¹ It is the merit of H.-W. Klewitz to have first clearly recognized the true meaning of the schism of 1130 in his study ‘Das Ende des Reformpapsttums.’ Google Scholar

² On Haimeric see in particular Klewitz, , Ende 382 f.; Bernhardi, , Lothar 287, 292, 296–9, 321, 324 n. 98.Google Scholar

³ It should be added that the forms under which this second election took place have also been open to objections; cf. e. g., Fliehe 9.52 and p. 162 infra; but, on the other hand, Klewitz, , Ende, 408.Google Scholar

⁴ This has been perhaps best expressed by Vitalis, Ordericus, Historia eccles. 13.3. (PL 188.932): ‘Nam in plerisque coenobiis duo abbates surrexerunt, et in episcopiis duo praesules de pontificatu certaverunt, quorum unus adhaerebat Petro Anacleto, alter vero favebat Gregorio Innocentio,’ and by the Actus pontificum Cenomannis in urbe degentium (Archives historiques du Maine, ed. Busson, Abbés G. and Ledru, A., 2, Le Mans 1902) 434 = Receuil 12.553: ‘Hoc igitur scismate universalis ecclesia ita videtur turbari, ut in plerisque locis in una sede, ad instar capitis, duo constituti sint canonici, archidiaconi, sacerdotes, abbates, archiepiscopi vero consecrarentur et pontifices.’ Google Scholar

⁵ This must be obvious to any reader of the pertinent literature of the last eighty years; The Schism of Anacletus II and the Glanfeuil Forgeries the reason being that some of the issues then at stake are still alive and that in the centre of the controversy stands neither Innocent II nor Anacletus II, but the most powerful figure of the twelfth century and indeed one of the greatest political leaders of the Middle Ages, St. Bernard. It is his dual role as religious reformer on one hand, and statesman on the other, that creates the dilemma. In addition, the magnetic personality of the Doctor mellifluus lives on in his works and has held many a reader under its spell. But it remains the duty of the historian to judge St. Bernard as a political figure according to standards used for other eminent political figures, though it will be necessary always to keep in mind the fact that religious motives inspired his political actions.Google Scholar

⁶ And yet I should have gladly reduced this section, if there were a satisfactory treatment of the schism with special reference to Monte Cassino. Among recent accounts, Klewitz's study (n. 1 supra) is by far the most important; his painstaking prosopographical analysis of the Sacred College in 1130 has secured the basic results accepted here and has raised the conflict from a squabble between two Roman families to a contest of two ages for supremacy in the Church. Haller, J., Das Papsttum 2.2 (Stuttgart 1939) 29–54, 543–8, offers many refreshing ideas, which, however, may not be accepted without scrutiny. The voluminous and diffuse monograph of Palumbo, P. F., ‘Lo Scisma del MCXXX,’ became known to me only after this portion of my study was all but completed. As to the evaluation of Anacletus II, we are substantially in agreement, but the work has not caused me to make any change in what had been written. It has been sufficient to add references to it in the footnotes. The most valuable part of the book is undoubtedly the register of the acts of Anacletus II which Palumbo gives at the end (pp. 641–82); cf. also his article ‘La cancelleria di Anacleto II,’ Scritti di paleografia e diplomatica in onore di Vincenzo Federici (Firenze 1944) 81–131. The most recent detailed treatment of the schism by Fliche, A., Hist. de l'Église 9 (Paris 1944) 50–70, represents the old vulgata, which tends to adhere to the documents of the victorious party after the elimination of their most questionable accusations. The Liber Pontificalis Dertusensis is not mentioned once by Fliche. Watkin Williams, in his Saint Bernard of Clairvaux 96–158, follows even more uncritically than Fliehe the official version as suggested by St. Bernard and his partisans. Among earlier works the most outstanding one is still W. Bernhardi's Lothar von Supplinburg 269–348 and 436–97 (the two biographies of Lothaire published in the occasion of the eight-hundredth anniversary of his death (Luedtke, F., Kaiser Lothar der Sachse, Deutschlands Wendung zum Osten [Berlin 1937], and Schneider, R., Kaiser Lothars Krone [Leipzig 1937], are worthless). Cf. also Hauck 4.128–49.Google Scholar

⁷ On Petrus Pisanus cf. n. 32 infra. Google Scholar

⁸ For the details see best Bernhardi, , Lothar 280–300; Klewitz, , Ende 406–9. Fliche's statement (op. cit. 51), ‘Pour assurer la régularité de l’élection, Aimeric imagina de faire transporter le pape mourant au monastère de Saint-Grégoire…,’ can hardly be accepted. The aim of Haimeric was not to assure the regularity of the election, but to make certain the election of his candidate, as was implicitly admitted by H. Leclercq: ‘Manifestement et avec intention, le cardinal Aimery avait transgressé ces lois’ (Héfelé-Leclercq, , Histoire des conciles 5.1, Paris 1912, 684). The last paragraph of the complete Vita Honorii II by the follower of Anacletus II, Pandulphus (since 1135 cardinal deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian), preserved in the codex Dertusensis of the Liber Pontificalis (LPD 208), adds interesting details to our knowledge, especially about the uncanonical burial of the pope. —The members of the committee were elected from the three ordines as follows: (the opponents of Haimeric are in italics): the Bishops William of Praeneste, Conrad of Sabina (later Pope Anastasius IV); the Priests Pierleone of St. Mary in Trastevere, Petrus Pisanus of St. Susanna, Petrus Rufus of SS. Martin and Silvester; the Deacons Haimeric of St. Nova, Maria, Jonathas of SS. Cosmas and Damian. Pierleone and Jonathas withdrew from the committee before the election. It has been frequently pointed out that the majority of the cardinal bishops favored Innocent (5: 2), and that, in accordance with the leading role assigned to the bishops by Nicholas II in his decree of 1059 on papal elections, the majority vote of the bishops for Innocent would have settled the controversy of 1130. The weight of this argument in the conflict should surely not be minimized. But who can seriously doubt that a man of Haimeric's diplomatic skill would not have gladly seized the opportunity of overcoming the obstacle of a lacking majority in the Sacred College by referring the election to the seven bishops, if this had been at all feasible? Cf. also n. 3 supra, n. 18 infra. Google Scholar

⁹ Bishop Eberhard of Bamberg (1146–72) in a letter to Archbishop Eberhard of Salzburg written in 1160 (Rahewin, , Gesta Friderici imp. 4.81, ed. Waitz, , 2nd ed. Hannover 1884, p. 269): (on the schism of 1159) the synod of Pavia had decided in favor of Victor IV, ‘… quia domni Victoris inmantatio prior, illa posterior, quo solo Innocentius Anacleto praevaluit, cum Anacletus plures et maximae scientiae et auctoritatis haberet electores.’ (Cf. also Hauck, 4.240).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Haller, , Papsttum II 2.544 warned against overrating the importance of the conflicts of Roman families in this connection. Cf. Klewitz, , Ende, passim. Palumbo tends to relapse into the traditional views, esp. 195, 275 f.Google Scholar

¹¹ Klewitz, , Ende 388–93, 408. Cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 282 n. 39.Google Scholar

¹² The basic study on the Pierleoni is Fedele, P., ‘Le famiglie di Anacleto II e di Gelasio II,’ Archivio della R. Società Romana di Storia Patria 27 (1904) 399–433. Cf. also Palumbo 97–115. For their role in the history of the Reform see especially D. Zema, S.J., ‘The Houses of Tuscany and of Pierleone in the Crisis of Rome in the Eleventh Century,’ Traditio 2 (1944) 169–75. Williams, W., Saint Bernard 99, misunderstands the erroneous statement of the Chronicon Mauriniacense 2.14 (ed. Mirot, L., Paris 1909, p. 50): ‘Fuit hic Petrus (scil. the cardinal) Petri filius, filii Leonis. Leo vero a Judaismo pascha faciens ad Christum a Leone baptizari et eius nomine meruit insigniri’(in reality, Leo's father was already converted), by maintaining that the cardinal ‘Peter's father was a Jew, another Peter, who in his conversion was honoured by being baptized by that excellent Pope Leo IX and by receiving his name.’ Google Scholar

¹³ Zema, , loc. cit. 175.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On the Cardinal Pierleone see especially Klewitz, , Ende 385 f. and Entstehung 219. He occurs as cardinal deacon of SS. Cosmas and Damian from October 16, 1113 to May 21, 1120 and was made cardinal priest of St. Mary in Trastevere in 1120. Cf. also Palumbo 115–50.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The most interesting statement on him that has come down to us is by Pope Alexander III, who in 1160 wrote to Bishop Arnulf of Lisieux (in reply to a letter in which Arnulf had announced that he recognized Alexander III) (Watterich, J. M., Pontificum Romanorum … vitae, Leipzig 1862, 2.490 = JL 10627): ‘Innocentio papae antecessori nostro schismaticus ille, qui et generositate naturae, rerum copia terrenarum, prudentia seculari et gratia labiorum mira aestimatione reddebatur insignis, nefaria temeritate succrevit.’ Cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 286, n. 48; Hauck 4.130 n. 4. — Remarkable is also a passage in a document concerning a long conflict between the bishops of Siena and Arezzo. This conflict had been finally resolved by Honorius II in favor of Bishop Guido of Arezzo: bull of May 5, 1125 (JL 7210; Kehr, IP 3 [Berlin 1908] 154 n° 40). When Bishop Gunteram of Siena reopened the question under Alexander III, the apostolic legate in Tuscany, Cardinal Laborans, made a thorough investigation (1178–81), questioning eyewitnesses of the events around and after 1125. The depositions of 104 witnesses are still preserved in two contemporary, though incomplete copies: Pasqui, U., Documenti per la storia della città di Arezzo (Documenti di storia italiana pubblicati di cura della R. Deputazione Toscana… di storia patria 11, Florence 1899) 1.519–73 n° 389; cf. Kehr, IP 3.156 n° 48. On p. 552 Iallus de Pergine, then aged 64, fifty or more years before armbearer of Zuccus, chamberlain of Bishop Guido of Arezzo, tells about his recollections of the diplomatic victory of the bishop. Soon afterwards he saw the bishop in Pergine with someone who, people said, was to invest Guido in the newly awarded church; ‘et erat ei nomen Petrus latus, et certe valde latus erat et plenus in pectore.’ Iallus then reports a conversation between Guido and the Roman legate, which took place in the home of the parish priest (of Pergine), where they were warming themselves at the fire. The bishop asked Peter: ‘I am greatly amazed that, while there are so many wise men of outstanding nobility and authority in Rome, whenever they are engaged in brilliant and weighty conversation, as soon as Pierleone enters their midst, omnes obnubilantur et liquefiunt.‘ And the legate answered the bishop: ‘Eius gratie Petrus Leonis est Rome, ut ad illius nutum tota Roma taceat et tota loquetur.’ First reference to this passage: Loewenfeld, NA 11 (1886) 596 f.; Hauck 4.130 n. 4 calls the bishop ambiguously ‘Guido of Arezzo.’ Google Scholar

¹⁶ Leclercq, , op. cit. (n. 8) 684 n., went so far as to say with reference to the advanced age of many followers of Anacletus: ‘Mais il faut savoir que, par qualité, ils entendaient la maturité de l'âge ou plutôt l'ancienneté, qui chez quelques-uns touchait à la sénilité.’ Cf. also n. 42 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁷ As revealed by the LPD 203–6. Cf. Klewitz, , Ende 400–2. The outspoken hostility of Pandulph against Honorius II (cf. Klewitz, , Ende 388) is most dramatically expressed in the following passage (LPD 206.10; cf. also 89): ‘Igitur vitam eius (scil. Honorii II) malo silentio contegi, quam in scriptis notari, cum talem suo tempore severit in mundo sementem, qualem post mortem suam misera mater nostra cum exorbatis filiis et in ventum omnem, iuxta verbum propheticum, ventilatis, adhuc quomodo demetere nulla falce valuerit. Cetera, que taceo, sunt manifesta Deo.’ This sentence clearly shows that Pandulph held the policy of Honorius II responsible for the schism. That Haimeric ruled under Honorius largely with the help of his faction — which meant the exclusion of the cardinals of the majority from most major assignments — was emphasized by Klewitz, , Ende 405.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On Petrus Senex see Klewitz, , Ende 374 f. His letter is preserved by William of Malmesbury, Hist. nov. 1.454 (ed. Stubbs, , Rolls Series 90, London 1889, 532 f.). Petrus Senex, incidentally, following the ‘imperial’ version of the election decree of 1059, takes the erroneous view that the prerogative of the election of the pope was reserved to the cardinal priests and deacons. Cf. in general n. 8 supra and Klewitz, , Entstehung 165 f. (with the correction in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 198 [1936] 539 n. 2) and Kuttner, S., ‘Cardinalis: the History of a Canonical Concept,’ Traditio 3 (1945) 173 f. (with references to the important studies by A. Michel in n. 96).Google Scholar

¹⁹ On February 23 Anacletus was inthroned in St. Peter by Bishop Petrus Senex of Portus. On the following day, Anacletus commissioned Archbishop Adalbero of Bremen to take a letter to Lothaire (JL 8371 = Palumbo 650 n° ii). Adalbero had arrived in Rome before Honorius’ death for regulating affairs of his church. On the same day Anacletus issued, at Adalbero's request, a privilege for Abbot Simon of Rasted (JL 8372 = Palumbo 650 n° iii). For Adalbero's role at this occasion cf. also Anacletus’ second letter to Lothaire of May 15, 1130 (JL 8388 = Palumbo 657 n° xx). Most of Anacletus’ bulls referred to in JL are printed in PL 179.688–731; complete register in Palumbo 641–82. Adalbero in Rome: Bernhardi, , Lothar 318 f.; Hauck 4.137; Haller, , Papsttum II 2.36, 545; Palumbo 304.Google Scholar

²⁰ LPD 178. Bernhardi, , Lothar 326.Google Scholar

²¹ Klewitz, , Ende 409 f. Bernhardi, , Lothar 312. Matthew of Albano was bishop since 1126 (Klewitz 380). He had been at Cluny under Abbot Peter the Venerable, with whom he was connected in close friendship (Bernhardi 312 n. 78). He died in Pisa, Christmas 1135 (Brixius, J. M., Die Mitglieder des Kardinalkollegiums von 1130–1181, Diss. Strassburg [Berlin 1912] 37 n° 28); Palumbo 527.Google Scholar

²² LPD 207 and 214 n. 23. Haller, , Papsttum II 2.33. Klewitz, , Ende 410. Palumbo 174.Google Scholar

²³ On Peter the Venerable see Fliche 9.114–27. His works are printed in PL 189.Google Scholar

²⁴ The most authoritative contemporary statement on St. Bernard is found in John of Salisbury's Historia Pontificalis (ed. Poole, R., Oxford 1927), especially in ch. 12 pp. 27 f. Cf. also the bibliography in A. Fliche 9.13 n. 1.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ep. 1 (PL 182.67–79); St. Bernardi vita prima (by William of St. Thierry) 1.11.50 (PL 185.255). Cf. Wilhams, , St. Bernard 32–6.Google Scholar

²⁶ Apologia ad Guillelmum 8.16 (PL 182.908). That personal resentment about the incident of Robert of Châtillon may have influenced to some degree the violence of his attack against the Cluniacs (especially in chs. 8–12), is admitted by Fliehe 9.116 n. 1.Google Scholar

²⁷ See in general Bernhardi, , Lothar 314 n. 80.Google Scholar

²⁸ Ep. 139, 1 (PL 182, 294): ‘Ut enim constat Iudaicam sobolem sedem Petri in Christi occupasse iniuriam; sic procul dubio omnis qui in Sicilia regem se facit, contradicit Caesari’ (cf. John 19.12). Haller surely has this passage in mind in his reference to ‘puer Iudaicus’ (Papsttum II 2.34).Google Scholar

²⁹ MG Libelli de lite 3.85–108 = Script. 12.707–20. Haller, , Papsttum II 2.544: ‘Das ungeheuerliche Pamphlet Arnulfs von Lisieux verdient Beachtung nur als Zeugnis für den schmutzigen Charakter seines Verfassers.’ How utterly unreliable the tract is, was admitted even by Zoepffel, R., Die Papstwahlen (Göttingen 1871) 299–301, 371. Some of the worst accusations against Anacletus occur also in the letter of Bishop Manfred of Mantua to Lothaire, written after Lothaire's coronation (Watterich, J. M., op. cit. [n. 14 supra] 2.275 n. 1; cf. Schellert, O., Gerard von Angoulême [Diss. Halle 1880] 39 f.; Palumbo 21 f., 475). The close agreement between the two documents reveals how well the party of Innocent II had organized its propaganda of vilification. Already three years before Petrus Senex had written to the Innocentian bishops in the Sacred College (op. cit. n. 18 supra, 532): ‘Abstinere vos potius convenit a sermonibus otiosis et verbis praecipitationis: si de rumoribus agitur, longe se aliter habent res quam vestrae apud me litterae protestantur.’ Google Scholar

³⁰ Barlow, F., The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux (Camden Third Series 61, London 1939) XVI. The evidence for Barlow's thesis in St. Bernard's letter is only indirect: he mentions the schism in the beginning, but does not allude to Arnulf's merits in this matter. Peter the Venerable wrote a Tractatus adversum Iudaeos of more than customary violence (PL 189.507–650). Cf. for its tone 558 f.: ‘Sufficere quidem possunt omni homini ad huius rei certitudinem quae praemissa sunt. Sed quia cum Iudaeo, qui nescio utrum homo sit, mihi sermo est, adhuc aliqua addenda sunt.’ Cf. also Fliche 9.117.Google Scholar

³¹ St. Bernard, , Ep. 348 (PL 182.552 f.) and Peter the Venerable, Ep. 4.7 (PL 189.309 f.), both addressed to Innocent II in 1141. Peter calls him ‘amicum schismatis tempore’ and praises his ‘in iuvenili aetate morum maturitatem.’ Cf. also St. Bernard, , Ep. 248.1 (PL 182.447 f.) to Eugene III (a. 1146) and The Letters of Arnulf of Lisieux xx, xxxiv.Google Scholar

³² Klewitz, , Ende 387 rightly calls the pontificate of Innocent II an ‘Ausschnitt aus der Wirksamkeit Bernhards von Clairvaux.’ The pope's vindicteveness later caused great embarrassment to St. Bernard in the case of Cardinal Petrus Pisanus, who in 1137, at the Saint's intervention and at the promise that he would not lose his rank, had left Anacletus’ cause. Innocent disavowed St. Bernard and deposed Petrus Pisanus at the Lateran Council of 1139. He was sharply reminded of his promise by St. Bernard (Ep. 213: PL 182.378), but to no avail. On Petrus Pisanus cf. Ernaldus, , Vita s. Bernardi prima 2.7.43 (PL 185, 293); Mühlbacher, , Die streitige Papstwahl des Jahres 1130 (Innsbruck 1876) 18; Klewitz, , Ende 375 f.; Palumbo 580–4, 591, 594.Google Scholar

³³ Ep. 238 (PL 182.428): ‘Quia tamen semel coepi, loquar ad dominum meum. Iam enim filium dicere non audeo, quia filius in patrem, pater mutatus est in filium.’ Ep. 239 (ibid. 431): ‘Aiunt non vos esse papam, sed me: et undique ad me confluunt, qui habent negotia.’ Google Scholar

³⁴ Ep. 124.2 (PL 182.268 f.). — In France the decision fell in the Council of Étampes, late summer 1130, in Germany in the Council of Würzburg, October 1130. As to England, Ernald, St. Bernard's biographer, reports (Vita prima 2.1,4: PL 185.271) that at a meeting with Innocent II and St. Bernard at Chartres, January 13, 1131, Henry I first refused to recognize Innocent. ‘Quem vix persuasit Innocentium recipere (scil. Bernardus), ab episcopis Angliae penitus dissuasum.’ Bernard persuaded him finally by taking upon himself any possible sin which the king might commit by rendering obedience to Innocent. William of Malmesbury, whose whole treatment of the schism (op. cit. supra n. 18, 1.453 f., pp. 530–4) is remarkable for its objectivity, says Hist. nov. 1.454, p. 533 Stubbs: ‘rex Henricus, qui non leviter a sententia quam semel proposuisset, deici posset…’ Cf. also JL p. 846 and Haller, , Papsttum II 2.34. — Scotland remained faithful to Anacletus unto his death, both King David (1124–1153) and the Scottish clergy; here the main issue seems to have been the interference in the Scottish Church by Rome, which started in 1125 with the legation of the (later Innocentian) Cardinal John of Crema. Honorius II and after him Innocent II demanded that all bishops of Scotland should be subject to the Archbishop of York. If the pertinent letters of Innocent of 1131 and 1136 are representative of the controversy, it would seem that the leader of the anti- York party was Bishop John of Glasgow. For Scotland's attitude toward the schism cf. Richard of Hexham, Gesta Regis Stephani 3.170 (Chronicles of Stephen 3, ed. Howlett, R., Rolls Series 82, London 1886) = Anderson, A. O., Scottish Annals from English Chronicles A.D. 500 to 1286 (London 1908) 210 f. For the letters of Innocent II: JL 7514 (to John of Glasgow), 7515 (to the bishops of Scotland), both of November 29, 1131; 7650 (to Archbishop Thurstan of York) of May 2, 1134; 7766 (to Archbishop William of Canterbury), 7767 (to Thurstan of York), both of April 22, 1136. See also Duke, J. A., History of the Church of Scotland to the Reformation (Edinburgh 1937) 87 f. The schism in Scotland ended with the submission of the Scottish Church to Rome in 1138 at the Council of Carlisle, which was presided over by Bishop Alberic of Ostia.Google Scholar

³⁵ This can be gathered from a letter full of bitterness and reproach addressed by the aged and ailing Hildebert probably in 1131 to Innocent, Recueil 15.326 (better text than PL 171.273), where he speaks of himself as, owing to the pope's interference, ‘tamquam qui omnino amiserim disponendi de commissa mihi ecclesia facultatem.’ On Hildebert in the Schism cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 331; Palumbo 341–2; on Hildebert as a canonist: Barth, F. X., Hildebert von Lavardin (1056–1133) und das kirchliche Stellenbesetzungsrecht (Kirchenrechtliche Abhandl. Heft 34–36, Stuttgart 1906); Van Hove, A., Prolegomena (2nd ed.; Commentarium Lovaniense in Codicem iuris canonici I 1, Malines-Rome 1945) 334. In addition cf. Manitius, M., Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur im Mittelalter III (München 1931) 853–65; F. J. E. Raby, A History of Secular Latin Poetry in the Middle Ages I (Oxford 1934) 317–29.Google Scholar

³⁶ Hieron. ep. 146.1: “… si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis maior est urbe’ (ed. Hilberg, , CSEL 56.310). The passage was familiar to St. Bernard's contemporaries from the tradition of the canonists — it appears later also in Gratian (D. 73 c. 24); St. Bernard's antithesis urbs-orbis must therefore have had for them a familiar ring. Professor Kuttner called this link to my attention.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ep. 124.2 (PL 182.269): ‘Electio meliorum, approbatio plurium, et, quod his efficacius est, morum attestatio, Innocentium apud omnes commendant, summum confirmant pontificem.’ Cf. Haller, , Papsttum II 2.544, and n. 38 infra. Google Scholar

³⁸ Ep. 2.4 (PL 189.191–3); 193: ‘Hoc ideo dicendum putavi, ut agnoscat eruditio vestra pericolosissime vos opinionem vestram totius mundi sententiae praeponere, magisque superbae obstinationi paucorum quam devotae unanimitati multorum acquiescere.’ The concept of pars sanior is of course, as Professor Kuttner points out to me, a canonical one, and it is not surprising to find it among the arguments of monks (Reg. s. Bened. 64.1), combined as it is in St. Bernard's letter, ep. 126.13 (PL 182.280) with the canon of Leo the Great on double elections (JK 411 c. 5). — On Aegidius of Tusculum see Klewitz, , Ende 384 f., Palumbo 419 f., Holtzmann in Wattenbach, R., Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter ed. by Holtzmann, R. I 4 (Berlin 1943) 795.Google Scholar

³⁹ Suger, , Vita Ludovici Grossi Regis 32 ed. Waquet, H. (Les classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen âge 11, Paris 1929) 258.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Kehr, , Belehnungen der süditalienischen Normannenfürsten 39, who refers to Anacletus’ important encyclica of November 9, 1130 (P. M. Baumgarten, NA 22 [1896] 576); cf. also Bernhardi, , Lothar 466–8, 472f., 777–9; Palumbo 355, 671 n° liv. Add Ord. Vit. 13.4 (PL 188.936): Anacletus accepts, Innocent rejects a iudicium de ordinatione proposed by Lothaire in 1133. Cf. also n. 93 infra, and Leclercq, , op. cit. (n. 8 supra) 686 n.: ‘Il n'en est pas moins vrai que l'abbé de Clairvaux se déroba toujours lorsque les partisans d'Anaclet voulurent porter le débat uniquement sur le terram de la légalité.’ On the other hand, the acceptance of a synodal iudicium de ordinatione would have violated the principle, ‘prima sedes a nemine indicatur.’ Google Scholar

⁴¹ St. Bernard, , Ep. 127.2 (to Count William of Poitou, supporter of Anacletus), PL 182. 282: ‘Si vera sunt quae ubique divulgat opinio, nec unius dignus est viculi potestate (scil. Anacletus); si vera non sunt, decet nihilominus caput Ecclesiae, non solum vitae habere anitatem, sed et famae decorem.’ Google Scholar

⁴² On Girard of Angoulême see Bernhardi, , Lothar 331 n. 107; Schellert, Ο., op. cit. (n. 29 supra); the detailed study by the Maratu, Abbé, ‘Girard, évêque d'Angoulême, légat du Saint Siège,’ Bull. de la Société archéologique de la Charente, sér. 4, tom. 2 (1864), and Palumbo 344–9. He was an educated man. The Historia pontificum et comitum Engolismensium (Novae bibliothecae manuscript. ed. Labbe, Ph., Paris 1657) 261 = Recueil 12.396, reports that among other gifts, he left to the church of Angoulême ‘centum Volumina librorum vel eo amplius, ut credimus, videlicet scripta Gregorii, Augustini, Ambrosii, Hilarii, Isidori, Cypriani, Gregorii Nazianzeni, Origenis, Hieronymi, Bruni, Bedae, Rabani, Boethii, Paschasii, Sidonii, historiam parvam et historiam Iulii Caesaris, scripta Tullii.’ As a lasting monument of his activity he left the cathedral of Angoulême. Cf. Daras, Ch., ‘La cathédrale d'Angoulême,’ reprinted from Bull. et Mém. de la Société archéol. et histor. de la Charente 1941 (Angoulême 1942). Arnulf of Lisieux, In Girardum, prol. (MGH Lib. de lite 3.86 = Script. 12.708) rightly characterizes his role when he says: ‘Sicut enim Petrus (scil. Leonis) scismatis huius princeps et auctor est, sic Girardus eius inter omnia principalius est instrumentum.’ Characteristically, also Girard — like Hildebert and Anacletus’ principal supporters in the Sacred College — was an old man in 1130. Arnulf, , ibid. 1: ‘Numquid miseram senectutem tuam et instantem decrepiti corporis naturali necessitate defectum et hiantis sepulcri claustra non vides?’ Google Scholar

⁴³ JL 8377 (cf. also 8378 = Palumbo 653 n^os ix f.). Evidence of Anacletus’ devotion for his nutritor Paschal II (JL 8374 [= Palumbo 651 n° vi], 8377f.; cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 283 n. 43; Palumbo 118, 273), who had made him cardinal, is found in an inscription in the portico of St. Laurence in Lucina, which indicates that on May 25, 1130 the church, which had been rebuilt after its destruction by the Normans in 1084, was dedicated by Anacletus II; this inscription stands side by side with one of Paschal II dated in 1112, which records the translatio of relics to the church. Facsimiles: Diehl, E., Inscriptiones Latinae (Tabulae in usum schol. 4, Bonn 1912) pl. 45 and p. xxix, and better now Silvagni, A., Monumenta Epigraphica Christiana saeculo XIII antiquiora 1 (Città del Vaticano 1943) pl. XXII 3 (cf. 2 and XXIII 2) and XXIII 6. Cf. also Krautheimer, , ‘Recent Discoveries in Churches in Rome,’ Am. Journ. of Archaeology 43 (1939) 388; Palumbo 434, 658.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ernald, , Vita s. Bern. prima 2.6.32–6 (PL 185.286–9); cf. Richard, A., Histoire des comtes de Poitou (Paris 1903) 2.23–36; Williams, , St. Bernard 116f. In Poitiers a prolonged stay of St. Bernard, during which he tried in vain to draw away Count William of Poitou from Anacletus, was followed by an appeal of Girard in the cathedral to the clergy and people of Poitiers, which precipitated riots in that city. The dean of the cathedral destroyed the altar, from which Bernard had preached (Ernald, , loc. cit. 36, p. 289).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ep. 126 (PL 182.270–81). A really fatal blow for the cause of Anacletus in France was the dramatic conversion of the Count of Poitou by St. Bernard in 1134 (Williams, , St. Bernard 131–3; Palumbo 532). Girard died in 1136, mourned by the clergy of Angoulême, one of whom drew a picture of him in glowing colors in the Historia pontificum … Engolismensium, op. cit. (n. 42 supra) 258–61 = Recueil 12.393–7. At the orders of Innocent's legate Bishop Geoffrey of Chartres his body was exhumed from the cathedral where it had been buried. ‘Et illud magnificum sidus, quod claritate sui partes occiduas illustraverat, proh dolor! extra ecclesiam, quam aedificavit, sub vili latet lapide’ (ibid. 261 = Recueil 12.397). This tomb — sub vili lapide — was discovered in 1864: cf. Maratu, , op. cit. (n. 42 supra) 323f.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Actus pontificum Cenomannis degentium (op. cit. n. 4 supra) 434 = Recueil 12.553. St. Bernard finally was requested by Innocent to decide the conflict, which of course he did in favor of Hugh: cf. Ep. 150 (PL 182.306–10) and Recueil 15.561f. On the schism in Tours cf. also Barth, , op. cit. (n. 35 supra) 456–9; Palumbo 519–21.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ep. 151 (PL 182.310f.); the most important passage has been translated by Williams, , St. Bernard 125.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Gesta abbalum Lobbiensium 23 (MGH Script. 21.325) (written 1162; cf. Manitius, , op. cit. n. 35 supra, III 563f.); John of Salisbury, Hist. Pont. 16 (p. 43 Poole) and St. Bernard, , Ep. 257 (PL, 182. 465f.). At the time of St. Bernard's death, Philip was prior at Clairvaux.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cf. n. 19 supra; Bernhardi, , Lothar 336f.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Walter of Ravenna's letter to St. Norbert: Cod. Udalr. n° 345E = 245 Jaffé, Monumenta Bambergensia (ed. Jaffé, P., Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum 5, Berlin 1869) 423–5; his letter to Conrad of Salzburg: Dümmler, E., Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte 8 (1868) 164f. Hubert of Lucca's letter to St. Norbert: Cod. Udalr. n° 346E = 246 Jaffé, Mon. Bamberg. 425–7. Also the letter of Bishop Manfred of Mantua (cf. n. 29 supra) belongs here. Cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 313; Palumbo 20f.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Bernhardi, , Lothar 485 n. 3. Schleifer, Th., Die päpstlichen Legaten in Frankreich (Historische Studien ed. by Ebering, E. 263, Berlin 1935) 217. Palumbo 148; 647 n° xi.Google Scholar

⁵² PL 179.709 n° 20, cf. JL 8391 = Palumbo 658 n° xxiii. Google Scholar

⁵³ JL 8409 = Palumbo 664 n° xlii; cf. pp. 320f. For Anacletus’ attacks against Haimeric cf. PL 170.1187; PL 179.697 and 700.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Cf. n. 53. The close cooperation among these men was already recognized by Bernhardi, , Lothar 338. Klewitz, , Ende 409f., accepted Williams’ view (St. Bernard 97) that 1130 was an ‘epoch in the life of St. Bernard,’ calling it even more aptly St. Bernard's ‘grosse Stunde.’ Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Kehr, , Belehnungen der süditalienischen Normannenfürsten, passim; Bloch, H., ‘Monte Cassino, Byzantium, and the West in the Earlier Middle Ages,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 3 (1946) 192. Cf. also Klewitz, , Gotting. Gel. Anz. 198 (1936) 535; Michel, A., op. cit. (n. 87 infra) 52–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Bernhardi, , Lothar 274–80; Caspar, E., Roger II (Innsbruck 1904) 74–81; Chalandon, , Domination normande I 383–97; Kehr, , Belehnungen 34–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Kehr, IP 8.170 n° 208; Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.78 (MGH Script. 7.803). The pope's reply may be an invention by Peter; even so the fact remains significant that such accusations could be made.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See n. 22 supra. Google Scholar

⁵⁹ On Honorius’ conflict with Oderisius II see Bernhardi, , Lothar 271–3; Klewitz, , Entstehung 221; Ende 404; Palumbo 263–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.81 (MGH Script. 7.803f.). Klewitz, , Quellen und Forschungen 28 (1937/8) 36 (not quite correct). Oderisius was right on the issue, since Lambert made the request on the ground that his predecessor Leo of Ostia had resided in the monastery. But Leo had resided there because he had been a monk of Monte Cassino.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Kehr, IP 8.171 n° 217.Google Scholar

⁶² Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.86 (MGH Script. 7.805): “… militem ilium, non abbatem, lapidatorem et prodigum substantiae monasterii esse inclamitans.’ Google Scholar

⁶³ Apologia ad Guillelmum 11.27 (PL 182.914): ‘Mentior, si non vidi abbatem sexaginta equos, et eo amplius in suo ducere comitatu. Dicas, si videas eos transeuntes, non patres esse monasteriorum, sed dominos castellorum; non rectores animarum, sed principes provinciarum.’ Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Kehr, IP 8.172 n^os 218–221; Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.88 (MGH Script. 7.806).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ LPD 207, quoted by Kehr, IP 8.172 n° 221.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.88 (MGH Script. 7.806).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Kehr, IP 8.172 n° 222.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Kehr, IP 8.173 n° 223. A follower of Anacletus, Gregory became his successor for two and a half months in 1138 (Victor IV). Cf. Klewitz, , Ende 376f., 404.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Kehr, IP 8.173 n° 225; Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.92f. (MGH Script. 7.808f.).Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Kehr, IP 8.173 n° 226 and 227, and Klewitz, , Ende 404. Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.94 (MGH Script. 7.809) wrongly calls the cardinal ‘Chonradus cardinalis sanctae Praxedis’; not corrected by Klewitz, who (loc. cit. 377) rightly states that the cardinal of St. Praxedis was then Desiderius, later a follower of Anacletus.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.94 (MGH Script. 7.809).Google Scholar

⁷² Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.94 (MGH Script. 7.810): ‘Suscepta igitur abbatia Seniorectus coepit omnibus perinde modis studere, quatinus naviter adimpleret id, ad quod abbas a Romano pontifice factus fuerat. Angebatur itaque nimium nimiumque interdum eius animus, tum scilicet pro nostri ordinis emendatione, tum vel maxime et fratrum sustentatione et terrae recuperatione.’ Google Scholar

⁷³ Peter the Deacon left three autobiographies: in his two autograph manuscripts, Cod. Cas. 361 fol. 71^r (De viris illustribus Casinensibus 47 = PL 173.1048–58; facsimile: Inguanez, Dom M., Sexti Iulii Frontini De aquaeductu urbis Romae ed. phototypica, Cassino, Monte 1930, fol. 71^r), Cod. Cas. 257 pp. 30f. (Florilegium Casinense 5 [1894] 51f.), and in Chron. Cas. 4.66 (MGH Script. 7.794f.). In the last and, so to speak, official version the exile is suppressed. The wording of the first two versions varies merely in a few points. It will suffice to quote from the older Vita (Cod. Cas. 361), indicating only the most important divergencies: ‘Anno vero incarnationis dominice millesimo centesimo vicesimo octavo, etatis autem eius vicesimo primo, cum Oderisius^a, Girardi abbatis successor, abbatiam reliquisset, ad exilium emulorum suorum faciente invidia directus est. In ipso autem dum^b esset exilio, rogatus^c ab Adenulfo, eiusdem urbis comite^c, descripsit ad Oderisium abbatem passionem beatissimi Marci ad sociorum eius.’ ^a abbas Oderisius secundus Cas. 257. ^b constitutus dum Cas. 257. ^c rogatus — comite om. Cas. 257.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Chron. Cas. 4.88 (MGH Script. 7.806f.): ‘Taliter Oderisius ab aemulis suis est proiectus et a propria sede depulsus, vir certe magnanimis, scientia clarus, eloquentiae decore ornatus.’ It is noteworthy that Peter uses the same word ‘aemuli’ that he applies to his own enemies (cf. n. 73), for the opponents of Oderisius.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ On Amicus of St. Vincent cf. Kehr, IP 8.253 n° 23; Klewitz, , Entstehung 215, and Ende 377f.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Kehr, IP 8.135ff. n°^s 65ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ At the time of Lothaire's second campaign to Italy in 1137. Cf. Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 183–95, 248–80.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Cod. Cas. 159 fol. membr. s. XIII in. Cf. Inguanez, M., Codicum Casinensium Catalogus I 2 (Monte Cassino 1923) 247f.; Ewald, P., NA 3 (1878) 164–8; Caspar, NA 36 (1911) 81; March, LPD 72; Palumbo, , Scritti Federici (cf. n. 6 supra) 81–4. On the part which Monte Cassino had in preserving papal registers cf. also Klewitz, , Quellen und Forschungen 28 (1937/8) 44–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 347 n. 22.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cf. infra part V n^οs 6 and 7.Google Scholar

⁸¹ PL 170.1185–8; cf. March, LPD 70–81. Palumbo, , Scritti Federici 122–4.Google Scholar

⁸² Pandulph, , Vita Calixti II, Liber Pontificalis II 323 (ed. Duchesne, L., Paris 1892) = LPD 195: ‘… ecclesiam sancti Nicolai in palatio fecit, cameram ampliavit et pingi sicut apparet hodie miro modo praecepit.’ Both structures were demolished at the order of Pope Clement XII (1730–1740). The frescoes in the camera were very well known in the twelfth century; they are referred to by Suger, , Vita Ludovici Grossi 27 (206 Waquet), by Otto of Freising, Chronica 6.34 and 7.16 (ed. Hofmeister, A., Hannover 1912, 303 and 332), by Arnulf of Lisieux (in 1159), Ep. 24 (32 Barlow, cf. n. 30 supra), and by John of Salisbury (in 1160), Ep. 59 (PL 199.39). Descriptions and drawings by Panvinio and Rasponi give us at least an idea of the appearance of these frescoes. Main treatment: Ladner, G., I Ritratti dei Papi nell’Antichità e nel Medioevo I (Monumenti di antichità cristiane pubbl. dal Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 2nd ser., 4, Città del Vaticano 1941) 190–201 (with references to the earlier literature; cf. especially Lauer, Ph., Le Palais de Latran, Paris 1911, 162–71). Camera pro secretis consiliis: Boso, , Lib. Pont. II 378 (ed. Duchesne, ).Google Scholar

⁸³ The original reading of the third verse and the identification of the founder at the Virgin's left with Anacletus II are due to a discovery, as brilliant and ingenious as it is convincing, by Duchesne, L., ‘Le nom d'Anaclet II au palais de Latran, Mém. de la Société des Antiquaires de France, 5th ser., 9 (1888) 197–206, and Le Liber Pontificalis II (Paris 1892) 325f. n. 22. For the apse of St. Nicholas we depend on descriptions and reproductions from the end of the fifteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, when the chapel was destroyed: Ladner, , op. cit. 192–4, 202–18; Lauer, , loc cit. The identification of the founder at the Virgin's left with Anastasius IV by Caetani (= Gattula), Ecclissi and Grimaldi is arbitrary. The name of Anacletus had of course been destroyed after his death.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ladner, , op. cit. 208, on the other hand, writes: ‘… è incerto se, della decorazione pittorica, almeno il progetto possa riportarsi a Callisto, il costruttore dell’ oratorio.’ Cf. also Duchesne, , Lib. Pont. II 325 n. 22. This alternative (see the analysis of the composition in the text above) seems to me as unfounded as Ladner's doubts, op. cit. 202, about the meaning of camera in the passage of Pandulph (quoted n. 82 supra).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ladner, G.*, ‘I mosaici e gli affreschi ecclesiastico-politici nell'antico palazzo Lateranense,’ Rivista di archeologia Cristiana 12 (1935) 270.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ It is noteworthy that the great historian of Monte Cassino, Gattula, who did not know yet of the close connection of this work of art with Anacletus II, considered it so important for the history of Monte Cassino that he included a lengthy description and a reproduction, especially made for him in 1698, in his work, Hist. I 362–8, pl. 10 (= our illustration); cf. Ladner, , op. cit. (n. 82 supra) 217.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ladner, , op. cit. 213; Schramm, P. E., Kaiser, Rom und Renovatio (Studien der Bibliothek Warburg 17, Leipzig 1929) II 121f. — Schramm, , ibid. I 242; Michel, A., Papstwahl und Königsrecht (Munich 1936) 50 n. 12, and ‘Das Papstwahlpactum von 1059,’ Historisches Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft 59 (1939) 351; Klewitz, , Theologische Literaturzeitung 61 (1936) 379, all touched upon the fact that also in their choice of names some popes of the Reform expressed a program. Most striking is the case of Nicholas II; but Damasus II, Leo IX, Victor II, Stephen IX, too, have been mentioned in this connection To these names add: Clement II, Alexander II, Urban II, Gelasius II, Calixtus II, Celestine II (1124; on him see LPD 204f.; Klewitz, , Ende 401). It is readily seen that the names of the popes in the Pseudo-Isidorian collection — whose letters, stressing the primacy of the see of Rome, were a basic source for the theorists of the Reform — exercised particular attraction upon the popes of the century following the synod of Sutri (1046). Here we have also to look for the origin of the name of Anacletus II. Not the shadowy figure of the second successor of St. Peter, but the presumed author of the three letters of ‘Pope Anacletus’ who wrote ‘quod ecclesia Romana cardo et caput omnium sit ecclesiarum’ (Hinschius, P., Decretales pseudo-isidorianae, Leipzig 1863, 66–75), lent his name to Pierleone.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ By Klewitz, , who, however, did not make use of the painting in his article; he would have undoubtedly welcomed it as an impressive confirmation of his views about the schism, which he had attained by other methods.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Kehr, , Belehnungen 39; IP 8.36f. n^os 135 and 137; cf. also Palumbo 665 n° xliii.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Kehr, IP 8.36 ad n° 135; Bernhardi, , Lothar 333; Palumbo 455.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Seniorectus’ attempt to change sides in 1136 ended almost with disaster for the abbey: cf. n. 201 infra and Bernhardi, , Lothar 675–9; Chalandon II 57f. Abbot Wibald of Stablo, who was installed on September 20, 1137, as abbot of Monte Cassino, could not hold himself against King Roger: he fled the monastery on November 2, after having learned that, should he fall into Roger's hands, he would be hanged. Cf. Diac, Petrus. Chron. Cas. 4.127 (MGH Script. 7.842); Bernhardi, , Lothar 775; Chalandon II 79.Google Scholar

⁹² Bernhardi, , Lothar 436–61. Cf. n. 200 infra. Google Scholar

⁹³ Bernhardi, , Lothar 466–8; Palumbo 494. Cf. n. 40 supra. Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Bernhardi, , Lothar 469–92; Haller, , Papsttum II 2.41–4, 546.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Bernhardi, , Lothar 492–4.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See below part V n^os 4–27 and part IV. The two bulls are only briefly mentioned by Palumbo, 431 and 674 n^os lviii and lix. Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Wattenbach, MGH Script 7.567 and Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 23, rightly suggest 1130 as the year of his return.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ It would be difficult to assign a precise date to the Registrum Petri Diaconi, the compilation of which must have been preceded by time-consuming investigations in the archives of the monastery. The two preliminary lists of documents to be incorporated in the chartulary, which were discovered by Dom Mauro Inguanez (cf. Klewitz, , Archiv für Urkundenforschung 14 [1935/6] 442–4), are new evidence of this preparatory work, to which Peter himself refers in the prologue to his Vita s. Severi episcopi, dedicated to the same Abbot Seniorectus (PL 173.1071; cf. Wattenbach, MGH Script. 7.567). But large portions of the Reg. P. D. were already written in 1133: otherwise the Glanfeuil account (part V n° 4 infra) would not have been inserted toward the end of the book. Cf. also the important additional evidence presented in n. 153, and, in general, part V n° 5, introduction, infra. So, while it is certain that the Reg. P. D. was compiled between 1130 and 1137, as Zatschek, H., NA 47 (1927/8) 212, maintains, a more exact dating of each of its sections will be possible only once the whole chartulary is published.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ In part V; cf. also part III.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ On Glanfeuil cf. Cottineau, L. H., Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés II (Mâcon 1937) 2802f.; Dom Beaunier - Besse, J.-M., Abbayes et prieurés de l'ancienne France 8 (Archives de la France monastique 19, Paris 1920) 88–90; Port, C., Dictionnaire historique, géographique et biographique de Maine-et-Loire III (Angers 1878) 428–31. For a modern treatment of the history of Glanfeuil up to the end of the Carolingian age cf. Landreau, F., L'Anjou hist. 5 (1904/5) (see first footnote) and, better, Leclercq, H., ‘Glanfeuil,’ DAGL 6.1 (1924) 1283–1319.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1288–1306.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Odo of Glanfeuil, Translatio s. Mauri 1.8 (Acta Sanctorum ian. 1.1053 = 3rd ed. ian. 2.334). On this work, our main source for the history of Glanfeuil during the Carolingian period up to 869, see the introduction to part V n° 8 infra. For Gaidulf cf. Leclercq, DAGL 6.1.1306.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 2.12–17 (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1054f. = 3rd ed. ian. 2.336f.). Landreau, , L’Anjou hist. 5.123–8; Levillain, , Ebroin 178–81; Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1307f.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 3.18 (Acta Sanct, ian. 1.1055 = 3rd ed. ian. 2.337). Muhlbacher, , Reg. imp. 926 (897) is forged on the basis of this passage; cf. Levillain, , Ebroin 180 n. 3, and Recueil des actes de Pépin I ^er et de Pépin II, rois d'Aquitaine (Paris 1926) XXII n. 1. With Ebert, A., Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande II (Leipzig 1880) 352 n. 1, I am inclined to consider this privilege as an invention of Odo.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 3.19. Levillain, Ebroin 182, Recueil des actes de Pépin clxxii. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 378f. n° 34. The donation was not mentioned by Odo, but cf. n. 177 infra. Cf. also Landreau, , L’Anjou hist. 5.131; Levillain, , Ebroin 185. — Rorigo is perhaps best known through the famous bible, which he donated to Glanfeuil, and which Odo, on his flight from the Normans, brought with him to des-Fossés, Saint-Pierre, Cod. Paris. lat. 3, an illuminated manuscript of the school of Tours. Koehler, W., Die Schule von Tours I 1 (Berlin 1930) 165–7, attributes it to the period of Abbot Adalhard of St. Martin (834–845), and more precisely to the middle or second half of the thirties, a date which is in complete agreement with all known facts about the history of Glanfeuil; see also Koehler, , op. cit. 165–79, 388f., and Rand, E. K., A Survey of the Manuscripts of Tours (Cambridge, Mass. 1929) I 138 n. 80. Cf. also the following note and, especially, the introduction to part V n° 8 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 363f. n° 21; p. 364: ‘… gubernante prefatum monasterium Gausberto.’ A second copy (s. X/XI) of this document is preserved on fol. 408^V of the Rorigo Bible (cf. the preceding note). Its divergencies from the copy in the chartulary were published by Planiol, M., ‘La donation d'Anouuareth,’ Annales de la Bretagne 9 (1893/4) 233f. Here the year 848 = 18th (!) year of Charles the Bald is given as its date and the phrase quoted above is followed by the words ‘sub dominatione Ingelberti venerandi abbatis cenobii Fossatensis.’ (234 n. 7).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ He was ordained by Archbishop Ursmarus of Tours. In Odo's Transl. s. Mauri 4.23 (cf. part V n° 8 note o infra) the date of Gauslin's ordination is given as follows: ‘Eodem anno (= 845), pridie ante sanctum Pentecosten, tertio Kalendas Iun….’ However, the day before Pentecost in 845 does not fall on May 30, but on May 16; it comes on May 31 in 844 and on June 5 in 846. O. Holder-Egger, MGH Script. 15.1.468 n. 6 and Grotefend, H., Zeitrechnung des deutschen Mittelalters und der Neuzeit I (Hannover 1891) 158 (who quotes the passage) decided for 844 without debate. Levillain, , Ebroin 198 f. favors rather 846, but on the basis of erroneous reckoning: ‘Il y a donc une erreur dans le nombre exprimé pour les calendes. D'autre part, l'archevêque de Tours, Orsmar, , étant mort avant le mois de décembre 846, on ne peut hésiter qu'entre 844 en supposant que III^o a été mis pour II^o et 846 en admettant qu'il faille lire V^o.’ Yet V^o Kal. Iun. would be May 28 in a year in which the day before Pentecost is June 5! Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 4.22 (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1056 = 3rd ed. ian. 2.338). Cf. Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1310. The date is. absolutely reliable.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ For the privileges of Charles the Bald cf. Giry, A., Prou, M., Tessier, G., Recueil des actes de Charles II le Chauve, roi de France 1 (840–860) (Paris 1943) 219 n° 78 and 221 n° 79 (both of October 21, 845), 257 n° 97 (of July 14, 847), 354 n° 134 (of August 15, 850) = (in the same order) Recueil 8, 480 n° 58; 481 n° 59; 490 n° 70; 514 n° 101 = (in the same order) Böhmer, , Reg. 1584, 1585, 1594, 1625. The charter of 847 was used by Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 3.20 (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1056 = 3rd ed. ian. 2.338). Cf. Levillain, , Ebroin 198–200 and 180f.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri praef. (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1053 = 3rd ed. ian. 2.335) expressly calls Theodradus Gauslin's brother. Cf. Landreau, , L'Anjou hist. 5.126 and 337 and Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1310. Levillain's reservations (Ebroin 222) are pointless. — Ebroin found a violent death probably on April 18, 854: Levillain, , Ebroin 210–4, and Recueil des actes de Pépin (n. 104 supra) xlii. Google Scholar

¹¹² Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 7.35–41 (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1059f. = 3rd ed. ian. 2.341f.) Lot, F., ‘La Loire, l'Aquitaine et la Seine de 862 à 886,’ Bibl. de l’École des Charles 76 (1915) 474f.; Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1311–4.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri 41 (cf. part V n° 8 infra, introduction and text). Charles’ privilege (Recueil 8.609, cf. Böhmer, , Reg. 1747) is considered a forgery based on Odo's text by Lot, , op. cit. 475 n. For a possible settlement of this problem we look forward to the publication of the second volume of the charters of Charles the Bald. But Lot's arguments (ibid.) for placing the king's action in the year 868 are not compelling.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Landreau, , L’Anjou hist. 5.355; Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1314. Odo remained abbot up to 886.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Odo, , Transl. s. Mauri, praef. prima 1–4 (Acta Sanct. ian. 1.1051f. = 3rd ed. ian. 2. 333f.). The Vita s. Mauri is edited ibid. 1039–50; 321–332, respectively.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ For a brief and convincing statement of the case see Zimmermann, A. M. O.S.B., Kalendarium Benedictinum I (Abtei Metten 1933) 87f.; Leclercq, DACL 6.1.1283–1306. Zimmermann, following Poncelet, A., Analecta Bollandiana 25 (1906) 117–9, considers with justified skepticism the theory of A. Molinier published by Halphen, L., Revue historique 88 (1905) 287–95, according to which the body discovered in 845 (cf. n. 109 supra) was that of another Maurus who had come to Gaul under King Theudebert and was then identified with the disciple of St. Benedict known from Gregory the Great. As the sobriquet of Hrabanus ‘Maurus’ (given him by his teacher Alcuin) suggests, the name Maurus as derived from that of St. Benedict's pupil was popular about 800, and Glanfeuil is named already in the privilege of Rorigo (n. 106 supra) ‘monasterium Glanna, ubi beatus Christi confessor Maurus corpore quiescit.’ It is more than likely then that Rorigo and those who aided him associated the Maurus of Glanfeuil with the pupil of St. Benedict. There may well have been a local tradition of a Maurus connected with Glanfeuil in an earlier time, or the monastery may have been named in honor of the famous St. Maur — any time after the publication of Gregory the Great's Dialogi — just as many monasteries were then established in honor of St. Martin of Tours. The fifty years which elapsed between the destruction of Glanfeuil and its restoration by Rorigo were sufficient to obliterate any tradition about a local figure and to induce people to regard a monastery originally founded in honor of St. Maur as his personal creation.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Numerous MSS have come down to us, the most famous of which is the splendidly illuminated Cod. Vat. lat. 1202, containing also Gregory the Great's Life of St. Benedict and Odo's Translatio s. Mauri. As I tried to show op. cit. (n. 55 supra) 201–7, this codex was presented to Abbot Desiderius of Monte Cassino on October 1, 1071. For editions cf. Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina II (Brussels 1900/1) 845 n° 5772/3; for another manuscript, which is close to Odo's autograph, see part V n° 8, introduction, infra. Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Its full title in the manuscripts runs as follows: Libellus seriem micraculorum presentis temporis decurrens, quae per beatum Maurum divina operari diqnata est maiestas, quaeque ab Odone abbate plena fide expressa sunt. Cf. also the first words of the preface: ‘Historiam eversionis seu restaurationis sci. coenobii quod olim a beato Mauro nobiliter aedificatum ex antiquo Glannafolium nominatur.’ etc. (The text in Cod. Paris, lat. 3 has been followed). For editions cf. the introduction to part V n° 8 infra. Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ On Blichildis: Odo, , loc cit. (n. 111 supra); cf. Landreau, , L'Anjou hist. 5.132. She may be compared — mutatis mutandis — with Oda, wife of Liudolf, who saw her three daughters become abbesses of the convent which she had helped found, and who died in 913, shortly after the birth of her great-grandson, Otto the Great. Hrosvitha's poem is printed in the edition of K. Strecker (2nd ed. Leipzig 1930) 256–74.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Cf. nn. 104, 107, and 110 supra. Google Scholar

¹²¹ This document, referred to in the two diplomas mentioned in notes 122f. infra, is lost: Lauer, , op. cit. (n. 123 infra) 258 n° 6.Google Scholar

¹²² MGH Dipl. reg. Germ. ex stirpe Karol. 2 (1936) 240f. n° 149; Mühlbacher, , Reg. imp. 1733 (1686).Google Scholar

¹²³ Lauer, P., Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple 1 (Paris 1940) 258–60 n° 108. Böhmer, , Reg. 1970.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Landreau, , Saint-Maur I (cf. the first footnote supra). Some of the privileges contained in the fragmentary XIIth century chartulary of Glanfeuil have been proved to be not authentic by Halphen, L., Le comté d'Anjou au XI ^e siècle (Paris 1906), especially 340 f. and 92 n. 3. The so-called originals, Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur, 403–9 n^os 6365, are forgeries, as recognized by Landreau, , Saint-Maur I 197 n. 6, II 423 n. 2, and, independently, by Halphen, , op. cit. 341 n^os 7–9 (Mlle. Chartrou [cf. the first footnote] 120 n. 6 wrongly treated n° 65 as genuine). The document Marchegay, , op. cit. 356 n° 8, accepted as genuine by Landreau, , Saint-Maur I 186 and n. 4, was demonstrated spurious by Halphen, , op. cit. 340 n. 5 (cf. 114). Also Marchegay 401 n° 61 is under suspicion (Halphen 340 n. 4).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Brun of Querfurt, Passio s. Adalberti 19 (ed. Bielowski, A., Monumenta Poloniae Historica 1, Lwow 1864, 207) = MGH Script. 4.605: ‘Nec dimisit (scil. St. Adalbert), ubi corpus discipuli quievit, ubi et primus monachorum gregem rexit, abbas Maurus, signo sanctitatis et miraculorum dulcedine magistro simillimus.’ I agree with Landreau, , Saint-Maur I 186, who believes that the words refer to a visit to Glanfeuil rather than to the Fossés.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 356 n° 8; see n. 124 supra. The indications in the document are in conflict with dates otherwise known.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Cf. part V n° 1 and 5 b infra. Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Stephen IX (1057–8) and Victor III (1086–7); cf. Bloch, , op. cit. (n. 55 supra) 191f.; 214–6 and n. 84 supra. Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Gelasius II (1118–9). See on him LPD 162–191: Krohn, R., Der päpstliche Kanzler Johannes von Gaeta (Gelasius II) (Diss. Marburg 1918); Bresslau, H., Handbuch der Urkundenlehre II (2nd ed. Berlin 1931) 364; Klewitz, , Ende 382.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Bull of Urban II, part V n° 5 b infra. Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 413, points to the privilege of Charles the Bald (n. 113 supra) as a possible basis for this forgery: Recueil 8. 609: ‘insuper quoque Romam mittere disponimus et domini Adriani apostolici Romani auctoritate sigilloque corroborari decernimus.’ Google Scholar

¹³¹ Part V n° 5 b and n° 1 infra. For a testimony of Girard's election cf. part Vn° 1 d infra. Google Scholar

¹³² The case of Saint-Maur is to be added to that of the previously united abbeys of Figeac and Conches, to each of which Urban II in 1096 restored an abbas cardinalis (JL 5654). The lucid explanation given of the term by Kuttner, S., ‘Cardinalis,’ Traditio 3 (1945) 164, is entirely confirmed by the new evidence (cf. also infra, part V n° 7).Google Scholar

¹³³ Part V n° 5 b infra. The reference: ‘libelli qui de eius vita conscriptus est monimenta declarant’ (cursus planus). For the mission from Monte Cassino cf. ‘ex Cassinensi coenobio ad Gallias destinatum.’ Google Scholar

¹³⁴ PL 162.164 n° 159. Cf. Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 414.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Part V n° 1 b infra. Abbot Peter appears as predecessor of Rannulfus also in Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 389 n° 48.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 415–29. His list of abbots ibid. 415 n. 2. Girard was still in office in 1099 (Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 386 n° 43). Rannulfus first occurs on July 2, 1105 (Marchegay 367 n° 25). Other dated charters which bear his name are: Marchegay 384 n° 41 (1120), 366 n° 24 (1121), 380 n° 36 (1109–26, in the lifetime of Aremburga, wife of Fulco V), 361 n° 18 (1116/8–1125; cf. for this document Urseau, Ch., Cartulaire Noir de la Cathédrale d'Angers, Angers 1908, xlvi). He acts on March 1, 1123 as a witness to a donation to Saint-Aubin d'Angers (de Broussillon, B., Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Aubin d'Angers, Angers 1896–1903, II 176f. n° 681). He died on an August 21 (Martyrologe de Saint-Serge, communicated by Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 422 n. 4). On Peter the Deacon's Abbot Girard II cf. n. 140 infra. Drogo was in office, when Aremburga, wife of Fulco V, was still alive (she died on February 15, 1126) according to Marchegay 393 n. 53. He occurs for the last time in 1134 (Marchegay 382 n° 39). Of Marchegay 392 n° 52 it can be said that it is not earlier than December 20, 1125, the date of Ulger's consecration as bishop of Angers. In Marchegay 401 n° 60 it is clearly said that Drogo was succeeded by William, who certainly was in office by November 26, 1138 (Marchegay 394 n° 54). According to a document edited by M^11e Chartrou, , op. cit. (cf. first footnote) 380 n° 48 (after a copy of 1650; two earlier copies were not seen by her), William would have been abbot as early as August 1135. The authenticity of this privilege was justly disputed by Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 426 n. 1. For the two Williams cf. n. 223 infra .Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 384 n° 41 (cf. Chartrou, , op. cit. 266 n°48); Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 421.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Marchegay, , Cart. 380 n° 36 (cf. Chartrou 118 and 266 n° 49). Cf. also n. 182 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ See n. 137f. and Marchegay, , Cart. 380 n° 36; 364 n° 22; 393 n° 53 (cf. Chartrou 266 n° 49; 270 n° 61; 272 n° 69).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 178; Chartrou (implicitly) 120; Kehr, IP 8.169 n° 204. Since Abbot Rannulfus figures in documents dated in 1105, 1120, 1121, and 1123 respectively (cf. n. 136 supra), Peter's information must be wrong: an Abbot Girard for the years 1119 and 1122 is out of the question. There exists, however, a donation of Fulco V, dated December 15, 1124, an alleged original preserved in the archives of the department Maine-et-Loire, in which an Abbot Girard appears (Marchegay, , Cart. 411 n° 67). But Landreau, , Saint-Maur II, 422f. rightly observed that this document is a clumsy forgery, a hodgepodge of the three privileges, Marchegay, , Cart. n^os 22, 23, and 34. M^11e Chartrou 120, 249 and 270 n. 61, failed here as everywhere else even to notice any controversy regarding the authenticity of this document. Although no dated document of Glanfeuil for the period between August 1123 and February 1126 has come down to us, it would be unjustifiable to insert a Girard II between Rannulfus and Drogo on the basis of this forgery. As for Peter the Deacon, the explanation of his error is simple: not knowing the name of the abbot of Glanfeuil in 1119 and 1122, he used at haphazard the name of Abbot Girard installed in 1096, which was familiar to him from the bull of 1096 (part V n° 5 b infra). Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ See part V n° 4, 4 a-e, introductions, infra. Google Scholar

¹⁴² See part V n° 4 infra. The Glanfeuil forgeries were treated by Landreau, F., Saint-Maur III 49–70, to whom, however, Kehr's publication of the account in the Registrum Petri Diaconi and of the bulls of Anacletus remained unknown; and by Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 177–83, who did not and perhaps could not know Landreau's important study. Cf. also Kehr, IP 8.124f. n^os 32, 34; 153f. n^os 138, 140; 164 n° 185; 169 n° 204; 174 n^os 230 f.; 179f. n^os 254, 257; 181 n° 264, who likewise ignored Landreau's article.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 121, 179.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ These dates are given by Anacletus (part V n° 6, repeated in n° 7 infra). The basilica of Monte Cassino had been dedicated by Alexander II on October 1, 1071 (cf. Bloch, , op. cit. in n. 55 supra, 194f. n. 98). Anacletus also says that he came to Monte Cassino ‘pro beati Petri servitiis’ (undoubtedly those of June 29 are meant). We learn therefore that Anacletus must have spent at least three and a half months in Monte Cassino, where he went soon after Lothaire's retreat from Rome.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 180.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ Cf. n. 136 supra. Landreau, , Saint-Maur III 60.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Cf. n. 136 supra. Landreau, , ibid. 61 n. 2. Marchegay 401 n° 60: ‘Defuncto vero abbate predicto (scil. Drogone), Guillermus abbas qui ei in regimine successit…’ Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Part V n° 6 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁴⁹ Part V n° 7 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ Part V n° 5 b and a (both documents are reproduced together to show the changes made by Peter the Deacon).Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Caspar's remarks about the relationship between the two bulls of Anacletus and the Urban forgery (Petrus Diaconus 180f.) are largely incorrect, as are Kehr's in his publication of 1899; better IP 8.174 n. 230f.Google Scholar

¹⁵² Kehr's contrary opinion, to the effect that the Urban forgery is based on the second bull of Anacletus (Miscell. Cas. 2 [1899] 61) was accepted by Caspar (Petrus Diaconus 181f.), who regarded also the first bull of Anacletus as a source for the Urban forgery; it was retracted without proof by Kehr, IP 8.174 n° 230f. An examination of the interrelationship of the documents printed below (part V n^os 5–7) will easily make it clear that Caspar's views cannot be maintained.Google Scholar

¹⁵³ See the last portion of part V n° 6 infra, beginning with the words ‘Predecessorum ergo nostrorum Adriani, Nicolai et Urbani…’ It is difficult to understand, how Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 181, could assert that Anacletus does not mention the Urban forgery in this bull.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁴ For in the last part of the bull, which otherwise closely follows the genuine bull of Urban II, the dependence of Glanfeuil on Monte Cassino is briefly dealt with in the spirit of the Urban forgery (part V n° 7 infra). The transition within the sentence ‘Obeunte autem te nunc eius loci abbate…’ from the genuine bull of Urban (part V n° 5 b) to the Urban forgery (ibid. n° 5 a), beginning with the words, ‘apud Casinum secundum tenorem privilegiorum suorum benedicendum…’, is particularly instructive if one remembers that the corresponding passage in the first privilege of Anacletus (ibid. n° 6) entirely agrees with the Urban forgery.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ The evident connection between these two documents was not noticed by Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 181 nor by Kehr, , IP 8.174 n° 231. Cf. also the table at the end of this part, p. 212 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁶ The original section of papal bulls ends with n° 59 fol. 32^r (Calixtus II, a. 1120) and an appendix of twelve excerpts from the Pseudo-Isidorian collection (fol. 32^v-33^v). The fols. 34^r-37^v contain later additions of papal privileges (not all entered at the same time), beginning with our Urban bull (n° 74 fol. 33^v) and the list of the possessions of Glanfeuil (n° 75 fol. 34^r). These additions may not go beyond Peter the Deacon's lifetime (Innocent II - Hadrian IV). The place assigned to the two Glanfeuil documents has an obvious bearing on the dating of the Reg. Petri Diac.; cf. n. 98 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ For the common deviations from the original bull in the copy of the Reg. Petri Diac, and the forgery (all of them of a casual character and therefore all the more convincing). I refer to the following footnotes to part V n° 5 infra: d, i, m, o, p, r, ii, jj, ll.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁸ Peter used two, more probably three, documents for compiling the list in the Urban forgery (U), one of which is the list in his Registrum (part V n° 5 d infra). Various possessions occurred in more than one list, a fact that repeatedly escaped Peter's notice; hence some of the repetitions: U 87 (= d 56) = U 42; U 92 (= d 64) = U 28; U 95 (= d 67) = U 7; U 97 (= d 70) = U 17. U 48–98 are entirely derived from d. U 99–111 (cf. n. 160 and part V n° 5 a infra; only U 111 is not repetitious) may well go back to a third list. Ten items in the list of the Reg. Petri Diac. are marked with a cross, undoubtedly by Peter himself, probably to check possessions which occurred in his other main list; for nine out of the ten items so marked are now found in the first part of the Urban list (U 7–9, 19, 26–7, 35–6, 44). — Landreau, , Saint-Maur I 201–5, identified most of the possessions of the bull of Anastasius IV (part V n° 13). He did not endeavor to extend his investigation to the list of the Urban forgery. Here all the material for a more thorough toponomastic study has been given which in itself lies outside the scope of the present discussion. The concordances in part V, n^os 5 a, d, 7, and 13 will perhaps facilitate such an undertaking.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Petrus Diaconus 182.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ This donation figures as n° 29 in Anacletus’ list (part V n° 7 infra), and as n^os 32 (= item 6 in list d) and 102–10 in the Urban forgery (ibid. n° 5 a, note dd). However, Peter may not have been aware of the identity of 32 and 102–10, which is obvious only to someone familiar with the document of Anowareth. The donation is lacking in the bull of Anastasius IV (part V n° 13). Cf. also nn. 107, 158 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁶¹ Cf. n. 73 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁶² Cf. nn. 73 and 98 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁶³ Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 183; Holder-Egger, MGH Script. 15.1.462 n. 4. Cf. also n. 166 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁴ Cod. Paris. lat. 5344. Landreau, , Saint-Maur III 52 and II 411. Cf. also n. 169 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ ‘Les deux histoires manuscrites de l'abbaye de Saint-Maur (1748 et vers 1702),’ Re vue de l'Anjou 54 (1907) 181–98; 451–74. Only on pp. 469–71 does he deal with the Paris MS. Since Landreau's final, yet rather vaguely formulated recognition of a relationship between Peter the Deacon's work and the Paris MS was hidden away in an unmarked, brief appendix to his earlier study incorporated in this article (which, as the title indicates, has no direct bearing on the subject), it has remained entirely unnoticed.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁶ Acta Sanct. Ord. S. Benedicti saec. IV pars II = tom. 6 (2nd ed. Venice 1738) 175: ‘Auctor Odo Abbas, qui corpus sacrum per varia loca comitatus est, Fossatensi demum Coenobio praefectus a Carolo Rege cognomento Calvo, is qui librum de vita sancti Mauri, qualis in Saeculo I. edita est, invenit, et locis aliquot interpolavit. Petrus Diaconus Casinensis historiam de eversione seu restauratione Coenobii beati Mauri ex iussione Abbatis Senioretti emendasse et prologum scripsisse dicitur. Quid in hac historia emendaverit Petrus, non mihi constat, ut qui eius correctorium non viderim, sed tamen conjicio locum ilium, ubi Odo scribit, Glannafolium Fossatensi Monasterio regia auctoritate fuisse subiectum, Petro displicuisse; atque ut erat fervidi ingenii, ab eo mutatum atque interpolatum fuisse. Certe eam subiectionem tyrannidem vocat’ (cf. part V n° 5 c infra). Landreau, , op. cit. (n. 165) 470f.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁷ Mabillon, , op. cit. 177, vigorously rejected the tradition of Glanfeuil's subjection under the jurisdiction of Monte Cassino. Gattola, E., Correspondance inédite de Mabillon et de Montfaucon avec l'Italie 3 (ed. Valery, M., Paris 1847) 121: letter of Gattula to Thierry Ruinart of November 9, 1701, in which he announces the sending of various documents preserved in Monte Cassino, which were to prove the dependence of Glanfeuil on Monte Cassino. Gattula expressly requests Ruinart to show these documents to Mabillon ‘acciò emendi quello, che ha scritto nel secolo 4°, parte seconda nell’ osservationi, che fa all’ atti della translatione di S. Mauro, dove dubita della fede di Pietro Diacono’ (p. 122).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Ann. ord. s. Ben. 5 (Paris 1713; 2nd ed. Lucca 1740) 365; Mabillon also omitted the sentence regulating the abbot of Glanfeuil's supreme jurisdiction over French monastic affairs. Cf. Landreau, , op. cit. (n. 165) 473f.Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ Catalogus Cod. Hag. Lat. 2, Subsidia Hagiographica 2.2 (Brussels 1890) 271f. Lot, F., op. cit. (n. 112 supra) 476 n., who obviously was not familiar with Landreau's publication, briefly refers to the last chapter of the Translatio s. Mauri, as it appears in Paris. lat. 5344, dating it toward the end of the eleventh century.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Part V n° 8 infra, on the basis of Cod. Paris. lat. 3 (cf. the introduction to the text there).Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ Cf. the thorough description in Subs. Hagiogr. 2.2. 270f.Google Scholar

¹⁷² On these forgeries of Peter the Deacon see Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 65–72.Google Scholar

¹⁷³ MGH Script. 15.1.462. Cf. on this MS n. 117 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Cf. n. 118 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁵ Cf. n. 114 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁶ Cf. n. 104 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 378 n° 34; cf. n. 106 supra. Also the name Maminias is derived from this document: ‘loco nuncupante Maiminias’. Cf. also part V n^os 5 d, 7, and 2 infra. For the beginning of the paragraph on fol. 40^r cf. Chron. Cas. 3.30 (MGH Script. 7.722): ‘multi… huc coeperunt confluere.’ Google Scholar

¹⁷⁸ Klewitz, , ‘Petrus Diaconus und die Montecassineser Klosterchronik des Leo von Ostia,’ Archiv für Urkundenforschung 14 (1936) 414–53.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁹ Part V n^os 5 a (and d!) and 7 infra. It may be worth noticing, that the duplicate of the story on fol. 40^r depends directly on the document of 839 (Maciacinse and Maminias; cf. n. 177), whereas the form Mariacum (occurring twice) in the first version is identical with that which appears in the Urban forgery, the list part V n° 5 d, and the second bull of Anacletus. The place, now Mazé, canton de Beaufort, arrond. de Baugé, dép. Maine-et-Loire (Landreau, , L'Anjou hist. 5, 131) does not figure in the list of the bull of Anastasius IV (part V n° 13 infra). It probably had been lost in the two centuries before 1096 and was never reacquired afterwards.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Cf. part V n° 4 b and on the vicariatus, nn. 209–14 infra. Characteristically, in the interpolated passage, besides excerpts from the privilege of Charlemagne (4 b), reminiscences occur of the bull of Hadrian (part V n° 4 a) and, above all, of the letter of Theodemar (ibid. 4 c).Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Cf. part V n° 4 a infra. Google Scholar

¹⁸² Cf. part V n° 3 infra, and n. 138 supra. The words which the two passages have in common are given in italics.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Cf. n. 110 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁴ On the date of Gauslin's ordination cf. n. 108 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Cf. part V n° 4 c infra. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁶ Cf. nn. 113, 166, and 169 supra. It is this passage in particular which vindicates Mabillon's speculations about the probable tendency of Peter's interpolations (see n. 166).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁷ Cf., e. g., Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 63, 66 n. 5, 116, 121.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ Cf. nn. 98 and 162 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁸⁹ For the Placidus Chronicle see Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 62–5.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁰ Caspar, , ibid. 111–21. Cf. now Emmanuel Munding, P. O.S.B., Palimpsesttexte des Codex latin. Monacensis 6333 (Texte und Arbeiten herausgegeben durch die Erzabtei Beuron, 1. Abt., 15–18, 1930) 87–9, 165–8.Google Scholar

¹⁹¹ Cf. Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 424f. Cf. also n. 136 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁹² Abbé Pletteau, T., ‘Annales ecclésiastiques d'Anjou,’ Revue de l'Anjou 15 (1875) 293–7. Compain, L., Étude sur Geoffroi de Vendôme (Paris 1891) 86–9, 224 f., 277–9. On Ulger cf. also Manitius, , op. cit. (in n. 35 supra) III 898–900.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Cf. Landreau, , Saint-Maur III 63–6.Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ The words ‘salva canonica Andecavensis episcopi reverentia’ in the genuine bull of Urban (part V n° 5 b) were suppressed in the Urban forgery (ibid. 5 a), where we find, on the other hand, the significant addition ‘ut (scil. monasterium s. Mauri) nullius alterius ecclesiae vel episcopi nisi Cassinensis ecclesiae ditionibus submittatur, auctoritate apostolica interdicimus’ — certainly a most explicit statement of exemption from episcopal authority. Cf. the following footnote and n. 250 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁵ Gatt. Hist. 304: ‘Ille (scil. Lisiardus) namque non solum in nostri monasterii, set vestri prejudicium ditioni episcopi Andegavensis nostrum supposuit monasterium, a qua per vestra et nostra privilegia nostrum erat monasterium (the reading privilegium is a dittography by the scribe of the Vidimus, part V n° 24 infra) exemptum contra juramentum, quo tenetur Montis Casini monasterio obligatus.’ Cf. nn. 194 supra, 240 f. infra, and Landreau, , Saint-Maur III 68–70. See also part V n° 9 b and c infra .Google Scholar

¹⁹⁶ Cf. n. 194f. supra. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁷ Cf. n. 93 supra. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁸ Cf. n. 46f. supra. Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Cf. n. 44 supra .Google Scholar

²⁰⁰ Cf. nn. 68, 71f., 92 supra. Google Scholar

²⁰¹ Seniorectus actually attempted to change sides in 1136: see n. 91 supra and Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.98–103 (MGH Script. 7.812–6). Only his timely death on February 4, 1137 leaves the question open whether he would have finally aligned himself with the emperor and his pope.Google Scholar

²⁰² Cf. n. 95 supra. Google Scholar

²⁰³ Cf. n. 144 supra. Google Scholar

²⁰⁴ A comparison with the events of 1153/4 is instructive; cf. n. 230f. and part V n° 12f. infra. Google Scholar

²⁰⁵ Pletteau, , Revue de l'Anjou 15 (1875) 305.Google Scholar

²⁰⁶ Cf. n. 95 supra. Google Scholar

²⁰⁷ Altercatio pro cenobio Casinensi ed. Caspar, Petrus Diaconus 256 = Chron. Cas. 4. 110 (MGH Script. 7.824); cf. Bernhardi, Lothar 729.Google Scholar

²⁰⁸ Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 180, did not take into consideration the political aspects of the question. According to him, Anacletus lent his help to Seniorectus because, by 1133, he was glad to be asked at all to do an official act.Google Scholar

²⁰⁹ Caspar, , ibid. 178f.Google Scholar

²¹⁰ Kehr, IP 8.141 n° 88. Gatt. Hist. 148.Google Scholar

²¹¹ Kehr, IP 8.141 n° 89.Google Scholar

²¹² Part V n^os 4 a, b, 5 a, and 6, respectively, infra. Google Scholar

²¹³ Kehr, , Miscell. Cas. 2 (1899) 47 n° 9; cf. n. 211 supra. Google Scholar

²¹⁴ Gatt. Hist. 148; cf. nn. 180 and 210 supra .Google Scholar

²¹⁵ Klewitz, , Ende 409.Google Scholar

²¹⁶ Petrus Diac. Chron. Cas. 4.109, and especially 119–22 (MGH Script. 7.822 and 835–7). Cf. Bernhardi, , Lothar 727, 755, 757; Williams, , St. Bernard 149f.Google Scholar

²¹⁷ Op. cit. (n. 207 supra) 263–71.Google Scholar

²¹⁸ Part V n° 7 infra. Google Scholar

²¹⁹ Cf. n. 144 supra. Kehr, , Belehnungen 27, calls this event ‘eine grossartige, von dem aus einem Langobarden zu einem überzeugten Anhänger der Normannen gewordenen Abt Desiderius geschickt arrangierte Revue, die die Verbundenheit des reformierten Papsttums mit dem normannischen Süditalien eindrucksvoll darstellte.’ Google Scholar

²²⁰ Part V n° 7 infra. Peter the Deacon in his report ibid. n° 4, between 4 d and 4 e, took over the comparison, but added in roguish modesty, with respect to Seniorectus and John, , ‘licet indigni longeque impares.’ Google Scholar

²²¹ Cf. n. 48 supra. Google Scholar

²²² Cf. nn. 146 and 136 supra. Google Scholar

²²³ Part V n° 9 b-c infra. The new documents solve the chronology of the two abbots with the name of William who succeeded each other in Glanfeuil. Up to now all that was known was the valuable notice preserved in the Historia Sancti Florentii Salmurensis, Recueil 14 (1877) 507 (this edition supersedes Marchegay, , Chroniques des églises d'Anjou 2, Paris 1869, 307): ‘Sub eiusdem (scil. Abbot Matthew of Saint-Florent, 1128–56) quoque tempore quidam de fratribus nostris Fulcandus nomine, sacrista huius ecclesiae, apud sanctum Iulianum in abbatem promotus est (about 1134: Denis, Abbé L.-J., Chartes de Saint-Julien de Tours (1002–1227), Archives historiques du Maine 12, Le Mans 1912, 100 n. 78; cf. Landreau, , Saint-Maur II 426 n. 3). Alius insuper sacrista noster Guillelmus de Gasconia, et post ipsum alius Guillelmus de Normannia, apud sanctum Maurum abbatis dignitatem et officium susceperunt.’ This passage gives us as a fairly safe terminus ante quem for William II's election the year 1156; terminus post quem is the year 1144, in which William I was in office, ‘abbas qui ei (scil. Drogoni) in regimine successit’ (Marchegay, , Cart. de Saint-Maur 401 n° 60). — Now we learn that the date of the election of William II was actually 1147. The two memoranda (part V n° 9 b and c infra) are undated, but almost certainly belong to the very year in which the events reported in them took place (1147: cf. part Vn° 9 a infra), unless they are to be connected with Simon's second mission in 1149 (cf. n. 224–5 infra). Simon was a relative of Abbot Raynald: part V n° 11 infra: ‘consanguineo vestro.’ — Earlier speculations about the date of the election of William II can be disregarded. Caspar and Kehr were not aware of the existence of two abbots bearing this name. For the chronology of the earlier abbots of Glanfeuil cf. nn. 136 and 140 supra. Google Scholar

²²⁴ Eugene III refers to his earlier letter in the mandatum, part V n° 10, and it seems reasonable to identify this earlier letter with the document summarized in part V 9 a, and perhaps alluded to at the end of the two memoranda, part V n^os 9 b-c.Google Scholar

²²⁵ Part V n° 10 infra. The two missions of Simon are certain. The second bull of Eugene III presupposes that William II had been in office for some time in 1149, and Simon had played, as we have seen, an important part on the occasion of the election of this abbot. Since the pope announces now — in 1149 — Simon's visit to Glanfeuil, it is clear that this must be his second mission, although the wording of the two documents, part V n^os 10 and 11, in no way implies a previous stay of Simon in Glanfeuil.Google Scholar

²²⁶ part V n° 11 infra. Google Scholar

²²⁷ Part V n° 12 infra. This document was overlooked by Caspar in his treatment of the Glanfeuil forgeries.Google Scholar

²²⁸ Cf. Caspar, , Petrus Diaconus 23–25.Google Scholar

²²⁹ Caspar was rather unfortunate in his remarks about this document, ibid. 26 n. 3: he called it inedited, although it was printed by Gatt. Hist. 302; he failed to recognize its origin (cf. n. 227 supra); and his scruples about the name of Peter the Deacon occurring in it were quite unfounded (as an examination of the page in the Registrum Petri Diaconi showed to me), but have been apparently accepted: Schramm, , op. cit. (n. 87 supra) II 36: ‘Petrus Diaconus († nach 1144).’ Google Scholar

²³⁰ part V n° 4 e; see also the table at the end of this chapter.Google Scholar

²³¹ Part V n° 13 infra. Google Scholar

²³² part V n° 8 ch. 23: ‘Ordinatus autem abbas Casinense cenobium omnium monasteriorum capud devotus adiit.’ Cf. also the genuine privilege of Urban II for Monte Cassino of March 27, 1097, Kehr, IP 8.154 n° 141, where (Gatt. Hist. 149) Monte Cassino is referred to as ‘monasteriorum caput.’ Google Scholar

²³³ part V n° 5 b infra. Google Scholar

²³⁴ Part V n° 14 infra. Google Scholar

²³⁵ The constitution of Charlemagne (part V n° 4 b infra) stands apart and could be omitted from the following list.Google Scholar

²³⁶ The bull of Urban II is the only document in the group which is completely untinged by Peter the Deacon's inventions.Google Scholar

²³⁷ Saint-Maur III 66–76.Google Scholar

²³⁸ Part V n° 15 infra, where the decisive last portion of Landulf's letter is given. The wording clearly indicates that Landulf is not speaking figuratively.Google Scholar

²³⁹ Cf. n. 259 infra. Google Scholar

²⁴⁰ The background of Lisiard's election is known from the (highly biased) letter of the congregation, part V n° 18 infra, the official announcement (part V n° 16) from Abbot Stephen II's instrument of confirmation (part V n° 17).Google Scholar

²⁴¹ The most significant passage of this letter has been quoted (n. 195 supra) in support of our explanation of Abbot Drogo's motives in agreeing to the submission of Glanfeuil under Monte Cassino.Google Scholar

²⁴² Part V n° 19 infra. The four of his electors whom he reinstated are: Arnaldus, prior of Bete(acum) (= Bessé); the Sacristan Andreas; his successor to be, Petrus de Doe, prior of Soulangé; and Johannes Natalis. Cf. part V n° 16.Google Scholar

²⁴³ Part V n° 20 infra .Google Scholar

²⁴⁴ Cf. part V n° 21 infra; for the consecration of Abbot William II: part Vn° 9 b and c.Google Scholar

²⁴⁵ The foregoing information is derived from Abbot Richard's letter (Part V n° 21 infra) which, as the Gallicism ‘saisire fecit’ shows, largely recapitulates Peter's own request, and from the bull of Innocent IV, part V n° 22 infra. The interpretation of the quinquennial visit in the correspondence between the two abbots is new and a realistic modification of Peter the Deacon's original extravagant ‘omnibus quinque annis’ (cf. part V n^os 4 a, b, e, 5 a, 6,8; ‘singulis quinquenniis’ n^os 13–14). It now means a visit which a newly elected abbot of Glanfeuil has to pay within the first five years of office. — For other implications of the letter of Abbot Richard cf. the Appendix following part IV.Google Scholar

²⁴⁶ Cf. part V n^os 13 and 14 and the argument in part V n° 27 § 37 and note e.Google Scholar

²⁴⁷ Cf. part V n^os 4, 4^e, 7, 9b, c, 12, 15, 17, and n° 26 §§ 39 f.; n. 258 infra. Google Scholar

²⁴⁸ Cf. the similar argument in part V n° 26 §§ 35–38, and n. 255 infra. Google Scholar

²⁴⁹ But a serious attack against the genuineness of the Urban forgery, which, if successful, would have decided the whole case, was not even attempted.Google Scholar

²⁵⁰ This statement is not entirely correct; cf. n. 194 supra. Cf. also part V n^os 9 b, c, 20 infra. On the other hand, the second bull of Anacletus II (part V n° 7) takes over from the genuine Urban bull (part V n° 5 b) the recognition of the rights of the bishop of Angers in Glanfeuil.Google Scholar

²⁵¹ Part V n^os 22 and 23 infra. Google Scholar

²⁵² On Abbot Bernard I cf. Saba, A., ‘Bernardo I Ayglerio, Abate di Montecassino,’ Miscell. Cass. 8 (Monte Cassino 1931). Only one (the earliest) of his regesta has been published (by A. M. Caplet; cf. the bibliographical footnote in the beginning of this study.) Google Scholar

²⁵³ Part V n° 24 infra. Google Scholar

²⁵⁴ part V n° 25 infra. Google Scholar

²⁵⁵ part V n° 26 note c infra; n. 248 supra. Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ Ibid. notes d and e.Google Scholar

²⁵⁷ ibid. notes d-f.Google Scholar

²⁵⁸ Ibid. notes k and 1.Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ Reg. Bern. Abb. 145 n° 364 (cf. also p. lx): ‘Fredericus quondam Romanorum Imperator et post eum duo filii eius, Corradus videlicet et Manfredus, subtractis iuribus et rebus nostri monasterii Casin(ensis), cui in patiencia divina licet immeriti spiritualiter et temporaliter presidemus, speluncam latronum de templo Domini facientes, viginti et sex fere annis ante ingressum nostrum in arcem dampnabiliter tenuerunt.’ Cf. Saba, , op. cit. (n. 252 supra) 17, 22, 46–9; Leccisotti, T. O.S.B., Monte Cassino (Swiss ed., in German, Basle 1949) 50–53; Fabiani, L., ‘La Terra di S. Benedetto’ 1, Miscell. Cass. 26 (Monte Cassino 1950) 140f.Google Scholar

²⁶⁰ For the similarity of the arguments used in the two lawsuits for Glanfeuil and Monte Cassino respectively, cf. notes 246–50 and 255–58 supra. That the evidence accessible to Magister Guillelmus still exists, can be seen from the notes to part V n° 26 infra. Google Scholar

²⁶¹ Part V n° 27, where the resumés in the Coll. Housseau and in Marchegay's Cart. de Saint-Maur are given. Neither the original nor a copy of the document has been unearthed in Angers or in the Bibliothèque nationale, according to the information kindly sent to me by M. Jacques Levron, Archiviste-en-Chef de Maine-et-Loire, and by M. Gilbert Ouy, who consulted, besides the Collection Housseau, the following codd. Paris.: Lat. 12683, 13818; Baluze XLI, LXXIV; Fr. 16188, 18923–18925; N. A. Fr. 1198. Marchegay still saw it in 1843 at the latest, but Landreau, who was very well informed about the Glanfeuil material in the Archives of Angers and in the Bibliothèque nationale, expressly says in 1906 (Saint-Maur III 75 n. 3): ‘Je n'ai pu me procurer cette pièce.’ Google Scholar

²⁶² Cf. the comments about the declaration of Vetralla (part V n° 25) above.Google Scholar

²⁶³ Chron. Cas. 4.94 (MGH Script. 7.810): ‘Denique ab ipso fere tempore quo (scil. Seniorectus) decaniam demisit (cf. n. 71 supra), et praecipue a morte venerabilis abbatis Gerardi (a. 1123), cum omnes fere priores qui a Desiderio monachi facti fuerant ex hoc mundo recessissent, nunc ipsius abbatiae ambitione, nunc per fratrum clandestinas seditiones, nunc per abbatum expulsiones…, ordinis religio de hoc coepit labefactari.’ Google Scholar