte das Ende der Verständigungsbereitschaft des Papstes. Von dieser Fastensynode des Jahres 1080 an gab es für ihn nur den Kampf. ‘Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Reg. 4.3 (of 1076, p. 298): ‘… cur sit anathematis vinculo alligatus et a regia dignitate depositus …’ Reg. 8.21 (of 1080, p. 551): ‘ Quis nos Henricum … deposuisse et excommuni- casse reprehendat …’ It should be noted that in the earlier letter Gregory made provision for Henry's ‘reinstatement’ in the royal office. One may also observe that the terms of the later may have been made as strong as possible to confirm Herman of Metz in the Gregorian camp, for in 1081 he is known to have been wavering between the papalists and the imperialists. See Gebehard of Salzburg's letter to Herman (MGH Lib. de lite 1.262): ‘quamnam potissimum in magno illo potestatum certamine rationem sequandam esse putaret. ‘Google Scholar

⁹¹ Bonizo, Liber ad amicum 9 (MGH Lib. de lite 1.616). For the variants of this prophecy, see Meyer von Knonau, op. cit. III 258 n. 46. See Reuter, op. cit. 18ff.Google Scholar

⁹² Bonizo, Liber ad amicum 8 (614). See the discussion in Sander, op. cit. (note 89 supra) 206ff.Google Scholar

⁹³ MGH Const. 1 no. 442, p. 651. Ekkehard, Chronicon an. 1083; Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronicon an. 1083 (MGH SS. 6.205, 364).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Reg. 9.29 (613f), and Jaffé, op. cit. Epp. coll. no. 23, p. 549f.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Sander, op. cit. 219ff. See also G. B. Ladner, ‘Two Gregorian Letters on the Sources and Nature of Gregory VII's Reform Ideology,’ Studi Gregoriani 5 (1956) 299 n. 29. The text concerning the process is printed as an addendum to the chronicle of Hugh of Flavigny in MGH SS. 8.460f.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Ibid. 461: ‘Ad tale miraculum sunt stupefacti, et nesciunt quid agere debeant. Sunt modo consiliati ac fidem inter se dederunt, si res ista in propatulo esset, regi per aliquem hominem, ut nec unus illorum audeat dicere sine communi consilio et sine consilio papae. Nam ipse accepit fidem ab omnibus, ut nullus audeat dicere.’ The general desertion of Gregory by the cardinals early in 1084 is possible, but not certain, corroboration of this account. One must admit, however, that the armies of Henry may have decided their defection more effectively than the judgment of God. See Meyer von Knonau, op. cit. III 525 n. 7.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Reuter, op. cit. 88f.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Bernold, Chronicon an. 1083 (MGH SS 5.438): ‘ Domnus tamen papa sinodum tribus diebus sollemniter celebravit, et ne Heinricum specialiter iterum anathematizaret, vix a sinodo exoratus, omnes tamen excommunicavit, quicumque aliquem ad Sanctum Petrum vel ad papam venientem quoquomodo impedirent. Sed iam advenit terminus, ad quem Romani, nesciente papa, Heinrico se effecturos iuraverant, ut aut Gregorius papa eum incoronaret, aut alius, quem ipsi illo expulso eligerent. … Adveniente igitur termino Romani papae de iuramento manifestaverunt, dicentes, se Heinrico iurasse, non ut papa illum sollemniter regali unctione incoronaret, set tantum simpliciter, ut ei coronam daret. Annuit igitur papa eorum votis, ut eos a iuramento absolveret, videlicet ut Heinrico si vellet, cum iusticia, sin autem cum inaledictione coronam daret. Unde Romani mandaverunt Heinrico, ut veniret ad accipiendam coronam cum iusticia, si vellet, sin autem, de castello sancti Angeli per virgam sibi dimissam a papa reciperet. ‘Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 102 (PL 148.94): ‘ Interea pontifex beatus Gregorius super his quos excommunicaret, requisitus, si quam dispensationem facere vellet, respondit: Praeterea Henricum regem dictum et Guibertum apostolicae sedis invasorem, et omnes illas principales personas quae aut consilio aut auxilio favent nequitiae vel impietati illorum, omnes absolvo et benedico, quicumque me hanc habere specialem potestatem in vice apostolorum Petri et Pauli credunt indubitanter …’ It is important to recall that Gregory's immediate sucecssor did not repeat the excommunication of Henry.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Meyer von Knonau, op. cit. III 464.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Op. cit. 62f.Google Scholar

¹⁰² With reference to clerical cases, the term ‘absque (or sine) spe récupérations’ occurs in Reg. 2.62, 5.14a, 6.10, 8.18 (21f, 369, 411, 540). Cf. Reg. 8.18 (540 ‘inrevocabili iudicio’), Reg. 2.23 (155 ‘absque spe futurae reconciliationis’), Reg. 3.2 (245 ‘et imperpetuum de- positum esse censemus’), Reg. 3.1 (243 ‘ut inrecuperabiliter ab episcopali officio semotus’), Reg. 2.54 (199 ‘absque ulla unquam spe reconciliationis ab omni episcopali honore deposuimus’). For the provision concerning new elections, see Reg. 8.18, 3.2, 3.3, 3.1, 5.11, 8.13, 3.8 (540, 245, 247, 242f, 364f, 533f, 258).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Jaffé, op. cit. Epp. coll. no. 14, p. 538: ‘ quae quidem horrenda dictu sunt, pluribus autem nota et in multis partibus divulgata, propter quae eum non excommunicari solum usque ad condignam satisfactionem, sed ab omni honore regni absque spe recuperationis debere destitui, divinarum et humanarum legum testatur et iubet auctoritas…’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Reg. 1.63(92). Cf. his warning to Philip I of France, Reg. 8.30 (543): ‘Ac maxime enitere ut beatum Petrum in cuius potestate est tuum regnum et anima tua, qui te potest in celo et in terra ligare et absolvere, tibi facias debitorem …’Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Jaffé, Epp. Coll. no. 18, p. 544: ‘Benedicat vos ille, ex cuius gratia mihi dictum est ad corpus beati Petri in die ordinationis meae: “Quodcunque benedixeris, benedictum erit, et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in caelis.’” Ibid. no. 31 (558), ‘qui videlicet postquam iudicium tanti huius negotii in manu beati Petri commissum est, nichil aliud vobis testibus intendimus nisi ut per iustitiae semitam incedamus.’ Reg. 4.2 (293): ‘ De aliis autem rebus, super quibus me interrogasti, utinam beatus Petrus per me respondeat, qui sepe in me qualicunque suo famulo honoratur vel iniuriam patitur. ‘ The use of the subjunctive in the last sentence was surely intentional.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Reg. 3.6 (255): ‘ Qualiter autem aut quibus pro causis beatus Petrus anathematis vinculo regem alligaverit in cartula, quae huic inclusa est, plene potestis cognoscere. ‘ Cf. Ullmann, Growth 284.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Reg. 2.31 (165): ‘quia si te ut oportet non diligo, in vanum de misericordia Dei meritis beati Petri confido. ‘Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Reg. 3.4, 8.9 (248, 527); Reg. 7.8 (469): ‘Verum quia omnipotentis Dei inestimabilis Providentia omnia iuste et sapienter disponit, iudicia eius, nimirum recta consilia ipsius equitatis et misericordiae plena nobis sunt, fratres equanimiter ferenda. ‘Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ On Gregory's action, see Schieffer, T., Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich (Berlin 1935) 106f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Reg. 7.14a (the second excommunication of Henry, 486): ‘Ipse autem Heinricus cum suis fautoribus in omni congressione belli nullas vires nullamque in vita sua victoriam op- tineat.’ Gf. Reg. 3.7 (258).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Reg. 3.10 (267). See also Reg. 2.63 (to Geisa of Hungary, 218): ‘ Quod quia consanguineus tuus [Salomo] a rege Theotonico non a Romano pontifice usurpative obtinuit dominium eius, ut credimus, divinum iudicium impedivit.’ Cf. Reg. 8.3 (to Alfonso VI, 520): ‘Ipsum quippe regem sapientissimum Salomonem incestus mulierum turpiter amore deiecit et florentissimum regnum Israel Dei iudicio pene totum de manu posteritatis eius abrupit. ‘ See Sielaff, op. cit. (note 16 supra) 33f.Google Scholar

¹¹² Reg. 4.1 (291f.).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Some authors—for example, Carlyle and Pacaut—have assumed that these concluding remarks were addressed to the bishops in synod, rather than to the Apostles. But there is no change of address from the beginning of the letter to the end; and in any case, the reference to bishops as ‘principes sanctissimi’ instead of ‘fratres’ or ‘patres et fratres’ would have been extraordinary. See Carlyle, A. J., History of Medieval Political Thought in the West IV (3rd impression, London 1940) 201; Pacaut, La théocratie 87.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Reg. 7.14a (487).Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ This point is clear in Gregory's famous statement on the origin of the royal power in his second letter to Herman of Metz, Reg. 8.21 (552): ‘Quis nesciat reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium qui Deum ignorantes superbia rapinis perfidia homicidiis postremo universis pene sceleribus mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante super pares, scilicet homines, dominari ceca cupidine et intollerabili presumptione affectaverunt ? ‘ Gregory was concerned here to demonstrate that kings within the framework of the orthodox church were dependent for salvation upon the sacramental offices of the priesthood.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ See Reg. 1.85 (121). Similarly, he wrote to excommunicate canons concerning an excommunicate count, all of whom he still considered in possession of their offices. Jaffé, Epp. coll. no. 38, p. 565f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Reg. 7.14a (484). See Hofmann's book (note 88 supra) 150ff; Fliche, ‘Grégoire VII’ (η. 1) 374.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Reg. 9.2 (571 f), concerning the employment of Jews in the Spanish royal administration.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Cf. Reg. 1.35 (57), a threat against Philip I: ‘ Nam aut rex ipse repudiator turpi symoni- ace heresis mercimonio idoneas ad sacrum regimen personas promoveri permittet aut Franci pro certo, nisi fidem christianam abicere maluerint, generalis anathematis mucrone percussi illi ulterius obtemperare recusabunt.’Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Reg. 6.10 (411f), Jaffé, Epp. coll. nos. 3, 4, 5, pp. 523ff; Pflugk-Hartuung I no. 47, p. 46; Mansi 20.625, Ep. 10.Google Scholar

¹²¹ See Kern, op. cit. 340.Google Scholar

¹²² See Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 77 (PL 148.80). For diverse scholarly judgments on the importance of Canossa, see Sielaff, op. cit. 77, Voosen, op. cit. 267, Ar- quillière, art. cit. (n. 1 supra) 16f, Brackmann (n. 89) 8ff, Fliche, ‘Grégoire VII’ 375f, La réforme 307f. See also Berges’ comment on the invitation to the Forcheim assembly which Rudolf sent the Empress Dowager Agnes, art. cit. (n. 84) 206: ‘… das scheint darauf zu weisen, dass der Papst, als die Einladung erging, die Fürsten jedenfalls noch nicht von ihren Eiden entbunden hatte.’Google Scholar

¹²³ Gregory's attitude towards the bribery of a papal legate can be estimated from his remarks concerning Herman of Bamberg's attempts to buy a favorable judgment from the Roman See. Reg. 3.3 (to Henry IV, 247): ‘Symoniacus enim ille Herimannus dictus epis- copus hoc anno ad synodum Romanam accessisset, in itinere substitit et premittens nuntios suos cum copiosis muneribus noto sibi artificio innocentiam nostram et confratrum nostro- rum integritatem pactione pecuniae attemptare atque, si fieri posset, corrumpere molitus est. Quod ubi preter spem evenit, iam de damnatione sua securior festinanter retrocessit…’Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Paul of Bernried, Vita Gregorii VII c. 102 (PL 148.95): ‘ Ubi vero in extremo positus erat, ultima verba ejus haec fuerunt: “Dilexi justitiam et odivi iniquitatem; propterea morior in exilio.” Episcopus respondisse narratur: “Non potes, Domine, mori in exsilio, qui in vice Christi et apostolorum ejus divinitus accepisti gentes haereditatem et possessionem terminos terrae.”’ Additional Note. Morghen, art. cit. n. 88 supra, argues that, as the Dictatus seems to imply, Gregory claimed the power to depose kings definitively, and that this claim derived from the doctrine of cogent necessity, which warranted papal intervention in the trial of bishops, and also from the authority which Gregory assumed over feudal relationships. See esp. p. 42ff. — Another recent comment to which Professor Kuttner has directed my attention occurs in J. Bernhard, La Collection en deux livres (Cod. Vat. lat. 3832) I (Strasbourg 1962) 587 and passim, where the author concerns himself primarily to affirm Gregory VII's indebtedness to the Collectio for the thoughts expressed in his Dictatus, but not to discuss the content of the latterGoogle Scholar